tes is the ustice, justice breyer was doing it, justice gorsuch is doing it. justice kennedy took this seriously. matter, justice kennedy will have the deciding vote. he didn't approach it at all. rigor that hernal would decide how exactly would not merely me up, from our perspective, but as a logical matter and a matter of precedent. talk about it quite a lot. what are the best ounterarguments for this position, we're discussing at a conference, what are the necessary things to indicate matter and from the facts. he approached it with a great rigor. i also say, i think he did that because that's the way he approached every case. perception that it must have been justice kennedy who was the deciding vote. bviously history will tell us as you look at some decisions that was the case. i don't think it's always the case. a surprise that there are situations in which it may not have been justice kennedy who the final vote to join a 5-4 but somebody else. reason kennedy for that as well took so seriously persuading his colleagues that this in a oaching rigorous man

but justice korea was 2.78 but the next justice down was 0.43. nobody came close to skill you in terms of his nastiness. but in the same footnote he says we have moved from john marshall to the fortune cookie. but it's biting what i i found the most troubling about his writing is that it wasn't only the ad hominem attack but it was leveled at the other justices to delegitimize what they were doing tas leveled at the other justices to delegitimize what they were doing this is the most difficult thing about what's the leah was doing he claimed he was doing law while everybody else was doing politics if you didn't go his way it was a legitimate that he wrote it for law students so people would pay attention but that is much more common now of other justices starting to use that similar language. justice kagan with the campaign-finance said he found a smoking gun. the only smoke that goes with the nurse now i think the most talented writer on the court that respect for the court as the institution that is one of the biggest contradictions that's the

joshua: among the justices? justice breyer: none. there just isn't. you could be on opposite ends as you can be on one issue and when you were up there with lunch, it is not. you are back, there is civility. i never heard a voice raised in anger in that conference room. i never heard someone make a crack about the other. it is professional. you go around the table, you discussed it on its merits and you try to do your job. joshua: and never got heated? justice breyer: never. heated?/ joshua: uncivilized? justice breyer: if i feel heated, and i might in some case, the thing for me to do is to sit there like this. in the evening, i tell joanna i felt heated. [laughter] [applause] you clearly handle your heat better than a lot of people i think. if you can do that with kind of vulcan -- let's get to the audience questions. we do have a few minutes. when we move the mics around -- i think we have one there and there. introduce yourself, your name and where you are from, your organization and your efficiently worded question. let's start with you and then

gives himself that out you could ask that question about every justice. >> like justice calabria one-- early in the case we might have thought he would uphold the doctrine of enumerated powers yet he did not. >> and justice kennedy also. . . . . yes,. >> are there any trends in justice kennedy's modest libertarianism? does he rule now in a way that's different than before 9/11 or before had several years of experience at on the court and what are the tendencies there? >> would the one of justice kennedy's former clerks made an observation along those lines. a very astute observation that it took justice kennedy quite a long time to become comfortable with the power that he had as a member of the u.s. supreme court. now, if you look at the articles that talk about his pompous rhetoric and his extra-judicial activities you might think he had become too comfortable with that power but i think that was a very astute observation on the part of the former clerk to it took kennedy a couple of years, two or three years to get comfortable with this time on the court. the flagburning case was

justice scalia came over. i think he wants to shake your hand at right is justice scalia put his hand in this man's hand the man shouted of the biggest, biggest on the u.s. supreme court. i said get away from him. the marshals taken down the aisle and justice scalia turned. i said nino i'm really sorry about that. he said i didn't hear the man. i think he did. i didn't hear the man. he was unconcerned. at times i would get my feelings hurt on his behalf over something in the press and he would say forgive them. that's just what they do. forgive them. he was very unconcerned. yes. >> i only read the introduction last night after picked up the book. one of the things that practitioners and obviously you would as a friend knew of justice scalia's great humor. i've been blessed with couple of times to argue before the court and read making your case before. in any case the point being my first thought after hearing of his passing was the oral arguments were not nearly as fun with his loss. you do have the chance t

justice breyer, welcome. justice breyer: thank you, and thank you for inviting me. it is a pleasure to come back here. i love it here. i'm sorry about the fire. mr. johnson: everybody back in d.c. wants me to ask one thing -- [laughter] justice breyer: yes. mr. johnson: i don't know if you know what that is or -- but just to make him crazy, i am not going to start with that. yes, i know. we will get to that, but i wanted to get to something first that we discussed a few minutes ago before we stepped out here. you came here today with something you had written down, a paragraph. i won't ask you to read the whole thing but i wonder if you could read just that one section of it as it relates to some of your legal philosophy. justice breyer: let's explain. this is more difficult for me than usual because of what is going on in washington. i have to work out how do i appear to say something while in fact saying the most boring thing i can possibly invent? even then, it might not work. because the republican newspapers say i am favoring or not favoring republicans, and th

justice kennedy talked about what it was like to argue as a justice with the other justices on conference date. the c-spanm september documentary. [video clip] justice kennedy: i think it was he made a very interesting my colleague comment one day. , are you nervous before you go he said on the bench? and i said no, not at all. sometimes you are -- university professors, high school teachers, it was hard to do the exam. i was always nervous when i appeared in court as an attorney. when i was in sacramento california, i went up the court steps to visit a judge in my heart started to beat. but judges don't feel that way. it is relaxed, it is easy. we are careful that we are courteous to the attorneys and that we are open-minded and that we do our job. that is a preface to your question, what happens in the conference room? breyer made the observation and he is very right, he gets nervous before he goes into the conference. it is like being an attorney once again. you are arguing your case. have a colleagues who have studied very hard on a case who may have very fixed views or they may be te

chief justice.a very nice man, good friend of harry truman's who appointed him chief justice, secretary of treasury and so on. but he was a lousy chief justice. and he could not, he could not bring the court together, and he really didn't have his heart or his mind into brown. he was really holding out. and so was stanley reid of kentucky and so was tom clark of texas and even robert jackson of new york, a brilliant man, had concerns about the constitutional underpinnings of brown v. board. and finally when warren came up, he knew how to bring the court together, and he worked on it. he wouldn't -- he said, he said we're not going to vote at the first conference. because he didn't want, he didn't want to encourage a split on the the court. he said we're just going to talk about it. and then he started holding lunches with some who he knew were wavering, like stanley reid. and he'd bring -- and he wouldn't bring in the judicial intellectual firepower of frankfurter or black who might intimidate stanl

host: what was it like to argue in front of justice and the rest of the justices? how did you prepare? did you specifically prepared to argue in front of him? guest: he definitely never came into my office and flopped down in an easy chair. i wish. [laughter] purdue nerve-racking, no matter the justice on the court. everyone in the solicitors office prepared so intently. i certainly did not prepare for any one particular justice. we all thought that we just needed to give the best argument on behalf of the government the we thought made sense and was consistent with court precedent. and you would try to figure out in your mind who would be aware before you went into our -- oral argument that this person would be more likely to be on my side or hostile. one thing if you will about justice kennedy is that you not as surly predictor was going to be and if you asked a weston -- he asked a question, you had to listen carefully. not because he was a swing justice, but just because you didn't have as much or shadowing of where he might his questions were often based on co

host: what was it like to argue in front of justice kennedy and the rest of the justices? and did youprepare prepare? >> he definitely never came into my office. this is some supreme court documentary -- c-span september documentary. >> i think it was my colleague. he made a very interesting comment one day. nervous before you go on the bench? his answer, no not at all. -- universityare professors, high school teachers, it was hard to do the exam. >> justice kennedy was talking about how each of them is going to vote and how the opinion will be assigned. that the chief is the majority, that you. that opinion. the only person who keeps notes is the justice. as for how justice kennedy prepares for the confidence. he took this extremely seriously. he did not approach it that way at all. had a way to do it. also, it is a matter of president. he would talk about it quite a lot. what are the best counter arguments. what are the necessary things to indicate? i think he did that in part because that is the way he approached every case. --who was the deciding boast -- who was the d

some of the justices exploded, especially justice douglas. hewrites a scathing dissent wants to issue before the end of ger form condemning bur allowing the manipulation of the court. he holds that, but it sneaks into the press and it's on the front pages of the washington post on the fourth of july weekend and the front page of the new york times the next day, which raises tension within the court. the crisis passes. they agree to reargue. and it is reargued in october of 1972. >> there was a presidential election going on. the court always positions itself as being distant from the political 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. melissa: the election as the backdrop against which the court is doing all of this. nixon is an interesting figure because he actually is in favor of liberalizing abortion at one point in his career. but as he takes on the much mor

and the justices explode, especially justice douglas. he writes a scathing dissent that he wants to issue, before to issue before the end of the to issue before the end of the term condemning berger , for allowing the manipulation of the court. he holds that dissent, but its links into the press and is on the front page of "the washington post" on the fourth of july weekend. it gets him a front page of the "new york times" the next day. it raises tension within the court. they agree to reargue and it is re-argued in october of 1972. host: there was a presidential election going on. as we try to teach people about the court, the court always positioned itself as being distant from the political process. but in case after case in this series, we have learned that there are influences about politics that really do underway -- that really do find their way into the court in its , proceedings. melissa: in this case, the election dominates the landscape and the backdrop in which the court is doing all of this. nixon is an interesting figure be

the reason it is different now, where you have justices there -- five justices that are antiabortion, then you could sexly see no abortion for selection or down syndrome. i think much bigger restrictions will be coming to the court now than in the last 10 or 15 years. >> let's look at what the chair of the senate judiciary committee said recently, charles grassley, about brett kavanaugh 's nomination and roe v. wade. later we will see what assistant patty murray had to say. >> another attack on judge kavanaugh is that he is hostile to abortion rights. discotheque misrepresents -- this attack misrepresents his record on the d.c. circuit. there judge kavanaugh acknowledges the court must decide the case on roe v. wade. as itlied the precedent, requires judges to so do. we hear the same fear mongering over abortion every time there is a supreme court vacancy. i remember 30 years ago when sandra day o'connor was going to be the first woman appointed to the supreme court. there was a real worry then that roe v. wade was in the pretty -- was in jeopardy. in a case 12 it years later as she g

justices have a way of surprising us. i think justice kennedy, now leaving the court, was one of those because even though we did not pursue this in depth with him at his hearing, those of us who are pro-life, and i am one of them, was assured kennedy was one of those votes to override roe v. wade. and yet the 1992, in the case, kennedy was one of the majority that voted not to do any harm whatsoever to roe v. wade. so there is no way to predict how a justice will rule on a particular case. many times this senator has been disappointed by what he thought a justice might do, if approved. senator murray: madam president, the best evidence judge kavanaugh would overturn roe is that extreme anti-choice groups vetted him to do exactly that. i want to address a few aspects of judge kavanaugh's record that it may expose how unqualified he is to make decisions that will impact women of all backgrounds for generations to come. when i examined the record and -- when i examine the record and history of a supreme court nominee, i exp

chief justice. i started with presidentjeffersi jefferson anefd chief justice marshall and i thought both andt eisenhower and boren were exceptional leaders the most reve red american leaders in the. 20th century and they were complicated which is alsoca interesting. interesti the issues that they dealt with and ultimately disagreed about a very important. civil rights and civil liberties of unpopular minorities in the 50s and 60s and continue to be important today.team was those are the things i was looking at the leaders i was looking i was looking at. i don't like to write abouty people that are not interesting or exceptional. >> what was their relationship before eisenhower became president or chief justice? they were rivals potentially. pres >> warren had run for president in 1952 he was the dark horse ay was a three term governor and popular at that and had run on the republican ticket in 1948 and fully expected to be vice president of the united states when truman stunned the nation with his

we then end up in the same place as we did with justice kagan and justice gorsuch. material restricted by the statute is held committee confidential. while nonrestricted material is released to the public. i would like to add that all documents that we have received including committee confidential are at this very moment available to every member of the senate my staff is happy to make these documents available to any senator interested in reviewing them. my friends on the other side of the aisle complain then a lawyer by the name of phil bourque rather than the national archives is deciding what is considered restricted. that's not true at all. the archives have been reviewing judge kavanaugh's e-mails as i requested. these archivists are public employees on they have informed president bush and president trump that in the opinion of the professional arc files staff, nearly two thirds of these public servants have reviewed thus far contain restricted material that should not be released to the public. that means, under the same standard applied to justice kagan an

a decisive moment comes in september of 1971 when justice black and justice harlan retire within the space of a week due to health. black dies the next week, harlan does at the end of 1971. that reduces the number of justices from nine to seven. if flips the balance of the court, it empowers a temporary majority of four justices to decide the cases. any temporary majority can decide cases. for 15 weeks, between september of 1971 and january of 1972, there are 15 weeks there when the four wanted to side is many cases as they want, as they can, and they wanted to side roe v. wade. they saw these two cases and the decide that it is an opportunity to use them to declare a right to abortion with abortion laws. they want to do it before vacancies can be filled. although they are not able to do it on that timeframe, they created such momentum that by the time pal and rehnquist came, it is primus decided and the -- the cases are pretty much decided, and the question is how they will be written. melissa: even if they have seven, chief justice burger has a small committee. it will screen the c

justice kagan described her time as solicitor general as indicative as how she would serve as a justice. we still did not ask for her solicitor general papers and we will not ask for judge kavanaugh's secretary papers. some of my colleagues have forgotten that we had a more compelling need for justice kagan's document because she had no judicial record, she had issued a zero opinions, and joined zero opinions at the time she was nominated. judge kavanaugh, by contrast, has issued over 300 opinions and joined hundreds more in the 12 years on the bench. despite having a less compelling need for them, the senate will still receive hundreds of thousands more pages of documents from judge kavanaugh's time as a government lawyer than we did from justice kagan. there have been some criticisms in the way with which this review is being handled. these are groundless. first of all, the national archives are not being cut out of the process. the president is legally authorized to review these administration documents and decide which ones to release to the senate and claim that others are privileg

when they decide cases. >> with respect to justice scalia, judge kavanaugh and the late justice scalia had a lot in common in terms of judicial philosophy, and judge kavanaugh has said or written that justice scalia was a hero to him, a role model as a judge. i think those similarities will be obvious in terms of things like textualism. there are some differences. i think justice scalia was famous for writing a very strongly worded defense that would bring out the worst in the majority opinion. point out that if the majority opinion is in fact correct, we are not just at step a, we are at step z already my guess is that judge kavanaugh would be unlikely to pursue that strategy. he is a very disciplined and restrained writer in defense of the majority opinion, and very concerned with collegiality and things like that. his opinions will have a different flavor than justice scalia's did. >> come on down to the microphone, right down here. >> hi. i'm with breitbart. i have been to some of the protests, and interesting to hear from three women because one of their main complaint is they thi

to justice in the u.s. courts. that's the same harvard brainiack who had come up from duty in new york after prosecuting the drug gangs and el feo. he indicted the head of the russian mafia and played another key role in the fate of another key name who has ended up having another star role involving this president and his campaign. i mentioned the 1,500 pieces of evidence that the special counsel's office says they'll use every single one of in their trial for paul manafort in washington, d.c. well, at least a couple of those pieces of evidence appear to explicitly reference a russian oligarch linked to vladimir putin whose name is oleg deripaska. he is apparently going to play a role in the manafort trial in d.c. you will also remember that oleg deripaska's name turned up in e-mails that indicated that while manafort was running trump's presidential campaign, he was simultaneously offering private briefings on the election and the campaign to this russian oligarch, to oleg deripaska. he had entered into a

restorative justice brings that opportunity.hat happens in this instance on this crime, your focus of your office is on the criminal justice system or the civil things as well. >> our focus is to bring the biblical restorative justice to people that are inside jails and prisons, and to bring the same concept, the same approach to someone that has lost a family member in violence.>> it says on your mission statements that you provide both crime victims and offenders with support to heal. because it is clear to us, i think, we think crime victims need to heal but you are also saying terminals, people who have committed a crime also need healing how do you work on that? >> how that works is criminals, or anyone that is in jail, most of the time, they have been a victim first. >> i have heard that by experts, too. i'm using the word criminal, i think in your language, you use people that are incarcerated, people that are in jail, in prison, they are incarcerated, we are not judging they have actually committed a crime, we are saying

all the justices live in the same rooming house.hey'd told their meals together like a fraternity and marshall would try to fix the single justices and he would do things, you know, get them special drinks and stuff and they were really like a fraternity. and the bond made it possible for marshall to slowly kind of influence them and persuade them to be more pragmatic and less ideological two-step they were facing. >> in addition to the social engineering. i'm pretty loud, but sure. he managed to get a lot of unanimous opinions, not just majority opinions including his appointed colleagues. i am curious what you think he lost in his principles in order to get those unanimous opinions, what sorts of compromises he gave up that might've been more closely held holy see had come especially to benefit the president as an excuse to point to and say we have to go this way because the president demands it. he obviously had to see things that were his own ideas. i'm curious what you think he gave up for the sake of that. >> that's an excelle

to justice in the u.s. courts. that's the same harvard brainiac who had come up from gang duty in new york after prosecuting the drug gangs and el feo. he indicted the head of the russian mafia and played another key role in the case of another bold phased name who has ended up having a star role involving this president and his campaign. i mentioned the 1,500 pieces of evidence that the special counsel's office says they'll use every single one of in their trial for paul manafort in washington, d.c. well, at least a couple of those pieces of evidence appear to explicitly reference a russian oligarch linked to vladimir putin whose name is oleg deripaska. he is apparently going to play a role in the manafort trial in d.c. you will also remember that oleg deripaska's name turned up in reporting earlier this year when the atlantic magazine and "washington post" turned up e-mails that indicated add while manafort's was running trump's presidential campaign he was simultaneously offering private briefings on the

there chief justice roberts, , writing for a six justice majority applied it and said, , when it comes to statutory ambiguity said we will not defer to the agency. here, you are asking us to defer to the irs about how to regulate billions of dollars in the health market. that's a major question. the irs does not have the expertise. we're not going to defer. chief justice roberts found a way for the irs to win. but there is a major question exception to chevron deference. in the net neutrality regulation, judge kavanaugh confronted the major questions doctrine and embraced it as he should. he said this applies here as well regulating the internet in , this way is not -- is a major political and economic question and congress has not spoken clearly. we are not going to defer to the agency. we will decide this ourselves. he took it a step further and not only did you not get chevron deference from judge kavanaugh. you would say you wouldn't even have the authority to regulate unless there were a clear statement from congress to the contrary. that is the second way in which you might see j

they said, justice souter is it true that you and justice breyer are alwaysju confused. [laughter] >> they got worse because they decided that was wrong, i mean, is it true that you and justice breye oftenus mix up? [laughter] >> so there we are, that was my last answer. >> exactly. >> the point is that -- that you do decide things case by case, you don't plan out a general direction, that's really not the job, now, of course if i've written, i've written, for example, a long dissent on the question of whether certain immigrants should be given bail, now, the court didn't decide that, so if that comes back, i will probably start anyway with what i've already written and so naturally in that respect particularly case about a particular thing you have a direction, but in general, the job is and this is where i started, you take the case and there are 60 of them or 70 and the vast majority -- clarence thomas, we sat next to each other for year and it was so complicated. he said in the -- as we were going in, this is really a question of what you should do if arissa were int

including the chief justice. the reason i am most concerned about it is that there are questions about whether judge kavanaugh was truthful you last time he testified. we now know he provided a misleading account of his work at the bush white house. he gave that account undergrowth. under oath. the only way we're going to know the whole truth is with a full record. we rightly demanded that from justice kagan, sotomayor, and the chair of the committee by the time i joined him on that. it is also what the american people rightly deserve from judge kavanaugh. there is still time to get this right. it may mean a consideration that judge kavanaugh does not occur in september. maybe a few weeks later but no need to rush. no extraordinary circumstances here that preclude the senate. from actually doing its job. doing what they are sworn to do, paid to do, elected to do, and what the american people expect us to do. if the senate is to be the conscience of the nation. trumpct that president join a nominee with a lengthy

justices have a way of surprising us. justice kennedy now leaving the court was one of those. even though we didn't pursue this in depth at his hearing, those of us that are pro-life, i am one of them, were pretty assured that kennedy might be one of those votes to override roe v. wade. in 1992, in the kc versus planned parenthood case, kennedy was one of the majority of the harmnot to do any whatsoever to roe v. wade. there is no way to predict how a justice will rule on a particular case. many times, this senator has been disappointed by what he ifught a judge might do approved. >> the best evidence that judge kavanagh would overturn roe is the extreme anti-groups voted the likelihood to do exactly that. want to address a few aspects of judge kavanagh's records that expose how unqualified he is to make decisions that will impact women from all backgrounds for generations to come. when i examined the record and history of a supreme court nominee, i hope to see a breath of life experience, or the ability to walk in someone else's shoes. judge kavanagh has not mistreated either

-- whatis my question foris philosophy or action for the supreme court justice to improve justice inthe country rather than to defer to the ladies? >> i think this panel was brought together specifically to talk about the judge, as a boss, is a mentor, is a friend, and urban other panels that the heritage foundation has sponsored related to his jurisprudence, and i'm sure they are available online. mr. malcolm: there will be one next week. i think that: roman gave specifics about how the judge approached cases, and he has been on the d.c. circuit for 12 years and has written more than 300 opinions, and that long record of applying the law faithfully in every case of his -- ct fealty to president precedent and respecting that and follow those, and treating all litigants alike in all instances, whether they are people who are popular or individuals, small his record stands for itself. >> i am director -- deputy director -- sorry -- you are the center at- of the the heritage foundation. the yield letterhead that line about it that women will die, and there were other statements that wer

a longer period than senators s had for justice sotomayor, justice kagan and justice or such. he's also cemented 17000 pagesti with his bipartisan questionnaire which is the most extensive questionnaire ever sent a nominee. the committee has also received hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from judge cavanaugh service in the executive branch.an this to is already more than any supreme court nominee before him and documents are continuing to be sent to therm committee for review. chairman grassley is working tirelessly to make the vast p majority publicly available as quickly as possible. i appreciate and applaud his transparency. i recognize the politics and these creative but misguided attacks. so does the american public. judge cavanaugh's experience in legal background are not in dispute. his readiness for the supreme court is not contended. law clerks bow for him. lawyers who argue before him command his justice, judgment, fairness and temperament. he is a judges judge. in fact, nearly every one of his former clerks signedll a letter discussing the qualifications

he was on of the first law clerks to justice in neil gorsuc -- justice neil gorsuch on the 10th circuit and, at the supreme court. he is a graduate of the ucla, university of chicago law school and the naval war college. for now, i will turn it over to justin. justin: thank you very much. i am happy to see all of you. i will talk about a few of judge kavanaugh's opinions about individual rights. there is not enough time to go through all of them, he has been on the bench for 12 years, written 300 different opinions, and hopefully, you have watched enough cable news or read enough coverage about him to know that 13 of his opinions have been endorsed by the united states supreme court, which i think, suggest that all the opinions we will talk about today, are pretty much within the mainstream. not all the ones who will talk about, but all those 13 were endorsed not just by the most conservative members of the court, but by the courts less conservative members. including sometimes, unanimous opinions. since there is no time to cover all of the individual liberties, i will start with the fi

when everybody sees what is going on in the justice department -- i put justice with quotes -- it isad day. jeff sessions recused himself which he shouldn't have done, or he should have told me. even my enemies tell me jeff sessions should have told you he would recuse himself. he took the job and then said i will recuse myself. i said what kind of a man is this? by the way, he was on the campaign. the only reason i gave him the job because i thought loyalty. he was an original supporter. >> the only reason he gave him the job was loyalty, not because he was qualified to be the nation's top law enforcement officer. let's get analysis from our experts. sessions responded to the president with this statement. i took control of the department of justice the day i was sworn in. the actions the department of justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. i demand the highest standards when where they are not met i take action. however, no nation has a more talented and dedicated group of law enforcement and prosecutors than the united states. have you ever seen a p

helping human services, justice. epartment of we want to thank you for doing this. >> good afternoon, my name is bill, i'm chief of police, member of the board of directors at the international association of chiefs of justic we want to thank you for doing this. >> good afternoon, police. we represent about 30,000 police chiefs and exand level officers from 150 countries around the world. jay and john have already eloquently hit the high lights of what our police officers face out in the field every day. are we first responders handling medical calls, particularly talking about overdoses, but the police sometimes are ahead of the ems and so we're dealing with those responders handling medical calls, particularly talking about overdoses, but , and family members. most departments are carrying nal ox own. it's been a phenomenal tool for us. aside from the overdose issue, our offices are making more vehicle stops, they're arresting people, sometimes who who resting people are resistant. in some cases, who are throwing d

no, i don't like this judge or this justice. the truth is, as conservatives we should be looking at the methodology of the judge and the role of the judge. you want a judge who understands that he or she wears a rope, not a cape. sometimes that means decisions don't come out as we as conservatives might not like. that is good. that's the job of a judge. a good judge doesn't come up the way they want all the time. that is a willful judge. you don't want a willful judge. you don't want a willful justice. that is not good for democracy. that is not what our constitution intended and it is not what you want for a nominee to the federal bench whether it is the appellate level for supreme court. justin: can i add something i forgot. on the question of the constitutionality of the institutional mandate, he did say it may be unprecedented and there may be a problem with it not having a limiting principle. if you look at the roadmap the supreme court followed saint the commerce clause did not mandate, it was similar to those two things t

>>s a justice reporter, as mark says not well-known outside of the justice department.does that strategy work? >> wolf bruce ohr as sole sin at least based off everything we know now and see he had all of the contacts with christopher steele, the author of the infamous trump russia dossier that obviously agrievous the president so much. but as mark noted he reported the contacts to the fbi which is what you would hope and expect he would do. and trump's allies on capitol hill pointed to the fact that his wife worked for fusion gps which commissioned the work and he contacts with the fbi amp the fbi had cut off their own relationship with steele. but that's a problem for the fbi, not a problem for bruce ohr, if it's a problem at all. it appears to be at most his sole issue is that he acted outside of the chain of command and didn't dell the deputy attorney general at the time sally yates he was doing this. but he didn't do anything illegal we know of. >> he is still working at the justice department and still has security clearances as far as we nop reboundway o ka, the

what does getting involved in the department of justice and fbi look like? what we know is he can fire jeff sessions and he might. we know he's talked about getting rid of mueller with don mcgahn. but what do you think it looks like? >> you're right, we don't know what it looks like. as bart alluded to earlier is the president stays away from controlling, running, interfering in the work of the department of justice and that's for good reason. because the department of justice and the work that it does should be free from political influence. i mean it's ironic or hypocritical, whatever you want to call that the president is claiming the department of justice is politicized, and that's exactly what he's trying to do and it is so dangerous. he obviously could exert control in many way, one through personnel. if he really does fire jeff sessions he's doing it for one reason. to have somebody else put in he thinks will be more beholden and listen to what trump wants, which is to impede or shutdown or derail this investigation. he can do it by i suppose firing r

well, justice kagan said the same thing about her time as solicitor general but in the case of justice kagan the democrats refused to request for records.le on top of the undisputed relevance of solicitor general's material judge kagan, however, backed by judicial record. in other words, unlike the more than 300 opinions that judge kavanaugh altered and the hundreds more opinions he joined in his 12 years of service on the dc circuit justice kagan had zero judicial opinions that she offered, zero judicial opinions that she joined and zero years of judicial service. her solicitor general documents for their for even more relevant democratic leaders are rewriting the kagan standard to further their stalling tactics. the minority leader also tried to draw a parallel or parallels with the request for documents from justice sotomayor's time as a board member of the puerto rican legal defense and education fund. this, however, was a narrow request closely tailored to a specific need for information but it resulted in the production of 100 documents, not millions of documents that are involve

when everybody sees what's going on in the justice department, i always put justice now with quotes, it's a very, very sad day. jeff sessions recused himself, which he shouldn't have done, or he should have told me. >> earlier, sessions was seen leaving the white house after reportedly meeting with trump and his son-in-law, jared kushner, to talk criminal justice reform. that could make for an awkward and tense meeting since the attorney general took the unusual step, the very unusual step of pushing back against the president's statements this morning saying, quote, i took control of the department of justice the day i was sworn in. you often do not hear this attorney general pushing back against the president. sessions may not be the only loyalist that the president is concerned about. nbc news has confirmed a "wall street journal" report that federal prosecutors have granted immunity to this guy you're looking at, david pecker. the chief executive and chairman of american media, which publishes the "national enquirer." he's a longtime friend of president trump. joining me now is n

it was with justice gorsuch. there are three ways judge kavanaugh would narrow or affect chevron deference. the first is he is like justice scalia when it comes to interpreting statutes. he is a textual list. ofhas all the tools interpretation to limit ambiguities. that matters under chevron because if a statute is unambiguous, the agency does not get deference. for judge kavanaugh and his opinions, you see him fighting statutes unambiguous more often than his peers. in a lecture he gave last year, he explained that in ellicott -- eloquent way. he said judges want to be 90% certain that a statute is on in the u.s. before they declare it unambiguous. to 65%.ser he will use the tools and say if it is fairly certain, i am not going to defer to the federal agency. it is similar to an opinion of the supreme court. besaid the standard should clear enough, not crystal clear but clear enough standard. the first week i think you will see justice kavanaugh different from his former boss, justice kennedy is he is more of a

talking about the fbi and the department of justice. "such conduct likely constitutes a federal crime on the part of the fbi. on the part of federal agents who induced the commission of an underlying crime." he has taken the position not against aaron schock but in support of aaron schock. >> supported me, and to youroc point, supported the institution of the house of representatives. the government has repeatedly s infringed on the separation of powers of the institution of congress, and unfortunately that letter has never been responded to by the justice department. they infringed upon the constitutional rights of congress as well to make and interpret its own rules. a anyway, they charged me in the supposed felonies. it's almost laughable when you understand them. t let me give you two quick examples. one, i purchased a car with campaign funds, which is perfectly legal for the use of driving on my district. we submitted to the fec the purchase of that vehicle and payments to the dealership as a transportation expense. the government