justice sotomayor: scale -- justice kagan: mr. messenger, may i ask you about reliance interests here? i don't think that we have ever overruled a case where reliance interests are remotely as strong as they are here. so just a few things to put on the table. 23 states, the district of columbia, puerto rico, all would have their statutes declared unconstitutional at once. thousands of municipalities would have contracts invalidated. those contracts probably cover millions, maybe up to over 10 million, workers. so property and contract rights, the statutes of many states and the livelihoods of millions of individuals affected all at once. when have we ever done something like that? what would be the justification for doing something like that? mr. messenger: well, i'd say two things, justice kagan. the first is that the prevalence of these compulsory unionism provisions isn't reason for retaining abood, it's reason for reversing abood. you have wide-scale first amendment violations, as you said, in 23 states affected. justice kagan

justice sotomayor: as justice -- mr.essenger: that is what -- justice sotomayor: breyer said, every single decision affects the public fisc. every time you lose something, you -- the public fisc is affected. you are talking -- chief justice roberts: care to comment? mr. messenger: again, to go back, i think it's the scale that makes the distinction, your honor. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. monday on c-span landmark cases, we will explore the civil rights cases of 1883. the supreme court decision that struck down the active 1870 five, background and people access to public accommodations like trains and theaters regardless of race. the dissent eclipsed the legacy of the majority opinion. with daniellease holly walker. attorney on civil rights. 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen to c-span radio act -- app. order the companion book. $8.95.vailable for additional resource there is a link on our website to the constitution center's interactive constitution. our podcast, c-span's

justice sotomayor: as justice -- mr. messenger: that is what -- justice sotomayor: breyer said, every single decision affects the public fisc. every time you lose something, you -- the public fisc is affected. you are talking -- chief justice roberts: care to comment? mr. messenger: again, to go back, i think it's the scale that makes the distinction, your honor. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. explore this case in the high court's ruling of dale walker and peter courson, attorney on civil rights. watch landmark cases live monday at 9:00

ridiculous said justice scalia. i know but i think we can help set matters straight in the introduction to reading law. et intros already too damn long he said. no it's not you know, i found a quotation from george washington saying that the prosperity and endurance of our nation depends on proper interpretation of the laws. i've never seen that. you found it? yes. we're -- you're going to love it we must lay out a argument in the intro before we get into of the details how to do it properly. i'll have a look at it when i get back he said. closing his eyes. again and again, i replayed in my mind justice scalia's fall, the moment occurred i decided never again wngt outside washington to leave it to marshal whom we didn't know well to see that he got safely into a car. of course, the marshalls were also concerned about external threats to safety. so it was understandable their attention might not be focused entirely on justice himself opposed to immediate environment. in any event unless a marshal stayed lose to him i

justice on the court.i actually went with, looked at a lot of articles trying to whenever a opinion sarcastic i would have a sarcastic index. >> a creator of the sarcasm index -- [laughter] and adam wrote about it and justice scalia was a 2.78 that meant he had almost three sarcastic opinions per year on the court and next justice down was 0.43 and trying to piepgd something like hide my head in the bag same footnote he says, we've moved from -- you know kind of the imagine try of writing are from john marshall to of the fortune cook ye it is bhity but biting but what i found most troubling about his writing was that it wasn't -- only at the text i think you can call the preden issues comment but it was often leveled as to the other justices to delegitimatize what they were doing and this is what i found to be the most difficult thing about what -- what or most troubling thing about what scalia was doing. he claimed he was doing law while everyone else was doing politics. so if you didn't follow his way, y

ridiculous, said justice scalia. i know but we can set matters straight in the introduction to reading law. the intro is already too long, he said. know it is not. i found a quotation from george washington saying the prosperity and endurance of our nation depends on proper interpretation of the law. i have never seen that. you found it? you are going to love it. we must lay out a cogent argument before any details, have a look at it when i get back, closing his eyes. i replayed in my mind justice scalia's fall the moment it occurred. i decided never again when outside washington to leave it to marshals who he didn't know well to see if he got safely into a car. the marshals were concerned about external threats to safety so understandable their attention might not be focused entirely on the justice himself as opposed to the immediate environment. unless the marshall stayed close to him i would stay with him at his door to present a fall from my wedding day on, that became my usual practice. it was called the 60% rul

and the other six, the slaves win and two are decided by slave-holding justices, justice wayne and justice duvall. being a slave owner does not mean you would never side with freedom if the law requires it. but marshall is actively engaged in acquiring slaves his whole life and distributing them to his sons. why did he destroy his financial records? i think there are people who just don't want somebody messing in their private papers. i think it is always tragic. the contrast between john marshall is the other great supreme court justice named marshall, thurgood marshall. he not only does not destroy his papers but on his death gives his papers to the library of congress and says they are to be open to researchers immediately. many great justices give their papers and say i want a 50-year hold, i don't want embarrassment. marshall says, it's all there, take a look at it. >> thank you for the insight that you provided. in the last 50 years, scholars like you have done something very tremendous. you have explored the depths of our history to establish the truth. that is very important. the a

i have hoping at least one, justice harlon, a couple other justices at least we thought might vote onur side. >> and, in fact the country was waiting for this decision, we have "new york times" front page article supreme court extends ruling on freeway counsel. but what was the reaction nationally to this in the media and in the legal circles? >> i think the reaction was very positive to this decision. i think the fact that it was unanimous was a important component of that. i think if the the court came out 5 to 4 i'm not sure the decision would have had quite the effect that it did. the effect went beyond just the -- you know the narrow circumstances of the case. because, we've eluded to the fact that there was counsel provided in the federal system but it wasn't provided that well, that systemically. in the gideon case really was sort of a water shed development in terms of not just extending the rights to the states but also really reforming the system more generally so that counsel was available and experienced and adequate counsels in many more places in the country before it ha

>> abe fortas comes into this drama not as a supreme court justice but later be a supreme court justice and a failed nominee for the chief justiceship. but here abe for theas the -- fortas the lawyer. at the time he is appointed to represent gideon, he is at the top of the legal profession. >> one of these great washington fixers and freight lawyers of the -- great lawyers of the time. and clarence gideon goes from not having any lawyer to having one of the great lawyers in the country in the supreme court of the united states. >> across from him a person by the name of bruce jacob. do you know anything about him? >> only what i read from anthony lewis' book but we're going to see him, and -- in the course of the evening. >> right. he arc you'd two cases before the supreme court. and really interesting history about both of them we'll learn about that later. and then the other namesake wainwright. louie wainwright. he really has very little role to play in this case. he was the head of the florida prisons. and those names assigned to cases? >> they're assigned to cases in the first inst

more than the other justices. so yes i think oral argument will be quite different without him. >> i see that with justice cooley and francis ford coppola what was that? >> it was great. justice cooley is favorite movie i am blinking, the godfather and he especially liked godfather part two but number one and two so getting together with coppola however i would say he was suspicious, reticent, he was assuming he probably would not get on with justice cooley i got that sense but in fact the i.c.e. was broken once they started to talk about growing up in new york and they got along well. early on in the conversation i do remember there was some talk about global warming and i think coppola was projecting that kolea was a denier and justice kolea said how me trillions of dollars are you willing to spend over the next 50 years to affect the temperature of the planet by half a degree? how many? what are you willing to do? and that was his view which had to do with economics more than whether the planet is actually grow

but if he is a justice department employee, you can do that. am not sure that is the best way, but the most important thing regardless someone outside of doj, will they use a grand jury and conduct a legitimate investigation or hillary part two where they don't subpeona anybody and use a grand jury and kind of a half measure investigation. that is not going to cut it in this case. we need an actual rigorous information. mueller is turning over anything he can find to turn up dirt. how can you do that with no evidence of collusion and not do the same thing or at least at rigorous with abuse which we have substanteated. >> lou: the mueller special counsel is an utter farce. this is a president subverted by the special counsel and his appointment last may and produced no evidence of any kind of collusion. and going after issues he could including going after the united arab emirate and seems to have forgotten the geography and the role of pretense. because it is nothing more than that. a if counsel has to be focused here and we are call taught tha

the other justice i would highlight is the second justice harlan was one of the real court of the this federalism and giving more respect for the state as opposed to imposing a one-size-fits-all solution, just because we applied it in the federal context, we will apply in the state context. susan: the oral argument was hard on generic 15, 1963, one day -- on january 15, 1960 day, one day of oral arguments. was in his jail cell in florida. as will hear from abe fort about why he wanted to get the case. >> i felt the time had arrived when the court with a proper case before it would lay down the general rule for all felony cases in the state courts, that every man, the rich, the poor, was entitled to the benefit of counsel when he was defending prosecution by the mighty forces of the state. susan: we heard from you both that abbe was a powerhoue lawyer. it was a big deal that the court selected him to argue the case. why did they do it? akhil: because they wanted to make sure that they were hearing the best arguments on both sides. my friend, paul, has argued more cases before the suprem

justices? >> very quickly. oral argument ended on wednesday and the decision was announced saturday. some people were very suspicious of this, thinking he had prejudged the case and must have written it up in advance, except when you go through the decision with care, you see that he took pieces of the various arguments by the various attorneys up to and including pinckney, the last to argue. as she noted earlier, they lived together. they were there working together. there was no doubt they were very careful about this case and thinking it through as the oral arguments unfolded. >> they obviously knew the country was washing this -- watching this. what more can you tell us about getting to consensus? >> the process, the conversations they had between each other are unfortunately lost in time. it is clear that in the background, marshall was very keen to put federal power on the broadest possible basis. this case was just one vehicle that allowed him to get there, to get to a vision of american

of the justice department.tice department cannot investigate ets in this. there has to be a special counsel. and the only way to get to the truth is through a federal grand jury where people are put under oath and they cannot lie. for example, the inspector general has no authority currently over john brennan or james clapper or even james comey because those people have all left the department. he can't interview any of the people from the department of state. there has to be a grand jury with a prosecutor who has authority to subpoena all of those people. and the key to this, the key to the lie eang the misrepresentations to the fisa court is going to be john brennan, james clapper, james comey and the senior officials at the justice department. lou: this is not i hope extraneous but it just strikes me that james comey fired for a host of reasons, but certainly fired, has a book coming out. and i can't even understand why -- part of his responsibility, of course, the national security interest of the fbi, cou

after the justices voted to admit women, about most senior justice in the majority or the chief justice if he is in the majority clearly gets to sign the opinion. that is how it works. he tied to the senior woman. she knew who had labored as a supreme court lawyer, and the civil liberties union, and to 1980, to call women equal. this should be roots, she said. decision and they justices do not read their whole opinions which cannot often run to scores of pages. that morning ginsburg chose to include in her summary reading a reference to justice o'connor's 1982 decision in hogan vs. mississippi. o'connor's own opinion from 15 years before was the closely divided court in hopes, ginsburg reminded her listeners, had laid down the rules that states may not close entrance gates based on six notions concerning the low wall and abilities of males and females. ginsburg, the legendarily undemonstrative justice lifted her eyes from her text and paused and meeting the glance of her sister in law from across the bench, she thought of the legacy the two were building together and she nodded at sandr

chief justice, may please the court, all nine justices, agreed that artisan gerrymandering can violate the constitution. the press -- question here is has thethis course ability to do anything about it. we submit it does under the first amendment. ,ccording to the retaliation invalid access cases, government officials may not single out particular individuals for disfavored treatment on the basis of the views that have expressed of the ballot box in prior elections. >> may i ask you a pulmonary question? late,k it is much too even if you are successful, for in theo be any change 2018 election. if that is so, are we willing to have a preliminary injunction? >> we are talking about that. >> how would you be irreparably injured with the pulmonary injunction, assuming you are right, that this would be going into effect in 2020? >> we don't concede it is too late to enter release for the 2018 election. congress has enacted a statute that deals with these sorts of circumstances that this court addressed in -- this statute is 2usc2ac. >> is there anything to indicate this is possible? >> that

we're also going to listen to , justice of the supreme court, about how justices deal with these kinds of decisions. let's take a listen. >> what happened when the court received a gideon's letter? >> the letter is written to us from a prisoner. did, ams, as mr. gideon violation of a fundamental constitutional right. we regard that letter to be an appeal. they may not be called on the appeal, -- it may not be called on the deal but we do deem it an appeal. that letter is circulated to all of the justices. so, when the letter was received, it was put on a conference list. the list that we consider on fridays and we going to conference. it was one of the first cases that i had the opportunity to consider after my appointment to the court. we talked about it at length. at as much length as any other case. we decided that perhaps we ought to consider again what the constitutional requirements of right of counsel really meant in a country that believes in equality. susan: the courts still handle the appeals in the same way? >> they handle them in a very similar way. i think the gideon case

are using justice prosecutors and fbi. we have plenty of prosecutors, gregg. but we need prosecution. between mr. mccabe and hillary clinton. you don't need much in the way of investigations to follow through with significant prosecutions. gregg: you need a grand jury and a judge presiding so you can compel people to testify and gain a warrant to seize evidence as mueller did. i'm reading from sessions' letter, the i.g. has the authority to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and collect evidence through subpoena. no he doesn't. he has no jurisdiction over some of the main people like comey, yates and mccabe who have already left the department of justice. he can't compel them to do anything. >> he's not prosecuting. he's reviewing and going to make recommendations. he's investigating whether to investigate. this is classic two-steps on the part of justice department leadership. i don't think they want to be seen as going strong against all of these individuals. you know why i think in the end, gregg? they know it's goin

are dedicated to the pursuit of justice. and incredible privilege to work at the white house and department of justice, but i don't miss a lot of local stuff, testifying, dealing with it felt itsometimes was unfair. at the end of the day, i would do it again because it was quite a ride. host: alberto gonzales, announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, we .ill preview then, how much will it cost to audit the pentagon? watch washington journal each sunday for our on 1968, "america and turmoil." look at the latest agenda for congress when they return this week. the houses is back tuesday at noon eastern for general business. 2:00.ative business at then, the house discusses preventing gun violence in school. are expected to discuss government funding past the deadline. then, banking deregulation discussion, of voting is expected by the end of the week. patrolustoms and border nominations. >> while testifying on capitol hill last week about the tr

work closely with the justice department. to date we have started more than half of those reforms and huge credit to the police chief bill scott and the men and women of our police department that have embraced the reforms. we have some of the best officers in our country. and we are seeing promising improvements with use of force incidents down 18% just last year. unfortunately, attorney general jeff sessions announced that the department of justice would no longer provide assistance or guidance to departments seeking to improve the trust between the police and the public. but under mayor lee, we were determined to push forward as a city. that is why mayor lee turned to our state partners to push forward the reform process. with the help of an independent partner. today, we're here to announce that the california department of justice will evaluate and report onion going reforms -- ongoing reforms. this partnership demonstrates our commitment to the reform process and includes measures needed to ensure it will be unbiased an

and the state justice system of justice. while there are problems in both systems, we should always strive as a country to make our systems of justice better and fairer, the idea that what the state system is doing is put on the federal system is just not fair to the federal system and inaccurate in many ways. so, i'd like to convince my colleagues here that they should focus where the real problem resides and the real problem i think resides not at the federal level but at the state level. it doesn't mean to say there aren't things we can do to improve the federal system of justice. there certainly are. >> we're built out in 17 states. >> particularly given in an earlier conversation we stayed pretty much on the federal level. but state and local policy is a huge, obviously the much bigger part of this issue. but, mark, i wanted to come to you with the last version of the trifecta and i wanted to ask you, if you could change larry's mind about one thing, what would that be? >> well, you know, i haven't heard larry's positio

quote, it was the department of justice that paid for the hotel room where lesin died. d.o.j.icials invited him to washington to interview him about the workings about rt. but lesin never made it to the interview. he died the night before it was scheduled to take place. so these anonymous fbi agents coming to buzzfeed and telling them that hours before mikhail lesin was scheduled to talk to u.s. investigators, he was murdered in his d.c. hotel room that report from buzzfeed news for obvious reasons went off like a rocket last year when they opened it. opened a cascade of fresh questions about that case and what the u.s. government would do about it if those agents were right. now today buzzfeed has added more supporting evidence to the dramatic claim. and this time it's from a different but familiar source. quote, the fbi possesses a secret report asserting that mikhail lesin was beaten to death by hired thugs in washington, d.c. according to the report, lesin fell out with a powerful oligarch close to putin. wanting to impress putin, he contracted with russian state security

judge jeanine: welcome to justice. i'm jeanine pirro, welcome to "justice." "street justice" straight from cpac. but first my opening statement. the woman is even dumber than i thought. it must be because she has nothing else to do. this week my favorite ex-politician hillary clinton put out this tweet. quote, i say this as a former secretary of state and as an american. the russians are still coming. our intelligence professionals are imploring trump to act. will he continue to ignore and surrender or protect our country? you are kidding, right? did you fall asleep during this movie? >> that's how we got to america. >> the russians have landed. >> the russians have captured the airport. >> we haven't got a chance. we haven't got a chance. >> get out of the way! >> judge jeanine: hillary, our intelligence professionals are imploring trump to act? where did you get that from? you don't have a security clearance. not that it mattered when i did have one. if you are talking about nsa director mike rogers, he testified this week our government was taking steps to

for the justices looking for a case to decide this? in thesethe process cases that they were consolidated? jeffrey: i don't know if the judges were looking for it. there was a disagreement among the lower course -- lower courts which increases the probability that the supreme court will look at it. both the truman and the eisenhower associate -- administrations had filed briefs , the most important of the creator. extent, the court felt that it could not avoid it. then something dramatic happen. i do not take if it is the time to tell the story. >> probably not. jeffrey: i will wait till you are done. >> let us take two more calls and then we will talk about what the supreme court looked like. in fact, this case was heard twice, by two different courts. he will talk about the drama that caused that court to be different the second -- d -- we will talk about the drama that caused it to be heard by two different courts. gary you are on. >> what i am curious about brown versus board of education and the issues in the elections of the pres

we have a justice department, the justice department can do criminal investigation.10,000 lawyers in the system. >> what is the conflict in this justice department investigating that episode? i don't see any. you have a special counsel only when there is a criminal investigation to be conducted and there is some good reason why the justice department can't do it and every time you appoint a special counsel you're in essence saying well the justice department can't be trusted to do this and i'm not in favor of that. maria: how long can this special counsel's work go on, judge? we've been waiting to see russia collusion between president trump and the russians. it doesn't exist. >> part of the problem here is that this special counsel was appointed in a situation where the letter of appointsment was not consistent with the regulations that apply to a special counsel. you're supposed to appoint a special counsel when there's a crime and some reason the justice department can't do it, but the letter appointing him says he is to pursue the investigation that james comey t

lou: he characterized the efforts of the deputy of justice and -- department of justice, fbi, to framehe president of the united states. reporter: absolutely, he believes that there was an effort by fbi and doj to clear hillary clinton and frame donald trump for things he did not do. collusion, which digenova agrees is not a crime, they launched a criminal investigation. based on false evidence. lou: what do you make of protesting ation over the week, president trump talking about robert mueller by name as if he brought down the furies from on he whispered name of robert mueller. what in the world? this is america, president of united states has right to defend himself especially against an investigator who has produced nothing and almost a year. reporter: media was shameful over the weekend i watched them conflict trump for thinking about robert mueller, police are the thought police, if you dare think about firing robert mueller you are guilty of something according to media, they are dopes. lou: they are dopes. not simply because they don't know the law because i would have to be in

>> jeff sessions, criminal justice reform. i mean, more specifically, i'd certainly love to change his mind about sentencing reform, and i hope to have a robust discussion about that today. >> so i want to ask a version of that question to you, larry. one of the interesting parts of this conversation that we're having this morning is in many ways some of the points of tension, each of you, mark, holly, larry, each of you represents -- has been active within conservative politics and is a leader with inconservative politics broadly construed, but within issues of criminal justice, incarceration, justice, many of the immediate points of tension and disagreement seem to be within a conservative coalition and so, larry, i am curious, for your thoughts on a similar question. if you could change your co-panelist's mind about one thing, what would you try to convince them of? >> probably several things, it would be hard to pick one, but i have to begin in order to keep my job as an assistant united states attorney that nothing i say

chief justice and may it please the court. i'll start with what justice kennedy started. the stored communications act is limited to the united states. yet the government wants to use the act to unilaterally reach into a foreign land to search for copy and import private customer correspondence physically stored in a digital lockbox in a foreign computer where it's protected by foreign law. that is a foreign snare dwrcena >> correct me if this is incompetent correc incorrect. until this case, microsoft was complying with these disclosure orders. this case is the first time they objected. but there were past efforts of the same kind and microsoft disclosed the contents of the communications. is that so? >> yes, your honor. but i want to make sure that you -- that the court understands justice ginsburg, that this is a new phenomena. the notion of cloud storage. we didn't start it until 2010. so the fact that we analyzed what our legal obligations were and realized, wait a minute, this is actually an extra territorial act unauthorized by the u.s. government, the fact that we

is this equal justice? is this fair?s this the type of equality that we have as a great goal of our society? or is it actually imprisonment for being poor? martin: mr. justice, aren't we perhaps overeveryone sizing this concern about quality -- over emphasizing this concern about equality? >> no, we can never overemphasize equality. equality is, i profoundly believe, one of the basic instincts of man kind. it's an ancient feeling that the poor and the rich ought to be treated alike. we derive our conception of equality, i think, from two sources. we derive it from biblical sources. we find in the book of liviticus an admonition to the judges of that time, that they must neither favor the rich nor the poor, but must pursue the course of righteousness and justice. and then we find in our angelo american tradition, dating back to magna carta, the thing that the barons exacted from king john was that he would not deny justice to any man, to any man, and therefore it's an old, old tradition. when i took my oath of office two

the department of justice now looking into a possible obstruction of justice charge against the mayorkland. this comes after the mayor alert you had illegal immigrants in the california bay area that federal immigration authorities were preparing to conduct raids. the acting ice director is slamming that mayor of oakland. take a look. >> what she did is no better than, you know, a gang lookout yelling police. when a police cruiser comes in the neighborhood, except she did it to the entire community. i mean, it's beyond the pale. i have been doing this for 34 years. this is a whole new low to intentionally warn criminals that law enforcement is coming. being a law enforcement officer is already dangerous enough. but to give the criminals a heads up that we're coming in the next 24 hours, increases that risk. puts -- you are talking about these are american heroes. strap a gun to the hip every day to defend this nation. and to tell the criminals we are coming in the next 24 hours is just incredible. >> judge jeanine: the head of ice is also saying because of the mayor's warning about 80

justice joseph bradley, and justice john marshall harlan. both of them -- one wrote the majority opinion, the other wrote the single assent to this case. very interesting human beings. what can you tell us about bradley? >> well, bradley finds himself at the fulcrum of almost everything that occurred with respect to the enforcement acts. their reconstruction. what you see is, you know, we talk here about the 1883 civil rights cases. but prior to the 1883 civil rights cases, there were a couple cases, but one, the kr krukshank case that dealt with the 1870 enforcement act which i would argue probably had greater significance in the context of reconstruction, and the potential impact on black americans than the 1875 civil rights act. and what that is, it was the first anti-clan act. and among other things it was the enforcement mechanism for the 15th amendment. it would have protected the ability of -- or it did purport to protect the ability of blacks, for example, to seek redress when they were denied voting rights, other things such as gun