to the supreme court. we are going to lose until we get there, especially when we arrive in the supreme court with a new appointment to the supreme court. we are looking at under today's circumstances, the potential of 5-4 on a court that would be coming down on the side of the constitution. and the strict constructionism that protects life. we are obligated to protect life under the 14th amendment. if congress can define life and if a heartbeat is detected, that is life, the baby is protected. and the cost isn't going to fall on the back of iowa taxpayers, mr. speaker. instead, we have two organizations that have volunteered to step up to defend this case before the courts and those two organizations are -- this is the message from liberty council, liberty university and that has produced a pretty good chief of staff in my operation. but matt has agreed to defend this pro bonea ho. that is on the house. and st. thomas moore foundation and will defend it pro bonea. but it doesn't put the taxpayers of iowa

because that is really the name of the game in the supreme court. i've argued cases where i got a very, very satisfying dissenting opinion that they before justices joined and they really nailed it in your clients have a word for that. it's called a loss. the name of the game is getting the five and is tricky to get to five out of eight especially when the court is very closely divided. for over a year after justice gulley is passing the court was operating to justice down and that created a very interesting dynamic. just to run through how this affected the courts operations. go back to the time of justice scully is passing in the overturned 2015 and immediately with the court going down to eight members, you had an impact on the cases the court was deciding there. in some cases, the court was so fundamentally divided four to four that they simply couldn't decide the case in probably the most prominent example of that was a case involving the first amendment and public sector labor called friedrichs that the court had taken. the perception was that

power of the supreme supreme court? independent judiciary is an important topic. in a healthy democracy, the judiciary should be independent from political persuasion, to be independent from the other branches. this is why our supreme court justices have life terms. athough they are appointed by politically-inspired president, they are confirmed by a senate. once they are in office, they are really protected from politics, or so we hope and think. but an independent judiciary is very important in a healthy democracy. it increases our political ethics. guest: we know that federal judges can be impeached with the same process that the president can be impeached. on that term of independent judiciary, keep in mind that the supreme court also decides much of its own docket. you should know that word "docket," the court's schedule or calendar. the supreme court can use the power of the rule of four, where at lease for justices want to hear the case, they can hear the case. are you ready for a question? caller: yes, i am. hos

is second only to united states supreme court. it is the point of the court of 1986 by president ronald reagan. it is interesting, in the recent decades, more supreme court justices have been nominated from the dc circuit than any other single source. for example, the late justice scalia, justice bader, no relation to the speaker today. justice thomas, and chief justice roberts, to name a few. the first justice to be nominated by president trump was a student of doug ginsburg. he graduated from the latin school in chicago in 1963, and intended cornell university for he told me he was studying classics and english. he was heading in the direction of a phd with a career in education. he realized that he did not want to be a professor. he left cornell, and together with two friends from harvard, these three young men, way back then, founded the first computer dating service called operation match. [ laughter ] it was very successful. after a few years, he decided he wanted a career in law. he returned to cornell, and got his bachelor

talk about the jump from the california supreme court to the u.s. supreme court.eal: they have the option, do we ask the united states supreme california supreme court to the court to hear it? ordinarily, the court says, california court, you know california law, we don't -- or any other state. but the california supreme court decided a federal issue. so the university was able to say, supreme court, hear our case. you have to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. i, the supreme court, am asking you to hear my case. there are 9000 requests every year and the supreme court grants about 65 of them. the odds are very low. a case of importance and case in which the lower courts couldvided, that help. this is what the university did. they filed a petition to say, hear our case. it is not a petition that really sums up what we think of bakke. we think of him as the diversity rationale, people learning from each other. but on the first page, you are asking the supreme court to answer a question. the question they said -- when only a small fraction of thousands of app

supreme court. >> after the california supreme court decision came down, they have the option, do we ask the united states supreme court to hear? ordinarily if you have a safe court decision the u.s. supreme court can't hear it because its about state law issues the u.s. supreme court says, california courts, you know california law, we don't know california law. here the california supreme court decided a federal issue and -- because of that, they were able to -- the university was able to go and say hey supreme court, hear our case. to do that you have to file something called -- it has a long latin term. that is i supreme court am asking you to hear my case. today there are about 8,000, 9,000 of those petitions every year. the supreme court grants about 65 of them. the odds are very low of getting your case heard before the supreme court. obviously in the case of um -- importance, that matters. here that is what the university did. they filed a petition to say hear our case. what is interesting about the petition is -- its -- it -- its not a petition that really tees up what we no

jump from the california supreme court to the u.s. supreme court.ption, dohave the we ask the united states supreme court to. -- to hear it? says,rily, the court california court, you know california law, we don't -- or any other state. but the california supreme court decided a federal issue. so the university was able to say, supreme court, hear our case. you have to file a petition for a writ of searcher are right -- supreme court, and asking you to hear my case. there are 9000 requests every year and the supreme court request about 65 of them -- gra nts about 65 of them. this is what the university did. hey filed a petition to say, ar our case. that reallypetition sums up what we think of bakke. we think of him as the diversity rationale, people learning from each other. page, you arest asking the supreme court to answer a question. the question they said -- when only a small fraction of thousands of applicants can be admitted, does the university of protection clause of entity faculty from voluntary seeking ofcounteract the effects generations

supreme court? >> my own personal life is private and i intend to keep it that way. >> do you plan to go to medical school? >> yes, i do plan to go in the fall. >> on another note, an update from the university of california davis. 97 medical students graduated from there today, including allan bakke, who challenge the university's racial quota system. he had charged that he was denied admission in favor of minorities who scored lower on the entry exam. ultimately the supreme court ruled in his favor. he began serving his residency at the mayo clinic in july. susan: as you heard, he became a doctor at the mayo clinic and worked many years as an anesthesiologist in minnesota. he retired about a decade ago and moved on to medical devices as a business venture. and i'll tell you, his hesitancy to talk continues to this day. we worked very hard for him to give us one interview about what it is like to be an individual citizen appealing to the supreme court. he very kindly said he would retain his privac

supreme court.will start on gregg, the namesake in the case. here is what happened to him next. [video clip] >> the "albany georgia herald" got a phone call from gregg, a death row inmate whose sentence had been an issue in 1976, when the u.s. supreme court upheld georgia's death penalty law. gregg told a reporter that he and three other inmates had sawed through bars on an exercise area window and escaped. suspecting a hoax the reporter , called the warden of the maximum-security prison. although a check showed all men present and accounted for, it was learned later in the day the death row murderers had indeed escaped. the four killers escaped from georgia's death row monday were all accounted for. three surrendered in north carolina. the badly beaten body of the fourth was found in a nearby river. susan: so an unhappy life came to a violent end. what is interesting is that mr. gregg's escape happened the day before his execution was to take place. none of the other prisoners met the death penalty

you are talking to nine different supreme court's. it is not one supreme court.floyd said, what he had to do was be mindful of the fact that he had a certain number of votes that he was probably not going to lose. he had a certain number of votes he was probably not going to win. and justice stewart and justice white were the two he needed. he needed one of the two or both of the two, if he could, to win the case. and what he was doing -- and for someone who had not argued in the supreme court before, i agree with floyd. this was a very adroit and carefully answer. because he gave a reasonable answer. he preserved his position. he did not lose a vote that he might otherwise have lost if he had taken a categorical position that yes, this is an absolute thing under the first amendment. susan: i'm going to jump in. i want to get erwin griswold's argument into this. he was nominated by lbj for the position and president nixon kept him on. >> the presentation of the material specified in my brief well, as i've tried to argue there, materially affect the security of th

theink if you look at supreme court, the arkansas supreme court, that is a place where judicial crisis network spent a ton of money. they spent $1.59 on election happening there tomorrow. in the last three cycles they spent close to that much, but not that much. in arkansas, you see a state ifreme court that used to be not progressive, a little moderate. they struck down a state ban on adoption by lgbtq couples several years ago. since then, in the last few election cycles, these right wing judges are winning elections. they recently upheld the state's new voter id law. know, they have had several anti-lgbtq opinions in the last several years. one was overturned by scotus last year because it was clear they were violating the principles the court laid down. judge gorsuch wrote a dissent concluding they had not violated a burger felt. violated.d not kind ofl this same groups. a lot have the same kind of use on a range of issues. michele: i think there are some who may say there is an aclu on the left and there is the american constitution society, center for american progress. don't pro

where, of course, the supreme court serves as the equivalent of a state supreme court. so if there is a d.c. case, it goes up to the supreme court. that's the only place you can appeal it to. most of them involve slaves who were imported into the district of columbia, district of columbia local law is governed by maryland, where we are today. in this part of the district. and for a while, by virginia law in what is today alexandria, virginia, some of you know that alexandria was part of d.c., and then the retro session, where they gave alexandria back to virginia. so these cases involve what happened in those jurisdictions, and those jurisdictions are basically governed by maryland and virginia law. i don't want to get into the technicalities here, because we don't have three or four hours to explain them. although i think i do a pretty good job in the book. but the simple issue is this. if you move to the district, you had to register the slaves you brought into the district. you had a certain amount of time to do it. and you had to assert that you were moving into the

that brings us back to the cases before the supreme court. masterpiece cake shop the the colorado civil rights commission and janice. all three share two things in common. one, ties to conservative dark money organizations and an attempt to weaponize the first amendment to attack long-established civil-rights. in masterpiece cake shop, a baker represented by the alliance defending freedom, and extreme anti- lgbt organization that has been labeled a hate group is pressing the novel claim that baking a wedding cake is constitutionally protected expression. if the court finds for the bake baker, businesses selling all sorts of goods could be exempted from the civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination against protected class of americans. the plaintiffs in the floor are also being represented. they are arguing that the first amendment protects the right of fake women's health centers to lie to and mislead women about their options. paying dues to a public sector that represents financial interests violates his first amendment right. it will ov

the supreme court and public policy events. cspan is brought to you by your cable or status -- or satellite provider. >> we will bring you a hearing on puerto rico's electric grid and recovery from hurricane maria. we will have live covera

she regularly filed briefs in high profile supreme courses. she was a senior fellow at the dean's visiting scholar and was previously a law clerk to u.s. supreme court justice clarence thomas and to judge of the d.c. circuit court. she's a graduate of harvard law school mod and was a masters degree in linguist x. welcome carry. thank you for being here. on the far left we have elizabeth slattery. she is a legal fellow at the heritage foundation where she writes about cases before the supreme court, judicial nominations, separation of powers and other constitutional issues. she cohosts a podcast about everything that's happening at the supreme court and she manages appellate advocacy programs. she has testified before the u.s. house of representatives on constitutional issues and her commentaries have appeared on the washington post, national review online, fox news and many others. she is a graduate of george mason university school of law and holds a bachelor degree in history from xavier university. we're actually going to start with elizabe

supreme court.heill start on gregg, namesake in the case. here is what happened to him, next. [video clip] the albany georgia herald got a phone call from gregg, who sentenced had been issued in 1976, when the u.s. supreme court upheld georgia's death penalty law. hegg told a reporter that and three other inmates had sought through bars and escaped. reporter called the warden of the maximum-security prison. men were shown present and accounted for. but it was learned later in the day the death row murderers had indeed escaped. the ones who escaped monday were all accounted for. three surrendered in north carolina. the fourth was found in a nearby river. an unhappy life came to a violent end. escape happened the day before his execution was to take place. none of the other prisoners met the death penalty. jerry received a petition for retrial. hisonvinced the court confession was problematic. he has been denied parole 17 times. he is still alive. the second, a career counseling service in baton rouge

you are talking to nine different supreme court's. it's not one supreme court.s floyd said, what he had to do was be mindful of the fact that he had a certain number of votes that he was probably not going to lose, and a certain number of votes that he was not going to win. jesters -- justice stewart and wide where the two that he needed to win the case. what he was doing, for someone who had not argued in the supreme court before, i agree with floyd, this was a very careful answer. what he did, he gave a reasonable answer. he preserved his position. he did not lose a vote that he might have otherwise lost if he took a categorical position that yes, this is an absolute thing under the first amendment. >> i to jump in because of time. i want to get griswold arguments on this point. he held that position. he was nominated by lbj to that position, and president nixon kept him on. these were a few of his arguments. a >> i also think the heart of our case is the publication of the material specified in my closed brief well, as i try to argue, materially affect the se

i mentioned the arkansas supreme court earlier. that's one case where tradition crisis network has spent a ton of money in the last few years, 1.5 million so far on an election that's happening there tomorrow. i think in the last three cycles they have spent close to that much. but not quite that much. and what you've seen in arkansas is the state supreme court that used to be -- if not progressive at least a little moderate, you know, they struck down a state ban on adoption by lgbt couples several years ago. they struck down a state voter id law several years ago. but since then, in the last few election cycles we have seen all this money come in and seen right wing judges winning the elections there. and they just recently upheld the state's new voter id law which pretty much the same as the old voter id law. and as we know, they have had several antilgbt opinions in the last few years. one of which was overturned by scotus last year because it was clear they were violating the principles that the court laid down in an opinion i

the supreme court said that is hyperbole. it is going overboard to make a political point about public affairs policy issues in a particularly dramatic way. it is not a punishable threat. the same would be true of kathy griffith. is "hate: why we should resist it wit >> coming up this morning, the federal election commission on its ability to oversee campaign-finance laws. the center for public integrity. then a roundtable on the advanced placement of the u.s. government and what students can expect on the test. joining us, high school government teachers. they will take questions and calls from students. be sure to watch c-span's washington," live at 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. weekend, c-span's cities tour takes you to tyler, texas, with the help of our cable partners, to explore its literary scene and has three. today on book tv, author robert sturgeon discusses his book about the book of the former texas lieutenant governor bill ratliff. >> everything he did the senate was in the problem-solving move. how did he fi

he says but when you're justice of the supreme court, or you're chief justice of the supreme court, you're obligated to rule on principle. and you can't do a at a time. you can't do a little of the principle at a time you have to do it all at once and that was earl warren. well what about the fact i said well yeah but they never overrule versus ferguson. i mean, if you supreme court justices really only give a little principle -- >> i think and my reading of brown b. board -- at basically we can have our constitutional law scholarly discussion on this but my reading of it is that -- it rendered pleasant ferguson absolutely. what about your mention of lincoln raise ares another issue and as i'm sure everyone knows -- that you've written several books about chief justice one of whom lincoln and another superb book. but -- considering there's jefferson and wrote about fdr and hughes and now this book so -- let's step back and let me ask a broader question and that is -- to what extent do you see what conclusions would you draw about the relationship between the judiciary and the executive and

from the supreme court the issue was decided. here is abc's bill zimmerman. >> a dramatic for minutes late, reading the 63 decision. opinion quoted from 1963 case. any prior work holds a presumption questioning its priority for liddy. >> here's how those decisions came out. nine different opinions really out of this case. white joinedck, way stewart. three dissents. the chief justice joined by others. .et's go through -- prior work the government thus carries a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. the government carries heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. .ere is some of what it said paramount among the duty of a free press is to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and setting them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shots and shells. in my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the new york times and the washington journal newspapers -- post newspaper should be commended. it was justice black'

thank you for joining they love library of congress in supreme court today for the 2018 supreme court fellows program annual lecture. my name is jane sanchez. serving ashonor of the 25th law librarian of congress. a little bit about the library. the law library serves as the legal custodian. it provides analysis on over 270 jurisdictions in the world. our skilled law library staff, both american trained attorneys and law librarians, also provide research assistance and reference services on u.s. federal and state legal issues. while our collections and our expertise reach across all points of the globe, for today's event, we partnered with our next-door neighbor, who happens to be the highest court in the country. by the way, they are pretty good neighbors. they are quiet and they keep to themselves pretty much. [laughter] this afternoon, we are pleased to be multics -- to be able to collaborate with the supreme court. please note that today's program is being live streamed on the library of congress youtube channel. so all sounds, images and remarks will be captured on video. please

i think people in the supreme court take that advice. alan: one of the issues that is on everyone's mind right now is gun control. years ago, the court decided in the district of columbia that several gun-control measures violated the rights to their arms protected by the second amendment. it was a 5-4 decision and you joined the dissenting opinion. differentiled a dissent in which you disagreed on different grounds. can you take us through some of the arguments in that case and the thinking behind your dissent and what do you think of the position taken by former justice stevens? makece breyer: i cannot any comment at all. that is one of the problems. you just cannot comment on a lot of things he would like to. the first is very interesting. , a second amendment says well organized militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. i remember well. what stevens wrote that i thought was the traditional amendment what the means. look at the first part, this is a

supreme court. it is a neat experience if you want to go to bc and wait in line to do it, although most of the cases are pretty boring. case, people got in the public line 24 hours ahead and slept on concrete. they have a special lawyer section i got to sit in. the other lawyers were all up there. the case is being argued and nobody knew where justice kennedy was going to come down on this. everybody figured you had four on one side and four on the other. he's the swing vote. he is well-known known for that in controversial cases. i don't know halfway through the kennedy's, justice mouth starts to open and everybody is hanging on the edge of their seats and he asked the government lawyer from the district of columbia, so, weren't the colonists and settlers, the founders of this country, didn't they need guns to protect themselves from criminals and indians and grizzly bears? [laughter] we will forgive him for thinking there were grizzly bears east of the mississippi. that obviously indicated an indi

we have the book available for purchase both here and at the supreme court gift shop. we are fortunate to have with us also the honorable gregory maggs to moderate today's conversation. when we planned this program, greg was a professor at george washington law school but in the past month he's received his judicial commission as judge of the united states court of appeals for the armed services. -- forces. judge maggs was a law clerk to justice thomas in 1991 and before that to justice anthony kennedy. please join me in welcoming justice thomas and judge maggs. \[applause] judge maggs: do you feel comfortable, justice? justice thomas: no. this is not the most suitable position for introverts. we like to be in the shadows someplace. judge maggs: we were having a great time back then. justice thomas: it was fine back there. don't y'all have anything to do? \[laughter] oh, my goodness. sorry y'all are dragging yourselves out on this day. judge maggs: justice, mr. minear says it's the 10th anniversary of the publication of your book "my grandfather's son." justice thomas:

it is one of my dreams to ask a question of a supreme court justice. [laughter] i was thinking about what you were saying about the legal area. as i have been studying the law and there are cases that have come before the supreme court, i have been met with a struggle of dissidents between my own beliefs and opinions and what it says in the constitution and precedent. i was wondering, specifically in privacy cases that you have heard, what has been your response to maybe some more conservative justices or original justices saying you may have been -- the court has been making up law when they cannot find it in the constitution? does that change your personal beliefs? justice breyer: that is a very good question. as you can see, i think someone who says the supreme court is political, they really mean that, and that's wrong. i worked for senator kennedy. i know what political was. are you popular or not popular up in medford? if he had a call coming in from the secretary of hhs or the mayor of cambridge, i know which call he is going to take. the mayor

yes in many ways it was expected that the supreme court will lean towards the president it's fair to in the past two years actually on major issues whether it was the church this unilateral declaration of a martial law light of the siege of mirali by isis elements or the very controversial burial of former if you'd been a strong line marcus at the cemetery of national heroes on those two important issues to fix philip in supreme court a large lean towards philippine president so there were concerns that in this case the same thing will happen of the fact of the matter is that present a third to open yes that he wants a supreme court justice out and supreme court justice serrano actually shoot she was appointed by the former president because i cannot was in many ways knowledge seen as the enemy of president there and of course serrano has been among very few voices of independence i think their highest level of government and she has question on multiple occasion of president of terror this assault on the rule of law and president there is this war and drugs so this is seen as part o

on monday as we reported the supreme court made a decision that will impact employee rights to class action lawsuits does this mean that employees can no longer ever band together in court there's no better person to ask that america's lawyer might be might happen tonio counselor thank you so much for joining us we really appreciate it what does this mean for companies but as important or more important fact what does it mean for employees bike. well for a four star betrays in which millions of americans have already agreed to buy something arbitration clauses in contracts takes away the right of these employees to sue corporations when they lie cheat and steal their arbitration clauses in your credit card contracts you name it but here this is very specific because you have these companies that are stealing money from these employees the level of theft is amazing the way they steal money is they they they don't pay for things like taking on their break they're all they're ordered to go back to work without being paid their there are all kinds of scams that they use matter fact we ha

you keep appealing until you are at the state supreme court. then there is only one place left to go. that is us. of the get an idea numbers. out of millions of cases, 80, , there may be 80 to 100,000 which have a federal question. that is question. will ask us here case. case -- hear our we don't have to. we will probably grant around 80. you are talking about 60, 70, 80 cases out of 80 who have asked. 80,000 possible. question.ny now you have two jobs. you have to decide what to decide. four votes takes the case. then you have to decide what you decided to decide. if you understand the you're on your way to law school. how do we decide what to take? that is what people miss. the newspapers don't help much. how do we decide what to hear? 7-8000 in the year. you get 150 a week. 15 pages. take our case. 15 pages, don't go near it. have law clerks. they have clerked for somebody else. we have 36 or so in a pool. my math isn't good but i think it is 5. each of them will read the papers and write a memo. i get a stack of memos like this every week.

before the supreme court. he spoke at the long island federal society -- long island federalist society. the senate majority pack president will be talking about democratic major elections. then the ceremony at the arlington national cemetery with president trump and members of his administration. >> could i ask for everyone's attention? i would like to introduce myself, i am the president of the long island lawyers chapter of the federalist society for law and public policy. lawfederalist society for studies is a group of conservative and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve read him, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution, and that is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what should it be. the society should further their application through this activities. very excited to present to you our speaker this evening. holbrooke is a senior fellow at

those respecting the supreme court will not try to overturn the supreme court decision. we have to accept the idea this will be litigated. it will go through the lower courts. as it goes in the lower courts we will lose at each turn until we get to the united states supreme court. and to give an example of how this worked in the past on the ban on partial birth abortion which came to us about the end of the -- the end of the 1990's, as i recall, in the initial case. ban on partial birth abortion, that gruesome and ghastly procedure that is so, so awful to describe it here on the floor of congress is more than i will do here tonight, mr. speaker. but congress banned that procedure. having banned that procedure, it was litigated by -- guess what -- planned parenthood, the advocacy groups for abortion itself and the supreme court struck down our ban on partial birth abortion. of course, they have to use the rationale. so their rationale was that the act of a partial birth abortion wasn't precisely enough defined that it was vague and if it was vague, then how would the abor

c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >>> more on the 1988 supreme court case, hustler magazine versus jerry falwell on american history tv. ahead, a panel discussion about the arguments presented in the decisions impact on editorial cartoonist and other first amendment cases. the symposium on satire was held at the university of minnesota. >>> i will introduce george freeman, the moderator of the panel quickly. he is currently the executive director of the media lab resource center. prior to that he counseled the law firm of jenner and block, for many of us he will be forever associated with his role as assistant general manager of the new york times company where many of us worked with george when he was in the forefront of many high-profile cases. he speaks frequently on these and other topics as you can imagine and he teaches at columbia, new york university and the graduate school of journalism. george, take it away. >> thank you jane. thank you very much. >>> the good news is,we are low-tech guys, we have no audiovisual, we will not play around here with

one case has gone to the supreme court. under title vii. and in that case, the supreme court made a very poor decision . >> could you elaborate about the case? but the women who applied to martin marietta i believe she was in florida. she had five children. they told her that they would not take a woman who had children under the age of 6. it was a three dollar an hour job. but the admitted in court that they wouldn't think of asking a man that question. now, this was a clear case of discrimination. and the supreme court in its decision sent the decision back to the lower court as to whether or not women with children under 6 were good employees. what kind of nonsense is that? what did that have to do with that woman? >> whether other women were good employees. >> the supreme court was really saying was that this woman who was the sole supporter of the children, their father had abandoned them. it was her right to work. no one was going to ask any embarrassing questions about, do you have children under 6? when you go to three dollars an ho

supreme court and won five.erican law. the increased popularity of ruth bader ginsburg. bader ginsburg. small and the opposite of donald trump. trump. something to do our political climate. climate. seem very relevant and important to many people in our country. many people in our country. think that the me too movement has played a role in this. played a role in this. about fighting the challenges that she faced in her life. she faced in her life. 2016 election campaign, she criticised donald trump. criticised donald trump. something that supreme courtjustice have traditionally done. have traditionally done. meant to be outside of the political campaign process. campaign process. do you ask her about that? about that? trump was a candidate, she made some remark5 critici5ing him. remark5 critici5ing him. unu5ual for a supreme court ju5tice. unu5ual for a supreme courtjustice. a supreme courtjustice. acknowledging they were not thing5 she should have said. she should have said. about cases that come before her as

but that's the case that's in the supreme court right now. you know, you want to know what's in the first amendment? the right to freedom of assembly. the right to freedom of assembly is in the constitution. if some workers want to assemble together and negotiate for better wages and better benefits with their employee, i believe they have a constitutional right to do so. what i don't think you have a constitutional right to do is to be a freeloader, which is what janus is arguing. he's saying, i want to be able to benefit from what the union negotiates on my behalf but i don't want to pay anything. he doesn't have to pay into the fund that goes to political stuff. he doesn't have to pay for that. that is -- that issue has been decided. it's not required under the law that he helped fund candidates or issues he doesn't want to support. but it is fair and it is right and it is reasonable and the supreme court has found in the past that an assessesment on employees for the cost of representation is fair and constitutional. this is a case called

on monday as we reported the supreme court made a decision that will impact employee rights to class action lawsuits does this mean that employees can no longer ever band together in court there's no better person to ask that america's lawyer might be might happen tonio counselor thank you so much for joining us we really appreciate it what does this mean for companies but as important or more important in fact what does it mean for employees bike. well for a forced arbitration which millions of americans have already agreed to by signing arbitration clauses in contracts takes away the right of these employees to sue corporations when they lie cheat and steal their arbitration clauses in your credit card contracts you name it but here this is very specific because you have these companies that are stealing money from these employees the level of theft is amazing the way they steal money is they they they don't pay for things like taking on their break they're all they're ordered to go back to work without being paid they're there are all kinds of scams that they use about a fact we h

the entire supreme court. shortly after the personnel changed, the culture and history changed the most of the decisions from the 70s through the early '90s involving student rights have cut away at tinker. what justice fortis said in his opinion that nonviolence the speech is appropriate even if it's the size is not substantially disrupted or materially interfering for the schools. good legal language that gives a lot of room. to make a long story short, most decisions since the tinker case have found disruption student protests have found to be disruptive and have led to expulsions that were upheld. including one from missouri involving student newspapers where the supreme court decided the students could be journalists to appoint but that their statements were controlled by the school's administration. it was an agency. let me jump quickly. we all know what was happening in the last few months. another school shooting, and i will not get into the policy what to do about that. but what impresses me is what t

[applause] 30 years ago, the supreme court announced its decision in hustler magazine v. falwell. the court ruled unanimously for hustler for its parody of jerry libel,, who sued for invasion of privacy, and emotional distress. on american history tv, a panel discussion about the arguments presented to the court and the decisions impact on editorial cartoonists and other first amendment cases. ofs one hour event was part the symposium on satire held at the university of minnesota. will go ahead and introduce a george freeman, the moderator of this panel. he is the executive director of the media law resource center. prior to that, he was counsel to a law firm, but too many of us associatedever be with his role, where many of us worked with george on many high-profile cases. on these frequently and other topics and teaches at columbia, new york university and the graduate school of journalism. so, george, take it away. thank you very much. , we arehe prior panel low-tech guys, no audiovisuals, so we will not dally around here with this machine. we would just talk. two other things

thank you for joining they love library of congress in supreme court today for the 2018 supreme court fellows program annual

iran's supreme leader has challenge the u.s. president of the pulling out of the nuclear deal saying that his statement contained at least ten lies donald trump announced washington's withdrawal from the twenty fifteen agreement on tuesday. vowed to impose the highest levels of sanctions against tehran inside iran's parliament politicians demonstrated and burned the u.s. flag they're expected to vote on a response to trump's announcement iran's president condemned the u.s. for not respecting its commitments he says that iran will remain in the pact but warns that it could resume in reaching your radium if its national interests on respected other signatories to the twenty fifteen dealing clued in france germany and the u.k. say they regret trump's decision but will remain parties to the agreement but trump's received support from the united arab emirates saudi arabia and israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu has praised the u.s. president for taking what he called a bold decision to pull out of a quote disastrous deal white h

because, obviously, this is a pivotal seat on the supreme court.s will be the first one that will actually tip the balance of the court. obviously, neil gorsuch for justice scalia, basically maintained the status quo in terms of the ideological leanings of the members. so this will be a big one. >> now, white house director of legislative affairs, marc short was on my radio show this thursday and he said, they will be expanding the list that president trump has put out of people being eligible. have you heard about any other new people being added to that list, senator cornyn? >> i have not. i have not. but i have to say, looking at the circuit court nominees, looking at the district court nominees and of course, neil gorsuch, i think the white house council and the president have done a terrific job of identifying nominees and this will have a long-lasting impact far beyond president trump's term of office or my term of office. >> senator, it will be a very contentious proceeding if there is a supreme court vacancy, i mean, extremely contentious.