ultimately, the supreme court to interpret the law. the question really originally was kind of assumed that the supreme court would be the weakest of the three branches. i think it was hamilton i believe in 1778 that said the court would be the weakest and something to -- to not be fear. hamilton was probably a great officer during the revolution the aspect revolutionary war, but he was a lousy profit. today, the role of the supreme court is one that has almost always been in contention. in order to make this system work and also again to protect against depression, the founders developed some other precautions you might say as the separation of powers being one, but also such things that the fact that the laws had to be vetoed by the president and the laws really required two groups, the congress on the one hand and the legislature itself further to check on power as the constitution originally read when the senators was elected by the legislatures of states. that was to protect the power of the states in this federal organization. so

the supreme court is spoken. it is of the law of the land. he constitution says the constitution and laws pursuant to it and previous made under authority of the united states are the supreme law of the linker it does not say that the supreme court's interpretation what the constitution and the idea that supreme court mistaken interpretation fits in the constitution means x, that that should be the law of the land is i think an absurdity. we also tend to say things like the court struck down that law. as though once the court rules,, the law disappears from the statute books because law professor jonathan mitchell has put it there is no writ of erasure. there is no power of the courts to go in and erase these laws on the books and it did use some of these laws that have been rolled unenforceable by the supreme court remain on the books and are open to springing back to enforceability if and when the supreme court were to reversed its position. we see this in the famous legal tender cases from the 1870s. in 1870 itself and hepburn versus grenfe

but so roger's question is, is a clearly right supreme court decision the supreme law of the land? no, a clearly right supreme court decision is a clearly right supreme court decision and it is, therefore, you know, compelling evidence, one would say, of what the constitution means, but i don't think that that changes the fact that the -- when the constitution says that it and federal laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, it doesn't say that supreme court rulings are, and there's no reason to treat them as such. you know, the 9th amendment, i know, is a perennial source of dispute between roger and me, so i will let myself get baited here. like roger, i believe that the text of the 9th amendment should be strictly followed. unlike roger, i don't think that the text of the 9th amendment remotely says what he imagines it to say. the 9th amendment reads, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. by its express text, it merely sets forth a rule of construction governing other constituti

what is the role with the supreme court, what is the relationship with the supreme court, and what is the responsibility of the president a and the decisions of the supreme court. that leads us to today's debate where the topic is "resolve congress and the president are required to obey the supreme court's interpretations of the constitution." to moderate today, we are fortunate to have tom dripping, deputy director for the center of legal and judicial studies and a senior legal fellow and he is teaching the history of government. he was on the staff are orrin hatch for 15 years. he served several of those years as chief counsel on the senate judiciary committee. before that he spent almost a decade in various public policy organizations and the conservative movement. he has a national reputation among both liberals and conservatives. he's written a number of articles on law and public policy and several of journals, op-ed pieces, articles in both print and on-line publications, and he will be taking on the responsibilities of refereeing -- excuse me -- moderating today's civil debate

. >> i don't think that the doctor matters at the supreme court, but i think the way the supreme court is perceived by the public matters to future supreme court cases is -- cases, and how justices write opinions can affect that. >> i actually admired justice kennedy for taking the high road i think the supreme court does better than the vast majority of american society and disagreement with some sort of respect, but i admire justice kennedy. i don't inc. that affected the durability, but i think what might in fact how enduring his opinions are as a matter of law is because, and i am not sure i am right about this, but because they are less final, you are more likely to have confusion in the lower courts about how to apply them, and it might make them more likely to get to this record which could rewrite it or overturn it in a way different from what justice kennedy intended. this is a point that i saw that jamaal made after justice kennedy announced his retirement and regardless of how many of his opinions are still good law, he made the point that he wrote an incredible number

the u.s. supreme court. the sense of compliance in fact was not lost on a reporter for the new york times, who spent one of the registration days in the rough-and-tumble neighborhood on the east river waterfront in manhattan. there, that day, 3,528 men, many of them who were longshoremen and dockworkers and drifters, the people who filled the neighborhood lodging houses, they registered for the draft without complaint at the makeshift office of the new york board member 92. as the reporter wrote, there was no use complaining. to ask the average registrant of what he thought of the affair would be to receive a shrug of the shoulders and the acknowledgment that he had no use of having any thought on the subject at all. furthermore, it was the law of the land. the new york newspaper reporter marveled at this unprecedented registration for military service. it looked like part of the american second nature. but in fact it wasn't yet part of the second nature, and adopting, enforcing, and upholding the first unive

of litigators space off in a trivia competition, answering questions on the history of the united states supreme court. the national constitution center and harry this -- heritage foundation cohosted the contest. it's about 45 minutes. >> good evening. i'm elizabeth slattery. welcome to the heritage foundation. thank you for coming to our supreme trivia event. we can hear one of our teams out there. they will be coming out in just a minute. we have two teams tonight of top supreme court litigators who are ready to go head-to-head in rounds of trivia about the supreme court's history, trivia, scandals, and much more. i would like to introduce my cohost, representing the national constitution center, children gilberts -- sheldon gilberts. thanks for being here. >> welcome to the super bowl for law nerds. we will kick things off by introducing the teams. it is my privilege to introduce team jefferson. with team jefferson -- >> boo! >> the heckling has already started. come on out, team jefferson. we start with lisa blatt, who heads up -- [applause] up arnold &eads porter's supreme court practice. sometim

washington left office, president john adams nominated the 36-year-old, bushrod washington, to the supreme court. elizabeth: all right. we are moving to a new category, supreme scandals. let's first check in with madison. we have a tie. all right. team madison, are you ready? sheldon: this is the best category. [laughter] elizabeth: who is the only justice to resign under threat of impeachment? >> [inaudible] elizabeth: that is correct. after it came to light he had accepted a bribe in exchange for seeking a presidential pardon for a former client who was faced with securities fraud charges. sheldon: all right. which justice killed a man in a duel? which justice killed a man in a duel? in fairness, there are two possible answers. elizabeth: surprising though it may be, there are two. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> maybe we should go with that. sheldon: i think go with your first instinct. >> marshall. sheldon: i'm sorry, it's not marshall. there are two. elizabeth: let's see if team madison wants to steal. team madison? >> our first answer is stephen field. elizabeth: no. >> can we give another on

then even on the supreme court, justice roberts is one of the less outspoken people. eaking, the court speaks through its opinions and justice roberts because he's the chief also issues something of an annual report every year. he will usually talk about some issue related to the workload of judges around the country or the pay scale of judges around the country. i'm curious to see what he writes about this january 1st, and maybe it will be about this issue. justice roberts, pretty extraordinary because, a, he is a fairly, if i can use the colloquial term, a mellow guy. he believes in institutions, but he also had an opportunity to know he had an opportunity to issue the statement, knowing that this president when pushed or rebuked or criticized from any source, no matter how hal lowed whether it is the pope or the supreme court justice of the united states, he is going to comment back and he did on twitter. now i think you will see justice roberts sort of be silent, having made his point and defending his brother and a sister judges around the country, which i think w

the supreme court is operating. i've never been a complete spouterrer supporter of everything the supreme court does. a judicial conservative is someone you writes an opinion over what you do agree with. the debate of whether it's an alive or dead constitution. i used to fight with my friend anton sceleah, he would talk about how the constitution was a dead constitution. my response is, your partly right. there are parts of the constitution that a are dead. the requirement that you be 35 to be president, is dead.if if you're 34 in 10 months you can't be president. and if you're 117 and senile you can be president. there is no prohibition of it. that's dead. on the other hand, how can you say that the part of the constitution that talks about equal protection or due process or cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require some interpretation, even justice scalia wrote a brilliant decision about whether or not the fourth amendment applies to gps's that are put on the bottom of cars so you can track people. what he basic

made its way to the supreme court. the supreme court said, again, the city can't arbitrarily zone out a house that is providie housing and accommodations for persons with disabilities. it really is unconstitutional now to say, you cannot put a group home here now, for example. >> [ inaudible ] many are living on homelessness. there really is no place for people to live. >> and, again, what happens is they're either on the streets -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, for health care, they go to the emergency rooms and a lot of them wind up in our jails. vagrancy laws are still around. not ugly laws but vagrancy laws. yeah, that's where they wind up. we need a better social compact, my friends. a better social compact in our country than what we have, but that's another side, that's another story. >> among budget cuts we are going to be facing, how vulnerable are the programs for people with disabilities such as title 19, social security act? more vulnerable than everybody else, or just equal? >> probably more vulnerable. but th

george hw bush, the district court, president clinton, to the circuit court, and president obama come to the supreme court. somehow, she has also found time to write some books. about her life in particular, i commend them to you as well. but let me just turn the program over to justice sonia sotomayor, it is a privilege for me to introduce her at this time. [ applause ] >> it was a miserable night last night. >>> good evening everyone and welcome to the court. i am delighted that so many of you could join us this evening for this first lecture in the supreme court historical societies 2018, leon silverman lecture series. this term as you heard will focus on the supreme court in world war i. 2018 marks a century since the first world war ended. a fitting moment for our societies first series to focus on that important chapter in our nations history. this lecture series is named for the historical societies late chairman and president, leon silverman, who is a titan of the new york legal world. it was impossible to practice in new york as i did, without knowing leon. he was everywhere. among the many

trump comes before the supreme court, your point is i presume that the president will have soiled the notion of supreme court justices, the federal bench as all agents of politics? >> exactly. so you know, look, anyone who practices before the court knows these justices are going to make the decisions they make based on the law but they're not going to do it based on their antipathy toward a particular person. so no matter how much donald trump says all this stuff i don't think it's going to matter to the ultimate decision. but the president has taken so many ridiculous legal positions, it's a fair bet that this supreme court is going to say no to him on some things. and what i think president trump is doing right now is laying the groundwork for an attack on the institution of the supreme court an attack on the institution of an independent judiciary. so when he loses he'll be able to say oh, it's just those biased judges, they were upset with what i said, what i tweeted, they were upset politically, who knows. but that's the danger when you have something like this. and that's why p

it is really going to be up to the supreme court to weigh in with her every district court judge, almost of them across the country, should have this level of power. bret. >> bret: shannon thank you. saudi arabia's foreign minister says the kingdom's diplomatic efforts are on firm ground and will endure. his turkish counterpart is being a lot less diplomatic about president trump's decision and announcement that he is standing with the kingdom. correspondent benjamin hall has our story. >> seven weeks after khashoggi went missing, there has been an immediate backlash to president trump's statement. as it was released, the turkish foreign minister was in washington and met with secretary pompeo. he said the killing should not be covered up for the sake of trade. >> translator: this is a humanitarian issue. it is a murderer. we cannot say our trade will increase, let's cover it up, let's ignore it. >> other politicians in turkey accused the u.s. of turning a blind eye to khashoggi's murder and dismissed comments by the president as a comic. they said they will now push for a secondary u.n.

the supreme court has rejected that view. one of the things that emerges from the cases that i examine, is the way that different supreme court justices have different views about the role of teachers in american society. sometimes those who wish to have deference to school authorities offer an incredibly rosy understanding of the dynamic that exists between teachers and peoples. often that can be a role of mentoring but sometimes it is an adversarial mode. including one important those imposing corporal punishment, thinking about due process rights with respect of suspensions and another thing that the question triggers for me is thinking about the transforming nature of the public school. that is to say, in the 1980s, it was relatively rare for police officers to be in public schools and now the presidents of uniformed police officers are especially in our urban schools. so again, i think the shifting nature of the relationship if the child is level of problem child or as some kind of behavioral issues the teacher is require

you think a lot about the supreme court. you think about how to convince nine justices of the court to agree with the governmental position on various things. i used to say the only difference was that one was trying to convince nine justices, my current job is trying to convince eight justices. [laughter] it is a job where you are sort of steeped in the supreme court. the solicitor general supervises all appellate practices throughout the united states, but the main job is to think about supreme court business. i used to go to every argument anyone in my office participated in, which was about three quarters of the argument. i would go to about 60 arguments and think about what they were interested in, think about the things they were thinking about. i would think about their procedures. by the time i got to the court, even with a fairly short stint as that, i was sort of in the mode of thinking about the court. that was exceptionally helpful. especially considering that i had not been a judge. in some ways i think the best,

. -- introduced by senator the supreme court chamber. i am vice president of the historical society. we want to welcome everyone here to our first lecture of the leon silverman lecture series which is dealing with the supreme court and world war i. 100 and of the end of world war i. we have an interesting lecture tonight and the series will be interesting for you. before i go further, i'm it struck did to tell you to please turn off any cell phones, apple watches, whatever other gadgets you may have, so they do not interfere with our system. thank you. host is just as sonja sotomayor. we are please to have her with us. we want to thank or on behalf of the society for giving up time when we call upon her to participate and events like this. it is quite important to us and quite important to you. we very much appreciated. i will tell you about the justice. she is a native new yorker, born in the bronx. about lasthappy night's baseball game i gather. [laughter] she did her undergraduate at princeton, went to jail law school. the joined the d

the court is not deciding these questions in the first instance. it's held by a district court and the court of appeals. what the supreme court does is mainly, it's a checking process to make sure that the case was properly adjudicated and make sure evidence was admitted that shouldn't have been left out or excluded and should have come in. so the experience i think with these questions of scientific information, i think the experience in the district courts and the court of appeals, they are the front line adjudicators of those questions. it's interesting that we do have in the system one kind of specialized court, the federal circuit that hears all patent appeals. judge tatel: i was going to ask you about that. but it turns out that we, but it doesn't end with the specialized court. the supreme court reviews decisions of the federal circuit, and we have taken a fair number of cases from the circuit so there is a generalist court making the last judgment in the case. and if there was an expectation that the federal circuit would review not only the regional courts of appeals, handling patent cases, that the supreme cou

when i was clerking, the supreme court decided -- if you take a slightly longer view of this, where the supreme court will be when you are the age of the people on the panel and what the supreme court's approach to gay rights will be at that point, it is very different than over the next short-term. so, one of the things you should be thinking about is, where do you want to move the court over your professional lifetime more than just where is the court going to be over the next 5 or 10 years. history is longer than that >> if you can be quick, you can be this you can have the last word. >> i am from george mason university. the question relates to a question about the gay rights cases that you and a lot of people mentioned is not that clear with doctrinal -- maybe what is going on is a confluence of several things that come together in gay rights cases like it is a group with a seemingly immutable characteristic the rights in question in many cases involved intimate or private behavior. it is very important people with ongoing liberty and autonomy. so, kennedy mentions all of these ele

, we don't get the benefit of many courts of appeal. it interferes with how the supreme court -- that is true. the supreme court relies and likes to have circuit courts disagree because it gives them a better opportunity to come up with the right decision. this invalidates that. and of course, i don't think there's any law that says the district court can't but the district court didn't indicate why, in this instance, we shouldn't give further consideration to that. so that is the first point. let me roll-on and then you can answer the entire one. the other difficulty is that comes into this case is we have pointed. very carefully in our court decisions that studying and then coming up to get a decision from us isn't going to help too much in the final episode. that is, we have a different standard of review, and permanent injunction, it comes up with testimony instead of just written issues. and so, we are pointed out that there's no big reason to come up here and get a permanent injunction, try to indicate that in the seven cases. in our courts. so, what is the problem

you think a lot about the supreme court. you think about how to convince nine justices of the court to agree with the governmental position on various things. my current job is trying to convince eight justices. [laughter] it is a job where you are sort of steeped in the supreme court. supervisesor general all appellate practices throughout the united states, but the main job is to think about supreme court business. argument go to every anyone in my office participated in, which was about three quarters of the argument. i would go to about 60 arguments and think about what they were interested in, think about the things they were thinking about. theird think about procedures. i was sort of in the mode of thinking about the court. that was exceptionally helpful. in some ways i think the best, single preparation for being a supreme court justice is being a solicitor general. there were a lot of differences between appellate judging and judging on the supreme court. i would say, less obviously, i think about what i used to do i

the u u.s. supreme court began on tuesday. at is when donald trump criticized the judge whoho had stoppeped his newest asasylum py . that was a policy that was suppososed to block asylum reququests foror illegal immigrs crossing intnto the united s sts from mexico. donald trump called that judge on the ninth circuit court in san francisco and obama judge. the reaction from john roberts, the chief justice on the supreme court, came on an official statement from the u.s. supreme court saying that there was an independent judiciary in the united states. the response to that from the u.s. president of course came on twitter and did not take very long, donald trump insisting there are, in fact, politically motivated and politicized judges on the courts of the united states. he says there are, indeed, obama judges. donald trump has had a very intense relationship with the supreme court during his time as u.s. president. he has managed to get two supreme court justices, two conservative supreme court justices confirmed on the highest

justice ginsburg: but it turns out that we, but it doesn't end with the specialized court. the supreme court reviews decisions of the federal circuit, and we have taken a fair number of cases from the circuit so there is a generalist court making the last judgment in the case. and if there was an expectation that the federal circuit would review not only the regional courts of appeals, handling patent cases, that the supreme court would also be spared, it hasn't turned out that way. judge tatel: i take your point about the supreme court reviewing -- you are not addressing these complex issues initially. they come to you from the district courts and the courts of appeals. but in recent years, there been an increasing number of amicus briefs become direct to the court that offer fairly complex statistical and scientific information that hasn't come through the lower court fact-finding process. that happened, for example, in the texas affirmative action case, where an amicus briefs submitted a very complicated methodological approach to disproving the affirmative action argument that was

the washington post said this wondering why does president obama criticize the supreme court so much. kristin fisher is looking into the details. >> donald trump challenging individual judges is nothing new. what is new and truly unprecedented is the chief justice of the supreme court has responded. tensions between the executive and judicial branch in the trump administration has been building for some time but it really boiled over when district judge john to your. and obama appointee, ruled against the new asylum policies putting them on hold. the caravan of migrants moved closer to the united states donald trump tried to change us asylum policy so no one could apply for asylum if they enter the country illegally but they had to apply for asylum at this point of entry but judge to ruled against prompting this response from the president. >> every case that gets filed in the ninth circuit, we get beaten and we end of having to go to the supreme court like the travel ban and we won. the ninth circuit, we have to look at that because every case no matter where they file it, practicall

don't worry about that second decisions because it is not the supreme court. i don't think that is any way to run a agency court or run a government. agency was free to keep on doing it until the supreme court gives the final answer, i don't think that is the way the system does or should operate. there's no reason to read congress' good cause provision that way. judge kleinfeld: in i correct in understanding your argument on no bearingwas have on, say, epa regulation to protect a particular environment or species or something? here the good cause is limited to where there is at least statutory and possibly constitutional protection under the first amendment for the activity that would otherwise be impaired? mr. rienzi: correct, your honor. the statue says the government shall not. they have an obligation not to impose this burden on the little sisters and other folks' religio us liberty. the state calls it a ubiquitous and unremarkable instance. i would say it is the opposite. it is utterly unique, and this doesn't happen every day were it is the seventh time

the law. i like to think of myself as somebody who was good for arguing in a particular court, in the supreme court. i would have to convince someone who comes in with an important trademark case, who could hire the world's leading expert in trademark law or me. i would tell him, look, the supreme court does not think your case is a big deal for trademark law. if things your case is a big deal for how regulation relates a the statute and how particular provision in the statutes should be read. you need someone who reads it like justices do. half of the time, they would say that i want somebody who knows something about trade law. [laughter] justice roberts: and that was understandable. they would get there in front of the court, and there are two experts in trademark law. the justices are not that interested in a lot of those. sometimes they would be speaking , over each other. prof. stein: do you think the media tends to focus too much on sharply divided 5-4 decisions? justice roberts: they have their own audience to worry about so i'm sure they focus on what is important to them. it is not t

in my decades of covering the supreme court, i haven't seen anything like this. the president and the chief justice airing their dirty laundry for the world to see, no doubt, neither wants the other stepping into his land, but president trump's arrival on the scene as a candidate, it's that new ground rules for how this relationship is going to work. folks a member during the 2016 campaign, justice ginsburg called the president a faker. she said he is not consistent, he says whatever popped into his head. she commented on his healthy ego and said the press is too easy on him. she talked to "the new york times" and said she couldn't imagine what this country in this world would be like if donald trump was president. going on twitter today, trump said her mind is a shot and it is time for her to resign. but she made clear she has no intention of doing that anytime soon. >> sandra: the president was talking about the number of cases that go to the ninth circuit that then get overturned when they make it to the supreme court. we ran these numbers by our brain room thi

the supreme court chief justice appointed by president george w. bush has been striving to bring civility to the bench. >> we speak for the constitution. that job obviously requires independence from the political branches. >> reporter: it was his statement defending the judiciary that provoked the response from trump. all this tonight as the president finally submitted his answers in the questions. but special counsel robert mueller may be far from finished with the president. guiliani, one of the president's lawyers, is bracing for new questions from mueller about potential obstruction of justice. a move he said the trump team would fight. we'll consider them and answer them if necessary, relevant and legal, guiliani telling cnn. if it was something that would be helpful, relevant, not a law school exam. as trump opens his six-day holiday visit to his florida resort, guiliani's comments tonight signaled the russia probe and the president's role in it is very much alive. despite repeated attempts to diminish it, like yesterday while leaving the whi

the beltway. when we talk about supreme court, we talk about supreme court judges he's so disappointing to me. but, but -- i hope i don't have a case before the united states supreme court any time soon. that's how i feel. >> i look how it played in the room. you heard the applause from what the president said about chief justice roberts. what happens next? john roberts made this unprecedented step of making this statement. president fired off in twitter in response. we won't have a lot of back and forth and how does that handicap the supreme court justice and the judicial branch as a whole? >> well, public relations wise i think it presents a challenge particularly as the president now turns his fire and fury against the supreme court. from an institutional standpoint the supreme court is very much well protected. this was a president who campaigned, david, on the notion of appointing supreme court justices to the supreme court. he's already appointed two. there's openings now for even more potentially in the conclusion of his first term and if he were to be re-elected for more judicial appoin

intends to do here is ask the supreme court to bypass what's going on in the lower courts and go ahead out and take this issue away from the courts that are now considering it. this is something the supreme court almost never does and this is something the trump administration has been doing more and more of late. what they say in a brief filed with the supreme court today is that if they wait for the lower courts to decide, it will be another year before they can get this before the supreme court. they say that the military has decided that a transgender policy would be a threat to readiness, good order, sound leadership and cohesion. they are saying let's get on it with. why not take it now. a similar request before the supreme court is pending on the daca policy of president obama. the supreme court generally doesn't take these things. what they like to do is see how the lower court decides things and then take them. they are almost never granted. the trump administration says this is one of the cases where you should grant an exemption. we don't know how soon the supreme court will

the judgment from the supreme court cleared the prosecutor not have a weak case. on anybody just a minute accusation and enough to get anybody and so did. martin. laws should be wholeheartedly and it should be in conjunction with principle but it cannot be based on people taking the law into their own hands they did that dangerous precedent president that said bad for the supreme court granted there are a lot of people in pakistan who are deaf by the fact that deeds elements are still active and threatening and undermining the writ of the state to mouth thank you to mao hiding in islamabad. what's more still ahead on al-jazeera when we come back we'll look at the notorious life of mexican drug lord el chapo he goes on trial in the u.s. on monday. and president trump appears to do a u. turn on a threat to shoot undocumented migrants at the u.s. border. and over the severe weather over the mediterranean is now easing it has been incredibly heavy over the past twenty four hours particularly of parts of sicily three mainland italy and up into slovenia we have had repo

the supreme court has agreed to have more than one decision is a very good thing for the supreme court, which court will eventually make the decision. so, maybe we should set aside that stay, that nationwide stay, in light of the actual admonition that we've already had from the supreme court. what would be your response to that? >> your honor, i think looking at whether the district court abused its discretion here and where the government hasn't pro offered an alternative to a nationwide injunction, there may well be -- it seems to me there would be administrative difficulties and burdens for the government to impose anything less than a nationwide injunction where there's an accommodation and an exemption process in place with employers located throughout the country but employing people within the sovereign state. >> well, that argument might have -- i might have accepted that argument except that you, the state of california, are going to delay the final determination because the supreme court isn't going to care what we say about a preliminary. they will care what we say about a

historical society and because of that, important to the supreme court. what the historical society does is very significant to the court in promoting understanding of the court, of the constitution, and i don't know if some of you saw the very sad news today that justice o'connor is retiring from public life because she is in the early stages of dementia. in the statement that she wrote, in very typical justice o'connor fashion, she used this sad occasion to do good. if you haven't read her statement, please do so because she talks about the importance of civic education for our society, for the way that we govern ourselves and for the way we live in a democracy, and surely, the supreme court historical society should go down on the list of institutions that do such excellent work in

now the supreme court being asked to weigh in. eeing the mueller probe into alleged russian occlusion in the 2016 election and is given no indication he will recuse. some white house supporters worry that kavanaugh and his conservative colleagues could do to trump what they did to his predecessor. justice clarence thomas last year ruled against president obama's decision to appoint a top labor board official without senate confirmation. presidential power of another sort. in february, the justices were weighted to the controversy over plan statuses and should question to the twin twentysomethings. also on the high court's docket whether this war memorial in the shape of the cross violates the constitutional separation of church and state. it's on government land and lower courts have ordered its removal. could be the first divisive social issues justice kavanaugh will face, testing his conservative credentials. his approach to these hot button issues, say legal experts, may surprise some. >> he's not going to try to establish a rep

do you believe based on your view of what the supreme court should be that the reliance on the supreme court, to have that role is mistaken? justice roberts: no. the point i was trying to make in the examples i gave was the important part of our role is to support viewpoints that are not the viewpoints that are dominant with the majority. for example, i am pretty sure that in west virginia versus barnett was decided, if you took a poll, most people would say schoolchildren should be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance. but because we have the supreme court independent of political pressure, the court was able to say no under the first amendment. that child and the child's parents cannot be forced to express views that they don't agree with. the same thing perhaps in the steel seizure case. president truman needed a piece in the labor area in connection with the korean war. i don't know what the vote would have been about whether or not he should be able to take over the production capacity. those were all meant as examples of the role of the court to protect mino

i don't want to impetus to the supreme court. the court needs to step up on a range of individual and structural rights which we can talk about but i think the court has too often inserted itself. that's bad for the quartz reputation. it helps in siebel congress and state legislatures. it distorts the presidential election i can 2016 when many voters on both sides of the aisle didn't much like the candidate the said they were voting for who they reporting simply because of who they thought the candidate would put on the supreme court. that was borne out for trump voters in getting gorsuch and cabinet. everything also leads to some of in part the confirmation circus that we had with kavanaugh. because the stakes are so high because a single vote can mean so much. you wind up having a president and the senate in voting, producing the kind of results that we had. i want to give the floor to alan. i may not get it back, but let me throw out the question to you that tries to illustrate my point spirit by a show of hands tell me who thi

the u.s. court of appeals, for the sixth circuit and justice sonja of the supreme court. andrew manwell an assistant professor of law here at hls teaching criminal law and criminal procedure. his research focusing on the institutional design and administration of the criminal justice system, looking especially the administrative role that the courts play in regulating law enforcement behavior. before entering academics, the professor served as a staff attorney with the public diff service district of columbia, graduating magna [null] laude from hls in 2008, where he served as the first latino president and went on to clerk for judge stephen reinhardt of the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit and associate justice stephen breyer and associate justice elena kagan of the u.s. supreme court. professor charles reed is the beneficial professor of law and has been teaching at hls for some time. from 1985-1989, professor freed served as solicitor general of the united states and then that is the associate justice of the supreme judicial court of massachusetts from 1995-19

look into it now the second part of those petitions is to seek basically a stay order until the supreme court decides on the petitions whether the constitution was violated or not basically the petitioners want any preparation for an election halted either by a stay order or what the supreme court could do now this all within a sort of a political uncertainty in this country all started off on the twenty sixth of october with the president sacking a prime minister on a vehicle missing or him appointing the former president by him that rajapaksa in his stead and essentially continuing with a number of measures which many critics have said antidemocratic that go against the spirit of the constitution of sri lanka yesterday a prison might be a policy saying that in another address to the nation a recorded address basically set out his reasons for the dissolution of parliament one of the things he alluded to is the sort of trading of m.p.'s to make up the numbers and the behavior of the speaker coverage a serious so all eyes on the supreme court and the decision it will meet our rights and i'm ve