but if you can get to britain amy, brett kavanaugh, amy cohen barrett, and make them understand thatone is watching what they do. everybody will be watching to see if brett kavanaugh and amy cohen barrett decide to give guns to domestic abusers which will in turn lead to the murder of more women. everybody is gonna be watching that case and maybe intense public pressure and scrutiny, maybe good journalism, will help those justices c3 way clear to doing the right thing. >> john roberts get so embarrassed that he tries to hijack it in his own way. last question, i put this up with the guys who helped democracies die, and they agreed with your premise that it's in one of your nation pieces, if we just got rid of the electoral college, it actually could cool off some of the republican parties madness. because they would have to compete in the larger population, not just with their maga base. what are the chances of doing that, logistically, without getting rid of the electoral college? and this is something that even nixon considered. >> i saw that article, by the, way under absolutely r

justice brett kavanaugh told a judicial conference said he hopes there will be, quote, something soonaddress ethics concerns. joining us is ruth marcus, associate editor and columnist from "the washington post," not only the author of the book "brett kavanaugh and the supreme takeover." let's start with ethics. public confidence in the trust is low. i guess he has to do it by consensus. he can't order them to do anything. >> it would be better if he did it by consensus. it would be better if he actually did something. i've been writing this since all of lart term. happy first monday. he needs to either impose and let them dissent and say i'm not going along with this, call their bluff, or get them to agree on something that will take some steps to restore the understandably shaken faith of the public that these justices who have' nous mouse power to affect all of our lives, are playing by rules that don't put them in a different category than other government employees, that they're not taking junkets, not taking private plane trips, not having improper relationships with parties befo

i'm really more focused on justice brett kavanaugh who said at a conference a couple weeks ago that hehinks some kind of reform is coming soon. the problem is not going to be whether the court does anything. i think the problem is whether what it ultimately does will satisfy its critics. the answer is probably almost surely no. >> yeah. to your point, i was going to add, how can you instill a new level of confidence or reinvigorate a level of confidence from a public standpoint that whatever decisions they come to aren't motivated by some form of political purpose? >> i think the short answer is and always has been that the justices gain their legitimacy and they burnish public confidence through their actions, not through their words. i think we are going to have to see what kinds of rulings come out. we will see whether there's any effort on the part of most of the justices to, for example, start explaining why they are recusing. this is something justin kagan has started doing. to provide some kind of explanation for the controversial cases in which they are not recusing. this is so

take the reader inside the decision-making around worries like edward snowden, testimony against brett kavanaugh of movements. there was internal pressure from some journalists about how to cover those stories and what they could say on social media. >> there is a generational divide about how these jobs are viewed. what they should be permitted to do. social media did not exist when i grew up in journalism. journalists should speak for themselves. i still believe that. it should be powerful journalism. whatever repulsive thoughts they have. i stick by my position on that. i think journalism should speak for itself. >> during your time of the boston globe you were instrumental in the coverage of the catholic church abuse scandal. what were the key challenges that journalism faces? in this area when the pursuit of truth is cast as a partisan enterprise. >> people cannot agree on what is a fact. that is the biggest challenge we face. the financial pressures that we face in this industry. the transformation to the digital media environment. all of this is enormous. the fact that the public cannot a

i know brett kavanaugh was recently at an event where he said he thought we would, not exactly sure how he phrased it but i hope that that is true. >> can you tell us what the holdup is? >> no. no. what goes on in the conference room goes on in the conference room. i don't want to suggest that there's one holdout. this is for various reasons having to do a certain differences between the supreme court and other courts, there are complicated issues here, there are totally good-faith disagreements. there are some things to be worked out that i hope we can get worked out. >> i withdraw the question. you are arguably one of the best writers in the court and a lot of writers agree that is the case. do you have any tips for young lawyers, law students as to how they can write better? >> first of all, thank you, thank you very much for that complement, whether or not it is true. first rule is edit edit edit. there are very few people, i'm not one of them, whose first draft is a gift. first drafts were meant to be succeeded by second drafts which are meant to be succeeded by third draft and eve

edward snowden's revelations of government surveillance, christine blasey ford's testimony against brett kavanaughcoverage of the black lives matter and metoo movements. and you note that, while there were these cultural and racial reckonings happening, there was also internal pressure from some journalists about how to cover those stories and what they could say on social media. you declared yourself weary of well-meaning, but moralistic young journalists. in what ways? marty: there is a bit of a generational divide between how journalists of my generation view our jobs and how a younger generation of journalists views what they should be permitted to do. social media didn't exist when i grew up in journalism. and our view was always that the journalism itself should speak for itself. and i still believe that. i believe that what we should be focusing on is the work, the journalism, and it should be powerful journalism. it should be rigorous. it should be thoroughly researched, totally fact-based. and that should be the statement that we make to the public, that journalists should not be just goi

amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh.saying. they been leading with we need to do this. there would be eminent action. you are asking, i think there are signs of fisher's here. some of them want to stem the leading. that is -- . i don't think those will be coming from the republican justices ifdurbin and -- were not keeping the pressure on. >> do you think that is the two younger justices that have the longest time left to serve that might want to improve the impression of the supreme court? >> yes. i can't speak to it the exact motivation but certainly, based on the pattern, the members that have engaged in the most unknown and undisclosed activity like this. it could be banned for lower court judges and happen to be members that have been on the court the longest. it is possible that the norms that existed kind have fell away over time. we have been looking at all the justices. we would be more surprised to find something out. one of the newest appointees. >> we appreciate you both. thank you very much. >>> we will be r

to the extent we are saying center back to the states and that was just as brett kavanaugh -- justiceby-state issue, nobody is going to say you cannot get an abortion in the state that permits it. the mifepristone case puts the light of that because that case does not say we are doing the way with abortion drug only in states that want to do away with it. it is a federal ban on every single state including states that allow abortion may not use mifepristone. we are seeing places like texas making it unlawful to cross the state lines going to a state governments and abortion. that comes back to the fugitive slave act. this is just for a minute it is simply a state-by-state ban is not true. states prohibit you from entering another state to terminate a pregnancy, that is a national ban for purpose of somebody in texas or order who wants to leave the state. i think the last thing i want to say i am not using my podcasts or my pen or this conversation to recruit people to my values and my views. i am presenting what i think is a fair exclamation. i have a law degree, i know some stuff and

to the extent we are saying center back to the states and that was just as brett kavanaugh -- justiceate-by-state issue, nobody is going to say you cannot get an abortion in the state that permits it. the mifepristone case puts the light of that because that case does not say we are doing the way with abortion drug only in states that want to do away with it. it is a federal ban on every single state including states that allow abortion may not use mifepristone. we are seeing places like texas making it unlawful to cross the state lines going to a state governments and abortion. that comes back to the fugitive slave act. this is just for a minute it is simply a state-by-state ban is not true. states prohibit you from entering another state to terminate a pregnancy, that is a national ban for purpose of somebody in texas or order who wants to leave the state. i think the last thing i want to say i am not using my podcasts or my pen or this conversation to recruit people to my values and my views. i am presenting what i think is a fair exclamation. i have a law degree, i know some stuff