ste kavanaugh: ok. on the constitutional issue that juice gorsuch and justice kagan were raising, you ha lots of arguments here, and mr. clement do t, for overruling chevron without reaching the constitutional issue. so i guess why -whwould we reach it? if -- wagreed with you on overruling chevron on other grounds, i don't see the need to address the hypothetical that juice kagan raised about congress passing a chevron-type regime. martinez: i think rethings on that. like i said earlier, we ul certainly welcome overruling chevron, espiay under the apa and especially if informed by constitutional oince principles. but i think there are three reasons why you should consider goinbeyond that to the constitutional holding. there are going to be some cases that, as a technical matter, section 706 of the apa wouldn't -- doesn't apply. and so, if it's an apa holding, it may be that in those cases there might be lingering uncertainty about whether ference should -- should apply to cases that aren't technically u

chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: several questions.here was reference to skidmore deference, and i guess i don't think that's the right term that it's respect or pay attention to, bui ink, if we throw the term "deference" into skidmore deference, we're going to walk tonother problem -- martinez: some -- justickanaugh: -- like the one we have with chevron deference. martinez: some might say "deference" is ambiguous. [laughter]at -- -- that it's imprece. i think the better way -- i think oftentimes, when people say "deference," what they m is that if you think the answer is x, you should defer to i don't think -- i tnk absolutely that that would be inappropriskmo deference" because i think it -- it runthrisk of -- of giving that implication. i think that, relywe're talking about very serious consideration of the points that the agency mesbut, ultimately, you have to be persuaded. and if you're persuaded, then at means that you've concluded that the agency has the best interpretation and then you just ply the normal rules. justice kavanau

just on the face f it doesn't make any sense that because he went through hell for kavanaugh, kavanaugh should step up for him. but not because he went through hell for kavanaugh, but because he cares about the law. >> yeah, well, the law here, there are some questions i think that the supreme court will have to grapple with. one of them, does the 14th amendment apply to the president? he is not named as a title or a job description. i think it is clear it does apply to the presidency. another question i think he is arguing trump is that he didn't take an oath to support the constitution which again, i think that falls flat. but i think where there are potentially going to consider whether it applies to trump is does it make sense? is this a qualification like age or where you were born that a state can just determine like that or is it complicated, something that congress has to decide and determine what is an insurrection. and whether someone engaged in it. i think that will be the major question they will grapple with. >> we don't know how narrow a ruling the supreme court might come

justice kavanaugh, with respect to that point, wrote this.s the district court found the resources are not necessary to remove all of the noncitizens covered by these two statutes. that reality is not an anomaly. it is a constant. for the last 27 years since those statutes were enacted in their current form, all five presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints this is stated prior restraint in making arrests. this is in the context of the court's reference to cases like that and those are prosecutorial discretion cases. decades, the supreme court defers to the executive branch the right to make decisions about what to enforce, what not to enforce, and how to enforce it. that is exactly what he is saying here. it is especially powerful here because this deals with enforcement of the immigration laws which is given special deference to the executive branch. so the language you just read, the first sectionimpeachment, ad not only by this language but by the long history of the supreme court different to the executive b

and gone through that process that kavanaugh would step up for him. has since defended those comments, but i will also tell you when it comes to the former president himself, he has expressed concern to his lawyers, to his allies about this going to the supreme court. he believes that it is possible that some of these supreme court justices will rule against him so as not to seem, quote, unquote, pro-trump, that he believes that could even be people who -- who were appointed by him in the first place. that's something he has expressed. however, again, when i talk to his legal team, when i talk to his advisers, they do ex princess confidence when it comes to whether or not donald trump will be on the ballot in all 50 states. >> we shall see. paula, the trump team also says this is a voters' rights issue. what can you tell us about that argument and whether the supreme court would be sympathetic to it? >> yeah, they argue this would be the first time that the judiciary would take away from voters their ability to vote for a party's leading candidate. it

people like kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. he'll step up. those people will step up. not because they are pro trump, but because they are pro law. because they are pro fairness. the lawness is very clear. >> now is that a suggestion or a quid pro quo? is that a suggested threat? and is this even a legal argument or just a public relations one? >> how much of you being an attracted smart woman played into the role of this? >> to him or in the public? i can tell you it's been a double-edge sword. it's something i've had to deal with in the positive and the negative. i don't think i would be on tv or sitting here if i didn't look the way i look. i think i caught attention. i'm very honest about that and i don't mind. i'm not a feminist, okay. i believe in strong women. somebody said to me, would you rather be, would you rather be smart or pretty? and i said oh, easy, pretty. i can fake being smart. you have to be honest. it doesn't hurt to be good looking in this world, in the pr world, on tv. it doesn't hurt. >> in the pr world

this is still justice kavanaugh. for example -- this is where he is talking about options because there is no standing. d for example, congress possesses an array of tools to analyze and influence those policies. oversight? legislative process and senate confirmation. i don't see impeachment mentioned anywhere in the opinion he wrote. by the way, there is concurrence from justice course which. all three of the trump nominees to the supreme court agreed with this language. none of them supported the position you outlined. there was an 8-1 decision. the soul center at this case. based on the constitutional law, as explained by the supreme court in the case that you cited in the article comes out exactly the opposite and undermines the claims that somebody could be impeached in the executive branch for following executive authority that the supreme court recognizes, especially in immigration cases and that has been true for decade after decade. i yield back. >> gentlemen yields. i now recognize ms. green for five minute

people like kavanaugh who the president fought for. the president went through hell to put into place. not because they're pro-trump but because they're pro-law. >> joining me now, a former federal prosecutor. how do you suppose that will work out? the president's lawyer saying brett kavanaugh, you owe us one? >> if they're hoping to influence kavanaugh, he's going to dislike, his instincts will say i won't do anything that makes it look like i'm paying back some sort of favor. really silly. >> could the supreme court, i mean, with all their bluster, i would assume that the odds are, the betting in washington and legal circles that the supreme court is not going to disqualify trump. that they won't throw him off the ballot. what do you think? >> i think that's right. they're really worried, i think, internally, about the credibility bleedout that they're having. john roberts staying away from credibility. he wrote about ai instead of ethics. and they're looking for an off-ramp. the safest thing for them to do is to let trump be in the

people like kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the president went through level to get in place. he'll step up. those people will step up. not because they're pro trump

justice kavanaugh said th in his opinion.ars of the trump administration -- listen to this. 52% of the migrants encountered at the southern border were released into the un their hea that is a higher percentage than during the biden administration. the biden administration has detained migrants coming across the border at approximately an 80% rate which is the same as under the trump administration. article 1 is trying to impeach the secretary for doing what every administration before has done, releasing a portion of the migrants, not because he wants to but because congress has failed to give the resources to do it, to detain them. congress has failed to provide the resources not just in this congress but over the last 20+ years. this is why the secretary has exercid second article alleges the secretary lied to congress but does not say facts or figures. uses words like secure. operational control, phrases which can be interpreted by different people. the case here is so thinÁ nonconstitutional ground that it is laughable.

that is not what justice kavanaugh wrote.fluence those policies, the immigration policies we talked m abprocess, confirmation, and he also mentions into election. does not mention. to say that it's impeachment is the only way immigration issues. you are basing it on this case was 8-1. that's not a majority opinion. i support the amendment because based on the case cited, there is no constitutional basis for the standard you are relying on in every provision of that article except for the one that references the department of justice. this is not in jurisdiction. i moved to support the amendment. >> does anyone else -- >> mr. mira ramirez. >> gentleman, i would like to yield. >> thank you two representative ramirez. r who proposed? the first one claims that ■e secretary willfully ignore the law by failing to detain. when, in fact, we know that capacity. 34,000 funded by congress, 37,000 annual. you know that the secretary has released ople from detention at about the same place at the front of the ministration last year. also

i mean brett kavanaugh is a conservative guy.vetted by the trump white house because they thought that he would normally do the sort of stuff that the trump white house wants a justice to do. but that doesn't mean that he's not a human being. it doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his professional representation. if there's any law students out there listening to this interview, my advice to all of them is never say that thing about a judge you are appearing in front of. >> by the way, we're talking about the colorado case, but they've got other things like the immunity discussion, whether a president would have absolute immunity. they're aware if they talk about one state, there's already things going on in other states right now where the court wants to resolve it. but this doesn't get on the right foot to suggest that anything other than the law, which might actually turn out in trump's favor in this instance, would be the guiding post. >> yeah. everyone, like judges certainly say that. now, in practice, in any case, you k

. >> justice kavanaugh? >> i am assuming the information that would be posted is not al posted on the government sites. it is only posted on the personal site? this is just picking up on justice kagan's hypotheticals. you have trash in a bl bin and it'll be pied up on wednesdays. if you have y questions, reach out to me. that's onlyon the personal is that state action? >> that is an argument there. there is a duty from the stat officials to announce the rules. people need to know what the rules are. >> that is important and i will you there because when you mentioned the stto justice gorsuch, you said exclusive duties . that is important beuswhat officials do is announce rules. is announcing rules state action? >> not inand of itself. >> u id local officials around the country need guidance and that is true. >>th need a clear answer. is the clear answer? >> if this is the onlyplace they are announcing that rule, that will be state action. >> okay, so announcing you nnot park on the even- numbered side of the

one of the trump appointees justice kavanaugh wrote that kospi tutorial discretion which is the actualm for this is not willful neglect of the law. it is based on the fact that prosecutors can't prosecute every case every time and that the constitution gives the executive very broad discretion to make those decisions and it is especially true in the immigration area and as justice kavanaugh pointed out, it is especially true in this particular issue because the last five presidents over the last 27 years have had to make the same kind of decisions. some you prosecute, some you don't. this group, threpublicans that t them around is impeachable which is outrageous. prosecutorial discretion -- they see that all the time. for more than six decades and beyond they have been saying that. that is protected. it is totally rejected. >> might i add that some of our members on the republican side over the last week of said we should ignore the rulings of the supreme court. that is how far we have come in this country that when our supreme court makes the ruling, sometimes you agree, sometimes you

i'll be honest with you, i really don't think kavanaugh is thinking like that. i owe this position to donald trump. it doesn't happen like that. >> i think you are right on that. this explicit loyalty and probably a wrong way to go after him, although i will note, my own view of how judges act is much closer to the description of the great judge richard posner who basically said they figure out what decision they want and then they go find a legal reason for it. that's basically what i do. i think judge posner was right on that. lisa rubin and a. scott bolden, thank you very much. joining me now is laurence tribe, university professor of constitutional law emeritus at harvard university. professor tribe, you have been very outspoken and active on this issue. i want to ask you this interesting legal question which is the adoption of what is called the questions presented in the grand. so basically the courts is here is the framing for what is being debated before us, what we are ruling on. the question presented, they adopted, is the one from trump's -- its did c

shouldn't all democrats be calling for kavanaugh's recusal?o mention clarence thomas's recusal. clarence thomas, whose wife is accused of being involved in trump efforts to overturn the last election. on friday, president joe biden who will likely face off against trump this november, gave a speech slamming the former president, declaring democracy is the central issue of the 2024 race. >> today, we are here to answer the most important questions. it is democracy still americas sacred cause? that is with the 2024 election is all about. the choice is clear. donald trump's campaign is about him. he's willing to sacrifice our democracy. >> still, far too many democrats do not seem to understand what is at stake when mains decreased -- secretary of state removed trump from the ballot last month. she was attacked by all but other democrats, including her states independent senator, angus king, who caught this with the democrats. he said while a lot of centrist democrats and independents have been saying in recent days. quote, the decision as to whe

i'm sure that brett kavanaugh watches it. i'm sure the justice watches it. saying that you probably like your job. donald trump, he fought for you. we will see what you do. >> that is a great restaurant. it would be a great shame if something happened to it. on the contrary, we were talking about abortion, death penalty, or firearms. matters that are cultural issues around which there are deep partisan divides. of course, it would be fair to predict a conservative leading in the supreme court to rule a certain way. frankly, we have years of data suggesting that. the issues at play, they affect republican candidates and their opponents. these are not standard issues. these are complex issues from constitutional interpretations. frankly, a court that has an interest in preserving its integrity, just like we were talking about. 20 minutes ago, the court's reputation took a hit. i would assume the court does not want that to happen again. yes, it is a 6-3 republican split, but i don't think anyone who knows what is going on here, is a far richer human being beca

so this goes back to the question that justice kavanaugh was asking. how does that matter, or does it matter? >> i don't think it would matter if it was the website at issue here and i really do urge you to take a look at ecf 3511, which has the entire feed from the day she took ofce until the day of the summary jume motion, and i defy anyone to look at this and think this wasn official website. de when she wants to give you a personal opinion, she send you a link to her campaign website. i tell you that this is the crial difference between you and the government, right, that they just say facebook says it's heprivate property and so it's t an official website a by definition. d u are saying no. >> that's correct. d i'm sorry to be hung up on this duty question but what if the la or the state law doesn't say it's your duty to communicate with constituents, give announcements, et cetera, but she decides, hey, constituent communication would bea good idea. this is kind of like the governor decides to do this or the president decides to this if that's not

one of trump's attorneys said she thinks trump will win because he appointed justice brett kavanaughnd two other justices. >> i think it should be a slam dunk in the supreme court, i have faith in them. you know, people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up, those people will step up, not because they're pro-trump, but because they're pro-law, because they're pro-fairness and the law in this is very clear. >> democratic representative dan goldman, who was lead majority counsel in the first impeachment inquiry against trump questioned whether trump appointed justices could be impartial. >> this is like a conciliary of the mob family sending a message to someone who you think you have some control over and it's a very clear message as to what donald trump expects from brett kavanaugh because he nominated him to the supreme court. and it's part of the reason why all of this is so unprecedented. it's remarkable to have someone who's hoping to get on the ballot, and that determination is going to be made by supre

and it's especially true in immigration area, and as justice kavanaugh pointed out it's especially truethis particular issue because last five presidents over the past 27 years have had to make the same kind of decisions. some you prosecute, some you don't. ironically, this group, the house republicans, and tried to take the articles of impeachment and invert that around and say what is prosecutorial discretion is impeachable, which is outrageous because prosecutorial discretion, not just in this instance, but foror prosecutors across the country, they use at all the time. at the supreme court has been saying for more than six decades and beyond, that's protected. so it's, that's their lead argument by the way, argument ae should be impeached. totally rejected eight to one by the supreme court, by the history of the constitution of the all of the witnesses testified. >> and might i add, some of our members on the republicanidast e should ignore the rulings of the supreme court. so that's just how far we have, in this country, that when our supreme court makes a ruling, sometimes you agr

martinez: i -- i think that's exactly right, jusce kavanaugh.nd i think that, like i said earlier, in -- in those situations, the court's job is basically figuring out what the best interpretation of that word is. and in many cases, maybe most cases, those types of capacious words are basically --heest >> justice barrett? >> i want to return to the question justice sotomayor rais about stare decisis. you said over will show up on wooden have an effect on my cases tha it got to chevron step two and then defer to the agency. that understand you correctly? >> those bottoli holdings would be right. >> but t btom of holngefer to so or simply the agencies and trepidation w reasonable. maybe like an brand x they might be lik we would reach a different interpretation if it were ouric call but it's ambigus so the agency can't decide. maybe nothing happens immediately to r those cases but isn't the door open for litigants to come back and say stationa srce really means x or broadband or whatever specific term was an brand x. isn't it inviting a flood of l

i include justice kavanaugh along with all of the other justices.justice roberts has made it a priority -- and i'm paraphrasing, but to bring back the respect to the supreme court. i do not think that donald trump's goals are going to be achieved by doing what he thinks it's helping him. >> this is the problem with donald trump, charles. he expects loyalty from anybody around him, and the fact of the matter is that judges who are known to the constitution, not to the man did appointed you. >> anthony, just a follow-up here, you have got the supreme court justices. your jacks mitt, you are seeing this. one thing that i want to ask you about, clarence thomas. is there any desire from the doj to see justice thomas recuse himself from these cases being heard? >> charles, clarence thomas has been causing problems since before he got on to this court. the fact of the matter is that the ethics issues, the ethics rules before the court are -- they have no teeth. i do not expect you're going to see the doj with so many matters before the court trying to enco

heard something today from donald trump's attorney who said trump was sure that cop kavanaugh would come down on his side. it i i i want to read too much into it. but, you know, did to have that sort of confidence in the people that you placed on to the high court it's you know, one would hope that we that they could put politics aside and do something that you know is based you know, legal precedent and honoring the constitution and that sort of thing. but is that unrealistic? >> well, i think the court has operated in a very illegitimate way in some cases. i mean, the lawyers in us know that. >> you have to have a case or controversy to have a case and they've actually eliminated that requirement in some cases, thrown precedent out the window. so they've really opened themselves up to suspicion as to their behavior and motives. i hope that that suspicion unfounded because the rule of law and the impartiality of the courts is essential to our democracy, but they have created out through some of their conduct. let's hope that they pull together. they act as a body not as politicians that

when you have this with justice kavanaugh you all are talking post by post. the chief justice asks you at the start are we looking at this as who account is it? when you're talking with justice kavanaugh your decision which i understood your initial posio no more than looking a the account. but which is it? >> i think it is true. as i told the cef justice of the very end of our callsnd now justice kavangh if you use the account even i part what is a exclusive government duty to give notice to the public or engage with the public, i agree at that point it's going to state action for the reason i think it's important tohi about this at theccnt level is there is a lot o speec that might be viewed as official but is it in an official dy to provide information to be able to hypotheticals it justice kavanaugh? a way of differentiating the two, announcing for example the ongoing to sign a bill announcing i'm going to appoi a jge. those sortf things are things u could do even if you view those as official in some sense. th does not mean using the property where you m

>> yeah, i think justice kavanaugh is exactly right. these wild swings of how agencies in interpret the law from one administration to the next, it's not really consistent with the rule of law. congress didn't pass a law whose meaning changes 180 degrees every time a new government comes in. you get these dramatic switches back and forth in the meaning of the law. it's very difficult for a fisheries company or any other company to deal with if the meaning of the law is changing 180 degrees every four years. so that's why we think judges need to be the ones that are deciding the meaning of the law, not federal agencies. >> martha: these are private industries. we hear this president say he embraces capitalism and the freedoms of capitalism. this is major decision. thanks, megan and mark. great to have you with us today. keep us posted as this moves along. thank you both. >> thank you. >> martha: good to have you here. we're in the middle of a pentagon briefing for the first time since redesignating houthi militants as terrorists. let's l

what i would say is exactly wh heard justice kavanaugh say, which is i do not think therisa differentwhere agency is a party or if agency is not. in both cases you cann g to a certain point and say this is hard. i inthe law has run out. in both cases you are supposed to take it all the way coming up with your best answer. >> you were stsaying the principal answers the question. if it answerthe question, i guess i don't understand how you ev t to the chevron issue . chevron that one you would gi e same in >> maybe you would, but nobody ows where step two against her ends. i mean i suppose now taking the hits from kaiser, which is about something not chevron usa of course you would apply th canons of statutory construction before you gesteptwo. the point is in every other case you apply those cannons. if you're not sure about th answer you dust off the back and see if there are meother cannons. >> because you have no other oponwhat chevron is it is a recognition that in you appl and the coluon you co up with is congress hasn't spoken to this issue if you had no other option, you are a c

justice amy coney barrett, neil gorsuch, and brett kavanaugh. saying quote this. fought really hard to get through very very good people, and they are great people, they are smart people, and i just hope that they are going to be fair. and we have course heard alina hobbs, the former presidents attorney as well saying essentially, brett kavanaugh owes him. could this be an instance in which, for instance, brett kavanaugh has to recuse himself being named outright by the former presidents attorneys, in the way in which he was? >> i would think it's very unlikely that he would do that, it's not really on him or what trump has said. so it wouldn't really rise to the level of something that he would have to recuse himself from. but of course, we've seen this before from the former presidents. not just in the supreme court cases, but also in these other lawsuits and criminal case that he is currently facing, where he will say things about judges, and unlike a lot of other people who might say some other things about judges, he seems to avoid any punishment for doing th

is that not enough for justice kavanaugh to recuse himself? enough to ginni thomas participated actively to venture that donald trump got back to the oval office despite donald trump losing? is that not enough for clarence thomas to recuse himself from the supreme court? all of these cases are going to the supreme court. >> i think what you are asking is whether we still live in a country that has the rule of law, katie. because alina habba's comments come paris leslie close to suggesting that judges up purely transactional, owing loyalty to the presidents who appointed them after they take the bench. you and i as practicing lawyers know that that's not true. when someone like alina habba, who is representing a former president, goes out on the airwaves and says something like this, how could we continue to ask americans to have confidence in the courts? this is at the heart of i think one of the tragedies of the trump presidency, of his ability to destroy americans confidence in our institutions. i think we'll see a strong pushback in the sen

people like kavanaugh who the president fought for, and who the president went through hell to get in place, and he'll step up. >> interesting to hear that. voters in illinois and massachusetts have file their own suits, and in oregon, that decision is pending, and it could come at any moment, and joan biskupic is here, and paula reid is here as well, and paula, standby, and joan, lay out what the justices are doing, and what we are expecting to hear from them, and maybe when. >> sure. i was just up there at 10:00 when they all took the bench, all nine of them for the first session together since the start of the year and since all of the trump controversies broke. they handled scores of routine bar admissions, and that process took ten minutes, and they left the bench, and starting to shed the robes, and they are meeting in a private conference, just the nine of them, and looking at the cases pending on recent weeks, and they will decide which ones to take up, and when to schedule them, and among those are the trump disputes. now, it is not an easy question, john, of just take a sing

that is not what justice kavanaugh wrote.influence those policies, the immigration policies we talked about. oversight, appropriations. the legislative process, confirmation, and he also mentions into election. does not mention. to say that it's impeachment is the only way immigration issues. you are basing it on this case was 8-1. that's not a majority opinion. i support the amendment because based on the case cited, there is no constitutional basis for the standard you are relying on in every provision of that article except for the one that references the department of justice. this is not in jurisdiction. i moved to support the amendment. >> does anyone else -- >> mr. mira ramirez. >> gentleman, i would like to yield. >> thank you two representative ramirez. for those at home, who proposed? the first one claims that secretary willfully ignore the law by failing to detain. when, in fact, we know that capacity. 34,000 funded by congress, 37,000 annual. you know that the secretary has released people from detention at about

this quasi-quid pro quo assessment, or can it backfire, because it puts kavanaugh and the other trumptees, two of whom are there, under even more pressure and scrutiny? >> that's a great question, alex. ultimately, i think that's one of the things that you see him doing out of desperation. this is someone who is moving, so they have nothing to lose, or everything to lose, for that matter. and i think that's why you are seeing him do. this is not thoroughly just a call in the public conversation, or public discourse, to apply pressure to kavanaugh. it's also a call, unfortunately, to his accolades, in terms of where they should be directing their pressure and their vitriol when it comes to pointing to justice is on the high court. and i don't necessarily think it's a strong or wise strategy, but at the end of the day, donald trump's attorneys have shown that they don't have much to work with, and they have even less to lose. so, this is why i think you are seeing these very, very radical strategies being deployed. it's not something that i or many lawyers that i know would recommend, b

>> i think it should be a slamdunk in the supreme court, i have faith in them, people like brett kavanaugh, who the president fought for and went through and into place, they will step up not because they are pro-trump but because they are pro-law. >> and as justice kavanaugh's head explodes, paula reid, the u.s. supreme court, if they take up the case what do you think they will focus on? >> a menu of options by for president trump and the republican party of colorado. the gop presented three questions, the first is the section 3 apply to president, within the state of colorado, they were split on the question, if they take up the case they will likely have to clarify. the next question is, is itself executing or a rule for congress. the republican party in that state posed a question, the parties owes a first amendment right that should be factored in here, they pose more of a general question, was a mistake to remove them from the ballot, more of a choose your own adventure for the justices. there's going to be a lot of pressure to rule narrowly and to build a coalition and consensus so

you know, people kavanaugh will step up.hose people will step up not because they're pro-trump, but because they're pro-law. >> her explanation kind of infers there's an allegiance to the guy who nominated him to sit on the supreme court, and so there will be payback, so to speak. >> right. this is right out of trump's playbook. we've done for you for years now. it's time for you to do for us. that's a quid pro quo arrangement. look at paul manafort, michael cohen and others who have been left holding the bag. we're talking about a lawyer for donald trump who is an officer of the court making comments directly to a supreme court justice. that is wildly inappropriate. i don't see the justices, including justice kavanaugh, being moved by this at all. i see this as more of an inappropriate comment by a lawyer who should not be making those kind of statements. >> to follow up with procedural off ramps, the whole issue of whether a sitting president is an officer, whether that person qualifies as an officer, that is going to be a

it sounds like she's trying to say that justice kavanaugh owes something here?y unfortunate. sort of like a mob family. you owe us. fortunately, the justices have lifetime tenure and i would assume that they are not going to be pressured simply because they were appointed by trump. i think it is very unfortunate to engage in that kind of discussion that rurth undercuts confidence in the rule of law and our system of justice. and i'm very hopeful that the judges, even the ones that i didn't want appointed, will put all of that to one side and simply rule on the facts and the law and the precedents, and help to start restore confidence in the court. >> all right. congresswoman zoe lofgren of california. thank you. >>> in the meantime, on the weather front, rain, snow, and ice. much of the eastern u.s. is expecting at least one of those. maybe a combination as two winter storms bear down on millions of people. >>> and take a look at this. a tornado touching down just this past hour in south florida, ft. lauderdale. to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes w

and they just lied about kavanaugh but regionally featured this guy in the film that criticized the fbi to various claims including his. a long time washington d.c. fixture has friends in high places. take this from the "washington post" in 2021 quote one of the first hearings took over the sensitive lawsuit carter page against the fbi. justice department several former officials alleging they unlawfully surveilled and investigated him during the fbi russia probate. d.c. veteran offered to recuse herself saying she is friends with a lawyer for defendant lisa page. page. a former fbi attorney. judge said she is known pages arattorney the former justice department lawyer amy jeffries for 27 years pete see the incestuous nature of all of this, i tendered her wedding and met page at a party. he is married to a d.c. circuit court judge chris cooper appointed by obama. merrick garland officiated the wedding. isn't d.c. cute says julie? three judge panel are supposed to be randomly selected. it's oddly seated on unusually high percentage of consequential political cases involving trump among o

them there statement, in addition to what we heard from one of his attorneys talking about brett kavanaugh specifically and how the president worked to secure his appointment to the court, what is your reaction to that, i guess, strategy from team trump? >> yeah, i think, to your point, victor, that attorney of trump said that the president fought like hell to get kavanaugh onto the court. so i think they're speaking to the justices, hey, we had your back, now have mine. that seems to be him playing the ref by saying the other side seems to play the ref. at the end of the day, i think everyone wants fairness. i think it's an institution, the supreme court, that if you're going to respect going forward, we know the magnitude and fwrfw gravity of this decision. we know at some point they'll get to the immunity question, in terms of whether the president has immunity from prosecution. i think we're seeing the court play an outsized role and we want fairness and a decision that's predicated upon constitutional authority or the lack thereof and not partisan politics. i think that's the way the

people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, those people will step up not because they are pro trump, but because they are pro law. >> if i'm brett kavanaugh, you just put me in a box. not that it matters.appointment but it's the notion of immunity. and then the question of whether or not he can be kicked a off the ballot in colorado and maine. >> i think it's a pretty dangerous game to be predicting what nominees who were appointed by someone are going to do. but having said that, i think these are two different questions. number one, does the sort of maine approach or colorado approach, does that make it through the court. but the other is the question, the broader question of presidential immunity. can someone who ever served as president ever be held accountable for something they did in the waning days of the president cy. to me, the way the court thinks about one question is going to be completely different than the way it thinks about the other. and legal scholars have said if every president is immunized forever

you know, people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up. those people will step up not because they're pro-trump, but because they're pro-law. >> so also key might be the potential off ramp that trump's attorneys will argue that he as the at the time sitting president is not an officer. what is going to be your argument to dismiss that? >> i think another statement his attorney made has been making a lot of news. she basically said that the justices that trump appointed would be loyal to him. i want to point that out, because it's a tendency of donald trump to expect loyalty regardless of the law and democracy. the fact that his attorney would say that is really just unbelievable. in terms of the argument of whether or not he is an officer under section 3 of the 14th amendment, i do not believe there should be a loophole in the constitution for a president. that is not how a nation of laws works. no person is supposed to be above the law. that includes the president. because if not, well, then we have a tyrann

justice kavanaugh? justice barrett?ou, cnsel. rebuttal, mr. clement. >> with just a few points.press delegion show all the eat thing about and expressed delegation is shut some text. generally does textually is delegate implementing or executing authority. better yet, once you have text you can put limits on the text. in michigan againstem bp is a rfect example. all of these delegations to texk for that as well. i can't think of anything that's more antithetical to an intelligible principle than ambiguity and silence. i will say in terms of this premise, i think it' entirely fictional. did not have enough votes to make i a clearer. my friends said that i viewed te whole world as every statute has a binary answer. be that, reasonableness, appropriateness. ere are also things like information services, telecommunications services, a service advisor. is it a sales person who's involved in the servicing of cars i would say yes, but you could say no but it'binary. the terrible thing that chevron a can't tell the two part because they both look ambiguous. do y know what can tell the t