douglas, the future supreme court justice. having earned their respect, bessie became the first woman awarded yale's prestigious sterling fellowship for graduate studies. with her yale doctorate, she moved to washington, d.c. for a new opportunity. she applied for a job at the tennessee valley authority, which congress had just created to realize fdr's new deal vision of supplying electricity to the valley's impoverished residents. her yale boss wrote what apparently was needed to hear to hire a woman lawyer, that bessie was intent on a legal career, quote, as a primary objective from which she would not be deflected by consideration of marriage end quote. bessie thus began her government career with a pledge that she would be married to her job instead of a man. hearing tva's competition, private utility companies hurled charges of socialism that quickly turned into lawsuits. to direct the legal defense of this new deal cornerstone, tva hired james lawrence fly, a harvard law graduate and experienced trial lawyer from the jus

. >> depression, supreme court, historical society. it's my honor and pleasure to welcome you to this virtual lecture delivered by marlene trestman one of most stalwart friends. marlene trestman is the author of a book entitled "fair labor lawyer: the remarkable life of new deal attorney and supreme court advocate bessie margolin." she is truly working on a second book entitled the history of the new orleans jewish orphans home, 1855-1946. for the last decade of her 30 year career as a maryland attorneys general office, from which she retired in 2013, she served as a special assistant to the attorney general and was responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws governing the marketing of tobacco and alcohol and internet safety. in recommendation of her considerable contributions, the festival has twice received the attorney general exceptional service award -- ms. trestman. a phi beta kappa graduate and a member of the board of trustees of the college american, ms. trestman earned her law degree from george washington university a

but to understand the gravity of thee united states supreme court people sample take this to the supreme court they don't understand that it is granted it is just incredible. host: so was the essential point to take it to the supreme court wasn't about freedom of speech? >> we asked them to reverse the case on the speech and the religious component. host: june 4th 2018 you want at the supreme court with ginsburg and sotomayor or. that was an amazing occasion what was that like? >> it was just as emotional the day they granted certiorari it was three weeks before the end of the session i was pretty sure they would not grant that but i had to watch the scotus blog and they said we have masterpiece it looks like un seven / two i'm sitting at my computer what just happened? people are driving by my shop and honking and screaming and it was incredible. host: like david and goliath story. it is amazing. then you mention, it is interesting what is one of the keys to winning the case according to the supreme court? why do they will innior your favor? >> one of the key factors was the hostility t

, the supreme court was determined for many decades not to rule on the second amendment. they left that to the lower courts and to the legislatures. this heller case was the first time and not only the supreme court unambiguously held that the second amendment protects a individual's right to possess guns for personal protection, but the first time that the supreme court struck down a law, a gun control law for violating the second amendment. the law was a law in washington, d.c. that was a ban on handguns, and also a ban on the use of long guns for anything but recreational purposes. so you could own a rifle or shotgun, but you could only, it had to be locked or disassemble and used only for recreational purposes like hunting or target shooting. a d.c. court held specifically that if a burglar was breaking into your home, you are not allowed to assemble the gun for self-defense and use it for self-defense, because it was not a recreational purpose. so you could take the gun and maybe you could bang somebody over the head with it, but you were not allowed to shoot somebod

appointment to the supreme court we had just come out of eight supreme court we are looking at when this fall in which they are going to be huge cases including involving abortion, involving gun rights. with a majority. what has that meant and what is it going to mean going forward? >> i think is still a work in progress. one of the interesting things it was frustrating is a lot of commentary coming out of this most recent supreme court term was that it was the fear of the left in the hopes of the right even the 63 majority it was more pragmatic, more moderate, books for compromise ruling to the great chagrin of the rate but one of the justices would frequently complain in his defense. even in his concurrences about what the conservative majority had done. you are seeing a couple of things stand out they advanced the idea of religious liberties which is primarily for christian conservatives. they upheld eventually a ban against muslims. coming into the country or people from the majority of muslim countries. they are considered whether religious liberty even at the expense of discri

the way to the supreme court. i think that may have made it a perfect vehicle. the court does at times take cases that are technically moved but are what hours called capable of repetition, cases by their nature that tend to be this exploding timeline that you would never hear a supreme court case in. in situations like that, it is helpful for the court to lay down a law before you get into this exploding timeline of the same set of facts arising again. and unfortunately, i know it seems to be possible that kind of playing around with the rules after they have already been laid down in legislature could recur again. host: next is our caller in georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: high for one have no respect for mr. thomas. with that said, how do you feel about a judge going to a party and scott a case before him and got to rule on it, running around the country making $1 million listening to people so she can sell his vote. thank you, ma'am.

democrats in pennsylvania went to the partisan supreme court, state supreme court ensued in the state supreme court in the states "set election law does not end at 8:00 tuesday, even though that is what the law said . the election -- now it goes until 5:00 friday. a total end run around the legislature which is mr. johnson out, we know the time and place of election lies determined by state legislatures. are you going to look at that fact? was that done in a constitutional manner? are you going to look at that, for example? >> i am not familiar with the situation in pennsylvania. but we are looking across the country to understand why are lawmakers changing the rules and -- it is not partisan, but to make sure that those changes are not -- >> will you look at changes made to election law prior to the 2020 election? will you look at that or are you only looking at states who were going to revert back to where they were prior to the 2020 election? >> we are looking across the country at existing laws, at new laws, at laws that have been put on the books recently that are now being taken

and then i believe in 1939 is at the supreme court's first weighs on the supreme court forced detail. they talked about it, one or two or three supreme court decisions but nothing and depth. and it is different because they addressed more of the heart of the issue and it is very cryptic, but courts after the supreme court issued that decision -- protects a collective right, not individual right. that remained the status quo, at least legally speaking. i can see politically the average person on the street to think that was the case but legally speaking until the district of columbia howler into the senate recognize the second amendment protects the right to keep their arms -- the right extends to self-defense. >> so again to be clear during the twenties and thirties is when we saw the start of gun control legislation in this country? >> i think more modern as you know today. the categories that are being regulated in the 19 twenties and thirties are really no different from the late 19th century but you start to see more modern types of laws and regulations. they're becoming more comp

how far could we go, the colorado state supreme court, they have discretion in the state supreme court hearing that case. to appeal to the united states supreme court. we were willing to do that. >> apparently the court was willing to hear your case. tell us what the odds are the us supreme court hearing your case? >> extremely small that you will be heard. competition with 8000, to 10,000 cases every year. those cases are usually two circuit courts, ninth circuit and fourth circuit rules differently on two things so the circuit split so they have to testify, constitution can't be one thing in california and another in florida. has to be the same across the board. they are dealing with larger cases and my case came from not a circuit court but a standalone case and basically the court of appeals so didn't make it to the state supreme court but the odds are against us. you have to have four justices agree to take your case. at least four have to go over every aspect of your case. the energy to take this case to court. >> what was it like when you found out you were going to the supreme

supreme court people say i'm going to take this to the supreme court to understand what that means, it's incredible. >> i can't remember, i think you mentioned in the book the essential part to protect up a supreme court, about freedom of speech. >> reverse the case based on speech and religious components of it. >> june 4, 2018 you want at the supreme court and there was a 72 ruling and they said of course, obviously does an amazing occasion, or was it like when you one? >> that was just an emotional day is been granted, i was even more surprised because three weeks before the end of the session and i was confident they would make the announcement until the last day but they said we have masterpiece, it looks like they went 72. i was looking at my computer saying what happened? the phone starts ringing people driving by my shop waving, it was an incredible back. >> it's like a david and goliath story, amazing. you mentioned in the book because this was interesting, was one of the keys to winning the case according to the supreme court? why did they rule in your favor? >> one of the key

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

. >> the supreme court historical society? >> the supreme court historical society is the official name. >> is an amazing article. and soy the atlanta history center's keen on research center. >> i was born in florida my dad was in the navy. he went up work with the faa in south carolina until 1971 we got transferred to the center and hampton and has been here ever since. >> okay. >> the jew go to school worded to go to school? >> so into high school here griffin high school graduate 1976. >> did you enter military service then?

i learned the state supreme court and the united supreme court had a discussion in the state supreme court. on so i thought it was over, it was done. we were willing to do that for the court to hear our case that was the big question but. >> apparently the court was willing to hear case. tell us what the odds are of the u.s. supreme court hearing your case? >> the odds are extremely small to be heard. they petition with 8000 -- 10,000 cases every year. and they would only grant 70 or 80 of them. they are usually two circuit courts they ruled differently on two different things. the circuit split until they have to justify the constitution cannot mean one thing in california they are dealing with larger cases like that. and for my case we came from not a circuit court, or district court was a standalone case. we are basically coming from a court of appeals. the odds are incredibly against us. you have to have four justices to agree to take your case. you have to have at least four go over every aspect of your case is worth your time it worth your effort. thing to take this case to cou

court, over the senate judiciary committee was asked who was your favorite supreme court justice, john marshall harley. interestingly enough marshall's father named him john marshall after the most significant chief justice in american history in the hopes that his young son might end up on the supreme court andby golly he did . so the sole dissent in plessy versus ferguson was this. that segregation on railcars was constitutionally impermissible under the newly passed amendments, 13th, 14th and 15thamendments . sole dissent. it reads like the majority unanimous decision in brown versus board of education 58 years later. that's that led john marshall harlan's photograph on my wall and i was thrilled a few months ago to see this new book had come out about his life and times and it's a marvelous read, extremely well written and i recommend it to your viewers. >> when you find time to read ? >> it takes me a while to finish a book. i typically will read on the plane or on weekends. i'm not one of those people who can read at night.i'm usually sleeping so i'm not what i would call a fast

because any time soon next week the supreme court justices still have to hear 35 people testify, some of them in favor of the indigenous cause, others against it. then they'll have to vote. but just the fact that they're sitting here to debate this represent directory for the indigenous people. are these 20 people are not known to have died in flooding in western venezuela? heavy rain caused landslides and rivers have overflowed and married to state. authorities say more than 1200 homes have been destroyed. 17 people are set to be missing several times without electricity. and roads and bridges have been damaged . lebanese cancer charities, they say the country's economic collapse is putting thousands of lives at risk, even simple drugs and when possible to buy. and the black market is helping only those who can afford it. general reports from beirut cries for help, lebanon's cancer patients can't find medicine. they are among the victims of an unprecedented economic collapse. cancer patient who discovered his nose and said one, if you don't give him his, he will. he will have his the

in the hope the supreme court will hear their voices. it's the largest indigenous gathering in the capital, brazil you since 1988. that's when the countries democratic constitution was approved. giving native brazilians the right to reclaim in several lands, but they're back again, fearing those rights will be curtailed. this week the supreme court is expected to make its ruling law would, at least it's allowed dispute between the shock, like people who claim their territories and the southern states of santa katerina, and peak lost those who say they have no rights because they weren't buying those lands in 1088 when the constitution was approved. to set a jurisprudence for hundreds of defending cases, we got sold. fisher, glenn chieftain, says setting a time limit is unconstitutional and unfair to my part. we were living in our lands in 1988 because had we stayed there would have been exterminated. now we have been hunted down by the land owners, so they put a price on us. they pay people to kill us and ask them to bring our ears as pr

it goes to the united states supreme court. the united states supreme court says, you know, wait one second. this is a conflict. you can't be a prosecutor and a judge. so terry williams gets a reprieve. the third degree case gets dismissed. that's a whole story in itself because of prosecutorial misconduct, basically. and he's now fighting the second case for which he's serving a life sentence right now. so that's just an ongoing saga. again it's a combination of overly aggressive prosecution, inept defense, and judges that are either looking the other way or just staying out of it entirely. >> and just to be clear on that, castille was the chief district attorney. he was the district attorney. he approved seeking the death penalty. he had to give the go ahead for that. >> that's exactly right. >> later he was the chief justice on the pennsylvania supreme court, and he's still deciding that case even though he had made a critical decision in it. >> to add to this, that we have elections in pennsylvania for the supreme court and

so the supreme court stepped in and ruled on this case. one of the remarkable things about the case was that the lawyers who pursued it, although they were trying to invigorate and provide judicial protection for the nra's view of the second amendment, the nra was opposed to the lawyers and the lawsuit from the get-go and did everything they could to stop the case from ever going to the supreme court. >> why was that? that's counterintuitive and fascinating. why would the nra have not wanted this case to go all the way? >> well, the nra stated reason to the lawyers involved in the case, that they were afraid of losing. they didn't want their view of the second amendment rejected by the united states supreme court, especially this supreme court, which has a majority of republican appointees, it's a conservative court, they didn't want this court to reject that view. that wouldn't help the nra. the lawyers involved in the case where a group of three libertarian lawyers who had no real substantial connections with a gun rights movement. had n

i've learned the colorado state supreme court in united state supreme court had discussion which case the state supreme court declined to hear my case. and so i thought that it was over and it was done but there was only one option left over that would be to appeal to the united states supreme court. so we were willing to do that but the court would be willing to hear our case, that was the big question pretty. >> a fairly they work on your education tell us what the odds are of the u.s. supreme court hearing your case rated. >> yards under odds are extremely small that we will be heard. there a petition with 8000 - 10000 cases every year they were only listening to 70 or 80 of them in the cases that would have to be usually like the two circuit courts, ninth circuit and the first circuit in different and do different things and so that's how the circuit split and so that's how we have to justify the constitution, one thing in california and another thing in florida. so it was larger cases like that and for my case, we came from non- circuit courts or district courts where any large h

court they had discussion in the state supreme court declined to hear my case so i thought it was over and we were done there is only one option left to appeal to the united states supreme court and we were willing to do that. >> so tell us what the odds are of the us supreme court hearing your case. >> extremely small that you will be heard they are petition with between 8,010,000 cases every year the only here 70 or 80. they usually have to be to circuit courts the ninth circuit and forth circuit to have a circuit split ruling differently they have to justify the difference the constitution can't me one thing in california and another in colorado. so there are larger cases like that. and my case we came from not a circuit court or district court. and with the court of appeals. but the odds are incredibly against us and then they have to agree to take your case. and with the to take the case. >> and what was that like when you found out you were going to the supreme court? >> that was the craziest day of my life a website that you can follow the cases that you want to they are looking

in the hopes his young son might in it going to the supreme court and by golly he did. and the sole dissent in plessy versus ferguson was this. segregation on railcars was constitutionally wrong under the amendments. was the majority unanimous decision in brown versus board of education 58 years later. that's why the photograph is on the wall's new book came out about his life and times it is a marvelous read, extremely well-written i i highly recommend it to your viewers for. >> where you find time to read you have to schedule it? reading on planes or weekends. i am not one of those people can read at night. i am usually sleepy. i am not what i call a fast reader but i am a consistent reader. i am probably eight or ten book a year person. most of it is in the area, not surprisingly, american history. another book i read recently about the 48 election for that sort of thing is typically found in my briefcase. >> what about any books on another famous kentuckian henry clay the compromise of 1850 which is the last great compromise in his quest to hold the union together w

. >> the supreme court historical society? >> the supreme court historical society is the official name. >> is an amazing article. and so, have a great day. watch book tv now on sunday on cspan2 or find it online anytime @booktv.org. it is television for serious readers. now from c-span's american history tv oral histories series richard recounts his service in the u.s. army national guard during operation iraqi freedom in afghanistan. he described his interactions with local civilians, the impact of the war on families. this interview is from the veterans history project and was conducted by the atlanta history center's keen on research center. >> i was born in florida my dad was in the navy.

the cases went all the way up to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled. those students have a right to wear a black arm that. it is another manifestation of what? speech. it is another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so then a few years later you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag. and they got arrested for burning the american flag. and then the question became, you are going to be convicted, you gonna do time for burning the flag. and the argument was, and burning the flag, it's my way of what? expressing my speech. yeah john. >> how does this tie in with companies censoring people they don't agree with? >> give me this again? john >> how does this tie in with big tech companies like twitter, instagram, snapchat, they're censoring people they don't agree with politically and taking their content off their platforms? so >> sean that is a hot issue. are you familiar with the snowden case? there is a lot right now of controversy about facebook and what is it? twitter and all this. one argument they would give you is you don't

the cases wentz all the way at the supreme court and the supreme court ruled. those students have a right to wear a black arm band. it is another manifestation of what? speech. it's another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so, then, a few years later, you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag. and they got arrested for burning the american flag and then the question became, you know, you're going to do time for burning the flag. and the argument was in burning the flag, it's my way of what? expressing my speech. yeah, john? >> how does this tie in with censuring people they disagree with? how does this tie in with big tech companies, like twitter, facebook, instagram, snapchat, they're censuring people they don't agree with politically, and taking content offer their platform. >> that's a hot issue. are you familiar with snowden and the snowden case? there's a lot of controversy about these various facebook and what is it? twitter and all this. but you know, one argument they would give you is you don't have to go on if you don't like

the way to the supreme court. i think that may have made it a perfect vehicle. the court does at times take cases that are technically moved but are what hours called capable of repetition, cases by their nature that tend to be this exploding timeline that you would never hear a supreme court case in. in situations like that, it is helpful for the court to lay down a law before you get into this exploding timeline of the same set of facts arising again. and unfortunately, i know it seems to be possible that kind of playing around with the rules after they have already been laid down in legislature could recur again. host: next is our caller in georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: high for one have no respect for mr. thomas. with that said, how do you feel about a judge going to a party and scott a case before him and got to rule on it, running around the country making $1 million listening to people so she can sell his vote. thank you, ma'am.

they heard that the supreme court would finally sit down to discuss a landmark case. we'll decide the future of brazil, $1000000.00 indigenous population and the rise to claim their ancestors. one thousands of indigenous protesters have been camping in the heart of the capital and have been marching for 3 consecutive days to the supreme court, just sitting outside, dancing, and waiting for their voices to be heard. if the largest indigenous gathering here since 1988, and the democratic constitution was approved, giving the indigenous people the right to deprecate this territory. now, the powerful form lobby and president wilson out of the constitution should only protect the lands that were occupied by indigenous people. 988 when the constitution was but indigenous people, they say a cutoff date is unconstitutional and unfair because many were kicked out of their lands violently, and have only been able to return in recent years. the case being discussed by the supreme court will decide which interpretation is correct and took precedence for $800.00 other pending land

and then -- then we had the supreme court of the united states. in 2012. say that everything was fine. everything is fine. we don't need the voting rights laws anymore. they were deliberately blinded. they thought, so they said they thought, that all the problems were solved. everything was fine. but as justice ginsburg pointed out, she pointed out that saying it was fine was like saying that you didn't need the umbrella anymore during the rainstorm because after all you weren't getting wet. so it must not be. so they destroyed a lot of the voting rights act. a day in which we passed a bill that take cares of all those problems. it will restore voting rights. that will stop the plethora of voting right, voting restrikses we see passing in so many different states. and we pray that this bill will land on joe biden's desk. the senate has a history of lagging but eventually doing the right thing, sometimes. we >> we pray that we will do the right thing now. we look forward to that gray day. now i want to introduce one of the leaders in this fight. joyce beatt

it goes to the united states supreme court. the united states supreme court says, you know, wait one second. this is a conflict. you can't be a prosecutor and a judge. so terry williams gets a reprieve. the third degree case gets dismissed. that's a whole story in itself because of prosecutorial misconduct, basically. and he's now fighting the second case for which he's serving a life sentence right now. so that's just an ongoing saga. again it's a combination of overly aggressive prosecution, inept defense, and judges that are either looking the other way or just staying out of it entirely. >> and just to be clear on that, castille was the chief district attorney. he was the district attorney. he approved seeking the death penalty. he had to give the go ahead for that. >> that's exactly right. >> later he was the chief justice on the pennsylvania supreme court, and he's still deciding that case even though he had made a critical decision in it. >> to add to this, that we have elections in pennsylvania for the supreme court and

the supreme court ruling that could put millions of americans at risk of eviction. a stunning decision, sirhan sirhan, recommended for parole will he be released? inspiring america. the afghan american pilot and the refugees he is helping right now. good evening, sworn enemies with a bitter 20 year legacy written in blood tonight, the united states and the taliban facing a mutual threat, anxiety high in kabul, amid what u.s. intelligence believes is a specific and credible threat, isis terrorists will strike again, on the heels of yesterday's bombing attack outside the international airport that killed at least 13 u.s. troops and left well over 100 afghans dead tonight, the american pull out from afghanistan at a critical stage, the long war coming to a tortured, heartbreaking, uncertain end. richard engle leads our coverage tonight. >> reporter: these are the united states security partners in kabul the taliban protecting american forces at the airport their way, keeping afghans from reaching the airport gate, extending the security perimeter while hundreds o ameri

that was appealed immediately and then found its way to the supreme court, and the supreme court quickly found that the program agreed with the district judge and found that the program must be reinstated. obviously this is a devastating decision for a lot of people. the other thing that people have been writing about is that basically what the federal judges doing in this case is making himself the person in charge of foreign policy. there is a long tradition that the courts are not supposed to determine how we deal with other countries, and by requiring the biden administration to have this program, that requires bilateral negotiation and agreements with mexico. it seems like that would the a no-brainer, that the court should not have the ability to tinker with the foreign policy of the united states. that is another reason to criticize the decision. host: who exactly does this affect now that this program has been order to continue? who is affected by it, and is there way for the biden administration to actually -- the court did not say that program must run forever. they just said yo