colin buttomayor -- justice alito: these are not stories -- chief justice roberts: justice alito. justice alito: these are, as i understand it, actual reports of of inspections of those facilities. mr. keller: the amicus briefs do discuss that, and the complications from whole woman's health were underreported to the state. justice ginsburg: random texas, under the prior law, has the right to make random inspections. was the problem in pennsylvania was this filthy clinic hadn't been looked at by anyone from the state in years. but texas can go into any one of these clinics and immediate immediately spots a violation? it says you can't operate till you come up to speed. so texas has had, as justice kagan pointed out, its own mechanism for preventing that kind of thing from happening. mr. keller: texas did have existing regulations, but increasing the standard of care is valid, particularly not only in light of -- justice sotomayor: it's valid only if it's taking care of a real problem. mr. keller: and there were the abortion complications and underreported -- justice sotomayor: wel

justice ginsburg 96-3. breyer 87-9. chief justice roberts 78-22. justice alito 58-42. justice sotomayor 68-31. and justice kagan 63-37. what is your reaction to what the chief said and what you saw on the screen? gabe roth: well first of all, i am happy these vote totals add up to 100. it is good to know that senators are actually voting on these important issues. more critically, i think he makes a very good point that over time, potentially starting with the board of nomination, thinking back to fortis, nominations have become more partisan. now is that, you know, the genesis of that is hard to say, where that came from, who decided it. but thinking about the court as a whole, it is looked as as a more partisan institution than ever before. you read an article in the paper about the supreme court, and almost any article you will see the epithet used, conservative justices did this, liberal justices did this. republican-appointed justices did this, the democrats -- and oftentimes there is a switchover. eisenhower appointed justices that became liberal, kennedy had con

instead of justice scalia to my right, it will be justice kennedy, and instead of justice kennedy on my left, it will be justice thomas. ,he other wings of the court everyone switches from one side to the other. there will not be a chair at the far left, which is where our new member will sit. and the flags on the plaza will once again fly at full staff. presencee scalia's will always be felt here in this courtroom. i remember when i commemorated his 25th anniversary from the bench, he indicated that they said he had arrived 25 years ago and the place hasn't been the same sense. and that remains true. his contributions and the way he shaped this institution will be the subject of historical society lectures for many years to come. tonight, it is about john marshall in the 250th anniversary of his becoming chief justice. i do want to express my gratitude to the john marshall foundation and the supreme court historical society for joining together to commemorate the occasion in such a fine way. if marshall were here today, i think you would be very surprised at the courtroom. he would

justice ginsburg 96-3. breyer 87-9. chief justice roberts 78-22. justice helena 58-42. justice sotomayor or 68-31. and justice kagan 63-37. what is your reaction to what the chief said and what you saw on the screen? of all, i well first am happy these vote totals add up to 100. senators are exit voting on these important issues. more critically, that is a very good point. over time, potentially starting with the board of nomination, thinking back to fortis, nominations have become more partisan. , the genesis of that is hard to say, where that came from, who decided it. but thinking about the court as a whole, it is looked as as a more partisan institution than ever before. you read an article in the paper about the supreme court, and almost any article you will see the epithet used, conservative justices did this, liberal justices did this. republican-appointed justices did this, and oftentimes there is a switchover. justicesr appointed that became liberal, kennedy had .onservative jurisprudence and the first bush did the same. but that really hasn't happened, and ess

chief justice. so fundamentally, these laws impose heavy burdens on abortion access that are not medically justified. and for that reason, they impose an undue burden on the right to abortion. chief justice roberts: do you think there's a rational basis for the law based on the benefits that the legislature saw? ms. toti: i do not, your honor, because -- chief justice roberts: well, i thought you expressly did not challenge the law as lacking a rational basis. ms. toti: we we did not preserve our rational basis claim. the the district court denied that claim, and and we haven't preserved it here. here we're focusing on on the undue burden. we wouldn't concede that the law has a rational basis because in fact, it undermines -- chief justice roberts: well, we have to assume it we have to assume it does since you're not raising that challenge, don't we? ms. toti: because the law actually undermines the state's interest in health rather than advancing it by causing an increase in later abortions and and

well known ill stration, justice scalia was very fond of justice brenen, as justice brennan was of justice scalia. i will miss the challenges and the laughter he provoked, his pungent, eminently quotable opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grasp. the rose he is brought me on my birthday. the chance to appear with him once more as supernew mexico rares as the opera. -- as supernumeraryies at the opera. justice scalia described that as the peak of his days in d.c., an evening in 2009 at the opera ball at the british ambassador's residence. when he joined two washington national opera tenors at the piano for aed me lee of songs. -- for a medley of songs he called it the famous three tenors performance. [laughter] he was indeed a magnificent performer. how blessed i was to have a working colleague and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit. in the words of a duet for tenor scalia and soprano ginsburg, we were different, yes, in our interpretation of written texts, yet one in our reverence for the court and its place in the

justice ginsburg: what about the railway labor -- justice kagan: what is the -- justice ginsburg: what about the railway labor act? mr. carvin: i apologize. justice ginsburg: the railway labor act. mr. carvin: yes. justice ginsburg: you answered justice kennedy that, in the private sector, this is all right, you can have an agency shop. how about under the railway labor act? mr. carvin: well, as you know from street, you can have agency shops but the agency fees can only go to things that are germane to collective bargaining. in other words, they impose the abood rule in the private sector as a matter of statutory interpretation, and nothing the court says about -- justice ginsburg: but you don't have any first amendment argument about that, about the either the private sector or railroads. mr. carvin: not at all, your honor. we are strictly limiting ourselves to public employees because public employers obviously are subject to far greater constraints under the first amendment that the justice kagan: well, one of the points of your public employee cases generally, mr. carvin, is essen

chief justice? justice roberts: sure. general verrilli: what i would say about that, justice sotomayor, is that in this context, the subsidy goes to the process of contract formation and contract administration within that collective bargaining context that i described earlier, that of necessity, a different first amendment standard has to apply to. thank you. justice roberts: thank you, general. three minutes, mr. carvin. mr. carvin: thank you. as to the absence of a factual record here, it's important to point out that we gave them an amended answer where they could make any allegation they wanted. and at page four of their so-called opposition, it said, to quote, "the unions do not oppose the entry of a judgment on the pleadings." why is that? because they certainly it's their burden to argue, for example, that agency fees will lead to the demise of the union. but they didn't make any such allegation in their answer. they didn't make any such allegation in response to justice ginsburg's question, and they've got all th

so justice brandeis might say to justice ginsburg, welcome home. indeed if i may be permitted a moment of personal privilege, he might say that to both of us tonight. [ applause ] now, pour panel tonight is an extraordinary distinguished group who will help us on the topic tonight of louis brandeis then and now, and particularly his contribution to law and democracy. the pieces of brandeis' life and work that continue to resonate still. i will introduce them to you briefly in the order in which i will ask them to respond to the first question, which will be one example, and there are so many, one example and briefly, and one could be so long, of how brandeis' work still resonates in the development of american law, american democracy. chief justice ralph gantz, the chief -- yeah, that's an applause line. go ahead. [ applause ] >> jeef justice ganz, the chief justice of the massachusetts supreme court, served on the superior court when he was appointed to the sjc in 2009 and then elevated him to chief justice in 2014, before that, he was an assistan

and other the growth justice -- liberal justice to hold their deeply held religious view. to provide that his hope to recognize the right of the odors as a corporation such as obamacare contraception mandate. but that free-speech protection and on college campuses across the country because of the speaker's view point to many people today want to shut down or anybody that disagrees. it is an incredibly important precedent to be at risk. we're looking forward to the supreme court cases of town hall meetings for parents to receive public school vouchers for the cost of the child's private school including religious groups and of course, another liberal justices agreed nearly that he or she said they are not in the constitution at all. and even reasonable restrictions on abortion is through the democratic process would be swept away. and those on the partial birth abortions but the partial birth abortion is that practice that the crashes the nine foreign baby school killing is still in the womb. a very small step of infanticide. during the presidential election in for those t

justice can be persuasive to other judges or justices.n occasion perhaps even a lawyer can be persuasive. but if so it's by the power of the reasoning. and if other justices are persuaded by something other than the power of the argument, then they are not fulfilling the oath. if there is board -- persuade because unlike the person or the vote against because they don't like the person -- >> suppose you have a very brilliant trial judge on the power of this reasoning is persuasive and forceful but he is biased, entities. he has to be recused. >> yes, your honor but the difference is that the other justices on the case, other justices on the case don't have to be recused. >> well, this is, in a situation where someone is appointed to this court. there are a series of cases where he had sat, that judge. very often they are decided by the two people who remain. >> yes, your honor. >> and in that case there was nothing wrong with the participation at the time. the harder point is that judge from guam, i think i wasn't supposed to sit in the n

court justice. in 1987 before the democratic senate confirmed justice kennedy it was president reagan has said, quote, every day that passes with the supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important area. so i asked my republican colleagues how long are you willing to impair the people's business? how long are you willing to stick to a strategy of obstructionism over good governance? how long are you willing to deny this president his constitutional authority and obligation to appoint a nominee to satisfy your political agenda? how long are you willing to deny equal justice under the law? it was john adams who reminded us this is a, quote, government of laws, not of men. it was justice felix frankfurter who said, quote, of one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. that means first chaos, then tyranny. legal process is the essential part of the democratic process. mr. president, let us not in this chamber be the one man. let

the opinion in the cases by justice jackson.s one of the all-time great justices, as you know. a contention that an injury can amount to a crime only -- this is his quote. only when afflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. it is a universal and persistent of law that believe in freedom of will and is the ability of the person to choose between good and evil. it was the notion that a criminal act requires a guilty mind, that it is no provincial or passing notion, i think could you answer that yes or no. >> thank you senator, i think you have given certainly one of justice jackson's most pressing quotes on this issue. i think sternly is a practicing prosecutor for over 20 years, having to prove that element is an important part of many parts of the case, i recognize also that this body has seen fit to provide different levels of intent and a work in those levels as well and i work with congress as it sitters how to handle this in terms of criminal justice reform. >> do you agree that mens rea is a universal fea

justice ginsburg, justice kennedy and breyer could be there for years. they could be there for much but that is really true for all of us. but, of course, it does bring attention to the edge of the court. i think back to the late 1960s, early 1970s when there was sort of a big burst of vacancies on the court. first the resignations of chief justice warren and then shortly into president nixon's term the resignations was appalled by the death of justice hugo black and justice john marshall harlan. that's what is not a president we know our will not happen but it's a quartet of windows will be undergoing some changes in the years if not months ahead of the we are talking with jess bravin who covers the supreme court for "the wall street journal." did it surprise you in a statement by the president in the status by congressional leaders and presidential candidates of course thing to do justice clear but then almost immediately talking about the battle to replace in? >> guest: i was surprised at that. normally there is at least a 24 hour period with a focus

were justices.so was not a plum job in washington, d.c. of it was because you dispense a much time on the road. >> robin is watching us in trenton. hello. >> hi. i am hoping you can clarify something. can you tell me whether or not this case was the one that decided the supremacy of the court in terms of the court's ability to say what the law is. i have run on both sides. they give. >> we may have a little bit of a disagreement on this. the classic is, yes, that case did establish that. i tend to think that before marbury it was pretty clear it was supposed to be judicial review in the system. 78.see it even in justices riding circuit, that was rolled on constitutionality. court had areme role on constitutionality that upheld congressional law. before marbury, there was a lot of judicial review of a certain sort and it had been established. after marbury, judicial review is a little bit that are established but again, not the 800-pound gorilla. going to does not strike down an act of congress again

to our criminal justice system. we've seen real positive impacts as a result. i'd be interested in hearing how you see the future of the initiative. act,ictims of child abuse something senator sessions and i reauthorizedt all three of these are programs that provide real meaningful assistance for local and helpcement strengthen the criminal justice reform movement. can you briefly comment on how these programs fit into your overall objective to improve law enforcement in the country? loretta lynch: thank you for the chance to talk about them and i thank you for raising these three programs together because what they really highlight is the criminal justice reform will have an anchor that comes from this committee and this body in the form of statutory changes but it really also is going to be managed by how we interact localpport our state and partners, for example, bulletproof vest initiatives, as we support officer safety, officer health and those important issues and also how we deal with the victims of child abu

in the justices art. when i justice believes, as president obama does, that anytime a views the constitution is unfair unclear he can apply his own life experience. unless the constitution specifically prohibits the democratic process from reflecting the we will of the people the decisions are made by elected individuals who are accountable to voters. the supreme court plays an important role in keeping the branches of the federal government within constitutional powers. keeping the federal and state governments within the constitutional fear, sphere. it ensures the government complies with the bill of rights. that is the basis for its legitimacy. when the court leaves the constitution in ways that reflect the justices personal policy views rather than the text it does not act legitimately. instead it denies the people the legal right to govern themselves. the more the courts reach out it is entitled a hold. the more it legislates from the bench, the more decision it robs from the american people. as aa d

justice roberts so important? shesol: it is a win roberts who switches in the fight. he votes to uphold a minimum-wage law that is virtually identical to one that he voted against. this is sometimes called the switch in time that saved nine. [laughter] there are a lot of theories about why he switched. he burned his papers before he died. he never talked openly about it. he did imply number of things. was an interesting guy. he was from philadelphia he was industrious and brilliant. is a brilliant advocate. in a very republican city. he investigated the teapot dome scandal. the secretary of the interior went to jail. his ideology was an open question. inwas appointed by hoover 1932. both sides and something to cheer about when he was appointed. conservatives look at his record as a republican. thought that he prosecuted the harding administration and was not an ideologue. both sides cheered the appointment. his jurisprudence remains something of a mystery even within the court. he was generally conservative but op

i disagree on justice miller. very intelligent, but definitely a political justice. paul: let me answer it this way. there is a lot that can be said about the slaughterhouse cases. i hope we conveyed some sense of how important these cases are jurisprudential -- jurisprudentially. with the 14th amendment, you have a fundamental shift where it is protecting individuals against the state governments and not just the federal government. it really is a central, central case to interpreting that amendment. a lot can be said about the decision, pro or con. the one thing that could not be said about the decision, at least at the time, was that it was just a product of politics, because it was a 5-4 decision. you had three republican appointees on both sides. i think that cautions against interpreting supreme court justices, old and new, as just sort of political actors or people who were appointed for a particular purpose and are not distinguished scholars. i mean, i make my living arguing in front of the justices. i really feel like, certainly the current group of justices

did the justice department approved the policy? >> i've given you my understanding of the situation and so i would refer you to the specific terms of our consent decree with new orleans as you can see what is specifically approved or not. my understanding is that new orleans does provide information to us for removal of illegal immigrants so that we can, in fact, fulfill our eyes responsibilities. >> this policy specifically prohibits the new orleans police department from reporting illegal status, including of folks arrested and convicted. this policy specifically prohibits the criminal sheriff from telling i.c.e. when he is releasing from his local prison somebody who is in illegal status. specifically prohibits that. that's very troublesome, particularly given a statement of the justice department approved this policy. >> that's not my understanding of the terms. they would be allowed to provide information as required under the statute to i.c.e. authorities so that we could effectuate our removal responsibilities for those indi

and they get involved with the criminal justice system.im, you know this first hand because you were in iraq, a marine. and came back not with sound mind and body. when did you realize that you had been impacted emotionally by i >> it happened pretty fast for me. i ended up at camp lejeune, in north carolina. and within 72 hours i was processed down to the -- out of the marine corps and back in philadelphia. my hometown. four days after that, i was in handcu handcuff, arrested. i didn't realize at time what was going on with me. i know now that it was ptsd and, you know, i was going through some symptoms of, you know, things that i went through. it was attacking me at the moment. >> can you describe that, what that felt like? >> it was very lonely feeling. i didn't feel like i could actually talk to anybody. you know, what i was going to say to my family or my neighbors, people who hadn't experienced it? there was no outlet for it. so i actually -- i used substance, drugs and alcohol, to cope with ptsd. eventually i was arrested seven time

in 1969-1970, the court had 452 days of vacancy when justice porcheus retired and justice jackson took a 1-year leave of absence to serve as chief prosecutor at the war crimes trial in nuremberg and justice of the go -- of lido --alito said there are only eight members and we will do our work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. even our new republican colleagues, there's a history here, democratic colleagues do not have a consistent principle to history. all of us have dirty hands. none of us handle judicial confirmations -- i remember when clinton was president in the late years of data nominee came up in california that trent lott fired closed 0 on the nomination to move forward and i voted for cloture. we didn't believe in filibuster. only after president bush won and republicans had a slim majority in the senate that the democrats held those nominees systematically and quickly got a majority. he nominated 11 judges for the court of appeals and i am talking about the court of appeals. renominated even. two were three nominations, president clinton had put up for democrats and they confirme

and you want to do justice. my parents were humiliated on a regular basis, because of those signs that said "white" and "colored." and they would carry that pain and anguish. and so you want to do justice. and we've taken down those signs largely. we don't lynch people in the same way that we used to. we don't have enslavement in the same way. but we still have injustice. and so i feel like i'm supposed to do something about injustice. and whether it's a little tiny thing like just sitting with someone who's been victimized because of their race or their poverty or a big thing like arguing a case at the supreme court, they all feel the same to me. they may look big in one space and small in another, but they feel equally important. and for me, that's not, like, somethin' i have to do. it's something i feel privileged to do. >> bryan stevenson, thank you so much. >> oh you're very welcome. >> appreciate it. >> yeah, you're welcome. >> every monday night. >> i lived that character. >> go one on one with america's

justice khalil was not there.he is introduced to the audience as a rage aria, the guy guy was wearing this big eyebrows, it was very funny. i did see when he was interviewed and asked about it he said well there is the first amendment. [laughter] >> good evening, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. i was hoping you a comment on the fact that the court is so incredibly secretive and private yet you have all made careers and major self famous by exposing the court to the media. i was wondering what you think the role of the media and the court is going to be going forward? >> i want to hear jeff's answer. >> the same. look, justice stevens always like to say, people call us secretive. we are the only part of the government that writes down the reason for everything we do. [laughter] i think that is clever but it is also nonsense. just in terms of baby steps that are conceivable, obviously an issue that hangs out as cameras in the courts and television, i'm writing a book about patricia hearst, both

and how long we willing to deny equal justice under the law? john adams reminded us we are a government of laws and if 1 million can determine what is what every man can a legal process is the essential part of the democratic process. mr. president lettuce respect the constitution. in this case to a misguided determinations with that process is to revise and consent cannot neglect a and obstruct. to do the harm to our country is the majority of these tactics. in respect this institution by holding hearings does provide for equal justice under the law. i yield the floor. >> the clerk will call the roll out. >> the senator from iowa. >> will the senator from new jersey withhold his request? >> i think we have heard some very the legitimate questions in to go back to the familiar to answer that with the biden rules and by now everybody is familiar so i will not take time to go over them again. first of president should exercise restraint and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed gore stated differently, if the president

the justices are upset. so i am fully aware ofmy colleague is going to make a political.this is not an unreasonable position. they have to go back to 1888 for somebody under the same circumstances was confirmed late in the session. mr. chairman, you know these rules, the history of this. senator hatch knows the rules. he has chaired this committee many years. i am totally convinced that this is what the democrats would do if they were in the situation. this is what you would expect the senate to do. that the american people have a voice and who will replace justice scalia next year. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you for having his remarks, allowing these remarks. i want to thank the ranking member from vermont and associate myself with his and senator feinstein's outstanding presentation. i appreciate also the chairman moving forward with nominees as well as two bills before us. was that i care deeply about and it's a pleasure to work with you on these important pieces of legislation. i a

and justice scalia. i say all this to make the point that this senator has grappled with this issue for 18 years and given it a good deal of thought. , to howthe words mean they ought to be applied, and to what the role of the senate should be -- a devising and consenting. at until this bork episode, majority of these senators, at least in this century, have felt that advice and consent did imply some restraint, some .odification of the inquiry most senators have felt in this meant looking at the kinds of criteria i outlined earlier in looking at the competence of the nominee. one of the reasons we were reluctant to throw all that to outlined in an article from the law the review in 1983. the title of the article was "the transformation and senate response to supreme court nominations from reconstruction to the taft administration and beyond." relative -- the says when,ints, he ,s during reconstruction senators treat the supreme court as a political institution, that they expect to queue a particular ide

justice stephen breyer a few weeks ago said about the passing of justice scalia, "we'll miss him but we'll do our work. for the most part it won't change." the supreme court is open and is working this week. in fact, the court hasn't halted at all. the court has heard ten cases already since justice scalia's passing and they're continuing to release decisions. it's a myth you have to have an uneven number of justices for the supreme court to work. in the past six years 80% of the cases were decided 6-3 or greater. so it's a small minority of the cases that ever get to a 5-4 decision and we don't know that that 5-4 would not end up being 5-3 at this point. eight members can operate the court. in fact, the constitution doesn't even give a specific number to the justices. it's always been a decision of the president and the congress together how many justices are on the supreme court. the first congress, for example, enacted the judiciary act of 1789 which stated the supreme court consists of chief justice and five soarkt -- associate justices. the size varied during the 19th century wi

he is the chief justice of the d.c. circuit court of appeals, a former prosecutor, who prosecuted the oklahoma case, despite all of that his nomination must go through the republican-controlled senate, and they have vowed to block a hearing for any nominee. >> reporter: stephanie i was struck by incredibly kind words from president obama about his nominee. 63 year old merrick garland, as you say, the current chief justice on the d.c. court of appeals. and listen to some of the things that the president said about him. that he was widely recognized as one of the sharpest legal minds in the country, and then addressing the american people directly. someone who is uniquely prepared to serve on the supreme court immediately, as you heard, the joke at the end there, he is a man from chicago, illinois, the place the president calls home these days. the clerked for eisenhower appointees. in 1989 he walked out of his comfortable law practice to become a prosecutor here in dc. and there was a lot made of the fact that the oversa

opinion is by justice jackson, robert jackson, one of the all time great justices as you know.flicted by entension is no transient notion. it is as universal and persistent in mature systems as law as belief in free do. human will and consequent ability and duty of the norm ool individual to choose between good and evil, unquote. general, i agree with justice jackson that the notion that a criticismal act requires a guilty mind that it's no provencial or passing notion. can you answer that yes or no? >> thank you, senator. i think you have given certainly one of justice jackson's most pressing quotes on this issue. and i think that certainly as a practicing prosecutor for over 20 years having to prove that element is an important part of many part of the case. i do recognize also that this body, congress, has seen fit so provide differing levels of intent and i work within those laws as well and look forward to working with congress as it considers how to handle this issue of mensraya in conjunction with criminal reform. >> do you agree j judge jackson that this is a feature of

, but justice william brennan. among the liberal lions of the last 100 years. a man who made no bones about the mathmatics and lobbying on the supreme court, often would hold up his hand showing five fingers and saying around here, there's only one way to get things done. and that is a 5-4 vote of the supreme court. how much of that rubs off on a young lawyer? he certainly didn't grow up to be the liberal on the federal bench that brennan was. you find his decisions in your ongoing years-long analysis to be slightly left of center. >> yeah, i don't think very much. judge garland, chief judge garland certainly absorbed from all different kinds of mentors. he really did take to heart his experience with the very liberal william brennan, but in the wake of that, you just don't see anything like justice brennan's very liberal ideology in basically anything he's done. when you have a judge who almost never votes to overturn criminal convictions as chief judge garland's history has been, when he regularly disagrees with

ian millhiser, isn't he the longest reigning judge of any supreme court justice, any supreme court justice ever did, what was he, 18 years on the bench? it is interesting that there is onrecord of his stand women's reproductive rights. >> i actually don't think that is unusual. big abortion cases are not very common in the federal courts. most federal court of appeal judges will go their entire career never hearing an abortion case. this issue that we have coming up in front of the supreme court again dealing with whether or not women's bosses get to decide if they have access to birth control, that is a fairly new issue. that issue really did not exist in the federal courts five years ago. so most federal judges just have not heard those sorts of cases, either. there was a case in the d.c. circuit, but garland was not on that panel. i don't think it would be fair to accuse him of the evasive when your u.s. court of appeals judge, you are randomly assigned to panels that i believe a computer does it and if there was an abortion case that came up during his tenure, he just was not randomly

well known ill stration, justice scalia was very fond of justice brenen, as justice brennan was of justice scalia. i will miss the challenges and he laughter he provoked, his pungent, eminently quotable opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grasp. the rose he is brought me on my birthday. the chance to appear with him once more as supernew mexico rares as the opera. at the pernumeraryies opera. justice scalia described that as the peak of his days in d.c., an evening in 2009 at the opera ball at the british ambassador's residence. when he joined two washington national opera tenors at the piano for aed me lee of songs. -- for a medley of songs he called it the famous three tenors performance. he was indeed a magnificent performer. how blessed i was to have a working colleague and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit. for tenords of a duet scalia and soprano ginsburg, we were different, yes, in our interpretation of written texts, yet one in our reverence for the u.s. and its place in the ystem of governance. [applause]

and justice sotomayor or.aller: correct, i know that. host: mary in omaha, nebraska, democrat. .aller: good morning of course i support merrick garland's nomination. yesterday on television i saw standing on the senate floor talking about principle. no republican has principle as far as i'm concerned. they need to read the constitution. there is no biden role. thank you. host: if the senate declines to take up garland's nomination, this is from the washington post, before president obama leaves office, the next president will have the option of resurrecting the nomination or choosing someone else to fill the vacancy on the supreme court . either way, the process would begin a new with the next congress. this process is only good until the end of this congress. said the senate should hold hearings on obama's nominee to replace the late justice antonio scalia while 32% said it should not hold hearings and leave it to the next president according to the washington post-abc news poll released last week. administra

department of justice. both administered the initiative but also served a second provided to the inner work. to my left, jody owens, managing attorney at the southern poverty law center. he served on mississippi's corrections and criminal justice task force in 2013. to his left, senator gerald malloy is represented south glens 20th districts since 2002, served on south carolina's criminal justice task force announcers as the chairman for its oversight committee. there are your introductions. this jaynes over to seize the initiative to look forward to that. why did you states care about this? what was the reason for reform? why was it a pump to begin with that you states decide you want to spend some time focusing on it? judge boggs, take us back. >> you hear a lot of data today, and georgia was led predominantly by technical assistance provided by cuba we export our data. our data suggested a couple things. george is present couple things. georgia's prism publishing doubled between 1990-2011 such that in 20

and what did justice scalia say? the senatorswell voting for him because it was named to the voting rights act. remember that? argument a half-hour towards hundreds of hours of debate. >> i mean, this is insulting. to hear that. it is just insulting. thingst me say a couple about some of the things i have been hearing. biden, biden, chairman when he spoke, does anyone here know, anyone, chairman, do you know when he spoke? i don't mean -- i'm sorry. i apologize. >> june 1992. it was late june as the session was ending. and when he was talking about is somebody resigning to game the system. that is what he was talking about. here abouting confirming someone to replace a justice who has died. think about how different that is, everybody. when chuck schumer says in its ordinary situation -- an extraordinary situation, he is talking about someone dying. scientists tell us there are 10.5 months left in this president's four-year term. , god bless scalia him, i did not agree with them, i thought he was a very witty, funny

the last of these was justice kennedy in 1988. this history reveals that when the chairman of the judiciary committee said last week -- quote -- "the fact of the matter is that it's been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm supreme court nominees during a presidential election year." he was incorrect. the fact of the matter is that since the founding of this country, the senate has done its job even in an election year. in fact, during one election year, the senate voted to confirm not just one but three justices to fill vacancies on the court. the president was none other than george washington and he was in the fourth year of his second term when that happened. that included some of the our founders, delegates to the constitutional convention. but come to think about it, what did they really know about the constitution? on that subject, by the way, it has been incredible in the truest sense of the word, to hear senators and even candidates for president who claim to be, as justice scalia surely was, constituti

faith in our justice system will inevitablysuffer. our democracy will ultimately suffer, as well. i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. now it's time for the senate to do theirs. in the final year of their term. neither should a senator. i know that tomorrow the senate would take a break and leave town on recess in two weeks. my earnest hope is that senators take time for ouremocracy and not what's expedient and not what's happening at the moment. what does this mean for our life? the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do, and when they return, i hope that they'll act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they're fair. that's all. i hope they are fair as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit. i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supremeourt time to fully partipate in its work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. he deserves tooe confirmed. i could not be prouder of the work that he has already done on behalf of the american people. he deserves@our thanks, and he deserves

chief justice. i like to start with the university's justice kennedy. i don't think it's the case that just because congress exempts churches, that has to exempt the universities. what it needs is a rationale for trying the lines. my friend says the line doesn't half to be perfect. -- have to be perfect. it at least has to be pretty good. the line that they have drawn is absurd. i would urge you to look at the amicus brief filed by the dominican sisters and the former head of the tax division. it explains the line they codeusing 1633 of the tax makes no sense. that is an informative styling requirement. there is no substantive difference. if my clients file form, they get the same tax exempt status at the churches. the only difference is whether you filed the form. the substantive treatment is the same. to use that line to draw a distinction between churches and universities, or the little sisters of the poor, is a terrible line to draw. >> in every citizen mentioned several times. by leading proponents of rfra discusses this line. did you just say that

confirmation of an extreme it conservative justice to succeed one of the most liberal justices in history, thurgood marshall. joe biden may have been under special pressure 1992 to say that he was not going to let that kind of debacle occur again on his watch. i don't know if he was speaking more broadly for the democratic caucus. let's remember where he specifically was at that point. we can see there is a movie that much on hbo. we will see how great can near put trays -- people see how ear joe biden. host: thank you for being here. i appreciate it. today when continues former president bill clinton speaks at a campaign rally in tucson, arizona. also scheduled to appear at the event, former arizona representative getty giffords and former astronaut mark kelly. coverage begins at 5:30 on c-span. supreme court has outside amount of power. it comes great responsibility. you have an individual sitting on the court unfettered for 35 years. sunday night on q&a, gave rock talks about changes he would like to see in the supreme court including open up oral andments to cameras requiring justices

that we would bring them to justice. and that we would do it in a way that honored the constitution. the people of oklahoma city gave us their trust and we did everything we could to live up to it. trust that justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what in a , large part distinguishes this country from others. people must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. for a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the constitution and , to statutes passed by the congress, he or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law. not make it. fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life. and is the hallmark of the kind of judge i have tried to be for the past 18 years. if the senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which i have been nominated today, i promise to continue on that course. mr. president, it's a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow chicago

that is if there is indeed a new justice, he may tip the scales. >> the new justice almost certainlynot be around to help decide those. those are union fees, big case involving abortion. the president's immigration plan. going forward, looking at things like campaign finance. certainly the question is just garland gets confirmed, will the supreme court meant to come up on the docket this year. that is if there is indeed a new revisits this and united for example? >> it is always possible they will hold over till the next term, protectively as there is a close call. >> that is correct. if the republicans succeed in blocking the nomination, we may aed -- we may not even on night justice. you are exactly right. that is a possibility for all of those cases. the court could kick them over and reargue them. but what is your sense? it says garland is a little bit like john roberts in terms of background? roberts may turn out something like he did not turn out to be. robertsnot sure the connection, while interesting, they both are not friendly. i'm not sure that will make it more likely he g

department of justice. mr.e roberts, acting indian affairs and the secretary of the interior. mr. rivera's who is the principal at assistant deputy secretary of indian housing and housing and urban development, mary smith, the principal deputy director of the department of health and human services and the secretary of the national congress of american indians. i would like to remind the witnesses bigger fool than tenfold testimony will be made part of the hearing record today. and so please try to keep your statements to a few minutes. please proceed. >> thank you, distant shores of the committee. i'm very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the president's fiscal year 2017 budget request for public initiatives in the indian country. from the earliest days i have been privileged to work with dedicated employees from the department to help ensure the safety of our community. we are leaving the team that included the funding opportunities and now i am directly responsible for a full array of programs des

justice alito said so, as did justice breyer. now, justice breyer was appointed by president clinton. when asked about the death of justice scalia, he said, we'll miss him, but we will do our work. he also said, for the most part, it will not change. so there is no urgency to fill this vacancy on the supreme court right now. second, we should acknowledge that the process of nominating and confirming a supreme court justice has become very partisan. it's also become very political. some democrats have spent -- many democrats in the senate have spent the last three decades undermining the way that these appointments used to be made. it started in 1987 when senate democrats launched an all-out assault against the nomination of judge robert bork. it got so bad that dictionaries even created a new word. the word was to "bork" someone. it means to obstruct someone by systematically defaming or vilifying them. then in 1992, senator joe biden came down to the floor of the senate to explain his rule, the biden rule, for supreme court nomi

that was done by the chief justice. the court said, in effect, we have to return the slave as part of our constitutional obligation. we will be forced by the slave to assist in returning the slave. taney went further in the concurrence, arguing it will be much more substantial, that they have an obligation to have their local authorities deputized by federal marshals, in the delivering up of slaves. in other words, he was really pushing a proslavery, nationalist position, years before dred scott him around. but you could see it coming. ms. swain: i will take two calls, and she the makeup of taney's court, and how the nine judges were allocated, since this is all about sectionalism. so you know what kind of court is receiving the case of dred scott. let's listen to harry who is watching us from oakland, maryland. caller: hello. there were movements at that time, even in some slave states toward abolition. i think virginia, in the mid-1850's, had an election on that, and i am not sure if it is the legislature, but it was

i was going to say another great case where i think justice scalia and justice thomas to went along with a libertarian view the libertarian view of the criminal law in the idea that even though the case where that juries have to be able to make the decision on all facts that have to do with the conviction of somebody and they can't do it for them and this had the effect of potentially needing the thousands of people that could have been convicted without have to be tried or have their cases stomped on the appeal and go back to the trial because the judges were getting controlling of the criminal justice process. and one more, talking about this i don't know what you think about the apple fbi fight, that justice scalia and several other conservatives are much more favorable about privacy rights in the face of new technologies many people might have expected. the cases i would point to is the police officer that goes around the neighborhood with the heat detection device to try to find marijuana. now we know they can get a lot of money. and the justice said that the search even though they