My name is jodie allen. Im a visiting assistant professor here at sewanee for this score year. I am also working as a consultant on the slavery project. Going back to the panel, i am asking them to answer the question in our program and that is, does history matter to the future of the 15th amendment . I will ask them to think on that and then we will open up for questions and answers with the audience. I dont know who would like to start. Thank you. I think about history and it reminds me of sancofa means you have to know your past to understand your present, to plan for the future. When it comes to the 15th amendment, what we have learned today, and ive learned a great deal from these panelists, we have to understand the intent behind the 15th amendment, the history that gave rise to it, the effect of it. Those people who opposed it and the mechanisms that were put in place as obstacles so we can better understand today the Voter Suppression we are dealing with, the need for White Su
Your cell phones are totally off because it will interfere with the sound system in the courtroom. We are here tonight with a program we are cosponsoring with the Supreme Court Alumni Association. We are delighted to be a cosponsor with them. The program was brought to us by several people from that organization. Let me make sure i get them right. Stephanie, matthew, elizabeth. Who really came up with the idea for the program and we are very happy to be heard to present it to you. We are also particularly happy to have as our host Justice Breyer who will speak to you in a minute. I will tell you briefly what you dont know already about Justice Breyer. He is a californian. Study that stanford, oxford, then Harvard Law School. Became a law clerk europe the Supreme Court in 1964 which happens to be one year after gideon v. Wainwright, so he missed that activity. Then he was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee, also very active in the academic world. President carter appointed him
Your cell phones are totally off because it will interfere with the sound system in the courtroom. We are here tonight with a program we are cosponsoring with the Supreme Court Alumni Association. We are delighted to be a cosponsor with them. The program was brought to us by several people from that organization. Let me make sure i get them right. Stephanie, matthew, elizabeth. Who really came up with the idea for the program and we are very happy to be heard to present it to you. We are also particularly happy to have as our host Justice Breyer who will speak to you in a minute. I will tell you briefly what you dont know already about Justice Breyer. He is a californian. Study that stanford, oxford, then Harvard Law School. Became a law clerk europe the Supreme Court in 1964 which happens to be one year after gideon v. Wainwright, so he missed that activity. Then he was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee, also very active in the academic world. President carter appointed him
Screeria nigeria. Visits phoenix to talk about Home Ownership followed by a discussion about religion and the free market. On january 20th the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging restrictions on judicial candidates directly soliciting Campaign Contributions. Legal analysts discuss the pending case and judicial elections at the National Press club in washington, d. C. This is an hour and ten minutes. Good morning, everyone. The timetable this morning is pretty tight. We want to be able to give a lot of time for questions. And so were going to begin our presentation to you this morning. My name is andrew coen. Im a fellow at the Brennan Center and a journalist with cbs news and the marshal project. And im delighted to be here in sunny, warm washington. To be part of this interesting presentation. In a moment, im going to introduce this distinguished panel each of whom knows a great deal more about this important Supreme Court case than i do. A couple of points. T
It doesnt really matter whether or not its the Campaign Committee that asks or the judge that asks, the judge is going to know at the end of the day who his friends are and who are not his friends. So im curious again, sort of why, you know, there has not been more of a move to, you know florida passed these laws to solve this problem but it doesnt seem like this particular law solved the problem and especially when you thing about the massey case, i think there was a trip to the south of flans involved in that one, too. So the issue seems to be not so much the direct solicitation but the Campaign Contributions. The criminal defense or the criminal case findings are not as direct in effect as the effect in cases involving law firms and say tort suits mass litigation businesses and business disputes between individuals or businesses as defendants in tort cases. In those cases the hypothesis is and what theyre test is a direct effect. A business gives, a law firm gives, it does better in