justice kagan: that's -- ms. murphy: you may disagree with -- justice kagan: yeah, yeah, yeah, i understand the point. all, i guess, i'm just saying is this would be an enormous change in practice. ms. murphy: not at all, your honor, because the past practices, there are none. they have not pointed to a single deferred action program that granted it to a class of individuals who had no lawful path to status in this country. justice ginsburg: is that true of all other deferred actions mentioned in the appendix, the one that the congressional research service did? ms. murphy: yes. most of those are not deferred action programs. they're extended voluntary -- justice ginsburg: i mean, they are different. ms. murphy: there's really there's only about four deferred action programs that were class-based. those all were path to lawful status. u visas, t visas, people who held f1 visas during hurricane katrina. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. five minutes, general verrilli. general verrilli: thank you, mr. chief just

justice kagan: mr. francisco, could i ask the line you're drawing between exercising influence and providing access, just to sort of test that with a hypothetical, suppose that somebody knew that there was a contractor who was going to award a very large contract to one of two or three firms that the that he was meeting with. and a company paid to make sure that they were on the meet list, to be one of those two or three firms, in other words, bribed -- mr. francisco: sure. justice kagan: an official in order to become one of those two or three firms from which that was the pool from which -- mr. francisco: right. justice kagan: this billion-dollar contract would emerge, would that be sufficient? mr. francisco: your honor, i think that probably would be "official action" because there the only way you can even get a decision in your favor is by being one of three people on that list. so being on that list is a prerequisite to getting a decision. being denied on that list is a denial of the decision, and

justice kagan: that's -- ms. murphy: you may disagree with -- justice kagan: yeah, yeah, yeah, i understand the point. all, i guess, i'm just saying is this would be an enormous change in practice. ms. murphy: not at all, your honor, because the past practices, there are none. they have not pointed to a single deferred action program that granted it to a class of individuals who had no lawful path to status in this country. justice ginsburg: is that true of all other deferred actions mentioned in the appendix, the one that the congressional research service did? ms. murphy: yes. most of those are not deferred action programs. they're extended voluntary -- justice ginsburg: i mean, they are different. ms. murphy: there's really there's only about four deferred action programs that were class-based. those all were path to lawful status. u visas, t visas, people who held f1 visas during hurricane katrina. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. five minutes, general verrilli. general verrilli: thank you, mr. chief just

justice kagan: mr.ncisco, could i ask the line you're drawing between exercising influence and providing access, just to sort of test that with a hypothetical, suppose that somebody knew that there was a contractor who was going to award a very large contract to one of two or three firms that he was meeting with. and a company paid to make sure that they were on the meet list, to be one of those two or three firms, in other words, bribed - mr. francisco: sure. justice kagan: an official in order to become one of those two or three firms from which that was the pool from which - mr. francisco: right. justice kagan: this billion-dollar contract would emerge, would that be sufficient? mr. francisco: your honor, i think that probably would be "official action" because there the only way you can even get a decision in your favor is by being one of three people on that list. so being on that list is a prerequisite to getting a decision. being denied on that list is a denial of the decision, and that's an offi

brnovich: justice kagan -- justice kagan: it's a policy. it's an intentional policy. mr. brnovich: i guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions. our position is regardless of their intention, if they are doing it in a systematic way, intending to overpopulate certain districts, that is unconstitutional. the voting rights act then -- justice kagan: everyone though it takes you from 4% to 5% or 7% to 8%. you're not crossing the 10% threshold. but as long as you're going up and you're doing it it purposefully in the sense of we have a policy to maintain county lines, that's impermissible. mr. brnovich: yes, justice kagan. when you create essentially ba rrios of certain folks and overpopulate other districts, that violates the one person, one vote principle. as a matter of curiosity, how do you end up being on this side of the case? you were a defendant in the district court, weren't you? mr. brnovich: the secretary in the state thought the principal of one person and one vote upholding that principal was very, very important. that's why we felt compelled to be invo

brnovich: justice kagan -- justice kagan: it's a policy. it's an intentional policy. mr. brnovich: i guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions. and so our position is regardless of their intention, if they are doing it in a systematic way, intending to overpopulate certain districts, under populate other districts that is unconstitutional. , the voting rights act then -- justice kagan: even though it takes you from 4% to 5% or from 7% to 8%. you're not crossing the 10% threshold. but as long as you're going up and you are doing it purposefully in the sense of we have a policy to maintain county lines, that's impermissible. mr. brnovich: yes, justice kagan. the position of the state is that when it is done in a systematic intentional manner when you create essentially , barrios of certain folks and then you overpopulate other districts, that violates the 's one person, one vote principle. justice scalia: as a matter of curiosity, how do you end up being on this side of the case? you were a defendant in the district court, weren't you? mr. brnovich: the secretary

justice kagan: that's -- ms. murphy: you may disagree with -- justice kagan: yeah, yeah, yeah, i understand the point. all, i guess, i'm just saying is this would be an enormous change in practice. ms. murphy: not at all, your honor, because the past practices, there are none. they have not pointed to a single deferred action program that granted it to a class of individuals who had no lawful path to status in this country. justice ginsburg: is that true of all other deferred actions mentioned in the appendix, the one that the congressional research service did? ms. murphy: yes. most of those are not deferred action programs. they're extended voluntary -- justice ginsburg: i mean, they are different. ms. murphy: there's really there's only about four deferred action programs that were class-based. those all were path to lawful status. u visas, t visas, people who held f1 visas during hurricane katrina. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. five minutes, general verrilli. general verrilli: thank you, mr. chief just

my colleagues and i are here about a college student named marissa kagan. does that name ring a bell? it was tragic, what happened to her. actually, that's what we're here to talk about. the kids are at school. come in. i don't understand. marissa's murder was solved years ago. it was that stalker, that boy she went to school with. we now think louis bowman was framed and that the person who did it also recently shot and killed a young woman in the bronx. that's horrible. but shouldn't you be talking to christa about this? she'll be home in a few hours. watson: we will. we've recently become aware of a suspect that the police never pursued, a married woman with whom marissa was having an affair. a witness reports seeing marissa's lover wearing a very distinctive green-and-white baja sweater. any idea who that might be? christa has a sweater like that. i found out. bell: your wife's failure to disclose her relationship to the victim at trial is gonna be enough for avon pd to get a warrant. someone's gonna be here shortly to collect samples of her dna. her to

my colleagues and i are here about a college student named marissa kagan.ell? it was tragic, what happened to her. actually, that's what we're here to talk about. the kids are at school. come in. i don't understand. marissa's murder was solved years ago. it was that stalker, that boy she went to school with. we now think louis bowman was framed and that the person who did it also recently shot and killed a young woman in the bronx. that's horrible. but shouldn't you be talking to christa about this? she'll be home in a few hours. watson: we will. we've recently become aware of a suspect that the police never pursued, a married woman with whom marissa was having an affair. a witness reports seeing marissa's lover wearing a very distinctive green-and-white baja sweater. any idea who that might be? christa has a sweater like that. did you know about the affair? i found out. bell: your wife's failure to disclose her relationship to the victim at trial is gonna be enough for avon pd to get a warrant. someone's gonna be here shortly to collect samples of her dna.

my colleagues and i are here about a college student named marissa kagan. bell? it was tragic, what happened to her. actually, that's what we're here to talk about. the kids are at school. come in. i don't understand. marissa's murder was solved years ago. it was that stalker, that boy she went to school with. we now think louis bowman was framed and that the person who did it also recently shot and killed a young woman in the bronx. that's horrible. to christa about this? she'll be home in a few hours. watson: we will. we've recently become aware of a suspect that the police never pursued, a married woman with whom marissa was having an affair. a witness reports seeing marissa's lover wearing a very distinctive green-and-white baja sweater. any idea who that might be? christa has a sweater like that. did you know about the affair? i found out. bell: your wife's failure to disclose her relationship to the victim at trial is gonna be enough for avon pd to get a warrant. someone's gonna be here shortly to collect samples of her dna. her toothbrush, her

justice kagan: mr.ncisco, could i ask the line you're drawing between exercising influence and providing access, just to sort of test that with a hypothetical, suppose that somebody knew that there was a contractor who was going to award a very large contract to one of two or three firms that he was meeting with. and a company paid to make sure that they were on the meet list, to be one of those two or three firms, in other words, bribed -- mr. francisco: sure. justice kagan: an official in order to become one of those two or three firms from which that was the pool from which -- mr. francisco: right. justice kagan: this billion-dollar contract would emerge, would that be sufficient? mr. francisco: your honor, i think that probably would be "official action" because there the only way you can even get a decision in your favor is by being one of three people on that list. so being on that list is a prerequisite to getting a decision. being denied on that list is a denial of the decision, and that's an of

first is the one mentioned by justice kagan. we think it would be a very odd interpretation to say that the constitution forbids for state legislative redistricting what it requires for congressional redistricting. second is the very long history of states redistricting on a basis other than, other than voter population. at the time of the framing of the 14th amendment, there were the vast majority of states redistricted on other than voter population. in the wake of the 14th amendment, congress and the apportionment acts required districting on the basis of inhabitants and, of course, over the last 350 years -- 50 years states have redistricted on total population, not voter population. third are the data problems, and they are real. the acs data has a number of limitations. first of all, it is not constitutionally required, unlike the census. it would be very odd, we think, for the court to demand as a constitutional standard data that does not even have to be collected. second, it does not measure what the plaintiffs suggest

. >> i mean, i was waiting in line to go to my seat with justice kagan. >> stephen: wow, wow. >> that's're both waiting to get to our table. >> stephen: right. >> and she's a supreme court justice. >> stephen: i know. and you know a lot of famous people, but that really gives you butterflies in your stomach when you're sitting next to somebody from the supreme court. >> completely. i have to tell you something. you know what she said to me. she told me she and justice scalia, who, of course, was alive at the time, they would get together every week and talk about the "veep" episode from the night before. no, i swear. isn't that amazing? >> stephen: that's fantastic. >> i was so psyched about that. it was strange, but i liked it. >> stephen: do they have any problem with the language from "veep"? it is absolutely scalding. >> . >> it's really bad is there it will pull the paint off a trail hitch. >> and for legal reasons i will apologize. she didn't seem to have a problem with it, free speech and all. >> stephen: we have a clip here from this season, which i-- because i'm fancy i've seen

. >> reporter: state senator cheryl kagan is looking ahead. >> i'll be so thrilled if he's my u.s. senator. he'll be an amazing partner between annapolis and washington. >> tell us about your call from don >> first, i want to thank democrats throughout the state of maryland and let all know looking forward to campaigning with them in the fall. i want to thank donna edwards for her advocacy on important issues and for reaching out after the campaign. it's important we have unity going. >> chris will be running for the senate against gop candidate kathy szegulia. that's the latest live in bethesda. back to you. >> our team coverage continues with news 4 tom sherwood. >> that was not good news for donna edwards with the low turn out. >> no, it wasn't. the party is over here. it was a long campaign but an early night for donna edwards. she entered the senate race 13 months ago. tonight she conceded to van hollen but she was defiant in a promise to >> maryland is on the verge of having an all male delegation. p when will our voices be effective, legitimate, equal leaders in a big tent p

in the case justice kagan mentioned, the forfeiture case, it was a preadjudication case so it fit in that context. so applying barker -- >> i'm sorry, that was a forfeiture case. >> correct. >> and that's a penalty after adjudication. the forfeiture doesn't start until someone's been found guilty. >> i'm sorry, it was a pre -- basically property was taken before -- >> whatever the case is, i'd like yet an answer to my question. it says the court should balance four factors. length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. now if i quote that accepts and say those are the factors that should be taken into account under the due process clause, do you have any objection to that? >> prejudice needs to take the forefront in that analysis. >> i should just reverse the four. >> well, the problem with barker is it holds that -- in the post conviction setting is that none of the factors are necessary. so prejudice doesn't necessarily have to be shown in barker. lower courts have modified that and said, in the post conviction se

familiar to people who watch many of the supreme court nominations from ruth bader ginsburg, to elena kagan, they have all taken place in his room. of the current justices, five of them have had their hearings in the hart building. i am humbled to have been nominated for this seat that is now held by justice o'connor. >> many major hearings have taken place here. this is where the 9/11 investigation took place. there have been many celebrities have come to testify here. christopher reeves came to testify for medical purposes. lots of blockbuster hearings in this room. when they can help save thousands of lives, treatment with stem cells have already begun. >> the old-school senators like ted kennedy and others who have been here for a long time, they would hold their hearings over in the russell building. even know this room was available. becauset felt -- watergate had been held there and so many other hearings have been held there, that they were part of that historical trend. this room here in the hart building has created a wholeness -- whole new historical trend. lots of very prominent

sotomayor and justice kagan came came and ginsburg was pleased they were there now. kagen and ruth bader ginsburg had been friends before so it was understandable she would be glad. but there were stories about justice sot0mayor's warmth has been nourishing for ginsburg. ruth bader ginsburg was as any normal human being would be sad because her husband died right after soto mayor came. >> host: when i used the word buddy i was referring to antonin scalia. >> guest: oh, sorry. everybody asks me about that. they said they had a common interest in music and writing and they corrected each other's draft and made them better which is extraordinary. >> host: they were often on opposite sides. >> guest: they were. and they represent a time in american politics when people could love each other for their character and their character was not so tied up with their public-political position. but it is now. i doubt that friendship would form again now. >> host: linda hirshman, as an attorney and a cultural historian, is lifetime appointments, in your view, best for the supreme

lawrence tribe who's talked to president obama, john roberts, elena kagan, ted cruz, and merrick garland's here next. using your airline credit card miles. and surprise! those seats sometimes cost a ridiculous number of miles, making it really hard to book the flight you want. luckily, there's a better way... with the capital one venture card. with venture, you'll earn unlimited double mes on every purchase, every da and when you're ready to travel, just book the flight you want, on any airline, then use your miles to cover the cost. now you're getting somewhere. what's in your wallet? every auto insurance policy has a number. but not every insurance company derstands the life behind it. ♪ those who have served our nation have earned the very best service in return. ♪ usaa. we know what it means to serve. get an auto insurance quote and see why 92% of our members plan to stay for life. ... 83% try eat healthy. yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day women's gummies. complete with key nutrients we may need... ...plus it supports bone he

>> justice kagan, they can do that and do that under the unchallenged prioritization amendment but whatt is deferred action to grant status under the -- >> i think that is just a label. can they do that? >> it's a label but it is a label congress created. >> my hypothetical is, you're suggesting that the label has some legal consequence and my hypothetical is, we just say to these, however many million people it is, you will not be deported unless we change our minds. can they do that? >> if that's all they were doing, yes. but as soon as they link it -- >> even though it is many millions of people they could do that, they could do it all at once? >> yes as long as they're not abdicating -- and here we're not challenging the prioritization -- >> if that's right, then it seems to me your real gripe here, and maybe it's a real gripe, your real gripe here is to the work authorization piece and to the benefits piece, is that right? >> and the granting of lawful presence because that is what is going -- >> if it is a label general verrilli said they could strike out in a moment. >> that is t

and it's really funny, because if you watched the hearings for elena kagan the other day, one of the questions they asked her, you know, was, like, "where were you christmas day?" because that was the day of the bombing. and she was at first, like, very defensive, because she didn't know, whether, you know, it was a terror question, or whatever. and they're like, "no, we just want to know where you were." and she laughed, and said, "well, like all jews, i was probably at a chinese restaurant." and in new york city especially, it's sometimes twice as popular at least, compared to your next popular... your second most popular day. because, you know, for a long time chinese restaurants were the ones that were open on christmas. and it just became this interesting american jewish tradition. and it's specific to america. i mean, it's not like they're doing this in israel. >> hinojosa: it's also because of the fact that these are two immigrant groups that are not christian. >> yeah, the two largest non-christian immigrant groups. and they... you know, so chinese restaurants are open on sun

. >> justice kagan. we have multiple arguments. the first is the statutory argument. our backup argument which is the response to the executive's congressional acquiescence argument, at most congress would acquiesce to practice of very small uses -- >> how about this? dhs doesn't do it one by one. how about dhs says, it is senseless to do it one by one. we should use categories. here is the category. you've been here for 25 years. you're entitled to, not entitled you can stay unless we change our mind. so that's the category. so smaller category, but you know, there is some, there is a lot of people in it. >> if there was no previous lawful status or eminent lawful status no way congress acquiesced to that. >> wait a minute. that is important. dhs could not say to all people been here for 25 years and perfectly law-abiding, congress can not say to those, you know, tens of thousands of people let's say, not millions, tens of thousands, you, we won't deport you unless we change our minds and you can work, you can feed your families. you can do that. >> justice -- >> dhs

. >> so your answer to justice kagan is wrong? basically you're saying, even if all you do is an opt out, i raise my hand, i tell you that i'm a religious objector, and they somehow, from this suit, know who your third party administrator is, they have a general law that requires now all arisa plans to tell them who their clients are, that if your insurer is involved in any way, you object? >> not necessarily, your honor. if there was an huber insurance policy where aetna was the company that the government picked to provide contraceptive coverage to all women in this country -- we happen to use aetna -- i think we would be fine. >> paid for by the government? >> yes, your honor. the problem is -- >> justice kagan's question was, these college students want to get the same coverage that is available for all other conditions. you -- as far as i understand you're saying no. there has to be some other plan. the government boys, the government provides its own plan, but as lon as you connect the insurer that is insuring the religious

jean kagan said to me, title ix, really you can teach a whole class on title ix? this is to set 2007. and i said yes, can i wanted to explore the so there we went. so, that is my little story about title ix, cutting-edge and you're all in this room putting your great minds together all in this room putting your great minds together to think about how to move forward in the space in a way that protects rights of students and also moved forward to a more equal and just society. the constitution has a complicated application to campuses, diffent different whether the campuses private or if it is public. i would say it is at least fair to say that we import values, we import constitutional values issue are campuses and that is really what this talk is about today. as we talk about, this panel is called due process, a lot of the debate around what is a fair in terms of what school should be doing in campus sexual assault there is a lot of talk about due process. framing makes a big difference. if all we are talking about his due process and we are raising these questio

elaborate than the process that would usually culminate in the kind of advice letters that justice kagan is talking about. >> is that so we have the other part of the problem. >> i don't think the format of the process really has much to do with the bases on, a practical basis on which respondent wants to get into court. that is, it that is, if this had been a much less formal document but it still manifested that corps' view, i think respond was said to be under the -- >> it isn't just the pressure. >> is both. the concern is on the other side. this vast federal government can operate, to issue many, many formal determinations on aspects of the statute. and if people are required to follow those, without court review, on penalty of going to jail if they don't just follow it, or are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, what happens to judicial review max that i think this also a public policy question. >> i agree that it's a public policy question, but as i was saying about standard oil and the same principle applies to our legal systems of general resistance to enter laboratory appe

just had to return to justice kagan's point. think in addition to the particular characteristics of the breath test, which would you think are personally interested, i think it is the fact of the court has always, whenever it has confronted a search, and there is no question that these are searches, and it ordered law enforcement investigation, not in the special needs kind of general investigation, the court has said there must be a warrant and was one of the recognized exceptions apply. and the recognized exceptions are substantially conceded by the other side, did not apply here. it would be i think a novelty. >> i agree you do need recognized exceptions and we should not feel good about making up new exceptions willy-nilly. the question is why isn't this a search incident to arrest a given that there's aspects of mentioned, the fact the evidence does this but over time, getting a want might get it here with that, and it's relatively an invasive. >> right. if i may answer that question, and then sit down? >> sure. >> particip

familiar to people who watched many of the supreme court nominations from ruth bader theyurg, to elena kagan, have all taken place in this room. five of the current justices have had their hearings in the hart building. >> i am humbled to have been nominated for this seat now held by justice o'connor. haveny major hearings taken place here. this is where the 9/11 investigations took place. there have been many celebrities who have testified here. christopher reeves came to testify for medical purposes, for federal government funding of medical research. we have had lots of blockbuster hearings in this room. help saveey can thousands of lives, treatment with stem cells have already begun. >> the old-school senators like ted kennedy, and others who have been here a long time, would hold their hearings in the russell building, even though this room was available. they just felt -- because watergate had been held there, and so many other hearings had been held there, that they were part of that historical trend. this room in the hart building has created a new historical stream of major hearings

executive branch exceeded its constitutional batteries but a number of the justices and especially justice kaganhas spent a great deal of time pushing the attorneys for the state of texas, felt very much that there are millions of people here , congress has not allocated the money it would take to screen and deport them so the administration, the federal grants, the executive branchhas to put together these deportation priorities. you can hear the crowd . it's a bit dicey today but this is the first amendment in action out here and we will have to wait to see what happens with the case. if it's a type we revert to the lower court decision which were now has put the president program on hold. john? jon: you are doing a great job shannon. i know it's tough when there is that much noise out there. let me ask you this. the president said many times he did not have the constitutional authority to do this, then he did it and said i've got be authority. does that enter the arguments anywhere? reporter: those who support the president has said there is nuance there, that he can simply abruptly write in

. >> just to return to justin kagan's point, i think in addition to the particular characteristics of the breath test, which we do think are personally intrusive, i think it is a fact that the court has always, whenever it has confronted a search and there's no question there are searches, in an ordinary law enforcement investigation, not in a special needs kind of search, general investigation, the court has said there must be a warrant unless one of the recognized exceptions apply. the recognized exceptions i think are substantially conceded by the other side, do not apply here. it would be -- >> this is a question i ask. i agree with you that you do need a recognized exception, and we should not feel good about making up new exceptions willy-nilly. the question is why isn't this search incidence to arrest given the various aspects i have mentioned, the fact that the evidence does dissipate over time, that getting a warrant might interfere with that, and that it's relatively uninvasive? >> if i may answer that question. i think for dissipation for search purposes, my understanding o

what i have been consistently , and what i saw in justice sotomayor, justice kagan, is people who have intellectual integrity, and what that means is they look at the and, even if law it is a comfortable to them, they don't like the outcome, , andfollow the law recognize that is their job. screen ao, the humanity to the job. is, particularly on the supreme court, nine out of certainly in the federal courts, nine out of 10 cases, you can probably arrive at an outcome by applying constitutional interpretation. the woman the controversy. the cases that matter is where there is a lack of clarity, where requires constitutional principles being applied in a precedent, true to -- to basically looked basic legal attendance, but understands the role of the make sure that people locked out of the political process are not permanently locked out. they have some recourse. we have justices understand how the world works so that they are not entirely defined to the history of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, how many operate in our world. not because that necessary leads rule on a parti

justice kagan spoke yesterday at nyu and mentioned that the supreme court was a bit more doll and greats an institution and that the justices are said to have lost a colleague. it is interesting. they have covered,, number of professors had dueling listserv e-mails for the entire community whether or not there really mourned justice scalia. i think that his colleagues of the court, including justice ginsburg figure some of the most moving testimonial stands, he is very much missed. >> i also think for the justices that are invested in andthe functioning of the court as an institution of a politics this is a difficult moment because you know, chuck grassleyknow, chuck grassley give his speech today in which he said it is john roberts fault they are not confirming a nominee because he has politicize the court which i thought was ironic considering this book stand and testimony that the court can be above what they want chief justice roberts to do. the biggest the tarnish the court. they could function despite different ideologies and political commitments. it was about making the institut

i'm reminded of justice's kagan's dissent where she observed that the federal arbitration act was never meant to be a mechanism easily made to block the vindication of meritorious claims and insulate wrongdoers. but the tides are turning. americans are fighting their right to a jury trial. policy makers are using every tool so corporations can no longer escape public accountability. i thank my colleagues for their participation in this special order and before i close, i want to thank the congressional progressive caucus to advance a agenda for equality for all. i will clause with this observation. the american people would fight back if someone came into their home and said, we are going to take away your second amendment right to bear firearms. they would fight. but when corporations take away their seventh amendment right to a jury trial, they remain mum, but not for much longer. people are standarding up. people are tired. they are desiring ar change -- they're angry and realize they have been takeen advantage of and want to level the playing field and that is exactly what the legis

. >> you voted to confirm elena kagan. you voted to confirm sonia sotomayor. i know what your issues are with the timing of this, but on balance are you saying you think he would make a worse supreme court justice than either of those nominees you voted to confirm? >> no. i think is democratic president would be well served picking judge garland. no republican would pick him but he's a fine man, good judge, well qualified, and if hillary clinton wins and she picks judge garland, i think he'd have a very good chance of getting confirmed. we're going to let the next president pick and when my democratic colleagues lecture me and others about how the process should work, they give hypocrisy a bad name. they're the ones that changed the rules in 2013 to do away with the 60-vote requirement. they filibustered all of bush's judges. i tried to be fair. i voted for both of obama's supreme court nominees but we're not going to confirm this person in an election year when we're inside the 10 yard line of picking the next president. we're going to let the next president

. >> elena kagan spent some time in massachusetts. maybe that's a patriots fan. here's hoping.cowan, thank you very much. >> unbiased analysis from john berman. thank you so much, paul. >>> back to politics, that's really amazing, but back to politics now. hillary clinton is close but not quite there yet when it comes to the democratic nomination. however, it is not too soon to start looking for potential running mates. >> we're learning that there are many names apparently now on her list. a lot of possibilities and scenarios including perhaps picking a woman which would be the first all-female presidential ticket in history. patrick healy has some fascinating reporting on this story. you broke this wide open over the weekend. why don't you tell us first off what you found. >> sure, john. so they're at an early stage but they're compiling a list of about 15 to 20 names. in conversations with hillary clinton, with bill clinton, with john podesta, the campaign chairman. they will take that list of about 20 people and they'll ultimately do a vet of probably about five or six peop

there is no question that sotomayor, ginsburg, kagan and brar will rule in favor of president obama becauselike his view on illegal immigration. even if it goes against the well-defined separations of power. and that is flat out dangerous. or am i wrong? and that's the memo. we have more on this with lou dobbs a bit later on. top story tonight as promoted. the primary vote here in new york where the polls close shortly. with us fox news anchor martha mccallum who has been looking at the exit polling. we will do it different here. usually you come on and tell me but i'm going to tell you. i looked at some of the data. >> good. >> we have a really good political operation here. it's very strong. here's what i'm taking and then you tell me whether i'm right or wrong and why. okay? number one, trump wins. >> well, we don't know yet. i mean. >> the indications are? >> the indications are that it's a good night for trump. we knew that basically. >> i know you can't say he wins because the polls are still own. >> we are bound -- when gets closer. other thing to keep in mind is that the polls in ne

. >> justice kagan spoke yesterday at nyu and she mentioned i think that the supreme court was a bit duller and bit more great institution, and that the justices are sad to have lost their college. so it's very interesting. we are here at georgetown law school where we've covered on above the law a number of professors had dueling e-mails to the entire community about whether or not they really mourned justice scalia your but i think that for his colleagues at the court, certainly including justice ginsburg who gave some of the most moving testimony, testimonials to him, he is very much missed. >> i think for the justices that are very invested in the functioning of the court as an institution about politics, this is a difficult moment because, yeah, chuck grassley gave a speech today in which he said that it's john roberts fault that they're not confirming the nominee because he has politicized the court with his obamacare vote which i was pretty ironic considering that those votes stamp investment that the court can be about what the republican party wants chief justice roberts to

been consistently looking for -- and this is what i saw in justice sotomayor, what i saw in justice kagan- is people who, number one, have intellectual integrity. and what that means is, is that they look t the facts and the law, and even if it's uncomfortable to hem, they don't like the outcome, they follow the law, and they recognize that that's their job. number two, that they bring a humanity to the job. and what i mean by that is that, particularly on the supreme court, nine out of 10 cases -- well, certainly in the federal courts -- nine out of 10 cases we can probably arrive at an outcome just by applying basic tenets to constitutional interpretation. there's not going to be a lot of controversy. the cases that really matter are the ones where there's ambiguity, where there's a lack of clarity, where it requires constitutional principles being applied in a way that is true to precedent, is true to basic legal tenets, but also that understands the unique role of the court in making sure that people who are locked out of the political process, for example, re not permanently locked o

but what i have been consistent in looking for in this is what i saw justice sotomayor, justice kagan, people who, number one have intellectual integrity, and what that means is they look at the facts and the law and even if it is uncomfortable to them, they do not like the outcome, they fall on board. they recognize that that is their job. number two, that they bring a humanity to the job. what i mean by that is that, particularly on the supreme court, nine out of 10 cases, will certainly in the federal courts, nine out of 10 cases you can probably arrive at an outcome just by applying basic tenets of the constitution. the cases that matter are the ones where there is ambiguity, a lack of clarity, principles being applied that is true to true to basict is legal tenets, but also that understands the unique role of the court in making sure that people locked out of the political process, for example, are not permanently locked out, that they have some recourse, that we have justices who understand how the world works so that they are not entirely blind to the history of racial discrimi

the great representational need that justice kagan was talking about, adequate. >> we think it is. areyou not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. we are asking for nothing more than the bring it within the ten to 20 percent range. >> ten to 20 percent is okay. >> the court has held up the 16.5 percent. >> children. they are not voters. so if you take children out of it. >> children are represented at the polls by the parents. if their parents have been disenfranchised it was by the state, states like california and new york. >> they become eligible voters. they are not counted for section two. >> thank you, counsel. gen. keller. >> color. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the only question the court has to resolve is whether the equal protection clause requires every state to change its current practice and use voter population to reapportion. the answer is no. text is used federal census data. the framers accepted total population has a permissible apportionment base has justice kagan said earlier. >> one of the use that under section two? >> in section two of the voting