context under which john marshall became chief justice of the united states. the myth surrounding the chief justice is that john j sent his letter to president adams after he had been nominated and confirmed within which he depicted the court as follows. i left the bench convinced under a system so defective the court would not obtain the energy, weight and dignity which are essential to a -- national government nor require public confidence and respect which as a last resort it should possess. he declined. this set in motion the last sequence of events in which john marshall was not the inevitable nominee. president adams was determined to elevate a sitting member. he hoped questioning would be the one. -- cushing would be the one. he had his son working to convince jared ingersoll to accept the seat that would be vacated if one of the sitting justices was elevated. so he is the accidental chief justice. that said he took the bit between his teeth and had two missions. the first was to gainsay john jay and get the court the position it deserved to have as a co

and john marshal bill that bill. second good food, and i would have wanted to have harlan there with his platter of french jesus. (laughs). because i love the truth and cheese to boot. and then storytelling, and marshall i understand was a justice who was on the court over 20 years? and i am told by some of my colleagues, that he never told a story twice. i would have loved to have been in conversation with him. and to hear some of his stories. so that would be the perfect dinner table for me. >> the one justice as much as i admire him, but i would not want him as my dinner partner, and that was just the louis -- one of his friends reported that if he were invited to dinner at the brandeis home, you would eat before and after. (inaudible) (laughs). >> i second that decision. >> we've covered a lot here tonight, before a close i just want to ask my three panelists. is there anything else you would like to bring up that we haven't talked about? >> what did we forget? ruth? >> i don't know. >> i think we said give clara

chief justice john marshall was confirmed and one week after john had lost re-election. john adams appointed chief justice john marshall after the minority lost the election. president lincoln got some unconfirmed and one day. obviously it's completely false to say that this has been anywhere close to the fastest process ever. it's just disinformation. another nonsense claim. judge baird is somehow theos mot partisan or politicize nominee ever? really? andrew jackson nominated a political operative to the court at the end of his presidency. lincoln put his own campaign manager on the court. eisenhower nominated earl warren after warren stopped competing with them in the 1952 election in the campaign for him. this professor from indiana who got multiple democratic votes for confirmation to her current job just three years ago is going to be the most political confirmation ever? than the previous century they put campaign chairman on the supreme court. that's pretty political. eisenhower put the governor of california against the nomination on the court and that's pretty p

you mentioned john marshall. other people would call it the judicial branch, but in fact in this period john marshall is the judicial branch. in fact, this is a very important part of my story. because i devote a chapter to daniel webster and john marshall. john marshall was chief justice of the united states from 1801 to 1835. he essentially created the modern supreme court, and especially he created the idea that the supreme court should stand in review of the actions of the legislative branch and the executive branch. the supreme court, the judicial branch, is the one that gets to say, yep, no, unconstitutional, who created, well, basically the supreme court we have today. and he did it, i'm not going to say out of whole cloth, but it was, it would have shocked and surprised the framers of the constitution, that what? the court gets to tell congress what congress can't do? it's not written in the constitution. john marshall has to work between the lines to come up with that. and his principal collaborator, alm

i devote a chapter to john marshall and webster. john marshall was chief justice of the united states from 1801 to 1835. he essentially created the supreme court. he created the idea that the supreme court should stand in review of the actions of the legislative and executive branch. the judicial branch is the one that gets to say yep, no, yes constitutional, unconstitutional. he created basically the supreme court we have today. he did it, i'm not going to say out of whole cloth, but it could have shocked and surprised the framers of the constitution that, what, the courts get to tell congress what congress can't do? it's not written in the constitution. john marshall has to work between the lines to come up with that. and his principal collaborator, his co-conspirator daniel webster. webster was the most celebrated and amply compensated constitutional lawyer of his day. of the in fact, webster on some days, he would in the morning he would go and argue a case before the supreme court and then in the afternoon he would go give a sp

circuits were added there were some convenient political reasons of talk about the nomination of john marshall that john adams had to a point because incoming president thomas jefferson and then to restore the courts which one of the justices opposed in the seventh seat was added 18 oh seven and then to resist the chief justice marshall federalist. these and to be under the story of john marshall and underage jackson and with dred scott and then to be appointed by jackson and then to be facilitated or forestall the civil war. and during the civil war to give abraham lincoln more power and then andrew john john on - - jackson 62 lincoln and then they kept the call from seven members so the next three will not be replaced and then that was stabilized at nine in 1869. and in 1938 midterms even though two years later he was overruled overwhelmingly so the history of playing around with the numbers shows there are definite negative consequences if it is successful but a long-term loss doesn't and for the country as a whole. >> so we see that he is not in favor of that. is that enough to rein in the

the great john marshall harlan from kentucky a guy named benjamin bristow. and the grant administration i had to stand upon. in those days if you want to be president you couldn't admit it because you had to wait was being drafted. and benjamin bristow went to cincinnati with the gop convention to claim the nomination the appropriate choice after eight years of scandal it became clear after a few years one - - after some time that they cannot pull it off with his partner benjamin bristow through other behaviors and amazingly enough but after president hayes was sworn in march 1877 euros john marshall harlan and not benjamin bristow who ended up on the supreme court. serving three is with great distinction and was plessy versus ferguson the supreme court in 1896. two and public accommodations and discrimination and then came up in brown versus board of education talk about political appointments. that was a politicalin appointment. and by any of the standards so these are not really arguments the democratic leader said they were him can when they had the oppo

john marshall decided to wear a simple black robe. pretty soon the other justices followed suit and now all judges do it. the black robe shows justice is blind. we all dress the same and once --put it on, we are standard standing united, symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, not speaking for ourselves as individuals. in your questioning from chairman graham, you talked about the process of judicial decision-making and started with four steps and added a fifth. out being a reactive branch is really reactive. what it meansn that the article three branches reactive? judge barrett: article three says courts can hear cases of controversy. a judge can't walk in and say i feel like visiting the question of health care and telling people what i think. we can't even think about the law or how it would apply until litigants bring a real-life case with real-life parties in a real-life dispute before us. to decideal we have that dispute is what comes from you, the statutes you pass. we don't get to come up with the policies and see our w

we talk about the nomination of john marshall, that was part of the midnight judges act that actuallyed the number of judges that john adams had to appoint but it would've reduced the court to five members and it's much vacancy to court the incoming president thomas jefferson. a year later congress restored the court to six seats which one of the justices proposed leading to his impeachment although he wasn't removed seven seat was added in 1807 in part because jeff is now in control wanted to temporarily resist chief justice marshall's federalist capital proclivities. although that was unsuccessful because whomever jefferson appointed, they kept being under the sway of john marshall. then seats were added under andrew jackson to try to reshape the court which led to a bigger majority for dread scott, roger chief justice connie was appointed by jackson and that facilitated or at least failed the tenant Ãbto give abraham lincoln more power although that was never filled and then andrew johnson succeeded lincoln and to prevent him from naming anyone he was kind of a political orphan by

john. marshall swede goes down any watches. he's mesmerized and he sees that the members of the court or mesmerized as well. i want to finally comes to the end, when webster says it's a small college speaking of dartmouth college, which was beaten up taking advantage of of the state of new hampshire. at the end when webster is concluded this kept nickel law professor looks and he sees to his amazement that john marshall is weeping, the daniel webster had that effect on people. so it is an important a large part of my story. somebody else and a question. yes sir. >> i just wonder what you thought would be if you think as a society we believe we are today without the civil war? -- holder who didn't believe in slavery he salted slavery would go away. he observes slavery go away and his lifetime in the north. when he was born, slavery was allowed in every american colony and in every american state before independence. but generally and its slavery was phased in through emancipation. new york ended slavery but there are still slave

then we had the seventh seat later added, jefferson's attempt to counteract john marshall's federalistway on the court, and then eighth and ninth seeds -- seats were added under andrew jackson. they led to dred scott, solidified a jacksonian view of state and federal relations on the slavery question and that was not a good thing long-term. it went up to 10 briefly under nixon and congress tried to cut that back under andrew johnson, who was impeached but not removed, but it is an active law. we solidified at mine in it is 1869. not something constitutional, it would just take a simple act of congress signed by the president. the senate would have to get rid of the filibuster first, there is a senate rule that says you need 60 senate votes to proceeded to a final vote on legislation. there is no more filibuster or judicial nominees, that was gotten rid of by the democrats. if the democrats win the senate by enough of margin and joe biden wins the white house, it becomes a possibility they could remove the filibuster and add however many seats they want. although they should be cautious

>> judges in the system wear black robes and started to because chief justice john marshall started the practice. justices used to wear colorful robes that identified them with the schools they graduated from and john marshall decided to wear a simple black robe. and pretty soon the other justices followed suit and now all judges do it. i think the black robe shows that justice is blind. we all dress the same and i think it shows that once we put it on we are standing united symbollingally speaking in the name of the law, not speaking for ourselves as individuals. >> thank you. you in your questioning from chairman graham this morning talked about the process of judicial decision making and started with four steps and i think added a fifth and a sixth because being a reactive branch is really reactive. can you explain what it means that the judiciary is reactive? >> so article 3 of the constitution says that courts can hear cases or controversies so a judge can't walk in one day and say i feel like visiting the question of health care and telling people what i think. we can't think abou

john marshall decided to wear a simple black robe. pretty soon the other justices followed suit and now all judges do it. i think the black robe shows that justice is blind. we all dress the same. it shows once we put it on, we are standing united symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, not speaking for ourselves as individuals. >> thank you. you're questioning from chairman graham this morning talked about the judicial decision making any started with four steps and added a fifth and then eighth sixth grade being a reactive branch is really reactive. can you explain what it means that the branches reactive? >> article three of the constitution said courts can hear cases or controversies. a judge can't walk in and say i feel like visiting the question of health care and telling people what i think. we can't even think about the law or how it would apply until litigants bring a real-life case with real-life parties in a real-life dispute before us. the material that we have two decide that dispute is what comes from you. it's th

john marshall in his invest cacr wore a black robe. others followed suit and now all judges do it. it shows justice is blind. we all dress the same and shows once we put it on we are standing united, symbolically, speaking in the name of the law. not speaking of our, speaking for ourselves as individuals. >> thank you. you in your questioning from chairman graham this morning talked a little about the process of judicial decision-making astarted with four steps added a fifth and sixth. turns out being a reactive branch is really reactive. can you explain what it means the article three branch is reactive? >> article three of the constitution says that courts can hear cases or controversies. so a judge can't walk in one day and say, i feel like visiting the question of health care and telling people what i think. we can't even think about the law or how it would ally until litigants bring a live case with live parties and a real, live dispute among us. the material we have to decide that dispute what comes from you. it's the statuteses that you pass. we don't get to come up with the

the cherokee sue the state of georgia, goes all the way to the supreme court, and chief justice john marshall rules in favor of the cherokee. he says removing their land is unconstitutional. so it looks like the plan is done. andrew jackson, in typical manner, in very jacksonian manner, responds to chief justice marshall. he says, justice marshall has made his decision, quote, now let him enforce it. and he completely ignores the decision and the indian removal goes through. the most infamous act -- episode in this removal was the trail of tears in 1838. 1839. 15,000 cherokee. and actually, next lecture, we'll look closer at this cherokee civilization, because they made a really strong effort to try to comply. wasn't enough. wasn't enough. the cherokee, 15,000 of them removed from georgia to oklahoma on a journey, on foot, that was 116 days. terrible conditions. roughly one in four cherokee die of disease or malnutrition. that's 4,000 cherokee. just to give you an idea, there's the -- there's the route of the indian removal. this will give you an idea of how bad things were, there was a confe

national part of politics washington and madison and jefferson had a very fraught relationship with john marshall who by the way had gone to school with monroe. the late 18th and early 19th century coming across state connection it was said it was like a little country of cousins that everybody was related to everybody else. >> i am intrigued of some of the debate talking about justice ginsburg's contributions and a personal friend of mine and i was always struck that relationship between the know and ginsburg that there were such opposites in the positions that they represented. but they were very close personally and i can remember talking about her. >> you are much closer than i but that their love for classical music and justice ginsburg said at one point when i go and listen to the oper opera, the voices inside my head stop. i am just relieved of the feeling of conflict. and uplifted by it. i had never heard talk why he loved opera so much. >> one of the things that you touch on is that you said there was conflict from those in the nation. my feelings, obviously i was not there then. [laught

in the united states, the great chief justice john marshall said judges in the united states should not wear red robes or maroon robes. they should wear plain black. but every once in a while, not in this court, but at a court in law school, i would use this rogue. let me take this. this one was a gift to me by the supreme peoples court and china. when i was in china, i think it was 1995, i was a guest of their highest court. i visited several courts in major cities. when i was in beijing, i admired the robes the justices were wearing. by the time i got to shanghai, they had made up a robe for me and presented to me as a gift. this is my chinese robe. in canada, both the lawyers and judges war robes. this is a standard french -- but the women jurist's in quebec thought that they should enhance their raba with a lovely least collar. >> tell us about the traditions around the rioting robing room -- >> the first thing we do when entering the robing room, we go around the room shaking hands with each other. that is a symbol of the work that we do is a collegial body. you maybe temporarily -

certainly washington, madison and jefferson had a very far relationship with john marshall who by the way had gone to school and it's so little and it was said like it was little country cousin renee. and related to everyone else in a way and then talking about the court and it also was justice scalia they use to hunt and fish together and i was always struck by the relationship because they were opposites in the position that they represented but they were very close personally in terms of family and time spent together and i can remember justice scalia talking about ruth peter ginsburg in glowing terms how much they enjoyed their relationship. >> you are more than i but was based mostly on opera and love for classical music and justice ginsburg said at one point when i go and listen to the opera the voices inside my head i am just relieved and to be uplifted by it but i suspect and those to be all involved but my feelings obviously i was not there then that there is a feeling in the country today politically have evolved in a way that what you would expect with the white house and t

certainly washington madison and jefferson had a very fraught relationship with john marshall. who have gone to school with monroe. the world of the late 18th 19th century. is so little. i think they once said. it was like a little country of cousin tree. i think they would've fought it out hard. i'm intrigued by some of the debate in the discussions on the court. it was talking about justice ginsburg contributions and so forth. we knew each other while. we used to hunt and fish together. i was always struck by the relationship. they were such opposites. they were very close personally. in terms of families in times spent together. justice scalia talking about that. it was interesting. and always appeared to me and obviously you are much closer to it than i. that it was based mostly on opera. and the love for classical music. justice ginsburg said at one point. when i go and listen to the opera. the voices inside my had start. i'm just relieved of the feeling of conflict and uplifted by it. i have never heard that. i suspect it was probably the same with him. one of the things

chief justice john marshall rules in favor of the cherokee. he says removing their land is unconstitutional. it looks like the plan is done. andrew jackson, in typical manner, very jacksonian manner, responds to chief justice marshall and says "justice marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. " he completely ignores the decision and the indian removal goes through. the most infamous episode in this removal was the trail of tears in 1838, 1839. 15,000 cherokee -- and next lecture, we will look a little more at the cherokee civilization. they made a strong effort to try to comply. it was not enough. 15,000 of them were moved from georgia to oklahoma on a journey, on foot, that was 116 days. terrible conditions. roughly one in four cherokee die of disease or malnutrition. that is 4000 cherokee. just to give you an idea. there is the route of the indian removal. just to give you an idea of how bad things were. there was a confederate soldier after the civil war and he had this to say -- he said, i fought the war between the states a

judge barrett: chief justice john marshall started the practice. in the beginning, justices used so where colorful robes that identified them with the schools graduated from. john marshall, at his investiture, decided to wear a simple black robe. now all judges do it. i think the black robe shows that justice is blind. we all dress the same. and it shows that once we put it on, we are standing united symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, not speaking for ourselves as individuals. you talked a little bit about the process of decision-making and you started with four steps, then added a fifth. acause it turns out, being reactive branch is really reactive. can you explain what it means, that the article three branches reactive? sen. sasse: article 3 -- ? judge barrett: article three cases of controversy can be heard. we can't even think about the law or how it would apply until litigants bring a real live case with real live parties with a real live dispute before us. the material we have to decide that dispute is what comes from you. a statu

these places at the same time i think we are in a particular moment where things are shifting and john marshallsks whether you comment on public municipal ownership of platforms like rideshare. talk about what that might look like in comparison to co-op models, the possibilities, things we need to do to make one or either of those happen. >> this one really hasn't been talked about enough, let me say a word or two about the three paths i talk about, the first which is corporate dominance platforms. one of my co-authors and friends, a dutch scholar, made the point that now you can see it with what is happening with uber, the likely trajectory, a couple of super platforms that have all the different services, the sort of model, so many industries we have two or three dominant firms. that is one direction. the second is regulation, and misclassification in the gig economy. we've seen real change. what i argue in the book is beginning in 2018 you start to see that side turning on regulation. until that point it is hard to get any regulations through. most of the regulation was in the direction of m

of politics and certainly washington, madison, jefferson had a very fraught relationship with john marshall who, by the way had gone to school with monroe. the world of the late 18, early 19th century so little, you know. you keep coming across connection, i think, bernard behling once said it was like a little country of cousin ray. everyone was related to everyone else anyway. so, i think they would have bought it hard. >> i was intrigued by some of the debate discussions on the courts, talking about justice ginsburg's contributions and so forth. personal friend of mine, you know, was antonin scalia. we knew each other well. fished together, but i was always struck by the relationship between him and ruth bader ginsburg because they were such opposites in terms of their positions they represented you know being conservative and ginsburg being liberal, but they were very close personally in terms of families and time spent together and so forth. i can remember justice scully a talking about ruth bader ginsburg and glowing terms of how much he enjoyed the relationship. >> that's interesting

to be joined this evening by his wife, cecilia marshall, his sons thurgood marshall junior in john marshall, his daughter-in-law jean marshall, and his grandson edward patrick marshall. thank you so much for being here. and honoring us with your presence. (applause) i think all of you for coming. and please join us in the reception in the eastern west conference rooms, which are directly to your right, as you leave the room tonight. we will be serving two recipes from justice and mrs. marshal that are featured in this society's most recent publication table for two. we are serving justice marshals maryland crab soup, and mrs. marshals mango bread. copies of tables for nine are available at the societies gives up along with many other books and many other gifts. there is a gift shop on the ground floor of the court. and it will remain open well after the reception tonight. ladies and gentlemen, the 2018 national heritage is now adjourned. american history tv on c-span three. exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this weekend, saturday at 2 pm e

marshall's confirmation and voted against the civil rights act. voted against the voting rights act. the second ranking democrat on the committee, john mcclellan, democratic senator from arkansas had been absent from the marshall confirmation but had made clear he opposed marshall. voted against the voting rights act and voted against the civil rights act. sam ervin, who we will encounter again in this class, democratic senator from north carolina voted against the marshall confirmation, voted against the voting rights act, and voted against the civil rights act. these are the three most senior democrats on the judiciary committee. these are senators who today would be among the most conservative members of the senate. they are bitter critics of the warren court and the decisions. essentially, what they decide amongst themselves, the chair of the committee controls how the process operates. the key person in the cavanaugh hearings was chuck grassley. the republican chairman who presided over the hearings. what these three decide as they will use this opportunity to put the warren court on trial. to basically bring abe fortas before t

under john marshall, the supreme court had broadly interpreted the reach of these delegated powers. but ivan marshall, often referred to the government as one of limited -- limited authority. while southerners took and annual review of the federal powers and those in the north, even the latter shed disk and central framework. it's true, then the government in washington had no powers to wage a war against a succession states. in the union would collapse. while the obvious answer, was when you constitution, this was impractical with 11 states in secession. to support lincoln's prosecution of the war, northern legal writers develop what they called, the adequacy of the constitution. ferrari and others argue that this southern emphasis on the negative constraints on the constitution hid the positive commitments for the government to act effectively. to preserve itself to preserve union. as sydney george fisher, another legal writer explained, the president and congress have the power to react to concrete situations. such as the rebellion, and they also have a discretion to choose the m

ofof imperial terririto, whether it is the insular cases in the early 1 1900s or unundere justice john marshallrtrt, series of decisisions, the marshall trilogy o on the relationship of nativeve americs to the f federal goverernment -- none of this, however, , is reay discussed in t these hearings. supposedlytled, coming decisioions that aree clearly unjust but h have never really been r raised to new supreme court nominees. could you expounund a little moe on this historiric reactionaryy nature of the court? >> from the bebeginning of the republic, theourtrt h been on boarard with the expulsion or extermination of native peoples, as you pointed out, with american empire at the end of the 19th and earlyly 20th centu. the ststriking legegacy thatat n after the abolition of slavery -- whihich of course the supupre cocourt alalso supported befefoe civil warr -- was the cocourt's o of theity with the rule wealthy, especially in the first gilded age. during the same later 19th a and early 20th century. franklin r rooseveltlt had to fe down the c court precisely for e reason that it w was an institut

they have chief justice john marshal's bladder stones, they have a piece of the brain of charles guiteau who was the guy who assassinated garfield and they have in a small glass jar, they have the tumor that was removed from grover cleveland's mouth in 1893. and that triggered my interest in the story, the fact that the tumor was still around and that somebody had thought maybe this is a good thing to keep. i talked to the museum and it turns out that one of the doctors who performed the operation had donated the tumor, had kept it and donated the tumor to the museum back in 1917. i guess you would know, he was a bit of a saver since he saved the tumor. he saved all of his correspondence and clippings and lots of information about the operation which was intended to be secret. i realized that there was the possibility of doing something about this story and then as i dug deeper into it, i found it wasn't just the story of this operation, it was really the story of economy at the time and it was also a story about medicine and a story about journalism as well. there were a lot of things g

they have chief justice john marshall's bladder stones. if you ever have a hankering to see that. [laughter] they've got a piece of the brain of the guy who assassinated garfield, and they have in a small glass jar they have the tumor that was removed from grover cleveland's mouth in 1893 in this operation on a boat. and so that really triggered my interest in the story, the fact that the tumor was still around and that somebody had thought maybe this was something to keep. and i talked to the museum, and it turns out one of the doctors who performed the surgery had donated the tumor back to the museum back in 1917. i guess you would know he was a bit of a saver, but he also saved all his correspondence and clippings and lots of information about the operation which, of course; was intended to be secret. so i realized there there was a possibility of doing something about this story. and then as i, as i dug deeper into it, i found it wasn't just the story of this operation, it was really the story of the economy at the time, and it was also a story about medicine and it's a story

judge barrett: chief justice john marshall started the practice.the beginning, justices used so where colorful robes that identified them with the schools graduated from. john marshall, at his investiture, decided to wear a simple black robe. now all judges do it. i think the black robe shows that justice is blind. we all dress the same. and it shows that once we put it on, we are standing united symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, not speaking for ourselves as individuals. you talked a little bit about the process of decision-making and you started with four steps, then added a fifth. acause it turns out, being reactive branch is really reactive. can you explain what it means, that the article three branches reactive? sen. sasse: article 3 -- ? judge barrett: article three cases of controversy can be heard. we can't even think about the law or how it would apply until litigants bring a real live case with real live parties with a real live dispute before us. the material we have to decide that dispute is what comes from you. a statute y

chief justice john marshall setting the tone with the black colorless road still relevant today, a unifiedou might say despite the score on the board. >>he felt like the court to be more powerful need to speak in a single borders. so he was the one who really pressured the just the justices to issue whenever possible a single unanimous opinion and that of most of the cases he would actually write it himself so the idea of having the all black robes having things beavis personalized is very much in line with his larger agenda for the court. >>poll myers, the chicago federal court first female chief judge she remembers slipping on her black robe for the very first time it is such rush. >>and it is i think it's kind of sobering you put on the face of what you hope will be. what will be decency dignity and justice and then there are the judges who couple dignity and justice with some flair. >>in the mid-nineties u.s. supreme court chief justice william rehnquist and it's a bold stripes to his sleeves modeled after a character in a gilbert and sullivan production at least that's how the story g

echoing john marshals views on how court should function. he is explained that adding more justices would make the court for less efficient as he put it in his letter, quote, there would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced, and to decide. houston chose not to directly criticize roosevelt plan to change the courts prudence, but to expose the effort for what it was by refuting the efficiency of window dressing. it worked. >> that was perspectives from the time, it also contemporary perspectives on the fdr era and the court packing part of history that we've learned so much about as we grew up in the country. we're going to learn more about it in the guise of the biography of charles evans hughes, 1916 republican nominee for president. he felt in the bid. but very narrowly against woodrow wilson. we are learning more about his contributions to society we are joined by a new guest at the set right here outside of the beautiful october night, in front of the supreme court building, pa

and echoing john marshall's views about how a court should function, hughes explained adding more justices would makeg more justices would make the court far less efficient as put in his letter, "there would be more judges to hear, for jumps to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide." hughes chose not to directly criticize fdr's effort to change the court's jurs prisprudence b expose it for what it was by disputing window dressing. and it worked. >> perspective from the time and contemporary prospective on the court packing part of history we've learned so much about as we grew up in this country. we're going to learn more about that in the biography of charles evans hughes 1916 republican nominee for president. he failed in that bid but narrowly against woodrow wilson, and we are learning more about his contributions to society and joined by a new guest at our set right here outside on this beautiful october night in front of the supreme court building. paul gwinnett, served general 2005 to 2008. thanks for being with us. >> great to be here. >> and burn

john. >> dana: thurgood marshall. >> greg: thurgreat marshall. >> dagen: nascar. >> greg: very good. presentations on 20-minute presentations. how to be quick and to the point. >> jesse: you're already out of material. >> greg: i am. one more thing is next. ♪ an official message from medicare. did you try it yet? comparing plans? oh yeah. they sure can change year to year. i found lower premiums - and lower prescription costs. and those new insulin savings! hundreds of plans, $35 a month. that'll save you money. so uh, mark? on medicare.gov now. open enrollment ends dec 7th. comparing plans... ...really pays. paid for by the u.s. department of health & human services. omnipod delivers insulin through a discreet waterproof pod... to help simplify life. no more daily injections. it's game-changing. take your insulin anywhere with a small tubeless pod. and the wireless controller helps deliver the right amount of insulin. get started with a free 30-day omnipod dash trial today. go to omnipod.com for risk information, instructions for use and free trial terms and conditions. consult your

a senate raise between david murder due and his challenger john osoff and one in kansas where roger marshallbara bollier are battling it out there. >> to be fair, the map goes to the democrats. i would expect probably both georgia races to go to run-offs. interesting thing is kansas. a democrat hasn't won a senate race since 1932. we're competitive with them shows the map and how it favors democrats. whether or not we win the races is a bigger and much more important question. but if you're both parties, you're spending money in places like alaska, like montana, like kansas that should be lay-offs for republicans and aren't. >> dana: it's been a fascinating year. have a good weekend. >> you too. thanks. >> dana: next as if 2020 really needed it, murder hornets are making news again. we'll tell you about it. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (clapping) ♪ hey, you alright? ♪ find the nonpartisan facts behind the real stories at usafacts.org ♪ the lack of control whenover my business kai, made me a little intense. but now quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with ko

and last thing was the junior fire marshals program. >> john baxter, our p.i.o., is involved in that,o he can speak to more detail of that. >> commissioner cleaveland: so this is a program that goes outside of your program. >> absolutely. >> commissioner cleaveland: it goes to the general public and it's kind of how to get involved in your department with a fire marshal. it sounds like a great program, and it would be nice for you to share those details with us at a future date. >> thank you so much. >> commissioner cleaveland: these are all my questions. >> president covington: thank you, commissioner cleaveland. chief of the department nicholson? >> thank you, president covington. if i just may, commissioner cleaveland, mark corso, who is our money guru, does apply for 75% reimbursement of all covid activity that we perform. it doesn't mean that we get reimbursed, but we apply for that. and in terms of what our fire [inaudible] is thinking about with shared spaces and the like, you know, initially, when things shutdown, you know, the fire marshal had left sections to do, etc., but n

henry was in two duels, one with humphrey marshall and one with john randolph and the duel with john randolph actually takes us back to henry clay as speaker of the house. when henry was chosen as speaker of the house, he was chosen partly because they thought here's a man who can meet john randolph on the floor or on the field. and it happened that they met on the field. john randolph compared henry clay to a character in the novel "tom jones" and basically called him a card cheat on the senate floor. henry wasn't there to defend himself and felt that no man should have to endure such a dishonor, so he challenged john randolph to a duel. unfortunately for henry clay, randolph was really a great shot with pistols and clay was not. but randolph decided that he didn't want to deprive lucretia or the nation of henry clay and decided to shoot at the ground. fortunately, nobody was seriously injured in either of henry clay's duels. >> how long did dueling -- was it part of american political life? >> duels continued in kentucky in the 1860s. >> 1860s? yeah, last ones. >> and henry clay kn

john, thank you very much. you are watching "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. dagen mcdowell, co-host of fox and friends weekend jedediah bila and fox news contributor leslie marshall and former wisconsin congressman, fox news contributor sean duffy. great to see you, sean. all right. let's start with you and let's start with the economy and this new what john roberts says we expect to be a topic that the president will roll out on the stump today. >> absolutely. first of all great to be with you on the virtual kirby couch. great to be a fox news contributor. i think you look at this 33% gdp growth and donald trump will hammer that the last five days of the campaign. florida, it will be interesting to see the side-by-side pictures of the donald trump rally versus the joe biden rally. we'll have throngs on the trump side with great energy and probably a few people on the biden side. the visual in florida will be fantastic. he will talk to hispanic voters who care about economic growth and care about opening up. many are small business owners who need a thriving economy to be successful to support their families. i have to tell you looking at florida i think it will

john cox on this new american moment. the 2020 race is now the most litigated election ever. it is only october 1st. we have this feel-food story for you. u.s. marshals director donna washington joins us on the one of most heroic stories in a while. rescue of more than 1300 missing children in since 2016. i'm elizabeth macdonald. "the evening edit" starts right now. ♪. elizabeth: okay. welcome to the show. you're watching the fox business network. get you up to speed on this. d.c. is still fighting over covid-19 relief. it is leading to growing fears that more than 30,000 airline workers could begin to be furloughed starting today. this industry is in distress. this is all happening as washington is now embroiled in a new fight. there are reports of biden's debate negotiator asking for a mute button in the next debate which is a town hall in october, on october 15th in miami. the biden campaign is now denying this. welcome louisiana senator bill cassidy back to the show. great to have you back on, senator. what do you think of this mute button idea. is it a good or bad idea? the idea mute the mic after the opponent starts talking for two minutes. wha