not the petitioner has shown a --is thatficient to the state law question? here, -- >> if it is a state law question, then what you have to argue? it, it isr to decide like the case in oklahoma where the court, the oklahoma court had to decide the federal question in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction over the issue area this court held that where the court had to decide the federal issue, and it did in this case, it found that the batson claim had no merit. it is decided, the federal issue. there is no contest about that. >> explained to me why deciding the federal issue was essential to its deciding the state res judicata issue. because, it framed the question as being that it would look at the batson versus kentucky claim. if there was merit to that claim. then the court would grant the writ on it. on the other hand, if there was not eric on it -- -- merits on it -- that is a very strange application of res judicata to me. factsr there were changed sufficient enough -- bring an issue that has already been litigated on indirect appeal. if it would produce a different re

whether petitioner showed any change in the facts sufficient to overcome the res judicata bar. if you put those two together, you could argue that the supreme court decided only a question of state law, namely whether the situation here was such that there could be review of the batson claim. what is your response to that? >> well, the state doesn't argue that. i think the reason for that is because the court said -- the court is going to address step three of batson and said the claim was without merit. >> is it a question of federal or state law as to whether or not petitioner has shown a change, in fact, sufficient to overcome res judicata bar, what justice scalia quoted. is that a state law question? >> that's a state law question. here the court decided it. >> if it's a state law question and they decided against you, what have you got to argue? i thought you would say a federal question. >> in order to decide it, it's exactly like versus oklahoma where the court -- the oklahoma court had to decide the federal question in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction othover the issue.

appendix, that it will review a batson claim as to whether petitioner has shown any change in the facts sufficient to overcome the res judicata bar. if you put those two together you could argue that the superior court decided only a question of state law, namely, whether the situation here with such that there could be review of the batson claim. what is your response to that? >> the state doesn't argue that. i think the reason for that is because the court said, we are moving -- the court is going to address step three of batson to edit said, fosters a batson claim is without merit. >> but is it a question of federal estate lust was not the petitioner has shown a change in tax sufficient overcome the rest judy codding or? page 192 language that justice alito quoted. is that a state law question or -- >> that's a state law question. into the court decided it but i point out -- >> if it's a state law question and to resolve it against you, then what do you have to argue? >> no. in order to decide it, this is not like oklahoma where the court, the oklahoma court had to decide the federal

between your formulation and petitioner's formulation that says this is substantive because it did away with mandatory life imprisonment? you're articulating it slightly different. tell me what you see as the difference and why your articulation. >> justice sotomayor. i don't think there is substantive day light between .petitioner's use and ours. it meant in treating it as a category. i think sums up the reality of what is happening. we broke it out into its component parts because i think it facilitates the analysis of it to understand that miller does have a procedural component. sentencing courts must now consider the mitigating characteristics of age. but it also and more fundamentally, in our view, contains a substantive component that required a change in the law. now, the change here was expanding the range of outcomes. previously when this court has analyzed substantive changes in the law there have been changes that restricted the form of outcomes, say, for example, in justice breyer's hypothetical forbidding punishment at all. i think that, if you trace back the origins

] cases," exploring 12 supreme court decisions. >> the petitioner versus arizona. >> good evening and welcome to "landmark cases." our series that explores the people and stories behind some of the supreme court's most important decisions throughout our history. this week the 1952 seizure case. it's officially known as

this had 128,000 signatures. petitioner said they are tired of the ignorance on the show. they also note she's not a positive roll model for african-american. abc said she had all the quality that make her a great addition to the panel. >>> nba star lebron james covering prince's purple rain. decked out in the billowing blouse and velvet jacket and his team halloween party. he's teammate shared an instagram photo. >>> he has the boots too. although he's a little bitted taller. just a little. movie hitting theater this morning falling short for big name celebrity. bradley cooper brought in 5 million dollars and sandra bullocks our brand is crisis made over $3 million marking the worst film debut in her career. martian held on to top spot bringing in 11 million. >>> the brady bunch enjoying a rare sending off from football. lack at this. gazelle and her kids get in, in then worthy family time. her son and daughter sit cross legged under the sunset. i guess the family that owns that's such a good thing to do for your kids. >>> that's great. show them how to destress. i love that idea.

. hello, petitioner. >> when it comes to the republican tax plans the kitchen sink, from a 10% flat tax, the european style consumption taxes ball candidates agree, personal and corporate taxes should be lower to jump start economic growth. so far the tax foundation but out analysis of seven plans it saysed provided enough detail for it to analyze, from bush, cruz, jindal, paul-rubio, santorum, and trump. >> this campaign is pretty exciting if you're a tax guy like me. seven comprehensive proposals so far and perhaps in more as time goes on. i think the campaign is focusing now on the fact that our tax system is broken. needs reform. here's. >> here's a sampling of the plans. jeb bush reduced the income tax brackets to three with the top rate of 28% instead of 39.6. he would cap capital gains tacks at 20% and cut to top corporate tax rid from 35 to 20%. marco rubio wants two personal tax brackets, no capital gains taxes and his corporate tax rate would be 25%. for trump, three brackets and a 20% top rate, capital gains darked at 20% and he want s a 15's top corporate catastrophe rate. t

petitioner? trump's epic rant went on for one hour and 35 minutes of trumpness. nine of those, nonstop, against ben carson. trump accused the doctor of making up some of his stories from the past. even re-enacted in the stabbing story, the win, the knife, the buckle, trying to shot i could not have happened the way dr. carson said, and his trumpness did not just good after his rival, oh, no, also the very voters he is trying to win. >> how stupid are the people of iowa? how stupid are the people of the country? to believe this crap. >> they've been trump-craped now. today dr. carson responded at an event in south carolina. >> i'm hopeful his advisers with help him understand the world pathological and recognize that does not denote incurable. it's not the same. it's simply an adjective that describes something that is highly abnormal. and something that fortunately i've been able to be delivered from for a half a century now. >> not incurable can justs a adjective of normalness. earlier in the week dr. car sewn said he was finished talking about his past, saying he's tell the

the human stories and constitutional dramas between -- behind 12 supreme court decisions. petitioner versus arizona. row against way. >> and are most famous decisions, -- let's go through a few cases that illustrate, very dramatically, and visually, what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people. susan: good evening and welcome to landmark cases. s of the way through our decisions. tonight is school segregation, brown v. board of education. evening byin this listening to linda brown. linda: my memory of brown began in the fall of 1950, and the client kansas town after peak -- topeka. where a black man took his seven-year-old daughter by the hand and walked briskly, four blocks from their home to the all-white school and tried without success to enroll his child. black parents and topeka felt that trying to enroll their children in the school nearest to their home was long overdue. my father would arrive home to find my mother upset because i had to take a walk, just like he did many years before, and catch the school bus and go some two miles across town. i can re

kata. and then it said it will review batson claim as to whether petitioner has shown any change in the facts sufficient to overcome teras jude kata bar. now you could decide that the situation was such that there could be a review of the batson claim. what is your response to that? >> well, the state doesn't argue that. and i think the reason for that is because the court said -- the court is going address step three of batson and it said fosters batson claim is without merit. >> is it a question of federal or state law as to whether or not the petitioner has shown the change in fact to overcome the res judicata war? is that a state law question? that's a state law question and here the court decided it but i would point out -- >> well, if it's a state law question they resolved against you, then what do you have to argue? >> this is exactly like "ache v. oklahoma" where the oklahoma court had to decide to federal question in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction over the issue and this court hold in "ache" that where the court has to decide the federal issue and it did. it c

immigration law is family unfriendly. we've heard about the wait times experienced by some petitioners. wait times that are particularly harsh for immigrants of some countries. there are other important concerns when we think about families in the united states and our immigration law. i want to first focus on the significant number of u.s. citizen children with a mixed status family. families were at least one member lacks a legal immigration status. 37% of undocumented residents have u.s. citizen children. others live in homes where partners have lawful permanent resident status. what this means is that we have a situation where millions live by family instability and insecurity. we have millions of u.s. citizen children that are living with undocumented caretakers and providers, which puts them in a constant state of threat and uncertainty. what can we do to alleviate that? there are stitches and surgery. what we have seen in recent years our efforts at stitching. the president has proposed different action for parents. that would have been a form of stitching to alleviate some of the str

. >>> number 759. earnest, miranda versus petitioner. roe against wade. >>> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones the court took that were quite unpopular. [ chanting ] >>> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening. welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's "landmark cases." tonight we're going to be examining a 1944 war powers case that the supreme court. it's the story of korematsu versus the united states. fred korematsu was a japanese-american who challenged the right of the government to forcibly detain people during world war ii. you might know a bit about this history in -- american history during world war ii. many japanese-americans were gathered up. 120,000 by some estimates, and detained through the course of the war. fred korematsu said that was not right and took it all the way to the supreme court. we're going to learn more about that case. let me introduce y

. petitioner versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments on number 18. roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions are ones that the court took that before quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who have helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to landmark cases. well, we're about 2/3 of the way through the series looking at historic supreme court decisions. tonight the 1954 case of school segregation brown v. board of education. and we'll begin by listening to linda brown on the roots of this case. >> my memory of brown began in the fall of 1950. in the quiet kansas town of topeka where a mild-mannered black man took his 7-year-old daughter by the hand and walked briskly four blocks from their home to the all-white school and tried without success to enroll his child. parents in topeka thought trying to enroll the student nearest to their home was long overdue. many were the evenings my father would

cases," exploring 12 supreme court decisions. >> the petitioner versus arizona. >> good evening and welcome to "landmark cases." our series that explores the people and stories behind some of the supreme court's most important decisions throughout our history. this week the 1952 seizure case. it's officially known as youngstown sheet and tube vs. sawyer. we're going to start with a piece of vintage film. it's from a documentary. and it features president harry truman on april 8th, 1952 as he announces to the nation his case. >> with american troops on the field of battle, i would not be living up to my oath of office if i failed to do whatever is required to provide them with weapons and ammunition they need for their survival. therefore, i'm taking two actions. first, i'm directing the secretary of commerce to take possession of the steel mills. >> the issue in this story is the power of the president and its limits. not often is the president's authority directly attacked in a lawsuit, but that is what happened in the administration of harry truman in the second year of the korean

supreme court decisions. >> number 759. earnest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> arguments number 18 roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took that would quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's "landmark cases," our series exploring 12 historic supreme court decisions. tonight's case is schenck versus the united states, a case from 1919 involving freedom of speech around world war i. it also gave rise to two of the supreme court's most quoted phrases. falsely shouting fire in a theater, and clear and present danger. let me introduce our guests who will tell us more about this interesting case to take your calls and questions. beverly gage is a history professor at yale university specializing in 20th century american history. she's the author of "the day wall street

petitioner said the suspect organizer of the paris attacks, abdelhamid abaaoud is dead. the prosecutor said he was killed wednesday in the raid in saint denis. they confirm the woman who blew herself up during the raid was his cousin. >> leaders are looking at better protecting citizens. one is the use of networks of sensors and cameras. we look at the new technology. >> a ripple of gunfire, recorded and identified by smart rooftop sensors. they are sent within seconds to the police. >> this is kind of interesting here. this is an accumulation of gunfire vents over the last 30 days. >> along with precise details of the shooting. the technology is in use in 90 cities, mostly in the u.s., part of an effort to combat gun crime. european cities now considering how it can be used to help them respond to threats in much the same way a fire alarm works. >> they are clearly engaged in some gun play, testing this weapon out here. >> the particular case of the paris attacks, our technology could effectively be that fire alarm for gun shoots, allowing officials a get there sooner and m

constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759. petitioner versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments on number 18.

superior yore remedy available to the petitioner by filing a federal habeas petition. >> there are several reasons. first of all, i don't think that it is going to come up in that way to this court because that's not the way states treat their own rules of procedure. i don't think it will be very difficult. there is a principle in the courts' cases that when federal law has been adopted as such the court will review it even if the state could have chosen a different path. >> mr. dreeben, what's the problem -- >> did you misspeak? when federal law is adopted as state law, the federal courts can review it. isn't that what you meant to say? you are very careful. you don't make mistakes, but i -- >> i think, justice kennedy -- >> you said -- >> this is. >> when state law adopts federal law as federal law then there is review. okay. >> the state has adopted teague for a reason that does not exist in any of these civil procedure cases, and that is that the state knows that that federal law will be applied to the very case in a habeas case. so the state has decided consciously to synchron

. >> number 759. earnest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> arguments number 18

. if you look at apodaca, they were rejecting the same arguments that this petitioner is asking the court to accept, which is that the long history of unanimity should bring it into this system. i'll say this, too, the 7-5 is not the same kind of jury verdict that you would have in a guilt phase because of this backstop, because of the other protections that florida has put in place. even if it's a 7-5 vote, you still have the judge coming behind that jury who, unlike at the guilt phase, where he must accept the jury's findings unless they're not supported by evidence, he or she can disagree or any reason. he or she can give mercy for any reason. and that happens a lot. so we cited some cases in our brief where a man was convicted of murder, in a horrible sexual assault, and by virtue of those two convictions, was necessarily eligible for the death penalty. the jury heard all of the evidence, made a recommendation that he receive the death penalty, and the judge said no, i'm going to sentence him to life. and so this court -- this gets back into the jury versus judge sentencing. but

rejecting is the same argument that the petitioner is asking the court to accept which is the long history of the unanimity means it is brought into the system but i will say this, the 7-5 is not the same kind of jury verdicts that you have any guilt phase because of this judicial fact, because of the other protections florida has put in place, so even if it is a 7-5 vote you still have the judge behind the jury where he must accept the findings unless they are not supported by evidence he or she can disagree for any number of reasons and give mercy for any reason and that happens a lot and so we find some cases and a brief where a man was convicted of murder, a horrible sexual assault and by virtue of the two convictions was eligible for the penalty. the jury heard all the evidence, made a recommendation that he received the death penalty and the judge said no i'm going to sentence him to life. so this court had some real benefits associated with judicial sentencing if you go back to when the court first upheld florida capital sentencing system that recognized these judicial sente

support innovation and cross-discipline collaboration so petitioners can build confidence in using these unusual and more fluid acquisition processes? are oversight processes engineered to encourage purposeful creativity or are practitioners motivated to find the best way to acquire that will eliminate the need to escalate to the next higher level for approval of something that is a little bit different, a little bit harder, a little bit more comprehensive? courage and cross-discipline engagement by leaders are more important here than are regulatory and legal changes. it's exciting to see some of the changes that are happening in some areas to enable the rapid acquisition of important i.t. capabilities, the ways in which some contract contracting shops today are exercising some of the unusual aspects of the f.a.r. are all government parties aware of what it takes to be successful under those circumstances? are we helping industry to understand what success and goodness will look like under those acquisition processes? what can we learn from the ongoing proactive collaborative over

decisions. petitioner versus arizona. row against way. >> and are most famous