may it please the court. the court knows in the time since the last oral argument in this case the committee referred to the house of representatives, the house of representatives approved two articles of impeachment. neither of those articles arise out of the events investigated by the special counsel nor the events described in the report of the special counsel land we are here today facing a different claim by the committee, for some political reasons pages 13 to 17 of the supplements a brief their argument is they need the grand jury information to prove in a senate trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the house, the president's culpability for those high crimes and misdemeanors. there are a couple problems with that. the first is that is not what the court found in this case. the court knows we have significant concerns, we don't think she applied to test at all but put that aside. what the district court found was the house of representatives was acting preliminary to a senate impeachment tr

look at the court. succeedhat women can't on their own, we can't succeed on a level playing field with men, that we rely upon abortion in order to compete with men in society and in the workforce. in order to succeed. in order to plan our education and careers and family and future. i can't think of a more offensive ideas and that. knowing my experience, in the case of so many women who i have counseled and comforted and represented, the decision really wasn't one of choice. abortionurn to believing that there was no other choice or better choice. looking at the experience itself, how, in my case and in the case of many others, our omy was -- auton stripped from us. i would say that it's not surprising. it's not surprising when you have legal scholars on both the left in the right criticizing roe and saying, maybe i agree with roe as a policy decision but i don't agree with it as a constitutional matter. because it really isn't based in the constitution. cases as a string of part of the president to dec

the court. constantly the courts are ordering disclosure of grand jury material. so if they do that the only reason that it doesn't -- it wouldn't happen is if the justice department decides we're going to defy that order. so, that's what i'm saying. >> the power the to order might be different in this context where it's the congress that's seeking materials, and there's an inter branch dispute. might be different or at left arguably different from a case in which a criminal defendant is seeking that material. >> i'll try again but i think we're going round and round. first of all it's different in one sense. supreme court made clear disclosures within the government are much easier. that's another factor, judge griffith clearly recognize the case. this is a disclosure within the government. there's a presumption of regularity by the judiciary committee. the judiciary committee still has not released the watergate road map. they know how to protect grand jury material when it needs to be be protected. the skrecy is even lower than normal. judge, it seems to me tha

the court. so, we are now at the point where i don't think the current justices will be as brave as justice kennedy. i will fully predict, unlike my adversary here, this court is prepared to over rule roe and return the matter to the states and permit recriminalization of abortion. why do i say that? they have been very cavalier about stare decisis since gorsuch joined the court. more than anything, everybody says oh, justice roberts is going to save the date. he was a good vote on health care reform. justice roberts is not going to save the day on abortion. he was very much a student of justice rehnquist. he was a clerk for justice rehnquist. he believed in rehnquist's views on most of these issues. and it was justice rehnquist who wrote the opinion overruling roe. so in my view, it is absolutely clear roe will be overturned. we will return to permitting states to re-criminalize abortion. the only question in my mind is when. i think this court is politically savvy and will wait until after the

court. and that that would not be admissible. this change that? there would not be standing. that?es rule 16 change >> this is a very under theorized area. we are trying to figure out how the courts have understood the relationship between the district court's authority over grand jury records under rule 16 and article three. aboute not been shy making objections to the standing of congressional entities two lawsuits. is here is how we understood rule 16. there is not a lot of authority either way on this. 16 to reflectrule the chief judge of the district court continuing authority over a grand jury under the auspices of the district court and managed by the district court. the supreme court says that supervisory authority exercises over a grand jury is a limited one. it includes the power of convenient -- convenience. six-enk that rule reflects an understanding that part of that authority which is part of the judicial power of the united states has been the management of the records of the

court does. the community says your honor, it is relevant. but why? the whole notion that the district court cannot control either the senate trial or control documents ordered to be released, this is a question of how far can the district court go. and tentatively, there's no reason to take a face value. >> the representation they need, we know not to take it at face value. the house retrenched from that. they backed off of that. i think that is indicative. just to give you one example. page 649, then joint appendix in section one of the mueller report in which the special counsel is expanding why the players in the investigations are not indicted and there are rejections in that section. that is classic grand jury secrecy to protect the rights of people who were investigated, but not indicted. they are described in the text of the mueller report as peripheral players, not the players they discussed. if the house wants to say we have such a compelling need for why peripheral players were not ind

have made it clear that appeals. -- appeals court, supreme court must be read in context of what was particularly at issue and what's the holding of the court was and the rationale and the reasoning and the explanation may go out beyond that as we all know. that's why i started with my hypothetical and your response to judge henderson makes it perfectly clear there are no circumstances in the department of justice's view this type of matter, enforcing a subpoena in order to carry out a constitutional duty is properly in the courts. >> to the contrary, your honor. i think this court has a long line of cases that recognize that it will not be bound, not just by the strict holdings and precise facts of supreme court opinion, but carefully that-- -- carefully considered language of the supreme court will be treated -- >> i understand. >> possibly be characterized as -- >> and even if it's -- the three pages in raynes can't possibly be characterized as -- and the idea that this court says that none of that matters -- >> no, we don't have to say that. >> they have no affirmative basis to h

court of appeals for the d.c. circuit heard oral argument on whether president trump's former white house counsel must comply with the congressional subpoena to testify on the mueller investigation. this is one hour and 15 minutes. ller investigation. >> all persons having business before the honorable united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. draw near and give their attention so the court is now sitting. be seated, please. >> case number 19-5331 committee on the judiciary of the united states house of representatives versus donald f mcgahn 2nd appellate. >> good morning, your honor. may it please the court. > the house judiciary committee seeks to assert an implied cause of action to enforce the subpoena to compel mr. mcgahn to testify regarding his duties as white house counsel over the objection of the president of the united states. this interbridge dispute over institutional prerogatives bears no resemblance to be >> against nonfederal officials, congress enforce subpoenas against

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 moment for me wa

supreme court president. we have seen the most radical group of people appointed at the federal bench and we have seen the last 25 years. they wouldn't even discuss whether or not they thought brown versus board of education is the appropriate law, so his radical judges. they will strike down a bill and force it to be appealed, it and i think we do ourself a disservice to believe that this won't happen, and the only reason i'm so emphatic about that is because now is the time to take action in the appropriate action to take is to start supporting state legislators who believe what you believe. whether you're against abortion or pro choice, and a question of how abortion is regularly going forward, wherever we believe will be determined by who sits in our state capitals, and therefore it is our obligation to think the most dramatically. think that this could happen, because now is the time to make that change, otherwise is today. you have trifecta as in 22 states, you have nine states have trigger laws. if the

the montana supreme court disagreed. that court held that barring religious schools from the program did not violate the federal constitution. this court should reverse that judgment. even responded, we now concede that excluding religious schools from the program is unconstitutional, but they argued that the court avoided the discrimination by invalidating the entire program. this is wrong. the only reason the court invalidated the program was because it included religious schools. and the court's remedy did not cure its discriminatory judgment nor should the remedy shield the judgment from review. petitioners brought this lawsuit because they were denied scholarships based on religion and they are still being denied scholarships based on religion. if the court had shut down the program because it included muslim schools are african-american schools, there is no question that would be unconstitutional. we ask you to reverse. respondents argue in the alternative that the law allows them to exclude the religious schools a

>> are we talking about the court doing this? >> the court doing this. >> no. when you have a constitutional conflict between the 2 constitutions -- >> you just told me the federal constitution doesn't stop the state from choosing not to give aid. >> that's right. but here, the state chose to give aid, and it has been stopped from giving aid to our clients. >> well it chose to give aid consistent with the constitutional amendment. and the constitutional amendment sets restrictions on funds. and as a result of the restrictions on funds that the constitutional amendment set, in this case, which i have always understood to be a challenge to the way the constitutional amendment operated on a particular program, as a result of this challenge, what has happened is neither the parents who want to send their children to religious schools, nor the parents want to send their children to secular schools get what they would like to get. so they are both being treated the same way. >> only as a result of a mistaken understanding of the free exercise clause. >> i mean, we do

the courts are not powerless. the courts can do a lot. in a far stronger position if we just have the tiniest bit of guidance and cooperation with congress. you do things in governance in conjunction with the other branchs. you don't just go it alone. we're at our weakest possible posture in this case. and i fear that we're going to be tossed into the partisan scrum, which is unfortunate because i think that when õpartisan fevers grip the county the way it is, it is best sometimes for the courts to back off and say we don't want to be part of it, we want to be dedicated to what we all are dedicated to, which is the rule of law. and i can't see how the rule of law is vindicated by a suit that is wholly unprecedented in nature and that is taken on a solo basis. we're flying solo. and taking a provision which is not self-executing and writing our own cause of action, which is, last time i checked, i thought to be a legislative, not a judicial matter. >> so i know i'm well over my time but i do have a few responses. this is not a political su

court? justice ginsberg: no one thinks that my life -- my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice. david: where there are other justices saying we are happy to see you here? justice ginsberg: justice o'connor was the most welcoming. gave me some very good advice. would you fix your tie? david: people not recognize me if my tie was fixed. leave it this way. ♪ david: i do not consider myself a journalist. nobody else would consider myself a journalist accurate i begin to take on the life of being an interview even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody tick? cornell,en you went to your grades were very good. you applied to law school at harvard and got into harvard law school. was the class have women and half men? [laughter] justice ginsberg: in those ancient days, i went to law school from 1956 to 1959. in my entering class of harvard law school there were 500 and the class, nine of us were women. a big jump

court does. the community says your honor, it is relevant. >> the whole notion that the district court cannot control the senate trial or control documents ordered to be released, this is a question of goesar the district court and tentatively, there's no reason to take it at you. >> we know not to take it at face value. that.use retrenched from i think that is indicative. the jointne on appendix of the mueller report in which the special counsel is the investigations are not indicted and there are rejections in that. that is classic grand jury secrecy to protect the rights of people who were investigated, but not indicted. say wehouse wants to have such a compelling need for why they were not indicted by the special counsel, that is showing the district court be dumped out. >> how do they know they are peripheral players? court's have had more proceedings than the department of justice. >> we are not expressing any doubt. we are saying this is a request for grand jury information. rules are ther

the clearer the court is about what the court is doing. the other thing we haven't talked about is, there is a remote possibility that the court will at some point recognize a right to life, which would result in nationwide criminalization. i don't think that is on the tables in. -- on the tables soon. there is some reason to think that should happen. has interest in national law arguments that would lend themselves to recognizing right to life. i wouldn't be surprised. i'm the person thinking that it's going to take a while to get to overturning roe. i'm not saying that's going to happen tomorrow, but that's another question, too. that would be very controversial as well. i think that's probably the single biggest variable in terms of predicting what the court will do and when. the courts probably worried that there could be a backlash, especially if they do something, kind of a very clear clarence thomas style opinion overturning roe. i think that is probably the only thing that would either slow down the train -- i think there's a real

circuit court of appeals court. judges with her test when any case regarding house lawmakers attempt to unseal grand jury testimony and documents from the mueller investigation. we expect that oral argument to last about an hour. the court in the midst of the break for that case gets underway. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible] [inaudible] .. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the court is in session, be seated please. case number 19, 288, application of the judiciary, us house of representatives, with certain grand jury material on the judiciary, the department of justice. >> good morning again, your honor. may it pas

in the aur case, the decision by the supreme court did go along with the idea that the courts shouldve agencies, but they put so many -- the liberals on the court to get the vote that they needed, put so many restrictions on how the aur doctrine could be imposed. >> they put cut it down. >> it's if it's deference at all. a court would have to go through a tremendous amount of detail to be able to say that it will give deference to an agency. the chevron case, on the other hand, which the chief justice separated from this whole aur question, deference to an administrative agencies regulation, he said no, whatever -- however i'm voting on this doesn't have anything to do with my vote on chevron. and chevron is a case that is really troubling because it essentially gives the power to agencies. it tells lower courts they should defer to decisions agencies make about the powers given by congress. that means it's difficult if you're trying to overturn a regulation by an agency, because the judge who you're arguing before is -- has been told by the supreme court he should defer to the agenc

enough in this court, this court should assume that there was no lack of authority -- >> is there any reason to think that the jury actually made a finding about baroni's authority. >> no-no reason whatsoever the district court was attempting to make sure that they didn't consider that be relevant. that was what we pressed, what that this is the relevant distinction and the district court wanted to make sure the jury didn't believe it was a defense and nothing in the jury instructions suggested it would be a defense. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. fagan. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and plaintiff it meese the court. the defendants in this case committed fraud by telling a lie to take control over the physical access lanes to the george washington bridge and the employee resources necessary to re-align them. unless they lied about the existence of a port authority traffic study, fun of them had the fewer direct the resources and realign the lanes. because they told that lie, those resources were answering to them, to their own private purposes, rather than to the public offi

in addition to court she has legitimized the court usually in these kinds of situations when international courts find against individuals or stockton quite easy against water claims or general sate their usual policy is to deny the legitimacy of the court but. me on must simply cannot do that anymore. under center payments our argument also backfired her argument was that there was no say there's only water claims are being committed and we can argue and we take action against that but the court has decided that you know those walk aims can turn into general say hence why they have to take these provisional measures so and he has been going through a process of trying to buy taint she has set up numerous commissions of inquiry of our own one of them just reported yesterday richard all just seen as whitewash is a. scene as well washes one of the previous inquiries which me and my dead you know after one of the previous episodes of general say a quiet he came to the conclusion that when he came committed was that a soldier story so this is the level of inquiry that they're undertaking and t

of the supreme court, the supreme court would heal here court cases on a subject of nine and each panel would be prohibited from having more than five justices nominated by a president of a single political party, no more than five republicans or democrats at a time and the second is a balanced bench and that's the proposal that mayor buttigieg has endorsed. these 10 would select an additional five justices from the current circuit court judges and the 10 partisan affiliated justices would have to select an additional five justices unanimously two years in advance or for a one-year term. powerful, creative, not easy to get through congress obviously to put it mildly. so is it fair to say that the convention might be the surest or most probable way of achieving these reforms and what do you think of the idea of an article 5 convention to achieve the reforms thatyou advocate ? >> when you these reforms in particular i think to be clear what we were trying to do is get out in front of a debate that's currently happening on the left which is a common if we ever get both houses of congress b

court struck down the formula. the way the voting rights act if you are a state or city or county that kept ,frican-americans from voting you could not make any change in voting legislation unless you precleared it with the department of justice civil rights division or with the three-judge district court in the district of columbia. check suppressed many laws that would have discouraged african-americans from voting. the supreme court said the formula for who was is nowinating in 1965 out of date. congress needs to do it over because jurisdictions that were discriminating in 1965 may have clean hands today. the political problem was what member of congress, what senator, what representative, would stand up and say my state or my city or my county is still it underating, so keep the surveillance that the voting rights act provides. it was not going to happen. the act itself had a bailout provision. county indeedty, had clean hands for several elections, it could bailout. device was all that was needed. this student

the court, the court says no rule, the house has the sole power of impeachment.hat's a dangerous construct for our constitution. it suggests once they flip the switch on for impeachment there's no check on their power on what they want to do and that's not the way the constitution is structured. the constitution requires when there are interbranch conflicts that there be accommodation process. that there be attempts to address the interests of both branches, and that the house has taken the position and in other litigation, in the mcgahn litigation, they're telling the courts, the courts are the only way to resolve these issues and they brought that case in august. they already have a decision from the district court. they have an appeal in the d.c. circuit. it was argued on january 3rd, a decision could come any day. that's pretty fast for litigation. but they've decided in this impeachment, they don't-- they don't want to do litigation. and again, it's because they had a timetable. one of the house managers admitted on this floor they had to get the president i

me and more must prevent genocide against the ring tone that's the order from the international court of justice its judges say rohingya muslims there are extremely vulnerable but will this ruling make a difference or is it just symbolic this is inside story. hello and welcome to the program i'm homage i'm joined the international court of justice the world's highest court has ordered me and mars government to prevent its military from committing acts of genocide against the regime go feral in the end i have been subjected to actors. keep it a trick in their right to fix these things the i.c.j. has also warned that they were in the muslim minority remain at serious risk of genocide and ordered the country to abide by the genocide convention and take all measures within its power to prevent further killings the case brought by the gambia last year accuses me and more of committing an ongoing genocide against us minority muslim population mean more denies the allegations thursday's ruling comes just days after an inquiry backed by me and more as government dismissed allegations of genoc

go to court. we have heard concerns about the length of time the litigation might take. those of us who have litigated know that sometimes it does take longer than we would like. justice delayed is justice denied. we all agree with that. butt churchill's maxim to study history that tells us it's not necessarily so. take by way of example the pentagon papers case. orders issued preventing and sanctioning agr gross violation of freedom of the press. the order issued with the district court june 151971 that order was reversed in the opinion by the supreme court of the united states two weeks later june 15 the house of representatives followed that well trodden path and could seek expedition six months down in the courthouse the judges are there they are all very able and hard-working with integrity. follow the path of the law. go to court. there would have been at least one problem had the house seen fit to go to court the issue is before you but among those flaws they counsel determined and i believ

in thank you districted court in -- in district court, the government alleged that he was responsible for the general supervision of all aspects of port authority business, including the operations of its transportation facilities. from its main cooperating witness, the government elicited that exact statement precisely, ticking off one of the allegations from the indictment. it elicited from the witness that the title "deputy executive director was a misnomer. but within the port authority structure, the deputy director and the deputy executive director had a 50-50 split in terms of power-sharing. that the deputy executive director was not the number two position within the port authority. that is from the government and it from -- eliciting its own cooperative witness. the arrangement is always that, that there is a new york representative who was the executive director and the new jersey representative who is the deputy. is that right? >> that was at the time the arrangement. it was always appoint bid the by the deputy executive director and the governor of new york for the executi

it went up the supreme court and the supreme court ruled in favor.ou're goingonger, to start the season antitrust class-action challenges against some of the licensing boards, particularly the ones that have no oversight from the government and are comprised entirely of private actors and that is going to be interesting to see. it's not what i do, but it could end up being helpful. >> we have time for one last question. >> i was wondering, have you ever considered joining a consumer to your action? a texas lady says i don't want to go to relicense barber, you're interfering with my right to have my hair braided how i want and by whom i want. have you ever considered following or joining in that way? >> yes, we have. we've done that in some of our cases. quite a few of our cases were one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer, and that's not just true for licensing cases, that is true for a lot of our economic, liberty, and re-speech cases where the person wants to buy the service or the person wants to hear this age, they are being harmed, an

court. i mean, tds -- it is worth reading because any number of allegations in the complaint -- >> if the respondents now agree that in the end, the burden -- the substantive standard is but for, is there a dispute about that issue before us or is the only question before us whether enough facts were pled under 12b6 and ikball and twombly and which is what this seems to have devolved into and is there not the big issue that has been portrayed? >> i think they would further have to agree what they mean is but for causation and they bear the burden of persuasion like in all elements. >> so the disagreement would be if the evidence is exactly with which way does it go, that's what it would be? >> no. i think what they mean to say in accepting the standard is but for in the sense that they accept the price waterhouse plurality opinion. they just don't want to call it that because they understand that this court is not buying it. >> what would happen and why is the burden of production on the iss

court, judge ended jury, done. that's the end of the case. i represented many losing parties. than anybody who's a lawyer for a wire poll will tell you, are trying to say something. they were not happy always with the decision of the court. they were upset by it. but they accepted it 95% of the time, because they were heard, and they knew that it was a reasonable, they could except it 95% of the time. that's pretty powerful i think, evidence about the rule of law in this country, now is talk about what goes up, i served on the tenth circuit, which oversees, 20% of the continental united states, two time, zones i served with judges, who are appointed by president obama, back to president lyndon bains johnson. one of my colleagues was appointed a year after i was born, the tenth circuit, is as diverse a group of judges as you will ever encounter, on whatever metric you wish to assess a person, it's a wonderful equally dolcourt, in the judiciary, go across the country for that, we shouldn't panels of three, we have to

but to say that the courts have no role, the rush to impeachment, to not wait for a decision from a court on an issue ascu important as executi privilege, as if executive utilized by presidents since our founding. this is not some new concept. we don't waive executive privilege. and there's a reason we keep executive privilege and we assert it when necessary. and that is to protect. to protect the constitution and the separation of powers. the president's opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for complete judicial review. that was their choice. speaker pelosi clearly expressed hert contempt for judicial at the mercy of the said, we courts. think about that for a moment. we cannot be at the mercy of the courts. article 3 of the the co are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude? that is why we have courts. that is why we have a federal judiciary. it was interesting when professor turley testified before the house judiciary committee, hech said we have the banchs of government, not two, if you impeach a president over abuse of power, it's you

we want at the district court. at the court of appeals we got a different court. three-judge panel ruled that this was unconstitutional under the establishment clause. one of the questions or statements during the oral argument by one of judges was why don't we just cut the arms off the cost because that way we will not have to destroy it and get it won't offend anybody anymore. we knew at that point we might be in trouble in that case, and the decision was against us. the building was this will have to be removed or destroyed by way it was later would have been destroyed. is that an shea-porter can be moved. so went to the supreme court. this case is really important because the impact of what a decision would mean either way. if you tear down, if you say this is unconstitutional, this piece cross has been up for almost 100 years, only two miles away from this is arlington national cemetery. you would have to go into arlington and take down the large freestanding crosses arlington. you'd have to go and pretty much every community of every state of our country wit

it went to the supreme court.ore too much longer, you are going to see some antitrust class action challenges against some of these boards. that is going to be interesting to see. it is not what i do. i'm not an antitrust lawyer. it could end up being helpful. >> we have time for one last question. >> have you considered joining a consumer to your action? i have a texas lady saying, i don't want to go to a licensed barber, i want isis to braid my hair. you are interfering with my right to have my hair braided how i want and by whom i want. have you considered joining that way? >> yes, we have. we have done that in some cases. we tend to have the entrepreneur as the lead plaintiff but there have been quite a few where one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer. that is true for a lot of our economic liberty and free speech cases. the person who wants to hear the speech is being harmed, too. i think adding them in as plaintiffs is helpful to show the court how ridiculous the governments logic is. the governm

court. why they refused to comply with any subpoenas. why they refused to comply with documents. why they are here before you saying that the house managers must suit you get witnesses and they are in court on the same day saying you can't seem to get witnesses. and this is why, they don't want the chief justice to make that decision. they know the witnesses, they are requesting, are for purposes of retribution or distraction. >> thank you mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice senator from north carolina, thank you mr. chief justice ascetic lesson to the desk on behalf of myself and senator cruz. >> thank you. [silence] >> the question is for the house managers. you have based your case on the proposition that it was utterly baseless and a sham to ask for an investigation into possible corruption of burisma in the bidens. chris hines, the stepson of then secretary of state jon kerry, e-mailed karis chief of staff that quote apparently devon and hunter both joined the board of policemen and the p

go to court. it really is as simple as that, i don't need to belabor the point but here's the pointi'd like to emphasize . frequently the justice department advises the president of the united states that the protection of the presidency calls, whatever the presidentmight want to do , as a political matter, there's a combination and spirit of comedy to protect privileged conversations and communications. i've heard it in my two tours of duty at the justice department, don'trelease the documents misterpresident . if you do , you're injuring the presidency. go to court. we've heard concerns about the length of time that the litigationmight take . those of us who've litigated know that sometimes litigation does take longer than we would like . justice delayed is justice denied. we would all agree withthat . but our history, churchill's maxon, study history. our history tells us that's not necessarily so. take by way of example the pentagon papers case. orders issued preventing and sanctioning a gross

i think in that, way we have to rely less on the court and more on state courts. more on state legislatures, more on independent commissions to try and police parts of gerrymandering, since the court has indicated they are not willing to do so. the focus has to shift to these other entities in terms of addressing this problem, because if anything, the decision from last term signifies that the court is no longer really an option. >> let me ask you about hr1, which has come up earlier. hr1 was the first law that was passed by the new congress last year. what did it happen it, and or they're promising reforms? >> it was a great congressional package that would adopt a slew of reforms. what is interesting about it is it is an omnibus election bell, and virtually everything and there is something that some states are already doing. we can point to successes. it would require a no excuse, absentee balloting for no states, automatic voter registration, reinforcement causing felons everywhere. i think it would require public financing of campaigns. it is a whole package

we are in court. we're not just in court. with all due respect to the chief justice and the supreme court of the united states, we're in democracy's ultimate court. and the better constitutional answer to the question is provided by a rigorous and faithful examination of the constitutional text, and then looking faithfully and respectfully to our history. the very divisive clinton impeachment demonstrates that while highly relevant, the commission of a crime is by no means sufficient to warrant the removal of our elected president. why? this body knows. we appoint judges and you confirm them, and they're there for life. not presidents. and the presidency is unique. the presidency stands alone in our constitutional framework. before he became the chief justice of the united states, john marshal, then sitting as a member of the people's house, made a speech on the floor of the house. and there he said this. the president is the sole organ of the nation and its external relations. and its sole representative with foreign nations

go to court. it really is as simple as that, i don't need to belabor the point but here's the pointi'd like to emphasize . frequently the justice department advises the president of the united states that the protection of the presidency calls, whatever the presidentmight want to do , as a political matter, there's a combination and spirit of comedy to protect privileged conversations and communications. i've heard it in my two tours of duty at the justice department, don'trelease the documents misterpresident . if you do , you're injuring the presidency. go to court. we've heard concerns about the length of time that the litigationmight take . those of us who've litigated know that sometimes litigation does take longer than we would like . justice delayed is justice denied. we would all agree withthat . but our history, churchill's maxon, study history. our history tells us that's not necessarily so. take by way of example the pentagon papers case. orders issued preventing and sanctioning a gross

it's now before the supreme court and it comes to the court in 1843. it raises this vital question of whether an enslaved person can several a bequest of freedom through a will. if a slave person was property under the law, it would be hard to argue they could. if an enslaved person was a person under the law, then they could. it poses the question whether the slaves were property under the law or human beings. now, not surprisingly, the slave traders take the most unambiguous position possible. william h. williams argument is the following -- negros by the law of maryland are property precisely as money or household effects. they even cite queen v. hepburn and john marshal's decision suggesting that property should govern all of these matters. they say that bequests of freedom leads to a repugnant conclusion, that enslaved people are something other than property. this is much the same logic that roger tawney would deploy in dred scott's case. what is ash's argument? james ash has a young attorney named joseph bradley who's anti-sla anti-slavery in le