justice kavanaugh: i understand that pncal, of course. west ashley was predominately white and democrat and moved out? ms. aden: yes, but there were still significantly heavy precincts that were moved out alongsidit justice kavanaugh: your point is that there were a higher percentage of blacks and whites moved out, is that right? therara lot of people that moved ou of -- white people that moved out of district 1. ms. enhat is correct and the court -- it talks about how you might have a precinct th has 10,000 white people in it and anotr at has 8500 black people iit still a minority, but still substantial and the movement of those precincts would not afft the overall bvap of a district and that is exactly what the court confronted. it was considered by the court and rejected in its racial gerrymandering finding. ste kavanaugh: the other side makes a point that the original pn that came from a per summative clyburn's this acal had a lower black voting population for district 1 then what ultimately emerged. i just want to get your response t

justice kavanaugh suggested he is hopefully -- to come up with something soon.hey're talking about it at least on that level. some of these stories, it is hard to say how much they talk about the stories of justice thomas. the interviews justice alito has given to the wall street journal. there are very aware of those. no doubt some of those topics are awkward for them to talk about. it is a bit of a challenge for them to just focus on their work without letting all that be a distraction. host: it was justice kagan recently in an interview talks about the potential for that code of ethics. going 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

the question is who else goes with them. >> yeah, justice kavanaugh had a concurrence joined in bruin, we're not talking about longstanding, you know, bans on people's mental illness, felons, bans on carrying to secure places, sensitive places so they might be the two to watch in particular. let's turn next to, john, a trio of administrative state cases and these are near and dear to my heart. so the court will hear a case involving the consumer financial protection bureau's unique funding mechanism. so, instead of going hat in hand to congress like every other executive agency and department, the cfpd gets to tell the fed how much money it wants and the fed has to turn it over. and the other challenges the enforcement actions for security fraud in its own own in-house, what you might call in-house kangaroo course instead of before an independent article three judge and then finally the big kahuna for the term from my perspective, asking the justices to overturn the wrong handed chevron document, requires judges to refer to agencies about the meaning of ambiguous texts and that would

you will see all of that come into play here. >> jim kavanaugh, there's a large range of outcomes with the suspect at large. how important is the guidance from law enforcement to the community to avoid any potential hostage situations or additional deaths? >> it's critical. this mass murderer, on a homicidal rampage, is different than an escaped prisoner like frank was describing a few weeks ago in pennsylvania. that's a person who wants to get away. they are looking for the border. they just want to get away from everybody. they don't want to confront anybody. they are not looking to kill people. they are looking to escape. they might kill someone for the means of escape. that's a lot different than a person who shows up at the bowling alley strapped to the nines with his military rifle and his scope. he has got virtual magazins around him. he goes to a second and massacres. that's a different set of circumstances that law enforcement and citizens in new england are dealing with. this guy is extremely dangerous. he could be dead. he could have been spent after that second spree, shot

justice brett kavanaugh told a judicial conference said he hopes there will be, quote, something soonaddress ethics concerns. joining us is ruth marcus, associate editor and columnist from "the washington post," not only the author of the book "brett kavanaugh and the supreme takeover." let's start with ethics. public confidence in the trust is low. i guess he has to do it by consensus. he can't order them to do anything. >> it would be better if he did it by consensus. it would be better if he actually did something. i've been writing this since all of lart term. happy first monday. he needs to either impose and let them dissent and say i'm not going along with this, call their bluff, or get them to agree on something that will take some steps to restore the understandably shaken faith of the public that these justices who have' nous mouse power to affect all of our lives, are playing by rules that don't put them in a different category than other government employees, that they're not taking junkets, not taking private plane trips, not having improper relationships with parties befo

maybe justice kavanaugh meant something other than what heat said.maybe this another dated they can push. at the end of the day we got to take the court at its word you have to take the law as it is written. i read that case, you have allred that casete teaming votig rights act is alive and strong alabamal is entitled i am not sure whatever else was going on behind the scenes if we cannot trust in those words that showed else there is (corrected seems to be the primary argument the state of alabama has been making their race neutral standards and concepts they have to adhere to in order to draw a map. itud should not have to include race. somehow speak race neutral but that is not necessarily how the law is t written, is it? works is exactly right. we did not get your bite race neutral means. you have to use race to remedy racial discrimination. [applause] the supreme court recognized that. even in that milligan decision justice kavanaugh and chief chie roberts of all people very vigorously defend the constitutionality voting's rights act of the use

. >> justice kavanaugh had a concurrence saying we're not talking about long-standing bans on mental illness, felons, bans on carrying secured places, so they might either to to watch. let's turn next to john, a trio of administrative state cases and these are near and dear to my heart. the court will hear a case involving the consumer financial protection bureau is unique funding mechanism. so instead of going hat in hand to cause like every other executive agency department the cpb gets to tell the fed how much the money and wants within certain caps and the fed has to hand it over. another case challenges the securities and exchange commissions ability to bring enforcement actions for security fraud in its own in-house which michael in-house kangaroo court. insteadn- of a article three-judge. and finally the big kahuna of the term for my perspective there's a a case asking the justices to overturn the wrong handed chevron deference doctrine which requires judges to deferred agencies about the meaning of ambiguous statutory tax which is just a fancy way of saying judges have to put

justice kavanaugh and chief justice roberts, of all people, very vigorously defended the constitutionality of the voting rights act and said that the use of race to remedy racial discrimination is constitutional. even in the affirmative action decision, as disappointing and horrible as that was, the supreme court, every justice on the supreme court agreed that using race to remedy violations of civil rights acts was absolutely necessary. and so this idea that alabama can prioritize a white ethnic group of mobile over remedying the voting rights violations of african-americans in alabama who have lacked representation in more than one congressional district since reconstruction is absolutely abhorrent. terri: and an insult to all of us who are from the state of alabama. [applause] deuel: i mean, we have, you know, a number of people, including my clients, ms. jackson and mr. milligan, and i also know of legislators who stood up and pushed back against this. and said, you know, the black community deserves representation, that communities like mobile and the black belt actually have a long o

you mentioned justice kavanaugh put on this new orleans dinner for you. how was it joining the court? justice barrett: i joined the court during covid. the pandemic was still raging. and people hadn't fully come back to work. although when i was sworn in -- i wouldn't say that any one of my colleagues was more welcoming than another because they were all equally welcoming and wonderful. when i was sworn in by the chief justice, justice pwrao*euer was still -- bier was still remote -- breyer was still remote. he was still in boston he couldn't travel without greater exposure. those in washington came to the court for the swearing-in. and we did it in a big conference room and everyone had masks on and spread out, socially distanced in the conference room. everybody was there. everybody was warm. one of the things that meant a lot to me, it was around hallow wean, justice sotomayor came to my office, and my husband had come for the swearing-in and our children were back and he was going to be leaving in an hour or two to go back to south bend and hold down

>> justice kavanaugh had a concurrence that we are not talking about long-standing bans on mental illness, secure places, sensitive places. they might be the two to watch for. let's turn back to the trio, near and dear to my heart. the court will hear the case involving the consumer financial protection bureau unique funding mechanisms. the cfpb just gets to tell the fed, and the fed has to handed over. another case challenge of the security of an exchange commission to force actions for securities fraud and what you might call in-house kangaroo court. instead of an independent article three judge. there is a case asking the justices to overturn which requires them to defer to agencies about the meaning of ambiguous tax, which is just a fancy way of saying they have to put a thumb on the scale for the most powerful government in the country. tell us about the trio. >> it is exciting because i do think that we are on the cusp of a change in administrative law, and in the midst of a shift. when i graduate from law school, in the last century, we will say, there were two fundamental principl

but if you can get to britain amy, brett kavanaugh, amy cohen barrett, and make them understand thatone is watching what they do. everybody will be watching to see if brett kavanaugh and amy cohen barrett decide to give guns to domestic abusers which will in turn lead to the murder of more women. everybody is gonna be watching that case and maybe intense public pressure and scrutiny, maybe good journalism, will help those justices c3 way clear to doing the right thing. >> john roberts get so embarrassed that he tries to hijack it in his own way. last question, i put this up with the guys who helped democracies die, and they agreed with your premise that it's in one of your nation pieces, if we just got rid of the electoral college, it actually could cool off some of the republican parties madness. because they would have to compete in the larger population, not just with their maga base. what are the chances of doing that, logistically, without getting rid of the electoral college? and this is something that even nixon considered. >> i saw that article, by the, way under absolutely r

and here's there's been no snoarg reasons i i dis with justice kavanaugh.harl 207b county complies with traditiona principles. >> thank y, counsel. chief justice, may it please the court no party disputes the rule that absent predominant interest race cannot be a means of line drawing t achieve a goal. here theycluded race predominated over partisanship based on strong factual findings including that after map drawers moved more than 193,000 p remained identical to the 2011 map. they sorted moren 30,000 black charlestonnians, re 11 of the 12 brings with the highack voting age population. is massive movement ard the least change approach the state applies state abandoned only in charlestonthey ty which had been c.d.-1's hist anchor. disentangling race and party affiliation using the very methods ourt accepted in cooper, the panel credited the unrebutted expert testimony that race was a better tor than partisan affiliation for the design of c.d.-1. standards, this court should affirm the panel's factual racial gerrymanderingactual finding beca is more than pl

and here's there's been no snoargeans i i discussed with justice kavanaugh. charl 207b county complies with traditional princip >> thank you, couns >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court no party disputes the rulehaabsent predominant interest race cannot be a means of line drawing to achieve a goal. herehe concluded race predominated over partisanship based on strong factual findings inclin that after maprars moved more than 193,000 people innd out of c.d.-1, it remained identical to the 2011 ma they sorted more than 30,000 black charlestonnians, removing 11 of the 12 brings with the highest blackoting age population. this massive movement disregard the least change approach the state apie state-wide. and that mapmakers admitd ey abandoned only in charleston county which had bn c.d.-1's historical anchor. disentangling race and par affiliation using the ry methods this court aepted in cooper, the panecrited the unrebutted expert testimony that race was better predictor than partisan affiliation for the degn of c.d.-1. under the clear errorevw standards

you mentioned justice kavanaugh, getting this together for you. how was it when you join?tice barrett: i joined during covid, the pandemic was still raging and people had not fully come back to work. when i was sworn in, i would not say that anyone of my colleagues was more welcoming than another, they were all equally welcoming and wonderful. and when i was sworn in by the chief justice, justice breyer was filling in in boston, it was a problem for him until he could travel without greater exposure. those in washington came to swearing and weight and not sit in a big conference room and everybody had masks on and we spread out in the conference room and everyone was there. one of the things that meant a lot to me was right around halloween and justice sotomayor came to my office and they had come to the swearing in and he was going to be leaving in an hour or two to go back to south bend to hold down the fort while i was commuting back and forth from washington. justice sotomayor in and she had me -- big bags of halloween candy for each one of my children to take back wit

joining us now is retired atf special agent in charge an msnbc analyst jim kavanaugh. jim, this is obviously a fluid situation. we do not have a lot of details right now. but what is the -- the warnings we are getting from law enforcement, for residents of lewistown, maine, to stay inside and lock their doors, what does that tell you about the gravity of the situation? >> it is a very active, chaotic situation, even for the police and commanders on the ground here, alex. they don't know if they have one shooter, who has traveled between locations, or there is multiple shooters involved. they have to sort that out. we have -- you have the image of the shooter. the tactical rifle, a big sign on it. it looks like he has maybe even some extra mags in these btu pants they are bulging out of the side. -- can cause devastation and death in proximity and the bowling alley, in a walmart distribution center. so, it's a very dire situation and everybody does need to stay sheltered in place, listen to the police, report anything. shots, sightings, anything. so they can get to this

justice kavanaugh? >> just two clarifying questions about the limits of your argument. e's discussion somet and forever appropriations.ons my understanding but i want to make you agree is a congress cot entrenched a funding scheme. in other words, congress cannot pass a law that says this s funding scheme and a future congress may alter ts for ten years or 100 years. that would be constitutionally prlematic is my understanding that i want to make sure you agree wh desperate yes, i absent sre that understand you can justice kavanaugh. and i thi wt it shows is it's incorre t characterize standing appropriations as lasting forever. fact we appointed a number of examples where congress has acted to change the standing apopations and the customs service is a good example on this one. it was funded through a standing appropriatns for the first 120 year o this nation's history and then in 1912 congress took it out of the standing appropriations and pdd into annual appropriations. congress shifted thisga and the debt limit the recently. they presented many stain appropriations

justice kavanaugh? >> just two clarifying questions abou limits of your argument. there's discuss sometimes abermanent appropriations and forppropriations. myerstanding but i want to make sure you agr is a congress could not entrenched a fundineme. in other words, congress cannot pass a law that says this a funding scheme and a future congress may alter this for ten years or 100 years. that be constitutionally problematic is my understanding that i want to make sure you agree with desperate yes, i absently share that uerand you can justice kavanaugh. and i think what it sws is it's incorrect toharacterize standing appropriations as lasting forever. fact we appointed a number of examples where congress has acted to change the standing appropriations and t ctoms service is a good example on this one. it was funded through a standing appropriations for the first 120 years of this natios history and then in 1912 congres tk it out of the standing appropriatio and prodded into annual appropriations. congress shifted this again and the debt limit the recently. they presen

i'm really more focused on justice brett kavanaugh who said at a conference a couple weeks ago that hehinks some kind of reform is coming soon. the problem is not going to be whether the court does anything. i think the problem is whether what it ultimately does will satisfy its critics. the answer is probably almost surely no. >> yeah. to your point, i was going to add, how can you instill a new level of confidence or reinvigorate a level of confidence from a public standpoint that whatever decisions they come to aren't motivated by some form of political purpose? >> i think the short answer is and always has been that the justices gain their legitimacy and they burnish public confidence through their actions, not through their words. i think we are going to have to see what kinds of rulings come out. we will see whether there's any effort on the part of most of the justices to, for example, start explaining why they are recusing. this is something justin kagan has started doing. to provide some kind of explanation for the controversial cases in which they are not recusing. this is so

the reader inside the decision-making around worries like edward snowden, testimony against brett kavanaugh of movements. there was internal pressure from some journalists about how to cover those stories and what they could say on social media. >> there is a generational divide about how these jobs are viewed. what they should be permitted to do. social media did not exist when i grew up in journalism. journalists should speak for themselves. i still believe that. it should be powerful journalism. whatever repulsive thoughts they have. i stick by my position on that. i think journalism should speak for itself. >> during your time of the boston globe you were instrumental in the coverage of the catholic church abuse scandal. what were the key challenges that journalism faces? in this area when the pursuit of truth is cast as a partisan enterprise. >> people cannot agree on what is a fact. that is the biggest challenge we face. the financial pressures that we face in this industry. the transformation to the digital media environment. all of this is enormous. the fact that the public cannot a

i think justice roberts, justice kavanaugh, they are the type of justices that might say, look, we willfar. you're not going to be able to take every ruling and run rampant with it to completely alter american jurisprudence, american society. it remains to be seen. i think any legal commentator will tell you that they would expect a more conservative ruling. i think that that will happen, but at the same time, some of these things we might be surprised that they might be pulling back just a little bit and tilting a little bit back towards the center. at least we can all hope that way, reverent. >> all right, doug jones and olivia troye, thank you both for being with us tonight. after the break, preaches returning to professors behind the podium as they fight to preserve americans black history. black history. >> welcome back to politicsnation. well governor ron desantis has escalated his war on black history in florida public schools, african american parents in the sunshine state have found themselves grappling with how to give their children a full accounting of the black experience.

to the extent we are saying center back to the states and that was just as brett kavanaugh -- justiceby-state issue, nobody is going to say you cannot get an abortion in the state that permits it. the mifepristone case puts the light of that because that case does not say we are doing the way with abortion drug only in states that want to do away with it. it is a federal ban on every single state including states that allow abortion may not use mifepristone. we are seeing places like texas making it unlawful to cross the state lines going to a state governments and abortion. that comes back to the fugitive slave act. this is just for a minute it is simply a state-by-state ban is not true. states prohibit you from entering another state to terminate a pregnancy, that is a national ban for purpose of somebody in texas or order who wants to leave the state. i think the last thing i want to say i am not using my podcasts or my pen or this conversation to recruit people to my values and my views. i am presenting what i think is a fair exclamation. i have a law degree, i know some stuff and

to the extent we are saying center back to the states and that was just as brett kavanaugh -- justiceate-by-state issue, nobody is going to say you cannot get an abortion in the state that permits it. the mifepristone case puts the light of that because that case does not say we are doing the way with abortion drug only in states that want to do away with it. it is a federal ban on every single state including states that allow abortion may not use mifepristone. we are seeing places like texas making it unlawful to cross the state lines going to a state governments and abortion. that comes back to the fugitive slave act. this is just for a minute it is simply a state-by-state ban is not true. states prohibit you from entering another state to terminate a pregnancy, that is a national ban for purpose of somebody in texas or order who wants to leave the state. i think the last thing i want to say i am not using my podcasts or my pen or this conversation to recruit people to my values and my views. i am presenting what i think is a fair exclamation. i have a law degree, i know some stuff

especially with regard to the torture report and the images show confirmations of gorsuch and and kavanaugh. but, you know, some tears, some some laughs i did like the very sensible advice that eileen marianna said, which is always carry a black pants jacket, black pants. and i thought that was this was, you know, this was something that i think diane wood appreciated. and that was my question, would she and i know she would've and the fact that it was home, i think made it all the more it was schumer who talked about again, how tough she was and she ignored a bone popping a when she environmental summit. >> and she went on all day and somebody well, how did you last all day? and she said, i just what do. remember a few years back. she did her questioning that committee and it's excuse me and went off to get a pacemaker installed back the next >> you know, this entire service took exactly about an hour. start at one. 23 did not start on time, but it ended at 2.23. so how do you think late sen would have this event? i think you appreciate appreciate the fact that the blue angels were doing t

justice kavanaugh suggested he is hopefully -- to come up with something soon.re talking about it at least on that level. some of these stories, it is hard to say how much they talk about the stories of justice thomas. the interviews justice alito has given to the wall street journal. there are very aware of those. no doubt some of those topics are awkward for them to talk about. it is a bit of a challenge for them to just focus on their work without letting all that be a distraction. host: it was justice kagan recently in an interview talks about the potential for that code of ethics. going 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

and you can see as my friend jim kavanaugh, great legendary atf supervisor, it does look like he has rounds, magazines, as jim said it could be a soda can, could be something else. he might have a jacket in the vehicle as he went from place to place and throw it in the back. the bottom line is while he's out, he is dangerous. and i think it makes sense how the command center is setup. you're going to have multiple agencies and people who bring different skills to this, hostage negotiators, people who are sharp shooters, other types of individuals, but they have to be on the same communication mode, and they also have to be under some kind of shared joint command because this is going to extend across the distance. even the fellow in pennsylvania. like in 2015 the person who escaped from a new york correctional facility, they were found to have stayed in bungalows. o there are a lot of areas and particularly now it's only in the low 50s. it's going to get colder later in the week, but right now it's in the low 50s. he might have a jacket, he might be laying in place somewhere. good yo

and you can see it, as my friend jim kavanaugh, legendary atf supervisor, it does look like he has roundsm said, could be a so taken, could be something else. but he might have a jacket in the vehicle. as he went into place to place through it in the back. the bottom line is that while he was out, he is dangerous. and i think it makes sense, as previous guest said, have a command center set up. you are going to have multiple agencies, and you're going to have people who bring different skills to this, hostage negotiators. people who are sharp, other types of individuals. but they have to be on the same communication mode and they all have to be under some kind of shared or joint command. because this is going to extend across a distance. and what i think is when you have this sparsely populated, even the fellow from pennsylvania, his plan was to escape. i think in this case, he can find multiple places like the folks in 2015 who escaped from new york correctional facility, they were found to have stayed in bungalows. so there are a lot of areas, and particularly now, it's only in the low

i know brett kavanaugh was recently at an event where he said he thought we would, not exactly sure how he phrased it but i hope that that is true. >> can you tell us what the holdup is? >> no. no. what goes on in the conference room goes on in the conference room. i don't want to suggest that there's one holdout. this is for various reasons having to do a certain differences between the supreme court and other courts, there are complicated issues here, there are totally good-faith disagreements. there are some things to be worked out that i hope we can get worked out. >> i withdraw the question. you are arguably one of the best writers in the court and a lot of writers agree that is the case. do you have any tips for young lawyers, law students as to how they can write better? >> first of all, thank you, thank you very much for that complement, whether or not it is true. first rule is edit edit edit. there are very few people, i'm not one of them, whose first draft is a gift. first drafts were meant to be succeeded by second drafts which are meant to be succeeded by third draft and eve

even something as simple as justice kavanaugh said about taking the trash out, for example.at line drawing, i think we're going to see a supreme court that sides with the plaintiffs in some respects but how they draw those lines and exactly what the test is remains to be seen. >> so even if they do say at least some of these social media posts can't be blocked, how does that get enforced and who does it? >> that's one of the big questions is exactly the plaintiff supposed to bring that to somebody's attention or perhaps it's a decision that serves as a guide post for local and state officials, federal officials going forward about how they should conform their posts to match the opinion. this isn't even the only social media case on docket this term. there's another interesting sort of the flip side of this where conservatives were worried about twitter and facebook and other social media platforms sensors conservative speech. so they wanted to make sure the posts in different platforms couldn't do that. we'll wait to see what the court does on that, too. there's another cas

joining me now, nbc's george celise in maine, jim kavanaugh and former fbi assistant director frank figliuzziorge, i want to play what we heard from one of the tactical commanders in maine about the tips that they have been receiving. >> i can't keep track because there's so many. there's been a continuous stream of tips that have come in. we have been handling -- our local community has been calling with tips, everything from -- you name it. it's been anything. any tip that small may be something big. >> tell us about the focus of the police and federal agents today. focusing on the river, among other places. >> yeah. good afternoon. officials saying they have irons in the fire. this is one of them. this is here in lisbon. local, state and federal agencies have been here all morning. this is the area where robert card left his car. what you have are officials in the water. there's boats in the water at this hour searching this river. we saw a helicopter flying not ago. it has been makin rounds, flying low. almost to the treeline here with thermal imaging. this is what we have been seeing her

snowden's revelations of government surveillance, christine blasey ford's testimony against brett kavanaughcoverage of the black lives matter and metoo movements. and you note that, while there were these cultural and racial reckonings happening, there was also internal pressure from some journalists about how to cover those stories and what they could say on social media. you declared yourself weary of well-meaning, but moralistic young journalists. in what ways? marty: there is a bit of a generational divide between how journalists of my generation view our jobs and how a younger generation of journalists views what they should be permitted to do. social media didn't exist when i grew up in journalism. and our view was always that the journalism itself should speak for itself. and i still believe that. i believe that what we should be focusing on is the work, the journalism, and it should be powerful journalism. it should be rigorous. it should be thoroughly researched, totally fact-based. and that should be the statement that we make to the public, that journalists should not be just goi

jim kavanaugh. clint. talk to us about what we know so far. in the last 25 minutes, way to have pictures and name for the person of interest. >> yeah, stephanie. and our work, when i came on air, we were just trying to figure out what might possibly be the motivation. but always looking on the spectrum. is it individual motivation to ideological notification. would your hurt their, or it appears this person is known to law enforcement. they have identified him. they have tracked out the vehicle and trace it to him. they have put out a name and have also already started talking about mental illness and this person, potentially, haven't mental illness problems. the other thing that is just important to note here, and stuck out, you know, immediately, hearing what jim his to say about it. this person seems to know how to handle the weapon. that was immediate when we look at those pictures that report out. not wearing a mask. not wearing body armor. we have seen a lot of instances of persons lately, as you just bring polyamory. >> clint, i'm, let

bring into our conversation, before i wrap for the night, retired atf special agent in charge jim kavanaugh. jim, more were learning about this man, his firearms expertise, his background in the military. his mental health issues in the past. what were you thinking about? >> well, just a few things. you know he's a firearms instructor and you've already reported he's a firearms instructor and a military unit he's attached to or in a civilian role. but either way, a firearms instructor is a person who's very, very confident with his shooting. very, very close to his weapon. can easily work, feels comfortable with. it becomes part of. them confident shooters, accurate shooters. and in the case like amassed spray killer, a devastating shooter. so this guy is extremely dangerous with his ability to shoot accurately at a distance. take on officers and agents who may confront him. his whereabouts is interesting, the discussion your heaven with jonathan and tom. yes, he could be on foot. he could be. but he also could not be. if you're out, you've traveled between a couple of scenes, killing every

>> look, my view about this right to travel is the same as justice kavanaugh's in his separate opinion. he said this is not a particularly difficult question . the right to travel is a constitutional right and it allows women in a state that bars abortion to travel and obtain an abortion in a state in which it's permitted. >> thank you, attorney general for your commitment to upholding the rule of law in our country. appreciate your service. three by the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. attorney general for being here. i would like to go back briefly to your remarks regarding before the senate when you are confirmed and your promise regarding mr. weiss. can you explain to us in him a little more detail who you promised you would keep mr. weiss on this case? to whom was a promise made? >> a number of senators in my meetings with them asked me to make that promise. i think that was discussed in my interchange with the senator from tennessee, i believe. >> that promise that you made lead you to believe that even if if mr. weiss displayed a leveling in

sort of code of conduct or something along those lines were justice kavanaugh suggested his hopeful they will come out with something soon. they are talking about it at least on that level. some of these stories it is hard to say how much they talk about the stories about justice thomas. the interviews with justices given to the wall street journal they are all very aware of those. no doubt some of us topics are awkward for them to talk about. it is a bit of a challenge for them to focus on their work without letting all of that be a distraction for them. >> it was justice kagan did recently in an interview she did i think at a law school talks about the potential for the code of ethics appear to want to play a little bit of what she wants to say about that. >> right now we are in a situation where we have committed to follow certain kinds of ethical rules respecting judges. but head said we will only be guided by others. so we have committed to following the gift rules that other judges follow. in the outside income rules that other judges follow. other judges have a very extensive

amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh.saying. they been leading with we need to do this. there would be eminent action. you are asking, i think there are signs of fisher's here. some of them want to stem the leading. that is -- . i don't think those will be coming from the republican justices ifdurbin and -- were not keeping the pressure on. >> do you think that is the two younger justices that have the longest time left to serve that might want to improve the impression of the supreme court? >> yes. i can't speak to it the exact motivation but certainly, based on the pattern, the members that have engaged in the most unknown and undisclosed activity like this. it could be banned for lower court judges and happen to be members that have been on the court the longest. it is possible that the norms that existed kind have fell away over time. we have been looking at all the justices. we would be more surprised to find something out. one of the newest appointees. >> we appreciate you both. thank you very much. >>> we will be r