justice kagan: no. [laughter] >> you have had a rare experience in working in the judiciary, now at the highest level, the white house as both a legal and policy advisor, and the department of justice presenting the united states, and as a professor and academic leader in the legal academy. so where did you learn the most? justice kagan: it used to be that people would, get one of those introductions and list all these different -- and i would come out, my standard line, now you know can't keep a job. i can't say that anymore. >> you've got some real longevity. justice kagan: exactly. >> maybe with attention to your current role as justice of the supreme court. justice kagan: that narrows it down some, because i learned something in all of those different places and mostly the reason i couldn't keep a job was because i have this view of when the learning learn -- curve flattens out, keep your eyes open for something. the fun part of the job is when the learning curve is the steepest. if you think about

justice. one no one has heard of but the last public event i did was in chicago and i'd use that line and everyone says, of course, we have heard of him because he was a chicagoan but the first judge i clerked for was a man named anchor minima. the second one was thurgood marshall and they were two people, both who, they helped me anonymously and -- enormously and one of them helped me with recommendations and other jobs more than any other single person in my life but also people who provided a model of what it was to lead. mine was in law and how you could -- and also how you could be a great human being and a great lawyer both and i don't come anywhere near anything that that -- that they showed me in that regard but it was an incredible model for a young lawyer. >> kelly -- president armstrong ran through the biography service in the white house as -- deputy director of domestic policy. the service think you did in law school and i am curious the experience that you had both on the judicia

when the justices there, the junior justice, which is justice coney barrett, when they ran out of water, she is to go philip picturing at the water. >> there is a new justice. that justice becomes a junior justice. he or she had to do that. nobody else is allowed in when they are having these debates. chief justice stone loved the conference. it would go on for hours. he did not recognize that it was rude in the court. justices were dying to get out of their. votes were not changing. they were having these academic discussions. chief justice vincent was a master manager -- under chief justice stone, they were never able to get out of conference. you are going to a meeting with your job, you can never leave. the boss never let you go home. the conferences were held on saturdays. this is after the work week. you can imagine the effect that this is having on morale. fred vincent was interested in getting results. what is the reason for your vote? let's move on. >> next person. what is your vote? what is your reasoning? they would have some sort of discipline. >> i don't want to shortchange

maybe justice kagan, justice soda mar, chief justice roberts is a conservative on the court. justice thomas is not a conservative. he is a right wing justice. he is trying to move the court he owned up to it we need to say what we are doing. justice thomas owns up to what he is trying to do. or he said the court just overturned the precedent and acted like it didn't. he is speaking with honesty i wish the others would. it's not the matter of conservatism to overturn that six or seven years old that's not conservative that's the opposite. when you try to move the court just say i'm trying to move the court because that's wrong. and justice thomas is one that disagrees with his position is very clear he's trying to move the corporate does not try to hide it and say it's not a conservative position i want to move this because i believe this was wrong when it was decided. i honestly think good and the people also think justice should make their opinions on bigger issues accessible to the regular newspaper reading of the american public. >> you see that a little bit with gorgeous

justice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsuch? justice kavanaugh? justice barrett? justice barrett: i want to return to the questions about could pewter simulators -- about computer simulators. you said they were inherently subjective because it depends what factors you put in. it seems to me if there no genera -- there is no limit on how many maps the computer simulator could generate, surely that gives them the option to weigh in all kinds of different ways. and it seems to me that under alabama's view of the statute, the plaintiff satisfies gingles one by coming in with one map that was drawn without taking race into account. why, if there is no limit to the number of maps you can generate the different factors you can weigh so long as race is not one, why would that be an unreasonable burden for a plaintiff to shoulder? ms. khanna: for several reasons. it is important to recognize there are a handful of college professors to even have the expertise to run these simulations in the first place. if you are going to infuse what was supposed to be an objective test o

justice alito: justice stevens wrote a lengthy opinion. everybody can read it. i will say this about citizens united. citizens united was a narrow decision. it held that a little corporation had the right to talk about the qualifications of a candidate for high public office in the period shortly before the election. that goes to the very core of what the first amendment protects. the main popular criticism of the decision that you hear is that freedom of speech implies to human beings, does not apply to corporations. i think to ordinary people, it has immediate appeal. if you think about it, where do we get all of our news? the cable news networks owned by corporations. the broadcast networks owned by corporations. major newspapers all owned by corporations. popular entertainment is all provided by corporations. if corporations do not have free speech rights and the government could regulate all of it as it wished, who wants that regime? citizens united has become -- most people do not know exactly what was held. it has instead become a lightning rod for everyt

but following justice douglas, we had justice stevens and he was succeeded by our very own circuit, justice elena kagan, who now holds a seat and from whom you will hear very shortly, you know, legal scholarship usually focuses on the judicial role of and judges, but there's really a much larger story of judges as public figures. now, this is my book and i literally stumbled into this i was cross-country skiing actually snowshoeing in my home state of wyoming in grand teton national park. it was snowy. i saw this beautiful homestead that i wasn't familiar with. i it was probably private property. i didn't want to sit on their porch and out comes this guy. and i said, well, where am i? and he said, you're at the murray ranch. and i said, oh, i know, i get that. i know john. he said, no, no. muir. i said, oh, and i learned that olaus. and mardy murie, who had been of the homestead, were very famous. conservation and biology in the forties, fifties and sixties, and that they had a friendship with william douglas. so that got my curiosity going. and so what really began as lark to understand wh

hanging justices in effigy.to the great depression as a temporary inconvenience. >> this is a conservative majority that really didn't care about the little guy. >> it's roosevelt again. >> roosevelt takes every state in the union. >> in 1936, the nation responded. >> i will faithfully execute -- >> re-elected fdr with more than 60% of the vote. >> they can now march forward together. >> but the new deal still appeared to be doomed. >> we must take action to save the constitution from the court. >> so roosevelt declared war on the court. >> he tried to get justices of his own choosing. >> shocking congress with a bombshell bill. >> opponents denounce it as court backing. >> that would ad six new justices. >> he proposed for every justice over age 70, he would be able to appoint a new justice. >> i am opposed to packing the court. >> the seizure of unchecked power. >> there was bipartisan outrage over the bill. >> this is the road to autocracy. >> even accusations of fascism. >> he horrified a lot of people, some

chief justice was in dissent along with justice scalia and justice thomas and justice alito. in some respects, the court is going to be revisiting this question in the context of a redistricting case where the state legislature did the congressional districting and the state court has essentially countermanded it. there's going to be consideration for starry decisiveness, -- four stare decisis -- just to wax into being a log geek for a second that is a sure thing -- that is interesting about this issue. a lot of times in these electioneering and redistricting cases, including the ones that justice is talking about there's kind of a federalism overlay and how much does a federal law like section two interfere with the authority of the states to structure themselves the way they want? in the specific context of congressional elections, what the state legislature is doing is the right way to think about it is exercising expressly delegated federal power. it is not drawing these districts as part of its residual sovereignty, it's drawing these districts as part of a delegation fr

and the joint opinion of justice kennedy, justice o'connor, and justice souter, at great length went through these factors. that was the question presented in the case. >> could i interrupt you to say, since you mentioned stare decisis, and i've sat on nine of these hearings, and when the subject comes up, the person says, i will follow stare decisis, and they get confirmed, and then of course, they don't. so, i think now knowing going into it, how you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as whether to support you or not. because i don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country. and i truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within, obviously, some concern for a viable fetus. >> and i understand your point of view on that senator, i understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. i understand the importance of the issue, i understand the importance that people attached to the room the way decision, to the planned parenthood versus casey decision. i don't live in a bubble. i understa

and then joint opinion of justice kennedy justice o'connor and justice suitor at great length went through that those factors. that was the question presented in the case. could i interrupt you to say since you mentioned story decisis and i sat on nine of these hearings and when the subject comes up the person says i will follow star he decisis and they get confirmed and then course they don't so i think knowing going into it. how you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as whether to support you or not. because i don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country. and i truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within obviously some concern for a viable fetus. and i understand your point of view on that center and i understand. how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue? i understand the importance of the issue. i understand. the importance that people attach to the roe v wade decision to the planned parenthood versus casey decision i don't live in a bubble. i understand. i live in the real world. i

host: justice kagan last month at an event.aking about the supreme court and we are talking about the supreme court on this opening day of the new term of the court, asking about your confidence level in the court. would you say it is high or do have some confidence in the court or would you say it is low or no confidence in the supreme court? lines for all those answers. good morning. guest: thanks for taking my call. i do have some confidence in them but it is scary too. gerrymandering and that stuff, that was not there. trump lost the popular vote in both elections. 16 and the last one but i am worried about the abortion thing only because they are not letting you know how many people are dying because of that law now. i saw a man on tv, his wife had -- mom had eight months pregnant and she wasn't -- in trouble. at eight months she had trouble. in order -- and set been able to induce labor, she died. these are medical problems. they need to be attended to. i am a little scared. i don't like it. the laws we had were good and

judicial for by individual justices is another. proposals for court reform today, obviously, would be in that vein. >> so we have got some good questions coming in now. please, if you have a question just put it in the chat. joanne morris wants know what argument was given for increasing the court from 6 to 9 in the first place? when and who did this? did they face similar opposition? that's a great question. >> it was not in one fell swoop. generally it relates to the structure and creation of the lower federal courts. as the number of circuit court grew, a corresponding supreme court justice because of the circuit riding responsibilities, it largely explains the early growth oscillation. those circuit panels were injustice visiting in riding and joining the circuit court activity. i think bennett is workload driven. there is more and more cases coming within the jurisdiction of the court, i'm sure the supreme court was communicating to the congress that they could use another guy up here! laws grow the size of the court. that is

what does justice jackson mean to you?ll, i was thinking about the goodness of god, and how much of a blessing it was, and a distinct honor and privilege it was to be afforded the opportunity. i felt so proud and overjoyed, that i was there, and i could feel our ancestors in the room rejoicing, with that. and i felt like shouting. >> i don't know, if my memory is right, but after you all saying amazing grace, a lot of you were wiping away tears, it was just so powerful. doctor lundy, what did it mean for you to be part of that history? >> well, as one of the organizers for the ceremony, i was just so elated that we are able to choose music that was so be fitting for this historic occasion. i mean it was electric in the room, i think that all of us felt a sense of pride, i've been a part of this historic occasion, the duke ellington concert choir, washington d.c.'s own where there as you saw earlier, and the music, and this amazonian jazz ensemble. we truly had a celebration of this occasion. >> i turn to my friend robert s

so so if there's a way to sort of emptier a justice to serve -- permit a justice to serve out beyond the politics or his or her appointment, that is desirable. but i don't think that needs to be 30, 40 or 50 years. although due to the heart disease, robert jackson died at age 62 after serving only 14 years on the court. and one of those he was awol being a prosecutor at nuremberg. so one can make his or her mark and do great service as a supreme court justice without needing many, many decades. and also if we're not trying to play for forever, we might not prioritize appointing ever younger people and perhaps we would get more of the career wisdom and experience of more senior people. 60 and 70-year-old people, including people who have held high public offices, are not viable supreme court candidates today. i think that's a terrible loss. >> right. >> ralph, john, thank you very much, great conversation. and i think we all know that u.s. constitution day, they just did a survey and 30% of americans can name all three branches of government. there's the executive branch, the legislat

justice jackson did not raise it, but justices from all around the bench raise the question of what is the first intention of the first amendment and what did people of the time understand it to be? there are a number of reasons that argue that there are significant legislation that was -- that we might describe today as affirmative action. right? i've said this and other panels, but if you think about what is 40 acres and a mule, 40 acres and a mule sound a lot like affirmative action to me. in light of the nation's history of not just slavery, but systemic oppression of black people. a number of those programs were open to all black people, not just formerly enslaved people, so they are not remediated -- remedial into the narrow way that the court has understood it to be in other contexts. one of the things that that was interesting, i like listening to justice barrett's questions. she has smart and different questions than the other justices. but she said from the bench that that is the case, that history shows that at the time of the 14th amendment, the 14th amend it was not unders

you argue restorative justice is necessary and recognizing themes victims and restoring justice is necessarywhat does that look like? margaret: what i will say is that we are in the moment of repair, reparations, redress. it is not just an american moment, it is an international moment. this is going on all over the world. communities are looking back to appreciate the devastation. i argue that this particular set of victims, and i use the word victims intentionally here, somewhat use the word survivors, victims, survivors. they are known. we know who these families are. this is not ancient history. not to say slavery is ancient history but this is our era. we talk about the great generation from world war ii. we honor their service. we appreciate all that they do. so this is close to our time. and it is measurable. we can appreciate what these families lost, we have the tools to measure what it is they lost and we know who they are and so all of the factors that would make it perhaps more difficult to institute and carry out a project of repair for an earlier period -- so i say this is a cr

it was a five / four decision in the chief justice was in dissent along with justice scalia, thomas andlito. and then the redistricting case with the that has countermanded it and this could be considerations and then to be a log geek for a second what i think is so interesting about this issue is a lot of times in the election cases and then with that overlay interfere with the authority to structure themselves the way they want but in the specific context of congressional elections what the state legislature is doing, the right way to think about it is exercising delegated federal power is not just joined the districts as sovereignty but a specific television on —- delegation to do something that is distinctly federal to set the rules for a federal congressional action if you think about in those terms of the strengthen the argument that there should not be a basis for the state court applying a state law to interfere with what is a federal authority being exercised by the state legislature but this is a hotly contested case particularly those on the political left uses as a grave thr

these justices are not mainstream.ber -- remember how this happened, one by one, as the republicans put them forward, the republicans put them forward with that not not, win quake, we know what they're going to do. on roe, we know what they're going to do for corporate america, we know what they're going to do to try to destroy unions, we know what they're going to do on voting rights. but no! even each of those nominees stood up and said, yep! what is settled law is settled law. and we will not disturb settled law. and remember, most of them set, right up the top, roe v. wade is settled law. and as soon as they had the votes, they flipped around. and they said to every person in this country, those constitutional rights that you have depended on? whether it's about abortion, whether it's about voting rights, whether it's about equal marriage. [laughs] you better not count on them anymore! because this extremist supreme court says their opinion is what matters, and they can make the decisions for the rest of the nation

justice thomas? >> i would like to jusgi you a minute to at least comment on what we have said about 1340 4g and with the court has said about it in riverside because as i recall, we suggested that it did not control the definition of waters. or certainly did not have an overwhelming impact on the definition of waters. >> thank you. in terms of case law, no decision of this court has relied on 40 4g to what we advance. riverside bayview said 40 4g said some weapons will be regulatedorhe court was not willing to go beyond that. and with respect to how adjacent actually appears in 40 4g, given the context of physical topographic features, the mt plausible understanding of that term is that congress meant that osthat are visibly touching. the very facts that were at issue in riverside bayview. the fact that riverside bayview's property was a cattail marsh that blended into lake sincla. that is the most of what it says. an again that is a proposition that the test is fly consistent with. they acknowlgeha

it's 5-4, and one justice kind of goes to another justice's chambers and says, "you know, your argumentod and maybe you should do something different," or is everything just done by memos and writing? you don't have people going down the hall and saying, "let's have lunch together "and maybe i can persuade you my position is better than yours"? does that ever happen? stephen: most of it is memo, but quite a lot can be visits to chambers, but if i'm going into your chambers, i'm not going to say, "no, your argument isn't so good." this would not be a helpful way to start the conversation. and if you go into somebody else's chambers, you better be prepared to listen to them as well as hoping that they will listen to you. and then you try to see where is there some common ground and is there common ground enough that you can work with it? and if you work with it-- and kenny said this a lot-- if you work with it and you get somewhere and it's successful, don't worry about the credit. if it's a success, there'll be plenty of credit to go around, and if it's a failure, who wants the credit? a

liberal justice. i think she is likely to vote in ways that align with the way justice breyer would vote in similar cases. i do think the symbolic significance of having a first black woman justice on the supreme court and also the three liberal members of the supreme court, all being women will not be lost on the country. even if she is typically in dissent as i expect she will be, she is going to be dissenting in a voice different from any voice we have heard on the supreme court before and that i do think is significant. anchor: do you expect this will be a term filled with 6-3 decisions? or will we see the chief justice swinging sometimes with the liberal side and having some 5-4? >> i think we will see quite a few 6-3 cases. i think it is possible the chief justice will cross over and join the liberal justices. 5-4 rather than 6-3. i have to say there are a number of cases on the docket this term involving the question of how much the constitution permits the use of rates by government decision-m

chief justice. we make allowance for this normal circumstance, once you apply the line drawing standard application, and what would normal circumstances be the case. >> so if it is from the fall to the spring, june, july, august, you don't have that kind of connection? >> if, on a normal yearly basis, there would not be a continuous basis, it would be very hard to fit the wetlands into the rationale of the line drawing problem standard. >> not simply an area that is dried up. an area that is normally connected but isn't for three months in the summer, that whole area is not a wetland? >> if i understand the hypothetical correctly, it's not that it suddenly d federalized is everything but certainly, it is difficult to understand textually how one can regulate an area as a water if on a regular basis there is no water there. >> does summer count as a regular basis? it just dries up in the summer. pretty common for wetlands, or at least adjacent waters in many situations. >> certainly a regular occurre

over the past week, the justice department has taken several actions to disrupt criminal activity by individuals working on behalf of china. as always, the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. earlier today, in the eastern district of new york, the complaint was unsealed charging to chinese intelligence officers of attempting to obstruct the communications of a u.s. based telecommunications company. the complaint says they were encouraged to still confidential information. the defendants believed they had recruited the u.s. employee as an asset, but in fact the individual was a double agent working on behalf of the fbi. as the complaint alleges, the defendants paid a bribe to do up to it -- to obtain nonpublic information, including files from the u.s. attorney's office. they did so in the hope of obtaining the prosecution strategy memo, confidential information regarding witnesses, trial evidence and potential new charges. the double agent the defendants with documents that appeared to present some of the information they sought. the documents were prepared by the u

and then justin -- justice jackson's moment. we finally hear from the new scotus justice on one of the most consequential cases of the new courts to turn. we have that in a whole lot more, i am ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> perry mason, and elise keating, sol goodman, i'll share one thing in common, that is beyond being tvs most talented attorneys, i think we can safely say none of them would touch donald trump's legal chaos with a ten foot pole. because it's not just the mess that he is in no, but as we learn on a near daily basis with this guy, there is always more with trump, more scandal, more illegality and more pain for his lawyers. this week alone, nbc news and the new york times reported that officials inside the justice department believe that trump still, and our pierre, still has government documents in his possession. after months of dodging the national archives, months of lying to the fbi, a full search of his florida home and now eight weeks of this clownish legal wrangling that he's been trying to

you are there as a justice, you were appointed but you are there as a justice. when you are there as a justice, you are there for everybody. that is what you try, you are there for everybody. everybody has to think, you are doing your best to be fair. a little corny to say, but they are there. we will see over time. no guarantees. no guarantees in this world, but we will see. i say, there are certain features i have described vaguely which i think will go against what you might call as a pure, politically-based approach which, as you can see, i do not think is the right description anyway. we will have to see. i will put a question mark. good question, i cannot easily answer it. i believe no one, including the individuals involved, can easily answer it now. >> hello, thank you for joining us today. my name is keira, i am a first year at the college. a lot of americans see the supreme court as a beacon of the idea that there can be justice without the idea of politicization. the last couple of years, there has been a political asian of the process of -- political

that eventually get back to nine justices.n you end up having ala simir court that has legitimacy in eyes of the people it's better for the supreme court justices and you focus on the cases instead of on retirement. people once again have trust in the high score in a land so it's aa no-brainer situation. different parties have been in favor of these reforms. 70% of americans are in favor. even now when republicans with the status quo in place so was a no-brainer. >> on the legislative front what you see as obstacles to getting legislation through congress and how do you go about extending voting rights in this country? >> i think the problem with getting voting rights legislation or at the federal and thele state level is all abt power. this is all about power and who has power and who's willing to give up power. those in republican dominated state legislature need to put reformss in place and it will decrease your power. the prime directive for politicians is, to be fair if you go to a blue state and a democratically-controll

at the department of justice, we have prosecutorial standards set out in the justice manual, regarding the availability of sufficient evidence to probably win a conviction in court, and we are supposed to consider all alternatives, including other venues for possible trial. i can't speculate on individual cases, but there is rampant criminality and lots of responsibility to go around. >> let me ask you, mister watson. we have evidence that the department of homeland security is currently pursuing more than 1700 leads. from approximately 75 different countries. 1700 leads of people who are living right here in the night states. these are the known leads. the actual number may be even higher. when the department of homeland security discovers perpetrator in united states, what options does it have for ensuring that the perpetrator will not enjoy a safe haven status in our country? >> we have numerous options available that begin with our human waste ludicrous who earn certain tour. our support team, as well as our human rights targeting team will commence research through open source, as

let's take a listen to what two of the justices had to say, justice jackson and justice samuel alito.have enough people who are in marginalized groups that another district is possible. people are being segregated in effect, as justice kagan pointed out. we are talking about the effect, not intent. >> forget about intent, what are the results when you do a computer simulation that takes into account all race neutral districting factors. this is a computer, it doesn't have any intent. the result is that you don't get the second majority-minority district. john: why is that distinction so important? >> first of all, it appeared that the alabama lawyer sai in his brief to the supreme court that, she characterized it as intent is all over it. many years ago, the supreme court did say you had to prove discriminatory intent in order to make a section two complaint. but congress reversed that and made it very clear that you don't have to prove intentional discrimination, which, by the way, is extremely difficult to prove. instead, congress had you have to show a discriminatory result or a di

amy: justice ketanji brown jackson makes history monday, becoming the first black female justice to ever hear a supreme court case. as public support of the conservative court has fallen to a record low, justices are major cases this term on affirmative action, voting rights, and online speech. we will speak with elie mystal. then we look at the french colony of burkina faso, which has just seen its second military coup this year. and we go back more than a century to look at the elaine massacre of 1919 when white mobs in arkansas killed over 200 black residents in one of the worst racial massacres in u.s. history. >> they killed so many blac peoplehat the blood ran through the streets like wat. >> my grandmother stood on the railroad tracks. dead bodies lying all around the field. amy: we will speak to the historian paul ortiz and julia wright, the daughter of richard wright who was from elaine, arkansas. his uncle was lynched in 1916. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. ukrainian president volodymyr zelen

the person of the most publicly corrupted supreme court justice in history, justice clarence thomas. a supreme court justice violated the law in plain sight today. the degradation of the supreme court in the trump era is so complete, and has so fully infected most of the news media that what clarence holmes did today is mostly being reported as just another day at the supreme court. however, law professor who himself is one of the most accomplished supreme court practitioners in history, he stated that the case against clarence thomas plainly today saying. justice thomas violated 28 you see a 4:55, requiring any justice to recuse when his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned or his or her espouse is known by the justice to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome. because the only federal judges who are not covered by the judicial code of ethics or the nine members of the united states supreme court, it is commonly assumed that it is completely up to a supreme court justice whether to recuse from a case. but there is a federal law as professi