topeka and kansas, gideon versus wainwright in florida, roe v. wade and texas, lawrence versus texas, sullivan was an effort by alabama to shut down free speech. miranda v. arizona, griswold versus connecticut. most of the cases that ordinary people think of as bill of rights cases are not bill of rights cases because the amendments are only about limiting the federal government. so, what kind of cases are gideon versus wainwright and texas when they are not bill of rights cases you now know enough to know the answer was cases are they. they are 14th amendment cases. no state or localities shall make or enforce any that is the second founding. a second bill of rights that is more intuitive for most americans today because the states misbehave because matheson lost. no state shall violate the senate didn't go along so he lost that fight but he wins in the end thanks to the 14th amendment and we gave madison the credit for the final amendment but it's a little bit ironic because all of this is precipitated this 14th amendment by the slave of crises

gideon versus wainwright, griswold versus connecticut, "new york times" versus sullivan, brown v. board of education, roe v. wade, lawrence v. texas, none of them is a bill of rights case. why not tax be

topeka and kansas, gideon versus wainwright in florida, roe v. wade and texas, lawrence versus texas, sullivan was an effort by alabama to shut down free speech. miranda v. arizona, griswold versus connecticut. most of the cases that ordinary people think of as bill of rights cases are not bill of rights cases because the amendments are only about limiting the federal government. so, what kind of cases are gideon versus wainwright and texas when they are not bill of rights cases you now know enough to know the answer was cases are they. they are 14th amendment cases. no state or localities shall make or enforce any that is the second founding. a second bill of rights that is more intuitive for most americans today because the states misbehave because matheson lost. no state shall violate the senate didn't go along so he lost that fight but he wins in the end thanks to the 14th amendment and we gave madison the credit for the final amendment but it's a little bit ironic because all of this is precipitated this 14th amendment by the slave of crises

brown versus topeka, gideon versus wainwright florida, roe v. wade when you agree with it or not is texas, lawrence versus texas, "new york times" sullivan was an effort by alabama to shut down free speech. randa v. arizona. griswold versus connecticut. most of the cases ordinary people think of as bill of rights cases are not bill of rights cases because the amendment is only about comedy original federal government. so, what kind of cases are gideon versus wainwright and lawrence versus texas if they are not bill of rights cases you know enough to know the answer now. no state or localities shall make or enforce any. that is the second founding. a second bill of rights to the one that is more intuitive for most americans today because the states us behave because madison lost when he tried to get the original amendment passed no state shall violate. but the senator didn't go alonge along so he lost that fight. but he wins in the end thanks to the 14th amendment and it is apt that we give him the credit for the final 14th amendment but it's als

wainwright and lawrence vs. texas and brown vs. board of occasion and "new york times --" if they're not bill of rights casesout now know enough to know the answer. what cases are they? they're 14th amendment cases. no state or localities shall make or enfor any law which shall abridge the fundamental rights. a second bill of rights which is most intuitive for most americans today because states misbehave because madison lost when he tried to got the original 14 enemy amendment passed. no states shall -- but the senate didn't go along so the lost that fight, that the wins in the end, thanks to the 14th 14th amendment, and it's utterly apt we give madison the credit for the final 14th 14th amendment and a little ironic because all of this is precipitated, this 14th 14th amendment, by the slave owners, abuse of power, and madison and jefferson were charter members and founded a political party whose base was basically a southern base that benefited hugely in electoral college andest prom the presence of slavery because of the three/f

board of education of kansas, gideon versus wainwright in florida. roe versus wade when you agree with it or not is texas. lawrence versus texas, and others to shut down free speech. miranda versus arizona again, griswold versus connecticut. most of the cases that ordinary people think of as bill of rights cases are not. because the amendments only about limited the federal government. so what kind of cases are gideon versus wainwright and lawrence versus texas and brown versus board of education and new york times and sullivan if they are not bill of rights cases? what are they? the 14th amendment cases. no state or locality shall make or enforce any -- that is the second bill of rights. when actually more intuitive for most americans today. because state misbehaves because madison lost when he tried to get that original. no state shall violate rights but the senate did not go long so he lost that fight. but he wins in the end. thanks to the 14th amendment and it is utterly apt that we give madison the credit for the final 14th amendment but also it

that's a decision issued in the same year as gideon versus wainwright led to the effort to attack the death penalty constitutionally so his defense of denial explains some of the reasons why he thought this issue is worthy of the court's attention. interestingly one of the things he made prominent in that defense was the issue of race discrimination but perhaps chief justice warren eliminated any reference to rape in that defense. nonetheless the defense copy attention of the premier civil rights organization in the country the naacp legal defense fund and the legal defense fund which had always regarded the death penalty as an issue of racial justice decided to make the death penalty one of the central issues. what they did was they decided upon what they called a moratorium strategy. they thought if they could bring executions in the united states to an end that might bring the issue to the supreme court and that the supreme court would ultimately declare the death penalty unconstitutional. they came up with all sorts of bases for challenging the administration of the death penalty.

anthony kennedy who during his hearing praised the supreme court landmark 1963 decision in gideon versus wainwright which established the right to counsel in criminal cases or even contrast judge gorsuch to chief justice john roberts, privacy the liberty interest before the due process clause. at his hearing judge gorsuch repeatedly parroted critical supreme court decisions were precedents of the court, that he would follow unless and until they were overturned but he said no light on what he felt about those precedents or whether or not he would be inclined or disinclined to vote to overturn them. only after considerable prodding the judge gorsuch eventually agree that the decision in brown versus board of education, which did away with the doctrine of separate but equal and desegregated schools across the nation was correct. having to pry out of judge gorsuch that concession does not inspire confidence in him. his performance at the hearings left us with many troubling things that we don't know about judge gorsuch, but equally troubling about judge gorsuch are the things we do know about him. we

like brown versus board education that ended racial segregation in schools, cases like gideon versus wainwright which ensures that all are entitled to couns counsel. cases that decided it's the law of our land that loving couples can affirm their commitment in marriage whether they are of opposite or same-sex. there are other signature cases like judge scott that have left stains on our history that outlasted the service of any one justice. since justice scalia passed away february 2016, i have reflected on the importance of verse up in court and the senate's responsibility to evaluate the president's nominee to fulfill the vacancy. just over 25 years ago, i was myself a law student intern on the senate judiciary committee nomination unit for chairman joe biden. at that time, i heard from long serving senators, a record of grievances of misunderstandings of wrongs committed one party against another, and a variety of confirmations and hearings in the bush and reagan administrations and before. i am struck that half of the committee serving here today hasn't previously participated in any suprem

wainwright and lawrence v. texas and new york times v. sullivan if they're not bill of rights cases? what cases are they? they're 14th amendment cases. no state or localities which are part of the localities. that's the second founding, a second bill of rights, the one that actually is more intuitive for most americans today because states misbehave because madison lost when he tried to get that original 14th amendment passed saying in state shall violate fundamental rights, but the senate didn't go along, so he lost that fight, but he wins in the end thanks to the. 14th amendment. and, you know, it's utterly apt that we give madison the credit for the final 14th amendment, but it's also a little bit ironic because all of this is precipitated, this 14th amendment, by the abuse of power and, alas, madison and jefferson were charter members of that slaveocracy. they founded a political party whose base was basically a southern base that benefited hugely in the electoral college and elsewhere from the presence of a slavery. because of the th