precedent for a supreme court worthy state supreme court's. it wasn't clear how much power this institution would actually have. camelf the founders, like 10, hoped they would exercise the power of judicial review. he expressed this in the family -- famous federalist 78 where he made an argument for an independent supreme court whose members would serve during good behavior, which is the language of article 3 of the u.s. constitution, which means for life, unless impeached. and as -- and for as long as they want to serve. unless there was a reason they are forced out. so, hamilton was making an argument for a powerful court at the same time he knew that many people were worried that the court might have too much power. so, in that very same essay, federalist 78, hamilton not only argues for judicial review, he also wants to put people's minds at ease by saying, look, don't worry, this will be the least dangerous branch. those are the words he actually uses. he says the supreme court will have the power neither of the purse, nor of the sword, b

the supreme court's fiscal year 2020 request includes funding for the supreme court justices, employees, as well as rent. this represents a 3.5 increase over the fiscal year 2019 budget. i look forward to hearing from you on what we hope to accomplish with this funding. taking a step back, congress provided an increase of 5.6 million for 34 new positions to address security needs. this was a critical request and i'm pleased that congress was able to fund it. the safety of the justices as well as those who work and visit the supreme court should not be at risk. let's continue to keep this dialogue on the ongoing security upgrades and additional resources needed to maintain a secure and welcoming supreme court environment open. i want to briefly speak about an issue i care strongly about in providing the american people with more access to the supreme court. as justice bran ice wrote, sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. it still rings true. you can watch congress and the executive branch in action on c-span. that's an important part of making our nation open and transparent

but when i got to the supreme court, i saw things differently. and it wasn't because i was indoctrinated or pressured by my colleagues, but i came to see, and i do believe that, allow can the arguments to be televised would undermine their value to us as a step in the decision making process. i think that lawyers would find it irresistible to try and put in a little sound bite, in the hope of being that evening on cnn, or fox, or msnbc, or one of the broadcast networks. and that would detract from the value of the arguments in the decision making process. >> that sort of thing never happens here. >> you know, i recognize times change. and i don't know what our successors years from now will think or maybe even next year, but it has been a while since the members of the court collectively have discussed this issue, but it has been our consensus for a while that this would not be. although we want as much access as possible, we don't want access at the expense of damaging the decision-making process. >> justin kagan, your thoughts. >> thank you, ve

clark's father is on the supreme court. johnson goes to ramsey clark and says i would love to point you but i cannot do it because i can't do it with your father in the supreme court. the your father is willing to resign as a supreme court justice, i could then i could appoint you as attorney general. the father resides in johnson gets another vacancy. marshall moves on to the court. johnson assumes he will run for reelection in 1960. he will be reelected in 1968 and there are three very very elderly members of the court including two justices black and harland who are not in good health. in the late 1960s, so he's looking under the assumption that he will be up to a point either four or five justices by the time he leaves office. but instead we all know the history, johnson support begins to weaken and in march 1968, he announces that he will not going to run for reelection. by the summer of 1968, it seems pretty clear that the democrats will have a tough one time winning the election. which means that johnson successor is

supreme court. i want to start by thanking the freedom forum institute, freedom of the press, open government, for giving me the opportunity to not we canwhether or use it to open up the federal court system. i know that powerpoint presentations are generally very lame and i am not that tech savvy, but i didn't want to do a panel because we have done a few of those already and they let me do whatever i wanted so here we go. that during this presentation, you will laugh at least once and learn two things. second, i find it is pretty ironic that i run a protracted bear and see group and i'm not good at technology but you will be your -- bear with me. i know that i am standing here as a humble nonprofit employee but i was once a tv producer at a local station in florida trying to get information from public officials. for a time, i was in charge of the new york state agency's research and responses. i hope we can all relate on some level. when the federal government celebrates by redacting one page of

supreme court. i want to start by taking the freedom foreign institute, open government, american society of news editors for giving me the opportunity to talk about whether or not we can use foia to help open up the federal court system. i do want to say a few things first. i know that powerpoint presentations are generally pretty lame. but i didn't want to do a panel because we've done a few of those already. they let me do whatever i wanted. so here we go. i promise you that during this presentation you'll laugh at least once and you'll learn two things. i do find it's ironic that i run a pro transparency group and i'm not good at technology. you'll again bear with me. finally, i know that i'm standing here as a humble non-profit employee, but i too was once a tv news producer at a local station in florida trying to get information from officials. for a time i was in charge of the freedom of information law research and responses. i hope we can relate on some level. today on national foia day whe

the supreme court mill, the fodder for the supreme court is cases where the u.s. courts of appeals have disagreed about something. so some circuits say xp others say y. and it's the supreme court's job to resolve that conflict and give the answer. here there is no reason for the sfrourt to do that. courts of appeals are in agreement. a little odd for the supreme court to have granted the cert to take the case. one can. say the textualism is the ren for the taking of the case. and it's something that the some of the justices are receptive to. another odd thipgts about the case which rick mentioned is this is a foia case and the government is not a party. knows of you understanding foia it's always like smith versus the department of commerce or jones versus the department of agricultural or here argos leader but in my run through of the case i left something out. i didn't want to complicate it. but the second appeal to the eighth circuit from the district court decision holding b 4 did not apply. the government did not appeal. they said, fair fight and we lost end

that included being a supreme court justice. during the process, i told you that people said i wasn't smart enough, and they said some other not nice things about me, and it hurt. it hurt a lot. i really was afraid both that my reputation would be damaged, but could i really do the work? because you know, when people say you can't, there is a little bit of you that says, really? can i? it took some friends to look at me and said, this is not about you, sonia. stop being selfish. this is about the all those kids out there who will look at someone like you in that position and know that things are possible for them. so stop being afraid. get off your behind and go and do it. [applause] that's good friends, by the way. [laughter] justice sotomayor: how many of you guys in here, or girls, never have gotten up to dance because you are afraid of looking foolish? me too. i took dancing lessons when i was 50 years old because i was the only latina in a lot of parties that didn't know how to dance. [laughter] and finally at 50 i said, i

when that was appealed to the united states supreme court i say, that the supreme court got it right and they sensed there was inequality problem here in the methods used against the poor suspects would not have been used against anybody else. it was not the kind of things that they did to like suspects for example. they talk about what's at stake in race-based terms. they saw that this was the case of unequal justice. but they cannot see that the time. all of these concerns about the racial equality at that time in the system prevented them from doing it. what did they do? the good news they did exactly what i suggest in the book. i treat this as an example of supreme court trying to find some way to practical equality. they embrace the fairness argument. they say we will not worry at the moment about trying to judge these individuals of committee a moral wrong in a deep way but we will say that the institution and process was flawed from beginning to end and these individuals were entitled to be treated fairly through court system and to rely on confessions that were gone through b

supreme court. between 1992 and 2001, he was an associate and partner where he specialized in complex civil litigation. between 2001 and 2009, he served in many senior positions in the department of justice, including as associate -- acting associate attorney general. from january to december of 2017, he served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president before joining the bench. he argued more than 75 appeals, including three cases in the supreme court, 13 cases in the d.c. circuit judge, and others. by appointment of the chief justice, he served on the advisory committee on appellate -- 2015 to 2017. he's our moderator for today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we have a very distinguished , so now itlk about is my turn to do introductions. is the professor of law at the university of notre dame law school. he directs the notre dame program on constitutional structure. posedofessor has poses -- various -- his recent book "settled versus right: a theory of

, how does it feel to be on the supreme court?>> good question. [applause] >> everything in life is hard. to get anywhere, to do anything you have to work at it. being an actress the hours and hours that she has to say her lines and practice her roles, the hours and hours on is set, well, being the supreme court justice has taken a lot of years, a lot, a lot of hard work and study so it's never easy. yes, it's a little bit harder when you come from a background with a lot of other people don't come from, so if you're a lotna like i was, sometimes if you have a different color skin, if you're eyes are shaped a little differently than people are used to, they make things a bit harder for you. sometimes they don't think you're smart enough and some people when i was nominated to the supreme court said i wasn't smart enough to be on the court, that hurt me a lot, but despite how hard it is, there's also a lot of people in the world who help you. there are people who support you and will make it more bearable and that's happened to me

he said this pretty well sums up the purposes of the supreme court.then he went to explain what it meant. >> the supreme court is the judicial branch of the federal government. here the law itself is on trial. it is judged according to if it violates our constitutional rights the court is composed of 9 judges, members are nominated by the president but their appointment must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea how the constitution sets up the three main branches of our government. the legislature which is congress, the executive branch, which is the president, and the judiciary which is the supreme court. the legislature is charged with making policies, that is, passes the laws. the executive is responsible for carrying out the policies. and the judiciary is charged with reviewing and judging the policies. but while each of these branches of government have their own defining moments of duties they work as a team through a system of checks and balances. here are examples of what i mean. the president appoints justices to the su

and that includes being a supreme court justice. during the process i told you the people said i wasn't smart enough and ugly and not nice things about me and it hurt a lot. i really was afraid both that my reputation with the damage that could i really do the work? when people say you can't there's a little bit of view that says kansai? and it took some friends to look at me and say, isn't that about you sonia? don't be selfish. this is about the all those kids out there who will look at someone like you in that position and no that things are possible for them, so stop eating afraid. get off your behind and go and do it. [applause] how many of you guys here or girls never have gotten up to dance because you were afraid of looking foolish? me too. i take dancing lessons when i was 50 years old. because i was the only latina at a lot of parties that did know how to dance. [laughter] and finally at 50 i said, i should stop being afraid. there are so many things we don't try whether it's the food handed to you and you say no, i'm not

that was 1998. >>> 11 years after that she found her self here on the supreme court. she and one other justice in the modern era are the only justices who served on all three levels of the federal judiciary. justice whitaker was appointed by the same president, president eisenhower and justice was appointed by three different presidents, george h.w. bush, the district court, president clinton to the circuit court and president obama to the supreme court. she has found time to write books somehow about her life in particular. let me just turn the program over to her. it's a real privilege to introduce her at this time. >>> it was a miserable night last night. good evening. welcome to the court. i am delighted so many of you can join us this evening for this first lecture in the supreme court historical society 2018 lecture series, which this term as you heard will focus on the supreme court and world war one. 2018 marks a century since the first world war ended, a fitting moment for the society's series to focus on that important chapter in our nation's history. this s

court the supreme court have effectively described. this review with one hand tied behind his back he didn't have the party compel witnesses he didn't have the power to see documents he relied on the goodwill of those relevant government departments and to meet the obligations of what we have asked for for a number of years is that there must be a transparent and fully a kind of will process which is what happened and it was incapable of reaching those silly in fact the jails and of the supreme court it's hugely significant were the political decision comes in as. that this night was back very firmly on the desk of darling st they have failed to live up to their obligations for thirty years a police or if you didn't cut up a review by a judge interviewed by a barrister didn't meet the obligations what is left we say the only thing that is left is what they should have done many years ago amounts of a fully public independent inquiry is going to get on to downing street today and tourism a bit geraldine david cameron invited you to down

first the steel a supreme court seat, then change the rules on filibuster on a supreme court seat and when it swings around to us what are we going to do? shannon: is it a good idea? stick around as we continue the countdown to 2020. donald trump floats the idea of an investigation into saturday night live? our legal expert breaks down the possibilities later on in the show. .. you. all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. number of 2020 >> growing number of 2020 democrat contenders backing the idea of historic supreme court packing scheme expanding the number of justices serving in a court for the first time in 150 years in an effort to move their progressive agenda forward. trace gallagher is on the case tonight. >> the idea of court packing isn't just back and talk among left-wing groups, it's being publicly embraced

ross: the issue is before the supreme court. it is also pending in a couple of lower courts at this time. rep. steube: is also true that on october 22, 2018, the supreme court issued a stay to halt your deposition requested by the plaintiffs? sec. ross: that is correct. rep. steube: so the u.s. supreme court has stayed your deposition and yet you are here today, deposing you undergrowth where the rules of evidence in a civil procedure do not apply. is that correct? sec. ross: i am here voluntarily and i am here under oath today. rep. steube: the question is your intent of placing the question on the form. all of mr. cummings' questions in the previous members' questions are trying to elicit that before the court. is that correct? sec. ross: yes. rep. steube: in the concurring opinion, justice gorsuch and justice thomas abandoned lower court rulings that secretary ross had demonstrated bad faith. there is nothing unusual about a new cabinet secretary coming to office, inclined to favor a different policy direction. of course some

book and her life on the supreme court. she took questions from the children in the audience. this one is an hour and 10 minutes. cheers and applause] justice sotomayor: hello. [laughter] ooh! what a welcome! what a welcome! eva, it's been so long since i've seen you. eva: i know. it's been a while. justice sotomayor: and a lot has happened in both our lives. [laughter] you've gotten married. eva: i got married, yeah. justice sotomayor: you have a baby who's in the front row. eva: hold him up. justice sotomayor: you have a fully active -- [laughter] eva: he's going to steal the show now. justice sotomayor: that's it. and you have a fully active career. you're directing. eva: yes. justice sotomayor: but i want to talk about something that was happening when i first met you. you had "you were on "desperate housewives"." you were a huge, huge star, wanted everywhere, doing everything. and at the same time you had gone back to school. eva: uh-huh. justice sotomayor: and i read in the newspaper when you graduated and you got you

visit ncicap.org] [no audio] announcer 1: next, supreme court oral arguments in the supreme court -- in flowers v. mississippi. in six trials related to a 1996 armed robbery. >> we will hear argument this morning in case 17 9572, flowers versus mississippi. miss johnson. only. chief justice, the plausible interpretation of all of the evidence used to militantly is doug evans began saw thatumulatively doug evans received as few american -- african-american jurors as he could. the numbers are striking. he exercised 36 peremptory challenges, all of them against african-american jurors. exercisedth trial he five out of six of his challenges against african-american jurors. if we look at the numbers of his regarding his questioning, they are likewise stark. struckd of the african-american jurors and average 29 questions. he asked the white jurors 1.1 questions. these numbers do not stand alone. mr. evans was twice found to have been discredited on the basis of race in the exercise of his peremptory challenges against african-american dependents in trials of the same case against the same

do you have any idea when the supreme court is supreme court is scheduled to hear oral arguments? >> i believe it's somewhere around the 21st of april. >> as somewhere in the 23rd, six weeks from now, more or less. >> more or less. >> when the lower courts were considering the citizenship question, were you required to testify or were you deposed? >> i was not testified. i was not deposed. the supreme court had issued what i believe is called a temporary stay that stayed any deposition or testimony by me. >> that's the whole point of this. in fact, the fact that you were not required to testify in the lower court, that in itself was -- became a matter of contention and drew its own separate civil litigation. and as you referenced, the supreme court stepped in because that issue was so support. later they plucked it out of the lower courts and they themselves said they wanted to weigh in on that. as you mentioned the, supreme court placed a stay -- this is what's so amazing to me about this whole hearing today. the supreme court, the highest court in the land, has said mr. ross sho

court, but as a politician on the supreme court.uring her tenure she was the only one elected as a legislator before she came to the bench. i felt like she learned to maneuver among the justices to coordinate to get those critical five votes. that is how i saw her. that was how i viewed sandra day o'connor. brian: we have read that she is not well? do you know anything new about her situation? joan: no. the family put out a letter in 2018 where she was acknowledging alzheimer's. that was going on for a while, unfortunately. brian: you did a book on antonin scalia a. what was your number one take away from him? joan: he completely owned who he was. he was proud of some of his outrageous statements. he felt that he was always right, never in doubt, as they say. toould sit with him for two three hours and i would be exhausted. i would usually be the one who said, we are done. he was so interactive. he loved talking about his childhood. that was a real contrast. loved to talk about where he came from, his people. the current chief justi

it is not just the supreme court.he people they are nominating now, that the president is nominated, are unqualified. this is crazy. it is the republican that is doing it. it definitely should be expanded. a michigan, and democrat, -- a democrat, what do you think about what he had to say? here is a political science professor to talk about the history of this idea, so mr. keck, when has this, before, the idea of expanding the supreme court justices? so as we just heard from betta bank, the size is not specified in the constitution -- over, -- ittta started as six, went down to five, went back up to six, then up to 10 and back at nine where it has stayed for a while. so in the first 100 years, it was a regular occurrence for the car -- court to alter the size of the court, and if you look at examples, i think they fall in one of two categories. sometimes congress changed the court because it was a partisan power grab. the party in power was trying to seize control of the courts in order to use it to promote their own

we appealed to the supreme court. >> oh yeah and how many cases a year does the supreme court take? not very many. >> you tell me. >> they take about 80 cases out of 10,000. >> so less than 1%. >> they thought this was an important case because it had to do with it and speech rights and their had only been one case, west virginia versus barnett in 1943 which ruled that students cannot be forced to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools. that was the only case about student speech before. >> by the way, they determined that case, the pledge of allegiance case, in 1943 in the middle of a war. they stood up for students rights not to say the pledge of allegiance. that was a very strong case. in our case, the judges also split but it was a 7-to split and we one. it was a very resounding victory for students rights. in our case it was the first time that the court said that students in public schools are personal -- persons under the constitution and they were endowed with the first amendment right. that has been the rule now for the past almost exactly 50 years and it has really

. >> first the steel supreme court seat then turn around and change the rules on filibuster on supreme court seat. when it swings back around to us, what are we going to do? >> suggestions include term limits instead of life terms for federal judges, rotating justices from lower appellate courts and expanding the supreme court to 15 justices which would set up a capitol hill battle. it is congress, not the constitution that decides the number of justices. for america's first century the court went from 6 justices to 7 to 8 to 10, back to 8 before settling on nine for the past 150 years, though president roosevelt, frustrated by his reforms being shut down also want to the court to be 15 but the idea was abandoned. some democrats are also skeptical. senator klobuchar it is better to win elections and stop bad judges.

louis and there they split 4-4 so we appealed to the supreme court, the us supreme court. there had been a previous case coming out of the fifth circuit where students had been given the right to where freedom buttons, around the civil rights movement. and so with the split between the two circuit courts, the supreme court agreed to hear the case. at the supreme court, as you mentioned, we want 7-2. >>> a goal for the next hour and we should point out we welcome our view is on c-span three, american history tv, talk not only about the significance of the case but also 50 years later, how and why it is relevant today. from the majority opinion such as a fortress with the following quote, first amendment rights applied in the school environment are available to teachers and students, it can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. can you explain the significance of that decision? >> well this is the first time the supreme court had recognized that students in the public schools ar

so we appealed to the supreme court. >> how many cases a year does the supreme court take? not many. john you tell me. : mary beth: they take about 80 cases out of 10,000. john: less than 1%. mary beth: but they thought this was an important case. because it had to do with student speech rights and there had only been one case. west virginia versus barnett, in 1943. that ruled that students could not be forced to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools. that was the only case having to do with student speech before. john: by the way, they determined that case in 1943 in the middle of a war. they stood up for a student's right not to say the pledge of allegiance. that was a very strong case. in our case the judges also split, but it was a 7-2 split and we won. it was a very resounding victory for student rights. in our case it was the first time the court said students in public schools are persons under the constitution and are endowed with first amendment rights. so, that has been the rule now for the past almost exactly 50 years, and it has really empowered student

>> i've never argued in the supreme court but i filed a number of briefs in the supreme court, yes. >> about 14 times is that -- >> that sounds about right. >> i'm checking my staff to make sure they know what they're doing. >> yes. >> what have you learned from all this? >> i learned that the law is pro foundly important to our society and that the fair administration of justice is critical to ensuring our rights, ensuring the functioning of the. >> well as a trial lawyer, what did you learn versus being an advocate before the appellate court. >> being a trial lawyer and in particular particular being an ausa and the cases i focused on were violent crime kwass, you had a sense of kind of the immediacy of your impact. i remember one case in particular that i cotried with one of my colleagues. and the victim's family came every day to the trial. it was a horrific case involving a kidnapping and rape. and the victim suffered terribly during the trial and the testimony. and after the conviction, i mean, the whole family came up, the grandmother comes up gives you a hug because you've del

the supreme court disagreed. what do you believe are the limitations on the president's commander in chief powers in a time of war? ms. collins: the particular issue that we address -- mr. collins: the particular issue that we addressed in that amick us brief went toward what is the inherent scope of the authority to invoke military commissions in a sort of pre-statutory period. so we went through the history and that was -- it was primarily a historical brief going through the history of military commissions. it ultimately, given how the court disposed of the case, my brief proved to be irrelevant because the court decided -- ms. klobuchar: but my question is, what do you believe are the limitations on the president's commander in chief powers? mr. collins: i don't think it would be appropriate for me sitting here today to opine on he substance of that question. i wouldn't purport to address it off the top of my head. ms. klobuchar: mr. lee, i understand that you worked as an associate counsel and special assist

the supreme court has weighed in on this. in fact, justice gorsuch and justice thomas both raised concerns that when we start to ask questions that it would be used to influence the courts. in fact, they ruled on it and said we shouldn't be doing that. but yet here we are today asking questions to try to influence the highest court in the land. now, i say that -- these are not just my words. it's actually the words of a member from this particular committee, a member from this committee actually said -- and i quote -- that he hopes that the testimony today, quote, that the courts can use it, close quote. now, if we are setting up a hearing today to try to by pass what the supreme court has already ruled on, and yet we are thinking that we are going to do this in the name of being great supporters of the constitution, that's not accurate, mr. secretary. and i'm troubled by that. because it's very clear what the supreme court has asked. it's very clear what our role should and should not be. and yet we look at this particular q

democrats calling for at least 60 justices on the supreme court -- six new justices on the supreme courtis this court packing reminiscent of fdr in 1937? marking the 30th anniversary of one of the worst disasters in america, the exxon valdez disaster. we continue in just a moment. just a reminder, newsmakers follows "washington journal" continues with a conversation about a crowded democratic field and how the dnc will handle debates in june. >> with so many candidates in the primaries, nobody was happy in the debate stage. , what are you thinking and how are you talking to make it fair for the candidates? >> what we are talking about is unprecedented. there has never been a grassroots fundraising threshold to get on to the debate stage. especially early on in the primary season, allowing an alternative threshold is important. we have heard from the last cycle that the undercard format did not work so well. it was not well received. that is why what we are doing is unprecedented and that let's int assume 14 people qualify june. we will have consecutive nights, seven and seven. we will do

liberty. ♪ >> we need to fix the supreme court, they stole the supreme court seat. >> the proposal iider, expanding the court to 15. >> there is a more regular location. jillian: presidential hopefuls calling to expand the supreme court and impose term limits. rob: is this a good idea or even an okay idea? mark, donald trump had two pics at this point, both driven the liberals crazy, i suspect this has nothing to do with it. >> no doubt. in particular the fact that these pics, especially neil gorsuch drives them crazy because that vacancy occurred during president obama's administration and what folks forget is president obama's twee selections he did make replace justices who had been appointed by republican presidents. jillian: you say doing this, packing the court would make -- undermine the court's legitimacy and credibility? why do you say that? >> the supreme court does not have the same democratic pedigree the executive branch and leslie -- legislative branch has. if you start having the judiciary be something based on something other than the rule of law it is a matter of cou

let's make the supreme court have term limits. let's make an electoral college replaced with a poetry slam contest and the losing site has to give their salaries to reparations. they are doing this, to your point, it's hard to challenge trump on his record right now because the economy is booming. what is your alternative? not booming? that's what you've got. some of these guys and girls, coming up with the so-called revolutionary ideas, they are throwing stuff up there to see what sticks. oddly enough, you've got to admit trump is more likely to come up with new ideas that have challenge the republican orthodoxy and the parties orthodoxy and any ideology's orthodoxy. north korea, trade, prison reform, syria. democrats have been chasing collusion for two years. that's why they are devoid of any kind of strategy because of -- they are so lazy. they are hoping for impeachment and they've got nothing. they should try to challenge him on ideas. that would be interesting. the problem is his ideas are sometimes similar to theirs. >> dan

here we have democrats wanting to pat the supreme court.hey want to do what roosevelt tried to do in '37. it backfired on him then. it would be good if trump did it, it wouldn't be good if democrats did it. let's be reasonable, there is no way they will get there. in order to do that they have to win -- they have the house, they would have to win 60 seats in the senate and the white house. that would be so dangerous to do that. >> harris: you know what you are pointing out, jessica? it's like -- "vote for me so i can get the stud." but as we hear from ian, you have to win-win. >> jessica: that would be lovely on a number of levels. >> harris: is it fantasy or reality when you are in such a deficit? >> jessica: we won't get that many seats this time around. what they are trying to do is have a conversation about what's going on right now. president trump has put 91 judges, he could have 100 by the end of the first term. if you with a second term we will have more. they are not proposing saying just about democrats in. the people who are advo

good morning, peter. >> senate confirms another supreme court nominee one-third of the supreme court picks and democrats don't like the sound of that. they're now trying to rekindle the supercharged emotions felt during the kavanaugh confirmation pitching a new court with 15 justices instead of nine. >> what if there were five justices elected by democrats and five justices elected by republicans and those five independent of those who chose the first 10? i think that's an idea we should explore. >> adding new seats with water down the influence of those on the court right now. republicans are trying to keep the court the way it has been since 1869 with a constitutional amendment introduced by congressman mark greene who says that scheme to pack the court are dangerous to the founder's vision of an independent judiciary that serves as a check on executive and legislative forms of government. three quarters of the states. this measure does not have the support of the president. >> president trump: no, i wouldn't entertain that. the only reason is that they're doing that they want to t

the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events and washington, d.c. end around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. and now you're watching american history tv. every weekend, beginning saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, we bring you 48 hours of unique programming, exploring our nations past. american history tv is only on c-span3. from 1955 until his retirement in 1977, roy wilkins was at the forefront of the civil rights movement as the head of the national association for the advancement of colored people. next on real america, roy welcomes -- wilkins, the right to dignity. narrated by sidney poirier. udes interviews. and strategies to advance civil rights. >> if there is one thing i resolve from the courthouse burning, it was that never would i be like those in the mob. never would i hate another human being so much that i would kill .im even if it takes years longer, even if the highways are not always wide and smooth, i pray that i shall never crawl toward the promised land on the belly of my spirit. humanity co

(ken) gerrymandering is not a game to the supreme court.... but it is to one austin texas high school student and his siblings. (ken) josh lafair created the board game called "mapmaker: the gerrymandering game", which allows players to manipulate fictional congressional districts to favor their political party. today.... lafair gifted his game to members of congress...as well as supreme court justices... on the same day they heard oral arguments in the maryland redistricting case.josh lafair: you shouldn't sit down at a table and try to win. you should sit down at the table and negotiate and try to draw the best map possible. (ken) lafair says he hopes party leaders get the message....for the next redistricting in 2021 (ken) california crab fisheries will close for the season in april this year .... three months mefore the season normally ends. (pam) it is the result of an effort to keep dungeness crab fishery gear .. from killing protected whales off the coast. (pam) a surge in dead whales washing up on beaches across the state... and in the

supreme court. i ask that it be entered into the record. >> without objection so ordered. >> i also have a unanimous request. there have been some speculation by members of this committee that we could not have this hearing or west documents when there is pending civil litigation and we have a long history in this committee of doing just that. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript from march 17, 2016. that was the third hearing as part of a bipartisan investigation led then by chairman chavers and yourself. the committee conducted these hearings despite pending litigation filed by civil rights groups including that against the michigan governor. i would like unanimous consent to enter that into the record. >> so ordered. >> i would also like to enter into the record two letters -- from chairman chavers, chairman jordan and chairwoman lewis to the a segment secretary general of the army at the time. this was part of the investigation into the decision-making process into the

the supreme court does get involved. mr. holder: the court in the past has looked into questions of elections and really come up with prescriptive things and had to decide one person-one vote case and come up with formulas and the decisions there did not generate huge amounts of litigation over time. people get used to what the rules are and act accordingly. may mean that the court will have to deal with a few more cases but i don't think the court will be seem as politicized because it is making decisions that protect our democracy. i think the justices took an obligation to protect our democracy, to interpret our constitution in an exropet way and i don't think they should shrink from that responsibility. mr. schwarzenegger: i just do not accept the word it can't be done or no, it won't be done. i believe what president mandela said. everything is always impossible until someone does it. now that we have done it in california, it is possible and therefore we can do it nationwide. and that's the bottom line. [applause]

be bound by what the supreme court has said. i adhere as a nominee as an inferior court. >> you mentioned interpreting texts just now. that's what we do every day as lawyers and what you'll do every day on the bench. tell me about how you would go about interpreting a text whether it's a statutory text, how would you approach it, give me some visibility into your thinking there. >> if there's a relevant precedent on point, i'd have to start on that. if there's no precedent, then i think you look at the original public meaning, what would the words have been understood to the legal community to whom they were proposed for adoption and try and get a sense of what the rule was that was established by that and then take that rule and then apply it in the contemporary circumstances of the situation and the case at hand. >> say a little bit more about original public meaning. >> it doesn't mean the subjective intent of the persons, what they had in their head. it means when you put the words down on paper, what do educated lawyers who

the supreme court court. i say that because my experience at nbc was that when issues came up they are required the intervention of the legal department. i mean, it was a tough sled because -- because of what was anticipated in terms of costs. or my question is, have other institutions joined with the newspaper to help them? >> i mean, i don't want to say anything about. >> okay. >> funding of litigation. that won be appropriate. but i mean, in terms of joining, rick mentioned amicus briefs. our brief is not due yet. and then amicus briefs in support of our side will be due after that. so we anticipate getting fairly robust amicus support on our side too in terms of groups and coalitions of groups. >> but that doesn't -- i'm not asking but that doesn't -- you're not at liberty. >> i'm not going to answer the question that you're asking. >> i understand. >> i don't know -- there is a this is a plug for the reporters and i don't know the specific answer about how the fund something working in those particular c

once you expand the supreme courts on a partisan basis, is basically the end of the supreme court asit is a functionary of the legislative and executive branch. democrats add three seats the next time they control power, then republicans will add three or four or five seats the next time they have unified control so i think you want to think hard about that. fdr tried this in 1937, republicans controlled something like 20% of the seats in the house of representatives, they controlled 16 of the 96 seats in the senate and fdr's proposal who was one of the great persuaders in the history of the american presidency couldn't get that through. he did coerce or pressure supreme court to start ruling differently. i think it is unlikely that this would actually happen, but you will need something like 95% of the democratic party on board to get this through. they had to abolish the filibuster, pass it on a party line basis, hard to see it actually happening but the entire party can somehow consolidate, you never know what will happen next time democrats have unified control. >> jon: a few sec