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

. >>> coming up, supreme court justice elena kagan talking about a senate bill created to establish a code of ethics for the high court. the democratic measure was put forward in response to recent reports of potential ethics n. violations involving justices clarence thomas, samuel alito, and sonja soto mayor. justice kagan spoke at the ninth circuit judicial conference in portland, oregon. >> thank you, judge simon. an >> thank you judge simon, and k good morning everyone, and welcome. welcome and thank you for being here, justice kagan. >> it's great to be here. >> it is an honor to have you here. we are really excited and we appreciate you taking time to have a conversation with us. >> it's good to be here at this whole conference, and thank you to everybody and especially chief judge mortier for making me feel so at home, and for giving me so much work to do. >> you have cheerfully undertaken musso thank you. the supreme court recently issued the andy warhol decision and in that case the court ruled that andy warhol had infringed on photographer lynn goldsmith's copyright because

and you perhaps more often align with some of the conservative justices and just as mayor and kagan and jackson, often joint with other liberal justices although certainly not true in many many cases. but are there occasions when the four women justices get together for any purpose. [laughter] [laughter] >> will for any reason. [laughter] >> just to sort of celebrate the fact that there are for now; see, i would say that i'm so delighted to have the justice as my new colleague and i would say that the women do not what i think ideologically or will i will start by saying that my very first term on the court, was in a fixed - but it was not the fixed three that you might be expecting when you open a newspaper. was the six men and i was writing the dissent for justice kagan and mayor and me and so it is certainly not always the case you know, that women are in different sides and actually, last term, i thank you so the case of the there were only five decisions in which the three other women justices kagan mayor and jackson, were and so that is only five where they were the three together

justices kagan and jackson today. recused from a case because of her prior governmental service. she was really solicitor general. jackson recused, stating it was because of her prior judicial service. so, i think that was a big step, but it's only two of nine so we will have to wait and see what they do. adopting an ethics code for the supreme court, justice kagan made it sound quite easy. it took a long time for the lower federal courts to adopt their own code of ethics, but still, i think she's absolutely right about what impact it could have on the court's image and support within the american public if they got it done. geoff: supreme court analyst marcia coyle, always a pleasure. marcia: take care. amna: some key funding for child care centers dating back to the pandemic ended on saturday. stephanie sy looks at what this could mean for child care and families. stephanie: more than 220,000 child care centers in the u.s. received these grants to help pay the bills and raise wages for staff during the pandemic. the

i find myself in a grouping that includes justice kagan or justice sotomayor. i wouldn't want to leave the impression that i am alongside them. got to them. i just say my perspective is different just by virtue of being a woman, because we bring to the law are methodological and jurisprudential commitments that are independent of our sex. but i think that it is delightful to have the companionship of them on the court. it was -- the formerly most senior justice throws a welcome party for the new junior justice, justice jackson. i got to do that, we did it last january. it's just for the justices and their spouses, and retired justices and their spouses as well. so you can pick your favorite food and she picked her favorite entertainment. she really loves hamilton, i found someone who sang on broadway, and he serenaded her with some songs. but it's really important to have people on the court to consider friends. the mako justice kavanaugh, and his wife ashley found some new orleans singers to sing some jazz music, including a second line. >> i wanted to ask you

kagan. >> general charles q brown junior and misses shareem brown. >> mr. sam nester and dr. maia. >> the honorable jin -- jim himes representative from connecticut and mrs. mary hines. >> the honorable anthony bernal and mrs. burnell cox. >> dr. kevin c o'connor and mrs. christine f o'connor. >> dr. justin wolfer's and dr. betsy stevenson. >> mr. jeremy lieu and ms. emily lieu. >> mr. james keogh and ms. celine us. >> the honorable john berry and mr. curtis e. --yee. >> tried to say hello to all the australian mates. >> how are you doing? >> the honorable jeff holland, secretary of the interior and ms. aleta suazo. >> the honorable caroline kennedy ambassador of the united states to australia and dr. edwin schlossberg. >> mr. don gray and mrs. mindy gray. >> the honorable brad cooper and mr. matthew brett. >> the honorable anthony j blinken secretary of state and the honorable ms. evan m ryan. >> ms. valerie biden owens, ms. missy evans and mr. cuff owens. >> the honorable bonnie jenkins in the honorable matthew d stein helfer. >> the honorable katherine clark, united states

this is something justin kagan has started doing.o provide some kind of explanation for the controversial cases in which they are not recusing. this is something justice alito did last month. here we are the morning before the supreme court term and we are actually talking about the court in a way that's not just about its docket. that's an important shift unto itself. it's one that i dare say the justices are not missing. the question now is, how are they going to react? what are we going to see? not just in their decisions across the term that starts tomorrow but in their behavior. >> that's part of why chief justice john roberts has even come out in what i would say kind of veiled criticism against kagan and others in ruling against some of the cases. i want to stay on roberts. dick durbin has tried to have him have an enforceable code of conduct. where does chief justice roberts fall in this? >> i think he falls between a rock and a hard place. i think on the one hand, he is as attuned to and sensitive to the institutional proble

justices kagan and jackson today , justice kagan recused from a case because of her prior governmentalformerly solicit algae -- solicitor general of the united states. justice jackson says it was because of prior judicial service, many years on a federal district court and also on the court of appeals. that was a big step but it is only two of nine. we will have to wait and see what they do. adopting an ethics code for the supreme court, justice kagan made it sound easy. it took a long time for the lower federal courts to adopt their own code of ethics, but still, i think she is right about what impact it could have on the courts image and support within the american public if they got it done. geoff: marcia coyle, pleasure to speak with you. >> take care. ♪ amna: key funding for child care centers dating back to the pandemic ended on saturday. stephanie sy has more on what that means for families. stephanie: more than 220,000 childcare centers in the u.s. received these grants to help pay the bills and raise wages for staff during the pandemic. the temporary aid amounted to 24 billion

justice sotomayor and kagan and jackson often doing with level justices. -- join with liberal justices the women justices get together for any purpose? [laughter] for any reason? just to celebrate the fact that there are four now? >> i would say i am so delighted to have justice jackson as my new colleague. i would say that the women do not -- i think ideologically, i say this, my first dissent on my first term on the court was in a case, it was not 6-3 you were expecting when you open a newspaper, it was the six men and i was writing the dissent for kagan, sotomayor, and me. it is not always the case that women are on different sides and actually, last term, i think it is the case that there were only five decisions in which the three other women justices were in dissent. that is only five of the three together, five of 57 or so cases that we heard. there are all kinds of other lineups all of the time and i find myself in an a grouping that includes them. i would not want to leave the impression that i am never floating alongside them. i was excited when sotomayor allowed me to speak

kagan thank you mr. chair. quick center cassidy >> i have lots of questions so if i interrupt you please be tight with your answers if i interrupt you i apologize in advance. usage and your staff and tribute you support the reasonable price pricing clause included in the recent contract with a barta but you were not familiar with the nih experience the '90s. clinton administration nih director stated resending the policy extensive review indicates the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations. and eliminated the clause promotes research that enhances the health of the american people. research america and the lives of hundreds of organizations advocating for biomedical research expressing concerns about the policies that would quote discourage the uptick of breakthrough the uptake of breakthrough discoveries by the private sector. this would be detrimental to patients. would you apply at reasonable it reasonablepricing clauses tos if confirmed? >> ranking memb

they are all kinds of other lineups all the time and i find myself in a grouping say justice kagan are justice sotomayor or justice jackson. i wouldn't want to leave the impression that i'm voting alongside them. i don't think my perspective or anybody's perspective is different by virtue of being a woman. our jurisprudential commitment are individual of our but it's delightful to have the companionship on the court and it's a tradition on the court that the most junior justice who is me throws a welcome party for the new junior justice who is justice jackson. i got to do that and we did it last january. it's just for the justices and their families and retired justices and their spouses join as well. so i got to pick her favorite food and she picked her favorite entertainment. i found that she really loved hamiltonme so he came and serenaded her with some songs. it's delightful to have people on the court. >> that's quite a welcome with singers. >> justice kavanagh and as you know i'm from new orleans justice kavanagh and his wife ashley were at the party and they found new orleans pl

i missed some of debra kagan up's presentation but i think she know what she has. let me move to the second recommendation in our -- to set ukraine on a path to nato membership. we are united in the view the most effective deterrent against any future russian aggression is to bring ukraine into nato. that would complete the integration of europe that was so rudely interrupted by mr. putin this invasion. this past summer, set ukraine on a path but didn't go far enough. said the right words, ukraine's future will be in nato, simplified the process of ukrainian annexation by dropping the requirements for membership action plan but it was a missed opportunity in our view to move beyond the famous 2008 bucharest summit decision which declared without explaining how that ukraine will become a nato member one day. nato 75th anniversary is an appropriate occasion to take more historic and concrete steps that define ukraine's path and start the nato wheels turning, at least to begin a process that leads to it. we don't pretend this is a simple decision for nato. nato brough

justice kagan making a direct esident who blocked critics fromolwing him on twitter. >> sometimes, hed the trump presidency, if you ithout any access to all the things that the president said on that account. it was anta part of h he wielded hisutrity and to cut a citizen off from that is to cut a citizen off from part of the way that government works. >> joining me now, nbc's laura jarrett and lisa ruben. good to have both of you here onset. i'm sure you both remember that kagan joked and got a laugh earlier in the year when she said the nine supreme court justices are not exactly the key experts on the internet. >> she always finds a way to joke. >> yeah, she's good at that. but the question is does blocking an opponent violate the constitution's first amendment? >> yeah and that's the question they're grappling with. this time as it relates to two public school board officials in california and also a city manager in michigan. so we're talking about state officials but they were getting nasty comments and so as everybody does nowadays, you can block people and the question is is th

kagan. >> mr. sam nestor, and dr.. >> the honorable jim himes, united states representative from connecticut, and mrs. mary himes. >> the honorable anthony bernal and ms. bernal-cox. >> dr. kevin c. o'connor and mrs. christine o'connor. >> dr. justin wolpers and dr. stevenson. >> mr. jeremy liu, and ms. ellie liu. >> mr. james kio. >> the honorable john berry and curtis yee. >> the honorable holland, secretary of the interior. >> the honorable caroline kennedy, ambassador of the united states to australia, and dr. edwin schlock burn. . >> mr. john gray and mrs. mindy gray. >> the honorable antony j blinken, secretary of state. >> ms. valerie biden owen. >> the honorable bonnie jenkins. >> the honorable katherine clark , united states representative from massachusetts. >> the honorable michael mccaul, united states representative from texas, and mrs. linda mccall. >> i think we will pass our appropriations bill and the israeli -- iran bill, and then the security package. that will be russia's threat to ukraine and euro

justice kagan mentioned that and that is all ov t briefs on their side. i thinthmain responses, the political data is not good enough to achieve thend they want to achieve of a greater republican tilt. do you agree with that? ms. yes. we agree there is evidence in the record in the ct court to find that. justice kavanaugh: what if we disagree on that pointbo the strength of the potil data? i think an earlier questio justice kagan mentioned that asd out the reliability of the data, how probative that data is. suppose we think that data is fairly probative. does the whole case that plaintiffs he district court's conclusion all fall becausehat is really the linchpin of the response of the giving witches we relied on this lical data, the response data is no good syocould not have been? if that da good, should we reverse? ms. flynn: no, i don't think so. i think there is also ct that bvap and cd 1 states basically frozen even after 190,000 op were being moved out of the district. justice kavanaugh: can't that show corlaon? ms. flynn: i'm not sure tha can. inev

. >> reporter: in the exam room, you'll find rebecca kagan. >> basically, i solve mysteries.ead animal, and they want to know how it died. >> reporter: when wildlife dies under suspicious circumstance, kagan is on the case. sometimes teaming up with co-workers like jessica terrell. an animal might have been electrocuted. if it as because a power company didn't take proper precautions, that could end up being a crime. it might have been poisoned. maybe it was shot. >> a lot of these condors are lead poisoning cases. >> reporter: or maybe it was not. >> the ingested metal. >> reporter: this bird literaly ate lead. it ingested a bullet used to kill another animal. when animal are the victims, clues can be hard to come by. >> unlike a human mysterious death where the neighbor can say yes, i saw them yesterday or they didn't collect their mail, we don't get any of that with wildlife. >> reporter: the team here also gets very little information about how their findings are ultimately used. and that's by design. they're not told much about the cases so that they're not biassed. >> f

. >> i have the same question basically that justice kagan just asked you. your response in your reply brief wasn answer to an argument that was made i the respondents on page 24 of their brief where they say if the viewer is correct that there's no constitutional limit on congress'ow to pass laws, providing funding to agencs then single cogs allocate each year for up to $1 trillion ton agency like the fbi or ftc, even up to a quadrillion dollars for e president to find as he deems fit the entire federal government besides the army. now you answer the latter part it in youreply brief about the quadrillion dollars and you st answered that in rpoe to justice kagan. you didn't answer the first part of that about pviding a very substantial sum of money to agency like the fbi or the ftc. i just want to understand what you think the limiting principle is. les take, let's take thetc,, which i think had a budget of of $430 million. so let's say there's a law that allocates forever up to $1 billion, ausd for inflation, to the ftc to use as the ftc sees fit. with of a

justice kagan spoke at the ninth circuit judicial conference in

even if that'she correct reading of cooper, justice kagan's theref other legal errors and how the panel conductedtsnalysis. >> mr. gore, i thought your argument was that of these as a practical matternhe case in which the i no direct evidence or virtually no direct evidence the i no way in whichlaintiff can disentangle race and politics, except by providing an alternative map. i thought that we should legal argument. >> thatt is. >> and does exactly what cooper says is not the case. >> one may read cooper differently. cooper was a case in which to us a lot of direct ee, was not? >> yes. >> how good to be direct evidence in this kind of case? this is what i'm concerned about because to the extent this distinction is turn on wther or there is direct evidence i wonder if it is reasonable t require or sayde that such evidould exist in a situatione that is not a majority, majority- and majority-minority district scenario. you can see how the with the direct evidence when this date goal is to tryo comply with the vra, trying to make a joty-minority district wee will have evidence of people sa

justice kagan. >> it's a funny case, becse first post case, youou understand completely where why it was map makers started doing race i order to achieve rtisan gerry man deering. they we raid it was going to be uawful. and all these partisan gerry man deering have been found to found don't get it. why people ke using race. use t ection data and use the gerrymandering. why would you need re as a proxy. why would map makers in general and in this case use race as a proxy to do partisan gerrymandering? >> so, i don'tava position to sak in general, there was evidence in the record that the political was limited and iwa a single election that wasn't congressional. and it was not looking ath dure built of vacross elections and it was plausible for theisict court to find that the map makers would have relied on map makers. >> justice gorsuch. >> it would have been plausible for the district court to come to that conclusionnd find that the splest explanation is they wanted to do politics and they did politics. how should we think about that? >> we made that point in previous cases before th

. >> i don't believe that's true at all, justice kagan. i think they look at how much the areas favored president trump by. this particular -- >> holding that constant you'd rather have the 20% vbap or 17%? >> it would depend on other factors suchs traditional principles. >> what this trial court found on the facts thoarng evidee, was that the mapmakers made a judgment they'd ratheravthe 17 that, you know, along with the election data, they might -- they were -- ty oked at this one year of t election data. but that the 17% was what would say,f we go above that we're not sure we can hold this when another election comes. >> the record did not support that finding. >> how do you explain the consistency? i mean my understanding is that thousands of people were moved in and out of this district and yet that line,ine concerning the amount of, know, black voter, adult voter participation remained the same. ifhat was not -- if what the courfod here was not happening how do you explain the consistency of that line? >> we have a few explanations fo

the new york attorney general does not report to the united states party -- department of justice kagannot know what he is talking out. he could have pursued this as a criminal case. the manhattan district attorney was investigating this as a criminal case and almost brought charges, and they decided, because it was civil fraud charges, where they needed proof of fraud by clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt needed for a criminal child, but the judge has ruled there is fraud. of course he is going to say the judge is corrupt. that is what donald trump says every time a judge rules against him. the same thing against the judge of the district of columbia, who is an african-american woman. this goes on and on with donald trump that he accuses the prosecutors and the judges of being corrupt and things that is going to get him out of trouble. christian: the judge already decided that he is canceling donald trump's business licenses in new york. how serious is that for the trump organization? prof. painter: well, it means the trump organization is going to have to sel

host: it was justice kagan recently in an interview talks about the potential for that code of ethicsgoing to play on little bit about what she had to say. [video clip] >> we are in a situation where we have committed to following certain kinds of ethical rules, respecting judges, but have said you only be guided by others. we have committed to following the gift roles the other judges follow -- rules that other judges follow an outside income that other judges follow but other judges haven't extensive code of ethics that governs everything they do and there has been concern and i think is a legitimate concern that the supreme court is an unusual kind of court in certain respects and some of the rules do not fit as well at the supreme court level then they do at the level of lower courts. but, of course, what we could do is adapt the code of conduct that the other court systems have to reflect those slight or certain differences. i think it will be a good thing for the court to do that. it would help in our own compliance with the rules. it would i think go far as persuading other peo

her husband is robert kagan, one of the architects of the iraq war, famed neal con birds of a feather, i guess. but no one claims to be a democrat, her actions would suggest otherwise, but, you know, here we have her sitting in yet another high profile roll under another democratic products. first, it was under obama now. biden, are we to believe that her politics or her world view are somehow different than that of her husband's? a couple of things, you know, i could call myself a democrat. i could call myself a libertarian. i could call myself a cactus. it doesn't matter my, the ideology is what it is my believes in how the world order should be either changed or maintained or what they are. so in america, we have been good weight into believing that the republicans and the democrats are at odds that they're having a knife fight. when in turn they are having a pillow fight entered. in reality, they are not fighting over the, particularly, they're not fighting over the issues of foreign policy. as i said, there is a small strain, a small element of populist in the republican party. w

. >> reporter: in the exam room you will find veterinary forensic pathologist rebecca kagan. >> basicallyhey want to know how it died and i figure out what happened. >> reporter: the lab doesn't accept live animals. when wildlife dies under suspicious circumstances, kagan is on the case. >> red-tailed hawks are significantly larger -- >> reporter: sometimes teaming up with co-workers. >> there is the feet. >> reporter: an animal might have been electrocuted. if it turns out that's because a power company didn't take proper precautions, that could be a crime. it might have been poisoned. maybe it was shot. >> a lot of these condors are lead poisoning cases. >> reporter: or maybe it was not. >> ingested metal right here. >> reporter: this bird literally ate lead. ingested a bullet used to kill a different animal. when animals are the victims, clues can be hard to come by. >> unlike a human mysterious death where the neighbor can say i saw them yesterday or they didn't collect their mail and those are clues that help you figure out when somebody died, he w we don't get that with wildlife. >>

new and her husband is robert kagan, one of the architects of be a rock war, famed neal con birds of a feather. i guess, but no one claims to be a democrat, her actions would suggest otherwise, but here we have her sitting in yet another high profile roll under another democratic poetess. first, it was under obama now. biden, are we to believe that her politics or her world view are somehow different than that of her husband's? a couple of things, you know, i could call myself a democrat. i could call myself a libertarian. i could call myself a cactus, it doesn't matter my, the ideology is what it is. my belief in how the world order should be either changed or maintained or what they are. so in america, we have been put weight into believing that the republicans and the democrats are at odds that they are having a knife fight. when in turn they are having a pillow fight entered. in reality, they are not fighting over the, particularly, they're not fighting over the issues of foreign policy. as i said, there is a small strain, a small element of populist in the republican party. whil

kagan thanks for auteur testimony. you may begin. >> thank you.thank you for the opportunity to inform today's discussion about how best to achieve with a goal we all share but helping patients with a rare serious diseases live better and survive longer. my name is holly fernandez lynch i'm an assistant professor at the university of pennsylvania speaking only on my own behalf. as you heard my scholarship focuses on fda drug approval policy access to medicine prior to updated approval in clinical research ethics and oversight. i say to before you as an academic on a panel filled with lived experience in a room filled with lived experiences. i've not personally living with a rare serious disease but the sad reality is that rare diseases are not rare in the aggregate. any one of us could find ourselves or our loved ones affected at any time. like many, my family has not been spared from a serious and life-threatening diseases including parkinson's and childhood cancer. we all have an interest in these important issues but whether we are suffering to

kagan letter proponents say marijuana is harmless, it is good for you.some cases how do you see it? >> while smoking may have long-term consequences marijuana also has other consequences. up to 25% of people who use marijuana regularly may develop psychosis. there is a study from a danish individuals they look at 70 million and the population and schizophrenia was far more common among those who used it. there are some things and active component of this we don't fully understand. this new study you are alluding to out of canada suggested heart disease was more common than those who regularly used marijuana projects even strokes, it's my understanding. >> that is to break too. the rate of heart attacks among those who chronically used marijuana was one in 40 individuals. that was about 60% higher than the control group, those who don't regularly use marijuana. those are consistent with the ststated they came out in februy american college of cardiology. it was presented at the big national meeting it made a lot of news. stanford researchers found there's

depression and their relatives can come here for advice and talk to others about the professor early kagan, as a psychiatrist and chairman of the foundation, it's financed by donations and public funds. he got his turn to the media to increase public awareness of depression. the most, i repeat visitors at the convention, which includes everything from musical entertainment to yoga tense and personal towns. the central piece is a series of seminars focusing on depression. it's causes and how to treated correctly thanks on came to know, did you ask the general public 95 per sam will say depression is a result of personal tragedy over work. relationship issues, the discount. that's what people believe this is of who's gone and that's not quite wrong. but the significance is massively overestimated them on the dip because you only see depression as a result of difficult life circumstances. some people tend to reject medication at the same time is blaming wrong decisions and try to when it's not, they're not going to, i mean, to come in to, to name and people obviously aren't willing to try med

there is a foreign policy scholar named robert kagan who wrote a book called the jungle grows back. point of that book is people don't take u.s. leadership for granted, but when the u.s. begins withdrawing, that's a green light putin and hamas. the u.s. has to be involved. it's not a role we have ever loved. if you are as dominant in economic and military power, it's a role that is thrust upon you. the president and the administration put together an aid package that includes aid to israel and ukraine. it's a mold site let's keep the world safe aid package. let's fight off barbarism aid package. and it's expensive. imagine the cost if ukraine fell. imagine how much our defense budget would have to go up if china took over taiwan or hamas pushed israel out of existence. this bill that the administration put together while costly is way less than the alternatives. >> i want to talk about the increased legal exposure facing donald trump. kenneth chesbro and sidney powell both accepted plea deals in that election subversion case. what do you think this means for donald trump? >> there i

so my left is deborah kagan, senior advisor to the atlantic council's eurasia center.o her left, ambassador john hurts, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. we have two other panelists who will be joining us virtually. one of them is the former ambassador to russia and former deputy secretary-general to nato. and i believe, our fourth panelist has been delayed, but we hope that he will join us soon. he is retired army general wesley clark, the former supreme allied. now, i will turn it over to these distinguished individuals to present the memo to the president. ambassador hurts: this paper is a result of concerns that the group of 42 have. that we face an existential challenge were a great security challenge from putin's russia. this war on ukraine is part of a much broader effort. if he is not defeated in ukraine, we will face a major security challenge, direct threat to our interest in europe, possible provocations against our nato allies. we have assembled a group of people. we did 39 -- three roundtables of 90 minutes each. hundreds of email's to come up with a