Law clerks and analyze high court decisions. Ladies and gentlemen in this rich and illuminating daylong discussion celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court clerkships. Once again, for nose who are just tuning in, im jeffrey rosen, head of the National Constitution center in philadelphia and law professor here at george washington, university. The Constitution Center is so honored to convene former Supreme Court clerks to discuss how their clerkships influenced their lives and i am so honored and thrilled to sit here with two of americas greatest appellate judges, to distinguished legal intellectuals and jurists who i just had the pleasure of getting to know and discuss the law with at the Constitution Center and over the years. Both were Supreme Court clerks. Both are acclaimed across america for their opinions and their rigor and their approach to the constitution and i just cant wait to ask them how their clerkships influence their approach to judging and the constituti
On monday, the Supreme Court issued the stupid opinion which we talked about forgive you for calling that a compromise decision. Thats how i do it. Just imagine for a moment if during this period of a 44 split on the court, brown v. Board of education have come up. I cant help but think about that and in the context of other cases that are bound to have come up to the court during this period. Senator leahy, i am glad that you pointed out that we have some civics students seated behind us here today. I hope they are learning something, but think of the lesson that where we are at this moment in connection with this nomination teaching them is teaching them. These are matters that should be of critical importance to all of us on both sides of the aisle. The future really is at stake. These kinds of decisions that were issued on monday have real consequences. In brown v. Board of education, you had decisions in one part of the country that went one way, and in delaware in particular my f
Them would have to be here. And so were grateful that they are. And our entire nation expresses its profound gratitude. More important, were so grateful that they were there. Some on duty, others off duty. All rising above and beyond the call of duty. All saving the lives of people they didnt know. That distinction that these 13 officers of valor saved the lives of strangers is the first of several qualities they share. But their bravery, if it had not been for their bravery, we likely would have lost a lot of people, mothers, brothers, sons, daughters, friends, and loved ones. Thankfully they are still with their families today because these officers were where they needed to be most at a critical time. At a gas station during a routine patrol. In the middle of a busy hospital, in a grocery store, on the campus of a community college. Near an Elementary School where a sheriffs deputys children and his wife taught. In each of these moments these officers were true to their oat oaths. T
Received through medicare and according to dr. Jason fullman and mr. Or dr. David rats are this unelected body will have the unprecedented ability to singlehandedly change the allocation of health care resurgence should medicare spending exceed medical inflation which for the record it consistently does. Dr. Novack what are your views on those ipaa i believe its called the independent payment Advisory Board . As i mentioned earlier its a serious area of concern. For those of us and from those families creating another new layer of bureaucracy making determinations about accessibility suspect in the right direction. I would add i think there is fairly significant bipartisan opposition to the independent advisory lord because of the way its structured. Their decisions effectively have the ability to bypass congress. Do you have evidence that competition and choice is a better way to increase value and reduce costs and the government bureaucracy and experts . I think theres a fair amount
Unearthed or dissected during the confirmation process. Both of them were ultimately rejected by the senate which was a big and embarrassing blow for nixon. So for his third try nixon chose Harry Blackman because he was seen as so uncontroversial he would be hard for anybody to vote against. Judge blackman made a good First Impression and the senators will vote to decide his fate and barring the unexpected his nomination should sail through. Thus far no one has even asked to testify against him. But the unexpected aural has occurred twice, so most senators still are not committing themselves. The find a super uncontroversial guy strategy worked for that nomination. Harry blackmans nomination to court was unanimously approved by the u. S. Senate. On june 9, 1970, he was sworn in to the Supreme Court. And he was seen specifically as the most middle of the road nonoffensive guaranteed noncontroversial guy to stick in that spot, Justice Blackman would go on just a couple of years later to