and it's it's not easy to get justice scalia to take a stab at that. but what he did and and you know, that's like, you know, i didn't come up with that answer on my own. i came up with that answer because, you know, in the ag's office, you have the benefit of all these. you know, these these government lawyers and to to noel's, you know the kind of the ethos, the office like ed kneedler is like the perfect embodiment of it. but there's an ed kneedler in almost every government agency, and they also are these repositories of kind of, you know, kind of the institutional knowledge of these various agencies. and that's the office. that's really what you want to tap into because you want to win your case, but you really want make sure that you are kind of vindicated in the long term interests know there's, you know, things change from a democratic administration to a republican administration, but there's like this kind of core of institutional interest that stays the same. and that's that's what you really want to protect in the office. and that does, i t

we knew justice scalia had an answer to that and we knew justice scalia was easy to anticipate that hewas going to push forward and that's a problem congress needed to fix. so knowing that that was going to come anticipating it, we decided, when it came i was going to shrugsh my shoulders ad say this congress? we were a time of divided and dysfunctionall congress and it actually worked, everybody in the room except justice khalil laughed and hee backed up and he was back in two minutes but that was probably my favorite mama as a lecturer. >> my favorite moment we did not have a whole lot to do with the job directly but when you're on the job you can get a little bit full of yourself with the solicitor general but every once in a while they kind of remind you you're just another guy. one of the things i like to do as sg i would sit on the corner at pennsylvania avenue with a couple of cigars and that's how i would do my work. in the summer when it got particularly hot i would walk a block down to the trump hotel, there was a tree that casts a lot of shade. you could sit in that tree and

if you read scalia's opinion and the more recent decisions in trans union, it is impossible to square text of the roberts opinion withstanding doctrine as it is standing now. the only way to understand it is a revival of massachusetts versus epa and i'm disappointed in all of the justices, maybe most disappointed in the liberals for not being consistent. they were not on the massachusetts supreme court. i should pause and say what massachusetts versus epa was about on the standing question, on climate change and greenhouse gases, did massachusetts and other states have standing to bring the claim and it was as much a speculative, not imminent question but the court recognized special solicitude for states as a sovereign and i'm not sure what quasi-sovereign is. what is dual sovereignty? states are sovereign, that's part of the doctrine but roberts dissented on that question. to connect some dots here, what also came down was texas versus united states, that case was brett kavanaugh and roberts in the majority, with others concurring but reaching on fairly standard ground on prosecutor

justice scalia, you can tell, was puzzled. so we asked the question again, you mean you can take from a give to be if b pays higher? again, the city's lawyer down and said yes. justice thomas then is in his dissent runs with this he accepts. i combed the amicus briefs the one amicus brief that stood out and asked for the court to return to the original meaning was the brief by the acp. and it's a very brief and it points out how eminent domain is often by cities and others to prey on poor and minority communities. and that was the naacp spirit belief. justice thomas then cites statistics, other quotes, some really abhorrent that were that government officials. i'll leave it to your viewers to read them. i don't want to reproduce them here, but really awful things people said. but he points out that in berman, 97% of the people that were displayed were black. he also points out that when we get away from the original meaning, often the poor and the less fortunate, those can't take advantage of the levers government. they are th

and it's it's not easy to get justice scalia to take a stab at that. but what he did and and you know, that's like, you know, i didn't come up with that answer on my own. i came up with that answer because, you know, in the ag's office, you have the benefit of all these. you know, these these government lawyers and to to noel's, you know the kind of the ethos, the office like ed kneedler is like the perfect embodiment of it. but there's an ed kneedler in almost every government agency, and they also are these repositories of kind of, you know, kind of the institutional knowledge of these various agencies. and that's the office. that's really what you want to tap into because you want to win your case, but you really want make sure that you are kind of vindicated in the long term interests know there's, you know, things change from a democratic administration to a republican administration, but there's like this kind of core of institutional interest that stays the same. and that's that's what you really want to protect in the office. and that does, i t

justice scalia's response, every banana republic has a bill of rights. most of them are better than ours, more detailed, many more provisions. but that's not what makes our constitution so important and so durable. it is the structural parts of the constitution. that the part of the constitution that was essentially the triumph. it was the republicans that were trying to impose amendment on the constitution right away because they wanted to prove the original constitution was so fatally flawed that it had to be amended at the outset. it was the federalists and john marshall who led the fight against those original amendments. the original amendments as part of the original constitution, the structural protections, separation of powers between the three branches and the federalist system, separation between the federal government and the states, that ultimately folks like marshall believed would be the ball work of freedom. so many cases are what are those separations, horizontally between the branches, vertically between the federal government. >> one ot

after law school mister francisco served as law clerk to justice scalia of the united states supremeourt and before that served as a law clerk to judge ludy on the us court of appeals for the fourth circuit. later mister francisco served as deputy assistant icattorney general in the office of legal counsel at the us department of justice and prior to that as associate counsel to the president of the united states. please help me welcomemister francisco . [applause] allee, over to you. >> thank you so much paul. you all are in for a treat. have you ever seen when they do up hollywood promo and they say all-star cast? this is an all-star cast of lawyers. so you heard from paul these are former solicitor general's of the united states so i thought we would give you a little context for why that's such a big deal and what that means. the office of solicitor general supervises and seconducts litigation on behalf of the united states and the supreme court. they are very busy because approximately two thirds of the cases the supreme court hears on the merits involved the united states. so b

everyone in the courtroom except justice scalia laughed. he was back at me again in two minutes but that was one of my favorite moments. >> my favorite moment didn't have a whole lot to do with the job directly but when you're in the job you a little bit. of yourself and think i'm solicitor general but every once in a while something happens. so one of the things i liked to do was go out in the corner of pennsylvania avenue what with pilot briefs and in the summer when it got particularly hot i walk a block down to in front of the trump hotel there was a big tree and you could sit in that tree and have a cigar so one day i was out there with a cigar and i needed to use the restroom so i put my cigar down and walked into the trump hotel and came back out and there was this homeless man sitting there smoking my cigar. and i walked out and he looked at me and grinned. and i said enjoy the cigar and i went back into the office and finished the day. >> i really want to follow that one. >> let me tell you one more story, it's not particularly fun

circuit and for just an incident scalia and served as chief counsel of the u.s. senate subcommittee on the constitution, federalism, and property rights. the honorable edward meets the third award is told -- bestowed by our organization annually was upheld the rule of law in adverse political challenges was given to paul this year to receive the award because he has twice shown them compliance with a prestigious law firm when the leftist mob demand he dropped a client who no longer deserve his representation. an ethical lawyer would remain loyal to his clients as paul has done but we all know that is not an is a choice to make particularly in today's overheated and vitriolic environment. in 2011, paul resigned from king and spalding when it decided to abandon its representation of the house of representatives as they sought to defend the defense of marriage act. paul wrote to the firm, representation should not be abandoned because a client's legal position is strongly unpopular in certain quarters. defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. having underta

antonin scalia once said, i don't know anything about abortion, didn't study that in law school. it should be left to the states, to the people and to the democratic processes and that's where it ought to be. the pro-life community is not only talking the talk, it's walking the walk, brenna. there are literally thousands of pregnancy centers all over america, i've spoken at many of their fundraisers, where women are provided with counseling, job training, adoption services, housing, education. we are stepping up. so people who are so-called in crisis pregnancies as they say have all sorts of options and we are talking the talk and walking the walk. i feel so strongly about this issue. i personally believe that life begins at conception. i do not, however, believe that it is an issue that the federal government should take over. one of the reasons i believe we did so poorly in the midterms is because the pro-abortion side was able to say to people, this now means that there will be a law passed at the federal level to outlaw abortion or to put time limits on abortion and propose s

to take the place of then supreme court justice antonin scalia, who died prematurely. it finally was victorious in that war with the 11th hour elevation of amy coney barrett before the 2020 election to succeed the great justice ginsburg. today, as we talk about the court, about the criticisms and the praise for the court by conservatives, we have to understand that setting. that war on the legal side was over two different versions or views of the constitution and the interpretation of the constitution and the laws of the united states. the conservatives had a different view -- they have always had a different view than the liberals and vice versa. the conservatives won that war. what we are seeing today, the last term of the supreme court, we will see for the foreseeable future, is the spoils, if you will, of that war, which have now gone to the conservatives. so, this supreme court is going to interpret the constitution and the laws of the united states in the ways that the conservative movement have insisted that they ought to be interpreted for these 50 years. with

began his service to the law starting with the reagan administration before clerking for antonin scalia a then working to confirm supreme court justices during his time at the justice department. he represents true courage and steadfast commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law during one of the most critical moments of our democracy, he played a crucial part in upholding our election system when he advised mike pence that he could not overturn the 2020 election results on january 6. thereby averting the constitutional crisis. he has also weighed in on one of the cases recently heard by the supreme court in which he worked to drive attention to the damage and improper ruling could post our democracy. he has decades of experience in the legal world and we are happy to have him back after presenting him for an award just last may. we are so grateful to have kimberly atkins. she has been our moderator before and we are thrilled to have her. she has been a trial and appellate attorney. she led the discussion last year about roe v. wade. she has appeared as a commentator on

justice breyer in just a scalia came to talk about the courts. our colleague then from time to time. it was something i hadn't seen before. i had seen them do this rodeo exercise the two of them would play off each other. sometimes telling jokes and each other's expense but always in a good-natured way it. with during one of these visits when justice collier said something that stuck with me. he referred to the fact that, along the lines of what senator cornyn was just describing a moment ago, a lot of countries there is a constitution. they might even be written on a single document like ours is. it might even contain a bill of rights. it looks really good. it protects most or often of the individual liberties that our bill of rights seeks to protect. in some cases even list more protection than ours does. but, as justice scalia explained at the time, any tin horn dictator anywhere in the world can have a bill of rights. that bill of rights can look really good. i've never understood what the difference between a tin horn dictator is an irregula

he chose eugene scalia, son of conservative supreme court justices, antonin scalia, an longtime corporateo the federal courts, who consistently have been rulin against labor in their purchas on the bench now, donald trump, and his party of bosses, have a bit of a political problem. you see, something is happenin in ari we are witnessing an enormou resurgen of pro labo enthusiasm nearly 70% of american support labor unions a number that has been steadil rising for the past decade 75% of americans, 75%, sai they side with the autoworkers in their current dispute so, when you look at those pol numbers, what is republican to do in the face of that clea public opinion, and a strike with no end in sight and now some, like presidentia hopefuls, nikki haley, and tim scott, notably both from one o the most anti union states i the country, south carolina. are sticking to the old part line you almost have to respect it. scott even suggested firin workers who go on strike but the more sophisticated political breakers have manage to reverse engineer a perfec scapegoat for the whol situation. woke cars

scalia who had involvement in the accounting government and they were acquainted but it's hard to say -- i will yield the remainder of my time to mr.. >> gaetz hard to say who mifsud is? he's the guy his personal thing. we have known for years, go and play the video. -- >> -- and he like you guys to? >> can't get into. that >> did you interview it said? >> can't get into it. >> it's miffed said western televisions a russian intelligence? >> can't get into that. >> well i'm reading from your report, misled told papadopoulos, papadopoulos tells diplomat, the diplomat tells the fbi, the fbi opens the investigation, july 30, first 2016, and here we are three years later, july of 2019 and the country has been put through this and the central figure who launches it all? he lied to us, and you guys don't tied him down and interview him again. and you don't charge him with a crime. maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusation start. maybe it's too -- here is the good news. here is the good news. that is exactly what bill barr is doing. and thank goodness for that.

scalia had to cope with two major waves of illegal maritime migration across the pacific in the lastsed maritime arrivals and around 1100 deaths at sea were recorded between 2008 and 2014. operation southern borders so boats intercepted and then those on board were either returned once they had travelled or taken to immigration detention centres in third countries. there were some 400 illegal boat crossings in 2013, yet

justice scalia observed it would impair both efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system to require in all these cases of joint crimes where incriminating statements exist the prosecutors bring separate proceedings presenting the same evidence again and again requiring the victims and witnesses to testify and finally the last defendant has the advantage of knowing the prosecutor's case beforehand. he goes on to say joint trials enable more accurate assessment of relative culpability and he points out these are sometimes advantages that operate to a defendant's benefit. even apart he says joint trial generally serves the interest of justice by avoiding the inequity of inconsistent verdicts. our georgia courts agree. economic use of resources is an important and legitimate concern. in 1980 case in the case with the same witnesses same evidence same charges would be used against all defendants thus affecting judicial economy in the use of facilities, time of witnesses, jurors, court personnel. the trial court must consider these efficiencies with the possible conflicting int

scalia had to cope with two major waves of illegal maritime migration across the pacific in the last two decades. in the last wave, before they stopped at the crosses, more than 52,000 unauthorised maritime arrivals and around 1100 deaths at sea were recorded between 2008 and 2014. operation southern borders so boats intercepted and then those on board were either returned once they had travelled or taken to immigration detention centres in third countries. there were some 400 illegal boat crossings in 2013, yet the operation was enacted. within a year the problem was eliminated. denmark, between 2015 and 2016, announced a range of measures intended to make their asylum system significantly less asylu m system sig nifica ntly less attractive asylum system significantly less attractive as a destination for illegal migration bill stack the result was a reduction in claims from 21,02015 result was a reduction in claims from 21,020 15 to 602016, and 1500 in 2020. for every one asylum seeker that arrived in denmark in 2021, three arrived in sweden on a per capita basis. unilateraland capi

to appoint him to the supreme court, o r nominated him, mcconnell said we'll hold on that because scaliaust died, we are going to wait. obama was like what arewa you talking about, he is the most moderate centrist, center right guy, republicans should m love himod. >> greg: i guess weca learned another lessonns. >> dana: look at that now. >> greg: seriously, look >> greg: seriously, look coming up, a liberal city coming up, a liberal city what are local leaders doing? trying to knock down statues of columbus. wn ♪ hi, i'm michael, i've lost 62 pounds on golo and i have kept it off. most of the weight that i gained was strictly in my belly which is a sign of insulin resistance. but since golo, that weight has completely gone away, as you can tell. thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back. \m >> dana: a liberal city accused of misguided priorities, new york mayor warned the city could be destroyed by the migrantw crisis, how the influxyo could cost the city $12 billion by 2025.ux never mind that. some local leaders think statues are the real problem. new york city co

wanted to appoint him to the supreme court, or no nominated him, mcconnell said we'll hold on that, scaliaa was like what are you talking about, he is the most moderate, centrist, center right guy, republicans should love him. >> greg: i guess we learned another lesson. >> dana: look at that now. >> greg: seriously, look at it. coming up, a liberal city in shambles. what are local leaders doing? trying to knock down statues of columbus. ♪ ♪ i hear it all the time. people tell me they'd love to buy gold. but because it's gold - they think it must be complicated. it isn't. not with rosland capital. with rosland... the entire process from start to finish is built on one concept... one... keep... it... simple. rosland capital - a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your wealth. call rosland capital at 800-630-8900 to receive your free rosland guide to gold, gold & precious metals ira, and silver brochures. with rosland, there are no hassles, no gimmicks, and our shipping is fas

he appointed eugene scalia, one of the nation's top anti-union lawyers to be his secretary of labor.'s administration the national labor relations board implemented sweeping new rules that made it harder for workers to form unions, rules, by the way, joe biden reversed when he took office. trump packed the courts with anti-labor judges, people like thomas farr who spent his career bringing cases before the courts to beacon unions. president trump made it harder for workers to earn overtime, and he gutted the federal agency in charge of workplace safety. now, by contrast president biden has pushed a decidedly pro-labor agenda since taking office. he's voiced support for striking auto workers demands, met with big businesses including amazon and starbucks, and even asked republicans to continue to block president biden's pro-union candidate for secretary of labor, the biden administration has been able to traumatically expand union rights through his appointees at the national labor relations board. now looking for an opening in a key demographic in key swing states, the trump team is

he appoints eugene scalia as labor secretary, makes it harder for union leaders to organize, and yet, senator, he still has support from the rank and file. shawn fain estimates i think a third of the rank and file may be supporting trump in 2024, and the fact is in 2020 exit polls show 26% of uaw households voted for biden, but 40% backed trump. to me that says it's not actually about policy but about some sort of sociocultural feeling they get from each candidate. and i'd love to know from your perspective why trump has this sticking power with -- with, you know, blue collar white voters, especially men, especially noneducated men. >> alex, i would have to say despite these early polls all over the place right now, and i think we have to line them up and throw them away what i see is a lessening, but it's true. in michigan any labor union we're going to have people that are democrats, people republicans, more democrats than republicans. but when you talk about one-third of the uaw supporting trump, that means two-thirds are supporting joe biden. that's about the ratio that we see all

at its core, if the meeting runs out, justice scalia for example believe firmly that is when you leave it to the american people to survive. the justice often said that i would rather leave it to nine people randomly chosen from the phone book to decide the pressing issues of today. what do i mean when i say it does not mean the constitution has to be amended. you can go talk to your neighbor passÉ local ordinance. passÉ state lawal or passÉ fedel law. and protects all of us from discrimination. that is not the equal protection clause. that is something that congress passed and signed into law. more time in the court system dealing with them. we deal with it themselves. >> one other criticism that comes up a lot from the left. a regionalism seems to favor conservative outcomes often. how do you t respond to that? >> i think the only way you can say that is by cherry picking the cases. i don't like the labels conservative or liberal or left to right. as you know from covering the courts, 90%, maybe 95% of the decisions in my court are three- zero. a few cases are pointed deal. you shoul

authority to this effect, authority in the office of legal counsel including one written by antonin scalia when he headed that office, officer of the united states, that phrase used in the constitution means an appointed officer, not elected officer. paul: most would think an officer of the united states, president is the top officer, you say that's not a common understanding even by the us government. >> the justice department has taken that position that it, and officer of the united states as used in the constitution means appointed office. paul: the fact that the president is not expressly mentioned along with senator and house of representatives, would also make this problematic. >> that suggests it is problematic, in the part where it talks about you can't serve, but what office somebody can serve, there are other places in the constitution where the phrase and office under the united states is used, four 5 of them, two of them may be elective office so that's a little dicey but the question, the capacity in which he took the oath thousand officer it is clear he didn't take the oath

he appoints eugene scalia as labor secretary. he makes it harder for union workers to organize.tor, he still has support from the rank and file. -- estimates that i think offered a third of the rank and file maybe supporting trump in 2024. and the fact, is in 2020, exciple 56% of uaw households voted for biden. but 40% backed trump. to me, that says it's not actually about policy, it's about some sort of sociocultural feeling that they get from each candidate. i would love to know, from your perspective, why trump has this sticking power with, you know, blue-collar, white voters, especially men, especially non-college educated men. >> well, alex, i'm enough to say, despite these early polls that are all over the place right now. i think we have to roll them up and throw them away. i see a lessening of his grip. it's true. in michigan, any labor union, we're gonna people that are democrats, people who are republicans. more democrats than republicans. but when you talk about one third of the uaw supporting trump, that means two thirds are supporting joe biden. so, i mean, that's a

that already, in the courts, i think there's less of an opportunity for even originalists, justice scalia for example, said he was an rigid list but a faint hearted originalists picks up if there was a lot of president on one side he would hesitate to disturb that. that's probably why the historical analysis is going to be a little bit confined. what should happen is judges should always look to find the correct answer, and a world in which judges are not so relied on means and scrutiny and look more to the history would be great. have gotten things wrong. i think you could practice the delete without solely focusing on history. there should be a presumption of liberty at a think this is what this case ultimately is about. a lot of people have made much about the fact that they say the second amendment is not a second-class right, and that's true but there is no such thing as a second-class right. we're all entitled to liberty to do essentially what we want to do if it doesn't interfere with another persons rights i think that's the analysis courts should engage more and. >> three cheers

justice scalia astutely observed it would impair both the efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system to require in all of these cases of joint crimes where incriminating statements exist that prosecutors bring separate proceedings, presenting the same evidence again and again requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience and sometimes trauma of testifying and randomly favoring the last tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution's case beforehand. he goes on to say, joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding inconsistent verdicts, enabling more accurate assessment of relative culpability, and he points out that these are sometimes advantages that operate to a defendant's benefit, so even apart, he says, from these tactical considerations, joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal, and inequity of inconsistent verdicts. our georgia courts agree, they agree that use of resources is an important concern. montgomery versus state, 156 georgia 448, a 1980 case, the same witnesses,

laughter] justice ginsburg in her formative years were spent in academia at columbus law school, justice scalia and the university of virginia law school.f so the court has had plenty of academic sentence time and i'm not sure in terms of you can tell from those people they are very different kinds of judges and different in the decisions they make and of the academic background leads to a particular kind ofca judge. it's not the scholarship idea or the environment generally. it's the experience and the way that has affected me is when i write my opinions, i try hard to figure out how it is that i'm going to explain things to people because the law is complicated and often especially when i started the court and i was a junior justice i got all these technical opinions to write. that's the thing they tend to do and tend to get but i wanted ordinary people to understand them and not just legal specialists to understand them. i wanted nonlawyers to understand them and you don't want to dumb them down so that absolutely everybody can understand them at the expense of the legal precision and sophis

i will once again appoint rocksolid conservative judges in the mold of justices antonin scalia up, samuel, he has done a fantastic job, and the great clarence thomas. it has been fantastic. i will hopefully uphold the second amendment, which is a big deal. four years, it was upheld, but they are really trying fighting it very hard and out weak person in office will lose it. i will bring back free speech in america and i will secure the integrity of our elections. we have got to do it. these things, and this is what we must do to restore a country to greatness again. the usa is a mess, our economy is scratching, inflation is totally out of control. china, russia, iran, and north korea formed together in a menacing and destructive coalition, very dangerous. our currency is scratching, and we will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat in 200 years if that happens it. if that happens, it will be our single greatest defeat, but it will not have been with me. not even a chance, just like russia would never have invaded ukraine, and china would not even be think

thought alito had been coming around to his position, which as you astutely noted, he had involved, so, scaliagarded difference from regulators as the appropriate ruling. they supported chevron initially. chevron was a kind of reagan era ruling, when the regulators were softer. as regulators have discovered the power of regulation, or realize that regulators could actually develop spines, they turned against regulation. the kochs did. and clarence thomas did in this flip-flop. we don't know what he was speaking about, specifically. but they were about these issues. >> are you shocked as i, am elie, that it's alito that has flipped? because the other men, why not? i want you to comment on that. but also on the chevron case itself and what it would mean to have it overturned? because there's a case coming up that could gut it or overturn it? >> you are right to bring this up. i want people to think about not what thomas was talking about, koch brothers in 2018. but what was clarence thomas talking about the summer. again, it's not like the graph has stopped. when the koch brothers called him up

chris scalia's here michael strain, christine rosen and ruy teixeira. we mentioned you'll see that their voices on a variety of issues are contributing construct actively to that debate and and the last thing i'll just say is is i'm not quite so clear that when it comes to race in america, i'm absolutely not clear at all that the republicans are all wrong and the democrats. all right. i don't think that's true. i think it's more complicated than that. and there are good voices on both. and and they're harmful voices on both sides. and so we try be part of the good voices, adding constructively to the debate. kathleen, i think the first part of the question for you was, what would you tell people at a when some people are have seemed to have a desire to obscure some of the history, the civil rights movement? yes, sir. well, i'll tell you what i did, which is i as you what i did in maryland is get kids to do service. everybody act and everybody to learn values and in the learning of action, values they can, we should also history and. and i think really i