justice, justice harry blackmun, in his dissent.n led them to greenlight the criminalization of gay and lesbian relationships in that decision. i could go on and on. but in the interest of time, the sooner that we accept that the emperor has no clothes obvious truth the better equipped we will be to put in meaningful safeguards to protect from people with bias. at minimum justice alito should recuse himself from all cases reted to the 2020 election. the senate judiciary committee should investigate. and depending on the facts there should be an impeachment inquiry, as is true for justice thomas and his many, many outrageous scandals. but both justice alito and thomas can spread themselves, they can spare the federal judiciary and our country from furtherbut we obviously, we cannot count on these men to do the right thing. this is a -- this is why i along with my codes, have introduced the judiciary act. bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. this is one of the many crucial reforms into to almost limitless power these corrupt j

it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not a one way street. for example, there are from douglass to murphy this period where he refers to frankfurter as der fÜhrer and the little --. so there's all of personal enmity then among the justices and. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i'll focus to some of the cases in what's going on, both in terms of the war and in terms of domestic affairs. but it's so much it does play out in public there regularly to groups around the country in what almost seems like very political way. or maybe they are just overtly very political. you know, again this is remarkable and this is part of their allegiance to fdr. but again, in 1941, when country was really sort of split, there was strong isolationist sentiment. just about every one of the justices delivers, a very public speeches, strongly supporting fdr his war preparation and talking how important it is. and some of these were explicitly with fdr and the white house. frank murphy was the only catholic on the

donne favorite team and that's why i called on justice alito to recuse himself and urge chief justiceo finally step up and take what steps are necessary to alito does not sit these cases, rather that hc"e recuse himself. last week, justice alito refused my request. i'm going to keep this letter, the original version was sent to me and senator whitehouse, by justice alito in which he makes an argument that theould that it was his wife's complications in her decision. it's hard t it's hard first to believe that this man whom we're asking to recuse himself from these supreme court cases has somehow stood in judgment of himself and decided nothing unethical and should not recuse he refused our come before the committee and refused our request to recuse himself from these cases. in doing so, he claimed he bears no responsibility for the flags flying over his home, instead, he placed the blame solely on his wife. he went on to downplay the: significance of the upsidedown american flag display claiming it was part of his neighbors and denied knowing about the connection between the appeal to

thehe justice does it.plane andan go.ê by the way, we have a fishing trip it's really cool, let's go. therey is an empty seat it's worth $100,000 and doesn't ha be reported.wz when we talk about why it's needed. my constitchnts say peter, what are you talking about they can do that and takean the free trip. my colleagues said right. the chief justice has not only the responsibility to deal with the problems and behavior. he's not doing it. anher point made weee need a supreme court that h has the credibility and confidence of the country. when t aret contested and codes of conduct. they are not doing it. free trips and private planes and yachts. what do we have to do to take those trips. people decently. you don't get free special trips just because you are of the deal here. that's nottutionally protected. this is self severing conduct by people withnduct by lifetiming appointment. it's really truly shocking and astonishing. appellate court they can't do this. only nine folks thatan can do it.pp self ios th

justice department, the justice department did not send him to new york.those decisions in new york are made by the d.a. of new york >> fair to say, we have manhattan d.a. hires x senior doa official. another one from the new york times, hires x justice official to help lee trump inquiry. you might not have had anything to do with that but the perception is, the american prebuilt perceived the department of justice is intimately engaged with this. i think my last minute here, here is the issue i think people say, polling shows this consistently, the american people believe the prosecution of president trump is more about politics than it is about any violation of the law. the doj's own words, the mission consists of independence and impartiality, honesty and integrity, at your senate confirmation hearing in 2021, you said the department will be under my protection for the purpose of preventing any kind of partisan or other improper motive in making any kind of investigation or prosecution. but since that time the doj has obstructed this committee's impeach

by those justices? >> i am afraid i will have to say the same. all of our statements are reflected in court papers. >> fair enough. threats on the judiciary are increasing. this is frightening to the rule of law. can you talk about the work they are doing to address this issue? >> the threats to the judiciary and threats to prosecutors and threats to law enforcement agents have all spiked significantly. some cases have accelerated from threats to actual violence. we have a threats task force engaged in investigating these matters. we intend to aggressively investigate and prosecute threats against our public officials including members of congress in which the numbers of actually exploded in the past couple of years. our democracy cannot continue if the people who make the democracy run or are afraid. if they make their decisions. based on being threatened or assaulted. no democracy can survive under the circumstances, and we will do everything we can to investigate and deter and prosecute anyone who ma

eastern. >> on the ci floor, dick durbin responded to supreme court justice justice sael alito's letterto congress that said he would not be recusing himself from the presidential immunity case that is still to be decided by e court. this comes after several lawmakers were calling for a cusal after an upside down american flag was seen flying at the justice's home in the days following the janry.s. capitol attack. also spoke about the issue and emphasized a need for the senate to pass slation for a binding code of conduct and recusal standards for the justices. >> when i went to college here in washington, georgetown, i used to to come into this capitol building and set up there with our -- where our visitors are now sitting and watch what was going on on the senate floor. i can remember 70 things, particularly the day that bobby kennedy gave a speech about vietnam that was highly anticipated. came walking through that with his brother ted kennedy, both of them senat(ps, one from new york , the other from massachusetts. it was an historic moment. it was a magic moment for a college stud

>> the justice of the supreme court referrinvestigation of the justice department. >> they don't wantthe ustice department involved in the wake of the dobbs case? >> was anyone at the justice that lay? >> can imagine how thatt could happen. that's an internal document within the supreme court. i would be stunned. >> i yieldo gentleman. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. gates --wa gaetz talked about mr. d'angelo is that considered to be the third within the doj? >> yes. >> what did he do prior to his service with the department? >> i didn't know him before. he was once in the civil rights division. >> would it surprise you to know he was thehe deputy director of the obamof menstruations national economic. >> are youware he worked for the attorney general tisha james? >> ever that before but was surprised to know that he would pay ousands of dollars for political consulting? >> that i have no idea about. >> i think the issue was that we are having is it looks particularea gentleman wse holders and seemed to be prosecuting. mr. gates talked about this earlier normally if you are going for s

justice kavanaugh.to tell you you released a whirlwind and price. you won't know what hit you senator schumer said. if you go forward with these awful qudecisions close what we are seeing today, in my opinion. is parking lot of the promised whirlwind. ihat we should try to undermind the integrity of the incidence institution of the supreme court of the united states because we are unhappy with onee' of it's opinions. i will with hold my objection to allow my friend senator lee to speak. objection? >> senator fromof utah. >> reserving the right to object. the united states of america benefited for 2.5. one of the world's best most objective object judicial systems in the entire world. no system run by umhumans can be described as perfect. ours is as good a system aisted in the world. it's as good as any that the world today. solution, the solution that's been ran throughme today. it's a solution insearch of■í a. that probably wasn't there. one of the greetest straights. independentre functioning tra edit

by those justices? >> i am afraid i will have to say the same. all of our statements are reflected in court papers. >> fair enough. threats on the judiciary are increasing. this is frightening to the rule of law. can you talk about the work they are doing to address this issue? >> the threats to the judiciary and threats to prosecutors and threats to law enforcement agents have all spiked significantly. some cases have accelerated from threats to actual violence. we have a threats task force engaged in investigating these matters. we intend to aggressively investigate and prosr public officials including members of congress in which the numbers of actually exploded in the cannot continue if the people who make the democracy run or are afraid. if they make their decisions. based on being threatened or assaulted. no democracy can survive under the circumstances, and we will investigate and deter and prosecute anyone who makes threats against public servants. >> y jack smith? why did you pick i appointed m

justice.ou can imagine if we had a squeaky clean justice alito and his squeaky clean justice thomas and so on they could still be all this damage on a legal doctrine but somehow it to me it seems like it is not just a coincidence and a happenstance that we get this steam roller against legislated output of the civil rights movement and the women's movement and the labor movement at the same time we get an astounding private corruption of the justices. just wondering about your reflections on that? >> yearsrs ago when i began this effort i took a look at the fivh the conservative majority was unified but could not attract one of the other votes. relevant to republican special interest was involved. they won every single time. it is a pattern any good lawyer would taken to court to prove bias. the other so the pattern is very, very telling. and, if you think back to her agency capture became court captured came from it began with folks like railroad barons putting their folks on the railroad com

justice alito has been a sinuous and trying to deflect blame just as justice, su -- justice thomas hasied to deflect blame. a reasonable observer looking at the point congressman, justice alitos was flying outside his home. he does not conted it was his wife's decision to fire the flag. 's conclusion that no reasonable observer would be able totiality is just flatly false. >> i just want to say that the 344 gifts valued over $3 million. mean, congress is pretty broken $250, to put it in context. total unaccountability for the supreme court. professor shah, you may not know this but do you know the average age that a supreme court typically leaves the su>> i don't know. >> it is 78 years of age. of years they typically serve on the court? 28 years. longer than any point in american history. my question for you is, would you say that a court that has an agage leaving 78, that the justices serving for two or three decades may explain why they are so blatantly out of touch with the most basic facts of modern life inc rights, lgbtq rights, and contraception? >> i think having younger justic

the same department of justice who censored americans and the same department of justice who retaliatedgainst whistleblowers, who came to this committee and told us about these wrongdoings. mr. burling, we are glad you are here today. we've got lots of questions. many americans believe there is justice system. they believe that because there is. we are going to have lots of questions about that problem. with that, i yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been in congress since 1992. my colleagues and i, of course, have had our political disagreemes in the past years. but ultimately, in this committee, we have worked together. more often than not, then it -- to pass transformative pieces of legislation intended to help the american people. legislation to protect women from domestic violence and sexual harassment. legislation to prevent dissemination against the lgbtq+ community. legislation to fight discrimination and hate crimes. legislation to protect americans privacy. i'm proud of that regular success and i'm proud of how mu

what's the justices and the public corruption of justice?eaky clean justice thomas and so on, they could still be visiting all of this damage and all of our legal doctrines and somehow to me it em coincidence and happenstance that we get this steamroller against all of the legislative output of cihe higher mental movement tsat the same time we get this astounding private corruption othe juices. i'm just wondering about your reflections on that. >> years ago when i began this b effort i took a look at the 5 Ã 4 decisions in which the conservative majority was ifattract one of the other vote which that was the count and an issue obviously relevant to a republican special interest was involved. they won every single time. it is a pattern that any good lawyer would take to to prove bias and the other side would probably settle. so the pattern is very very telling. if you think back to where agency capture which became, it began with folks like railroad barons putting their folks onto the railroad commission so the railroad rep rates that the d b

in the justice department will not be intimidated. will continue to do our jobs free back down from defending democracy. i look forward -- >> i have a few items. >> they have to have it right now? okay, well, go ahead. >> mr. chair, there's Ñhbnú2therv;f onwe9=e at ki it accompanied that package as it routinely does. >> thank you. in other words, when former president trump makes an allegation, he is either deliberately, or is often the case, , either deliberately lying, or as often the casehe's talking about. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, there is no -- the fact for the first erican history, we do have a presidential administration is working to put its opponent in jail. that is a fact. and that, and opponent is a former president of the united states. as i understand the facts, jack smith was a principal player in the irs targeting the tea party. he was a well established record prosecutorial abuse. then you appointed osecute the former president of the united states who happens to be running against y

one is justice. washington was very keen to, always cite authority for things and chief justice marshall didn't about that so much. you know, opinions, if you read them often have, no citations at all, very few. they're written a little more like an essay, which in some ways them more persuasive because they seem to just the truth. right. i don't even need to cite anything. right. but washington was more concerned about finding authority for things. okay. however, a couple of circuit opinions that he wrote you can find passages that rather well to that others wrote on the marshall court later. actually, martin versus hunter's will see is one example in that there is a part of stories opinion that tracks very closely to one of washington circuit opinions that was also about the fact that state authorities could not defy federal courts. so, you know, suggests a certain input there or there. but yeah, that that that's kind of the most i say about that. comment on whether george washington refused to end

there is only one of justice.it to a powerful person over a non- powerful principal any benefit to a democrat over republican. >> i'm not concerned about the defendants getting the benefit so much as i am the prosecutors, the state court coming to the federal folks and, basically, saying, hey, give us all this material. may be that much is fine, but isn't what generally happens. of your former president, you get a lot of attention. that is exactly what has been happening here. i don't think that is fair. out of the the people of the united states thinks that is fair. the former president would be ganged up on, if you will, by both the federal government and the state government. that does not seem right. you may be doing it, i guess you're saying it would be fine if that did happen. to me, it seems like a double standard. i want to shift to the audiotapes. you are a former judge and familiar with the best evidence rule. i went to law school. i remember it.discussions about evidence. you would know it far better th

justices.t appears to have happened here is that this opinion who is either ready for publication yesterday because it has yesterday's date on it, on the first page, or perhaps in the coming days, and it was inadvertently put in a place where even a web program could have found it. in other words, i'm not sure that bloomberg had a reporter who saw it on a website the way that ken and i keep hitting refresh so much as perhaps a bot or a scraper find this opinion on a non-public website or url that we wouldn't have known where to look and took that down, and so that suggests to me the court has a strategy for releasing opinions, and that's contrary to what we have always understood, that the court is just releasing opinions when they are finished. this suggests that's not at all what's happening, and it's consistent with prior reporting about how the court's internal machinations record. you'll recall jody cantor of "the new york times" that they agreed to hear the dobbs case months before the pu

george was unaware bush rod wase court and justice. then justice. more or less that i've appointment. right. to which george replied, generals. no, no, that's. that's wonderful. actually, one little detai is know back then, as i mentioned, justices to travel around a to write circuit. and george's main bush. right joining the court was tras because it dangerous to travin road. and a lot of justices got hurt in stagecoach accidents basically now fortunately that that didn't happen but was like the main concern not oh you are taking this position. you're not running for congress as you might get hurt in a stagecoach accident. yes. all over washington and there. no no. yeah. the question was, did did bush have any role in the aaron burr hamilton? i assume you mean the hamiltonee alleged treason? yeah. ■zzno. one re, maybe ■rmore so, yeah. there was a question there. an for. a great column. and especially the personalrelal fortune. there was a thi of the law school class there of around, who then became the chief in virginiath'h brought battle with a lo

what i see as you basicallyg ofa justice and ascent while in the past has never been neither has justices been targeted targeted by biden ■i thomas is a g,decent excepti. all of themre this constant barrage from aoc and they want to packrts and it's the conservative judges doing■8■this. they all have good reason for it.v. roe v 50 years ago what we know now aboun the womb. that is why they could bring it forward. and there was no insurrection. i want you to look at the factse in telle me what i have researched and found to be an absolute lie. justice thomas is in exceptionally man on bias and a good humaned being. and so are the rest of the n plagued with a political attack on anything that has to do with whae want. and the way our system is. left. offends me. speak to laura, thank you for yourm a member of the left, i love our country love our country dearly. others of my colleagues■+ and folks who would consider themselves members of the left also loveur we ask you find that common humanity bet■aen we really doo want the same thig in many circumstances. or courts to be operating effect

that is wrong and that isn't equal justice for all. it is wrong. this wasn't equal justice for all. by the way, i think my rendition of what happened when the special counsel looked at that is pretty accurate. i even put the word kindly. kindly old gentleman and forgetful and it wouldn't be a good case for that reason and those are all accurate. j brad is a top aide to jack smith and i know you must be aware that he attempted to pressure the defense attorney for a close trump aid with a judgeship if the attorney when along with the desires and his demand. are you aware of that? >> i know them to be an excellent lawyer and prosecutor and a person of high ethics and i know the issue you talked about is disputed. those facts are disputed in the district court in florida and will be resolved by the judge in that case. >> that is why the case was stopped because obviously it is of concern and there is something there. are you aware that special counsel smith himself acknowledged in a court filing that after the fbi seized evidence on mar-o-lago, that some evidence was altered or manipula

the youngstown case and justice robertke to reo him, the first justice jackson. i look forward to that book as well. could say more, but that would take away from our time to hear about justice. bushrod washington. please join me in welcoming professor gerard magliocca gerard magliocca. thank you. chilton. thank you, chilton. thank you, justice kavaugh. thank you all for coming. are you all hearing me all right? yes. so i want to express appreciation to the supreme court historical and to mount vernon for co-sponsoring this event■n and supporting my research. all along the way. i learned just today that i learned ju pje bushrodt washington papers is live as of for years and so it's a nice cifruition on the day of this talk. i also am very pleased and, gratified really to t lecture e the pandemic. times whether i would prefer to ge zoom, and s yi absolutely because how could i paspeak to all of ys amazing space? so we look around this room, this we're takg moment to reflect on far the court has come since the when bushrod washington was a justice. you probably kno

but the justices and only the ni justices, are protected even from any fact fiing.ost rudimentary foundation off; legal process. and it's ironic because in theory, the supreme court isend integrity of legal process in this country and what theyt thes most rudimentary pillar. obviously, this is all part of a longla string of problematic behavior that has come to the public's attention, which has received adequate fact finding over at the court. so for sure, the far right justices have demonstrated that they need to be subject to an enforceable ethics code. you remember the routine they've been on othe first, it was don't bother us. this is nobody's concern and then it was, oh, all right, we had that ethics statement that we're going to put out about our es that wasn't good enough and then it was okay, okay, we'll do an ethics code, but it's like, we'll play by the rules of baseball,bout umpires. so we'll have an ethics code and we will a play by the rules of baseball and we'll call our own balls and strikes and call ourselves safe every time and there will be no disp

the department of justice. so people like thomas massie, who sent that letter last night, they are expected to ask garland about that very issue and we'll get a lot more insight. but this has been something that house republicans have been fighting against for several years now, this is not a new issue, just some please something that republicans are certainly going to be talking about with garland in there. and just a few minutes. >> well, we look forward to hearing what they're trying. general says about that meanwhile, the letter that i just read, kaitlan also spread some baseless conspiracy theories, including the quote investigations have pointed to the fbi's possible involvement in facilitating think the events of january 6 there's no evidence of that, of course, in fact, the fbi informants were trying to stop the violence. there. that's why they were there but as the alleged source for these republicans, the letter cited a new york post article about the fbi informants who were sent to the stop, the stea

i know justice thomas has been targeted by biden for decades. justice thomas is a good justic.rrage from aoc and want courts hey it is the conservative all have good reason for it. the roe v. wade■c, we did not know 50 years ago what we know n■;ow about babies in the womb. that is why they broughtti way f the casant get up there and tell me what i have reseched and found out to be an absolute lie. justice thomas is an exceptionally just man, unbiased, and a good human being. are the rest of the judges, but we with this political attack on anything that has to do with wat and the way our system is. america. this attack on our justices offends me. gut: thank you for your comments. i am aberf the left. i love our country dearly. colleagues folks who would consider themselves members of the left also love our country. that is where you find that common humanity between us because we really do want the circumstances. we want our courts to be efficiently and doing j. i believe that you want that and i want that too. so i would ask that we can find some reasonable agreement. that is a

justice sotomayor is the oldest of the liberal justices.t turned 70 this past week, maybe middle-age by supreme court standards. i would not expect a retirement announcement, but you never know. host: let's hear from yvonne in carson city, nevada on the democrats line. good morning, yvonne. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i'm disappointed in the supreme court. they have an opportunity to help women who are pregnant and having a medical emergency, and they are basically abandoning care of women. the procedure of an abortion is standard of care and incomplete, end of a pregnancy. i just can't express how disappointed i am in them. thanks. host: thanks for calling. one last call, leticia from palm springs, california, calling on a republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say i think amy is doing a wonderful job, and also, telling about homelessness and the decision made on homelessness, i understand that all cities have ordinances and non-loitering, you know, like, why is it that those are not enforced, fi

justice sotomayor is the oldest of the liberal justices.t turned 70 this past week, maybe middle-age by supreme court standards. i would not expect a retirement announcement, but you never know. host: let's hear from yvonne in carson city, nevada on the democrats line. good morning, yvonne. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i'm disappointed in the supreme court. they have an opportunity to help women who are pregnant and having a medical emergency, and they are basically abandoning care of women. the procedure of an abortion is standard of care and incomplete, end of a pregnancy. i just can't express how disappointed i am in them. thanks. host: thanks for calling. one last call, leticia from palm springs, california, calling on a republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say i think amy is doing a wonderful job, and also, telling about homelessness and the decision made on homelessness, i understand that all cities have ordinances and non-loitering, you know, like, why is it that those are not enforced, fi

ask justice jackson? >> so, i think i now understand better your position in your discussions with justice kavanaugh, became clear that you are saying that for the private acts of a president, there is no immunity, but for the official acts of the president, there is immunity. is that your position? >> i agree with that. >> all right, so, one thing that occurs to me is that this sort of difficult line drawing problem we are having with obvious hypotheticals, is this a private act or a public act, is being necessitated by that assumption. because of course, if official acts didn't get absolute immunity, then it would matter, we would have to identify which are private and which are public, correct? >> that in fact is the approach of the d.c. circuit. there is no determination -- so, to the extent we are worried about, how do we figure out whether it is private or public, we have to understand that we are only doing that because of an underlying assumption that the public acts get immunity. so, let me explo