justice court church: really -- justice gorsuch: really?ven when it's going to put people in prison and deprive them of liberty and result in deportation, we shouldn't expect congress to be able to specify those who are captured by its laws? mr. kneedler: we -- we think this law reasonably captures the category that congress thought -- whose conduct gave rise to a serious risk of -- of physical force being used. justice ginsburg: mr. kneedler, did i get, correctly, your answer to the question about a crime of moral turpitude being an alternative that the government could have pursued? you say the immigration judge found that this was a crime. mr. kneedler:but on grounds we think were not correct because the immigration judge did not apply the categorical approach, which has since been determined to be the right way to look at crime involving moral turpitude. chief justice roberts:thank you, mr. kneedler. mr. rosenkranz:? mr. rosenkranz: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: let me begin -- begin with justice gorsuch's c

justice sotomayor: mr. kneedler, does that permit arbitrary can the immigration officials walk down the street and say i just don't like the way you look, out? mr. kneedler: no. and -- and this brings me to -- justice sotomayor: but -- but let me get to that. so whether the distinction is criminal or civil, the issue for us, as i understand it under johnson, is, is it arbitrary? is it so arbitrary that under any standard, criminal or civil, this is vague? now, i know you're saying it's not arbitrary for a bunch of different reasons. but please explain to me on the two grounds that johnson used, ordinary case and type of risk, how this is not equally arbitrary. mr. kneedler: there are a number of -- a number of reasons why we -- why we think that's true. first of all, the court said in johnson it was the sum of the various attributes of the acca residual clause that created the problem. so whatever -- whatever might be the problem with -- with one of those, it was the combination of those. justice sotomayor:

but they will not always win at least coming to justice gorsuch out when it comes to justice gorsuch out because this is a judge not looking for the political wind but what the law but the way the framers understood it. and for religious liberty if you look the way the framers looked walking to the jefferson memorial it is clear with a very small sense with the role of religion in the modern era that there was no space between them the history of our country is not as good as the modern era. >> justice gorsuch has a solid record but interesting to point out some of those recent opinions while justice gorsuch is a great though it is not the deciding vote so it is encouraging to see by a long shot and not with those religious beliefs in question and that what has been broadly a court with religious freedom in many cases as well. >> you have been a great panel so far. if you have any questions you would like to ask? >> i believe you mentioned the case in particular interest with the appellate judge and with that controversial decision and the judge that dropped down the canteen commissi

of legal policy where he worked on the confirmation of chief justice roberts and justice alito into my left carey is chief counsel and director of the judicial crisis network in that capacity she has testified before congress unconstitutional issues regularly appears on television including msnbc, fox, cnn, c-span and abc this week written and spoken on a wide range of judicial issues with constitutional limit on government as a part of judicial selection she readily argues supreme court cases she was zero's ex- fellow at the law center previously a locker to justice thomas and the d.c. court of appeals graduated harvard law school from duke university holds a masters degree in linguistics from michigan state. welcome carrie and thank you for being here. then we have elizabeth a legal fellow at the heritage foundation where she writes about cases before the supreme court. judicial nominations separation of powers and constitutional issues she has a podcast with everything happening in the supreme court and with her advocacy programs test pilot in the house of representatives on cons

that is justice o'connor. when vmi was assigned to me i was not very senior. >> you are second from the bottom. justice ginsburg: how did i get to write that opinion. justice thomas said ruth should write the opinion -- justice o'connor said ruth should write the opinion. >> she was the first women on the court and had done one case herself which you are able to .uild upon in the vmi case justice ginsburg: hogan. the year before i got there. hogan against mississippi university for women. hogan wanted to go to the best nursing school in the area in which he lived. that happened to be mississippi university for women. he was turned down. the case came to the supreme court. justice o'connor wrote the opinion for a sharply divided court. thought that it was proper to reserve the women to women because it was a kind of affirmative action for women, making up for all the places that excluded women. , having grownor up a woman, understood that if you wanted to upgrade the nursing profession, if you wanted to see hig

justice kagan: we used to call him judge, tm but never justice marshall. here's one that will not be so surprising. this is one that really brought on the knucklehead appellation. it was a case called -- appellation. -- it was ae called case about a white 12-year-old girl in rural kansas. away fromsome miles the nearest school. there was a bus service that they made you pay. ,hey would not give a waiver not even for indigent students. the school did not get to squirrel -- girl did not get to school. the idea of a state charging was aor the school bus constitutional challenge brought under the equal clause. we walked into his office and i laid out the arguments and i said to him, judge i think it is win. to be hard for her to why?oked at me and asked i told him indigency is not a suspect class and education is not a fundamental right. that means rational basis applies and the state has a rational basis here. he looked at me as if i must have lost my mind. idea of what he was there to do was to ensure this. people like her must get to school every morning. h

first principles as justice thomas but justice thomas famously has not been an active participant in oral arguments. you have somebody who's willing to take somebody on in the first principle basis the way justice thomas did and it certainly creates a very interesting dynamic especially since they are used to be a tradition in the port that the junior justice would ask a few fewer questions than some of the other justices and justice gorsuch's been actively engaged. so that definitely is change the dynamic. the perfect storm is the new administration and any time you have a change in administration particularly from a democratic administration to a republican administration or vice versa it's going to have an effect on the court because so much of the courts work involves cases where the federal government is a party. i think you've seen as one would expect when you have a change in administration and especially one where there's going to be a significant change in policy direction you see a shift from the obama administration the trump administration that manifested itself in the so

the way we think about justices in the way justices write their opinions, justice kagan famously said of a scalia lecture at harvard law school, we are all textbooks. he really did disrupt the institution of the supreme court and the role of the justice of the supreme court. >> having spent so much time, talk a little bit about his personality, how he came across and how perhaps that was different on the stodgy or image we might have all supreme court justices? >> i first met him when he was new to dc or he was newto the court of appeals . and i was just beginning teaching and we were at a conference we both sort of didn't know anybody and he was verygenerous, he gave me teaching notes because i was a newbie . and i decided when he got onto the supreme court that i invite him to my class, why not? and he said yes. and he came and then the next year i thought well, i'll invite him to lunch and the class. and he said okay and he came. >> and everyyear i kept thinking he's going to say . i can't keep coming your class because a lot of teachers in this country and if they all asked, you c

and in fact, justice brennan thought it was that crazy, and justice brennan dissented from that case. but justice marshall ended up writing the opinion for the court in that case. saying that, yes, in fact, the court did -- that leaving out the name made all the difference and the court didn't have jurisdiction to take the appeal. this is what he said to us. he said that i spent my whole life litigating cases, and you can't expect anybody to bend the rules for you. the only thing you can expect is that they apply the rules straight. and indeed, indeed, people who litigated like i litigated, their salvation was in the rules. i mean, if he had a chance for success, it was because of the rules and because people decided to take those rules seriously. so the rule of law and playing by the rules was, to him, one of the most important principles in the justice system. and sometimes it worked against you, and they put in the wrong name. but in the end, especially for people who were disliked and who were disadvantaged, they needed the rules. and so you better make sure that you have created

one is a new justice for this is the first full-term the justice has served on the court. the second thing is you have a new administration. we are still relatively new administration for this is the first full-term with the court having an entire set a cases with the trump administration in power and the third factor that makes this a term like almost no other is that it is a big term in the sense that there are an inordinate number of headline grabbing cases, particularly in contrast to the term before that was a sleepy term by modern supreme court standards. i want to focus on all three of these factors that are making this such an interesting term and then at the and tie them together because i think they all ultimately reinforce each other. the first thing and the most obvious thing is that the court is accommodating itself as the junior member of the court. it is more than a new member of the court and more than just justice court course which because the court is coming out of this rather externally. where, for over a year, they were operating as an eight-member cou

he was chief justice from 1789 until 1795. there were six justices. do much.ourt did not it decided seven cases in the six years and jay took time off to negotiate the treaty with britain, winding up the relationship problems that it, out of the war of independence. thatpeople complain today the justices are being political jay twice, while on the court, ran for governor of new york. he won the second time and resigned from the court. it had no regular meeting time. to say it was uneventful would exciting.und at first, when the justices showed up, they had no quorum. then a quorum showed up, but they had no cases, so they just adjourned. in those days, justices of the supreme court had to ride the circuit -- that meant getting on a horse or in a coach and going from one town to another and hearing the cases that came up in that area. imposed on theen justices of the supreme court for many, many decades. thenext chief justice, great chief justice, as we still refer to them, was john marshall. he served until 1836, 35 years as chief justice. first not j

our current chief justice robert also has praised chief justice as chief justice marshall of course, i think it's much harder for easy today to achieve unanimity thanks in part to the reforms that taft put in place. >> one of the anomalies that you described, i'm not sure you allies in the book, is taft's willingness as chief justice to lobby the congress hard and repeatedly. whereas as president, he wouldn't do so for his own legislative program. >> he really cared about getting money to build a judicial conference. he was passionate about it. i guess he felt that his role wasn't constrained in the way that it was as president but let me ask you, was not appropriate to mark. >> i think it was. maybe it's just the norm ever since. it hasn't been a lobby for it, it was a long time when the judges were lobbying for a pay increase because they 18 years or something and the two justices, lately it'sbeen four years now justice kennedy and breyer . they go to the hearings for the annual budget or biannual budget. and in the congress and presenting the for the judiciary. that seems to me en

the department of justice hiring u.s. attorneys toes tes to looko clinton e-mail scandal, including fisa court surveillance abuses, these u.s. attorneys now answering on deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. it was rod rosenstein who may have used unverified fraudulent dossier, to get fisa court war warrants to spy on carter page. and christopher wray are so slow walking a demand to turnover a clean copy of 2016 fbi memo that started the russia counter intelligence investigation. nunes has given them until this wednesday before he hits them with a subpoena. it is rod rosenstein's lack of a mandate concerning special counsel robert mueller investigation that lead to a dis grace to the concept of law and order in this country. it is an assault as i said. on the president of the united states my first guest said today's raids have nothing to to with russia collusion or meddling in 2016 election, subjects that robert mueller was assigned to investigate. joining us, fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. >> good to see you. l

so far the justice department is once again stonewall congress. and refused to turnover the documents. we'll have the full report and discuss deep state forces that be on truck the -- obstruct the president, now poll show that democratic forecast of a so-called blue wave sweeping over midterms may have been optimistic, with latest polling showing they are hotly and closely contested. dems losing 75% of the midterm support since january in polling. all because of president trump's soaring economy and his american first agenda. and yes, president trump's personal improving poll numbers, that is much more right here tonight. >> our top story, the james comey interview. his petty sniping and deeply torture the sense of moral superiority on full display, we have a lot of strange cuts from a strange interview, one stands apart, comey telling abc's george stephanopolous how the comey family was devastated by hillary clinton's loss in the presidential elected. rarely does an interviewee say so much about his perspective, his values, his state of mind in j

swamp creatures to the justice department?harlie hurt and rachel on the deep swamp down feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin and relief from symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity and live claritin clear. the next big thing in food was once a little paper box. now we can easily take out food from a restaurant. let's stay in and binge-watch the snow. genius. now, the next big thing is the capital one savor card. earn 3% cash back on dining, 2% on groceries, and 1% on all other purchases. >> lou: joining us now is charlie hurt. good to see you, charlie. >> good to see you. >> lou: fox news contributor rachel. and let's start with eric holder for president. are you ready? [laughter] >> i hope it happens. this is a man who i hope he runs against trump. this is a map who thought it was a good idea to arm drug xartles with u.s. weapons that were used against the u.s. border patrol agents and innocent mexican citizens. >> lou:

of justice are off-limits.dministrations, when they come in, the department of justice and career people will sensitize them to the fact that the initial inclination to bring the doj close to the white house is the wrong one. every administration looks and says we have to bring them close. the department of justice is unique in that when you look at administrations and scandals going back to watergate, when the department of justice was held at arm's length and the fbi was, as well, whenever we there was found to be no where there, they could say that was an independent agency. they came up with nothing, which is more credible. if you try to bring them in and make them part of the team. >> going to work for congress is one thing. most people are not going to do that. there is no substitute for political involvement. the day after trump was elected, there were major demonstrations. major demonstrations that people of various backgrounds. otherwise --ost other than the fact that trump had been elected, were some

swamp creatures to the justice department?ie hurt and rachel on the deep swamp down allergies with sinus congestion and pressure? you won't find relief here. go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray relieves 6 symptoms... claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. [fbi agent] you're a brave man, your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [her

justice.e was following in the footsteps, taught by gandhi of which he said he was the first person to live this love ethic above mere interaction of individuals into a powerful and effective force to change the work of the world but you had to be committed. absolutely will to be committed. had to be as committed as the people he gathered around him in montgomery, and the people in atlanta. you could not be committed to the cause of civil rights and human justice. if you recall from the letter of birmingham jail, he wrote to the people who were the moderates who said he was moving too fast. that he needed to slow down. and challenged them by saying you are a great stumbling block in the stride towards freedom. you are more devoted to order than justice. who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension, to the positive peace which is the positive side of justice. to be able to see a timetable for another man's freedom, we have to continue to strive forward to freedom. and in this wor

justice white was the justice that justice gorsuch clerked for when he was a law clerk.yron white, a famous football player, and the courthouse justice gorsuch sat in for a decade before he came to the supreme court was the byron white courthouse in denver. a conversation between those two colorado justices, a was great. and there was a rule in place called the mirror evidence rule dating back to the framing, designed to protect private diaries. the nearn't search evidence i recorded in diary that i committed a crime. you could search contraband because wasn't considered property and it was forfeited. the mirror evidence rule was andturned soon after katz, reducing the protection of private diaries. but the court is struggling with don martin -- with john martin to figure out whether you have a property interest or not. martin, incidentally, was later appointed a federal district judge. vocabularyte has no for figuring out exactly how to deal with it and that is what the government is seeing, there is no property interest in this glass phone booth. >> next up is tony fro

the justices could's desk justices could -- justices could speak to one another.ou will see them talk to one another through counsel. it is really conversation amongst them at the time. to the contributes conversation going on. let's listen to the arguments that the government was making in katz. it was made by john f martin junior. thurgoodn as we said, marshall was being nominated to the court so there was a turnover in the office. we will listen as he is responding to questions from justice byron. >> we are dealing with a public phone booth. we are dealing with something different. it is our position that even if this court was to save public phone wasn't headed to some protection under the fourth amendment, it is not protection that comes to a house. public phone booth is more appropriate. a party any public phone that has no right to expect he would be in court. we submit to what was done here was not an indiscriminate search condemned by this court. it was a very careful -- it was carefully limited. only involving the particular petitioner and that -- in thi

swamp creatures to the justice department?hurt and rachel on the deep swamp down yonder, we'll be right back. ignores me while i drive. it's fine. because i get a safe driving bonus check every six months i'm accident free. and i don't share it with mom! right, mom? righttt. safe driving bonus checks. only from allstate. switching to allstate is worth it. weli can tell you about...re. streaming the most free tv shows and movies on the go. yeah, and... xfinity internet. it's so fast! and you can save by... by getting up to 5 mobile lines included. whoa, you're good. i'm just getting started. ♪ simple. easy. awesome. come see how you could save $400 or more a year with xfinity mobile. plus ask how to keep your current phone. visit your local xfinity store today. we're all under one roof now. congratulations. thank you. how many kids? my two. his three. along with two dogs and jake, our new parrot. that is quite the family. quite a lot of colleges to pay for though. a lot of colleges. you get any financial advice? yeah, but i'm p

there is the break down of the majority and the two justices, justi justi justi justice stewart and justice black. >> marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring and intimate to the degree of being sacred. so, take us down to the legal reasoning here. >> so this will answer the question as well. what he says is for there is in the constitution of a text that provides the constitutional or fundamental right to contraception. there is, however, it is language of the 14th amendment and applies to the state th that -- i am getting ahead of myself. no, he did not put it in the 14th amendment. he says there is a great privacy that's hard and even if it is no t explicit than other amendments of the constitution. in the first, he says free speech. we say there is freedom of association which was a kind of a privacy thing. in the right to not have your home searched or your right not to quarter soldiers except under particular circumstances. all of these speak of a right of privacy. the 9th amendment reserves thanks to the states that are not taken by the federal govern

justice sotomayor: it does. not, because the statute says the government can get a warrant requiring disclosure. the act that occurs in the case is an act on the provider. the distinction between a search and subpoena is that in a search the government does go right in and grab the information. the instrument operates on a person and places an argument on that person to make disclosure. once it gets to the government, once the government has the accounts in hands, it executes the warrant aspect of the order, which is a probable cause-based order allowing the government to search the account. if thenalogous to government knew an individual had a laptop computer and it wanted to obtain that computer ad search it, it could serve subpoena on the individual requiring the production of the laptop. gets thegovernment laptop into its custody, it needs a search warrant to get in and look at the information. here, a single order achieves both functions under a statute whose structure and language makes clear laces disclos

katie: i agree with justice ginsburg. the brandenburg decision is one of the strongest most protected and most important landmarks of free speech. it sets the fundamental principle that we should allow free speech even if it dvocates unlawfulness. i think the other aspect is it is important because it means we are going to sometimes have to tolerate speech that we find personally repugnant. host: let me tell you more about the guests at the table. nadine strossen is the former president of the aclu. she served from 1991 to 2008. she was the first woman and youngest person to ever hold position. she is a professor at new york law school in manhattan. she has a new book out called "hate: why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship." and katie, she wrote a piece about video games as protected speech. she also clerked in the court in the 11th circuit court of appeals. let's start with history. this all concerns a set of laws called the criminal syndicalism laws. many states have them. what is the history of them?

of equal justice for all. including the most vulnerable in our society, the most disadvantaged. be careful, voting rights, civil rights, immigration, giving equal protection to all, including the most vulnerable in our society. it is the department of justice that is there for all of us, every american. i want to make sure the attorney general has the tools and the ability to do that. leahy, thank you very much. we will welcome our witness today. i welcome attorney general sessions to this subcommittee hearing. and i recognize you for your opening statement. mr. sessions: thank you, very much, chairman moran and chairman shaheen. friends and former colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. to bearticularly pleased able to congratulate my former senior senator for 20 years, senator shelby chosen to chair this historic committee. it is a tremendous honor. my sincere congratulations to new -- to you. it has been an honor of a lifetime to serve as the attorney general of the united states and to re

justice: answer why. the court there seemed to agree, and in the descent, thought it was manageable. why do you disagree with the majority? the majority saying it it could be. >> it starts with specific intent, many people are involved. justice: given their evidence, they certainly have enough to go to a jury on the question, whether there really was any legislative intent outside of gerrymandering. mr. sullivan: they don't have anywhere near the number of affidavits they would need from the legislators that actually wrote it, or from the more than 1.5 million marylanders who approved the plan in a referendum. that's the kind of diffuse intent that comes into play here. it is so far different from the kind of cases the district court was exciting, -- district court was citing. you have an employer who fired an employee, it's not complex to figure out the intent and who did what to whom. that's not what you're talking about would legislation. justice: in the racial gerrymandering cases that's exactly what

that was the conversation going on between justice white -- justice white was the justice that justice gorsuch chose. interesting to see how this plays out. byron white, of course, a famous football player. before the decade he came to the supreme court was working in the colorado. and jeffrey: it was interesting to hear him talk about near evidence, dating back to the framing, which was designed to protect private diaries. you could not search my diary that i committed a crime, only -- you could search contraband because it was not considered property and it was forfeited to the state. this was overturned shortly after katz, but the court is struggling with john martin to figure out whether conversations are tangible or not, whether you have a property interest or not. john martin did a great job incidentally and was later appointed as the district judge by george h.w. bush. but justice white has no vocabulary for figuring out exactly how to deal with it and that is why the government is saying, there is no property interest. susan: we will return to phone calls because the are talkin

swamp creatures to the justice department?and rachel on the deep swamp down and the safey for "most parallel parallel parking job" goes to... [ drum roll ] ...emily lapier from ames, iowa. this is emily's third nomination and first win. um...so, just...wow! um, first of all, to my fellow nominees, it is an honor sharing the road with you. and of course, to the progressive snapshot app for giving good drivers the discounts -- no, i have to say it -- for giving good drivers the discounts they deserve. safe driving! for with this levelvers the dof intelligence...rve. it's a supercomputer. with this grade of protection... it's a fortress. and with this standard of luxury... it's an oasis. the 2018 e-class. it's everything you need it to be... and more. lease the e300 for $569 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. >> lou: joining us now is charlie hurt. good to see you, charlie. >> good to see you. >> lou: fox news contributor rachel. and let's start with eric holder for president. are you

swamp creatures to the justice department?and rachel on the deep swamp down >> lou: joining us now is charlie hurt. good to see you, charlie. >> good to see you. >> lou: fox news contributor rachel. and let's start with eric holder for president. are you ready? [laughter] >> i hope it happens. this is a man who i hope he runs against trump. this is a map who thought it was a good idea to arm drug xartles with u.s. weapons that were used against the u.s. border patrol agents and innocent mexican citizens. >> lou: 200 murdered with those weapons. >> can you imagine what fox would say about donald trump had given weapons to the cartel to use against innocent mexican citizens and u.s. border parol. eric holder is a corrupt person and i think if he ran for president he would be a easy target for the president. >> i would love to relitigate the scandards. and they came to gun 91, you hear bits and pieces. and normal people would be like no way that happened. our government couldn't possibly have done something that stupid and reckle

then justice brennan edited it. some scholars have reported that he really changed the language from the clear and convincing test to make this new test of intentional and site. >> this is a unanimous decision. are they always unanimous? >> no. i was surprised. bush versus gore was a per curiam that ultimately resulted in george w. bush becoming president. there were many, many separate opinions that individual justices issued. the vote was as split as it could be, 5-4, and yet it was a per curry him -- a per curiam decision. it's complicated. there were some allegations that he had to close a relationship with president johnson, with whom he had been very close politically. that continued after he was on the court, which was improper, violating separation of powers concerns, impartiality of a justice. and as katie said, there were certain financial allegations as well. i am not clear what it was that -- what in particular impelled him. -- propelled him to resign, but he himself had relationships that had a propriet

justice kagan: can we go back to the question justice kennedy asked -- justice sotomayor: can we go back to the question justice kennedy asked. can you affirm or disaffirm that if one of these facilities wrote an ad that just said pro-life and put their name, it appears as if the law would require them to have the statement, this is not a dical facility in -- mr. klein: i don't think so. unless the facility -- i mean, what subjects a facility to the are -- it's unlicensed, this is on page 79-a of the petitioner's appendix, are things like offering ultrasounds, sonograms. >> what if it weren't? we're dealing with the more general principle. what if you had an organization that simply provided adoption services and advertised there is an alternative to abortion, try adoption. justice roberts: could the state make them include the disclosure requirement that you have with respect to licensed facilities? because that's an alternative to pregnancy, i would say you'd want to make all the abortion alternatives also fully available and make the low-income women aware of those. could you impose t

be served and people who are not serving justice should not be in the department of justice or the federal bureau of investigation. maria: congressman we'll take a short break. i want to ask you about criminal referrals when we come right back. congressman goodlatte stay with us we'll be right back and then we'll talk with congressman john ratcliffe and congressman ed royce, follow me on twitter at maria bartiromo at sunday futures let us know what you'd like to hear from our guests this morning as we look ahead on sunday morning futures. back in a moment. ♪ hey, sir lose-a-lot! thou hast the patchy beard of a pre-pubescent squire! thy armor was forged by a feeble-fingered peasant woman... your mom! as long as hecklers love to heckle, you can count on geico saving folks money. boring! fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through th

within the justice department. people think and understand what obviously the leadership of the republican party doesn't. what we have is a toxic and corrupt justice department and fbi leadership is ransid with political corruption. >> and mueller and rosenstein heading it up. president said it is the most conflicted group of people he has seen. mueller has two disqualifying conflicts of interest and it is mand tortoe recuse himself. instead he stuck up his middle finger and doesn't care. rosenstein is a witness and prosecutor and investigator and basically judge and jury all roll would. >> he is investigate himself that the president read and decided to agree with. >> if you look up in the description of corruption. flook the dictionary and rosenstein and mueller and comey. >> maybe that will come to pass. loupe lou without it the republic is deeply threatened. and tomorrow, the deadline to produce 1.2 million documents to meet the deadline set by house intelligence chair devon nunez and talking earlier to desanto

the justices will say, we can name broader, you've all of justice. i have never seen the 10th amendment argument get legs. >> the caller watching us in arlington, virginia. i was at thinking about justice kennedy. with your reduction in the due process argument -- >> potentially it is hard to know. precedents nowg that support the due process approach due to rights to privacy. to in 10 go, to disregard all of them would be a huge change at this point. i don't think it is as easily and done as we suspected to be just by the retirement of one justice. andd it shape future cases future interpretations of due process protection? undoubtedly. a doctrine, iize think that would take more time. good time to play our last clip. the griswold decision is one of the most frequently asked about for potential supreme court justices going through the senate confirmation process. but show you take clip from the most recent one. neil gorsuch is was asked about it in his confirmation hearing. held that the 14th amendment due process liberty cause provided a right to m

justice ginsburg. birthday in march. you welcomed your new baby great ran daughter who was born on january 1 in paris. unfortunately, she is not the surprise, but i'm going to give you a hint. when you were a law clerk, some an interest in carpooling. andare in the backseat thatimes i understand judge hand would sing. is that true? the top of sing at see shanties. and, some racy songs. i said, you won't consider me as a law clerk. in this car, you say anything. he said young woman, i'm not looking at you. >> so you just part of the surprise. -- they would like to serenade called my eyes .re fully open but the record reflect justice ginsburg's eyes are fully open. i have been asked by the cast to read to you the script seen center. hasow take you where robin assumed the rifle title. as a bad baronet, robert must commit one crime per day or else perish by the ghostly hands of his ancestor. without further do, here is my eyes are fully open. here to urge you to abandon the evil courts. >> but, i have done

of justice ginsburg. given all these connections, instead of giving you a long intersection of justice begins burr issues we're going to flash back 15 years to the 20th anniversary dinner of women's law whenever professor marty ginsburg introduced justice ginsburg as the keynote speaker. >> wendy williams and mary harnett asked me to speak at what they said was appropriate length on what they termed my favorite subject, naturally i prepared a lengthy discourse addressing the supreme court's performance in tax cases. sadly, wendy reacted with unexpected hostility and so, instead i am going to speak a few minutes only about my wife the horrible runorable ruth. but you are the losers because i promise you the supreme court law in tax cases is exceedingly funny. we travel a lot, our travels are like our life in the district of columbia afford memorable moments. in december 2000, just after a bush against gore, ruth and i were in new york city to see the play kruf. after the first act intermission we walked do

and the -- two justices lately has been for years now justice of kennedy and breyer go to the hearing for the annual budget or biannual budget i guess it's annual in the congress, and make the case presenting the budge for the entire judiciary that seems to me appropriate and suability to questioning about about that administrative matter. but nothing else. so -- in a way opportunistic and he says i can't interfere with the congress i can't -- try to alter their deliberations and most offed to judiciary and moved to article three which was very brief and decides he can't do it. >> yes. but the at least -- the theoretical justification for it would be the madison one namely -- his vision of the president deriving power from the constitution and not from the people constrains the president to engage in popular leadership because fear is to make the president a demagogue and thoughtful deliberation then the president should do what taft did was to issue speeches like judicial opinion and -- taft speeches are incredibly detailed and long and he'll give -- budget numbers and figures explai

he seemed to line up with the other justices, chief justice roberts, as well as justice briar -- sorryito, talking about the fact that the president does have broad power to institute this to protect national security. then you have the justices in the liberal wing of things, and very outskoekpoken. soelt mi sotomayor and kagan talked about how president trump's comments on the campaign trail were troubling. and what futtake a listen. >> let's say in some future time a president gets elected who is a vehement antisemite and promotes a lot of hatred over the course of a campaign, and in his presidency. and in the course of that, asks his staff or his cabinet members to issue recommendations so that he can issue a proclamation of this kind, and they dot all the is and cross all the ts, and what emerges, and again, in the context of this anti-semitism, what emerges is a proclamation that says no one shall enter from israel. >> right. >> do you say mandell puts an end to judicial review of that set of facts? >> no, your honor. i don't say mandell puts an end to it, but i do say in that con

he's telling the justice department, he's notifying the senior career official of justice that he has been called in to give witness testimony for mueller. and then he closes this letter of notification by asking for legal representation in this matter. he says, quote, i am requesting representation or a commitment for the reimbursement of legal fees. so give me a lawyer or pay my legal fees for me to hire one. signed sincerely, dana j j. boente. we have not confirmed if he ultimately did an interview with mueller's prosecutors. but this letter from him to the senior career official at the justice department indicates that dana boente has been asked to do that interview. dana boente, who's had all of those senior justice department jobs, who served as u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia, including at key moments in the russia investigation, and who's now the general counsel of the fbi. and now here's where it gets good. we have also obtained this document from another senior justice department official. this time it's the head of the counterintelligence division at the f