Served on the Supreme Court for 35 years, hear a panel of judges and attorneys, all former Supreme Court law clerks talk about his legacy. The Bar Association of San Francisco hosted the event. High everyone, good evening, thank you so much for coming to a nice program the impact of Justice John Paul stevens. I am an appellate lawyer here in thefrancisco, i am also chairman of the appellate section of the Bar Association of San Francisco which organized this event. I would like to extend a warm welcome to members of a few groups who are cosponsoring tonights program, the ninth judicial the federal Bar Association, Northern District of california chapter and the American Constitution Society bay area chapter. I would also like to welcome cspan which is broadcasting the discussion tonight. I find that exciting, because in 10 years or so but i have been putting on programs like this, this is the first time cspan has come, so i have made it. It is some of the most awful programming when co
Ga. Lamar jackson is an mvp caliber player and i respect them hymn greatly. I want to apologize to him and anyone else i offended. The 49ers said we hold tim to a higher standard as a representative of our organization, and he must be more thoughtful with his words. Tim hatz already expressed remorse in a Public Statement and has also done so with us privately. We know tim is a man of High Integrity and are confident he will grow and learn from this experience. But sports fans we talked to were mainly upset and flabbergasted. You see, oh, man, very stupid. Look at me, im on the darker side, i wear black. I think nowadays people act so stupid, they bring i think he really should be should be punished for it. We dont need people like that on our airways. We dont need them on tv. We dont need them on the radio. Well, ryans comments are still reverberating around levis stadium. Some told us they didnt think ryan meant to be racist at all but was careless. They feel him taking off such a Bi
London and she can walk us through what transpired here in the last several hours. Its just been a remarkable turn of event. As you say President Trump cancelling a planned press conference. Hes going to hold a few more meetings and then head home early. He wanted this nato trip to be a chance for him to show leadership on the world stage to try to turn the page at least temporarily from the impeachment hearings back at home and yet he has been beset by new controversies. Let me read you the tweet and then give you the broader context. The president tweeted when todays meetings are over, i will be heading back to washington. I wont be doing a press conference at the close of nato because we did so many over the past two days. Safe travels to all. Now this comes after a stunning piece of video emerged overnight showing some of the president s closest allies. The Prime Minister of canada, justin trudeax, the Prime Minister of the u. K. , Boris Johnson appearing to mock President Trump al
Jonathan turley, George Washington university, who usually sits with us at the table who is a cbs news analyst but testifying in congress today. This hearing follows a Party Line Vote yesterday where the House Intelligence Committee approved its final report on impeachment, and that report is really a sweeping indictment of the president. Concluding the president s efforts to investigate ukraine for political rivals sought to undermine the integrity of the u. S. President ial election process and endangered u. S. National security. Bottom line, abuse of power is what theyre saying. Republicans on the Committee Say the president did nothing impeachable. This could be fiery because of the republicans and democrats who sit on the Judiciary Committee, so somewhat of a circus this morning and a little bit of a constitutional cram session. If you love the law, if you Love Learning about impeachment, this is the place to be because well be talking about it. We have a team of correspondents, n
Theyre doing hard work cleaning up a cluttered closet to the First Amendment where lower courts are in disagreement and everyone is a little bit at sea. The first of these, a case involving the socalled truth rats doctrine. There is a lot of speech protected by the First Amendment, there is a lot of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and this is a question of when is threatening language protected and when is it not protected . The question is in order to be unprotected by the First Amendment, does the speaker have to have intended to threaten someone . Or is it enough if a reasonable person would think this was threatening language . Do you have a subjective standard when you ask about the state of mind of the speaker or do you ask what an objective listener would take away . This is not about whether you intend to carry out the threat or not. That is not necessary. Do you have to have intended to make someone feel threatened . This case involves a man the university