Filming. Also, if youre wondering what all the equipment is in the back of the room, its cspan, so make show your nicest smile, brush your hair, get ready, just in case you get a cameo. And when we get to the q a part, there is a microphone in the back of the room, and well let you know when its time for that, and well ask you to line up this to ask your questions. In a politically restive time, its always worthwhile revisiting the documents that set us apart from british rule and created the framework for our government. Tonight, our guest speaker, kermit roosevelt, explores these documents and shares his interpretation of their meaning and relevance. Professor roosevelt teaches constitutional law at the university of pennsylvania law school. He was born and raised in d. C. And attended Harvard University and yale law. Before joining the penn faculty, he served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice David souter. His book, the myth of judicial activism, making sense of Supreme Court
Francine, went up 15 . That was the kind of move we saw. Last night, and a lot of people missed this in america, exhausted from the election, we nestor8 00 or 9 00 p. M. , barr making these statements. I would suggest this mr. Barr mr. Barr making these statements. He was extremely careful. Every word was chiseled out. For me the headline is the 20year veteran of this under election crimes, mr. Pilger, a herk to james moody, resigned. To me that is the real headline. Francine it is a huge deal and we are trying to figure out what this means for the Republican Party and the strategy possible there. Stephanie baker says it could have something to do with the Senate Election in georgia. We will have plenty more on that. Lets get to first word news with ritika gupta. Ritika President Trumps attorney general, william barr, will let the Justice Department investigate potential voting irregularities in the president ial election. But barr has acknowledged there is no conclusive evidence and w
Onwelcome all of you Bloomberg Radio across this nation and bloomberg television. Extraordinary Market Action yesterday, truly historic. We will get to that in just a moment with someone who has a wonderful test but a wonderful tapestry of the history of the market. First weve got to get to the news flow. Are we still doing election 2020, or have we moved on from that . Jonathan i think it may come back on the agenda, but today is as yesterday once again, just a little flavor of mondays price action. You will find it in names like amc entertainment, and the airlines. You will find it at the index level. The relative performance of the russell versus the nasdaq continues. You could drive a truck through it this morning. Russell futures are up by about 1. 6 . Nasdaq futures are negative on the session. Cyclicality starting to come back into this market. Youve got to ask yourself where the risk is in this market, and the risk for many people in this market is where people thought was safe
Institute of native american studies at the university of georgia. Hes the authohe is the author e previous books west of the revolution, black white and a new order of things. Thank you for joining us and welcome thank you for sponsoring this event. It challenges the idea that so many have represented the expulsion as an inevitability. Youve covered a lot of evidence of political motivations. How much land first did indian zone in the southeast and the decades before the 1830s . They owned a huge amount. Half of what became mississippi and about a fifth of georgia. Its how valuable the land was. It was among the most valuable probably in the entire world at the time. We think of it largely as a southern story. They have much smaller spots of land by the early century. You cover a number of other tribes expelled from new york and ohio and i know it differs from tribe to tribe and state to state but what kind of rights or autonomy did they have lets say in the south . It is contested to
Misunderstood him seems to have suggested that it is a political talking point for you to decline to indicate how you would rule on a particular case or a particular type of case. To the extent that is what any colleague suggested, i remind that colleague that is just wildly incorrect. Fldly incorrect with judicial ethics, federal law, it was laid out by jews greater Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg nearly 30 years ago. It is imperative that you uphold those standards. I applaud you for doing so. On no planet is it appropriate for you to suggest that it is a political talking point for you to say im not going to indicate how i will rule in a particular case. Say someburg did of this has been quoted today. I will quote again. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. A judge could offer no forecast, no hints because that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case but it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Simila