There for you. You cant be there. And everything i see is important. American history tv. All weekend, every weekend, only on cspan3. Sunday night on after words. Over 90 of Sexual Harassment cases end up in settlements. And what does that mean . That means that the woman pretty much never works in her chosen career ever again. And she can never talk about it. Shes gagged. Now how else do we solve Sexual Harassment suits . We put in arbitration clauses in employment contracts, which make it a secret proceeding. So, again, nobody ever finds out about it if you file a complaint. You can never talk about it. Ever. Nobody ever knows what happened to you, and in most cases youre also terminated from the company, and the predator, in many cases, is left to still work in the same position in which he was harassing you. So this is the way our society has decided to resolve Sexual Harassment cases. To gag women so that we can fool everyone else out there that weve come so far in 2017. Former fo
Racing dynasty. A Senate Committee heard from the Credit Reporting industry and Consumer Protection groups. The hearing is just under two hours. This committee will come to order. As a followup to our hearing on a equifax data breach. At the hearing members expressed interest in better understanding how Credit Bureaus of regulated, how they protect consumer data and whether there are gaps that Congress Needs to fill. I have long been concerned about the ever increasing amounts of big Data Collected by companies and by the government. It is critical that personal data is products. Consumers ability to assess credit is not harmed. Credit bureau plays a valuable role by helping assess an ability to meet financial obligations and also facilita facilitating to Financial Products and services. The inherent nature as with most businesses in this digital age requires utmost data zurt to ensure that sensitive Consumer Information is safeguarded. Two weeks ago equifact testified about the method
Biggest cases, we have a stellar panel. [inaudible] and david cole, he is another law professor at georgetown. And the left side of the court the last time did a lot of winning. That happened only on the two mementos cases involving samesex marriage and the availability of subsidies on the federal health care exchange, but in almost every big case decided last term. Justice kennedy was the justice that usually joined this side of the court in those cases and the chief justice and even Justice Thomas occasionally have provided the victory. And with Justice Kennedy key vote in most cases. And the thing is how big will this be. And a fair number of big cases, the court is going to have a choice between broad and narrow grounds for decision. And this is determined by which path the court chooses to take in those cases and we have on our agenda 10 cases that they are likely to hear this term although we may not get to them all. And after they discuss each case, the press will be invited wit
Party chairmen of the i would find it i would be shocked if the court which is not a necessary and says it has to be total population in this case. They dont need to decide that to resolve this case. They can leave it open. If it becomes a problem they can reach it at some later time. Questions from the press. My question is for hashim. You kept saying voters and suggested [inaudible] arent asking for voters or are they asking for citizen voting age population . The cameras are asking that if you have questions come to the mic. Its not being picked up. Im sorry. I will mumble it now. You kept saying voters and suggested, for example, that prisons in rural areas would not be counted because they are felons. But are they asking for voters that are literally eligible to vote or of asking for citizen age voting population . Results are different. So the brief is a little come the plaintiffs a brief vessel agnostic about. As i read it there focus on eligible voters. There are a lot of diffe
Because if they dont, we cant then use their plans to provide the coverage that we want to provide. Now, you can still have a debate about whether that is the least restrictive means of doing all this, but i dont see really how you can have a debate at that point about whether there is a substantial burden on religion because youre comipelling peope do something and if they dont, they have to pay millions of dollars this penal ciin penalti. Every court below that has gone the other way. Im not sure the government will fair nearly as well before the Supreme Court on that piece. But we shall see. Im agreeing with you that to the extent it turns on the fact of the government providing information, but i dont think the governme cases turn on that. Ill turn then to the press. Questions. Yeah. Will atmospherics on kim davis affect the justices thoughts on this . Kim davis is raising a claim under the kentucky state rifra. Her case is obviously a little different because shes a public officia