justice kagan: thank you. justice kavanaugh: it seems like in figuring out the mens rea issue, we're making quasi-policy judgments about where to draw the line. and in thinking about that, you alluded to this but i'd be interested in you just telling us from the federal government's perspective, what are the problems that you see that would be caused by adopting petitioner's rule? like real concrete kinds of cases that would go unarrested, unprosecuted. mr. feigin: i tried to jam this in a bit earlier. justice kavanaugh: take a minute or so. mr. feigin: to expand on it a bit more. number one, there are delusional stalkers, or not just stalkers, like delusional threateners, and we have to accept their harms. there are also devious ones like elonis. i'd commend to the court looking back at some of the statement he is made that are recounted in the court's opinion in that case, we clearly see someone trying to toe the line and that's exactly what these people do. and we're not prosecuting them on the basis of one

chief justice roberts: justice kagan. justice kagan: can i gu three kinds of practices and you tell me which gets 230 protection and which doesn't? so one is the youtube practices thato're complaining of, and we know you think that does not get 230 protection. a second would be facebook or twitter or any entity that essentially prioritizes items. so you're on facebook and ceaiitems are prioritized on your newsfeed or certain tweets are prioritized on your twitr feed and there's so aorithm that's doing that and it's amplifying certain messages rather than other messages on your feed. that's the second. and thenhehird is just a regular search engine. you know, you put in a search and something comes back and so ways that's one giant recommendation system. here's the first emou should look at. here's the second item you should look at. so are all three of those not protected or what happens to my second and third? are they protected or not otected? and if they are protected, what's the difference between them and your practi

chief justice roberts: justice kagan?relatively clear guidance as to this question of premium wages or the opposite, does not give much guidance, at least the portions that i've read, about how it is that one is supposed to think about the burdens on co-employees. so could you tell me, like, what the eeoc has done in this area, how it thinks about this, and how that is different from petitioner's? gen. prelogar: yes. so the first line that the eeoc has drawn is to distinguish between the types of impacts on coworkers that are relevant, and this goes back to my responses to justice alito. mere coworker grumbling or resentment that someone else is getting an exemption from a neutral policy is not sufficient and cannot factor into the analysis of undue hardship. that's equally true for actual actions like quitting or transferring if it's motivated by just being unhappy that there's a religious accommodation requirement out there or by actual religious animus. so you take those impacts off the table. and then what the eeoc gu

justice kagan? >> a few times amongst the distinctions in cases you said that this is rlla societal judgment about who counts as complicit and culpable. that seems right to me but this seems to suggest that should be a jury question. >> no, i think there is a big difference. juries decide facts. the law decides what consequences to attach to the facts of t aeged. this is a question of law. to be sure it's a question of law in terms of lookg the factors in halberstam but that's exactly what halbetaitself did after making those factual findings, going on to apply that the standards within the common law drawg restatement of tort, there's a practical common sense judgment. something most people understand. when you run a busesopen to l customers, you are not signaling onpeon for favorable treatment. it's a service that we all benet om. you look at that conduct differeny from someone engaged in a factoace encounter. asking to lend money or give money, or give services that are specific to that person th

just to highlight, justice kagan never has been married according to usa today and does not have childrennd has two brothers. jim in michigan, independent line, you are next up. caller: hello, how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead talking about confidence in the supreme court. how are you? caller: i have no confidence in the supreme court, let alone my own government, and the banking system and when that collapses, everything is going to go haywire. host: keeping your comments to the court, why do you have no level of confidence? caller: just the rulings i have witnessed over the past 42 years that i have been alive and my question is -- when will the patriot men and women of the armed forces and militias step in and get rid of this corruption once and for all? host: you said rulings, what rulings did you see that influenced your decision? caller: well, i will tell you what rulings that the bronson case, where everybody that violated the oath should have been charged with treason from the supreme court. that is one case. and the supreme court keeps kicking it down the

that was brought home from the question fm stice kagan about banking services. it seemed clear as i read the mafew words on page 34 that bank services were not vered. then it cut or turned out that they were. it's difficult to understand how we got there our view is, the government says there is scial nexis front, -- nor it, once the statutory elements have been on halberst, the nexus is reiv ability. inot as simple as you might have hoped. we still have the six factors, but it stops there. justice itmade the point early on, and we think this is important, that halberstam has, as you put it, and i wish i had thought to say it, potential he -- essentially statutory status. tht is directed to use halberstam. is important for a number of questionserone being whether the assistance has to go to assisting the particular act on the plain the stam facts fail that standard. u y want to hold that in general aiding and abetting requires assisting to your act. -- particular acts. doe want to overrule halberstam when it gets here, in that halberstam is the standard and it s

>>wo responses, justice kagan.irst, prosecutions are not necessary and stevens and in free speech coalitn,his court didn't require actual prosecutions of protecte speech. and in stevens, this court invalidated that l 1years after it had been passed. so that law had been on the books for a while in free speech coalition. it had been at least five years. in virginia versus black, the opinion holdg at statute over abroad, that law had been on the books for 35 years. so the length of time and the ck of prosecutions isn't the inquiry because on a facial chlenge, the facial validity government's prosecutorialn the chces. >> but doesn't the prosecutorial choice have something to do with, um, inds of activity below shows? >> even if you look at the prosecutorial activity is relevant to that. i think there's realistidaer of chill here just from the fact that the government in rec years has invoked section 1324 in investigative activities. as the amicus from the reporters committee for freedom of the press noted t government

justice kagan? >> mr. fletcher, i want to assume your version of the atute as to encourage and the mens rea. now i want to make two further assumptions. one, we can come bactohose assumptions. but i want you to assume them. first, that the statute, even as interpreted by you, what, in fact, encompass the wealth examples of people of various kinds, friends, neighbors, doctors, whateve saying to people, i really think you should stay. saying that knowing that they are in the country unlawfully, having all ofhe intent. fst assumption is that all those communications are within the statute. my second assumption is that for one or another reason, maybe, what justice alito set about the fact that the civil conduct. person. was in this country unlawfully. some number of people tt want that person to stay. family mbe. whatever. how do we think about the eadth on those two assumptions? >> taking those asmpons, the court has never said explicitly, it has to be substantial both absolutely and in relation to i take it

i think it was don kagan who was one of the great certainly not left wing philosophers. he was the great, great ancient greek historian who died only recently. and he had been the dean of yale college, i believe it was professor kagan, who said something to the effect of years ago, a student could graduate yale with an education, didn't have to have an education to graduate yale, but it was possible. and today, i'm not sure it's even possible because so much of that university and really all of the universities has been taken over by grievance studies, the the pseudo academic departments that come out of critical theory. i'm thinking of women's sexual and gender studies, black studies is this studies that studies american studies, which ironically is the only studies where the teachers teach you to hate the thing that you are studying. that's not not true of black studies, not true of women's studies. there was a great exchange with another yale professor, harold bloom, a great defender of the western canon, who said that he had a student walk into his class and say, pro

justice kagan got box seats to a big-time university of michigan football game.hose are not like free flights on a private plane. it's difference by degree. i think that's a good point is that the gift rule, the disclosure rules but the tangible gift rules is confusing because in the statutes, it also means travel. but you are also talking about tangible gifts. those need to be clarified and at the least, there needs to be in office within the supreme court that goes justice to justice and asks if they have received gifts. are you sure no one has given you a $5,000 painting? there completely needs to be better rules and regulations and i think members of congress because the supreme court will not act on this likely, members of the congress need to rewrite the rules to ensure the justices have the same gift acceptance rules that they had to follow, nothing more than $50. host: if there is no investigating body once these documents are turned in, what -- what happens? guest: the annual financial disclosure report last year was posted online. it's crazy it took tha

that's what kagan's was. and abrams was.special to be polite, but that's their job and and they are beating drums of war in ukraine now i it pains me to be here and agree with henry kissinger but in fact he was right on ukraine this is extremely dangerous and even the new york times wrote an editorial this idea that zelinsky is going to all of the territory in ukraine, including those parts that have the ethnic russians, is a fantasy. this is the new york times. so they wrote an editorial, i think in may saying this. and kissinger said of it correctly that, we we can't corner and humiliate putin. he's a major power. and there has to be it doesn't excuse what putin did because as i said before, it is a crime. but as george kennan said of the expansion of naito that it was the greatest. it took the exact quotes in the book. it was the greatest blunder of the post-cold war era and it was so there to be this war is not going to stop as long as we are pumping billions. i mean, we've given more in terms of military and economic as

bob kagan is author of numerous books as well including the two-volume account of american statecraft, dangerous nation, america's place in the world from its earliest days to the dot of the 20th century, and and just publish, the ghost at the feast of america and the collapse of the world order, 1900-1941. he is also the author of two best-selling books, the world american-made, and a paradise in power. thank you, guys for joining us. steve put a lot on the table, but before we sort of start diving in to the particulars, one thing i thought we would begin with what you think is unique to your book on the iraq war, mel, is most of the discussions and commentary over the last few years and certainly the last couple of months have focused on natural enough the u.s. i mean the bush administration, president bush, the intelligence community and the like. but you begin your book by a relatively detailed biography of saddam hussein. and you sort of spin out what you thought that was important to begin the book? >> yes. first of all thanks for inviting me. it's quite a delight to be here wit

>> let's take justice elana kagan. of the three remaining could align herself with the center to broker a deal. she would work with chief justice john roberts and justice stephen breyer, who has retired, to bring about a compromise. she doesn't have a partner in that effort toward five votes. i found she's louder in her dissent, and moving almost more to the left to complainbout the majority's rulings to call attention to this, it makes a difference to be down one justice. there is a cushion on the right wi. they can lose one and have a majority. we will have to see how it shakes out. >> you talk about finding compromises. justices declined cases, delayed cases, or made compromises to avoid the conservative liberal split. this is when ruth bader ginsburg was still alive. >> i will bring it back to 2020. the supreme court was handling two cases involving clashes over trump documents the manhattan d.a. wanted and house committees wanted. when the justices considered these cases, they were bitterly split. the chief justic

but you're right to say justice alito is indeed casting shade and criticizing folks like justice kagan who have been critical of the court for mapping on its policy preferences to a number of different things through decisions they don't explain, by use of what they call the shadow docket those are cases that are not litigated on their merits but come to the court on some application for emergency relief as this did. and to me, it smacks of i know you are but what am i. justice alito has often been in the group of people willing to grant that emergency relief. tonight he's not because it doesn't comport with his own policy prenchs and his long standing antipathy toward abortion >> this is alito's dissent the applicant's claim that regulations prohibited and -- let me skip to this part here, the government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong ojdzs. this seems like he's admitting we don't have an army, the ability to enforce our decisions, and we'r

and this great battle with the khazar kaganate. we know that the khazar khaganate.s a very powerful state at that time. look, what glory is like this, and we need to go over to paganism in order to become like the prince of svyatoslav. this one right here, so that means jesus down below. it means death, then later it was borrowed by the germans and which are used by the tank i served in tanks. look, the tank divisions, the wehrmacht used, and you served in tanks. that is, you get the successor of the case. right. well, i did not invest this, but it's probably. i'm not at a loss to answer, you understand? i understand, yes, you wanted to be like the german tankers, so it turns out they were advanced at that time with me , i remember the material like that would have made a big push in tank building. and at school they told you who defeated the great patriotic war, of course, that we all pulled ourselves up from the soviet union of the great patriotic war, then you have allies, grandfather. artilleryman hunting, i never specified, even, to be honest with my parents ,

he adopted judaism, which became the religion of the ruling elite of the kaganate by the ninth centuryazar khaganate controlled a vast territory from the under the eyebrows to the aral sea and from the murom forests to the caucasus, the core of the khaganate was in a semi-circle, and the rest was limited to the ground by collecting denmark from local tribes and punitive trips in case of emergency. tribute to the khazars was paid by almost everyone under the dnieper slavs, except for the drevlyans. this tribe was the most warlike, the drevlyans could repulse anyone and did not neglect robbery themselves. neighboring meadows especially suffered from their regular raids until oleg appeared in kiev . oleg began to fight against the drevlyans and conquered them in the year 884 went to the northerners and defeated the northerners and did not order them to pay. tribute to the khazars saying and you don't need to pay them. gradually , the entire dnieper area was withdrawn from the sphere the influence of the khazar khaganate and became part of the young russian state on new lands , the kiev pr

justice kagan got box seats to a big-time university of michigan football game.se are not like free flights on a private plane. it's difference by degree. i think that's a good point is that the gift rule, the disclosure rules but the tangible gift rules is confusing because in the statutes, it also means travel. but you are also talking about tangible gifts. those need to be clarified and at the least, there needs to be in office within the supreme court that goes justice to justice and asks if they have received gifts. are you sure no one has given you a $5,000 painting? there completely needs to be better rules and regulations and i think members of congress because the supreme court will not act on this likely, members of the congress need to rewrite the rules to ensure the justices have t >> agriculture secretary tom vilsack>> testified on policy recommendations peered watch that tonight at 8:00 eastern c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> edward acorn has been a lifelong reader of abraham lincoln. in 2020 he published his first book on the 16th pr

justice kagan got box seats to a big-time university of michigan football game.ot like free flights on a private plane. it's difference by degree. i think that's a good point is that the gift rule, the disclosure rules but the tangible gift rules is confusing because in the statutes, it also means travel. but you are also talking about tangible gifts. those need to be clarified and at the least, there needs to be in office within the supreme court that goes justice to justice and asks if they have received gifts. are you sure no one has given you a $5,000 painting? there completely needs to be better rules and regulations and i think members of congress because the supreme court will not act on this likely, members of the congress need to rewrite the rules to ensure the justices have the same gift acceptance rules that they had to follow, nothing more than $50. host: if there is no investigating body once these documents are turned in, what -- what happens? guest: the annual financial disclosure report last year was posted online. it's crazy it took that long to

switch in the court membership with justice john paul stevens, he left and he was succeeded by elena kagan, a president obama employee. suddenly they had all the liberal justices appointed by the democratic president and other conservatives by republicans. it is much more of a political division there and from 2010 until 2020, people would note that division but it did not seem as apparent as it did in june when the justice reversed roe v. wade. this goes back to donald trump. when donald trump was running for office in 2016, he said i will only appoint justices who will reverse roe v. wade. so that made the political contrast much starker and he was right. he appointed three justices who joined with two other republican employees -- to reverse roe v. wade. there are plenty of times when i don't put stock in poll numbers but there are multiple polls, not just gallup that have documented what you are referring to. quickly court always seems to try to insulate itself from american society but how much of a concern are these approval ratings to the justices? >> your right to signal that she j

of course, this was only an excuse, the great kagan of all the slavs simply did not want someone elses too dissimilar in culture, customs throughout the life of his people, the frantic passionate faith of muslims, born in the hot arabian sands, seemed to him unsuitable for the forest expanses of russian land. then they came, the germans from rome saying, we came sent by our pope faith, we bow to the light. we are god who created the heavens and the earth, the stars and the moon and everything that breathes. the mention of the pope as an intermediary between him and god, the need to recognize someone else's power over himself in earthly affairs, did not suit him. but he wanted to understand the essence of christian teaching, and therefore he immediately asked the main question. what is your commandment? the latin missionaries had heard about the failures of suleiman, out of readiness to offer vladimir what, from their point of view, was most attractive to him. forgiveness according to strength, if anyone drinks or eats, then everything to the glory of god, as he said, our teacher pavel

kagan you from texas? >> i am fromwo texas. host amandaro situation is terrible.t happened in texas? okay amanda i want to say i i am so sorry about your loss of willow and i'm so sorry your doctors miss understood texas law for i have reviewed texas law of course because i practice understand want to as well as all the other laws in the state. every single law allows an exclusion for a doctor to use their reasonable medical judgment to determine when to intervene in a medical emergency which is usually defined as a threat to thehe life of the motr or permanent irreversible damage to an organ or an organ system. none of the states and the terminology the threat must be immediately. doctor snow and obstetricians have always known, even prior to dobbs the hyde amendment has been in place since the late 70s and the hyde amendment allowed an exclusion for life of the mother. her doctors have been practicing. ie nd have not changed my practe in any way since the dobbs decision. the american college of obstetrics andnd gynecology in regards to the horrible situation tha

. >> joseph kagan? >> guys a couple questions i think your standard plays out? what is a clarification question. i thought i understooderyo you o say if they had to he a premium wages toin ample use who could pick up the slack so to speak. that would not rise to the level outigficant delta difficulties is that correct? concerning the mind read of villageslucollar workers we aret talking about $100 -- $200a week for a corporation any significant size is not going to be an undue hardship. speaking about birds on corks i basically understoodke you to say burdens on coworkers agains i just did not count toa significant difficulty orr expense. simiro the ft to simplify it ltleit. there is a grocery store let's employees.three and it is important to the grer store that is stay open on sunday. and one of the employees says i am sbathbserver. maybe ty want to go to little league games with their kids or maybe they want to go to churc two. they are not a sabbathbsver and cannot ask for the sort of accommodation. or maybe anything else. ybe they quit or even if they don't

kagan i suppose you better than anybody understand how much skepticism.ey really botched the rollout of vaccines and the way it handled most the coed pandemic. quickset is right and the worst thing you can do in public health is declare an emergency longer than there is a true emergency. coed hit pandemic levels long time ago's going to be a long for a long time for its inexcusable but we never got good randomized controlled trial data on boosters and young people on the vaccine the government is pushing. pfizer has over a billion dollars, over $100 billion in profit they could find a randomized trial to answer the question whether or not it's effective. >> you mentioned is going to be around what this is going be kind of like the flu from now on. people were asked, americans were asked if they yearly covid vaccine is created, would you get vaccinated? the number it might surprise some people. only about 53% over half of americans say they are very likely or even somewhat likely to get vaccinated does that surprise you, doctor? it's not all people believe

carlson saying of supreme court justice elena kagan -- >> i feel unattractive become. you look at hilly and you know if she could castrate you, she would. >> reporter: and saying of tulsi gabbert -- >> i don't know what it is about, but according to every website, she's the prettiest member of congress. >> reporter: and referring to kamala harris as -- >> the ex-girlfriend of monday t monday tell williams. >> reporter: and states of feminism -- >> nothing is more dangerous to society. >> reporter: and tucker carlson has not gotten back to cnn in response to the allegations. and we did not receive response on his lawyer on the newly uncovered video of carlson obtained by the "new york times." fox news has denied the allegations that abby grossberg has made in her lawsuit. sunlen serfaty, cnn, washington. >>> and four men who escaped from a jail in mississippi last year has been captured in texas. officials say that i he was taken into custody in spring valley, texas after being spotted there on sunday. >> wednesday mississippi police confirmed the body of escapee dylan

judicial crisis network, don't know whose turn it will be but name three justices it won't be, sotomayor, kaganation. doesn't this open a dangerous door? >> you heard senator blumenthal who mentioned a subpoena, he is talking about separation of powers and we want to respect that as much as we possibly can but the legislative branch also funds the judicial branch so when they ask for money, it's the one time you will see them come up to the hill to actually have to testify. but interesting that yesterday or a couple days ago the letter from the chief justice had an addition to it, attachment that laid out the ethical things they follow, all nine of the justices signed it. so i think it was a show of unity that they expect that they can handle things internally, they say, and does not seem to split along ideological or partisan lines up there. >> john: we have the organizations from outside the supreme court trying to give us the idea that there's division in the court and between the justices, but almost -- to occasion they always come forward and say no, we might disagree on matters of the law

we but we all know that the families of the kagan of all the crystals, who are now the leaders of thethe old man who goes there does not know where to go, to whom to give a hand. these guys are neoconservatives. they are neo-pagans. they build their project on his pagan neofin. they want to destroy orthodoxy, as well as dilogical orthodoxy, and the support of this anti-global project, therefore, naturally. e for them. orthodoxy, vladyka pavel is an enemy, but this one, this one, this ball of the name tkachenko, he is just a weapon in in their hands of balls named tkachenko himself comments on this situation. this is how lada hmm and the authorities, if necessary, can use force. i’ll tell you again, i’ll say it again, the procedure. let me explain then, if the question still arises, they will not let me in. once they fixed it, they don’t let them in, they fixed it for the third time, we file a lawsuit for the third time , if after this court decision there is irresponsible behavior and obstruction of access to objects, then law enforcement agencies should already come into force. can y

justin kagan that's possible. >> or maybe justice thomas what if it's all of them and one other justiceview on this >> that's what makes this so interesting. the supreme court, this court's jurisprudence on abortion has been different they've been willing to ignore precedent. it's been results-oriented in terms of undercutting abortion rights here they're knocking heads with important regulatory interests the potential here is to upend drug manufacturers reliance on a regulatory process that's worked very well. maybe they won't go all the way here >> this pill has been on the market, it's important to remind everyone about this, this pill has been on the market for 23 years. when you talk about side effects or potential harm, all of that is now well documented it's not -- it's shown to be -- obviously there's certain cases, but not that big of a deal in the scheme of things when compared to other drugs that are on the market. >> 0.1% risk of complications. >> 0.1% risk of complications with this drug, especially when used in tandem with the other drug if you just use the other drug, the

that's talking about all of these trips that justices are taking one of them was that justice elena kagana navy ship does that mean she shouldn't rule on involving navy or san diego what is the real basis of the allegation and oftentimes it is not even clear -- any evidence at all that crowe the businessman of clarence thomas has new evidence in front of the ?rowrt >> no, i mean, he's a real estate developer it is conceivable there's been a real estate case there was in some way would help our hurt him and distance sort of way. but you know again paul you have to ask simply as a practical matter where's the evidence in our time with the supreme court -- there has been no example that i can think of of any justice from right to left that who has been -- involved in anything involving identifiable corruption. by and large they keep their slates clean. so there is there's not really a problem here and it appears to me that again this is the democrats trying to delegitimatize conservative side of the court. they've tried on attacks like this on clarence thomas protest in front of the court an