supreme court. she maintains an active pro bono practice and serves on the academic advisers for the american constitution society. finally we have nancy zirkin she is a strategic consultant and was the executive vice president for the leadership conference of civil and human rights from 2002 to 2017. nancy was a part of the effort including task force on education, affirmative action and judicial nominations since the 1990s. during the mid-70s she worked at several public interest groups including common cause and women's equity action league and was the director of public policy and government relationless at the american association of university of women. she was aauw's chief lobbyist and managed coordination of the equal rights amendment women's voting rights project and civil rights act of 1995. let's give our panelists a round of applause from our computer screens. the primary questions are what is next for court reform, what is possible to do and how can progressives affect change on the fro

the supreme court historical society does for the supreme court. the historical society does extremely important work this reminding people of the importance of our constitution and our judicial system and its history. 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 libin reminded me that i've written a few of those. tonight's speaker is professor justin driver. he's professor of law at yale law school. he teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law and he's the author most recently of a book called the schoolhouse gate. public education, the supreme court and the battle for the american mind. that book got rave reviews. 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 s

he hit -- he is a supreme court expert. thank you for being back. >> is with us for the first time and we are glad to have you. former judge of utah from 2000-2007. also served as a deputy attorney general and he is now the -- professor at university of utah law school. what other cans to issues are in the miranda case? >> it tries to settle a question around the country for several hundred years. how much pressure can police officers put on a suspect when trying to get information from them. what sorts of rules will be used in court? >> so many of the amendments concerned criminal rights. what is it about this case that made it a landmark? >> it transformed the culture. look at all the tv shows that gave miranda rights. oust trying to see if i can do it by heart. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you. you have the right to consult with a attorney and if you cannot afford one it will be afforded to you. it is so ingrained in the culture. he said his unit in your opening that

supreme court. she maintains an active pro bono practice and serves on the board of academic advisers of the american constitution society. finally we have nancy zurkina strategic consultant, and was the executive vice president for the leadership conference on civil and human rights from 2002 to 2017. nancy was a part of its various lobbying efforts, including task forces on hate crimes, affirmative action and judicial nominations since the 1990s. during the mid-70s she worked at several public interests groups including common cause and women's equity action league and was the director of public policy and government relations at the american association of university of women. she was aauw's chief lobbyist and managed coordination of the equal rights amendment, women's vote project and civil rights act of 1991. let's give our panelists an active round of applause from our computer screens. let's get to this. the primary questions facing this panel is what is next for court reform? what is possibl

supreme court presided over them and each of the nine supreme court justices were assigned -- and spent much of your traveling to the circuit court further. inland this practice was known as circuit riding. the circuit justice for connecticut was smith thompson, a new yorker pointed to the supreme court in 1823 by president james monroe. ♪ ♪ ♪ during the three weeks between the initial inquest and the sessions of the district and circuit courts, the amistad case became the subject of a growing national debate on slavery. led by wealthy merchant lewis tablet, a group of slave advocates a new york recognized the opportunity to build national support for the abolitionist of slavery in the united states. these abolitionist and founded a case that they were looking for to challenge the laws of slavery in federal court. his associates formed a committee to represent the jailed africans. and in a newspaper appeal to friends of liberty, they asked for donations in order to employ interpreters, lawyers, and whatever else it took to secure the rights of the african. they called upon yale co

i find that -- the supreme court. i find that particularly upsetting because we have made so much progress on election laws. congress has expanded ways to enhance the franchise, particularly with the help america vote act. do you think there is any justification for saying congress has not indicated that we want to move forward with helping america vote that the supreme court could hang its hat on? for any of the members. yes, mr. morales-doyle. mr. morales-doyle: the north carolina legislator was targeting african-american voters with surgical decision. that involved a number of laws rolling back early voting, getting rid of same-day registration that did not exist in 1982. and yet, the court of appeals held that states can intentionally go after voters of color after the court finding that that was discriminatory, and yet, using 1982 as a benchmark, would send you down the wrong path. that is why guideposts are misguided. rep. ross: i yield back. rep.cohen: thank you. is sister mcclintock with us? is mr. lloyd with

the supreme court said yes. chief justice roberts said the key aspects of property rights is the right to exclude others even though this isn't a permanent grant of the ability of the union to come on the property it should be regarded as a possessory taking. justice breyer wrote the dissent, that this is temporary. more important this is a regulation, not a possessory taking. the issue is what about all the other laws that give government inspectors the ability to go for limited periods of time. why aren't they done for the taking? chief justice roberts says it is different if the government conditions operating a business for letting inspectors be present but in his analysis it is still a possessory taking, why isn't this the government dishing operating cultural enterprises on allowing union organizers, and as you alluded to, property rights, very anti-labor. it all came together in this case but predicted a lot more challenges, arguments that giving access to government officials regarded as a possessory tak

that will change the agenda of the supreme court. john roberts is still the chief assigned to write the majority opinion when he is in the majority. but, what interesting statistic this term. it was brett kavanaugh who was the justice most often in the majority. second, there was no pretense of judicial deference by the court this time. there was a time when judicial conservatism was a deference to elected officials. we do not see that this year. as i went through the list of cases we are talking about, in almost every instance, the government lost, with the court repeatedly striking down federal and state statutes. i think it makes it a very different kind of conservatism and certainly has implications for the future. finally, as we begin talking about this term, my own caution against generalizing from a small sample. we all learned the risk of generalizing from a small sample. i was concerned by the generalizations i saw in the media that dahlia was referring to. after all, this is only one term of the supreme court. justice barre

united states supreme court chief justice resigns. he's elected governor of new york. he leads the post of chief justice that leaves an empty. washington will cap john of south carolina. he will come back to philadelphia this time and actually serve as chief justice. however, he's appointed to the recess of congress. so technically the senate hasn't confirmed him, but he serves a session of the court as chief justice and leads them through some cases. when the senate comes back later that year to return to session, they then take up the question of approving john. george washington never had anyone rejected that he's appointed. this has never happened in our young history. he has a couple things going against him. number one, there are guys in the senate looking to get a little crazy. he's had some kind of strange things he's had to say at different times in the year of 1790. he's got a bit of a kind of reputation among some people. but also where he's going to get into trouble as he made some very pointed comments about the jay treat

the supreme court historical society hosted the lecture with justice elena kagan offering introductory remarks. >>> in the summer of 1839 a foreign schooner accidentally sailed along the shores of the united states and transformed the federal courts into a forum for an explosive national debate. the drama that began when the enslaved african americans on the a.m. stad revolted and took control of the vessel off the coast of cuba would culminate in the supreme court of the united states with a former president arguing on behalf of the african americans' appeal for freedom. the arm stad case forced the federal courts and the nation to consider the legal foundations of slavery. >> for several weeks in the summer of 1839 newspapers along the atlantic coast reported sightings of a mysterious schooner supposedly commanded by african pirates. late in august the crew of the navy brig washington spotted a badly damaged vessel in long island sound and a shore party trading with local residents along the new york coast. when the naval officers boarde

supreme court. as u.s. solicitor general. he served as a district judge for the columbia circuit and counselor chief of staff to u.s. attorney general william french smith and his law clerk to both chief justice warren burger and the fifth circuit judge. as most of you know, he was appointed to serve as independent counsel for five investigations including white water from 1994 many of you know ken through his writing. his author first among equals, the supreme court in american life, bear country, the baylor story, contempt memoir of the clinton investigation was a near times bestseller in 2018. and religious liberty in crisis, which was released this past tuesday and which we celebrate this evening. ken and his wife alice, who was here this evening, great to have you here alice. now reside along the peaceful banks in waco, texas. we're going to hear from two devoted joints of faith and freedom strengthen our resolve. to defend americans first freedom. please join me in welcoming doctor tom pharr and doctor ken starr. >> tha

. >> now, more on the supreme court's most recent term. this discussion included former solicitor general paul clement and other legal experts. it is about 90 minutes. majority on the court. conducting this review with our partners at the adl. it is wonderful to bring together this mag you have been all engaging with the ncc. check out our town hall programs. check out our phenomena we the people progress -- podcast where we post audio of all of these programs. as well as our live constitution 101 classes offered for learners of all ages. we have american --. i will pass the mike to karen leavitt -- the microphone to karen leavitt of the national civil rights council of adl. over to you, karen. >> hello. welcome to the antidefamation league annual supreme court review. i am karen leavitt. i pronouns are she and her. in the past years, the program has been presented jointly with the national constitution center and i want to thank our partners there. before we hear from our panelists, i want to recognize adl's vice president of civil rights

the supreme court basically invited that. they invited that and acknowledged that these laws would have an affect on the ability of people of color to vote in this country. >> both of you stand by for a second. we have more to discuss after the break. you are watching "velshi." we'll be right back. hi." we'll be right back. ♪♪ [music and sound effects played in reverse] this...is our shot. the covid-19 vaccines are ready. and so is walgreens, with pharmacy experts ready to make it easy for you to get it safely, for free. because this is our shot... ...at getting back together. i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried felt more energy in just two weeks! [sighs wearily] here, i'll take that! woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and now with two new flavors! with relapsing forms of ms... there's a lot to deal with. not just unpredictable relapses. all these other things too. it can all add up. kesimpta is a once-monthly at-home injection... that m

. >>> we are also following supreme court. the question here in front of the justices is whether they would strike down or uphold these two restrict of voting laws in a. these could have significant implications. what are you hearing? >> no surprise that the supreme court has upheld both provisions of the voting law. even the biden administration said under reading of the section two of the voting rights act these two provisions were illegal under the act. the question is, what did the court do to what's left of the voting rights act? this is a 6-3 ruling. this is a total split by ideology. the six conservatives, three liberals on the other side. justice elena kagan writing for the dissenters says the court has weakened voting rights and wonders what the impact will be on these other states, some who have restricted access to vote that were enacted after the last presidential election. it will take us a while to get into the weeds to see what the real test is. that's the essence of this decision, but not a surprise that court

she went on the supreme court and she would say if i've never been put on the supreme court i would still love it, i love being a judge and it was really special role in going back to what i was saying earlier, i think a big part of that was about public service about being in the service of this country that she loves so deeply. >> the last question i'm going to ask you are about her past just to warn you, do you remember your last conversation with her. >> vividly i didn't think it would be the last one we were supposed to talk the week she passed away in the fact that the call kept getting put off, i started to worry that things are not going in the right direction. but we talked about the book and how the term was winding up and gone late last year because of the covid pandemic. >> i always tried to make the justice block, ion spent time before we talked trying to think of some funny stories. i'm gonna tell this because of the hope grounding the tell the rest of the story, among others a funny story that i prepared to tell her my kids i cannot get them to go to bed they want to

tonight on american history tv a look into a supreme court landmark case, plessy versus ferguson which solidified the separate but equal doctrine and provided legal protection to segregation laws passed by the states. scholars look at its impact on education and housing and how we still live with the legacy of the decision. we will look at the life and legacy of the first african-american supreme court justice thurgood marshall and his impact on u.s. history. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> each week american history tvs american artifacts visits museums and historic places an up next we travel to philadelphia's independence national historical park to learn about congress hall, the meeting place of the u.s. house and senate between 1790 and 1800, our guide a park ranger matthew ifill. >> we are standing in the old house of representatives in a building that we call congress hall, although originally it was built as a county courthouse for philadelphia for most of its history that's exactly what it was, but in the years that the city of washington, d.c. is being built

tv, a look into a supreme court landmark case, plus you versus ferguson which solidify the separate but equal doctrine and provided equal doctrine to the -- scholars look at its impact on education and housing and how we still live with a legacy of the decision. we also look at the life and legacy of the first african americans supreme court justice, there were good marshall. and his impact on u.s. history. watch tonight, beginning at 8 pm eastern. >> weekend on c-span two you are an intellectual. feast toledo is known as the glass capital of the world because from that one company that came >> came all of these tertiary companies that have built this economy of glass here in toledo. so we are standing in the glass pavilion, which is part of the toledo museum of art. well, the purpose really is to showcase the glass collection, which is one of the significant parts of our collection here. it's actually almost a third of the overall collection here in toledo. it's also one of the larger collections of glass in the united states and the city has a wonderful history of glass both in terms

after all, this is only one term of the supreme court. justice barrett did not participate in oral arguments in the october session. so she participated in about 40 , cases. some of those are not controversial at all. as we will talk about at the end i think it is the next term when , the supreme court is deciding cases about abortion and gun rights and maybe affirmative action that we will get a better sense of what the newly constituted roberts courts will -- court will be like. that is why i said at the outset, best think of this year as a term in transition. dahlia: erwin, thank you so much. one of the most interesting aspects of the term was that a lot of it happened in a set of orders and decisions that came down on the so-called shadow docket, which is to say, these are cases that were not necessarily fully briefed or argued. they came down as a sequence of emergency orders around state and local government orders shutting down and imposing limits during covid. i should note, before i ask paul to explain the covid cases, that the a

i learned the colorado state supreme court in the united states supreme court have discretion and what cases they taken the state decided to decline so there's only one option left and that would be to appeal to the native state supreme court we were willing to do that but was the court willing to hear a case? that was the question. >> the court was willing to hear your case hotel is the art of the us supreme court hearing your case. >> extremely small that you will be heard. they are petitioned between eight and 10000 cases every year and they will only grant 70 or 80 and those cases normally like to circuit court's night and those that rule differently on two different things that is called a circuit split so they have to justify that they can be one thing in california and another in florida and has to be the same across the board so there are larger cases like that and my case we came from not a circuit or district court it was a stand-alone case. basically coming from the court of appeals we didn't even make it to the state supreme court so the odds were incredibly against us to h

today, the supreme court in new hampshire agreed. in a unanimous ruling, the highest court in new hampshire overturned that republican voter law of 2017. the court ruled that the law made it more confusing to vote and could deter people from trying to register. they wrote in the ruling that the bill, quote, imposes unreasonable burdens on the right to vote. so they ordered that the law, quote, must be stricken in its entirety. which is good news for college students in new hampshire. it's good news for democracy. because this is the way it's supposed to work. everyone in this country, even if you live in a dorm or drove your car to college across state lines, which many people do, everyone over the age of 18 who is a citizen should have equal access to the ballot box. today the supreme court in new hampshire righted that wrong. that's not the way these fights are going everywhere. just yesterday, the united states supreme court upheld a pair of voting restrictions in arizona. one of those restrictions calls to nullify anyone's vote t

the supreme court stayed out of the election disputes. justice stephen breyer decided to stick around for one more term. of course, there were opinions. in short, we have a lot to talk about. we have a terrific panel to do just that. i am joined by two outstanding scholars, josh blackman joining us for truly, and we are grateful to have with us two veterans of this program, award-winning scribes. we have a lot to uncover, therefore i am going to give each of them a brief introduction, way shorter than they deserve. first, josh blackman, josh is an associate professor of law at south texas college of law in houston. he specializes in constitutional law, the supreme court, and the intersection of law and technology. after graduating from george mason law school, he clicked for kim gibson in the western district of pennsylvania, and then danny boggs. in addition to being a regular contributor, he is an adjunct scholar at the cato institute and founder of the harlan institute. he is the author of three books, an introduction to constitutional

supreme court. a major ruling upholding two arizona voting provisions saying they do not violate the roting rights act. and more breaking news, the chief financial officer of the trump organization has surrendered to authorities after a grand jury indicted him as well as the former president's family business in connection to a criminal tax investigation. wolf. >> and there is major breaking news here in surfside, florida, as well as the site of the deadly condo collapse. and this is heartbreaking for so many of the families. rescue efforts, search and rescue efforts have been at least temporarily halted over deep concerns right now that the remaining parts of this building potentially could top and endanger the hundreds of men and women involved in this search and rescue operation. president biden and the first lady dr. jill biden, they are now here. they are here in south florida. they're being briefed right now on the disaster. they'll be meeting with family members, search and rescue teams, but

it begins but supreme court -- supreme court precedent confirms the elections clause means what it says that congress has the broad power to make or alter rules governing the times, places and manner of conducting congressional elections, thank you. >> thank you very much. last we had the secretary of state, michael adams. thank you for joining us in your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. good afternoon, i am the deputy secretary of state. it's an honor to be with you today. i understand the topic of discussion is the election clause in our constitution. any data congress spends considering her compass -- our constitution is a good day and i wish you every success. my purpose is to address policy concerns of congress increasing congresses role in elections for congress. here is some background, i took office last year and the elections i supervised as my state's chief election official took place amid the pandemic. i asked the legislation for emergency powers to be shared with our democratic governor that led us to implement temporary changes to our election system to e

a supreme court report and for the wall street journal. here's a graduate of uc berkeley graduate school. he used to work as a reporter for the los angeles times. it is also a contributor to many other publications including the washington post, spy magazine, harper's bazaar, and former member of uc board of regents and city council appointee to the berkeley california police review commission and zoning adjustment board. he has author of two books, one having to do with guantanamo bay, the other the life and times of squeaky from, member of the manson family. we have adam liptak, supreme -- where he has a history after graduating yale, adam worked at the new york times as a copy boy, then went to yell law school during times of the summers. he spent years at -- where he specialized in first amendment law before joining the times legal department in 1982. in 2002, he switched to the news staff, and the rest is history. so now, we will sit down and start talking about some of the cases. adam, we will start with you. adam: i am going to talk

. >> the supreme court historical society? >> the supreme court historical society is the official name. >> is an amazing article. and so, have a great day. watch book tv now on sunday on cspan2 or find it online anytime @booktv.org. it is television for serious readers. now from c-span's american history tv oral histories series richard recounts his service in the u.s. army national guard during operation iraqi freedom in afghanistan. he described his interactions with local civilians, the impact of the war on families. this interview is from the veterans history project and was conducted by the atlanta history center's keen on research center. >> i was born in florida my dad was in the navy. he went up work with the faa in south carolina until 1971 we got transferred to the center and hampton and has been here ever since. >> okay. >> the jew go to school worded to go to school? >> so into high soo

so the next step is to appeal to the state supreme court. >> that sounds like a reeducation camp so you talk about this before but the government was ordering you to violate your conscience. was there ever a moment where you were wavering and wondering if you should just give in and do what they said? >> i would close the cake shop down but the question why is how far could be go? i learned the colorado state supreme court have discretion in the cases that they take and then my case was declined and thought it was over there is only one option left and that is to appeal to the united states supreme court. we were willing to do that but what they hear our case? that was the question. host: they were willing to hear your case and tell us the odds of the us supreme court to hear your case. >> the odds are extremely small you will be heard they are petitioned with between eight and 10000 cases every year the only grant between 70 or 80 and it has to be to circuit if they ruled differently that is the split so they have to justify that the constitution can't be one thing in california and an

the supreme court stayed out of the election disputes. justice stephen breyer decided to stick around for one more term. of course, there were opinions. in short, we have a lot to talk about. we have a terrific panel to do just that. i am joined by two outstanding scholars, josh blackman joining us for truly, and we are grateful to have with us two veterans of this program, award-winning scribes. we have a lot to uncover, therefore i am going to give each of them a brief introduction, way shorter than they deserve. first, josh blackman, josh is an associate professor of law at south texas college of law in houston. he specializes in constitutional law, the supreme court, and the intersection of law and technology. after graduating from george mason law school, he clicked for kim gibson in the western district of pennsylvania, and then danny boggs. in addition to being a regular contributor, he is an adjunct scholar at the cato institute and founder of the harlan institute. he is the author of three books, an introduction to constitutional

court and supreme court opinion. the highest court of our land is now using messaging a voter fraud. when again, there are no examples of voter fraud, even war. so we're still seeing the ramifications and the trumpet ministration in concert and is trying to hold onto power even when minorities and what is right is losing. we can overcome this though, and it does start on the local level. but it starts with communication and it starts with education. i couldn't agree with you more and i know you're doing the work there in georgia as well as partnering with organizations across the country to ensure not only that, people know what's happening in terms of the voter restriction laws, but also putting the power back in the hands of the people. thanks so much for joining us 1st, bruce. thank you. and as we go to break, remember that you can also start watching the hot on demand through the portable tv app available on all platform. coming up, i'll be joined by patients, murray, a survivor of the post nightclub mass shootin

and they've used the same type of language in the supreme court in supreme court opinion. the highest court of our land is now using messaging a voter fraud. when again, there are no examples of voter fraud, even war. so we're still seeing the ramifications of the trumpet, ministration and concern is trying to hold onto power even when minorities and what is right is losing. we can overcome this though, and it does start on the local level. but it starts with communication and it starts with education. i couldn't agree with you more and i know you're doing the work there in georgia as well as partnering with organizations across the country to ensure not only that, people know what's happening in terms of the voter restriction laws, but also putting the power back in the hands of the people. thanks so much for joining us 1st, bruce. thank you. and as we go to break, remember that you can also start watching the hawk on demand through the portable tv app available on all platform. coming up, i'll be joined by patients, murray, a survivor of the whole night club mass shootin

that is how we got president trump's third supreme court justice nominee on the supreme court. in worst-case an area, if justice breyer should step down after the senate is retaken by the republicans, nobody believes that president biden will be allowed by the republicans to put his own nominee on the court. justice breyer has given no hints that he is going. from the outside, we can objectively observe that he has authored a few of the courts bigger decisions in the past few weeks. maybe that sort of a last hero, we don't know. history says if he's gonna go and make that announcement, it will be soon. ten of the past 11 justices to retire from the court either announced their retirement or times the retirement for the end of the term. again, the end of the term is tomorrow. big day tomorrow. potentially gigantic news day tomorrow. watch this. i discovered some very interesting documents on ancestry. this is the uh registration card for the draft for world war two. and this is his signature which blew me away. being able to... make my grandfather real... not just a memory... is

the supreme court historical society hosted this event in the supreme court chamber. it's just over an hour. >> i'm john ginsburg and since nobody else seems to be here to do, it all introduce our panel for this evening. in this look back at justice, thurgood marshall. to my immediate left,

supreme court. a major ruling upholding two arizona voting provisions saying they do not violate the roting rights act. and more breaking news, the chief financl

and in the case of pennsylvania the supreme court had already dismissed the pennsylvania supreme court had had dismissed a republican lawsuit challenging those results. i want to ask you about comments you made in a local interview about a month after the attacks, you said that biden was duly elected. do you believe that biden is the legitimately elected president of the united states. >> yeah, i do, but let me go back for a second. you mentioned pennsylvania since you bring it up and that was the heart of my objection and that i filed. the pennsylvania supreme court did not hear or adjudicate the merits of the claim of the constitutional claim that pennsylvania had violated its own state constitution in allowing universal mail-in balloting. the supreme court specifically declined to hear it, they dismissed it on the grounds of procedural ground called latches and violated their own doctrine in doing so. that's not the only strange thing out of step with law in pennsylvania. the same supreme court in pennsylvania which is partisan, they elect them and-- >> senator, i'm going to step in