considered brings up a lot of these points the truth is this is not been settled ever by the united states supreme court there's no precedent presidents in the past have said that they've got a power to do this democrat republican congress will sometimes pitch a little fit about being informed or whether they when they say they they invoke

corporate abuse in ways that that judge said was a violation of california law but the united states supreme court in a five to four ruling with a five in the usual right wing crazy suspects the court reversed the lower court california court's decision sided with a t. and t. and a slew of other corporations by the way who filed briefs on behalf of the t.n.c. and began the process of putting to an end all class action lawsuits as we know them so what are the consequences of the supreme court's latest decision to help eighteen t. screw its customers peter moses moses a is a with a law firm with mike happens you know at eleven lloyd joins me now to talk about this issue peter welcome thank you for your class action lawyers what will this do to your business. the i do want to differ i do want to sue more protection consumer advocacy in class cases iles to do a significant amount of securities arbitration and consumer consumer arbitration so it covers the gamut from arbitration all the way to a class action litigation so i got experience on both sides of the corner so. what is this is this going to. f

this is 80 years before the united states supreme court decided to the gideon case where it that he would the states had to provide counsel and her name is clara shortridge fultz. and clara, are you in the house? let's give it up. [applause] >> my name is clara shortridge fultz. and they call me the lady lawyer. as a child i wanted to be a lawyer. i went to my father and told him i want to be a lawyer and he said you would make a great lawyer. if you were a boy. so i buried that dream. but i never forgot. at 15, i met a handsome union soldier named jeremiah fultz and we eloped. we moved west to greener pasttures. first to oregon. then san jose, california. it was around 1876 and i had just had my fifth child. i was working at home as a dress maker and the sheriff came to the door and took my sewing machine for a debt that my husband owed. well, i knew this was illegal. i had been reading blackstone since i was 10. so i went to the court and i pled my own case and won. then, after that, mr. fultz decided he needed to go on to greener pasttures and he left so i realized that i was going to

the landmark united states supreme court case that eventually ended segregation on all buses within thisntry could not have been achieved without your valiant efforts that began with your testimony against the montgomery public transportation system. i commend you for your passion, courage, and dedication. very few people could have demonstrated the level of conviction you showed at the young age of 15. young people today view you as a role model and as an important figure in the history of the civil rights movement. as united states senator representing the people of california, i commend your outstanding service to this country. i wish you good health and happiness in the years to come. sincerely yours, diane feinstein, united states senator -- dianne feinstein, united states senator." [applause] >> i don't know what to say. i'm so overwhelmed. it really feels good to get some recognition from the politicians and top politicians. i'm glad that i lived to see this day. [applause] and i want to thank all who have made this day possible, including all the people at the library that put th

the united states supreme court has upheld the volume of anonymous speech. it helps break taboos. what is amusing about the whole criticism of using anonymous speech, governments have nearly perfected anonymous speech. let me give you a clear example. oftentimes, the united states government uses the media to help make policies go over well with the public. messages through anonymous sourcing. they go to journalists. how often did you see in the run up to the iraq war, the senior intelligence officer speaking on the intelligence. they have no problem picking up the phone and calling us journalists. that happens all the time. they are passing along their information. why? the powerful can. they make the rules. the same thing, when it is turned on its head, they attack the leaks and disclosures and anonymous sourcing. it is wrong. we have the unprecedented wrongdoing and the collusion of so many journalistic organizations with the governments. people are finding ways to take massive amounts of information and put it out on the internet. we recognize that trend. we set up the transpa

this is 80 years before the united states supreme court decided to the gideon case where it that he would the states had to provide counsel and her name is clara shortridge fultz. and clara, are you in the house? let's give it up. [applause] >> my name is clara shortridge fultz. and they call me the lady lawyer. as a child i wanted to be a lawyer. i went to my father and told him i want to be a lawyer and he said you would make a great lawyer. if you were a boy. so i buried that dream.

considered brings up a lot of these points but the truth is this is not been settled ever by the united states supreme court there's no precedent presidents in the past have said that they've got a power to do this democrat republican congress will sometimes pitch a little bit about not being informed or whether they when they said they they invoke the work hours of the work hours after explicitly says we have to be under threat but the discipline of course is not even close to this i was not even tested nor have any president ever said that that likewise either so the real story here is that this was a really hard decision you know and i think a lot of ways look is is the reversal of what we achieved in egypt you know if you want your freedom take it yourself stand on your own two legs and rise up and in libya we had to come in and we had to do that now i think the reason obama did that is you made the decision that any moral person is going to make five hundred thousand people are going to be slaughtered by a violent dictator you know you can be able to sleep at night if you make a decision not to step an

wonderful thing but it is not absolute and there is an imminent illegal action provision in the united states supreme court cases that say that you can stop someone from doing something if that will in fact create some sort of carnival activity action as a result and that's what terry jones is about to do i think we simply have this this fantasy that america is all about free speech and we are but we also control it and we control it and circumstances i mean oliver wendell holmes all the way back said that you cannot stand up in a crowded theater and shout fire why because the devastation that could result from that exercise of free speech was in fact harmful to society we've made a decision that janet jackson exposing her nipple is somehow harmful to society the a.c.l.u. god love them and i think it's fantastic to have protest and they stood up to protest the nazis to protest in skokie in front of a whole bunch of holocaust survivors that's fantastic but if in fact and this is a lot and i'm just stating what the law is there is imminent illegal action similar to it you know some sort of protest that would

supreme court. the opinion in the united states was written by chief justice morrison wait. was his first major case. does this president grant's third option after the previous chief justice and he was considered sufficiently in mediocrity that the magazine that he was firmly in the first rank of second rank lawyers. in his opinion, by the way bradley, who was the president, heard the case in circuit court which will come in in a bit. week asserted that the fourteenth amendment prohibition dark ltd. and certainly does not extend of the bill of rights to the state specifically in the right of assembly. that because the amendment reads nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process or deny any person equal protection of the law the amendment did not apply only to state action and did not apply to private individuals who committed ordinary crimes. ordinary crimes were taken from bradley in the circuit court. regulating ordinary crimes was reserved for the state governments by the tenth amendment which reads the powers not delegated to t

this ran counter to section 4 of the civil rights act so eventually the appeal reached the united states supreme court by which time thankfully it had been reduced to statutory exclusion of african-american -- the second case involved two teenage african-american brothers indicted of the murder of a white man. the jury chose to try him in state court but this time they were not chosen by statute but by convenience or contrivance. both juries were alike. the cases came down one after another. they ruled the defendant had indeed been discriminated against. you cannot have a statute that only white people can serve on a jury. in the virginia case the conviction was upheld. the virginia law didn't specifically exclude african-americans and although every contrivance might have brought to bear african-americans off juries this had nothing to do--the brothers's fourteenth amendment rights had not -- this sends a very clear somewhat ludicrous message. all the white government's need do was not announced that they intended to discriminate doesn't matter what they did. as long as it wasn't on the paper, their

a successful judge goes to the higher court, even the united states supreme court. a successful judge in our system of jurisprudence are prudence judge and a careful june, not necessarily a wise one but a judge that is rarely reversed on appeal. >> host: when you're in there and you're saying this is about a whitewash, do you think there is justice? the united states? >> guest: sometimes there's justice. sometimes if you got a good lawyer, but sometimes if you got a decent judge -- there are good lawyers and decent judges, but not most of the people. it's a job. it's a job for people. >> host: you think you got unfairly imprisoned by this whitewash system. >> guest: absolutely. i mean, there's no doubt about it. >> host: ever met a gate man? >> guest: oh, yeah. oh, i've many many guilty people. i spent 20 years in prison with guilty people who have done the most horrible things. oh, yeah. they are guilty people. no question about that. but there are also innocent people, and i say to you, sir, that innocence -- there is no place for innocence in a prison. no place f

united states district courts. the responsibility for security is generally divided into two parts. there are court security officers hired in the various districts, just like we have our own supreme court police. and there's the united states marshal service operate under the justice department. we have constant studies and recommendations from those agencies. that's one reason my court has construction come it's so expensive. talking about a courthouse, a courtroom, truck truck or a master of four entrances. one for the judge, one for the jury, one for the defendant in custody, one for the public. well, that sounds simple enough. but if you have a multiple courtroom, then it gets extra in the coveted. and so the security drives the cost not just personnel but construction. >> i would add one thing. i don't like to admit this but for more than 16 years and during that time, i think our court police because that's our responsibility, we have court police. that in charge of our court police. i've always found them to be excellent. there's never been a moment in that time that i have experience anyone feeling nervous or that i've experienced any lack of efficiency, and the public i

because at the time, president clinton is having the time with monica in the white house, the united states supreme court is granting cert in the paula jones case, accepting the case of paula, and these gentlemen are on television saying they are going to the issue of other women. there's an element of recklessness there that if you did not have all these pieces coming together, you could not have produced this configuration at the end of it. were there some folks who wanted to use this for a regime change, i have no doubt about that at all, but when we spiral with the starr report coming out, the events in the house of representatives and so on, i do think that it was all-out warfare by both sides and that turned out not to be at all healthy for the country. >> we have a microphone, i think i want to get a question, but i invite others to come up and take questions if there are any. with reference to vince foster strikes me as a aspect of the whole story with continuing relevance, and what i'm talking about is the kind of culture of suspicion, the culture of permanent warfare that purveys our politics o

the united states supreme court has uphd the volume of anonymous speech. it helps break taboos. what is amusing about the whole criticism of using anonymous speech, governments have nearly perfected anonymous speech. let me give you a clear example. oftentimes, the united states government uses the media to help make policies go over well with the public. messages through anonymous sourcing. they go to journalists. how often did you see in the run up to the iraq war, the senior intelligence officer speaking on the intelligence. theyave no problem picking up the phone and calling us journalists. that happens all the time. they are passing along their information. why? the powerful can. they make the rules. the same thing, when it is turned on its head, they attack the leaks and disclosures and anonymous sourcing. it is wrong. we have the unprecedented wrongdoing and the collusion of so many journalistic organizations with the governments. people are finding ways to take massive amounts of information and put it out on the internet. we recognize that trend. we set up the transpare

he was plaintiff in al anbar case before the united states supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the brady bill on state sovereignty grounds and he has written several books about his life and work. he is a frequent speaker at tea party events, but he assures me that he understands that this is not so much like one of those. [laughter] we will begin with terrence mcnally. terrence thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you, mimi. i read the bios of the other members of this panel and i've realized that there is no way that i know as much about the subject as they do. subject which i think is important and one about which i suspect many people are not really clear, a little fuzzy about what are the issues around states rights and what are the problems and what are the circumstances and so on. so i'm going to start off by offering some questions. i would like them to answer if they get the chance in terms of their remarks or afterwards. and first of all i asked myself what i thought when i read the word states rights and i thought of civil rights complex, with states on t

the united states supreme court has upheld the volume of anonymous speech. it helps break taboos. what is amusing about the whole criticism of using anonymous speech, governments have nearly perfected anonymous speech. let me give you a clear example. oftentimes, the united states government uses the media to help make policies go over well with the public. messages through anonymous sourcing. they go to journalists. how often did you see in the run up to the iraq war, the senior intelligence officer speaking on the intelligence. they have no problem picking up the phone and calling us journalists. that happens all the time. they are passing along their information. why? the powerful can. they make the rules. the same thing, when it is turned on its head, they attack the leaks and disclosures and anonymous sourcing. it is wrong. we have the unprecedented wrongdoing and the collusion of so many journalistic organizations with the governments. people are finding ways to take massive amounts of information and put it out on the internet. we recognize that trend. we set up the transpa

he was plaintiff in al anbar case before the united states supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the brady bill on state sovereignty grounds and he has written several books about his life and work. he is a frequent speaker at tea party events, but he assures me that he undersnds that this is not so much like one of those. [laughter] we will begin with terrence mcnally. terrence thank you so much for being with us. >> tnk you, mimi. i read the bios of the other members of this panel and i've realized that there is no way that i know as much about the subject as they do. subject which i think is important and one about which i suspect many people are not really clear, a little fuzzy about what are the issues around states rights and what are the problems and what are the circumstances and so on. so i'm going to start off by offering some questions. i would like them to answer if they get the chance in terms of their remarks orafterwards. and first of all i asked myself what i thought when i read the word states rights and i thought of civil rights complex, with states on the si

circuit as well as sandra day o'connor in the united states supreme court from 2003-2004. it is our great pleasure that have dr. winter and mr. grimsley here. >> please to be here this morning. i will be presenting the results of the national academy investigation into the causes of the deepwater horizon. i will know that that i will be presenting what had been our interim findings which were first released back in november, and because of the process than -- that the national academy goes through with a formal peer review one of our findings, the next phase of our report which hopefully will be available around june has yet to be released. i will be giving you the report that we gave to the secretary and the staff back in november. in fact, i will be using the same charts for the most part during the presentation. on our activities in the reason for it, the national academy of engineering does such study as a matter of course. this one was in particular a request from secretary salazar. our focus is very specifically on the causes for the blowout explosion and subsequent

what he doesn't seem to understand is that in 1932, the united states supreme court ruled that the social security is a form of taxation. it is not a retirement fund. never was a retirement fund for there is no lock box. it is to be paid into the general fund. on fortunately for him, that means that people who have been running the house for over 80 years which would be the democrats or the ones who have been taking this money out and spend again, not the republicans. he needs to get that straight. how are you going to justify what you are trying to do when the supreme court has already stated that this is a tax? guest: i am not familiar with the supreme court case. when bill clinton was here, we had a surplus and we were adding money to pay down the deficit. i don't think it has been 80 years of everybody's problem. we understand that we do have the right to have taxes in this country to pay for social security. that is a law that has been upheld by the supreme court. we have a plan that allows everybody to have a basic benefit and i think the discussion is that everybody agrees is a gre

he was plaintiff in a landmark case before the united states supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the brady bill on state sovereignty grounds, and he's written several books about his life and works. he's a frequent speaker at tea party events, but he assures me he understands this is not so much like one of those. [laughter] >> this is a cupcake. >> we will begin with terrence mcnally. thank you for being here today. >> thank you, mimi. i read the bios about the members. there's no way i know as much as they do. this is important, and one that i suspect many people are not clear about. a little fuzzy about what are the issues around state's rights and circumstances and so on. i'm going to start but offering some questions i'd like them to answer in the remarks or afterwards. first of all, i asked myself what i thought of when i read the words states rights. i read civil rights with states on the side of segregation and unequal access in the '60s. the federal government asserting it's right to ignore california's medical marijuana law, even though it commands no interstate comm

to the catholic supreme court justices -- i believe six of the nine recused themselves when and issue becomes before the united states supreme court and so i think this is an issue that most legal scholars with any credibility on both sides of the aisle do not believe judges -- in those that are mentioned should recuse themselves. >> we will explore the possibility of a panel on refusal. the school of law for the fall semester. next question? >> i am a see a study international relations of political science. regardless of the california supreme court ninth circuit court of appeals decision there are many that believe this case or at least the issue will reach the supreme court. sort of the swing vote will go down to justice kennedy. i am wondering if any of you have an opinion how he will fall on this issue. >> potential outcome for the case in the u.s. supreme court. i know you and justice kennedy go on long weekend camping together. [talking over each other] >> we have one coming. >> whatever decision comes down to he will be the one to end up writing it as the chief will give it to him. he is a wild card. i don't

polluters free rein in violation of the clean air act as it has been determined by the united states supreme court to apply. this is no longer about the deficit. this is about trying to force a very radical agenda down america's throats in a trojan horse that looks like it's about the deficit. what's it really about? well, you don't have to go very far from this building just a few days ago outside you had the tea party ralliers. and what were they chanting outside of the capitol? they were chanting, "shut it down. shut it down. shut it down." that is what the tea party wants. that is why we are here. and, sure enough, when the speaker went to his caucus on the republican side and announced to them, to the people who are actually here making decisions in this congress that he was notifying the administrative staff on the house side to prepare for a shutdown, what was the reaction? it was standing ovation supporting the speaker in that. so on the outside of the building, you have the tea partiers chanting, shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, you have the extreme members of the house republica

a successful judge goes to a higher court, even the united states supreme court, a successful judge inur system of jurisprudence is a careful judge, and not necessarily a just or wise one, but a judge who makes sure he's really rehearsed on appeals. that's what a courtroom is all about. >> host: and when you are in there saying this is about a whitewash, do you think that there is justice in the united states? >> guest: sometimes there's justice. sometime if you got a good lawyer, sometimes if you got a decent judge, and there are good lairs and decent judges, but not most of the people. it's a job. it's a job for people. >> host: you think you got unfairly imprisoned by this whitewash system? >> guest: oh, absolutely. there's no doubt about it. >> host: you ever met a guilty man? >> guest: oh, yeah. i spent 20 years in prison with guilty people who have done the most horrible things. oh, yeah. there are guilty people. there's no question about that, but there are also innocent people, and i say to you, sir, that innocence -- there is no place for innocence in a prison, no place for in

circuit as well as sandra day o'connor in the united states supreme court from 2003-2004. it is our great pleasure that have dr. winter and mr. grimsley here. >> please to be here this morning. i will be presenting the results of the national academy investigation into the causes of the deepwater horizon. i will know that that i will be presenting what had been our interim findings which were first released back in november, and because of the process than -- that the national academy goes through with a formal peer review one of our findings, the next phase of our report which hopefully will be available around june has yet to be released. i will be giving you the report that we gave to the secretary and the staff back in november. in fact, i will be using the same charts for the most part during the presentation. on our activities in the reason for it, the national academy of engineering does such study as a matter of course. this one was in particular a request from secretary salazar. our focus is very specifically on the causes for the blowout explosion and subsequent

supreme court in the united states has upheld the value of anonymous speech, recognizing that it release inhibitions, break taboos, and come in fact, when it is very of using -- very amusing about using anonymous speech is that government has nearly perfected anonymous speech. let me give you a clear example. oftentimes, foreign government, the united states government, uses the media to help make policy go over well with the public. how many times did you see, in the run-up to the iraq war, a senior intelligence official speaking to this organization or talking about wmd? when it serves their interests, they have no problem taking a pay phone, calling the journalists, and it happens all the time, and passing along their information. why? because the powerful can. they make the rules, right? now the attack the leaks and disclosures and the anonymous sourcing. it is wrong. this is the future of journalism, when we have the unprecedented wrongdoing and the inclusion of so many journalists organizations with these governments. they take massive amounts of information and put it out on the i

he considers factors that the united states supreme court has stated are said irrelevant. >> mr.concur? and why? >> can you repeat the question. >> on the political review process been unlawful. i mean, we heard the words antithetical harmful, all negative. but unlawful steps up to a higher plane. >> well, unnecessary your critics have no place. so we think that the sophisticated reviews process just delays and there should be no delays. the secretary has overall authority over the personnel. so we don't think it is unlawful, yet we don't like any delays because when the careerist foia personal has finished, it should be going out the door. >> thank you. mr. verdi, would you consider the dhs awareness process the review? >> my understanding of the quote unquote awareness process as described today as it continues to flag foia requests for such rule consideration based on political factors can affect yours that have nothing to do with the florida statute for exemptions. as far as i can tell that's a review. the committee's report and inspector general's report and i believe ms. ca

circuit as well as sandra day o'connor in the united states supreme court from 2003-2004. it is our great pleasure that have dr. winter and mr. grimsley here. >> please to be here this morning. i will be presenting the results of the national academy investigation into the causes of the deepwater horizon. i will know that that i will be presenting what had been our interim findings which were first released back in november, and because of the process than -- that the national academy goes through with a formal peer review one of our findings, the next phase of our report which hopefully will be available around june has yet to be released. i will be giving you the report that we gave to the secretary and the staff back in november. in fact, i will be using the same charts for the most part during the presentation. on our activities in the reason for it, the national academy of engineering does such study as a matter of course. this one was in particular a request from secretary salazar. our focus is very specifically on the causes for the blowout explosion and subsequent

bar in 1961 and decided to keep her maiden name to honor her mother and admitted to the united states supreme court bar in 1978. for the first 13 years of her marriage, she devoted herself to her growing family. donna was born in 1962, john in 1964 and laura in 1966. ms. ferraro did legal work for her husband's business and worked for women in family court and dabbed in local politics. in 1970, she was elected president of the queens county women's bar association. in 1973, after her cousin, nicholas ferraro was elected queens district attorney, she applied for and got a job as assistant district attorney in charge of a special victims bureau investigating rape, and child and wife abuse. the cases were so harrowing that they caused her to develop an ulcer and the conditions she saw, she said, planted the seeds of her liberalism. when she was elected to the house, she came -- became very good friends with tip o'nil who was the speaker. she decided to run in congress when james delaney when a congressman announced his retirement. in the house, ms. ferraro was on the public works and transportation co

three days ago in one of the most closely watched supreme court cases this term, graham versus florida, the united states superior court forbid the sentences of a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime. they found such a sentence is consistent with basic principles of decency. i'm proud to say that my firm was co-counsel for the juvenile in this case and wrote the brief for the juvenile in the court. this decision gives our clients, terrance graham, who had received the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character and gives him some realistic opportunity to gain release before the end of his term. i personally understand the importance of the work that you do. but our nation's fiscal crisis threatens your very existence. as predicted 25 years ago by chief justice rose berg , she said the following. we have no difficulty, it seems finding sufficient funds to build more prisons. one of california's largest industries. but each year, public defenders and private provider

than one hundred eight dollars a barrel price being supported by positive jobs a supreme court will consume in the united states and supply worries over turmoil in the middle east that's it from this edition of the business news on c we'll be back in less than one hour's time with an update stay with us but the headlines we're broke. twenty years ago in the largest country in. the such a place it was. one hundred more. are going to be janitor. where did it take them. we'll. bring you the latest in science tends to guns from the realm for sure. we dump the future coverage. on.

to raise the government's credit line in roughly a month, the united states would be unable to pay its creditors. >>> the u.s. supreme court plans to take on the issue of climate change this week. justices are due to hear arguments on tuesday on whether states or groups such as the audubon society, can sue large electric companies and force power plants to cut their emissions. both the obama administration and environmental activists agree that climate change is a threat that must be addressed, but they're on opposite sides of this case. the administration wants the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds that it's the environmental protection agency's job to make rules about climate change, not the court's. >>> and still to come at 5:00 -- >> we got an e-mail saying that we had been selected to go into this special disabled enclose you are so we were absolutely thrilled. >> she's not a member of the royal family and she's just 7 years old, but still she imagined to get invited to the royal wedding, complete witthh i e tia.ar l 'l yweowowsh hou. ♪ going to the bank without going to the bank... that's a step forward.

united states. we still have a president and the congress and the supreme court. but the united states will be just one more in history's procession of dominant nations. everything that makes america exceptional will have disappeared. so there are many days better wake up as a pessimist, but by midmorning i start to recall a few brighter spots. the first is that over the course of the next decade or so we ended the united states are going to be watching the european model implodes. it's going to implode in some countries that do not permit massive immigration because they just can't pay the bills anymore and they will go bankrupt. the welfare state circuit in other countries that do encourage massive immigration to help pay the bills, they will undergo cultural transformation. the people of new political power in those countries are not going to be built -- who will not be people who bought. as we watch what happens of the advanced welfare state of the next decade is going to be a cautionary example, and trying to emulate it is going to look less and less attractiv

united states. but a. few weeks. ago just from listening to the supreme court during. this new york congress. it's a case of the killers took a battering because the twenty three. to six. yes or no chill big government the speech at six o'clock go back. and grab their retro you see your child ok let's go. to the polls. the killing. took place like exception to the constitution pictures for job the reception will be. ok look the duke lacrosse team took a break from practice to record a little song i'm kidding of course but yes that was a rather catchy but a little disturbing tune from the young cons i believe which is the g.o.p. is the answer to how to get us out of this problem blame a bunch of democrats and make terrible rhymes i don't really wrap it up folks now coming up it could be it could have reinstating the draft be the answer to our country's addiction for war going to debate the issue in just a few minutes. was number given we have an apartheid regime bringing her.