army with the appellate there i'm a shoulder, i have reenacted the battle three times in sweltering heat like today and there am speaking twice for the awareness society which i'm a member and i've spoken twice that is grave which is attributed to the church in downtown manhattan a very challenging place to speak when you are dealing with construction noise and traffic and i wanted to briefly say that it is quite connection that i wrote an article about the six degrees of alexander hamilton and you can read that on the oz website and it's because my wife and i saw it on and on, and her famous younger brother the painter and then and his epithets on the road which went to auction a year, ago we attended the auction and we had been blown out of the water and he was 2600 dollars for the pair, we went to ok, the hamilton and we know, there is so little that we know and there's so much and which we focus on his accomplishments as treasury secretary for the infamous dual, it's kind of like the titanic we know how this story ends and he is going to be killed by air in and then a few other thing

politic, and another is to rotate people off of the appellant bench. i am not doctrineaire, but we are going to need to reform, and it it is an option, because the supreme court has been changed many times. the supreme court changed it to eight justices until they took power again. and it is reformed in healthier ways. in the 1970s constitutional amendments were happening all of the time to improve the government. 25th amendment to change the voting age to 18, and the others, the amendments like the e.r.a., and i have not given up on it, and the fact that the fight happened had good consequences to lead to things like title 9. so this is a moment where obviously our political structures have not kept up with the times. that means calling into action whether the united states has the right number of states or justices and maybe even whether the u.s. house will have the right number of representatives and not the make et more liberal, because that is to go out to political space and do, and argue for, and to make government more responsive, because it is

previously she served in the obama administration as the principal deputy chief of the appellate section of the civil rights division at the department of justice. during retirement from doj sharon was repeatedly recognized by the attorney general and received awards for her role in convincing the administration to stop defending the so-called defense of marriage act developing legal arguments in support of nationwide marriage equality among a number of other important initiatives. as you can see, we have a very esteemed and appropriately enough diverse panel here with a lot of experience before courts, studying the courts, sort of looking at how the courts fit into our democracy, and on the one hand, i feel like we probably all understand why we're here and why it's important to be here. on the other hand, i think it's probably worth taking a few minutes to really talk about why diversity on the federal bench is so important. i think that maybe one great way to think about this conversation or to start this conversation is by asking sharon because the supreme court's going to be conside

and we have a remarkable first panel will be ably moderated by the chair of the supreme court appellate practice group at paul weiss and he worked for justice scalia and he will introduce the panel. take it away. >> thank you very much, jeff and it is a great pleasure to be here at gw law school. a couple of blocks away from my office. this is very much the local law school. it is a great pleasure to be here. thank you for gw for hosting us and thank you to the national constitution center for putting together this program. it is my great privilege to be the moderator of the first of the afternoon's panel. we have an incredibly distinguished group assembled here to talk about the wonderfully broad subject of clerkship experiences. very briefly, to introduce the panel, starting on my immediate left is john elwood who is a partner and head of the supreme court appellate practice at arnold and porter and he clerked for justice kennedy. to his left, a member of the california supreme court who clerked for justice stevens. rory little who is professor at uc hastings college of law who is cur

he was a member of the trial team that has co-authored the ap appellate to the texas unconstitutional voe t unconstitutional photo i.d. law. he is also an adjunct professor at the university of pennsylvania law school where he teaches a course on the voting rights act. welcome, all. we have been joined by the chair of the committee, the whole committee. would you like to make -- >> well, thank you very much. this committee is charged with overseeing the administration of federal elections, and in recognition of that responsibility, we established the subcommittee on elections. this subcommittee has been led by really its outstanding chairwoman, marsha fudge. they've held eight hearings throughout the country, giving voice to many not generally heard in washington, d.c. too many americans view themselves as shut out of our representative system, and others can't participate because of election administration procedures that fail to consider how americans live and work in the 21st century. some of these barriers to participation make it harder for certain populations, including communit

i would simply point out that the process has been enjoyed and the president is exercising his appellate rights as is his right as would any other citizen have that right and there's no reason to exclude that right from the president when the case is finally litigated you may get what you desire and you may not, but i don't see the value of including it in this resolution that we're hearing today. it's almost as if we want to give our blessing to perhaps further the case against the president and the courts. i don't think that's the purpose of this resolution. >> and i appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. there is value here and certainly the continued pursuit of these documents is within the prerogative of the congress and that's why i would ask my colleagues to vote no on your amendment. >> mr. raskin? >> just to echo mr. pearlmander's point. under article one we can shape the impeachment investigation however we like and oversight is part of it and the ways and means are part of it because they have relevant evidence to bring forward and all of them will be sending evidence to the jud

we have drafted something ready to file when the case when the time is right at the appellate level. but, you know, this is a difficult issue. one, because it is -- and we've taken strong stands, there are bills that are there to undo the rule. we can always do a congressional review act. but you do need both houses. and at this point in time even if the house were to pass something, it is, you know -- there is -- i don't see a path through the senate. so i just will say one last thing about it. it is also an issue that for many democrats is not a difficult issue to talk about but that's not true for all democrats. the question is, what do we do? and if not every democrat is there or every democrat is comfortable taking that issue on, you know, sometimes just, you know, doing something for public appearance' sake may not be the best move. there are a lot of dynamics at play. a lot of people care a lot about it. we are very much rooting for and trying to support the litigation now. i think we will have to take, you know, we'll cross the bridge when we get to it. >> okay, crossing the

mountains, the appellation mountains, and is poised to go into the interior. if there is an origin to the upset of the balance of power in north america by the middle of the 18th century, it is a relentless pressure of british colonists for more and more land and space to put into agricultural production, to replace native people with english farmers, with german farmers, with scots irish farmers, with enslaved african labor, and to push farther and farther into native territory in order to achieve those goals. by the middle of the 18th century, much of this competition has come to focus on a particular part of the landscape, which people in the 18th century called the ohio the arearoughly centered around what is today pittsburgh and into the states of western pennsylvania, ohio, adjacent.nd points these places are where british settler colonists and the british empire have their sights set for the next place in which .hey're going to expand it also happens to be the place where native peoples, many of whom have already been pushed out of their homes farther e

those qualities also search are very well later on in the appellate court in arizona and ultimately the supreme court. tha experience wast part of her formative years that made her such an important person and an affect a person. there is one other thing that is kind of interesting. evan mentioned she had a short time in private practice. i didn't find out until much later that the person that she had the private practice partnership with, tom tobin, was the brother of my law partner. in san diego when i was guess aboutlaw, i the same time. i never had the chance to meet her that. it was interesting. i think probably you can say that she, it implied by both of the speakers, and that is she learned a lot from every experience she had and utilize those qualities when she came and culminated in a very effective stint on the supreme court. >> i want to get to the confirmation process but i think i want to loop back to jay, because one of the thing i am pulling out, out of evan's book and in this conversation, it is sometimes hard to reconcile these two people we are hearing about, one who s

been reversed by the appellate court and then of course the legal sufficiency. when you deal with some of the article 120 offenses that or are where the charging in her is incommittees, looking in detail at whether or not a certain legal stad has been med met for incapacity based on the fact patterns you have -- and this surrounds a lot of the -- some of the inkpapable of consent due to impairment been intoxication anis kass where you have a blackout involved and going to the case law to review the factual and legal sufficiency would be a standard that we're -- that we should be focusing on as well. >> i'm probably glood that the affairs now just, you know, answered the question originally the way that we answered. and so the idea of reasonable likelihood -- that's not what we use. and i'm not saying that we shouldn't. i'm just saying -- i think we -- we look at the case in a much more clear cut fashion and try to remain objective about what the probable cause standard means and, again, looking to, you know, the desires of the victim and their -- and wanting to

and about possible appellate moment? >> generally, the way it looks is if an issue arises during the hearing the svc will stand up and have the opportunity to object or make an oral argument. in some cases thshgs is the ideal situation. trial counsel has talked to the svc, sometimes things resolve before they come in. sometimes they have to object the argument as to why a particular issue is affecting their client's rights and argue on behalf to protect their clients' rights. that's typically the way it looks. at trial, obviously, that's going to be a little bit more formal with written motions and everything else, but at the 32 hearing it's usually oral argument, and sorry. the second part of your question? >> just whether it's sufficient standing to protect your rights and the 32? >> yes, we believe that it is sufficient, and that we haven't really had any issues that have risen to the point and we have to actually file an appeal through that avenue and so we haven't actually tried to do that or see what happens to the

term, so a twost month ago, she had been on the andrmediate appellate court a year and half later she is running these cases and still talking to students because they are so important. >> linda? >> i think her most lasting decision was her earliest decision, hope versus mississippi women's university. boxesme on and there were and case files all piled around her office for. she organized the system to try to get to the first conference in the fall so she would look competent and she got there, she found out justices organize their system different than the obvious one, so she had to run back and re-organize her casebooks. saying it'sshe is ok to be the first, but i don't want to be the last. case where the eight male justices are divided four theour, so she has to make fifth vote on whether it is constitutional to segregate public universities by sex and she cast the decisive fifth vote to say that it was unconstitutional to segregate public universities by sex. in 1981, is 15 years later that -- court decided virginia united states v. kennerley military case, so i would say she lay

the invasion appellant -- the -- took place onluja september 15. operation market garden, the failed operation that became wasn as the bridgetoo far launched on september 17. in fact, this aircraft above our heads is a veteran of that battle. twoears ago in today's, -- days, this drop the airborne division into battle. arraymarks the 70 that an of the start of the battle of the forest on germany's western border. as you may know, we at the museum pride ourselves on bringing personal stories to life. i like to call it the patchwork quilt approach of kelly history. by telling enough personal stories of those involved, you start to understand larger human saga that the war became. chris hartley, our author tonight, understand that intimately. that's the approach he has taken with his book and that's exactly what he has done. in his book, the lost soldier: the ordeal of a world war ii g.i., he tells the story of one soldier and his wife and their two daughters. this is truly a family story, not just a story of taken root, chris chris's family, for is t

but also, don't forget of course that at the end of the day, if the appellant doesn't get the relief he seeks in the court -- in the state itself -- they can go to the supreme court. that's the backstop under younger. >> i wanted to ask about the text of the supremacy clause. i mean, it can be -- the use of the word convicted does imply, arguably, that you can't bring criminal proceedings until after the impeachment process has -- has -- has played out. and there's a conviction. and -- and what's your response to that argument? >> your honor, i understand the language and the implication of that. again, we're not -- that's not here. we are here, don't forget, on the question of the subpoena, which was long settled i think beginning in 1807 by the burr case. so that again implicates the sort of olc memo question whether hypothetically there could be a charge brought against the president while in office. i think people could argue about the implications of that language versus other provisions. you know, again, hypothetically if we want to entertain that kind of thing, you know, you c

should the appellate petition for certiorari will be can requested that the supreme court hear the case and the current taint - - term and then further forbear enforcement of the subpoena until the supreme court either deny certiorari or issues an opinion whichever is sooner. third, appellant will immediately withdraw all pending motions in this court. that i understand to be your understanding. >> that's right. >> you may be seated. >> me and please the court. this appeal presents two fundamental issues prickle first, whether the district court should exercise jurisdiction or abstain as it did. second if the district court should've exercise jurisdiction if it was invalidated of the subpoena under temporary presidential immunity, we feel those papers as to both questions and that the court would enter judgment. >> both sides will have all the time that you need to make your points. as i understand your complaint. you allege you began producing documents to the da's office in response to the trump organization subpoena until you learned that they purported to cover the tax returns as yo

involved, at the appellate and of any effort to enforce subpoenas. >> the chief justice, if there is a trial, serves as the judge. >> the constitution says and impeachment of the president, the chief justice is to be the presiding officer. to a large extent, the chief justice does not do very much in the proceedings. he convenes and makes provisional rulings, but in the end, the senate itself decides what the ruling will be and what evidence will be permitted. if there is an objection to the evidence, a chief justice might make a preliminary ruling but if the other side doesn't like it they put it to the vote of the full senate. >> steve bannon is telling the new york post he expects the house to convene and impeachment vote in the next six weeks. if that were to happen, when could we see a trial in the senate? >> there are some questions about whether or not the senate is obliged to have a trial at all, that has been discussed a lot in the media. i think the answer is the constitution certainly implies an obligation on the part of the senate to hold a trial. it is remarkably terse o