to the court .. for example defamation is always a big case , is a type of case that the media are always rightly interested in but in the last 15 years, the us supreme court hasn't done anything to get in the area of defamation or reporters privilege or any of the other types of issues thatreporters , that the mediaare most interested in . now, what we can glean from the few media cases they have taken is actually very little . and at dc versus fox television station, the supreme court had the opportunity to tell us whether the susec can regulate broadcast indecency still under the first amendment. so under older precedent, the supreme court said that the broadcast medium is different than other media, because of its persuasiveness, because of the scarcity of the airways and that line of reasoning that broadcast media are different has certainly been challenged today when often times the consumer can't tell what broadcast over the airwaves or what's cable or what they're getting through the internet

supreme court. up next, he will be talking about a case called van buren v. u.s. >> thank you for the federalist society inviting me here. the case i am talking about is a criminal case involving the law called the computer law and abuse act, a computer hacking statute enacted in the 1980's. although we have all moved to computers as we are in this panel, the supreme court has never interpreted what this law means. it matters to a lot of people because it is saying how easy it is to commit a computer crime and how many of us are computer criminals by virtue of this 1980's law enacted in a very different era. van buren is a police officer who has access to a government database of information about people and he accepted a payment to look up someone that some private party was interested in knowing about. even though he had been trained are only allowed to access the database for official reasons, it was part of a sting, the fbi and the person who had asked van buren to look up this individual for th

we published papers, file amicus briefs from the supreme court -- with the supreme court and other courtswe tweet, blog, published papers. my job is a lot of fun, academicg the legal, and media world. susan: i wanted to start with a set of statistics you offered about scotus nominations in general. there have been 164 nominations to the court, including the current one. of those, 126 were confirmed. rejected, three postponed and tenant no action. and then the one currently in play with judge amy coney barrett. let me ask you on the 10 with no action, that is a flashpoint for the current nomination because of no action. leaderssten to the talking about the process. >> the american people do not need any more revisionist history lectures, anymore threats, or any more performance -- outrage from the side that launch and escalated this fight time after time after time. there is one course. it does right by the judiciary, the senate, the yet unnamed nominee, and the american people. it is a fair hearing, a failed part -- fair process, and a fair vote. >> here's how the republican eater describ

of the supreme court. justice scalia voted to strike down key parts of the affordable care act and called for overturning roe v wade and ovopposed marriage equality, vod to get th gut the protections ie voting rights in the shelby case and to get the campaig campaigne law, citizens united case. he made it hard for the workers discriminated against by their employers to seek justice in court and stacked the deck against the corporations of the working class individuals. by nominating judge barrett, president trump is attempting to bring justice scalia's judicial philosophy back to the mainstream in the nation's highest court. placing judge barrett puts at risk so many of the rights and protections americans have fought for so let's look at how it could change if judge barrett is confirmed. that's the second reason to oppose the nomination. her judicial philosophy in addition to the process. you cannot always predict how a supreme court justice will act after her confirmation. but judge barrett has given us

to the supreme court. you have described that process as winding its way as an important restraint on judicial activism. you have to wait until a court -- a case gets to you through the ordinary course? judge barrett: correct. ordinarily, i don't know if you have ever done a case, but ordinarily it begins with a person. judge barrett: correct. >> that person feels an injury? judge barrett: yes. >> that person goes to a lawyer? judge barrett: yes. that person goes to a lawyer and files a complaint. win andurt, they try to vindicate their injury. that is the basic standard way in which this works. judge barrett: yes. >> it gets a little weird sometimes and that is a circumstance i would like to bring up to you. it touches on some of the stuff that i addressed yesterday. you note janice? let's describe this as the janice saga. it's about a different case called abboud. that was precedent for 40 years. judge barrett: i can't remember when it was decided, but it was precedent before janice. it was a long-standi

court. so she in one other justice in the modern era, justice charles whitaker, are the only justices who actually served on all three levels of the federal judiciary. justice whitaker was appointed by the same president, president eisenhower. justice sotomayor was appointed by three different presidents. george h. w. bush, from the district court, president clinton to the circuit court, and president obama to the supreme court. somehow she has also found time to write some books. about her life in particular, and i commend them to you as well. but let me just turn the program over to sonia sotomayor, a real privilege for me to introduce her to you this time. (applause) >> it was a miserable night, last night. (laughs) good evening everyone and welcome to the court. i am delighted that so many of you could join us this evening for the first lecture in the supreme court historical societies, 2018 leon silverman lecture series. which this terms, as you heard, will focus on the supreme court an

court packing, is it time for supreme court reform?> lifetime tenure i think is fine and not the problem. i have a different take on the court packing situation. this is a situation that the court has been inundated with a range of very right wing conservative judges who i think swing the country in the legal analysis to the right and a very destructive way for generations to come. we have two choices. either we live with it and say that's just the way the cookie ambles, or we have to think more proactively about a way to rebalance the way this court adjudicates issues that affect our lives. i don't think any reasonable person with think that having a far right-leaning federal judiciary just because you had a republican senate and a republican president that spewed out federal court judges like they were handing out candy, no one reasonably think that would be good for the polity and for justice moving forward over the next 50 years and there needs to be some attention paid to that. >> i want to thank everybody for a very spirited deba

the court did make some progress. in 1937 in effectively overturned the notion that simply being a member of a party was enough to get a conviction. in 1937, the ravages of the great depression were fading, stalin was destroying his own government, roosevelt was promulgating policies that made it look like the soviet union was our friend. after pearl harbor, the bridges case, the 5-4 decision, the court did what holmes wanted to do in abram and what brandeis talked about in whitney. it said the clear and present danger must be objectively clear and really present. but in december 1941, what was russia? it was about to become our trusted ally against nazi germany. and then the red scare. context becomes important in terms of shaping these decisions. what can we say about concurring opinions? there are other examples. fletcher and whitney are the most fun. they are stellar examples of judicial craftsmanship, efforts to bring to the other competing strands and weave an explanation. for johnson it was to meet the demands

court seminar in china. as interesting side note. he has known the spirit for many years. finally, we will hear from yuliya schapiro. a graduate of the university's school of law school. cato, schapiro was in private practice at top-tier law firms and a special assistant to the multinational force in iraq on rule of law issues. he is an adjunct law professor at george washington university he is a frequent commentator. his articles have also appeared in scholarly journals struck the country. at a remarkable attorney, he is the author of a new book, disorder:supreme additional nominations and the politics of america's highest court." jonathan, the floor is yours. jonathan: great, thank you, john. it is a pleasure to be here. happy to talk about judge barrett's record. just some initial background, judge amy coney barrett has been on the seventh circuit for just under three years. she was confirmed in november of 2017. she has participated in over 600 cases and authored over 100 decisions, majorities, concurre

even on power questions of law this court is a court of review and benefits from the district court's application of the legal standard in sharpening for the appellate review. more importantly and secondly we do not believe that all four factors are purely legal questions. a few examples, the first is to what the subpoena to the president is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legislature's goal. that question such as what effort has the committee made so far to obtain this information, who else could it ask. would those be fruitful? and those are questions to ask. in the maloney memo-- . the cummings memo says nothing and the memo from us we think-- >> let me -- i hear what you're saying about that, but the committee has said they have the burden of proof here, they have the burden to show what they're seeking is reasonably necessary. they told us that this record is sufficient. we can look at the record if we don't agree with them. we would be-- that would be the end of it, they would have failed to demonstrate that the information achieved is reasonable and necessary. i mean, i'

the supreme court works differently. the supreme court takes cases when it needs to. most frequently to resolve a division among the courts of appeal or state supreme court's. the supreme court gets about eight housing petitions a year and here about 80 cases a year. is discretionary what cases to take. it is a reactive branch and after a process where there's a statute that has been challenged and it works its way up to the court. but when the justices declined to take a case, what are they saying? mattere saying you don't ? what are they saying to the litigants in a case when they declined to answer? judge barrett: they are not expressing any view on the merits. this is a case we are going to put on our dockets because the court has limited time and resources, so it selects the cases where it is resolving a of national importance on which the court needs to step in. been a lot there's of discussion implicitly about standing. standing isain what so the american people understand it? judge barrett: this dovetails with your question about the judiciary being a reactive

theone would have to seek spring court, the supreme court would have to grant it and it would be the full process, braves, oral arguments, consultation with colleagues, riding in opinion, really digging down into it. it's not just the vote. you all do that. you have a policy and cast a vote. the judicial process is different. when it comes to your personal views about this topic -- do you own a gun? judge barrett: i do own a gun. sen. graham: do you think you could fairly decided case even though you on a gun? judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: your catholic. judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: we've established that. your faith means a lot to you? judge barrett: yes. sen. graham: can you set aside your catholic beliefs? judge barrett: i can. i have done that in my time on the seventh circuit. sen. graham: i would dare say your personal views on the supreme court, nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their believes. there's no reason to question yours in my view. so the bottom line is there is a blanks in filling the about guns and heller, abortion rights, was go to

lower courts have to follow supreme court precedent. sen. graham: if the supreme court wanted to revisit heller, what would they do? the supreme court would have to take that case once it was appealed all the way up. the court would have to decide " we want to override heller and we have enough votes to do so." lawsuit, a law, then a then an appeal, then the court decided the case. sen. graham: is that true no matter the case whether it is campaign finances, does that process hold true for everything? judge barrett: judges cannot wake up one day and say i have an agenda and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. you have to wait for cases and controversies to wind their way through the process. sen. graham: senator sasse gave us a good civics lesson. if the state says i don't think you should have over six bullets and somebody believed that violated the second amendment, there would be a lawsuit and the same process would work, right? judge barrett: in that case parties would have to sue the state arguing that law was

they learned about the court. they learn about the institution, but they learn about your life story. both of your life story are so inspiring. you must be aware of the fact that people are drawing inspiration about themselves all the time. because of this. >> if i didn't give people hope saw, i mean giving people hope is tremendously satisfying. it really is amazing the number of products, even most recently, i was sent a set of air fresheners, closet fresheners. bathroom glasses. i think it's that. people want something hopeful. they want to believe that it's important to them is shared by many other people, but i think it's that more than anything, the desire to have something positive in your vision. >> that brings us back to justice o'connor. she was a believer in, i can do it. she would tell people, she would tell her clerks, just do it. now when she writes in her book about being sent out miles and miles to bring lunch to the ranch hands when during a round up and she had a flat tire and had to explain to h

courts apply them. none of that stuff should be different if you're a republican or a democrat or a libertarian or a green party member. this is basic civics. civics is the stuff that all americans should agree on, like religious liberty is essential. people should be able to fire the folks who write the laws, and the voters can't fire the judges. judges should be impartial. this is just civics 101. politics is different. politics is the stuff that happens underneath civics. civics is the overarching stuff we as americans agree and have in common. politic it is the subordinate, less important stuff we differ about. p politics is if i look at my friend, listen up, jack wagon, what you want to do on this bill might be expensive and bankrupt our kids. or if chris says, listen up, jack wagon, you're too much of a cheapskate and you're und underinvesting in the next generation, that's an important, political debate. that's not civics. civics is more important than that. civics doesn't change every 18 to 24 m

berkeley law school has criticized the roberts court court in i think is done so for very good reasons where he points to certain cases like humanitarian law projects and being able to prohibit material support to organizations and chairs to organizations at the government's discretion and frederick which involves garcetti versus ballot which is public employment and a more recent one that i'm not sure he had read too much also involves this category where the court held that where you have probable cause to arrest someone that cuts off their bill would be to bring her first amendment retaliation claim are all areas in which i think the roberts court didn't look as strongly at the first amendment arguments as i think they might have come a areas where i think there could be improvement on the court but by and large when you compare that to the overall record of the court i think it's a very strong one. speaking by the way of the exceptions to the first amendment and the fact that the courts uphold them and i want to raise one point of criticism and this is something that ron and i have

supreme court. the fifth 59 year old brandeis wrote to his brother alfred quote, i'm not exactly sure that i am to be congratulated. but i am convinced all things considered, that i should accept. the public reaction to wilson's announcement was swift and explosive. former president william howard tapped, denounced president on nomination calling brandeis quote a buck wrecker, a motion alerts for his own purposes, a man of infinite cunning, of great tenacity of purpose, and in my judgment of much power for evil unquote. the new york times complained that brandeis quote, is essentially a contender, us driver after change and reform, unquote. yes brandeis was rather tenacious, and he certainly was driving to reform society. as a young lawyer he and samuel warren wrote in 1890 an extremely influential essay in the harvard law review that to find the right to privacy. for the modern age. in response to what they called, the olive to enterprising press, and new technologies that could be produced scenes

supreme court. and while i intend to share with you my intentions on how i will vote, i'd like to start by just expressing my disappointment with where we are in the senate as a whole right now. there's been some good discussion hering this morning as we're considering -- discussion here this morning as we're considering the unanimous consent agreements, some statements made, but not action moving forward. i -- i had hoped that if we were going to be at this moment in time just over a week out from our national elections, that we would be here on the floor debating -- debating the merits of a receive relief bill. and in my home state of alaska, as in so many states around the country, we're seeing unprecedented numbers now. the news just yesterday, friday, that the united states reported the highest single day recorded of positive cases. 83,757, really staggering. in alaska we have seen this virus spread to some of our small outlying villages, villages that are not accessible by road, villages that

court. it is the defender of our constitution. isthe end of the day, that my test for a supreme court justice. will you defend the constitution? it frustrates me and my fellow iowans that the supreme court has become a super legislature for a congress that will not come together and discuss these tough issues and do its job. what i hear from my colleagues on the left is about judicial activism and what they want to see in their nominees, which is that super legislature. they are projecting that upon you, judge barrett. that is what they are projecting as they talk about what cases may or may not come in front of the supreme court. matter of fact, it was the other day vice president joe biden told the american people they do not deserve to know whether he is going to pack the court. they do not deserve to know who his judicial nominees would be. i think we do need to know. because it is what the left is projecting on you today is what they want to see in their nominee, but that's not what our

beginning with the court. today we start changing them -- the day we start changing the number after every election to make it how we would like politically, artisan-wise, is the end of the independence of the court. at stake, but today i want to celebrate the fact that judge amy barrett will be reported out of this committee unanimously. that, to all of the young women out there like amy barrett, this is a big day for you. to the country as a whole, you're going to have an associate justice on the court that you should be proud of. this is a good day. me, justn't believe listen to what the ada said. the american bar association is not high on senator lee's list. and many of you. i think they do give some republican nominee is a good time, but i have continued to manyhem because i keep as traditions in place as i can. but the folks who are watching this hearing, their job is to evaluate the nominee in three categories. professional competency, character, judicial disposition. hours,end hundreds of talk to hund

the court could have an informal say in court packing. hughes, chief justice wrote a letter that said, hey, we don't need this for efficiency purposes. that was thought to have some political impact. so the court was word from batted in have a formal role -- the court was heard from but it world.have a formal host: eva is calling from georgia on the republican line. good morning. caller: i think that voters generally know little about the court. little evidence exists that the public cares about this for a= this about this fight, even though polling routinely puts in supreme court is an issue the election since justice ginsburg's death. is still remains clear that it is health care and the economy surveys. i looked at the 2018 c-span survey and i found that 62% of americans couldn't even name a single one of the nine justices. even as overwhelming likely voters said they believe the court plays a major role in shaping their lives. the survey released that court packing term, that if you happen to come upon a political flashpoint. woman.su

he left the supreme court when he ran for president. he went back on the supreme court. one of the finest minds on the court. >> a fellow justice called charles evans hughes, the greatest in our great line of chief justices. >> why hughes? robert jackson provided part of the answer when he was attorney general. jackson said that hughes, quote, looks like god and talks like a god. and a quote. >> in 16 footage of charles evans hughes, shot as hughes that republican presidential nominee campaigned soon after the republican national convention. tonight the contenders looks at the life and legacy of charles evans who's who in addition to being a republican presidential nominee, was a two term new york governor, secretary of state, and it twice a supreme court justice. of all this he is perhaps best known for his role as the chief justice during the years of fdr's new deal. the contenders is live this evening from the united states supreme court. just across from the capital in washington d.c.. then chief justice hughes inaugurated this building when it first opened to the co

the supreme court will not. intervene in determining who the next president is going to be rather this decision will be made and this is the constitution is very explicit about this the constitution has $600.00 words out of let's say depends on how you count 3000 which was devoted explicitly to how the president should be selected and the constitution explicitly says that the president and vice president shall be selected as their 1st act by the joint session of congress that meets on january of this year 5th or 6th and this session will be presided over by of all people mike pence. and mike pence is the presiding officer and. he will open the ballots this i'm quoting the constitution and the 12th amendment which revives it and and then the each member of each. members of the house will vote in a special decision rule unique in american in the american practice in which each state delegation the $53.00 delegates of california and the one house member from. population state has equal delegates. so there is the ne

justices. >> look, the only court packing going on right now going on with republicans packing the courtow. it's not constitutional what they're doing. >> the issue would have likely come up during the second presidential debate but the miami matchup was canceled by organizers friday after the president refused to agree to a semivirtual format. >> the commission has been ridiculous, frankly but who wants to do a debate on the computer? >> instead biden will participate in a televised town hall on thursday, it's unclear what president trump may do instead of the debate. tomorrow the senate judiciary committee begins the confirmation hearings for the president's supreme court nominee. democrats are demanding those hearings being delayed because of concerns with the coronavirus spreading in the capital. chris. >> chris: mark meredith reporting from the white house. mark, thank you. and joining us now, trump campaign senior advisor and daughter-in-law to the president, lara trump. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> lara: thank you, great to be with you, chris. >> chris: let's start with t

two court cases. without the right to vote and raising concerns that you view their right to vote to be more limited than the right to own a gun. , in that case, you jointed decision have upheld an abortion clinic buffer zone law. apply the law under a clear supreme court precedent. the decision went even further. it signaled a strong .isagreement with the precedent you directed the plaintiffs to seek relief in the u.s. record. the earlier today, a senator showed you a chart of more than 100 cases were justice ginsburg was in the majority and justice scalia was in defense. my republican colleagues is aware of this wanting to be in the supreme court so badly. in 2016, after justice scalia died, you described him in a tv interview as the staunchest conservative on the court. is that correct? ms. barrett: i can imagine i said that but i do not recall my exact words. you.hirono: i am quoting you recognize replacing the staunchest conservative on the court with someone nominated by president obama could dr

he sat on the court. there were six and then seven justices, and they were appointed from all up and down the eastern seaboard, from boston all the way down to georgia and eventually out west of kentucky. they came to washington to the supreme court sessions alone. they left their wives and children in their hometowns. they did not move their families to washington, because the court term was very short. during the jon marshall court era, it was usually about two months long. accordantly, chief justice john marshall arranged for them all to live together in a boarding house, and they took almost all their meals together. so catherine, why did john marshall want the justices to live, dine, work, and socialize together? >> i would say, i think the primary reason was that he wanted to build a bond between the justices. it also goes to say that the courts started out with a very nomadic existence. they were in new york and that was the seat of the nation's government. then they moved to philadelphia and then

supreme court but the supreme court denied it in that case. majorityheless, a 7-2 of the supreme court in the our upy of guadalupe case ended adopting a position similar to that which you can you talk to us a little bit and seventhpinion opinion and its application of the ministerial objection? --the ministerial exemption exception gives religious institutions discretion to hire teachers who are ministers. what this requires the courts to do is to decide who is a minister. on the one hand, there may be -- there might be more obvious questions like someone who teaches religion, religious teachers. the court said those would follow more in the heartland. it gets more difficult if you have a religious school like the jewish school or the catholic school who has a teacher who is teaching math. the court cap to come up with a test to decide whether a person is a minister or not. the decision said is it is a multifactor test where no one factor is determinative. it could not be determined that a teacher teaches math instead of religion. in this case

on the court. we've heard all those words, and making sure that justices don't pursue policy, think about all of those things in terms of what happened in brown v. board of education when they overruled ferguson decades before and saiding moving forward we believe -- and said moving forward we believe this constitution guarantees every child the right to an education regardless of their race. dr. che mri niski is with the university school of law at cal berkeley and wrote thoughts on this originalism theory. he noted that it was justice scalia that gave it popularity. a lot of people followed scalia because he was fun to be with. spoke to a luncheon of democratic senators i was able to tend. when it came down to it, his views on the law were strict and rigid, under this view the first amendment meant the same thing it meant as it was adopted in this the beginning. it turns out the circumstances in all of those case have changed so dramatically in america. judge amy coney barrett argued she's an ori

that is the size of the court. the congress also sets jurisdiction of the supreme court. but that is exactly has not been fully defined -- but that has not exactly been fully defined. the court is not a love to hear one kind of kiss or another kind of case. the supreme court might have to , can they decide how many justices are required to put a kiss on the docket? right now under supreme court justices toeed four put a kiss on the docket. on the docket. could congress say, you cannot hear a case until each justice agrees? my immediate answer is, i don't know. i've never heard of congress trying to intervene inside the internal rules of the supreme court to that degree. by that matter, could the congress say the court must have unanimous opinions in order for the decisions to take affect? -- effect? there would be what we call separation of powers. in other words, can the congress encroach on the internal workings of the supreme court to the degree? or would the objection of the court itself? seen those issues arise. that kind of proposal, getting into the internal machin

this court, as it is than many times and the supreme court is done, this court must accept that. so there's no dispute. i assume mr. norse is not saying that what we submitted with a brief was a fake, that the children -- no. let's be clear. >> that's not the argument, that is not what i'm saying. the point is there's more in that memorandum than here's our purposes. >> right. >> there's lots of recitation of what happened what interactions, , request information from what response but information they got which might seem relevant to some people to the supreme court. that can be debated and argued. right. >>right. i was getting to that next. no. there's nothing, you can disagree about whether we, the committee received one document or two documents, both irrelevant. we got some token tiny number of documents. so as far as what happened in accommodation, that's not material for this dispute. the supreme court never says anything about this court what , this court should you on -- is to look to see whether been sufficient accommodations. that's not noted. >> with that be a relevan

the court split 5-4 on it. it seems like the kind of case the court really hates to weigh in on, but certainly not a day goes by that i don't see another emergency application get to the court about some voting change. if you talk a little bit about how these voting issues, these cases about how people vote, how the ballots are going to be counted affect the court leading up to the election, just speculate on what is going to happen after the election, since the president seemed to indicate fairly strongly the other night that he expected the court may be will decide this. who would like to go first? do i have to pick someone? warren. >> i was hoping you wouldn't pick me. [laughter] i am not well situated to answer these questions, although after the mess that was bush v. gore, i hope the supreme court stays as far away from these cases as possible. >> can they? >> i think it largely depends on what lower courts do. i think it makes a big difference in terms of the justices' attitude, of should the supreme cour

supreme court, but the supreme court denied certiorari in that case. but nonetheless, a 7-2 majority of the supreme court in the our lady of guadalupe case ended up essentially adopting a position similar to that which you joi d joined, in the case i just mentioned, the our lady of guadalupe case. can you talk to us a little bit about that opinion and the seventh circuit opinion and its application of the ministerial exemption? >> sure. so the ministerial exemption, as you say, and the court described it, the ministerial gives religious institutions discretion to hire, as in the case of the school, teachers, it's called, who are ministers. what this gets at or what this requires courts to do is to decide who is a minister. on the one hand, there may be some which you could plainly -- it might be more obvious questions like someone who teaches religion, religion teachers. what the court has said is those were follow more in the heartland. it gets a little more difficult if you have a religious school like the jewish school or the catholic school in our

in terms of following i think the real question is does the court follow the constitution the court is not supposed to be a political body bending to the popular whims of the people just as the senate is designed to put a little distance in between the people and their representatives compared to the house the supreme court all courts or at least theoretically supposed to be a step further than that again their mission is not to follow popular opinion their mission is to follow the constitution of the united states and interpret whether there are laws that are passed or other regulatory events in line with those rights and privileges assured by the constitution. i suppose. the election is held. and biden wins and the democrats when the senate ship much camo asks for the approval of the new justices in a lame duck session absolutely the fact that it's a lame duck is reflective of the calendar and the fact that some of these folks will be departing shortly they don't lose their power to finish their constitutionally authorized and mandated x. . i do think if this vacancy had occurred

court." jonathan, the floor is yours. jonathan: great, thank you, john. it is a pleasure to be here. happy to talk about judge barrett's record. just some initial background, judge amy coney barrett has been on the seventh circuit for just under three years. she was confirmed in november of 2017. she has participated in over 600 cases and authored over 100 decisions, majorities, concurrences, and dissents. her record has been characterized as conservative, but it is worth noting that in this three-year period, despite being on 600 cases, she has not dissented all that often. there are not that many dissents from her opinions. she disagrees most often with judge david hamilton, an obama nominee. but they have only split i believe on 10 cases and then after judge hamilton, she is most often divided with judge wood and easterbrook, clinton and reagan judges respectively. one reason for that is she has a very no-nonsense approach to judicial decision-making. her opinions are thorough and careful

supreme court. they are in recess until tomorrow noon eastern. we expect the senate will vote sunday to limit debate over the confirmation which will set up a final vote on the nominee on monday, sometime late monday. next, the opening statements this morning from the majority leader mitch mcconnell and democratic leader chuck schumer starting with mcconnell. >> the culture motion. >> in accordance with provisions of rule 22, standing rules of the senate. nearby moved to bring to a close, debate on the nomination of amy coney barrett indiana, associate justice of the supreme court of the united states signed by 18 senators as follows. mcconnell, ernst, smith, blackburn, o-uppercase-letter, wicker, ran, purdue, cotton, f for, alexander. >> mr. president. >> majority leader. >> my first experience with supreme court confirmations here in the senate, i was a young staffer the number of the judiciary committee, that is also the same time climate a young guy named alexander who just left the senate to go to the whitego house for congressional affairs.

appeals court seventh circuit. first, a representative from the american bar association announcing the rating for judge barrett. process and our evaluation of judge barrett. rating judge barrett a of well-qualified, as you know, our highest rating. , the standing committee has conducted thorough nonpartisan, nonideological, impartial peer-reviewed's of all nominees of -- of the federal courts. 'e assess the nominees integrity, professional, -- competence and integrity. the standing committee does not propose -- propose or recommend nominees.

before the court in the future.hat is what court packing is, democrats talk all the time about how we respect and have to protect our norms and our traditions and institutions. as soon as they lose elections, they blow up the norms, that's exactly what is happening. >> the director of communications for the biden campaign kate bedingfield address the question about court packing, here's what she had to say about it. >> donald trump and republicans don't get to set the terms of this debate. this is a distraction that they want to grow out as a hypothetical and they want to throw now to distract from the fact that they are trying to ram through nominee who as i said is going to change the makeup of the court against the will of the iraqi people. jon: how does one consider the makeup and the justices on the supreme court a distraction? >> i don't know if it's a distraction it's when the joe biden is crated for himself, this is not a hypothetical. the left is pushing the idea of court packing in joe biden has created th

in 2006 the supreme court decided a decision in which the united states supreme court by a 5-4 ruling ruled when public employees speak pursuant to their official job duties, the constitution doesn't insulate them from discipline, and they have no first amendment protection. it doesn't matter how important the speechch is. it doesn't matter if the employee is a whistleblower, if the employee is engaged in official job duty speech, they have absolutely no first amendment protection. in 2007, the roberts court also in a 5-4 vote failed to recognize the free-speech rights of the public school students in the case known as the long hits for jesus case because several upended although they were upended as the torch for the relay was passing through juneau alaska. in context of the court has been quite deferential to the public schools and public employers and certainly to prisons. now, with regards to content, probably still the chief methodological tool we have in the first amendment jurisprudence is the so-called contentt discrimination principle. it's probably express most tellingly by

it is important to talk about the war in court. -- the warren court.hy was it his biggest mistake? ilya: earl warren was a republican governor of california and had a moderate record and was a popular figure in the party and contributed to eisenhower being selected as a presidential nominee. it was a bit of a reward as well as recognizing this was an esteemed republican public official and lawyer and should be a good choice for the court, especially to be chief justice, given the political skill required for that job. ultimately warren was a progressive, a liberal on the court and a host of ways, whether with regard to civil rights -- it was his court to put in the unanimous -- this was one of the less controversial parts of the court, the brown v. board of education and desegregation, the unanimous order. but other things related to criminal procedure and other areas that effectively spawned the modern conservative legal movement in response. eisenhower in seeing the direction warren took the court i think was surprised and disappointed. susan: 1968,

when judge barrett is elevated from her circuit court to the supreme court, she will go from a court that has a judicial code of conduct to a court that does not. she will go from a court that requires transparent disclosure of gifts, travel, and hospitality to a court that requires less disclosure not only in the circuit courts, it requires less disclosure than cabinet officials, requires less disclosure than members of congress. the highest court has the lowest standards for ethics and transparency. so to all of my colleagues who have given speeches about the integrity and value of the supreme court and our judicial branch, if you will help us as we try to look at what on earth is exactly going on over there. why ameek i curiae -- amici curiae show up in court without disclosing who they are really there for. why $17 million-plus checks are being written by anonymous individuals. what the relationship is between the $250 million that poured into leonard lee owe's effort is and who got chosen. what the expectations were of the people who spent $250 million to influence the makeup of

court to the supreme court. they say he is a republican. he is very conservative. if you want to go with a southern conservative nominee, he is your man. nixon says that sounds great, we will nominate him. there are two problems with the carswell nomination. the first is that haynesworth did have a couple of votes that were hostile to civil rights. it was no indication that haynesworth was racist or that he was personally hostile towards african-americans in any respect. he would stay on the circuit court after his defeat. for several years, he was well-liked liked by both parties. you might have liked his votes or disliked his votes, but he was not personally problematic. carswell, before entering the judiciary had run for public office in georgia. it doesn't appear as if the nixon people pick this up. in 1948, running for state legislature in georgia, he delivered a speech saying he was in favor of segregation forever. if haynesworth is unacceptable because of the civil rights positions, carswell will be worse

and i'll point out that the article was about circuit courts and courts of appeal. in my time on the seventh circuit i don't think there's been any evidence that i've been unwilling to follow or apply circuit precedent. as for the scholar criticizing me as a radical on stare decisis, i'm not sure who it was but i'm very surprised because i think in my conversation with senator feinstein earlier, i explained that the article which many people have plucked a sentence from, the texas law review article, was a defense of the supreme court's approach to constitutional stare decisis. >> your words weren't just limited to this context talking about individual litigants to how issue preclusion works, it was a novel analysis, the 2003 article, something i hadn't thought of about how it impacts an individual litigant. but in this 2013 university of texas law review article, which has also been referenced today, you wrote, and i'm quoting, it's more legitimate for a justice to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conf

supreme court, talking about his group's opposition to court packing. tonight on "the communicators," charlie mitchell, author of a new book on cybersecurity, talks about the administration's approach to cybersecurity and how its efforts compare with previous administrations and those of other countries. >> the message that the u.s. government has been really pressing on industry and business leaders, that the top person in an organization has to really personally take responsibility for cybersecurity and show that they are interested in it and that this is a cultural value within their organization. the government is telling that to companies, and i would think the same thing should apply to the government. host: watch it tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the competition is on. be a part of this year's c-span student cam video competition. middle and high school students , be the start of a national conversation by making a five to six-minute documentary ex-ploringt issues you want the president and congress to address in 2021. be bold. show

investiture ceremony that will take place at a special sitting of the court in the court room at a later date. the court because of the pandemic is not gathering to hear cases. they are doing it virtually and there are cases that begin already next week or the week after and justice amy coney barrett expect to begin work as early as tuesday. let's go to eugene in boston, good morning. >> caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. the nomination of judge barrett, i wasn't for it or against it. my only concern is that now six of the nine supreme court justices are of catholic faith and i don't feel that's reflective of america at this time because there's other denominations of catholicism as well, where is the methodist, protestant, baptist, christian. i wouldn't want to see 6 judges of 9 of anyone faith. i don't feel comfortable with that. and this is the same catholic faith that has been destroying the lives of children all over the world for centuries. with the catholic church, what has been going on with the destruction of children is not new. that has been going on for centuries.

and our state supreme court includingng the wisconsin n supreme court come d help pack thehese cordspee who o are very favorable to corporate agenda and far right wing social agenda which will repeal -- potentialally repepeaa lot of lawaws, the aca, roe v. wade, possibibly even -- [indiscernible] federalop our government from being able to mitigate climate change by putting up hurdles, judicial hurdles to our ability to enact legislation to regulate carbon. so everything is on the line and leonard leo represents an agenda both from a social standpoint and also from a corporate standpoint. a senator whitehouse said, this is an unreal situation where we have groups raising money from a small number of potential billion -- eventually billionaires for them to put people on the court overturned precedence. the progressive side, a people merely trying to protect the precedents that exist. they're not putting on judges to reverse precedence, they're trying to protect the precedents that many americans have relied upon for decades. it is a true crisis in our democracy to have this going on.