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 a

to the ninth circuit, perhaps not shockingly stuck to his guns and perhaps not shockingly the supreme court to the case up again now that it's full strength and perhaps not shockingly the court reverses the ninth circuit five before. grabbing more headlines, the labor union first amendment issue is back in the form of the janus case and so the court did not waste too much time getting that case back on its docket and within the next couple of months we'll see what the court does with that case. there's a lot of speculation the corporal overrule in a five to four decision. the last thing that explains the docket and i'll talk more about this more about the sentiment is the notion the notion there was some pent-up demand on the part of the justice but also litigators. some of the cases the court may have been shying away from when they did not want to take certain cases only to divide. so the court has lost no time in putting some very high profile important cases on its docket and i'll talk about a couple of them in a minute. before i do, and i don't want to sort of cheered on treasure chang

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

california supreme court, let's take this case. ere are similar ways to do that in the federal court system. but in cases of extraordinary importance, this issue could be heard right away. that is what the california supreme court did. susan: a 6-1 decision in favor of bakke. randy: right. and they couldn't do it fast enough before the person graduated and they knew the supreme court was prepared to hear a case like this. they said, let's get a move on. susan: the headline from that supreme court decision in california, but then the school continued to pursue it. this was how important the policy was. talk about the jump from the california supreme court to the u.s. supreme court. neal: 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

launchf all, before the of a supreme court, i want you to know the 10 topics -- foundations, federalism, public opinion, participation, lyrical interest groups,roug congress, president, and court. those are the big tent. the entire test covers those 10 topics. i would break them down. sleeve of the exam when i get the booklet and ask myself -- is this a foundations question or a federalism question? is a campaign question or a congress question? supreme court cases, this is throwing the dark at the target. we really don't know. -- marbury favorites versus madison, judicial review. ccullough. v.my: maryland. more recently, let's not forget those privacy cases, rowe and griswold. i know you don't like this one, v. new york in 1925 is the first elected interpretation case where the united states supreme court, little by little, applied the provision of the bill of rights to the state using the due process clause of the 14th amendment. guest: if i can add a couple of supreme court cases -- brown v. the board of education, where the supreme court uses the protection cause of the 14th amendme

theuestion is -- what is difference of the of the hundreds of the supreme court to operate in the given 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 fo

in 1978 the supreme court issued their first opinion on this issue. the court's complex decision, the program was declared up constitutional while the concept overall was deemed legal. it left the court and the country wrangle fog de -- wrangling for decades on affirmative action. both of them teach at georgetown. let me introduce them to you. he was a former acting general. he argued 13 cases and 37 cases on the court overall. he is today a partner at the law firm in d.c. barnett is also director of georgetown's center for the constitution argued one important case before the supreme court. and is the author of our republican constitution securing the liberty and sovereignty of we the people published in 2016. in that newscast we heard two views of affirmative action. its execution and its value for our society. what are your views? >> i think that this case was a landmark case. it set the agenda we live in today. all the talk that we have heard about diversity, everyone who has grown up the last 34 years have heard about diversity and -- on end. it n

today, the supreme court agreed. n: going back to that question about the court being influenced by public sentiment. what do you have to add? kent: the polling might have had some influence, particularly the sharp jump in support after the furman decision. i think it was more the legislative reaction than it was the polling. the next bit by 35 legislatures and congress in four years is a tidal wave of legislative expression. if were going to talk about what is unusual, and the court indicated in the opinion that this powerful legislative reaction is almost a trump card against the argument. that this is somehow contrary to the views of the american people and our contemporary moral standards. if you don't look to our moral standards, which you look -- where do you look? i think that was the primary influence. susan: before we go, what is the significance of the court issuing a plurality? does it happen very often? carol: it does happen. sometimes it is hard to get five justices to agree with the reasoning of a judgme

from the supreme court, here is abc's bill zimmerman. >> a dramatic forum. f justice warren burger reading the 6-3 decision among which he was among the dissenters. any system of prior restraint of expression comes to this court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. susan: here's how some of the decisions turned out. there were nine different opinions, really. six concurrences. three dissents. we are going to go through a couple of the texts of the decisions opinions. any system of prior restraint of expression comes to this court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional the -- validity. the government thus carries a heavy burden showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. the district court held that the government had not met the burden, we agree. then we had a question about justice black. here's some of what he said. paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreig

the supreme court said, in the state wants to it can require all of the individuals who are working in that public field, say at a public school, to pay agency fees to support those activities. the court said those fees are the union's go to broader political activities of those fees cannot go to the i want you to vote for this bill or lobby your local council member or anything like that. the agency fees only cover the cost of negotiation. system and about 25 states come the states that are not right to work states. centcom if you are a teacher or firefighters, you can pay full fees. if you don't like them, you can just a agency fees. this phase will only go to subsidize the cost of your union negotiating on your behalf. a great balance was struck. it was not controversial until replacedamuel alito justice sandra day o'connor on the supreme court. atimmediately took aim abood. his theory is everything i union political and when you are required to subsidize substitute on your behalf, your first amendment right has been violated. radicalan extremely theory. this takes the concept of fr

the supreme court has considered many on the death penalty. what is it about gregg v georgia that makes this a landmark case?>> the court squarely confronted the question of whether the death penalty per se is constitutional or not. most cases have involved particular procedures, particular statutes, but this did squarely grapple with the fundamental question of the constitutionality of the death penalty.>> what else should we know? >> 4 years previously the supreme court struck down capital punishment as it was then practiced in the united states so it abolished capital punishment and had the court not backtracked and reinstated the american death penalty, the united states would have abolished the death penalty roughly on the timeframe of our western democratic peers. the united states is the only country in the world that still has the death penalty, the only western democracy, and we would not be in that situation had the decision not been overturned. >> we are spending time learning about the constitution and there are three amendments tha

. >> three of the most important cases in the supreme court term. masterpiece cake shop, the colorado civil rights commission and. [inaudible] these cases which have been heard by the court and will be decided by the end of june may seem desperate but they are all tied together by a web of dark money. before we jump into the cases themselves, let me paint the backdrop. last week, reporter robert mcguire traced a mysterious 1 million-dollar gift to president trump's inauguration back to a shell corporation connected to conservative legal activists leonard leo. he spent the last year end a half help pick the administration nominees to lifetime seats on the bench. but back to the shell corporation. it received more than $700,000 in payments from the wellspring committee, secretive nonprofit with only three employees and no public facing operations. the wellspring committee has provided tens of millions of dollars to the judicial crisis network and organization that spent millions opposing president obama's nominees for the bench and now million supporti

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

the supreme court ruled against them but and post stricter guidelines for states wishing to impose the death penalty. against thegued death penalty in a number of cases against the court. she was a former clerk of thurgood marshall. -- the legal director advocating in favor of capital punishment and a more moving criminal justice system. monday atmark cases 9:00 eastern on c-span and join the conversation. #landmarkcases. follow us on c-span. we have resources on our website for background on each case,a link to the national constitution center's interactive constitution and the landmark cases podcast -- background on each case, the national constitution center's interactive constitution and the landmark cases podcast. larsen. they are here for our cram for the exam series that we do every students prepare to take their u.s. government ap exams coming up this week. i remember the ap time, so this is a very special episode. adaline eom the stevenson high school, a teacher in illinois, and daniel is ,lso from stevenson high school and they are here to questions from students only this ho

you are talking to nine different supreme court's. it is not one supreme court.oyd said, what he had to do was be mindful of the fact that he had a certain number of votes goinge was probably not to lose. he had a certain number of votes he was probably not going to win. and justice stewart and justice white with the two he needed. he needed one of the two or both of the two, if he could, to win the case. -- and for was doing 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 presented 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 for obj by the position and president nixon kept him on. let's -- lbj for the position and president nixon kept him on. of thepresentation material specified in my brief well, as i've tried to argue affect th

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

it would be very reassuring to me, as a lawyer, as somebody who has argued before the supreme court, as somebody who has argued in appellate courts pretty much my entire life that the court would actually say, you know what? he's got a point. this is not right. this doesn't look like real litigation. this will hurt the reputation the court. and we don't need to go there in this case. let's wait for one that looks like a real case coming up our way. based on the track record of the 5 to 4 decisions of this court, i think that i am living in a dream world. i hope that that dream world comes to pass. but i think there's very little likelihood. i see a court that as soon as it's given the opportunity to deliver a victory for one of those interests will overlook virtually any conservative legal principle, virtually any concern about the travel of the case, and in many cases some appellate principles in order to get there and deliver the goods. very very unfortunate. it's a shame. >> dark money, the message of dark money, also a very smart in other ways, in where they see areas where there'

today, we are going to be discussing three of the most important cases in the current supreme court term. masterpiece cake shop v the colorado commission and others. these cases, which have been heard by the court and will be decided by the end of june may seem disparate that they are tied together by a web of dark money. paint the backdrop. , a reporter traced a mysterious one million-dollar gift to president trump's inauguration to a shell corporation connected to a conservative legal activist, leonard leo. theas helped picked administrative nominees to life appointments on the bench. but back to the shell corporation. they received $2 million from a shell corporation with only three employees and no --.ic-facing sources say leonard liotta is directly involved in raising secret money used to pressure senators. why would these are anonymous conservative donors and activist spend tens of millions of dollars to get a judge on the bench? this administration is not looking for fair or impartial judges are nominees. they're looking for judges who will implement an agenda from the bench frien

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

you saw them in some of the opinions before he joined the supreme court. i think you do see as you saw with the opinion on our deference, you do see some circuit court judge is making concerns about this issue felt. using opinions from judge ted deutch also on the same issue another judges out there on the circuits. i dare say as we move forward we continue to increasingly look at this question and i won't say rain in because i'm not sure there's an opportunity yet to do that. but i do think this also demonstrates the impact another potential nomination may have if there is another one during this presidency to have on that question in the just unbelievable role administrative agencies played today in our daily lives and the immense amount of power they have. in a lot of cases you see where the administrative agencies unelected aircraft are the judge, jury and execution comes to the legal rights of americans property rights or the like. >> do you have any thoughts on that question? >> well, i think jamil certainly right that deference to agencies is one of

is almost every nominee to the supreme court now comes from the lower courts. one can argue there is a very important shift in sort of the background or experience and training of people that are not on the supreme court. we do not have significant political figures for significant intellectual leaders etc. that seems right and so, how does that relate to eisenhower was judgment about the kind of person -- >> you can glean eisenhower. he was very disillusioned with earl warren. after he was on the court as chief justice because he wasn't the moderate republican that eisenhower thought he was appointing. and so, after he appointed earl warren, who had no judicial experience, every other appointee had lower court experience. parlin, brennan, whitaker, stewart. ... >> we talked a little bit about warren and how you said he went through a major change, et cetera. eisenhower seemed to have changed less and had a -- a very back and forth uneven relationship with brown and desegregation, et cetera so that it at least i find it harder to pin down a clear view of eisenh

susan: we will listen to a portion of alexander bickle's arguments before the supreme court. let me give you a hypothetical case. but us assume that one of the members of the court go back and record --is field sealed record. we find there is something there that absolutely convinces us that its disclosure would result in the sentencing to death of a hundred young men whose only offense had been that they were 19 years old and had low draft numbers. what should we do? justice, i wish there were a statute. that element of might attentive destination -- definition, which is the chain of migration -- threat is not a national . there is at least 25 americans killed in vietnam every week these days. >> i meant it is a case in which a chain of causation in the act of publication and the death of these hundred young men is obvious, direct, immediate. that in a casey in which, in the absence of a statute, i suppose, most of us would say -- >> you would say the constitution requires that it be published. >> no, i am afraid the inclinations of humanity have overcome an abstract devotion

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

we have the book available for purchase here and at the supreme court gift shop. memory --ve a great gregory max to moderate today's program. in the past month, he has received his judicial commission as a judge in the state court of appeals for the armed forces. a law clerk for justice thomas in 1991 and before that to justice anthony kennedy. please help me in welcoming justice thomas and gregory -- and justice mags. [applause] >> thank you. >> do you feel comfortable, justice? >> no. this is not the most suitable position for introverts. we like to be in the shadows someplace. it was just find back there. you all don't have anything to do? my goodness. i'm sorry you guys are all dragging yourselves out on this day. >> it is the 10th anniversary of the publication of your book, my grandfather's son. >> i had forgotten about that. i thought i would start by asking you a few questions about the book. maggs now.re judge >> for about a week. >> i think that is great. [applause] [laughter] just changing the subject. [laughter] >> you start out the book when you are ni

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 as our distinguished guest the 105th justice of the supreme court of the united states, the honorable clarence thomas, who has served on the court since 1991. 10 years ago justice thomas published his best selling autobiography, "my grandfather's son." that book shared, in the justice's own words, his remarkable own story. -- american story. 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: w

on either side of the court, they keep appealing until you get to the state's supreme court. with the federal court of appeals. and then there is only one place left to go is us. now you have a rough idea of the numbers. there are probably 80 -- 80,000 system,00 cases in the which have a federal question. and 8000 of those, or 10%, will ask us to please hear our case, and we don't have to. we don't have to, and out of those 8000, we will grant around 80. so, you're talking about maybe 60, 70, 80 cases out of 8000 who ask us. and 80,000 possible, and 8 million, all right? it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, narrow question. i have two jobs. you have to decide what to decide. -- fourds makes a case votes makes a case. me, you arestand already on your way to law school, but you see the point? ok? how do we decide what to take? now, that is what people miss. they don't understand that and the newspapers don't help. much how do we decide what to hear? year dividen the that by 50 or so, and you get 150 a week. 15 pages, please take our case. 15 pages, don't go near it. the each have law clerk

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

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 hour, that's different. then we will save those jobs for men. >> this brings up the whole area of work and equal pay and equal benefits and so on. social security, for example. this is another one of your causes. well, the social security law is perhaps the most inequitable law that is written. by the federal government. a woman pace in on exactly the same bases that a man pays. but until i went on the committee, if she were out of the labor force even her own tubes couldn't draw on social secure -- social security. she has to be supplying more

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 abort

up -- appointed to the supreme court in 1994 by president clinton, justice breyer previously served as judge and later chief judge of the united states court of appeals for the first circuit. didas also a member of the it -- of the judicial conference of the united states and of the united states sentencing commission. over the course of his career, justice breyer worked as a supreme court clerk for justice , as a justiceg department lawyer in the as arust division, watergate assistant prosecutor and as chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee. he is the author of several books including active liberty and making our democracy work in which she discussed the philosophy centered on the law and the consequences of rulings. he published a third book, the court and the world: american law and the new global reality. a graduate of stanford university, oxford university and harvard law school, justice breyer taught law for many years at harvard law school and the kennedy school of government. he was also a visiting professor at the college of law in sydney, australia and the universit

rather i should say does that mean the supreme court is in his pocket and what does it say what about what he can do in terms of latitude his war on drugs is still an ongoing operation. well there are concerns that judicial independence is not under assault and you know the philippine supreme court has that you story of not standing up to the presidents going all the way back in ninety seven three when the libyan supreme court went along that variation of the marshall law by then former president of virgin marcus the fact that it matters at judiciary is that we get of the three branches of the government under very reliant for funding for resources and for legitimacy in many ways from the president so unlike the president these people are not elect that so they don't have the kind of political gravitas the next major test is the are two things one is the ongoing case questioning the terrorist war and drugs and also extra judicial killings and the next one is question of the result of the vice presidency whether ferdinand marcos jr the former and the son of the former and a stron

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 han

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

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 ha

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 i

because, obviously, this is a pivotal seat on the supreme court. 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. y

the conversation between supreme court justice clarence thomas of thege gregory max u.s. court of appeals for the armed forces. justice thomas spoke about his toringing and decision pursue law school. he spoke about how the process changed over the year. the event was hosted by the law library of congress and the supreme court fellows program. it is just under one hour. good afternoon, justice thomas, who is in the room downstairs. distinguished guests, and colleagues. thank you for joining they love library of congress in supreme court today for the 2018 supreme court fellows program annual

the supreme court overrode the president's argument in keeping them private. and bill clinton, the supreme court ruled the president could not invoke presidential immunity. ken starr did get a subpoena for clinton to testify. it is true the president could fight any subpoena argue executive privilege, but no guarantee that fight would be successful and historical evidence to the contrary. giuiliani showed up to the interview already rocking the boat. that was after the president said on air force one he didn't know about the payment and the new interview giuiliani dropped another doozy, the world's least surprising bombshell. >> and you said he, this is a regular arrangement with michael cohen, did michael cohen make other payments. >> i have no knowledge of that. he made payments for the president or conducted business for the president which means he had legal fees, moneys laid out and expenditures. >> sarah sanders was out there in the white house. >> are there other women out there? >> i would refer you to rudy giuliani to respond to any questions. >> punt

the supreme court has suggested it would be helpful this f this court were to act quickly. might not be the most predoesn't exercise. why does the government need this case. but in travel plans. there are such important wiities. >> that gives sanction to 700,000 illegal aliens. that is an extraordinary intrusion to require the maintenance of a policy of purported discretion that itself is unlawful. is that not the case? >> there was for the convenience of the administration itself because of the pipeline issues if you have pending applications. that wind down was literally, there was an extra 30 days. after september 5th, we said for another 30 days, we would accept applications. it was not a broad winddown. it is true. we haven't revoked permits that would been authorized. in the circumstance with a chief law enforcement officer of this country has decided that the policy is unlawful and we're being forced to obtain that. >> right now, you're still granting daca applications? >> renewals. pursuant to the injunctions. >> i have one last question. my understanding is that th