justice roberts: justice breyer. justice breyer: i would like to ask a question. the only thing i found here is about money, really. if there's something else that's worrying you, it's sort of hidden. but money is money; i understand that. and my question is about standing. and this is technical, but it's important to me. looking at the briefs, awful lot of briefs, senators, both sides. awful lot of briefs from states, both sides. members of congress. why? because this has tremendous political valence. keep that in mind. now, keeping that in mind, let's go back to two old cases which are scarcely mentioned. but old supreme court cases never die -- [laughter] justice breyer: unless, luckily, they're overruled. and a few have been. they're submerged like icebergs. [laughter] justice breyer: the one i'm thinking of is frothingham v. mellon, massachusetts v. mellon. and there, in those cases, the federal government had given something to some people. there were beneficiaries. other people wanted to sue because they said that means we're going to have to pay more money

justice roberts: justice breyer. justice breyer: i would like to ask a question. the only thing i found here is about money, really. if there's something else that's worrying you, it's sort of hidden. but money is money; i understand that. and my question is about standing. and this is technical, but it's important to me. looking at the briefs, awful lot of briefs, senators, both sides. awful lot of briefs from states, both sides. members of congress. why? because this has tremendous political valence. keep that in mind. now, keeping that in mind, let's go back to two old cases which are scarcely mentioned. but old supreme court cases never die -- [laughter] justice breyer: unless, luckily, they're overruled. and a few have been. they're submerged like icebergs. [laughter] justice breyer: the one i'm thinking of is frothingham v. mellon, massachusetts v. mellon. and there, in those cases, the federal government had given something to some people. there were beneficiaries. other people wanted to sue because they said that means we're going to have to pay more money

justice kennedy: well, i -- justice kagan: can i -- justice kennedy: i agree with justice breyer. i just don't see the limiting principle in the second part. mr. francisco: your honor, i think in many in some cases, i think the limiting principle might be difficult, it's not a perfect and precise formulation. but i think in this case it's a particularly easy principle, because here the jury wasn't given any instruction on the line at all. so justice breyer, in your hypothetical, sending that letter over is an "official act" under the instructions as given and under the theory pushed by the solicitor general's office in this case because it is the action -- justice kennedy: i'm not sure i'm not sure that's right. it seemed to me the "official act" is exercise of governmental power to require citizens to do or not to do something, or to shape the law that can that governs their conduct. mr. francisco: i completely agree with you, justice kennedy. justice kennedy: under your view, under the hypotheticals that have been thrown around, the janitor who gets the bottle of beer in order t

justice kennedy: well, i - justice kagan: can i - justice kennedy: i agree with justice breyer i just't see the limiting principle in the second part. mr. francisco: your honor, i think in many in some cases, i think the limiting principle might be difficult, it's not a perfect and precise formulation. but i think in this case it's a particularly easy principle, because here the jury wasn't given any instruction on the line at all. so justice breyer, in your hypothetical, sending that letter over is an "official act" under the instructions as given and under the theory pushed by the solicitor general's office in this case because it is the action - justice kennedy: i'm not sure i'm not sure that's right. it seemed to me the "official act" is exercise of governmental power to require citizens to do or not to do something, or to shape the law that can that governs their conduct. mr. francisco: i completely agree with you, justice kennedy. justice kennedy: under your view, under the hypotheticals that have been thrown around, the janitor who gets the bottle of beer in order to clean your

chief justice. may it please the court, fortunately or unfortunately in this case, there are many fact that is are not in dispute. addressing justice kennedy's questions, the state does not dispute that the independent redistricting commission did draw equal sides of population. all sides say they were not random or incidental. this pattern to underpopulate minority districts was doeb to help create further eighty to elect districts. and we also know they did it intentionally. so why are they here today? in the background, this court has always held that equal protection is not a criteria under the factor when it comes to redistricting. but it is essentially the background which all redistricting ledgers take place. the statement of arizona, the secretary, do not dispute the compliance with voting rights act was a legitimate or illegitimate state interest. and we don't dispute that maybe there was a good motive on the part of drawing these districts. the problem is those mote ifrs -- those motives d

and set of justice scalia to my right, it will be justice kennedy. to my lovely justice thomas. there will not be a chair on the far left, which is where our new member will sit. the flags on our plausible once again fly at full staff. justice scalia's presence will always be felt here in this courtroom. i remember when i commemorated his 25th anniversary from the he had arriveded 25 years ago and the place is not been the same sense. -- since.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's about john marshall of him 215 anniversary becoming chief justice. i want to express my justice to the john marshall foundation and the supreme court historical society for joining together to commemorate that occasion and such a fine way. i marshall were here today, think you would be surprised of the courtroom. even be surprised at this building and the city of washington itself. he toured the city in june of 1800 with president john adams on an inspection tour to see how wor

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. the 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. but justice scalia's presence will always be felt here in this courtroom. i remember when i commemorated his 25th anniversary from the bench, i indicated that he had arrived 25 years ago and the place hasn't been the same since. 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 215th 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 surprised at andcourtroom, the building t

because we're talking about justice scalia and justice ginsburg's friendship. i was here at georgetown several years ago for the end of the term event that the supreme court institute put on. for those of you who don't know, the supreme court institute which is graciously hosting this program does this tremendous public service where they moved or perform moves for advocates arguing for the supreme court they practice argument sessions for all of the cases are virtually all of the cases every turn. after the last argument they have a gathering basically i think you to the volunteers who serve as mock justices for these practice sessions. and one year at the event justice ginsburg appeared and was honored. and justice scalia gave us a very warm introduction to her, and ginsburg being an avid opera than they are range for some opera singers to come and stare nader. usually a beautiful type of thing that stuck with me and i incorporated that scene into my novel. so i will read just to briefly, tony asked us to get something that captures the essence of the supreme

and justice ginsburg herself has done such a good job of looking back in history also to the justices' wives. in thinking of -- [inaudible] harlan in particular, she co-edited excerpts from malvina harlan's diary, somebody she really identified with. so we were trying to bridge that history too. a lot of it involves looking back into history in places where women and other marginalized people are just not there and figuring out how do you also make that part of our conversation and the current day conversations. >> i read a lot of biographies. i mean, sort of naturally because i have a bunch of supreme court justices as my characters. i'm not sure that it taught me what it takes to be a good justice. i think, first of all, there are probably several different ways to be a good justice, so it's good to have some consensus builders, it's probably also good to have some brilliant mavericks, you know in you probably want a mix of different people on the court. i think you want a mix of different life experience and maybe experience in different governmental institutions. so i think it's u

chief justice. what about foot note 10 you agree with the characterization that the other side has made? mr. hearne: well, footnote 10 no i do not. the portion i would quote was not limited just to district 8. partisanship was ranked in this redistricting process and is demonstrated objectively, and also by the fact of district eight which was not submitted for plea -- preclearance. justice scalia: i want a finding. i don't want to look at a chart to make my own factual determination. what factual findings other than footnote 10 is there? mr. hearne: then i would quote from the appendix of 107a which is where the statements made judge clifton correctly finds that the irc was actually motivated by both partisan advantage. so we have a majority for that finding of fact. so that is two members of the court specifically found that partisanship was one of the two motives to explain these deviations from one person one vote. so clearly, it was a motive at that point. as even judge silver noted, this is a

justice roberts: justice breyer. justice breyer: i would like to ask a question. the only thing i found here is about money, really. if there's something else that's worrying you, it's sort of hidden. but money is money; i understand that. and my question is about standing. and this is technical, but it's important to me. looking at the briefs, awful lot of briefs, senators, both sides. awful lot of briefs from states, both sides. members of congress. why? because this has tremendous political valence. keep that in mind. now, keeping that in mind, let's let's go back to two old cases which are scarcely mentioned. but old supreme court cases never die -- [laughter] justice breyer: unless, luckily, they're overruled. and a few have been. they're submerged like icebergs. the one i'm thinking of is frothingham v. mellon, massachusetts v. mellon. and there, in those cases, the federal government had given something to some people. there were beneficiaries. and the court said, you other people from massachusetts, i'm sorry massachusetts lost, but lo and behold, it did.

you mentioned justice douglas, just as referred her -- justice frankfurter. the constitution of the court was what at this time? peter: eight of the nine members of the court with the exception -- seven of the nine members, with the exception of justices don't and jackson had been appointed by fdr. they were the new deal justices when fdr threatened to pack the court back in the 1930's by adding new justices, he finally got his wish. he appointed a majority of the court. these were people who owed some kind of personal and institutional loyalty to the president. in this particular case, during wartime, it is very hard for anybody, including a member of the supreme court, to say as -- that the president was wrong and what would be the implications of that. susan: the court said, yes. and the second question, should fred korematsu's conviction be upheld? and the court said, yes. and it was a 6-3 decision. want to read a little bit of a justice black's decision so you get the flavor of it. in your book, you noted it started out with the decline of racism. how di

and the court system's business is to render justice. now what is that word justice? what does it mean? it's the maintenance of administration of what is just y law. as by judicial or other proceedings in a court. justice is the judgment of persons or causes by a judicial process. to administer justice in a community, that's what justice is all about, that's what courts do. and people bring to the court of justice their causes of action so that they can receive justice in the courts. and the courts are set up with a set of procedures, rules as to how you proceed in court and then there are substantive laws upon which the court looks to the precedent that has been set and decides the law -- and decides cases brought to it in accordance with those precedents. sometimes it must make no precedent. it must make no law. so it is done in accordance with the constitutional principles that have been laid out by our framers. and so this legal system has worked well, this legal system of trial by jury has worked very well and in addition to maintaining order through the criminal

there are role played by on justice, justice o'connor.ll these are compelling reasons why the vacancy means so much to all of us. it's also a compelling reason why the president and the senate should work together in deciding who's going to fill such a role. do we fill it with somebody who will divide us or do we fill it with somebody who will unite us? true consultation is in the best tradition of our republic. so it's regrettable that with varying degrees of hubris and what rock partisanship, some of the administration are regarding confrontation on just about everything a four letter word. the constitution divides employment power between the president and senate. it expects senators to advise the president, not just rubberstamp his charges and it says advise and consent, not nominate and rubberstamp. in fact for most of the constitutional convention, founders of this country assigned the constitutional power to appoint judges exclusively to the senate and toward the end of the convention, it's part of the system of checks and balances

so i think all justices do that. now, they have different views of how stringently they're going to stick to the text, and that's how they apply certain canons of construction. one of the big issues which is pretty in the weeds, but it's how quickly do you find ambiguity in a statute which then allows you to turn to various canons of construction. that's a huge and difficult question and one that does divide the justices. and then in the constitutional cases, of course, you start with the text, but there's whole bodies of precedent on all these areas or most all these areas on constitutional interpretation. >> let's, i want to get into an area that you've really focused on, and it has become a hot issue of debate in recent years, and that is judicial analysis of executive regulations. >> uh-huh. >> executive branch, agency regulations. and interpretation, implementation of statutes. your opinion in the dissent in the coalition of responsible regulation v. epa, you wrote the following: to be sure, courts must be wary

the justices explode, especially justice douglas. he writes a scathing dissent that he wants to issue before the end of the term condemning burger for allowing the manipulation of the court. he holds that dissent, but it sneaks into the press and is on the front pages of the washington post on the fourth of july weekend and gets on the front page of the new york times the next day, which raises tensions that it will be re-argued and it was re-argued in 1972. host: we should also note that there was a presidential election going on. the court always envisions itself as being distant from the political process, but in case after case in this series, we have learned that there are political influences that find their way into the court and the proceedings. he writes a scathing dissent that he wants to issue before the end of the term condemning burger for allowing the manipulation of the court. e holds that dissent, but it sneaks into the press and is on the front pages of the washington post on the fourth of july weekend and gets on th

justice kennedy: well, i -- justice kagan: can i -- justice kennedy: i agree with justice breyer.ust don't see the limiting principle in the second part. mr. francisco: your honor, i think in many in some cases, i think the limiting principle might be difficult, it's not a perfect and precise formulation. but i think in this case it's a particularly easy principle, because here the jury wasn't given any instruction on the line at all. so justice breyer, in your hypothetical, sending that letter over is an "official act" under the instructions as given and under the theory pushed by the solicitor general's office in this case because it is the action -- justice kennedy: i'm not sure i'm not sure that's right. it seemed to me the "official act" is exercise of governmental power to require citizens to do or not to do something, or to shape the law that can that governs their conduct. mr. francisco: i completely agree with you, justice kennedy. justice kennedy: under your view, under the hypotheticals that have been thrown around, the janitor who gets the bottle of beer in order to cl

and when rehnquist was elevated from an associate justice to a chief justice that was oat -- that was the occasion when antonin scalia was nominated to essentially fill the associate justice spot. scalia as many people who recently recalled his career at his death was confirmed, 98-0. , this all happened at a time when the republicans were running the senate, so it was no surprise that reagan's two nominees got through. the next year louis powell retired. the democrats had taken the senate back. they were ready for a fight. and they had known that robert bork was coming. i mean, robert bork had been on the short list for a republican president supreme court nomination really since the 1970's. robert bork had been assistant attorney general for richard nixon. he had been a solicitor general for richard nixon. he had been part of the so-called saturday night massacre during watergate when several senior people to him resigned and bork was acting as attorney general. as soon as reagan became president in 1981 one of his first judicial appointments to the d.c. circuit court of appeals was

prefer --wanted to refer to a program that was on last week as justice leah -- justice scalia said something like this could happen again. let me fast forward to when ronald reagan replace the air traffic controller with military control because they went out on strike. the air traffic control was for federal employees. my question now is, with the passage of the war powers act and the patriot act, do you see with anlem or issues executive order now by the president to do something similar like happened in youngstown/ ? >> that is an interesting question. with regard to the war powers, the president ignores it, maybe to pay lipservice. it does not have an effect on what they do. in terms of whether the president can do something "extreme" it depends on context. the thing about this particular case is the president's actions turn out to be unpopular. if the president or to do something and it would be popular, there is a different dynamic. , as we with truman pointed out in the beginning, his popularity is plummeting through this. that is, at least acknowledged that as one of the arguable con

>> justice o'connor. >> let's talk about some more interesting things, her relationship with justice o'connor. when i started writing the book, it went to lunch together, and went to the store. i wanted a shoe guy at the store near the supreme court. that would have been a scope. endeavour sneaked out to lunch together. i asked every person who believes in their vicinity whether they see jobs together. they would not be -- they had an affectionate alliance. one of the lessons i hope people in general and women in particular take from my book, you can have an affectionate alliance and make more change in either one of you could make a loan. you don't have to be bffs. there was no justice on the supreme court who mattered more who have a lot of power than justice o'connor because she revered o'connor and for being the successful pioneer she had been an she knew o'connor's life would change when the second woman came. she wanted it to be in a good way. that relationship seems to be subtle and productive and interesting. in the 22 cases involving women's issues they heard when they sat t

a federal role played by one justice, justice o'connor. all of these are compelling reasons why the vacancy means so much to all of us. it is also a compelling reason why the president and the senate should work together in deciding who is going to fill such a role. julie fillet with somebody who will divide us orderly fillet with somebody who will unite us? true consultation is in the best tradition of our republic. with regrettable but varying degrees of rob partisanship, some of the administration regarded consultations on everything as a four letter word. they expect senators to advise the president, not just rubberstamp his choices. it is advise and consent. for most of the constitutional convention, founders signed the constitution to appoint judges exclusively to the senate. convention,of the it was then shared between the senate and the president. "intly after, it was noted love or attend strictly to the constitution of the united states will observe the part assigned to the senate was an important one. no lesson had been a great c

justice now have four cleshrks. so it easy to say you do the research on this and you do this and they can do the research and he can hand out four dissents where it would not be possible. if i had research assistants who did all of the work for me i could write a book every three months. >> as opposed to every four months. >> another thing that happened is the arrival of the p premadonnas. this happened with black, o'douglas, and robert h jackson. a nastier group of people you could hardly imagine. >> tell the frankfurter story what he said when the chief dropped dead in the brown versus education case. he said this is the first indication there is a god. >> frankfurter was a nasty person in many ways unless you agreed with him. an conferences he would talk for 50 minutes because that was the length of a lecture at harvard law school and he made the assumption his colleagues didn't know anything so he had to educate them. douglas would go read his mail. and sometimes if there was an argument he would pass down a no

i understood that the justices ithe justices in theconstitutio.ble to predict the supreme court and now it is almost impossible to predict because you can't go back to the constitution and i pray we do get back to the constitution and it may take a president who will make more than one. >> thank you all so much. appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we are here today to undermine the reality that president obama's time in office has been marked by disregard for the rule of law. and [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] my name and then back to you, right? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] we are no longer invisible. we just want to be part of the american dream! [inaudible conversations] i'm now going to pass the microphone to the leaders. let's give a big round of

they are not at the centerpiece of the justice system. sending someone a way to prison which we just assumed would be healing for the victims is more often than not not dealing witht the dictum and s victim and so y think it's incumbent upon us too think about ways to heal the victim and to allow the victim a better opportunity to be served by a criminal justice system that isn't doing a good job ofof that now. >> incarceration nation is the name of the book. you are on the air. go ahead. >> i was wondering her position about the realization and radicalizing drugs similar to what has happened in portugal whether that would have an impact on the incarceration rate being so high in the united we e states. >> maybe before we get herer answer what is your answer? >> the approach would be the best build to legalize all drugs and medical eyes a certain portion of them and i think that would have a major impact on incarceration but i'm not sure she studied the incarceration issue better than i have so i'mt not clear. >> i am in agreement with yo

a justice garland?ow or later or ever? what are your thoughts? >> he was a former partner of my law firm and by all accounts an extraordinarily qualified nominee. i hope so. i will say that every nominee, even the villainous ones got a few up-and-down votes. i would like to think if i was conjuring a character those going to block the process ofi might throw them in a seedy hotel doing some unsavory thing. the short answer to that is i don't know. >> i think you can. if i had to guess i would say no. just based upon incentives that republicans have to wait it out. we may have a justice nominated by president donald trump. >> unlike gaseous in the lame-duck session. i think -- i was predicting he would be elevated. take my prediction for what it's worth, but in hindsight it is brilliant pick. at the end of the $0.6. and i didn't see that coming. i'm a moron. but i think that you could see it. i know some of the republican senators say no, we can do that, but it is a little bit like the government shutdow

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 what the words mean, to how they ought to be applied, and to what the role of the senate should be -- advising and consenting. but until this bork episode, a majority of these senators, at least in this century, have felt that advice and consent did imply some restraint, some modification of the inquiry. most senators have felt in this century that 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 the wind is 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." pointing out the relative -- relevant points, he says when, as during reconstruction, senators treat the supreme court as a poli

chief justice warren, justice brennan, justice hugo black, justice hugo douglas cited with the dissent. they believed there was a 14th amendment issue that the courts needed to consider. william brennan and earl warren joins to an extent. they suggested the federal courts should get involved. felix frankfurter most passionately dissented and was joined by john marshall harlan and tom clark, who was a truman appointee hannah had been a former -- appointee and had been a former attorney general of the united states. there was no great surprise there. it was 4-3 when the drama really began. the next in line was charles whittaker, who had been appointed in 1957 by eisenhower. unlike most of his peers who had been united states senators, then governors, and pretty high profile people, whittaker had been a prominent figure in kansas city but was very much a regional attorney. he had been put on the district court and the appeals court and the supreme court rapidly. he was someone who from the beginning really struggled to keep up with the pace and had a lot of self-doubt about his own abilit

eric holder, former attorney theral is an expert on criminal justice system and believes criminal justiceeform is the only way to solve this issue. how effective is the criminal justice system currently? holder: i would give it mixed reviews. i think it is better then it was, not as good as it should be. we incarcerate way to many people. we have a high recidivism rate, people come back into the system. i think we can -- we are doing better than we did in the past but we need to change the approach. otherc holder and politicians all point to many issues within the system in order to make their case. recognized force has our problems. in thisation rates country have skyrocketed, our nation now has the greatest number of prisoners than any country in the world. nearly one in every 100 adults in america are in jail. president obama recently suggested that some of the $80 billion spent each year to incarcerate prisoners should be used to prevent people from coming into the criminal justice system in the first place. how do you believe this money would be better spent? >> people have to unders

the liberal justices, as well. the question of standing, really tough to see which side particularly chief justice roberts would go on. >> he could be the decisive as he was on obamacare when he ruled in favor of what the administration wanted allowing the affordable care act to survive. he's the chief justice. so everybody's going to be watching him. is that what you're saying? justice kennedy can be a swing, too. >> he can but it's always dangerous to read the tea leaves and you never know until the opinions come out but justice kennedy seemed concerned with the idea of executive overreach and kcongress to give benefits, not the president. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we'll see what happens in june or july. >>> turning to the political turmoil in brazil, less than four months until the start of the summer olympic games. there were hours of speeches and voting to impeach the president rousseff. demonstrators took to the streets ahead of the sunday vote. the motion goes to the senate. if it passes, rous

justice scalia died february 12. so there was not enough time left because there was just a year reft to go. same true in january. what about december? november? that's holiday season, hardly enough time. what about october? well, we're going holiday season? what about september? well we got to get the budget out? what about august, we're on recess. we're erasing the line. that's for the supreme court and where does it go next? does it go to all other judicial level appointments? does it go to all administrative agencies? we're erasing the line. it will not bode well for the rule of law. it will not bode well for justice. so i'm not in the business of giving advice to the members of the upper chamber. ever. except today. do your job. hold a hearing. give it an up or down vote. were i there, yeah, i would vote to confirm chief judge garland but minimally, do your job. hold a hearing. and give it an up or down vote. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my ime. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm please

the center for justice is 20 years old started by clerks in the family of the late supreme court justice william brennan. end up off part the concept of human dignity. we have found working on this issue of massive corporation -- incarceration three years ago under the leadership of my colleague to understand read those tools of the economics is something we could help with. and we believe there are measurable cost and benefits and unexamined negative consequences in of the very financial incentives built in to budgeting that steers us to where we are now with better foresight to a wiser policy. we have launched the first public event of an economic advisory board including those you are hearing from today treasury secretary severs and a bunch of others with the perspective to help us to understand to make sure that it meets the top rigorous standards. because of that focus we are thrilled to be a part of this event. this report is a landmark in a rock-solid lead is as important in the fields they might be focusing on. i am delighted to introduce to you to talk about the new report the c

justice -- chief justice william rehnquist dies and george w. bush decides he likes john roberts well enough to renominate him as the chief justice. then he has an associate justice job to fill. he nominates his white house counsel, harriet miers, who is insufficient by the conservatives. she has to be withdrawn because she has been -- insufficient republican support. then george bush nominated send alito -- samuel alito. the reason in the end roberts is alito controversial and is quite controversial is because of the dynamics of these confirmation fights. who the new nominee replaces ideologically. roberts was replacing rehnquist so it was a relatively down the line, strict constructionist conservative replacing another. that was rehnquist. roberts was perceived as going the same way. in the end; alito was a -- ofuel alito was a favorite the conservatives to replace a swing vote. he was a favorite of social conservatives and economic onservatives in deregulatory the bench. his views in opposition to abortion rights and down the line in favor of

criminal justice is a good example. it's always the case do not wasting lives, you don't want to waste money. it's even more important when things are tight and this is an area where were doing a very poor job of spending our money wisely. it's as simple as that. i'd like to take questions from the audience. i just want to ask the panel, given this moment where we can focus people and construct good criminal justice policy, there's an extraordinary weight of evidence that we been making some bad decisions. give us just a few small things that you would like to see people talking about more. if it's draining in prison or education, feel free to jump in and flag some of the things you want people to look at in the report. >> all start briefly. i think we can make better use of police on the ground and identify hotspots in other ways of making sure the resources work well and on recidivism i think there is a lot more we could be doing in addition to just cutting funds to make reentry into a productive work place a better m

justice scalia do you have in mind? laughmac. >> i would put justice o'connor in that category. >> okay. so let's talk about the more interesting thing which is her friendship and her relationship with justice o'connor. i thought when i started writing the book i would find they went out to lunch together and sneaked off to a story, i wanter the them to go to the shoe store to talk about. but but in facty it's not true.ee job they never sneaked out to lunch together. t i asked everybody in their vicinity. they were not bfs. they had an affectionate alliance. one of the lessons i hope that that people in general and women in particular take for my book is that you can have an affectionate alliance and make more change than either one of you can make a loan. you do not have to be best friends. when justice ginsburg got to the supreme court there was no justice on that court who mattered more to her, not even the cheap who had a lot of power then justice o'connor because she revered o'connor for being the successful pionee

there's one by justice holmes, there's the one by justice john and there's the one by justice john harlan. his dissent was that the benefit of the doubt should go to the legislators in passing the health and safety law, but it was still permissible to present evidence on the reasonableness of the recommendation. in this case, there was a good record that the supreme court relied on to find out there was no health and safety measure. justice harlan disagreed. given the presumption, he said, that the bakeshop law should be upheld. it was holmes' position that was more radical than that. it would not have allowed proof to be introduced into the court. interestingly, it was not until the warren court that the homes approach of his dissent became the law, when you were not allowed to contest the rationality of a restriction on your liberty. ms. swain: you're getting slightly ahead. we have to find out how the case got to the supreme court. can you explain how was a joe lochner able to get the supreme court to take the case? prof. barnett: i'm going to turn to paul again. by 1894 or so, he has

he appointed three of the great justices of the 20th century -- chief justice warren, justice harlan,ustice brennan. but his appointees came from different backgrounds, no identifiable tendency in the way they thought about the constitution. so do you see yourself as one of those models, or something different from both? president obama: there's no doubt that in making my appointments, the values of the justice matter to me. and what i mean by that is not how they'd rule on a particular issue. in fact, we're very careful when i interview candidates not to ask them about a particular case or controversy that might make it seem as if i want a particular outcome. but what i've been consistently looking for -- and this is what i saw in justice sotomayor, what i saw in justice kagan -- is people who, number one, have intellectual integrity. and what that means is, is that they look t the facts and the law, and even if it's uncomfortable to hem, they don't like the outcome, they follow the law, and they recognize that that's their job. number two, that they bring a humanity to the job. and

justices pushed with tough questions and the man who is often the swing vote justice impressed criticism about the way this played out. the briefs go on for pages. that seems to me to have it backwards. it's as if the president is setting the policy and the congress is executing it. that's just upside. supporters of the president's actions say they are backed by both authority and necessity. the congress has given the president the discretion to set priorities for who goes and stays and noting the diskrepsy between the number of those here illegally and the funding provided for deportations, today a justice said priorities have to be set. and with eight justices we are once again facing a possibility of a tie. if that happens the lower court ruling remains in place and in this case the lower court put the president's programs on hold so supporters have to hope they convinced at least five justices today. >> thank you. >>> as we mentioned a number of undocumented individuals were both protesting and attending today's hearing, including our next guest. he was joined by a 6-year-old girl wh

i understood the justices, the constitution, the case laws. i had a pretty good handle on being able to predict the decision of the supreme court. now in this court it is almost impossible to protect because you cannot -- predict week you cannot go back to the constitution as your guide. >> thank you all so much. we appreciate it. >> got to go. timescer: a new york article characterize the scene inside the courtroom today. the supreme court on monday seemed sharply divided during an extended argument over a challenge to president obama's plan that would shield many of undocumented immigrants from deportation, now allowing them to work in the country legally. much of the argument was technical but these justices occasionally caused to acknowledge realities outside of the courtroom. we will bring you the audio of the oral argument friday 8:00 eastern. our road to the white house coverage continues tonight. first, with hillary clinton at a rally in new york city, then donald trump talks to supporters at a rally in buffalo, new york. later, the co

at one point they asked the justice, justice back black why did you join the clan. they couldn't believe he asked it. he said son, you were running for senate in alabama in the 1920s, you would join the clan to. i think he felt the need to redeem himself and perhaps he did some of that with brown. did the chief justice, if if you watch our series last week you'll remember that fred vinson was it truman and pointy and described as a truman crony. he was joined on the court. last week we heard he did not do a very effective job at bringing coalitions together. in 1952 it was still very divided. was he having a difficult time bringing together two groups within the court that really didn't see eye to eye? >> i think the basic problem is that his colleagues did not respect him very much. thus he did not have the institutional authority that was necessary to bring the justices together, is what i would say. the visions i think is most important to talk about is the rivalry between jackson and frankfurter on the one hand and hugo black and douglas on the other. what that

[booing] together, we will bring justice back to the criminal justice system. equal justice under the law means that if you are rich or poor, you will pay the price if you break the law. that includes wall street. [applause] about say a word or two some of the differences that exist between secretary clinton and myself. [booing] when we, when we began this campaign, we had to make a choice. and the choice was, would we do what every campaign is doing, establish a super pac? we agreed with you. about 1/10 of a second thinking that we do not represent wall street. we do not represent corporate interests, we do not represent the billionaire class. we do not want their money. [applause] so, what we did is reach out to working families all over this country. over 6 received now million individual campaign contributions. [applause] that is more contributions than any candidate in the history of this country, up to this point. [applause] anybody know what the average contribution is? $27! right,nders: that is $27. to paraphrase abraham lincoln, people a campaign by th

in short order, after the oral argument the justices concluded they were unanimous and justice holmes was to assign the opinion. we got to the eugene debs case, four different cases in short order. it was in the fourth one that holmes started to express real doubts about how far the government was going, and whether it was running wild with this notion of clear and present danger. susan: it was a 9-0 decision against schenck and for the united states government. there were four basic questions the court was asked to decide. first, should charles schenck's conviction be overturned? the answer was, are his political statements protected by his statements? thomas: they are protected by his expression but not by the constitution. susan: are there different standards for freedom of speech during peace time and war? thomas: holmes actually says this is significant, and it relates to his own personal experience as a soldier in the civil war. susan: finally, is the espionage act constitutional? thomas: it was. the justices say, given his was a clear and present danger, that it caused a risk o

another justice, justice stewart, wrote a memorandum. a first amendment case, it is a terrible statute, it is unconstitutional. susan: it is a 5-4 case, and there is still controversy, which we are going to talk about later on, about the strict -- among the strict constructionists about what the court did in this. that will be our final half-hour. dollree mapp, single mother, african-american from shaker heights, ohio, has a major victory in the supreme court. what happens to her next? renee: she does have a victory. it was short-lived. she moved to the state of new york in 1968. she moved to cambridge heights -- cambridge -- cambria heits, where she purchased a home. she was already interested in furniture. she was running a furniture store, hired a young man named alan lyons to manage it. one day, a confidential informant said she was selling narcotics and that she was involved in that. the police engaged in surveillance of her home for a number of days. surveillance of lyons. they got a search warrant this time. they searched both her

was e court at this time nine justices. each of whom had been appointed by either by franklin roosevelt or harry truman. -- ll demically democratically the same. they were dealing with incredibly difficult issues. things like the subversive list and whether it was constitutional. the steel case. en they seize control of the mills. they were dealing with the dennis case the communist party defendants. and time after time in dealing with these very difficult issues, these all democratically opponented justices were very divided. they brought very different backgrounds to the bear especially the franklin appointees. justice douglas, robert. they were big personalities. he choirm appointee probably not so much. he appointed his former secretary. to 4izz chief justice. he apointed tom clark who is from texas. he apointed someone who had been a friend of this. and then there was one other justice harold burrton who also had been a senator in ohio. he was supported by truman. he was fully a republican some of he's only a republica

he believes are camilla justice system has succeeded -- our criminal justice system has succeeded. hascrime rate overall decreased since mandatory minimums. the issue for many is how justly that was accomplished. a fair criminal justice system should be talk more about in the 2016 election because camilla justice reform gravely impacts our economy, social welfare and public safety. -- criminal justice reform. it is a problem that will affect everyone around us in a direct or indirect way. we must all come together as one to fully solve this issue and create an effective and fair incarceration system. my presidential candidate must address this issue and explain their approach works blending the problem of --s incarceration best explain their approach for addressing the problem of mass incarceration. >> to watch all the prize-winning documentaries in cam year's student competition, visit studentcam.org. jennifer of "the new york daily news." john kasich and heading at that campaigning at -- john kasich campaigning ahead of the new york primary. he made a speech in marietta, ohio, ju

the minority, justice john highland, white, stewart and clock. s there a back story that we know of that got to a 5-4 decision in this case. aul: i think one of the things we've been talking about tonight was that the fbi practices, pushing, chief justice warren pushing for broad look, ion of the police, the fbi is administering this. it wouldn't be a problem expending those practices to other agencies. the problem was the fbi wasn't the sorts ofg like things but miranda imposing on agencies but al every agency in the united states. host: from time to time in these cases, we've heard stories about justices finding coalitions to bring them to this side. are there any good stories in the miranda case any of you know of that convinces somebody to go to one side or the other or are up from one ed another. >> it takes several hours to do that. >> it's only at the last two that you es 49 and 50 get to the case. >> the fact they seem to be aken from the fbi and other sources and haven't been part of state criminal law on a broad scale, went to fierce cr

and what would make someone a great justice or a successful justice. but you're in a different spot now. >> mm-hmm. >> has your thinking changed? >> surprisingly not as much as you would have expected. obviously, we're having a substantial argument in queash right now about not just a particular judge but also about a process of appointmenting judges tot federal courts and appointing nominees to the supreme court. nd to get this out of the way, maker garland is an xtraordinary jurist who is indisputably qualified to serve on the highest court of the land. and nobody really argues otherwise. i just want to be clear here. if the question is qualifications and excellence, viewed by not just democrats by also republicans, those who have served. lawyers, judges, legal scollars, members of the current supreme court. that he is as good of a judge as we have in this country right now. but he is fair, he's smart, he's objective. he's a consensus builder. he shows judicial restraint. he's appreciative of the unique role of the court but also respectful of the ro