joining us now is nina totenberg. she is npr legal affairs correspondent. she is a long-term supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling. it's a real pleasure and honor to have you with us tonight. thank you so much for making time to be here. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answer to all your questions. >> well, let me ask about those last couple of points first. can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, what the ruling said today about a conversation between a president and justice department officials? >> well, what the court said is that the president is unlike -- the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government, the house and senate have hundreds of members. the judiciary has hundreds of judges, and at the top of it are nine supreme court justices. but the president is just one person, and he controls the entire executive branch is basically what chief justice roberts said. and that means he controls the justice department too. and he can call up the justice department and say do

p joining us now is nina n totenberg. she is npr legal affairs correspondent.en she is a long-term supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling.on it's a real pleasure and honor to have you with us tonight. thank you so much for making wi time to be here. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answer to alll your questions. h >> well, let me ask about those last couple of points first. can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, what the ruling said today about a conversation between a president and justice department officials. >> well, what the court said is that the president is unlike -- the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government, the house and senate have hundreds of members. the judiciary has hundreds of judges, and at the top of it are nine supreme court justices. but the president is just one person, and he controls the entire executive branch is basically what chief justice roberts said. and that means he controls the justice department too. and

joining us now is nina totenberg, nbc legal affairs correspondent a long time supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling. miss totenberg, it's a real honor and pleasure to have you with us here tonight. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answers to all your questions. >> let me ask about those last couple of points first. can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, what the ruling said today about a conversation between a president and justice department officials. >> well, what the court said is that the president is unlike -- the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government. the house and senate have hundreds of members. the judiciary has hundreds of judges. and at the top of it are nine supreme court justices, but the president is just one person and he controls the entire executive branch is basically what chief justice roberts said. and that means he controls the justice department too and he can call up the justice department and say do this or don't do this at least as i understood what the chief justice was

nina totenberg just telling us moments ago that legal observers and experts including what she describedaisle meaning both sides of the ideological number line were in her words astonished by how radical this ruling was today. former president director counsel legal defense fund responded to the ruling by saying this, "today's decision in trump versus the united states is a grotesque and hideous distortion of the rule of law by a majority of the highest court of the most powerful democracy in the world. the national and global implications of a pending this core principle of democracy has potentially catastrophic national and global implications." vernon e jordan junior distinguished chair and civil rights at howard law school. it makes me happy to see your face. i am really glad you could be here tonight. thank you for making the time. >> of course. >> justice roberts criticized the liberal justices' dissent, said they were striking a tone of chilling doom, essentially saying calmed down, ladies, accusing them of overreacting and betraying the ruling's consequences as something that the