Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  October 3, 2015 6:00am-8:01am EDT

6:00 am
going to share with you some observations about a couple of changes that we saw and understand that change in the south is often coupled with tragedy. it is often coupled with tragedy. in the winter of 2015 sessions run from january to june, my senate seat and other downs decided to make body camera legislation a priority. we met with serious resistance to my little action, and the bills welding committee. in april of 2015 a man by the name of walter scott was shot and killed in north charleston, south carolina. the reaction initially was that there had been some resistance in the officer that had to shoot mr. scott, but a video came out there
6:01 am
shortly that showed that mr. scy the police officer was attempting to flee, and frankly, flee and not quick manner that was shot in the back and shot multiple times. it was a tragedy. it was a horrific incident in our state. before that happened, we would often here that that is not what happened in south carolina. and maybe i think that many people said to themselves, maybe that happened not to people like us. the ones that video came out there were many new people sitting at the table to discuss the need for body cameras.
6:02 am
he spoke about thomas and jesus and thomaston believe until he put his finger in the wound i would encourage you to look at that speech if you want to you to bid on look at it sometime. he did not speak very often from the floor. butfloor. but the bill passed. real change occurred in south carolina command we now have funded body cameras. i want you to flash back with me to 2014. i was the democratic candidate for governor in a different -- difficult year.
6:03 am
in the fall of that year myself and lieutenant governor candidate decided that we wanted to take on the 3rd rail of politics in south carolina. we want to speak to an issue that no one speak about. you could not avoid. and we stood underneath the confederate battle flag a month and a half before my gubernatorial election fence it is time to bring it down. when you have politically it was south carolina politics, but letpolitics, but let me leave you with this idea, when you have the bully pulpit, the eyes of a state or nation on you, use them because you don't know when you will have it again. our current governor, my
6:04 am
opponent in that election belittled our attempt, mocked us, said it was not an important issue. there were called back into a special session of the senate. our state government was about to shut down. a budget has not been passed by the republican majority. i was there that day and finance committee we adjourn the senate finance committee and so the democratic caucus lunch. mesh printed i told you about. asked to give the prayer because he was also an a&e pastor.
6:05 am
he gave a short prayer. i'm catholic. he gave an even shorter prayer that we catholics to. we took up a collection for our custodial staff. had been late in contributing to that and asked me how much it is. i said $15. he said here's 20. that's my last memory. i think you know the story, unfortunately, that occurred. suffice it to say that that night after session clinton left early to go back to church. and those of us in the senate who served with him learned about what had happened very shortly thereafter.
6:06 am
out of crisis out of that can come some good which is important to use and embrace. the day after the massacre at mother emanuel, the day after he was killed, eight other people were killed because they were black we met in the senate again the next morning and had to decide where we go forward and pass the state budget. i urged a small group of us to continue and to eulogize until the story of this great man in our friend and we did. and the next day we learned that the killer had driven up with confederate battle flag's license plates -- actually that day,day, and we had a decision to make, and decisions matter. do we mourn our friends, barry our friends, or try to change the state. and our governor did an interview and said it was too early to talk about things like that.
6:07 am
we were going to speak up and we went on cnn and msnbc in every channel we can go on. they said it was time for the confederate battle flag to come down. the entire hierarchy had come to the position. and i will wrap up by saying that even the tragedy is not easy and difficult, and so we came up with a strategy immediately, we wanted to bring the fly down, have compromise, and that we democrats needed to drive this narrative, work with
6:08 am
the republicans, important to maintain control the issue because we knew what needed to happen. we found republican supporter our side ironically and appropriately the son of senator strom thurmond. it was time to do the right thing, and we had a mantra. it's time for the confederate battle flag to come down, time to pass a clean bill. they drove the narrative for 30 days until it happened. and it did happen. we are better sit for it. we are a better state and a better country for it. [applause] and so let me leave you with , i have shared with you a very personal story, and i
6:09 am
share that with you as a legislator for a reason because voters and people react not to statistics, not to policy papers, they react to stories, your personal stories. we would not have body camera legislation in south carolina but for those of senator ping were willing the tell a story of his constituency was killed. we would not have brought the battle flag of the confederacy down in south carolina but for people like me who told the personal stories and others who told the story of there eight family members who were killed in that awful massacre on that terrible day, so share your story and change the state, change state, change the nation and i say change the world. thank you. [applause] >> so you heard from for extraordinary progressive
6:10 am
state legislators, two of whom were fighting uphill battles still winning, and two of whom have done some great stuff. sometimes you have to fight some of your friends and convince them and other times when you have the steering wheel you have to drive the car. right? by you on your own thoughts and questions, and is time to hear from you. let's start hearing from folks. can i ask you for a little bit of indulgence? can everybody try to get the question out in 60 seconds? if you agree with 60 seconds after hands. [applause] and what you all empower me to enforce the 62nd rule?
6:11 am
[applause] so that means your going to hear from at least 20 people. withbut this started. >> you just have to implement a new rule. >> my name is vivian flowers. vivian flowers, state representative, arkansas. we heard a lot about data, now that a lot of the progressives make sense and are backed by science and many of us often times are shocked when we see outcomes and elections and outcomes and those that are taken in the legislature.
6:12 am
they are a lot of questions whether were talking about the things we're on this been on the previous panel, what is the reframing in the messaging that we can take is progressives as well as have some of our own testimonials, not just politicians command we do that so that we can have the impact on these other issues command i think i am under one minute. >> that is an extraordinarily good question. how to progressives talkdo progressives talk about race in an authentic, real way. and religion. and i've got my own reasons for wanting to see that happen. you know what, can our panelists right down how you want to respond and we will take about four at a time. that might help us get through as much as we can. go for it. come on now.
6:13 am
times are wasting. >> representative carla cunningham. my question is, i am hearing a lot about criminal justice reform. my concern is it is 12 percent population and side of the prison, in the united states that has mental illness, but it seems to me that we want to do reform without preparation when they get out that they have a mental illness component once they come back into the community because right now our mental health reform needs reforming on the outside. so what about assistant to take care of them in the ones already on the outside? >> another great question. thank you. >> this is personyour senator shaheen, stacey newman from missouri state representative. i agree with you in terms of taking advantage of not
6:14 am
tragedies but in terms of the momentum. from your situation we discovered in our state that we actually fund our state funds a confederate state park. i am getting ready to jump into that issue. i am a little reluctant because i no it's going to destroy everything else i'm working on in terms of abortion and guns and voting rights, and that is what i need to no, where can i find my level of support the sizable communities? >> that's what we're doing here, sharing information. we will take one more and then let our panel react. >> thank you. he emerged, represent rhode island are we have democrats but our leadership is not progressive. if you have lessons for organizing a progressive caucus and how you can use that? >> be happy to.
6:15 am
good. why don't we have our panel respond? >> are these things on? all right. so, the race and religion question, i think for our work in oregon, the most important thing we did was expand the table. the coalition changed. traditional progressive organizations, labor unions and the like 11 doing this work for a long time been toward smaller community organizations around how to lobby come out to be involved in like to work. we have a great organization for intercultural organizing you helped pull together communities of color and smaller faith-based communities to sit at the same table again at planned parenthood and sei you a traditional progressive organizations because to tell authentic stories you
6:16 am
have to have people who can tell authentic stories and need to be empowered to tell their own stories and learn how to do this work. for too long we have relied on the same organization. >> let's keep rolling. >> in oregon one of the ways we dealt with mental illness,illness, people coming out of the prison system, department of corrections, i signed up for health insurance before they leave. we are working with our providers to require that they have aa doctors appointment scheduled before they leave within the 1st 30 days. because so often people leave with 30 days with the medication and that's it and they drop off the medication endo not a pay for your connect with the system. those primary points of contact are taking care of before the system. >> good point. >> for me and in some ways
6:17 am
the public part of my session began with i am tired is a 41 -year-old man, having why people tell me that what i see with my own eyes is not true, and it ended -- thank you. and it ended with me telling the story that comes out of the shooting that we were just talking about, which is about having to tell my son that the reason why people think that he might rape white women and he is not years old. the. awaiting you get people's attention is to tell them things that they do not know , always thinking about the answer to the question why, why this is important. in the blue state of connecticut we had people telling people of color who havehad the experience that the experience they have that is not real. wewe passed a body can bill because people tell there stories in different ways.
6:18 am
we passed it because those stories mpeg people when they say you don't understand me. you can sayyou can say whatever you want, you don't know what it is. we have to israel about the conversations with having. >> am going to dwell on this issue that we brought up about race and politics and the question that you gave me about the confederacy. >> it is at the core of what is going on. and so let me share with you this, represent an area in my district, my state that is overwhelmingly rural, small-town, 70 percent white , votes for national republicans in every race, and their used to be a lot of people like me elected in the southern states. there are not any more. when i was 1st elected and gentlemen got on the
6:19 am
elevator with me and said your a democrat. you know your an anomaly. in about ten years republicans will be represented by white elected officials generally with an exception here they're and are there and democrats will be elected over presented by black elected officials with an exception here there. i don't want you to think that what has happened just kind of happened accidentally because it hasn't. when democrats completely control the south the economic message was pretty similar to what it is now, the roosevelt video message command democrats held the south, every single office. there was one key difference which was they were the white people in the party. and to the democrats credit even in the south in the
6:20 am
60s60s and 70s and 80s they realized it was morally wrong and change that position and since that time you have seen the electorate resort as the republican party embraces the other position. thisthis is incredibly destructive to our country, our politics, government. basically created a political apartheid embrace and to make sure that everyone understands we are embracing all people to include black people, hispanicpeople, hispanic people, why people call people which is important for us to remember, so many foln
6:21 am
the south believe their history and heritage is important, and it is. my approach to dealing with confederate monuments and confederate relics and part is to say, it is a part of our history, an important part of our history, important that we tell the truth about our history, the good and the bad. it makes the same issues as you do. vicious racist murder statue on the front of our statehouse grounds. and you know, he was an important figure in south carolina history, but we should tell the whole story. he helped expand population. the movement that brought and opportunities for some people. supported which black people mention black people in our state, a terrible magazine that we live with
6:22 am
for so long. when we move forward in the future it is important that we regain the trust of all people in the state regardless of color, creed, or they come from and we have to think about that. we don't want to be the party of any one group. i'm going to hand it over to jessica. it is important you think about the local community year end. thereyear-end. there is no prophylactic way to always do it. "cbs evening news"
6:23 am
>> >> my district is on a
6:24 am
12 percent african-american and. and there is nobody in my district of 700,000 to is not clear on me being black. i am also muslim. people do not mind me. epitomize device me conclusively they don't say it works right for all lots of people but in particular. see how well do that? you talk about everybody you can do that within the group. this economy working people experience but think about women and.
6:25 am
as long as iraq to like you are a representative of the whole community. those are some ideas that we should try to on the issue. >> in north dakota we have a large native america population. [applause] we have a tribal members testify and to with your whites or blacks or native american and calling up the behavior in some committee hearings when the chairman is addressing some one of the different ways to notice did you treat people differently i have never lived on a reservation they know lot more than i do
6:26 am
about those things connected with their fellow americans what a concept. [laughter] one of the reasons and have a progressive caucus is a have the value or stability. but most things i agree with the president but we are on different pages big-time. rigo fallout because of it we just work on what we can and. the progressive caucus base helps us of '08 the personality base you have a progressive caucus it your state which i strongly urge you to urdu, how we engage a
6:27 am
leadership you would be surprised often leadership is looking for leadership. [laughter] to see everything get behind that. is a more extensive conversation with a progressive caucus to help you replicate the ideas to offer a leadership for the party you have to be and. i was told this is non-partisan. >> i am the minority caucus in my state. >> wyoming.
6:28 am
[laughter] [applause] >> the problem we face is in wyoming is too much a.m. radio and cable that they bay's most of their opinion some suggestions from the panel. >> raymond i want to frame that peace because one of the pieces is the democrats in our house may be at the center of the al whole state and is more conservative on
6:29 am
the right side of the party for a the caucus. but to pull in that direction of the party equation as well. >> i am for minnesota i am concerned about young people's participation talk about those amendments that we did we did in my precinct to the people caving in to vote no without even voting for obama. we do have good student participation but we lost legislative seats because they could not get students activated on other campuses. >> it is a very important issue.
6:30 am
>> good morning. as you mentioned with the state legislation and what if it is about. with the committee of people like yourself that gets the importance of what this is about to with the advisory your support committee. >> the answer is that we willing gauge and partner. nick has presented at the progressive caucus hollowed
6:31 am
to rebuild on this relationship? we worked out dates and times as it is presented to the caucus. >> did you know, there is no table that combines governors to know what i am talking about? there is no national coordinating campaign. and we try to win? ben never stop begging be for more money. but what about smart work
6:32 am
with coordinating teamwork makes the dreamwork? but the progressive caucus is looking for partnership and we are so proud. but let me tell you that nancy pelosi is a progressive so we say if you want to push we have you. she is right to. what if there is a conservative leadership? you have 72 people in this caucus. we don't believe that reach people don't have enough money and to at the end of
6:33 am
the day the leader of every caucus is trying to build a consensus if you were organized you create a gravitational pull do you remember the-- even if you were as progressive as you could be you didn't want to use the word welfare. we have to create a gravitational pull to those values. we do not have a litmus test in the u.s. progressive caucus, the closest thing is the people's budget that we
6:34 am
go for our budget. but our ideas have migrated on a consistent basis. and your idea box if you don't have any. real could really love to be in a conversation the you could start a progressive caucus. >> i want to go back to the question i don't have a ham radio or the cable issue but there were people on the death penalty they didn't
6:35 am
see the other way but the way we saw a movement in my freshman year to have a different perspective so i sat down to listen to people then walk away. but although my session started with day comment they are the most critical voices when i cannot be heard they can be heard behind. >> i will dive into the idea had three get more young people?
6:36 am
with a fundamental mistake if we could just give it more people to vote but to with the election and consistently appeal to our broad swath of the electorate. maybe in presidential races you can get over the top of those targeted turnout efforts but surely will lose even if you turn people out if you don't appeal to a broad swath of the electorate with issues that matter to them if they believe you care about them. if they believe you are on their side then they will look for you we really need to do swing that backed into this thing and -- understand
6:37 am
>> in oregon in the house race silent to individual donors to say will you invest in and thus steer test this tool to give us of monday to urdu pandora target big? because for young people and women and targeted voters you have to collect the data we have a large tech community in portland so those that believe bin data general less than is helpful because we cannot take money out of traditional male is easier with the air march
6:38 am
program to go into targeted new media. >> koch to employ technology and to raise that issue. >> i am good say to incorporate social media among young people to do the things like facebook do and twitter a and instagram to have as part of your plan is easy and it is free and the people round the table the organizational partners having them share is of a larger audience. >> i think we have reached the end of our time but i want to say we have pat truly brilliant idea is leverage. [applause]
6:39 am
>> and they say i agree one and a dispersant bed people are all part of that swath they experience the economy when i graduated from law school at 25 years old i had $12,000 in student debt called thousand first semester is what a lot of the kids have now. is in to talk to those bread and butter issues. to talk to read our neighbors or our friends.s year.
6:40 am
6:41 am
ramesh ponnuru moderates this hour and 15 minute discussion. >> from the washington, d.c. center. the national review and the pacific legal foundation is honored to welcome you here today with the hurricane coverage and the to hundreds of thousands of people across the country who are tuning in by c-span. we would also like to thank jones day for this nice roof and staff assistance to -- for
6:42 am
putting this together. as for plf, our interest in the supreme court mirrors brief attention. we will have as many as eight petitions pending before the justice involving cases that we have filled and i think that is probably the most of any public interest legal organization. we have seven straight wins in the supreme court. so we hope to extend that string of victories this term. and finally, scoutus' blog has noted we are the most famous brief filers for the court. our guest will talk about the most important supreme court cases on the docket including a
6:43 am
couple they will argue themselv themselves, a few the supreme court agreed to hear yesterday and a few on on the horizon. i am going to ask all of you to take out your cell phones and silence them right now so they don't go off with your wonderful ring tones for the c-span audience. our moderator is here, ramesh ponnuru, he is well known in this audience and the c-span audience. he is a senator editor for national review and a columnist for bloomberg blue and a visiting fellow for the american enterprise institute. he publishes in every prominent newspaper and he is also the
6:44 am
author of the party of death, the democrats the media and the disregard for human rights. in recent years, he has been a noted leader in the reform conservative movement and he is also well known for his writings on the intersection of court decisions, public policy, and the culture. with that i turn it over to ramesh. >> thank you, todd, and thank you all for braving the elements to be with us today. i think it is going to be a great program. i am going to give you a little bit of a sense of what we will do today and turn it over to these capable lawyers. we will hear first from michael carvin who is a partner at jones day's issues & appeals practice, our host, where we focuses on civil litigation against the
6:45 am
federal government and the lead counselor on friedrichs v. california teachers association which may come up and has fought numerous supreme court cases including the recent challenge to the ford affordable care act and the decision with oxly accou accounting board overturning the federal government's blood pressure to adjust the census and upholding the ban on racial preferences in california. mike was one of the lead lawyers and argued before the florida supreme court on behalf of george w bush in the 2000 election florida recount controversy. he represented state governments, financial institutions, tell communication and energy companies and first amendment and civil rights and statutory challenges to federal government actions. what have you all done?
6:46 am
next, we will be hearing from kannon shanmugam who is a partner at williams & connolly's supreme court and appellate practice, where he heads the law firm supreme court in appellate litigation practice. he has argued 17 cases before the supreme court in a number of areas including patent, antitrust and bankruptcy litigation. he argued several significant security cases heard by the supreme court in the recent years. he has argued a series of high profile criminal cases in the supreme court. he has argued dozens of appeals in federal and state courts across the country and a prof s professor of law at georgetown university. before joining williams & connolly's supreme court and appellate practice in 2008 he served as solicit general to the department of justice and clerked for supreme court justice scalia.
6:47 am
last we will hear from paul ciancia a partner at jenner & block's appellate and supreme court practice where he is chair of the appellate supreme court practice and he has had an active supreme court practice for three decades including oral arguments in 16 supreme court cases involving matters from free speech, civil rights, to civil procedures. and lawrence v texas, the landmark gay rights case, and brown vs merchant are some of the biggest cases he has fought. so with all that, i am going to turn it over to mike to start hearing how our rulers intend to govern us over the next year. >> well, hopefully it will be a little different than last term.
6:48 am
i will discuss friedrichs, which without prejudice, i think it is the most important case that has been graded so far and i mean it because it involves the free speech rights of tens of thousands of federal employees. the supreme court upheld the right of states, and 20 or so do it, requiring non-members of unions to pay what they call agencies fees which is the equivalent of union dues even though they decided not to associate with the union. this is contrary to the principle you cannot be compelled to associate with associations with whom you disagree. the interesting part about the case was they agreed with that in large part. they agreed you could not be compelled to subsidize unions
6:49 am
for certain exceptions but they carved out collective bargaining speech. and they realized that it does involve matters of public concern and divides. but they upheld it pursuant to this case. the supreme court issued two opinions that made uncertainty about the logic underlining the case. in response to that we brought a case on behalf of a number of california public school teachers who don't want to play agencies fees and are non-members in various school districts in california. it is an interesting case in
6:50 am
which we had to acknowledge that the case foreclosed the claims we were trying to advance but we wanted to court to rule against us for the purpose of going to the supreme court to see if the case could be overruled. four members decided to take the case of should this be overruled. so this is very high stakes for the continued enforcement of ideas there is a second question that is important, and that is if they continue to collect fees from do you to opt out and say i don't want them to get my agencies fees or do you have to opt in and say i want to provide them with these fees? that is the second question presented. the basic issue confronting the court, the defenders today have abandoned the rational.
6:51 am
it said it was collective bargaining and speech but that is okay. the others are saying this is about wages, health benefits, pensions, and these people shouldn't be allowed to free ride on the unions because the unions are doing all of these terrific things in terms of wages, pensions and health benefits. we make two points. one is obviously when pensions are basically bankrupting half of the municipalities in the united states this notion of not being public certain defies reality. and simply because a group is advocating on one issue thinking you are free riding on them is like saying i am free riding on the ada because they are lawyers and i agree with them. but a lot of other lawyers oppose them and the notion the
6:52 am
government could compel them to pay fees is outside of the norm. they are advocating issues that harm the members. not evaluating terminations of teachers keeps in place a ridged structure that frustrates the chemist teacher who wants to work in an inner city school. the final point is the free riding rational is weaker in collective bargaining than it is to lobby and that is because the unions have a unique power to e deny you your own vehicle. they have the power to bind you as exclusive representatives of what they want. so as i say, four justice agreed they want to seriously consider if this case should be overturned. i am never making a prediction
6:53 am
on how a case would come out. the second case i would like to briefly mention is fisher v. university of texas. probably most people remember texas's affirmative action program that came up. the nuts and bolts are they have a rule in texas they will take the top 10% of any public school in texas which creates diversity in terms of black and hispanic representation on the campus. they want to layer on top of that a scheme of using race as a plus factor to boost the minority representation. the court looked at it, sat on it for seven months and issued a pile of nothing opinion saying look, you should take this seriously and look at the facts. it went back and fifth circuit
6:54 am
said we are not taking it seriously. i will not make predictions. it would be odd for the court to take the case to affirm the fifth circuit. they could say you didn't do fact finding. take a seriously look. that would not affect the affirmative action. but the decisive vote in the michigan case from 12 years ago upheld this explanation for engaging in racial preferences and there are some views that is court could conceivabable over turn the case.
6:55 am
there is a way to overturn the michigan cases or outlaw what the vast majority of higher education systems are doing without overturning either of the michigan cases simply saying, look, if you are going to argue to us, that going -- wrm i am picking the numbers out of air that going from 8% african-american to 10% african-american is important. show us 10% is critical mass and 8% is not. and we need information about the benefits of institutions with 8% black and 10 % black. i think there is no evidence that any of this stuff is really about helping educate blacks and hispanics as opposed to making white liberal institutions feel
6:56 am
good about themselves because they have racial balance in their student body. in other words, this is all a lot of rhetoric without substance. this critical mass, diversity and the like. if you put them to the proof to say prove that critical mass is 10% and that is better than 8% i think that will invalidate the vast majority of the programs. finally and keeping with the jones day info i want this to dwarf into here, we will have a scope under the law of rico which is important and the territorial scope of a number of analogous statues. in quick terms, the supreme
6:57 am
court issued a decision called morris which basically said this kind of analysis the second circuit was engaging in which was a test of did it have extra territorial affects is not the way to go about the analysis. you need to read the statute and see if there is a clear indication that congress intended these subsitv restrictions. and you should not find extra territorial. the precise issue is this term that is un-scalia like that to figure out if is territorial you need to look at the statue and see if the behavior that is being challenged falls into it.
6:58 am
if you a pattern of bad acts that happen in the united states, that is enough even if the enterprise is broad. if the enterprise is in the united states, we can reach you. and the second circuit came in saying it is extra territorial in either circumstance. so i think this case will have a lot to explain what they meant by the focus of the statute in morrison, and it will have a profound affect on the rico cases and a cases where people have are trying to have u.s. courts decide issues that are external to the united states. thanks. >> kannon? >> would you like to comment on my first? >> yes, yes. >> okay.
6:59 am
well, i don't really have a lot of disagreement with what mike has said but i will offer a couple comments. i think the first to cases, the friedrichs and fisher cases are important. i think the writing is on the wall for friedrichs and the court is lively to overrule abude in this case. the majority of opinions were written on if this should be overruled and the majority said the question wasn't presented and thus inviting the challenge mike brought. having said that, i will have the disclaimer that i thought the same thing when the supreme court granted the fraud on the
7:00 am
market validity and everyone thought the court would overrule the case and they didn't. so i make that prediction with some about not total confidence. as to the fisher case it is hard to see how significant the case will be as a practical matter. it does involve a challenge to a very particular aspect of the united states of texas at austin's affirmative action program. it a hybrid program with distinct character isticharacte. i think you should watch for the court saying anything about the degree of the definition of interest in diversity and whether the court or the institution doesn't get much
7:01 am
deference in that regard. and second the extent to which the court permits or doesn't perm perm permit quanatative data. the idea of having critical mass, however it is defined, and whether the court permits an institution to define notions of quantitative data. the notion that an institution has the ability to pick and chose what types of under represented minorities it wants to have. or is it saying the university needs to have underrepresented minorities from affluent communities as much as rural communities. i am not sure the court will
7:02 am
rule to go that far but that is their stated rational. so i suspect the court will speak to both of those even if the court doesn't revisit the principles and if this is p permissable at all. >> fisher and friedrichs have something in common. the same issues were teed up and we don't have the insider view but they couldn't get five votes it seems to me in the prior decisions. so it was justice kennedy in one case and in the labor case it was scalia. they wanted to go further last
7:03 am
time and put it again. and take the vote and they know they have five votes. they may not know that but we will not know that until later in the year. it is uncertainty whether they will end up hunting twice as they sometimes do. >> great. thank you. ramesh ponnuru, thank you. it is a pleasure to be here and thank you to the pacific legal foundation and the national review and the jones day for hosting us. i am probably going to disappoint my partners at williams and connelly in that this is fought going to be a commercial for us because i will not talk about cases we are in in a involved with. i want to talk about a case involving the one person one vote principle. this is a principle the supreme court adopted in a series of cases in reynolds vs sims and
7:04 am
the principle that under a equal protection clause a state is obligated to equalize the population of the voting district in order to insure that the strength of a particular voter's vote is not diluted by placing that voter in a larger district. and the question before the supreme court in evanwell is how do you define the relevant population for purposes of applying the one person, one vote principle? does the population need to be equalized the population of eligible voters or the total population of the relevant districts? and the argument that is being made by the plaintiff in ev evenwell is that it is eligible voters and the one person-one vote is designed to protect the strength of an individual's vote. and by definition, therefore you
7:05 am
really have to look to people who can in fact participate in the election in order to determine whether the strength of that vote is diluted. the argument on the other side is complicated and all for a couple responsibilities. the argument the state is making is that the state has discretion to chose among the various possible alternative populations and that the one person one vote principle is designed to protect against discrimination and as long as the state is choosing a neutral measure, it is not acting invidiously and nazi the discretion to chose the various options. there is an argument the one person one vote represents a broader representation and you have to take into account that
7:06 am
but that is a different argument. i think the challenger has the better view of the one person one vote principle as it was articulated by the supreme co t courtment -- court. but the challenge is and this pits them against the practical instinct, the challenge the plaintiff has is i think it is hard to measure the number of eligible voters in the districts, particularly on the state level where the districts can be small and the census measures total population and provides figures that are available. my understanding is there is some back and forth about how easily you can administer the various measures but i think the state does a good job making the
7:07 am
argument that this is going to be difficult if states are required to use the eligible voter measures and again i think this is a case that may hit the courts pragmatic instincts against each other. i will talk briefly about the court's business docket. there are three cases on the court's docket that have a high level of generality and involve various aspects of class-action litigation which has been a focus for the supreme court in recent years and at a high level of generality, they all deal with the concept of injury and the concept of what to do in cases where either some, or all of the participants in the class action, may not have suffered injury and how to proceed in the circumstances. probably the most significant of the three cases is a case called
7:08 am
tyson foods vs pack which is a case where various employ as at pork processing plant are spending time dawning prodetective gear. it is not a question of the fair labor standard act but a question of how to proceed when the individuals are differently situated or take an different amount of time to put on and take off the gear and where they may have been differently compensated. and the question is whether the client and lawyers do the modeling to essentially align the difficulties with proving the fact of injury and the amount of damages on an individualized bases. an issue that would otherwise
7:09 am
swamp the so-called common issues of law that would permit a class action to proceed in the first place. so there are a variety of interesting issues in the case and i will not defend to an ex sesive level of detail but i am happy to discuss the case in greater detail when we get into question and answers. another pace is spokeo versus robins which involves the question of whether a plaintiff can proceed for action of statutory damage when the plaintiff may not have suffered actual injury. this is a client claiming statutory damage under the fair credit reporting act against a company that is putting information on the internet about virtually every person in the country. and they allegedly put
7:10 am
information about this individual that inflated his qualifications and the individual nevertheless sought statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 for this violation and while a $1,000 for one plaintiff may not seem but what it is a millions of plaintiffs potentially that adds up. so the question is did that person have injury be article 3 of the constitution by the statutory damages. and that takes me the last case that is involving a class-action plaintiff seeking statutory damages under a statue that provides for damages on unsolicited text messages, whether you are pleased to receive them, and the person caught $500 in damages and the defendant turned around saying
7:11 am
we will pay you $15, 003 in order to go away and settle the claim and the defendant turned around and said if you turn down this offer it will essentially moot your claim and the plaintiff turned down the offer and the defendant said your case is moot because we offered you everything you are seeking the case and the plaintiff said i should be able to proceed because i am seeking to proceed on behalf of a class and the question is if you do that. all questions involving the class action mechanisms and a majority of the supreme court has been reining in class actions more generally but how the members of the court is going to react to particular cases, given the fact of multiple potential grounds for disposition, is open to question. i left for last, a case
7:12 am
involving the pacific legal foundation on the thought that might allow me to go over my time. this is one of the cases tad alluded to at the beginning. there are two cases involving the clean water act. hawks is one case. we are representing hawks the defendant in the case or actually really the plaintiff but a potential defendant in kent recycling. and they show an entity seeking a jurisdiction from the army core of engineers on whether a piece of land encompasses water and if that decision is subject to final review.
7:13 am
there is an interesting procedural aspect to this and that is the court denied the petition for review in the kent recycling case and then the eighth circuit issued a decision creating a conflict and plf filled a petition for re-hearing and the supreme court now has it before it for the rehearing and petition for review by the united states in the hawks case where the government lost. so it will be interesting to see which of the court cases. i think it is inevitable the court takes one, if not both, and we are hoping the supreme court will grant a petition for rehearing because that will convince clients in future cases we should be allowed to file the petition for rehearing a practice that is disfavored. >> can i ad a quick comment?
7:14 am
this is about the equalized population of eligible voters in drawing state legislature districts. the reality i think it will be good to have districts being the same size in terms of people being represented and people that can vote are powerful points. the choice between equal representation and equal voting rights is similar. every district map drawn since the 1960s used total population. the court has never found that to be a problem. i do think the odds that the court is going to mandate you use some other measure is low. they are fairly likely to say it is permiscible for the state to do to. but the data isn't there. the census doesn't collect
7:15 am
citizenship information for more than a few households in a different survey. not the usual census so the error rate wouldn't be right. registered voters as the measure, those are famously erroneous with massive people still on not in the state or even alive. i think at the end of the day we will end up with discussion about this and political science will use total population still. >> i largely agree with paul and disagree with the basic premise. i think these cases are about equal voting rights. i think equal representation is not really what they are talking about so the petitioners have a powerful argument which is if you are trying to equalize
7:16 am
voting let's look at voters. total population is not accurate for how many people are eligible to vote much less do vote. the border districts in texas overvalue the votes of the people in the district relative to the rest of texas because of the large citizenship gap in the districts. many of the total population just can't possibly vote. that said, i do think there is serious issues about switching the voting age population. it can be done. paul smith says it can't be done, though. this is the last time you will ever here this sentence out of my mouth. i think i agree with paul on this. for all reasons paul touched on, i think it will be a difficult task to come up with it. i think some kind of hybrid
7:17 am
opinion that says you can do it if you can substaniate it. it probably doesn't make sense in the original matter. the notion you would substitute the handcuffs on the state legislatures in this area i think would be consistent with pragmatic views. i think saying you can do it just like something works. just like in the hawaii case we said you could use registered voters. >> i have four cases here. first one was one granted yesterday that is a colorful story about public employees being punished for political
7:18 am
views. there is a detective in a new jersey police department and there was a hot mayor race going on and the detective was neutral in the race which is apparently a good decision. his bedridden mother was supporting the challenger and her lawn sign was stolen and asked her son to go the challenger's head quarters to go get a new sign and he is spotted by the incum plbants and they demote him.
7:19 am
if you didn't exercise your first amendment rights by joining up with this campaign there is nothing that is protected by the first amendment that is punished. this is a decision that i am not surprised but it is in conflict with the rules apry -- applied in other circuits which is if they chose to punish you about your politics it is still a violation and they should put you back in your job. i think it is fairly likely that is where they will end up but perhaps not. you never know. the second case is a case i am arguing in december. it is another one person, one vote redistricting case. the first time we had two of those cases on the docket in a while.
7:20 am
it is the harris v. arizona independent redistricting commission and the issue there is not what population do you use but they use total population, no one is challenging that here, but the question here is whether the particular amounts of deviation between the larger districts and smaller districts in terms of population is such there is a violation of the one person, one vote principle. the deviations are less than 10% which doesn't usually cause constitutional problems because the supreme court said that is not a problem. but here, the argument is as follows: that the underpopulated districts, almost all of them are minority districts, democratic leaning districts, and the overpopulated districts nearly all of them are anglo-districts and republican leaning districts. and the people who drew the map, the independent redistricting
7:21 am
commission, said that is because we were striving to draw ten effective minority opportunity districts because we thought harry reid to do that to comply with section five of the voting tact -- act to get the number of blocks we need. here is what the challengers are saying. they are saying the voting rights justification says section five is no longer in effect and you should not be able to defend the deviations that have a pattern of difference between the majority districts based on the statues that are no longer enforceable. if that argument is accepted there is a lot more maps around the country subject to challenge. the other argument is that is a sham, it was done for partisan
7:22 am
reasons, contrary to the finding and fact of the district court, and that is an interesting argument in addition to the fact it defies the ruling of the district court in terms of the facts. the amount of partisanship is so small it is tiny compared to maps that have been upheld by the supreme court in previous cases. what you have here is an effort to use these minor deviations in populations to ratchet up the level of scrutiny in the drawing of district maps to the point where you would have a double standard. some maps have completely equal populations and can have massive amounts of bias, small amounts of deviation, they can't. lots of possibilities about how it may come out. the third case is a case where i
7:23 am
wrote an amicus brief called foster versus chapman from georgia. that is the case where the court said it is unconstitutional for prosecutors to systematically exclude people from serving on criminal juries based on their race. that rule has been around long time but it has been violated much more than it has been followed in many courts around had country. this is a guy who has been on death row since 1987 when he was convicted of capitol murder. the litigation that was trying to free him was focused on whether or not he was disabled so he could not be constitutionally executed and that argument was ultimately rejected but took a number of years. during the time his lawyers got a foyer request do get access to
7:24 am
the prosecutor's notes used in the jury process and found race all over. they identified race of the black candidates are color codes and had a discussion of which black they would take if they had to take a black they would they can this one. it was evidence this was race based selection of jurors. they said one juror was 34 and that is awfully close to the 19 year old defendant. that kind of stuff. so the challenge was brought to the court and interestingly there is no particular legal issue. it is kind of an error correction case but races the
7:25 am
issue of if this can be enforced and it is going to be decided in the backdrop of the whole new disagreement with the court on the death penalty we saw come out in the open in the case about league lethal injections and whether or not the death penalty has the problem of racial discrimination. the brief we compiled showed massive amounts of evidence about how blacks are excuded from juries around the country and more likely in cases that involve a black defendant. and the final case is the government services case from yesterday presents this year's arbitration case. the supreme court allows arbitration clause but the rule is if you agree to arbitrate
7:26 am
disputes under the federal arbitration act the agreements have to be enforced. the specific rule is they can sometimes not be enforced but only under contract law. the argument is that california has a strong policy of favoring severalability clauses in contracts saying if the parties agree one piece of the >> everything else should still be enforced.li california will generally enforce such an agreement. however, the argument is they don't have that policy with respect to arbitrationo agreements. enforces, is if
7:27 am
a couple pieces of arbitration clause is shown not to hold up we will not just enforce the arbitration agreement all together. so there does seem to be allegedly a different set of rules applied to arbitration contracts. i would say this looks like it is headed to the annual slap down of those people not enforcing arbitration agreements which is a regular feature of what goes on in the supreme court. that is a prediction i will make. >> mike, want to say anything about those cases? >> i would like to weigh in on the harris case. just to make sure everybody understand what is going on. arizona was under populating the districts with the fewest citizens. so it was acerbating the
7:28 am
problem. their votes were worth more and then by underpopulating them they made them worth more compared to the anglo-districts which i think is a serious issue. and the truth is, it will be interesting to see how the conservatives on the court react to this, the 10% thing, total population is by definition a rough proxy for voting power. so the court i thought was pretty consistent with saying if you get it to 10% that is close enough. but there was a summary from a couple years ago that indicated we will make an exception, even if you have a bad purpose, and the bad purpose was politics, as paul alluded to they are saying there is no partisan jerry mandering claim out there, not
7:29 am
withstanding paul's efforts to the contrary, andy was saying it was a defense to a short challenge. if you come in saying i didn't create this black district because of race, i created it because of politics which is the case because it helps republicans in adjacent districts, that is not good. so paul is arguing that politics have nothing to do with it and race have everything to do with it. while litigants in some cases, including one of mine they might take, argue it is all politics and no race. i don't think the shelby county argument has any legs. they will judge a legislatures interest in terms of the interest that would confront the legislature when they enacted the law. not pretent they can be put in a time machine and figure out shelby county would be reversed. the other part i like about
7:30 am
paul's argument is they are taking a good approach to section five pre-clearance. you could saw they didn't need the underpopulate to get the section-5 preclearance. you needed cushion and who knew what the justice department would do with these issues which is an argument that would be made. we had to preserve the district and you cannot hold us to literal compliance because it is providing predictions about how the hostile justice department would have reacted. i think it will prevail, but i am not making a prediction. they will be deciding this case
7:31 am
at the same time as other cases that are relatively interrelated. >> at the risk of causing our viewers at home to switch to another channel, perhaps whatever is on c-span2 or c-span3 i want to talk about the arbitration case. the supreme court and lower court are at logger head over this. particularly state supreme courts that are engaged in this campaign of objections of the supreme court's recent cases impleme implementing the federal arbitration act. this case is the latest in the line of cases that often involve supreme court contorting principles of state law in order
7:32 am
to avoid remitting parties to arbitration. so i am sure this case is headed for a reversal for precisely that reason. but if you are in a private practice you will encounter this and it is cases from courts across the country where the lower courts are out of sync with the supreme court. >> we are going to take three minutes each, if we could, to talk about some of the cases on the horizon for the supreme court. we will go in the same order so starting with mike. >> i tried to find more about the jones day case. i was unsuccessful. i think the case that is clearly going up to the court are the mandatory contruceptive cases where the religious organizations are challenging the obamacare requirement which is a follow on to the hobby
7:33 am
lobby case that involved an employer that was religious. this is the religious organizations themselves. the eighth circuit sided with the organization causing a split. and the solicitor general yesterday pointed to the archdiocese of washington case it is litigated by my partner at jones day neal francisco. i think the court is going to take the cases. i think there is a strong argument on behalf of the religious institutions argument. the federal court has been dismissive in saying you just need to check a box. but the reality is this is an insurance plan that obamacare requires organizations to have.
7:34 am
i will not pr >> sensible and persuasive opinion. [laughter]re >> the ore case which i now --se not sucking up any more than i'm sucking up to plf, is the sissel case where there's a strong challenge being brought. b constitution says all revenue bills shall originate in the house. the senate version post scott brown that got enacted into law.
7:35 am
so the sensible challenge saying look the revenue bill didn't i orinate in the house and you need to devalue the law. the washington, d.c. circuit court said this was not a bill to raise revenue. there is 9,000 taxes in obamacare but obamacare was designed to improve health care not raise revenue. it is true as a technical matter the senate didn't initiate obamacare. they took a bill from the house that had nothing to do with anything involved in obamacare and gutted it and put it in 1800 page amendment. everyone knows that is a fiction. i think the judge's point was the fiction has been around for a while. we are not going to second-guess
7:36 am
how the two houses deal with each other even though i think he was acknowledging this would largely gut the requirement render futile the render requirement that revenue bills originate in the house if they can get around it this easily. >> now i feel like i should talk about the williams and conley case. abortion is the only controversial area the supreme court hasn't gotten into it but there is a chance the court will wade into that area and they will then wade into the it during an election here. the court has two cases in front of it that are currently sort of in the certificate stage/briefing process so the court hasn't decided to take both, one from texas, one from mississippi, involving restrictions on abortion providers. the requirement that abortion
7:37 am
providers have similar facilities to ambulance facilities and the requirement that abortion-providing doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital. the cases came out in different directions. you have the state of mississippi seeking review in one case and abortion providers seeking review in the texas case and the mississippi case is being held and if the court grants review it will prevent the question of whether they constitute reasonable were visions or go too far set-up in the case of planned parenthood versus casey. there is a good chance the court will grant review in both of those cases. since mike didn't have enough
7:38 am
time to complete the information, another case is a mcdonald case and a case called newman in which the supreme court grabbed on to it but we don't know if they will grant review, these cases have the potential to be the highest profile criminal cases. the mcdonald cases involves the prosecution of governor bob mcdonald, the former governor of the state of virginia, for public corruption related offenses and the newman case involves insider trader and they involve the same issue at a possible high level of generalitay which is how you discip -- design the benefit and what constitutes the quote and how much benefit does the inside have to receive to be criminally
7:39 am
liable when it is someone else who is doing the trading? both of them are closer cases in terms of the likelihood of the court granting this. we will nee soon with the newman case and further down the road with the mcdonald case. >> the court and the incarceration of the former governor was interesting. i wasn't sure anyone thought the supreme court would take it until now. i will talk about a petition we are filing next week. >> i am a really bad marketer >> electronic arts, the video game maker, this involves a tort called the right of publicity which was invented in the 21st century. it a tort claim you can bring if you are a famous person and portrayed in a book or movie or
7:40 am
video game or work of art or song. and the claim, unlike defamat n defamation, when you say they said something harm about me, it is portrayal of you by name or likeness without permission. ... >> and these claims have mattered around the country in recent years, and the circuits and the state courts have developed all sorts of incredibly divergent tests for deciding when the first amendment allows people to do it without paying for it and when they can't. a test that is applied in several cases, including in this case in california, is the transformative use test which which says you can portray a
7:41 am
famous person for free if you transform them in some way. the examples are if you put awh comic book out where you take a famous singer, but you portray them as a worm or something, but it'st still obvious who the perp is. who the person is. amendment if you do it without getting permission first. there are other tests that tend to make more sense to us as rogers testified in the second circuit which says you can do this. unless you are doing something like using it as an advertisement or implying endorsement that's the exception. there are some states that have balancing test on a case-by-case basis whether the first amendment values outweigh the celebrities concerned being used in somebody else's work. not a good first amendment test that i think it's an issue that needs to be decided.
7:42 am
he comes up in the context of the videogame electronic arts among other things with the famous maddon series of football games and this case a plaintiff who brought professional football players who appeared for a number of years and didn't have the names used but it was obvious who they were or at least that alleged to be the case. we will see ultimately whether this issue gets to court. my own view to say the truth is bad and transformation are making people looking less like reality is good under the first amendment but it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. >> thank you all for your remarks. i'm standing up here so the mic can be freed up and we can get a few questions in which we have time for it. i'm going to ask after a call on you for you to wait to get the mic and also to stand up and
7:43 am
state your question. i saw italy was the first with his hand up. >> i'm from the cato institute and i want to ask you you about a case that nobody talks about that hasn't been granted yet which i think could he one of the most important on the docket it's a case if they don't take or affirm the ninth circuit would seem to overturn the important case regarding the freedom of association and not disclosing your associates or supporters to this date without any good reason and i wondered if you had any comment on that case? >> since i know nothing about it i will offer you nothing. a litigator is never intimidated by the facts.
7:44 am
what kind of intimidation? >> with that a gate on campaigns and jamal harrison bryant information. to make it more convenient there was ongoing investigation. >> look you have two conflicting supreme court cases and one is buckley bee vallejo but the case that liked anonymity when people are pamphleteering. you certainly have a credible argument that this is issued failed candidates vote for candidates. >> the state wanted more information. >> they can have an obvious chilling effect on people in this something that the courts has never come to grips with. >> in the political context required disclosure is
7:45 am
constitutional. >> all the cases put together is complicated, there's no doubt about it. >> in terms of candidate donations you have a strong argument we need to know who's giving to this guy so we can police quit breaux corruption. he becomes more tenuate when you are talking about public policy groups advocating it particular viewpoint and then it's harder to figure out. >> another question. >> there has been an attempt over the past few terms to find information in cases like the one you mentioned. they don't meet the constitutional measure of standing in a couple of terms ago the court took up the case held onto it for nine months and i was wondering if he could talk about whether or not the cases you mention might be a vehicle for justices and particularly
7:46 am
justice roberts to test that standing. >> the case is really about that. to case that presents the issue in essence that the court seemingly deadlocked on a couple of terms ago and they sat on the case for an inordinate period of time and ended up dismissing the case. i tend to think that this is a very hard case to predict maybe because we know that the court is closely divided on this. on the one hand i think that there's a real appeal to the notion that you have to have a real injury and congress can't simply create an injury. on the other hand there are not a lot of these statutes and the historical evidence doesn't clearly point in one direction or another and responded in the case put together historical evidence to the contrary
7:47 am
suggesting that there was this law and practice as congress essentially created an injury for purposes of litigation. i think it's a very hard issue to hand down before the supreme court. >> the facts are so weird as you point out. the facts are complementary to the sky. >> at least some of them. there were a friday facts. >> it seems to me there's a middle ground where we can say there's injury but you can't always put a dollar amount on reputational type injury or disclosure of private facts. i may not be able to do that and i think the legislature can just put an arbitrary number to deter that kind of behavior. i think that would be relatively attractive and i'm wondering your view does this case hit that? >> i think that's hard to say and i think in many ways part of the difficulty is that think it's very hard to measure how
7:48 am
many of the cases under any of these statutes fit that paradigm. on the one hand when you have the cases you can take judicial notice of the fact that 99 out of 100 of those cases unless you have the grandfather or grandmother sitting by the fax machine if there's injury that will be congruence. there's a whole range of statues maybe that will cause the court to formulate a compromised outcome as you suggest. >> wayne simmons for state farm. in the last terms some of the decisions impacting congressional authorization, congressional acquiescence statutory interpretation, then he cases going forward they could have a significant impact
7:49 am
on how we look at congressional intent or legislative history? >> it seems like every turn there a number of cases involving initiatives for federal regulations. i don't know any particular one. there were five or six last year where they started moving in the direction against the deference to administrative interpretations including the recent case but also others. that seems to be a pattern and what we have seen and i wouldn't be surprised if we don't see that pattern continue as there will be opportunities. >> the big issue out there is this question to which agencies get deference to the interpretation of their own regulations, the so-called question of our deference and an issue on which my former boss justice scalia hasn't particular been leading the charge suggesting that is one of
7:50 am
deference that is recognized permissible and he is out of public change of heart on that issue. that issue will get to the supreme court. >> does that case from yesterday raised the issue? i don't know enough about the national park service. >> i don't believe so but i say that with a low degree of confidence. the issue is going to be before the court and squarely presented the court essentially invited parties to litigate that issue and i expect we will see it litigated in the near future. the other issue that your question alludes to an paul's comments alluded to is this question of the circumstances under which chevron may not be worn today in the first place which is of course an outgrowth
7:51 am
of the ada decision and i think that decision will sponsor a thousand flowers in the d.c. circuit where you have various parties arguing for one reason or another chevron is not appropriate in the first place and i'm somewhat skeptical that what that will take root and established doctrine in another context that we shall see. >> there was ever cases last year in the court and there is a clear movement on justice scalia and justice thomas to cut back on that. maybe not in all situations. maybe they are categories where it applies or doesn't apply but that does seem to be a theme out there. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> tony morrow. i still don't quite get how you
7:52 am
overcome the free rider argument in the previous case are the freeloader or whatever. is there nothing the union does for non-members that a union could charge for? >> let's take it a step at a time. even the cord raise on the unions lobbying does not justify compelling them to subsidize. i go to the state legislature and say i'm going to get all these terrific pensions for my people and everyone agrees are just like every other circumstance where a bar association lobby for something or professors lobby for tenure. it's really none of the state's business i agree with that or not. i am the agent that makes the decision as to whether or not i want to do it remember to copy is it's borderline oxymoronic to say people who decided not to join me and won't give me money and for laughing at her he and
7:53 am
like all of these -- policies. i gave the example of nobody who thinks he is good or to help inner-city kids is going to like what unions are advocating for. it's a huge educational debate now about whether or not the future should be based on merit and whether you should allow chemistry teachers to get more than phys ed teachers and whether or not seniority should be the termination or assignments and layoffs all of which the unions are right it taken one position in the public policy debate and in which a teacher could take a very opposite viewpoint. so the notion that we are free-riding is like saying that a vegetarian is free-riding on somebody buying meat at their mail. we don't want this in and the government is not authorized to sign and the point that i briefly alluded to us if the
7:54 am
unions don't want free riders, don't allow them. don't take extraordinary power to say i'm going to bind you to my theory of wages and benefits in class size in educational policy or they can be a members-only union that only represents members that they have voluntarily decided to conscript the non-members to get the extraordinary power of exclusive representation so if there was any advocacy group in the world that would allow to make a free rider argument it's the unions because they voluntarily assumed this power, this burden of free writing in order to achieve extraordinary but greater power of exclusive representation. they can't go to congress and tell doctors how much they are going to get for medicaid and exclude other doctors from arguing for different rate. that's why if there's any context in which you would allow compelled ideological subsidization it would be this one. >> just a small dissent.
7:55 am
as a matter of law in many places unions are required to provide representation to everyone including the grievous procedures when the employee wants to grieve about something and as justice scalia pointed out in a prior opinion that is a bargain that is made and if you are going to buy lower choir unions represent everyone in the bargaining union on grievances and negotiating there is some logic to making everybody had to pay for that service. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> the clear results of not allowing unions to collect the cost of those services which is what they do is unions have a constitutional right not to represent these people so that is what you would do is end up with bargaining in the possibility of work cases where people are represented by different unions and employers
7:56 am
are the last people that want to have that happen. you end up with an employer's interest and these employees interest but it's surprising to me that the employees would win out in that situation that public employees who have chosen to work in his work place. >> your facts are wrong in your logic does not follow up. no state in the country requires you to undertake a duty of fair representation. the only required to undertake a duty of fair representation in the union has voluntarily decided to be an exclusive representative. on the nr -- nla you can leave the non-members entirely out of the negotiations. when they get that extra extra power and extra duty as you can't discriminate against those that you are purportedly representing. the notion that this is an important labor policy is belied by the fact that among other
7:57 am
things 93% of people in the private sector don't have an exclusive references and 30 states don't have states don't have to sew the notion that this is somehow essential to labor peace doesn't make a lot of sense and in california if it was essential that would require unions to be exclusive representatives which they don't. they say you have the choice. you can be members-only or exclusive. so these notions of employment disruption are false. this is all about lighting the coffers of the unions and that is what the case is about. >> we are going to have to leave further argument on this to the supreme court. i hope you all join me in thanking the civic leader foundation. >> sunday on q&a, national law journal supreme court correspondent and author of the companion book to c-span's upcoming series landmark cases,
7:58 am
tony morrow on the supreme court's new term. >> one of the judges who did -- didn't get his office, his position because of the suit and the supreme court dealt with it, it was called marbury v. madison. marbury was one of those judges. and the court said, basically, that he probably deserved some remedy, but the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of congress, the authority of congress. and so the supreme court was going to strike down that law x x -- and the supreme court -- and this was something the court had never done before, you know, declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. >> that's sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. and on monday as the supreme court starts the new term,
7:59 am
c-span debuts its new series, landmark cases: historic supreme court decisions. we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury v. madison case, delving into the heated political battles between john adams, thomas jefferson and the newly-appointed chief justice, john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. in his famous decision he wrote in marbury v. madison. >> marbury and madison is probably the most famous case court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yale law school professor and author iowa keel reid amar. landmark cases, exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by reviewing the life and times of the people in these cases. landmark cases premieres live this monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span
8:00 am
radio. and for background while you watch, order your copy of the companion book. it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> here are some of the programs to watch this weekend. on sunday we are live with nationally syndicated talk show host tom hartman on "in depth," where you have the opportunity to ask authors about their books and careers. on "after words," martha kumar talks about the transition between george w. bush and barack obama in her latest book, "before the oath." also this weekend, the 20th annuallt

20 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on