and justice scalia was very much not that. you know, his key articles, rule of law is a law of rules which kind of gives it away, and it was so remarkable that year to be dealing with two people that i -- like my mother and father, i love them both, but they disagree e on everything. how does this work? my mother and father, they got divorced, actually, so it really is quite parallel, but i really adored them both and it was just so interesting to be thinking about cases and wondering, wow, i think justice powell would really have thought about this differently and i'd be in conferences with justice scalia and he'd be critiquing an opinion that had this balancing test that was utterly unpredictable. so as a young lawyer, that was just so striking to me to see two people that i just really adored, admired at so many levels, speaking utterly different languages, so the great gift for me to was come out of this experience certainly not knowing how to speak the languages fluently but being very interested in mastering how to speak

george mason went to scalia law school. wrote a forward for a book that's coming out with justice scalia's opinions in it. and what's so interesting to me, i looked at the table of contents and basically about 90% of them are separate writings, are either dissents or separate concurrences. and i think it's because you can be freer. you can say here's how i think the law should work without worrying about are you going to get five votes for that, without worrying about how an institution like the supreme court would say it. it's just you. >> and without worrying about the precedence of every word. >> that's right, it's just you. >> so i wouldn't be the first person to point out that your a fabulous writer. i would say that you're good enough to be a journalist, even. [ laughter ] >> but i'm going to read from the redistricting dissent to people have a sense of it. this is the first two paragraphs. for the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capab

out with justice scalia's and it. what's so interesting and it, i looked at the table of contents and it basically about 90% of them are separate writings, either to censor separate concurrences. i think it's because you can be freer. you can say this is how i think the law should work without worrying if you're going to get five votes for that without worrying about how an institution like the supreme court would say it. it's just you. >> and without worrying about the precedent of every word. >> exactly. >> you are a fabulous writer. i would say you are good enough to be a journalist even. [laughter] but i will read from that redistricting dissents of people have a sense of it. this is the first three paragraphs, two paragraphs. ever, thisirst time court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because they think the task the on judicial capabilities and not just any constitutional violation, but parsing jerry madison's case deprives citizens of their most constitutional rights, the rights to purpose -- to parti

and george basin with this scalia law school, i wrote forward for a book with justice scalia opinion in it. and what is so interesting, i looked at the table of contents and basically about 90% of them are separate writings, the defense or occurrences. i think it's because you can b freer and say here's how i think a law should work without worrying if you're going to get five votes for that or worrying how an institution or the supreme court would say. >> or the presidential value of every word. >> right it's just you. it would not be the first person to point out you're a fabulous writer, i would say are good enough to be a journalist. [laughter] but i'm going to read from that some people have a sense of it. this is the first two paragraphs, for the first time ever district court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. not just any constitutional violation, the partisan gerrymander's in this case deprive citizens of the most fundamental constitutional rights, the rights to produce pain equally in the political process t

justice scalia called me that evening to say, what are you doing? still in your chambers? you should go home and take a hot bath. >> this was the night of the decision, the 12th? >> yes. >> well, it was tense, that case. i'm not asking anything that happened in, you know, that we shouldn't be talking about, but we do know there was a lot of difficult feelings about whether the court should have taken the case or how the court was going to decide the case. justice o'connor has famously characterized as not jabbing back. not responding to a harsh criticism and a separate opinion or concurring opinion is that part of what you're talking about? >> she responded to ideas to but never to individuals. you would never see in an o'connor opinion, as you've seen in some opinions of the court, one justice saying about another justice's opinion, this opinion is not to be taken seriously. in fact, that was said of justice o'connor's opinion. she never snapped back to speak in the same stride yentident voice. she was never critical of a colleague. you would never see in her opinions, th

i will never forget in the abortion cases, i was very unhappy with justice scalia's treatment of the justice and i really wrote it up and i wrote a response. we nailed him. that was my plan. and i hear "marci! " so i went to the secretary's desk and i go to the office and she goes " we don't talk like that. " and i said " i think we should." and she said no, take it out. so i took out all the strong wordage and left the facts. and i learned a good lesson. you can really disagree with someone, but you don't have to be disagreeable. that's an amazing skill that somebody gets early in their career. >> i have to ask, after justice scalia said that one of her opinions cannot be taken seriously, she famously said sticks and stones may break my bones, that's probably not true. did she find her barbs to be a little sharp? >> she found them annoying and really capable of being ignored. she is one of the people who understood that you do not get back to the person who's trying to taunt to you taunt you, you could really drive them crazy. she was gifted at it. she told me that she figured out t

justice scalia was correct. if federal judges want to write the law, they should run for congress.et them run for office. you think this is easy? it is not easy. [applause] not easy. [applause] not easy, fellas, is it? it is nasty. nobody told me it was going to be this nasty. but that is what they have to do, let them run for office and let them do what they are supposed to do. let them do the job the way it is meant to be. in recent years the left-wing assault on our constitution has also become a personal assault on the nominees themselves. it is nasty out there. and you are right, lindsey. one of the reasons it was so important is people watch this, and they do not want us giving up on them. they do not want us -- oh, let's take the next one down the pike. that would have been easier, by the way. what have been much easier. but they don't want to see that. nominees have been attacked in hearings for their religious beliefs. our entire nation was stunned by the cruel campaign of lies and slander and abuse that was hurled at justice brett kavanaugh. but we refused to cave in. the

in the words of the late great justice antonin scalia, whose son, thank you the approval.ene is now our secretary of labor. a great young guy. a good judge must suppress his personal views and must decide each case as the law dictates, not as he would have resolved the matter if he had drafted the law. we have a lot of them looking at it as if they had drafted the law. let's create brand-new law. justice scalia was correct. if federal judges want to write the law, they should run for congress. let them run for office. you think this is easy? it is not easy. [applause] pres. trump: not easy, fellas, is it? it is nasty. nobody told me it would been this nasty. but that is what they have to do, let them run for office and let them do what they are supposed to do. let them do the job the way it is meant to be. in recent years the left-wing assault on our constitution has also become a personal assault on the nominees themselves. it is nasty out there. and you are right, lindsey. one of the reasons this was so important is people watch this and they do not want us giving up on

policy center at harvard law school-trained attorney and author, co-editor of a book about justice scalia. here to talk about the success that the trump administration has had in nominating and appointing personnel to the federal bench. what's the tally, what's your tally so far, how the president's doing? guest: it's been a very impressive record so far. i think folks on both sides of the aisle can agree on that. some of us celebrate it. others lament it. but you have, in addition to two supreme court justices, you have some 43 appellate judges. judges appointed to the courts of appeals. that's double the number where president obama was at the same stage of his presidency. eight years ago. another judge to be confirmed today, i think, another one tomorrow. and you have 100 or so district judges. slightly ahead of president obama's pace of eight years ago. host: we understand president trump will be celebrating this today or at least noting it at the event at the white house. the headline from fox news, trump nears milestone, new milestone with judicial appointments. aside from the obvio

an appellate practice group at paul weiss and clerked for justice scalia. he is going to introduce the panel. take it away. >> fwraet, well thank you very much, jeff and the a great pleasure to be here at gw law school. just a couple of blocks away from my office. so this is very much the local law school. but it is a great pleasure to be here. thank you to gw for hosting us and thank you to the national constitution center for putting together this program. it's really my great privilege to be the first of this afternoon's panel and we have a great here to talk about the broad subject of clerkship experiences and so very briefly to introduce the panel, starting on my immediate left, john elwood, who is a partner and head of the supreme court and appellate practice at arnold and porter and john clerked for justice kennedy. justice krueger to his left, a member of the california supreme court who clerked for justice stevens. rory little, a professor at uc hastings college of law who is currently visiting at yale law psychological who clerked, who was origina

it's not tied to kavanaugh or gorsuch or garland or scalia. this is finally in the mainstream but it's been going on for a long time. i think it's a positive for americans to be thinking about what they want their supreme court to look like. host: the fbi current director testifies about threats. 40th anniversary of the iranian hostage crisis. then on c-span3, american history tv. a discussion about sandra day o'connor. the first woman to be appointed to the supreme court. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, we'll talk about the impeachment brookings study senior fellow and a discussion on president trump's impact on the federal judiciary. c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 p.m. -- 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> tomorrow, the senate judiciary committee is holding a hearing on reauthorizing the usa bans the bookich collection of private records. the 2020 campaign coverage continues as president trump hold a campaign rally in monroe, louisiana. you

others lecturers have included justice scalia, chief justice roberts, ice president cheney, judges ken starr, robert bork, ray randall, edith jones, doug ginsburg, jeff sutton and then judge not justice neil gorsuch, also included former attorney general michael mr. casey, from white as counsel don mcgahn, john allison and senators tom cotton in ben sasse. that brings us to today's lecture. it is my privilege to introduce for this year's lecture the honorable william barr, attorney general of the united states. people serve in government from a wide variety of reasons in addition to performing valuable public service. there's power. there's a stepping stone to even higher office, or the prestige of having had the position and the honor one receive all serving the country in such an important role. but in the current case it's really difficult to see how most of these self-serving and sends apply. the that still does is for performing a valuable public service. indeed, much of his career has been spent performing executive session exact to such service going back to his early days with

colleague, my old colleague who i miss a lot, justice scalia, he used to have a line where he said, if you take this personally, you are in the wrong business. i think that is basically true. we are dealing with important matters. of course, we are going to criticize each other. of course we are going to tell each other, you got the long really wrong today. that doesn't mean that we can't think that the other person is operating in good faith and is a good person. -- it seems to me that you can have very good friendships with people you disagree with. for that matter, not everybody would agree with you like, right? you don't like everybody would agree with. you should be able to like people you don't agree with. that.k we all get one of the things that binds us together, there are only eight other people in the world who really know what my job is like. job where you can't talk to a lot of people about it. in that sense, it's a pretty tight community. there we all are. it's just the nine of us doing this thing. we are the only people that can understand what the experience is like. you

. ♪ abouthor and co-editor justice scalia, here to talk about the success the trump has had in nominatingnd appointing personnel to the federal bench, what is the tally so far? impressivevery record, folks on both sides could agree on that. some of us celebrate it, others lament, but you have that addition of supreme court justices, 43 appellate judges, the courts of appeals, double the number of president obama in the same stage of his presidency eight years ago. another judge to be confirmed today, i think, another one tomorrow. and you have 100 or so district judges. slightly ahead of president obama's pace of eight years ago. host: we understand president trump will be celebrating this today or at least noting it at the event at the white house. the headline from fox news, "trump nears milestone, new milestone with judicial appointments." aside from the obvious advantage in the u.s. senate, the majority in the u.s. senate, what's been behind this success rate of the trump administration? guest: there are a number of factors. obviously president trump and the white house deserve credit

. >> we have a wonderful new example, ginsburg and scalia. were beloved friends, very close friends -- >> opera fans. >> they a great about nothing politically obviously, although scalia did send his opinions to ginsburg in advance. they really loved each other. >> he took her hunting. >> no, he took elena kagan -- >> all, he didn't take -- >> there was an opera about them i think called scalia ginsburg. if these two people could do, sitting on the supreme court, can't us littles do it? what's fascinating is everybody admires them. it's amazing. why do we try to be like -- >> and then turn around and yell at each other. >> why do we try to emulate this. >> was if you so somebody walking down third avenue here in newark city with a make america great hat again, what would be your reaction? >> i just saw the of the date in union square there was a woman all by herself. she was waving a flag and it said maga for trump. >> lgbt. >> wow. >> that's why, she had a maga and the flight was all lgbt for trucker i thought this is a great woman. >> cogni

when i got on the court i told the story to justice scalia who thought it was hilarious and immediately scheduled the date for when he took me to his gun club and told me how to shoot and about gun safety and then justus glia and i would go hunting. two or three times a year until he died. >> birds orr dear? >> almost always birds, quail and pheasants. once we went out to wyoming to shoot deer and antelope and we each shot a deer but neither of us shot and antelope andn once e went down to mississippi for duck hunting. it was mostly birds. >> this process of confirmatio confirmation -- >> did not expect me to have hunting stories did you? [laughter] turned out i quite liked it. >> did you? >> i would not have kept going ldback. he would not have minded if i said i tried that once and you know, i took care of that promise. >> is there some amount of drinking that goes along with hunting? >> no. people are serious about gun safety. only "after words". [laughter] >> this process of confirmation has gotten, shall we say, a little politicized and polarized. do you see how we can back out of

non--- in to meet the the young nina scalia, and they talk about this new nefarious theory that will allow them to take over the world. it is called the unitary executive theory. [laughter] attorney general barr: some of you may recall when i was up for confirmation, all these democratic senators say how concerned they were to the unitary executive theory. [laughter] inorney general barr: reality, the idea of the unitary does not go so much to the breadth of the executive power. whatever the executive power may be, those powers must be exercised under the president's supervision. it is a description of what the framers did in article two. [applause] attorney general barr: after you decide to establish an executive function that is independent of the legislature, the next question is, who is going to perform that function? the framers had two potential models. they could insinuate checks and balances into the executive branch by dividing the power within the executive. alternatively, they could invest executive power in solitary individual. the framers uniformly chose the ter model be

hanky-pankylot of about holding the justice scalia seat open. greatk all of that was for mitch mcconnell and republicans and they have maximized their affect with that. the bad side of that is that people who are liberal or even moderates think that the system is a little rate. that leads to what i would generally call cockamamie ideas. all of the justices have spoken out against it. >> it's a shame we are in this position. it's more than hanky-panky. it's a republican senate that didn't even give merrick garland a hearing. that was playing in putting this court in this political thicket and it is entirely predictable that you were going to have calls -- how could you not when that is what they did and took that and destroy the process? terribly good at the court is in this position. i know where that fault lies. >> i will take issue with that but what i will do is broaden the lens. see when youyou seek dysfunctional confirmation hearings, political candidates talking about expanding the court and court packing and the like, to me, that gets bac

a republican senator didn't even give merrick garland a hearing when justice scalia's untimely passing on february 13th, and that was putting the court in this political -- entirely predictable you have caused to court pack now. how can you not when that is what they did, and destroyed the process. i feel terribly that the court is in this position. and i know where the court lies. >> i will broaden the lens a little further because i think what you see when you see kind of dysfunctional confirmation hearings, when you see political candidates talking about expanding the court, court packing and the like means to me that gets back to the idea that the court is deciding so many important issues, so many politically charged issues and congress by contrast is kicking a lot of the issues i think the framers thought it would decide and wrestle with to either the courts or the executive branch. .. of course when the political process gets a bit of an opportunity to influence that institution, either by delaying a vote on one nominee or by trying to derail another nominee or saying look, the

individual liberty, personal responsibility and the rule of law and other lecturers have included justice scalia, vice president cheney, ray randolph, edith jones, doug ginsberg, dennis jenkins, jeff sutton and justice neil gorsuch. don mcgann, peter seals, john allison senators tom cotten and ben sasse. that brings us to today's lecture. it is my privilege to introduce the honorable william barr, attorney general to theunited states . peopleserving government for a wide variety of reasons in addition to performing valuable public service . there's power, there's a steppingstone even higher office or the prestige of having had the position and then the other one receives while serving the country in such an important role but in the current case, it's difficult to see how most of these self-serving incentives apply. one that still does is forming a valuable public service . and indeed much of his career has been spent performing exactly such services going back to his early days with the cia. he received his ma in, from columbia in chinese studies and that might come in handy. and his gw from ge

and yet she always said it did not bother her at all when sc alia would tease her. >> scalia was quite a humorous. he was not trying to put her down. it was a jovial thingy had with the other members of the court and particularly her. i don't think. she had spent your entire life doing things that were mostly jobs held by men. this was not unusual in that sense. but she also was, as everybody has said, she was no longer, she was not a woman. and yet she was able to carry this out in excellent fashion. to me, it was even more than being the first woman on the court. i think one thing she did, she put a human face on the core. up until then i do not think anybody thought of justices as human beings. this is the thing she added to it because of personality she had as well as the way in which he treated other people. that was a real plus not only for the court but for women and for the country. >> you're going to hear a lot about cherry blossoms in all the ways that she really did i think become kind of the cruise director on the supreme court. just really mindful of how to treat people wi

but as justice scalia, the late justice scalia said, certainly the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. the only issue is whether it prohibits it. it doesn't. we need to pass the equal rights amendment in the constitution of the united states for many reasons. the most basic reason, it provides additional protection against discrimination against women. it has a higher standard to prevent discrimination. it shows america's leerm globally on -- leadership globally on human rights. so congress in 1972 started the process by passing the equal rights amendment. we passed it in 1972. now of course it requires 38 states to ratify before it becomes law. and to date 37 states have ratified the equal rights amendment. we're one short of accomplishing our objective of puttings the equal rights amendment at long last in the constitution of the united states. but there is an additional hurdle or potential hurdle. and that is when congress passed the resolution in 1972, it put a seven-year time limit for the states to act. now they extended that to ten years, and this is strictl

humiliated at that first conference and she does everything to be completely up on everything and justice scalia who had been a federal judge for a long time, arrives at the court at a similar time, looks at all this stuff and says, i can't possibly be on this, i'm not going. and he didn't. he went to the next conference. >> amazing. >> women always have this idea that, you know, if you're there, you better do the job. >> and that's where the first -- even though nonjurist resonated so much with me, being the first and the idea of it -- what you don't want to be the last and you know that everything you're doing is being weighed in a different way. and so to have that joy come through and i got a lot out of it just saying, she's something. >> you know, linda, although the two were often allies, could you talk about the differences in judging? >> so that actually is responsive to your first question about legacy. justice o'connor was -- i loved what someone said earlier this afternoon. in some sense the air to a common law judging tradition and so she is making decisions in very much a case by ca

are talking about now and 2020 is a little bit more out of the open it's not tied to kavanaugh or scaliat a conversation that is in the mainstream that going on for a long time. and it's a positive for americans to think about. >> and fix the court.com thank you for being here with us this morning. >> something and want the 2020 presidential candidates to address his violence there is a just one clear-cut answer but we have to initiate the discussion for what options are available. >> the question that i have is how do you combat the drugs and healthcare quick. >> and to fix the criminal justice system how we rehabilitate our offenders in support a positive relationship between community and law enforcement and the mass incarceration rate. and how we are impacted by the parowan epidemic that shows that prison pipeline then those juveniles and those that are not currently protected by the us government that should be. i hope everyone had a good lunc lunch.

[applause] vice president quayle, secretary esper, secretary wilkie, secretary de vos and scalia, tohe congressmen, director kowalski, durham-aguilera, distinct americans gathered here today, it's an honor to be here with you all, but most especially, it is a high honor for me to stand before you in this special place among men and women who wear the uniform of the united states of america, today, and our veterans who served our nation in uniform in ages past. it is my great honor to welcome you here to arlington national cemetery for the 2019 national veterans day observance. i am grateful that you all would make time, as millions of americans will do across this nation, to honor all those who served. the bible tell us, if you owe debts, pay debts. if honor, then honor. if respect, then respect. today, here in arlington and across the nation, americans gathered to pay a debt of gratitude to the generations who have answered the call to serve in the armed forces of the united states. it is also my honor to be here on behalf of a great champion of our armed forces and of every veteran

this afternoon were grateful to be joined by steve mnuchin, secretary jeans scalia and i heard you're doing a good job over there and labor is doing okay. your numbers are certainly doing very good. it's a good time to be the department of labor. >> thank you very much. secretary alex azar. thank you. an administrator steve, thank you very much. this is an unusual group all over the place. i want to welcome kevin brady, michael burks, they been so fantastic on getting us to a really good position with the taxes and will be doing a major middle income tax cut if we take back the house and will be talking about that sometime later but were going to be doing a very major middle income tax cut mostly devoted to middle income who have really been big beneficiaries of the tax cut which we did which was the largest in the history of our country. but were doing a major tax cut for the middle income and that will be subject to taking over the house because democrats like tax increases not tax cut. i also want to think our state leaders, we have a lot of state leaders at the highest level and i

secretary gene scalia. good time first base department of labor. >> a great story to tell. >> thank you very much. good. secretary alex azar, thank you, alex. and administrator sheena verna. they're spread all over the place. i also want to welcome kevin brady, michael bunch us and greg walden. they've been fantastic on getting us to a really good position with the taxes. we're going to do a major middle income tax cut if we take back the house. and we'll be talking about that sometime later, but we're going to be doing a very major middle income tax cut, mostly devoted to middle income who have really been big beneficiaries of the tax cut we did which was the largest in the history of our country, but we're doing a major tax cut for the middle income. and that will be subject obviously to taking over the house, because democrats like tax increases, not tax cuts. i also want to thank our state leaders. we have a lot of state leaders here today at the highest level. i want to thank them for being here, and a

it's not tied to kavanaugh or gorsuch or garland or scalia.s is finally in the mainstream but it's been going on for a long time. i think it's a positive for americans to be thinking about what they want their supreme court to look like. host: there's a lot more at fix the court.com. gabe roth, thank you for being here. we will wrap up the program with your calls and comments. your top public policy issue. a year from now we will be voting for president across the country. we will also look at the latest in the impeachment inquiry and welcome your phone calls next to here on washington journal. ♪ >> campaign 2020. on theur live coverage campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. c-span3 at 8:00 p.m. eastern. watch samples of our history coverage featured every weekend on american history tv. tonight supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor reflect on the impact of the first woman supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor. on wednesday african-american history. thur

protection of the law and many believe that includes gender but some legal scholars are putting antonin scaliaay the framers did not attend general protections to be included in the 14th amendment which brings any rights amendment which would explicitly ban discrimination. the era was first proposed in 1923 but not all women's groups were on board and it died without making progress in congress. in 1970 the era was revived and this time it did pass congress but to amend the constitution you need 38 states to ratify. only 35 states said yes. and it has two years nevada and illinois both ratified the 36 and 37 in virginia, democratic we controlled would be the pivotal 38 state or would it? here's the catch. 35 states ratified in the 70s but five those dates have since withdrawn their support, idaho, kentucky, nebraska, tennessee and south dakota but the constitution doesn't address that scenario so it is unclear if states are allowed to back out. it is almost certain both sides will fight because the right to life groups believe the amendment would be used by the left to protect abortion at all

>> stephen: now performing the title track from our album "ocean," ladies and gentlemen, antonin scaliaaway? ♪ i can see your sad story eyes ♪ so how do you have no words to say? ♪ all i want is to fall in deeper ♪ than i've ever been why won't you let me? ♪ i can handle your heart, so help me ♪ here you are, next to me so much beauty at my feet ♪ all i wanna do is swim but the waves keep crashin' in ♪ no, i'm not afraid to drown take me out, take me down ♪ i'm so tired of the shore let me in, baby ♪ you're an ocean beautiful and blue i wanna swim in you ♪ like a lighthouse i've been shinin' bright ♪ through the dark for the both of us ♪ and "i've done it outta love" is not enough ♪ but god, how i wish it was and i don't wanna find out ♪ how much lonely i can take before you lose me ♪ baby, look at me and swear you won't lose me ♪ here you are, next to me so much beauty at my feet ♪ all i wanna do is swim but the waves keep crashin' in ♪ no, i'm not afraid to drown take me out, take me down ♪ i'm so tired of the shore let me in, baby ♪ you're an ocean beautiful and blue ♪ i wanna swim i

i've been reviewing the last -- i'm looking at antonin scalia's death. i thought that was clean.sent me a story on jean seaburg who died mysteriously of suicide and i'm looking at all these stories of abuse. if i start talking about chemtrail's but you have to take me out to the woods and shoot me -- >> emily: got it. >> jesse: i am not the crazy one... >> greg: i'm okay -- here's the thing! i'm still inclined to tour the suicide because this is an incompetent system, the prison system. it's like the dmv with stun guns. there is chaos, waste, ineptitude. maybe he hung himself because he could, right? it was homicide by neglect. >> jesse: the lawyer a day before he allegedly committed suicide said he was in great spirits. >> dana: he was also a psychopath. >> greg: psychopaths don't usually kill themselves, don't they? >> dana: i don't think she'd voluntarily talk to the fbi for basically hiding all the time. came up with the stuff to get a picture taken and it was all photoshop. i think she's only talking to the fbi because they've offered her some sort of immunity deal or else.

i was at the ballfield when scalia was almost killed and i had six of my ribs broken by a hater of president trump. i don't want violence. the report is not correct. the statute says the inspector general cannot reveal the name. the president should enforce the law but the statute says the inspector general can't reveal the name. there is nothing that prevents me from saying it now but i want it to be more about the process and less about the person. there is no law that prevents me from mentioning the name. >> bret: do you know? >> yes, the 6th amendment to the constitution says if you accusy me of a crime i get to stare you down in court. if there is a trial, you always get to confront your accuser. it's in the 6th amendment and the bill of ritz. >> bret: what prevents you from getting on the senate floor and giving a speech and saying the guy's name? >> i know i can and i may. i could do it right now. nothing stops me. there is no law that stops me from doing it. other than i don't want to make it about the one individual. i do think that this individual is a material witness to the poten

and that undermines the whole society and mentioning justice scalia someone i did not admire in manyays but i do admire that he said what really protects our liberties is not the bill of rights anybody can have a bill of rights what protects our liberties is the separation of powers that coequal branches of government with checks and balances on the excesses of each department and in particular the executive. hamilton and madison did not want a man on horseback that was a king but someone subject to the rule of law they created a constitution which trump has sworn to protect and defend that which he proceeds to ignore for just that reason. so i think we are living in a very dangerous time setting a dangerous precedent how will that end? and of us knows i prefer to think no public man can remain at the center of the controversy indefinitely. >> we will open up for questions please be mindful c-span is recording. >>. >> it is great as someone with your stature and background and then go on to the next case and to instances where lawyers asked for retainers in advance because they did n

the caller of course is right, that senator mcconnell kept the scalia vacancy open through 2016. think she's wrong to suggest that there was any constitutional obligation to do otherwise. what senator mcconnell did in 2016, basically been baked into the cake in the process, so to speak, for decades. joe biden threatened the same thing in 1992, if a vacancy arose then. senator schumer and reid said the same thing in 2007 and 2008. this was the same vacancy since clarence thomas was nominated in 1991 in which you had a president of one party making a nomination to a senate controlled by the other party. exactly the configuration that invites conflict and what happened was entirely predictable and president obama's white house counsel, an event in which i took part with her, said that she would have recommended the same thing, had this situation been reversed. host: what if there's an opening on the supreme court of vacancy in 2020, what should senator mcconnell do? guest: he's been quite clear what he'll do. he'll move expeditiously to confirm that nominee. you would not have the o

and i probably don't need to remind you what happened in 2016 when scalia died suddenly and president obama nominated someone who mitch mcconnell blocked from any consideration. we're not sure it willer come to that, but mitch mcconnell has said if a trump nominee comes forward, even in an election year, he would move that person as swiftly as possible on to the supreme court. >> we hope it doesn't come to that. joan, thank you. good to see you. >> thank you. >>> still ahead, the lawmaker leading the investigation into impeaching the president says that there is enough evidence to go to trial. >> there is a sense of urgency when you have a president threatening the integrity of our elections. that we need to act now if we're going to act, and we can't allow this obstruction to succeed. >> but even if his report is handed over, he says the investigation isn't going to end. cnn's one on one interview with the house intel chairman adam schiff is up next. ♪ no matter what life throws down ♪ roomba is up for the challenge. only roomba uses 2 multi-surface rubber brushes that powerfully cle

their main charges are, racketeering and services fraud which is a catch-all law and the late antoni scaliaed it and basically prosecutors had used it to go a after anyone for bribery, regardless of whether there's an actual victim. in this case, who is the victim. paul: well, do you think that she could get off then? do you think she has a chance to actually be acquitted? >> i do. i think she's not terribly similasympathetic defendant whil be hard with the jury. on the other hand, i think she has a very strong legal case on the prosecuting a law that probably does not fit. paul: interesting. okay. so i guess, kim, the idea about the victim would be they were students who didn't get in to usc because the places were taken by the two loughlin daughters on fraudulent grounds. so there are those victims in the case. >> right. i think that's true. i think that by the way, paul, is the technicalities of the law side. most people look at this and say come on, and you had felicity huffman who already pleaded guilty and spent a few days in jail and apologized profusely for what they did and i have

speaking hypothetically here, because we hope we don't have a new change, but that was when justice scaliaresident obama named merrick garland, and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell blocked all action on that nomination for more than a year. so, you know, that's what happened then. but let me tell you that mitch mcconnell has said if it comes to it this time around and president trump names a third appointment for the supreme court, that he will help that person get through and get through even if we're right there in an election year. >> it would be epic. all right. >> it would be. >> joan, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you, martin. >>> house intelligence chairman adam schiff is talking about the next step in the impeachment inquiry. is he willing to go to court to force john bolton to testify? we'll talk about how the investigation moves forward. ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh br