Transcripts For CSPAN2 Writing About War 20160524 : vimarsan

Very Different Reasons better very isolating and problematic so the most vulnerable usually speak concerned and we recognize that but even those who have resources is extremely expensive if you have resources well beyond your means if you go into a Retirement Community it is not affordable for so Many Americans and that is a real stress but just dont wait until that moment to figure out how theyre in the suburban areas where there is a town center and a main street that doesnt have to be planned for but is available and then you can make up half down to the park to watch the kids so we all need to think about publicly financed and assisting the communities because there will be a lot of seniors out there looking for places to live and hopefully. I think hud could play a major role i know youre talking about some venues and i see mike in the audience who is formerly assistant secretary of policy development but looking read other departments to take the lead to make a difference like the program that goes to localities why can a portion of that the designated to deal with transformation . You did in silly almost touch a thousand communities across the country with that. May be controversial and with congressional consultation but some of that money already exist it just needs to be pressed to a national need. Nicki will help us close. My job is not to keep you in your seats too much longer. Want to give a few more credits to folks. When you have a yearlong effort there are a lot of people to thank, and weve been hard at it. A number of people have been thanked to special thank you to bill hogeland, Vice President here and a leader in our effort and hound ground the task force throughout its process to be fiscally sound and aware of all the impacts or recommendations bill we having, putting them out and being responsible in that. Also, we tried to practice what we preach in breaking down silos internally at the Bipartisan Policy Center stocker work coastally with our Health Policy team, katherine hayes, trying to make sure our policy efforts are coordinated, as well as bill mentioned in the production, our Economic Security team, this kind of response to the last two questions that were talking about, how to get raid get ahead of the challenge and what to do about middle income households. On june 9th our commission for Retirement Security and personal savings will be issuing their report, so please tune in for that. Well address homeec witness issues as home equity issues as well. Really relevant to the topic we excused here today. And thanks to our staff, dennis, helped our process, andy winkler, senior policy analyst, and jake, our project assistant. One other thing i want to say, the effort does not stop here. So, my other job is to say that we, as bpc, are committed to this report and the recommendations we released, and many of you have been a part of our process to get us here, but the effort continues, and we always say when a report comes out here halfway done so likely months more of actual advocacy and education work around the recommendations here. So, please reach out to us, dr. Park and i, to figure out ways to Work Together to advance what is in here and the work youre doing using our bipartisan platform. Thank you all for coming and for your patience staying overtime. [applause] [inaudible conversations] coming up on cspan 2, the Supreme Court oral argument in foster v. Chapman i a case that ruled in favor of a black georgia death row inmate who was convicted and sentences by an allwhite jury. Later the Supreme Court oral argument in bitman very person, a case decided today regarding virginia redistricting. Cspans warm journal with news and policy issues that impact you. Tuesday morning, with president ial candidate Bernie Sanders declaration of pursuing the nomination through to the democratic convention, congressman rick know land of minute talks about the 2016 campaign, the future of the sanders candidacy and his support of political contribution reform. And then florida representative john micah and the ongoing concerns about tsa wait times at airports and the agencys efficiency and effectiveness. And the executive director of the president s committee on arts and humanities, and john young discusses the governments role in promoting Arts Education in public schools. Virginia senator tim kean, a member of the Armed Services Committee Discusses cybersecurity policy and the importance of intelligence sharing on tuesday. He is part of the event hosted by the center for strategic and International Studies live on cspan3. This sunday night on q a, u. S. Senate historian cokes about various events in Senate History and the work her office does. I came in june of 1998, as a newly minted senate historian. My colleagues, dick baker, and don richie, said it will be nice and quiet. We have an election coming up. Youll have time to set until and read and get comfortable with your job. Within a few weeks the house decided to impeach bill clinton and we got very busy very quickly and had to do a good dollar of research on impeachment trials. We had not had a president ial impeachment since 1868, and the Senate Leaders at that time, trent lott and tom daschle, really wanted to follow historical precedent as much as they could. Sunday might at 8 00 eastern and pacific, on cspans q a. Monday the Supreme Court ruled 71 in favor of black georgia death row inmate, finding that prosecutors unlawfully excluded potential black jurors from his trial nearly 30 years ago. The ruling means foster will likely receive a new trial. Justice thomas was the sole dissenter. Next, the november 2015 oral argument in foster vs. Chatman. This is an hour. Youll hear argument first this morning, case 148349, fosters vs. Chatman. Mr. Bright. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court, the prosecutors in this case came to court on the morning of jury selection determined to strike all the black prospective jurors. Mr. Bright, maybe you could address first the question we raised on friday, with respect to which court, certiorari should be directed to. Yes, your honor. We filed this petition originally, certiorari to the Supreme Court of georgia, and of course this court in sears obvious upton issued certiorari in 2010 to the Supreme Court of georgia, and in a similar situation. It appears to us from looking at this over the weekend that r. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company versus Durham County the court decided in 1986, the court said unless there was positive assurance that the decision was not a ruling on the merits, then the writ went to the state Supreme Court. And the Georgia Court, while it has rules and statutes and its own opinions that are not totally in harmony with one another, the rule nonetheless is that a certificate of probable cause, which is what was denied in this case, is to be granted if theres arguable merit to the case. Do you think that affects the scope of our review . In other words, are we addressing just whether theres arguable merit to the claim or are we addressing the claim on its own merits . I think what this court has done in all these cases is apply looked through to the last reasoned decision and that would be the conversation the Habeas Corpus Court in georgia typically the habeas corporation pass results, an application is made for certificate of probable cause to the georgia Supreme Court, and that is often denied summarily. It is denied summarily, as it was in this case. I dont understand that. You say we would be reversing the georgia Supreme Court, not the habeas corpus, and all that the georgia Supreme Court held is that there was no arguable basis for its accepting review. So, if we reverse that decision, we tell the georgia Supreme Court, youre wrong, there issen arguable basis for your accepting review. So we ought to remands to that court, requiring them to accept review. How can we reverse them on an issue they ever considered. There in rj reynolds, you had an intermediate Appellate Court that ruled and then the North Carolina Supreme Court denied review, and the question was, do you issue the writ to the intermediate Appellate Court or to the North Carolina Supreme Court . And this was decided in Justice Blackman writing for the court said we want to give practitioner we want to end the confusion about this. So it goes to the state Supreme Court. Theres no difference in our situation here and the situation that r. J. Reynolds jerk nor saying in that case nor other cases, and if so, which other cases, that in that situation, we nonetheless addressed the reasoning of the intermediate court . Is that what youre saying . You did in sears versus upton, a case out of georgia, 61 u. S. 945 in 2010. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of georgia but came up in exactly the same polls posture as our case. There is an argument the petitions for certiorari could go to the trial court . Our statute says it goes to the highest out in which review could have been had issue think is the statutory phrase. Which sounds like the georgia Supreme Court, oregon, as Justice School ya d Justice Scalia said, hasnt directed their attention to the issues before us. Im not sure its an option to the go to the georgia trial court. Or is that incorrect . Well, what this court has said, both in the r. J. Reynolds case, followed in brady vs. North carolina last year 2015 case, this year, in which once again, there was an intermeetat Court Decision denied by the North Carolina Supreme Court. In 1960 there was thompson where certiorari was to police court in louisville, kentucky, and no court could they can the case because the fine was less than 20. These cases decided by the court in 1986 and this year, youre putting together two rules that you say we have established. One is Justice Blackman said to end the confusion, the petition should be addressed to the Supreme Court. And then you said we have cases, if the Supreme Court has said, just denied, nothing more than denied, we look back to the last reasoned decision. So, those are both decisions of this court, and thats what youre relying on. Well, theyre not mutually exclusive. Thiscourt can lock back through to the last reasoned decision in making its decision in this case, and believe thats what it should do, but at the same time, the courts opinions appeared to us on the Quick Research we did over the weekend on this, that r. J. Reynoldss and the substantive case say that the certiorari would issue to the georgia Supreme Court. And we his listed it that way. When the case was docketed here it was listed that the lower court was the superior court. What does the state Supreme Court wrote a very short opinion and said were not going to determine whether there was in fact the only issue were going to determine is whether theres any arguable merit to this. Then you say that the whole issue of whether it was a correct application is the issue that we have to decide . I think in r. J. Reynolds, thats this courts law, yes. Can i ask you another question before you get to the question of the underlying case. The superior court said on page 175 of the joint appendix that the issue of the batson violation was not reviewable based on the doctrine of res judicata, and then it later said this is 192 of the joint appendix that it will review the bastion claim whether petitioner has shown in change in the facts sufficients to overcome the res judicata bar. If you put those two together you could argue that the superior court decided only a question of state law, namely, whether the situation here was such that there could be review of the bastion claim. What is your response to that . Well, the state doesnt argue that, and i think the reason for that is because the court said, were moving the court is going to address step three of bastion and said the claim is without merit in foster. It is a question of federal or state law whether or not the petitioner has shown a change in facts sufficient to overcome the res judicata bar . The page 192 language that Justice Alito quoted. Is that a state law question . Thats a state law question. Here the court since its a state law question, they ruled against you, what do you have to argue . Its a federal question . In order to decide it, the exactly like haith vs. Oklahoma where the Oklahoma Court had to decide the federal question in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction over the issue. And this court held, in haight, that where the court has to decide the federal issue, and it did in this case, clearly decided the federal issue and found that batson claim had no married. So its decided the federal issue and theres no contest about that explain to me why deciding the federal issue was essential to its deciding the state res judicata issue. Because it framed the question was bag it would look at the haight they would look at the past batson verse kentucky claim and if there was merit to that claim, the court would grant the writ on it. On the other hand if it found there was not merit on it, then you think it was saying whether theres res judd da cat to or not depends on whether the new claim has any merit . Exactly. Thats a very strange application of res judd da cat to, seem res judd da cat to seems to me. The question is whether there were changed facts sufficient enough well, the georgia law is you can bring an issue that has been litigatedded before on direct appeal, in habeas even right, even. Right, even if it would produce a different result. Right . Right. If the affects are such it would produce other different result. Mr. Bright, does the court in your. Do de novo review . Didnt it say that it did basically it was going to do step three of the batson charge. Thats exactly what the court said. Thats a ruling on the merits. I think the court said the batson claim is without merit. That seems like a ruling on the merits to me. Well issue well, i think it said after considering these other facts. We think there were some legal errors made there but, yes, after considering this facts the court said that the claim was without merit. The court said that it would reach step three again on the basis of the new evidence presented, so they did it all over, and i guess you must take that as what happened. They did not apply a res judicata bar. In haight this court said when the resolution of the state procedural law question depends upon a federal constitutional ruling, the state law prong is not independent of the federal claim, and this court has jurisdiction, and thats on page 75 of 479 state. I dont want to bee labor the point but are you arguing that georgia res judicata law is this. If someone comes up with any new fact, the thinnest new fact, that is sufficient to wipe out the res judicata bar and allow the court to get to the merits of the claim. Is that your arguement . Thats your understanding of georgia res judd da cat to law res judicata law. The evidence has to be sufficient enough that the court rules on the merits of the issue. That is what happened here this is not a matter of adding one more life why is that in conjunction with Justice Scalias question, why is that an issue of federal law. Because the court deciderred batson, and i think haight is clear on this, and i commend to the courts attention since the state didnt raise this, either in opposition to cert or in the brief, its not briefed before this court. I think thats the deciding case on this. Thanks, counsel, think we have your argument on the point. Thank you. Thank you very much. If i could just say what happened here was that the prosecutors had identified the africanamericans by race, they had rated them against each other in case it came down to having to select a black juror the prosecutor said the reason for concentrating on the black jurors was that you had informed them you would present a batson challenge and therefore it was necessary for them to see if there was a race neutral grounds for disqualifying. Right. Two answers to that, justice ginsburg. What the lawyer said here these lawyers have practiced here for a long time in rome, georgia. They said the prosecutor always strikes all the blacks on the jury. Thats the historic practice. We thick theyre going strike couple the blacks on the injury in our case but last year the Supreme Court of the United States decided batson versus kentucky and we asked the court not let that happen. If the prosecutors want to avoid a batson challenge they could not have discriminated. Secondly, with regard to the information that is collected here, it doesnt seem like its information just to exercise strikes when they say, if it comes down to having to take an africanamerican, miss hard or in another place miss garrett, might be