The most recent programs for the Supreme Court Cases - 2003 Tag http://www.c-spanvideo.org/browse?topic=811 en-US Copyright 2013, National Cable Satellite Corporation info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT Tue, 21 May 2013 09:33:29 GMT The American Constitution Society's Georgetown University chapter discussed the case, [Tennessee v. Lane], which questions whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, passed by Congress in 1990, applies to the states and state public buildings. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case earlier in the day. Mr. Goldstein was attorney for the plaintiffs in [Tennessee v. Lane]. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179932-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179932-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT Mr. Fireman talked via telephone about the Supreme Court's ruling, delivered earlier that day, regarding campaign financing. Plaintiffs argued that provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In its ruling, which upheld key provisions of the act, the court noted that "governmental interest" in "preventing the actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders" was important enough to justify the law. The case, [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission], was decided together with a number of other cases challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179533-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179533-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT America and the Courts featured three events: 1. On December 2, attorney Jay Sekulow and his client Joshua Davey, defendant in [Locke v. Davey] talked with reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court building following oral arguments in the case. In the case Joshua Davey sued the state of Washington for denying him a scholarship, to which he otherwise would have been entitled, if not for his decision to pursue a degree in theology. At issue was whether or not a Washington state constitutional ban on the use of public money for religious purposes had resulted in a violation of Mr. Davey's First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. Judge Starr told reporters that he had filed an [amicus] plea on behalf of Joshua Davey. On the other side of [Locke v. Davey], Solicitor General Pierce, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Diament, and Mr. Mincberg talked about the separation of church and state argument. 2. On December 3, Allan Favish spoke with reporters following oral arguments in his case, [Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish], in which Mr. Favish had filed for the release of death scene photos of former deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster under the Freedom of Information Act. At issue was whether or the rights of Mr. Favish and the public under the FOIA would supersede the privacy rights of Foster's survivors, or vice versa. 3. On December 5, members of the U.S. Supreme Court posed for a formal group photograph. Video clips were also shown of each justice during the photo session. The last group photo was in 1994 when Justice Breyer joined the Court. This year's photo may mark the first time the justices posed for an official group photograph without a change in membership. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179470-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179470-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT Mr. Savage and Ms. Gearan talked about upcoming Supreme Court cases. Among the cases discussed were a case challenging the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, a case involving religion majors who apply for state scholarship money, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law case, a case involving Internet pornography, a case on political redistricting, a re-examination of the 1966 Miranda ruling, and a case on police roadblocks. A brief audio clip of oral arguments in McConnell v. FEC was played. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178740-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178740-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT America and the Courts featured a one-hour excerpt of oral arguments from the September 8, 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission]. The program is audio only, with still photographs being shown of the persons speaking. The original hearing is 4 hours long. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178165-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178165-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT An audio record of oral arguments from earlier in the day in a case over campaign finance reform legislation were played over still images of the participants. Arguments focused on limits to unregulated, or "soft money," campaign contributions, new restrictions on some forms of campaign advertising, and campaign contributions by minors. This hearing took place in an unusual session prior to the normal Supreme Court term and lasted four hours. It also was only the third time audio of a hearing had been released on the day of the oral arguments. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178062-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178062-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT Judge Starr, attorney for Senator Mitch McConnell, and Mr. Potter, attorney for Senators McCain and Feingold, talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission] in which oral arguments will be heard September 8. The case is about campaign finance reform. Mr. Starr will be arguing against the law before the Court. Former FEC chairman Potter supports the law and is on the legal team with former solicitor general Seth Waxman, who will also be arguing before the Court. They responded to audience telephone calls, faxes and electronic mail. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178050-4 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178050-4 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT America and the Courts featured three events: On Tuesday September 5, [Washington Post] Supreme Court reporter Charles Lane discussed the campaign finance case [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission], which would be heard the following Monday by the Supreme Court. He outlined the law, the legal case, and the profiles of the eight lawyers involved. The case had several unique aspects. The court held a special session in order to hear the case, and allowed 4 hours for oral arguments. The two central and contested elements of the law were the regulation of "soft money", formerly unregulated donations to political parties, and regulations on "issue ads", advertisements indirectly supporting or attacking a candidate, which run in the last few days of a campaign by groups not officially affiliated with either candidate. Supporters of the law argued that such regulations were necessary to protect the integrity and the appearance of integrity in the political process. The law's opponents claimed that the issue was one of free speech. They said that donating money and funding political advertisements were a constitutionally protected form of speech. On Thursday September 4, two years after President Bush nominated him to the Washington, D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals, Miguel Estrada withdrew his name from consideration. Senate Democrats held a news conference in reaction to the announcement. Democrats in the Senate had been filibustering the nomination since February of 2003. In their news conference, the senators blamed Mr. Estrada and the White House for refusing to answer questions and not cooperating with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Republicans, who supported Mr. Estrada's nomination, also held a news conference that day. They claimed that Mr. Estrada had been treated unfairly, and blamed Democratic senators for using filibusters to block judicial nominees based on political ideology. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178066-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178066-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT Senator McConnell's counsels talked about the U.S. Supreme case [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission] that they will argue September 8. The case is a challenge to the 2002 Campaign Finance Act. After their presentations the two counsels answered audience members' questions. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178048-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178048-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT The U.S. Supreme Court will consider legal challenges to the 2002 campaign finance law on September 8. A panel of legal scholars and Federal Election Commission officials discussed the pending case, [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission,] from a variety of perspectives. After their presentations they answered audience members' questions. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178030-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178030-1 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT