yet, the supreme court remains supremely idle. the last two points. one, the judiciary has a process for resolving ethics questions and giving ethics advice. the justices seem uniquely to refuse to follow. it for instance, asking random colleagues and friends about financial disclosure obligations instead of asking the actual financial disclosure committee of the judicial conference that is there for that purpose. the excuse is, when they are caught, have been laughable. for instance, that they don't need to disclose these junk it's because a private jet airplane is -- traveling on that airplane not travel but is food, lodging, or entertainment. remember, as we debate that the court's financial disclosure requirements are a law passed by congress. it's recusal requirements are a law passed by congress. the body that implements financial disclosure and code of conduct issues is the judicial conference. a body created by congress. please, let's not pretend that congress cannot make amendments to laws that congress has passed. or oversee agencies that co

and all of the supreme court justices are in the front row.hey had actually adjourned early so that they could be there. and churchill gives this rousing speech, and at the end he pauses and looks out at the crowd, and in the front row, chief justice harlan stone lifts his fingers in the trademark v for victory sign and answers to churchill doing the same thing. again,65 it was very clearly a message to the court within the war. >> how did it turn out that when the world -- war started, fdr had seven of the night justice, but he had been battling the court so much to expand it. what happened to turn it around? sloan: that is one of the most fascinating things about this. something that is not very well understood. this is really the time of the peer roosevelt court. as you say, throughout the 1930's, he has his failed court packing plan in 1937, but there is the switch in time that saved nine with justice owen roberts, appointed by herbert hoover, the man fdr had defeated. but very soon after that, in the next few years, there is a wave of ret

the supreme court -- you have congress now and the supreme court. you see all the corruption going on. you people are terrible and your brainwashing our kids. host: mr. roosevelt, do you want to respond? guest: well, it is true, republicans control the supreme court. they did so in a lawful way. it is the way the system works. i think it shows the appointment process is broken. the founders did not anticipate political parties competing to capture the supreme court as a power center so the system they gave us in 1787 does not work well now. term limits would fix that. before it started looking like it had a partisan -- there is broadly bipartisan support for the structural reform. i know you have a low opinion of us but some of us are trying to make the system work better. there are things we can do that most people who studied the issue a group would make a better. unfortunately, anytime you permit a solution it looks like it will have partisan consequences. we are not in the best of all possible wars with respect to the constitution we have. we co

supreme court, it was not clear whether the supreme court had the authority to pack the constitutionality on inactive the president. everyone of those principles was established inon an opinion written by chief justice john marshall. so they were talking about legitimacy and a much more fundamental sense that was essential to the nation that we live in today. of course president was highly mad about h this. he was constantly complainingmp about it in the legislation to strip the courts in the jurisdiction. it was an intense conflict. in the brilliance of marshall as he's trying to establish legitimacy of the court in the institution of judicial review he picks the marbury case and the statute is unconstitutional and if p the statue that gives additional authority to the ofsupreme court for the judicia. so the brilliance of taking that case there is nothing the other branches can do to defy this role. if you would pick and stead and active congress to give the president some great authority in the judicial opinion that the president can have the authority under anyue constitution, the ques

douglas, the future supreme court justice. having earned their respect, bessie became the first woman awarded yale's prestigious sterling fellowship for graduate studies. with her yale doctorate, she moved to washington, d.c. for a new opportunity. she applied for a job at the tennessee valley authority, which congress had just created to realize fdr's new deal vision of supplying electricity to the valley's impoverished residents. her yale boss wrote what apparently was needed to hear to hire a woman lawyer, that bessie was intent on a legal career, quote, as a primary objective from which she would not be deflected by consideration of marriage end quote. bessie thus began her government career with a pledge that she would be married to her job instead of a man. hearing tva's competition, private utility companies hurled charges of socialism that quickly turned into lawsuits. to direct the legal defense of this new deal cornerstone, tva hired james lawrence fly, a harvard law graduate and experienced trial lawyer from the jus

supreme court during world war ii. then, the british prime minister fields question from the members of the house of -- questions from the house of commons. and then the first amendment summit, a discussion on current legal controversies, such as book bands and defamation cases. ♪ >> cliff sloan, your second book is about the supreme court but a very different era from the first one. tell me about the court at work. >> the court that war is about the supreme court during world war ii, and it is a very, very interesting and momentous time for the court, and it is really the roosevelt court. let me back up and tell you how i got interested in the subject. i was working at -- as a special envoy for the closure of guantanamo in 2014, and i was reading the decisions on military detention, including the notorious and shameful korematsu case. i noticed that the first of the shameful anti-japanese decisions , which was about a curfew targeted at japanese-american citizens, was decided exactly one week from -- one week before o

commission on supreme court reform. professor larsen earned her bachelor of arts degree from william and mary and her law degree from the university virginia, where she grad graduated first in her class after law school, professor larsen clerked for judge j. wilkinson of the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit and for justice david souter of united states supreme court. professor larsen, thank you for. i will introduce panelists in the order in which they serve as solicitor general paul. paul d clement was the 43rd solicitor general of the united states. mr. clement is a partner at the claimant and murphy law firm and distinguish lecturer and in law at the georgetown university law center. mr. clement served as solicitor general from june 2005 until june 2008, before his confirmation as solicitor general. mr. clement served as acting solicitor general general for nearly a year and as principal deputy solicitor general for over three years. he has argued over 100 cases before the united states supreme court. mr.

i think there were a lot of years were people in this room would look to the supreme court and the supreme court would decide a case in justice scalia or justice thomas would author a ringing dissent and it was fair. perfectly fair to criticize the majority, and to praise the position articulated by the justices in dissent. but i don't think people took to the extremes of going after the integrity and the legitimacy of the institution. i think we have seen that happen , i think some of the criticism coming from the left is perfectly appropriate and perfect -- particular decisions but some of that goes beyond questioning the legitimacy of the court. in my view that is a dangerous game to be playing. if you study the supreme court through history, it is not in a position to enforce all of its decisions. it's legitimacy has to be built up over time and it's been a careful effort that has literally taken centuries, and i think we are blessed to have chief justice marshall in the early days who picked his battles and build the legitimacy of the court. it is no accident that chief justice marsha

new, supreme body of legislative power in russia. sounds in generally not bad. even to some extent reasonable on the surface, there was a small problem , president yeltsin did not have the authority to call such elections, president yeltsin did not have the authority to change the entire system of power, and if he had any doubts about this, then in general -they should have disappeared after literally immediately after... this decree, decree 1400, the constitutional court of russia spoke, its chairman was valery zorkin, who is still the chairman now, and the constitutional court stated that the decree had no legal force, after which the supreme council announced the impeachment of yeltsin, and brought him to power as interim president, when you saw yeltsin announcing this decree, was it some kind of surprise, shock for you, or was it you did you expect everything? this means that before these events, about a month ago, it was august, they brought me approval of draft presidential decrees, three decrees, i categorically... refused to

the supreme law of the land.hey are defiant. when you look at january 6, and you look at this in a totality of the circumstances situation, we have a bat until this country right now which is between democracy and autocracy. and we bert understand -- better understand that the 2024 election is not a test of personalities. it ain't about age. it's about agendas. wake up. stay woke. be woke. and be aware of the work we have to do next year. simone: we talked a lot about the supreme court case in the last section and first i want to say thank you. because -- [applause] simone: the lawyers need the people on the ground who are doing the work to stand up and say i'm going to put my name on this -- i want to bring suit. we are going to sue. and the victory. the numbers in alabama, i know we did this before, you have named the states. alabama's black population was 27% of the state's population. 14% of the representation. the black residents, not just alabama, we can say louisiana, florida, we could say georgia. we coul

up the supreme court page.here are confirmation hearings you can go back and watch. you can look at the oral argument schedule. you can read supreme court decisions. as mentioned, you can also listen to the oral arguments. there are not cameras in the courtroom, but we have recordings. you can see recent appearances by supreme court justices on our website. let's go back to the phone lines. christine is in oregon, republican line. >> thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that as far as i'm concerned this whole thing is about federalism, a system of government you make an offer that you get two types of government. this whole country is based on that. and with that being said you are never going to get anything the way that you want it because it is never intended to be that way. this started in 1965, so you need to just realize this is affecting everybody. there is nothing we can do. they are coming here to take the territory, these democrats and biden. they all have this plan. they want to knock out th

as the supreme court, the work of the supreme and the shadow docket. this is term that was coined by a chicago law professor then will both in 2015 basically to describe everything else that the supreme does by volume, it actually up being almost 99% of what the supreme court does, not the merits docket, but rather these unsigned usually unexplained orders and. most of those are banal. i mean, i don't think we'd all be here on a thursday if we were really upset. parties got more time to file a brief a case. but one of the will's insights that the book tries to build upon not shamelessly exploited, is that a lot of important stuff happens in these unsigned, unexplained orders, more and more important stuff happens through these unsigned, unexplained orders. and so we who care about the supreme court, whether professionally person or both, should be paying more attention. what happens in these in able, often inaccessible rulings. so i was curious after reading the book about the will bode coining of this term, and i went back and read the paper that he w

supreme court. his guidance and insightful analysis always demonstrates his role as a prominent legal luminary. he has inspired and educated generations of students, we are so thrilled to have you back thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, it is an honor to be with you. >> we are also thrilled to have judge michael luttig having served admirably on the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit for over 15 years. he showed promise from the start. for becoming the youngest federal judge at the time of his appointment, he 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

it wasn't clear the supreme court had the ability to review a final decision out of the supreme court. wasn't clear whether the supreme court had the authority to pass on the constitutionality of the presidency. .. opinion written by chief justice john marshall. so they were talking about legitimacy in a much more fundamental sense that, was, you know, essential to, you know, to the nation that we live in today. and and of course, president jefferson was a howling, mad about all of this. i mean, he was constantly complaining about it and trying to get congress to enact legislation to strip the court's authority, its jurisdiction. and so, you know, it was a it an extraordinarily intense conflict. and the brilliance of marshall is as he's trying to establish the legitimacy of the court and the institution of judicial review, he picks the marbury case and the statute that he strikes down. it's uncommon stitution is a statute that purported to give additional to the supreme court a statute of the judiciary act. and so the brilliance of picking the brilliance of taking that to establish re

up the supreme court page.here are confirmation hearings you can go back and watch. you can look at the oral argument schedule. you can read supreme court decisions. as mentioned, you can also listen to the oral arguments. there are not cameras in the courtroom, but we have recordings. you can see recent appearances by supreme court justices on our website. let's go back to the phone lines. christine is in oregon, republican line. >> thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that as far as i'm concerned this whole thing is about federalism, a system of government you make an offer that you get two types of government. this whole country is based on that. and with that being said you are never going to get anything the way that you want it because it is never intended to be that way. this started in 1965, so you need to just realize this is affecting everybody. there is nothing we can do. they are coming here to take the territory, these democrats and biden. they all have this plan. they want to knock out th

this is now the wife of a supreme court justice.ether it's clear to someone like you whether there is something illegal here or it just feels yucky. >> there is no law that prevents the sitting justices for jobs. nor is it illegal for ginni thomas to work with leonard leo on these conservative causes. the real problem for the supreme court and forest justices is that this is an institution that depends on public legitimacy for its authority. it depends on the public believing that it is legitimate for it to have authority and because this information has been disclosed and buried into the shadows. it seems more nefarious than it is. we don't know what to the real nature of this relationship is. that by itself is the problem. for this court, it is the fact of impropriety that's the problem. it is the appearance of impropriety. if there is impropriety, it's obviously worse. it's such a delicate institution. it's so delicately poised in the public mind that it really depends on the public understanding and perceiving it as legitimate f

so, what was expected with this supreme court turn? and how will these decisions impact our laws going forward? how do we assess the decisions of the current supreme court? here to break it down are our legal experts. please welcome him, we are thrilled to welcome back, professor lawrence tribe . he has garnered weds read recognition as one of the foremost legal minds of our time. he has written many amicus briefs and his guidance and insightful analysis has been sought by presidents and important leaders. and always demonstrating his role as a prominent legal luminary. as a distinguished lawyer and professor, laurence h. tribe has inspired and educated generations. we are thrilled to have you with us. >> thank you. >> we are also pleased to have judge michael michael luttig. he began his service to the law by serving with the reagan administration before cooking with scalia and then working to confirm supreme court justices during his time at the justice department. judge luttig represents courage and steadfast commitment to the princ

i'm not aware of any supreme court justice in history, including the very first supreme court justicesces there are, which is to say, congress does get to regulate the supreme court. >> indeed. not only as to its number, but as to its jurisdiction. it's appellate jurisdiction. indeed, the letter that i wrote to chief justice roberts, received by him, also in the capacity as the chair of the judicial conference, that's a job he has by virtue of congress. judicial conference is a body established by congress. so, the idea that none of this has any relation to congress, just has no merit at all. but, it's the argument that is being used by the billionaires, and now, by justice alito, to try to handicap our investigation to what the facts are. when they were gifts. how many gifts were there. what was the scenario in which the gifts were developed? who was the orchestrator getting them the gifts. all of those things merit investigation. and it's that investigation that the is the republicans love to use the word weaponize, is weaponized opinion of justice alito is being used to discourage o

it wasn't weird the supreme court had the ability to review a final decision out of the supreme courtit wasn't clear whether the court had the authority to pass on the constitutionality of an act of the president. every one of those principles was established as an opinion written by chief justice john marshall. they were talking about legitimacy in a much more fundamental sense that was essential to the nation that we live in. and of course, president jefferson was howling mad about all of this. he was constantly complaining about it and trying to get congress to enact legislation to strip the courts authority . it was an extraordinarily intense congress. >> the brilliance of marshall is in trying to establish the legitimacy of the court and review he picked the marble case and the statute statute he strikes down as unconstitutional is the statute purported to give authority to the supreme court, the mandamus act. the brilliance of picking that case to establish judicial review is nothing the other branches can do about it or evendefine his will . if he picked instead an act of congr

there was also a large simmons station last night in front of the a supreme court. so the important thing you can see it that the whole panel of 15 justices that will be sitting here in this hearing. there will be hearing petitions that were 5 for civil rights groups by also by the opposition, by individual groups off to the far by for the just government policy amendment to basic law that basically says that it removes the abilities of the supreme court to and other quotes also i have to say to review government decisions and it would be deemed, i'm reasonable. so we will be seeing the 15 justices here. they will basically debate whether that will the image or not their own authority. but they also have to say, until now in israel, the high court of justice has never notified an amendment or a basics. also we're gonna have to say, have to see what the judge is here, will decide. no, tanya, these judicial reforms have divided these riley society and of sparked months and protests for senior protest. take place just behind you there. why are they so controversial? we

i do think that the supreme court for all the talk about the supreme court's doing thissen and doing that, i think with chief roberts, it's a restrained court so i think that it will rule on one of the issues and then call it a day from there. if i had to bet on it, i would say. >> do you have a question in the back? >> it's been a while since i looked at the texas and florida laws. is there any daylight between them, not even different outcome, but different reasoning, or separate opinions or are they going to rise and fall completely together and it's going to be within opinion? >> you know, i mean, it's always dangerous to predict because i think there are some differences between the laws, but i don't see the concepts and doctrine that govern the outcome as really being sufficiently distinctive to warrant two different opinions. >> other questions? >> well, while you mull it over, i'll take one from our online audience who wants to know if the panelists have used on the new mexico governor's gun order and the constitutionality of that? i'll let juan take that one. >> yeah, i thin

how has that impacted outcomes on the supreme court? ms. lidsky: unfortunately it does impact outcomes. a lot of our institutions are not popular with people including the supreme court itself. it is at an all-time low in terms of popularity. but the press likewise, there is a great book i would recommend to you called why americans hate the and why it matters. the thesis of the book is basically that the dislike of the press and press practices does make its way into legal proceedings and herbs back even if you do not have key decisions overturned, the way they are applied curbed. you also don't get legislators passing laws that supplement constitutional protections for the press and then when you have juries deciding cases for example defamation involving the press, maybe they want to punish the press more and judges become skeptical of press claims about freedom but what is interesting to me as this is occurring at the same time when it is becoming so evident that we need reliable information. we the people need reliable information in o

one of the most cited supreme court cases of recent decades.ntially, what it says is that -- amy: and is really chevron versus nrdc. >> that's right. essentially, what is says is judges and courts should defer to federal agencies, the epa or fda or department of labor when those agencies come up with regulations. it really insulates the agencies from challenges from business and others when federal agencies issue a regulation that somebody might not like. for years now, the koch political network has had this ruling in its sights. the case in the upcoming term, that case was brought by koch network lawyers who are representing the plaintiffs, brought it in the lower court and shepherded it to the supreme court. a lot of legal observers think the supreme court is with the new conservative super majority is going to use this case as the opportunity to overturn this chevron precedent back from the 1980's, which would -- people we talked to said it would have huge ramifications for the executive branches ability to issue regulations and basically e

and these ran supreme court . here's the 1st challenges to the governments. controversial traditional reforms as supporters and opponents of the over a whole rally outside the i've been visible and woke up thousands of people, the data off the catastrophic funding and leave yet the international red cross says some 10000 people, a missing stone. daniel, close the floods which swept away whole neighborhoods in a number of east and coastal areas. the destruction is west in death, not to the heavy rains lead to, to dams, collapsing, wiping out a corner of the city emergency services, put the current desk, told there at 2300 relief efforts. complicated by the fact that libby is internationally recognized. government in tripoli does not control the eastern pods hit by the flooding. whole neighborhood submerged by will to residents in this area of eastern libya come face to face with the devastation caused by the storm. some buildings were swept away entirely by the force of wind and rain while i'm going to the regions

the supreme court justices are paid by, their salaries are paid by us, taxpayers.t we hold them accountable because they are taking our money. that's when the salaries are paid. of course it is important and what this supreme court -- i mean, it's stunning for me to hear a smart person like justice elena kagan say, maybe we should have some rules on ethic. it goes without saying that that should be the case. and for them to now think about maybe we should, in a way it's insulting to those of us who care about the courts, so, yes, justices need to be ethical, need to be transparent, and there needs to be a code of ethics for the supreme court. >> leah, this isn't just about a code of ethics or failing to disclose certain interactions. justice thomas is actually going to be hearing arguments in a case that seeks to overturn chevron, and this is something that conservative interests have long desired. one, what would the impact of a decision overruling chevron have on the lives of every day americans, and, again, why is it so important that justice thomas is on this c

the 12th meeting of the supreme housing council will be held on monday, the third of october. the cooperation of the reporter of the islamic republic of iran on the sidelines of the meeting of the supreme council of housing is established, mr. salami, greetings to you, good morning, health and safety, news network program, salam islamic correspondent, the twelfth meeting of the housing council, with the presence of mr. president, started a few moments ago. this session he was present and i would like to tell you that we have a few agendas that the housing council meeting should be held at least once a month and the relevant authorities should be held to decide what to do in the field of housing for the people, this is the basic of the people, what i have reached today, the reader's report the governors of qazvin, golestan, bushehr and tehran will report on the actions taken in order to organize the housing market , report on the housing rental market, report on the progress of projects of the national housing movement, report on the law to support the youth of the population,

well the next stop in our tour was the supreme court building. this is where they decide whether our laws follow the meaning of the constitution. uncle jim told me to notice the inscription over the entrance equal justice under law. he said that this pretty well sums up the purpose of the supreme court then he went on 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 whether it violates our constitutional rights. the court is composed of nine justices who hold office for life members are nominated by the president, but their appointments must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea of 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 it passes the laws. the executive is responsible for carrying out policies. and the judiciar

only 3000 people now and then also coming up thousands of israelis converge on the supreme court, the head of a crucial sitting on the government's controversial judicial reforms of the seriously deal. american man is rescued from one of 2 of his deepest kites. i think he spends more than a week trust under the i'm anthony out. welcome to the program. nearly 3000 people now known to have been killed in last weeks. it's quick in morocco. the search for survivors is being set back because of the difficulty in reaching villages in remote mountain regions. rescue a site, they not giving up type of funding survivors. the time is running short amongst the rubble of the villages, survivors mon, for their loved ones. the quakes lessened entire villages in the high atlas mountains burying families under that holmes abdul rahman, survived, but he lost his wife and 3 sons, sonoma. normally we buried them yesterday. go for you. i felt so sorry for them. okay, the waiting 2nd smith. when we found that they were all huddled together of the 3 boys, because as i said, it was x, they all died in the e

pluralism also animates many of the supreme court's religious liberty cases. free exercise frequently involves the importance of protecting minority religions and while establishment clause jurisprudence for many years promoted secularism rather than religious pluralism in recent years the court has emphasized the government cannot force religion underground or promote policies hostile to religion. for example in the 2019 american legion case the court upheld display of a piece cross that was part of a world war i memorial. as justice alito explained, the religious causes of the constitution and to foster a society in which people can live together harmoniously. from a different perspective justice kagan emphasized the nation's pluralism and values of neutrality and inclusion was a first amendment demand. the fourteenth amendment extended the constitutional commitment to equality and pluralism that was promised but not fully realized in the original constitution. equal protection clause protects pluralism by inhibiting public dissemination and permitting the b

the supreme council of justice can appoint any specialist , including non-members of the supreme councilf justice, and i confirm with conversations with the supreme council of justice , they were not going to appoint themselves in order not to create conflicts of interest, but it was a disagreement, the projects demanded that they necessarily enter, we still defended i will consider a reasonable position, so i ask you to reject this amendment . thank you . the next term we made what disciplinary inspectors are appointed not for life, not permanently, but for 5 years, for a certain period of their work, and why not 5 years, as was the case in the editorial office of the first reading, but seven years so that the first two teams of disciplinary inspectors were chosen according to a special model that provides for an open transparent competition so that there are no claims about the integrity and professionalism of these people who will perform a fairly responsible job so that there are two terms of appointment thank you yes this is a confirmation correction number 56 committee it is taken

only 3000 people consent also coming up. thousands of israelis converge on the supreme court, the head of a crucial sitting on the government's controversy of judicial reform. should they place tribute to the victims of the could the end of democracy off a century got pastoring in nearly 2 decades to stick types. the math and you have walk into the program. nearly 3000 people now known to have been killed in last weeks as quick in morocco. the search for survivors as being set back because of the difficulty in reaching villages in remote mountain regions. rescue a site and not giving up type of funding survivors. but time is running short. amongst the rubble of the villages survive is mon for their loved ones. the quakes lessened entire villages in the high atlas mountains burying families under the homes. abdul rahman survived, but he lost his wife and 3 sons, sonoma. normally we buried them yesterday coffee. i felt so sorry for them. okay. the only way and 2nd semester, when we found that they were all huddled together of the 3 boys because as i said, it was x, they all died and the