back in the court, destroy the court. passing legislation to micromanage how the court operates destroys the court, creating a complaint process in the name of ethics that is designed to disqualify people you don't like, it destroys the court. this will not stand. i don't know what the vote will be in this committee. i can assure you that the american people that this ill-conceived effort in the name of reforming the court will go nowhere in the united states senate. >> thank you, senator graham. this has now taken a -- let's be clear, there is only one living senator who is change the size of the supreme court. that is senator mcconnell, the republican leader. he shrank the court to eight seats for nearly a year for purely political reasons by refusing to consider merrick garland's nomination. chair recognizes senator whitehouse. >> if i may, it is the position of the minority that you do not want to expand the court. is that the position of the senate majority? >> i only speak for myself. >> well that's one. it is clear

this court? you cannot talk about the trump years acknowledging that during his years as president, he appointed gorsuch. he appointed kavanaugh, he appointed barrett. the court looks the way the court does the composition. the court is the composition of the court, because of those four years, those things have had consequences, not only in terms of the outcome of decision, but also just in terms of the way the court operates. this is you writing in the book the court's new conservative majority has used obscure procedural orders to shift american jurisprudence to the right, said flatly. so is that two parts of two questions of this question? first is, is that what's going on here? trump appointed justices were more open to the idea of this procedural trick being used and this is the way it goes, or am i missing something? so the problem is we don't the counter the counter side of, that argument. right. we don't know whether a majority of democratic appointed in the same circumstance like justic

court.et me back up and tell you how i got interested in the subject. i was working at -- as a special envoy for the closure of guantanamo in 2014, and i was reading the decisions on military detention, including the notorious and shameful korematsu case. i noticed that the first of the shameful anti-japanese decisions , which was about a curfew targeted at japanese-american citizens, was decided exactly one week from -- one week before one of the greatest civil liberties decisions in the courts history, west virginia for the -- board of education versus burnett, where justice rep. jackson: gave an opinion that struck down the compulsory flag statute that the jehovah's witnesses had objected to. i noticed that within seven days the supreme court had issued one of the worst civil liberties decisions in history and one of the greatest civil liberties decisions in its history. and, so that puzzled and interested me, and i think that we are very interested in reading about the supreme court duri

court of appeals the d.c. circuit and for just an incident scalia and served as chief counsel of the u.s. senate subcommittee on the constitution, federalism, and property rights. the honorable edward meets the third award is told -- bestowed by our organization annually was upheld the rule of law in adverse political challenges was given to paul this year to receive the award because he has twice shown them compliance with a prestigious law firm when the leftist mob demand he dropped a client who no longer deserve his representation. an ethical lawyer would remain loyal to his clients as paul has done but we all know that is not an is a choice to make particularly in today's overheated and vitriolic environment. in 2011, paul resigned from king and spalding when it decided to abandon its representation of the house of representatives as they sought to defend the defense of marriage act. paul wrote to the firm, representation should not be abandoned because a client's legal position is strongly unpopular in ce

i'm a firm believer if the court did allow cameras in the court, it would actually be good for the court'spublic reputation. i think if people saw the way the justices proceed. how seriously they take the case, i mean, obviously, viewership would go up unlike the high profile issues, but if a couple of parties sort of stuck around for the second case that seemed like a boring bankruptcy case, what they'd see was the justices were every bit as well prepared and engaged in those cases as they are at, in the higher profile cases. they would so the opposite of a kind of senate hearing where you have one justice, one senator presiding and everybody else is gone. like you could have -- c-span could have a camera that shows all nine justices and they'd be there. to me there's a lot to be said for the upside of cameras in the court, but i don't get a vote and the nine people who do, i think, are unanimous that there shouldn't be cameras in the court. >> if you could have a camera that showed the proceedings as they are, then i think i might agree with you, but i worry, and i think probably a lot o

ozav went to court in the early days of the invasion, and ukraine then demanded that the court issue so-called preliminary rulings and order russia to stop hostilities. of course, russia did not do this, but there is such a court decision. and thirdly, what is most important, although the un international court cannot compel any on the part of the parties to fulfill their decision , as, for example, he was unable to force russia to stop the war in march of last year, still his decisions have not only a symbolic, but also an important practical meaning. in particular, within the framework of this case, ukraine says that it will demand reparations from russia. the exact amount is not mentioned, they say that they will name the amount of compensation later, but ukraine will still be able to legally claim such compensation. compensation payments from russia, however, a decision in this case should not be expected quickly, usually the international court of the un considers their cases for at least several years, but for example, the case of bosnia against serbia was considered for 14 yea

courts of appeals. she appeared with stephen colbert as a guest on the colbert report to discuss her scholarship. she also has a little fun. her scholarship on supreme court amicus briefs a subject on which she has also testified before the presidential commission on supreme court reform. professor larsen earned her bachelor of arts degree from william and mary and her law degree from the university virginia, where she grad graduated first in her class after law school, professor larsen clerked for judge j. wilkinson of the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit and for justice david souter of united states supreme court. professor larsen, thank you for. i will introduce panelists in the order in which they serve as solicitor general paul. paul d clement was the 43rd solicitor general of the united states. mr. clement is a partner at the claimant and murphy law firm and distinguish lecturer and in law at the georgetown university law center. mr. clement served as solicitor general from june 2005 u

supreme court. his guidance and insightful analysis always demonstrates his role as a prominent legal luminary. he has inspired and educated generations of students, we are so thrilled to have you back thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, it is an honor to be with you. >> we are also thrilled to have judge michael luttig having served admirably on the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit for over 15 years. he showed promise from the start. for becoming the youngest federal judge at the time of his appointment, he began his service to the law starting with the reagan administration before clerking for antonin scalia a then working to confirm supreme court justices during his time at the justice department. he represents true courage and steadfast commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law during one of the most critical moments of our democracy, he played a crucial part in upholding our election system when he advised mike pence that he could not overturn the 2020

the district court, this case is really important because the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the students and the coalition of teaching in this case. and the circuit court state that judgment and openly ruled against the coalition. i think this as a very good, i mean, it's always difficult to predict what i think this has a pretty good chance to go to the supreme court for a couple reasons. first, the coalition filed an emergency application after the stay was granted, and the court united united over the dissent of three justices. so all the coalition would need is to pick up one more justice to vote in favor of cert for the case to be granted. and second, this surely will be an issue of nationwide importance going forward. not only do you have admissions offices throughout the country and colleges and universities planning to do similar things, but you already have that same type of litigation going on in k-12 schools in new york, boston, and montgomery county. and then of course we saw the university of texas after the hopwood decision in the 1990s where the fi

or has been a court that has not acted like a court. and yet i'm not going to say anything, i think that is what would be disturbing pulling your punches in that way. i do think, on the other hand, here is what i do agree on. i think to the extent that he was concerned i wrote a strong dissent. it was a strongly worded dissent. this is what i thought about that case. it was a little bit summarized in the passage you read. i thought that would have been before the court. we have standing rules that require that people who come to the court with constitutional complaints have themselves suffered injury of some kind. the plaintiffs before us i thought had not effort a constitutional injury. they were states who were complaining about the biden administration loan forgiveness program. and the fact that a lot of students or former students had got more money might be: policy and it might be good policy. it would be hard to see how the states were injured by that. these were policy by the state. they thought it was bad policy. they came in an

courts. but, of course, what we could do is just adapt the code of conduct that the ofct the court systems have in order to reflect those slight or certain differences. and i think would be a good thing for the court to do that. it would help in our own compliance with the rules, and it would i think go far in persuading other people that we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct. so, you know, i hope we can make progress. i know justice kavanaugh was recently at an event where he said he thought we would. you know, soon, i'm not exactly sure how he phrased it, by the help that that's true. >> can you tell us who the holdup is? [laughing] >> no. no. it goes in, what goes on in the conference room goes on in the conference room. [laughing] and i don't want to suggest there is like one holdout. this is for various reasons having to do with certain differences between the supreme court and other courts. there are complicated issues here. there are totally good faith disagreements or c

yet margolin convinced the appeals court to reverse the trial court decision and establish that jobs need only be substantially equal, not identical, to require equal pay. the company petitioned the supreme court to take the case as you may know which is called ser, at bessie's retirement dinner, former labor solicitor, today a senior federal judge for the d.c. circuit described what happened next. >> when i told you the third circuit after an argument [inaudible] with a decision that was sweeping in scope. i saw a footnote in the lines saying we will give you anything you want. please don't send her down again. [laughter] >> and counsel for the other side. and bessie and i discussed it. now, you can see the light in bessie's eyes. she had a sweeping decision in the third circuit, but here was an opportunity to take an equal pay case to the supreme court. bessie suggested that maybe we should not [inaudible] because it was appropriate for a supreme court decision. i didn't think we would get a better decision than the third circuit. there are other speakers this evening who can addre

and international courts. had the opportunity as part of the ado g team that argued at the court of justice 20 years ago and we were there eight hours a day where different lawyers stood up and made speeches for eight hours a day. not a single question from any member of the court and if there was a question it was understood the question would be submitted in writing the day before so the following day we could show up with our prepared response to their question in writing. i suspect that's a lot closer to what the supreme court was like when chief justice marshall was presiding over the court and when you compare to that, the changes today seem fairly ... their fairly modest from going from an hour to an hour and a half . but the big change between the marshall era and john's era was when william came in and made the hot bench the standard rather than the exception. >> i clerked on a court 84, 85 and it was not uncommon then to go for that 30 minute period with two or three questions. sometimes there were n

in the country, the district administrative court of kyiv.or numerous scandals and high-profile decisions, in particular, it was there that lawsuits were filed regarding the reinstatement of yanukovych, and some oask judges could be involved in the kremlin scenario of returning the former president . currently, the judicial mafia is desperately fighting against liquidation and blocking reform however , in accordance with the law , the kyiv city district administrative court has already been established and is functioning to replace the oazk, and the mistakes of the past are not taken into account, and the jurisdiction of the new of the court completely repeats the boundless power of the corrupt oasco, while so much power is concentrated in one court, there is a risk that someone will again try to influence as much as possible the analysis of those courts if they pass all the crucibles of isa and then try to influence them and so on more despite the old power of the corrupt oasco, the new court receives old judges , the qualification commissio

the supreme court -- you have congress now and the supreme court. you see all the corruption going on. you people are terrible and your brainwashing our kids. host: mr. roosevelt, do you want to respond? guest: well, it is true, republicans control the supreme court. they did so in a lawful way. it is the way the system works. i think it shows the appointment process is broken. the founders did not anticipate political parties competing to capture the supreme court as a power center so the system they gave us in 1787 does not work well now. term limits would fix that. before it started looking like it had a partisan -- there is broadly bipartisan support for the structural reform. i know you have a low opinion of us but some of us are trying to make the system work better. there are things we can do that most people who studied the issue a group would make a better. unfortunately, anytime you permit a solution it looks like it will have partisan consequences. we are not in the best of all possible wars with respect to the constitution we have. we co

as a normal court to the court as an extension of the political parties. for people like me who thought that roe v. wade was rightly decided -- decided, by the way, two weeks before my daughter, who is now about 50, was born -- for people like me, that was a terrible change. but even for people who thought that roe v. wade was misguided, the idea that it could be overturned just because people committed politically to overturning it finally had a majority has to be a wake-up call because, if we are going to give enormous power over all of our lives to nine people selected for life and accountable to no one, they ought to be bound at least by some notion of principal, and it looks like this group, at least those of the far right -- and i would not call them conservative -- i don't think it is conservative to be so radical and so driven by political agenda. this is the time when we have to reassess the enormous role the court has had. i agree very much with judge luttig that this is a watershed moment . and the overruling of roe v. wade was the basis that th

courts. remarks followed a published news reports on the travels of justice clarence thomas and samuel alito at the book sales of justice. the university of notre dame law school hosted with this one hour and ten minute event. [applause] >> you have a lot of fans here. >> thank you for the introduction and the great warm welcome that i've received already from your law school. i have enjoyed the day so far and i'm sure i will enjoy this conversation. >> i'm so grateful that you are here. i first want to start by asking your path to the supreme court ran through academia, you were an academic first in fact the first nominee to the court without prior judicialic experience since justice rehnquist was nominated 50 years earlier. how does your academic background shape your perspective and do you think it gives you a different perspective than your colleagues? >> the court has had many people who served a great deal of their career in academia. so they weret, all judges and i wasn't but of course

so the court is kind of tired of this court, which is an inactive part moreover, but it is separatelyseparately attached to the charter. uh, this court was conceived, so to speak, as a body that should resolve legal issues at the request of the main bodies of organizations and mainly this uh, the security councils of the general assembly number also considered disputes between states, relying on existing sources of international law, such as international treaties in which the state you participate in are international customs as evidence of general practice. well, and a number of auxiliary so-called means for determining, uh, the existence of the corresponding rights and obligations of states. these include general principles, legal doctrine, that is, the opinion is known to scientists in international law. well, lately, hmm e, acts of emotional legislation have in reality been brought into analysis and uh resolutions, mandatory and even recommendatory ones of international bodies of international organizations, first of all, of course, general in fact, he is in which sets out certai

we also now have one in a federal court that goes to court october 5. i came to see all of you.y question is, how do we engage and work together with organizations like yours if it costs a business of dissence in. our impact in restricting causes us not to have black representation is lie liberal brothers and sisters in our own party. they got a majority with white leadership. i have no problem with white people. however, i have a problem when we are losing feet. we don't have any black congresspeople in the democratic party in the state. we have lost all black seats in the senate. and we have lost these in the house. so a lot of our people are quiet in detroit because they don't want to rock the boat because if our liberal brothers and sisters. simone: coalition building. i'll give one to miss morial and the congresswoman. >> this is what i say we have to have a mentality we have no permanent friends. no permanent enemies. just permanent interest. kphrao*rpbg that sometimes means within a coalition we have toe battle and fight for what is right. the other thing i think we have

opinion for the court, that backs it in the lower court and establishing legitimacy of the supreme court and at the same time establishing the pinnacle of the judicial system and it does all of that and there is personal brilliance and it's remarkable. >> the court across time, they don't say is decided even when it's the court. one of my legacies of collegiality that would be remiss if i didn't say different presidential administrations, do you think it is the court and general and that is why it is important. >> it's really important and the office is to try first and the obligation and protect. if the nonpartisan institution and the important part is this about 40 some words in the office and they will hire young lawyers to come in early to the hiring office. or, another. and to try it now and this can be challenging, of course, because you're arguing cases in front of the court, behalf of an administration. that administration is going to take a policy position that are going to seem very political and the sg is going to be defending them. so there's going to be some measure of that.

on expanding the court, i will bring up the official supreme court website.t talks about the court expanding. here's an excerpt the number of justices on the supreme court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. so there have been fluctuations in the number of members -- the number of justices on the supreme court. i want to read a few more comments from facebook on our question about trusting the supreme court. larry ballmer writes, 100% trust them as they rule according to the united states constitution. the democratic party tries to discredit them because they do not agree with their rulings. here's a text message from new jersey. perhaps the supreme court has been granted too much authority. i trust them. i do not trust the wealthy, autocratic persons trying to buy favors. when we allow the supreme court to become a political upon, it should stand out as a code of ethics violation and conflict of interest. here's another from melissa in louisiana, writing, justice clarence thomas is a great american with integrity. he has d

that's your state court litigation. tomorrow, mark meadows in front of the 11th circuit court of appeals has oral arguments with the state of georgia, concerning his appellate issues that he raises because his attempts to remove his case from state court to federal court were shut down by the federal judge, judge jones. so there's a panel in the 11th circuit court of appeals that's going to hear oral arguments today. we should see some disposition concerning mark meadows' attempts to get that case from federal judge, judge jones who said no, you cannot come to federal court to the 11th circuit and have the 11th circuit decide whether or not there was error committed by the judge when he said that meadows could not be in federal court. as i said, it's drinking from a fire hose. every day there's something new. that's the reason why we're here to help kind of sort it all out. >> you explain it so well. lisa, finally, and of course, she was talking about the temperament we saw already on display. this is just the initial p

supreme court decisions in this area have historically been mixed but last term, the court invalidated harvard's affirmative action program. chief justice roberts explained the equal protection clause prohibits disco nation on the basis of race and illuminating racial discrimination means illuminating all this. in the story concurrent justice thomas especially linked equal protection of the law to pluralism. he noted that our constitution protects individuals, not racial groups or classes. the declaration of independence set forth our national creed that all men are created equal and therefore must be treated equally by the government. affirmative action was simply naked racism that promoted a faction based on ever shifting sands of skin color. justice thomas continued rather than forming a more pluralistic society it strips us of our individuality and undermines the diversity of thought universities purport to seek. by upholding the equal protection of the law the court protects the rights of individuals and prevents the factionalism that results from the government dividing up at cit

can and that might be a problem if the court actually find that.— court actually find that. tell us a bit more about the - tell us a bit more about the possible courses of action that the court can take against russia if it finds against it? if court can take against russia if it finds against it?— court can take against russia if it finds against it? if the court finds auainst finds against it? if the court finds against russia _ finds against it? if the court finds against russia and _ finds against it? if the court finds against russia and finds - finds against it? if the court finds against russia and finds that - finds against it? if the court finds against russia and finds that it i finds against it? if the court finds against russia and finds that it is| against russia and finds that it is unlawfully using force, it could, for example, decide that russia ought to bring its military action to an end, and to withdraw from ukraine. it could award compensation to ukraine on the basis of the illegality and for the damage that has been done by russia in ukraine stop or it c

i'm not aware of any supreme court justice in history, including the very first supreme court justicesces there are, which is to say, congress does get to regulate the supreme court. >> indeed. not only as to its number, but as to its jurisdiction. it's appellate jurisdiction. indeed, the letter that i wrote to chief justice roberts, received by him, also in the capacity as the chair of the judicial conference, that's a job he has by virtue of congress. judicial conference is a body established by congress. so, the idea that none of this has any relation to congress, just has no merit at all. but, it's the argument that is being used by the billionaires, and now, by justice alito, to try to handicap our investigation to what the facts are. when they were gifts. how many gifts were there. what was the scenario in which the gifts were developed? who was the orchestrator getting them the gifts. all of those things merit investigation. and it's that investigation that the is the republicans love to use the word weaponize, is weaponized opinion of justice alito is being used to discourage o

what's happening now in family court is theseissues happening now in family court is these issues aren parallel. for example, domestic abuse and so—called parental alienation is being looked at the same time. that makes no sense. we can only understand the context any reluctance or refusal, resistance of a child or children, if we understand domestic abuse first. this is what is happening internationally in terms of best practice in the area and we need in the uk, particularly in england and wales which is my remit, to wake up to the issue and to make sure that victims are not suffering in the court when they are very courageously making these allegations and raising them, of a piece, which of course at the root of them are being told to the court in order to protect their children. we discussed this concept of parental alienation. we discussed this concept of parentalalienation. do we discussed this concept of parental alienation. do you think it should exist in the form that it does and how much does it play into the wider concern? frankly, it doesn't. ~ ., , doesn't. we are in some

circuit court?would your advice to be to judges, attorneys or younger people interested in law when approaching the different ways of understanding text of the constitution? >> well, i admit originalists in a textual list. that's part of the judicial goal is to interpret the law for what it says not for what i wish it said or what i hope that it might say. and yet there are tendencies from all different corners of american society they're askingg courts to impose singular solutions from one direction or a nether. were the same thing from the administrative state. but especially with respect to the courts. it seems like such an obvious thing a few years ago to simply say the job of the courts is to say what the job is. i am a little surprised how under attack that simple premise has become. i guess i will reiterate it here that's certainly my view of what the court should be doing. >> more questions please let's circle back to robert's question for just a moment. not just that legislating is hard it'

at the end of the opinion the court does say courts may perhaps be in trouble if they exceed ordinaryicial review, but in light of the rest of what i spent time on my piece, that language doesn't give federal courts much leeway to do anything. once you reject the idea as the majority clearly did, the constitution identifies an organ in state government, ordinary elected legislature that must be empowered and whose will must be respected. once you acknowledge this has been ultimately a matter of state law, state decides however it wants to do this and for a federal court to overturn a state supreme court interpretation of state law, the state court would have to be doing something pretty lalas. we can argue back and forth how to describe what the standard review will look like and how much difference would be involved, the point i make in the paper is if it is lalas enough to constitute state court asking outside judicial role for purposes of elections clause, could not be used in state as well as federal election. you can't make up new rules to apply in any elections whether these ele

two of the kolomyia city and district courts, volodymyr piatkovskyi, who is accused of bribery, is tryingscape into honorable retirement, despite quite serious accusations , the judge is currently not dismissed or even suspended from the administration of justice, although the complaint against him has been pending in the supreme administrative court for more than six months or more at the time when the case bribery is being considered by the anti-corruption court, volodymyr pyatkovskyi believes that he deserves an honorable retirement with severance pay and lifelong support from the state at the expense of taxpayers in the amount of 70 to 100% of the judge's salary. it was he who allegedly promised to save a citizen from responsibility for driving under the influence of alcohol . 700,000 hryvnias, however, the judge continued to administer justice, the higher anti-corruption court approved a plea agreement by the judge of the koret district court of the rivne region yevhen kulyk and lawyer mykola turovych. they were sentenced to 5 years of conditional imprisonment and with a probationary

court? currently, i couldn't predict, but i can tell you there are many justices that respect. the original and respect the history. and as you said, they might different approaches to it. but i still think we all in some sense do so. and even justice sotomayor, i shouldn't left her out. i think she's a very thoughtful jurist who often will engage on the history as well. so let's talk a little bit about a few of the cases, because i think it might be easier for viewers to understand what this book is all about. if we kind of walk what you're doing each you look at 12 cases each. each chapter is a case where. you talk about sort of the background of the case and the parties. the story, the case. and then you talk about the argument and how the case turned out at the supreme court and then with a specific eye toward. justice thomas, i wonder if you could talk about how you define these. how did you decide which cases that you were going to highlight in book? yeah. so as a judge, i think we all

he is a judge of the northern commercial court of appeal.volodymyr kuksov, he is from crimea, before the occupation he was a judge of the alushta city court, in 2014 he was transferred to kyiv. after the full-scale invasion of the russian federation, kuksov began to agitate his acquaintances, support the occupiers, justified russian aggression, and called ukrainians fascists. according to sbu records, the judge denies mass atrocities by russians. tanners and assures the interlocutor that only the so -called people from bandera are capable of this. fuckers of benderov can rape, well, we have the same situation , we have half of our salary, like there, the supreme court decided to give creeper salaries for the war, we don't need this war, when the russian troops were forced to flee from the kyiv region. the judge complained that ethicists are driving they feel good everywhere here , that's how the judge of the northern court of appeal volodymyr kuksov campaigned for an acquaintance who was in the occupied territory of the zaporizhia region to

young is going to come before the court and tell the court why.set of the arguments, i thought i was clear before we started to argue in terms of the discovery. he has indicated we hadn't given them anything. i thought it was clear the discovery is here. >> i feel like we keep getting back to discovery. let's save that until the end there. >> those are his arguments, judge. >> right now, we're focusing on grand jurors. we'll get to that. >> ahead of schedule. >> we'll get to that. let's talk about grand jurors. >> judge, i did prepare a brief. >> another, another power point. >> your honor -- >> come on, this is -- >> this goes to my point, your honor, the state spends the time to put together a power point to respond to a motion. that takes a lot of time. i'm sure it's going to be persuasive. it would be much more efficient for all involved if instead of putting together a power point, someone put it into writing so we can see the cases, we can move through this argument, and we can get to the end much quicker. now, we're going to see these cases

so saying, basically the courts in israel and especially the supreme court, has too much power. they always sold, it's too liberal and too left and they want to see the, the courts powers here, um diminished. tanya, is this hearing likely to change and, and do we have any idea of when the supreme court is going to reach a decision? well, this could take some time. i talk to some expert, they're saying, you know, to take some weeks, but they're hoping to get some idea of what the judge is. i mean, see the 15 dresses sitting there, what they would be thinking over the course of the hearing. this would be broad cost by so to get some kind of hint where they're going as a, as i said, until now the high court of justice has never on another side to basic. so an amendment to it. we're also going to get into a period of the 2 is high holidays and also the connected with only start by mid october. so it could take some time. now what that will decide, we have to see it all depends also a lot of experts saying, how's the government will then respond to it? whether this comfortable go int

it has been tested in courts.organization last year represented three new mexico residents who successfully utilized section three, of the 14th amendment, to remove blake griffin, a new mexico official from office based on his role in engaging in the january six insurrection. the court found a number of things, including that the first time in 150 years that a person who engages in insurrection, after taking an oath to defend the constitution is barred from office. mr. griffin recruited people to come to d.c., to go to battle for president trump to stop the steal. the court also found that you don't need to be convicted of a crime to be disqualified under section three. nor do you have to be filing yourself to be disqualified. there is a lot of parallels between donald trump and coy griffin. we believe there is a very strong case, and this has been confirmed by legal experts across the ideological spectrum, that donald trump is also disqualified. >> so donald, seeing you had success in new mexico, you have this li

at the supreme court level than they do at the level of lower courts.of course, what we could do is adapt the code of conduct that the other court systems have in order to reflect the certain differences. i think it would be a good thing for the court to do that. amy: that a supreme court justice elena kagan. justin elliott, your response? how significant is what she is saying and how many congress member's agree with her? i want to mention that brett kavanaugh, the other supreme court justice recently said the court may "soon" address a code of ethics on the high court, and chief justice john roberts in may called ethics scandals at the court a "issue of concern" and said the justices were "continuing to look at things." your response to all this? >>>> first of all, to explain come as justin k -- justice kagan mentioned, all federal judges below the supreme court level have extensive rules and code of ethics, advisory opinions. we voted retired federal judge, a george w. bush appointee, and news story that said if he had gone to a koch donor summit, th

courts didn't?he day, my sister was penalised by the courts and the justice system and they were working hand in glove to prevent everything from sort of they denied the access for her treatment abroad and the denial of your ability to say who you were, to speak openly was one of the real problems, wasn't it? >> because you couldn't get your case heard in the court of pubuc case heard in the court of public opinion, nor could you raise funds for sister so raise funds for your sister so that she could afford to have the treatment abroad. >> yeah, we weren't asking for a penny from the nhs at the end of the day. we just wanted her to be from the hospital be set free from the hospital because she felt like she was imprisoned in the hospital by a group of tyrants. i mean, don't get me wrong, at the end of the day, many doctors were working very hard and the registrars and the nurses, but few people from the nurses, but few people from the senior management ruined it for us. >> so when you went into the