Violation of the right to free speech. Your argument first this morning, john walker vs. The Texas Division of the sons of confederate veterans. Thank you mr. Chief justice. May it please the court. Messages on texas plans plates are government speech. The state of texas etches its name on each license plate and texas law gives the state sol control and Approval Authority of everything that appears on a lance license plate, texas is not abridging free speech rightsful motorists me remain free to speak with a Bumper Sticker or window decal but the First Amendment does not mean a motorist can compel any government to place its imprimatur on a battle flag. One of the problems of the standard whether it is regarded as offensive to many people. Is it government speech to say mighty fine bourbon to advertise a project . Yes the government can approve the messages just because it has endorsed messages or is accepting and generating revenue to proven gait the messages doesnt defeat the fact it
Object to the existence of a quorum. We dont have to debate the her its of it. Theres an open question about the consequence. Okay. A professor at my law school, Washington College of law and an expert in constitutional law and many other things. Runs the sjd program there and an expert in issues related to race and the Supreme Court. We did have one really important race related case this term thats kind of gotten buried and lost in the shuffle. Maybe decided earlier. But it tells us a fair amount i think about where the court is at on the questions and relates to other cases that you can discuss, im sure. The schutte case, the voters of michigan announced they were going to change the constitution to forbid affirmative action, including particularly racebased affirmative in Higher Education and some other things and had the consequence of overruling a prior question saying the Michigan Law School could take race into account for admissions. And so, the court was presented with a ques
Start talking about this value equation. So to further comment on the economic realities, one of my responsibilities is to balance the budget for the medical school. While we get in 40 million in external funding last year, for each dollar that comes in, we spent about 25 cents and were very efficient in extra dollars that had to support the Research Enterprise and thats to mr. Bartons point and the of c. M. S. Of increased funding for the n. I. H. With every single one of our guests today across all political backgrounds, all fields, all agencies and everything but its really not just a matter of lets just increase the budget of the n. I. H. And or the f. D. A. Because its not linear. Its not like purchasing things. Its not like purchasing warships or Something Like that. You spend x amount of money and you get y amount of cures. Thats why these discussions are difficult. It is, number one, the amount of funding. We still are the top we have the biggest commitment of any country in th
Admissions. And so, the court was presented with a question of whether the states voters could essentially ban affirmative action in that fashion. Uhhuh. And so, youre exactly right that this is sort of following up from the opinion 11 years ago, the gruder decision up holding the constitutional of race conscious admissions at the university of michigan. Whats important to keep in mind is that it is technically not an opinion thats about affirmative action in education across the board. So, it does nothing to alter the constitutionality across the board of those kinds of policies so it hasnt changed the holding of the gruder decision 11 years ago. It said that under the equal protection clause colleges and universities could create narrowly tailored Race Relations programs and also the probably opinion that got maybe more publicity last year, fischer versus university of texas because it was decided at the very end of the term. That was looking at the constitutionality of the universit
Decisions on monday, the last day of the Supreme Court term. This is 90 minutes. Fights good morning. Thank you for coming. I made director of policy development and programming for the Constitution Society for law and policy. Its my pleasure to welcome me to the Supreme Court review for term. 13 2014 acs was founded in 2001 and is a lawyers,network of policymakers, academics, judges who believe the law should he a force to improve the lives of all people. Acs works for positive change are shaping the debate on questions such as those we will be hearing about today. The decisions issued this term, and those they have yet to issue, span a wide variety of areas touching numerous aspects of life from the influence of money in our elections, reproductive rights, executive power, the future of organized labor, digital privacy, many other issues. We look over the hearing the inside from this fantastic panel of experts this morning. Privacy and many other issues. We look forward to hearing th