what justice scalia and justice breyer, i believe, were debating was the justice scalia's notion of originalism, meaning the words of the constitution should be interpreted as they were written by the founders in the founding era and that they should not be considered to essentially to establish principles that modern justices could now apply based on their own view of the needs of society. and that justice breyer's position was more toward that latter view. that the idea of the constitution needing to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with modern sensibleties about the principles that the document reflects. and i would just say that it appears now that the supreme court has taken justice scalia's view that the prevailing ininterpreter frame for interpreting the constitution is now clearly looking back through history. so we see that even in the heller case where the justices, even the justices in dissent, were all analyzing the issues in the second amendment through a historical lens. what was meant at the time of the founding. so that is now the way in which constitutional interpreta

what justice scalia and justice breyer i believe were debating was the justice scalia's notion of originalism meaning that the words of the constitution should be interpreted as they were written by the founders in the founding era. they should not be considered to essentially establish principles that modern justices could apply based on their own view of the needs of society. justice breyer's position was more toward that latter view, that the idea of the constitution needing to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with modern sense abilities about the principals that the document reflects. i would just say that it appears now that the supreme court has taken justice scalia's view, that the prevailing interpretive frame for interpreting the constitution is now very clearly looking back through history. so we see that even in the heller case where the justices, even the justices in dissent, were all analyzing the issues in the second amendment through a historical lens. what was meant at the time of the founding that is now in which constitutional founding the done. >> do you identify

reporter: she was asked, do you not -- how do you describe versus scalia at she said it looks like this kelly approach toward originalism is the one that has prevailed. senator durbin: i don't for member that exact quote. i am sorry. i can't respond. reporter: mr. chairman, can you tell us more about when the committee will vote on whether to [indiscernible] senator durbin: we are getting close. it is a long story. [laughter] i am sorry. it is classified. no, you will learn soon. reporter: can you help us understand how the democrats received the information they distributed on the probationary -- senator durbin: we started out by reading "the washington post" because it was all they are. reporter: you took the information from the article? senator durbin: no. it was in the "washington post," the white house gathered information when hawley set up his charges. they gave it to us today. i don't know where they got it from. reporter: do you think if senators cruz and hawley that employed black women, they would have approached they are indifferently? senator: good question. i don't know i

because he decided to keep the court at eight justices for almost a year after the death of anton scalia. he refused to give president obama his constitutional and legal option of filling the vacancy from this olea -- from scalia's departure from the court and for a year, mitch mcconnell's own political purposes cap court composition at eight. he has retired the trophy in modern times because he was the one who did it. when he starts speculating about the possibility of maybe adding 1, 2, 3, 4 more justices on the opportunity, i happen to know that when you do as well, nothing is going to change to the composition of the court unless it passes through the senate which under current rules requires 60 votes. the likelihood of packing the court is very unlikely in the near future unless some decisions made by the electorate dramatically changes. in the meantime, we are in a situation where we have a vacancy on the court which we are trying to fill with a very competent person. this notion of packing the court being the number one issue he cited his beyond me. there is no conspiracy that i a

the scalia decision, 2005. the booker decision? >> so the original statute that i'm talking about, i'm just thinking, i felt like it was in the '80. in 2003 -- all right. and then -- justice scalia, the booker decision, made the guidelines advisory. so that even though judges have to calculate them, they are no longer binding, and what it meant in the statute is that the guidelines became one factor among many that judges considerate sentencing. >> i'm not going to opine on justice scalia and his conduct and decision as it relates to the overall topic. i hope we all agree we want to do everything in our power reasonably within our power to lessen the incidents of pornography and exploitation of children. you have made that clear. i want to tell you, congress doesn't have clean hands in this conversation. we haven't touched this for 15, 16, or 17 years. and you aren't the only one who faced this kind of a challenge with the cases before you. i said this morning, and it bears repeating. in the united states versus klotz, trump appoin

antonin scalia was confirmed 98-0, ruth bader ginsburg by 96 -3. the rule of a is a fragile possibility in the best of times. today, it is literally under attack in ukraine and threatened around the world and in our own country by autocrats and their sympathizers who give lip service to the rule of law but working to undermine it. as justice scalia taught us, the indispensable feature of the republic the constitution created is an independent judiciary of judges who have taken an oath not to a president or a party but to the be impartial. judge ketanji brack -- ketanji jackson brown has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to that oath. i applaud this nomination which encourage the senate to confirm. >> thank. lisa fairfax. >> my name is lisa fairfax. i am a professor of law at the university of pennsylvania school of law. prior to my academic career, i worked at a large law firm. but before that, i was roommates and a very different at harvard of coalition builder. we knew early on she could be anything she chose to be, but also that she seemed

he is telling -- he has never had justice scalia's sharp tongue. he has never said anyone should put a bag over their head. these interesting cases, particularly race cases, but also about average, ordinary americans that will suffer from mistakes he feels the court is making, he is not afraid to say we do not live in the neighborhoods where these people will suffer at the hands of the gangs. we will come out the wrong way and hurt poor people and minorities because of our bad decisions. that is consequences. i don't think that is consequentialism. when judge jones mentioned his unique voice and unique role, his story his voice, it is ok to say to your colleagues on the court, this is a mistake, and this mistake will have terrible consequences for the people who do not have the same amount of privilege we do. i think that is the consequences argument. >> when i say -- maybe consequentialism is the wrong word. maybe it is context for a decision. the way you described it might be a better way to think about it. one that constantly comes to my mind is

what justice scalia and justice are, i believe, were debating was justice scalia's notion of originalism meaning that the words of the constitution should be interpreted as they were written by the founders in the founding era and should not be considered to, essentially, to establish principles that modern justices could now apply based on their own view of the needs of society and that justice breyer's position was more towards the latter view, the idea of the constitution needing to be interpreted in a way consistent with modern sensibilities about the principles that the document reflects. i would say that it appears now that the supreme court has taken justice scalia's view, that the prevailing interpretive frame for interpreting the constitution is now very clearly looking back through history. so, we see that even in the heller case where the justices, even the justices in dissent, were all analyzing the issues and the second amendment through what was meant at the time of the founding. that is now the way constitutional interpretation is done. >> do you identify with that positio

my guess is that originalists, and scalia in particular, would disagree.you do if the text of the fourth amendment doesn't answer a question? where do you go next? >> well, senator, just to clarify what i intended to say, and i may well have misspoken, there is an originalist take, i think, on the question of what happens with a cell phone. as the supreme court held in the riley case, there was a way in which you assess principles of the constitution, the text of the constitution, and apply it to modern technology. and you have to because there is no question that cell phones didn't exist at the time of the founding. so if the original list principle is, we look only at the constitution as it relates to things that existed at the time of the founding, there would be no answer to what to do about a cell phone. and so what the supreme court has said and done is to determine that the principle of the fourth amendment with respect to searches is to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. they also have looked at property interests with

i agree with justice scalia and justice kavanaugh. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. . ms. jackson lee: i yield five minutes to my friend, representative cohen. mr. cohen: thank you, ms. jackson lee. i want to take a point of personal privilege and first day i have walked into the house without don young being in it. he was an outstanding congressman and good human being and he was my friend. every day i walked in those doors and he sat in the aisle and i said hello and first day he hasn't been there. i will join with other members to memberallize hip him in the services here and his church in virginia. he was the dean of the house and just a good human being and a wonderful wife. on this bill, i want to thank mr. armstrong working with me on it. he was a strong proponent of the bill and truly bipartisan and bicameral. it has passed the senate in some form and mentioned tha

she was asked how could she be friends with the late justice antonin scalia. they held vastly different views and in her vie response she quoted justice scalia by say, i attack ideas, i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas, end quote. she's also famously quoted as saying, fight for the things you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you. in short, mr. speaker, it's ok to fight for what you believe in. it's toke disagree or even dede-spice what someone else believes. but it doesn't mean they don't have a right to those beliefs. unfortunately, this contrasts with some of the actions of mir friends on the other side of the aisle these past few years. i hope this serves as an example that we candice agree without being disagreeable. that we choose to rise above being easily offended and instead respect alternative points of view. and that the halls of congress are a place where everyone feels their viewpoints and beliefs are given equal credence. mr. speaker, again, i appreciate the balance of this bill. i rise

same with justice scalia.s possible the chief justice roberts has a word with thomas who is the most senior member. the idea that it's up to the justice to decide is really well established there. thomas will look at the law and say hmm. it's not simply her possible liability. any motion for my documents could well ask for stuff that concerns her and puts a bad light on her. it really ought to be close to no brainer but it will be up to clarence thomas and only clarence thomas for now. you have to cross your fingers. that's not normally what law means. >> yeah. thank you forexplaning all of that. >>> breaking news. the motion picture academy is condemning will smith for slapping chris rock at last night's oscars be p they are launching a former review and will explore further action and consequences. this is a changing, fast moving story. we kr all the latest. if you invest in the s&p 500 your portfolio may be too concentrated in big companies. this can leave it imbalanced and exposed when performance varies.

antonin ska scalia was confirmed, 98-0.ule of law is a fragile possibility in the best of times. today, it's literally under attack in ukraine and is threatened around the world and in our own country by autocrats and their sympathizers who give lip service to the rule of law and work to undermine it. as justice scalia taught us so well, a feature of the republic the constitution created is an independent judiciary of judge who is have taken an oath not to a president or a party but to the american people and to god fp judge brown has demonstrated her unwaving kmitsment to her approach. thank you. >> thank you. >> professor lisa fairfax. >> i'm a president rnl professor of law at the university of pennsylvania school of law and co-director of its incstitute fr law and economics. before that i was roommate and friend at harvard law of judge jackson. we met during our first days of college nearly 35 years ago. those first moments when you wonder if you belong, she's the friend that made sure we all did. a woman of deep faith

to give president obama his legal obligation of filling the vacancy of justice slea and for a -- scalia and mitch mcconnell kept the justices at eight. when it comes to justices, he has retired the trophy in modern times because he is the one who did it. when he speculates maybe they'll add one, two, three, four or more justices if the democrats get the opportunity. i happen to know, and you do as well, that nothing is going to happen changing the composition of the court unless it passes the united states, which under current rules, requires 60 votes. there are currently 50 democrats and 50 republicans. so the likelihood of, quote, packing the court is very unlikely in the near future unless there's some decision made by the electorate that dramatically changes that. in the meantime we're in a situation with a vacancy on the court in which we are trying to fill with a very competent person. and this packing the court is the number one issue he cited is beyond me. there is no sinister conspiracy that i'm aware of that suggests this is an agenda item for the democrats. of course we would

what justice scalia and justice breyer, i believe, were debating was justice scalia's notion of originalism meaning that the words in the constitution should be interpreted as they were written by the founders, in the founding a*er -- era. and they should not be considered to essentially to establish principles that modern justices could now apply based on their own view of the needs of society. and that justice breyer's position was more toward that latter view, that the idea of the constitution needing to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with modern sensibilities about the principles that the document reflects. i would just say that it appears now that the supreme court has taken justice scalia's view that the prevailing interpreterrive frame -- interpretive frame for interpreting the constitution is now very clearly looking back through history. so we see that even in the heller case where the justices, even the justices in dissent, were all analyzing the issues in the second amendment through a historical lens. what was meant at the time of the founding so. that is now the way

justice scalia taught me more than just law. he was devoted to his family resolute and his beliefs and fearless of criticism. and as i embarked on my own legal career. i resolved to maintain that same perspective. there's a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all consuming while losing sight of everything else. but that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. i worked hard as a lawyer and as a professor, i owed that to my clients to my students and to myself. but i never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. a similar principle applies to the role of courts courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. but courts are not designed to solve every problem or write every wrong in our public life. the policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by an accountable to the people. the public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try. that is the approach that i have str

family and her daughter think it's a well-known story how her daddy when she learned of justice scalia'sassing her daughter sense a letter to obama said have the perfect person for the sea, my mom and it's wonderful and heartwarming story. >> [inaudible] >> i have not brought up with him i think more time is appropriate but also distinguishing the fact it has been less than a year before on —- sent you. before a committee is an importanthi factor. >> under the rules of the committee i believe thatt can be held over with an additional week is that right? we are starting with that presumption is we have the good fortune. [inaudible] >> there will always be a question for every nominee we have five nominees for the circuit court in at least half asked that question. i don't the same importance to that is my colleagues and they think it's a big talent they can get someone to say i originalist or contextual us. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> of course paul i know personally spoke for her. he spoke for her and one of her earlier pursuits so any support from him i would welcome but it really is a

justice scalia, the booker decision made the guidelines advisory. so that even though judges had to calculate them, they are no longer binding, and what it meant in the statute is that the guidelines became one factor amongst many that judges consider at sentencing. >> i'm not going to pine on justice scalia in his conduct and decision as it relates to the overall topic. i hope we all agree that we want to do everything in our power, reasonably within our power to lessen the incidence of pornography and weigh tatian of choi jin. you have made that clear that's your position. but i just want to tell you, congress doesn't have clean hands in this conversation. we haven't touch this now for 15, 16, 17 years. and you are the only one who faced this kind of a challenge with cases before you. i said this morning and it bears repeating. in the united states versus klotz, trump appointed judge sarah pitlick, senator hawley's choice for the eastern district of missouri, sentenced an individual convicted of child pornography to only 16 months, well below the

justice scalia but the problem is nothing she says about that is enforceable and once she gets on the like justice breyer mayor, you don't get to call her back because of what she said at the confirmation hearing so i wouldn't put too much thought on that and on the republican side, a lot of this has to do with the guys who want to run for president. they realize they can count to 51, they know they don't have the boat to stop her from being confirmed so they've turned it into something of a show where they honed in on something they thought be met at the base, the child pornography sentencing stuff and that's what they honed in on. i would help if they thought they had the chance to defeat her nomination they would have gone about it more strategically. kennedy: they haven't talked about her junior prom night yet and when that comes up, the public -- >> they did ask if she likes beer. [laughter] they told her they wouldn't answer that. kennedy: no, you have to. [laughter] the has to be something in there otherwise people get very bored but of the progressive nominees the president wa

her daughter i think it's a pretty well-known story how her daughter, when she learned of justice scalia's passing, her daughter set of letters to president obama said i the perfect person for the vacancy, my mom. i think that is a wonderful heartwarming story of her relationship. reporter: [inaudible] part of the reason people had mentioned voting against. [inaudible] >> i have not brought it up with them. think giving more time is appropriate. but also distinguishing the fact it's been less than a year since she appeared before a committee is also an important factor. reporter: on this timeline. [inaudible] >> under the rules of the committee, i believe that can be held over. if the decision of the minority for an additional week. we are starting with that presumption if we have good fortune and it comes the other way it will be sooner yes. reporter: >> i will always be a question. it is a question for every nominate today we have five nominees for district circuit court. at least half of them were asked that question. i do not assign the same importance to that as many of my colleagues

does anyone believe that justice scalia supported flagburning? course not. he nevertheless ruled in the 1989 texas versus johnson case that it was protected speech under the first amendment. but justice scalia in 2012 said look, if i were king, i wouldn't allow people to go about burning the american flag. however, we have a first amendment that says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. and that was the main kind of speech that the tyrants would seek to suppress, burning the flag is a form of expression, he said. where the rubber meets the road on the will of law is where the language of the law forces you to do something you don't much want to do, you don't even like. judge jackson has found herself unworthy of the sacred trust we have put in the judiciary. in certain instances my you know, there are gray areas of the statute is ambiguous, the words are ambiguous, but such was not the case in her decision in this immigration matter. in this case, jackson viewed herself n

keyboard golf, but priest more than what you cough, telecom at grandkids told that this military scalia of then you have a very high level that you did a blog post because of my, my day in there because my child by thought shed in the other guy. yeah. he lives in his life. and he will, there was a policy a my union, another boy, you know, if it was too, but, you know, what can you go that's, it was a deal set up on was approaching us with the money and what we can do my attention. similarly, never mind, it's natural. no, no, that's what i'm with a little bit more there. which is not a problem. yep. we know medium on the phone with some of them. so they go with a, basically a you on the show can, will use to go there you go from do you should do. you knew if you were food a, she'll grade you on. the more multiple company me to show it was new to me and you can, you can actually log in with a roller over here. right now there's been you with that right yet. we still got doug about that stuff with just one year ago. we knew anybody we're way in the, the fishing or the circle, or i'm just n

keyboard golf, but priest more than what you cough elecom met. grandkids felt that this military scalia, then you've come a little that she has a blog post because of my my day and there because my child myself shed in the other. scott gave me a new rumors in his life and he will receive the archives pushing their tools to poke in my union another boy, you know, if it was too, but you know, why didn't you go go? that's him. was there a booth? and you said a particle was approaching is a 1000000000, wasn't any of the much similar they have the most natural or lose i worked with a little bit more there, which is not the a, this one with the go with a you on the shore. can we use to go, there you go from, do you should do we have food a, she'll grade you only more multiple companies to chose and everything. yeah. i mean, can you show them over the i'm with right now. it's been, you know, give a good night. yeah. i thought that was that don't go by. that's the blue a way news. anybody we're way in the recession of the circle or i'm just not just on the status of where you know the social wo

antonin scalia was confirmed 98-0, ruth bader ginsburg by 96 -3. the rule of a is a fragile possibility in the best of times. today, it is literally under attack in ukraine and threatened around the world and in our own country by autocrats and their sympathizers who give lip service to the rule of law but working to undermine it. as justice scalia taught us, the indispensable feature of the republic the constitution created is an independent judiciary of judges who have taken an oath not to a president or a party but to the american people and to god that they will be impartial. judge ketanji brack -- ketanji jackson brown has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to that oath. i applaud this nomination which encourage the senate to confirm. >> thank. lisa fairfax. >> my name is lisa fairfax. i am a professor of law at the university of pennsylvania school of law. prior to my academic career, i worked at a large law firm. but before that, i was roommates and a very different at harvard of jazz -- judge ketanji brown jackson, who i am honored to i

keyboard golf but priest more from where you coffee, telecom net grandkids told that if muley j. scalia of thing has come a little. that is both because of my my day and there because my child by itself shedding the other guy. yeah, a look a little boy and you losing his night and he will. yeah. oh, i see the archives pushing that. those people can use my union. another boy, you know, if it was to but you know, it didn't, you could call it. i thought it was to renew it. you're set up. one of them is approaching is a 1000000 lovely tenure do, much similar. they have the most natural that look for them with it was i was with a little bit more than was used not a up when know minimize this one with the go with 40 or no worries 30 for a you. but this will continue to go there you go from do you should do we have food a, she'll grade you on the more multiple company we are to show it was new to me and you can you can show a little sure. yeah. with right now, there's been, you know, like what that, all that don't go by. that's the way a way, news, anybody we're way in the, the sessional this

keyboard golf, but priest more from where you cough easily car met. grandkids felt that this military scalia, of then yes, come a little that you will post because of my day and there because my child by itself share in the other. scott yeah, a look a little boy in there his night and he will. yeah. oh, i see the archives pushing that. those people can hear my union another boy, you know, if it was too, but you know, at him you can call it that. it was a set of them was approaching us a 1000000 more than we can do much similar. we have the most natural that look for them with, with, with, with a little bit more than one, which is not the a minimum. this one with the go with or no worries a you are the show could then we'll use to go, there you go from do you should do we have food a. she'll grade the only more movie. what company we are to show it was new to me. i knew i knew a little sure. yeah. with right now he's been you know, right off the bat. don't go by. that's the blue a year ago. we knew anybody, you know, we're, we're in the, the sessional, this or i'm just now she's done on the s

that's a keyboard golf, but priest more than what you cough economy grandkids told that this military scalia. then you come a little that you did a blog post because of my my day and there because my child myself shed in the other scott gave me a new one, was in his life and he will, there was a policy and i was absent yesterday and i just took okay, yes. now my union, another boy do you know if it was too, but you know, why didn't you go court? i thought it was a set of them was approaching us with the money and what we can do much similar. they have luminous natural. no, no, that's what i'm with a little bit more there. which is not a problem. yup. what? no. one of the 4 there was some of them. so they go with 40 or no worries. because a, you on the shore continues to go there you go from do, you should do new way of food, a shield green. you only more multiple companies to chose new to me and you can, you can show them over the i'm a dollar over here. right. now there's been, you know, give a good night my thought that was that don't go buy that stuff with a way news, anybody, you know, w

keyboard golf, but priest more from where you cough easily carmel krinski felt that this muley che scalia of then. yes. come a little that she has a book post because of my day and that'll give my child by itself. she's in the other, scott: yeah. a little boy in his night and he will. yeah. oh, i see the question that those people can hear. my union another boy, you know, if it was too, but you know, it didn't. you go that's. it was a set of them is approaching is a bit more than what we can handle most similarly, it may have been what is natural that look for them with most of them, there's more than one which is not the a up one know minimize this one with the go with 40 or no worries, because a you are this will continue to go. there you go from do you should do. we have food a, she'll grade what the only more movie, what company we are to show it was new to me if i knew can you know with the i'm with right now. it's been, you know, right off the bat, don't go buy that stuff with way. knew anybody. you know, we're, we're in the, the sessional, the socum or i'm just now she's done on th

justice scalia felt the need to write an opinion explaining why he was it recusing himself.the very least, i think the chief justice should ask justice thomas to explain himself. if he doesn't, and he does agree to hear one of these cases, i think it is appropriate for congress to open an investigation into this question. >> i want to get your reaction to this guardian headline from september. clarence thomas insists supreme court justices do not rule based on politics. now, to some degree i guess we'd all like to believe that's true. how did this conflict with the idea? does this help him, that he says politics are not part of his decision-making? >> it's a useful myth for justices on the supreme court. and you hear it from, you know, we heard in the confirmation hearing with judge jackson. i'm only going to decide the cases on the facts of the law. the law is very malleable. there are different -- of interpretation. there are different ways of understanding ambiguities, and vagueness in the constitution, and federal statutes. and so -- value judgments come in. i don't thin

that is the dominant method as sheet name checks the late justice scalia.not really learned that much. she did say she would not apply for a lot little bit of separation from her former boss the retiring justice breyer, but really there's not a substantive answer to how she's going to approach the institutions where the text is not specific. arthel: want to press the original is in point of course that's not only what anthony scalia acclaimed as one of his philosophical. that's what several of the current justices on the court are often described as conservative say it and they use that philosophy. i cannot remember any previous injustice, liberal essentially saying describing a regionalism in this way. what does that tell you about that philosophy? is this really a case of i just got to bow in that direction and i go off and judge anyway i want anyway. >> i think it's what she said. this is the dominant mode of interpretive theory. from robert bork 1987 until neil gorsuch an 2017 nobody called themselves an originalist. the last three nominees and courses,

justice scalia was confirmed with a unanimous vote.fact that we'll see the white house fight for just a few republican votes is no reflection on judge jackson. it's more a reflection of the times that we live in. but it is important to see one of her former colleagues on the court of appeals in the district of columbia, my law school classmate, introducing her this morning to this panel. it does signify that she has deep respect among judges, among her colleagues regardless of what president appointed them to the bench. and i suspect that that will speak loudly to some of the republican senators who have indicated that they're open to considering her credentials and haven't made up their minds on how to vote on this historic nomination. >> joyce, "the new york times" is reporting republicans plan to use public records against her saying she favored criminal defendants. what's your reaction to that? >> i think this, again, is just a reflection of the times that we live in rather than indicating any sort of bias for criminal defendants b

justice scalia had written a previous decision that was similar. the booker decision made the guidelines, the sentencing guidelines advisory. sen. booker: why? why would the supreme court do that? judge jackson: they determined, in essence, if the guidelines were mandatory, that would violate the right to a jury trial to have jurors decide every aspect of your sentencing. sen. booker: it is sort of the separation of powers. this is really important. judge jackson: yes. sen. booker: that gives judges latitude. judge jackson: yes. sen. booker: i've read conservative periodicals looking at this line of attack, it's not a negative pejorative again -- i've seen conservative papers, liberal papers, mainstream papers, all say this does not hold water. the reason is, and unlike white house and ted cruz, i don't have a chart. but i would like to hold this up for you. you are well within the norm nationally for going below the sentencing guidelines because of this problem where you have this in congruency that judges on both sides that have been appointed by

>> so the booker decision which earlier i mentioned they thought justice scalia wrote and it was justiced so he had a separate opinion, and he had written a previous decision that was very similar. >> yes. >> the booker decision made the guidelines the sentencing guidelines advisory. >> why? why would the supreme court joined by some of the most conservative members, why would they do that? >> well, they determined that, in essence, the booker -- that if the guidelines were mandatory that it would violate the right to a jury trial to have jurors decide every aspect of your sentencing. >> it's sort of the separation of power, sixth amendment and this is really important. >> yes. >> and so that gave judges latitude. >> yes. >> if you were falling out of the norm and this is where i've now read conservative periodicals looking at this line of attack that's not a negative pejorative again and this line of attack on you. i've seen conservative papers and main street papers and all say this doesn't hold water and the reason is and again, i, unlike the white house and cruz, i don't have a chart

when justice antonin scalia was put on the court in 1986, 98-0. you see the vote. when justice ruth bader ginsburg, 1993, 96-3. in other words, it was bipartisan, republicans, democrats going together for both of these justices no matter how different they were in terms of their opinions and their judicial philosophy. now you look what's going on now, the question is can you get 50%? we saw how mitch mcconnell and the republican leader of the senate -- kept merrick garland from having a hearing a couple years ago with obama. we saw how the democrats have really badgered brett kavanaugh and others when they were before them. it's nasty. it's just nasty. we have this very polarized judiciary just like american society. that's why the democrats right now are hunting for 50 votes plus one. 50 votes plus one, that's what they're looking for. >> they have those votes. tomorrow, two days of questioning. what happens after that? when do we see that full vote? >> there'll be two votes out of the judiciary committee. one, you go ahead and recommend her for confirmation. two,

. >> let's take a step back in terms of the supreme court, you pointed out justice scalia was confirmed by a 98 to 0 vote, ruth baderginsburg cleared by 96 23 . you voted for rvg, what's changed by then since then when it comes to the supreme court? >> once the democrats be assassinated robert bork, it was pretty clear we were moving into a period of periodic assertiveness, advise and consent. that means whatever the senate did at any given time thinks it means but it's safe to say now after a back-and-forth from bork to thomas and a brief detente that we actually generated on appointments like innsbruck and breyer. the senate is interval assertiveness mode. in other words i think no matter who is in the majority in the senate, for the foreseeable future i think the confirmation process is going to be viewed by senators as a cold responsibility. and otherwise words the presidentgets to initiate but we are tcalled partners in the process . >> your thinking that wasn't the case before .>> this is certainly when i was a the judiciary committee when nixon had 2 appointments defeated was tha

my god, i was calling me and by your scalia heat this is too emotional for me. and what is going to happen? i am taking charge lead far away. and the kids and that means the kids have to work another 2 hours to school. and the kids have nothing to eat, the government has abandoned them. and it's not just in the villages the poverty amongst herrera was rife. it's the same in urban areas. shift travels to swap government, a picturesque coastal town, popular with german tourists. but on the outskirts of the town rear, a people live in bleak in formal settlements. jeff, to mince lawrence and drury and move from the country side to the city. are you not search of a better life? he has been here for 9 years now. at this place, and that is the way his lives. no electricity, no running water or the kettle, died abroad. and so there is no work. so the best they can come is come here. tried to force some food for me, miss city, torrance, and fights shifter into his shack. clearly enough. are you feeling a hand with getting to the settlement? again? i said, when you're ric

when antonin scalia, a committed judicial conservative, was nominated by reagan, he was confirmed 98 when ruth bader ginsburg was nominated by clinton and actually told the committee, "yeah, i'm going to support abortion rights," she was confirmed 96-3. today, it's almost unimaginable that a nominee from a president of one party is going to get more than a handful of votes from the other party, from senators. in fact, when jackson was nominated for the court of appeals, when usually senators give a president a lot more deference because it's a lower court, she got all of three republican votes. and there's one other point i think to your point, these hearings often are staging areas for political arguments. when barrett, amy barrett was nominated, the democrats used it to say, you're going to kill obamacare, and here's what's terrible about trump's health plan-- by the way, she didn't. and to your point, we're now hearing, well, she was a public defender. we're looking at all the terrible people she defended. she was on a sentencing commission that unanimously argued for lower senten

it said jenny thomas is taking on a role similar to what antonin scalia did on the court of moving kind of this active constitutional forward. it's that element that is hugely important. i think here for what justice thomas does and how he and calls into question his legitimacy. now he's been ill. there are movements on the court. but right now what we've seen with the supreme court hearings this week is it doesn't fundamentally change the balance of the court. the next nominee could do that. and that's where what happens with ginni thomas becomes important say 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 months down from here as opposed to when that happens after we have these midterm elections in the fall. so in that sense, it can be potentially a big deal. but if you're bringing a case before the u.s. supreme court, that has anything to do with election politics or the trump administration. and clarence thomas is not going to recuse himself. >> you have no options. this is the okay. this is the final court. there's nowhere to go. congress can't do anything. can they? >> no, i mean, this really what often don't t

i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to, quote, obey all the rules if faced with the question of whether to overrule. she said she had no agenda to try to overrule. here is the question. do you agree with justice kavanaugh that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent, and will you, like justice barrett, commit to obey all the rules in cases related to the issue of abortion? judge jackson: thank you, senator. i do agree with both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett on this issue. roe and casey are the settled law of the supreme court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy. they have established a framework, and the court has reaffirmed, and in order to revisit, as justice barrett said, the supreme court looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle. it provides and establishes critic the ability, stability -- predictability, stability, and as a restraint in this way on the exercise of judicial authority because the court looks at whether or not precedents are rel