each time, the court has gone to the supreme court at least twice. each time, the supreme court has referred to the agency's determination. how many times will the court do that after all of these flip-flops, to where they say hey, maybe this needs to be looked at. if you do not know about the case, watch for it. if that is the case, i would welcome any general comments on chevron p -- chevron deference. >> we have been watching that case with some interest. my colleague argued a piece in that case. it was a long-delayed case. i am very interested to see what tom johnson at the fcc and the chairman want to do on the latter piece. i do not know what they should do on the preemption piece, but the court has been looking at chevron. they had a couple of cases last term that signaled a willingness to push again, the typical deference that agencies get. i do not know this would be the right case to find the challengers, but i would want to take this up to the court, and use net neutrality and all of its baggage as a way to tee up chevron. applicationme th

the court has remained above the fray for many years because growing up we all learn about the court in civics lessons as political body. in the current composition with the 5-4 conservative majority that has control over the court, we are seeing it behave more and more politically. court headed to where the is going to become an issue of controversy, much like it has in other parts of our history. you had politicians running against the supreme court because it continued to strike down acts of congress and state legislation intended to help workers and provide labor protections. you had people like teddy roosevelt running against the court fdr also. i think we are heading to that. host: a text from mark in kentucky -- how was it obama was to electn his efforts supreme court justices and trump has been successful. guest: there are some things we can control and some things we cannot. one thing the trump administration has been good at emulatehould seek to their streamlined efficiency at identifying candidates for judicial vacancies and sending them to the hill as quickly as possible

court cases that are already on the docket in their first round, including two that the supreme court issued about an hour ago. this is how brilliant they are, they know every case the supreme court might consider. and they will say so themselves. in a shorter round, they may comment on each other's comments on the cases or they may talk about other cases that the supreme court might take later in the term. and i will return to the podium after about 45 minutes to recognize your questions. moderator today, back by popular demand, is well known to this audience and to the millions of viewers on c-span. and that is a good thing, because we agreed to keep introductions very short. but his titles alone say a lot. he is a senior editor at national review. he is a columnist for bloomberg opinion. he is a fellow at the american enterprise institute. and he is a contributor to cbs news. a seniorly, he is fellow at national review institute, our partner. take it away. >> thank you, todd, for that generous introduction. i would like to join todd in thanking my friends at the pacific legal found

all of the lower courts except for one ruled against the trump administration, and the supreme court granted review. generally when the supreme court grants reverse, it is to grant reverse so the good money is that trump wins this one, and i don't know how he wins this, and the how is more important than the what. perhaps the court holds that this policy, and sorry that the rescission is not like review or some jurisdictional ground, but that is going to allow trump to do what he wants to do, but not weigh in on the components, and why is that important, because elizabeth warren or whoever may decide to reenact daca, and so i am hoping that the court will decide if this is legal and john roberts disappoints me every year, but we will give them three stripes and that is all i have. and we have other cases. >> you will be surprised to learn that women on this panel volunteered to do more case thas than the men, and so we will not take up anymore of their time. go ahead, carrie. >> i will look at the phrase that contained "entitled to sex" and other cases. so the title vii is going to b

this opening day of the 2019 term of the supreme court, we discussed aggressive efforts at federal court reform. viewers might recognize you from work in the obama administer ration justice department. you have found it "demand d "demand -- founde justice." grassroots and awaken them to the crisis we believe is recurring in the -- occurring in the federal judiciary. probably the longest legacy that donald trump will have will be his lasting imprint that he left in terms of the judges he has nominated. he has confirmed 150 federal judges, including two supreme court justices quite famously. it is not just the number of the judges at the historic nature of how ideology clean extreme -- how ideologically extreme they seem. point is we can win at the ballot box at 2020 and defeat donald trump and win back the senate and yet all of the priorities may well be facing certain power because we have a judiciary that is hostile to the progressive ideas because trump will have any -- so many trump style judges that will be with us. host: how you activate the grassroots and how are you funded? lobby

that is not sick courts or in federal courts. this court should redact that argument because a court has said many times over many decades sixth amendment requires unanimous verdict to convict. in particular what the court has said is the sixth amendment right to trial by jury carries with it the essential common law and the, authorities are uniform, explicit, and absolute. unanimity is an absolute requirement to trial by jury. the reasons the common law commentators gave that role resonate just as powerfully now as they did then. we are not prepared to take with someone's liberty unless a cross-section of the community uniform agrees that criminal punishment is appropriate. i don't think the state disputes that historical account or even that unanimity is central to the proper functioning of the jury trial right. what the state says are two primary things. first, the drafting history of the sixth amendment suggests the framers meant to dispense with that historical role, and second, that that historical requirement of unanimity

supreme court. a nationwide search and came up with a spectacular choice in justice sandra day o'connor. david: when president clinton became president, you were somebody being considered and then president clinton talked to somebody pushing for your appointment, daniel patrick moynihan, and president clinton said, women don't want her. how could that have been the case when you were the leading lawyer in gender discrimination? why would women have not wanted you or some women not want you on the supreme court? jus. ginsberg: just some women. most women were overwhelmingly supportive of my nomination. but, i had written a comment on roe v. wade and it was not 100% applauding that decision. what i said was the court has an easy target because the texas law was the most extreme in the nation. abortion could be had only if necessary to save the woman's life. it does not matter that her health would be ruined, that she was the victim of rape or incest. i thought roe v. wade was an easy case and the supr

i cover the supreme court for the washington post. thanks for coming on this crisp fall day to hear about the supreme court. i would like to thank the federalist society, in particular the faculty division. for putting together what we think will be an interesting panel on what looks to be an interesting term at the supreme court. after the trauma of last fall's confirmation hearings, there has been a thought that those who watch the court went out of its way not to look partisan last term. to look for ways to bust up the ideological divide on the court in some cases. controversieslk to keep them off that docket. been well documented that each of the conservative judges justices. it went the other way. each of the liberals at least once abandoned his or her usual voting partners and joined the conservatives. harmony could be harder to find. here's a look at the docket. whether gay or transgender workers are protected under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. whether the trump administration acted illegally in moving to end the

so if the extension were not to happen we would ask the court to affirm the district court on the basis and most importantly because of the lack of success on the merits. >> with the district court with the continuing supervision so if it was properly dismissed because they would be other steps along the way where these issues need to be resolved by a federal judge quick. >> as i look at it everything has been fully briefed and the district court certainly did not rule on this as a preliminary injunction with full merit-based injunctive relief if this court upheld that decision, maybe there's a trip to the supreme court but i don't think they have to look at anything going forward. >> was at a permanent injunction quick. >> he dismissed the complaint and with that decision on the injunction. >> and to say there would be any further proceedings in the district court. >> what about the next subpoena quick. >> which subpoena quick. >> the one you're thinking about right now. [laughter] >> do they file another 1983 action to other institutions quick. >> not if this court affirms the distric

may it please the court. this appeal presents two fundamental issues. first, whether the district court should have exercised jurisdiction or whether it should have abstained as it did. and second, if the district court should have exercised jurisdiction, whether it should have invalidated this subpoena under the doctrine of temporary presidential immunity. we believe for the reasons set forth in our papers that the district court aired as to both questions and that the court should enter judgment for the president on the present record. >> may i suggest as a factual matter to walk us through a few things as you get to that point. and both sides will have all the time you need to make your points. as i understand your complaint, you allege that you began producing documents to the d.a.'s office in response to the trump organization subpoena until you learned that they purported to cover the president's tax returns. and as your adversary informs us in their brief, the trump organization has made four productio

over 25he appointed women to district court togeships and 11 women courts of appeals and i was i thinkhe last of them. david: you served 13 years in the court of appeals, district of columbia. after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court or did you think this was something that might never happen? my. ginsberg: no one thinks, aim in life is to be a supreme court justice, it just is not realistic. there are only nine of us. luck has a lot to do with who are the particular nine at a particular time. so, growing up, i never had an idea of being any kind of judge. women were barely there on the bench. when carter became president, it was only one woman in a federal court of appeals. he made her the first ever secretary of education. then there were none again. and nochanged that president ever went back. reagan did not want to be outdone by carter. to put thermined first woman in the u.s. supreme court. search and they came up with a spectacular choice in sandra day o'connor. david: when president clinton became president, you were somebody being considered and

got tousses how the case beat supreme court and what the court's decision could mean for lgbtq writes. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is thomas brewer, i'm a former president of the national press club. thank you for being here this afternoon, i'm looking forward to the discussion. i promise to be nicer than the associate justices were in interrupting when they made their arguments. we are here because of this gentleman to my left, gerald bought stock who lost his job because of his sexual orientation. he was an award-winning child welfare advocate in the casa program in clayton county, georgia. he took the program to unprecedented levels of success and he's making a difference in the lives of neglected children in his community, all of that changed when the county learned that he was gay. he's been encouraging his friends to join a gay softball league. the fascinating part of this case and we will learn about how the supreme court arguments went this morning, goes back to the civil rights act of 1964. the law protects americans from workplace discrimination, the appeals court h

court decisions. this symposium took place at the george washington university law school in washington dc. school in washington dc. >> in this illuminating day long discussion celebrating the 100th anniversary of the supreme court clerkships if you are just tuning in i'm head of the national constitution center in philadelphia law professor here at george washington university the constitution center is so honored to convene some former supreme court clerks to discuss how they are clerkships filled their lives i'm great to sit here with two appellate judges and two distinguished intellectuals and jurists both were supreme court clerks and acclaimed across america with their opinions and their rigor and i just can't wait to ask them how those clerkships influence their approach to the judging in the constitution will briefly incident show them by the judge sunsets on the us court of appeals on the sixth circuit and he is the author of such an important book i want you all to read it because it will tr

the court was very clear. that if an agency lacks authority, it cannot then tell the states that it cannot regulate. what happens when the sec deregulated broadband, reclassified broadband internet access as an information service rather than a telecommute case in service, and also said that another part of the commute occasions act, section 706, does not provide authority for regulation, it washed its hands, it abdicated its authority come a its ability to oversee the broadband market. the court said well, you have given away your authority. you now cannot tell the states as well that they cannot regulate. patrick says and he is correct, that his industry, the fcc, could now go state-by-state and try to use a theory called conflict preemption. to preempt state laws. the problem is, the court went very, very deeply into the sec's arguments -- the fcc's arguments for larger preemption, for printing all the states at once, and rejected everything a one of them peered the court said the sink and on the ability is

as they apply in -- in state court as a play federal court. he didn't type to disagree the court old holding. in a sense apodaca itself is born of a disregard for stare decisis. this case is almost singular in its, the compelling reasons right now to overrule apodaca. >> since you mention balzac, can ask a question about that could imagine this is assigned in your favor and then a defendant who has been convicted on and on unanimous verdict in puerto rico comes here and says, i'm a citizen of the united states, and the only reason why i was able to be convicted a nonunanimous verdict are these old insular cases that reflect attitudes of the day in the aftermath of the spanish-american war, and just as you brushed aside apodaca, you should brush aside the insular cases. >> i would say that would be different for all the reasons i just outlined. the insular cases where a majority decision from the court. they were based on a view that has not been disregarded or left behind in the courts jurisprudence. there may be arguments party can make an or

so it will be to the courts. do think there is strong precedent that makes clear that when they are trying to do common carriage regulation, it will be a high hurdle. >> i disagree. whatever we said in 2015, the states will -- trust me, when i speak to state groups and state regulators and local regulators, they get really angry at what we said in 2015 and they will argue again. again, these preemption cases will be extremely fact intensive. i was at a meeting with state ag's and they warned us that it is hard to draw conclusion about what is going to happen in these cases because they are so fact intensive. the only thing i will repeat, again, it is possible that patrick and his allies will scour the communications area that they will be conflict preemption. but the arguments the fcc made in front of the court were basically batted down one by one. this is all to say i'm not going to say it will be easy or difficult. it will be fact intensive. but i don't think patrick's argument is going to end the day day in t

there is a basketball court in the court. did you ever play in the court? >> not very well. >> nobody plays very well but that is why we are all law clerks. it is important to do that because the collegiality among the chambers was important to the way the term went. 1984, a few decisions, no earth shattering ones, but the clerks all got along. that is not true every term. the idea i want to put out there, i don't know why justices don't share law clerks across chambers. i will publish this in the gw law review, the idea of sharing clerks across chambers. lots of clerks do this. lots of courts do this. attorneys work for lots of the judges. it leads to a better exchange of ideas and work product. what is different? first, justice stevens did exactly what you said. he would sort of go into his chambers and produce a writing. justice brennan never did anything on paper. we would just sit for hours. it was called coffee with brennan. it can last until 1:30 in the afternoon. by the time you sat down to write something, you had talked it through so much that you

court agreed. wasin a decision that unanimous although it has some important concurring opinions, the supreme court said it is indeed nonjudicial. and they had a bunch of different reasons for that conclusion. host: we talk about judicial due process. is there such a thing when it comes to impeachment? the requirements of the constitution itself and the supreme court said there are three textual requirements in the constitution about what a trial in the senate should consist of. senate membershe have to be undergrowth or affirmation. you need a two thirds vote to convict. and the chief justice presides when a president is tried. as long as the other requirements were met. the supreme court said it is up to the senate to decide what a trial consist of. it is up to the senate to decide and not up to the supreme court to second-guess. >> digging into the chief justice's role and it was rehnquist back in this case that would've presided over the senate. john roberts if and when that happens this time a

termupreme court's new begins tomorrow with the court hearing cases on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the trump administration's winding down of daca, and religious education. watch on c-span and listen on c-span.org. now, a look into potential cases the supreme court could take up this term. we will hear from a panel of experts that discuss cases the justices have dealt with this year. from the federalist society, this is 90 minutes. >> hello. my name is robert barnes. i cover the supreme court for "the washington post." thanks for coming on this crisp, fall day to hear about the supreme court. i'd like to thank the federalist society, particularly the facility division and practice groups for putting together what we think will be an interesting panel on what looks to be a very interesting term at the supreme court. after the trauma of last year's confirmation hearings, there's been a thought from those who watched the court that it went out of its way not to look partisan last term, to look for ways to bust up the ideological divide on the court in some cases

federal court, they may be dismissed but i don't think, the court has been clear to respects, one there is no requirement -- that is completely clear, and second, the anti injection act do not require them to bring their claim so this is not. >> what is in 1983 claimed? >> it's the immunity claim. >> the presidents immunity is being preached. >> communities usually started as a defense, what is the 93 cause of action? >> it refers to immunities held by law, so it is textual basis, moreover the supreme court has made clear that these kinds of immunities are available, it is held under the constitution, no difference in someone's right to the claim against, the credit clause has been a basis, and the supreme court, i think it was pretty clear that it is not going to pick and choose among constitutional rights to say this one is good enough to bra, it's not officially important and you must be kicked out of federal court. >> can i ask, you how would your argument be different if this was a subpoena from a grand jury in the southern district of new york and manhattan, a federal grand jury p

. -- their way to the court. todd: >> hello. you guys are all very smart. this is more of a general question about hernandez being disfavored and also the controversy about qualified immunity. do you all, with your scholarly if angs have suggestions accountability vehicle might be available? >> if we may give a touch more context, the court is prosecuting shootings, so there was a division in the lower clore -- lower courts in a way liable the government for shootings into mexico. those raised variety of issues related to immunities. action implied rights of to bring suits against federal officials for violating the constitution when congress has not passed a law. so, qualified immunity is the principle that says that a governmental officer is not going to be held liable unless the law they violated was clearly established. without getting deep into it, the supreme court has been resolute over the past decades of narrowing it and saying if you have a right to sue the government, congress will have to pass the law

the court. intarted covering the court and, so i had the joy privilege of covering sandra day o'connor's time on the court. to my far left is evan thomas, author of 10 books including a biography of sandra day o'connor. jayis immediate right, board of thethe civics project justice o'connor, transformational civics project she brought to children in this country, and to my immediate left, edwin meets meese iii, he served as attorney general of the u.s. from 1985-1980 eight. please join me in welcome the -- welcoming this extraordinary panel. [applause] i have the absolute joy of setting the table for the rest of the day and getting a sense of what it was like through the o'connor'sf justice to the which brought her attention of president reagan, and then the world. we are going to try to break it down for you in the coming hour, herstart by talking about outstanding biography in arizona, her time on the arizona state legislature, and we will close with a conversation about her confirmation. as a

we believe for the reasons set forth the district court here to both question and the court should enter judgment for the president on the present record. -- [inaudible] >> too that point, you can have all the time you need to make your point. >> as i understand your complaint you allege that you began producing documents to the das office in response to the trumpnt organization subpoena until you learned to cover the president's tax returns. it and as your adversary informs us in their brief, the trump organization has made for productions and that includes two after the lawsuit was filed. are you objecting to the entirety of the maze are subpoena or is your objection limited to the tax returns. >> we are objecting to the entirety of the subpoena. we view the entire subpoena as inappropriate fishing expedition not meeting good faith and while the president has declined a certain immunity to invoke with respect to other subpoenas -- >> why would that pick up the organizations. >> the immunity extends certainly to the president in our view. >> absolutely use a? >> absolutely. >> which is

but the court went on to say very clearly that to the extent that any district court finds that what a state has done is in conflict with the federal framework, that the ticket court can, in fact, find that there is con flicks preemption. and i think it's really important that in the discussion it was very clear that the judges were concerned about intrastate. the fcc, you know, going over the bounds by expressly preempting any state activity including potentially the regulation of intrastate services. and i was looking at the transcript of the oral argument, and the chief judge on the case, she said let me clarify. you're not saying states can step in and do interstate regulation. that's done. the question is whether states can regulate what's in their wheelhouse, intrastate, right? she said there's no federalism history of one state regulating an entire region of the entire country. the state will have to establish that what they are doing is within their intrastate wheelhouse. >> and the other than arguing for the other side said we're talking about things like disclosure requirem

court. in 2017, appointed to the american constitution society for board of directors and served as an academic advisor. he's also senior fellow at cap and last but certainly not least, to my far right is sharon mccown, she is chief strategy and then of legal the country his largest and oldest organization committed to achieving full recognition of civil rights for lgbt queue and people living with hiv and previously she served in the obama ministration as a principal deputy chief of the civil rights division of the department of justice. when you're in her time at doj, sharon was repeatedly recognized by the attorney general and reset the work words for her role in convincing the administration to stop defending so-called defense of a marriage act. developing legal argue acts of marriage equality in them and other important initiatives. we have a very esteemed and appropriately enough diverse panel here. with a lot of experience. sort of looking at how the course fit into our democracy and

court hearings?rupt supreme they mig as well be in the audience with the protesters.to >> nar and behind the scenes, one powerful republican senator, majority leader mitch mcconnell. >> mcconnell knows the game plan. one of the reasonse's as good at his job as it is is becauseau he can play hiown hand at cards and he can also play his opponent's hand at catds. he knows exactly what they'reng tro do. >> narrator: out-maneuvering democrats, confirmingva ltnsertive judges were mcconnell's species. brett kavaugh would be his crowning achievement.(c amera clicks) >> it's moving the cou to a really very, very conservative court. that's mcconne's dream drom the time he was first in the senate, and maybe his dream en he went into politics >> this is going to be a ..ugh battle on capitol hi >> narrator: mitch mcconnell's determination to transform the supreme court had been his life's work. senatorsnau.s. supreme courtup nominee clarence thomas managed to... >> potentially ensuring aor conservative my fory de

>> it was a very active court. the questions were typically both quite probing and quite responsive to the issues. there were references to opposing taking during counsel's arguments. we were delighted to have a tremendous advocate in our case. merrick garland did -- >> gerald, talk to me, but congratulations on surviving first, cancer. that is a difficult thing to go through, and through this at the same time. talk to me about being the figure of a case like this. this is huge for tens of millions of americans. how does it feel to be thrust into this spot? >> it is exciting. at the same time motivating. it is also very humbling and very surreal. i did not ask for any of this. what i have learned through my journey is it is no longer just about me. because it does impact so many people across the country. that is why i was willing to carry the burden and take the fight as far as i needed to, which landed us here today in washington, d.c. >> you can talk about this. there is a scary side of this. what the court says

either in federal court or in state court. but do you think -- i mean, i can well envision seeing you up here in a term or two arguing that this is a -- the rule that you're trying to persuade us to accept today is a watershed rule of criminal procedure. you think there's a frivolous argument? >> i don't think it's frivolous, justice alito. the best thing the state will have to say for itself in that respect is duncan, itself, when the court incorporated the right to jury trial, duncan, itself, was not held to be retroactive in the opinion. but justice alito, the core point that i'm making to you today is in deciding whether to overrule a past case, absolutely reliance interests are at stake. but there are separate doctrines to protect those reliance interests so that i don't think you should give undue weight in this situation. and i don't think the court has given those kinds of things undue weight in the past. i would direct the court back to its mcdonald decision where it cataloged all the times over the years in the court

can that be brought to a court? what happens in the court? there's a whole lot, i don't know, but if you could share. david, when you bring up t. . s and ded in the room for when you're trading and battering lives, what does tps bring up? that is what is happening with the programs. when immigrant rights advocates do not pit other immigrant communities against each other. we don't want you to uphold daca and then throw enforcement into communities. how do you sort of make sure you represent that voice in the negotiations? >> yeah. i mean, well -- i don't know why i'm going first. >> no, go ahead. >> i have no idea why i'm going first. i'm working on two hours of sleep. i've been traveling. i just want to say that. >> very quickly, i mentioned the investment california has made in supporting legal immigration remedies for populations. we have over the course of this multiyear investment targeted different populations and strategies. tps has been one. we have focused dollars and commitment in resource to support those who are tps -- the tps pop

the court.erson on behalf of, i'm not sure... lets listen and see what is said. what is your response today? it is an excellent judgment from the inner house of the court of session, as you would expect. they have effectively given an undertaking, have accepted an undertaking from the prime minister that he will not frustrate the benn act. in continuing the matter to the 215t, there is a sort of damocles over the prime minister's head to comply with the benn act, and we hope he does. we hope we don't have to return to court on the 24th of october and that politics can run its course. and only if it does not turn out to... he doesn't comply with the orders that we have to come back to court. they didn't refuse it. no, they didn't. that gives us everything that we wanted because the matter is still live, the prime minister still has to comply, the petitioners are wholly vindicated in having brought this action. for the first time ever in these answers, the prime minister had to confirm that he wou

there is a basketball court in the court. did you ever play in the court? >> not very well. but: nobody plays very well that is why we are all law clerks. it is important to do that because the collegiality among the chambers was important to the way the term went. no earthew decisions, shattering once, but the clerks all got along. the idea i want to put out there, i don't know why justices don't share law clerks across chambers. i will publish this in the gw law review, the idea of sharing clerks across chambers. lots of clerks do this. attorneys work for lots of the judges. it leads to a better exchange of ideas and work product. what is different? first, justice stevens did exactly what you said. he would sort of go into his chambers and produce a writing. justice brennan never did anything on paper. we would just sit for hours. it was called coffee with brennan. until 1:30 in the afternoon. by the time you sat down to write something, you had talked it through so much that you were just holding the pen. one time when i was writing something for justice stevens, i was si

the supreme court. next, they reflect on her historical legacy and impact. conferenceall-day and is hosted by the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute. [applause] >> good afternoon. the thirdmoved to panel, the lasting legacy, i want to take a moment and thank all of our reagan foundation trustees, in particular ted olson. thank you for giving us this opportunity. throughout today's discussion, we reviewed the historical context of justice o'connor's life and career and capture it significance. we have commented on the jurisprudence and now we will turn to the legacy and the lasting contribution in the ways we will continue to see her hand in law and the civic life of this great country. about 15 years before he o'connor, ronald reagan delivered one of his most consequential political speeches at a long day lunch in southern california. 1966, ronald reagan advanced an initiative to take judges out of politics and articulated his vision of an ideal judge. he called for judges to be men wit

again, this court, the supreme court said that is not subject for you to examine. that is outside. i have to address one thing. the law enforcement point -- look. at any number of things that congress investigates involves -- the congress had a massive investigation of 9/11. they did it at the exact same time that the criminal investigation was going on. nobody would possibly have said oh, gosh, this involved hijacking and mass murder and therefore, congress cannot investigate. it is ludicrous. it is not a supreme court decision. congress can investigate even if it means it's investigating what is -- but that's not a law enforcement function. a law enforcement function, you do investigations and then you bring a prosecution. >> i just have two technical questions. umber one is you -- that the oversight committee has jurisdiction over the ethics in government and office. does that come from the rule or -- where did that come from? >> i believe that is -- is that the generic ruling? is that 10 clause 1-n? >> yes, it's in there rule 10 jurisdiction. if you look the addendum to our bri

supreme court case. looking at whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation should be allowed. the court heard oral argument today and they will release the audio of the arguments this friday. we will bring you that argument friday night in our primetime lineup here on c-span. [crowd talking] >> i saw things about president trump's leadership style i had never seen in the fbi. i saw the way that his staff and advisors would sit at attention in a small road chairs gathered in front of the resolute desk. i saw the way he tried to himpulate me into inviting to speak at the hoover building that week. reflectively he came back with references about my wife's failed political campaign in the state of virginia in 2015, and consistently referred to would -- to it as that mistake i made. aaders don't -- this was not leader who was creating an environment of trust. these were obvious efforts to coerce me into a position, to take the loyalty i had over the course of my career and shifted

so, the court divided 7-2. in the fullness of time, the judgment came out 6-3, but the two had swelled to six. and seven had shrunk to three. so, a famous -- >> it can happen. >> yeah, it ain't over till it's over. >> i think that was yogi berra that said that, wasn't it? >> i didn't know ruth was familiar with him, but -- she always pleasantly surprises me. >> justice o'connor was often the one to ask the first question. >> yes. >> when she was on the court. and it was always a very tough question and really required the advocate to be prepared for something in the record, something about -- and you do that, too. you ask often the first question, as you do, justice sotomayor. you're breaking the ice or trying to find a -- probe a weakness? i know justice o'connor was, you know getting it started. >> yes. i always waited until she asked the first question. >> pardon? >> i always waited for her to ask. that was kind of the signal that we could -- we could stop the soliloquy and engage in colloquy. >> the most mo

in this case you will have a greater appeals court, the court of public opinion. november of 2020 this issue will have been teed up for the voters to decide. this will tell us about whether he deserves a second term and how the congress handled it. sharply from the introduction, nixon didn't even want to go through the vote on impeachment. he didn't want the indignity of it. >> it's an astonishing moment. barry goldwater went the senate and republican leaders to see nixon after the smoking gun tape was released. goldwater had carl bernstein and myself up to his apartment. he got out the whiskey and then he got out his personal diary. it was august 7, a couple of days after the smoking gun tape was released. he and the republican leaders went to meet with nixon alone in the oval office and they said -- we are going to let barry goldwater be our sport -- our spokesman. nixon said -- how many votes will i have in the senate? i know i will be impeached. stunning moment when mr. ildwater said "mr. president, counted, there are four very firm votes for you. i am not one

this is again from the supreme court of virginia's decision in jones ii that responds to this court's gvr in light of montgomery and i believe they specifically say as a matter of state law, yes. justice kagan: but that was not -- jones ii was many years after this sentencing took place. mr. heytens: absolutely, justice kagan. but jones ii critically did not purport to change or alter what virginia law was. all of the statutes that are discussed in jones ii were on the books at the time of this sentencing. it's not like virginia changed its law after its sentencing. justice kavanaugh: what if we were unsure about that? shouldn't we re -- even if you are correct on the law here, isn't there still a question of whether virginia's regime was truly discretionary? mr. heytens: i don't think there -- justice kavanaugh: or do you think -- or do you think that's over? mr. heytens: i -- i apologize, justice kavanaugh. i think the supreme court of virginia was very clear in jones ii about that. thank you. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. feigin. mr. feigin: thank you, mr. chief ju

how do you read that affecting the decision of the court's on the merits. >> the supreme court didn't purport to rule on the merits at all. so i think we have to take them at theirword on that and continue to litigate it . the stay, there's no getting around the fact that the stay order was painful. and you know, we've got a situation where the previous panels went through in greater detail, we had the first asylum proclamation which funneled everyone through ports of entry and the administration was modeling asylum applications there, then they did return to mexico which has led to estimates of 20,000 people including kids stuck in mexico. sleeping on the ground outdoors and then a third country resettlement proclamation. and you know, it hurts the cause we are desperate to get relief for people who deserve to have asylum in our country and who been turned away in every possible juncture by this administration . so you know, i think we supreme court edits were really going with the litigation, keep litigating it and show i record to show the harms to our clients and that's it. >> oka

the most memorable moment disturbing my parents to the supreme court. and i've had that chance over the course of my career. i loved clerking. i loved every minute of it. i love the election challenge, subject matter, people, it wasn't my first job. i worked for three years between college and law school for chuck schumer on the hill, the iran-contra committee, that was fun. and over the course of my supreme court clerkship i began to realize i wasn't sure i wanted to have a conventional legal career. i began to believe that for me it would be more rewarding to commit not to expertise in and around the practice but around the subject matter. what that would do for the rest of my career. the area that i picked was technology media telecommunications, my did immigrate here and became an engineer with the love of tach i was an early adopter of technology it was a happy coincidence of the very early days of the internet. if you could find a computer in the basement. that a fellow named ed who was still around he said come with me after clerking i will show

and i'll say this as well, there's a basketball court in the court. did you ever play on the court? >> not very well. [laughter] >> no. nobody plays very well. that's why we're all law clerks. [laughter] but it's important to do that because the collegiality among the chambers, i think, was very important to the way the term went. my term, october term '84, produced a few decisions, no earth-shattering ones, but the clerks got along very well. that's not true all the time. i don't know why justices don't share clerks. i'm going to publish this in the gw law review, the idea of sharing law clerks across chambers. lots of courts share law clerks. they have staff attorneys. those attorneyses work for lots of judges, and it lends to collegiality, a better exchange of ideas and better work product, i say. what was different. i'll tell you two stories. first, justice stevens did exactly as you said. he would sort of go into his chambers or his office and produce a writing. justice brennan never did anything on paper. we would just sit for hours. it was called coffee with brennan. you'd go

my problem is that i was a district court judge and when you're a district court judge it you. you don't have to wait for anybody, it's hard to adjust waiting for eight other colleagues to have a say. so that's my problem but i do think that when any of us asking questions, it's because the issue is important to us. >> justice o'connor was in a cameo appearance and henry the fifth. >> yes, she was the queen of france. and she said, a woman's voice to some good. what does that mean and the context of a justice on the supreme court. it's a woman voice, what does it mean, what difference does it make is a sexist to say that or stereotypical to say that? >> sandra unquote, as she did many times, a minnesota supreme court justice, jeanne coin, who said, at the end of the day, a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same judgment, and i think that is true but sandra would have followed it up by saying we featuring our life experience to the table. growing up a woman is not the same is growing up a man. and you could see the difference and an opinion that justice o'connor wro