john lehman: yes, bill rehnquist was -- i forget the name of the exact title. but he was the general counsel in effect for the justice department. and so he and i really were the main task force to put together the congressional strategy and marshall the arguments on executive privilege. and bill really wrote the briefs on that. his view, his view of executive privilege has, i think withstood the test of time. the current administration would not like his views. and if you read those papers, i think he really understood there were clear limits on executive privilege and executive power. but that those limits needed to be, the powers had to be actively defended all of the time, that there was no clear delineation between the executive powers and the legislative powers in these regards. and that the intentions of the framers were, they understood when you read the federalist papers that this would cause contention. and they purposely left it for politics to decide where the line was. there was no clear delineation. there were overlapping there are in the constitu

clerked for justice rehnquist. >> barack obama went to harvard, too. hillary went to yale. >> yes, but he got in on affirmative zblax okayaffirm affirmative action. >> okay. i'll leave it with that. joining me, lanny davis. hillary is getting panned by some of the left like ruth marcus who came out with, oh, man, she did not like the rollout. what did i do with my papers? ruth, she said, it was a vapid video, relentlessly insultingly vapid. talks about it had no substance, about how she came across as entitled and overconfident. this is a democrat. a liberal democrat. what say you? >> i say it can't win. she's going to have a formal announcement where she'll talk about issues and her vision for america. >> that wasn't it? >> this is the introduction where she let americans talk about what they cared about and what hillary clinton has been about since i've known her back in yale law school is about other people. one of the first questions she asked me when we were online to register for classes and i was a senior and asked her if she needed advice, the

justice o'connor's opinion improved upon chief justice rehnquist, and kennedy, scalia, and thomas to protest that the court abandoned strict scrutiny. when it comes to affirmative action, they won its scrutiny to be automatically fatal in fact arguably, the court was squeezing at -- squeezing out. fisher, the most recent affirmative action decision, is at pains to make clear that even if strict scrutiny is not fatal in fact, it is not to be feeble in fact. they tried to toughen it up a bit. what is the best argument for six? united states versus virginia. the court held that the exclusion of women violated the equal protection clause. what is the unofficial sixth standard? the same intermediate scrutiny standard to gender-based classification that the court established in crank and affirmed in hogan. justice ginsburg picks up on the phrase exceedingly persuasive justification from justice o'connor's opinion in open. -- hogan. it may sound slightly stricter than intermediate scrutiny. this prompted justice scalia in dissent that they were playing strict scrutiny. in usd virginia, scal

it i heard it suggested federal courts declare them unconstitutional baby back to chief justice rehnquist and supreme court has repeatedly bolstered executive discretion in refused to review agency discretion as with respect to this executive action there are two cases filed here id washington from the sheriff that has been dismissed the second suit was filed in texas sotho courts have struck dead executive action now we hear that speaker boehner will sue the president that is not responsible but we agreed that if they disagree with president obama over the legality of this policy they can let the courts decide that confirmation of the highest law enforcement is not the time or place for frustration. let me ask a couple of questions because some people are concerned the administration is flawless. >> that is my first point of reference. >> if it happens to strike down executive action we respect that? >> i will of legend congress but don't think it would have been but if congress were to pass a bill for the immigration and actions but imagine for the sake of argument if the bill passed wo

which is as a final nuclear deal take sanctions off the table as a foreign major policy tool on the rehnquist sanctions been so tied to the the nuclear deal but it just tries to do a major sanctions push on another issue that iran can't we escalate on the nuclear issue because sanctions are the whole reason it came company constricts nuclear program in the first place? thank you. >> so i think it's a very complicated issue. and when we talk in these agreements come it's in the text of the agreement about a nuclear related sanction from it's important to bear in mind there is no such thing as a nuclear related sanction in american law. so the first question is what sanctions exactly do we have in mind and doesn't in any way match with what the rains have in mind? my guessmindbut my guess is no, that would be one of the things which negotiated are talking about. if you look example at sanctions on the national iranian oil company from the sanctions offered associate with revolutionary guard corp. which is not nuclear related per se. if you look at the sanctions on iran arms export, these are co

going back to justice rehnquist the supreme court repeatedly bolstered executive action and refused to review agency decisions in the law. two federal cases have been filed. one here in washington by/a pair yo notorious anti-immigration activist and that has been dismissed. one is pending in texas. no courts have struck down executive action. we're hearing speaker boehner and house republicans will be suing the president on this executive actions. i don't think that is a responsible use of executive action. speaker boehner and i disagree, if republicans disagree with president obama aboutlegality of this policy they can sue him and let courts decide. the confirmation of america's highest law enforcement officer is not the time and place to haven't frustration. so, let me just ask you a couple of questions. you've answered them but i want to underscore them because some people are concerned that the quote, rogue obama administration is lawless. will you commit to following court decisions and legal process? >> absolutely, senator. that is my first point of reference. >> and specifically

justice o'connor's opinion prompted chief justice rehnquist and associate justices kennedy scalia and thomas to protest that the court abandoned strict scrutiny n whether it comes to affirmative action programs they wanted strict scrutiny indeed to be automatically fatal in fact. arguably in their view the court was squeezing out a less strict form of strict scrutiny lying somewhere between strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny. fisher the most recent affirmative action decision is at pains to make clear that even if scrutiny is not fatal in fact it is not to be feeble in fact. so hey try to toughen it up a bit. what is the best argument for six? well that's the best answer as of united states versus virginia although again it is not the official answer given by the supreme court in that case. there the court held vmi's exclusion of women violated the equal protection clause. what is the unofficial sixth standard or tier. officially justice ginsberg's opinion applies to the same intermediate scrutiny standard to gender based classifications that the court established in craig and