mann in the supremes. another important guarantor, separation of powers, and an important separation of powers case that i think is next friday or shortly thereafter, the constitutionality of the cfpb, consumer financial protection bureau. brief background. the basic structure of the constitution is that the president has all the executive power, and therefore if use not able to control his supporters in the exercise of their authority, they would be independent from him and exercise executive power. this is called the unitary executive. it has nothing to do with the executive being above the law, it has to do with the president being able to exercise executive functions. in the 1930's the supreme court said that with respect to these independent agencies, ftc, sec, these multimember bodies, we are going to not allow the president to remove these people at will and therefore make them independent of the president, or congress could do that. that would be constitutional under separation of powers. they woul

20 night teen term of the supreme court. yesterday the justices attended what is known as the red mass in washington, d.c. they most attended -- most of them attended together. the justices will be on the bench today. it is the opening date of the new term. frank is in portland, ohio, republican, you are on next. how come california, maryland, ndc that's to predict -- and d.c. gets to predict to the rest of the world how we live? think what the caller is referring to is there are a few cases that are some of the more prominent ones where some of the lower court rulings have emanated out of the ninth circuit, which includes the west coast and california. the fourth circuit includes the mid-atlantic region. daca case.s the the present -- president famously tried to undo the daca policy and there have been consistent rulings at the lower court level saying that the president's decision to do that was arbitrary and showed animus toward the dreamer community, but they didn't do it the right way. the supreme court is going to the

the argument would be that the last three supreme court ustices to join the court were themselves supreme court law clerks. that is a relatively new trend. an ever larger number of the judges appointed to lower courts are former supreme court clerks. the bonus for supreme court clerks at most major law firms is now $400,000, which is several times larger than for arguably equally qualified folks who clerk on courts of appeals. it is many times larger than the bonus that i got as a law clerk 20 years ago. it is one year in a lawyer's career. do we attach too much significance to it? > yes. there were no bonuses when i was there, by the way. kannon: you could have collected like $2 million for each of your many clerkships. rory: do i think that supreme court clerks are untalented? o. i think it does give you a certain insider perspective and likely somebody who is a talented lawyer. there are certainly a ton of people who are amazingly talented who didn't clerk there. i won't name names but i do know ne professor at yale who never got a clerkship. i think his incredible influential scholars

exit polls showed that among those issues that said the supreme -- voters that said the supreme court was a top issue, donald trump one them -- won them by 15 points. that is the asymmetry my group hopes to correct. republicans have been mobilizing evangelical voters based on the roe v. wade decision. there has been a years-long decision to try to overtake the supreme court to get the roe v. wade ruling overturned. the left has gotten complacent. we have thought of the courts as our friend, as an institution that has advanced progressive values. the pendulum is starting to swing back. i think the concerns you will see in the 2020 cycle will reflect that. host: the supreme court is our topic. our guest is brian fallon. the group is demand justice. we are having this conversation on the opening day of the supreme court. the justices attended what is known as the red mass here in washington dc -- washington, d.c., most of them attending together. the justices will be on the bench today. the new term.of frank is in portland, ohio, a republican. you are on next with brian fallon. frank, ar

100th anniversary for supreme court, for those just joined i'm head of the national constitution center in philadelphia and law professor, honored to be in this extraordinary group, former supreme court clerks to celebrate 100th anniversary, and we've just heard a wonderful panel about experiences and we will hear one about life at clerkships. joshua, publisher, professor at georgetown, very distinguished distinguished lawyer and author of impeachment, take it away, josh. >> thank you all very much for coming, if it's okay, i will start by introducing my colleagues in this panel, i'm joined today by clerk for justice brennan, former chairman , carlisle group, justice kennedy, private practice, worked as ausa. following justice ruben, author of many best-selling books, if i listed them all we will be here a while. his career includes time work at ausa, investigation unit in baltimore, deputy attorney general of maryland, and candidate for mayor of city of baltimore, thank you all very much for joining. today we will be discussing clerk and strange topic, literally every clerk had a life

anniversary of the supreme court. congress, 100 years ago this year, congress authorized each justice to have a stenographer and a clerk. ever since then, developed into a superb institution and the national constitution center in philadelphia is honored to bring together former supreme court clerks for the first time in history for an all clerk reunion. representing clerks from 25 justices over 50 terms to come and celebrate this great anniversary. i am jeffrey rosen. i'm the president of the national constitution center in philadelphia. also i press on trend professor here at george washington law school. i am so thankful they have united for this important academic symposium. the constitution center has a very inspiring mission from the u.s. congress. that is to bring together citizens of different perspectives to educate themselves and celebrate this great document of human freedom. we do that by assembling panels and podcasts and most importantly educational materials that bring together leading thinkers from all

. >> narrator: a supreme court face-off 30 years in the making... it is aystem that has become toxic... >> when bork got taken down they promised never to forget.po >> it was tics. and it was war. >> narrator: and behind the scenes one powerful republrean senator. >> mitch mcconnell is a tactical genius. >> ...not giving a lifetime appointment, to this president, on the way out the door...ed >> unprecedent >> democrats are outraged... >> narrator: tonight on raontline... >> we're living in the eral f the mcconnurt. >> narrator: "supreme revenge." >> frontne is masible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. and by the corporation for public broadcaing. major support is provided by the john d. and cathine t. macarthur foundation, committed to buitoing more just, verdant and peaceful world. more informaon at macfound.o. the fordoundation: working with visionaries on the efrontlines of social cha worldwide. at foroundation.org. additional support is provided by the aams foundation, mmitd to excellence in journalism. the p

but is set as now under the supreme court. a comedy you agree that the supreme court at the end of the day is not going back to the traditional governments of the executive party. and on another surprise given that there's a lot of them in immigration for a very long time. >> i think the answer is that the supreme court has a mixed record at this point on administration policies . as you already pointed out, we won the census case which was a aclu case. i should point out. and it was, the census case is an interesting counterpoint to versus ally in those cases, you had a record which showed level lower officials trying to make a rationale to justify the official action when the president was saying when he says on twitter and other public forums. so in the muslim band case, we saw really a single decision i think, cynical and that the majority opinion purported to overrule korematsu after 80+ years, around 80 years but in reaching its decision on the muslim band, reassigned korematsu in so many ways. it was undeniable and i do

supreme court now. a lot of them have more options than immigrants rights advocates do in state court, but we do have state court avenues and we've gotten a lot of interesting results in state supreme courts on detainer policy under state constitutional law, for example. or through state legislative relief as in california. that's my three-part answer. >> great, thank you. >> thank you. please introduce yourself. >> thank you. with the american friend service. my question is with regards to tps and ded. i have three questions for each of you. so, for california -- california has a large population of tps holders. i'm just wondering whatever happens with the courts or inaction or action of congress, is there a plan for the road to undocumented status? because there's families involved. like you said, it's multistatus families. for you, cecilia, i don't think aclu is litigating any of the cases -- >> they are. they are do know doing one in southern california. >> what does the road look like? is there a p

the argument would be that the last three supreme court justices to join the court were themselves supreme court law clerks. that is a relatively new trend. an ever larger number of the judges appointed to lower courts are former supreme court clerks. footnotes, justice kennedy never used footnotes. there would periodically be a footnote-sized addendum to the opinion but there were never opinion but there were never footnotes. >> i wrote an entire tribute to justice scalia that my contribution was a single word and single opinion. we have about 10 minutes left so let me raise one other big topic. i don't want to trespass the jurisdiction of the next panel, on life after clerking. i want to ask a question about the supreme court clerkship more generally. do we attach too much importance to the supreme court clerkship? does it have disproportionate cachet in our profession? the argument would be that the last three supreme court justices to join the court >> yes. there were no bonuses when i was there, by the way. >> you could have collected like $2 million for each of your many clerkships.

it went to the supreme court. oralupreme court heard arguments in 2017 and sent the case back to the district, to look at the case again in light of the supreme court's decision the same term in another related case, brought by middle eastern men who had been detained by the government after september 11 and were trying to sue various government officials. in that case, the supreme court said didn't should not be extended to a new context when there are special factors counseling hesitation. justice thomas wrote separately in that case. he said in the current and as case, thee hernandez family could not rely on dividends at all. he was joined by justice ginsburg. said they could have brought a claim under the fourth amendment and brought their case under divens. the fourth circuit ruled that ens did not apply, because it is not clear if a constitution -- and the constitution applies to a foreign citizen on foreign soil. they will say, we are securitybout national issues, the sensitivity involved at the mexican bor

supreme court. a nationwide search and came up with a spectacular choice in justice sandra day o'connor. david: when president clinton became president, you were somebody being considered and then president clinton talked to somebody pushing for your appointment, daniel patrick moynihan, and president clinton said, women don't want her. how could that have been the case when you were the leading lawyer in gender discrimination? why would women have not wanted you or some women not want you on the supreme court? jus. ginsberg: just some women. most women were overwhelmingly supportive of my nomination. but, i had written a comment on roe v. wade and it was not 100% applauding that decision. what i said was the court has an easy target because the texas law was the most extreme in the nation. abortion could be had only if necessary to save the woman's life. it does not matter that her health would be ruined, that she was the victim of rape or incest. i thought roe v. wade was an easy case and the supr

the state's argument in the supreme court and the montana case is that the supreme court that statesar cannot choose to fund lid is groups. this -- the montana supreme court struck down the whole program so nobody is getting the money anyway. the question as it comes to the court is what is the supreme court going to do it? how is it going to navigate between these two cases? to bey lutheran appeared a compromise, minimalist decision. justice gorsuch had just joined the court. last term, in a case challenging the presence of a piece cross on public land outside of washington, d.c. was also a 7-2 decision. justice alito wrote in that case that taking the cross down would actually be an act of aggressive hostility toward religion. allowing -- taking it down would not be a neutral. it would be aggressively hostile. it is a different case, but i think it says something about where the mindset of many of the justices is likely to be going in to this case. be can see that there would an majority of the justices be ready to read lock versus davey very narrowly. violate the free exercise claus

to celebrate the 100th anniversaries crautcreathing the supreme court. and we just heard a wonderful panel about experiences during the clerkship. and now we will hear one about life after the clerkships. mag. anel is joshua he is a very distinguished constitutional lawyer. and the author of important book on impeachment which he came to the national constitution center to discuss with riveting detail. recently he clerked for justice kennedy. take it away, josh. josh: thank you very much for coming. 'm joined today by julia janiskowski. he's a former general and managing director. >> i did a stint in private practice. and is now a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. she's the author of many best-selling books. if i listed them all she would be here for a while. she's the creator of a podcast, better. , -- he's now a partner and a candidate for the mayor of the city of baltimore. so thank you very much for joining. today,'re going to be discussing life after clerking. in some ways this is a strange topic because literally every clerk

>> be in the supreme court? >> for there other justices saying they were happy to see you there? o'connor was the most welcoming. >> i don't consider myself a journalist. i began to take on the life of being an interviewer even though i have the day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? >> when you went to cornell, your grades were good. you got into harvard law school. was the class half women and half men? [laughter] those ancient days, i went to law school between 1956 and 1959. 500 of us.over none of us were women. there were five women. , harvard law school, it is about 50% women. [applause] >> in your harvard law school class, you did extremely well and got onto the harvard law review and you are near the top of your class, maybe first of five in your class. when your husband needed to move to new york, you wanted to transfer to columbia law school and the dean of the harvard law school did not think that was such a great idea if you wanted to be a harvard graduate. >> yes. he said i had to spend my third year at harvard. martyason i didn't was

supreme court law clerks. the george washington law overview and the national constitution center started about 10 minutes ago. >> one thing that just struck me was that there was a component to the interview, but the result was a very personal component and what she talked about is that she really cares deeply that the clerks are civil with each other, and are good people and we'll get along with each other and with clerks for all the other chambers. she will try to screen for that. that was that, and i got a call a week later and i was obviously thrilled to say yes, and it was an amazing year. >> so, i will turn to rory little. au really did in a red -- and real sense clerk for five justices which has to be the modern record. tell about how you got hired by justice stewart, and then how you came to be the serial law clerk. many boston's we have in the crowd. if you are still looking for a job. got there through the backdoor door in the sense that i applied twice to the supreme court, two different years and

the point convening supreme court clerks to come to washington.this not just to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the institution, but the model, civil debate about the constitution, to show how people can disagree that went out being disagreeable. i've sat here with two of the greatest judges talking deeply about impeding commentary seriousness of the constitution is a rare trait. the constitution center we say is like working in constitutional heaven. back sitting here with both of you listening to your things that you've done. all that they have done to eliminate things with the constitution. please join me in thanking them. compact. [inaudible conversation] [background sounds] cspan2 campaign 2020 coverage continues. as president from post keep america great valley minneapolis, minnesota. like tonight, at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2 watch anytime on cspan.org and listen wherever you know using the free cspan2 radio app. >> former acting fbi director andrew mccabe discussed his career. his firing from the fbi and the arrearages of the russ

[inaudible conversations] one hundredth anniversary of the supreme court function. i am jeffrey rosen head of the national constitution center in philadelphia and here at gw. we are honored to convene this extraordinary group of former supreme court clerks to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the federal statute creating the clerkships we just heard a wonderful panel about experiences during the process now we will hear about life afterwards. this is a very distinguished constitutional lawyer. coming to the national constitution center to discuss. and clerking for justice kenned kennedy. >> thank you very much for coming. i am joined today the former chairman of the sec and now managing director, also clerking for justice kennedy , private practice work now a judge us court of appeals third circuit. gretchen rubin clerked for justice o'connor the author of many best-selling books. also the host of the happier podcast and an app called better and finally clerking for justice breyer his career includes time working at ausa and investigations unit in baltimore and dep

i cover the supreme court for "the washington post." thanks for coming on this crisp, fall day to hear about the supreme court. i'd like to thank the federalist society, particularly the facility division and practice groups for putting together what we think will be an interesting panel on what looks to be a very interesting term at the supreme court. after the trauma of last year's confirmation hearings, there's been a thought from those who watched the court that it went out of its way not to look partisan last term, to look for ways to bust up the ideological divide on the court in some cases and to slow walk some controversies to keep them off that year's docket. it's been well-documented that each of the conservative justices at least once joined the four liberals to make up a majority in a case. and it went the other way, too. each of the liberals at least once abandoned his or her usual voting partners and joined the conservatives in a case. harmony could be harder to find this year. here's a look at the docket so far. whether g

so what about the supreme court? i said you realize we hear 70 cases a year? those are the hardest cases in the country and the lower courts have disagreed. that's why we take cases so people in california have the same rights and freedoms under our laws as people in new york. with that circuit split 70 cases out of 50 million. think about that. and now let's deal with the 70. there are nine of us. over 25 or 30 years from all across the country we continue to be well represented. [laughter] out of those 70 cases for our resolved unanimously did you ever hear about that? 40 percent. does that happen magically? know. we cannot get nine people agree to where to go to lunch. [laughter] but yet we could manage to reach unanimity through hard work and a little bit of fun along the way and i have some good stories i could share. i will share one in a minute. but what about the others? but since the second world war the only thing that's new is nothing is new for quÉbec then president roosevelt appointed eight out of the nine justices. [laughter] we are an independen

i cover the supreme court for the washington post. thanks for coming on this crisp fall day to hear about the supreme court. i would like to thank the federalist society, in particular the faculty division. for putting together what we think will be an interesting panel on what looks to be an interesting term at the supreme court. after the trauma of last fall's confirmation hearings, there has been a thought that those who watch the court went out of its way not to look partisan last term. to look for ways to bust up the ideological divide on the court in some cases. controversieslk to keep them off that docket. been well documented that each of the conservative judges justices. it went the other way. each of the liberals at least once abandoned his or her usual voting partners and joined the conservatives. harmony could be harder to find. here's a look at the docket. whether gay or transgender workers are protected under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. whether the trump administration acted illegally in moving to end the

her case went to the supreme court and the supreme court said in forcing sex stereotypes is sex discriminationwhat this administration arguing, it is ok to enforce those sex stereotypes. if we lose this, it will be ok for them to say you are not the right kind of woman or the right kind of man, even if you're not transgender or lgbtq+. that is not the kind of america i want to live in. it is not the kind of country any of us should be living in. amy: i want to go to the protests that were taking place on sunday outside the supreme court. women rights activiststs calling for justice brett kavanaugh's removal from the bench, one year after republican senators narrowly confirmed him to the u.s. supreme court despite multltiple credidible accusatiof attempted rapepe and sexual assault. massachusetts congressmember ayanna pressley introduced a resolution last month to impeach justice kavanaugh. she told the crowd she believed kavanaugh's accusers and anita hill -- who told congress in 1991 that justice clarence thomas sexually harassed her. >> when we share our stories come our pain,n, and our stru

and at the time there were obviously no women on the supreme court. there were hardly any women in the federal judiciary. there were, i think, maybe one or two women on the supreme courts of other states. and the idea -- people, law firms were touting they were progressive when they had one woman partner among a hundred. so, what ruth had started, i still had not seen the progress being made in any significant numbers just yet. but the appointment of sandra gave me hope. it opened the door to me thinking that the progress would move faster than i had imagined. didn't move quite as fast as i had hoped. and still some steps to be taken. but it was a door opener. it was an opportunity for women to begin to see the possibility of exploring all aspects of our profession. you see, the advantage of diversity, whether it's gender or race or ethnicity, or even professional work, whatever the diversity represents, it gives people who don't otherwise think there's opportunity. it aspires them to believe there might be. so, i think seeing a woman on the court ins

created,nment had including the supreme court -- it's created, including the supreme court, began functioning in 1789. nearly 200 years later, on this justice sandra day o'connor became the 102nd and first female supreme court justice. think about that for a moment. it took nearly two centuries to put the first woman on the united states supreme court. i was privileged to be in court that day. president reagan was there, members of the cabinet, senators , representatives, justices, and members of the prussian public -- the press and public watched as a commission signed by president reagan, and the oath of office was administered by the chief justice. o'connor was escorted to the bench and took her seat. it was a special, emotional moment, and i feel emotion talking about it, but much too long in coming. justice o'connor served for 25 years on the supreme court with understandingeen of the constitution and of the american people, compassion, andght, wisdom, grace dignity. she had spent her early years on a100 98,000 acre cattle ranch in arizona. 198,000 acre cattle ranch in arizona. and she w

20 night teen term of the supreme court. yesterday the justices attended what is known as the red mass in washington, d.c. they most attended -- most of them attended together. the justices will be on the bench today. it is the opening date of the new term. frank is in portland, ohio, republican, you are on next. how come california, maryland, ndc that's to predict -- and d.c. gets to predict to the rest of the world how we live? think what the caller is referring to is there are a few cases that are some of the more prominent ones where some of the lower court rulings have emanated out of the ninth circuit, which includes the west coast and california. the fourth circuit includes the mid-atlantic region. daca case.s the the present -- president famously tried to undo the daca policy and there have been consistent rulings at the lower court level saying that the president's decision to do that was arbitrary and showed animus toward the dreamer community, but they didn't do it the right way. the supreme court is going to the

so what about the supreme court? we hear 70 cases a year. and those are the hardest cases in the country where the lower courts have disagreed on the underlying legal issues. that's we take them so people in california have the same rights and freedoms as new york and in between. that is our job to resolve the circuit split. seventy cases out of 50 million. think about that. think about the sturdiness and reliability and predictability of rule of law is incredible. of those 70, there are nine of us, not three appointed over 30 years by five different presidents from all across the country. so the boroughs of new york continue to be well represented. [laughter] out of those 70 cases 40 percent are resolved unanimously. do ever hear that? 40 percent. do you think that happens magically? we cannot even agree where to go to lunch. [laughter] that yet we can reach that through hard work and mutual respect and a little bit of fun along the way. i have fun stories i could shar share. i will share one in a minute but what about the others? first of

what does that mean and the context of a justice on the supreme court. it's a woman voice, what does it mean, what difference does it make is a sexist to say that or stereotypical to say that? >> sandra unquote, as she did many times, a minnesota supreme court justice, jeanne coin, who said, at the end of the day, a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same judgment, and i think that is true but sandra would have followed it up by saying we featuring our life experience to the table. growing up a woman is not the same is growing up a man. and you could see the difference and an opinion that justice o'connor wrote that came out at the end of a very first court. it was against mississippi university for women. it was about a man who wanted to become a nurse and the best nursing school in this area was a mississippi intercity for women. how can challenge the exclusion as a denial of equal protection and one of the justices, justice powell looked on the reservation of the nursing school as an affirmative action for women, so it was okay. but sandra

the battleground was supreme court, as it should be under the justice system. i can't help it acknowledge and remember here we are just days away from the university, the 21st anniversary of the horrific hate crime against matthew shepard. this struggle goes on. the struggle continues. today is the workplace. our fight is for justice for gerald in the workplace. that recognition will be important and another step on the path in the fight for full equality. >> clear four or five years since the case that allows gay marriage. five years. there are a lot of cases coming towards the court. this is a big one. did you have a feeling about chief justice roberts was coming down this? >> my impression was his questions were very probative. i can't tell you i have a prediction as to how he will come out on this issue. i can tell you that he was clearly very engaged in the argument. asked questions of both counsels getting to the heart of this issue. >> i want to circle back to something tom said. it's been years since matthew shepard was killed, but only a few weeks sinc

she knew that they were going to be watching her at the supreme court. and they are going to pick this up in the next panel, those early days were not easy. it's a cold place. it is marble. she would go into those courtyards, interior courtyards and turn her face up to the sun. because she missed the arizona sun. her first lunch at the court , only four justices showed up. remember the brethren of woodward and armstrong? the justices were suspicious of each other. who was the leaker? it was not that easy for her. justice powell was gracious. got her a secretary. wasice rehnquist, her pal, oddly standoffish in these early years. justice rehnquist had a terrible back condition, and i think that was a factor for him. but she was a little lonely. she knew, as jay said, it is good to be first but you do not want to be last. she knew they were watching her. she did very well. i know from a letter that justice powell wrote his family, one month in, he said she's , brilliant. she made her mark right away but it is an intimidating thing to walk into that. one oth

host: i want to touch on the supreme court. the cases that are coming up -- this is a baseline, the decision in 1973, roe v. wade protected a woman's right to abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. one of the cases coming up, fox v. planned parenthood, in kentucky, challenging the 2016 law that requires a woman to have an ultrasound and gives the hearing thetion of heartbeat and seeing the image. guest: let's be clear, ultrasounds are being performed. they are happening at abortion facilities and they should be, because without them, the facility does not know what kind of procedure to perform, whether the pregnancy is ectopic or not, and they do not know how much to charge the woman. ultrasounds are being performed. those are our medical records. speaking as a woman who has been in those shoes, who has been lying on the table getting the ultrasound and has asked to see it and been denied, i fully support this law because it is a part of our informed consent. i believe that woman -- women should have the right to see it

what did the supreme court say in it?t said, to prevail in in a cil case for libel defamation slander, a public official must show that the speaker acted with actual malice. those are key words, actual malice. and actual malice means is that the defendant speaker knew what he was writing her of what he s saying was false, or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement. what does that reckless standard has been interpreted to mean as the speaker had high degree of probability can do with a high degree of operability that what he was writing from of what hes saying was false. this is a subjective standard. this is what was in the mind of the speaker at the time he spoke. not what a reasonable person would know or reasonable person would understand based on available facts at the time. local courts have said about this actual malice standard can we heard about what justice thomas said, almost impossible. other courts have characterized it as heavy, often insurmountable burden, difficult task that extracts hi

it is not a supreme court decision. congress can investigate even if it means it's investigating what is criminal activity but , that's not a law enforcement function. a law enforcement function, you do investigations and then you bring a prosecution. >> i just have two technical questions. number one is in your brief, you say that the oversight committee has jurisdiction over the ethics in government and office. there's no citation. does that come from the rule or is that -- where did that come from? --i believe that is >> is that the generic ruling? is that 10 clause 1-n? >> yes, it's in there rule 10 jurisdiction. if you look the addendum to our brief. the --inted >> so it's just generic? or just something else? >> give me one second. >> sure. >> that goes through the oversight committee pursuant to the -- pursuant to a determination by the parliamentarian of the house that the oversight committee has jurisdiction over the ethics and government act. >> is that in the record? >> no. >> would you submit it when you can

supreme court was frontiero v.i went in the military because i needed the money. >> who says a woman has to settle for a routine job just because she's a woman? discover the united states air force, and you'll discover the world. >> i was newly out of college. this was a new job. i had just married. so it was the start of new everything. it became clear pretty quickly that the men i was working with who were married got a housing allowance, and i wasn't getting paid a housing allowance because i was a woman. i assumed it was a mistake. so i went off to the pay office to correct the mistake. you're lucky we let you in here at all. you're lucky that the air force allows you to serve. was what i heard right off the bat. it took me aback. and then i figured, well, here's one bigot. so i'll just keep asking around. and it became very clear very quickly there was no different story. so we went to see a lawyer, and i still thought it was a matter of getting a lawyer to write a letter for me. the lawyer said to me this isn

in the 1964 landmark supreme court ruling of new york times versus sullivan, the supreme court raised the burden of proof for public officials to actual malice. this standard has granted the press near blanket immunity and thus considerably expanded its powers. just as clarence thomas has recently expressed interest in revisiting the standards the court articulated in sullivan, he described that standard as, " almost impossible to satisfy." today, we take up the question implicitly raised by justice clarence thomas. do the limits placed on the press serve the common good? we have assembled a distinguished panel to discuss and debate the matter, because at the heritage foundation, we like to have debate on these difficult and contentious questions. speaking first will be my colleague, arthur milikh, who will set up a framework with which we should think about the power of the press. he is the associate director for the simon center at the heritage foundation and conducts research on america's founding principles. he also gives talks on the tenets of the american political atditions to

you can catch "freestyle love supreme" now at the booth theatre.from the 5am wakers... this is us. to the 6am sleepers. everyone uses their phone differently and in different places. that's why xfinity mobile created a wireless network that auto connects you to millions of secure wifi hot spots. and the best lte everywhere else. xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network designed to save yon save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $250 back when you buy an eligible phone. call, click, or visit a store today. aaddiction. how juuline hooked kids and ignited an public health crisis." other news outlets report- juul took $12.8 billion from big tobacco. markets e-cigarettes with kid friendly flavors and uses nicotine to addict them. 5 million kids use e-cigarettes. juul is "following big tobacco's playbook." and now, juul is pushing prop c to overturn e-cigarette protections. vote no on juul. no on b t ♪ [ cheers and applause >> jimmy: my thanks to chris colfer, lin-manuel miranda, the cast of "freestyle love supreme! [ cheers

supreme court case. looking at whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation should be allowed. the court heard oral argument today and they will release the audio of the arguments this friday. we will bring you that argument friday night in our primetime lineup here on c-span. [crowd talking] >> i saw things about president trump's leadership style i had never seen in the fbi. i saw the way that his staff and advisors would sit at attention in a small road chairs gathered in front of the resolute desk. i saw the way he tried to himpulate me into inviting to speak at the hoover building that week. reflectively he came back with references about my wife's failed political campaign in the state of virginia in 2015, and consistently referred to would -- to it as that mistake i made. aaders don't -- this was not leader who was creating an environment of trust. these were obvious efforts to coerce me into a position, to take the loyalty i had over the course of my career and shifted

the supreme court. she was arguing for cherokee land rights. she became an expert witness for native americans in subsequent trials. what i like about this portrait is how dignified she looks. she has her hair bound up in this beautiful cloth. she has her legs collar on. it really represents her as this respectable woman, because she was a suffragist and they were constantly being accused of being outside the bounds of femininity. she was actually the first woman to campaign for a presidency. i had mentioned victoria woodhall, who was the first one woman to name herself as candidate for presidency, but she could not campaign because she was serving a jail sentence. yet she had founded what was called equal rights party. this was like a democrat party and the republican party, but it was a third party ticket. the suffragists are running for president on what is called a third party ticket. it is thanks to victoria woodhall that lockwood is able to run. she is a really good example of what women could do.