supreme court. here to discuss this book, whicu argues that the supreme courtco has become increasingly partisan in the cases he says were threaten the court. what inspired you to write this book?ourse fo >> trump: -- >> as a practicing lawyer i followed the supreme court for many years and became alarmed in recent years reading the cases of the 5-4 decisions and the 6-3 decisions which seemed to be decided along partisan line so had the liberal wing of the court, all aopinioned by democratic presidents and the conservative wing all appointed by republican presidents, and they were taking political positions which could easily be identified with the ideas of the respective parties.oducti about thing wed care bit. excerp rights and preproductive rights. >> let's look an an exert. you say the court's dramatic porlarization is a recipe for the undermining of our greatest institution and has not been fully appreciated by most otherwise well insured americans. what did you mean by that? >> guest: there's

supreme court. it says a victory by hillary clinton not only would break the glass ceiling at the white house but shake the foundations of the quartz marble palace leading to its first liberal majority since the vietnam era. donald trump selection would continue to perhaps, or even advanced conservative control for decades to come though the change in personnel could happee fast beyond the late justice scalia, three other justices are 78 - 83 years old. the ideological shift may take years to play out particularly in areas of law that has been relatively stable for decades. they predict repercussions from the 2016 elections will grow insignificant over time. you agree this is monumental? >> i agree that they are at the crossroads. we know we have one vacancy that has been filled with a moderatee and extraordinary capability and experience and has been blockedr on the experience which further po contributes and i agree with mike pence, whoever is elected president is going to influence the direction

supreme court. ays a victory by hillary clinton not only would break the glass ceiling at the white house but shake the foundations of court's marble palace, leading to its first liberal majority since the vietnam era. donald trump's election would continue to perhaps, or perhaps even advance the conservative control for decades to come. though the change in personnel could happen fast, beyond the late justice scalia's seat, three other justices are 78 to 83 years old. the ideological shift may take years to play out, particularly in areas of law that have been relatively stable for decades. supreme court experts predict repercussions from the 2016 election will grow in significance over time. do you agree this is a monumental election for the supreme court? guest: oh, absolutely. i think the supreme court is ideologically at the crossroads. we know we have one vacancy. it's been filled with a moderate. extraordinary capability and experience. he's been blocked in the senate really on partisan politi

there's no thus in these supreme court cases? >> the court said, quote, the bulk of the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that mimms and thus -- was armed and thus posed a serious danger to the safety of the officer. in those circumstance any man of reasonable caution would likely have conducted the pat down and thus posed a serious and present danger of safety. that's the supreme court. we can't change that. and they don't purport to ever try to change it. that's consistent with what terry said. >> and to follow up, what the supreme court has done, it seems to me that to strike a very careful balance and what they've said is, you have to -- police are not free to run wild. they have to have number one reasonable suspicion for a stop and they have to have, number two, reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and those two things protect the rights of the citizen, the motorist. and there's a third prong which protects imbalances, protecting the safety of the officer. you protect the rights of the citizen through the first

we are keeping an eye on the supreme court as oral arguments begin this week. sterday was the traditional red mass in washington, d.c. the is the headline from weekend edition of "usa today," the court on the brink of transformation. actions president's could bring on monumental shifts in legal owner stones. from harry reid and mitch mcconnell on america garland -- on the merrick garland nomination. give us a call. david savage of the "l.a. times," is writing about this. , dividedhe headline supreme court opens a new term that could bring a historic shift. he says and evenly divided supreme court opens the new term with a few dozen mostly low-profile cases. perhaps the biggest question of the year won't even be settled by the justices. instead, voters this november will effectively decide the for thedeological bend next four years and possibly much longer. not since 1968 has the high court had a vacancy to be filled by the winner of the next president election. let's hear from centiliters on the merrick garden -- senate .eaders on the merrick garland the senate

you can have that. >> neal is a partner at hogan where we won the supreme court court practices of the five cases the firm has before the supreme court and he will argue four of them. he is the former acting solicitor general of the united states and professor of criminal law at georgetown and wond the ronald award is the the highest award the department of justice can give a civilian. >> it is delight to be here. i am going to talk about some of these cases. i am arguing them so take what i am saying with a grain of salt. i am particularly focus on the commercial cases because i think that is a primary interest to pof and what their litigating before the >> you are trying to conspire the raise the fees through the favored nations and they filled complaints under section one of the sherman act which prohibits a conspiracy to restrain faith. what you can imagine the banks and visa and master card said is we are trying to expand the size of the network and there is no allegation at all that the banks are conspiring with one another. it is independent action taken by visa and mastercard t

she said she wanted a supreme court that stood up for the people against powerful interests that otherwise their way. she wants the court to uphold row v. wage and uphold major equality. she wants the court to overturn citizens united to get dark money out of politics. it was just title down the line name check several decisions. she was first. then the moderator turned the same question to donald trump. where do you want to see the court take the country. how in your view should the constitution be interpreted? and donald trump's answer was that there's this one justice on the supreme court who said a bad thing about me once and that was terrible. and if you think i'm being hyperbolic, i understand, you think i'm being hyperbolic. i'm not, though. that's exactly where i had went right off the bat in response to an open-ended question about the supreme court. >> secretary clinton, thank you. mr. trump, same question. where do you want to see the court take the country and how do you believe the constitution should be interpreted? >> well, first of all, it's great to be with you and thank y

what is the solicitor general. >> he or she represents the united states interest in the supreme court occasionally in federal surfeit courts of appeals but is the central figure in terms of litigating the us position for the supreme court. >> host: whether that person is the expert in the topic it is more of a trial attorney. >> guest: good question. the office of the solicitor general has three layers to it. at the top we have the us solicitor general, a position nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate. these typically are people who are very good in a legal sense but well-connected politically. below that you have before deputy solicitors general, those are folks that are involved in below that. what is unique is cases they are involved start off with staff attorneys, who investigate the case and do their research and write as a generalist judge would want to read, not full of jargon and things that are specific. and kick up to the next bubble the deputy solicitor's general who are you two experts. they kick it to the solicitor general so each of these beliefs and presen

the supreme court said, we don't understand what the complaint is about. idering where we were, considering that in 1961, the told thearren court woman we would today call battered, who had been humiliated to the breaking point by her philandering, abusive husband, she one day could not bear it anymore. signed her son's baseball bat and picked it up and put it over her head and the beginning of the murder prosecution. florida didn't put women on juries in those days. the supreme court said, we don't understand what the complaint is about. any woman who wants to serve can go to the clerk's office and sign up. if she doesn't sign up, she's not going to be called. the thinking was, if there were women on my jury, perhaps they wouldn't aquit me. but there is a good chance they would have convicted me of the lesser offense of manslaughter and not murder unless convicted by an all-man jury and that was ok. that was 19 1. the change didn't come until the court that had the reputation to be conservative. and yet, that court struck down one federal law after another

but if you are on the supreme court, the buck stops here. this is it. and you then are making the decision that it is the final decision. >> not you. >> rose: the court is. >> the district judges, tony was talking about, they are the real power holders in the system. because they sit alone in a court room. you can't get out. you are stuck with that judge from the day the complaint is filed till the final judgement. and you go up to the court of appeals, so sonia lost a little power when she went to the second circuit. >> i lost a lot of power. >> you were not the lady of the manor any more. you had to carry at least one other mind to prevail and the supreme court, the magic number is five. >> yes. >> so i have often said when i write for the court, it's never as if i were a queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleague and reflect those, in the opinion. >> rose: how much do you think your life as a litigator has influenced your sense of-- as a supreme court justice? >> well, for one thing-- the historic role you have played. >> i am sensit

i was absolutely blown away. >> supreme court. >> supreme court of the united states.aid you're kidding me. and without batting an eye, taking a breath, he said it's the only way this can end. >> punching heavyweight for the democrats was former secretary of state warren christopher. >> we're proceeding in accordance with the constitution of laws and we'll continue to do so. >> both statesmen, both diplomats, but hardly alike. >> you never met anybody who had more respect for christopher, but he was an old-fashioned, by the book lawyer. jim baker was that plus a down in the pit political hand-to-hand combat fighter. >> look, when i heard jim baker was going to be involved for the other side, i thought this is a guy who comes armed on both sides. he carries two holsters and he's got other hidden weapons. >> baker and christopher had only one face-to-face meeting, at the governor's inn in tallahassee where it became very clear they were fighting different wars. >> secretary christopher laid out a number of ideas about how the uncertainty in florida might be resolved. and

supreme court case that year was going to be about drug-sniffing dogs in indiana. >> the supreme court begins a new term today on the docket for the high court, several key cases that will test the reach of the long arm of the law. nbc's pete williams reports. >> reporter: the city of indianapolis wants the court to uphold the use of traffic checkpoints to find illegal drugs. several drivers won in court when they sued the city saying it improperly stopped them without any reason to suspect that they were carrying drugs. >> they put the dog in the car and i'm like, man, isn't that going through my stuff? >> yes. yes, in fact, indiana resident, that was going through your stuff, officially. the supreme court heard that case and they agreed that year that indianapolis' intrusive drug-sniffing dog checkpoints, they were in fact unconstitutional. they were struck down by the supreme court in a 6-3 ruling on november 8th, 2000. and nobody noticed. because by november 28th that year, the year 2000, we as a country had been twisting in the wind for three solid weeks already not knowing what t

supreme court?aller: i lost my confidence in the supreme court when i found out that legally they are allowed to take junkets, paid for by third parties, and my big issue is finance reform, removing the influence peddlers from the legislative process. i feel the same way about the supreme court. i think that anybody can be who haded by people their hand open, where they take something they did not earn. host: the supreme court is not bound by the same ethical rules that other federal judges are. would you like to see that change?to think that would restore your confidence and other people' is confidence in the court? caller: absolutely. happenstanceout by that they were not subject to the same rules that other federal judges were. if this was known -- when school died, he was on the junket, -- when scalia died, he was on the junket, all expense trip paid for by i don't know who. like i said, finance reform is my big issue and influence peddling has to stop. bill is calling from michigan on the democ

you had to carry it toll prevail and the supreme court and the magic number is five. i have often said, when i write for the court, it's never s if i were a queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleagues and reflect those in the opinion. charlie: how much do you think has ife as a legitimator influenced your sense as a supreme court justice? >> well, for one thing -- charlie: historic role you have played. >> i'm sensitive to be what it is like to be on the receiving nd of questions. fantastic fortune in that i was a lawyer when the women's movement was revived in this country. what we saying in the 1970's, it's the case, the same thing at abigail adams said before but society wasn't prepared to listen in the 1970's. society had already moved from the changes in the law to catching up to the changes that had already occurred in people's lives. so to be able to advocate for that cause, to see results that could not have been achieved even in the 19 0's, was a fantastic opportunity, currently ex hill rating. charlie: those briefs that you wrote and those

how long will the supreme court go? as we wait for the confirmation of an actual justice? can we potentially have the cases heard in the next term >> there is no real downside from the court's perspective as we wait for it to unfold if it is december or january or october it doesn't make a tremendous amount of difference because it will come out by june 30th. they will hear that disturb him might be at the end of the day away to dispose. >> at least by april we will have a decision can retake that to the bank? >> i am pretty sure they want to postpone arguments but it will be upon the april calendar before that the supreme court cotter break this year because the first monday and october and the first tuesday for religious holidays. they don't have to fill up six days so that helped because i know they were thinking what will we do with the cases? that will be embarrassing. >> day did schedule a couple of the afternoon arguments in october. >> [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] dash seen this story before to see the shooting or the weather re-emergence see bri

few moments, we will bear witness as the oath of office is administered to our nation's newest supreme courtce. a personally say on level, america is blessed to have a man of his character serve on his highest court. clarence thomas, mr. justice thomas, congratulations, and now i like to ask justice brown white to administer the oath. [applause] >> mr. president, judge thomas, ladies and gentlemen, the swearing-in of a supreme court justice is undoubtedly a serious affair. but it's also a very exciting one. i'm quite glad to be here to send in for the chief justice, unfortunately could not be here wifese of the death of his , natalie cornell rehnquist. we called her nan, we dearly loved her and shall miss her very much. on november 1 you take the judicial oath that is required by statute. you will become the 106 justice to sit on the supreme court and we look forward to that day. i will administer this oath. repeat after me. i, clarence thomas -- >> i, clarence thomas -- >> do solemnly swear -- >> do solemnly swear -- >> that i will support and defend -- >> that i will support and defend --

supreme court by president george h.w. bush in 1991. he was confirmed by the senate in a 52-48 vote. next, the white house swearing in ceremony, held 20 years ago -- 25 years ago this month. this is 20 minutes. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. bush, accompanied by justice byron white, and justice and mrs. clarence thomas. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> the invocation will be given by senator john c danforth. senator danforth: i ask you to please observe a moment of silence in memory of mrs. natalie rehnquist. holy and loving god, who has given us this great nation, and has called gifted men and women to bear the burdens and assume the duties of public service, we give you thanks and praise for raising from humble origins, clarence thomas, to the highest court in our land. we thank you for his strength, his courage, and for the kindness and devotion of his heart. especially we thank you that he has persevered through adversity, that he has fought the good fight, and that with your guidance, he has grown

with us. >> good morning. >> let me begin on a couple of points you have been making about the supreme court. you have to go back more than 100 years. 1864 when the court was last time not fully staffed. how does that impact the fall term. it was 1864 that we went into election day on the court so that does mean this is unchattered waters for at least the current member of the court and never experience anything like this. going into the term it means that they have a sort of incentive not to take any issues in which they think they could split 44-4 because obviously they're just as short and they, you know, it's unclear yet when the next justice will be appointed. so it's a lot of uncertainty and more technical disputes on intellectual property. on the issue of ip cha cawhat c chases will the court take up? >> the biggest case involves samsung and apple, they're fighting over a design patent for the iphone. that case will be argued next week. and the other ip cases are slightly less high profile. all of these high must be stakes is that one. one they took up last week is a trademark case. d

he had only four years in office, and he had no supreme court vacancy to fill. but he appointed about 25 women to the federal trial bench and 11 to courts of appeals, and i was one of the lucky -- >> rose: do you think he might have appointed you to the supreme court if in fact he had a vacancy to fill? >> it was too soon. he would have appointed shirley hufstedler. >> rose: right. she was placed on the court of appeals by president johnson in 1968. she was a great judge. carter made her the first ever secretary of education. >> rose: right. and when he made her secretary of education, then there were no women on any federal appellate bench. he determined to change that. if he had a vacancy, there is no doubt he would have appointed shirley hufstedler. >> rose: so you moved to d.c. marty comes to d.c. >> yes. >> rose: gets a job as professor at georgetown, is a tax lawyer. describe -- i mean, he was a pretty good tax lawyer. >> i would say in my not totally unbiased opinion that he was the best tax lawyer in america. >> rose: other people have said that. i love h

democrats moved heaven and earth to get a case before the supreme court, and republicans worked just as hard to present it. in the end, the publicans were able to reconstruct the southern states and restore them to the union before the court could hear a challenge. but the effect of milligan was tremendous. it was one of the reasons congress had to hurry the process. republicans did not dare risk and adverse court ruling. second, milligan presented the use of military commissions once the southern states were restored. violence wracked the southern states after they were restored to normal relations. congress passed laws trying to deal with that but they all had to be enforced with a federal court. critical as they were davis' opinion, republicans never dared rely on chase's dissent to authorize military trial of southerners. after some initial success in putting down the ku klux klan in 1872, the federal courts proved utterly ineffective in protecting the rights of african-americans and white republicans thereafter. milligan has been recognized as a great case, mostly for davis' eloq

first of all, nobody is going to retire from the supreme court, we will have 90-year-old supreme courtcis. nobody will want to leave if they know their vacancy will not be filled. first, hillary clinton is very smart. she will appoint the first asian americans, and then the republicans will have to not allow an asian american to sit on the supreme court when they're voting in larger numbers of republicans. they're trying to get the asian american voters. this will be thought out politically and in the end republicans will lose if they do this. >> if hillary clinton wins. >> douglas, cruz isn't the only senator threatening a scotus block aid. here is john mccain last week. >> i promise you that we will, we will be united against any supreme court nominee that -- that hillary clinton, if she were president, will put up. >> okay. >> i promise you. >>> so he later walked that back. is there any historical precedent for this? >> no, this would be again, you know, we're looking at a shut down of the supreme court in essence. i mean to not be able to have nine supreme court justices to operat

just a couple blocks from here is the supreme court. enter in big letters at the top it says equal justice under the law that is the purpose of the court to make sure we are a nation of laws u not men and live under self-governed very constitutional people. whether you are wealthy or poor. powerful or powerless, white, black, male, female, that is not the thing that we use to decide whether you are on the right side of the law or not. we have laws and we apply them universally. and equally for all people. so when she says that it's -- that the purpose of the court is to go against wealthy people, that is a very deeply troubling thing. and even more so since the big concern with hillary clinton's political career is that she has not been held, that she is above the law. that she has not been held to the standards of the law. it's something that i think people should really pay attention to. >> there was a time as you suggested earlier when if you were talking about a potential justice of the supreme court, and you suggested that the -- t

it would have come weeks and weeks later than the supreme court decision. e rose: after the decision, which was 9-0 in the watergate case, everybody understood the court had spoken, and that was it. justice ginsburg: yes. and the president turned over the tapes and resigned from office the next day. it is in the first example. think of harry truman, who seized the steel mills in the korean war. when a court said "you don't have that authority, mr. president," he immediately told the secretary of commerce to give the mills back to the owners. in many places in the world, the fact that a court speaks does not mean that the executive or legislature will follow or accept the decision. charlie rose: one thing that you disagree with antonin scalia was that you should take a look at international law, too. justice ginsburg: international law is not foreign law. what does it mean? international law is a law that governs relations among nations. we are a nation of the world, therefore we are governed by what our constitution calls the "law of nations," or internation

and in the supreme court to immigrate deal of gusto. ut in terms the thing that i remember after the of holiday party we have attrition that the court places many traditions samar peculiar that we will gather for any justice birthday and we sang happy birthday to a whoevers birthday it is. and justice scalia was the only one who would sing. said he would sing the rest of us would mobil was off laugh when -- laugh mobile the rehab to carry on without ahem and we sound atrocious. >> we talk a little bit about the justices contributions but we have not touched on contributions to the interpretation m&a view of criminal defendants are even end of last term. was that surprise? >> no. in general model. the interpret it of methodology with some frequency. was sometimes people criticize him to be results oriented. if we think it is good if they are guilty of serious crime to go free? of course, rico one that. there is more at stake than that the media question. so he took some time intellectually to come to the few for the right way to interpret

that is not good, because you want the supreme court to be the court of last resort. it is says come you're making the court of appeals the court of last resort. justice ginsburg: and it could be worse than that. it could be that we took the case because courts of appeals disagreed. if we are unable to decide the question, you could have one federal law in one area of the country and the opposite federal law in another part of the country. it is important that the supreme court be able to resolve conflict among us about what federal laws. that is why eight is not a good number. charlie rose: whoever becomes president will have when they arrive in the white house and opportunity to appoint a new supreme court justice. justice ginsburg: that is one scenario. afterr scenario is that the election, the senate reacts. i would like to see the court have a full house by the time ends.erm and -- term charlie rose: which is? justice ginsburg: we stop hearing cases in april and are writing opinions in may and june. some people say that if hillary clinton becomes , that you would

nobody is going to retire from the supreme court. we're going to have 90-year-old supreme court justices. nobody is going to leave if they know their vacacy is not going to be filled. hillary clinton will appoint the first asian american and the republicans are going to be the ones not allowing an asian american, when a large number of americans are voting for the asian-americans. and the republicans will lose if she does this. >> so douglas, cruz isn't the only threatening a scotus blockade. here's clinton last week. >> i promise you that we will be united against any supreme court nominee that hillary clinton, if she were president would put up. i promise you. >> he later walked that back. is there any historical precedent for this? >> no, this would be a -- again, another -- we're looking at a shutdown of the supreme court in essence. to not be able to have nine supreme court justices to operate with eight, and those are war words. basically that's the same as donald trump calling the election rigged. republicans are saying we don

charlie: the supreme court began its new term this monday.he focus has been less on the docket and more on the court's future, which hangs on the outcome of the election. the seat held by antonin scalia remains vacant as senate republicans have refused to consider the nomination of judge merrick garland. stephen breyer has served in the supreme court for more than two decades. president bill clinton nominated him in 1994. he was first named to the bench by president jimmy carter in 1980. he served 14 years as a judge, and later as chief judge for the court of appeals in boston. he is known for his love of literature and architecture. his third book was published last year. it explores the work of foreign and international law in american judicial decisions. i spoke with justice breyer in new york city, and here is that conversation. i begin with this book called "the court and the world." we were talking backstage, and somehow this book, which is now in paperback, and you and i have talked about this, it is getting a resurgence. justice breye

now, looking at the supreme court to but of those nine had been in trial court. now all it is ridiculous to have a jet to does not have a trial experience so mid-1980s one eye argue cases but was never a trial judge. one of the judges said to be sense you have never been a trial judge you shed one volunteered to conduct trials in an the district court circuit. so i have done that for the last 35 years. mostly civil bobby cover recently i have done a couple of criminal trials. those were real eye openers. a lot of them have then jury trials. also with pretrial work on a much reduced frequency. but they should be required to conduct trials you really don't understand uh judicial process. you have never watched a jury to look at their faces as they try to figure out what is thrown at them by the lawyers if the witness is telling the truth and through cross-examination equip the jury to learn if somebody is telling the truth you don't learn anything at all. but what you discover is some people are very nervous some will think the person must we lying when they testif

not every justice on the supreme court has argued cases in front of the supreme court. john roberts, i think, argued 39. he was in civil practice for a long time. you were with, representing the aclu, and you were one of the early people to bring these cases about gender equality challenging federal statutes particularly that denied equal rights to women -- >> or men. >> or men, that's right. and tell us, i mean, what was it like arguing those cases? you were a bit alone. when we were talking the other day, i said it reminded me of justice thurgood marshall who was with the naacp legal defense fund arguing cases and just as you pointed out, why don't you say the difference, but then segway into what it was like for you. >> i copied his strategy, and that is he developed the law up to brown v. board in steps. you probably remember the first case many that series. -- in that series, sweat against painter, when texas realized that it couldn't deny admission to law school to african-americans simply because of their race. so it set up a separate law school for them vastly i

few moments, we will bear witness as the oath of office is administered to our nation's newest supreme court. and before we do, let me simply say on a personal level america , is blessed to have a man of this character serve on its highest court. clarence thomas, mr. justice thomas, congratulations and now i'd like to ask justice byron white to administer the oath. [applause] justice white: mr. president, judge thomas, ladies and gentlemen, the swearing-in of a supreme court justice is undoubtedly a very serious affair. but it's also a very exciting one, and i'm quite glad to be here to stand in for the chief justice, who, unfortunately, could not be here because of the death of his wife, natalie cornell rehnquist. we called her "nan." we dearly -- we dearly loved her and we shall miss her very much. judge thomas, this will not be the first time you've taken an oath that is ordinarily given to federal officers. and when at 10:00 on november 1st, you take the judicial oath that is required by statute, you will become the 106th justice to sit on the supreme court, and we look forward to that d

moderator: we are moving on to the supreme court. the next president is expected to send nominees to the senate for nomination. -- the president of an opposing party? rep. murphey: the constitution is pretty clear on this one. it is the president's role to nominate supreme court justice and it is the senate's job to confirm that individual. i think this is one of the most important jobs of being a united states senator. it is critical that who ever that choices, number one understands the constitution. that they will follow the rule of law and they will be able to make sure that is played out fairly and equitably for everybody and our country. areas that if the think is pretty disturbing to a lot of americans because the senate has not acted. they haven't even had a hearing on merrick garland. as qualified as anybody we have in the supreme court. senator rubio hasn't even taken the time to meet merrick garland. he hasn't even taken the time to get to know him to ask these simple questions. the american people are so frustrated with c

clerk on the united states supreme court and i was a u.s.ttorney and have argued cases before the court. i have asked ordinary respect and reverence for the court. we need to fill the vacancy as soon as possible. 4-4 deadlock is damaging for the whole country and that is why i have been leading the fight to appoint and confirm the next justice for the united states spring court. deadlock in fact that branch of government with the kind of gridlock we have seen all too often and all too prevalent in the legislative branch. i believe the supreme court should do its job, hold a hearing, hold a vote, and confirm merrick garland. carter: as we know it has been difficult to get a debate as i think you have provided source here for us to get these questions out in the open. it is something that is pretty important to do. with respect to the supreme court, we get the russian a lot, what kind of justices would you want to put on the court and i would say this.

the supreme court and supreme court decisions are relevant to you and your movement. on thursday, chuck schumer was asked if democrats have control and clinton wins but republicans are 14 supreme court nominees, is it time to thwarting supreme court nominees, is it time to reconsider the filibuster? do like to see the democrats if they are in power do away with that to make sure a replacement can be seated? mary kay: we want government to work and we want the senate to do its job. we have been campaigning on behalf of the president nominee since june, or i cannot even remember when he first nominated court. for the supreme their question about the specific way the senate gets its job done, i trust senator schumer's thinking about the best mechanism. the most important thing from our perspective is that we fill the 90 vacancies that the republicans have blocked under president obama for federal judgeships all across this country, in addition to the supreme court. i can tell you that i was in miami doing click boarding with several of our nurse members and they turned o

in the past-- the supreme court has been reluctant to overturn rulings based on private juror conversations. colorado courts ruled that private deliberations were not grounds of reviewing the conviction. that's why pena- ropdgiguez's lawyers took the case to the supreme court. justices will hear the case, today. corey-- we'll let you know when they make a decision. and samsung just can't catch a break... supreme court justices will hear arguments in the ongoing patent dispute between the world's top two smartphone manufacturers - samsung and apple. the two are arguing over how much samsung should pay apple - after copying part of the iphone's design. samsung has already paid 548- million... but that was just part of its liability. the justices have until next june - to make an official ruling. students in chicago will be in class with district leaders - avoiding a strike. just before midnight..the chicago teachers union reached a "tentative agreement" with the country's third-largest district - avoiding what would have been the second major strike for chicago public schools - since 2012. pa

but i just talked last week in the chambers at the supreme court to justice ruth bader ginsburg. that she would like to see more of a conversation between the court and the congress. justice breyer: it is hard to get a conversation going. charlie: but you understand what she means? justice breyer: absolutely, because sometimes you can find -- thing in a statute charlie: or had them think about in a dissent, which she had been thehe complexion of congress had changed, but the law had changed because of what she pointed out in a dissent because there was a dialogue. i think that isreyer: good, but it is not easy to bring about. i worked in congress for a wild. charlie: the judiciary committee with ted kennedy? justice breyer: yes. i would guess they are on different time frames. we take things slowly. we are not elected. the virtue of having nine -- hamiltonople says this in federalist 78 -- they can take the time to think. they are not particularly powerful. , and maybe that is basically true, comparatively speaking. time,er a period of weeks, months. member of congress, you don't

justice supreme court anthony kennedy. he talks about how the internet has affected civil discourse, his work as a teenager in montana's oilfields, and is conversations with the late supreme court justice antonin scalia. >> i would like to follow up on theme.-- on the civics civics isanding of very important for america, especially the younger generations. i understand you recently had an opportunity to go see "hamilton." i wonder what was your reaction to that and do you think that as a way we can reach younger americans and get them interested in history and civics? justice kennedy: the answer to the question is yes. it does not sound like you can hear me. hello, are we on now? ok. hamilton was fascinating. we were able to get tickets. some of my grandchildren in new ,ork were going to be with us and we were there the night before, and they said poppa -- they call me poppa -- they said poppa, this is in wrap. they thought this look of horror on my face. i said, wait a minute. the whole idea of rap is is designed for argu