Rosalynn carter at 9 00 on c span. Today, joined us for more on the q a series. Is yuval levin. There is a look at some cell research. Issues01 one of the big that the new president faced was the question of whether and how the federal government should fund embryonic still stem research. The question was whether it was moral it in the promise or potential of it to spend public money on that kind of research. The president made a decision in which he was advised that said you could spend money on lines that are it existed at that point, but not on new ones. Of announcingrse that decision, he said these kinds of issues will stay with us. And we need help in thinking about them. He called together a group of 18 scholars, almost all of them academics who would come together several times per year to consider a challenging environmental question that has some public wallace the implication and provide information in terms of publication and reports. Cloning,e a report on stem cell research
Changes will get the subsidies as well. Host victor is next on the line for democrats. Good morning. Caller good morning. Merry christmas. I have two questions. Is the the one that [indiscernible] me, it says that corporations being a person is an instrument by attorneys and makes them dots basically. Gods i do know that there has been a case or situation and the Supreme Court with a person with the oldest or the longest on the in the courts automatically placed [indiscernible] and opened up [indiscernible] guest on the first question is important to emphasize that asking the question, are corporations people or persons is probably not the right way to frame the question. I want to emphasize from a constitutional lore yours point of view. There are prosecutions for engaging. Constitutional lawyers point of view. Rightsve constitutional to a fair trial whether prosecuted for unlawful pollution. The real question is, do corporations have constitutional force in a specific setting . And t
In sum there is little reason to question a legitimate reason of the government when its talking about the identity of the person arrested and it talks about identification of arrestees. What do we make of that language as you fold it into the california statute . Well, the first time the court talks about the identification of arrestees, its from florence or hibble where it says in every criminal case its necessary to know who has been arrested and who is being tried. When we talk about identifying arrestees, its arrestees who are being prosecuted. Because everyone in maryland was necessarily being prosecuted. Understand california its important to remember that for the population that im most concerned with, those who will not be prosecuted at all, that decision they have been unconditionally released from the criminal Justice System within 72 hours or two working days. That is long before the samples would even get to the lab. They are mailed to the laboratory. What they are talking
Pelley good evening. The Supreme Court justices spoke with one voice today on cell phones and privacy. In a 90 decision, they ruled police cannot automatically search the cell phones of people they arrest. Chief Justice John Roberts was blunt. To an officer who wants to search a cell phone, its simple get a warrant. Reporter todays decision was a major victory for privacy rights in the modern digital era. As chief Justice Jon Roberts put it cell phones are such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life a visitor from mars might conclude theyre an important procedure of human anatomy. The Obama Administration had argued cell phone searches were like a search of a suspects wallet, briefcase, or coat, which dont require a warrant, but privacy advocates said cell phones are different. Now its like the equivalent of having your diary, your photo album, all of your banning records, your health recordize mean your entire life is on you at all times. Reporter in the decision the jfted agree
Financial records from prosecutors in new york. I want to read you the opinion. 200 years ago, a great jurist of our court established that no citizen, not even the president , is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principal today and hold that the president is not immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers, nor entitled to a heightened standard of need. It was a victory. For the rule of law. Not a close one. It was a 72 ruling that included also the two trump appointees neil gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh who voted with the majority. It was not a good day for the president. Even as the president s own press secretary tried to spin it in the wind, donald trump himself was whining and throwing himself a pity party. Quote, courts in the past have given broad deference, all caps, but not me. Then complaining to reporters that the Supreme Court ruling was a witch hunt and a hoax just like eve