justice scalia came over. i think he wants to shake your hand at right is justice scalia put his hand in this man's hand the man shouted of the biggest, biggest on the u.s. supreme court. i said get away from him. the marshals taken down the aisle and justice scalia turned. i said nino i'm really sorry about that. he said i didn't hear the man. i think he did. i didn't hear the man. he was unconcerned. at times i would get my feelings hurt on his behalf over something in the press and he would say forgive them. that's just what they do. forgive them. he was very unconcerned. yes. >> i only read the introduction last night after picked up the book. one of the things that practitioners and obviously you would as a friend knew of justice scalia's great humor. i've been blessed with couple of times to argue before the court and read making your case before. in any case the point being my first thought after hearing of his passing was the oral arguments were not nearly as fun with his loss. you do have the chance t

when they decide cases. >> with respect to justice scalia, judge kavanaugh and the late justice scalia had a lot in common in terms of judicial philosophy, and judge kavanaugh has said or written that justice scalia was a hero to him, a role model as a judge. i think those similarities will be obvious in terms of things like textualism. there are some differences. i think justice scalia was famous for writing a very strongly worded defense that would bring out the worst in the majority opinion. point out that if the majority opinion is in fact correct, we are not just at step a, we are at step z already my guess is that judge kavanaugh would be unlikely to pursue that strategy. he is a very disciplined and restrained writer in defense of the majority opinion, and very concerned with collegiality and things like that. his opinions will have a different flavor than justice scalia's did. >> come on down to the microphone, right down here. >> hi. i'm with breitbart. i have been to some of the protests, and interesting to hear from three women because one of their main complaint is they thi

justice scalia dissented from that, and he indicated that he thought that justice scalia's dissent hada lot of strong points to it. i think that reflected his view that u.s. citizens had a special place in our constitutional system and it is important to protect liberty liberty even in wartime, even when there are threats to national security. but even in that case and i'm not sure he's just an , andurning that precedent he will not be speculating on what he will overturn an will want to overturn in the weeks to come. am reminded that, i of cases where he is that i t might be preceden wrongly decided, but i am applying it here anyway. the met has a healthy wrist act for precedent. >> into the sea sir, there is a case -- circuit, there's a case where the panel says it a decision things it should be overturned, they will ask colleagues if it can be overture. i believe judge kavanaugh has never or almost very sparingly ever use that. i do not remember it in my turn. no cases come to my where he tried to overturn d.c. circuit precedent. he has taken a broad view to the importance of suprem

so three of you went on to clerk on the supreme court for justices scalia and chief justice roberts. i'm just curious to get your impressions as to in what ways you think judge kavanaugh, should he be confirmed, would be similar to or different from them. >> i will start. i think one thing that chief justice roberts and judge kavanaugh have in common is they're just both unfailingly gracious to their law clerks, to their colleagues, to anyone that they will come across. having worked for both of them, i don't think i ever heard either of them raise their voice to a law clerk, to somebody that they disagreed with. if they had to wait in line, an extra long time because the valet had lost the keys to their car, they don't lose their temper. they are incredibly civil and collegial people. i think both the chief justice and judge kavanaugh also appropriately respect the role of congress, as congress not the court should be deciding political issues, and they will both enforce that and respect the proper role of the other branches, and when they decide cases. >> i think with respect to ju

anything to say if that affected his jurisprudence more broadly so one is fairly well-known that justice scalia wrote an article and 2,002 about the question if you could be a a practicing and devout catholic and be a justice on u.s. supreme court given the number of death penalty cases the court heard every term and the fact the catholic church at the time the formal position was the death penalty was immoral. it will be a somewhat surprisingly wrote an article saying that if he believed his catholic faith actually prohibited the death penalty he would have the obligation to resign from office rather than decide those cases but he thought his view of the catholic doctrine that it was not immoral and that allowed him to continue to be a justice it was very provocative and interesting take on things that was criticized and celebrated by others but i do happen to know this because of the office of legal counsel, justice scalia started at the head of the office of the ford administration he had to do extraordinary work when presidential power was cut back right after watergate. in the following ye

a were never supposed to see president trump nominating replacements for justice scalia and justice kennedy. that was never supposed to happen, and we should be excited that we live in this current reality. >> absolutely. well said. i think that that's the scene. there are some specific areas dig a little bit. i want to talk to you about the standard you alluded to. it is something we will see on our television screens. there is a battle currently over document production. democrats are asking for every document that brett kavanaugh has ever held in his hands. it's overbroad, clearly. there are timing considerations and archived considerations. career is as associate counsel in the white house and then served as staff secretary. it seems to me the issue is work product. is work are counsel, it product. help everyone understand the stakes of this document fight and why it matters in terms of the timeline? >> we are past the rollout phase in getting to know the judge, and we are getting to know the fight over document production, and that is really a fight over time. democrats know they have

watch what brett kavanaugh says about that. >> justice scalia was a fierce guarantor of rights.d practices that infringed on those rights. no deference there. but on the flip side, courts have no legitimate role, justice scalia would say, in creates new rights not spelled out in the constitution. on those issues he believed in complete deference to the political branches in the states. deference because the constitution gave the court in legitimate role in the case. think about his dissents in casey on abortion and on same sex marriage. his opinions on the constitutionally of the death penalty articulated by some of his fellow justices over the years. for justice scalia, it was not the court's job to improve on or update the constitution to create new rights. >> what he is suggesting there is that scalia was right to say no in both those cases, those so-called new rights don't actually apply here in this country, which could extend to a lot of modern life, if you think about brett kavanaugh's remarks about scalia giving us more than a hint as to how he would vote on those two is

i'm sure they were taking at each other the whole time but enjoyed it. >> justice scalia would whispercould do to avoid laughing out loud is pinch myself. people ask me what was your favorite scalia joke. i say i know what it is but i can't tell you. >> they enjoyed going to the office together, they enjoyed discussing particular operas. of course they appeared together in an opera. >> joining us now, eugene scalia, the son of the late supreme court justice, antonin scalia. thanks so much for coming in. why were they such good friends? >> they had a lot in common. people forget that. they had the same job, right? and in fact they were on the lower court of appeals together as well. they had both been professors. they're both new yorkers, so there was a lot in common. but then there were the differences. and they -- that was part of the strength of their relationship, that my father was perceived as conservative, she as liberal. but they had this love of the law and they liked to hash ideas out and arrive at what they thought was the right answer in part sometimes debating one another.

but he said that if you read justice scalia's opinion, it suggests that we don't conduct some kind of free wielding balance test when it comes to a fundamental right like the right to possess a weapon. was done forg test us by the founders and framers and ratifiers when they put the second amendment in the bill of rights. the question for a judge is not how great is the government or how narrowly tailored is the regulation in question, the question for the judge is is the regulation consistent with our history and tradition? and 52 pages his dissent goes through a thorough, thoughtful analysis of the history. it concludes that there is not a history and tradition that would allow the having of these weapons. for opinions, i'm looking forward to hearing a lot more in other areas. chris: tough act to follow. free speech, religion, guns, and to have to talk about administrative law. administrative law is the law of that governs how courts review the regulations. we live in and era today where most lawmaking is done by federal agencies and not congress or the courts. to provide an imperfe

justice scalia was confirmed 98-0. justice ruth bader ginsburg received their support of 96 senators -- the support of 96 senators. sadly democrats have no intention of getting this good man the consideration of the .upport -- of their support. is --he constitution says has turned to obstruct and oppose. it is true. the truth is it's not just limited to our nominee to the supreme court, democrats have tried to defeat or delay on most every single judicial nominee the president trump has set up her confirmation. as we spit there has been an unprecedented 42 district court nominees who are waiting for a senate vote. when the time comes, nearly every nominee draws significant if not universal opposition from democrats. the truth is there are a handful of democrats that vote with us from time to time but it's a small number. look at neil gorsuch, he had a unanimous and well-qualified rating from the american bar, though here been confirm of the , alle in 2006 unanimously the three democrats voted against -- all but three de

the first is, he's a lot like justice scalia when it comes to interpreting statutes. he is a textualist. ofuses all the tools statutory lubrication -- statutory limitation to evaluate. that matters under chevron because if the statute is unambiguous, the agency doesn't get any deference. that is the first step of chevron. for judge kavanaugh and his opinions, you see him finding statutes unambiguous more often than a lot of his peers. at a lecture he gave here last year, he explained that in an eloquent way, building on a harvard law review where he said some judges want to be 90% certain that a statute is unambiguous before they declare it unambiguous. i am probably closer to 60%. he will use the tools and say, if it is fairly certain, i am not going to defer to the federal agency. it's quite similar to a opinion from the supreme court written by justice gorsuch. he said the standard should be clear enough. not crystal clear, but a clear enough standard. the first way you will see a justice kavanaugh differ perhaps from his former boss is, he is much more of a textua

justice on the supreme court. then we will hear from jennifer mascot, and assistant professor at the scalia law school. she is also a public member of the administrative conference of the united states. jennifer clerked for judge kavanaugh. i think she was the first law clerk he hired. also for justice clarence thomas on the supreme court. she is a graduate of the university of maryland and george washington university law school. last but not least, we will hear , he runs a jaffer national security program. he served as the chief counsel and counsel to the house intelligence community. he was one of neil gorsuch's clerks. -- ofa graduate of the ucla, the chicago law school and the naval war college. with that, i will turn it over to justin. about agoing to talk few of judge kavanaugh's opinions about individual rights. there's not enough time to go through all of them, he has been on the bench 12 years, written over 300 opinions. hopefully you have watched enough cable news or read enough coverage to know that 13 of his opinions have been endorsed by the supreme court. that thehink suggests opinions we

we were never supposed to see a president trump nominating replacements for justice scalia and justice kennedy. there was never supposed to happen and we should all be excited that we live in his current reality. [applause] >> absolutely. well said! i think that kind of sets the scene and i think there is some specific areas where we can dig a little bit with the 15 minutes or so we have remaining.first i want to ask you about state of play and i want to talk about the standard you alluded to.it is certainly something we will see on television screens and late august and early september. gary, there's a battle currently over document production. democrats are asking for every document that brett kavanaugh has ever held in his hands. it is clearly overbroad but their timing considerations, there are archives considerations, anyway, his career is he served as associate counsel in the bush white house and then served as the secretary.it seems to be the issue is work product. when your staff secretary does not work product. when you are assistant counsel at his work product. talk to everyo

we were never suppose today see president trump nominating replacements for justice scalia and justicekennedy that was never supposed to happen and we should be excited that we live in this current reality. >> absolutely. [applause] >> well said i think that kind of sets the scene. first i want to ask you kind about state of play and i want to talk about you the ginsburg standard, you have alluded but we will see on television screens in late august early september, gary, there's a battle currently over document production. democrats are asking for every document that brett kavanaugh has ever held in his hands. it's overbroad clearly but there are timing considerations, there are archive considerations, anyway, his career is he served as associate counsel in the bush white house and then served as staff secretary. seems to me the issue is work product. when you're staff secretary, when you're assistant counsel it is work product. help them understand the stakes of this document fight and why it matters in terms of the timeline. >> we are past the roll-out phase and fully into the phase

i remember sitting and talking to justice scalia, and he was steamed up about what happened. remember i was trying to explain to the editors, this was not just another abortion decision, this was an earthquake. there is now a majority that upholds the right to abortion, and it is not going to change anytime soon. that was scalia's view as well. that was the phone where -- the fall where bill clinton was elected. you are not going to have more pro-life justices appointed. but -- [laughter] road, noars down the things are about to change. >> with brett kavanaugh. >> correct. if brett kavanaugh is confirmed this fall, we will have about five justices who think roe is wrong, believe abortion is immoral, and the question is, do they come together and overturn or someack on it, combination thereof? >> at this point, how have groups opposed to abortion tried to overturn roe v wade? david: there is then and now. in the last 25 years, they have tried regulations. they know they can't go to the court and say, overturn roe, allow our state to make abortion and crime across the board. th

i remember talking to justice scalia, he was still steamed up about what happened. fallte a long story in the , reconstructing what happened inside the court. trying to explain to editors, this wasn't just another abortion decision, it was an earthquake. majority with the right to abortion. it will not change anytime soon. that was scalia's view. i remember writing that. it was also the fall bill clinton was elected. going forward, we had a situation where there is not going to be more pro-life justices appointed. 26 years down the road, now things are about to change. >> and with brett kavanaugh. >> when he is confirmed this fall, you will then have five wrong,s who think it was andeve abortion is immoral, the question will be do they ,ome together and overturn it cut back on it, or some combination? >> how have groups that are opposed to abortion gone about trying to overturn roe v. wade? >> there was then and now. for the last 25 years, they have tried regulations. they know they couldn't go to the court and say overturn it, allow our state to make abortion a cri

i remember sitting and talking to justice scalia, and he was steamed up about what happened. i wrote a long story in the fall , sort of reconstructing what had happened inside the courtroom and that is where that quote must have come from, because i remember i was trying to explain to the editors, this was not just another abortion decision, this was an earthquake. and there is now a majority that upholds the right to abortion, and it is not going to change anytime soon. that was scalia's view as well. so i remember writing that. that was also the fall where bill clinton was elected. so going forward, you then had a situation where there were not going to be more pro-life justices appointed. 25, 26 years down the road, and now things are about to change. >> with brett kavanaugh. mr. savage correct. : if brett kavanaugh is confirmed this fall, we will have about five justices who think roe is wrong, believe abortion is immoral, and the question will be, do they come together and overturn roe, go back on it, or some combination thereof? >> at this point, how have groups opposed

he quotes justice scalia. when you see things together you have to see what they have in common so he cites the following example. joe dimaggio and other great competitors. you want to say sam walton is included on the list has a great competitor but the list is obviously limited to great athletic competitors. what do the terms treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors have in common? they are all crimes. the other is called leniency that means when you are construing statute or the provision that has a punitive impacts, you have to construe it in the narrow possible way with all doubts resolved against a broad application. its assume hypothetically madison and hamilton say what they said and the framers had in mind a broad position. that is an what was ratified. it was the word of the constitution. when you look at the words and apply principle, you cannot conclude the commission of a crime is not a prerequisite. once you can prove the commission of a crime you have to introduce other factors. t

the first is he is like justice scalia when it comes to interpreting statutes. he is a textual list. ofhas all the tools interpretation to limit ambiguities. that matters under chevron because if a statute is unambiguous, the agency does not get deference. for judge kavanaugh and his opinions, you see him fighting statutes unambiguous more often than his peers. in a lecture he gave last year, he explained that in ellicott -- eloquent way. he said judges want to be 90% certain that a statute is on in the u.s. before they declare it unambiguous. to 65%.ser he will use the tools and say if it is fairly certain, i am not going to defer to the federal agency. it is similar to an opinion of the supreme court. besaid the standard should clear enough, not crystal clear but clear enough standard. the first week i think you will see justice kavanaugh different from his former boss, justice kennedy is he is more of a textualist. the second way is built on a case the justice already talked about witches a net neutrality regulation case. justice kavanaugh in the first half o

friendship with justice scalia. extraordinary piece of work. >> rgb, original film premieres next monday, labor day 9:00 p.m. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ meet george jetson. ♪ ♪ his boy elroy. with instant acceleration, electric cars are more fun to drive and more affordable than ever. electric cars are here. plug into the present. - i'm at a time in my life where i wanna do business with companies who do right by me. - [announcer] the hartford is the only auto insurance company voted one of the world's most ethical companies 10 times, and 96% of customers recommend the hartford based on their claim experience. join the millions of customers who trust the hartford. call to get a quote from the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. >>> so we're now just a little over two months away from what could be the most consequential mid terms in years. i want to talk about the state of politics in america with a national correspondent for the atlantic. the co-author of our 100,000-mile journey into the heart of america

friendship with justice scalia. extraordinary piece of work. >> rgb, original film premieres next monday, labor day 9:00 p.m. airs on 9/3. we'll be right back. that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes. this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? only remfresh uses keep 1 in ion-powered melatonin to deliver up to 7 hours of sleep support. number 1 sleep doctor recommended remfresh -- your nightly sleep companion. available in the natural sleep section at walmart. pah! thano, no, no, nah.k. a bulb of light?!? aha ha ha! a flying machine? impossible! a personal' computer?! ha! smart neighborhoods running on a microgrid. a stadium powered with solar. a hospital that doesn't lose power. amazing. i like it. never gonna happen. of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's canc

they ultimately ruled that they did, but in morrison, justice scalia dissented and that decision by the way is basically going to be overruled, if it already has been. many jurists including justice elena kagan says that justice scalia was right on point on this. so that decision -- >> but you had a majority decision that went against what you're arguing right now. >> no, not on point because we had several other arguments that were not addressed in morrison and that dealt with a different issue of whether the three-judge court can be the appointing power. so it is a very weak precedent at best, and the supreme court has the last word on this. we think -- >> is there any case that has ever ruled the way you want to see it? >> well, this is a precedent-setting case. by definition -- >> no. >> -- there isn't. but we have a lot of arguments that we make to show that we do have a good case. >> right. >> the judge recognized it -- >> if you lose, will he testify? >> he'll have to testify if we lose, of course. >> so he will not hold out because he's libertarian. maybe he would just hold out

he recalls his relationship with the legs of her in court justice antonin scalia and talks about hisbook "nino and me" at the heritage foundation in washington d.c.. this is 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome everybody to heritage foundation. delighted to have you here today for a very special event on the book by bry g

majority the equal protection clause, their juries prudence, they argue, heavily associated with justice scalia, they argue that all the equal protection clause requires is color blindness and the state must be color blind and must be color conscious in any context, well, what was the 14th amendment for, we fought a civil war, designed to overrule scott and >> and make former slaves citizens. the radical republicans who drafted that document were as conscious as you could be about the violence of racism.nevita there is nothing inevitable in the law that requires colorblindness. the supreme court i hate to sayn it is ast political institution highly politicized.d pull on the right decided that.g it will take a very, very long time to get the jurisprudence of equal protection to reflect something reflect s different al about politics. meanwhile i think anybody who is an intellectual cannot honestly say i don't see color. everybody sees color. blind i think that claim is an efforte to avoid those discussions of is race and it makes peoplempedes uncomfortable discussing racial inequality so in that

court of appeals ohmic appeals were high court justice ranging from justice scalia to justice ginsburg all got their seasoning before going to the high court. they sat on paper, kavanaugh might be the most qualified supreme court nominee in the decades. in fact today a letter was signed saying judge kavanaugh has earned an reputation for carefully crafted opinions. he has received a widespread bipartisan praise. the democrats best hope was to peel off moderate republicans by trying to claim he would not -- roe v. wade was critical in law. the same with the neil gorsuch nomination. so they been pushing more roadblocks like demanding documents, watch. >> the majority of the senate has still not seen the bulk of his record. >> 100% of the documents that are relevant, at 100% of them are before us, and they are open to any senator to look at. >> judiciary chair grassley just announced another major breakthrough. the panel is releasing 85,000 more pages of documents from his time as a young white house lawyer. that means they have now turned over 287,000 pages. democrats want more and, cava

dagen: where would justice scalia stand on this?ople have the right to arm themselves the way the government does. >> i think justice scalia would be in favor of the free speech idea, that you can't suppress an idea, you can't suppress technology. maria: does this go up to the supreme court? >> yes, it does, probably after judge kavanaugh is there. maria: they're trying to have judge kavanaugh in place by october 1. >> yes. maria: judge, good to see you. thank you so much. coming up, a new policy for southwest airlines takes flight. we'll tell you about the shakeup, next. a painting getting patriotic, the new art inspired by president trump coming up right here, it's going viral right now. the employee of the year, anna. [music playing] (vo) progress is in the pursuit. audi will cover your first month's lease payment on select models during summer of audi sales event. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excelle

he clerked for justice scalia and was my co counsel. they have gamed this out. this is already briefed. >> they game it out a long time ago. that was the firm that represented bill clinton in his efforts to prevent testimony. in addition to his claim of executive privilege there is a constitutional argument and that is since a senator can't be questioned about what they did on the floor of the senate, i don't believe a president can be questioned about what why he pardoned or why he fired or why he tweeted or why he exercised any of his powers under article 2 of the constitution or the first amendment so although i think if the subpoena was issued and challenged i think mueller would be able to get some testimony from the president if he stayed away from issues that are covered by these privileges but in the end it would be a victory, it would take so much time it would guarantee that the report couldn't be written until after the mid-term elections. >> this is going to be going on for another week or so. >> he's a tough judge. >> laura: i love he says you have

last time you were here, sadly, justice scalia had just passed, and we were talking about the the possibleeft in barack obama's term was blocked. and in many ways was stolen from the process, and it's unfortunate that merrick garland is not sitting on the court right now. >> stephen: so what do the democrats do now? are they going to try to block brett cavanaugh? how can they? >> i don't think it's just democrats. it's all americans. this is a moral moment you have to decide. i'm not casting judgment on whether you believe cavanaugh should be confirmed or not. there's a lot at stake, health care, pre-existing conditions. there's a federal case going on right now where the affordable care act which its critical components are hanging in the balance. we saw the 5-4 decision around the right to marry the person you love, voting rights, worker rights, so many things in the balance. a woman's right to make decision without the government telling her what to do. this is a moment when all of us should speak up. there's a surrendering to cynicism about this process, that the deck is already stacke

idea the commerce clause has limits but then joined the liberal majority in gonzalez along with justice scaliathat seem to scuttle any effort to enforce these limits. nor does she discuss kennedy's controversial decisions decisions about the scope of presidential powers during wartime. naturally i am curious to know what helen thinks about justice kennedy's rulings on these topics and how they relate to his views on liberty. but. but my curiosity aside her book has successfully demonstrate her mastery of justice kennedy's decisions on liberty which is why want to know more and i know her well enough to guess she would insist on her need to study the subjects in depth before offering any opinion. this goes to show that helen is a scholar not a polemicist to underscore the tie goes to freedom is a work of scholarship and not polemics. initial remarks i cannot possibly some right summarizer clinique her analysis over free speech due process and equal protection nor do i have a scholarly opinion of my own on how exactly to understand justice kennedy's jurisprudence. read this book is much to learn

died in office to lower the flag and barack obama issued proclamation for kennedy and as well as justice scalia. what does it tell you or what should it tell all of us that president trump is not issuing such a proclamation to keep the flag lower. >> senator mccain deserves it and he's widely recognized for being the american hero that he is. i am along with chuck schumer and a bunch of democrats, hoping they change the russell building to be named senator mccain. he's much more deserving than that. i don't know the background yet. i know the president did not answer the question about it during the nafta phone call today. it is an over sight at best. >> hughes, you don't think this is an over sight. you can't think that president trump just forgot to issue the proclamation? >> no, at best, if he did it intentionally, it is a horrendous mistake and a moral failing. john mccain trans sepcends. so john mccain made up with everyone. i was playing my favorite clips of him on hi radio show, we went around and around a few times. i hope president trump makes that move quickly. >> mark, "the washingto

filibuster for neil gorsuch, they would like to have filibuster now to replace justice kennedy and not justice scalia don't have it, the base wanted blood and schumer had nowhere to go, now, they are basically pounding the table and trying to make hay out of this but nothing that we have seen thus far is near anything that could possibly derail the kavanaugh confirmation. mike: there seems to be effort to link the president's former associates to judge kavanaugh, any reason to believe that he's somehow ties with some of those former associates getting into some trouble? >> anything that we've seen. we have a lot of -- a a lot of emails, documents, historic documents including making lunch plans with high-ranking officials and law firms and interesting to see what they were doing in early 30's, nothing that has come out thus far, i think, deals a body-blower or wounds kavanaugh in any way. mike: democrats pushed for more documents under president george w. bush, does that material indicate how kavanaugh would act as a supreme court justice? >> certainly not the staff secretary materials. all documents

justice kagan has said in a few speeches that in a world that has been shaped by justice scalia's textualism, that we are all textualists now to a degree. to the extent that there is a spectrum of how faithful a judge is going to be to text, as informed by structure and history and precedent. on that spectrum, i think judge kavanaugh is very much toward the side that sees the judge's role as a limited role. he used to tell us in chambers and in his separation of powers class that he taught when i was in law school, he would tell us every case is a separation of powers case. even when that claim is not raised. what he meant is that every case requires the judge to remember the proper limited role of the judiciary in our structure. that is the executive and legislative that make policy and it is the judge's role not to invent law, but to simply apply the law. those are a few thoughts. >> i would say, my co-blogger has a blog post on the first case there. quite frankly, he has had this itch for the anti-injunction act. i don't agree with him. that is a reasonable position -- i think it's wrong.

justices ruth bader ginsburg and antonin scalia. justice ginsburg: take the worst-case scenario, roe vs. wade is overruled by the supreme court. there will be states, a sizable number, that will not go back to the way it was. at the time of roe vs. wade, there were four states that gave women access to abortion without any questions asked in the first trimester. so those states are not going to change. what it means is a woman who can afford a plane ticket, a bus ticket, will be able to decide for herself whether to have an abortion. but the women who won't have that choice are poor women. justice scalia: these are political questions for the american people to decide. that is what democracy is about. do you think abortion should not be prohibited? fine. persuade your fellow citizens. pass a law. you think the opposite? persuade them the other way. but don't tell me the constitution has taken that issue out of democratic choice. it simply hasn't. host: there we have two members of the current court, and also united states senators, l

these campaign finance laws are so confusing that even justice scalia with the help of four brilliantrks said he couldn't figure them out. for example, a president or a candidate is entitled to make millions of dollars for contributions to his own campaign. and if he himself, if president trump paid the hush money, hush money is not illegal -- >> if he did it through the corporation. >> no, no, put aside the corporation for a moment. >> but that's how the money was paid back to cohen. >> well, you know, the question is, what was his state of mind at the time, if he directed the person to do it? if he directed the lawyer to do it and if it came from his own money, that would be lawful. >> right, but he didn't -- >> but if cohen himself made the contribution -- we'll wait and see. cohen himself made the contribution, that would be a crime but cohen. but that wouldn't make trump an unindicted coconspirator. you can have a crime committed by cohen but even if he's directed to do it by trump, if trump had the authority to do it and it depends on where the money came from, it depends on a v

equal protection clause, their jurisprudence they argue -- and this was heavily associated with justice scalia, they argue that all the equal protection clause requires is colorblindness and that thees state must be color blind and can't be color conscious in anyi in any context. well, what was the 14th amendment for?at i mean, we fought a civil war.me the 14th amendment was designed to overrule dred scott and make former slaves citizens, right? the radical republicans who draftedan that document were as conscious as you could be about the virulent violence of racism, right?'s there's nothing inevitable in the words equal protection of the law that involves colorblindness. so the supreme court, i hate to say it, but it's a political institution. it's beenen highly politicized, youu know? people on the, the right decidei that, right? it will take a very, very long time to get the jurisprudence of the equal protection clause to reflect something different. and it is about politics. meanwhile, you know, i think that anybody who's intellectually honest cannot honestly is say i don't see color. eve

written by justice scalia and the supreme court struck it down under the first amendment and alluded to video games have the same degree of protection as traditional forms of media. that is the law of the land. i do not think judges believe it. [laughter] i do not think they apply it in practice. there is a hierarchy of first amendment protection and at the top are books and newspapers and .elow that, television shows somewhere down here are video games. what we have seen -- kelly has been personally involved in hits playersem, it against video makers that references them in some way that it be not characters resemble them. and for the most part, the plaintiff the sports players have prevailed. despite what the supreme court has said, most of judges somewhere in a very gut do not feel video games are the same as movies even though today, a lot of them have shared many attributes with a movies. they have plot and character and again, most of the attributes, the added one that you can control the character. upvideogame cases that came during a certain pedal of time were all cases in wh