marking the 80th anniversary of d-day, starting live at 6:30 a.m. eastern on thursday, on the c-span networks. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of vernment. we're funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> when connection is needed most, cox is there to help. bringing affordable internet to families in need. whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there. >> cox, supports c-span a a public service. along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. h, ed whelan .

we are talking about the supreme court in upcoming decisions they are yet to issue by the end ofp june. i want to start with justice alito's letter on calls for him refuse -- recuse himself from s home, is that i had nothing to do with it. as soon as i saw it i asked my wife to take it down. my wife and i own and she theree has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit. there were no additional steps i could have t tflag taken down m. you agree with him? guest: i agree with his decision not to recuse. it is easy. on that was spelled out years ago in a different context spouses

views and actions however passionately held andi spouse. the exact situation we have here. it is in stark contrast to other episodes that get little attention. back in 2016 during the presidential campaign that ruth bader gave two prominent interviews in which she of republican presidential candidate donald trump. she called him a faker s't beene his tax returns. she even said i can't imagine what the country would be with donald as the president. i can understand her saying those sentiments but sing them in national interviews and she never recused from cases involving the 2016 election. up on donal's release of the

taxes, she didn't recuse. you had the justice herself engaging in conduct that presented a stronger case for recusal than what we have here in the conduct of justice alito's wife. in the ethics it s they should recuse themselves in a proceeding where impartiality might legall questioned, when unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of relevant circumstances would doubtnç the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. in the new york timesr to congress he says notably at the justice alito letter does not dispute that the upside down flag conveyed suppo■b and before the court this term is a case dealing with a january 6 brian turk.

-- january 6 rioter. guest:guest: in the legal aftermath of this ugly neighborhood this reporter went down and determined this was a neighborhood dispute. alito saia sign of international distress. no one back then thought■1 this until two weeks ago and i can't imagine one person in 100 in this country would associate an upside down the movement alito did not address the points. it was irrelevant because whatever she meant by it had no bearing on his obligation to sit in this case. you cited the standard for recusal that what comes fir is the general obligation.

host: there was another flag, the apalwas flown at a different property inand this from the pon nation from the washington post, today it is an emphasis that the flag is embraced by eight movement that has become ever mo comfortable with the idea that political violence might be necessary to save erica from those largely the left. extremists say they are fighting communism and satanism that they blame for societal ills, talking about the appeal to heaven's flag. guest: heaven flag flew over a san francisco hall for dec until they decided it last week to take it down. ag all sorts of different meanings. this is a flag george washington authorized and is flown w÷ely.

the idea this is some sort of symbol that we understood as stop the steal is far-fetched. host: interpretations very and it is said they appealed to have that flag broadly to host political id that mythologized his revolutionary are a precedent for a modern-day uprising. guest: francisco city hall was flying that flag over its building as it was for decades up until last week and that interpretation is r-fetched. host: the january 6 case that i referenced talked about the decision before court that these justices had to make and the impact of it. guest:5 the question before the court is whether a former president has criminal immunity s for actions taken as president

and if so, what the extent of the immunity is. this is a question that notust to donald trump's conduct on january 6 but to his course of conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election. ■erli was and remains very critl of his conduct during that period. that is a separate matter and legal question whether he has immunity and we will see with the court rules in the next few weeks. host: think about not getting that decision yet from the justices? doou read intohat or not? guest: that case was argued barely a month ago. the court is right near the end of its term. still half of the cases are yet to come out. it is a very intense and busy time for the court.

i would be surprised if the ruling had come out by now, especially given all the issues that were raised by lots of different jti■a thinking through the consequences of this issue. i think it is very likely the ruling will come down in the probably day of the term. host: this is an opinion piece from msnbc where they say the court rump immunity gets more outrageous by the day, each day without a ruling on immunity from the justice is an intentional delay. was written r house judiciary committee member. he writes in the piecehat is moe supreme court had the chance to consider the issue in december but chose not to and decided to take the case in february. now it is dragging out deciding

the case. guest: with all respect to the author that is far-fetched reading. no one would expect a case like this consequences and importance to be decided so quickly. through and get it right. there will probably be more than see how anyone familiar with the operation of the supreme court could taking two s it will probably to issue the opinion in this case. host: other we are waiting on from the court as well. we want youconversation to talke cases before the court this term. you can do so if you are a republican at (202) 748-8000, democrats at (202) 748-8000, and -- republicans at (202) 748-8001 , democrats at (202) 748-8000,

at (202) 748-8002. what else are you watching it for from the court this term? guest: are testing my memory on those yet to be decided. host: if you have the two abortion cases. do you think those are key cases to watch? guest: they are certainly interesting and important cases. one is involving the fda ap pilland that presents intereg questions on legal standing. we will see what the court has to say on that. host: a legal test for a standing, what do you need for that? standing is legal jargon for whether or not a plaintiff has a right to pursue a claim in court is no general tax payer's

standing. i can't say i object to the weight the government is spending z. ths a case for how am i suffering particular injury from that. the question is the plaintiffs, the doctors associationssuffered the other abortion case you referred to is a very complicated one involving how a federal law and how it fits with idaho's life of a mother exception for abortion. i think the court will end up determining that federal law does not override the state law but we will see. host: there are also a couple of cases before the court dealing with social media companies,

facebook and content moderation. what do you think the court comes down on those cases? guest: those aren't cases i follow closely i have to acknowledge what based on oral argument it seems the court may not have a lot to say on those. people are looking at some decisive ruling may be disappointed. the court cases with big issues and they end up being st: we are waiting for the justices to decide on a case dealing with the january 6 rioter w i of disrupting official proceedings. guest: this presents a technical statutory question about whe ofo be dealing with destruction of records can be interpreted more broadly to relate to any interference with a proceeding.

it has implications for the prosecution by the actions of donald trump in that one or two of the charges against him are rooted in the same provision. it is also the provision could be interpreted in a way, even if it doesn't apply to this one protester but might still apply to donald trump. interesting and challenging questions. we will see. it wouldn't surprise me if there is a broad ideological consensus on that one. host: let's circle back to the idea of recus. what to think about some calling for justice thomas to recuse himself based on his wife's actions? guest: it gets back to the same standard, set forth in a casen which a ninth circuit judge's wife had participated in a very

case in which she was sitting. the organization she led wrote the amicus brief and she had sessions and celebrated on the ruling. yet the judge did not recuse himself and theyd the supreme court a spouses views and actions howeverde passionaty held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse. and not presumed to be th's beliefs. that broad principle is correct. in that case it was conquered by the fact that judge reinhardt's wife had participated in the >> we take you back now live to the u.s. house where members are about to vote. live coverage on