have a full supreme court. i want to highlight what i think are maybe for dynamics that i'm looking at, and that i think might shape of the court's docket involves going forward. the first dynamic is the relationship between the supreme court, the courts of appeals, and executive branch acting through the solicitor general's office. i will say, -- why, but i think the dynamic between the three there may be more petitions coming to the supreme court. the court's docket might modestly in crete -- increase. this seems to be the first time in a long time or first president can come at office and has been philosophic we, tightly aligned with the current justices of the supreme court. but where both the president and supreme court ideologically seem to be in a different place for most -- most of the courts of appeals. right now democratic appointees control mine of the 13 courts of appeals. more than majorities, twice as many democratic appointees van publican appointees on five of those court appeals. there are a nu

tightly aligned with the current justices of the supreme court but where both the president and the supreme court ideologically seemed to be in a different place for most of the courts of appeals. right now democratic appointees control nine of the 13 courts of appeals and they have large majorities more than twice as many democratic appointees and republican appointees on five courts of appeals. there a number of judicial vacancies but even if resident trump even if he were to fill them tomorrow but democratic appointees would have control of eight of the 13 courts. what this means if you are sitting in the solicitor general's essay were sitting in the white house counsel's office you are going to be seeing a fair number of cases coming out of the courts of appeal that you disagree with. when you look down the street to the supreme court you are going to see friendly faces. you're going to see justice gorsuch justice alito justice thomas for chief justice and justice kennedy who although he is in the middle tends to side with conservative justices 65% of the time. i think that dynamic in t

the supreme court has required that they be done. but what we can say about this five or ten years from now, i think is a very fluid question. >> narrator: billions are spent on housing america's poor. so, why are so many left behind? >> where do you think you're going to go? >> i have nowhere to go. i'm going to a hotel. >> narrator: frontline and npr investigate the housing crisis-- the moneymakers... >> millions of dollars in kickback money. >> the money that they took could have built hundreds of units for the homeless. >> narrator: ...and dealbreakers... >> it's property they do not want in their neighborhood. >> narrator: "poverty, politics, and profit." >> go to pbs.org/frontline for a closer look at the makeup of america's juvenile inmate population. read more about the evolving science of the adolescent brain... >> this was a teenager who was just incensed and out of control. >> how much time does it take for that kid who is dangerous at that moment in time to grow up? >> connect to the frontline community on facebook and tw

"supreme chef."the supreme chef is marty. it's a collection of his recipes. it was inspired by martha annelito who is also a very good cook, and she, when marty died, she thought the best tribute there could be to him was to have a cookbook of his recipes. >> the thing about him is that he was so remarkable in so many ways, if you just thought about him as a tax lawyer or as a professor of tax, he would be extraordinarily distinguished in those ways, but all these other talents -- golf, chef -- and he really was a unique person. it was a real privilege to be his, to be his friend and to be his colleague. a privi you include some wonderfulnd writings by marty. do you have a favorite?a >> there's a great introduction of me that finish one of those is in marty's own book, the audio book? >> yeah. the introduction of the fellowship program at georgetown. >> we have a tape of that. >> but the other was a speech that marty had written and was planning to give to the tenth circuit judicial conference in the

because they're not in the supreme court opinion. but when gideon is retried, so he -- he gets a new trial. he gets a new trial with a lawyer. and they appoint a lawyer -- actually, interesting, first appoint someone, and he's very adamant and doesn't want that person. and it almost looks like he's going to demand to be going forward by himself after a -- all of this. and he wants to represent himself at trial because he's so unhappy with who -- who will be -- and didn't want the aclu to represent him. he finally gets a local lawyer to represent him. and -- who's very good. and the lawyer, as the recounting in anthony lewis is great book, gideon explains, the lawyer is particularly good because he had represented the key eyewitness against gideon on two prior occasions. and knew all about him and could use that to cross-examine him. well, of course that's a conflict a lawyer would have been disqualified and could never have represented gideon today with any rudimentary conflicts checking. but i think that's a great conflict that goes

we have a supreme court related question from you. which of these cases would most likely be heard by the supreme court? in which two different appellate districts offered competing rulings. the case involving a lawsuit fbi supervisor and agent. a lawsuit involving a state involving a a trial terrorist. which of these cases most likely to be heard by the high court? caller: i am going to say a. host: you got it. give us the background. guest: how do the courts decide which cases to hear? there are so many appeals every year, and so few cases are heard. they tend to find those cases where there are conflicts in lower courts and difficulties between issues between states or two federal judges that have ruled differently. it is tough. is where we get the concept of the rule of four. it takes four justices to hear a case. that is a good test taking skills we emphasize with our students. know those sentiments. -- synonyms. know the rule of four and the different synonyms for some of us concepts. context tools to figure those out. it does b

in front of the supreme court. in the 1970s you are ahead litigator in the women's rights project of the aclu. you pardoned 34 cases before the supreme court. you 15 out of six cases you've argues there. can you talk a little bit about how you developed your legal strategy? >> those were the good old days, the legal strategy was clear. the first was to convince judges that there was such a thing as gender-based discrimination. by the 70s, through. [inaudible] they tended to think of differential treatment of women as operating benignly in women's favor. the supreme court never saw a gender discrimination case that was regarded as anything but favor to the woman. we will go back to illinois 1872 or 73. anyway the court could rationalize it by saying sometimes things go on in courtroom and a lady wouldn't want to be present, or the next one, it will be reenacted at the supreme court on monday. this is a 1948k spread the michigan supreme court, the legislature passed a law that said women may not tend bar unless they

supreme court. a trial for a lawsuit between two fbi agents, a hideous court hearing, an initial hearing about an injunction for a state gerrymandering procedure, or criminal raiment of a man accused of a bank robbery? which cases are most likely to be heard by u.s. circuit court? >> kinney repeat the person in? >> a trial for a lawsuit between two fbi agents. >> and was the second? >> a habeas corpus hearing for a murder suspect. >> i merely guess it's a. >> it's see a lawsuit appearance to state governments. maybe it's not verizon like she was on the run. she cannot see them all. >> the supreme court, there are thousands and thousands of appeals every year that want to have their case heard by the united states supreme court. they only hear about 80 oral arguments each term. so how do they decide? you and need to have a rule of four justices of the nine choose which cases to hear.eal. but what makes that case more likely to be heard? usually if there's a dispute between lower federal courts. it's

i am the president of the supreme court historical society. i am delighted to welcome all of you here to this very interest think program where having tonight. i must ask everybody to be sure off cell phones are totally because it will interfere with the sound system in the courtroom. we are here tonight with a program we are cosponsoring with the supreme court alumni association. we are delighted to be a cosponsor with them. the program was brought to us by several people from that organization. let me make sure i get them right. stephanie, matthew, elizabeth. who really came up with the idea for the program and we are very happy to be heard to present it to you. we are also particularly happy to have as our host justice breyer who will speak to you in a minute. i will tell you briefly what you don't know already about justice breyer. he is a californian. study that stanford, oxford, then harvard law school. became a law clerk europe the supreme court in 1964 which happens to be one year after gideon v. wainwright, so he missed that activity.

he nuked for everything other than the supreme court. it was the first time in senate history that you ever had majority cloture. the cloture rule had always required some sort of supermajority. the rule was never amended, it was simply overridden and overridden, again, for the first time with majority cloture. and that set up the circumstance for the finishing of the job by senator mcconnell in 2017. kurt mentioned how much credit mcconnell should get for that. he doesn't get enough credit. there are two things that essentially allowed this to happen. the first is that reid did it first. finish without that, i'm not sure that mcconnell could have kept the votes together. but you weren't going to have one set of rules for democrats and one set of rules for republicans. the democrats loved, you know, the 60-vote threshold when they used it against bush appointments until they hated it when republicans were going to use it against obama appointments until they loved it again to use it against gorsuch. so the double standard meant that repu

supreme court.sitting there on the court is oliver wendell holmes junior, who is second from the left. but on the far left is james mcreynolds, and up top on the far right is louis brandeis. in the middle is the former president of the united states william howard taft. what is he doing there? mr. snyder: taft has the unique distention of being a former president sitting on the supreme court as chief justice. a move that people speculated might be in obama's future. i doubt it, but people speculated that. taft really helped remake that court into a much more conservative court. when warren harding becomes president and a liberals like felix frankfurter are kind of in the wilderness, harding, and a short period of time -- he only spent three years in office -- a point four members to the court, including taft. after that, he helps harding select very conservative people to the court and tilted in a conservative direction. these three liberals in that photo are brandeis, the man in the upper right cor

and the supreme court rules in the gonzalez case that puerto ricans should be considered u.s. nationals rather than aliens when entering the united states. and, therefore, they legally are free of restrictions that would otherwise apply, say to those coming from russia. so a u.s. national was defined as free to enter the united states, free of immigration restriction, and u.s. nationals were granted the protection be of the u.s. military. but there are very few other rights that were extended to nationals. so, for example, u.s. nationals that came in the u.s. could be denied employment by the federal government because in a series of cases it was made clear that nationals were not eligible for employment with the u.s. government. so the gonzalez case is really a turning point here because by say 1904 the united states is now legally bound to admit puerto ricans entering through new york. and this would, by extension, apply also to filipinos. so the original promise that some in congress had made, you know, that we would be able to control the effects of our colonial policy ove

it is really an issue he may push in supreme court and of course, with supreme court justice gorsuch, it tips the scales back in favor of a more conservative court. they may make that gamble. >> it is memorial week, we think there will be a quiet week but a busy week when they come back. thank you so much. >> thank you. announcer: in case you missed it on c-span, oregon senator ron wyden for the american health care act. wyden: there is more than $800 billion in medicaid cuts. these medicaid cuts are going to hit american communities like a wrecking ball. the pain is going to be felt throughout the ages. announcer: vermont senator bernie sanders and mick mulvaney on the proposed budget. sen. sanders: wyden is a billionaire get a tax cut, tommy. >> we think it is wrong that ordinary folks lose coverage. >> is the walton family and ordinary family? >> know they're not. they are extraordinary. >> i'm asking why they are getting a $52 billion -- >> john kelly on future manchester-style terrorism attacks. >> these are kids mostly. men and women that were born and raised in france, germany.

supreme court. >> q have been nominated to serve as head of the legal counsel we have the deputy attorney general and sally aids was reported this committee who said the agency you will approve the first executive order as lawful but it was her job to distinguish between lawfulness and the truth and she said'' about the role of your agency the office of legal counsel has a narrow function to look at the face of these executive order to determine on its face whether there is a set of circumstances so do you agree with that function? >> they give all of that question. i believe they must look only at of law not only to consider questions of policy but those operational responsibilities but i do take issue with the description that she gave as the function intended to review if there was a way to defend an executive order we are not litigators trying to come up with arguments to review those executive orders as well as other proposals to ensure they meet the requirements of all law. >> the question of

my suspicion is it will go to the supreme court.es stand white house columnist for the hill. >>> coming up. respective a big event happening this weekend >> the gi film festival brought some big names to the district. when 5at630 returns. returns. >>> jamie cay lor a navy veteran participated in the film festival several years. >> i host a show on the american hero's channel called american facts versus fictfiction. tomorrow night is the big salute to the troops >> before we talk about tomorrow it sounds interesting. let's talk about the festival. i have to confess, i didn't know about it until i started reading >> that's why i'm here. >> now you all g i film festival >> what kinds of films >> the great thing about it it's called sun dance for the troops. it's about stories about soldiers from soldiers, made by soldiers, so it's just a amazing commradere. for me who was in the service, once you get out that commradere disappears and all of a sudden you come back to the festival 10 this morning they had a pitch contest and tomorrow m

supreme court. the final letter is a letter from floyd abrams, a truly legendary lawyer, a renowned liberal and a ferocious defender of the first amendment and free speech and particular. i would commend really to anyone interested in mr. francisco's nomination, and highlight two paragraphs in particular. one quality we should demand of any solicitor general is independent. speaks not only for the administration but appoints the administration, but for broader values including institutional ones related to the role of the supreme court itself. it is not a cliche to say the solicitor general is the 10th justice. it is also not an exaggeration to say we look to the solicitor general not only to the -- represent the united states, but to act to a check on legal issues and the need for procedural regularities and rigorous adherence by the government to the principles and bodies of the bill of rights and the constitution. i believe he would play that independent role that serve -- that great solicitors g

went on to clerk for justice scalia on the united states supreme court. i can tell you in his service there, noel came to run the trust and respect of those legendary jurist who relied on him for his sound judgment, skill, and legal analysis. came his clerkship, noel to work at a small constitutional law litigation boutique in washington, d.c., where i was the baby associate working alongside noel. there are many things that are obvious about noel's record. he is brilliant, he is an incredible talented lawyer, but he also has good judgment. noel is very even keel. he is studied. nothing rattles him. he is someone you want l eading during the crisis. noel is a veteran of the white house counsel's office and the office of legal counsel. he is an experienced supreme court advocate, including rb versus, where he defended the authority of this body to advise and consent on presidential claimants. he won that landmark case 9-0. noel is universally well-respected by republicans because shes alike, is fundamentally decent. one of my favorite memories of majors in

e he nuked for everything other than the supreme court. it was the first time in senate history that you had majority culture rule. it required a super major. pfs simply overridden again for the first time with majority culture. that set is up the circumstances tr the finishing of the job by senator mcconnell. how much credit he should get for that. he doesn't get enough credit. two things allow ed had this to happen. the first is that reid did it first. i'm not sure that mcconnell could have kept the votes together. but you weren't going to have one set of rules for democrat cans and one set of rules for republicans. democrats loved the 60-vote threshold when they used it against bush appointments physical they hated it when they were going to use it against obama appointments. so the double standard meant that republicans would stay in line for the nuclear option. if you had a nominee more questionable than someone could have said we wouldn't mind voting for it for that nominee, but we're not sure about the existing nominee. we were able

the supreme court did not give me an opportunity to tell the supreme court what the facts were beforeou removed me from the case and disqualify me from hearing all death penalty cases in arkansas or any case involving the death penalty. that is unfair because no matter how thinly you port, every pancake has at least two sides. part of what a judge is supposed to do is hear all of the sites. it is unethical for judges to roost -- to hear the sites simply because once i does not want the other side heard. it is unethical for a lawyer who supposed to be representing the judges -- the attorney general of arkansas represents judges -- to basically go behind the judge's back and try to have a judge removed without even telling the judge that she is doing so and giving the judge and opportunity -- a chance to hire their own lawyer and set the record straight on what the facts are. about myot concerned conduct. i'm very concerned about the conduct of the attorney general. and the conduct of our supreme court. ethically, our justice system depends on people trusting that our officials will fol

i think it's an issue he may push to the supreme court. of course with justice gorsuch, it is the scales back in favor of a more conservative court. they may make that gamble. >> it is memorial week. we think we will have a quiet week and a busy june ahead on the comeback. thank you for being our guests on "newsmakers." >> in 1979 c-span was created by america's cable television companies. it is brought you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> on capitol hill this week, homeland security secretary john spendingended proposed cuts outlined in the 2018 budget request. he testified that since 9/11, state and local governments were more prepared to deal with national security

>> nimo: i think the supreme court is definitely the place for me. >> cooper: being on the supreme courtout for you? >> fadumo: probably, like, building a hospital and bringing a lot of equipment and bringing doctors. >> abdisimad: after, like, maybe, like, a few years working here, go back, start, like, my own business. >> nadira: creating more opportunities for girls and seeing more girls in school. >> cooper: empowering girls and women. >> nadira: yeah. >> cooper: mubarik mohamoud was part of the first class to graduate abaarso. he is now a senior at m.i.t., majoring in electrical engineering and computer science. when you heard that you got into m.i.t.? >> mubarik: hmmm, yeah, that-- that was insane. >> cooper: that was insane? ( laughter ) >> mubarik: yeah. >> cooper: has it been hard? >> mubarik: m.i.t.? it's hard, it is really hard. but the thing is, it is hard for everyone. >> cooper: his english isn't as good as most abaarso students, but his story is remarkable. he was a nomadic goat herder for much of his childhood, and knew nothing about school or the world beyond his herd un

and that led to a dramatic change in the way in which supreme court justices were confirmed. so casey comes up in the early 1990s. 20 years roughly after roe. by this time republican presidents including reagan and bush had managed to make a majority of appointments to the supreme court and by this point i think seven of the nine justices were republican presidents. -- elected by republican presidents. -- constitutional and the fundamental question really being raised is whether roe should be overruled. reagan had certainly strongly taken that position. and the number of supreme court nominees upon reaching the courts like justice go yet had made there that they were in favor and the expectation was that the court in casey would overrule roe v. wade. the court at that time one had justice scalia, thomas, rehnquist, kennedy, o'connor and the expectation that they would overrule roe.after it was argued, that is what everyone thought would happen. and then the justice kennedy sends a note to the justice of -- who is the author of roe and said we need to have a conversation. i ha

>> constitutional law and supreme court history. those are my two main areas of expertise with a sideline of sports law. host: your books were named what? host: first one was called "beyond the shadow of the senators," an early baseball team. and the second book which is more legal called "the well ved slave" host: let's go back to this house here in washington, d.c.,. you have a picture in the book of frankfurter standing on the steps and it was a brownstone type and painted all white. have you been in that house? guest: i'm dying to get into the house. there were pictures from the inside of the house that i felt since the house had been remoddled was aren't going to help me finish the book. i would love to see the house floor into the upper crow's nest. it would be fascinating for me to step foot in the house. host: during the six years, how many people lived in this house? guest: 1912-1919, once the runup to world war i starts, people start coming and going in the house. five to six people lived in that house. at the height of th

the other thing i'll say about the supreme court, there was a supreme court case once had a military case and they were talking about how, well, you'd think they were normal civil dwrns we'd do a. but because they're military we're going to do not a and they were trying to come up with another analogy, another category of society of people that would not have a not a answer. and they stumbled upon it, criminals. you're very unique and privileges, you're right up there with the criminals as far as the supreme court goes. but it's just another indicator of the specialized society that is the military and the unique needs of the military. as far as current issue with free speech that's on the table today, i think all the panel has obviously agreed that free speech, the first amendment does apply to the military but not to the same scope as it does to civilians. we've talked about it with professor and what's being considered on the hill and congress is what further criminal laws, if any, do we naed to address these new fact patterns that may or may not be adequately covered by existing

a convicted criminal is presiding over venezuela's supreme court. so it's no wonder that the court's members have acted as a rubber stamp for maduro's illegitimate power grabs and created a political and humanitarian crisis. venezualans as i said are struggling to get basic goods like food and medicine, access to basic services. "the wall street journal" reported venezualans lost on average 19 pounds in the last year not due to some incredible new diet but due to the country's food crisis. this is staggering, it's appalling, it's unconscionable. it cannot be tolerated. the venezuelan people deserves a return to democracy, a government that respects the rule of law, the constitution. it's the responsibility, i believe, and the duty of the nations of the western hemisphere including our nation, to help the venezuelan people. article 20 of the inter-american democratic charter states in the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime that impairs the democratic order and a member state any member state or the secretary general

indeed, supreme court case after supreme court case have said this statute looks like an unbounded delegation of authority but actually we have to read it more narrowly. >> if i can interject a question on the statutory issues. if we were to conclude hypothetically that the establishment clause claim can support the district court's injunction, could we still affirm the injunction on statutory ground? >> absolutely. >> either in whole or in part? and also related to that, could you touch on whether there is standing the basis standing on the refugee provisions? and i think that would help me out. >> absolutely. so if you accepted our larger argument about the statute about 1182 that it would -- it is true that 1152, the nationality base discrimination the weight to uphold injunction as a whole would require reading statute to encompass nonimmigrant visas as judge hawkins was illustrating. that is our reading. we think this has been read but there is obviously going to be a question about that. with respect to the standing of refugees, both plaintiffs we think have standing. hawaii has standin

automatic turn to the supreme court?ere at the ninth circuit court level? >> i'm afraid that's true. this case has already been to the ninth circuit with the original executive order. there the three judges totally ignored the law. if they followed the actual law and prior precedents including the supreme court, they would have thrown out the lawsuits against the trump administration. i'm afraid we'll get the same kind of result with this revised order. so it is going to end up in the supreme court. what i hope happens there, finally the supreme court, i hope will stop on all these lawsuits going on all over the country. lou: pure obstructionism on part of the dems and the left and left-wing judiciary, the deep state judiciary, trying to preserve the status quo. the decision by chief justice roberts waving his hand, saying we can't really figure out what the standing is to decide or to hear even the north carolina voter i.d. law, i have to say, don't know a thing about law but i got some acquaintanceship with common sent

of power on the supreme court. another measure that you hear about which is, again, all about the regulation of first amendment rights is an effort to amend the first amendment. in the popular press, you often read that the effort to amend the first amendment is about reversing citizens united. if you look at the last it ration, the last congress, it went far broader than citizens united. it completely counter manded the buckley v. lay low analysis that the resources it takes to speak implicate first amendment rights. the amendment went in reversed buckley v. vallejo. third, we hear all the time efforts, new, creative legal theories to countermand citizens united. the latest approach was to define all publicly traded corporations that have any foreign ownership. i dare you to find a publicly traded corporation that on any given day doesn't have some degree of foreign ownership on the u.s. stock exchange. the effort was to define all publicly traded u.s. corporations as foreign nationals and there is an absolute pro

a couple of circuits have made that stand, but the supreme court has not. it hasn't introduced any new groups and called them protected classes since the 1970's, i think. but once again, kennedy did embrace and develop the historical narratives in the briefs. in fact, the first section of rgefellrg are felt -- obe decision is dedicated to the history of marriage and to the history of anti-gay discrimination. and shifting attitudes in american society about homosexual persons. he drew extensively on a brief that nancy cott had prepared to show that historically marriage had survived as an institution because it had changed before in fundamental ways. many of those changes were seen as revolutionary and frightening in their own time, as the prospect of allowing homosexual couples to marry now seem to some. and he drew on our brief to trace the changing status of gay people in american society, and how long history had denied their dignity, and how social changes and the insistence of gay people and gay couples themselves had set in motion a debate which would

the first jewish new jersey state supreme court justice.nd in addition, besides brandeis, he did not abandon him . he appointed several jews. one of his closest advisers to -- i'm trying to -- the whole federal reserve system was the closehild of one of the advisers. in yet many jewish advisers. so, there is no record of him being anti-somatic. .- anti-semitic there is certainly a growing record. as a growing effort to take off the name from the woodrow wilson school, etc. my answer. it is seems to be a paradox that he was not anti-somatic from -- anti-semitic from any record that we have, but he was certainly a racist. >> last question from the left? >> you talked -- >> identify yourself. >> you talk a lot about harvard law school and yell law school. we know that all the justices have graduated from harvard or yale. did any of these justices not go to one of these elite law schools and talk about the role of the elite law schools in normalizing or culture rising these justices on the supreme court? >> ok, what's interesting -- i will just

be vindicated in the supreme court.nd in 1949 the u.s. supreme court did not grant certiorari in their cases. and so all ten of those writers actually went to prison for not disclosing the names of their fellow members of their medical associations. over the next five years, estates got in the game. where have you heard that before? in the state attorneys general decided i had a multiply protecting the united states against anti-subversive activity. and people were being called in in states and to congress, now joe mccarthy is getting into the activity. they're being asked, name the names of your political associates. people didn't have any confidence in the first amendment rights any longer because the supreme court didn't protect the hollywood ten. so some of them resorted to invoking their fifth amendment right, but no one wanted to invoke his fifth amendment right to admit that had engaged in any subversive activity. so they were in a catch-22. then in 1954, the attorney general of new hampshire, louis wyman, under

yeah, if they bring us to the supreme court, do they want to take that risk? >> and how many republicans are backing the president on this? this has been challenged by the court and it is not been embraced by republicans on capitol hill that does not seem like an issue that they want to go to town over. >> it was a big campaign promise by president trump to ensure that they have more stringent vetting. >> we are in a heightened time of terrorism. with terrorism incidents happening on a regular basis now seating justice gorsuch sits the -- tips the scales and they may try to make that gamble. >> it is memorial we, we think we will have a quiet. we will see when they come back. thank you for being our guests on newsmakers. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [c

i don't make supreme court decisions. in terms of the ethical issue -- let me say that in my own work , i am constantly struggling with evidence. arguments as large well, and i think we are expected as scholars to make large arguments with proper context to the nuance and the contradictions. they often get lost in litigation to be sure. , the idea that we are making broad arguments -- in terms of the ethical issues, i am not naive. i am aware that litigators come to me because i have a record of publication that suggests i think x, y, and z about the historical record. i don't think we are selling to the highest bidder. although there is always a delicate negotiation with litigators who would typically like us to make -- they have often asked if i could make an argument about x or y, if i think it is supported by historical evidence. i have said that i didn't think it was sustained by the historical evidence. if i said no a second time, they accepted that. their primary interest -- particularly in a first that would testi

supreme court of appeals six circuit for federal voting law. a republican running for both democratsy and republicans, it is a way to clear for those who died and moved away and increase public confidence, adding that maintaining the integrity is essential to conducting the election with the efficiency and integrity, he added in a statement that we will hear from dave in california, democrats line. go ahead. ok.er: i wanted to make a comment. donald trump is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. he called all mexicans murderers and rapists. not care about the middle-class at all. he went over to saudi arabia and should hit -- a canceled the people who brought down 9/11. shaking hands with hiller and i do not see how this guy ever got an office to be president. it does not make sense. he will get us all killed in a nuclear war. wait and see in that all the people who voted for him will say we love donald trump p or he is not doing anything for us. we will pay more taxes and the rich will pay no taxes here i cannot stand donald t