and what will donald trump's presidency mean for the supreme court of the united states? and i'm going to join the panel now and we'll start with that. if hillary clinton had won this election, her supporters had hoped that her first appointment to the court would allow her to transform the court, by replacing justice scalia. she could have brought the conservative era to an end and sought to reverse several decisions most hated by the left, including heller, the second amendment case, citizens united, the free speech case. mr. trump's victory puts an end to those plans. but what can we expect? how will he fill the scalia vacancy? how should he approach this? his first appointment will not be as transformational as hillary clinton's first appointment could have been. his appointment will now return the court to its traditional 5-4 split. but how might he transform the supreme court with additional appointments? can we expect liberal decisions to be overturned during the trump presidency? so i'll ask general mukasey to lead off. and let's talk about the supreme court and wh

when justice white retired, she was appointed to the supreme court in 1993 and took her seat on august 10 and became the second female justice in the history of the court. i said a moment ago she is special. there is currently a major motion picture underproduction starring natalie portman playing the younger justice ginsburg before she assumed the bench. "my owna new book out words" her first book since becoming a justice. he holidays are right around the corner and we have a gift shop just downstairs. it will be open and there will be copies. there is an entire library to put it to justice ginsburg and a new children's book for children 4-8 to explain how someone can disagree without being disagreeable. that is also in the gift shop. awill say to everyone who is member of the society and i hope everyone here is a member of the society, the brand-new issue has a delightful picture of justice alito on his first day of the court in the roving room --robign wrote --robing room. it is poignant, touching and i courage everyone to read that the moment you get this issue. with that, it is my

one of the amendments that until very recently did not have an authoritative statement from the supreme court at least not whether it contained the individual right to possess a weapon at least in some circumstances the court said by a 5-4 decision. one question that's out there is that peyser. or is that a weapon? as a trigger constitutional rights? how are you going to draw that kind of mark thinking about militias were not thinking about tasers or stun guns or nunchucks. >> i don't know. [laughter] we do know the supreme court has told us in the helmet decision you are referring to that it is not limited to simply technology available. in 1791 but that introduces the question that you ask, what technology does it include and obviously we can answer that peyser question now. it's an issue that is not in front of us but i think the methodology is still the same and trying to identify the values that are protected in the amendment. i will say this. about the 2nd amendment, i was on that case that became heller. i can remember well, i don't know anything about guns. i'm a suburban guy and grew

at the supreme court, the magic number is five. i have often said, when i write for the court, it is never as if i were queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleagues in reflect those. ♪ ♪ charlie: how much do you think your life as a litigator, has influenced your sense of a -- as a supreme court justice? the historic role you have played. justice ginsburg: for one thing, i am sensitive to what it is like to be on the receiving end of questions. i had a fantastic fortune in that i was alive and a lawyer when the women's movement was revived in this country. what we were saying in the 1970's successfully, winning case after case, exactly the same thing woman has said since abigail adams and even before, but society was not prepared to listen. in the 1970's, society had already moved. the changes in the law were 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 1960's was a fantastic opportunity

the sprem court kicked off it's term this month with only eight justices following the death of supreme court antonin scalia. tonight we hear all about the court and the love of law from two justices. >> let may just begin and take note of the fact that they both have written books, sotomayor's book was called my beloved world. justice ginsburg's book was called my own word which was a compilation of speeches and essays that she has written. and i want to start with this. just looking back on your life, justice ginsburg and thinking even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus, and how was that? >> in my own words as you said is a collection of speeches, tributes to colleagues. it's not-- . >> rose: a biography. >> it's not a biography of me to the extent this my life is told, it's in the introa ductory pass ages that my official biographers wrote. that biography will come out sometime in the distant future. (laughter) your book, my beloved world, you said i am my mother. what did you mean? >> as i tell her, good and bad. i am my mother

for the supreme court?enator monahan said i'm not a lawyer, so you shouldn't ask me that question. the president said i value your judgment. who would you pick? he said ruth bader ginsburg. why? because dean griswold, the longtime dean of harvard law school thinks she is very good. i could not have a harvard law degree because i did not stay there for my third year. so many chance things occur and you don't know if they will turn out to be good or bad. this was certainly good. there was a celebration at the court of the 50th anniversary of the building. it was completed in 1935. this was 1985. dean griswold was solicitor general. he was to make a speech about great advocates before the court. by 1985 he realizes that he cannot have a list with all men. after he finishes his with thurgood marshall, the next person he mentions his ruth bader ginsburg. justice sotomayor: when i went for my nomination process, i was told everyone should have had a marty ginsburg. [laughter] he apparently came into the preparati

justice sotomayor: i said just recently, there is no way the supreme court could ever be reflective of society in terms of experiences. in part because we are appointed for life. that means that a change fundamental in the court take a very long time to occur. so we are never going to be keel with on an even the experiences of the society. another -- in terms of ethnicity or gender. i do worry about in terms of the lack of professional and life experience diversity that our court has. i say that despite being a little bit different than my colleagues and some of my experiences in my life. justice thomason i came from backgrounds, somewhat dissimilar from our colleagues. breath of have the the experiences to the law. we have no criminal defense lawyers on our courts. we have one civil rights lawyer. are so many other incredibly important civil , wets issues out there" have there a few practitioners with small and medium-sized practice experience. fromve very few people geographical differences in the united states. as you noted, very little in terms of religious differences, and even le

supreme court said, yes. 1980. and you can understand why law students at the time would think, wait a minute, surely the supreme court's gotten around to answering that question. so they are, there are lots of fairly obvious questions that we can anticipate but so many that we can't possibly anticipate that are surely if not yet in the pipeline, are on their way to the courts. >> and i have my theory for why that's taking place and why the bill of rights is, therefore, perhaps more relevant today than it's ever been. and that's because we live in a time where there's been this vast expansion of the power of government. right if -- right? and so the bill of rights is supposed to help or -- and as government power has increased significantly over the last 40, 50, 60 years or so, those issues come up. more and more we find that individuals' interactions with the government implicate liberty interest and other interests protected by the bill of rights. and so that's why i think it's an ever-present issue, ever-present

but if you are on the supreme court, the buck stops here. this is it. you are making the final decision. justice ginsburg: not you. the court is. the district judge sonia was talking about is. they are the real power holders in the system. they sit alone in the courtroom. you can't get out. you are stuck with that judge on the day the complaint was filed. you go up to the court of appeals. you were not the lady of the man or -- lady of the manor anymore. you had to carry at least one of the minds to prevail. when i write for the court, it is never as if i were a clean slate. i have to take into account the views of my colleagues. ♪ ♪ charlie: how much do you think your life as a litigator, has influenced your sense of a -- as a supreme court justice? the historic role you have played. justice ginsburg: for one thing, i am sensitive to what it is like to be on the receiving end of questions. i had a fantastic fortune in that i was alive and a lawyer when the women's movement was revived in this country. what we were saying in the 70's, successfully winnin

and what will donald trump's presidency mean for the supreme court of the united states? and i'm going to join the panel now and we'll start with that. if hillary clinton had won this election, her supporters had hoped that her first appointment to the court would allow her to transform the court, by replacing justice scalia. she could have brought the conservative era to an end and sought to reverse several decisions most hated by the left, including heller, the second amendment case, citizens united, the free speech case. mr. trump's victory puts an end to those plans. but what can we expect? how will he fill the scalia vacancy? how should he approach this? his first appointment will not be as transformational as hillary clinton's first appointment could have been. his appointment will now return the court to its traditional 5-4 split. but how might he transform the supreme court with additional appointments? can we expect liberal decisions to be overturned during the trump presidency? so i'll ask general mukasey to lead off. and let's talk about the supreme court and wh

as someone who covers the supreme court and the appellate courts as i interpret the bill of rights and other constitutional provisions, it's a great privilege to have three circuit judges talk about our first ten amendments of the constitution and what they mean. they are on the frontlines of figuring figuring out what those words mean. they are not always self-explanatory. as judges they confront hard problems about what those rights mean in the 21st century and will be confronting those in the years ahead. so thank you for coming out. i'm. i'm sure audience here and on c-span will appreciate how to think about the bill of rights and to think about these questions and how to imagine what issues will arise in the future and what the different ways we might have of applying these old words in the digital era. so thank you for coming. we'll. we'll have questions later on but we will try to have a conversational discussion about the bill of rights. i thought it's a start the white house issues a lot of proclamations and announcements and so forth. one one of those that was e-mailed out ye

that's given to these candidates that the team will be giving to who they decide to appoint to the supreme court>> my understanding is back in the bush administration a lot of these appeals courts and whatnot were tilting right and now they are more in a center and that there is not a clear sense whether they are left or right. and that this is a chance for donald trump to move these courts to the right. is that your sense as well. >> i would call them the center now. when obama started, they were -- bush had done his job. every two term president can effect about a third of the judiciary. he had done that one of the 13 appellate courts had democratic majority the rest were republican. obama went more than half now controlled by democratic majority. so i think this is an opportunity for trump to push back on that to a certain extent. but obama, like many other presidents he actually had more nominees, i believe that were confirmed than bush. they all get a huge stamp on these federal courts. it's incredibly important role the president has. >> let's focus on the role of the supreme courts. maker

it would have been an honor to be the first hispanic on the supreme court but my response was fairlyple which was u. owe me nothing, i owe you everything. i'm grateful for the appointment of the attorney general and i look forward to getting your nominee confirmed. i left and i remember that day the story increased about me possibly going on the court. becky and i met for dinner that evening and i said i've got something to tell you. the first thing i said was i'm not going on the supreme court and in a sense there was somewhat of a relief. to leave washington, d.c. hopefully to come back to texas and it freed me up to do my job as attorney general, not having thathe pressure of possibly beig the nominee. but then i gave her the second bit of news and i said tomorrow i'm going to iraq. she said what and of course we minimized the number of people that know about the kind of travel because of security reasons. i think she probably felt better and safer. [laughter] but i think that history will look back at the appointment of john roberts and samuel alito and conclude the decisions. >>

district court and federal court and now has filed an emergency request with the supreme court itself the high court to force republican senator chuck grassley who chairs the judiciary committee to hold a hearing and for senate majority leader mitch mcconnell to put garland's nomination to a full senate vote. before deciding the matter, the supreme court would normally ask the opposing party to respond, but in this case that would be senators grassley and mcconnell. so the path forward is a bit unclear, but michelle's request with the supreme court is a long shot at best. meantime, aides to president-elect trump say is getting closer to deciding who he would like to fill the vacancy left by antonin scalia. though the list is long, two names continue to resurface, judges diane sikes and william prior. prior was appointed to the federal appeals court by george w. bush and once called row v wade, legalized abortion, the worst abomination in history of constitutional law. diane sikes on the 7th district court of appeals. her ex-husband charlie sikes is a conservative talk radio host in mi

>> about the neighborhood, et cetera. >> at the supreme court unanimous court addressed that very question. they discussed it. and they said, because that was a concern for any traffic violation, unregistered license plate, cracked windshield, whatever it may be, that is a concern. the supreme court unanimously said that that is an equal protection violation. no question, if someone is enforcing the law based on race or investigating based on race, that is a violation violation of the constitution but that -- >> have any successful cases can you think of at a pursuit that theory? >> i don't know. >> that was my next question. >> i don't know the answer to the question but what has been clear is that the supreme court addressed that very question and unanimously said it doesn't matter in the context of the fourth amendment, the subjective intent of the officers is out of bounds for regard to the fourth amendment. the question is what objective facts they observed and whether those objective facts leads to probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that there might be a traffic violat

second amendment one amendment until very recently did not have an authoritative statement from the supreme court at least on whether it contained an individual right to possess a weapon at least in some circumstances. and the court said by a 5-4 decision that it does. a affirming a d.c. circuit opinionment -- opinion. but technology affects weapons. one question out there is, is a taser the kind of weapon that is protected by the second amendment right. you know, weapons i guess at the time of the adoption involved muskets or knives. what, how do courts approach that? is a, you know, how to you decide if a taser is a weapon that is included? what about other types of new devices that might be weapons or might be recreational devices? there was a case from new york involving martial arts equipment. is that a sporting equipment, or is that a weapon? does it trigger constitutional rights? how are you going to draw that kind of line when, obviously, the framers -- thinking about colonial militias -- were not thinking about tasers to or stun -- tasers or stun guns or nunchucks. >> i don't know. [laug

the supreme court. let's talk about the supreme court. so you're not optimistic about what the next thing will be for jurisprudenc jurisprudence. how would you reform late that? if you had a court open to it some if it was listening, what would you say to that court would be the basis for inequality rationale that didn't permit congress in the name of inequality to basically promulgate the most wide ranging rules they could? >> yeah. it is a perfect academic question. there's no 28 court not when justice scalia's replacement comes on because then the court would be 5-4, but one of the liberals leaves the court in the next few years and is replaced, then i think things could move further. we've been calling for the demise of buckley's going to die, we've been saying this if for 40 years and it's still standing. the question is going to be whether cases coming up like the soft money case that will be before the supreme court, to possibly take within the next few months, will provide the avenue for a nail in the coffin, but in an alternative

there's now a case pending before supreme court, ninth circuit supreme court, i was at the supreme court argument some weeks ago and i'll say there's cautious optimism the supreme court, which is no huge fan necessarily of impressive prosecution if you think of virginia, cautious optimism supreme court going to correct insider trading. >> so they will actually reverse it? >> cautious optimism that that will happen based on the question. >> the current supreme court. >> the current supreme court. >> that's the sense one got from -- i'm not prejudging, making a prediction, wagering money on it but there was clearly a deep sense of concern based on the questions you heard from the lawyers at the supreme court argument that it didn't seem to be right or reasonable that you could be, for example, the ceo of a company. if you're not expecting any concrete financial gain in return, financial gain in remember, you could three days before releasing your earnings bequeath it as a gift on your son, daughter, college roommate knowing they are going to trade and make 10, 20, $30 million in the trade.

i think beyond any particular question one thing visitors to washington when they attend the supreme court of or the d.c. circuit apart the many individual issues that might be before the court at least when they tell me they always come away so impressed by the quality of thinking in the sincerity and the efforts that the judges and the lawyers put into this question and i hope you have seen the sophistication and the sensitivity and they really respectful approach that all three judges have shown and to the c-span audience the can't watch them judging but you can watch them in this discussion so i am grateful for you talking about how to approach the bill of rights and some of the questions that we might ponder. please join me in giving them a round of applause. [applause] >> all three of our distinguished judges for coming and speaking to you at the national archives. i have no doubts the video from tonight's program will be used in classrooms around the country i will make sure that it is distributed to those classrooms. it was a really great session and a great way to celebrate the 10

go to www.c-span.org and select supreme court near the top of the page. you will see the most recent oral arguments heard by the court this term and see all the oral arguments covered by c-span. you can find recent appearances by many of the supreme court intices, or watch justices their own works, including one-on-one interviews in the past few months with justices kagan, thomas, and ginsburg. there is also a calendar for this term, a list of all current justices with links to quickly see all their appearances on c-span, as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court that www.c-span.org. >> yesterday, december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. announcer: to mark the 75th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor, we visited the national archives in college park, maryland to see a selection of five deck logs from that day. the logs are written records of activity and observations on naval ships, but they were anything but routine on the day of infamy. >> according to this log, the japanese planes commenced

justice, an additional supreme court justice, for every one that reached a certain age. t would allow them to impact the court with 15 members. he was pushing the bill through whennited states congress the supreme court was looking at the social security act. what happened was justice roberts and one other decided to vote for social security and say it was constitutional, because they did not want roosevelt to attack the court and essentially become the unilateral controller of the united states. the senateblicans in have a right to block a supreme court justice from having a vote? yes, there is nothing that stops them from doing it in the constitution. they did it to protect the constitution. host: kathryn from alabama is our next caller. she is on the democrat's line. have asthma,ok, i so bear with my voice. this gentleman makes me so mad, i want to spin out of control. the seat was stolen from barack obama. overwhelmingly, the population voted for this president, and these old, tired, antiquated men dropped everything. disgusting. i understand history. i was raised in

supreme court justice. he'll also have more than 100 seats to fill on the district court and the circuit court. much more than president obama did eight years ago. we'll look at what all of this could mean for some of the biggest issues facing americans. e kids to get a repair estimate. liberty did what? yeah, with liberty mutual all i needed to do to get an estimate was snap a photo of the damage and voila! voila! (sigh) i wish my insurance company had that... wait! hold it... hold it boys... there's supposed to be three of you... where's your brother? where's your brother? hey, where's charlie? charlie?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance >>> donald trump could have a lot of power to shape the nation's court system. there's a supreme court seat to fill, of course. what you may not know is there are about 100 other federal judgeships with vacancies. that's twice as many as president obama eight years ago. many of them are lifetime appoi

about the presidency, now, you know, the obvious one, thing that everyone talked about was the supreme court vacancy left by justice antonin scalia but a report came out that said there are actually over 100 these are federal and district courts that president-elect trump will also influence, and at the end of the justices. i spoke with an attorney here in the district, bernard grim, really about the role there these justices and judges have in these local courts and also at the end of the day even though a judge is not supposed to bring bias into it. they're supposed to be the hand of law and justice and make these unbias decisions, no matter what, you bring something to the table and in many ways, it's politics that influences what you bring to the table. take a listen to what attorney grim will to say. >> in every courtroom behind every judge is usually the u.s. seal which has a picture of lady justice with a blindfold saying justice is blind and should be meated out regardls the judge sees. that doesn't happen. justice unfortunately isn't blind. judges are looking to it's people in front

with a look at how the new president will affect the judiciary in general and supreme court in particularstart off by meeting the young person at the center of one of the high court's biggest cases this term. >> i'm a normal kid. i'm not out, i don'tç have an agenda other than using the bathroom. >> reporter: gavin grimm, a 17-year-old from a quiet town in virginia, is the student at the center of one of the supreme court's most highly anticipated courses of term. born a biological female, the high school senior now identifies as male. and wants the ability to use male-designated restrooms at gloucester high school which would violate school board policy. >> people who are transgender are not looking for special rights, not looking for any special treatment. we're just looking for equal treatment. >> reporter: gavin's case is one of many transgender legal challenges scattered around the country winding their way through the court system. just outside chicago, a group of parents is fighting back against what they call an invasion of their children's privacy. saying they shouldn't be expos

supreme court said enough. once and for all. miranda versus arizona is a constitutional decision of this court. it is not a prophylactic rule's decision is a constitutional decision of the court. will continue to examine cases that involve the miranda warnings and issues and the admissibility of confessions, but quit telling us that it's a rules case, it's a constitutional decision of the court. what makes it interesting is that opinion was written by chief justice rehnquist. chief justice rehnquist at the time of the murder decision a lawyer in phoenix. so history repeats repeats itself in many ways, miranda was from here, judge lawyer rehnquist was here and then it becomes a constitutional decision in 2000. something interesting something interesting happened when the dickerson case were not. if you look and dig into that case and read the briefs the briefs and supreme court cases invite a class of people for lack of a better word, they're called him a key briefs, friends of the court. they're not pardons to the case but they'r

and those were just overturned by the supreme court. so you're going to have this just -- it's going to be like playing some kind of game where you're constantly trying to watch what are the various states doing. >> since we have you here finally, what are we missing in this conversation? >> well, i think it's partially looking at the fact that there's not going to be a quick and easy answer to what the future is. it's going to be, you know, who's on the supreme court, that's biggest question. obviously, it's up to trump to make those appointments, but they have to be confirmed by the senate. but he does have a republican senate. but there's no telling how soon that might happen. and then even depending on what the supreme court -- you have to have a case that gets all the way to the supreme court and regardless of what they say, they're not going to say what the law is through the whole country. so then you've got to have each individual state beginning to decide what their law will be. there are some states that have laws from before

whether democrats do object to trump supreme court. whether republicans will change the rules again so that it only requires a majority to confirm the court nominee. i think it's hard to tell in his press conference the day after the election leader mcconnell seemed to dwell on the apparel of overreaching when you're in the majority which use and institutionalized and that seems to suggest that he and the veteran republicans might be reluctant to do that. but you know if democrats don't go long i could see there being a lot of public pressure to confirm a nominee and maybe they would. >> we are talking about a fairly small universe of supreme court nominees who have based that kind of scrutiny going back 100 years. some examples aid for this for johnson picked on the supreme court. there were procedural votes on samuel alito but this is relatively unprecedented for the supreme court to filibuster a nominee of the supreme court. >> there are some cloture votes on the most recent ones. i think some got 58 and some of them were roll call v

so it only requires a simple majority to confirm a supreme court nominee. tell init is hard to his press conference the day after the election, leader mcconnell seemed to dwell on the peril of overreaching when you are in the majority. sois an institutionalist, that seemed to suggest he and more veteran republicans might be reluctant to do that. if democrats do not go along, i could see there being a lot of public pressure to confirm a supreme court nominee and maybe they would. >> we are talking about a fairly small universe of supreme court nominees who have faced that kind of scrutiny going back 100 years. fortis,amples, abe lyndon johnson's pick faced a filibuster. there were procedural votes on samuel alito, but this is relatively unprecedented to filibuster a nominee for the supreme court. votes onwere cloture the most recent ones. was less than 58 an. that there is less president for it -- presented for it is as consequential as this is the reality of contemporary american politics which are that these are tough, polarized parties and they disagree o

supreme court said enough. once and for all. miranda v. arizona is a constitutional decision of this court. it is not a prophylactic rule. it's a positive decision of this court. we will continue to examine cases that involve the miranda warnings and issues and the admissibility of confessions, but quit telling us it's a rules, prophylactic rules case. it's a constitutional decision of this court. that opinion was written by chief justice rehnquist. chief justice rehnquist was at the time of the miranda decision a practicing lawyer here in phoenix. so history repeats itself in many ways. miranda was from here. judge then lawyer rehnquist was here and all of that gets transferred to the year 2000 which it becomes a constitutional decision. something interesting happened in 2000 when the dickerson case went up. if you look, date into that case and read the briefs, because briefs in supreme court cases, u.s. supreme court cases, they invite a class of people, for lack of a better word, called amicus cure i, or amicus briefs, friends of the cou

go to c-span.org and select supreme court near the top of the page. on the page, you will see a quarter of the court this time. click to see all of the oral arguments covered by c-span. you can find recent appearances by many of the supreme court justices or watch justices in their own words, including interviews in the past few months with justices. there is also a calendar for this term, a list of all current justices with links to see all of their appearances on c-span, as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at c-span.org. on c-span, "the communicators" is next with craig silliman from verizon. been year-end tax preparation advice. later, president obama and the first lady host the 20 16th kennedy center honorees at the white house. >> c-span -- where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by the nations cable companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. 's generalilliman counsel and executive vice president of the verizon corporation. wha

all the way to the supreme court in the prince versus united states case, the supreme court said the federal government could not commandeer those local resources to enforce a federal purpose. and so that's an important precedent. federal law enforcement is responsible for the enforcement of the immigration laws. if an individual comes into the united states, and they do not have a proper status, if they have a proper status and let it lapse, and have a certain list of crimes, they are eligible for removal from the united states and the federal authorities are responsible for removing them. but to say that a state law enforcement officer has to hold on to that individual while a federal officer is coming to get them, while a federal officer is determining whether or not the person is subject to removal , raises serious constitutional concerns. while it is true that it may be a relatively short. of time it may be 48 hours or , less -- in some cases it is not. more importantly, the supreme court has already said that the minimus requirement of running a background check on a handgun pu

certainly supreme court lifetime appointment, particularly in a world where congress hasn't been legislating very much and see the courts weigh in on health care, weigh in on immigration reform, overtime pay. there are all sorts of ways in important and increasingly important. so it makes sense to me that the parties would fight over it and makes sense that majority members might be a little circumspect about going nuclear, thinking that the shoe could eventually be on the other foot in having republicans facing a democrat in the white house making appointments. having said that, we hardly solved that problem last. >> one thing i feel compelled to mention, we're focusing on covering congress and the new administration but we've got that other branch of government across the street symbolized by the supreme court. but there are other -- the ways that the judicial branch influences the decision making in congress and pressures on the white house and so forth, i mean, this seems to me -- i don't know if you feel the same way as an academic, fellow reporters, the judicial branch may be the most

all the way to the supreme court the supreme court and the prince versus united states, the supreme court said the federal government could not commandeer those local resources to enforce a federal purpose for your so is responsible for the enforcement of the immigration laws. if an individual comes into the united states and they do not have a proper status and they let it pass through the committee start list of crime, they are removable from the united states and federal authorities harassed hospital for moving them. but to say that a state law enforcement officer has to hold on to that individual while a federal officer is coming to get them, while a federal officer is determining whether or not a person is subject to removal raises serious constitutional concerns because while it is true that it may be a relatively short period of time, it may be 48 hours or less. in some cases it is not. more important late, the supreme court has said the de minimis requirement are burning about jack cunningham could purchaser is not something the federal government can compel the states to do. to r

district court and federal court and now filed an emergency request with the supreme court itself asking republican senator chuck grassley to hold hearings and for senator majority leader mitch mcconnell to put garhand's name to a full senate vote. the supreme court should normally ask the opposing party to respond but in this case that would be senators grassley and mcconnell. michelle's request with the supreme court is a long shot at best. meantime, aides to president-elect trump say he's getting closer to deciding who he would like to fill the vacancy left by antonin scalia. the list is long but two names continue to resurface. diane psychs and william pryor. prooi was appointed to the appeals court by george w. bush. diane psycsykes is on the board. her ex-husband is a conservative talk show host who opposed donald trump. >> thank wu very much. and we'll be right back. hi mom! oh, hi sweetie! how are you? give a keurig brewer this holiday and they will think of you everyday. this is your daughter. and she just got this. ooh boy. but, you've got hum. so you can set this. and if she d

supreme court last month heard oral argument in the case moore versus texas. a case questioning that state's criteria for determining of an intellectually disabled person can be sentenced to death. in 2002, the supreme court ruled that executing a quote mentally retarded person violated the constitution's eighth amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment. this argument is an hour. >> argument this morning, moore versus texas. mr. sloan? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, in atkins versus virginia, this court held that the eighth amendment prohibits executing people who are intellectually disable end in hall versus florida this court reiterated that the inquiry into whether somebody is interlecture little disabled for that important eighth amendment purn shou should be informed by the diagnostic framework and by clinical standards. texas has adopted a unique approach to intellectual disability in capital cases in which it prohibits the use of standard and relies on harmful and inappropriate lay stereo types including the so-called pri si

supreme court rejected an appeal to preserve north dakota's. tax payers for a very expensive court battle they'll probably lose. >> reporter: porter believes it will be upheld. >> i think we have brand-new day here in america. and, we're going to see a brand-new supreme court with pro-life justices. by the time this law gets to the supreme court, i'm confident it will be upheld. >> joining me to talk about this, joey jackson, cnn legal analyst. thank you so much. as you saw, both sides saying look, they're looking forward to victories in higher courts. how far do you think this will go? how do you see it playing out? >> well, christi, good morning. i think it will go very high. now, just taking a step back, of course. the law's always based on precedent. since roe v. wade in 1973 said woman has a right to choose. and 19 years later in 1993, it said the states could restrict abortions, but you can't unduly burden a woman. the major concern is not what the current appointee, what happens when we get a new appointee. we know it's 4-4 for the supre

but the supreme court is. >> i get it?he institution. >> no. >> that can say in a definitive way this comports with the constitution or does not. >> yeah, but in the end, the people rule and i think we should all remember that anyway, ken, thanks a lot for that we appreciate it? >> glad to be with you. appreciate the time. >> we have heard a lot about fake news recently in the press. some say fake news is the reason donald trump won the election although they can't point to any specifically. many believe facebook is the reason for spreading these lies and propaganda. in response the social media giant is planning to crack down on so-called fake news. how will this work? joining us now is will hicks, a reporter for the site heap street and he just wrote on this. so, will, thanks a lot for coming on. my understanding is among other measures, facebook is going to assemble a team of fact checkers to vet news and then rank it according to believability or some scale that they devised. all i have seen are from pretty liberal org

larry: and a 30-year-old murder case reaches the supreme court. eight men convict teenagers proclaim their innocence. andon: ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ larry: >> metropolitan police officers are now equipped with body cameras. they have deployed with the cameras in the country. >> i want to be here to say thank you. officers on a big day for the metropolitan police department. all ofark the time when the patrol officers will have access to body cameras. >> it does improve our legitimacy. >> 26 hundred patrol officers now assigned to body warned cameras. >> we make sure as we roll out this technology that officers are turning on the cameras when they need to. >> they are required to turn on the cameras when they are dispatched to a scene and during a self initiated call. >> they will be on all the time with this technology. we are going to do everything we can. >> this is the largest deployment in the be leading in the nation and making the investment necessary to have excellent community and police relations. >> hundreds of homel

supreme court member which the democrats should make a strong stand and depends. it's what the senate did when barack obama was elected which is to say the number one objective of the republicans in the senate is to keep barack obama from being reelected and regardless of what the issue was, they opposed a delay i believe they were similarly frustrated in a peculiar way by electing the candidate who appear to be the most shout out into th the nighttime night timt going to take any more. they used the opportunity to vote for the unusual candidates to convey a message that they were mad as hell and not going to take any more. our democracy can't function with people yelling at each other. it functions when people work together and understand that they have a responsibility to the american people. it's what they can do to make their life better and make their life more secure. >> caller: i live in south beach carolina and i wanted to call and say that i'm tired of hearing the story that the russians hacked into the computers and stole the election for donald trump be

>> the current supreme court. that's the sense one got from i'm not prejudging or making a prediction or wagering any money on it. there was clearly a deep sense of concern based on the questions you heard of the lawyers out of the supreme court argument that it didn't seem to be right or reasonable. you could be the ceo of a company and if you are not expecting any concrete financial gain in return, there was some financial benefit in return, you could, three days before releasing your earnings, bequeath it as a gift on your son, daughter, college roommate, knowing they are going to trade and make $10 million, $20 million, $30 million on the trade. that didn't seem to strike people as being prudent? >> what about trying cases in the press? >> we don't do that. i think it is incredibly important in my job to talk about problems you see. first responsibility is to make sure anybody you charge gets a fair trial. i have never spoken anywhere outside of the four corners of the complaint or the indictment. when you hav