Of the law and we will explore some of that today. This panel will focus on the highlights of the past term. The most important cases such as the census citizenship case and the political gerrymandering case and if you missed opportunities like the cases involving the nondelegation doctrine and deference to a ministry of agencies. Enough from me. We are fortunate to have with us today four distinguished panelists. And if i devoted the time there many achievements and positions deserved that would easily take about 90 minutes here. So i will keep their introductions extremely leave. Professor at Amherst College and founder and director of the James Wilson Institute on National Rights and the american founding. He has authored many books on politics, political philosophy and jurisprudence and his articles have appeared in professional journals as well as popular outlets including the wall street journal and national review. The henryan is salvatori professor of law and director of the center for constitutional jurisprudence at the Founder School of law at chapman university. Hes also a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. Before entering academia he served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence thomas and practice at the Law Firm Kirkland and ellis. Matthew frank is the director of the center on religion and constitution at the Witherspoon Institute and Professor Emeritus at radfordl science university. He has written a number of books and articles about the court and constitutional law and Anthony Peacock is a professor of Political Science and Department Head at utah state university. Hes also the director of the project on liberty and american constitutionalism at utah state. Tony has written numerous books and articles about the court, the federalist papers and Voting Rights. Each panelist will come up to the podium and make a presentation of about 15 minutes and then we will open it up to discussion and audience q a. Im going to turn it over to tony. Thank you, elizabeth. I will try to stay to my 15 minutes. Ive got my watch. Let me know if i go over. Joe andlike to thank the Claremont Institute for inviting me to appear before this very distinguished panel and thanks to all of you for showing up and making us feel like we might actually have something important to say. Appreciate that as well. We are going to comment on hopefully relatively Different Cases from this last term. Im going to comment primarily on the partisan gerrymandering case and the new york case. The department of commerce versus new york which was the citizen question case. Apsasars theme at the populism and privilege. Both have come together and appeals by legal academics, Public Interest law firms, Political Parties and others that have pleaded to have federal courts intervene in yet another political issue in the name of fairness. That issue in this case is political gerrymandering. In the case that considered that court rejected such solicitations and ruled that partisan gerrymandering is were not just political questions that were beyond the reach of federal courts. During most of these panels that we have on the Supreme Court we discuss how many important political issues the to dish area increasingly decides to take on, but this was a refreshing change where the court washed its hands of an issue, partisan gerrymandering. It roughly the last 45 years has suggested it just might take up. Has the court concluded and i quote here, what the appellees and dissent seek is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power. The expansion of Judicial Authority would not be into just any area of controversy put into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of american political life. That intervention would be unlimited in scope and duration. It would recur over and over again around the country with each new round of districting for state as well as federal representatives. And the unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the federal government would decide the issue. This is another dispute. Who gets to decide these issues of partisan gerrymandering. Plaintiffs iner North Carolina and maryland filed suit challenging their congressional10 redistricting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering is. Gerrymanders. Democratsted against where the maryland litigation claimed the Republican Redistricting map discriminated against republicans. As far back as 1962 in the reapportionment case baker versus carr, the Supreme Court held that a political question was a case that lacked a judicially discoverable and manageable standard for resolving the issue at hand. In ill versus whitford where the plaintiffs from wisconsin were determined to lacked standing in other partisan gerrymandering case, the court emphasized that ever since baker, the unresolved question in partisan gerrymandering cases was whether such cases involved a legal right resolvable according to legal principles or was instead a political question that had to be resolved elsewhere. Davisgh in cases such as versus band mayor, the court suggested that cracking and packing voters from opposing parties into districts might raise a partisan gerrymandering claim as the majority of root show highlighted, even in vanda mayor the justices were so divided that no ever emerged in the case. There was a split in that case. No court standard emerged and that has been the situation for over 30 years. The majority concluded that there was no constitutional basis for partisan gerrymandering claims either on the basis of article one or in which gavens clause power over representation in congress to the states first and congress second. There is no provision for the courts to intervene in any of these provisions of the constitution. 2004 the court pointed out that neither section two nor section four of article one provided a judicially enforceable limit on the Political Considerations the states and congress may take into account when districting. In other words the sky is the limit. This case added that there was no constitutional basis for relief and partisan gerrymandering cases and all of this had been advanced and accepted by the courts for partisan gerrymandering claims by the lower courts in the North Carolina case and the maryland case that the court was considering. All of these constitutional bases for partisan gerrymandering claims were also accepted by Justice Kagans dissenting opinion on behalf of herself and the other three liberals on the court. The main problem the court maintained was that the reality plurality set any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims must be grounded in a limited and precise rationale and be clear, manageable and politically neutral. And no such standard exists according to the court and theres no way to decide how much is too much. Plurality also emphasized that the problem here was not about restraining the political branches of government as to how to meaningfully constrain the discretion of the courts. And their intrusion into the very foundation of democratic decisionmaking. Its not just about the political branches. Its about the judiciary as well. The court did concede that the supreme had intervened in redistricting cases in two scenarios. The one person one vote decision and the racial gerrymandering cases. I would submit that the courts mandate of racial redistricting to comply with the Voting Rights back going act going back exactly 50 years now, it resulted in the racial gerrymandering cases the court had to address beginning most important with sean versus reno in 1993. Constitute exhibit a of white americans should not want the court deciding any kind of redistricting disputes, political, racial or otherwise. Compliance with the Voting Rights act was of course the reason secretary of commerce wilbur ross gave the reinstate Citizenship Question on the 2020 census. This case might have indicated restraint on the part of the court and interfering in disputes, department of commerce versus new york also decided in june appeared to indicate quite the opposite. A court intent on injecting itself into the political fray to keep the Trump Administration from putting a political question on the 2020 census. Justice roberts was the author of the courts opinion. At least on the key issue in part five of the decision where roberts and the liberals on the rosssejected secretary contention that compliance with the vra was the real reason for putting the question on the census. That was the key issue in the case. Roberts and the more liberal members of the court thought this was pretextual. In other words ross wasnt telling the truth. They decided that because ross had indicated shortly after taking office in early 2017 that he wanted a Citizenship Question on the census but it was not that he said018 the doj had requested the question in order to ensure better compliance with the vra. The court acknowledged there was no legal or constitutional impediment to asking a Citizenship Question on the census. It had been asked on every census but one between 1820 and 2010. Of some segment of the population. It was also perfectly consistent the court said it to ask such a question with the enumeration clause of article one section two and section 60 and 141 f of the census act. Technical here. Since the ministry of procedure act allowed for judicial review of decisions by the secretary of commerce and it was suspected that ross had not been perfectly honest about the reason for the Citizenship Question on the census, meaningful judicial review of chief Justice Roberts put it cannot be had until the case had been remanded for further examination and thats what the Court Ordered in this case. They remanded the case to have further evidence taken with respect to rosss motives. The courts reasoning was criticized by Justice Thomas joined by justices gorsuch and cavanaugh. Out that new york marked the First Time Ever that the court had invalidated an Agency Action solely because it questioned the sincerity of the agencies otherwise adequate rationale. The standards the ministry of procedure action required an agency to follow in its actions, findings and conclusions didnt even allow the court to inquire into the question of pretext. Pretext could not make up a subset of arbitrary and capricious review which was the standard that was used here. Because it had to be based on the existing admin strata of record as earlier cases that highlighted nonevidence that might come up on remand. The District Court had already allowed an additional claim for discovery that went beyond the admin strata of record and that the supremes in new york recognized may have been ordered in error. Up aourts decision opened whole new avenue of attack on executive action. In future and argue believe eyelid the separation of powers by enabling judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws any time opponents of an executive claim to a pretext for a decision. Woulder words new york fundamentally transformed the nature of Administrative Law according to Justice Thomas. I think ive got four minutes left. Ok. I just wanted to quickly mention two decisions that i think indicate some pushback against what are called nationwide injunctions or universal injunctions and restrictions on executive power in National Security and immigration related matters. The first case is nelson versus preapp. Justice alitos decision that reversed the ninth circuits holding. That the respondents in the cases who were deportable for certain specified crimes were not subject to the immigration and nationality ask mandatory detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail. Thats a calm decision. I wont get into the details. Stayecond was the july 26 in trump versus sierra club which was the border wall injunction case. Whethere was about President Trump and his administration could use the ional Emergencies Act pentagon to bill deportable. Judge Hayward Gilliam in the Northern District of california had issued a nationwide injunction to stop trump from using the nea. The court stated that injunction. Disagreed with the policy of using the nea to get around congress build the wall. But it said the good news was that the high court was finally sending a message about the proliferation of National Injunctions by lower court judges. One problem with nationwide injunctions is that they are typically issued before the merits of the case are ever decided. Therump versus hawaii, travel ban case from last year, Justice Thomas invited the court to curtail the power of single District Court judges usually in deep blue states granting injunctions that applied nationwide. Thomasng to justice universal court nationwide injunctions have become increasingly common and were taking a toll on the federal system preventing legal questions from in his words percolating through federal courts, encouraging Forum Shopping and making every case a National Emergency for the courts and executive branch. He wanted to question this but the court in its concluding remarks in the hawaii case last year said it didnt have to take up the nationwide scope of injunctions. In that case thomas had articled there was no three or equitable jurisdiction for such injunctions and i think its possible that a majority on the court might be willing to opinion and the necessity of whether to reassess these nationwide injunctions. Club,mp versus sierra both justices thomas and gorsuch would have dismissed the District Courts certification for a classwide injunctive relief and denied jurisdiction to even hear a claim in the case. I think both preamp and sierra there may be at least three other justices on the court that might be willing to reconsider nationwide injunctions at some point in the nottoodistant future. There finish up by saying have been 37 nationwide injunctions. During the Trump Administration. Thats what Justice Thomas had highlighted had been a problem. A significant problem from the point of view of separation of powers and National Security issues in particular. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much. As a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute i am particularly delighted to be on this Supreme Court panel. 20 years ago we founded our litigation shop, the center for constitutional jurisprudence and almost from the beginning we have been pursuing as one of our main goals a pushback against the admin strata of state and a revival of the constitutional Administrative State and a revival of the constitutional separation of powers. Two of those key issues, deference to Agency Interpretations of its own regulations and the revival of the nondelegation doctrine were both up before the court this term and our side lost on both of those. Far from being depressed im actually quite ecstatic about how these cases come out and im going to talk about those. The first one deals with the nondelegation doctrine. Gundy versus United States. The nondelegation doctrine is tied to an obscure provision in article one,ion, section one, clause one of the constitution. Powers are vested in congress. That means the lawmaking that goes on in this country has to be done by congress. It cant be delegated to private actors or unelected executive agencies. In the sexss did offender registration and notice to the attorney general on the issue of whether the act would apply retroactively to people who had already been convicted of sex crimes but now would have to register. And whether that would apply only to people convicted after the act was passed or would have retroactive effect. Was punted to the attorney general without any guiding principle whatsoever to decide whether he should extend the acts Registration Requirements retroactively or keep it only prospective. The theory on which the court has allowed vast delegations of lawmaking power to agencies since the 1930s has always been did the congress resolve the tough political questions and and the executive agency intelligible principle that would control and guide the discretion as it filled in the details of the lawmaking power . The intelligible principle has turned out to be great in theory but completely ignored in fact. We have great swaths of lawmaking power that are delegated to agencies to further the Public Interest or to do things that are fair and reasonable. Barely any principal much less an intelligible one. This one didnt even have that so of the questions presented in certiorari, the Court Granted it on only one question. Shall we revive the nondelegation doctrine or does this delegation of lawmaking power violate the nondelegation doctrine. Washolding of the court that the nondelegation doctrine really hasnt been revived. We ducked the issue. Its an odd lineup on the boat. Who clearly has favored in the past a revival of the nondelegation doctrine voted with the more liberal wing of the court to deny the nondelegation doctrine issue here. That made it a five to three decision. Justice cavanagh was recused from it because he had not yet been ceded by the time the case was argued in the first week of october. The case is not decided until the very last week of the courts term. It was one of the longest courts sitting on the docket. Ive written an article called Justice Alitos strategic vote because about what would have happened if he had voted with strong dissent characterizing whats at issue and whats at stake in this effort to revive the nondelegation doctrine. If alito had voted with gorsuch a position he has previously indicated he fully supports, we would have had a four four tie. Neither the majority opinion nor Justice Gorsuchs strong dissent would have seen the light of day. We would have only seen the opinion of the Second Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided court. And we wouldnt have any hint of how seriously the revival of nondelegation doctrine that is underway was actually underway. Out to mepointed including my good friend john malcolm at the Heritage Foundation that they could have easily set that case for reargument and then Brett Kavanaugh would have been able to participate and we may have had a different vote. So just politically i ask the question given all that went on in the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, do we really want the revival of the nondelegation doctrine to be with Brett Kavanaugh being the deciding vote in his first term on an issue about a offender registration . Probably not. Sex offender registration . Probably not. So i think they punted on this. Casehe dynamics of the were pretty obvious to everybody including the party in the case that was filing the petition for rehearing to have a reargument the next term. The firstbe heard at Court Conference in september so we will know a little bit more about whether it was the subject matter they wanted to duck the issue on or just the timing that they wanted to duck the issue on. Nevertheless, i count five votes for reviving a fairly stringent nondelegation doctrine and we havent had that in about 80 years. I think this is a very significant development. Where it comes out and tied a little bit back to tonys comments. Nondelegation doctrine is central to the attack on President Trumps use of the national Emergencies Act to build a wall. Orre is not much constraint intelligible principle on the president s exercise of that delegated authority either. The president s authority might be a little stronger than the normal nondelegation case because it deals with Foreign Affairs and international matters. But the one thing that should be absolutely clear, if we do revive a nondelegation doctrine, it ought to be acrosstheboard. It ought not to be we didnt mean to delegate authority to this president even though we are fine with delegating authority to every other president. So those are the kind of issues we are going to be confronting next term very quickly on nondelegation issues. The second pushback case that we won is kaiser versus wilkie. Here was the issue on whether the socalled doctrine of our difference should be overruled. Held no, itt shouldnt be. Justice kagan in defending notiondecisive and the that we ought to keep our difference in case it really modified rather dramatically the way the difference doctrine had come to be playing out in the lower courts. So in her defense she kind of modified the case rather dramatically which was something neil gorsuch pointed out. Difference is an agencys interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations which were written in support of an ambiguous statute under chevron deference. The nondelegation combined with the difference combined with the double deference combined with the ability of agencies through guidance memos or whatever to law isvely make new increasingly seen by several members of the court has a real threat to separation of powers. In fact even seen by Justice Scalia before he passed away, who was the author of the our as such a doctrine threat to separation of powers that he announced in an opinion before he died that he would overturn our at the first opportunity. He never got that opportunity but neil gorsuch has taken up the baton rather dramatically and i think Brett Kavanaugh in his time on the d. C. Circuit judge and even in the hints we get in some of his opinions and has taken it up as well. Of pick up on here. ,ustice gorsuch in his dissent its just a lambasting of retaining this difference doctrine. A bare majority flinches, and our lives on. Todays decision is more a stay of execution than a pardon. It a fantasy, a paper, linguistic hocuspocus, no more than an exercise of raw political executive power. Secret intentions are not the law. Just in case anybody thought that there was any conclusion about where he stood on this thing. More broadly cases indicate a real tectonic shift going on in the court, probably one that was started by scalia but hadnt taken much route as it seems to have. Justice kagan famously said we are all originalists now. I think we are seeing is a revival of textualism of not just the kind of raw text that what the actual original meaning of the text was. And that the text controls more broadly. ,o we see a couple of cases warehouse versus u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service dealing with critical habitat down in louisiana over an area that was not capable of being habited by the critter that was at issue. Held muste court actually be habitat. Year,orsuch again last the justices always get a dog of a case to be their first opinion on the case, and his dealt with a fairly minor and mundane issue of statutory law. But he used his first opinion last year to really assert this principle and give us some indication of whats going to guide him on his time on the bench. It is of course our job to apply faithfully the law congress has written. A is never our job to rewrite constitutionally valid statutory text under banner of speculation about what Congress Might have questionit faced a that on everyones account it never faced. Constant competition between constable and quarry, regulator and regulated can come as no surprise in our changing world, but neither should the proper role of the judiciary in that process. To apply, not amend the work of the peoples representatives. That was in a case involving Debt Collection statutes. A pretty broadside criticism of what i think was, lets look at king versus burwell p the second of the obamacare bases cases. Said theoberts statutory phrase can also mean exchanged not established by the state. This was a fairly bold move for a brandnew justice in first of opinion but i think it laid down an important marker about the importance of textualism. We also see in these cases a big fight over stare decisis. Gorsuch says its an odd stare decisis invoked by the majority when they are themselves completely altering the way that our difference doctrine would be applied in going future. Something very similar to that fight happened in planned parenthood versus casey when under stare decisis they kept row but radically changed the regime of how it would be applied. We see in nick versus township of scott and overruling of a longstanding Williamson County case. And overruling of a sovereign immunity case in nevada versus hibbs. Justice breyers dissent says todays decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next. And in gamble versus United States, the court retained the sovereign immunity doctrine but Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion rights and extensive critique of the way stare decisis has come to mean an immovable notion. To address the proper role of stare decisis, we ought not to elevate prior decisions that are patently or demonstrably erroneous over the text of the constitution and here is this notion of recurring to text of what the law is rather than the words of a prior opinion. Particularly with demonstrably erroneous, he uses that phrase several times, precedents. He takes direct aim at planned parenthood versus casey which is i suspect why everybody is just so apoplectic about the fights over stare decisis right now. Obviously the stare decisis fight is laying the groundwork for the grand fight that most people anticipate coming fairly quickly over abortion and the ongoing status of roe v. Wade as superduper president that cant be touched whatsoever. We have several cases that were decided last term with the court already starting to maneuver on those issues. Waspetition for certiorari denied. It was an issue about private rights of action to challenge state determinations of qualified medicare providers. One of the parties in the case was planned parenthood so even though the abortion issue itself the case stake, implicated that. We have june medical services which upheld a stay of the District Court decision which had upheld louisianas abortion restrictions law, was very similar to texas law that had been struck down just to terms earlier. That one was still kind of pushed off a little bit but the issues are there. I think most interesting, box versus planned parenthood of indiana. The court decided fairly straightforwardly, upholding indianas law dealing with fetal remains but then denying review on indianas law that it would be illegal to have sex or race or disability based abortions. Dont have a circuit split on that issue yet. We dont want to take it up yet. But these things are clearly coming. You can see on almost every little case that has nothing to do with abortion, the court already maneuvering itself to thede kind of lay groundwork for those. With that my time has expired. I think those are the big tectonic shifts we are talking about now and we will be talking about for several years yet to come. Thanks. [applause] is timed atry, this 14 minutes and 57 seconds. Outsetld be said at the before we review the box scores of the highs and lows of the year that the specter haunting our days really is the specter of federal judges reflecting the favorite theories of the left in the law schools. Using nationwide injunctions. Thinking they have a license to block virtually every initiative of a conservative administration. With this lenders connection to statutes or no connections at all to any ground of the law and they evidently see themselves as a Political Class that forms the regime. They look upon the works of the Trump Administration and they just dont have it. They will use any effort to block the moves of the Administration Whether on immigration and environment in any move works to bar elected conservative administration from enacting its measures. It represents a nullification of a regime of elections. It marks nothing less than a change in the regime if we acquiesce in this. And as alito recognized even if the court slaps this down, thats not going to end it. David forte reminds us of socrates last words. It was a good hemlock. Not a great hemlock. [laughter] this year on the court it was not a great year even though we had five conservative in the brought forth that fit conservative vote with the mix did not exactly bring outcomes produced for us dancing in the street. Up byhen the cases came my lights the right way they came up for the wrong reasons. So we have the victory in the plemons bird cross case justified on the ground that the christian meaning of the symbol had been washed away over time by a culture that simply found the cross familiar as it ceased to take with much seriousness the that it marked. The decision in the case of gerrymandering turned i think in that causesy but most of us to shake our heads was john roberts switched to knock out that question of citizenship on the senses. The decision that gave the judges new grounds for putting the kibosh on executive orders if they suspected those decisions were, gasp, affected by dark and political motives. From guessing of the chief justice and his moves we have a striking cluster of cases in which Justice Gorsuch was going over to join the liberal side with four conservatives in dissent. I would register here my own deep concern for the tension thats manifested itself this year between two of our friends, justices alito and gorsuch. Their differences have been coming mainly in the criminal cases. But the tension is expressing itself and the language has become more colored. In the gamble case on double jeopardy, just as gorsuch accused alito of committing a desecration of federalism. And alito responded in turn that the dissent with gorsuch writing fundamentally misunderstands the governmental structures established by our constitution. But the language does get more colored and with cspan listening and i think i will withhold it right now. Case, gorsuch joins liberals in striking down the arrangements of judges exercising discretion under programs of supervised release and returning prisoners to jail for violating the terms of their release. Putting people in jail, he argued, should require the judgment of the jury. We can almost hear Justice Alito grinding his teeth. In 2018,nted out that federal District Courts adjudicated 16,946 revocations of supervised release. There is simply no way he said youre were going to be able to enough juries to adjudicate all these cases in terms that are consistent with the sixth amendment and the consultation clause. The deepest disappointment for me this year, building over the past two years has been the decisive move even of Justice Alito and the conservative judges into the stats of moral relativism in the regulation speech. The shift was made by Justice Alito. On the question of derogatory and insulting names for trademarks. Up to that point, alito was the only judge Still Holding to logic of the famous case which was built on the firmest understanding of how we are constituted by nature and the nature of ordinary language. As aristotle reminded us, human beings can do more than in it sounds to indicate pleasure or pain. One way or another language reflects that sense of things by settling on the words at the moment that would carry the moral functions of praising and blaming. Commending and condemning. And there will be others with mortgage conveying a sense of insult or assault. For the ling which to function the words that carry those meetings would be readily understood by Truck Drivers and construction workers as well as by lawyers. We could give a cluster of words that ordinary people and they would have no trouble marking the terms with expressive axis as words of insult against words that were around the borderline. You can try these things. The nword. Bastard, wop, urologist, meter maid. Identifyingno idea words. Alito when his colleagues cast the protection demonstrating at the funeral of a marine saying semper fi fags and thank god for dead soldiers. He finally put himself in the current that has been carrying his other colleagues including her late friend leah. Embracedine came as from Justice Brennan and said this willingness to make judgments on derogatory names and trademarks offends a bedrock First Amendment principle. Thech may not be banned on grounds it expresses ideas that offend. Gorsuch and alito projected the same relativism into the domain of religion. Of ourhe proudest boast free speech jurisprudence that we protect speech we hate. It must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect those beliefs that we find offensive. The shift was simple but unsettling. The implication is that offense is entirely subjective. The different words or modes of expression offend people for reasons that may be wholly personal and what is ruled out then is that something may indeed be expressed or done and that the speech or act like the burning of crosses that may indeed offensive in principle. Now for me, the lands brought back right away the scenes from 40 years ago when i was invited in by the aclu to state the other side of the aclus position in this case of a group of nazis parading through a community containing many k jews who had survived the holocaust. The constitution protects all ideas popular or despise, good or bad. In this translation it was a matter of being popular or despise. If he despised was merely to be unpopular. No part of understanding that certain things may in and of themselves be in principle despicable. And now this position of the aclu seems to be settling now as the position even of conservatives on the court. During the debate over the nazis, dave hamlin said we must be free to hear the nazis because we must be free to choose the nazis. But that freedom to choose the nazis in a free election spring of course from that proposition. All men are crated we call equal. But the nazis with their racial principle rejected at the root that founding premise and with it the regime of free elections. To say that it was legitimate to choose the nazis and election was not only to choose the party that would and free elections, it would sweep away also that regime of absolute freedom that the aclu effects to treasure. This is a spiral into incoherence. From the principle of moral relativism there is no ground on which to judge this regime of freedom as a good which has a moral claim to be preserved. Justice alito sees himself as trying to cast a wider zone around the protection of speech because he hasnt mined the ways in which political speech has been repressed on campuses in the country. But as dan evans used to say, the problem with pragmatism is that it doesnt work. [laughter] this move to relativism will not do anything to protect conservatives on the campuses. It will simply remove the moral grounds for defending our own position. Told me fourwyer years ago in new york, you cant have obscenities in the titles of corporations. If you did, the yellow pages would be filled with items such as the American Tobacco company. Case this past term challenge that long settled conviction when the Trademark Commission applied the standards which should have been an easy case, a company taking itself to the edge of the f word with a fuct. T called a few ct i wrote to my views of the libertarian friends on the board and they gave me a goodnatured ribbing and print when the court came down on their side, but they also gave me the complement of noting this has Justice Alito wrote is his concurring opinion in part as a letter to me. For what he did in his occurrence was to pick out the critical part of the teaching that i had been pressing, he picked up on justice murphys line that these obscene and insulting words were not necessary to the exposition of ideas. They could be banned without ministering in any way. The freedom to make a substantive argument. So mr. Rosenfeld in new jersey at a parentteacher meeting has one adjective, mother effingham, and to tell rosenfeld to stop using that word for the sake of avoiding degrading the climate of discussion. To do that is not to deprive rosenfeld of his freedom to make the most searing critique of the school board. And thats why the application of the standard will still leave us with the widest freedom of speech and contesting even the most controversial subjects in our politics. Sotomayor convinced that this decision could indeed contribute to the further coarsening of the culture. Sotomayor seemed to say that awful nword would make its way now into the names of companies and trademarks. Alito thought as she did that this affected the statute that would be directed more precisely to screening this fall garrity. He was convinced that the court was not erasing moral relativism. But that reading of the case was structurally undercut by Justice Kagan in her opinion for the majority. Office she office she said had rejected marks reflecting support for al qaeda because the bombing of civilians and other terrorist acts were shocking to a sense of decency. But at the same time the Trademark Office approved registration of a mark with the words were on tara memorial. For justiceds kagan, viewpoint neutrality evidently means that we must treat on the same moral plane or the same plane of legitimacy the killing of the innocent and the opposition to the killing of the innocent. Now if that isnt moral relativism i think words have lost their meaning. But what was the more precise test that Justice Sotomayor would bring would urge the authorities to use to avoid the deepening vulgarity of our public life . The statute enjoins the office trademarks to immoral or scandalous matter. All the judges found these words too broad. What do they offer instead . Sotomayor suggested that scandalous can instead mean simply indecent. Shocking. Generally offensive. And she consulted dictionaries to say that by scandalous it means shocking to the sense of truth. Decency. Propriety. Do indecent, improper and disgraceful mean . Why would they mean anything different from what the drafter was getting at by saying immoral , scandalous . But even more telling is what the Trademark Office did in applying the statute. They asked whether substantial part of the public would find the market shocking to the sense of truth, decency, propriety. Giving a sense to moral feeling. In other words the Trademark Office was interpreting immoral or scandalous essentially along the same lines and the same words used by sotomayor. And breyer. And as they backed into a commonsense understanding of what was meant by obscene, insulting, shocking, they were essentially backing in to the lies of the old case as they were compelled to theres no way of getting around them. If the judges had spent a little bit more of their time as undergraduates cultivating some reading in philosophy, they might have read portions of thomas reeds classic 18thcentury work, on the active powers of the human mind. If they had, they would have learned why it would not have been really possible to redraft that statute in the way that alito, roberts and breyer wanted it. Read recalled how philosophers such as david hume keep finding great difficulties about a thing which to the rest of mankind seems perfectly clear. The notion of an act of power is so clear. So simple. So evident that people have the active powers to cause their own asked to happen. That its taken for granted and it eludes any at the head a logical definition. So he said we cannot give a logical definition of thought. Or duration. Of number. Or of motion to read we cannot give a further definition without simply using synonyms and saying the same thing in another way. What is a number . The dictionary says, one of a series of positive integers derived by counting. A number . A unique member . Suggested, every attempt to provide the definition will keep offering up synonyms for saying the same thing. So sotomayor and her colleagues thought the notion of immoral to be too vague and broad. What to they offer as more precise . Shocking, indecent, wrongful. And by scandalous they offered exciting reproach. Extremely offensive. To the sense of duty. Is it not playing that they are simply saying the same thing in another way and not adding anything even a bit more precise to the translation . To adapt an old line from henry james, the judges have made themselves victims of perplexities from which a single spark of direct perception could have saved them. No, my friends. There is no way that the statute here can be made more precise. And anything put in its place you will find just as broad and elusive. Or to put on their way, just a little bit of serious philosophy read early could save us and our public life some grave mistakes even this late in the season of our experience. [applause] good morning and thank you to the Claremont Institute for organizing these panels again this year. A quick biographical note. Im now personally at Princeton University permanently at Princeton University though i remain affiliated with the Witherspoon Institute. Continuing their recent pattern of working as little as possible , the justices of the Supreme Court decided 73 cases in october term 2018. Just one more than the previous term. Fewer of those this year were per curiam issued under undersigned opinions, there were just seven of those this term. Four of them unanimous. There were more decisions issued with signed opinions than 66 against last years 59. While there were about as many decisions last year with signed opinions, there were fewer constitutional cases this year. Years 26. Last withe 66 cases decided signed opinions, 25 were unanimous. Improvement if you prize consensus as the chief justice professes to do. Last years term saw 19 unanimous cases. 18 cases were decided by the narrowest five to four margin. Another two by a five to three margin. So on balance, the progress toward consensus seems elusive. There accustomed to viewing courts decisions as the products of contending blocks of justices conventionally called conservative and liberal. If the conservative justices consistently stuck together, they could have things all their own way. And with the replacement of Anthony Kennedy by Brett Kavanaugh, this has been the fervent hope of conservative court watchers. But in the term just concluded, only eight of the 18 five to four decisions were produced by all five conservatives voting together. Six of the remaining nine were produced by the four liberals voting together on attracting one conservative vote. In Justice Kennedys final term, 15 of the 20 five vote decisions were made by the conservative bloc sticking together. The liberals are overall no surprise here, much better at sticking together. If we look for justices who supplied the fifth vote to a block of four who are conventionally that justices ideological opposites, we find that roberts and alito each did so once but only in five to three cases whether votes prevented deadlocks. Case, butve aside a hated because of the demand. Complicated because of the remand. So four times. Just as gorsuch was also the justice most likely to vote with three liberals in a dissenting blog, doing so twice. A picture begins to emerge of Justice Neil Gorsuch having the most interesting voting pattern. Whether one calls him independent minded, contrary or what have you. He was tied with justices thomas and ginsburg for being in the minority the most often. 18 cases. He found himself outnumbered as a conservative member of an otherwise liberal block majority or minority in divided decisions nine times. More such crossover votes than any other justice. He was tied with Justice Breyer for writing the highest numbers of dissenting opinions, 10. And he wrote the second greatest number of opinions overall, 22. Exceeded only by Justice Thomas is 26. But thomass total was pumped up his not unusual 12 concurring opinions. Finally of the six opinions Justice Gorsuch wrote for a majority or plurality of the court in divided decisions, he spoke three times for the conservative justices and three times for the liberals. More crossover votes. Most crossover votes tied for most times dissenting and for writing dissent. The most votes joining the liberals, the most opinions for liberal majorities. Gorsuch has surfaced as the maverick among the conservative justices. Numbers like the conventional labels tell us nothing about whether Justice Gorsuch is performing well or poorly as a judge. Maybe he is breaking a new trail on which the other conservative or originalist judges will eventually be persuaded to follow him. Maybe hes just well, idiosyncratic, meaning wrong. In my remaining time i would look at a few of Justice Gorsuchs promise disagreement prominent disagreements with his fellow conservatives. Heres where i think things are most interesting. Statesversus united decided june 17 reaffirmed a string of president s holding that the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment does not bar successive prosecutors prosecutions for the same act under their distinct criminal statutes. This dual sovereignty doctrine has been recognized for so long that it was surprising a case was taken up on the subject. It remains a mystery who voted to grant certiorari. There was no circuit split forcing the cortan. The 11th circuits ruling on the question was affirmed in the case came down seven to two. Justice ginsburg and gorsuch dissenting prewith Justice Thomas plainly signaling in his concurrence that essay of his on stare decisis that his was the third vote, but he decided to reaffirm the precedents anyway. But do the math. Who was the fourth vote . Its complete the mysterious who among the other six and the majority besides gorsuch besides alito provided that fourth vote. Forice gorsuchs dissents dissent which was for himself alone. His dissent was a pastiche of cobbled together originalist arguments, each one absolutely flattened Justice Alito in his opinion for the court. Both gorsuch and ginsberg thought there was some force to the argument that sovereignty rests with the whole people of the United States and not at all with the federal and state governments as separate sovereigns. But as alito pointed out, this was a non sequitur. Yes, he went on, our constitution rests on the principle that the people are sovereign, but that does not mean that they have conferred all the attributes of sovereignty on a single government. In United States versus davis, gorsuch wrote that our federal statute lengthening the potential prison sentence for felons committing crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of the due process clause. The question was whether provision punishing an offense for carrying the substantial risk of violence by its nature identified an element of a categorical or ordinary case for such an offense or an attribute of the actual crime committed by the defendant in his own case. Liberals,the four they withheld that punishing a defendant on such a basis subjected him to the vagaries of the sentencing judges notions of what is typical ordinary. Justice cavanaugh at the head of the four conservative justices in dissent countered that unlike recent decisions in which sentencing enhancements were invalidated because they turned down categorical offenses of past records and the record, it required the judge and jury to determine whether the actual facts in the present case warranted a finding that it was by its nature crime of violence. And cavanaugh opinions displayed considerable virtuosity in the arts of statutory interpretation, but the telling difference came in their different attitudes toward the constitutionality and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. Readingconceded that the statute was, in his words, linguistically feasible, yet insisted deference to that interpretation should be rejected because it would extend the reach of the criminal law, in this case, rather than reduce its reach. Justice cavanaugh responded that there is no reason for the interpretive rule of lenity to trump the constitutional doctrine and that statutes must be interpreted as constitutional if it is reasonably possible to do so. We are considering is a versus haymond, decided june 26. Is United States versus haymond, decided june 26. Breyer briefly conferred in the judgment. Before conservatives held that people released cannot be sent back to prison for child pornography after a judges finding of a conference of the evidence for this was was said to write of a trial by jury, which must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Gorsuchs opinion drew a sharp tongue response from Justice Alito at the head of the rest of the courts conservatives. With charged gorsuch grossly misunderstanding the meaning of recent reforms in criminal justice, which replaced the old system of parole with the new system of supervised release but not substantively changing the status of convicts under the system. That like theout parolees of years past, they are not yet anyway free of the continued attentions of the criminal justice system. Say, had made to the categorical error of treating persons under supervised release as though every judgment of their conduct were a brandnew prosecution requiring a jury trial, with thousands of convicts still living under the supervised release system, alito said Justice Gorsuchs opinion threatened consequences that will be farreaching and unfortunate. I pause to note these three examples pointed Justice Gorsuch s more civil terry and outlook alsoiminal law, but they suggest more broadly a judicial engagement style of jurisprudence, impatient with assumption of constitutionality and other doctrines of counsel deference for my own view is that gorsuch was victorious in two of the three cases and had the weaker argument in all three of them. My other mention is federalism in the commerce clause. Tennessee, wine and spirits versus thomas, also decided june 26, was a 72 decision with Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch joined by thomas. It concerned the constitutionality of a tennessee law, requiring residents two years in the state before acquiring a license to run a local store run a liquor store. Commerceaid the condemn, which ca state laws, and tennessee argu the law say by the 20 first amendmen and was unavailing. Its provision giving constitutional standing to state laws on the transportation or importation of liquor cannot really shield any state law, alito said, on the subject of the liquor trade, for this would lead to absurd results with which the council could not led to produce. Justice gorsuch said there is no purpose to the provision of the 21st amendment if it did not shield state laws on liquor, generally, from the reach of the commerce clause, dormant or active. There was significant strength and weaknesses in opinions area Justice Alito made a sound case. Generally, from the reach ofit l grounding and logic of a dormant clause. Justice gorsuch exposed a deep, and in my view, and unwarranted skepticism about that doctrine. Understanding, purpose and constitutional reach of the 21st amendment, gorsuch had the stronger argument that alito, and this should have been enough to decide the case. National orase of nationalist conservatism versus federalist conservatism . It is hard to say. The case was unusual, 21st amendment controversies are rare. And the presence of the liberals on alitos side and cavanaugh complicates the picture. There is no easy way to paint alito or gorsuch as taking the liberal side and tennessee wine and spirits. The libertarian conservatives cheered the outcome, while the two most obviously libertarian justice, gorsuch and thomas, dissented in the case. Just concluded, it is a harbinger of things to come. Gorsuch is the man to watch in the contemporary Supreme Court. Thank you. [applause] thank you for those remarks. I would like to open it up for questions from the audience, but before we do that, i was wondering if, obviously, we heard matts thoughts on Justice Gorsuch. I wondered if others would like to share their thoughts on our two newest justices and how they may be shaping the roberts court. I will pick that up. It is much too early to tell about Brett Kavanaugh. I think just the dynamic of how we got there, and all of the controversy that came with it he would probably stay his hand quite a bit the first year, and i think the granting of this day in the louisiana case, the Abortion Case, several aspects demonstrate that was true, even the gundy case on the court deciding not to schedule a preargument that would allow him to cast a vote on that. I think next term is going to tell us a lot. I do want to ask matt a question in the gamble case, and your question about, we cant even figure out how this thing got there. You get two votes, you get Justice Thomas to three. Do you think the court has of three,e old rule that if there are three colleagues will cast the fourth vote to grant . Look over the last decade, like the dodo bird, has a come back . I dont know, john. Ofit is possible. I your guess is as good as mine on that one. Is this working . It is for cspan, not the room. You have to speak loud. I just went to discuss this also. I was there when gorsuch arrived opinion in davis. His first was, dont worry, this guy will spend a lot of time in jail under state law, and i share the concern about expanding the reach of the federal criminal code, but still, alito was describing this case to me. Look, a guy comes in, and you go for a series of convenience stores, holding a sawed off shotgun to the throat, and now you are telling me this statute is too vague . And he could not understand the wrong of what he was doing . This vagueness i thought was so refined to think it would escape the recognition of ordinary people. How do you understand . Can you give us a reading about the vagueness of the statute . I had trouble understanding it. The vagueness doctrine under due process i think is sound at its core, and i think it was misapplied in this case, and i think that Justice Gorsuch and the four liberals wrongly assimilated it to some previous cases under sort of superficially similar statutes that did require judges to make typical case judgments about defendants past records for sentencing purposes. That language, by its nature, has appeared in a number of statutes, but i think that cavanaugh kavanaugh, i think it was kavanaugh, had the better argument about how to read that particular phraseology rightly and in context of the statute in this case. So he recognized and conceded that the court understood. And judging the act in the case with whether the violence is possibly factored into this, and yet, the underlying statute was not precise enough in confirming that ground for the judges . Something like that . Something like that. Ok, it loses the judgment about rendering judge just from ordinary justice from ordinary folks. It can be vague. I will drink to that. Any other thoughts on our new justices . With jon i will be brief about this. I think it is too early to tell with justice kavanaugh. He has been reticent in some cases and you could say the same about neil gorsuch. Were are a lot of views that have not seen opinions but it may be too early to tell. The case i focused on, the new york case, commerce versus new york, i think if you are constitutional originalist or conservative, he would be happy with both of those decisions in the cases. As john alluded to, a lot of the big issues were delayed. It seemed like the court wanted some breathing room this term. I wondered if you all could mention some of the cases that you are particularly interested to watch in this next term as it starts . We have daca coming up, a couple of obamacare cases, a Second Amendment case, and there is the possibility of an Abortion Case coming up. So picking up on the theme of my talk about renewed devotion to textualism. The three title vii cases, which all involve whether the prohibition on sex termination sexuale vii includes orientation discrimination and even more recently, gender identity discrimination. Fivenk where there are pretty solid votes, except for extra ordinary cases, like the obamacare cases with roberts, the devotion to actually detect it as written as originally understood i think will prevail. The broader question that is presented by the daca cases and the whole separation of powers and executive authority, i think they are going to confront the legitimacy of the original daca underm if it was truly prosecutorial discretion as the Obama Administration claimed, then how could it be the case the new administration cannot exercise their prosecutorial discretion in the opposite direction . We cannot have a nondelegation doctrine or prosecutorial discretion doctrine or various doctrines that ebbs and flows is pending on whether we like the guy in the white house or if we dont like the guy in the white house. I think there are five solid votes on that proposition that if the president wants to resend dr. , he will be able to daca, he will be able to do so, but one thing that gives me trouble is roberts opinion in the citizenship case, which opens the door for looking at wheatbased assessment of motive and all of these things. If the court goes down that path, we are never going to have the end of looking behind the scenes with legislative intent, which i thought the court had put behind it a long time ago and an executive official intends, and opening pandoras box that roberts opened up in this case. I dont think it will play out in the daca cases. It is possible he would pull Something Else again but it was a travesty what he did in that case. I dont think they are going to do it here. This is not nearly as contentious as that issue was, at least on the merits of prosecutorial discretion. What i would like to see is a i am notion, although naive enough to think we would get that uniformity on a politically contentious issue. Other thoughts on big cases . I will say quickly, being from utah, im interested in the second decision from new york that the court will consider. Last year i think on this panel, we were asked where we thought the court might go on some of the issues with Justice Gorsuch on the court. The Second Amendment was one of those issues that had not been considered in the heller decisions. And cavanaugh and kavanaugh and gorsuch will be interesting justices given what they have said in earlier cases on those issues. I am looking forward to clarification on that issue next year. Although, new york is desperately trying to avoid the court ruling on the case. It hasnt happened yet. I think that is proof you are right about the vote lineup earls new york would be happy to get the court up there. I have a question. Prophecy, your gifts of prophecy. We have the harris case coming up on the Funeral Homes, and that is the funeral director who has switched to become a woman, and this could be quite disturbing for people who are in of grievingallmark and adding the complication to their days. The question is going to be whether the Civil Rights Act and canrimination spaced on sex assume transgender identity. On the face, you think it is a plausible argument and they simply try to be contextual list here. What is your reading here, the four liberal judges will take the line of finding that implication buried in that text . But once again, instead of deciding whether we think it was incorporated in the text, is the claim itself a coherent and tenable claim supported by objective evidence . So it goes to the question of, what do you make of the text . The is your reading of what four liberal judges are likely to do . Is it as dark as mine . I do think they are likely to rule in part because of the Supreme Courts prior decision in price versus waterhouse, which allows sex stereotyping to be included in the text, and how does man who wants to be a woman should dress in funeral home as a type of stereotyping, and i think they will do a pricewaterhouse assessment, but i think the conservative argument against that is stronger on the gender identity claim and harass Funeral Homes then Sexual Orientation claims because that same statute guarantees the ability to have different private facilities or housing facilities, which is a guarantee which cannot be sustained if you allow gender identity to be encompassed within sex discrimination. I think clearly on that one, but also on the Sexual Orientation cases, the conservatives will more faithfully apply the text and that was understood. I think Neil Gorsuchs first opinion from the air before says it is not our job to speculate on what congress right have done, it is two through the text as it comes to us, and i think there will be at five votes to that but only five votes. I share that judgment. Any other thoughts on that case . Ok. I was wondering what the panel inks of the native rights case, carpenter versus murphy . Do you think that will be a major and important case that has implications by the nature of citizenship, and group rights in the future . Or is that not an important case . I confess, i dont know the case at all. So this was the case out of oklahoma, where a criminal defendant was arguing that a large portion of eastern where a criminal defendant was arguing that a large portion of eastern territory, and so his conviction by state court courtproper, and the heard argument in december and asked for more briefing. The parties filed additional briefing, and the court, instead of issuing an opinion, reset it for a second argument in the coming term. Argued inf it was december, so kavanaugh was already there. So this is not a fourfour split. The re arguing to get the fifth vote . I believe gorsuch was recused. They came from the 10th circuit and he was not on the panel but he mustve voted on whether to take it on in the 10th circuit. It is one of those issues that is like an old sweater with a loose thread. They are a little nervous on pulling on that loose thread, and how much do we give georgia back to the cherokee . There is a whole lot of ramifications for this. I have no idea which way they will go on it. Other questions . Waste on thethat couple of cases that came up in the last term, if Justice Gorsuch were participating in the case, he is pretty friendly to native american rights claims. And that sex stereotyping case . Well, i think kavanaugh is the swing vote here. Know i mean, what we have seen in the Administrative State and devotion of text and separation of powers would suggest he said, look, Congress Passed the statute. We knew it they meant when they wrote it. That is why there have been efforts to add Sexual Orientation to statutory language, and the efforts would have been meaningless if it was already included. I think that will be determined, but i think we will see whether he follows that strict model or succumbs to the kind of political modern, political sensitivity of the issue. What his tenure on the court more broadly will be like. But, you know, the indications we get from this term is that he will stick with the text, which we will see him put in with the other conservatives. [indiscernible] thatey are, but discrimination based on sex means discrimination based on two other things that were not within the contemplation of that work at the time it was written. More livingch statutory interpretation view of contextual language than i think the five conservatives had demonstrated a commitment to. This question is for matthew. I thought the evidence in support of the proposition that gorsuch is the new maverick was fascinating and fits with some of the things we have seen, interesting opinions and things we have taken notice of. Before hearing what you had to say, if i would have thought there was a maverick, everybody would have said chief Justice Roberts. Prominence and prominent cases he is excited with. I guess my question is, do you have any hypotheses for what hiss gorsuch different from conservative colleagues . What is different about his way of thinking that leads him to different conclusions in the cases . What does that say about the future of that regionalism on the Supreme Court in the coming years . Thanks, joe. I think Justice Gorsuch is drawn more powerfully to some of the recent work and libertarian original is him. I think it colors his view of the criminal justice cases undiscussed, but it also probably accounts for the bigger of his views on things like chevron. On the 10th circuit, he wrote a case concerning chevron it sounded awhich good deal like a recent book on the subject. Versusered on marbury madisons famous line that judicial power is the power to say what the law is, which in my a tearing of that sentence from its proper context, but he is fond of that he isand i think that skeptical about the force of the presumption of constitutionality in some respects. I have a recent article on the subject that i would love to put in front of him, but it is the most recent issue of political know and but i dont i shouldve caught him young, like hadley. I shouldve caught Justice Alito and men and women in this maturity are probably beyond the reach of our intellectual efforts at this point. Im not so sure i readily subscribe to the view that it is libertarian judicial engagement coming out. We would not have said that about Antonin Scalia a when he issues the confrontation clause case and the right to jury trial. It may be constitutionalism coming out, which i think he sees in the other cases to be extremely devoted to. He will tell you himself, i have come out of the west. I see myself on a ranch. I identify with ethic. But what is the case of the curtilage . What case . No, the police are chasing this guy in a reckless race of the motorcycle. Now they see that motorcycle in a driveway, a tarp, it, is that the word . Nope. Is part of the claim of privacy. Expensive has an motion of understanding that. I think the libertarians see this coming out with a vengeance. Since we are on gorsuch, theres a new natural law help explain any of this . I dont think so. As many people in the room may did aJustice Gorsuch dissertation at oxford and his dissertation was published on assisted suicide euthanasia, but i dont see any strong evidence that the doctrines or the teachings of the new natural law have any particular force in this jurisprudence. No, but i do see a greater willingness to consider the old natural law and faithful participation in classes of the constitution. Libertarian Civic Engagement or judicial engagement, if it is actually trying to restore original meaning to the overage of unities clause, and, you know, look at these things in the context in which they were written rather than a raw exercise of textualism devoid of the meaning of those who wrote it. I do see him willing to engage in that front. If judicial engagement means enforcing the limit on the federal constitution, either enumerated powers are the limits the constitution imposes on the states via the 14th amendment immunity clause, and getting those clauses right as originally understood, and that is constitutionalism, and it plays out in that extent. And it looks a lot like the new natural law, it is the old version. It is the declarations natural law as we codify it in specific text. Like when they carry them in the tennessee case. I am the outsider coming into the state thinking you could have the freedom right there. There is his reading of the 21st amendment. There you go. Which comes after the 14th. Alright, i think we have time for one more question. Back here. I know there was a petition earlier this summer on when on the constitutionality of Consumer Finance protection board. I dont know but was granted, but i was wondering if there are any cases potentially coming up on the independent regulatory agencies and whether or not among the conservative justices, is there a coherent view among them on this question of constitutionality of the independent revelatory agencies . One me to take it . Yet, so look, there is this perennial problem when you have decadesion creep over ,bout what would be permissible you know, starting with one case and trying to unravel the rest of the infrastructure that existed. So they come up with some odd ways to confine their new decision and ways that will not force us to unravel everything that has gone before, and the cfpb, as well, yeah, there is no atwill removal authority, but this is different from other cases where there is not Real Authority because this one is a single head rather than a multihead agency, like that matters one iota to the theory of the concern of separation of powers concern. As and alito i think is particularly committed to small step restoration rather than pull out the bottom card in the house of cards deck and watch the whole thing collapse restoration. In the meantime, you are going to get these oddities. We have come to the end of our time. Please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [indistinct conversations] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [indistinct conversations] more live coverage coming up this afternoon with a discussion on constitutional issues facing the Trump Administration and what that means for u. S. Democracy. Live from the american Political Science association at 4 00 p. M. Eastern. Next week, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg talk about her life and career in little rock, arkansas hosted by the Clinton Foundation and the school of public service. Live tuesday at 7 30 p. M. Eastern. Between elizabeth yesterday agreed to Prime Minister Boris Johnsons request to suspend parliament for five weeks. This comes as the u. K. Continues to try to work out a brexit deal before the october 31 deadline to leave the e. U. Next week, members of the house of commons will question boris johnson. That is wednesday 7 00 a. M. Eastern. You can follow our coverage online at cspan. Org and with the free cspan radio app. The u. S. Senate comes back into session monday september 9 with two important issues on their agenda. Passing federal spending bills and antigun violence legislation. Before senators returned to washington, get a behindthescenes look at the senate with cspans history program, the senate, conflict and compromise. The government under which we live was created in the spirit of compromise and mutual concession. Thomas jefferson questioned the need for a senate. Lets follow the constitution. The framers established the senate to protect people from their rulers. As a check on the house. The fate on this country and maybe the world lies in the hands of congress and the United States senate. Andhe senate, conflict compromise. Using original interviews, cspans video archives, and unique access to the senate chamber, we will look at the history, traditions, and roles of the u. S. Senate. Eastern and 00 p. M. Pacific. In the wake of the recent shootings in el paso, texas and dayton, ohio, the house initiate committee overturn early from the recess to mark up gun violence prevention bills, which include banning highcapacity magazines, restricting firearms to those deemed to be a risk to themselves, and preventing individuals convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from purchasing a
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.