the justice of the peace did a lousy job is even worse than being a supreme court justice. and it means nothing on the job entails the risking of the prostitutes and the drunks in deciding cases from less than $5. margaret doesn't really want this job. he doesn't need this job pretty stories that have some other for taking supreme court. simple medicine wishes to have the case and provide him with a copy of the commission. and the only witness of the commission is john marshall who can exactly testify in court. so marshall's brother james is it district court judge, signs an affidavit attesting they meant to deliver the commission but he had forgotten and none of this makes any sense. in my research, i discovered evidence that suggests the whole case is a setup. the chief justice marshall and his brother james marshall charles late and william marbury sat down and plotted the case from the beginning to create a vehicle from washington to assert the court authority against the threat posed by the jeffersonians. and charles lee purposely filed suit the wrong court to give mar

justice robbins dedication and hard work, justice robinson is extremely well qualified for this positionthe federal court. she's served her since 2011 and built a reputation in the fair application of the law andnd treats people respect and compassion and understands the duty to provide justice. i believe she will make vermont proud and will be an excellent addition to the federal bench. congrats on your nomination and think you for your service to our country and commitment for equality and justice. thank you. >> thank you. the committee and those in attendance understand you have a busy schedule and if you have to depart anytime soon, it's understandable. we are honored to have senator ron of oregon here next. >> thank you very much and i am pleased to introduce jennifer's son,n, my neighbor who lives around the corner from me in southeast portland, president biden's nominee to serve on the u.s. court of appeals of the ninth circuit. i listened to our quality, my friend is senator grassley inc. supporters were located in various parts of thehe country. her strongest supporter are one 1

you know, a lot of justices come to mind. justice holmes of course. in terms of our understanding about the first amendment and justice brandeis insofar as he was really justice brandeis sort of transformed a lot of our thinking about law in terms of, of course he did that before when he was practicing law , he introduced social science to law. >> one next question we have is what would justice marshall have fought either in writing or in your research including washington's dislike of political factions, what would justice marshall thought of jefferson's self-interested desire to make virginia a winner take all electoral district in the hypo scenario repeating that resulted in adams becoming the second president, it's a question with a lot in it. >> i lost the first part of the question, i'm sorry. >> justice marshall have thought of jefferson's self-interested desire to make virginia a winner take all jurisdiction? in the electoral college? >> i'm not sure i can answer that question confidently. i think that marshall and of course the framers of our

to my colleagues for their variety of questions exploring this justice of economic justice and economic injustice. there was a gathering back in 1991 and this gathering was a significant landmark in the national discussion about environmental justice. s there was a four-day summit attended by over 1,000 individuals from all 50 states. it was sponsored by the commission for racial justice and the united church of christ. out of that came a set of four principles for environmental justice that have continued to o reverberate through the last three decades. one is that public policy must l be based on mutual respect and justice for all people. second, the environmental justice communities have the right to participate as equal partners in decision making including needs assessment, enforcement and evaluation. that is the seat at the table. the third is the use of land and renewable resources must be ethical, balance and responsible interest of a sustainable planet for both humans and other living things. fourth, it's important to consider the cumulative impact of every source of pollution

justice breyer: not necessarily. what you read about are the ones the press thinks the public will be interested in which usually has a political or a social content, and they will say that is the most important. i don't know. one of the most important decisions i wrote this past year was called google versus oregon. it took a year for me to write that. it was about copyright and something called interface programs. i was told that was very, very important. well, for me it was like learning latvian. i don't know how i did that. but you see, i see what they are saying. it is true that a lot of the sort of exciting cases are more close. david: suppose you have a decision that is 5-4. will one justice go to another justice's chambers and say your argument is not good, or is it done by memos? you don't have people going down the hall saying let's have lunch together and maybe i can persuade you. does that ever happen? justice breyer: most of it is memo. quite a lot can be business to chambers. if i'm going to your chambe

justice robinson is undeniably one of the most notable champions of the equal rights and equal justicen particular the most important pioneers of advancing lgbtq rights. in a landmark case of baker versus vermont attorney general robinson secured a ruling in favor of marriage equality in 2009. this was one of our country's first major advances of lgbtq rights and a major step forward toward our laws acknowledging that people have the right r to love whomever they want and to get married regardless of sexual orientation. as a o t direct result that the vermont legislature enacted the first civil union law in the country and vermont has led the country on this issue due in no small part to justice robinson's dedication and hard work. justice robinson is extremely well qualified for this position on the federal courts. she has served in the vermont supreme court since 2011 and w has built a reputation for him her impartiality and fair application of the law. she treats people with respect and compassion and understands the duty of the court to provide equitable justice. i believe she will

justice robinson and ms. sung, i noted in reviewing your backgrounds that you both have significant experience in deciding legal disputes. justice robinson, us-cert for more than a decade on the vermont supreme court -- you have served -- ms. sung, you've also experienced in deciding legal disputes through your services, a member of the oregon employment relations board. here's the question. i like each of you to please a speak on what you've learned about deciding legal disputes as a result of your experiences. >> thank you, senator feinstein. one thing that i've learned is that when a case comes in you might have preliminary hypothesis about how it's going to be resolved but there's no substitute for drilling down into the record deeply reading all of the facts, researching the applicable law and then conferring with your colleagues. and as often as not your initial impression may prove ill-founded. it's one of the reasons why it's important to approach every case with an open mind and do the work to ensure

>> justice breyer: why was it?ng a case, i guess, that met the normal criteria for being heard. when we decide to take a case, there has to be four votes to take it, so i can't go beyond that. what we do know is that there were not for votes to take it because it wasn't taken, and there are criteria, and if we don't take a case, it's -- you know, the reason with all likelihood is that the criteria weren't met. >> chris: one of the problems that you discuss in your book is the growing partisan shift of the confirmation process. back in 1994, you were confirmed by the u.s. senate 87-9. question, do you think in 2021 as a former staffer for edward m kennedy there's any chance he would get 87 votes? >> justice breyer: i know what you're saying and the answer is of course no. >> chris: look at what senator mitch mcconnell did. in 2016, he refuses to give merrick garland even a hearing in the eight months before the election. and then in 2020 he pushes through amy coney barrett in one month before the election. doesn't t

but we've heard from justice barrett and from justice thomas. possibility is that the justices may be kind of sensitive to the criticism of their ruling in the texas abortion case, their ruling in the federal eviction moratorium case. and so, they are speaking out because they are worried abo the perceptions of the court and they want to push back against the idea that the court is divided or partisan, particularly as they get ready to start a new term in which they're going to be hearing these high profile cases on issues on which the court is likely to be divided again. and then, of cours justice breyer has been promoting his book, but he has been getting a lot of questions about retirement. and so, we will be on justice breyer retirement watch all year long. it's hard for me to see him not retiring after this term. but one thing that i've learned is that when i make predictions about the supreme court, i'm often wrong. so, we'll certainly see and find out probably sometime in late june, early july. >> hill: amy howis the co- founder of scotus

i mean, look at justice black, a great justice, he'd been a senator. earl warren had been a governor. harold burton had been the mayor of a city. and you don't want all one thing or another thing, but having a mix of backgrounds, a mix of different experiences, other things being equal, is good for the court, in my opinion. >> woodruff: justice breyer, thank you very much. the book is "the authority of the court and the peril of politics." >> thank you, thank you. >> woodruff: the top american and european climate envoys met in washington today to coordinate their efforts ahead of a major climate summit. nick schifrin sits down with the envoys for their first joint interview. >> schifrin: the climate crisis is here. you can see it in the extreme weather, from floods to fire. and you can see it in the data: the u.n. warns that unless the world acts faster than it's already promised, temperatures will rise to catastrophic, irreversible levels. the u.s. calls the upcoming climate summit the last chance for the world to avoid disaster. for more on that, i'

ts of justice. focused on the legal issues involved and ultimately the interests of the united states. the question in that case is whether the lowest level crack cocaine offenders could be eligible for resentencing under the first step back and it was a given that the individuals who were responsible for greater quantities of crack cocaine for with a provision in the only question was whether the lowest level offenders also could get that kind of sentencing release under the first step ask. that was a question that had the circuit court, circuit court judges had disagreed on that issue. and ultimately after looking at all the tools of statutory construction, the text of the provision, the context it was my judgment congress had intended to extend the sentencing relief to the low-level offenders. >> our time is limited here but do you think having switch the government's position and being rejected 5-0, do you think you got the decision wrong? >> i certainly respect the supreme court's decision and

it is an environmental justice issue. and clearly, what we saw we set did a parasite study will be collected fecal, mud, water, soil samples and we found other tropical parasites in our areas. especially in areas or people are not dealing with proper sanitation. this is a problem throughout the u.s. yes i want to senator and saw firsthand. there's no central database thank you that's a very good point. in the should be a top environmental justice priority. >> yes water is life and none of us can live without water. we have seen what happens and we don't build the health consequences of these issues pretty specially how it impacts the public. it very well could be all of the other kind of things that come about as big with inadequate sanitation could happen again and covid is part of when it comes the public health that we cannot turn a blind eye were all impacted. >> water is life you are so, so rights. in illinois we have a 1 million less than every state in the country. as you know there is no known safe lead level for

of environmental justice in america. as climate change ravages our country and our planet, from the 80 fires burning across 13 states, the biggest bootleg fire in my home state, oregon, and flooding becoming ever more frequent, as well as destructive storms, we cannot ignore the fact that while we all feel its effects, the worst consequences of pollution and climate chaos disproportionately fall on communities of color. and communities with the fewest resources to recover or adapt. frontline communities, indigenous, low wealth communities, communities of color. not only are they more prone to experiencing extreme weather events, but they also face greater health impacts, along with higher rates of heart related illnesses and deaths. oftentimes these impacts other direct results of decisions and discriminatory policies. decisions like we are to place a landfill. we are to place a factory, the location of toxic waste dumps. where water infrastructure products are prioritized and ignored. we are green spaces are created and

the department of justice today was a no-show. the department of justice failed to appear. they have responsibility ultimately for the fbi, for the prosecutions, and for action here. and director wray may have run out of adjectives, but the d department of justice hasn't run out of action. they should be answering many of the questions. so i am by no means satisfied with what i heard today. >> as somebody who's been in and out of these rooms since the beginning of this coming forward, i just would like to let you know if the fbi had done anything that was even within their own policies and procedures, or followed any of the laws that are already in place to protect children from sexual abuse, some of these people would not even be here as victims, let alone talk about a recovery. so it seems a little bit redundant to me to continue to talk about the things that are going to be put in place when people cannot hear something about child sexual abuse, violent child sexual abuse, trafficking and being accessories to the fact that larry nassar did what he did and then we're some

>> the particularly justice kagan i don't really think justice sotomayor or either.cise. and with that employment discrimination and then the hallucinogenic drug any worship service. but that theys have other values that they care about more. but it is just a different list. so with the contraception cases and most of the gay rights cases but not all of them. and with a gay rights group and the st. patrick's day parade which is unanimous. and then expecting to get dissent. and philadelphia can obviously fix it and then to tf the issue to overrule smith. but there arebj some much broader things in the opinionated not object to not putting the lease on anybody else it doesn't matter. i was surprised at the anonymity. >> thank you to the panel. [applause] lunches up the spiral staircase.

the chief justice john roberts and the court's three liberal justice decented from that order. on the one hand they said they were not weighing in on the constitutional of s.v.a., but right now in texas until that law is settled, there's no right for a woman to get an abortion. so that is abortion. the next -- the next case that is going to be argued in november they wanted to talk about is a case called new york state rifle and pistol association vs. brew went. back in twa 2008 and 2010, they ruled in two cases that you have a right to have a hand gun in your home for self-defense. gun rights supporters came to the supreme court many times over the next 10 years or so asking the supreme court to say more about the scope of that right the supreme court repeatedly turned down requests to do so. back in 2019, the supreme court finally took up up a new case out of new york city involving a new york city rule that banned the owners of licensed handguns in new york city from taking the handguns outside of new york even to go to a shooting range or to their vacation homes just to giv

chris: justice stephen breyer, only on fox news sunday. and, america marks 20 years since the 9/11 attacks shook our nation and kicked off the war on terror. now, with the taliban back in control of afghanistan, we'll ask our sunday panel if there is a new threat to the homeland. all right now on fox news sunday. and hello again from fox news. today from our brand-new stewed he yow here in washington -- studio here in washington. on this 20th anniversary weekend of 9/11 i'm sure many of you are still reflecting on that roll call of names we heard again yesterday. people of all races and religion that tell like tear drops on our hearts. it never gets easier and maybe that's the point. we'll have much more on 9/11, 20 years out, and where we stand in the war on terror later this hour. but we begin with breaking news, president biden's new mandate that billions of workers get vaccinated or test for covid weekly has created new battle lines in the fight over the virus, amid accusations of federal overreach, some 19 republican governors are thr

chief justice john roberts and the three liberal justices dissented from that order. on the one hand, the court said they would not weigh in on the constitutionality of it. on the other hand, right now in texas, until that law is settled, there is no right for a woman to get an abortion. that is abortion. the next case that will be argued in november i want to talk about is new york state, rightful association versus bruin. back in 2008-2 thousand 10, they rolled in d.c. versus heller and mcdonald versus city of chicago that you have the right to have a handgun in your home for self-defense. gun rights supporters came to the supreme court many times over the next 10 years or so asking them to say more about the scope of that right. the supreme court repeatedly turned down requests to do so. back in 2019, they finally took up a new case out of new york city involving a new york city role that banned the owners of licensed handguns in new york city from taking them outside of new york. even to go to a shooting range or to their vacation homes to give you examples of new

including justice ginsburg and justice breyer. but i think it is worth noting that since we are talking about abortion, the declaration of independence does say we hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i would point out that since roe v. wade was decided, 62 million innocent lives were denied. when our founders said was a self-evident, a nelly able right to life. during my time in the senate, i fought to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. that is the time within which science tells us that an infant can feel pain. the u.s. is currently an outlier in the international community. we are ranked right up there with north korea and china as one of the most permissive countries in the world when it comes to elective abortions because abortion advocates and i the humanity of unborn, innocent life. i also supported after the governor of virginia, a physicians shamefully sai

justice thomas: never. [laughter] it is like when i used to watch basketball a lot, they would talk about the big and in the paint. you do your work early and then it is over. you can try to block him three feet from the basket. good luck with that. the real work is in the briefs. the real work is what is in the written product. occasionally, we had one guy many years ago when chief justice rehnquist was there, it was an afternoon case. we all kind of agreed this is an easy one. the guy gets up there and says i am submitting on the brief. he opened his mouth and lost it. reversed, 9-0. [laughter] that is the biggest swing i have seen. sometimes you just shut up and sit down. >> has there been times in your career when the legal questions you must resolve conflict with your catholic faith? justice thomas: not really. i would go and do something else. i said that early on. i still believe that. i have lived up to my oath. there are some things that conflict very strongly with my personal opinion, my policy pr

we almost never hear from justice clarence thomas.you to hear one of the most conservative political justices on the court saying, politics is the biggest threat? >> it does surprise me to hear justice thomas say anything, but especially hear him say that. i mean, this is a growing thing. just in the last few weeks, we've heard similar sentiments from justice amy coney barrett and even stephen breyer. we can all see what's going on here. it goes back to really 2000, bush v. gore, when the five conservatives took this side and the four liberals took that side. that's not happenstance. that's not coincidence. we saw it against just a couple weeks ago with the texas abortion case. the five justices who said -- they said, well, we can't touch it now because of procedural issues, just so happened to be five conservative justices, most of whom are on record as being in favor of striking down roe v. wade. we can't ignore that. >> areva, he talked about his experience growing up in segregated georgia in the '50s and '60s. let's listen. >> the

ag garland: the department of justice does not file lawsuits based on pressure. we carefully evaluated the law and the facts, and this complaint expresses our view about the law and the facts. thank you all. >> c-spanshop.org c-span's online store. there are a collection of products. browse to see what is new. you will support our nonprofit operations, and you still have an opportunity to order the directory. go to c-spanshop.org. >> today, president biden announced a mandate that employers with more than 100 workers require their employees to be vaccinated or have weekly covid-19 tests. he spoke from the white house. this is about 30 minutes. pres. biden: good evening, my fellow americans. i want to talk about where we are in the battle against covid-19, the progress we have made an work we have left to do. and to start understanding this, even the delta variant 19 has covid-19 has been hitting this country hard, we have the tools to combat the virus. if we came

chief justice john roberts joined the court's three liberal justices in their dissent, with justice sonia sotomayor writing -- "the court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law." all five of the justices who allowed the ban to stay in effect were appointed by republican presidents, three of them by donald trump. president biden said the texas law "blatantly violates" the constitutional right to abortion enshrined in roe v. wade. it's the most restrictive anti-choice law in the nation, barring abortions about six weeks into a pregnancy -- before many people even know they're pregnant. there is no exception for rape or incest. the law also allows anyone in texas to sue patients, medical workers, or even a patient's family or friends who "aid and abet" an abortion. this is alexis mcgill johnson, president of planned parenthood. >> it is incentivizing really bad behavior. we are people outsi of clinics documenting license plates, taking pictures of people going in

almost entirely of justices who have been appellate court justices.e since justice sandra day o'connor has faced a voter. do you think it would be healthy for the court, good for the country? judge breyer: yes, yes. look at justice black, a great justice. he had been a senator. earl warren had been a governor. harold vern had been the mayor of the city. with one thing or another thing -- but having a mix of backgrounds, a mix of different experiences -- all things being equal, it is good for the court. judy: thank you very much. the book is "the authority of the art and the peril of politics." thank you. ♪ judy: the top american and european climate envoys met in washington today to coordinate their efforts ahead of a major climate summit. nick schifrin sits down with the envoys for their first joint interview. nick: the climate crisis is here. today, you can see it in the extreme weather, from floods to fire. you can see it in the data. the u.n. warns the world that, unless the world acts faster than it's already promised, temperatures will rise to c

more importantly of the department of justice. the department of justice today was a no-show. the department of justice failed to appear. they have responsibility for the fbi, for the prosecution and for action here. director ray may have run out of adjectives, but the department has not run out of action. they should be answering many of the questions. i am by no means satisfied with what i heard today. >> as somebody who has been in and out of these hearings, i would like to let you know that if the fbi had done anything that was even within their own policies and procedures, or followed any of the laws already in place to protect children, some of these people would not be here as victims, let alone talk about recovery. it seems redundant to me to continue to talk about the things that are going to be put in place when people cannot hear something about violent child sexual abuse, trafficking and being accessories to the fact that larry nasser did what he did, then we are somehow supposed to be answer where the fbi screwed up. there amazing people, good people, but if you d

that is the responsibility of the department of justice. as a general matter, the department, the attorney general don't represent the president as a person. they do represent the institution of the presidency but even in that representation, it's got to be consistent with law and has to be consistent with the contusion. >> and what about the strain then it was under with the president of the united states putting pressure on the department and top leaders to overturn the election results. as you heard in drew's earlier report he is toldi the acting a to leave the rest to him and the repub conlican congressman, wha your reaction to that? >> at the beginning of every administration there is a discuss between the department of justice and white house counsel's office limiting and describing the amount of contacts, limited contacts that are to occur between the white house and department of justice because you don't want -- even the appearance that the department of justice is in any way influenced to protect the constitution. in this particul

they were worried about possible obstruction of justice themselves.atute on the books like this can dissuade a president from committing abusive pardons and certainly ones that would be illegal under the statutory scheme, even if it's never enforced. >> another question asks whether you discuss the department of justice policy that prevents a sitting president from being indicted? do you anticipate this will be modified? >> bob and i have a little bit of a disagreement on this. i will let bob speak for himself. i think that that opinion was probably correct. i think bob has some problems with the opinion. in the book, we assume the validity of the opinion, but it was twice affirmed by the justice department, one during maybe the ford administration in the 70s and again at the end of the clinton administration, and our proposals assume the continuing validity of that executive branch ruling. i will allow bob speak to this, but it is something that could be overturned. all it would take for the justice department to decide it is no longer part of the la

there was not a single one where a justice to the right of the chief justice joined the justice to the left. these are all breaking down what we call classic ideological grounds. senator hirono: and will we see these orders after the supreme court justices -- president trump's justices. i just had one question for representative howard. does texas have any other laws where enforcement of the law is left to vigilantes and $10,000 in bounty money for them? rep. howard: do they have any other law that does that, is that what you're asking me? did it apply to any other -- senator hirono: does texas have any other law that let bounty hunters go out and enforce the law? rep. howard: this is the only one i am aware of. senator hirono: why do you think that is? rep. howard: well, i think it was a scheme to get around judicial review and to ensure that whether it was ever followed through or not, there would be an immediate chilling effect which has occurred where basically abortions are not being provided because of the fear of the liability. it achieved the purpose i think it was intended. se

it is not a case in which justice barrett makes a difference. with the conservatives and the four liberals on the other side. i imagine we will talk about the shadow docket later but and then to see the effect of the abortion law in all likelihood were not be ineffective justice ginsburg were still onth the court. >> if i could touch on these questions the shift between marriage but and then to over describe the effects it is less about what the outcome would be in about getting to the outcome that does anything. so if i had to guess it is not that roberts or somebody else would not vote the way you hope they would but that they come up with a single opinion with a quirky non- test test that did nothing why you grant that to do nothing rather than add to confusion? that they added nothing to master that for another 30 years. maybe it is that maybe now t they think they have a consensus on c the theory i'm fullyou confident amy coney barrett will do what people expect her to do but i expect she may be firmer on her theory to keep the options open

justice.to be part of the government, essentially, to be government agents. whereas these people are staying citizens, which is now the texas lawmakers are trying to do an end run around judicial review. isn't that a different situation? >> yes. ( applause ) ( cheering ) >> excuse me. checkmate! so i'm sorry. i interrupted you congratulating me for being right. go ahead. thank you very much. ( laughter ) so there is no other example you can think of, other than the posse, which isn't the actual example? >> well-- >> but that is one of the most shocking things about it to me, because it is so flagrantly an attempt to do an end run around judicial review. >> the truth is in that matter, what they had before us, it was a procedural question. we didn't get to the merits of the law. and one of my objections, which was pretty strong-- it counts for one of the "verries--" is when we have an important case like, that even if it is procedural, we should have a full proceeding and not decide it just on

>> well, justices are human beings.p politicized her vetting process and of course the republicans in the senate did so as well. she was selected because she was conservative, because she was a fundamentalist. so they are expecting her to take those ideals into those rooms when she is making those decisions and especially when it comes to social justice issues. i think it's somewhat disingenuous she went along with the politicized process and now she doesn't want to be painted with that brush. as jeffrey pointed out, this has also been partially politicized. no, we're not going to expand the court and this commission that biden has put together even that is political to look at court packing that's going to come back with this decision in november. so, amy coney barrett is a part of the political process. she's been painted with that brush as well as the other two justices who are on the court right now who went through that same type of politicized vetting process. and it's going to be something that's going to taint h

this doesn't pass the laugh test for these conservative justices it been out there literally justicerencing at an institute in kentucky named for mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell literally introduced her. she was standing alongside the man who has threatened to blockade any future biden picks and then claiming that justices are not political actors. come on, the only thing that's surprising to me is that a lot of mainstream media outlets continue to gullibly report these. we have liberal justices, he's got a whole book tour out claiming that the court still needs to be viewed as an apolitical institution, and assertions otherwise are off base. i think those claims while justice briar are belied by the rulings like the one in texas. i think the public sides with the views of justice sotomayor, who in her dissent showed a fundamental disregard for the rule of law. that's what's going on here, the curtain is being pulled back. the conservative justices are going to get their come up pans, there was a poll that came out two days ago that showed the court's approval rating is at a low we

and we have local justices like justice breyer having the same taco points on this. out now that claims that the court has to be viewed as and a political institution. those claims by breyer are just belied by rulings like the ones in texas. i think that the public increasingly sides with the view of people like justice sotomayor who in her dissent said that this ruling showed a fundamental disregard for the rule of law. that is what is going on here. the curtain is being pulled back. the conservative justices are going to -- win a polling came out two days ago that showed that the courts approving rating is at a low that we have not seen in decades. >> and to that point, senator mitch mcconnell, he already said he was going to block any nominee that president biden puts forward before 2024 and we have to, quote, wait and see. it seems to me that if senator mcconnell who is being quite open about the politicization of the supreme court. the justices don't have to tell us otherwise, we can just watch what senator mcconnell is doing, right melissa? >> i think that's ri

right, the longest sitting justice.ghs so dismissive of the claims of anita hill and said his confirmation process, he called it craziness and said that it was politicized and was about abortion, would not recognize the legitimate claims that anita hill made. so, again, every time he opens his mouth, i think we have to be very skeptical about anything that he says. >> elie, the texas decision by the court is driving more calls from democrats who feel that the court is enforcing minority rule and want to add more justices. thomas spoke to that tonight, as well. here it is. >> we have lost the capacity even i think as leaders to not allow others to manipulate our institutions when we don't get the outcomes that we like when, for example, president roosevelt threatened to pack the court, there was enough sense of what the court meant and what separation of powers meant to criticize him. today you see almost no criticism or very little when you have those kinds of conversations. and i have been on the court for 30 years. it

we learned that while chief justice roberts had power as the swing justice, it has diminished with justice barris on the court. that is not necessarily true on the final decisions of the last three months. the telephonic oral arguments are sometimes better. i have to ask the advocates, maybe somebody who is done it, the questioning asked for more substantive legal discussions and less showboating. one wonders if justice scalia would be able to interrupt. it'll be interesting to see if any of the justices change their style based on what they experienced in the last term. the pandemic can be devastating with 600,000 americans dead. i thank you for being here in the speakers for being here. many have traveled from out of state. we tried to have a sense of normalcy at cato. cato will be reopening in full on monday. this is a good dry run for what we are going to be doing. i would like to thank some important people. he founded the department and gave me my job. without him, i would be a libertarian ranting in bars and practicing corporate law in denver. i have partnered on so many briefs i do

, ag garland: the department of justice does not file lawsuits based on pressure. we carefully evaluated the law and the facts, and is our view about the law and the facts. >> thanks, everybody. ag garland: thank you all. >> we take you now to quebec where katie and party leaders including prime minister justin trudeau are taking part in a two hour debate ahead of the september 20 federal election. you are watching live coverage on c-span.

to deliver real justice to. these people so in many cases dropping charges or at least arguing for these folks that have been in solitary confinement for nine months without a conviction for access to family or medical care no conviction in prison for nine months, solitary confinement without the opportunity for bail at the very least they should be allowed to go back home and exist under home arrest. host: how many people you talking about? should they all be released is there anyone that you think is a threat that shouldn't be released? >> were talking very broadly almost 700 individuals the vast majority are not currently held but also not charged with any violence many are put on home arrest awaiting trial but then we believe they are political prisoners as well we have the most active in current database with everyone a has t been arrested and of those there is a significant number are not charged with any violence at all. one guy is held because of the threat of interstate commerce but there are many peopl

that's really a discussion between his office and the justice department. but if i can be a constructive part of that, given how strongly i feel, as i hope the committee can tell, i'm happy to the whatever i can that would be appropriate. >> next question. why didn't the children's unit at headquarters play a greater supervisory or coordination role here, for example, by ensuring that the correct office at fbi handled this matter? and why didn't it follow up to ensure that the indianapolis office had referred the matter to an fbi office that had jurisdiction over these allegations? >> well, i want to be careful not to try to paraphrase too much inspector general horowitz's report since he's the master of the facts here, but as i understand it among the things that happened here were that the indianapolis folks most responsible concealed information from certain people at headquarters at different stages. that's part of the problem. we have implemented changes now that go to the point that you're getting at, which is the transfers between field offices. we'v

in his political friends and also to try to urge the justice department to uses very powerful tool to help him read trump used his control over the diplomacy and law enforcement technology or powers to help him win the election, john bolton's book, the very conservative john bolton who saw trump up close and personal said that in the context of his kind of law enforcement and in his kind of abuse diplomatic our, he basically said the trump seem to commit of obstruction of justice as a way of life. another example of the lustful use is the parking power work trump use this power promiscuously and not in obvious ways illegally but certainly abusively, there's not been present has come close to using the pardon power and self-serving ways to help them to pursue political agenda and help himself. in the way the truck didn't some presidents presidents had done some of that in the past but that was exceptional and trump made it the rule. so these were all that i would call serious abuses of power and amazingly, not necessarily illegal. some might've been illegal in software the most of thes

justice sotomayor had it exactly right.arly sleeve years, fugitive slave laws were enforced, by bounty hunters. they went out and sought to return, even freed slaves, to their so-called owners. to collect a bounty. so it has a kind of ugly dark history. but, as justice sotomayor said, it simply cannot be the case. although five justices say that they think it is. it cannot be the case, that the state can pass a flagrantly unconstitutional law, constitutional lesson until roe v. wade is formally overturned. and then, avoid any judicial review, by deputizing strangers, total strangers, and they don't have to be texans. they can be from california, from france, the law clearly allows anyone on the planet earth, to come in to texas core, during as you say, that four year period after an abortion, and get $10, 000, from anybody, friend, neighbor, the ex lover of the uber driver, the person who funded the abortion, anybody who is involved in the abortion, unless somehow, the evidence has accumulated that there was no heartbeat. t