david: so, justice kennedy, justice stevens stayed on the court until he was 90, some of the other justicesiously stayed longer than that. you're obviously in good mental and physical shape, so you could have stayed longer. why did you decide to retire now? justice kennedy: because it's hard to leave something you love, but you can do it if you do it for something you love more. [applause] david: so, some justices retire upon the confirmation of their successor. you actually did something different. you retired on the date you handed in your letter, resignation to, i think, to president trump. why did you do it that way? justice kennedy: it seems the way you described it, the second way, my choice, was the traditional way. i haven't researched it. but to retire contingent upon the employment of your successor, it seems to me not a good idea, because the confirming authority knows that there's no urgency. some people might prefer the sitting judge to the judge that's nominated. i just think that they should be concentrated on the qualifications and the temperament of the judge who has been n

justice kennedy: yes.id: any second thoughts about retiring? [laughter] justice kennedy: none at all. [laughter] justice kennedy: i spent 43 years reading briefs and never yet found one i couldn't put down in the middle. [laughter] justice kennedy: still my term on the court as an active judge, by this time in september, i would have spent already 200 hours reading briefs, and mary and i wanted to enjoy life in a different way, so it's important. [laughter] david: why do you think lawyers like to call these things briefs, but they're not that brief. why don't they call them something else? do you get great writing in those briefs? justice kennedy: occasionally. [laughter] justice kennedy: the english house of lords, the briefs are very skimpy, but that's because their hearings go for two or three days. and the judges are learning from the lawyers during the argument and they'll actually get books off the wall and so forth. our briefs are more efficient, maybe not as much, but the english have a great tradi

most senior justice, the junior justice who speaks last, and i actually liked that. when it was 4-4, you could drag it out. this will be very exciting. [laughter] david: the chief justice, if he is in the majority, will he assign the opinion himself? justice kennedy: yes, we can sometimes be tentative on the case and say, subject to the views of my colleagues, it seems to me that -- and these cases are close. sometimes, since it's private, we can maybe suggest a wacky theory we think might work but maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. sometimes people ask me if i get nervous when i go on the bench. the answer is no. but i get nervous when i go into the conference. because, suppose i say, kennedy, haven't you thought of this case? didn't you see this point? you're basically arguing four to six cases a day, and you want to be on your toes. you know, when you're an attorney and go into a courtroom, you're nervous. david: the opinions are assigned, then the justices go back. do they write the opinions themselves or do the clerks write the first drafts? or is it different? ju

david: do the justices sort of lobby each other? justice kennedy: that's a felony. you can't do that. [laughter] david: one of your famous 5-4 decisions is citizens united. it is true,edy: there is corporate money in politics. david: -- justice kennedy: the rest of the world is looking at us to see what democracy means, what freedom means. >> would you fix your tie, please? david: well, people wouldn't recognize me if my tie was fixed, but ok. just leave it this way. alright. ♪ david: i don't consider myself a journalist. and nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i began to take on the life of being an interviewer even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody tick? justice kennedy, you've been in the news a little bit lately. you've retired from the court after 30 some years on the court. justice kennedy: yes. david: any second thoughts about retiring? [laughter] justice kennedy: none at all. [laughter] justice kennedy: i spent 43 years reading briefs and never yet found one i co

justice.first on the court, my appointment was to be the circuit justice for the 11th circuit, florida, georgia, alabama. and we try to meet with our lawyers and our judges once a year. we were in alabama, and it was a saturday and the judges were hear me for to come here m an hour, and the attorneys, but they were dressed up to play golf or tennis did hear me at 9:00 a.m. one of the lawyers said, how do you read all of those briefs? i said, well, i assign them to my clerks. each of them read a fourth of them. i have to read them all. and if they are very difficult, i read them again over the weekend. i play opera in the background. i have one opera and two opera briefs. [laughter] well, the minute i said that, they were too polite to roll their eyes, but i thought i lost the audience. here is the sky from the east talking about opera, saturday morning. i said, i have lost the audience. the attorney said i have a rule when i write those briefs. i have a one-six-pack brief and a two-six-packs b

justice kennedy: three. david: grandchildren? justice kennedy: nine.avid: obviously a very successful family and a successful life. your father was a reasonably prominent lawyer in sacramento. did he say to you, go to law school? did he not say that? justice kennedy: he was a fellow practitioner. we were very close. i didn't enjoy school much. i learned to read at a very early age and let a lot of things in his library so i didn't spend a lot of time in school. i would go to his office with him. i was reading things. i probably saw 10 trials before i was out of high school. i would go with him. sacramento was a center for people from agriculture, less populated counties to come to seek advise. we would go to the counties around sacramento, the court houses. david: you went to stanford. you must have done reasonably well because you got into harvard law school. you did not stay in the east. you went back to pick up your father's practice. did you kind of take over his practice? justice kennedy: it took over me. he died. in those days, the law profession

justice kennedy: i think every one of the justices feels pressure in every case. was a little hard. has this vote symbolism of swinging back and forth. i say the cases soaring, i do not. my interpretation was that aristotle thought democracy should begin a low grade because it did not have the capacity to mature. our duty, our destiny is to prove him wrong. of the world is looking at us to see what democracy means. ♪ you carry the constitution with you wherever you go, is that right? in your view, when you carry the cost tuition, what do you think about the theory that you should look at the intent of the drafters of the constitution about what you should decide in a case? justice kennedy: this is one of the hardest questions in constitutional law. this is a written document. you cannot just ignore what the words are. on the other hand, i do not jefferson and madison spent a lot of time writing dictionaries. language.specious life, liberty, property. if they had known all the -- these words need to have meaning over time. jefferson, some people -- it is life, libe

or does it depend on the justice? justice kennedy: it's different. my practice was i talked to the clerks and assigned the clerk to write the opinion, tell him or her what i thought should be there. but then i would write my own thing. because i can't -- the clerk would write something and it would be very good, but they're at level 10 and i'm at level two. you know, when you are right -- when you're in business, you have to go down a blind alley, a false start, before you get to the level where you want to be, so i have to do that myself. david: you have the opinions, and in the draft opinions are circulated to all the justices. the justices say, your draft opinion is so influential and persuasive that i have to change my vote. does that happen that much? justice kennedy: i wish it did. [laughter] justice kennedy: sometimes you will have a 5-4 opinion and circulate it. you say you are the majority. one of your colleagues will say i'm not so sure about this i'm waiting for the dissent. then the dissent comes around and they can be convinced or it can

then-associate justice william rehnquist to chief justice and name a new associate justice, antonin scalia, one of the all-time great justices on the court, in my opinion. let's start with justice scalia. scalia was a well-known conservative jurist who had served in both the nixon and ford administrations before joining the d.c. circuit in 1982. he had also served as the first faculty adviser for the federalist society's university of chicago chapter. he has no -- he was no stealth nominee. both sides knew exactly for the most part what they were getting. and what was his confirmation vote? 98-0. unanimous. just like justice o'connor's. justice rehnquist's confirmation process for chief justice was a bit more contentious. he had served on the court for 15 years as an associate justice, and had accumulated a string of dissents to liberal opinions and so democrats gave him a very difficult time. they accused him of voting intimidation from his time in private practice back in arizona. they dug up a restrictive covenant that he didn't know anything about, neither did they, by the way,

once justice -- once justice thomas replaced -- was replaced in 1991. can we talk a little bit about what the new federalism was and what role justice kennedy played in the new federalism? from the 1930's, until 1995. -- 1995, the supreme court made no effort to restrict the scope of federal power in a structural way on the basis of congress or the president had succeeded the court of what the president allowed to do structurally. 1990's, whenthe cases like new york versus the united states in 1992, which was the first significant case in this area, and going on to lopez in other cases later. the supreme court did begin to -- revised federalism and several ways. one is they said it is not the case that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce means the power to regulate anything. there will be some limits. specifyt easy to exactly what these limits are. but in several cases, beginning in lopez, they said there are constraints. they also said more firmly, that the federal government is not allowed to commandeer state and local gover

chief justice. the separate sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy chaws is in conflict with the original meaning of the clause. there is no exception in english history or the american history for the first century of avenue the framing. there's also a mountain of affirmative evidence that even a foreign acquittal -- >> your leading authority is a foreign prosecution. in england of the -- in the spanish case. and the argument aside which has some traction, i think is that it would be quite unusual or surprising for the new american republic to look to europe in a question like that because one concern that applies both in the english situation as well is that it would be a significant intrusion on sovereignty, of particular concern of the new american republic, to allow a foreign prosecution to limit the authority of the united states. frankly, it's surprising even in the english case. i mean the relations between spain and england were not exactly the best. if it were a spanish case involving

our criminal justice system must administer justice fairly. the sentencing laws on low level drug offenders were implemented decades ago and in a number of cases, they have diverted limited law enforcement resources away from important public safety initiatives that would allow us to actually go after violent criminals and they have resulted in prison sentences that don't actually fit the crime. today, our country has over 20% of the world's incarcerated people even though we only have less than 5% of the world's population. we need a criminal justice system that works for our communities. that's why i have fought for bipartisan criminal justice reform for years. as a former prosecutor, i have long supported important policies including more law enforcement resources. i lead that bill with senator murkowski on the cops program to get more law enforcement resources to our police. i think that is very important. i worked hand in hand with our local police in minnesota for eight years. they have very hard jobs. as a former prosecutor, i have also

the median justice, the middle justice, half of the justices are two that justice's left, more liberal, and have to the right, more conservative. i think that is what we typically mean. we could talk about a distribution on a regionalism or other methods -- or regionalism or other methods but that is not typically the case. >> how dominant was he as a median justice? >> we did some calculations on this. 1937 to the to present term, 81 terms. were 19 out there median justice is. i would say justice ca kennedy dominated. he was the median justice 18 times. byron white, 15 times. sandra day o'connor, nine. clark, six. when we created that list, one question -- am i allowed to ask questions or are you the only one? >> please, go ahead. >> here is a question about that. these were the super medians, the people who held positions of power for a long time. it is not a very distinguished list. i don't really think of reid, clark, even byron white, i don't think they have much legacies they had left on the court. mike dorf made an interesting point earlier that when he thinks about legacy, he t

chief justice. i will pick up where he ended, which is that this has never been the rule in the country -- in this country today. it's the rule in at least 20 states. it's the rule in 37 states with respect to certain crimes. and it also seems to have worked out ok. i did want to return to the issue of stare desigh cisand respond to what they were -- stare decisis and respond to what they were saying. we have a legal framework for answering stare decisis questions. it's a law of stare decisis. and i think it provides some pretty standard guidance on this. we have to be right on the merits, that's true, but if we're right, if we're assuming we're right on the merits, then the question is what else do we need to show? and i already told you about one key factor under the court's jurisprudence, which is a juris prudential change. and i think incorporation is a pretty significant one. second, a massive expansion in federal law as this court has recognized. and that was recognized by this court in murphy

over a period of time the jurisprudence and as a follow-on chief justice warren was the chief justice for the kennedys administration as well as lyndon johnson. warren was very respectful of his colleagues and partly that was political and partly because he knew the job for example she did a very smart thing as a great politician to preside at the early judicial conferences and the justices he said i really don't know enough and that was a smart thing to do. during brown v. board of education he was a proponent of the judicial restraint. one was very respectful. as long as one agreed with him. they become independent of frankfurter and the latter part of the 1950s they became very critical in private we couldn't humiliate him and he felt frankfurter was condescending toward him. and that is all he needed a. for civil rights and liberties agenda were at that time. so he was aware and worked with a number of the justices he loved john f. kennedy. he spoke at the funeral. he said he was the age of one of my sons. they didn't go to harvard or yale but he knew how to lead the court and he

the most important goal of a criminal justice system for most americans is justice. again, it's not to say deterrents and rehabilitation aren't important, but they go to the effectiveness of your penal system. they have nothing to do with justice. and that's what we try to do here in the united states congress when we establish rules for sentencing criminals. what's justice? it's been talked about and debated and discussed through the ages. i can tell you what justice means to me and it means to many people smarter than me. justice exists when people receive what they deserve. justice exists when people receive what they deserve. for example, justice exists when the people of tibet are allowed to worship the dalai lama because they deserve freedom of religion. justice exists when the rapist receives a penalty proportionate to his crime. that to me is justice. i'll say it again. justice exists when people receive what they deserve. i didn't say that. not first, i agree with it. c st. louis d & n that-- cs lewis said it and before he said it, st. augustine said it. i'l

predictions are invariably wrong, i cannot imagine a chief justice or this chief justice going nearthat question . i don't think any chief justice would take as a given what the house of representatives decided. this chief for all of the opinions that he's written that i criticized that showed his in my view, his greatest moment was when he upheld the affordable care act. in my report he had big problems with the statute and with its constitutionality and initially, he did vote in our private gathering of the justices. he did vote to strike down the statute oncommerce clause grounds . but he immediately went back to his chambers and asked his clerks to draft competing opinions. one that would strike down on commerce grounds and one that would uphold it on the taxing power and when he saw the two opinions, he decided as judges say the commerce clause argument didn't make sense but he also in the best use of the word judicial politics, not partisanship, decided. he didn't say this but decided the court was best left out of the maelstrom in 2012 . the court struck down obamacare. the c

i had met justice gorsuch before he became a justice, but i didn't know him. i sat next to him at dinner, i think. and i knew elena kagan when she was in the carter administration even. not the carter administration, the clinton administration and the obama administration. i'm getting too far back. so the people that i probably know the best are the ones i've known the longest. but i knew john roberts when he was a lawyer arguing cases, in between his stints as deputy sg. he used to come and do interviews with me at npr. i knew him pretty well then. so, you know, i've known ted olson, who's not a justice, but since we were young people in the reagan administration. >> are there any stories you can tell us that can humanize them a little bit? >> oh, come on. they're all very human in their own ways. you know stories as well as i do. you know, i miss all of the ones who have retired and even some who aren't with us anymore. so i knew justice brennan pretty well by the time he retired and knew him in his retirement, and i knew lewis powell in his retirement. one

this we believe is a means towards working -- including racial justice and economic justice. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is trang. i'm a reentry case manager and reentry coordinator from the center of juvenile justice. through my work at cjcj, i seen that addressing the needs of justice based youth requires sstss and support from the community. as a reentry case manager and mental coordinator -- [inaudible] >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is henry brown, and i think it's very important to give our young people dignity, and by putting them in the juvenile justice system, it might remove dignity, even though that's not the goal of ensuring our society is safe. i've met young people in san francisco going to city college who would have went into the juvenile justice system that our d.a. does to try to make them from going there. i want to end -- i would like to say the ranch become somewhat of a cultural heritage site of moving away from criminalizing people into giving them the ability to have alter

the current chief justice, roberts, has praised chief justice taft as well as chief justice marshall, but it is harder for chief today to achieve unanimity thanks to the reforms of taft. >> one of the anomalies you describe, not sure you have analyzed in the book, is taft's willing can assess chief justice to lobby congress hard and repeatedly whereas president he would not do so for his own legislative program. what happened? >> he really cared about building the building and getting money to build the judicial conference and he was passionate about it. he felt his role wasn't constrained but let me ask you, was that appropriate? >> i think it was. it has been the norm ever since. there hasn't been a lot to lobby for. they were lobbying for a pay increase because they haven't had one in 18 years or so. the two justices, kennedy and breyer, go to the hearing for the annual budget in the congress and make the case presenting the budget for the entire judiciary. that seems to be entirely appropriate and they are subject to questioning about the administrative matter if nothing else. it

if it was admiralty law it would be justice story, land titles would be justice todd. then when you show difference you get difference in return so it is not just the right thing to do but the smart thing to do. a third factor was marshall of always the smartest man in the room and many of his colleagues were brilliant jurist's themselves but they all acknowledged his superiority. his mind was not quick. it took him a while to get going but once he did he was almost implacable. william wirt, who started as an advocate for the supreme court, later became attorney general. he described marshall's mind as like the atlantic ocean. everyone else's minds were mere ponds. the fourth factor is length of tenure. marshall was chief justice for 34 years, still a record. he will swear in 5 presidents in 9 inaugural's, picked by john adams and goes to the second term of andrew jackson. than the middle of that tenure, there is an 11 year period, 1812-23, when there are no personnel changes on the supreme court. we only had one such period ever again so marshall is there a long time

so, marshal when he became chief justice he would always ask his colleagues, usually justice story to look out the window and tell him what the weather was. justice story would say the sky's perfectly clear, and marsh 8 would say the law of chance is it must be raining somewhere. the wipe was always served to the marshall court. marshall loves simple exercise and simple games. he walked miles before benefits every morning his entire life. his nickname in the army was silver heel. because his mother sewed him patches in his socks of the heel. he could also jump over a bar resting on the heads of two men. his favorite game was quoits like harshshoe but played with medal rings, and the point is to pitch them over a post called a mag, and people who saw marshall playing this game said he would devote as much attention to deciding whose quoit was closer to the mag as he would on his great supreme court decisions. the other important thing about him was who he most admired. one of the men was certainly his father, thomas marshall. thomas marshall home-schooled him and dedicated him to being

when he became chief justice the court had a custom already that the justices when they deliberated would hear cases during the day then go to the boarding house they stayed in and discuss them over dinner and after dinner but they could only have wine if it was raining outside i was assumed to cheer themselves up so marshall when he became chief justice only to ask one of his colleagues to look out the window to tell him the weather. then he'd say the sky is clear and marshall would say our jurisdiction is so vast so it must be raining somewhere so wine was only served to the marshall court. he loved simple exercise and simple games he walked several miles before breakfast every day of his life until he was too feeble his nickname was silver heels partly because his mother sewed him socks with white patches in the heels but also because he could jump over a bar resting on the heads of two men. his favorite game was coins which is like horseshoes only played with metal rings and the point is to pitch them over a post and people who saw marshall play the game said he would devote as much a

one, it is an inside look at the justices. whether it is chief justice roberts sanity or clarence thomas still being raised over his confirmation hearings from years ago or how you were did the impossible and nobody likes him -- [laughter] or how kegan is the hardest working of the justices and of course the arrival of brett kavanaugh after his recent unpleasantness at thehe confirmation hearings may be the book will t have questions on tt and i'm happy to talk about that but i think what i would like to focus my few minutes on is the argument in the book that it's too involved in american life. it's too powerful and interventionist p p and acts bee it can and not because it should. that isn't a liberal perspective or conservative perspective. in my book it criticizes the court in roe v. wade which constitutionalist the right to abortion and criticizes bush v. gore which results in the presidential election and criticizes the gun control ruling in 2008 that said it was the right to own a handgun and criticizes citizens united

i think the chief justice understands this fully. most of the ideas you hear from liberals who were terrified from a conservative court, like term limits, simply is not going to happen. even if they did they wouldn't change the court on the short run at all. wouldly thing that would be to change the size of the court. i don't think that's really on the horizon right now because packing the court has become such a bad idea and the road since resident roosevelt has tried it but i wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility if the court got too big for its britches and got very unpopular by overreach in terms of conservatism. thatg said that, i think until really quite recently, there always was a lot of back-and-forth. democrats voted who were somewhat conservative and republicans who were centrist to moderately liberal, but the court over the last, since the reagan administration, has gradually become more and more conservative, i think in large part because, for republicans at least, especially about social issues, a substantial

please welcome justice ginsburg. [applause] justice ginsburg: thank you, thank you. thank you, my fellow americans. it is my great privilege to welcome you to citizenship in the democracy that is the usa. you number 31 and came here from 26 countries, alphabetically, from china to venezuela. today, you join more than 20 million current citizens born in other lands who chose, as you have, to make the united states of america their home. we are a nation made strong by people like you. people who traveled long distances, overcame great obstacles, and made tremendous sacrifices, all to provide a better life for themselves and their families. my own father arrived in this land at age 13 with no fortune and speaking no english. my mother was born four months after her parents, with several children in tow, came by ship to ellis island. my father and grandparents reached, as you do, for the american dream. as a testament to our nation's promise, the daughter and granddaughter of immigrants sits on the highest court in the land. in america, land of opportunity, that prospect

but no on retention of supreme court justices. >> we want justice is to protect us. when child molesters sued to stop electronic monitoring, a law that allowed us to track child molesters near schools, supreme court justice robin hudson sided with the predators. hudson cited a child molester's right to privacy. toughe robin hudson, not on child molesters, not fair to victims. >> the most liberal place in tennessee is not a college theus not a big city, it is state supreme court. liberal democrats control lower court and threaten your freedoms. they advanced obamacare in tennessee, but you can fight back. vote to replace the tennessee supreme court. find the liberals on your ballot. connie replace judge clark. make your stand. ms. bannon: with that -- [laughter] quite a transition. we have one of the subjects of these very nasty attack ads, justice robin hudson, with us. love for you to tell us a little about this experience of being attacked, and reflect the appropriate and inappropriate ways to talk about judicial issues in the course of justice hudson: i'm still si

that's not restorative justice. so for it to work you have to have people who were competent on the ground and that's a big ask, i think in a lot of schools. >> that's with our clients, the innocents who -- kash register, it's so horrendous to see somebody -- we're about to exonerate somebody who had to go before those parole boards and deny, deny, deny, and then finally, with his father dying, got everybody in his family to write letters and say, oh, yeah, i was a crack addict, and that's why i committed this crime, when nothing could have been further from the truth. so you're so right about the ambiguous fact situation. well, yes. >> i was wondering, you -- [inaudible] but a the exonorees who were co oressed into making congestion -- coerce evidence into -- coerced into making confessions and so many people actually confess to something they didn't do, in the case of kash, year after year saying i'm innocent, i'm innocent. and for us it's impossible to imagine you would admit you would -- would admit to a crime y

one of them is juvenile justice reform. and this is another bill that has been worked on for a long, long time. and our hope is that with this reform we will be able to reduce the number of young people who find themselves caught up in a system that leads to nowhere and that we are' able to get those young people going in the right direction. and i would like to yield to my colleague who has worked so ard on this for so, so long. [applause] >> i'd like to start off by referring to what chairman goodlatte said. about six years ago he appointed a subcommittee with jim sensenbrenner and myself leading on criminal justice reform. we had an extensive hearing, heard from dozens of experts on what needed to be done and at the end of a two-year process came up with the safe justice act. mr. scott: prevention, early intervention, policing, sentencing reform. had everything in it you could imagine. having that big of a bill it's no surprise it wouldn't pass. the first step in going in that direction. one of the provisions in the -- o

and then you go to the next most senior justice down to the senior justice who speak last.e that. if it's four-four, you can drag it out and it's very exciting. [laughter] david: does the chief justice, if he's in the majority, will he assign the opinion to himself? >> we can sometimes be tentative on a case. we can say subject to the view of my colleagues on that. these cases are close. since it's private, we can suggest wacky theories we think might work. maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. sometimes people ask me if i get nervous on the bench. the answer is no. i don't get nervous then. but i get nervous when i go into the conferences. suppose they say, kennedy, have it you seen this case? you are basically arguing for 26 cases that date -- four to six cases that day. you want to be on your toes. when you're an attorney and you go into a courtroom, you are nervous. david: the justices go back, do they write the opinions themselves? do the clerks write the first drafts? >> itit is different -- is different. i assign the clerk to write the opinion, tell them what i think shou

absolutely justice kennedy doesn't do particularly well in the book was an important justice he happenedto have a seat in the middle and much a same way o'connor was the most important justice of her generation and then who i think on the court then i think would be briar he is one of the liberals but on a certain extent i would say briar but i did hear that elena kagan was at a law school in california told students in a high court she said expect more gradualism and more restraint than the way the court behaved in the spring of 2016 and in 2017 where they only had eight justices. >> that's why people are seriously talking about the value of an even number court. mad what medicine would say the institutional mechanism. >> but the idea that says we have to hold that supreme court but the idea of the party in power that is now ram rotting kavanaugh to the confirmation the idea that party would ever agree to endorse on both sides if hillary clinton was president the democrats would never agree they haven't had control since the warren court they are out for a ride. >> republicans have cont

i'm a limb homework i hope so i have the belief to see the justice for my people. we see that we might be five hundred thousand people in the world. you see that we haven't done any atrocity any difficulty to any person in this world but isis has been doing that everybody in this world. for what they keep saying it's what well isis is fidel. group or dish been doing to the girls and women kidnapping this female person raping the years cd girls and women and the believe and those people believing according to isis and saying this is right we see this is the the wrong just act they can possibly do not just my commit but everybody knows that. we need to see our justice and we are on the right assigned and we are searching for our rights and we don't want to lose our rights here on the question of just says there is someone collecting evidence the united nations has established an investigative team to support iraqi domestic efforts to hold i saw accountable for crimes committed in the country karim khan is the head of that team the u.n. investigative team for accounta

he stayed consistent with his perspectives on the obstruction of justice issue. reporter: can you talk on whether mr. barr would have to recuse himself from this issue if he becomes attorney general? rep. lee: i think it was more -- i think he was cautious in those remarks. i think that what transpired was a respect for the nominee. reporter: you also criticize the republicans handling the oversight. is director comey an important witness when democrats are in the majority as it relates to oversight? you intend to conduct an investigation into the questions on obstruction of justice? rep. lee: i can only say that we have a responsibility as members of congress to do what the americans have asked us to do. when it comes to oversight, we will be thoughtful and solicit witnesses who will help us restore the integrity of the government and reinforce democracy. reporter: when all is said and done today and the transcript comes out, will we learn anything new, or look back at this as a purely political exercise? rep. lee: the media is always an astute architect of revi

if it was admiralty law, justice story. if is it was land title, justice todd. then when you show deference you get deference in return so it's not just the right thing to do. it's the smart thing to do. a third factor was that marshall was always the smartest man in the room. and many of his colleagues were brilliant surist themselves but all acknowledged his superiority. his mind was not quick. it took him a while to get going. but once he did, he was almost implacable. william wert who was advance slow cat before the supreme court, later attorney general, describe marshall's mind as the atlantic ocean, everybody else's mind were mere popped ponds. then at the first foughtor is length oftonnure help was chief justice for 34 years, stale record. he will swear in five presidents in nine inaugurals. he picked by john adams and goes to the second term of andrew jackson. then me middle of that then e tenure theirs an 11 year perilled, 1812 to '23 where there are no personnel changes on the supreme court. only had one such period ever again. so, marshall is there a

justice scalia had befriended me. someone you love and cherish is there one moment and gone the next. as hamlet's mother said countless week to her son about her late husband's death all that lives must die. the true nature to eternity. it is common and always particular. i lost a co-author and adoptive uncle and your friend i never expected to make. i never thought i would strike up a new friendship tha friendsr the course of my life especially when all i sa thought initiallys a videotaped interview with a person of great eminence into the interview itself seemed unattainable. the closeness developed took us both by surprise. we have conversations tha had cy the two of us could have. i can't have those conversations anymore with anyone. why don't i give this to you sorry i didn't have that before. i will open up to people with questions and ask you to identify yourself. hold on to get a microphone coming your way. >> thank you for writing the book it is on my list of things. how many years did it take you to compose

to chief justice. marshall even attempts the first political convention in american history. he is invited as an eminent person to come to the convention he is probably vetting them to see how serious they are how could he beat this guy? you hear about the party today and it sounds like it's crazy that people were alarmed there were secret oats and they happen to belong to it so that was a populist way to flank the populist president but of course, jackson got elected and as the cherokee decision goe goes, marshall delivered it jackson would not see the law with force and it wasn't pressed to the final stage. that would have been if samuel was stir the imprisoned missionary, he would have tell the attorneys the decision is not being followed. therefore the court must notify the president and he must execute the laws. but at the same time this was happening south carolina is coming to a boil and will georgia join south carolina in the resistance? so he is leaned on by the religious employers and they dr

[applause] >> and now it's my pleasure to introduce justice ruth bader ginsburg, justice ginsburg wasn in brooklyn, new york, received her ba from cornell university, attended harvard law school and received her law degree from columbia law school. she became a professor at rutgers in 1963 where she taught some of the first women in law classes. in 1973 she became the aclu's general counsel where she argued gender discrimination cases, six of which brought her before the u.s. supreme court. in 1980, president jimmy carter nominated her to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia. and the 1993 president bill clinton nominated her as associate justice of the supreme court. the notorious rvg. [laughter] is now a pop culture icon with lieges of fans and we are thrilled to have her with us today. as exciting as it is to have rbg is us, equally exciting is to i welcome back brian johnson from the u.s. district court. from the district of columbia who happens to be the person who called our ceremony to order, which he has done for many years. he also happens to be the

trump had committed obstruction of justice. memo raises questions about whether barr would order mueller to shutdown that component of the inquiry if the senate confirms barr as attorney general. it underscored the potential threats to mr. mueller's ability to complete his work without interference at a time when his inquiry appears to be drawing closer to the white house and to the president's most trusted associates. charlie savage then quotes senator mark warner of virginia, the top democrat on the intelligence committee, who said today, quote, it is becoming pretty clear that the president is basing his choices for leadership at the justice department on candidates criticism of the mueller investigation. we can all see what's happening here. >>> so, buckle up. it has been a day. at the rate things are going, it may be a night as well. we are going to be joined by the incoming chairman of the judiciary committee in the house tonight, as well as make sense and put in context some of these major new developments. but on the is

this is legislation that deals with two huge issues in our criminal justice system. one is important sentencing reforms. a lot of this has leveled the playing field, for instance, between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, what kind of sentencing ought to be used, something talked about for many years. there is, in our view, many of us, an injustice with the levels of sentencing. that's important. second, this legislation deals with an issue that many states are finally figuring out, which is that we need to do something to keep people who are leaving our jails and prisons from coming right back into the criminal justice system again. these numbers are just amazing. 95% of those who are incarcerated will be released someday. we all know that. 95% of them. when people are released from prison or jail, over a three-year period, about two-thirds of them are rearrested. some call it the revolving door. there's a fancier word for it. it's called recidivism, and it's a huge issue. because think about that. if two-thirds of the people are back in the prison system or the cri

our criminal justice system must administer justice fairly. the sentencing laws on low-level drug offenders were implemented decades ago, and in a number of cases they have diverted limited law enforcement resources away from public safety initiatives that will allow us to go after violent criminals, and they have resulted in prison sentences that don't actually fit the crime. today our country has over 20% of the world's incarcerated people even though we only have less than 5% of the world's population. we need a criminal justice system that works for our communities. that's why i fought for bipartisan criminal justice reform for years. as a former prosecutor, i've l long supported important policies, including more law enforcement resources, i lead that bill with senator murkowski on the cops program to get more law enforcement resources to our police. i think that is very important. i work hand in hand with our local police in minnesota for eight years. they have very hard jobs. as a former prosecutor, i've also supported important policie

there is an adage that we quote frequently -- justice delayed is justice denied. that maxim has particular force here, because these veterans is, very simply, are passing away. they will be denied the benefits that they are owed by this nation. they will be deprived of the just compensation for injuries they received, like their fellow veterans who served boots on the ground on land, if they are not compensated for their injuries they received when they served in those territorial waters off vietnam. this measure has been brought to the floor before. last week i joined my colleagues, senators tester, gillibrand, daines, and brown to demand that simple justice for blue water navy veterans, and today i'm joined by senator baldwin of wisconsin, my very distinguished colleague and friend, to whom i will yield shortly. our calls to unanimously pass h.r. 2999 were blocked and why we're back here again, because in those closing hours of this session, we have the opportunity and obligation to do right by those veterans, to measure our words by our action. today the senate

before her, justice powell. and on the court most behaves, stephen breyer, considered one of the -- haig and roberts. more acts of congress than any others. alayna kagan recently told the students in a tied court that she would expect as reported to me, they would expect more minimalism, more gradualism, more restrained in the way the court behaves in spring of 2016 and later 2016-17 where there were eight justices. >> that is why people are seriously talking about the value of an even-numbered court. if madison were to come down here, you want them to compromise, and institutional mechanisms that will force them to compromise. >> the idea that the party in power, trump says we have to hold the supreme court as if it is just a superlegislature. the idea of a party in power but blocked garlands, that is no ram riding brett kavanaugh through the confirmation, the idea that that party whatever agree to disarm and endorse is nonsense. and i think both sides are hypocrites. if hillary clinton was president and you re

and the system -- the justice system needs to be