>> the supreme court did not noteno that. under the statute, it didn't really make a difference because the statute criminalizes just to convey certain ideas. so when the case was appointed to the supreme court a new lawyer came in he was jewish and missed on - - and many of brandenburg's comments were anti-semitic-s. what we need to know about brown? >> i looked him up and he was at the aclu of cincinnati for many years. a committed civil rights or civil liberties lawyer. serving in world war iild and seem like and an extremely smart and audible man. he agreed to take the case even though brandenburg himself was not thrilled to be represented by a jewish attorney but he felt committed to the cause of free speechau . >> i had the opportunity to meet him in cincinnati in the early nineties. there were some incidents of censorship taking placecein. we were going to be in a panel together. his father whom he actually defended free speech for the most unpopular speakers across the spectrum is the only person who's office he saw b

let's move onto the supreme court in 1969. clarence brenda berg was first arrested in august of 1964. it took five years for his case to get to the supreme court. the eisenhower appointees chief justice earl warren, john marshall harlan the second, roosevelt employee tease hugo black, the kennedy employee d byron white, and johnson them appointee thurgood marshall. we will talk about them more. this was one of earl warren's very last cases. he retired in june 23, 1969, two weeks after the decision. some up the warren court for us. ? >> the warren court was noted for being, upholding a lot of civil liberties, uncivil lights -- on civil rights particularly. it is interesting with this brandenberg case because, it is at the very end of the warren court, and certainly marks a very strong marker of protecting speech, but to some extent, the credit for the development of the free-speech principal has to go to the earlier justices of holmes and brandeis, because although this was a warren court decision, the principles they adopted a

supreme court, the texas supreme court and lower civilian and military courts. in addition to teaching professor vladic is a distinguished scholar at the center for security and law, a senior editor of the peer reviewed journal of national security law and policy and a supreme court fellow at the constitution project. he's also the co-host of the national security law podcast, cnn's supreme court analyst and the executive editor of the just security blog and a senior editor of the law fare blog. professor vladic received his md and if you'd give me just one second. welcome professor vladic, and next i'd like to introduce a civil rights lawyer who mitigates issues of national importance in federal courts across the country including the u.s. supreme court. he is director of the washington, d.c. office of the mcarthur justice center, a premier national civil rights law firm and deputy director of the organization's supreme court and appellate program. mr. ali also teaches as harvard law school where he directs the law school's criminal justice appellate clinic. mr

you heard it very clearly there from lord reid at the supreme court, the supreme court unanimously dismissing all the appeals that 23 was making, her legal team on her behalf. —— shamima begum. in order to appeal against the uk government's decision to remove her british citizenship. watching that with me is oui’ our home affairs correspondent. research conference a victory for the british government. not only has 22 lost all her appeals but the governors won all its. had to allow two to back into the country to appeal against the loss of her citizenship. the supreme court justices have said that's not right. they have said that essentially the duty of the home secretary to protect the public does actually trump shamima begum's right to have a fair hearing against a loss of citizenship. a fair hearing against a loss of citizenship-— a fair hearing against a loss of citizenshin. ., , , ., , , ., a fair hearing against a loss of citizenshin. ., , , ., ,, ., ., citizenship. that is perhaps one of the most significant _ citizenship. that is perhaps one of the most significant moments i ci

and you wrote a escape when they met up in supreme court because this thing went to to supreme court. all the cases in book are in the supreme court. another thing you talk about who the justices are. flint entered view a side entrance and was rolled to written 20 feet of falwell, flit was dressed the part of a respectful participant with a suit and red tie and his hair slicked bang. falwell beaming paternalism had on a red and white striped tie with is a hair neatly qualified. both men hat confident smiles that day. there's a lot of visual detail in there, which i want to say is a tribute to the way you wrote the book. i want to very briefly go through process. did -- you there or how did you -- >> no. thank you for bridging that it up. it is one of my favorite cases and i said he has a confident small because falwell was sure that he was doing a good and that flint was sure he was up to no good. so that's my interpretation. i was like a teenager when that case happened so i wasn't in the supreme court. ... what they looked like and also the two biographies i never thought i would po

advocates have cited the 1960s supreme court case brandenburg v. ohio which gave first amendment protection to speakers who urge listeners to use force in certain circumstances. next, a 2018 program from c-span's landmark cases series looking at brandenburg v. ohio. this is an hour and 30 minutes. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> landmark cases, c-span special history series, produced in partnership with the national constitution center. exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. >> quite often in many of her most famous decisions are ones that the court took up were unpopular. >> lets let's go through a fs that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who helped stick together because they believe in their rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to c-span's landmark cases. tonight brandenburg v. ohio. this

supreme court. but it's different today. he says he plans to tell senators, if confirmed, he will takes out of the department of justice and go after those involved in the deadly insurrection on the u.s. capitol. here is a part of his opening statement. you will hear him say this, quote, if confirmed, i will supervisors the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the capitol back on january 6th. >> the doj would have a rule there. president biden will deliver remarks ahead of a candle-lighting ceremony planned to mark the moment of the passing of 500,000, half a million american covid-19 deaths. it's amazing to reach this point. a tragic number. though, we should note as well, the signs of hope are emerging. new cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all trending down, significantly. that's good news. and after extreme weather caused millions of vaccinations to be delayed, dr. fauci says we'll be caught up and this is pretty fast by the middle of this week. lots to get to. let's beg

court will likely end up before the supreme court itself how do we believe the supreme court might lead to reforms mac i add an addendum their riches can we expect the court to participate in this debate at all itself? we have seen [inaudible] be comfortable with using their public roles during the impeachment trials, plural at this point, so how when the court itself view this moment and is there any expectation beyond the instances in which they are compelled to rule on the precise merits and to be expect to hear anything from them in the interest of participating in this conversation? >> may be this would be my last word before i have to disappear to teach but so, i think it depends. first of all, this court is a very kind of formalist court and i think they would be in the abstract this court would be likely to buy the kind of formalist argument that this is not consistent in any term limits or reforms like that are not consistent with the terms of the constitution and the good behavior clause. that said, i do think at least some of the justices are aware of where things stand polit

that case went to the united states supreme court twice. he lost both times at the supreme court. he also lost at every lower court the case was heard in as well. his legal avenues are now well and truly exhausted. the accounting firm is now going to hand over the data. multiple news reports tonight describing their expected production to prosecutors as millions of pages of tax returns and financial documents. millions of pages, terabytes full of data. prosecutors will reportedly collect this information, "the new york times" says this week from the accounting firm's lawyers in westchester county, new york. prosecutors will get access to those millions of pages and then get to work examining them and determining if they prove a crime. prosecutor already retained a large outside consulting firm that specializes in crunching this kind of data. the prosecutors' office has also brought in a heavy-hitting outside counsel who is a former chief of the criminal division and chief of the appellate division at sdny. he is a lawyer with a long history in white collar crime prosecution and de

what does this mean coming from the supreme court now? >> yeah, kate, this shows me that the manhattan da investigation is getting more serious by the day. we already know that the d. at has been interview michael cohen and they hired a federal prosecutor from the southern district of new york who specialized in mob cases to oversee this specific investigation. now they'll get the tax returns and that is key and did the trump administration intentionally falsify the value of their assets. did they state their assets were worth more than they actually were or less than they actually were or different depending on the circumstances. you need to bounce that off of something and test that against something and the tax returns to be the piece of the puzzle that they need. >> what has been the basis of trump's complaint all along in fighting back? >> well, the two words, witch hunt. he thought this was a political thing and that it is overbroad and the entire premise was congressional motivation to get his tax returns or the prosecutorial level

in the supreme court, this thing went to the supreme court, all the cases in the book end up in the supreme court. another thing you do is talk about the justices. flynt entered through a entrance, flynt was dressed the part of a respectful participant in a 3-piece suit with a red tie and his curly red hair slipped back. on a red and white striped tie with feathery hair and neatly coiffed, both men confidently smile that day. a lot of visual detail in there. i just want to briefly go through process. were you there? >> guest: it is one of the cases. falwell was doing -- flynt was sure he was up to no good. that is my interpretation. i was a teenager when that case happened. and abc news report where you see flynt and falwell coming out of the court room. i knew what they looked like and two biographies i never would have thought i would pour over incredible detail, larry flynt and jerry falwell. i learned about about their experiences in the court room. even for these two titanic figures arguing before the supreme court where flynt had once before physically eject it from the supreme court

>> the supreme court in the heller case divide both the extremes in the gun debate. although gun rights activists -- advocates were extolling the decision when decided, and gun control supporters were bemoaning the decision, it has not spell the end of gun control in america, and i think that opinion goes out of the way that while they bear the right for fire arm with self-defense, there is room for good public safety laws that regulate without banning guns. since how i was decided, there have been a little bit more than 300 federal court decisions on the constitutionality of any number of gun control laws since 2008. the courts have upheld almost all of the laws, only a tiny fraction of the laws have been invalidated. i think it's likely to continue to be the case that the courts will strike down outliers. really unusual and overly aggressive gun control laws like the one that washington d.c. had, the only city in the tired asian that -- we will continue to straighten the outliers, and as long as washington d.c. continues to bar the use of any firearms, as long as t

and then i believe in 1939 is at the supreme court's first weighs on the supreme court forced detail. they talked about it, one or two or three supreme court decisions but nothing and depth. and it is different because they addressed more of the heart of the issue and it is very cryptic, but courts after the supreme court issued that decision -- protects a collective right, not individual right. that remained the status quo, at least legally speaking. i can see politically the average person on the street to think that was the case but legally speaking until the district of columbia howler into the senate recognize the second amendment protects the right to keep their arms -- the right extends to self-defense. >> so again to be clear during the twenties and thirties is when we saw the start of gun control legislation in this country? >> i think more modern as you know today. the categories that are being regulated in the 19 twenties and thirties are really no different from the late 19th century but you start to see more modern types of laws and regulations. they're becoming more comp

guest: the supreme court in 2019 issued a landmark ruling that gerrymandering was not -- the supreme court said that federal claims of partisan gerrymandering could not be brought in federal court. there are still of course the voting rights act. this is the first redistricting cycle since shall be v holder in 2013 that invalidated some sections of the voting rights act, which means the federal preclearance process -- in the last several decades, states that were covered by section four of the voting rights act had to submit redistricting plans to the justice department to be signed off that they were not discriminatory. this time around, that is not in effect. you still do have section two of e.r.a. which desperate -- vra which does protect minority districts. there are going to be a lot of lawsuits filed over maps. i expect a lot of vra claims to be filed with regard to the role of race. as far as partisan gerrymandering goes, that is something that has been increasingly litigated under state constitutions. in 2018, democrats filed -- in pennsylvania to overturn the republican draw

the supreme court cleared the way for the manhattan d.a. to receive donald trump's taxes from 2019 to 2020. mcdonnell and dougal said they had relationships with president trump which he has denied. what does this ruling mean for the former president? is this going ahead to a grand jury? >> this is a massive loss for president trump. the supreme court has cleared the way for the release of these tax returns to the new york prosecutor. they won't be made publicly available because they're subject to grand jury rules, but the supreme court in just one sentence allowed this to go forward, and interestingly enough, there were no noted dissents here. the documents, as you said, are several years of documents from his long-time accounting firm, and they are including these tax returns. and as you said, the original part of the investigation had to do with these alleged hush money payments. keep in mind it was last term that the supreme court 7-2 did rule against trump's broad claims of immunity, but then they sent the case back to the lower court

the cases went all the way up to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled. those students have a right to wear a black arm that. it is another manifestation of? what speech. it is another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so then a few years later you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag. and they got arrested for burning the american flag. and then the question became, you are going to be convicted, you gonna do time for burning the flag. and the argument was, and burning the flag, it's my way of what? expressing my speech. yeah john. >> how does this tie in with companies censoring people they don't agree with? >> give me this again? john >> how does this tie in with big tech companies like twitter, instagram, snapchat, they're censoring people they don't agree with politically and taking their content off their platforms? so >> sean that is a hot issue. are you familiar with the snowden case? there is a lot right now of controversy about facebook and what is it? twitter and all this. one argument they would give you is you don't

supreme court. we have heard judge garland suppress the importance of the independence of the justice department. he said the political climate, worse than in oklahoma city at the time of the bombing that killed 168 people back in 1995. it's a case that garland knows well. it's a case that he oversaw. we are following that. we will continue to follow that. we will take you back when the break is over. breaking news from the supreme court. the high court just dealt former president trump quite the decisive defeat. he lost his legal fight to keep his personal and corporate tax returns out of the hands of a new york grand jury. mr. trump now out of legal options. he will have to comply with the subpoena. more on that momentarily. we will start with our team. jeff bennett, garrett haake outside the hearing room there at the capitol. garrett, we will start with you. we are a couple of hours into the hearing. what areas are garland and the senators focusing on the most so far? >> we have seen quite a bit

trump is responding to the supreme court decision saying, the supreme court never should have let this fishing expedition happen, but they did. he also accused the district attorney of being politically motivated and reiterated the witch hunt theme he's been harping on for years. >> this is a continuation of the witch hunt, the greatest witch hunt in history. there's never been anything like it where people want to examine every deal you've ever done to see if they can find that there's a comma out of place. >> reporter: the criminal probe has only intensified. district attorney vance has been bolstering his team, adding a well-known former federal prosecutor with an expertise in financial crimes. and they've interviewed michael cohen, who has already testified to congress about trump's alleged schemes. >> did the president or his company ever inflate assets or revenues? >> yes. >> and was that done with the president's knowledge or direction? >> everything was done with the knowledge and at the direction of mr. trump. >> reporter: but the public won't get access to trump's tax returns

as most of you know, we took the denial all the way to the supreme court. over the last eight months or so we have seen the case move up and down the courts without any relief until recently. recently we received a favorable ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals. the ruling provides a decision for our church and churches around the country. we wish the supreme court would have broadened legal protections nationwide between have seen nothing less than extraordinary. with the church free to exercise its god-given right to worship, people are being positively impacted. they have hope in their lives. we may never know just how devastating the effect of closing churches has been on our country and on the world -- broken marriages and families, drugs and alcohol being abuse, suicide, damage to kids who saw the removal of god as essential from life are yet untold. our prayer going forward is that the government leaders will recognize the worship of god is essential and churches provide much more to the community than just a place to gather or an -- for an

the state supreme court there threw out the map. there are a number of other states that have tried to make this process less partisan. john: we can get into that. david wasserman, cook political report. it works great when you call in as well. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. start calling in. when it comes to redistricting, there are winners and losers. take us through, as part of your report on this, the projected 2021 reapportionment map. i will show it to viewers as you talk us through it. david: there are going to be a number of states that gain or lose districts. the big winners we expect to be texas, gaining three, florida gaining two. these are projections, we will find out for sure in april. five other states are slated to gain. -- and gain one seat each and those are north carolina, montana, oregon, colorado and arizona. there are 10 states we expect to lose one seat each those are mostly in the upper , midwest. minnesota, michigan, illinois, pennsylvania, ohio, new yor

in austin even the supreme court, or federal court somewhere. and those judges are looking at all of that information and maybe somebody reasonable and takes it in and is emotionally moved by it. i think a lot of times the judges read and they say will this is awful but this should been brought up at the trial stage and you know the juries heard enough of this and they feel enough about the death penalty. and why the judges consider these claims to be kind of far from even consideration, things like cages. i don't have the answer to that other than to say that he is right, they been much more successful with the juries. and like another version of this that you see in the story or people's trauma the horrible life they've lived often show up right before the execution printed seven with a lot of the trump executions, which montgomery, i won't go into but it was tragic in every conceivable way. it is horrible to read about. that was not enough to allow donald trump to move this execution to go forward. but it did have a big cultural shift. it mig

one of the 1st 6 supreme court justices 789 to 1798 was appointed by president george washington. in fact wilson taught the 1st corps on the new constitution to president washington and his cabinet the 1st in the nation's history in philadelphia at the university of pennsylvania in 1789 wilson in his law lectures the 1st of their kind under the constitution plainly states that the senate may not ignore the constitution in impeachment proceedings. he states that lawful and constitutional conduct may not be used as an impeachable offense let me say that again he states that lawful and constitutional conduct may not be used as an impeachable offense read along with me the doctrine of impeachments is of high import in the constitutions of free states on one hand the most powerful magistrate should be amenable to the law on the other hand elevated characters should not be sacrificed merely on account of their elevation no one should be sure while he violates the constitution and the laws. everyone should be secure while he observes them. to be clear james wilson is saying that the cons

the supreme court has ruled toda that giles. the supreme court has ruled today that she _ giles. the supreme court has ruled today that she cannot _ giles. the supreme court has ruled today that she cannot come - giles. the supreme court has ruled today that she cannot come back. giles. the supreme court has ruled l today that she cannot come back into the country _ today that she cannot come back into the country and fight and overturn the country and fight and overturn the ruling — the country and fight and overturn the ruling by the home secretary to revoke _ the ruling by the home secretary to revoke her— the ruling by the home secretary to revoke her citizenship. this has sparked — revoke her citizenship. this has sparked some concern from some humans _ sparked some concern from some humans rates charities, i think reprieve — humans rates charities, i think reprieve saying we risk creating another — reprieve saying we risk creating another guantanamo bay. but the supreme — another guantanamo bay. but the supreme court does lead the door slightly— supreme court

or we'll pass a statute, and change the supreme court? and all kinds of activity outside of the boundaries of the constitution. are you concerned that in one respect we see, centralization of power and decision making in first few weeks of the biden administration, then a movement toward of, but parliamentary system away from our republican system. >> i don't like the signs of this first week plus, has been troubling for those of us who believe in the constitutional constitutionorder to begin with. and secondly, what constitution had in mind, which is limited government. exertion of extraordinary powers over the economy. fdr did not just issue a bunch of executive orders, he went to congress. and he had a congress to go along with that, because the country was in very dire straits at the time of the depression. we want an energetic executive but power can be abused. this absolute sense,. mark: you cannot take control of the energy industry in the country. simply by issuing -- executive fiats, i think what in the world would the framers th

when i say all federal judges, i mean district, circuits and supreme court justices. we have magistrate justices, and bankruptcy justices that are selected a different way. but in terms of what we call article three of thear constitution, judges are appointed under the constitution they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. every president has a slightly different way of picking up judges. for the very longest time, the way that it happened at a particularly in my states, and in others was that the president for district court judges, the trial level judges would take recommendations from the senators of the state. i stay his date because the presence back then were all men because they are to the times. but, senators of each states in particular if they were the same party as the president, could nominate people for the president to consider. if the senators of particular states were of the other party, than the presidents could or could not listen to their nomination out of courtesy many people in other states had different senators from am dif

. >> i was very happy that the supreme court decided to -- in favor of the faith communities. >> reporter: san francisco's archbishop says he believes the high courts decision was reasonable, lifting the state's ban on indoor religious services, allowing them at 25% capacity. justices asserted that the ban was discriminatory as it was stricter for rule frs retail stores and other businesses. >> i think the supreme court, in issuing this preliminary injunction, basically protected the natural right we have to worship and to do so in a safe way. >> reporter: covid rules didn't allow worship. many parishes have live streamed, though the archbishop says it just wasn't the same. but what remains the same is his message about masks.

that's when the trump emergency appeal was filed to the supreme court. and my guess was the court didn't want to get involved during the election campaign and then didn't want to get involved in all the legal controversy after the election and then didn't want to get involved in the impeachment issue but now that the coast is clear the supreme court's order has come out, a brief one-line order saying, simply, it was referred to the circuit justice steven brieer and denied. >> what's the timing if cy vance says the work continues when will that grand jury see those taxes? >> almost immediately. the accountants -- this is it, this is the end of the road for the president's lawyers to appeal here. the accountants for the president have always said they'll abide by whatever the courts say, and this has all been set to go, sort of in the starting blocks, even though vance's team had won in the lower courts. vance agreed to hold off on any demand for these documents until the supreme court has handled this case. you can bet that that is all ready to go, all th

supreme court. the high court deciding that the president's accounting firm has to turn over the tax records. eight years of tax returns that trump has tried to keep secret for all these years and financeable documents. not just tax records. but it's tied to the trump organization. that is going to be swept up by cy vance. he hired a new prosecutors with a potentiality in the white clol prime and activity. i will tell you talking to put'sed a vidsers, people who speak with him on a regular basis, this slt kind of thing that concerns the former president the mold, that he could get ensnared in a criminal investigation, and all of it as he is trying to make a comeback on the public stage. he is expected to speak at a conference this weekend. this is not the headline that trump wants if he is trying to make a comeback to the public stage, to have people speculating he's not going to be looking at running for election in 2024 but evading prosecution in 2024. that is how things are stacking up in trmp wo

the legacy with the supreme court _ their pension? the legacy with the supreme court is _ their pension? the legacy with the supreme court is a _ their pension? the legacy with the supreme court is a strong - their pension? the legacy with the supreme court is a strong part - their pension? the legacy with the supreme court is a strong part of. supreme court is a strong part of his appeal. so too is his work in the lower courts. there are three tiers in the federal courts in the us. a big part of the appeals process is actually in the regional appeal court. so he gets a lot of credit for that. at the same time, there is much more that in many ways is something that so long as the democrats don't undo it, and they will try but they probably can't, because of the thoroughness with which he filled the seats, the rates of turnover, that sort of thing. more technical reasons. he will emphasise other things as well, the economy, foreign policy, energy. aha, economy, foreign policy, energy. a brief last thought, your interdict that he will a

so there is another hearing, and another case and a supreme court decision, and rub the supreme court says, he was never affiliated with the communist party. and so the attempt to deport harry bridges, is dashed once again. and the government is determined to try to get harry bridges out of the country. and although bridges becomes and a citizen after this victory. and bridges in the 1940s the government tries to de naturalists him, and deport him once again. those fail. so it takes a lot out of harry bridges, it is a long story, but it is an important one in terms of the history of ideological exclusion and deportation in the united states. >> let's move forward in time, and i cannot resist asking you about the case of earnest mantle. a scholar and activist who found himself barred from the united states in the 1960s, even though he had been here before and had lectured here in the past. my interest in the mantle case, is sparked in part by my having taken a class with him, and another marxist academic. and in a summer session in boston university in 1979, right before my senior year

what's it like to have your mother see you be sworn in on the supreme court? jutice sotomayor: there is nothing more amazing in one's life than to live further than your dreams. as i explained to you, when i was a child, i never dreamt of being a lawyer, never mind being a supreme court justice, i did not know what that was. to achieve appoint in my life where i had finally lived beyond my dreams, and achieved something so extraordinary, and being given the gift of sharing that with the most important person in my life, my mother, it was such a deeply, deeply felt moment. most of us don't have the privilege of having parents alive at the end of our careers or at points in our career where we achieve the most. so i am eternally grateful that my mom was there. david: the salary you get as an associate justice of the supreme court is not all that much higher than the salary you got many years ago as a federal district judge. why do you think it is that there's so little corruption in the federal judiciary commission when people are paid so little money and wire s

. >> i was very happy that the supreme court decided in favor of the right of faith communities. >> reporter: san francisco's archbishop says he believes the high court's decision was reasonable, lifting the state's ban on indoor religious services, allowing at 25% capacity. justices asserted the ban was discriminatory, stricter than rules for retail stores and other businesses. >> i think the supreme court basically protected the natural right we have to worship and do so in safe way. >> reporter: covid rules didn't allow indoor worship in the most restrictive tier which every bay area county falls into. many have livestreamed but archbishop said wasn't the same. but remains the same the message about mass. >> asking the parishes when

supreme court that is the ultimate and it is a number one goal and has been his whole career. for 10 years bob jones university in greenville south carolina want the federal government's policy which denied them tax exempt status because they allegedly practiced discrimination against blotz. bob jones university is in some sense the flower of the religious right kind of evangelical conservatism at its height. they had a policy of not admitting african-americans and tell them 1971 and then even at that point required african-american students to be married if they enrolled at a university in the 1970 s. following a string of court cases the ira's started to take another look at the tax exempt status of some of these segregated schools and asking why are we subsidizing segregation you know tax subsidies like you get from the government. from now on bob jones university and other by but religious schools that discriminate racially will be allowed tax exempt status end up lazy people as event benjamin hooks said he considers the move another retreat on civil rights by the reagan a

>> it can be changed either through legislation or at the supreme court. you know, it is interesting because qualified immunity has been eliminated in colorado last year. there's a lot of activity in several states going on now. in maryland, and new mexico, and new hampshire. in the last congress, there was a bill that was proposed in the house by justin amash and ayanna pressley to eliminate qualified immunity. there will likely be a bill introduced this year. i would like to add that this is not an anti-police movement. we recognize that there are thousands of great police people who go above and beyond to protect and serve, and what we say is love the good ones, prosecute the bad ones. the only people that would be hurt by ending qualified immunity are bad cops. the other thing that is interesting about this idea is there is broad support for ending qualified immunity across ideological thinking. it is supported at the supreme court by both clarence thomas and sonya sotomayor, who are rarely on the same side of issues. it is supported by the aclu, by th

supreme court, was taken up twice by associate justice a.m. leto who organized to segregate ballot that case still in the supreme court one of the issues you wanted to raise on january 6th. it is a legitimate issue unlike russia collusion and so forth. and for this and for some other issues you raised you were being accuse of insights insurrection against your own country you're being accused of supporting violent uprising against capitol building and i want to give you a few minutes to respond to this without disruption go right ahead sir. >> thank you for that. you know, first of all, i'll say those peel out there who say that what i did and senator cruz and 140 house republican who is objected in my case i say that state of pennsylvania in order to have the debate about election integrity, in order to make sure that we get legislation that is passed i think we need election reformsening we need to ban ballot harvesting i think we need to take hard look at how the mail-in ballots was administered in many of the states including pennsylvania.

they will get access to eight years of financial records because of the supreme court's ruling. the president had this to say in reaction the former president saying for more than two years new york city has been looking at almost every transaction i have ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the united states. the serene court never should've let this fishing expedition happened but they did. this is something which has never happened to a president before. it is democrat inspired in a totally democrat location completely controlled and dominated by a heavily reported enemy of mine. these are attacked by democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people, of the most votes ever gotten a sitting president.

uber gets its day in court — the uk's supreme court will decide if its drivers are workers or self—employed. from lord nelson's hair to a document signed by king henry viii or buzz aldrin�*s autographed spacesuit — we visit the weird and wonderful world of collectables. if robinhood was hoping for an easy ride from the authorities, it will have been sorely disappointed. not talking about the 13th century outlaw, but the trading platform that shares the name. accused of market manipulation, the app restricted trading in the now infamous gamestop stock as redditers forced professional outfits to take on huge losses. our north america business correspondent, michelle fleury, has been following the hearing from new york. this is a new chapter in the gamestop saga, politicians trying to understand how in january, shares were gamestop, brick and mortar video company rose 2000% and turned wall street upside down. for several days, little investors be —— beat out big ones with an online reddit form called wall street that. one investor, kate gill, is become the face of the movement and whos

supreme court. but you might not know why garland was considered so qualified and why it's so relevant today. >> i supervise the prosecution of the perpetrators of the bombing of the oklahoma city federal building. who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government. if confirmed, i will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the capitol on january 6th. a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a corner stone of our democracy. >> so the connection between the two is key. at the top official at the doj back in the clinton administration, garland led the investigation into timothy mcvay, who set off a bomb at the federal building on april 19th, 1995 that killed 168 people including many children. mcvay was a disaffected army veteran who attended meeting with the self styled michigan militia and arrested wearing a t-shirt with a quote from thomas jefferson popular with so called patriot groups many the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to ti

the courts, the cases went all the way up to the supreme court, and is the supreme court ruled. those students have a right to wear a black arm band. it is another manifestation of what? speech. it's another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so then a few years later you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag, and they got arrested for burning the american flag, and then the question became, you know, you're convicted. you're going to do time for burning the flag, and the argument was in burning the flag, it's my way of, what, expressing my speech. >> yeah, john. >> how does this tie in with big tech companies censoring people that they don't agree with? >> give me this again, john. >> how does this tie in with like big tech companies like twitter or facebook, instagram, snapchat, they're censoring people they don't agree with politically and taking their content off their platform, so what they want to say can't be -- >> john, that's a hot issue. are you familiar with snowden, and the snowden case? there's a lot right now of controversy about these vario

so the state supreme court there threw out the map. there are a number of other states that have implemented commissions to try and make this process less partisan. i'm sure we can get into that. >> and we can throughout this 45 minutes the washington journal with david wasserman of the political report, and it works great when you call in and ask your questions as well. so, republicans 202-748-8000. go ahead, start calling in. david wasserman, when it comes to redistricting, there is definite winners and losers when it comes to the states around the country. take us through as part of your recent report on this, the projected 2021 reapportionment map. and i'll show it to viewers as you talk us through it. >> there are going to be a number of states that gain or lose districts. and the big winners we expect to be texas gaining three seats. and florida gaining two seats. again, these are projections. we'll find out for sure in april. there are five other states that are slated to gain one state each. oregon, montana, colorado, and arizo

these are bedrock principles recognized by our supreme court for decades. the court has stated in no uncertain terms the importance of these principles to our democratic principles. the general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the first amendment has long been settled by our decisions. the constitutional safeguard we have set was fashioned to assure unfettered, interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. new york times versus sullivan. our first amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech. core political speech occupy the highest, most protected position. even political speech that may incite unlawful conduct is protected from the reach of government punishment. the court has said every idea is an incitement and a speech may be suppressed when it might inspire someone to act unlawfully then there is no limit to the state's since oriole power. the government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chances