court. today, we'll meet the local candidates and explain the importance of this powerful court. fact check, president donald trump says insurance companies are making a fortune on obamacare. today, our partners at factcheck.org get to the bottom of the president's claim. we'll tell you what they discovered and how it affects your wallet. kelsey connell: my name is kelsey, i'm 5 years old. i take a needle, and i really don't like it. rosemary: a little girl with a giant problem, a rare disease that makes her hurt all over. this morning, how the people who love little kelsey are fighting to raise awareness about her condition, and why it matters to all of us. male announcer: "nbc10@issue" starts now. rosemary: good morning, i'm rosemary connors for "nbc10@issue." it packs a powerful punch, affecting your life in ways you most likely never think about. it's the pennsylvania commonwealth court. the court is important in the daily lives of pennsylvania residents, reviewing local and state govern

supreme court where today is the first day of the new supreme court term. and lawrence hurly is here at our table to tell us about it. he is supreme court correspondent for tomple son reuters. guest: good morning. host: the recent piece. what are you saying here? guest: this is the first supreme court term since the -- the first full term since the administration came in, in january. so they've had some time to adjust their legal positions in some of these big cases that hang towards the court, including one of the cases being argued today, the very first case of the term, a big employment case where the obama administration had sided with employees and the trump administration has now switched its position and is supporting the employers. host: tell us more. implingts this is a case whether guest: this is a case whether workers can group together to file class claims against their employer through oshtration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. this has big rep cushions for workers because if companies are allowed to prevent them from m

, lower courts -- not the supreme court -- lower courts and only a handful of lower courts, one circuit court and a couple district courts had found a jury trial. the congress found ratification on that. moreover and directly in response to your question -- if i could just finish. >> i'll let you finish and i'll ask you a question. >> to further their point they said congress in a.d.a. overturned other aspects of flsa injuries prudence and what did they -- jurisprudence and what did they say? not the question of the jury trial right. other context and they said because congress overturned other parts of the flsa, we will assume that they ratified the part they didn't touch. that is also exactly what the supreme court did in the farager decision. the 1991 civil rights amendment, the very law that's at issue here, the supreme court said when congress overturned a variety of other supreme court decisions in other areas, but didn't touch the scope of supervisory liability for employers, they ratified that. so you're right, your honor. it would be stronger if the court -- if the 1991 congres

is the supreme court. that even though judicial review is not necessarily listed per se it was understood. it was understood both by the federalists and by the anti-federalist. this is what a court did. they may not have done it often, but they did do it. wasven though jefferson with a man he would have appointed criticizing the marbury decision initially. come around tos accept judicial review because it is part of the law of the -- now and it was inevitable. he agreed it was part of the necessary structure of deciding cases. >> i guess i should weigh in. said national policy can be made with a private action and the rest of us need to overturn it. thatln's understanding was the supreme court decides this we are not going to form a mob we will respect the outcome of the court with those litigants. if we are not persuaded by the deeper principle that we cannot be citizens. we are not of likes to act on that same principle. mentioned two cases i how they came up with the first phase of the administration. s

court. our cherished circuit justice ruth bader ginsburg, our beloved colleague, former colleague, justice sonia sotomayor who for many years was a member of this court. last year she graciously launched our 125th anniversary program from the bench. justice elena kagan a great friend of the second circuit who participated in our 125th anniversary program on thurgood marshall. judicial colleagues, staff, members of the bar, and friends of the second circuit it is an honor to welcome you here this afternoon to this special session of court as we bring to a close our court's year long retrospective marking 125 years of the u.s. court of appeals the second circuit. for all of us, it has been special always to be in this historic courtroom where so many noteworthy cases have been adjudicated. as chief judge, i serve with superb colleagues. to the fairitted and effective administration of justice. we have been fortunate to have the great advocacy of those who have argued in this courtroom. when i

a look at the supreme court where this is the first day of the supreme court term. lawrence is here at the table to tell us about this. good morning. let's start with your headline from a recent piece. this is the first term. they've had some time to adjust the legal position heading towards the court including the cases today, the first term with the obama administration cited with employees and the administration switched the position. tell us more about that case. >> it is about whether the work can be prevented from rippingg together to file claims against an employer through arbitration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. if companies prevent them from making the claims, they make it harder to bring these claims come at least that's what the tc lawyers say. and with the court being the majority they would be likely to side with the companies in this case and the shrub administration's change in position could help with that. >> and that is just to get started. they usually take about 70 or so cases. they will still be adding some. they have

but we decided to appeal to the circuit court, the 8th circuit court in st. louis. i hope i got that right. and the circuit court had a strange situation. they were short one judge so they only had eight judges. the eight judges split 4-4. it was a tie and so we appealed. we asked the supreme court to hear our case and they agreed to hear our case. and the supreme court agreed with us, 7-2. so it was a pretty significant victory at the supreme court. and over the years this -- the case, tinker v des moines, has become perhaps the second case to brown v board of education of importance to public school students because it said that -- i'm going to read the exact quote and get it right here. i have it written down. it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to either speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. and so our case, tinker v des moines, is the case which gave all of you public school students your constitutional right to freedom of expression. and the public schools are what they call a special environment so

represents an accommodation, if you will, with this court's jurisprudence where this court has said in a series cases that the arbitral forum is equivalent to the judicial forum. so as long as one can proceed in one or the other, there should violation.on 7 thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. clement you have four minutes remaining. mr. chief justice, just a few points in rebuttal. first of all, i just want to emphasize that as justice said, you do have the right to concerted activity in or moree that three employees could decide that they want to go to the arbitral forum, and then they would arbitrate individually, but they the same lawyer and the like. thehat about confidentiality agreements, onch i take puts a damper how jointly these people can proceed? >> well, they can proceed very jointly before they get there. the confidentiality agreement is sameoing to stop the lawyer from thinking about the three cases. >> mr. clement, usually, have a right,you the fact that there's one way to over does right left not make it okay if we've taken another 25 ways of exercising the right, you

supreme court where today is the first day of the new supreme court term. and lawrence hurly is here at our table to tell us about it. he is supreme court correspondent for tomple son reuters. guest: good morning. host: the recent piece. what are you saying here? guest: this is the first supreme court term since the -- the first full term since the administration came in, in january. so they've had some time to adjust their legal positions in some of these big cases that hang towards the court, including one of the cases being argued today, the very first case of the term, a big employment case where the obama administration had sided with employees and the trump administration has now switched its position and is supporting the employers. host: tell us more. implingts this is a case whether guest: this is a case whether workers can group together to file class claims against their employer through oshtration agreements they have to sign when they become employees. this has big rep cushions for workers because if companies are allowed to prevent them from m

remember that courts, courts have a critical role when a party has standing enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits. simple but profound. along with chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia. judge bourque and judge ginsberg and many others in the 1970's and 1980's. general meeselaid the ground work for a rule of law and law of rules. the notion as he put it in 1985, the judges should not be roaming at flarge the constitutional forest. so a few months ago i told john malcolm that i would talk about the separation of powers. i suppose that was was not a limiting legislation is of a topic for me. if you were in my judicial chambers, you would hear me saying to my clerks, every case is a separation of powers case. i believe that. who decides is the basic separation of powers question at the core of so many legal disputes. and the bread and butter of our docket on the d.c. circuit is interpretationor statutes. usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded the 12567 tori authority or limbs. that question of policing the balance between the legislative and executive br

, michigan supreme court justice joan larson to serve on the us court of appeals for the sixth circuit. justice larson is the second of three accomplished women the senate will consider this week for appointment to our circuit court. i assume that all three of these impressive women will receive strong support from our democratic colleagues who never seem to miss an opportunity to talk about the war on women. here is what nominees like larson and barrett and the others will consider this week to represent our federal judiciary. equal justice under the law for all, a fair shake for every litigant, of what a refreshing department for obama's the standard for select judicial nominees. really? just another of the left ideological purity test and one that was anything but empathetic for individuals on the other side of the case. if you are the litigant for the judge does not have empathy, you are in a tough position for such a judge. finally, i like to is my gratitude once again to t chairn chuck grassley for his continued work to bring these outstanding nominees to the senate floor. >> und

and remember that courts, courts have critical role when a party has a standing enforcing the separation of powers in federalism limits. simple but profound. along with chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia and judge bork, judge silverman, judge ginsburg and many others in the 1970s and 1980s, general meese laid the groundwork for a rule of law is a lot of rules. for the notion of judges as umpires and not as policymakers. for the notion as he put in 1985, that judges should not be roaming at large in the constitutional forest. so a few months ago i told john malcolm i would talk tonight about the separation of powers. and i suppose that was not really a limiting selection of a topic for me. because if you are in my judicial chambers, really at any point, you would hear it often my clerks, every case is the separation of powers case. and i believe that. who decides is the basic separation of powers question at the core of so many legal disputes. and the bread and butter of our docket on the d.c. circuit is interpretation of statutes. usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded

we respectfully request that the court affirm the court of appeals. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. needler, three points. >> first of all with respect to conspiracy and some of the other crimes that have been mentioned. this is a critical point to understand. those crimes are continuing crimes. conspiracy is you could be prosecuted for conspiracy from the moment of the agreement. but the conspiracy continues up until the commission of the crime. the commission of the crime is the culmination of the conspiracy. the same thing with burglary. it's not over when you enter the house. it's over when you leave the house. kidnapping is not over until the victim is free. escaped from a prison is a continuing offense. 16 b and 924 c serve a critical role in circumstances like that. where a crime extends over a period of time. you can complete the crime without violence being an element, but it is insingt with the risk of crime and that is why -- excuse me force. that is why congress addressed it and that's what the court unanimously focussed upon in. thi

circuit court of appeals and for judge scalia on the supreme court. she has experience in private practice and many years as a law professor teaching constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation among others. and she was appointed by chief justice john roberts to sit on the advisory committee on federal rules of appellate procedure where she served for six years. her nomination has also received wide support. for example, in a letter to the judiciary committee, a bipartisan group of law professors encouraged the committee to confirm her nomination saying that professor barrett, quote, enjoys wide respect for her careful work, fair minded disposition and personal integrity. end of quote. and her colleagues at notre dame described her with this quote. as a model of the fair, impartial and sympathetic judge. despite this, all the democratic members of the judiciary committee voted against her nomination in committee, and i suspect most of the minority will vote against her confirmation later today. this, of course, is ashame and it do

what the court, another point we haven't discussed, what the court was concerned about. >> could you answer me question? >> i apologize, but the, i think the court can comfortably look and see whether the statute has a core of offenses. >> take burglary in california. oh and what level of generality am i supposed to look at? municipality in orange county? state, california? the country? or do i make that legislative choice, too. just wondering, even take bu burglary in california. >> class one, it's a close case. >> only because it does not require an unlawful entry or unlawful remaining. therefore, it does not -- but as this court held in it's accomplished by the use of force. that doesn't mean it's not 16b because on the entire time that the victim was he or she knows it initially. once she finds out she is, the risk -- how am i supposed to determine what the ordinary case is. should i bring in some experts and have hearing and if so, why isn't that a legislative function. >> the case where the statute is. whether the elements give rise to the risk. >> wouldn't -- i'm sot saying ex

of the district court. that has gotten much more focus on the appeal to the point that might have been useful to be answered in district court to submit an evidence. >> he said i have met all the facts that i was charged with but you can't prosecute me because i have a second amendment right to bear arms. >> he raised the second amendment and is now challenging whether the statute he was convicted was constitutional as applied. it wasn't even clear in district court. some of the arguments he makes on appeal and protecting the capitol grounds we could've submitted evidence on. >> 's is a suggestion the government lacks sufficient bargaining power in the plea process. >> no, but in this particular incidents the only person who knows the contours of this particular aspect of the plea agreement or what the defendant intends the plea to be. >> that's not accurate. he may not know. he enters a plea agreement and the next day this court issues a decision saying that statute is unconstitutional. you would still hol

this is on the federal court. and in the supreme court, out of the 113, four and now three out of nine, 33%. people certainly know that women are on the court. that's one of the points you made. and that women are here to stay. and you then went on to the supreme court. your nomination went 50 days , compared to what's going on now what's your wish or desire , or dream in terms of how nominations move through the system? justice ginsburg: before we get to president clinton, let me give a big plug for jimmy carter. i said that women were barely there. that was true for the members of minority groups as well. jimmy carter looked a the -- at the federal bench, he said, they all look just like me. they're all men and they're all white. but that's not how the great united states looks. he looked in places that people did not look for. and he said i am going to , appoint members of minority groups and women not as one at a time curiosities, but in numbers. he only four years in office. he had no vacant seats on the u.s.

this is on the federal court. in the supreme court, out of the and 113, four and now three out of nine, 33%. people certainly know that women are on the court. that's one of the points you made, that women are here to stay. you then went on to the supreme court. your nomination went 50 days compared to what's going on now. what's your wish or desire or dream in terms of how nominations move through the system? justice ginsburg: before we get to president clinton, let me give a big plug for jimmy carter. i said that women were barely there. that was true for the numbers of minority groups as well. look at the federal bench and said, you know, they all look just like me. they're all men and they're all white. but that's not how the great united states looks. he went looking places that people didn't look for. i am going to appoint members of minority groups and women not as one at a time curiosities, but in numbers. he had only four years in office. he had no vacancies on the u.s. supreme court to fill. but he liter

court of appeals and u.s. supreme court antonin scalia is of the highest order. so, too, is her scholarship in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. amy barrett is going to make an outstanding federal circuit court judge. so, too, will ms. larsen, ms. eids and mr. bibas. i look forward to the senate confirming autumconfirming -- cf them next week. now, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor.

this court can change it. this court can fix that. folks the bottom line is there , is absolutely zero conviction for bipartisanship in most of the districts in super majority districts. there is no reward for it. at the end of the day, you represent your party, your primary voters which constitute a minority of a minority. we the people are not governed by general election voters, we are governed by primary voters. this court has it opportunity in this case to say, yes, we are going to accept jurisdiction to protect democracy, and, yes, we are going to say there is a standard. let's get it done. is this a great day or what? come on. [cheering] >> what do we want? >> representation. >> what do we want? >> representation. when do we want it? now. join me in welcoming our next speaker, rachel brewer of represent.us. ms. brewer: my name is rachel brewer, and i have the honor to represent us and all of the volunteers that make it worthwhile. every day, we fight to fix the corrupt politicals system. a corrupt political system is a broken p

more of the first court you went to, the federal court where the case began. did the judge -- you feel like he overstepped his boundaries because you had to take to it the supreme court and it was overturned. >> i didn't litigate either of these cases, at least as to the tam case the district level judge, while i wish might have been a little more aggressive in defending the first amendment, at least, said, look, there is the statute and i'm going to -- district court judges let their generic views of the world and law influence things. do i think it's a bias in any worsens, no, obviously you bring your background to any decision you make. i would have wished a person with a more libertarian background would have made the decision in the first instance. i don't attribute that to the lack of public scrutiny or sunlight. that judge got hammered for these decisions. the circuit court, i think, came around and did the right thing in the tam case. in the redskins case, the circuit court didn't rule yet, do i think the bureaucrats at the tea tab might be subject to

this court can change it. this court can fix that. the bottom line is there is absolutely zero conviction for bipartisanship in most of the districts in super majority districts. there is no reward for it. at the end of the day, you represent your party, your primary voters which constitutes minorities and majority. we the people are not governed by general election voters, we are governed by primary voters. this court has it opportunity in this case to say yes, we are going to accept jurisdiction to protect democracy. yes, we are going to say there is a standard. let's get it done. is this a great day or what? come on. [cheering] >> what do we want? !> representation >> join me in welcoming our next speaker, rachel brewer of represent.us. brewer my name is rachel and i have the honor to represent us and all of the volunteers that make it worthwhile. every day, we work to fix the corrupt politicals system. a corrupt political system is a broken political system. when institutions designed to protect the public interest corrode and fai

>> you know more about court process. >> sure. no is the short answer and the longer version is there's audio and transcript of every argument in front of the court. they have to write an public opinion justifying their behavior. they get criticized from every direction on the planet, and if i had to guess, i'm not sure the case isin the necessarily the way many of them on a matterome out of personal offense. i'm guessing a number of them byht have been disturbed those names. i'm certain they would have been disturbed by the gazillion other examples given both by the pro football and -- in an amicus brief. i'm sure none of those justices were fond of those names. i do not view this as them hiding behind -- >> [inaudible] >> fourth circuit, once again, all that audio is up for grabs. many circuit courts actually do have video where you can watch video of that, and once again, they are subject to massive criticism. i thought you were meeting just the lack of cameras in the courtroom in the supreme court. >> [inaudible] the federal c

in court. >> how do you draw this distinction between an agreement precluding class arbitration. and all of the other rules of civil procedure. that limit the ability of employees to engage in collective litigation. >> here your honor, we actually have agreement with the other sitd side. the board rule doesn't require any modification to the class procedures in court. what the boards rule says is you can't procollude people from proceeding jointly by virtue of unlawful agreement imposed by the employer. >> what's the scope of the right to engage in concerted activity. if that's the case why would it not ago regrate limitation that predated the enactment of that? >> the boards position, your honor. you have to take the provisions as they find them. example. in your in this courts decision in washington alum yum. a group of employees were faced with frigid workplace. in response to the conditions they walked out. that was in 19 -- the activity was held to be protected. that was 1962. subsequently

and circuit courts and the supreme court. it is the senate's duty, as alexander hamilton laid out in the federalist papers, to prevent the appointment of unfit characters. i have often thought that this power would be used rarely because a president would seek to make sure that he or she sent qualified individuals to the senate for confirmation but we're seeing something quite different today. we're seeing the president engaged in a zeal to pack the court with extreme right-wing ideologues and to ram them through this confirmation process without due review. just yesterday, the american bar association sent a letter to the judiciary committee, saying that leonard graz, president trump's nominee to the eighth circuit court of appeals, is not qualified to serve as a federal judge, and yet his confirmation hearing is scheduled for this week. putting extreme and unqualified people on the court is a disservice to the american judiciary. it impacts the protection of fundamental rights, fundamental american rights for generations to

and so the supreme court's making fatal errors that are based on shoes that are usably. checkable you could walk up and say ok let's make sure this is accurate or not we're just going to let it go that preserves a little bit of a problem why would. yes and when you look at each of these case i mean you said there was a small a small sampling that pro publica did but when you look dig a little bit deeper and a little bit deeper into these cases these sakshi will inaccuracy these are really important to the case so in twenty in two thousand and two you had justice kennedy that had noted that within the u.s. criminal justice system only six states allowed during this case it was only six allowed death sentences for defendants convicted of rape committed against a child oh well that only six that was you know like all we can't do this is very important then we can't do that because there's only six and here you go the problem with that is that those crimes are punishable by death in military courts and under a law passed by congress two years earlier in the decision so what

and served an as law clerk for the court and supreme court, clarence thomas. >> thank you for inviting me to be on this panel. thank you for the heritage foundation on the fine work you do on a day in day out basis. as most of you know probably better than i, free speech as we know it today didn't really exist before the 1960s. i'm a child of the '50s so i observed the development of first amendment law. by the 1970s i was passionately committed to the principles of the first amendment both as one of the most basic human rights and first amendment as the rock star of the constitution as floyd abrams describes it, the master foundational freedom for intellectual freedom, political freedom and economic freedom. when the first amendment and my business intertexted was 1955 when we released a beer, road dog by the internationally famous artist, ralph stedman. we knew ralph through our connection with hunter s. thompson. ralph was painting this label live on the bbc. there's a fun story behind it. just to poke the bbc and essay he wrote on this beer he scribbled on there in his inevitable f

chief justice, and may it please the court: this court has never uncovered judicially manageable standards for determining when politicians have acted too politically in drawing district lines. plaintiff's social science metrics composed of statewide vote to seat ratios and hypothetical projections do not solve any of these problems. and hypothetical projections do not solve any of these problems. they were merely shifting districting the final courts who decided the fate of maps based upon panels of experts. on a threshold matter, this court should hold the courts jurisdiction to entertain statewide political gerrymandering challenges, leaving district specific gerrymandering. >> i think it is true there is no case that directly helps respondents strongly on the standing issue. you have a strong argument. suppose the court -- you have to assume we will know exactly the parameters of it -- decided this was a first amendment issue. not an equal protection issue. with that change the calculus so if you are in one part of the state you have a first amendment interest in having your party stro

albeit a national court cut alone is autonomy does not extend to the judiciary this court is subject to the supreme court in madrid and what seems to have happened here is that the president of the court asked the supreme court to send in to authorize guardia civill units the national police to come in here and stand alongside the squadron that's catalonia is own police force in protecting this building in anticipation of what might happen on tuesday night when the regional president how last week samantha dresses parliament some believe he may declare independence but why does that matter here will because there is a transition law passed by the catalonian parliament in september before the referendum setting out what would happen here as a newly independent catalonia set about building the infrastructure of the offices of state and one of those things is that this court would immediately cease to be a national court would become a catalonian court and obviously there's concern for the people who work there what would happen to them so the supreme court has given the go ahead there

did the marshall court have before it any issues of slavery in court cases? and if so, are there one or two that would be worth hearing about? >> the big one has artie been discussed, the angelo case -- the antelope case. the angelo case was about the international slave trade -- the antelope case was about the international slave trade. it's a good one because you have marshall coming out extensively about his views on slavery. you don't get that as much in the other cases, were marshall analyzes slavery in a property context language, rather than the language you get in the antelope case, which has natural implications. law opposition to slavery, which marshall shared, but the second piece, which somerset lays down and marshall just basically runs with, a foreign actor provides positive positive lawons -- protections for slavery and national -- and natural law can't trump those. only positive law can't support it. it is where the concept today. that in the absence of positive law, the default is freedom. i did that was -- i believe that was mansfield. and w

so the solicitor general's office told scotto told the supreme court that the governor. routinely sons of activists ought to make anybody laugh or know something about immigration and they told the supreme court hey you know we were team to bring people back when we've accidentally deported them and it turned out there were wrong guess what totally untrue totally untrue but that was the core of the decisions and they accepted those things as well government so this or this person said they were the checks and balances of this is. credible or i mean it really is that they would let these kind of like huge gaping holes through or the other one is that this is clearly political because what you have is a two thousand and twelve case again with anthony kennedy they claim citizenship checks the ones that were happening in arizona that were such a deal back and two thousand and twelve that were illegal because of the threat illegal immigrants face any use statistics say you know it was respond that despite the fact that these aren't authorized this is most populous county thes

now the region comes after the supreme court another results from august election irregularities since then dozens have been killed in election related violence did obvious catherine wonder who is keeping track of all those developments and joins me now from the kenyan capital nairobi hi catherine now before the election commission has just spoken out and said the vote will go ahead tomorrow as a share due to how do you justify its decision well he says that operationally they're ready and this is something that he said last week he said operationally the electoral commission is ready to deliver. an election however whether it will be credible is it is another issue now he began his statement strangely by talking about police brutality and excessive use of force and he says that he's spoken to the to the police oversight authority and they have assured him that police will protect the rights of those who are voting and protect the rights of those who want to abstain from voting and want to take part in picketing which was quite strange but then he says all systems go from now on the ot

that's the holding of the court. and people have a right to have a weapon in their home for self-defense just like for shooting and hunting. how do you recognize that right which, as i mentioned is long. and then patrol what people say we saw in las vegas which was not at home, which was a weapon of offense, a weapon of murder. a set of womens that looked like something you would basically only need to commit felonious conduct, not to defend yourself. how do you as a lawmaker find that line? >> i would say the american people expect us to use common sense. and to approach this in a very judicious way. take into consideration all the historical facts about the second amendment. and invoke laws that save the public health first. the right to bear arms does not usurp the right to life under the constitution. life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. so how do we find common sense ground, things we can agree with. >> the second amendment was written for muskets. there is this notion if you support any kind of gun control

lower courts, one circuit court and couple ool' of courts. the supreme court found based on that. moreover, in response to your question -- >> that's not. >> if i could just finish. >> let you finish and then i'll ask you a question. thank you. >> right. to further their point, they said congress in and the ada overturned other aspects of the flsa jurisprudence. and what did they point to? lower court opinions on the scope of the flsa rights. not question of the jury trial right, other contacts. and they said because congress overturned other parts of the flsa, we will assume that they ratified the parts they did in fact touch. that's also what the supreme court did in the farager decision. they said the '91 civil rights amendment, the very law at issue here, the supreme court said that when congress overturned a variety of other supreme court decisions in other areas, but didn't touch meritor, which was about the scope of supervisory liability for employers, they ratified that. so you're right, your honor. it would be strong fer the court --

iam ignoring this court ruling as well. i am guessing those who want independence do not see spain's constitutional court as a neutral arbiter. no, they do not and that is one of the reasons why they reject this. they rejected the intervention before that poll was held. at that point the constitutional court again was very clear. it said the independence poll was illegal. spain's constitution talks about an indivisible country, so the constitutional court said that poll would not go ahead. the catalans did anyway. that is the basis for the government in madrid's position. it said all along it will not enter into negotiations while it believes it is being blackmailed, its words, bya it is being blackmailed, its words, by a catalan administration that has called this poll. that is why it is calling for the catalan side to drop their approach if they want any talks. both sides are entrenched in their positions and what happens on monday may be key. damian on a busy thursday night in barcelona. the partner of the las vegas atta

supreme court. our cherished circuit justice ruth bader ginsburg, our beloved colleague, former colleague, justice sonia sotomayor who form many years was a member of this court.

eleven courts of appeals and my understanding of ten of the 11 courts of appeals all agree it's not protected by the employment law under title vii. only one circuit has recently reversed that position. were taken the position of president obama, but holder and lynch position in the title vii issue. on title ix, the schools, it likewise is not covered in our opinion in the same way that title vii is not covered this employment issue. the department of justice or department of education center directive to states telling them they had to accommodate transgender individuals and their choice of bathrooms. we felt the law did not answer that. he felt the states and localities can make their own. >> and that's at odds with the obama administration. >> yes, we did reverse that but we believe it's consistent with law. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you for having the second round. a very deeply troubled by the presidents attacks on the press, seemingly repeated and relentless, the suggestion that reporters can and should be prosecuted for stories that are adverse to him, not a violation of any nati

man please the court. let me begin with justice justicedust -- , congress has originated a statute that makes it impossible for ordinary citizens or for law enforcement or for immigration officials to figure out what the law is and congress has delegated that function to them. it has done it with two features that this court described as clause.e residual first, the piece that most concerned the court. the court said was most important. hypothesizing this ordinary crime. and second, estimating the risk associated with that hypothesized version. warned that 16 b was equally susceptible to challenge. the government was right and the differences in statutory language that the government has since discovered does not change the outcome. >> well, the statute here says during the course of committing the offense. that is quite different from the statute of johnson. >> your honor, it is not quite different. the statute in johnson has the same limitation in the front language. section 16-b covers risks in the cour

they can't go to federal district courts, only courts of appeal. i think they get more than they should in the due process rights they're given in the immigration court system and i think congress should take away the ability to go to federal courts of appeal that are being flood would a lot of meritless, frivolous appeals. >> hang on a second. geahead. >> the follow-up question is how many other countries provide due process that united states provides? >> well, there's a great difference in what they provide and don't. i think again, the united states in the same way it's one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to legal immigration is quite generous in the due process rights it gives to illegal aliens. by the way one of the best things the administration did was end the catch and are elysse policy. the catch and release policy basically said when illegal alien was caught in the interior of the country, they would give them a date to appear before an immigration judge and then release them. you talk to border agents and other

he calls the court chaotic and disorganized. he says they still use paper files instead of a computer. >> they don't let you see the inside of a court. they would clean it up. there are files piled all over. >> reporter: we spent three days inside the immigration court. watching how it works. inside there are five courtrooms. we never saw all five hearing cases at the same time. there are more than 5,100 people in philadelphia waiting for a court date. they wait 788 days. in new jersey the court where the deckers were sent has 31,000 cases waiting. that wait is 830 days long. >> it is very frustrating and stressful. for the litigants in the court to be in that limbo position. for such a long period of time. >> reporter: judge marks is not speaking for the justice department. she's president of the national association of immigration judges. >> it's an overwhelming job. it is incredible, emotional, responsibility. that each immigration judge has. to decide how the law applies to the individual case in front of him or her. >> repo

we have to change certain court decisions in the ninth court. consequence and deterrence is meaningful for illegal activity. illegal activity will decrease if there is a consequence and deterrent to that activity. we all learned that has kids. and i truly believe that. when we had this surge of families in 2014 coming across the border, once we built family detention, we had a court decision that you can only hold them for 20 days. we will feed you, give you clothing, give your vaccination, what would stop it? we targeted those families and had a final order to remove them. it's a family. i get it. about iteel good but we have to execute those orders. when we did that, guess what? we took a beating in the media, but guess what? those numbers were down again. my overall message today is that under this president we are enforcing the laws the way they were meant to be enforced and have had a significant impact on crossings across the border. the families and children are still higher than we want them to be. the traffic and victims protection act

supreme court. justiceished circuit ruth bader ginsburg, our beloved colleague, former colleague, formce sonia sotomayor who many years was a member of this court. and, justice elena kagan a great friend of the second circuit who participated in our 125th anniversary program on thurgood marshall. judicial colleagues, staff, members of the board, and friends of the second circuit it is an honor to welcome you here this afternoon to this special session of court as we bring to a close our courts your long retrospective marking 125 years of the u.s. court of appeals the second circuit. us, it is exciting to soin this historic room were many noteworthy cases have been adjudicated. itchief judge, i serve first. all are committed to the effective administration of justice. we have been fortunate to have the great advocacy of those who have argued in this courtroom. when i proposed a project for the 100 25th year anniversary of our core, i did so not for any-celebration but because institution, if it is to

this is what a court did. they may not have done it often, but they did do it. >> even though jefferson was with a man he would have appointed criticizing the marbury decision initially. rose said he has come around to accept judicial review because it is part of the law of the land now you -- now and it was inevitable. he agreed it was part of the necessary structure of deciding cases. >> i guess i should weigh in. lincoln said national policy can be made with a private action and the rest of us need to overturn it. lincoln's understanding was that the supreme court decides this we are not going to form a mob we will respect the outcome of the court with those litigants. if we are not persuaded by the deeper principle that we cannot be citizens. we are not of likes to act on that same principle. with those two cases i mentioned how they came up with the first phase of the administration. a blessed and tonight to study because the supreme court has spoken. therefore they cannot carry passports abroad. they den

the circuit court i think came around and did the right thing. and the redskins case while they didn't rule yet, do i think the bearcats might be subject to -- yes to a think them in the executive branch i think i can get away with it because there's less scrutiny the answer is yes but i think that's true of judges? i spent so much my time yelling about why some trial court judge circuit judge cut it so wrong that it boggles the mind, i think there's plenty of -- on their board that decision. >> it's a great panel. thank you for being here. eric, i'm trying to understand the conflict you're seeing in terms of possible hostile work environment. this case talks about the government being a center in choosing sides when it does not involve government speech. that seems clear. seems that if you take it to a workplace setting the government could set reasonable restrictions to what's getting done. there's a lot of stuff that a government would say has to go into a public library the very clearly would create a hostile work environment if you took phot

your honor, it represents an accommodation, if you will, with this court's jurisprudence where this court has said in a series of cases that the arbitral forum is equivalent to the judicial forum. so as long as one can proceed in one or the other, there should be no section 7 violation. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. clement you have four minutes remaining. thank you, mr. chief justice, just a few points in rebuttal. first of all, i just want to emphasize that as justice kennedy said, you do have the right to concerted activity in the sense that three or more employees could decide that they want to go to the arbitral forum, and then they would arbitrate individually, but they could have the same lawyer and the like. >> what about the confidentiality agreements, which i take puts a damper on how jointly these people can proceed? >> well, they can proceed very jointly before they get there. >> the confidentiality agreement is not going to stop the same lawyer from thinking about the three cases. >> mr. clement, usually, usually, when you have a right, the fact that there's one way t

and we have asked for those reasons for this court to reverse the district court. thank you, your honors. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] a seriesrk cases, it about the supreme court returns in february. we hear the human stories of constitutional drama heard by the high court. beginning >> the supreme court has agreed to hear a case this term that could have a significant impact on privacy. the case raises the question of whether the government obtaining cell phone records without a warrant violates the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. robberiesfrom armed in 2010 and 2011. during the investigation the federal government apply for access to self publication records for the suspects. you can read more at "the washington examiner." at 4:30 eastern, andreign on relations challenges related to trade. you can w

south africa supreme court of appeal is up held the high court will aim to reinstate seven hundred eighty three all corruption fraud charges against president jacob zuma they date back to before he took office in two thousand and nine sam says he's disappointed by the court's decision and denies any wrongdoing tanya page has more it took less than fifteen minutes for the supreme court of appeal to reject the president's latest attempt to avoid corruption charges. dismissed because. the charges relate to allegations during a multi-million dollar deal from the one nine hundred ninety s. they were controversially dropped in two thousand and nine clearing the way for jacob zuma to become president the reason given by the prosecutor at the time was that secretly recorded phone conversations showed political interference last year the high court ruled that the decision to drop the charges was irrational and they should be reinstated some legal experts say with the supreme court's now dismissing his latest appeal the ruling must be enforced the section over the last decade smacker with this prov

court our white house correspondent kimberly healthcare reports. trump do solemnly swear donald trump has been in office less than a year but this is perhaps the most significant day of his presidency so far on monday two of his former associates avoided handcuffs and turned themselves into the authorities in washington the first is paul mann afford the former chair of donald trump's presidential election campaign the other is rick gates a longtime business associate of matter forts and worked with the white house until march both men appeared in court pleading not guilty to a dozen charges they include conspiracy against the united states also to launder money acting as an agent for a foreign principal providing false statements to investigators and failure to report foreign bank accounts there is no evidence that mr mann of fort of the trump campaign colluded with the russian government. the announcement which caught many off guard that a third person tied to the truck campaign george papadopoulos had pled guilty to lying to the f.b.i. that was o