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

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

now she sets her sights on the supreme court. and i had no idea maybe this is naÏve of me but how political it gets and you need to have real champions and she had been cultivating them for a long time. so along the way, one of the people she helped out was william rehnquist who after law school they both go to phoenix and become lawyers. they are two couples and play charades together. rehnquist goes to washington a hot justice department official but he was controversial in various ways and needed help. and sandra gave it to him the following way because in her files there is a letter right after rehnquist is confirmed to say i'm writing you first. why? because when they would round up support, they went to find lobbyist, not lawyers but thinkers because bankers are the campaign finance chairman of other senators. rehnquist proved once again that bankers are more powerful than lawyers. and he was so grateful that when ronald reagan promised to put a woman on the court, justice rehnquist secretly lobbied for her with the justic

and 10 percent think judge judy is on the supreme court. i respect judge judy alike judge judy, but she is not one of my colleagues. [laughter] so i wanted to talk about these things before we go another step further like did this with my wonderful law clerk and david is here janie is not by but let me brag on them for ten sent on - - ten seconds. this man comes from a family of mexican immigrants and holocaust survivors. he saved up his pennies attending cal poly as an undergrad to achieve his dream of attending harvard law school. which he did and graduated first in his class. [applause] janie is every bit as special. her family escaped communis communism, czechoslovakia she came here managed to go to harvard got degrees in statistics and physics and then racked her way through harvard law school just like david and clerked for both me and justice so the mayor. - - soto my your those are the people for whom i write this book and i get to work with and give me hope for the future? >> the judge's role in the constitution and they are very s

and eventually, they'd get before the supreme court, and what the supreme court did in that case was to hold the purchases invalid on the grounds that the tribes didn't own their own land. and this is the point at which, 1823, the federal government does adopt a rule about indian occupancy rights being the limit of tribal land rights. and it's a construct of this case. and what the court finds is that when europeans discovered the new world, they found it in the possession of native peoples. and the question arose, who owns the discovered lands? the europeans says john marshall for the court in johnson versus mcintosh, determined that the way it should work is as follows -- upon discovery, the underlying title to all discovered lands becomes the property of the discovering european sovereign. that's the king of england, fine. if it's the king of france, fine. that european sovereign owns the title to all discovered lands. the tribes retain an occupancy right, which more or less meant a right to occupy in that formulation, and, so, they could stay there and they could sell the occupan

. >> next on c-span 3, dissenting at the supreme court. a lecture series hosted by the supreme court historical society. we'll hear from a law professor from the university of arkansas discussing dissenting opinions in some of the high court's major cases of the 19th century and early 20th century. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen, i'm from atlanta and i currently serve as president of the supreme court historical society. i'm pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this year's silverman series. this year we are examining dissents not majority opinions. a different aspect thereof. you've already been warned about your cell phones and apple watches and so forth. so i won't repeat that. but you will be in the dog house if it goes off during the period of our evening. i also want to thank this evening our host justice stephen breyer who against all odds agreed to come and introduce our speaker this evening on the first day of a busy term. justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends of the society. whenever we have called on

before he went to the supreme court. he could go straight there because the constitution gives the court, the supreme court, original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party, and georgia was a party, and it also -- the federal judicial power extends to suits between a state and foreign states or foreign nations. georgia is a state and the cherokee nation is a foreign state. it's a foreign state because a state just means a political entity and it's clearly a political entity. it's got a constitution and stuff. and it's foreign because none of its citizens are u.s. citizens. so it has to be foreign. it can't be anything else. and this is the argument that he made. and this is -- and so this is the argument on which jurisdiction rested. so if the court doesn't find that to be true, then they can't consider the case on the merits, and that ended up being the big stumbling block. here is the court at the time. one justice, justice duvall, was absent and didn't participate. these six guys did. they split three ways in

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

the supreme court had to wrestle with that. one justice, william johnson wrote, of course the tribes owned their land. of course this whole deal is flawed. the majority, john marshall, hedged and said, it is not entirely clear that georgia owned what they would call the title to the land. we are not sure what interest the tribes have, but whatever it is, maybe it is not entirely -- this is hedging language -- entirely inconsistent with ownership. now let's talk about something else. we don't get a clear resolution. we get enough of a holding that the original grant was valid. that was allowed in this western part. tuck that way, because it is going to return. what happens in 1802 is the government finally shakes georgia down enough to seed -- cede its title claims. one of the conditions that georgia imposes on the u.s. when it cedes and becomes alabama and mississippi is, we want you to get rid of these indians left in the bounds of the state of georgia. the creeks were there. importantly for our purposes, the cherokees were th

supreme court. we first hear from supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg ansonia sotomayor reflecting on the legacy of sandra day o'connor. then a look at what led to her appointment by president ronald reagan. afterwards, six former law clerks recall working with justice o'connor. you're watching american history tv on c-span 3. supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor talked about the impact sandra day o'connor had on the judicial system as the first woman to serve on the u.s. supreme court. they spoke at an event commemorating the 38th anniversary of justice o'connor's senate confirmation. the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute hosted the program. [ applause ] >> good evening, everyone. on behalf of the reagan foundation institute thank you for joining us this evening. i have the pleasure of introducing our two panelists and ted olson in just a moment. we have a number of distinguished guests with us. i would like to take a moment first to thank justice

and we both ended up in the united states supreme court. one woman they inspired was a young attorney in manhattan. she had been working in the d.a.'s office in 1981 when she heard president reagan nominated sandra day o'connor. just two years earlier, she and her law school classmates had wondered aloud whether they would ever see a woman on the supreme court in their lifetimes. little did sonia sotomayor imagine 28 years later, she would become the third woman on the court and make history in her own right as the first latina justice. these three women come from very different backgrounds. one grew up shooting jack roberts, one a descendents of immigrants in brooklyn and one spent her summers visiting her parents' native puerto rico. they had different paths but ended up in the same place as courageous trailblazers, inspiring role models and associate justices of the supreme court. we are deeply grateful to them for all that they have done and all that they represent. former solicitor general ted olson joins them on stage this evening. he

dissenting at the supreme court is a lecture series hosted by the supreme court historical society. next on "american history tv", university of arkansas law professor mark killing back is introduced to us by stephen breyer, then discusses the dissenting opinions delivered in cases between 1810 and 1927. >> good evening. i am chilton from atlanta. i am pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this year's series. we are examining dissents, not majority opinions, different aspects. you have been warned about your cell phones and apple watches so i will not repeat that but you will be in the doghouse if it goes off during the time of our evening. i also want to thank our host justice stephen breyer who against all odds agreed to come and introduce our speaker on the first day of a busy term. justice higher is one of the most -- justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends. when we have called on him, he has shown up and done a wonderful job. i want to thank him for taking time away from his busy schedule on first day of term. i don't want to be too much on his time, so i wi

court historical society and everything that the supreme court historical society does for the supreme court. the historical society does extremely important work in reminding people of the importance of our constitution and our judicial system and its history and we're deeply appreciative. this evening marks the second of the society's 2019 leon silverman lecture series, which is devoted this year to dissents and the supreme court. on my way over here, professor justin driver and also jerry libben reminded me i have written a few of those. tonight's speaker is professor justin driver. he is professor of law at yale law school. he teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law. he is the author most recently of a book called "the school house gate." public education, the supreme court, and the battle for the american mind. "the washington post" called it "masterful." named it one of the 50 best nonfiction books of 2018. not to be outdone, "the new york times" called the book "indispensable." it was a finalist for the american bar association's silver gavel award and short listed

supreme court. we will hear from justice o'connor's first law clerks and library of congress carla hayden. >> good afternoon. before we move to the third panel, the lasting legacy, i just want to take a moment to thank all of our reagan foundation trustees, but in particular mr. ted olson, a driving force behind this celebration. ted, thank you so much for giving us this opportunity. [ applause ] we will turn to the legacy and discuss the contribution and the ways in which we will continue to see her hand in law and in the civic life of this great country. in 1966, outlining his vision of the creative society, ronald reagan advanced an initiative to take judges out of politics and articulated his vision of an ideal judge. he called for judges to be, quote, men with ability, men of honor and men who are fair minded. well, when it came to his first nomination to the supreme court, president reagan delivered a nominee who realized his vision minus the men part. listening to the sessions earlier today,

supreme court. somehow, she has also found time to write some books. about her life in particular, i commend them to you as well. but let me just turn the program over to justice sonia sotomayor, it is a privilege for me to introduce her at this time. [applause] >> it was a miserable night last night. >> good evening everyone and welcome to the court. i am delighted that so many of you could join us this evening for this first lecture in the supreme court historical societies 2018, leon silverman lecture series. this term as you heard will focus on the supreme court in world war i. 2018 marks a century since the first world war ended. a fitting moment for our societies first series to focus on that important chapter in our nations history. this lecture series is named for the historical societies late chairman and president, leon silverman, who is a titan of the new york legal world. it was impossible to practice in new york as i did, without knowing leon. he was everywhere. among the many important

supreme court for more than 30 years. she is a regular contributor inches written for publications such as vogue, ms. magazine in the new york times, she is also the author of the roberts court, the struggle for the constitution. as always before we begin i want to ask that you please make sure anything that makes noise like a cell phone is switched off and now please join me in welcoming our guests this evening. thank you. [applause] >> good evening, it is wonderful to be back with all of you here tonight. an especially wonderful to be here with my friend, my colleague, my supreme court watcher as a.m. to talk about jones terrific new book about the chief justice of the united states. john roberts junior. i'm going to start tonight by trying to give all of us a sense i've john roberts the man before we talk about john roberts the justice on the supreme court. so joan i want to start with the letter that you reprinted in your book. this was a letter that john roberts wrote when he was 13 years old to the head of the all-m

supreme court. next on american history tv, a discussion with author evan thomas and one of justice o'connor's sons on the qualification ands characteristics that led to her appointment. >> good afternoon. for those i've not had a chance to meet, my name is john. i have the honor of being executive director of the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute. thank you all for coming out this afternoon. if you would, in honor of our men and women in uniform who defend our freedom around the world, please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for chwhicht stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. please be seated. in the fall of 1988, when president ronald reagan broke ground at the site of his future presidential library, i'm not sure that he could have imagined that his foundation, the one bearing his name, would one day also be operating a robust in

supreme court. next on american history tv, a discussion with author evan thomas and one of justice o'connor's sons on the factors, characteristics, and qualifications that led to her appointment. [ applause ] >> good afternoon. for those i've not had a chance to meet my name is john heubusch and i have the honor of being the executive director of the ronald reagan presidential institute. thank you all for coming out this afternoon. if you would, in honor of our men and women in uniform who defend our freedom around the world, please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. please be seated. in the fall of 1988, when president ronald reagan broke ground at the site of his future presidential library, i'm not sure that he could have imagined that his foundation, the one bearing his name, would one day al

bush, to the district court, president clinton to the circuit court, and president obama to the supreme court. somehow she has also found time to write some books. about her life in particular. i recommend them to you as well. but let me just turn the program over to justice soettomayosotom. it's a real privilege for me to introduce you to her at this time. [ applause ] >> it was a miserable night last night. good evening, everyone, and welcome to the court. i'm delighted so many of you could join us this evening for the first lecture in the supreme court historical society's 2018 leon silverman lecture series, which this term, as you heard, will focus on the supreme court and world war i. 2018 marks a century since the first world war ended. a fitting moment for the society's first series to focus on that important chapter in our nation's history. this lecture series is named for the historical society's late chairman and president, leon silverman, who was a titan of the new york legal world. it was impossible to practice in new york as i did without knowing leon. he was everywhere. am

supreme court blocked attempts to delay the vote due to the pandemic earlier the state's supreme court also ruled the primary couldn't be postponed the democratic governor tony evans had ordered the election to be moved back to june the 9th. you're up to date with all the headlines on al-jazeera the stream is next. we understand the different scenes i'm similarity of cultures across the world. so no matter. how much is enough to bring you the needs and current affairs that matter to you. how does iraq. welcome to the stream and 70 today we are joined by the award winning poet and playwright to say he's also author of beautiful war memoir my name is why i'm willing to talk about the challenges of rediscovering his past as well as his art and inspirations join today's conversation through twitter and you tube. lambs to say is one of the u.k.'s most celebrated writers and has brought south from poetry into fields of. costing.

supreme court. first, thanks to the o'connor family for joining us on this historic day. thanks as well to our partners who share in our civic mission and who have helped us craft our agenda for this afternoon, npr, absent, dunn and crutcher, the aspen institute, the supreme court and the library of congress. [applause] the force behind today's event is a longtime member of the reagan foundation's board of trustees, a partner at ibsen done -- gibson, dunn and crutcher, ted olson. ted served as solicitor general of the u.s. from 2001-2004. prior to that he served as assistant attorney general and the office of legal counsel at the justice department during the reagan administration from 1981-1984, and as i've it counsel to president reagan during his second term. ted's commitment to the principles of equality, liberty and justice not only served president reagan, but also helped him carry his legacy into the 21st century. it is his leadership that led to today'is worthy celebration of justice o'conno

the help of the state supreme court. by also happens to be run by republicans, and also halted in-person proceedings for their own business back on march 22nd, because it is too dangerous to do normal things amid the virus. in another legal challenge, the u.s. supreme court also sided with the state republicans with, oh, you'll never get this, with five republican nominees, partially blocking a lower court's extension of the absentee ballot deadline. in her dissent to that ruling, ruth bader ginsburg laid out how insane this is. insane this is >> now, you might be sitting there watching all of this, and wondering why? why the hell would wisconsin republicans, who have already used anti-democratic gerrymandering to stay in power, why are they insistent on holding this primary election today? and here's the answer. it's because there's a conservative state supreme court justice on the ballot, who they really, really want to win. in part, they want him to win to stay on the supreme court, and help them purge voters. and the

the help of the state supreme court. by also happens to be run by republicans, and also halted in-person proceedings for their own business back on march 22nd, because it is too dangerous to do normal things amid the virus. in another legal challenge, the u.s. supreme court also sided with the state republicans with, oh, you'll never get this, with five republican nominees, partially blocking a lower court's extension of the absentee ballot deadline. in her dissent to that ruling, ruth bader ginsburg laid out how insane this is. >> now, you might be sitting there watching all of this, and wondering why? why the hell would wisconsin republicans, who have already used anti-democratic gerrymandering to stay in power, why are they insistent on holding this primary election today? gerrymandering to stay in power, why are they insistent on holding this primary election today? and here's the answer. it's because there's a conservative state supreme court justice on the ballot, who they really, really want to win. in part, they

he's also an editor of the supreme court review. professor driver received his ba from brown university, a masters in modern history from modern college oxford, where he was a marshall scholar, and his jd from harvard law school, where he was editor of the harvard law review. after graduating from harvard, professor driver clerked for judge merrick garland, justice stephen breyer, and justice o'connor, sandra o'connor. and i don't know where this ranks on the list of professor driver's compliments, but professor driver -- accomplishments, but professor driver was also a student of mine. and i can tell you from those long-ago years that he is super smart and super thoughtful, with a very keen eye for fascinating historical subjects. so you are in, as i am in, for a real treat, justin driver. [applause] >> hey, so i've been introduced by a lot of people over the years, but i have to confess it is an odd sensation to be introduced by a supreme court justice. perhaps one of the few things more still is being in the audience -- odd still

he was a justice on the north carolina supreme court. these folks were not quite as legally sophisticated as the arguments they advanceadvanced. many people cite it with just the first seasons. the unwarranted case in the supreme court is bearing the fruit when men substitute naked power for established law. the phrase naked power -- even the most opener -- >>> they use the same language about naked power with respect to brown versus board of education. so focusing on that language alone it sort of allows people to misunderstand what was at the core of the limit. they use constitutional interpretation. they spoke about originalism, they spoke about precedent, they spoke about constitutional construction and tradition. these are, today, what constitutional law professors refer to as the modality. these are the basic forms of constitutional interpretation and all of them appear. i asked students to identify the forms of argument. the first in this dominant mode is they say that the decision in brown betrayed the original understanding of t

block appeared to the supreme court. in a 5-4 decision written by oliver wendall holmes the court upheld the validity of the law. wartime circumstances have clothed the letting of buildings in the district of columbia of with a public interest so great as to justify regulating by law. in times of trouble such as war, governmental action otherwise considered impermissible must be allowed. one line in holmes' opinion deserves special notice. the question he declared was, quote, whether congress was incompetent to meet the emergency in the way in which has been met by most of the civilized countries in the world, unquote. he took a very broad view of federal police power. a power that many conservatives he denied even existed and extended to all of the great public needs. could be exerted to meet whatever the prevailing morality or prepondering public opinion dee deems necessary, it would be adequate. as in this case and several others the court majority essentially said that emergencies could clothe the government with exp

supreme court has also shot down a lower court ruling that had extended mail in voting until the 13th of april and said in fact when the polls close tomorrow that is when the last mail in ballots can be accepted so this election will not go any much any beyond tomorrow there was some question they might not even be able to call it for several days after that in fact it will end tomorrow according to the u.s. supreme court and there's a political aspect to this tony is a democrat the legislature in wisconsin is republican dominated and in the u.s. supreme court that was also a vote that happen along party lines there were 5 republican appointees versus 4 democratic justices on that court essentially the bottom line is democrats in wisconsin believe that the vote tomorrow will be suppressed in urban areas where a lot of democrats live and republicans believe it won't be suppressed so much in republican areas which are largely rural as this vote is to to get underway what alice. what does that electorate think of this summit what's this going to do to turn out given but the country is on

we'll hear first from supreme court justice

first, i think, explain the context there is a supreme court -- supreme court that just rule in favor of the republicans and knocked down the order to suspend tomorrow, they have an election tomorrow, right? and that is very important to the state's republicans, the governor, the candidate was even endorsed by the president, is that what is driving this? >> yes and actually, chris, when you mentioned that you might have been here to cover our presidential primary election, it was kind of like a blast from the past because no one is thinking about the bernie sanders joe biden contest in wisconsin. really, what this election is about is a see it on our state supreme court which has been taken over by right wing and scott walker appointee daniel kelly up for election faces a liberal opponent who gained an advantage when republicans weren't able to move the election off our presidential primary date. it looked like we would have a high turnout election and republicans didn't like that. they made an effort to prevent it and have a separate very expensive, very small election just for the s

supreme court blocked attempts to delay the vote due to the pandemic early the state's supreme court ruled a primary couldn't be postponed as well the democratic governor attorney evers and ordered the election to be put off to june 9th john hendren with more from chicago he says this supreme court ruling went along partisan lines. it has been a whirlwind of a day it began with wisconsin governor tony even as declaring in any and executive order that voting would not go forward on tuesday that election would be postponed to june 9th then we had the state supreme court ruling no in fact he does not have the authority to do that and that election will go ahead on tuesday and then we hear that the u.s. supreme court has also shot down a lower court ruling that had extended mail in voting until the 13th of april and said in fact when the polls close tomorrow that is when the last mail in ballots can be accepted so this election will not go any much any beyond tomorrow there was some question they might not even be able to call it for several days after that in fact it will end tomorrow a

vote despite the pandemic the supreme court of the u.s. rules wisconsin primary will go ahead rejecting the governor's order postponing it . the straightest highest court overturns a former vatican treasurers conviction for sexually assaulting 2 teenaged boys in the 1990 s. . britain's prime minister has been moved into an intensive care unit with west wing covert 900 symptoms boris johnson was admitted to hospital on sunday night after being ill for more than 10 days foreign secretary dominic robb has been asked to deputize 0 as worry chalons reports the news came after a day of scant information and repeated lines the prime minister's hospital stay was just a precaution said downing street boris johnson himself tweeted i went into hospital for some routine tests as i'm still experiencing coronavirus symptoms i mean good spirits and keeping in touch with my team as we work together to fight this virus and keep everyone safe. but the reality was his condition was worsening later on monday doctors moved him to the intensive care unit that's

it's the supreme court's. you talked about and there are a lot ofvillains in the reconstruction story . johnson, being impeached by one vote. but can you talk a little bit more about the supreme court's rule in whipping down and eviscerating the reconstruction amendments ? >> another thing i wanted to do with this book was to comment away alludes to the present because all these issues, citizenship and the right to vote, terrorism, these are issuesof our moment, they're not just 150 years old . so i'm alluding to the present, sti'm not writing a commentary on today but one of the things i want people to think about, what happens to your rights whenyou have a conservative supreme court's ? what can happen to them and what happened to the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments aystarting in reconstruction with the slaughterhouse decision and going all the way to the early 20th century as a warning that rights in theconstitution are not self enforcing . and that if you have a hostile supreme court, they can do tremend

not once the supreme court got a hold of it. the courts firs court's first pt on the amendment which the whole country anxiously awaited came into the ruling in the opinion. true the amendments main purpose was to establish the citizenship. however, there's a big difference between the privileges and immunities conferred by state citizenship and national citizenship not be subject to the build and having to do with right, liberty and property attached a state or national indoor protected by the 14th amendment. one of the dissenting4t justices objected another wrote the majority opinion turns what was meant for brea further into thef the day before the court handed down this bizarre decision, the worstio atrocity the lone terrorist campaign to nullify the reconstruction and find friedman and surfed on had occurred. black will be cnn's aiming to protect the victories and contentious elections occupied the courthouse in the county seat of colfax the anti-militia masked in the surrounding woods prompted evermore frightened blacks to

hopes to get to the supreme court. with the addition of neil gore search one - - justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh we don't know what will happen he took word from scalia and may be a little more conservative than he is and of course scalia was opposed to affirmative-action. kavanaugh took over from anthony kennedy who initially opposed affirmative-action. but in 2013, he was the deciding vote in the fisher case that says diversity in the classroom was a compelling government interest and that the texas schools program could be upheld. kavanaugh is more conservative by far than kennedy. neither one of them heard affirmative-action's heard those and they run the circuit court so we have no idea how they will vote. and that is a puzzle. i am fairly sure that this case will get to the supreme court. you only need for to make a case with the supreme court and i have no doubt there will be four people willing to take this cas case. but what happens is a strong line of precedents supporting affirmative-action that all of

that started in massachusetts in the late 19th century and the supreme court said, while -- and the supreme court said massachusetts had to accept vaccinations. they cannot reject vaccinations because the run of health was so great that people could be forced or coerced into being vaccinated. that is more instrument having to wear masks in public. imagine having to sit down and having a needle put in your arm? now, these quarantine orders are not unlimited. we have seen a bunch of legal challenges to them. there was a pastor who said, this violates my exercise of religion and the assembly rights of my congregation. i want to hold service. courts are likely to reject that claim as long as churches are not being singled out. it is the response to all groups larger than 50, and not just this one, and they are considered neutral laws that could be upheld. gun shops are saying their rights have been violated. saying religious people cannot seek exemptions, call the smith case, but there are some of these cases that are coming out of quarantine orders than michael up to the supreme court apart te

supreme court. she's on gainesville death row. this is the 1st time she's been interviewed about this crime she has always maintained her innocence. and the thing before. we welcome so tell me how long have you been. on death row i've been here. going on 9 years. on august 12th will be 9 years. did you ever think that something like this would happen. you know. you do feel that used to when the struggle the trial no no no no. why is that. because the. i think the jury when the jury walked in and they saw. they saw these pictures of my daughter. i'm sure they. they agreed with what the district attorney was you know trying to convince them that i was guilty so i think they came they came in already thinking that they were going there accused me and by me guilty of. been no. murdering my daughter. and how many of your appeals have been and i will. one appeal live so that means my last appeal will go into the u.s. supreme court so that will be my last resort and if i get the night there then i get an execution date. you see here. i w

this is also what a judge at the mississippi supreme court thought. oliver diaz was one of the 7 judges who reexamined. proceedings. he believed from the start. and that she needed to be released. while i was on the court in 2003 the majority of the judges voted to keep her conviction in place. even though i had written an opinion urging the rest of my fellow judges to overturn that conviction because i thought there were problems and i thought it should be overturned she remained in prison and stayed there for i think another 11 years or so after. now retired has never forgotten michel. which remains his greatest. since then he's made a point of speaking in the media about the unfairness of the death penalty. for the poor and. rich people generally don't go to. poor people do. i mean if you've got the resources if you're wealthy if you're rich if you've got your own private attorneys and you can hire investigators and you have witnesses you're not going to get a death row support people that can't fight back they don't have the resources if you don't

this is also what a judge at the mississippi supreme court thought. oliver diaz was one of the 7 judges who reexamined to michele byers proceedings. he believed from the start that her guilt was unfounded and that she needed to be released in the michelle byron case while i was on the court in 2003 the majority of the judges voted to keep her conviction in place and keep her on death row even though i had written an opinion urging the rest of my fellow judges to overturn that conviction because i thought there were problems and i thought it should be overturned she remained in prison and stayed there for i think another 11 years or so after i wrote my opinion oliver diaz now retired has never forgotten michel byers case which remains his greatest regret. since then he's made a point of speaking in the media about the unfairness of the death penalty. a 2 tier system where the poorest are condemned in advance. rich people generally don't go to death row poor people do. i mean if you've got the resources if you're wealthy if you're rich if you've got you

i am always pleased to come to the supreme court. i am so delighted many of you are joining us this evening for the third of the society's four-part 2019 leon silverman lecture series on dissent in the supreme court and new perspectives. during my tenure on the court, i have observed and appreciated and participated in many of the extensive efforts the society undertakes to engage its members on the greater world in the history of this institution. lectures such as this one are just one example. i along with my colleagues, so grateful for the work the society does to educate the nation and the ways of the supreme court, the constitution, and that judiciary. function. from teacher training programs and middle schools and high schools, to publications like the journal of supreme court history, the society's efforts deeply and enrich americans in their search for civic education. tonight's lecture is on prescient dissent. justice bradley in the slaughterhouse cases, is a topic of particular interest to me. i have been given a lot of opp

the supreme court uses history in two ways. he's exactly right. they're looking at practices throughout all of american history, 19 sidhu, 20th, 21st but there's another way in which the court uses history. it's separate. that is what yet the original understanding of the establishment clause and what it meant. this is the original given to us by rutledge and black and others. here is an excellent case come made if we're going by the constitutional principle that comes from originalism the first amendment means large what it says. we will not have an established church but it's permissible toy have things like page of chaplains, prayers and legislative bodies, presidential call for prayer. these things are not a violatio of the constitutional principle enacted in establishment clause. >> our next question is the gentleman in the blue and then the lady to my left over here. the lady in the front and then i will go to the back of this section. it has brought us in god we trust being displayed i would like both of your thoughts on whether or not that

court were just late last night united supreme court held with a 54 ruling upheld the state supreme court of wisconsin's decision to not allow an extension of the absentee votes by a week now earlier yesterday as you mentioned in your tas democrat governor tony ever issued an executive order postponing the election for 2 months or that was almost immediately struck down by the state supreme court saying guess what governor you don't have the authority to postpone election especially the day before so it was maybe a little short notice now it's got a $77.00 delegates are up for grabs today but the democrat presidential race is not the only race on that ballot what else is there well that's a thing everybody obviously is still trying to figure out who's going to be the nominee on the democrat ticket and that's very important but there's actually a big race that's right now motivating a lot of people to the polls and that is actually the supreme court race for president trump even just the. last 24 hours not once but twice treated in a doors meant for a state supreme court judge who's

with the supreme court judges conducting trials. and with murders and divorces. and many civil disputes. to see a side of life you never would have seen. and then for those meal experiences of life to be on the firing line but it's hard and unpleasant and that it is an allusion. that is part of his realism. >> because of the traffic jam and one of those very obvious questions. but that witticism that does not go well to have that competent - - with free speech of five generations. >> and with that terrible stain on the reputation and that second witticism to show in a crowded theater and do that if you haven't already it is interesting and holmes himself said as soon as the phrase becomes current not thinking clearly so to be aware of the danger to come up with a great memorable phrase can lead to abuse and if you believe that whole opinion in the context to put it in the context of that speech counseling to murder is not freedom of speech that is a crime of itself. that is the distinction he was trying to make a for that consignmen

but the supreme court struck down the formula. the way the voting act worked was, if you were a state or a city or a county that kept african americans from voting in the not-so-good-old days, you could not make any change in voting legislation unless you precleared it with the department of justice, civil rights division, or with the three-judge district court in the district of columbia. so that advanced check suppressed many laws that would have discouraged african americans from voting. the supreme court said, well, the formula for who was discriminating in 1965 is now out of date. congress needs to do it over, because jurisdictions that were discriminating in 1965 may have clean hands today. the political problem was what member of congress, what senator, what representative, would stand up and say, "my state or my city or my county is still discriminating, so keep it under the surveillance that the voting rights act provides"? it just wasn't going to happen. the act itself had a bailout provision. so if a state, city, county

now we had somebody on the supreme court. that took away in my view and the view of my women lawyer friends, any argument that women could not do whatever they wanted to do in the law. it was a game-changer. it was a tsunami. it gave us an argument to make when everybody thought women were not qualified to do something. it continued. jungles, mothers, grandmothers, letters that came to the chambers from all these people. i cannot think of anything in my memory that has been that definitive a change, not that there weren't any obstacles in the future, but that changed the attitude of people toward women and the. law >> kathleen? >> i was just coming out of law school when this happened. at the time, there were still a lot of things that were challenging for women lawyers and having this happen, it let you know it was going to get fixed. it might not be immediate that in the long term it would work out as they should. it was part of my reaction. i have seen over the years and how important it has been two women of all ages. i'v

consequently with star a decisiveness the rule that they are bound to respect precedent supreme court justices clutch fidelity to the constitution alone and if their predecessors have construed willingly they must say so and overturn. lawyers and professors the idea of this settled law is shockingly radical. and explain so few y-letter of thomas' opinions are majority most are a dissent or a concurrence but not the reasoning often he rejects the premise on which the majority relies. he is perfectly comfortable with being a minority of one and point to justice marshall loan dissent in plessy the ferguson as his model. to that holding separate but equal facility for blacks had countered that our constitution is colorblind that neither knows nor tolerates classes but as thomas says to quote from the majority or the dissent so lays down the markers and the contempt to let history judge. so to take this back to the very first act of constitutional subversion. and arguably the finest and then to violate the fourth amendment but not in the way the court says that it does. that declares every

supreme court blocked an attempt to delay the vote due to the coronavirus pandemic hours earlier the state supreme court ruled the primary couldn't be postponed the democratic governor tony evans had ordered the election be postponed till june the 9th john hendren reporting from chicago now he says the supreme court ruling was made along partisan lines. it has been a whirlwind of a day it began with wisconsin governor tony even as declaring in any and executive order that voting would not go forward on tuesday that election would be postponed to june 9th then we had the state supreme court ruling no in fact he does not have the authority to do that and that election will go ahead on tuesday and then we hear that the u.s. supreme court has also shot down a lower court ruling that had extended mail in voting until the 13th of april and said in fact when the polls close tomorrow that is when the last mail in ballots can be accepted so this election will not go any much any beyond tomorrow there was some question they might not even be able to call it for several days after that in fact

she is still working out at the supreme court gym. her trainer said they are keeping a safe distance during her workouts. the four-time cancer survivor simply says she doesn't want to stop her sessions. >> she has the hustle. >> that's right. by the way, that zoo program from the oakland zoo airs tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 live on their website. so if you want to tune in, you have little ones, they'll love it. >> looks fantastic. great way to spend the afternoon, especially if you're doing a little home schooling there. very encasele. i love that. >> the news continues announcer: it's time to play "family feud"! give it up for steve harvey! [captioning made possible by fremantle media] steve: i appreciate that. thank y'all very much. i appreciate you, folks. thank y'all. i appreciate it. i appreciate y'all. thank you very much. well, welcome to "family feud," everybody. i'm your man steve harvey. [cheering and applause] got a good one for you today. returning for their third day from mobile, alabama, it's the champs, it's the winchest

court were just late last night united states supreme court upheld with a 5 to 4 ruling upheld the state supreme court of wisconsin's decision to not allow an extension of the absentee votes by a week now earlier yesterday as you mentioned in your tas democrat governor tony ever issued an executive order postponing the election for 2 months or that was almost immediately struck down by the state supreme court saying guess what governor you don't have the authority to postpone election especially the day before so it was maybe a little short notice now it's got a $77.00 delegates are up for grabs today but the democrat presidential race is not the only race on that ballot what else is there well that's the thing everybody obviously is still trying to figure out who's going to be the nominee on the democrat ticket and that's very important but there's actually a big race that's right now motivating a lot of people to the polls and that is actually the supreme court race for president trump even just the last 24 hours not once but twice treated in a doors meant for a state supreme court jud

a group of businesses in pennsylvania are going a giant step further asking the supreme court to strike down an executive order that allows the governor to pick and choose which businesses can remain open and which need to shutdown. since mid-march more than 1.6 million pennsylvanians have filed for unemployment and florida governor ron desantis is pushing back against criticism that he waited too long to shutdown his state. >> you go from dc, maryland, new jersey, new york, connecticut, massachusetts, michigan, indiana, ohio, illinois, you name it, florida has done better. i'm not criticizing those states but everyone in the media was saying florida would be like new york or italy and that has not happened. >> you've got some governors claiming vindication, others getting sued, and one got a parade for her handling. >> quite a combo, 50 very different states. so let's begin with the mounting legal challenges by business owners and residents to say the governors are going too far, joining us tonight representing small businesses in pennsylvania taking their case to the supreme court and