supreme court court? >> i think it is.et a bill through congress that nancy pelosi was pushing. that was to override the election in iowa. they couldn't get all the democrats on board to get a democrat majority in the house. so i think that their agenda is so left wing it is even unpopular with moderate democrats who don't want to risk their political future to support what aoc and the squad are trying to push on americans. >> harris: i'm looking at the short list i made. you have a longer list. you are much more astute at this than i would be as a reporter but top of my list right now because of what's going on in the nation would they dare to touch policing at the u.s. supreme court level? could we see discussions of defund the police at that level if democrats grab this power and put four more justices on that court? >> defunding the police is a really interesting issue for the left. when it comes to protecting them, they put up fences around the capitol. they bring in the national guard, they have polices courts wherev

we support fair and balanced courts. we are encouraging the biden administration to nominate professionally diverse young judges that have backgrounds as public defenders and civil rights lawyers to restore balance to the courts. we are supported by an array of foundations that fund our work on the 501(c)(3) side and the 501(c) four side where we do grassroots lobbying. we have thousands of grassroots supporters on a monthly basis. >> when it comes to the topic of expanding the number of justices, where do you and your organization fall? >> since 2018 our group have supported structural room forms -- reforms including adding to the supreme court. public polls show that the supreme court is broken. its legitimacy has been called into question. that has happened for two reasons. in the last five years we have seen republicans in the senate engage in a lot of maneuvering in order to shift the court right and ensure the six/three republican super majority. everybody will remember 2016 after antonin scalia had died and republ

court. a biography of justice blackmon and co-wrote history of roe vs wade and in her newest book the burger cart, she turns her attention to the court between 1969 and 1986 when the chief justice was the nixon appointed warren burger received wisdom as we were just discussing at the desk about this period in the court's history. isn't that much happened? there was some big decisions. there was roe v wade, so that was good and that that was it. not not so much greenhouse takes the idea part and she and her co-author michael gratz show the ways that the conservative mainly nixon appointed burger court reversed or undercut the president sat by the liberal court led by chief justice warren curbing civil rights and individual liberties while extending first demand that rights to businesses the first time. i could draw some connections here, but you're not actually here to listen to me talk about the court. you're here for linda greenhouse. so please join me in welcoming her to politics. thank yo

court. it failed. a bill lost support, even among his own party. they saw it as a power grab. we saw the late justice ginsburg come out and make the highly unusual public announcement of court packing because it is so extremist and political recently, justice breyer came out and opposed court packing because it would politicize the court. you have two of the last four democrat-appointed supreme court justice is making a highly unusual public pronouncement on court packing. that is all you need to know. pedro: the previous guest made the case that in 1869, if i'm correct, the number of seats was expanded with the idea of federal circuit courts and made the case that that is maybe applicable this time. you see anything to that argument? mike: that argument is wrong. federal appeals courts weren't even established by congress until 1891. supreme court justices used to ride circuit, meaning they got on horses and rode around the country before 1891. the courts of appeals came along to assist the

court's, -- courts, do. if we go back a few decades, few if any commentators, when they reported the decision, would have mentioned the name or political party of the president who nominated the judge to office. today, they do that as a matter of course. going further, it systematically labels judges conservative or liberal. the senate confirmation process has changed over the past two decades. it has become more partisan. senators more often divide along party lines and often describe a nominee as too liberal or too conservative. and what they say to the press to their constituents reinforces the view that politics, not legal merit, drives supreme court decisions. i think or fear these are more than straws in the wind. they will reinforce in minds that supreme court justices are primarily political officials or junior league politicians, rather than jurists. they can believe the differences among judges to reflect not politics but jurisprudential differences, but that is not what the public thinks. at least

court of appeals one step down from the supreme court. and there's i think only 50 or 51 obama judges reason for that is what you said. for the last two years of obama's presidency, mitch mcconnell basically shut down judicial confirmation actually there was -- there were two circuit judges that got through but that's, i mean, bush got ten or 11 through in the last -- in the last two years as president, and then, of course, there was merritt garland so had an inside impact on the court part it have was that mitch mcconnell was waiting for this moment but a huge part of it was that -- trump effectively filled all he should have gotten in a four-year term plus all of the seats that balm should have gotten to fill in the last two years. and so instead of a two term president with two terms worth of influence on judiciary and one term president who had half as much influence on the judiciary. you wound up having two president who is had effectively six years worth of impact on the judiciary. and again the reason why they did this was because

of the court. i can't prove that but i certainly believe it. but let me go to a further example -- let's look at bush versus the decision in the year 2000. oh, debatable. was it that decision actually determined who would be president of the united states -- but it isn't debatable that many americans thought that it did -- at the very least the decision was a highly important one. potentially effecting vast number of americans the court divided 5-4 i didn't agree with majority i wrote a decenting opinion but harry reid senate leader democrat who thought that decision was wrong later said that the most remarkable feature of the decision could have been a feature on which very few remark that was that the despite enforcement decision, despite held by probably half a country at least that it was misguided, the nation followed the decision without violence riots -- without patrolling stones in the streets. and to losing candidate al gore told his supporters don't trash the supreme court. now, these fac

courts. i will stop there. we also have the imperative of the nominations and making sure that trumps -- trump's 234 do not stand by themselves. president biden is on his way. he has nominated a diverse group in background and experience and race and ethnicity. we have to build this movement in order to make it happen. leah: congressman jones mentioned the importance of independent districting commissions. also, to prevent districts from electing french candidates -- fringe candidates. that is important to the health of our democracy. it is also true that independent districting commissions are there because of the u.s. supreme court. an opinion by ruth bader ginsburg upheld states authority to create independent districting commissions. professor doyle feldman at harvard wrote an op-ed in bloomberg saying that senate bill one could very well be invalidated by the current supreme court. so, if you care about making our elections more democratic, making our country more democratic, which i thi

circuit court, often called the second highest court in the land.ge jackson was appointed by president obama to serve d.c. district court, 2013, and has been involved in over 500 cases as a judge since then. as someone who has been very interested and invested in criminal justice reform as senator durbin has been, i appreciate judge jackson's work on the sentencing committee, commission, where she also served. we'll also hear from ms. jackson-akiwumi today, nominated for the seventh circuit. she is a nominee who served as a federal public defender for ten years in the chicago area before moving to d.c. and has represented over 400 criminal defendants, many of whom were charged with crimes involving illegal firearms. i'll be interested in hearing her views on the so-called gun pandemic and how violent criminals play into that. from my review of her record, it certainly seems that ms. jackson-akiwumi has been a zealous advocate for clients and criminal defendants are deserving of competent representation in our justice system. but i'll be asking her t

circuit court, often called the second highest court in the land. judge jackson was appointed by president obama to serve the d.c. district court in 2013 and has been involved in over 500 cases as a judge since then. as someone who has been very interested and invested in criminal justice reform as senator durbin has i appreciate judge jackson's work on the sentencing committee -- commission where she also served. we will also hear from miss jackson-akiwumi nominated for the seventh circuit. she is a nominee who served as a federal public defender for 10 years in the chicago area before moving to d.c. and is represented over 400 criminal defendants, many of whom were charged with crimes involving illegal firearms. i will be interested in hearing her views on the so-called gun pandemic and how violent criminals play into that. my review of her record shows -- from my review of her record it certainly seems she has been a zealous advocate for clients and criminal defendants are deserving of competent representation in our justice system. i will be ask

courts were correct. demand for college sports has continued to flourish. by the way, this has never been stable. as recently as 2015, the ncaa said you could not provide even the most basic cost of attendance for the athletes. this case is more of the same. it is just the latest iteration of the repeatedly debunked claims that competition will destroy consumer demand for college sports, and that the ncaa should have a judicially created antitrust exemption because of an imaginary tradition. chief justice roberts: the thing that concerns me about your approach that was adopted by the court below, the ncaa has a number of limitations that are designed to ensure that its product is amateur athletic competition. you look at, the district court looks at one rule. let's say it is a limit of $2000. you say, we can make that less restrictive, let's make that $2500. that's fine, it doesn't alter the perception. then you go on to another rule, and another one. it's like a game of janda. you have this nice solid bl

so yes if the court is going to put it in it should be in a single. >> similar to how the court has dealt with of the other definitions on the defenses. >> the last thing that i noted, the state made a request relative to the jury asking the court to include the standard jury instruction relevant to the jury not being considerate of punishment. the court indicated, and i noted it also didn't include that language but on a later part in the instructions. i would ask that it simply be included once at the front or the back side of the construction as an appropriate instruction is it is part of the standard guide, and i would submit to the court it should be simply included once at the risk of highlighting this. >> just for the record, long ago i think it was 3.02 in the standard guide i put that at the end where the court discusses what the jury should not consider specifically, sympathy, prejudice, bias, public opinion. and they should also not consider the consequences or the possible penalties that might attach. i think don't worry about the potential penalties attached to implies a guil

court rulings. those would be binding on me as a circuit judge. >> good luck to both of you. >> . >> banks and welcome to you both and the committee. that is the nature of the pandemic at the appellate level. and in the subcommittee yesterday on this veryon question. it was my training and law school when mentored by experiencing to bring along other appellate advocates. because the only two ways the appellate court gets to look at facts and then to overturn a factual determination byat the court below. and with that erroneous standard. and not a great avenue of the appellate advocacy. and the judicial notice could be taken that christmas fell on ain wednesday in a particular year. what are your thoughts about the role of appellate courts engaging in fact-finding that is outside of the record either by congress with the statute that is the subject of the challenge as it assembled the record. >> for those judges that i clerked at the appellate level and that's way i was taught to think about the role

court of appeals for the ninth circuit but the fl the district court ruling. the supreme court decide to take the case on appeal in december 2020. the justices now have through june to issue a ruling. >> the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attention where the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. >> we will hear argument this morning in case 20-520, national collegiate athletic association versus alston and the consolidated case. mr. waxman. >> good good morning mr. chif justice, and may it please the court. for more than a hundred years the distinct character of college sports has been that it's played by students who are amateurs, which uses say that they are not paid for their play. maintaining that distinct character is both procompetitive because it differentiates the ncaa's product from professional sports, and can be achieved only through agreement. t

supreme court, the texas supreme court and lower civilian and military courts. in addition to teaching professor vladic is a distinguished scholar at the center for security and law, a senior editor of the peer reviewed journal of national security law and policy and a supreme court fellow at the constitution project. he's also the co-host of the national security law podcast, cnn's supreme court analyst and the executive editor of the just security blog and a senior editor of the law fare blog. professor vladic received his jd and if you'd give me just one second. welcome professor vladic, and next i'd like to introduce a civil rights lawyer who mitigates issues of national importance in federal courts across the country including the u.s. supreme court. he is director of the washington, d.c. office of the mcarthur justice center, a premier national civil rights law firm and deputy director of the organization's supreme court and appellate program. mr. ali also teaches as harvard law school where he directs the law school's criminal justice appellate clinic. mr

the court in doe v. reed started by analyzing the state's interest and whether it was weighty enough. here california falls down and it doesn't have, as it has in election -- in the election context, disclosure as an established least restrictive alternative. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. announcer: attorney general merrick garland announced an investigation -- this follows the march 2020 shooting death of breonna taylor by louisville police. she was unarmed and in her own home when officers executed what is known as a no knock search warrant that led to her death. the ag's announcement runs slightly less than 10 minutes. ag garland: good afternoon. i'm joined today by a recently confirmed deputy attorney general lisa monaco and recently confirmed associate attorney general vanita gupta. they are leaders of great

court allowed in babcock. isn't that justice clark in the california supreme court decision pointed that out as the exact problem with the california regulation and it went too far and went beyond the nlra? >> your honor, i guess i don't understand how that would be a per se rule, but-- >> put aside nomenclature. you can't get access to the property if there are alternative means of communication. that's the babcock rule how to acomplicate the takings clause and the labor organizing rights. >> and your honor, i think that that can be a consideration that absolutely could factor into an inquiry that looked at the relevant circumstances of this regulation as it applies to land owners, but it wouldn't seem to provide a basis for a drop being a broad per se rule that would apply across the board and certainly not one that applies to access regulations that have nothing to do with this type of communication. >> you mean outside the labor context? >> right, your honor. i mean, they're pushing for a broad per se rule

supreme court in america." i want to go straight to the chief legal correspondent and fox news anchor shannon bream. shannon, you've worked so closely in and around covering the u.s. supreme court and what we saw today i was not clear about what the bill actually said and i know that democrats sometimes want to pass something and read it later but even speaker the house said she doesn't have plans to call for this yet, what are we just learn about what democrats want to do? >> shannon: harris, there is so much to unpack, not only adding four seats to the supreme court which would all be president biden nominees, but they are also calling for the complete abolition of the filibuster which would change everything on capitol hill, not just about the supreme court but about numerous other issues and i've got to tell you, the last time we saw a big promotion out there on the steps of the supreme court, it was senator chuck schumer, the majority leader, essentially growing a challenge where some people interpreted as

courts below the supreme court. number has historically matched the number of federal circuits. that's because every justice on the supreme court has a jurisdiction that it's in charge of to hear last-minute appeals. so you frequently hear about cases they get to the supreme court on appeal and there's a decision from the supreme court about what -- whether to stay executions or not. the judges that issue those opinions are the ones that match up geographically with certain federal circuits that they are in charge of. because there are nine justices and 13 circuits, certain justices have multiple circuits they are in charge of. that's because we never had a surprise at the -- the size of the supreme court the adjusted to match the size. host: when was the last time an was made? guest: after the civil war. in the 1860's, the court changed three times, the radical republicans, thaddeus stevens on the republican party supported abolition of slavery wanted the reconstruction effort to have real teeth. they added a 10th

the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. [gavel bangs] >> we will hear arguments this morning in case 2512, national collegiate athletic association versus alston and the consolidated case. mr. waxman. mr. waxman: good morning, chief justice, and may it please the court. for more than a hundred years, the distinct character of college sports has been that it's played by students who are amateurs, which is to say that they are not paid for their play. maintaining that distinct character is both procompetitive, because it differentiates the ncaa's product from professional sports, and can be achieved only through agreement. the lower courts agreed that the ncaa's conception of amateurism is procompetitive, but, in striking down several of the rules, they made two fundamental errors. first, they defined their own "much narrower" conception of amateurism to mean only that athletes not be paid unlimited amounts unrelated to education. and they then imposed a regime that permits athletes to be paid thousands of dollars each year j

court of appeals we would frequently have judges sit by designation from other courts.t on the court of appeals by designation. for a new judge you could change the nature of the office. you can say the office that you're getting is that you get 18 years you will sit on the panel that is the supreme court and then you will get the rest of your career where you will do something else. you could do that prospectively. i don't think that solves the t problem we have right now. the other thing that worries me about term limits is that, i sort of alluded to this earlier, i think republicans republican judges are becoming more and more radical with each passing year. i think the term limits do you really want to replace someone like john roberts with someone like brett obkavanaugh? i don't think that improves things. >> irin: or amy coney barrett, i think kavanaugh looks like a little roberts many. >> ian: i don't think the term limits they might solve the problem of judges ÃÃi don't think they saw the problem we were discussing which is an ideologically extreme court. >> iri

supreme court has handled it. fill that out. the question i have is, are you criticizing the united states supreme court to much? are you saying we have this incredible polarization over abortion and you really point the finger at the supreme court. when i was reading i was thinking there are other actors could he point the finger at other places as well? maybe they were more important but unpack your discussion of abortion, the supreme court of the united states and courts abroad. >> i will start by saying this is a chapter in the book and it's a complicated story. whatever you get out of my synopsis, i encourage you to pick up the book and read chapter five for a deeper dive. i do think the court's decision with roe v wade and how it style this decision contributes to a rupture in abortion politics in the us. there are lots of other things that contribute, so yes i agree there are other actors involved there's a lot of opportunism happening in the seventies around this issue. but the chapter compares what's happ

i would also note that the court in terms, it appeared to the defense that the court in terms of the inclusion of the three principal graham factors had omitted two of the three, and i think we've addressed those and the court is seeking those matters under consideration. in terms of our second issue, your honor, is the defense was requesting a jury instruction pursuant to state versus whipper, 512 northwest 292, to inform the jury that mr. hall had invoked is fifth amendment privileges, essentially your honor, arguing that therefore because mr. hall had invoked his privilege he was no longer available to both parties and had that essentially because the defense reference mr. hall in the opening statements, it's an explanation as to why he did not testify, not to infer that he had some of done anything illegal. >> let me back up just on the use of force instructions, so the record is clear. i think we all agreed in chambers that the courts would abandon its use of force draft and start off by the states draft with possible language, tweaks to that language. is that your understanding

, required that files be sent by the clerk of court of the lower court, and this file had been sent by the chief judge of the lower court. so, what should happen is it should be sent back, and the clerk of court should get it and send it up again, and then we could decide it. and he took 55 or so pages to say that. it's this long history of the writ of error process, if anybody's interested. you know, there are occasional humorous -- there is one line -- and this is what you get for reading every word. though some may think me mad with the flights of fancy of spring, ha ha, and you are thinking, yeah, yeah, kinda. anyway, so he goes on. but what makes baldwin a hero, in my judgment after all this, is when i discovered -- the newspaper was publishing it and they told us why it was so late. they said mr. justice baldwin declined to give his opinion to the newspaper for publication until some period had passed because he didn't want the georgians to have any grounds for refusing to obey the expected supreme court mandate to let those two guys out of jail. and that's heroic, i think. even

that is not before the court. the impingement on the property right here is significant, and if the board would like to pay for that, there are certainly measures that the courts below can undertake to determine the right compensation. >> thank you. justice tom is? -- thomas? >> thank you. the question presented here, your question presented is whether the uncompensated appropriation involved uncompensated appropriation of the easement, was there a finding that this was an easement? >> note, justice, that there was no finding this was an emed. -- easement. we use the term as the court uses servitude. what that means is it is over and above a mere trespass. the government is intending to take a discrete property interest that merits per se treatments. >> does this have to be an interest or easement that is recognized under state law, or can it be something that rather under state law is recognized under common law? >> justice, i do not think whether this is a recognizable easement under state law, whether it is tra

the court found five and the reason the district court found a five is based on the testimony of the lead auditor who had been serving as an auditor since 1988 and had been the lead auditor since 2001 and was designated as california's witness on this critical subject matter. and used it once. think of one instance where he surveyed all the auditors they came up with five instances and in the 80s the attorneys added to get to ten but that's the most they can get to and i would commend the relevant experts if you can see in the testimony and americans for prosperity foundation 397299. california says that on this record you haven't even shown entitlement to succeed on and as applied challenge. what do you understand california to demand you prove that you haven't already proved? >> i don't know what you can possibly ask these petitioners to prove that they didn't approve. give an expert testimony from their officers and instances of threats and violence including death threats directed against the organizations were the or ts in the same positions. and i would note that with californi

the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. [gavel bangs] chief justice roberts we will hear arguments this morning in case 19251, americans for prosperity foundation versus rodriguez and the consolidated case. >> >> good morning, chief justice, and may it please the court. this demand tests a profound nationwide shell and it does so for no good reason, your honor. as the district court found that california's upfront collection of schedule bs does not further the state law enforcement goals. that finding is both dispositive and unassailable. 46 states have charities with no such blanket demand. california likewise did so for years without any problems. you schedule bs never find in a legitimate use unless or until a complaint comes in, as happens for a way a fraction 1% of all charities. even when reviewed, schedule bs, for all of their extreme sensitivity, of only trifling utility. californians use them in only a handful of investigations over 10 years. the rare times when schedule b has used, california has much in narrow a

it is not court packing, it is not what fdr did, it is supreme court reform.he white house just wants to study the subject, objectively., right. the purpose, obviously, is to signal that court packing now has the endorsement of the biden white house. at a press conference this afternoon, one of the most powerful, and democrats in the congress made it very clear they had received that message. >> some people say we are packing the court. we are not packing it, we're unpacking it. senator mcconnell and republicans pack the court over the years, and senator markey outlined. this is a reaction to that. >> tucker: "some people might say we are packing the t court, no, we're unpacking it." woo, props to be 23-year-old communication aide who came up with that. he was not there alone this afternoon. you remember hank johnson? the congressman/amateur geologists -- that guam might capsize due to overpopulation. that is hank johnson. andul hank johnson today offered his assessment of how big the supreme court would be. >> but this natural expansion stopped after the civi

court. they'll change the rules and change the game and add four more people. >> they couldn't get a bill passed in congress or passed by state legislature so they went to a court and got it done. now there are conservative judges and judges that interpret the constitution the way it was written on the bench they think we have a crisis on the courts and they think it needs to be looked at. a pure political employ. >> trace: we'll talk to karl rove appeared andy mccarthy in a moment and we begin with jackie heinrich live on capitol hill. good morning. >> good morning. trace. house and senate democrats will unveil this legislation a couple hours from now in front of the supreme court. the bill would add four justices to the high court bringing a total number to 13. it's being sponsored by house judiciary committee jerry nadler, hank johnson, freshman progressive jones and ed markey in the senate. congressman jones tells fox the majority's doctrine is clear. if the law protects the right to vot

in the court reform debate. this editorial says let's just hope that's just a bone to quiet the lefties down, not the start of something more. where do you think this commission is going? >> i'm not sure it's really going anywhere. i think there is some practical issues with this, shannon. first, of course, it was congress in 1869 that set the number at nine. it would effectively be congress again. we know the senate is evenly decided at 50-50 with the filibuster in place that requires 60 votes. i don't see one republican supporting this let alone 10. if they did somehow get rid of the filibuster and pass this legislation the next question would be where would critics bring lawsuits to challenge some of these reforms as unconstitutional? would the supreme court be the one to weigh a case about itself? it just set up some practical issues. >> shannon: it does. we mentioned there are now calls for justice breyer, i think he's 82, he's the oldest justice on the supreme court. they are the ones who are pushing for m

david: how does the a court of -- how does the court of appeals work? justice sotomayor: that is slightly different. presidents will consider the views of senators. but, only consider. meeting their priority is different for court of appeals. there are less court of appeals judges, less than 200 or about 200 court of appeals judges. there are about seven or 800 court of appeals judges. every president has a committee of some sort within the white house made up of people of different departments of white house counsel office, and they get together and usually supply recommendations to the president. david: you're appointed by president clinton? justice sotomayor: by president clinton to the court of appeals. david: is it unusual to have somebody who is a republican president appoint you to one position and a democratic president to another? is that relatively unusual? justice sotomayor: very unusual. they're only a handful of people who have had that happen in their careers. david: when you're appointed initially, i assume you told your mother about it a

in fact the supreme court, specifically the roberts court has been working to dismantle our democracy for years. >> sandra: please stand by, breaking news of the white house and jen psaki was just asked about this effort. >> about proposed potential reform of the supreme court in one of the things they will look at is of course the size of the court but they will also look at at the courts in the constitutional system. the turnover of justices, and they will come back to the president with a report on what their discussions are and what their findings are. so we will wait to play out and still read that report. >> this is coming from some of its current member of congress, this is coming from the chairman of the house judiciary committee. is the president and white house frustrated that chairman nadler didn't perhaps wait for this report from the commission that president biden just called for last week? >> no. and that's a different set of legal position. and i expect, you have more to convey about more recommendations until he reads that report. they have a range of interviews and h

to go up through the lower federal courts before he went to the supreme court. he could go straight there because the constitution gives the court the supreme court original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party and georgia was a party and it also the federal judicial power extends to suits between a state and foreign states or foreign nations and george is a state and the cherokee nation is a foreign state. it's a far in state because state just means a political entity and it's clearly a political entity. he's got a constitution and stuff and it's foreign because none of its citizens or us citizens, so it has to be foreign. it can't be anything else and this is the argument that he made and and this is the and so this is the the argument on which jurisdiction rested and so if the court doesn't find that to be true then they can't consider the case on the merits and that ended up being a big stumbling block. here's the court at the time. we had one justice justice of all who was absent didn't participate but these six guys did and they split three ways

court?me court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want. presidents come and go. supreme court justices stay for generations. pete: well, that joe biden has come and gone it appears, brian. and singing a different tune. brian: he mocked the fact that roosevelt tried to pack the court. in fact what roosevelt did he won a landslide victory the republican party was continue visible in 1937. wanted to restart the economy by doing this new deal ended up doing. brought into court because unconstitutional and roosevelt said okay, i would like to add a supreme court justice for every justice over 70. would have added six more. and even his own party turned on him. no one has brought it up since that until now. jonathan turley, who we asked to join us last night when this story broke said yes because it's so important. and here is how he characterized it. >> it dispenses with any pretense of principle. it's just a raw muscle play. it's like a hostile takeover

we do it by adding watch proceeds to the court to create a 13 member supreme court. four new seats to be filled by president biden will reconstitute united states supreme court. at the bench will then rightly reflect the values of the majority of the american people on whose behalf they serve. expanding the court is constitutional. congress has done it before, and congress must do it again. we must expand the court and abolish the filibuster to do it. the words etched above the main entrance of the supreme court building behind us express the ultimate responsibility of the court. equal justice under the law. but how will there be equal justice when seats on the court have been stolen? how will there be equal justice when republicans have purposefully worked and weaponized the highest court of the land for their own partisan gain. host: mr. davis, your response to those arguments. guest: i would just make a response that the american people do not support this. there have been six democrat senators who have come out and voiced displeasure. we have senator joe manchin,

the court in doe v. reed started by analyzing the state's interest and whether it was weighty enough. here california falls down and it doesn't have, as it has in ag garland: good afternoon. i'm joined today by a recently confirmed deputy attorney general lisa monaco and recently confirmed associate attorney general vanita gupta. they are leaders of great ability and intey

supreme court referring to present rosenfeld to do that, court packing in 1937.en creates a commission to do just that. enlarging the nation's highest court, progressive and liberal democrats calling for republicans and they are up in arms. with the president take his former senators self advice editor of the "wall street journal" joins us now. you think we will see an expansion team? >> president biden said during the campaign that he didn't have firm opinion on this and wasn't inclined to join in the rally to expand the court to dilute cash three conservative now so this is the answer, he said commission and he's done that. if you are a lost student right now, you want to be an intern on the commission because it's a robust very interesting group of conservative as well as liberal legal scholars and lawyers, former judges, a range of people, former congress people who are going to debate some of the issues presented by the president. eric: but you know what? john -- let me interrupt for second, you get these high fluent people and the criticism is that they are

i welcome the court's questions. chief justice roberts: counsel, as i understand your argument, it's that people in non-immigrant status go through a process to get there that includes admission and inspection. and there's another way to get to non-immigrant status, and that is by being a tps recipient. and your argument seems to me to be that, well, if you're in non-immigrant status as a tps recipient, you must have been admitted and inspected or treated as such because that's the other way to get to non-immigrant status. and i wonder why they're just not two different routes, and if you come in one route, the tps route, that doesn't mean that you've checked every box to get in through the other route. so it seems to me that i, i can't follow the logic of your main submission. ms. saharia: so i don't think that is an entirely accurate characterization of our position. our position is not that tps recipients are in non-immigrant status. it's clear that they are not for all purposes. our position is simply that consid

, what the court permitted was plain the witnesses statement in court to the jury so if playing the audiof the witness statement. that is what we would be proposing is to call eight intending tos come in, explain the circumstances of the interview to play portions of the interview that are ruled appropriate by the court and we would offer those under minnesota rule of evidence 804 b3 which is a statement against penal interest or 8 807 which is the residual exception which is what the court used in the super case was the residual exception. >> 804 b3 the statement inherently has to clearly subject the person who is making that they are throwing themselves at the suits so to speak. >> understood and as you heard from ms. cousins, i believe, adrian cousins mr. hall's lawyer here the third degree homicide charge is a potential charge that mr. hall could face if he specifically provided, exchanged, bartered or had any knowledge of what was going on. the court has no also see the evidence of mr. hall throwing what appears to be some package off to his side while the police were dealing with mr

the state refused immunity and ultimately the court permitted to play the witnesses statement in court to the jury to play the audio of the witnesses statement. and that's what we would be proposing to call agent henning to come in and explain the circumstances of the interview and play portions of the interview that are ruled appropriate by the court. we would offer those under the minnesota rule of evidence which is the residual exception which is the court used in the super case the residual exception. >> eight oh four b3 the statement inherently has to clearly subject the person who's making the statement know that they are throwing themselves. >> understood. as you have heard from ms. cousins mr. hall's lawyer here, the third-degree homicide charge is a potential charge mr. hall could face if he specifically provided exchange, bartered or had any knowledge of what was going on the court has also seen the evidence of mr. hall throwing what appears to be a package off to his side while the police were dealing with mr. floyd. if you look at the circumstances of the statement come it

the present day supreme court is more favorable of the death penalty than any supreme court in my lifetime. and let me say this. while it is true support for the death penalty is falling, something else is falling. and just as dramatically. that would be the murder rate. from the early 1990's to today, the murder rate has fallen by half from about 10.4 per 100,000 people to now five per 100,000 people. the death penalty is strong medicine. no normal person is enthusiastic about going forth to an execution. we have to -- we have strong medicine when we have a severe problem. when the problem abates as we have had so much less murder over the past 25 years or so. enthusiasm for this very strong medicine is also going to abate. while that is understandable and what you would expect, to say that it has abated is not to say that the country does not believe there are still certain particularly egregious crimes where the death penalty is warranted. finally, as for international support, it is also true that a large number of countries have done away with the death penalty, but look at what those