the supreme court said the supreme court said in a number of severability decisions, that you must uphold. congress did know what had been done in nfib. it was aware, and congress said, ok, we are going to zero out the penalty. texas says, caught you! you just did something unconstitutional, because you left in place the individual mandate but you put the tax at zero. you just did something unconstitutional. but there's another way to read it. the other way to read it is the supreme court said, you have not done anything constant unconstitutional. you made the tax zero. everybody agrees congress has the power to do that. that simply means the choice that chief justice roberts made clear to all of us is there. i know texas is unhappy with what chief justice roberts did. they wish he had done something different. but he didn't. and that's the majority of the supreme court. and that was binding. and that was binding on the district court. >> judge elrod: if you don't believe -- obviously you don't believe that the statute changed. its changes have made that not a possible reading anymore. >>

and, the supreme court needs to hear from us.rn when we have the virginia tech tragedy, somebody tragedies ago, at that time, that was the worst gun massacre in american history. i was chairman of fairfax county and we buried six young people that we can my county, including the shooter. we thought that was the worst tragedy that was ever going to fall on us. sadly, so many names we can barely remember them since. newtown, parkland. massacreddren being in schools. you see how some people are afraid of our message. [cheering] >> but there is good news. we had elections in virginia last month. with new majorities, we're going to pass gun control in the commonwealth of virginia! where going to protect our communities. we are going to say no to the nra. now, i don't know about you. after tragedies like newtown, nra's answer was let's arm teachers. all i can think of was my algebra teacher. i can never give him a gun. teaching children. they are not in the profession of law enforcement. unbelievable streak of medicine coming out of th

the second amendment is not supreme. it's just one of the many rights and privileges laid out in the constitution. the second amendment comprises just 27 of the constitution's 7,591 words. and those words, the declaration of independence, case law and our entire system of government make it clear that our rights are not unlimited. i can't do whatever i want whenever i want, however i want, if it's going to endanger someone else. this rally is a perfect example. speaking to you today, i'm exercising my first amendment right to free speech but that doesn't mean have the right to use my time here to incite the crowd to mob violence. that will go beyond the scope of the right. the second amendment is no different. in courts, indeed, the supreme court, has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. the government has authority to pass reasonable regulations to protect our right not to be shot and uphold public safety. when i was a kid, i could hold on to the idea that i could avoid the gun violence t

but the supreme court has told all of us is the law. "shall" in this provision does not mean "must." the supreme court definitively told us "shall" does not mean "must." justice roberts knew what he was writing, when you look at the supreme court's ,ecision, a key part, page 568 chief justice roberts spoke about it. he says, there are also some people who are not going to be subject to the tax. original the statute. the question is, chief justice roberts says, we expect congress to be troubled by the prospect of making all those people outlaws. original statute. but nevertheless, chief justice roberts says the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance. the supreme court gave us the answer already. this ties in with my overall theme. theme. what the plaintiff states are asking for and what this court did is entirely inconsistent with how we know what is supposed to act. we know that courts are required statutory to give a interpretation if that is constitutio

the supreme court has told you how to do it. thatain everything you can can stand on his own and be constitutional. the supreme court has ordered you to do that. there is another option. case,single severability the very same question could come up. .upreme court cases you should draw importance from the fact that congress has not passed a new statute. the supreme court has said over and over again that is wrong. you cannot draw any means from that because the members of congress and the president might feel that the law is clear. therefore, there is no need for further legislation right now. court does with the supreme court has instructed, you will keep in place the overwhelming percentage of care. i take your point, your honor. severabilityry case has that same issue. the attorney from the department of justice and i have been friends for years. what he is arguing here makes no sense. positions --f provisions in the aca, you cannot divide them by state. into our system of drug approvals. so the fda can approve certain drugs t

supreme court justice elena kagan recently told a law school audience that the supreme court is not partisanspite the current political climate. johnelivered the annual paul stevens lecture at the university of colorado loss goal -- university colorado law school in boulder and answered student questions. the john paul stevens lecture is named for another supreme court justice. justice stevens regrettably passed away just a few months ago and this lecture series is a tribute to his exemplary and courageous service on the bench and stature at as one of the gems of american justice. tobring distinguished jurors contribute to the life of our community. we are fortunate to have welcomed andre

i's.d dotted the ata case will be argued supreme court this term.heresident obama did have power under the immigration statutes to provide temporary status and work authorization to people brought here illegally as children, which policy i support by the way, but if he had that power already, that immigration law is too broad and unconstitutional. monday filing a brief on on behalf of supporters of daca type ologies supporting it as a matter of policy but not as law. these issues crop up. sometimes it is technical. if the supreme court makes waves, it will probably be on a technical thing like gandhi with sex offenders -- gundy with sex offenders. these issues are all around us. >> thank you for participating. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. on sunday, 2020 democratic candidate joe biden holds a town hall in new hampshire. watch live on c-span, online at www.c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> my name is adam cook. winner and i am here to encourage you to continue to wrap up the competition as the deadline

the supreme court be doing and how much power should the supreme court have and should the supreme courtbe kind of exercising sort of a general veto over all sorts of legislation, which they do because it turns out and justices on both sides are responsible for this, you can make a puzzle constitutional argument that almost any form of legislation by late something in the constitution. it doesn't have to be written down. shall be county voting rights act section four was unconstitutional because of the principle of equal sovereignty which is it written down in the constitution, but you get smart folks together and they come up with good arguments. i think we need to have a very serious conversation about whether we actually want a group of unelected people to have that kind of power and whether there are any kind of constraints we can put in the power, i mean, right now i think a big problem is a huge amount of our debate about the membership that's really a proxy battle about abortion because we know that it matters a lot. other issues, also. we have to figure out is that the right inst

kennedy of the supreme court of the united states. from 1995 to 2005, he was in private practice, and from the 2005 to 2006 he was the principal deputy associate general attorney general at the department of justice. he was appointed to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit in 2006. he served on the standing committee on rules and practice and procedure of the u.s. judicial conference in the chamber and advisory committee on rules of the appellate procedure. he taught at the university of colorado law school and president donald trump nominated him as the associate justice of the supreme court, and took his seat on april 10, 2017. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the honorable neil magill gorsuch, associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. [applause] justice gorsuch: david, thank you. david: it's wonderful to have you back. we are here just after you were seated in may of 2017 to swear in the 150 national counterintelligence and security center staff in the rotunda . nice to have you back with

. >> the supreme court heard arguments today over new york state gun owner licenses. one license limited how gun owners could use guns kept in their homes. that license was repealed. but gun owners went ahead with their legal challenge of the law. attorneys and advocates spoke outside the nation's highest court after arguments were completed. >> i represented the petitioners in the supreme court today. i don't know if there'll be questions from anybody but i wanted to say that we're gratified that the supreme court heard the argument in today's case. this is a very important case. my clients have been litigating this case for over five years. they've been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. brian stapleton has been representing them if the very beginning of this litigation. and the reason they filed this lawsuit five years ago was to try to vindicate their rights under the second amendment. up until the point that the supreme court granted certiorari in this case, the city of new york resisted their efforts to vindicate their right at every turn and

. >> i represented the petitioners in the supreme considerate today. yop if there'll be questions from anybody but i wanted to say that we're gratified that the supreme court heard the argument in today's case. this is a very important case. my clients have been litigating this case for over five years. they've been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. brian stapleton has been representing them if the very beginning of this litigation. and the reason they filed this lawsuit five years ago was to try to vindicate their rights under the second amendment. up until the point that the supreme court granted certiorari in this case, the city of new york resisted their efforts to vindicate their right at every turn and only when the supreme court granted certiorari petition in this case did the city start to take efforts to try to recognize their rights. the court asked a lot of questions today about those continuing efforts by the city to try to make this case go away but they also asked very important questions about the merits that made cle

it went to the supreme court, and the supreme court ruled in favor of the fdc. you will see challenges to the anti-licensing boards, particularly the ones comprised of private actors. i am not an antitrust lawyer, but it could end up being helpful. allen: we have time for one last question. >> i was wondering if you ever consider joining a consumer group. were in that -- you are interfering with having my right to have my hair braided by whom i want. have you ever considered joining a group like that? justin: we have. there have been quite a few of our cases where one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer, and that is not just in such -- that is not just true for licensing cases, it is true for economic liberty and free speech cases where the person who wants to buy the service or the person who wants to hear the speech, they are being harmed, too. i really think adding them as plaintiffs is helpful to really show the court how ridiculous the government logic is. the government loves to get on its high horse about how they are protecting the public, but

tonight it's a book of the supreme court. it seems supreme court justice recount her life and time on the high court. the federal smalley hemingway and judicial crisis examine the confirmation supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. and legal analysts and supreme court biographer joan bis cubic profiles chief justice brought john roberts. check your program guide for more information. now, first up tonight supreme court justice kneeled gorgeous reflects on his career and offers his thoughts on judiciary and the u.s. constitution. >> plays and gentlemen please welcome supreme court justice kneeled gorgeous and. ryan. [applause] >> good evening everyone, my name is john and i have the honor of being the executive director of the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute. thank you all for coming this evening. if you would, and honor of our men and women in uniform who protect our freedoms around the world, please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of ame

one of the docket cases that daca cases that will be argued at supreme court this term.f president obama did have the power under the immigration statutes to provide temporary status and work authorization to people brought here illegally as children, which policy i support by the way, but if he had that power already, that immigration law is too broad and unconstitutional. cato is filing a brief on monday on behalf of supporters of daca type policies, supporting it as a matter of policy but not as law. because the executive power simply is not so broad. these issues crop up. sometimes it is technical. if the supreme court makes waves, it will probably be on a technical thing like gandhi with -- gundy with sex offenders. werkheiser with veterans benefits -- or kaiser with veterans benefits. these issues are all around us. saagar: thank you for participating. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] saagar: tha

supreme court for more than 30 years. she's a regular contributor to the supreme court in ... to the news hour and she has written for publications such as though, ms. magazine and the roberts court. make sure anything that makes noise like cell phones or switched off and now please join me in welcoming our guests this evening. thank you. [applause] good evening. it's wonderful to be back with all of you tonight and especially wonderful to be here with my friends, my colleague, supreme court watcher as i am to talk about jones terrific new book about the chief justice of the united states john roberts junior. i'm going to start tonight by giving all of us a sense of john roberts the man before we talk about john roberts the justice on the supreme court. so, i want to start with a letter that you had reprinted in your book and this is a letter john roberts roa wrote when he s 13-years-old to the head of an all male catholic high school he wanted to attend. it was started the main reason i would like to attend is to get a better education. i've always wanted to stay ahead of the

justice to the supreme library. when david and dara not just a sports on the link ronald reagan, in 1993, and a4, served as a clerk to supreme court justice anthony kennedy was president reagan's third and final appointment to the high court. twenty-three years later, justice courses becomes the first quote to serve alongside his former boss, as a fellow supreme court justice. dave and i will taking notes. >> for this lineage, today supreme court reflects the reagan legacy. there was secret what president reagan wanted that legacy to be. america's quote he said, should interpret the law, not make it. and the role of supreme court in his view, was to make sure the principles of law are based on the constitution. justice news new book is the practically a user news manual for the faithful interpretation of our constitution. social wake-up call. about woman at risk if we stray is it too far from our constitutional principles. the title of his book is in republic, if you can keep it. that phrase is how benjamin frank li

so it went to the supreme court. this case is important because of the impact a decision would mean either way. if you tear down and say this is unconstitutional, this bladensburg peace cross up for almost 100 years, only two miles away from this is arlington national cemetery. you would have to go into arlington and take down the large freestanding crosses in arlington. in fact, you would have to go into every community of every state of our country where there are religious symbols, stars of david, crosses throughout the landscapes. there would be a religious cleansing i think most americans could not conceive of. so we argued at the supreme court that there is no way that this is a violation of the establishment clause. in fact, we argued there is a case that we shouldn't even be here. the reason we are here is not because of what the constitution says, but because of the 50-year-old lemon case, aptly named, then has been applied to attack all kinds of religious symbols, religious history and traditions of our cou

the supreme court is looking at three cases here. case they excepted is predicated on the manhattan district attorney's cyrus vance jr. wants to get information from the trumpet information and the presidents accounting firm in regard to the payments to the stormy daniels and karen mcdougall during the election campaign. the federal district court in manhattan rejected the petition by the trump organization and of the president to say that they made its way to the second circuit court of appeals. it sided with the federal district court but now the supreme court is going to take that up. it's likely that they will take a cup of companion cases as well involving the house oversight committee as well as the financial committee in the house and the intelligence committee. they are all looking into various aspects of president trump's financial dealings with the trump organization. one of the committees wants information from his three oldest children, yvon cook, don jr., and eric as well. the central case is a manhattan district attorne

and violence nationwide and more demonstrations have broken out in new delhi after that decision supreme court judges want to get more details about the legislation from the government before considering petitions well the law makes it easier for norma's them so much gonna stand bangladesh and pakistan to gave indian citizenship critics say that's blatant discrimination by a government they accuse of driving a hindu nationalists agenda well 4 people have been killed in demonstrations that have spiraled out of control since. the law was introduced despite this prime minister narendra modi is refusing to back down well jazeera says so rahman spoke exclusively with supreme court senior advocate in new delhi he's representing student protesters who say they were beaten by the police. the focus of the country's attention has been on a university in the capital that saw a great deal of violence on sunday as police fought with students and civil society over the issue of the citizen ship amendment act the complaints made by the public have now come to the supreme court and joining me now is cal

supreme court justice neil gorsuch.e discusses the judicial branch " a republic,ok if you can keep it." this is just over one hour. >> good evening. welcome to the theater here at the national archives. i am the archivist of the united states. i am pleased you could join us for tonight's program. whether you are here in the theater or joining us via facebook or youtube. a special welcome to our c-span audience this evening. tomorrow is constitution day. in 1787ating that day with the delegates of the constitutional convention signed the document establishing a new government for the united states of america. at the national archives we have celebrated constitution day since 1956. four years after installing the original parchment document in its place of honor in the rotunda. over the decades we have celebrated the constitution in many ways. tomorrow we host one of my favorite events -- naturalization ceremony for new citizens. always a moving experience to witness people from all parts of the world stand in front of th

they join three other justices on the supreme court who all consider themselves constitutionalists.heythat means is that believe the constitution, the structure at least of the constitution, should be preserved at all costs. so i think as we approach the next couple of years, when cases will start come to the court where the issue of nondelegation can be considered by the justices, we have a good shot here that the nondelegation doctrine will be restored. what does that do? if a law isngress, declared invalid because it is delegating authority to the executive branch, it forces congress to go back and reconsider that law, and make the big decisions in that law itself. that is what this book is about. ilya, opening remarks and then we will get to questions. i want to talk about two cases from this past term of the supreme court that show both sides of the same coin, and the pushback against the administrative state. i want to thank the steamboat institute, jennifer schubert- akin and the staff here. this is a great organization and i'm delighted to have the first opportunity to speak

think this coming supreme court term is going to be one of the most interesting supreme court -- terms history so stay tuned. thank you guys all so much. [applause] >> copies of words book are available for signing. please help the staff by folding up your chairs. thank you. i started picking it up in my interviews even before i chose justice roberts as a subject that emerged in the research i was doing with justice sotomayor and the more approved the more i found allison -- elements frankly why he sets himself above the others as you read in that letter and i didn't know how much to make of it so i mention it at little points in the book is that i end up saying is it doesn't really affect the law in the end. it i'd affect how they navigate changes in who picks up the phone to work on a compromise, who might feel like hacking off if the chief might not want it. in the end it's more human dynamic element than something that affects the law we all lived under. generally speaking there is a terrible morning after effect following the great society binge. the economy began to flail as it n

for the supreme court. ginsburg see justice in the questions that she asked, you could see that she had a picture in her head of what this was like and what it would feel like if you are that 13-year-old girl, but she was really the only one. some of the men on the court were not having their finest hour. they were sort of joking and just sort of not appreciating what this would have seemed like to a 13-year-old girl. there was a lot of commentary on it at the time, all deserved, i think. but then they went back into the conference room, and i don't know what happened there, and they came out, and justice ginsburg's view which that it searchunconstitutional prevailed by an extremely lopsided vote. so in the end, she was able to convince people that this was a serious matter, even if they were kind of ha ha-ing on the bench. findsaid before, you can people of all different kinds of views who were women, who were african-american, who were hispanic. i think the more important reason to have diversity on the b

the alabama supreme court disagreed and we lost. overall, we tend to win these cases more often then we lose. the federalin under rational basis test. maybe we will win one in alabama as well. sometimes there is no reason to think state constitution will provide any more protection in the federal constitution. other times, it is clear there get not be any way we can the case into the first amendment or another part of the federal constitution. we are left with nothing but the federal rational basis test. winning a federal rational basis test is the most difficult thing to do in constitutional law. for about half a century, it never happened and people thought it could not be done. we have been winning them but it is extremely difficult. in order to illustrate the progress we have made and how difficult it remains, i would like to talk about a line of three cases we brought. they involved the same type of law. involved the sale of caskets. don'td, when you die, you have to be buried if you do not want to be. if you do, you do not hav

you are clerking for thurgood marshall on the supreme court. and then it is jumping to teach at the university of chicago. i think i'll become the dean and then supreme court justice. >> you skipped a few too. (laughs) i couldn't keep a job, really. every four years, i was off doing something else. i'm looking forward to keeping this for a while. (laughs) (applause) >> it looks like a dream life. i'm interested in the times you failed. can you tell us about those and how you deal with disappointment? >> you look at my resume and you see all the jobs i got. you don't see all the jobs i didn't get. for every job i got, there were two that i didn't get. starting from law school. loss goal, i did very badly my first semester. i thought, law school has finally outed me for the fraud that i've always been. it wasn't true. i turned myself around and figured it out. there's nobody who has, there's nobody maybe somebody i have flitted around a lot. some people, it's more like i'm going to do one thing and get one job and try to be purchased perfect. i w

alabama supreme court. a teeth whitening license. we argued the precedent was different than the federal president. unfortunately, theal lamb supreme court disagreed and we lost. overall, we tend to win these cases more often then we lose. we tend to win under the federal rational basis test. may someday we will win one in alabama as well. those are the first two types of challenges that we bring. sometimes, there is reason to think a state constitution will provide any more protection in the federal constitution. other times, it is clear there will not be any way we can get the case into the first amendment or another part of the federal constitution. we are left with nothing but the federal rational basis test. winning a federal rational basis test is the most difficult thing to do in constitutional law. pointed out, for about half a century, it never happened and people thought it could not be done. we have been winning them but it is extremely difficult. in order to illustrate the progress we have made and how remains to win, i w

the supreme court arguments are set for march with a likely ruling in june. first up, impeachment set to take place next week. making an entrance to hail to the chief donald trump thursday night greeted members of congress at the white house. >> we are having a very exciting month in washington dc. there haven't been too many like it. >> holiday cheer contrasted with the contentious judiciary hearing happening at the exact same time. >> we must impeach donald j trump. >> this is got to stop before it goes further. >> the committee adjourned. >> reporter: they voted on party lines to move impeachment of the fool house of representatives. >> the third time in a little over a century and a half the house judiciary committee voted articles of impeachment against the president. >> reporter: nancy pelosi remains confident she has the votes to reach the threshold for impeachment but there are several democrats who have not announced their intentions. aqueous reports a handful of democrats attended the white house holiday party thursday night, indicating how some mig

india supreme court considers hearing a petition from university students against the police crackdown during the citizenship law protests. over the crisis deepens the bowings production of the 737 max is suspended from january after 2 fatal crashes and colombians angry over tax reforms they say only benefit the rich. the breaking news out of pakistan this hour is the former president pervez musharraf sentenced to death in connection with a treason case musharraf was in office for $999.00 to 2008 after seizing power in a military coup this case relates to the nationwide emergency he imposed after suspending the constitution in november of 2007 we've got come out harder on the line from islamabad for more on this just take us through the the court process today. well that particular work day was already created and was due to be announced and then by. the pakistani government led by imran khan prime minister for the further mind of the announcement. the core. of the high court to create a church be cared for and today went back announcement was made it was a work day $2.00 to $1.00 they

if the supreme court lets that louisiana t.r.a.p.aw stand, the one that's basically identical to the t.r.a.p. law the court threw out in 2016, the one that closed all those clinics in texas, if the new conservative majority in the supreme court lets the louisiana law stand, here are the places where that kind of law would likely shut down the last clinic in the state. that's a reality we could be living next year. again, the court is set to hear the louisiana case next year and rule by june. and that's what julie burkhardt is planning for right now. the mission of the foundation that julie created in dr. tiller's honor in the clinic is trust women. that's something dr. tiller used to always say. it's how he became an abortion provider himself. the mission of trust women which hangs all the walls in both clinics is, quote, trust women opens clinics that provide abortion care in underserved communities so that all women can make their own decision about their health care. there are more underserved communities julie burkhardt has her e

supreme court.'s bring in former discipline attorney general harry litman and former federal prosecutor robert ray. the headline the supreme court is about to tell us how willing it is to protect donald trump. a decision for trump could give the president broad new immunities from oversight that extend far beyond this one case. and: robert, i will start with you, the lower courts have not been with the president. he is hoping all of this will head to the supreme court and hand him a decision in the middle of a presidential election year that will block his records. how do you think the justices will tackle this? >> it will be a significant decision and probably the most significant decision on presidential power since jones versus clinton in connection with the matters that led to bill clinton's impeachment. it raises issues involving the president's tax returns and other financial documents. there are two different subpoenas and the 3rd case involves the district attorney in manhattan using a grand

supreme court justice elena kagan recently told a law school audience that the supreme court is not partisan, despite the current political climate. johnelivered the annual paul stevens lecture at the university of colorado loss goal -- university colorado law school in boulder and answered student questions. the john paul stevens lecture is named for another supreme court justice. justice stevens regrettably passed away just a few months ago and this lecture series is a tribute to his exemplary and courageous service on the bench and stature at as one of the gems of american justice. tobring distinguished jurors contribute to the life of our community. we are fortunate to have welcomed and free vs years several outstanding dodges and including a number of u.s. prima court justices who have enriched our community with. provoking -- we are fortunate to have welcomed several outstanding judges including a number of u.s. approval for justice who have enriched our community with thought-provoking speeches. valueeavors to guard the and architecture of liberty, equality, and solidarity found in th

and the supreme court correspondent for the washington post and usa today. she is also a surprise finalist and books on author sandra day o'connor and in tone and scully and sonja sotomayor. release book is robert jeffress and as i said, it is available for purchase. we are also very pleased indeed to welcome jared kushner back to new york historical. she is the chief washington correspondent for national law journal and covered the us supreme court for 130 years and is a regular contributor to the newshour and she has written for publications like vogue, ms. magazine and the new york times and is the author of the roberts court, and hours before we begin i would like to make sure anything that makes noise like a cell phone is shut off. thank you for welcome at our guests this evening, thank you. [applause] >> it is wonderful to be back with all of you tonight and wonderful to be here with my friend, my colleague, my supreme court watcher as i am to talk about joan's terrific new book about the chief justice of the united states, john roberts junior. i want

process rage against india's contentious new citizenship law the supreme court the sperms hearing a challenge to the legislature. hello them chilling with all this is al jazeera live from doha also coming up we're hours away from u.s. president trump's impeachment vote a move he calls quote an attempted coup against. or tanks and fighters arrive on the frontlines of what's described as the final battle for libya's capital. happy reunions 1st some who've returned to burundi after fleeing political violence but not everyone is convinced it's safe. their warm welcome to the program india's top court has postponed hearings on a new citizenship law that's provoked protest and violence nationwide supreme court judges want to get more details about the legislation from the government before considering petitions where the law makes it easier for non muslims from afghanistan bangladesh and pakistan to gain indian citizenship critics say that's related to discrimination by a government they accuse of driving a hindu nationalist agenda 4 people have been killed in demonstrations that have spiraled out

i think this coming supreme court will be one of the most interesting supreme court terms in historyo stay tuned. thank you all so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] here's a look at some of the most notable books of the 2019 according to amazon. a history of september 11, 2001 through over 500 interviews with those directly affected by the offense of the day and the only plane in the sky. journalist stephanie lynn reports on the working poor. in dreams of el dorado, historian h.w. brands traces the settling of the american west. casey recounts harper lee's attempt to write a true crime book in furious hours. in super pump, new york times technology correspondent mike isaac examines the rise of uber. >> i think it's really about the state of tech right now and where we are with technology coverage, with how we view tech impacts on the world. probably from late 90s through up until a few years ago, tech coverage, tech reporting was largely revering the young founders and hoodies that are coding the next billion-dollar app. this mythology around youtube, there's a very popular

if the supreme court lets that louisiana t.r.a.p.the one that's basically identical to the t.r.a.p. law the court threw out in 2016, the one that closed all those clinics in texas, if the new conservative majority in the supreme court lets the louisiana law stand, here are the places where that kind of law would likely shut down the last clinic in the state. that's a reality we could be living next year. again, the court is set to hear the louisiana case next year and rule by june. and that's what julie burkhardt is planning for right now. the mission of the foundation that julie created in dr. tiller's honor in the clinic is trust women. that's something dr. tiller used to always say. it's how he became an abortion provider himself. the mission of trust women which hangs all the walls in both clinics is, quote, trust women opens clinics that provide abortion care in underserved communities so that all women can make their own decision about their health care. there are more underserved communities julie the anti-abor activists, but

also here raman is outside the supreme court in new delhi hi there so so the supreme court have decided that they're not going to deal with looking at this further quite yet that's right julie basically the supreme court which is behind me right now was listening to petitions from the state of asylum in the northeast of the country they too heard wanted the supreme court the freeman bench chaired by the chief justice of india. day to understand that they were not happy with the legislation that was passed in parliament but what the supreme court has done it's very much procedure the government can pass as many laws as it wants but procedurally what happens next is that the government have to frame a set of rules that's the legal terminology once those rules are actually written only then can the supreme court assess whether the rules themselves are within the parameters of the constitution and within the spirit of the constitution so what the supreme court here in india has said to the government is that we want your set of rules as you see them regarding the citizenship amendment act t

and i don't supreme expect the supreme court to hear the case. i think that subpoena will stand.he question is then, what does it do to the other witnesses were in the shadows? people like john bolton, mike pompeo. all those folks. will they now have to testify in subpoenas? if so, that scrambles the impeachment calendar. we've been looking at something very fast with a vote in the house of representatives to impeach by the end of this month or by the holidays, december 18 or so. but if that unfolds, it could, the house might say hey, we want to wait and get more information. ultimately, some things will go to the senate. whether it comes with all of the information or with mueller allegations or just limit it to ukraine remains to be seen. when that happens, there will be a time, mitch mcconnell has said he will follow senate rules which require this. if at that time, public opinion will start to shift. i think right now, this is often the fact and gathering stage but you will see the president on trial in solemn proceeding in the senate and the question will be asked, do you th

we are in the indiana supreme court. this is one of the oldest state supreme courts still in regular use. many states have a newer judicial building. this is the 1888 supreme court. most of the furniture has been here since opening day in 1888. all of that cabinetry, there. this room is still well used the indiana supreme court. a common question is where is the jury box. this is not a trial court room, there is no jury box, there is no witness stand. basically what we have our oral arguments. we have attorneys arguing that one of the indiana courts made a mistake and they are asking the justices to rectify the mistake. they are filing an appeal with the court. the public is invited to sit here in these chairs and watch, and it is streamed online at indiana.gov. the building still houses all three branches of government, the government offices here, all the executives are here, the legislative branch is here and the judicial branch and the building stands for the democracy that we have here in the solid pillars, the soli