not until 30 years ago did it engulf the supreme court confirmation process. and with the lower courts, it is even more recent inferno. i remember the days before the fire, the days of unanimous confirmation votes, the days of voice votes and unanimous consent even for d.c. circuit nominees. i wish we could get back to those days. i thought they were much better days than the current days. things are just so nasty right now. and unfortunately, i don't see a way out of it. not as long as both sides are engaged in all of that warfare. and by the way, i think almost all of this has come from roe v. wade. you talk about a stupid dumb ass decision. i should have said -- [ laughter ] >> first of all, it had nothing do to do with the law. it is an important issue. there is no question. and a good percentage have to be concerned about those issues. but there was no reason for the court to do that. and frankly it has led to all kinds of conflicts and c confrontations ever since. it is not just roe, but it is other cases but that is the main one that caused us problems i

the supreme court is operating, i've never been a complete supporter of everything the supreme court has done. i agree that the definition of an activist is somebody right an opinion you don't agree with and judicial conservative is someone right and you agree with . the debate over whether it's alive constitution or dead is an absurd debate . i used to fight with my friend antoni elliott since i've known since he was a law professor, he would talk about it constitution. my response is your party life. there are parts of the constitution that are dead. the requirements of a 35 the tpresident is dead. if you're the most brilliant congressperson in the world, you can't be president and if you'rehundred 17 and senile, you can be president . there is no prohibition against it. that day. on the other hand how can you n say that a part of the constitution talks about equal protection or due process or cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require some interpretation. even justice tell you a brilliant decision about whether or not the fourth amendment applies to gps that are put on the botto

it was just as a terrible precedent that in order to save thee constitution -- >> the supreme court isoperating. i've never been a complete supporter of anything the court has done. the debate over whether it is alive living constitution or the constitution is an absurd debate. i used to fight with my friend antonin scalia since he was a law professor he did talk about it as if it were a dead constitution and my response was you are partly right there are parts that are dead. if you are 34 and ten were the most brilliant published person in the world you can't be president and you are 117 and senile you can be president. there's no prohibition against it. how can you see the part of the constitution that talks about equalon protection or due proces were cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require interpretation even justice scalia wrote a a decision about whether or not the fourth amendment applies tort the gps that is put on the bottom of cars so that you can track people. so they have some living parts of the t constitution and everybody sees some of the dead parts that are easy. no

host: what is next for the supreme court on the issue of abortion? est: the court goes on a four week recess, so we should not have supreme court news for a while. the court does not have any big abortion cases pending right now, certainly is they have agreed here. there are some in the pipeline that could threaten roe v. wade, not necessarily to overturn the ruling. the court and the court's conservatives will certainly be called upon to get involved in abortion. right now, the court, at least at this point, does not seem eager to do that. stohr, always appreciate your time, thank you so much. guest: sure thing. host: we are taking your calls on the supreme court rejecting this planned parenthood case. if you support the supreme court's decision, 202-748-8000 is the number to call in. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. here is a few more of the headlines about this case in today's newspapers. a planned parenthood gets a win. from the new york times, court will not hear cases on planned parenthood. three conservatives object. some of the reaction from de

and he said by the way one other thing, eisenhower wanted to appoint brownell to the supreme court and i have it because it's in his diary but he told brownell he was about to step down as attorney general and said if you want to be on the court i will nominate you to the second circuit but that would be a stepping stone to the supreme court and he said no. i want to go back to private practice of not interested. >> thank you so much professor simon. we hope you stick around joining us for a reception i think the professor has kindly offered to sign your books. we can continue the discussion outside we can continue the discussion outside we can continue the discussion outside we can continue the discussion outside . >> and two that is an american thing. . >> follow the evolution of the senate from advice and consent to the role of impeachment proceedings and investigations. the senate conflict and compromise a c-span original production with history and its role of this uniquely american institution premieres wednesday january 2nd at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span go online to

it will go through an appeals process but could make its way to the supreme court and the supreme courthifted dramatically since the last ruling. how does it all play out? >> remember, the trump administration declined to defend this law, so california and a group of other states, they stepped in and last night they said we are going to the fifth circuit, and that's a very conservative federal appeals court in texas. the fifth circuit will look at it, and if it upholds exactly what o'connor did then this thing will shoot to the supreme court because it's so broad. the fifth circuit could scale back a little bit so maybe it wouldn't go to the court, but the court likes to hear things when they are big and national laws like this, and we have the new conservative majority but we might have a concern about what is called severability. they will have to look at it if it gets to them. >> a lot of moving parts. but the important part to remember is nothing changes immediately but it's in jeopardy. >> yes. >> a lot of drama ahead. >>> the affordable care act, that is that a major staple of the

that takes me to the supreme court. there were arguments on both sides, strong national security argument strong enough to persuade leonard hand, strong enough to persuade frankfurter. >> leonard hand on the lower court. >> on the second circuit. and so to me the answer can't be that the court should have stepped back in that case because there were powerful arguments on both sides. >> protecting the minority rights of communists, that is at the heart of the first amendment. you don't need a first amendment to protect popular views. you need a first amendment to protect unpopular views, whether they are white supremacists, communists, ku klux klan members and so forth. you have to look beyond the purpose of the first amendment. dennis cries out, the defendant in that case cry out, that case strikes me as easy, the court got it wrong. >> host: why isn't the same defense available to citizens united? where i passionately believe the court got it wrong? i broke with the aclu, the organization's i spent most of my career, be

and if it upholds this broad ruling, it will go straight to the supreme court. there is a chance that the federal appeals court may look at it and dial way back on it and maybe it won't go to the supreme court. but when the supreme court sees major pieces of legislation like this, usually they like to step in and they like to have the last word so we will see it go before the supreme court. and it's a different court. it has neil gorsuch. brett kavanaugh. two of the president's nominees. the court is now more solidly to the right. and we will see what happens. we know that the court has upheld this law two times. and they might be worried about the breadth of this opinion, because it has to do with something called searchability. he went -- severability. he went after one provision and struck one proipgs, but can one district court judge take one provision and then strike down everything else? keep in mind what else is in here, right? the protections for people with pre-existing health conditions. the medicaid expansion. it would be gigantic. and the court might

supreme court. in 1980, jimmy carter nominated her to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia. in 1993, president bill clinton nominated her as associate justice of the supreme court. the notorious rbg is now a pop culture icon, with legions of fans and we are thrilled to have her with us today. as exciting as it is to have rbg morning,ith us this equally exciting is to welcome back brian johnson of the u.s. district court for the district of columbia. he just happens to be the person who calls our ceremony to order. he also happens to be the justices personal trainer. and he has written a terrific book, "the rgb workout." please welcome justice ginsburg. [applause] justice ginsburg: thank you, thank you. thank you, my fellow americans. it is my great privilege to welcome you to citizenship in the democracy that is the usa. you number 31 and came here from 26 countries, alphabetically, from china to venezuela. today, you join more than 20 million current citizens born in othe

i thinkee but also, what is interesting is in in the supremeds court history, we often identify one or two justices who we think had a particular influence in the course of the court. it has usually been the chief, not always. why were are reasons expect that to be the case. to underline that point of the symposium, the combination of justice that had such a dominant role on the doctrine in high-profile areas while being the median justice but not necessarily being a moderate, that constellation of factors -- when we talk about the kennedy we talk about a different type of influence over the court then we talk about times of the court that are defined by supreme court justices using various forms of power in the effect ona big doctrine and the type of cases and so on. that is why this has been a worthwhile day. effect on the court that was significant and distinct and worthy of trying to understand. >> really brings me back to my earlier question of is fame free eating -- leading for him? he point out abortion and affirmative action. that carolyn talked about, this has all just vanishe

we have just learned the supreme court has ruled 5-4 to uphold a lower court ruling to broe ingi president trump's new asylum ban. you have chief justice roberts siding with the liberals here. this is a big blow to the trump administration. >> it really is pamela. in november the trump administration put into effect new rules for people seeking asylum. those are people who have a fear of persecution if they return to their home countries. and the trump administration said that people can't qualify or be eligible for asylum if they've crossed the southern border outside of these designated points of entry. and a lower court judge had blocked the effect of that. and president donald trump tweeted about that judge saying, oh, an obama judge and he suggested he would have better luck at the supreme court, but on the way to the supreme court, a u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit based in california had similarly endorsed blocking this new policy and today with john roberts joining the four liberals on the court, they put out a 5-4 order that said they agree with the lower court's block

from the 1930's, until 1995. -- 1995, the supreme court made no effort to restrict the scope of federal power in a structural way on the basis of congress or the president had succeeded the court of what the president allowed to do structurally. 1990's, whenthe cases like new york versus the united states in 1992, which was the first significant case in this area, and going on to lopez in other cases later. the supreme court did begin to -- revised federalism and several ways. one is they said it is not the case that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce means the power to regulate anything. there will be some limits. specifyt easy to exactly what these limits are. but in several cases, beginning in lopez, they said there are constraints. they also said more firmly, that the federal government is not allowed to commandeer state and local governments. not allowed to say that we will force government officials to help enforce federal law and carry out other functions. , thee also most notably obamacare case, they have ruled that there are constraints that are mean

hudson, anin associate justice on the supreme court of north carolina. she was elected in 2006 and after ad in 2014 bruising primary challenges we will discuss. her, a senior judge in the u.s. district court for the district of columbia. he served as a district judge since 1987 and chief judge until 2013. he is a former presiding judge on the foreign intelligence court. an associate justice on the supreme court of florida. she will be retiring next month. in 2012, she and other justices on her court were also subject to an organized attack when they stood for election in her state. next is judge james robards, a judge for the western district of washington. he served since 2004 and is a said to national attention in 2017 when president trump attacked him for his decision in the travel ban litigation. finally, we have judge shira sheindlin. she served as the did court judge for the southern district of new york. she is currently of counsel at stroock, stroock, & lavan, a mediator and arbitrator, and adjunct professor of law. i'm going to move so we can hav

whenever a political party feels on the short end of the stick from the supreme court their thoughts turn to ways of obstructing the court's power but we never found the magic balance yet. marshall died in 1835, andrew jackson gave a very gracious tribute to him, more gracious than anything jefferson would have said or marshall said about jefferson but the most gracious tribute of all came from the club in richmond where marshall played his favorite game every saturday from may to october and they john marshall was irreplaceable in the courts club should have one fewer member. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, that was marvelous. bill buckley in terms of journalism, what he valued most was quality of the words and this led him to make some poor choices over the course of the "national review". he gave liberal writers like gary wills and joan gideon there start or increased prominence by publishing them in the pages of "national review" which annoyed our publisher at times, to no end. we had to remind bill, bill, we are a conservative magazine. fortunately he did

[video presentation] supreme court was have the -- judges on iowa's supreme court are liberal, ignoring our traditional values and legislating from the bench, imposing their values on iowa. what will they do to long-established iowa traditions? three of these judges are on the november ballot. but no on retention of supreme court justices. >> we want justice is to protect us. when child molesters sued to stop electronic monitoring, a law that allowed us to track child molesters near schools, supreme court justice robin hudson sided with the predators. hudson cited a child molester's right to privacy. toughe robin hudson, not on child molesters, not fair to victims. >> the most liberal place in tennessee is not a college theus not a big city, it is state supreme court. liberal democrats control lower court and

, the supreme court decides it. they're not roaming around looking for things. they're sitting there. their role is passers. people disagree about something, they take it to court somewhere, up it comes through the system. then it arrives in their happen. and they have to decide it and if there should be a conflict between a law and the constitution, which happens only once in marshall's 34 years. he says we have to decide what the law is. so it's not maybe his view of supremacy is a little different from what we experience recently. >> rich: so a couple questions from the audience. why didn't marshall recuse himself in marbury v. madison. >> rick: this is a great question. there's another recent marshall book that he suborned perjury in setting the whole thing up. it's complicated story but the commission that william marbury got as justice of the peace was issued by president john ad adas but the man who stamped the great seal of the united states and prepared it for delivery was john marshall. and john marshall p

the supreme court before the new deal struck down so many regulation aspects and they just plucked thatout of the air like minimum wage or maximum hours roosevelt try to pack the court 1937 that would have appointed six additional justices and he would have packed the court now what happened is the court staring down the barrel backed off and began to change their opinions but the idea for the served time where in years past you don't make that argument. >> i spent a lot of time and that was adventurous him of the worst kind the soft conservative theorist in these organizations arguing to go back to start ruling you are in favor economic rights that should be more important and second point i would not be surprised to see that come back in the news if the democrats take control the white house in the house and the senate they can pack the court it doesn't take a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on the court but to change the justices only requires an act of congress you would hear some democrats and academics talking about that i do think it is conceivable and that partisa

up in the supreme court. stay tuned. up in the supreme court. stay tuned as a fitness junkie, i customize everything - bike, wheels, saddle. that's why i switched to liberty mutual. they customized my insurance, so i only pay for what i need. i insured my car, and my bike. my calves are custom too, but i can't insure those... which is a crying shame. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >>> new details this morning surrounding a mystery court hearing involving special counsel robert mueller last week. an unnamed company owned by an unnamed foreign government is now requesting to take its legal battle with the special counsel to the supreme court. all in hopes of quashing a subpoena for its records. joining me now is criminal defense attorney ashleigh merchant. ashleigh, let's jump into it. the this court ruled the company must comply. how likely is it that the supreme court steps into this fight? >> that's an interesting question. the supreme court doesn't like to consider thing

nobody thought the supreme court would get involved in an election in bush v gore and the supreme court got involved over the objection of many liberal democrats. it's possible the supreme court could get involved and i think the president would have to obey the supreme court and the american people would support overwhelmingly the supreme court if they decided the case. this real problem of partisan is him there. chief justice roberts has appropriately complained about the fact that the media calls certain judges democratic justices, republican justices, after bush versus gore that is understandable but it is not good for our judicial system to be divided along partisan lines. host: just over 30 minutes left with harvard professor alan dershowitz. the your calls. yaya is waiting in chicago. caller: good morning. the problem here is the republicans are imploding on their hypocrisy and you guys can't handle it. complaining about democrats calling to impeach obama. republicans -- democrats calling to impeach trump, but republicans ran on impeach obama in 2010. all the town halls, that was

keep in mind back in 2012 the supreme court upheld the individual mandate, right?hat was an opinion by chief justice john roberts and he upheld it under the taxing power. flash forward to 2017 and congress got rid of the tax penalty. this judge last night, he said, look, you got rid of the tax penalty. that was the legal underpinning of the supreme court's decision so that individual mandate must fall. then he takes it a step further and says the entire law must go. so now you're looking at the fact that the trump administration didn't support -- didn't defend this law so california and other democratic-led states did. they're likely to take this to the federal appeals court. if that appeals court upholds what judge o'connor did last night, this will go to the supreme court for sure. if it cuts back a little bit and says, okay, maybe the individual mandate is unconstitutional but not the whole law, maybe the supreme court wouldn't step in. but usually the supreme court, when it looks at a big law like this, it likes to take a look at it, it will likely end up back

something we are now seeing the ultimate and product, i believe, both at the highest levels of the supreme court and also at the state court level. [applause] ms. bannon: i want to conclude the initial set of questions to you with a two part question. most of the discussion has focused on attacks on individual justices or judges. waysou reflect on other the judiciary as an institution can be subject to attack, and what that means for the separation of powers? and i would love to hear your we on this panel, the people watching at home, what we can do to protect our democracy from attacks on the judiciary. thank you very much, allison. i feel privileged to have this river fight conversation. i can't wait until barbara pariente gets her first amendment rights back. [laughter] a narrative developed, and what endangers the judiciary is not only a straight on frontal attack on a judge or a decision or a particular judiciary in a as ain state or for me trial prosecutor, i can see an attack coming and respond. and i can enlist others to respond as a surrogate. that what bothers me is that there are so m

the appeals court upholds what this judge did last night, then it will certainly go right to the supreme court. if it tailors it a little bit, says maybe the individual mandate must fall, but other provisions can stand, maybe it won't go to the court, but when there's a big legislative piece of legislature in front of the courts, the supreme court likes to have the last word. >> and it's very unclear how the supreme court would actually rule on this because of the new makeup of the court? >> right, there's the new makeup of the court. you have to, you know, the court has upheld this law two times, not only -- not once but twice, but the thing is is this time they might be concerned with something we called severability. that is if you strike down one provision of the law, can you really -- can one judge strike down the whole thing? a and they'll also look at the intent of congress. congress could have decided not to allow the whole thing to go into effect, and it didn't, so the justices, if it gets to them, they'll take those two things into consideration. >> thanks so much. >>> i spoke earlie

in west virginia, the legislature let an effort to impeach the supreme court. kansas passed a law a few years ago that threatened to defend the entire state judiciary if the court rules in a particular way in a pending case. , attracted elections millions of dollars in spending by special interests along with misleading attacks on judges' records. 20 states have at least one justice involved in a million-dollar election. how do is this? -- how new is this? how worrying is this? we have a remarkable set of judges here to discuss these and other questions, for what i think will be an incredibly rich and interesting conversation. i could spend the full-time describing their many accomplishments, so i will refer you to the programs for lengthier bios and briefly introduce everyone. --st we have chief justice california's chief justice. she served as a judge for more than 20 years and is the first asian filipina american and second asian to serve as california's chief justice. next to her we have judge andre davis. 2017, he served as baltimore's city solicitor. next

i know you ask me another question in relation to the supreme court's precedent, the supreme c court'sdent is that access to abortion is part of the liberty guaranteed by -- >> that was just affirmed. nermeen: that isis ruth bader ginsburg in 1993 during her confirmation hearing. she was ultimately confirmed 96-3 and among the people who voted to confirm her was orrin hatch, who is anti-choice. hatchspoke with senator for the documentary. we wondered if in any way he regretted that vote or he wanted, you know, make any qualifications. .e is a very staunch republican but i have to say, he told us, "i love justice ginsburg." he made the point during the hearings that he disagreed with her on some issues, but not with her qualifications to be a justice. he said, look, she was appointed by a liberal president. .e has that right she deserves to be on the court. it is obviously a very different time. nermeen: one of the things you document so well in the film is her relationship, her very close friendship, with antonin scalia up. it says something if you could talk a little bit about where s

i think that would probably be the bigger issue that the supreme court may be taken into account heree as a court want to answer this. does it have implications beyond the dispute. maybe there are more things pending relating to this. we know the mueller investigation is quite broad. it is not just russia, it could include turkey, we saw this with the flynn sentencing memo. there is some rumblings about saudi arabia connections with mr. trump. it could have broader implications beyond just russia. >> you have the issue of michael flynn and turkey and lobbying efforts there. >> glenn, i want to get your thoughts on this, is it possible that whatever it is that this entity is that's seeking information from the entity that we are talking about. does it mean it is operating in the united states. we know they are claiming sovereignty immunity. does it mean they have to be in the u.s.? >> i do believe there has to be a u.s. connection so perhaps operating in the united states as part of their business and i think just to kind of take a step back to do a quick 30 seconds civic break down wh

do your faith in rule of law in the united states supreme court, going forward? l, i always have had even when i disagreed with decisions. i'm in a wait-and-see attitude. there will be some important cases before the court. i don't know what private assurances kavanaugh may have given to certain senators to win their vote. those senators seem to have heard him say that he's going to follow precedent, that he's not going to overturn roe v. wade. i will wait and see. now, the bigger question, though, is, what does it mean for the rule of law if the supreme court is seen as politically partisan? that is deeply troubling. because then people are going to disregard what the court says. people are going to believe that the court had an outcome that it sought to obtain. now, i know that the right has said for many years, "well, we had activist judges that democrats appointed." i don't argue with that. but i think in many ways the activism was a reaction to social changes. so, was it activist to find that there was a right to an education under brown v. board of education

this could end up before the supreme court? it could because keep in mind the trump administration declined to defend the law, so california and other states stepped in. and last night they said we're going to take this to a federal appeals court in texas. now, depending on what that court does, if it upholds the bre breadth of this lower court opinion it will go right to the supreme court because it's so broad. they could trim it back a little bit and rule on standing and say look, the individual mandate goes but other provisions can remain, pre-existing conditions, et cetera. in that case maybe the court won't take it but the supreme court when major legislation like this is at stake, they usually like to step in. and so it's a good chance that they would take it up. >> and given the makeup of the supreme court now with the additions of gorsuch and kavanaugh supporters of obamacare have every reason to be nervous, don't they? >> you make a good point. the court has upheld it twice, actually, and also in another case, and you

it's not just the supreme court's fault alone. it's our collective expectation that if congress doesn't get it right or doesn't do its job fully, that somebody will fill in, whether it's the executive branch, the regulatory process, or the courts through their action. we've got to get out of that mode. we've got to start holding our political leaders accountable and that's when these things will start falling away. >> so, jen, i assume you concur with those comments. >> so, actually, i concur with a lot of what he just said. i think that the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy becomes increasingly circular, and we've left it, and this is not new in american criminal procedural history. the united states has always kind of backed off on statutory rules governing searches and seizures and left most of the decision making up to the courts with a few minor exceptions, the wiretap act and the electronic communications privacy act. and that, you know, as a result, we got relatively stable rules about searches of homes and sear

what does the make-up portend for the law as it approaches the supreme court, or as everyone expects it will go thereing? >> i believe it will. remember, to put in perspective, this is one federal district court judge in the fifth circuit. it's not uncommon for there to be splits, disagreements between judges, not everyone agrees. to the core question, that split, we know this is, we should say, a republican judge. and again, i know the issue, there's no republican judges, no democratic judges. to be clear, there are ideologies. and with -- >> conservatives. >> with regard to the judge's idealogy, he's conservative, exactly, appointed by george w. bush. what will end up happening is as a result of the challenges, it will end its way to the conservative, you said it, court, which is the supreme court of the united states. and that will have an effect upon a host of issues. and we know that this bill, right, or i should say the law that was passed savaged, right, by the republicans -- in fact, the plaintiffs who brought forth the lawsuit that we're speaking about this morning, 20 differ

some conservatives speaking out against the man they just fought to get confirmed to the supreme courtrett kavanaugh over a victory for planned parenthood. what role did donald trump's newest member of the high court play. isaac right, top star, here live. yeah!? i switched to geico and got more! more savings on car insurance!? they helped with homeowners, too! ok! plus motorcycle, boat and rv insurance! geico's got you covered! like a blanket! houston? you seeing this? geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. >> shannon: the supreme court handing planned parenthood a victory and conservative >> a standing, and justice cavanagh figured into this decision. trace gallagher is looking into this. >> it is illegal in most cases to use federal funding to pay for abortions, conservative states want to go a step further and take on medicaid funding away from planned parenthood. lower courts rule kansas and louisiana cannot withhold the funding and the supreme court rulings (place by declining to hear the cases. you will need four supreme court justices to agree to hear a case. keeping

back in 2012, the supreme court upheld the individual mandate. justice roberts wrote the opinion that stunned conservatives. he said it's upheld under the taxing power. flash forward to 2017, congress got rid of that tax penalty in the law so last night the judge said, look, the tax penalty is not there anymore and therefore we lost the legal under pinning of this law, which he said the individual mandate falls and he went further and said the whole law will fall. the trump administration is not defending it. california and other states stepped in to do so and they said they will go to the fifth circuit court of appeals and if the fifth circuit up holds what o'connor ruled last night this will definitely head to the supreme court. >> all right, we will look ahead to what is coming. thanks so much. >>> attorneys general from several states vowing to appeal this ruling out of texas. the attorney general who started the suit called the ruling, quote, an assault, and a spokesperson for his office indicated an appeal would be filed. we want to go to c

marshall to establish the third branch of government to construct the temple of justice in the supreme court that today is a monument to taft monuments vision he said we are here today because of chief justice taft passing the judiciary act which judge ginsburg has written in his book giving the court control over its own docket focusing on constitutional cases to be a fully equal third branch of government than taft's persuades his brethren to suppress their consent - - dissenting opinion that brandeis was his great rifle and unmasked him during his congressional hearings says how is it possible we thought he was so bad as president but are so great is chief justice? he hated to be president and chief is all happiness also failed to understate the degree to which his vision of the courts a fully equal branch of government and his administrative skills were so well tempered what an extraordinary distinction to be chief justice and president by all accounts an average president he deserves great respect as a model for the constrained president but he was an excellent chief so the 1993 survey

now we're seeing the supreme court grapple with it. but now back to the diatribe that we have been saying, this is not something that we can or should leave up to the courts. it's absolutely something that policy makers and us as the public need to engage in in order to push our policy makers to engage on those issues. >> some of this debate highlights why i was getting from this panel, i was thinking it is going to be hard to be a national security lawyer in this uncertain context and just where we go from carpenter and whether or not that's -- is that just considered kind of a one-off special case and we'll go along with the third-party doctrine and other things, so whatever collection, whatever capabilities that are out there, all of that will stand. future proposals will continue to be analyzed where they were analyzed before, because however difficult the situation was, we had some fairly stable lines. we had the third-party doctrine so if you were asked about some type of capability, if there was third-party doctrine, you could go

to be heard by the supreme court. that has transformed the court because inevitably makes the court into a policymaking body. it is an example i mentioned. when chief justice warren and his colleagues embark on constitutional lysing criminal procedure they are able to do it by their selection of cases. justice brennan never delegated to his clerks, looking through thousands of petitions for review. he looked at the model himself and when asked if it takes a great deal of time, not when you know what you are looking for. so he really did elevate the court to a much different role in society. the federal judiciary. >> in ways he would have appreciated and not entirely anticipated and as you suggest the judiciary act by focusing on more contested cases reduced the unanimity rate. in the first part of taft's chief justice the ship the court is converging around their unanimous opinions in the style of taft's hero, chief justice marshall but after the judiciary act, fracturing less unanimity. the current chief justice, robe

on that basis, the supreme court by 6-3 vote concluded the baker won the case. we don't care about the baker. we care about the law. what the answer to the question the court didn't address? justice kennedy did say this. i will read you one sentence. as this court observed, the first amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so central to their lives and faith. nevertheless, while those objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in our society to deny protected people equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law. i think the general betting has been the next time it case came to the court, there is one already in which a petition was filed yesterday from oregon, the court would probably side with the state enforcing its antidiscrimination laws. we can't be sure of that. justice kennedy is no longer there. justice kavanagh has taken his place. that's another topic we can tu

it was found to be legal by the supreme court and lower courts. the individual mandate, because that's what's at issue here, the individual mandate was found to be legal by the supreme court. and finding people who did thought purchase people who did not purchase health care, that's the individual mandate, that was also legal. but once that fine was set at 0 by congress as it has been, then this whole thing becomes illegal? that's the basis for the judge's thinking, right? >> well, the republicans tried to get rid of obamacare. the aca, a million different ways. and if these zealots were really clever maybe they did it. maybe they booby trapped it in a way that the judge said, you know what, now the whole package is unconstitutional. but that's very dubious, cyril, whether that's really going to stand up. >> detail the argument for me. i want to make sure i understand it. >> the argument goes like this. the supreme court ruled 5-4 that the aca was constitutional not because the commerce clause there were five votes to say it was no good, it was un

one user responded to a recent post, you're literally married to a sitting supreme court justice and paganda. you tarnish the people's faith in the court and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. >> ginny thomas has every right to have whatever opinion she wants. she has every right as an individual to express those opinions publicly. the question is whether, by expressing those opinions publicly, she is calling into question -- she is providing fodder for those who want to attack the impartiality, the credibility of the institutional legitimacy of the supreme court. >> reporter: ginny thomas didn't respond to our request for comment. >> clarence thomas, you're the best man walking the face of the earth. >> reporter: she did interview her husband in january as a contributor for the conservative site, daily caller. >> oh, god, you make me laugh. >> reporter: their banter offered a window into their close and playful relationship. >> i keep a sign on my desk, "don't make fun of your wife's choices. you were one of them." >> thank you. i really appreciate that. and that's so true. okay, w

she became a feminist, she's a cultural icon: how important is she to the supreme court right now. >> is deeply, deeply critical, and she is tough as nails. i can tell you, you know, i was unfortunately in court the day after her husband died, and she showed up in court and was sharp as a tack, and i mean, this is an extraordinary woman. you know, she should be celebrated by people of all political sides, her best friend on the supreme court was antonin scalia, and she's a model, really, for what our american democracy is all about. >> during her 25 years on the court, ginsberg has never missed a day of oral argument. president trump tweeted about ginsberg just a few hours ago, and said wishing supreme court justice ruth bader ginsberg a full and speedy recovery. she has no plans to go anywhere, she is 85 years old, what would the potential impact of her retirement during the trump presidency be? >> people need to pray she recovers from her surgery and she stays in the supreme court, particularly on democrats or people with a more liberal bent because if donald trump really does make

what has the supreme court said in the past about the clean water act? have a push it forward, have they pushed it back? guest: their most recent case , andot much help, in 2006 it was 4-1-4. justice anthony kennedy have the standalone, and that they have to have a larger connection to call it a significant connection. george bushama and administrations, you can see small things that might be dry sometimes or might be far away, because they are saying this actually does have significant impact downstream if you do something to these wetlands. justice anthony scalia wrote his opinion for the conservatives on the court, and he that only waterways and wetlands with relatively permanent surface water connection to larger rivers and streams should be protected, and that is the opinion that the trumpet administration is going with with the regulation. host: how long does it take to these proposals through? will we see a final decision on this from the administration in the next year, next two years? multipleake administrations to make these changes, or does it

supreme court. >> and we did get this statement from the white house. we'll put it here full screen. we expect this ruling, it says, will be appealed to the supreme court pending the appeal process the rlaw remains in place. from your legal perspective, how do you see this playing out, what is the time line? >> well, i think that it will take a while. what is going on now is that the house of representatives once its democratic speaker -- to be speaker pelosi has indicated that the democrats will join the lawsuit, move to intervene in it, it already has 12 to 16 state attorneys general who will be appealing it including the state of california. it is enormously important to the health of californians that obamacare not be struck down by the higher courts. and then if it gets appealed to the u.s. supreme court, everybody will be biting their fingernails to see what chief justice roberts is going to do. and there are ways to affirm -- or to uphold validity of the aca even if the revisions that were made to it. i believe chief justice roberts will in the e

the administration went to the supreme court to you know to try to get permission to institute the policy despite two lower court rulings against it as their son says supreme court. pardon me for interrupting you there is little chance here that the administration can revisit this trying to narrow the policy and then go back to the supreme court. well that the case is really still before the federal court in san francisco there will be a lot there will be a trial in march to fully air the legal and political issues involved and at that point i suppose the administration might try to you know refine its position more narrowly but at the moment the administration has has simply struck out on on on this effort to reduce the number of asylum applicants there is a perception in legal circles in the states criminal got this one wrong but this seems to me to be a perception that this administration decided to jump straight to the level of the supreme court how unusual is that and why did they decide to do it that way. well that's quite right that they you know the the ordinary judicial procedure

handed down by the court of appeal from functioning in that capacity is going to appeal to the supreme court to set aside that restraining order so all of this happening here of the court complex as m m a now tell us a little more about what grounds they are the petitions are challenging the dissolution of the parliament. the dissolution of parliament was done by the president by garrett extraordinary as i mentioned earlier he says that he has the authority obviously of the executive presidency in sri lanka of very powerful office however that nineteenth amendment which is the kind of base of all of these petitions changed a lot of things brought in by the citizen the government when it defeated by in the rajapaksa basically it set a timeframe precisely trying to avoid such instances such constitutional crisis and giving parliament four and a half years before we could be dissolved by the president unless and that unless it's very important two thirds of parliament voted to dissolve the house that hasn't happened the president went ahead and dissolved parliament so all of these fundamental r

>> i was. >> people sometimes forget that and to the supreme court by president barack obama. >> and o the court of appeals by president clinton. it is unusual for a justice to have served on the either two courts. there's only three justices in the history of the united states who have served on all three levels and it seems to happen about every 100 years, so the last one was almost 100 years ago. >> all right, oliver, oliver corpus, university high school, irvine, california. >> you have kids from all over the country. >> we have literally hundreds of questions from the kids, we are really pleased at the response that we got from them, but oliver would like to know, do you and the other justices ever hang out outside of the courtroom? [laughter] >> we hang out all of the time. i spend more time with those 8 other justices than i have with any other group of judges in my life and that's because we hear every case together. we are in the courtroom listening to every case that we decide as a group of 9 and after we have oral arguments which is about 5 to 6 times a month, we have lunch

the colorado supreme court enied their equivalents. the u.s. supreme court to the case. tons of briefs from groups defending on the one hand anti-discrimination legislation, fearful that anyone can wind up just saying well it's contrary to my religious views. i won't obey it. on the other side, they defended religious freedom or freedom of speech. that case went to the supreme court. it was argued. the first amendment world trembled as we waited the decision. the decision was one which did not address any of the basic issues that we were all waiting to hear about. instead, the court in the opinion of justice kennedy, the -- probably i would say the most first amendment-oriented jurist, perhaps in the country's history, justice kennedy wrote an opinion saying in effect, this is a really interesting issue. but what we have found when we examined the record is that the colorado board decided it was a violation, it was essentially anti-religious. they mocked religion in their internal discussion about this. they said -- religion is always the excuse for misconduct and mistre

and with the supreme court justice so let's give another hand. [applause] so just a little while ago. and talking about writing with the amazing programs and it's a beautiful thing to say but physically doing it to. [applause] . >> in my book i talk about my journey going from one experience and i talk about my days in college and it's hard to do it from this distance that there is a picture in here and the area i grew up at the time was called fort apache and there is a movie about it. go on netflix or whatever and look for fort apache and you will see a movie about a crime-ridden neighborhood. we moved into a series of projects that they were brand-new. and much of the ground they did not grow very well. and from that world moving to this world. of course, it would land me in a movie set. but that was firestone library at princeton university. this is a totally new experience for me. to walk away from the life that you have had. virtually every important member of my family we slept in my small college room my mother got the bed. she was the ol