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

the justice kagan court. there may be exceptional circumstances in which a new justice has a new influence but for the most part, it is not a new justice makes a new court. every justice pulls out this time -- journalist pulls out this line. then i started thinking, it took me a while but i realized that there was another sense in which it was deeply true and it was not the addition of the do justice. it was the fact that the old justice was no longer there. i made a joke about how long some -- judicial tenures are. on my first seven years of the court, there were no vacancies and after that, they were in quick succession for judicial ecstasies -- vacancies, two by resignation and two by death. after me and including me, five. each of those people serve on the court for more than 25 years and the real change to the court is not having that person there and it wasn't that my colleagues, this is -- a new court. it was nothing like -- what i was doing. . it was like this justice isn't here. as justice jackson co

i think sotomayor and kagan on this, i thought both justice sotomayor and kagan were sympathetic to an idea that race should be taken into account and many other aspects of american life. it clearly implies i think justice kagan would be perfectly happy to see it stand and admissions continue. curt: let me raise the question for amanda. who knows what kagan wants in her heart, but the fact that she did talk about race neutral alternatives, does that indicate to you she may realize the votes are just not there to save the explicit use of race? amanda: yes. she is very savvy. she's a supersmart human. i agree with devon that she things brenner is correct and she's concerned about star a decisive's and the legitimacy of the court. -- about star decisive's -- how far, how fast, overruling affirmative action after doing away with abortion, these are big social moves in a very divisive world. i think she may have come into it closer to what i was worried about which is the court would issue a broad holding that says no affirmative action whatsoever and if you even think about race, that's un

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

she lost in the lower court and her petition goes to elena kagan because elena kagan supervises this, elena kagan did issue this temporary stay but that's really just an administrative move to give the justices more time to look into this issue. you can't say it's a ruling on the merits yet but it is temporary and for right now that particular subpoena is not going to go out. >> so what's the next step then in the other case, the one involving lindsey graham? >> right, so that case involves a district attorney out of fulton county, georgia, looking again into election results, particularly phone calls that lindsey graham made, some people have interpreted those phone calls as being problematic for lindsey graham, a lower court said he actually had to testify but he didn't have to testify about anything having to do with his job as a senator. for instance, anything having to do with certification of vote, right, or his role on the senate subcommittee. but the district court and the appeals court said he would have to sit for testimony for anything having to do with, say, communication

people are being segregated, in effect, in effect, as justice kagan, pointed out, right?ot talking about intent. we're talking about the effect. >> forget about intent. what are the results when you do a computer simulation that takes into account all race-neutral districting factors? this is a computer. it doesn't have any intent. the result is that you don't get the second minority -- majority-minority district. john why is that distinction so : important? >> well, first of all, it appeared, as justice kagan pointed out earlier, that the alabama lawyer said in his brief to the supreme court that he -- she characterized it as intent is all over it. and, many years ago, the supreme court did say you had to prove discriminatory intent in order to make a section 2 claim, but congress reversed that and made it very clear that you don't have to prove intentional discrimination, which, by the way, is extremely difficult to prove. instead, congress said, you have to show a discriminatory result or a discriminatory effect of the voting practice that's being allenged. and so i th

and i think that's what justice kagan was getting at, that that is probably going to be impossible. that's why we're here. >> i'm glad you're here, kimberly, thanks so much for joining us on this very, very important topic. >>> that is it for me today. katy is back tomorrow. i will see you at 11:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. hallie jackson picks up our coverage next. hallie jackson picks up our coverage next. the most epic sandwich roster ever created. ♪♪ it's subway's biggest refresh yet! skin your face will envy? with olay hyaluronic body lotion 95% of women had visibly-smoother skin. be fearless with olay hyaluronic body lotion and body wash. ♪♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a gol

kagan, by the way, it is no coincidence that the husband of victoria lund, the architect of our policyine, all his people finally dispersed after the bombing of yugoslavia, i was wrong, because i did not understand what kind of people stood at the head of my country for them, the main problem was neither communism nor the soviet regime, but that the united states should always rule the world, that we need our own kind communism, which we will impose on the rest instead of the world, progress-socialism will be a democracy of human rights, a free market in our interpretation. in august, junjatra s raima govert, several more american politicians and activists were blacklisted by the ukrainian disinformation counteraction center, they were accused of russian propaganda and declared information terrorists, the list was compiled by an organization within the ukrainian government, funded by the united states, although, as far as i understand, the entire government financed by the usa so there is not much difference, but the question arises. to what extent did american intelligence help? when

those moments where she and her colleagues, kagan and sotomayor, have an opportunity to be vocal andlic needs to understand the significance of the decisions that are going to be made in this term alone, i think those have to be taken. i'm excited to hear what each of them have to say. >> it's so true that she was making the point that race has to be a determinant, because that's what the voting rights law in 1965 was -- although it was largely decimated in 2013, but what's left of the voting rights law was to redress everything that had preceded about race. you just pointed out, there's a 20-point drop in the support legitimacy of the supreme court. this is what elena kagan said last month. >> the law gives rights to people that people ought to be able to rely on. it just doesn't look like law when some new judges appointed by a new president come in and start just tossing out the old stuff. >> the legitimacy of the court has been raised in public now by justice kagan, supported in part by the chief. should we re-visit the life-time tenure and the justices' ability to make their own

i want to play jen roberts defending them and then justice kagan talking, in not that veiled terms, about extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that is when there is a problem. that is when there ought to be a problem. >> i don't understand the connection between opinions that people disagreed with and legitimacy of the court. if the court doesn't retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, i'm not sure who would. >> on top of that you have alito in the wake of justice kagan's comments saying, saying you are applying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important. line >> it's problematic when you have mitch mcconnell holding a seat open for almost ten months, scully's seat, and then bragging about it. sitting brett kavanaugh amid certainly, i think, material claims that needed to be investigated, that were not. and then seating amy coney barrett after v

choice and the right of privacy and what is the appropriate role for the government to play elena kagan has served on the supreme court since 2010. the next justice will be listening to is brett kavanaugh his contentious 2018 nomination hearings included questions about roe v wade. here's a portion. well as a general proposition, i understand. the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v wade, so roe v wade held of course, and it's reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus casey. that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability. subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden. on the woman's right to obtain an abortion and one of the reasons for that holding as explained by the court in row and also in planned parenthood versus casey more fully is along the lines of what you said center feinstein about the quote from justice o'connor. so that's one of the rationales that undergirds roe v wade. it's one of the rationales that undergirds planned parenthood versus casey. let me give you anothe

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

choice and the right of privacy and what is the appropriate role for the government to play elena kagan has served on the supreme court since 2010. the next justice will be listening to is brett kavanaugh his contentious 2018 nomination hearings included questions about roe v wade. here's a portion. well as a general proposition, i understand. the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v wade, so roe v wade held of course, and it's reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus casey. that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability. subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden. on the woman's right to obtain an abortion and one of the reasons for that holding as explained by the court in row and also in planned parenthood versus casey more fully is along the lines of what you said center feinstein about the quote from justice o'connor. so that's one of the rationales that undergirds roe v wade. it's one of the rationales that undergirds planned parenthood versus casey. let me give you anothe

marcia: this was very much on the minds of some of those justices like justice elena kagan.ointed out there has been experience in other universities where when they stopped considering race, there was a precipitous drop in underrepresented minorities on campus. that had a domino effect because you ha the military wanting to recruit from campus. they have written andaid that they want to build a diverse officer corps as the rank and file tend to be diverse. she also pointed out it could affect every area, corporate america, law, medical, science. that all of these industries and institutions depend on diverse pipeline, so that they can be diverse as well. john: there was also a lot of discussion or debate over the meaning of brown veus board of education, the 1954 landmark ruling that ended desegregated public schools. marcia: it is hard to believe we are still talking about that in this day and age. the challengers to the university pro -- programs believe brown versus board of education set all racial classifications are unconstitutional. so, this 2003 grider disc it -- gr

it would not be a re-judgment. >> justice kagan, justice gorsuch?in 1984, did vanity fair need to pay goldsmith? >> no, your honor, i don't think so. what the court recognizes in campbell is that if people offered to pay or do pay, it does not make a difference. they tried to get a license even though the court recognized it was not required. >> in your point about up-and-coming artists, obviously, this can be played both ways. one of the amicus briefs says your position poses an existential threat to photographers. comment on that. >> we strongly disagree. >> why? >> we think the transformation important here is something that really creates a new, original work in a fundamental , not just because the work is in a different form or different color. but, because it has a different meaning or message. if we were right on factor four, and there is zero are not much impingement on the market, we don't think that destroys anybody's livelihood. we believe it promotes creativity and artists of all kinds. >> justice barrett. >> i think one of the problems

what kagan has done is just what thomas did last week. it's a routine thing.the person from the ninth circuit that you make application to. you enter this temporary stay so your colleagues can consider it. the committee that wants the records will respond by tomorrow, i believe. they will probably make quick work of it. the ninth circuit has held against kelly ward. she's seeking emergency relief from the supreme court. i don't expect she will get it. doing it the way kagan has done and thomas has done in the graham matter lets everybody have a couple days to take a breath and listen and look at the arguments of both sides. >> kimberly, former trump chief of staff mark meadows has been ordered to testify in the georgia investigation, after the midterm elections. i want to play for you part of meadows' call to georgia's secretary of state days before the january 6 attack. >> there are allegations where we believe not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted and that's at odds with the representation from the secretary of state's office. what i'm hopef

justice elena kagan began serving on the court in 2010. the former times harvard law school dean was nominated by president obama. she too too was asked about the issue in her confirmation hearing. >> as i understand the law after casey, it's that after viability, the state can regulate as it pleases, except for situations where the woman's life or health interests are at issue. before viability the question is whether there is an undue burden on the woman's ability to have an abortion. >> is it fair for the court to consider scientific changes in when a fetus becomes a viable as medical science evolves? >> senator graham, i do think that in every area, that it is fair to consider scientific changes. we have talked in the past about how different forms of technology influence the evolution of the court's fourth amendment jurisprudence. >> i'm glad to hear say that, because just as it would have been wrong to not consider the changes of how society had evolved versus segregation of young children based on race i hope the court would conside

a project of global domination like they did spelled out in an article by ulm, crystal, and robert kaganproject for a new american century. kagan, by the way, it is no coincidence that the husband of victoria lulang, the architect of our policy in ukraine, was finally divorced in the illusion after the bombing of yugoslavia i was wrong because i did not understand what kind of people stood at the head of my country for them the main problem was neither communism nor the soviet regime, but that the united states should always rule the world, that we need our own kind of communism, which we will impose on the rest instead of the world progress-socialism will be a democracy of human rights, a free market in our interpretation. in august, a junjatra with raymagovern, several more american politicians and activists were blacklisted by the ukrainian they were accused of russian propaganda as the center for countering disinformation and declared information terrorists, the list was compiled by an organization within the ukrainian government funded by the united states, although, as far as i und

it is a move by justice kagan who handles emergency applications that are originate in arizona. the supreme court as a whole decided how to proceed. the house committee has until friday to respond to the locked subpoena on wednesday. they declined to comment. they are looking at mark meadows, and it was shared earlier. there is a pop up there, but the judge ordered that the white house chief of staff will testify before a special grand jury. they are investigating whether the president and his allies legally can sway the results in the election. the congressman is a key figure. they sat in on trump's phone calls and coordinated and communicated with outside influencers who were encouraging or discouraging campaign pressure. that is from ap. nbc is reporting that a new jersey senator on wednesday acknowledged the existence of an ongoing federal investigation against him, more than four years after a corruption case. and then does is under investigation by the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan. this was reported on wednesday. the government is investing this probe, but it involv

teach in europe, but we have seen this unusual back-and-forth develop, chiefly led by justice elena kagancome out in public speaking and said the justices have looked in a political way towards producing an outcome. the chief justice seemed unhappy earlier in the month about this exchange and about elena kagan's criticism without directly going after her. judy: she's been speaking out without going after a justice, but making your he is not comfortable. all of this happens as we are headed into a term with a long list of contentious and controversial cases. name a few of the ones who are watching. >> if you define last term by the abortion ruling, this will decided -- this term will be decided by cases involving race. i'm watching two cases in which the court is being asked to overrule a 20-year-old precedent that allows higher education institutions to consider race as one factor in policies. there is an important voting rights case that will be argued tomorrow morning, and that comes out of alabama and involves the only part of the voting rights act that is left because the supreme cour

much like what justice kagan was suggesting, we have to figure whether you are claiming that we need to change jingles in some fundamental way, or whether you are saying that these points aren't satisfying jingles in the way that we normally understand. i thought you were saying, jingles that one needs to be retooled to require some showing of a comparison with a race neutral lined algorithm. my question was, he would bear the burden of showing that there is a problem that we are doing it now, that the way that jingles is working. that a race lined algorithm actually produces a better result. but are implementing what congress intending -- better implementing what congress intending or are required by the constitution. all of these are heavy burdens in the constitution. are you asking us to reconsider what is happening with jingles to require that challengers compare their original map at step one with a race lined algorithm? >> the algorithms are not essential. they are eliminating this case. >> what do they eliminate? >> they show that they this is what you expect a race neutral ma

although his colleague elena kagan threw shade on him effectively said court was becoming too politicalng decisions not based on law and justice replied to her some sort of food fight but really among elites man on the street the woman on the street they look at supreme court. they determine whether they like or dislike a particular case or the top handful of cases every june and they make their decisions that's what the "gallup polls" reflct and days parity between conserve and republicans or democrats are viewing the court. but the, you know, i don't think these questions of legitimacy really are anything that we actually do need to be concerned about. it's court doing its best to decide the cases that are in front of it and if you don't like that analysis that's perfectly fine. but i don't think it means that court is -- an institutional failure. >> do you think that justice kagan and commentators goal to try to intimidate the justices not to go in the so-called conservative direction on some of these political hot button cases? >> there might be some of that certainly. it's also fru

this comes as supreme court justice elena kagan blocked the enforcement asking for phone records fromr kelly ward. with us now to talk about this, ryan nobles and tali farhadian weinstein, a former federal prosecutor in new york. what is the committee likely to do if trump decides not to comply? >> i think the first step is they're going to try to engage with his attorneys and see if there is some sort of common ground that both sides are comfortable with that could allow them to get the information they're looking for for the former president. that's what they done with past witness targets. if trump defying those efforts and does not want to cooperate with the committee, they've made it clear that they'll use every resource available to them to try to compel his cooperation and goes all the way up to the possible referral of the criminal contempt of congress which would be an unprecedented step. now the committee is warning of that, but they're not ready to be that aggressive quite yet. we're still about a week or so away from the first deadline, several weeks away from the deadline

those were strong kmcomments, y know, we heard from roberts and kagan and gorsuch. that was alito, and those were striking comments. he said it was a grave betrayal and he felt like a target of assass assassination. i've covered the court for a long time. we've never seen protests like we did last term when those fences went up around the court as well as the protests in front of the justices' homes, and it culminated of course, like alito said with the arrest of that man who was arrested for attempting to murder justice kavanaugh. there's a status hearing on that today. we learned other things from the speech he gave. one thing is it sure sounds like you said, that they haven't found the leaker. he wasn't absolutely clear about that, but he suggested that the leaker hadn't been found, but he echoed chief justice john roberts, sort of suggesting that now the court wants to move on, put last term behind them and move on away from that, but he also made a very important point near the end of his speech last night, and that is he defended the legitimacy of the court, a

kagan, by the way, it is no coincidence that the husband of victoria lund, the architect of our policyll the illusions were finally dispelled after the bombing, yugoslavia i was wrong, because i did not understand what kind of people stood at the head of my country for them, the main problem was not communism, nor the soviet regime, but that the united states should always rule the world, that we need our own kind of communism, which we will impose on the rest instead of the world progress-socialism will be a democracy of human rights, a free market in our weed. in august, junjatra with reymagovern, several more american politicians and activists were blacklisted by the ukrainian disinformation countermeasures center and accused of in russian propaganda and declared information terrorists, the list was compiled by an organization within the ukrainian government, funded by the united states, although, as far as i understand, the entire government is funded by the united states. so there is not much difference, but the question arises. to what extent did american intelligence help? when

justices kagan and sotomayor wore masks. others did not.ly notable in this first case today, justice brown jackson engaged right away. she was asking many questions of the lawyers who were here for a case that deals with water rights and the epa and could there be more federal regulation of property rights when it comes to water and it was certainly interesting to see how she engaged quickly and other judges referenced her questions so she was right in the mix on her fers day on the court. of course, today's case is just the first of many going forward. the justices will hear cases that will deal with issues like race when it comes to college admissions, affirmative action. that will deal with harvard and university of north carolina. they'll also deal with how state legislatures could play a bigger role in elections. they'll look at voting rights in alabama. they'll look at the issue of can a private employer, web designer in colorado, not provide services, creative services for gay couples, but do so for hetero sexual couples under the is

we are at a high watermark of diversity on the court. >> kagan is jewish. >> i was right about that.he most conservative court in a very long time. >> yes. three of those women are on the left. a there was in the courtroom -- there was a sense of optimism. you could forget for a moment about where the court is going just because of this feeling of a real historic milestone in america. >> something that john roberts is trying to do, he is tryryingo return to the court of the past that was -- >> we will see if f he can do that. it's hard riright now. >>> is the virginia governor the man who can unite republicans in 2024? we will see. ♪ start your plan today with a northwestern mutual financial advisor and spend your life living. ♪ i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uhh - here, i'll take that woo hoo ensure max ptein, with 30 grams of protein, 1 gramf sugar and now in two new flavo (♪ ♪) the lows of bipolar depression can leave you down and in the dark. but what if you could begin to see the signs of hope all

even justice kagan in the last few weeks came out and criticized it. they could have gone two different ways. they could have aimed at the nationwide injunction, the expansion of state standings, some of the things making that docket be so much larger than it used to be. they haven't done that yet. but they seem to be doing is accepting that and taking cases from the emergency docket and moving them over to the merit docket and even on the emergency docket, they are writing more to explain what they are doing. there isn't any sign yet they want to return to the old ways as opposed to adjust to the new normal. paul: i'm glad you started the question by talking about the emergency docket and only secondarily got to the shadow docket. i think it's important in thinking about how the court is dealing with this to normalize the idea of an emergency docket. you cannot run an applet court without a docket that operates differently from your full-blown merits consideration. in a world where district courts get to issue preliminary injunctions, temporary restra

at one point in the oral arguments, justin kagan said if alabama prevails in this case, it would cutedent. she also asked, so what's left? i want to pose that question to you. what is left of the voting rights act if alabama ultimately prevails here in, i should note, a very conservative supreme court? >> what alabama is essentially arguing is that the voting rights act only prohibits intentional discrimination. even worse, alabama is saying that any time you use race and redistricting, that that itself is potentially unconstitutional. if alabama prevails on those arguments, then it would make it much more difficult for any state, city council, school board, to draw majority, minority districts and would have really negative effect on the ability of minorities to elect candidates to congress and to every sort of representative body in the country. so alabama's argument also flies in the face of what congress did 40 years ago when they eliminated any intent requirement. >> i read some of the analysis of what we heard in the oral arguments this week that suggested that the conservative

s the sort of simpler way to justify conclusion. >> justice kagan. justice gorsuch. >> i want to follow-up on the earlr questions. i think just of gorsuch identified something that the court has been overwhelmingly concerned about for decades. thats t punishing innocent people who make a mistake. atssurance can you provide on that front, some of the hypotheticals about someone being penalized r king a mistake, but a reasonable judgme aut the status of their land? >> i will say a couple things. first, t crt made the point in maui that the civil penalties division directed the courts to consider -- culpability. on the criminal side, it itr that the 1319 of the act provides potential criminal liability for negligent or knowing violatns as a matter pctice, it is unusual to bring criminal prosecution. >> tste the obvious, the negligence provision is a red flag. what do you have to say about th? >> first as a matter of practice, it is rare, very unusual, for simple glence to give rise to criminal liability. crimalrosecutions are brought when there is serio

he was referring to justice kagan.l that that's happening. and so, you know, i think that that is, in fact, going to only contribute to the sentiment that the public has. >> interesting. professor anita hill, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. >> one of the areas in florida hit hard during hurricane ian where thousands lined up for help at a fema center, some have lost everything. we'll take you there today. kib. but about two years ago, i realized she was overweight. she was always out of breath. that's when i decided to introduce the farmer's dog to her diet. it's just so fresh that she literally gets bubbles in her mouth. now she's a lot more active she's able to join us on our adventures. and we're all able to do things as a family. ♪ get started at longlivedogs.com >>> i'm natasha chen in los angeles and this is cnn. >>> sheriff in lee county florida said only two are missing and reduced the death toll in the county from 59 to 53 deaths of meanwhile thousands of people are lining up waiting for hours

and yet, elena kagan saying this.'m not talking about any particular decision or any particular series of decisions. but if, overtime, the court loses all connection with the public at the public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy. where do you see the legitimacy of the supreme court now, especially after the roe decision in comparison, of course, to public opinion when it comes to abortion rights in this country? >> it is not even what i think. at this point, it is what the polling shows and gallup polling shows that the courts approval ratings are the lowest since there has been polling. and the public really feels as if the court is no longer doing the work of a court. it is doing the work of a political branch. it's interesting that the justice took a whack adelaide not kagan when she said that. he didn't name her. but he said, no one should be calling into question the legitimacy of the court. it's interesting that the dobbs opinion is the thing that has been really the lever that has allowed amer

project of global domination like they did spelled out in an article by william crystal and robert kagana new american century. kagan, by the way, it is no coincidence that the husband of victoria luland, the architect of our policy in ukraine, all his people finally dispelled after the bombing of yugoslavia, i was wrong, because i did not understand what kind of people stood at the head of my country for them, the main problem was not communism, nor the soviet regime, but that the united states should always rule the world, that we need our own kind of communism, which we will impose on the rest instead of the world, progress-socialism will be a democracy of human rights, a free market in our interpretation. in august, jujatras from raim, govert, several more american politicians and activists were blacklisted by the ukrainian disinformation counteraction center, they were accused of russian propaganda and declared information terrorists the list was compiled by an organization within the ukrainian government funded by the united states, although, as far as i understand, the entire gove

this unusual back and forth that has developed over the last couple of months, chiefly led by justice kagancome out in a series of speaking appearances and said that she thinks some of the court's recent decisions have given people reason to think that the court is deciding cases in an unprincipled way. she suggested may be a political way or with an eye to achieving a certain outcome. this produced a rebuttable from chief justice john roberts and gestures sam alito who pushed back against that. the chief justice in particular seemed kind of unhappy earlier in the month about this whole exchange and kagan's criticism without directly going after her. judy: he has been speaking about it without going after an individual justice but making it clear he's not comfortable with it. all this happens as we are heading into a term with a long list of contentious, controversial cases. name just a few of the ones you are watching. marcia: i think if you defined last term by the abortion ruling, i think this term may be defined by what the justices do with cases involving race. i'm watching two cases i

it is an easier way to justify it. >> justice kagan. justice gorsuch. >> i want to follow-up on the earlier questions. i think just of gorsuch identified something that the court has been overwhelmingly concerned about for decades. that is not punishing innocent people who make a mistake. what assurance can you provide on that front, some of the hypotheticals about someone being penalized for making a mistake, but a reasonable judgment about the status of their land? >> i will say a couple things. first, the court made the point in maui that the civil penalties division directed the courts to consider -- culpability. on the criminal side, it is true that the 1319 of the act provides potential criminal liability for negligent or knowing violations. as a matter of practice, it is unusual to bring criminal prosecution. >> to state the obvious, the negligence provision is a red flag. what do you have to say about that? >> first as a matter of practice, it is rare, very unusual, for simple negligence to give rise to criminal liability. crimi

justice kagan can refer this to her fellow justices for them all to consider or she can review it herselfhat is at stake here, that this issue, the battle over democracy, and the committee's efforts to try to get to the facts, are now going all the way to the supreme court. lally? >> kelly o'donnell, live for us in washington. thank you. >>> nbc news learning this afternoon, that democratic senator bob menendez, the chair of the powerful foreign relations committee, is under federal criminal investigation according to two people familiar with the matter, the spokesperson for the senator, in a statement, an adviser for senator me den dez says that the senator is aware of the investigation but not of the scope of it. we have more now. can we have more plain english, tom? we don't know, and we can't report why or for what yet? >> that is perfectly put, hallie. >> we don't know the scope of the investigation and in other words what type of potential criminal wrong doing it might involve and we don't know how many individuals may be involved in it, so those are obviously the two key questions,

justice elena kagan saying well. a court can no longer be considered legitimate if you are doing things like overturning precedent and not fully explaining why, or if you are straying from your commitment to a certain judicial philosophy. she kept saying i'm not talking about any cases or controversies directly. but she was. that is what she said all along. then you have chief justice john roberts sang you can't talk about the legitimacy of the court just because you don't like the opinions coming out. and justice alito also jumped in. they know that the legitimacy of the court is so important, they never want to be looked at as another political branch. the simple reason is when they issue opinions, they want the public to follow them and not think it is just politics, we will wait for another politician to get on the bench. they are very concned about it, they know about this approval rating. i'm not sure they know how to deal with it. >> one last question, we have about a minute left. president trump has gone to t

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

here's what justice kagan says.he apparatus and overthrowing legal rules it just starts to not look like law anymore, kagan said. that could result in a tit for tat situation in the future when other new justices fill the court, fueling jolts to the system that will make it look like a political institution. this is so clear what she's saying. roe and casey have republicans that side and see the rights to privacy. the decision to overturn roe is literally the trump litmus test put into action on the supreme court. >> well, justice kagan highlights a really important truth here, which is that the supreme court is meant to be more than a mini legislature. and this court has stretched the public's confidence in it much too far. it's at the breaking point. we're all used to this sort of dance that you see with judges at confirmation, where they decline to weigh in on some of most controversial topics in front of them, and they say, i can't weigh in on that because that's a case that might come in front of me, and that's

ferocious fighting elks in the agul kagan, asyks break out into the burning mouth and the audience alsoicenter of a merciless battle, where the triumphant cry of quarrels not nai-nai roars. perhaps there has never been a national epic on such a staged scale and scope in russian cinema, not inferior to the hollywood ashes in the scandinavian saga of ancient or asia, the viewer must leave with the thought of how difficult it was to create the world in which i am now. how many our ancestors had to go through suffering so that now, just like i was leaving the cinema, i would take care of my existence in my country in the distant permian lands, surrounded by eternal parma, the heroes of ghosts, princes and shamans, vaguls and muscovites, collide. it is here in the perm territory that the cauldron takes place, in which the great russian people are brewed and a great future is created. empire is a very interesting moment in our history at the time of the creation of our country and the creation of our people in that form so, in which we have uh, today i am a russian prince. and this movement t