justice kagan: i mean, if you think that justice sotomayor and justice kagan are identical judges with identical methodologies, reaching identical outcomes on the basis of identical approaches to law, i have to say you haven't been paying careful attention. [laughter] i mean, judges are different. i am a partner and a collaborator with justice sotomayor on some occasions and some occasions i care deeply about. and i think justice sotomayor gets stuff wrong on other occasions and this was one of them. [laughter] >> ok, fair enough. judges are different. we get it. so in your dissent in the andy warhol case, you warned the majority's opinion hampers creative progress and undermines creative freedom. will you share some of your personal experiences that have contributed to your strong appreciation for creative freedom in the arts? justice kagan: personal experiences, i don't want to say, you know, that i was on this side and justice sotomayor was on the other side because i have, you know, greater love of the arts than she does. i don't want to say that at all. and i'm not sure that perso

chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: general, some o your arguments, i think not all of them, but some of your arguments would strongly indicate that alabama could enact a plan with no majority-minority districts. do ynk alabama could do that? mr. lacour: under the current guidelines, i don't think we would be able to because core retent one of those principles. justice kagan: what do you mean, under the current guidelines? mr. lacour: the 2021 guidelines that the bipartisan redistriincommittee approved and handed over for our -- for our justice kagan: on -- on your current guidelines. i'm not interested in alabama's currenguelines. i'm interested in whether you think, as a matterderal law, as a matter of the voting rights act, you are prohibited from enacting a plan that has ajority-minority districts. mr. lacour: i think it would depend on sort of the guidelines that are being proposed there and the motivations. this court said in lulac breakip an existing district is -- is inherently suspect. and so tha

e about the father of the kagan.a there is a publication called a statement. yes, this publication is purely for ukraine , which is already at the beginning of the last century and it is written there. and so he created this edition. lev dobryansky, the most famous russophobe, he was e , as it were, also a professor corresponding there at the university, and his student is precisely this russophobe's father. uh, donald kagan is the father of both of these guys. actually, it turns out that there is a russophobic clan on the one hand, and on the other hand. and today we say that it is hate on the one hand, yes. it must be fueled than above all by money and money. they received from everything, if we talk about ukraine, which i understand a little. there is such an oligarch. igor kolomoisky on the right side. this one , including the cash flow, which simply flows in one direction and works in the other, it gives them some resources. they return others to him from america. why is kolomoisky still unsinkable. although cri

chief justice roberts: justice kagan. justice kagan: mr.errilli, ' been thinking a good deal about this constitutional analogue to the rehnquist principle. and your colloquy with justice alito made me feel uneasy about it. and i think that the reason because it shows how very good judges on ved courts can find it incredibly easy to disagree with each other. and so if justice alitd you can it be flunked, i think what i want to askoufter hearing that colloquy, is, is there a dan's going to be satisfied too easily? and i think that every single us on this bench has written opinions at times, you know, saying thar judges, whether it's other judges on this court lower court judges, you know, haaged in policymaking rather than in law. and, i mean, it's just sort of one of the things that judges say when they really disagree with another opinion. if you say acting as a legislature, not aa urt, acting as a policy maker, not as a court, i mean, these really are things -- 's not just this court, its every court -- these are things that judges say to

chief justice roberts: justice kagan. justice kagan: if i could, mr. thompson, i'd like to step back a bit and hink about consequences because this is a theory with big consequences. it woulday that if a legislature engages in the most tre forms of gerrymandering, there is no state constitutional remedy for that, even if the courts think that that's a violation of the constitution. it would say leglares could enact all manner of restrictions on voting, get rid of all kinds of vottections that the state constitution, in fact, prohibits. it might allow the legislatures nsert themselves, to give themselves a role in the certification of elections and the way election results calculated. in all these ways, i think what might strierson is that this is a proposal that gets rid of theorl checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country. you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the when they are needed most, because legislators, we all know, have their own self-interest. they want to get re-

justice kagan? justice kagan: i would ask on a completely dfent question, but one notable thing about the argument here is that on both sides there's been very little scsion of what originalism suggests about this question. and i -- so i just want to ask, what would a committed originalist think about e kind of race-consciousness that's at issue here? general prelogar: i think that an originalist would think that this is clearly consistent with the original understanding of the fourteenth amendment, that sities have come forward with powerful evidence tha enactment of the fourteenth amendment there were federal and -- and state laws that took race into account for purposes of ng to achieve the central amendment to bring african american citizens to a point of equality in our society. and i think what' notable if the court is focused on history here is that petitioner has come forward with essly no history to support this color-blind interpretation of the constituhat would make all racial classificat

justice kagan? >> i wanted e yoback to my opening questions and then justice alito's question about how your case is different from my hypothetical and may be the way to sort of cut through some of this is not make it hypothetical and ask about your client. mike and my into your client, we love your graphics, we saw them someplace else. le how this looks, here is what we want. weant the standard site, our name, the pictures, the hotels, the registry, just that. you say, ok. don't you? >> assuming all the deilline up with the message she's willing toree. >> then they say we don't want your scripture, a's ok with you they don't have to have scripture? >> no they d't. they could just have a standard site right? so now it's not mike and mary w it's mike and mark and they want the identical site. we saw mike and mary's site we loved we are getting married we want to change the date mr their names whatever. loved it. they don't get it and the -- you say no. they can't get that site. >> the same words can

journal and somewhat remarkable that elena kagan has decided to respond to him. she basically said that's not true. there is all kinds of evidence to the contrary and all kinds of rules the supreme court has to abide by that are the product of laws passed by congress down to the fact that their session begins in the first monday in october, that derives from a statute passed by congress, the size of the work has been changed by congress many times in the nation's history. the interview that sam alito gave at the wall street journal, the individual that conducted the interview and publish the piece was actually a lawyer and was arguing a court at the supreme court next year so there are propriety questions about sam alito giving an interview to somebody who will appear before the in a case next term. the fact that sam alito gave the interview and what he said makes the case for a need for an ethics law to be passed by congress. -- elena kagan somewhat agrees with the comments she made in her interview this week. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio, democrat. go ahea

we are talking about the kagan's gold.l racing in the astrakhan region, and already in the spring your masses bypassed kamaz there were bells. yes, then your victory alerted the guys alerted, because uh, it's a race. it's especially on the calendar, and hmm, it's always been like that. let's say a parable who wins the kagan's gold in this season wins, dakar it worked and always has and in our case also it only worked, and now with the silk road race for that race. we arrived with a very small team of 11 people and one sports truck. that is, it was an incomplete departure of the team. e connected, this was due to the fact that the cars were not ready. e for the off-season to leave in april, eh? uh to start uh this is due to the fact that we have large restrictions on the purchase of spare parts according to their abundance, of course, of course, they affect, motorsport. mm. ah. these are not only serial spare parts, but also spare parts of a special kind, so their delivery time or logistics has increased significantly and w

the partisan valence not -- but the last thing to say about that is just as kagan disagrees with the conservatives. 5-4 in support of cheesed -- chief justice roberts and it helps underscore of the critiques of the shadow of docket are not strictly partisan is onehe of the repeat players n criticizing the conservative majority has been the conservative chief justice who defected in the sba case in their alabama reach a certain case in the clean water case in aprill of 2022 and they say the same thing hey i'm john roberts. i have not changed my stripes. >> eisen institutional city sees the court legitimacy and credibility impacted negatively. >> andg by using the emergency application method as a way of doing things that are supposed to be done with full -- full-throated deliberations. >> capitol punishment there seem to be number of cases in which liberty matters in the shadow docket. one thing that i thought i knew it when you said it but i think about it before that was a lot of this area is the. i know the shadow docket goes back to 1980. really it's the last six years.t >> i thin

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

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

sarah: adjusted kagan -- justice kagan denied an application by epic to overturn the state. -- the staycally the federal appellate court said apple does not need to lift its anti-steering provisions. basically the buttons, external lanes were other calls to action the direct customers to alternative perks using mechanisms in their app store. they do not need to lift that restriction. epic charges developers lower fees on their own app store so they want a way to tell folks you can click this button to go to our store. that is what is at issue. ed: the appeals court has put its decision on hold so apple has time to file a supreme court appeal later in the year. the ruling kicks in if the justices refused to hear the case. what is the tech policy institute big picture stance on this battle and the idea at the heart of it. sarah: it is about the state law , california's unfair competition law it is focused on the anti-steering -- can other companies put links in apples app store to say you can click this click -- click this link to go to another store. there are other items that are in ano

so you guys might say, oh, justice kagan disagrees with the conservatives, hey, it's a day that ends. and why. but 5 to 4 in the sba case, the fourth was chief justice roberts. and one of the points that i think really to underscore how the critique of the shadow docket are not at least strictly partizan is one of the most, you know, sort of one of the repeat players in criticizing the conservative majority has the conservative chief justice who dissented in the sbrt case, who dissented in the alabama redistricting case, who dissented a clean water case in april 2022, and his dissents are always saying the same thing. so, hey, i'm john roberts, right? i have not changed my stripes. i am absolutely sympathetic to where my conservative colleagues he's in institutionalist and he that the court's legitimacy credibility is impacted negatively by playing these games. well, and by using the sort of the emergency mechanism as a way of doing things that are supposed to be done with full throated deliberation on the merits docket. so capital punishment is a through line in this book. so inciden

decision gives them authority to regulate the supreme court period then to that now justice alania kaganponded. >> of course congress can regulate what the supreme court does. congress funds the supreme court. it just can't be that the court is like the only institution that somehow is not subject to any checks and balances from anybody else. i mean, we're not imperial. so can congress do various things to regulate the supreme court? i think the answer is yes. will: what is the answer shannon, people point out there's little in the constitution that suggests that there is a way for congress to impose a ethics code on the supreme court. >> uh-huh. we talked a little bit about this last week she hits on that point justice kagan that it is about funding because they do decide funding measures for the judicial branch and that's where the usually try to exert control and often call in justices when they're having these hearings on what funding they get to say things like we're all going to force you to put cameras in the courtroom and tie that to the funds. so far the justices have been able

i thought justice kagan, of all people, made the case quite well.t conference. she laid out the facts that the constitution itself gives congress the power to regulate the court in several different ways. it has power of the purse over the court. it has power over how many seats are on the court. it can actually limit which cases the court is allowed to hear. i think justice kagan was making a not so subtle swipe at her colleagues vast overstatements by saying, we are not imperial. we do not sit outside the system of checks and balances and above the other branches of this government. we are part of it. we have to sometimes take a hit from congress or the president when they choose to limit our power in a constitutional way. that is a powerful statement. i want her for making it. i don't think it will go over very well behind the scenes with sam alito. >> i wonder how it will go down with chief justice roberts. when the leader was securing his place on the supreme court he promised to adhere to ethics, laws from congress. after failing to comply wit

least seven of the justices is including justice thomas, have and that may surprise you, but justice kagan herself has said that she is in some ways embraced textualism and originalism. i think justice jackson, to her has embraced historical use and has been willing to debate others on history. and so i wouldn't limit it. limited to left, right, conservative to liberal or republican and democrat. i dislike all of those labels, as you can imagine. and i know you do. you're never going to come up with a label that a judge is going to like because we like think of ourselves as individuals. and i think that part's important. it's hard to answer that question. and that's why i think justice thomas's originalism is so in many ways is because he really, in a sense, captures what brutus, the anti-federalists at the time of the founding, worried about the judges. wouldn't adhere to the original public, meaning and he has tried his best to do so in the purest form possible. and who will grab that mantle on the court? currently, i couldn't predict, but i can tell you there are many justices that resp

. >> i want to play justice elaina kagan for you, this is what she had to say about accountability forourt. >> it just can't be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to any checks and balances for from anybody else. we are not imperial, and we too are a part of a checking and balancing system in various ways. so can congress to do various things to regulate the supreme court, i think the answer is yes. >> now that is justice kagan, but just as little told the wall street journal that no provision in the constitution gives them, in congress, the authority to regulate the supreme court, period. i, mean brett, your reporting has shown a spotlight on the severe gaps if you will between what the supreme court justices are doing and the federal other folks on the federal bench. do you think that this reporting is going to result into some sort of ethics code that the court will take its own steps to do that? >> i don't know. i don't know. i think that for a while, the supreme court has said that there already is an ethics code for the judiciary. even though we ar

justice elena kagan declaring her support for a supreme court code but says the justices were dividedn how to proceed. justin kagan told a conference, quote, it won't be surprise to know the nine of us have a variety of views about this. the high court has been under scrutiny of for its lack of official code of conduct after reporting that some have used their positions for personal gain, including accepting lavish gifts. >>> still ahead, the president of niger has been taken hostage and calling on the u.s. to help rescue the african nation from the military coup. what's next for the u.s. sailors charged with spying in? you're watching "chris jansing reports." you're watching "chris jansing reports. get started today with verizon business. it's your business. it's your verizon. (vo) crabfest is back at red lobster. when you can choose your crab, and one of three new flavors like honey sriracha... ...this is not your grandpa's crabfest... ...unless grandpa's got flavor. dayumm! crabfest is here for a limited time. welcome to fun dining. imagine you're doing something you love. rsv coul

justice elena kagan has said no, congress can regulate us.d they can. short of regulation, it seems to me that like you're not going to embarrass them into retiring. if they retire, they don't get the gifts anymore. the incentive is to dig in and keep doing it because you get to keep going on the trips. >> i think in that respect, you could be right. justice kagan is also certainly right that congress has the constitutional authority to pass laws that limit the -- restrict the ethical conduct of the justices. indeed, the very law that we're talking about that requires public financial disclosure was enacted in 1978 by the congress. so it's also public financial disclosures should not be new to justice thomas. he had to file these forms when he was chair of the eeoc, which he was for many years. >> yeah. he just pretends he doesn't know because he likes the trips, i think that's very clear. don fox, thank you so much for being here. >>> and up next, to ban or not to ban. now it's shakespeare feeling the wrath of snowflake conservatives in flor

justice kagan? will chief justice roberts step in to ensure other justices do so for transparency's sake? i've said this before and it bears repeating. the problem of ethics in this closure in the supreme court can be cured before the end of the day by one person. chief justice roberts, of the roberts court, as it would go down in history, has the authority and the opportunity to step in and get this done now. rather than let this problem linger and even get worse. that it's the conduct of some of the justices. he can do it, and he should. this committee will continue to pursue this issue because it is critically important to our responsibility and to the constitution when it comes to the supreme court. a few weeks ago, chief justice roberts gave a speech where he said, and i quote, he is committed to making certain that we, as a, court adhere to the highest standards of conduct. i couldn't believe it. i thought he spoke up. maybe he is finally going to do something about. this well, he should do so

chief justice roberts was joined by justices sotomayor, kagan, kavanaugh and barrett and jackson. there was a lot of questions on that oral argument about how far the rules could go about whether or not the theory articulated by north carolina was consistent with the supreme court precedent. there was a lot of grappling with the boundaries of what this would look like. because there wasn't a lot of suggestions to overturn because the president goes back 100 years, i think there was more comfort from the majority to say this fits in with what we've been talking about for 100 years in terms of checking the state legislature. the defense said this was a dissension and there is a process of referendums and ballot initiatives and telling the legislature here's what you can and can't do. that wasn't persuaded to the majority so it came out in oral argument and there was discussion about it but it wasn't terribly considered. host: we've got phone calls waiting but let's start with a tweet from steve -- guest: i did submit an amicus brief. it was on behalf of myself and nobody else. might

. >> i would like to follow up on justice kagan's question. under state farm, one of the thgshe government must noally do is explain not just the benefits of its proposed course of action but also grapple with the cost or negative effects of programs that are proposed. yourds on the other site -- side argu is another deficiency in the memorandum i would like to give the chance to rpo. >> >> of course. i want to say that my friends staken to suggest the secretary did't even consider cost. the department extensively models the cost and submitted those cost estimates. >> i don't just mean numbers, t nerally, the negative effects to the economy, to people who don't have this opportunity for debt rief, the variety of factors that under state farm that would be -- that the government would rmly have to consider in your friends on the others argue those are not present. >> i think those were certainly t secretary's determination of how to tailor this that the sretary recognized. that the central purpose of the heroes a w implicated because there were

journal and somewhat remarkable that elena kagan has decided to respond to him.he basically said that's not true. there is all kinds of evidence to the contrary and all kinds of rules the supreme court has to abide by that are the product of laws passed by congress down to the fact that their session begins in the first monday in october, that derives from a statute passed by congress, the size of the work has been changed by congress many times in the nation's history. the interview that sam alito gave at the wall street journal, the individual that conducted the interview and publish the piece was actually a lawyer and was arguing a court at the supreme court next year so there are propriety questions about sam alito giving an interview to somebody who will appear before the in a case next term. the fact that sam alito gave the interview and what he said makes the case for a need for an ethics law to be passed by congress. -- elena kagan somewhat agrees with the comments she made in her interview this week. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio, democrat. go ahead.

. >> it is the partisan filling but the last thing about that justice kagan is a conservative but fiveone of the points to underscore the critiques strictly partisan the majority has been the conservative in his defense are always saying the same thing. i have not changed my stripes so he sees the courts legitimacy and it is impacted negatively. >> the application mechanism isd away they are supposed to be done with full deliberation. >> it seems to be number of ways in which they have decided to the shadow pocket. one thing i knew when you said it but a lot of this is trump era, i know you say in 19804 it's a pivotal moment. >> i started to pay attention to the topic in the summer of 2017 because it wasn't just trump administration versus obama administration, trump administration took an aggressive t approach to this nerdy procedural maneuver in thf supreme court of both parties so the george w. bush and obama but the government goes to the court nearly eight times so once every other year and the decisions have been so in seven cases as though obvious partisan and it's par for the c