Assassination attack that left him seriously wounded. Exploring the american story. Watch American History tv. This weekend on cspan three. Let us go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically in visually, what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believed in the rule of law. Good evening and welcome to landmark cases. We are about two thirds of the way through our 12 week series looking at Historic Supreme Court decisions. Tonights 1954 case of school segregation. Brown v. Board of education. We are going to begin this evening by listening to linda brown on this case. My memory of brown began in the fall of 1950. In the quiet kansas town of topeka, where a mild mannered black man took his sevenyearold daughter by the hand and walked briskly, four blocks from their home, to the all white school and tried without success, to enroll his child. Black parents into peak felt that the day of trying to enroll their sch
Captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 this is not something that 40, 50, 70 years later we were saying that was a mistake back then but they had their reason for it, they had no reason at the time except to uphold what they thought was a patriotic duty. For the record, i want to get some of this on the screen so people can have the reference. First of all, the chief justice at the time was hare land fisk stone . Hare land fisk stone. He was appointed by herbert hoover. He was a republican but he was he wouldnt be a republican today because he was, in fact, one of the great chief justices weve had. There were also a number of other names that have become famous to people who dont even know much about the court. You mentioned william o. Douglas. Frank murphy and robert jackson. 7 of the 9 members with the exception of Justice Jackson and justice stone had been appointed by franklin roosevelt. They were the new deal justices. When roosevelt threatened to pack the court in
The oral argument is one hour d inutes. Hear argument first this morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thank you. The government may not use corso e speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizing private speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion. This is not a typical student where a speaker challenges Government Actions affecting its own speech. Two states and five individuals are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. That problem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they have not shown an imminent threat at the government will cause the platform to monitor your post in particular. A lowercase viewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do with responses. The courts entered a universal,h about any content. Even apart from the article three problem, that injunction rests on two errors. The fifth circuit ra
Doctrine or keep it. Custice roberts well hear argument first this morning in case 221219, relentless versus the department commerce. Mr. Martinez. Or aument of Roman Martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court for too long, chevron has distorted the judicialss and undermined statutory interpretation. It should be overror three reasons. First, chevron violates the constitution. Article iii emwe judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and iepdent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates ieretive authority from courts to agenciesanit forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that aued for political or policy reasons. In so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. It mandates judicial bias and enures agency overreach. And by removing key checks o executive power, it threatens individual liber. Chevron also violates the apa. The most s
Only if viewed objectively. And because nose av justice ti the government. Justice thas employing state action . Often, and suing the government. Things like medicare or government contracts, tieoblem if the government stays on the side of coercionecinal question. Rn ghin g,owbeurount ri cve rc plteneurthciy on ngar at chet innsn ye to let me follow up on that. Even if one of the plaintiffs have standing, we are requiredthhe utwas restricted at the time when the complaint was filed. Why ha oty eest t , thin and you havent attempted to show that the fio,th notion of traceability. Ta and the platforms are doing moderation. Action and then trace it to a single consequence . Mr. Fletcher i thomueorofafter. Justice alito i have looked at that. On the issue of causation are they required toivating factor . Mr. Fletcher i dont know the answer to that in all cases. Aal inres to 21 some of them involved platforms like linke Justice Sotomayor do you think there are any factual findings with resp