justice barrett: thank you chief justice roberts: justice jackson? justice jackson: so i guess i'm suddenly quite worried about the role of re questions and thtitutional allocation of auy concerns because i had derstood that it was bedrock in the equal protection framework that there w constitutional issue in any situation in which the legislature is drawing lines on the basis of a suspect classification, that it's a constitutional question that being raised when that is happening as a threshoter. and then you may go why is it happening, s the justification. and you've said here at the podium today that the different levescrutiny account for evidence has to be for doing that. and we really -- the court really holds t it in certain -- in a heightened scrutiny so. but the kind of initial issue is that a law is drawing lines on the basis of some suspect classification. am i -- is that -- does that accord -- mr. strangio: ye justice jackson: -- with your understanding of what we normally do? court because it's an for the constitutional question, is the s

chief justice roberts: justice thomas, anything further? justice alito? justice alito: this harmless error review -- is harmless error review confined to administrative record in the case at hand? mr. gannon: i don't think in this instance -- i think you would need tuaten the basis of what you know ahe agen i think you can take notice of all the public things that fda haady done. we are primarily pointing things fda had de before iengaged in these marketing denial orders. but we know that subseque orders apply to the same concern thathese youth marketing restrictions weren't independently suffito reduce the risk to youth posed by fd e-garettes in order to say you don't need to thextra benefit on the adult side of the equation in order to have a net population benefit. justice alito: a big part of your harmless error argument is based on ter that the fda issued after the order in this casehe logicology development case. is that proper to look to an order that came after the order in this case to determine whether the error -- mr. gannon: i think in this in

chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr.annon, i hat i hope is an easy and practical question. 's say we have a high degree confidence that the agency would decide the marketing question the same remand, on the harmlror point, but we still think that chenery requires us to send it back. as a practical matter, what happens? are confident that the agency is going to reach the same decision and its when it take the agency a long time to reconsider the ationnd do what we think they are going to do anyway? mr. gannon: in this instance we arsayi it is a big burden to reevaluate these particular applications as long as the court, assuming that the court is reversing the fifth cion t other things about not having to -- what udieit can ask for that once real scientific -- justice barrett: just a marketing question. mr. gannon: weot sing that is a big burden on the agency to have to deci application from these two applicants and look at the markplanand confirm that there is nothing in there that changes its mind about the bottom line

justice kavanaugh: thank you chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr.trgio, i wanted to give you a chance to see if -- i'm not sure if you named all of ts when we were talking about de jure discrimination before. you mentioned bans on cross-dressing and bans on military service. and i had t of the military service, but i had not -- i didn't know about the statuthibiting cross-dressing. cou think of others? are there -- mr. strangio: i mean, i would -- i would s are -- there are other examplese that exist in which sometimes homosexuality and transgender status are -- are f lumped together in -- in discriminatory frameworks as -- as language has -- has changed. but i think th salient to me would be the -- the -- the cross-dressing bans and the explicit bans on -- on military service for transgender individuals. justice barrett: okay. and thinking about, you know, when we identify and, you ow -- when we identify suspect classes, the factors that we've considered, one of the ones that the sixth circuit addressed was political power. do you want to -- do you

justice sotomayor: got it. thank you. chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsh? justice kavanaugh? justice ugh:wo -- two basic questions. so, whether we apply rational basis or intermediate scrutiny, either way, you end up looking at the state's justific and they are articulating health and safety justification, so it's not simplys legislation, as they've described it it's health and safety justific and it seems that there are rid benefits both ways here. 's very hard to weigh those at least as the briefing h out the -- the issues. if the treatment's barred, some kids will suffause they can't access the treatment. if the treatment is allowed, these treatments are allowed, some kids will suffer who get the treatment and later wish they hadn't and want to -transition. at least that's how i e positions set out in the briefs. in here, allowing the treatments or not allowing the ent, and how toe there is a very difficult judgment call, it s to me, but it's one -- you know, it's a difficult ju call as a matter of policy. and then for us to come in -- and this is repeat

it felt somehow fitting because justice to justice o'connor had momentum -- justice o'connor had momentum. she never looked back. she wasn't bitter about december advantages in the past -- disadvantages in the past. she didn't dwell on any can disappointments. she did not extend disagreements from one case to the next. she was always moving forward, and she carried other people along with her. of course, she was a pioneer, but she was not a loner. she was generous and collaborative. she gave other people both the credit and the benefit of the doubt. her parting message was that we should all try to help others along the way. she really believed and she often said that we do not accomplish anything in this world alone. as just one example, when she received the assignments to draft a decision requiring the admission of women to the virginia military institute, justice o'connor immediately suggested that justice ginsburg write the landmark if discrimination opinion instead. and she said this should be ruth's. she was a connector for all of her colleagues. she got the supreme court justices

>> he believes in the justice department. >> he believes in the justice department? said this, this is the president saying this, i would not interfere with the justice department decision-making, i kept my word, even if i has watched my son be unfairly prosecuted. >> how many prosecutions are there at the doj? >> what i can speak to this particular case which is hunter biden which has the last name of the president, who i just said there were political opponents were very clear and very vocal about going after his son, i just laid out multiple people who are part of that system, who have worked in the justice system or currently do so and have been very clear on how they feel about this particular case -- the cases against hunter biden. >> the judge said it was not political pressure when it came to the plea deal. they said this was a process issue. basically they had to agreements in one. basic questioning of this case that both lawyers could not really answer the questions of. so is he not undermining the judge and the judicial system he promised would be independ

justice robe i miss the connection. lauren: my point is merely at the point the right vests in the employee tndard would be used as a shield to prevent an erroneous deprivation to the right that accrue to the employee. justice jackson: i'm discerning a method logical difference between the two of you i'd like to ask about. the petitioner said the standard of proof question is ultimately a matter of congressional intent and i take you to be pushi back on that a little bit by your opening whesaid that when there's ncotitutional requirement and congress is silent, the standard of oois a question traditionally left to the judiciary and you seem to be inviting us to be weighing these values. and i th at least the way petitioner has set this up is that it's not our role to that, that what we should be doing, sheays, is determining th the congress' silence it acquiesces to the quality rule which is preponderance of the evidence. can you speak to the difference of methodology? lauren: certainly. i think pner's methodology is in

the justice department, i'm sorry, of the fbi. and it's a sort of all these senior fbi officials come over to the to the sorry, all these senior doj officials over to the fbi for what they hope be a come to jesus meeting where they can finally agree. doj and the fbi people looking at mar-a-lago. what do next and bluntly whether or not to carry out the first ever search of a former president's. they had been arguing for weeks about this and they going to this meeting it devolves into a shouting match. they're screaming at each. they don't trust each other. and the head of the washington field office for the fbi is named stephen don tano. he spoke to me on the record. he in the end of the meeting, he just says, i am not searching mar-a-lago. we're rushing this. and his it wasn't he was in tank for trump. what i found that these career people tend to be biased towards their own institution, towards their tribe. and he arguing if we do this search where it's we're into trump's m.o. we're into his conspiracy theory of the evil jackboot

chief justice. when congress does not address standard of proof this court has recogniz preponderance of the evidence as a defale for civil action. from that in a tiny number of cases when the constitution required it or in cases requiring significant depredation like deportation and expatriation. respondents claim seeking monitor remedies for a violations of the overtime requirement is not comparable to those cases. the respondents don't really argue otherwise. they are for -- they are for policy reasonshe policies promoted by the flsare similar to those in title vii that are recognized and adequately standard of proof.efault the respondents don't argue otherwise and instead offer policies that favor them. and they are like title 7 which the court recogni protected by the default standard of the court shouldd the preponderance of evidence stands and the lower courts, whether they met those standards in the first court. i look forward to your tions. justice thomas: would this b behalf of the respond

the challenge that arise is if it's justice kagan or justice courses -- the justices replacing wouldnd up serving only a few years, which is not great from a judicial independence perspective. we believe the trend term can be of limited via statute. our preferred method is to give all future justices for 18-year terms. we do appreciate the section of the resolution where on a rotating basis the seniormost associate justice would become chief justice. the idea justice on his or her first and the job could be the chief always sat a little strange with us. that is what happened with chief justice john roberts when he was nominated and voted onto the supreme court. your thoughts on term limits for supreme court justices. sheila in pennsylvania, you say no. caller: hello. it is sheila and westrick, massachusetts. -- in twister, massachusetts -- worchester, massachusetts. they will be -- there will be no continuity in what the constitution says. right now we have the nine judges. when they discuss something it will be yes or no, agree or not agree. i believe the forefathers were brilliant

and should get justice of . first of all, it took us a long time to then the left and then within the hub, if i may say that i, or 2 months ago i was in the, i wasn't in despair. i lost faith in hope and everything. but to do we are sad is gone now and we just stored hope. so we believe that the way to just this is going to be achieved one day and it's going to be near because it took effect. and he has to tell people that a team and now i think we need 14 is to set them accountable. but we persist on setting them accountable. we will never lose face, even if somebody come to me now. and he says like your brother was killed under torture or anywhere in his cell. i need the buddy. and i need to bury all the my, to the people who were mounted by that a team in prisons. and we need the bodies of the missing persons, the ones that we don't know if they are alive or dead or taken by today to forces or any other forces. i know that we know that we do have legal support from our colleagues and from the organizations wo

he believes in the justice system. he also believes politics infected the processnd led to a miscarriage of justice. this is his words. he also said no reasonable personf you're looking at this in a good-faith w, if you're looking at theacts of hunter's cases and can reach -- you c't reach any other conclusion. there are people who have commented on this, the president'actions in the last 24 hours. you can see hundred was singled out -- hunter was singled o because his last name was biden. because he was the preside's son. the esident believed enough is enough. the president tookction. he believes they tried to break his son in order to break him. that is what we saw. i'm repeating with the president said. the statement lays out s thought process. he said he came to this decision this weend and he wrestled with it. it was not an easy decision to make. >> if they were togetherhis weekend, that the president and hunter discussed the possibity ? that thetalk about this happening. >> he made it himself. i don't have anythg

justice sotomayor: i have -- justice alito: but -- but -- chief justice roberts: counsel -- justice sotomayor: -- a small question to finish with. to the solicitor general, raised respondents cite a figure of 85 percent of children expressing gender dysphoria regret later. you use a figure of 1 percent of miho receive this can you tell me where that -- where those figures d exactly what the difference is between that 1ernt of children who receive these treatmen eressing regret and the 85 percent? mr. strangio: certainly, justice sotomayor. would say about the 85 percent -- and we addressed n -- on page 22 of our reply brief -- that's a ding figure for -- for two reasons. i think, mitically, it refers to older studies of -- of prepubchildren. and everyone here agrees that the medications that are banned by sb1 are only escribed to individuals after the onset of puberty. evidence shows that once an adolescent reaches the onset of puberty, their likelihood to ultimately desist and identify with theth sex is very low. and then, as to the question o the 1 percent, the question of regret, which is

such an abuse and miscarriage of justice.u were traveling with the president during this thanksgiving holiday weekend, was there any indication that this news was coming? >> well, i think we all can look back and interpret things differently that i saw over the course of the last four days in nantucket and on air force one coming back last night, the thing that stuck out to me before we were able to break this news, the larger biden clan is sometimes what they are called, they were not together in the way they usually are over the holiday, and we know that naomi, the granddaughter is pregnant and due any week now and perhaps that was one reason why the larger family wasn't there, or they are planning for a larger christmas gathering at the white house for the last white house christmas this year but ultimately i think it is very significant that as the conversations around this pardon based on carol and sarah's reporting were very much between father and son for the most part. they did have an extensive period of time togethe

justice isn't for people like us or or getting justice isn't for people like us it's only for the rich and powerful in our country. and i think that's a really really terrible message to send. and i think that it is going to be a huge benefit to donald trump in what way? >> in terms of him that he can pardon whoever. i mean, he already used it generously, but that he can pardon whomever he wants because, you know, what's the response from democrats going to be? or is it more of you know, what tom cotton said earlier? you know, democrats can spare us the lectures about the rule of law when they say when president trump nominates pam bondi and kash patel to to clean up this corruption, i think look, i think it's partly the idea that that we've accepted the narrative that the department of justice is a corrupt institution. >> when there are thousands and thousands of people all over the united states of america that are working for that agency, that are defending the the interests of the american people when there are lawbreakers or when there are polluters or when there are folks that ne

. justice would come to syria. it's coming for both of them in europe. you know, copeland's, we work on it as up in france and i was, there is other sort of, i guess the shuttle i said, and also in jeremy's, there is many other students and this type, even thinking of he said, from disability and a lot of work to been structured for funds, the show and justice concept, applying justice in syria in front of the victims coaching. that could, i mean, as i put them in jail to be some piece of the victims. right. i want to put this, this question to both of you, but i'll start with you abraham, i'll i. so how do you insure and then you a syria, that just this is just this and not vengeance. thank you for this question. i think this is just the beginning of another challenge we're going to face when people took to the streets in syria. they wanted to build it. just add to realistic syria, as i've got in the way people wanted to topple side. now this is another charts and another chapter for the sea and people, but we wil

justice o'mara? ? justice kavanaugh? >> just one clarificatio it's an obvious point but i want to make sure you agree with it, which is you are not arguing that the constitution tas sides on this question, as i understand it you are arguing that each state can make its own choice on this question. so from your perspective, as i undetand it, it's perfectly fine for a state to make a ent choice, as states have, and teessee did and to >> yes.hese treatments, correct? yes, your honor, thcorrect. and we that's because of what your honor pointed out, no matter how you draw these lines, there are risks and potential benefi d harms to people on both sides. and the question of how to balance those harms is not a question for the judiciar 's a question for the legislature. >> thank you. >> states make a different choice if doing so means that state's law operates to treat its citizens ently on the basis mainly suspect classification? i thought that was the work of the constitution and the equal tion clause. >> your honor, we don't

that's how we got here. >> ms nbc justice legal affairs. anthony coley.nd former general counsel of the army. thank you both so much for jumping in front of a camera, being on with us this evening. . trying to figure out okay - what am i going to use on the shower, what am i going to use on the bathtub? i don't have to think about that. with magic eraser... i use it on everyday messes. i even use it on things that i think are impossible to clean. you just add water, and then i'm good to go. i can go from the countertop, to the stove, to the microwave, and just use one magic eraser. if you're a mom, you need mr. clean magic eraser in your life. it gets the job done. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... ...being me. keep being you... ...and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people—whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and st

and two of the justices we just, i think you played some tape of justice brown jackson speaking aboute of the conservative response has been furious. part of what we see and part of what our reporting is about is about this very sensitive, almost awkward debate inside the supreme court. this very delicate question about their own conduct. turning into an enforcement debate. and then turning into a much more blistering debate in public. what's happening now is essentially that many liberals are saying why is there no enforcement mechanism. this is suspect. we had reader comments today saying from people saying this adds to my suspicions that this court is corrupt and out of touch with reality. but then you have a very strong conservative point of view saying the people pushing enforcement are undermining the rule of law. they could really put the supreme court in a lot of trouble and there have even been accusations that say justice kagan, one activist even called her somewhat treasonous. this is feeling more like a philosophical law school debate and more like an ugly partisan shoutin

justice system.on says -- i have more faith in the dall cowboys to win the super bowl this year. ura says -- in general, yes, i'm extremely concerned that the justice system failed to prosecute trump for his crimes against the country. he seems to be getting away with everything. it is not right. this is kathleen, chicago, democrat. caller: how are you doing? two thing is, this guy, glenn ivey, he needs to shut up because trump has already said what he is going to do when he got back in office. so what joe biden did the other day he should have done. what hunter biden did, he paid back everything, he did not shoot the gun, but i wish you all would be more open. i know you all are not supposed to comment on what people say and let them say stuff, but why don't you put up a list of how many people, criminals, actually criminals that trump pardoned, and how many times his party called him bad. these people were actually criminals. not only did he pardon them, he turned around and put some of them in his

, is to seek justice.gree with you when you take action, about whether those things are just or fair. but that is the responsibility. >> jon: did you see in your time when you were there, did you see the mission begin to change? did you see it become politicized? while we were there? when you first started, wasn't much more nuts and bolts? because i guess that is not the part of the justice department that i think about. i also think about after 9/11, you know, the department of justice to justify torture. or is there another hallway, where there is another department of justice, where you guys are working on human trafficking, but they are they are trying to justify other may be less, what you would say, high-minded things. >> yeah. look, the vast majority of folks of the department of justice are what they call career employers. that doesn't mean that they are necessarily -- >> jon: i know what this is! >> i'm not even entirely sure what the deep state is. >> jon: it is a state that is very deep! don't p

justice department tried to put donald trump in jail for 750 years with all their weaponnized lawfare tactic with no merit at all, all this shows why it is essential to clean up the justice department and fbi. now, bring on stage kash patel, who president trump is nominating for fbi director. kash patel is mr. clean up. he's a brilliant guy, vast experience in law, national security and fighting cry. he'll come into the fbi to cleanse the agency. to clear out all of the deadwood. because right now the fbi is ought in the throes of the greatest corruption scandal since jay edgar hoover, and this must be stopped, must be ended, and the president trump knows this. he knows it well. kash patel is exactly the guy toy do it. now, take a listen to this tape from our show, what, two weeks ago. take a listen, please. >> the worst weapon we have in government is a two-tiered system of justice that's been weaponnized. i think it's time that donald trump came in there with sweeping mandate that the american public gave him to return a singular system of constitution of justice. there's no revenge

chief justice and senator. i accept with humility, the honor which the people have conferred upon me. i accept that with a resolve to do all that i can for the welfare of this nation and, for the peace of the world. american people stand firm in the faith which has inspired this nation from the beginning. we believe that all men have a right to, equal justice under the law and equal opportunity in the common good. we believe that all have a right to freedom of thought and expression. we believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of god god from this great faith. we will they move. america. people desire and determined to work for our world, which all nations and, all peoples are free to govern themselves as they see fit. and. to achieve a decent and satisfying life above all else. our people desire and are determined to work for peace on earth, a just and lasting based on genuine agreement. freely arrived at by equal and the persons of these days. the united and other like mind

thomas, the fishing trip on the airplane with justice alito.t the sense that there's a lot more to this than individual episodes. it is actually a plan and a program that the supreme court, at least these justices, were very, very aware of and witting of and it puts the chief justices and the judicial conference's failure to get in there and clean it up in i think a rather different and more damning light. >> what could the chief justice do? >> oh, we just did my report about two weeks ago. every single supreme court, all 50 states and the district of columbia, have figured out how you take the system and figure out a way so that the supreme court justices can be reviewed when there's a challenge to their ethical conduct. it's really simple. you have an inbox where ethics complaints can go. you have people who screen to take out the crazy ones. you have staff lawyers who investigate and that's really the key here. there's no investigation. you don't do fact finding if you're in the supreme court. everybody else does fact finding, not the suprem

, who has said that he's going to use the criminal justice system, the department of justice ought to basically take retribution against all of his enemies. you said one of those is joe by another is hunter by and i, and i think the concern is that 100 buying is going to be singled out and be put in a worse position if he has to continue in the criminal justice system through donald trump. do you see this decision by president biden as having consequences beyond his to as well? it consequences to the extent that you hit on before clearly. um, this is not great in the sense that it's gonna give donald trump presumably some cover when he tries to pardon when he does, pardon. i've been january 6 defendants and other people that he's pardoned. and even though there is not really, that's a false equivalency between the 2 main. first of all, if you take the criminal charge on the the gun charge. uh no one has ever charged a loan for, for that gun charged for 11 days. and it's very rare that anybody's charged with the tax violations when they've been on drugs. and on top of that, all they pa

this bypassed the usual processes set up by the justice department for a pardon. you should be eligible for executive clemency until after you have served your sentence and this is obviously a different situation. it is not the first time we have had a presidential relative, you know, benefit from executive clemency but it is the first time that a son has been given a pardon. what carol lee reported is pretty important to remember. if in fact what her people are telling her is correct and president biden kept this on the table while he was publicly saying he would rule it out that leads to all kinds of other questions as well. what changed between june when he said no pardon and today when he said yes, he was the, and karine jean-pierre was asked about that and said, well, you wrestle with it. that's fine, but he was wrestling with it in june as well and what has changed is there has been an election since then. the motivator may be the party said he was worried about what the justice department might do with his son in the next administration and that is why he g