the way public funds are used for students, attending religious schools. it stems from a decision by the montana scream port, that blocks tax credits for organizations. three mothers with children attending nondenominational christian schools, filed suit saying that barr s public funds, but not the private donations. the nation s high court, now has through june to issue a ruling. well your arguments this morning against 1811 nine five, against the department of revenue, mister coma. mr. chief justice, i may it please the court, it asked whether the federal constitution allows the wholesale exclusion of schools from scholarship programs, it does not, end yet montana s lame requires it discriminates against religious conduct, and status, in violation of the free exercise clause under trinity lutheran. the montana supreme court disagreed that courts held that barring religious schools from the program did not violate the federal constitution. they should reverse that judgment
the montana supreme court disagreed. that court held that barring religious schools from the program did not violate the federal constitution. this court should reverse that judgment. even responded, we now concede that excluding religious schools from the program is unconstitutional, but they argued that the court avoided the discrimination by invalidating the entire program. this is wrong. the only reason the court invalidated the program was because it included religious schools. and the court s remedy did not cure its discriminatory judgment nor should the remedy shield the judgment from review. petitioners brought this lawsuit because they were denied scholarships based on religion and they are still being denied scholarships based on religion. if the court had shut down the program because it included muslim schools are african-american schools, there is no question that would be unconstitutional. we ask you to reverse. respondents argue in the alternative that the law
Our initial panel will be led. Y john malcolm he serves as Vice President for our institute for constitutional government. Immediately following the first panel, the next group will be led by elizabeths laterally elizabeth slattery. Please join me now and welcoming john malcolm. [applause] mr. Malcom welcome everyone to our annual scholars and scribes event. It was a good year to be a patent lawyer at the Supreme Court. It is not exactly the biggest blockbuster term, but there were a few cases of interest and a few that are decided to hear the next term that are of interest. Im delighted we have a distinguished panel. A few preliminary thoughts for next year. To my left, will consovoy. He graduated Monmouth College and the George Mason School of law. Clerk for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court. He represents the clients in constitutional issues, Administrative Law, and a variety of other matters. He has argued cases before the u. S. Supreme court. He is the codirector of the Supreme
host: i m very excited about this book. you are writing about stuff that i ve lived through and ever since 1966 i ve been involved in one way or another with lockheed projects of one kind or another in my role working for the government and after that military. this was a subject about which i felt i knew a fair amount your book is grown into a cold level of history in detail i didn t know about, both exciting and timely. this book is exciting team and timely. that is the reason i m excited about it. we just had to years of searing revelations about how big banks, big financial houses have spent three years unravelling the structure of regulation and set up in the 30 s to prevent another depression from ever happening and the use their money and their influence and their campaign contributions and of lobbyists for 40 years relentlessly to on but in the structure to allow them to merge into larger and larger corporations, kill more and more competition, and redo the regulati