. >> my former employer anthony kennedy. >> that is correct. >> which future chief justice was responsible for adding in god we trust to u.s. currency. >> you need to be civil about this. >> i think there is something fishy about this question. >> that is correct. he served as a treasury secretary before the limit to the supreme court. >> which future justice. >> steve prior. unfortunately the seat went to ruth bader ginsburg but the following year he would be tapped for another vacancy. >> when he was a child which future justice and lifelong chicago cubs fan attended world series games. >> justice john paul stevens. he attended the world series. >> okay. we are moving to the next category presidents and justices but let's do a quick chaffin with the score. it is a close game. in reference to chief justice earl warren and brennan who said i make mistakes as president and both of them are sitting on the supreme court. >> eisenhower. >> that is correct. >> this one may or may not be apocryphal. which resident said john marshall has made his decision. let him enforce it. >> president jackson

if you look particularly at brett kavanaugh, the newest justice replacing anthony kennedy, he is particularly known for a solicitous view of executive power. this is, however, such an egregious violation of the norms and it seems to me the law of separation of powers. the obama rules on immigration were more defensible. that's an area where the president traditionally has a lot of individual discretion. this is the power of the purse. this is about spending money which is a core responsibility of the congress under article one of the constitution. the idea that the president can simply ignore congress and spend money is something different and even conservatives may rebel. >> they'll say they are basing it on a law congress passed, the emergency act of 1976. they'll say they are using congressional action to justify it. i don't know if that will convince a judge or not. that's what they'll say. >> you're certainly right that will be the justification. since that law has passed several dozen times, every president has used it in one way or another. however, it's never been used in the face of

. >> this is one concrete evidence of the presence of brett cavanaugh and the absence of anthony kennedy on this issue. >> he could be. it's possible. but i don't know what justice kennedy would have thought about the question of, or have you reviewed the question of, discretion in the military as to who can come in and who can't. after all, took an act of congress to allowin the military. it wasn't done by the supreme court. i'm not 100% sure that it would have made the critical difference, but it might well have. i really don't know. it's not, it's this other case decided today, that definitely will be very different and other case is about gun rights, and the court for the first time in almost a decade agreed to hear a major gun rights case. and the cases from new york, new york had a pretty strict ordinance that says you can have a license to have a handgun in your home, which is what the court said in 2008 and 2010, and the mcdonald cases. you can use a gun for your own self defense in your home so new york has an ordinance that gives you a license to do that, and if you have that l

justice anthony kennedy explained it this way, in a rule of law system, when you apply to a governmentlerk for a permit and you meet the criteria, you're not asking for a favor. you have a right to the permit and that clerk has an obligation to give it to you. in many countries, that concept of government officials bound by law to serve the people simply does not exist. now a society can achieve the appearance of the rule of law without accomplishing it in fact. in shakespeare's play, he brags to the devil. he claims i can summon spirits from the deep. his skeptical friend replies, so can i. the question is, will they come when you call them? an agreed upon set of rules is not a sufficient condition. the rule of law is not just about written precepts, it's not about the words. it depends on the individual linds ence of the character. as james madison recognized because you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. the founders of our nation understood that challenge. first they fought a war on their own soil to break f

his replacement of anthony kennedy who voted with the majority in the texas case really suggests that this law is going to be upheld and roe is increasingly in peril. >> just two points. number one roberts voted against the texas, or he said the texas law was constitution what it was there. this time he's voting differently for now. if he switches. >> yeah. >> that would be a giant deal. but you're saying you don't think he will? >> no, i don't think he will. >> okay. >> on the merits, i don't think he's going to switch. i think he's going to join with the conservatives. >> you think he'll go back to the conservatives. does he stay with the liberals or go back to the conservatives and the previous ruling? >> right. >> brett kavanaugh in this case seemed to be trying to find some kind of strange middle ground here which is to say that he would uphold the louisiana law for 45 days? >> because he said louisiana has promised not to enforce the law aggressively. whatever that means. i mean, the law is so completely contradictory to binding current supreme court precedent that, you know, it

justice anthony kennedy explained it this way. in a rule of law system, when you apply to a government clerk for a permit and you meet the criteria, you're not asking for a favor. you have a right to the permit, and that clerk has an obligation to give it to you. in many countries, that concept of government officials bound by law to serve the people simply does not exist. now, a society can achieve the appearance of the rule of law without accomplishing it in fact. shacks peer's play "henry iv," a prince brags about his connections to the devil. he proudly proclaims, i can summon spirits from the vastly deep. a skeptical friend mockingly replies, so can i. but the question is, will they come when you call them? [laughter] mr. rosenstein: an agreed-upon set of rules is a necessary condition for a system that operates under the rule of law but it is not a sufficient condition. the rule of law is not just about written percepts. it's not just about the words. it depends on the vigilance and character of the individual men and women

filled anthony kennedy in a presidential election year occurred in the previous year. the actual vote was taken in the year. >> the vacancy was created in 1987. >> as senator alexander has noted, it was the thurman rule that was driving it. it was violated when garland wasn't given the chance for hearing. >> i will note that in the explanation, the senator from illinois did not dispute the joe biden rule very -- said what it occurs in an election year will not be taken up at the site. presidentbecame vice under president obama. today,s his rule and yet senate democrats treat following the joe biden rule and following centuries of tradition and practice in the senate is somehow a great outreach. the final question, mr. chairman, i want to understand. the ranking member, if i hurt her correctly, said that she agrees with the substance of the proposal and that, i think i wrote this down correctly, she disagrees about the date. in other words, this is a rule that makes sense. this is a rule that is fair. this is a rule that harry reid put in place for barack obama. my unde

. >> you've been very careful if your language, the vacancy that senator-- or that justin anthony kennedy filled in a presidential election year occurred in the previous year. >> it did. >> you but the vote was taken in the presidential year. >>, but the vacancy was created in 1987. >> and senator alexander has noted, before then, it wasn't the biden rule driving the train was the thurmon rule driving it violated when merrick garland wasn't given the chance for a hearing. >> well, i will note that in the explanation that the senator from illinois didn't dispute that the biden rule, very explicitly said a supreme court vacancy that occurs in a presidential election year will not be taken up by the senate and that's what we followed, joe biden was chairman. judiciary committee, became vice-president under president obama, as everyone knows. that was his rule and yet, today senate democrats treat following the biden rule and following centuries of tradition and practice as the senate as somehow a great outrage. so, the final question, mr. chairman, i want to understand, the ranking member, i

looks like at least again, at least for this stay, john roberts is filling the position that anthony kennedyefore and sandra day o'connor did before where, yes, they were looking at the law but they were also looking at where two-thirds of american were and also trying to fill fig out exa -- figure out how far they can move the supreme court in one direction or another with severely damaging the reputation of that court. >> sandra day oconors, she was obviously political. john roberts is an institutionalist. he is the closest thing on a swing vote on the court right now. he doesn't just understand precedent, he values it. so the prj so with that precedent, there was no way that roberts was going to allow the conservative majority to just reverse it a couple of years later and say have at it, andy abortion forces. so it's going to be very interested going forward but he is the closest thing to a swing vote now. >> frnl. how the president is using this issue to reand van jel call. >> how would you approach donald trump? how would you get in his face, if you believe that's the right floor in. >

kennedy: anthony weiner did that. >> they have to meet the criteria.hese facilities are licensing depends on having admission criteria. if he doesn't moment criteria for a treatable acute condition, if he has a chronic character problem, that's a chronic condition. you can minimize some of the manifestations, but it doesn't really change unless that fern have much wants to change. kennedy: doesn't he see the fallout of this whole thing falling apart? someone so caught up in his fantasy, and placing themselves as the victim who ultimately becomes the hero, are they not able to see the flip side? >> a feature of that pathology is it's never me, it's always out there. it could be narcissism. borderline. and they will do very destructive manipulative acts with those conditions. i feel bad for him. i'm a clinician. when people have a first time problem or major -- major psychiatric pathology i feel bad for the person. ken report rest of us look at this and say what a jerk. he makes people look bad and he doesn't seem to mind that. if there is any scepticism

. >> greg: anthony weiner is the spokesman. >> kennedy: all sorts of people getting in the weed game. be high? >> kennedy: to alleviate pain. >> juan: it doesn't get you high, the cbd. >> dana: a girlfriend of mine gave me some cbd oil for my muscle tension in my upper back and i have to tell you it works quite well. >> greg: you take pot! you are a drug addict! >> kennedy: it's not psychoactive. >> greg: i want to make her feel guilty about breaking the law. >> dana: a mom on a ten-hour flight hands out 200 bags of candy, earplugs in case the baby cries. this is mine. a mom who was worried because she was taking the kid on the first light. she gets on the plane and this is what the note says. i am four months old. today i'm going to be flying with my mom and grandma. i hope i can be quiet. apparently she didn't make a peep the entire flight. isn't that a nice thing? >> jesse: i say do less, mom. >> greg: hand out airplane bottles of booze. >> dana: good idea. the >> juan: for kids. >> kennedy: babies love the white noise on planes. it's the toddlers who raise holy hell. >> juan: we h

offer from a clinton ally, ex-state department official patrick kennedy, to have the bureau reduce the classification that they found on anthony weiner's laptop, a clinton e-mail, in exchange will boost fbi personnel abrd. change the classification so she doesn't to have go to jail. the report later in the show. first, joining us now, our top story, former acting i.c.e. director, fox news director, thomas holeman and mark meadows. congressman meadows, i was listened to the president publicly and i hear a guy saying, okay, it's clean, the 1. 375, i can use it for the wall, i'll use this extra money between $900 million and maybe billions, and i'm going to declare a national emergency and people don't seem to want to listen to him. >> well, they better start listening to him. this is a president who has performed over and over and over again. he's moved the embassy to jerusalem. he's brought back jobs from china to america. the economy is roaring. we have got a number of people that were hostages brought home. every time they say he won't do it, he does do it. he's going to do it this time. i'm confident of that. if he passes th

offer from a clinton ally, x-ray department official, patrick kennedy, to have the bureau reduce the classification that they found onin anthony weiner's laptop, a clinton email, and exchange, we'll boost fbi personnel abroad. but just change the classification so she doesn't have to go to jail. we'll have a report coming up later in the show. first, training is now, our top story, former acting i.c.e. director, fox news contributor thomas homan. freedom caucus chairman mark meadows. congressman meadows, i just listened to the president publicly, and i hearia guy saying, okay, if it's cleanc the $1.375 billion, i could use it for the wall, i'll take it.ll i'll use the extra money, anywhere between $900 million and maybe billions. and i will declare a national emergency. people don't seem to want to listen to him. b >> they better start listening to him. this is a president who has performed over and over and over again. he's moved to the embassy to jerusalem. he's brought back jobs from china to america. the economy iss roaring. we've got a number of people brought home.ages every time they say he won't do it, he does do it. h

after the whole anthony weiner -- if your kid isn't in the picture, i think you're going to be fine. [laughter] kennedy for public figures these days. he's not an elected official. >> he's a public figure. kennedy: he might become the next governor of virginia at this point. [laughter] >> he's seventh in line? i think two more people wear black face -- kennedy: and, by the way, jeff bezos is like, good news, no black face in the photos. [laughter] >> this lawyer should be fired or even potentially -- i mean, how stupid do you have to be to put this in writing? extortion, otherwise known as a shakedown. i mean, the definition is very simple. you try to obtain something by threatening somebody else. it's a criminal offense. >> yeah, what were they thinking? >> when you read the e-mail, it reads very clearly. jeff, if you don't stop doing this, we will not consider, not establishing the photos. and follows up with, you know, common sense can prevail, do this or else. and so did he, are they going to publish them? probably not. he nullified the whole thing. nobody cares about. kennedy: jeev jeff bezos does

kennedy: and not agreeing with the president overstepping the bounds of executive action, because there were conservatives who were really frustrated when president obama did that, as anthonyere, it shouldn't be okay over here. >> everyone sphreeke freaked oue made that phone and pen comment. and now that a republican is doing it, they say yeah, we have to do this. next time the president might not be a republican or might not do something that you're a fan of them doing. and if they can go ahead and do it without congress, that should be something that scares you. >> i don't believe the president argument holds a ton of water. the democrats are the ones that got rid of the filibuster. this idea that the democrats did it first, that issue doesn't stand. >> democrats hold true to their constitutional statements. kennedy: democrats will take government power to spend money in any way they possibly can. >> whether trump would have done this or not. >> they can say hey, he did it. >> upping the game severely. kennedy: but they can also say aoc said climate change is going to kill us in 10 years. >> gun control and climate change be a big thing if there's a democratic president