event and itmazing gives us a wonderful note of hope for the supreme court. because as justice thomas, a wonderful justice, i clerked for him, was laying out, the whole purpose of the court is to be interpreting laws according to the way all representatives have -- our representatives have written them. this is how the constitution use it. -- views it. he views it as a democracy enabling branch, making sure the government stays within what is signed by the president. as long as we have justices doing that come we should not worry about the politics because -- their personal politics are, because ultimately, the decision goes to the representatives. we are free to amended as we choose to, but that is something hew to as well. i'm encouraged, that we are not here to rewrite the laws or the constitution as the supreme court. but simply to give voice to the people, and what they have put in place as laws and we have the opportunity to change those laws, as well. i think it is a great tribute to the system we live in. host: this battle will move front and center th

court and the sounds like there would be different iterations of the supreme court. >> maybe. this is the same debate about whether the court could be allowed to sit in three justice panels. the court actually often acts through one justice, when you have emergency applications, the so-called data docket. it's not open and shut on this question. i think there is a more room than we might think in a different world in a different time. >> other questions? >> yes. >> please. >> my name is alain. this is beyond fascinating and stimulative. we've talked about lower court processes, but it seems to me a lot of these things, the concerns we have with the deadlock and who's in power, all of the nominations for district courts and circuit courts,. [inaudible]>> of course, in theory, that could happen. that hasn't happened, but there has been a real slow down in the last year of the president's term and, as i indicated earlier , you end up only with real consensus pics or surrenders, getting confirmed especially after some point in the late spring or early summer. >> if you can forgive

that is probably very good news for conservatives going in the right direction, the supreme court, all those circuit court nominations make a huge difference. >> tell me about them. >> i want to thank you and jim demint for putting this together and inviting me. i am surprised there are so many people because i thought everyone was working at transition headquarters. and back to the airport i asked my taxi cab driver to take me to trump transition headquarters. it is nice to participate in a panel, for the consequential in the last 50 years. and byron's point, not just supreme court justices were important, and how the trump administration will interpret and enforce federal law and have more immediate importance about the constitution in the supreme court. when he was attorney general, gave a famous speech at tulane law school where he called for jurisprudence of original intent, seen as a radical concept in the late 80s, i did a study a few years ago, and there was criticism from my colleagues in the academy, in journalism. and the following five years, 500%, it is just as consequenti

why does the supreme court have nine justices. it was at that in 1969. congress tried to take seats away from andrew johnson to basically keep the court out of reconstruction and took the court a long time to recover the credibility and the power and procedure lost. but we're looking at now is any mechanism of power, any leads that congress and the point to four nominations for the supreme court will he deployed on the ground that everything is okay when it comes to the sprinkler nomination. at the end of the day, working a look back and say everything that happened is independent in our system. >> i think you're getting lost in process. to clarify, my position is not the justification for what republicans are doing is that the democrats put it on the same. think that's true and it's important to keep that in mind that the deeper.is what we're talking about is a long-term battle over judicial philosophy, over different understandings of the constitution, over the role of the supreme court. now for decades, there has been a view of the constitution, so-cal

supreme court has spoken. ere be no doubt -- well i strongly disagree with the court's decision, i excepted. i except the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next monday. tonight for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, i offer my concession. host: professor zelizer, analysis of that from al gore. guest: it is a pretty remarkable speech. if you remember the moment, he references his early concession call, which is on the night of the election. what happens is about 2:16 in the morning, fox news called it for george w. bush, called florida for bush and all of the networks followed. gorecame clear after al had offered a concession that it was not settled yet. gore talked to bush and said circumstances have changed and a very tense interaction between them when bush is saying the governor, his brother, called it and it was over. gore said they would have to have a recount to figure out what the vote was area he referenced in the speech with a joke. --e broadly, the jok

>> i want to be clear, i was in favor of repealing the filibuster for supreme court nominees. i just want to do it for the exact number of years the democrats would do it for lower court nominees. i actually would like to get back to a state where there was a filibuster. general mukasey said the senate has its own internal rules. the only way to get changes in the senate is tit-for-tat reciprocity. until you get the democrats to see what the world will look like when the republicans have a non-filibustered senate, they will never be persuaded to go back to how it was. maybe byron is right, in the end, republicans like having a non-filibuster world so much they never go back to it, too. in the longer run it, it is better for our republic to have a filibuster rule in the senate. mr. mukasey: until the democrats get a dose of their own medicine, they will not learn a lesson. but i think wiser heads may prevail. >> other questions? >> thanks. there was some discussion about the electoral college. and of course, president-elect trump will not be president-elect until the official vo

but to think about the diversity of the supreme court there is very little there are nine state supreme a court justices and go lower state court judge and a law of people did not go is every single sitting justice would. >> if you want diversity are you looking for politicians on the supreme court? with the previous positions don't want them to look political but that is the natural place to look. >> but the market was supreme court justice to have political backgrounds but what did they do when they are on the court? but the court is diverse if you look at the election mapectm to see where it comes from. >> all of this sitting supreme court justices exclaiming justice kagan with one exception on the last the there wasn't anybody in those places on the court of appeals for the armed services. that is pretty unsurprising.an as opposed to say that to get those nominees tonight at the confirmation that they expected. >> when do think they will get the nomination or confirmation hearing? >> there is no reason to rush. i have been saying for the last nine months there is no crisis on the su

with the very first supreme court did. that they developed with judicial review for constitutionality. and then until after world war ii. and then compare the system. >> thanks for spending time with us today but did your view of the in-house counsel role has evolved. where would you like to see that go? but what i observed is the role of the council. >> ian did the responsibilities yes. and then be farmed out to the law firm. with the pro bono institute and has been instrumental with pro bono representation. >> josh -- "twa 800" device how we can carry on that legacy to fight the good fight? >> in the easy job with asked explicit gender lines almost all of them are god but what is left so my favorite example of that whiff uh critics have the of blindfold test. and to get a wrong as often as he wouldn't get a right. so that people will know who is behind that curtain. almost overnight to all over the country. but i think back but in the '70s it was against at&t for disproportionately all of this standard creche area where

is very good news for conservatives who want to see him go in the right direction not just the supreme court but for all of those circuit court nominations that make a huge difference. >> john, can you talk about this? >> first i want to thank you and senator demint for putting this panel together and inviting me. i'm surprised there are so many people here because i thought everyone at the heritage was at transition headquarters already. when i got to the airport i asked the taxicab driver to take me to trump transition headquarters in the drop you off here instead. [laughter] it's also nice to participate in a panel for center named after general mesa along with general mukasey one of the most consequential attorney generals we have had in years. he goes to jonas and byron's point that it's not just supreme court justices who are important but also who the attorney general who the attorney general is and how the trump administration is going to interpret to enforce federal law in some ways is going to have more immediate importance about the constitution. remember general mesa when he was

continue to appoint women but i will go down in the history books to appoint the first woman to the supreme court and then did a search and came up with a super nominee of standard day o'connor. >> when she came to the court she was all alone 12 years there was a bathroom but it was labeled the men and then should have to go back to her chambers the sign of change was evidentnt because they hurried up the renovation so although one is back there was equal in side. [laughter] to the men's. >> now there are three women on the court. >> with that public purse that -- perception in then all over the bench one side and one end with the justice k. again. so we went there but as you know, very well and they are not shrinking violets. there was a competition between justice scalia and justice d 22 past the most questions. that to beef performing very well. justice o'connor, she's been there for the last 10 years but nobody calls her justice sotomayor t. [laughter] >> this happened with a the mail justices that were confused so what is thatwhat i like in oral argument when i first arguta case in 1983 ther

so he has a supreme court. supreme court fights get nasty pretty fast. there is that. plus, the, dismantling of obama care. the building of the wall. his policy agenda. right away. is -- is one that, that is going to require some, some massaging. starts to talk about. >> but we didn't have a divided government. we have a republican senate. and a republican congress. >> there is a filibuster in the senate. >> they filibuster the senate. his supreme court nominee. which will return the court to being a conservative majority.

the supreme court. can we expect democratic senators och -- to attempt to block all supreme court nominations? >> the democrats retained the filibuster with that possibility. vote and then when there is the change.ck and then to block. and as a political loser from the standpoint. >> with you would hope to filibuster their appointment. but as senator mcconnell pulled off another greatat political maneuvers by not confirming arab garland. at the time allotted people thought this was a very low probability of success but instead he has preserved the up possibility for us to have this discussion. so to take into democratic anchor so that is a ratcheting up the fact. and that they just insult to the president but this seat is still open. and to get back at this. >> the to make the point of senator sessions read that you were going to go with that era of magnanimity.lied >> that is the implied power did.ink >> not only did they get a good treatment but daylight to get them out of the senate. [laughter] roose

why the supreme court has nine justices. in response to the greatest in the courts history and then try to take away from andrew johnson and it took the court a long time to have that credibility of that period. but what we look at now is any mechanism of power that congress can and deploy a that everything is okay to the supreme court nomination . >> i think you are lost in the process. but the democrats would have been the same but the deeper point is money we talk about is a long-term battle over judicial philosophy so there is a view of the constitution from living constitution so if you want to talk about how to destroy the supreme court as an independent institution that insures that and it is against that very notion of the constitution as the document with the independent meeting whose job it is to interpret partially. so the bigger picture is the debate. so to get off citizen is united on one side. so one of two things is true. but in fact, reflects the alignment so on therefore it is not beholden horror in which cas

but the supreme court's notion -- the supreme court justices, they feel under pressure.or one thing, congress doesn't like the supreme court. the supreme court has a way of, you know, invalidating congressional legislation. so the justices worry about congress. and, you know, maybe they won't get raises if congress doesn't love them. so they want to create some sense of infallibility. so the notion that they decided a case a hundred years ago and they're still following it makes it seem as if, well, the supreme court must be really great, because it's, it can decide a case, and 100 years later it's still the law. so i think that looking backward is really, that's the worst thing about the profession, looking back. they made such a fuss last year because it was the 800th anniversary of magna carta. about which people don't know anything. [laughter] so they think magna carta is the beginning of the jury, and it's, you know, great charter of liberty. magna carta was about, it was this very unpopular king of england, john, really bad. and the barons who were, i think were a

not every justice on the supreme court has argued cases in front of the supreme court. john roberts, i think he argued 39. you are representing the aclu and you were one of the earliest people to bring these cases about gender equality, challenging federal statutes particularly that denied equal rights to women. >> warm and.d. >> that's right. >> tell us, what was that like arguing those cases? you are a bit alone. when we were talking the otherta day, it reminded me of justice thurgood marshall who was with the naacp arguing cases. you pointed out, what you say the difference and then segue into what it was like for you. >> i copied the strategy, and that is he developed. [inaudible] you probably remember the first and that series when texas saturday couldn't deny admission to law school to african-american simply because of their race. they set up a separate law for school for them. thurgood marshall argued separate but equal. this was felt so plainly as unequal.that c it's not easy when people make that comparison because it's a huge difference in that thurgood marsh

supreme court should be understandable to the average educated american, and how many hundreds of years ago did the court abandoned the rule? perhaps they abandoned it at the outset. we have an all-star panel, and i will begin by introducing them. michael mukasey served as the 81st attorney general of the united states -- the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, an appointee of president bush. 2007rved from november until december, 2009 and oversaw domestic and international law. he practiced law in new york for 20 years and served as an assistant u.s. attorney. he served as a district judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the southern district of new york, becoming chief judge in 2000. he is currently in private practice in new york city. and he received his law degree from yale. judge mukasey: llb. llp.wanson: we also have edward meese. [applause] mr. swanson: simon york is a lead correspondent for "the washington examiner" and a fox news contributor. he is written on every aspect of the obama administration and the presidential campaigns of 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000.

a large number, now look at the supreme court, for example. i'm thinking scalia -- i'm bringing scalia back from the dead. of those nine, one had been in trial court. now, it's ridiculous to have an appellate judge who doesn't have trial experience. so when i was appointed 1981, i have been an expert witness. i argued cases but never been a trial judge certainly. and one of the older judges said to me, since you don't have, since you've never been a trial judge you should volunteer to conduct trials in the district courts of the seventh circuit. so why did that. so i have been doing trials for the last 35 years. mostly civil trials. i have recently done a couple of criminal trials. i don't know why i delayed so long. real eye openers. in a lot of these trials have been jury trials, and i've also done pretrial work and settlement, sort of everything district judge is due, although obviously much reduced frequency. i think all of the judges who have been trial judges should be required to conduct trials. because he could never conducted a trial,

soledad: justice ruth bader ginsburg said it plainly enough, when it comes to the supreme court, eight is not a good not for what's supposed to be a court of nine who have the final say over our laws and their enforcement. over time, that has included everything from courts to jails and could go back to our doctors' offices and bedrooms. it's worth remembering that there is still a number nine in waiting -- judge merrick garland, nominated by president obama eight months ago this week, and whose nomination has been sitting on hold ever since. so where does that leave us? president-elect trump produced a list during the campaign, but of course he can nominate anyone he wants, and r legal scholar jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington university law school and a legal scholar. he was floated as a supreme court candidate himself, albeit by the libertarian candidate for president. jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington university law school and a legal scholar. he was floated as a supreme court candidate himself, although by the libertarian candidate for p

the supreme court banned the death penalty for juveniles back in 2005. that left life without parole as the harshest possible sentence for people under the age of 18. then in 2012, the court banned mandatory life without parole for all juveniles. earlier this year, the court made sure that included a review of all past life sentences. we were there when jones walked out of prison in september and i've been following his progress ever since. he's now 60. i recently met with him again to see how he's adjusting to life outside the prison walls. >> come here. >> come here. >> he still getting used to the grass under his feet. the clouds above and his freedom. >> i like to watch the sun setsi >> he was released from a correctiá(ruv&kill co(u+y tyrone went to prison on a conviction of murder when he was 16. he's nowñr 60. >> your wholj life is controlled and programmed. >> the transition to freedom comes with challenges. went to prison in 1973. no cell phones, no tv remotes. timed coffee makers. the learning curve is steep. >> things like making a cup of coffee

your the fourth woman to be appointed to the united states supreme court. which care recce long after? >> with center david o'connor is based and produce in will be on trial.dide but then with the members of the minority groups and the federal court. but then to leave the of people who laugh laugh but when ronald reagan became president not only will likely continue to appoint women to the bench but i would like to go in the history books as a president the who appointed the first woman to the supreme court. that he cannot put the super nominee, sandra day o'connor . but she was one and for 12 years there was a bathroom and she had to go back to her chambers that was evident so there was a woman's bathroom equal inside. [laughter] one. >> now there are three women on the court and there must be a huge difference and there are three. with that public perception and with them in the court they can see all over the bench areas i have been around so long. we are one-third of the corporate but my a colleagues are not shrinking violets so the competition between t

supreme court.hannon bream has the details. >> lorinda nicoll, one of trump's first new decision will be election of the supreme court nominee. the vacancy since the sudden of discovery in february. exit poll shows seven out of 10 voters for his department says the most important are a major factor in their voting decision. those who have identified the supreme court is a priority come the 56% voted in favor of trump versus 41% for clinton. two lists of potential nominees and campaign manager kellyanne conway says nothing has changed. >> is to be someone who adheres closely come it doesn't make up the loss. doesn't have a political agenda. 19 or so men and women who spoke forward fit the description. nicole: medically once clerked for justice alito. weeks ago brushing off the discussions said he was busy can get it to be reelected. this morning he congratulated trump hoping to repeal by mccarrick and reduce regulation and confirm conservative judges. another name on the list texas supreme court john

and jeffrey wall is coed of sullivan & cromwell where he's argued cases in the supreme court and many of our courts. he worked in the office of the solicitor general and his co-authored a brief on behalf of the chamber of commerce and the property casualty insurers of america in support of petitioner bank of america and wells fargo. so to begin just for those in the odd instrument of a family with the case, i've asked first steven bradbury to give a brief overview of the case and respond his position. although the purpose of his remarks is not to be an advocate, it's just nature as it understands understands what the case is about. and i've asked ajmel to fill in any gaps or perspectives he'd like to from the respondent side, and then we will start the discussion. >> thanks, amanda. so the case is wells fargo and bank of america versus city of miami. the respondent city of miami was the plaintiff, is the plaintiff in the case your this city is bring an action for damages under the fair housing act which is title eight of the civil rights laws. this city is claiming that the petitioner

he can change the supreme court, but he can't change the meaning. only the supreme court decides as a final matter what the constitution means. and they have said that what it means is it protects right to choose. there are still some questions that make it controversial. soledad: could it become a states right rather than a federal right? jonathan: it could if the court changed. and that's the reason trump is in a unique position. no president in our lifetime has now. he has one opening that he can fill on first day, and he has three justices who will be over 80 in his term. that means that conceivably he could fill four positions. if ginsburg, kennedy, or breyer retires, it will be a whole new game. it will be much like the early years of the rehnquist court, when they got a fifth vote and they didn't waste any time. they started to accept big we have gone through this period where judge merrick garland, for now all purposes, done as a nominee. i said months ago when someone asked me about garland, i said it's a very in washington when everyone is

students will read an opinion and sometimes it is not always the clearest and it is not just the supreme court, but it is courts of appeals and district courts, so what is your philosophy? justice kagan: it is hard to make law clear because law can be incredibly complicated and arcane. not particularly intuitive, some of the legal issues we confront. i try very hard to make my opinions readable and to make them understandable by ordinary people, even without law not particularly intuitive, some of the legal issues we confront. i try very hard to make my opinions readable and to make them understandable by ordinary people, even without law degrees, but people who will put in the time and effort and energy to read an opinion i hope that i will be able to be understood by those people. you do not want to dumb it down too much. you're not writing at a second grade level. it has got to be serious and it has got to take the argument seriously. you never want to oversimplify things, but to the extent that i can write something where i am not sacrificing the level of complexity that i think truly is i

supreme court? what's it like to stand on a global -- cabinet secretary and to be involved in discussions and situation room on the most controversial issues? as an american citizen i can't imagine a greater thrill other than being a parent and being there for the birth of my child to serve in that capacity. the white house is the most recognized no 18 acres of the world and people, from all over the world to catch a glimpse of it. why's it why is it so important and why is it so special? the most important in the world the most powerful person in the world is making decisions every single day. myself, clay in so many other dedicated americans really have a special privilege to serve in the white house and serve under president george w. bush. >> there were so many things covered as i said earlier in such detail. there were many things revealed in greater detail than i ever knew about. talk about the biggest revelation in your mind in the best of the book that they would find new insights to a new u

it was settled in the supreme court p court. i mean, it's done. >> reporter: but suggesting that he could try to curtail abortion rights by appointing justices to overturn roe v. wade and leaving further decisions to the states. >> and sarah joins us now. what are your sources telling you about a meeting between president-elect donald trump and his vice president, mike pence? >> well, we're expecting the two of them to meet tomorrow in trump tower and really begin to pore over some of the potential names for cabinet positions. and anderson, i want to are up you through a couple of them, because if a few are sure to raise eyebrows. for instance, when you talk about on education, they're likely to discuss michelle rhee, the former chancellor of the washington, d.c. public schools, but when you get further down the list, when you talk about treasury secretary, for instance, we've heard steve mnuchin, he was a fund-raising chair for donald trump, but also on this list, they're floating the notion of ben bernanke, the former federal

one of the arguments i hear over and over again, we have to save the supreme court. has become the red line. if hillary clinton limps into that office, you can expect this ugly campaign to be followed by years of obstructionism. the weaker she is, the more emboldened they will be to hold the line on this issue. >> i hear the same thing. there's two things i would say. one is it's remarkable that they've sort of bootstrapped this. >> yes. >> they've said we cannot -- we absolutely cannot confirm merrick garland who has been praised by hatch, is widely respected as a centrist jurist, et cetera. we have to keep the seat open. that becomes the reason to vote for what you just described, in your words, one of the most repellent human beings ever to run for office, is the supreme court. and now you have the escape hatch essentially being drilled into the back, which is -- >> yeah. >> sabrina, think about what burr is saying. i want people to be clear about this. they are suggesting essentially a dieoff on the supreme court. i want the be very clear. to say that we will kee

follow the supreme court on c-span.org. each week, american history tv's real america brings you archival films that provide context for today's public affairs issues. north dakota has been in the news recently as members of the standing rock tribe and their sympathizers have been protesting the dakota access oil pipeline, which would crossed the tribe's ancestral lands and environmentally sensitive areas. next, we travel back to the early0'

supreme court. prepared for a vacancy and the stories continued to perculate and i'm confirmed as attorney general of the united states. july 1st, we get word, i get a call from the new white house counsel, she calls me to say we have a vacancy. it's not who we expected. chief justice rhenquist had throat cancer and we were preparing for a vacancy at the chief justice position and i'm at the white house. the president decide that had we were going to have a small group of individuals make final recommendations to him about whs he would appoint to the supreme court. those people would be the vice president, dick cheney, the chief of staff andy, harriet, myself and karl rove, political consultant and i arrived and everybody is there except forr andy, he's on the telephone, via teleconference and talk about how we are going to prepare to roll out the announcement and how we are going to prepare to help the president make the decision. we talked about half an hour and we all get up to leave and presiden

below the supreme court. but not legislation and not the supreme court. so -- but that wouldn't surprise me if we go through a long and very contentious debate. that's always on the table as well. david by the way, did either of : you ever vote against confirming a supreme court justice? senator lott: i voted against -- and i think i voted for everyone in my 19 years in the senate but one. i won't mention his name because he's on the court. but i felt like -- [laughter] david but you can go to cq.com : and figure it out. senator lott i felt like he had : a conflict of interest. but i voted for -- i usually refer to this, ruth bader ginsburg because i felt she was qualified. i knew that she would vote on the supreme court on ways i almost never agreed with. but my thinking was -- and i think the attitude then was -- that elections do have consequences. presidents do have a right to their nominations. and once you go through the advise and consent process, i would hate to see the nuclear option imposed. i would hope that the senate could work through these

it would have been an honor to be the first hispanic on the supreme court but my response was fairlyple which was u. owe me nothing, i owe you everything. i'm grateful for the appointment of the attorney general and i look forward to getting your nominee confirmed. i left and i remember that day the story increased about me possibly going on the court. becky and i met for dinner that evening and i said i've got something to tell you. the first thing i said was i'm not going on the supreme court and in a sense there was somewhat of a relief. to leave washington, d.c. hopefully to come back to texas and it freed me up to do my job as attorney general, not having thathe pressure of possibly beig the nominee. but then i gave her the second bit of news and i said tomorrow i'm going to iraq. she said what and of course we minimized the number of people that know about the kind of travel because of security reasons. i think she probably felt better and safer. [laughter] but i think that history will look back at the appointment of john roberts and samuel alito and conclude the decisions. >>

solicitor general. 112th justice and the fourth woman to serve on the united states supreme court. our moderator, judge and clay or williams has also dedicated all of her career to public service. of colorhe first woman to serve as division chief in chicago and on the u.s. district court in illinois. she is the first and only judge of color. she cofounded "just the beginning" foundation. it aims to increase diversity in the legal profession and judiciary by inspiring more young, diverse people to consider legal careers. for the next 60 minutes, judge williams will have a conversation with justice kagan regarding her career and her long-term commitment to justice. time is short but before jumping in, i will introduce the audience to our judges, our panelists. these are public interest minded students who have come from all over the country in order to seek their fortunes in public interest law, correct? [laughter] they are interviewing for jobs and they want to find their way, their path to doing, devoting at least part of their career to public service. they're looking forward to he

the supreme court is the final say of that. but he can change the makeup of the court.isions like roe v. wade. i think that what most likely, the advocates on that side want, instead of a frontal assault on roe v. wade, is to chip away on the edges, to go for limitations of duration, conditions for clinics. it's a fight along those edges, and sort of incremental cutbacks. this is an incrementalist court. they're not very keen on reversing things in sort of radical decisions. but they do, in some cases, reverse things over time. so what i would expect is that the attacks would come from the margins and test cases from these states. >> but he needs really one more vote. five justices and the five are still on the court. kennedy, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor and kagan all voted last term for just those, you know, to invalidate just the kind of restrictions that jonathan is talking about. and those five are still on the court, even if trump replaces scalia with a, you know, similarly conservative person, he needs one of those five to leave. now, since three of the five are o

that's a supreme court holding. the court says that that injury, that claim by the city was sufficient to confer standing for the city under the fair housing act. so that's 1979. then another decade goes by, 1988 congress amends the fair housing act. and when it amends the fair housing act, it uses this word aggrieved, it establishes a single mechanism for parties to sue under the fair housing act, and it defined aggrieved to adopt existing law and reaffirm the broad holding of gladstone. so why are we even here? the supreme court has already effectively decided this question, decided that cities can sue under the fair housing act and sue for these kinds of injury wheres. so i don't think that's a close question. i think unless the supreme court wants to overrule gladstone, wants to rule havens, which is even more out there, it's a nonprofit organization whose resources are drained as a result of housing discrimination can sue. i just, i think it's unlikely that after what happened in texas fair housing that that's w

rebecca: the current supreme court? mr. bharara: the current supreme court. that is the sense one got. i'm not prejudging it, i'm not making a prediction, and i'm not waging money on it, but there was clearly a deep sense of concern based on the questions that you heard from the lawyers at the supreme court arguments that it did not seem to be right or reasonable that you could be, for example, the ceo of a company and if you are not expecting any concrete financial gain in return, some financial benefit in return, you could, three days before releasing your earnings, bequeath it as a gift on your son, daughter, college roommate, knowing that they will make $20 million to $30 million in the trade. that did not strike people as being prudent. rebecca: what about trying cases in the press? mr. bharara: we don't do that. i think it is important in my job to talk about problems that you see. obviously the first , responsibility is to make sure that anybody you charge gets a fair trial. i have never spoken anywhere outside of the four corners of the complaint or t

that is an amazing event and it gives us a wonderful note of hope for the supreme court. as justice thomas, a wonderful justice, was laying out, the whole purpose of the court is to be interpreting laws according to the way all representatives have written them. a democracyas enabling branch, making sure the within what iss signed by the president. as long as we have justices doing that come we should not worry about the politics because ultimately, the decision goes to .he representatives we are free to amended as we choose to, but that is something they have to -- , that we are not here to rewrite the laws or the constitution of the spring court. but simply to give voice to the people and we have the to change the flaws as well. it is a great tribute to the system we live in. host: this battle will move front and center this year as donald trump replaces justice scalia. the trump campaign making a list . what kind of fight do you think we will see in the senate? guest: what happened to merrick garland, who was confirmed to the d.c. circuit in a bipartisan manner. republi

justice by designation to provide which is how number of supreme court's filled open seats either with retired or lower court judges. i don't think they would have to be reconfirmed from the post of retired justice. congress would have to authorize them to do it. >> do you think congress could do that with respect to already retired justices or would that change be effective only with respect to those appointed to the office of justice later on? >> imagine the constitutional argument and that constitutional arguments differing in those two cases. my own personal view is that would be within congress's power to still provide it but i think we agree that this is a holy academic question. it is true that among the many reforms that have been discussed in the supreme court having nothing to do with politics at the moment one of the objectives has been four cases that actually been in recusal providing mechanism for someone to provide a vote. i think that's a conversation worth having although not right now because of the political impossibility. >> you would want to do it behind the v

going back now, al gore conceding after the decision by the supreme court. here's what he had to say back then. >> moments ago i spoke with george w. bush and congratulated him on becoming the president of the united states and i promised him i wouldn't call him backck this time. i offered to meet with him as soon as possible so we could start to heal the divisions of the campaign and contests we just passed. almost a century and a half ago stephen douglas told abraham lincoln who just defeated him for the presidency, partisan feelings must yield topatrio patriotism. i'm with you mr. president, and god bless you. in that same spirit, i say to the president elect what remains of the partisan rancor must bebe and put aside and may god bless his stewardship in this country. neither he nor i anticipated this long and difficult road. certainly neither of us wanted it to happen, yet it came and now it has ended. result does that must be through the honored institutions of our democracy. over at the library of one ofw our law schools is inscribed the motto not unde

then, ultimately, as an associate justice of the united states supreme court in 1991. we mentioned, we were discussing this before we came in tonight, that last sunday was his 25th anniversary as a member of the court. [applause] i cannot introduce clarence without also mentioning his lovely wife, who is with us tonight. she herself has a distinguished career in the city, and in the country, both in civic activities and think tax, as well as in tv. we are pleased to have you with us also. [applause] when i say that it is very appropriate that clarence thomas be our joseph story lecture tonight, it is because of his lifelong and particularly judicial period of dedication to the constitution of the united states. he is in my mind, one of the clearest writers on the supreme court, and his clear writing has made it clear, if you will, that the constitution, as written, should be interpreted according to those, who as i mentioned, wrote it and ratified it. that is an important part of preserving the thoughts and ideas that ronald reagan had when he first appointed him to a p

one of the functions of this court, the supreme court, is not only to decide cases but to set down the rules and reasoning to guide lower courts. so holmes allowed to much subjectivity and gave lower courts no guidance in establishing criteria for the first amendment protections. brandeis began working on this problem in a series of dissents culminating in the greater opinion in whitney versus california. he labored on the one difficulty, because he had joined abrams and holmes, and because homes hadn't joined him in subsequent cases, he cannot just dispose of the clear and present danger. but he gave himself room to maneuver and in one case in which homes -- holmes joined him, he described clear and present danger as a rule of reason. he seemed to have got to where he wanted to be when the court heard the case of another political radical, rutenberg versus michigan. he and his clerk prepared a powerful dissent, but before the opinion came down, rhythm bird died -- rutenberg died in a chicago hospital. brandeis filed away the dissent, but soon afterward had a chance to dust it off, pol