supreme court. and that's why it's so concerning when a justice does something prohibited by the code of ethics they don't follow and that every other judge does. that's why i'm proud to introduce the supreme court ethics act which would require a code of ethics for the supreme court. i was also heartened to learned from a justice and recent testimony that the supreme court may also be discussing whether to adopt a code of ethics on its own. this would be a welcomed development and i hope this hearing and show of support for my bill will encourage this discussion to continue in earnest. i'd like to turn to the second principle framing today's hearing, that no one can be a judge of their own case. everyone understands this. that's why people find it so troubling that when a potential conflict of interest arises, each justice decides for him or herself whether or not to be recuse from a case without anyone else reviewing their decision. the same judge is the one that decides whether he or she needs to

supreme court, does not have a code of ethics. the only court in the judicial branch without a code and that is confounding. these lifetime members. frost, it is i think little consolation that justices in formally discipline each other from time to time. lower federal courts complied with the code of conduct. every state court. i have got many significant concerns about lack of a written code of ethics for the je supree court. it has had a direct impact on the nomination process of the newest justice. chief justice roberts referred 15 complaints against judge circuith to the tents court of appeals. chief justice roberts instructed the council to review the complaints. commenced itsit review, the 15 complaints grew to 83 but on december 15, the council determined it did not have jurisdiction to review the complaint due to judge kavanaugh ofinning sworn in as justice the supreme court. i am the chairman of the house ethics committee, we lose your his diction over members of this the ethicsforce rules of the house when a member leave

the supreme court declined to order arbitration at all. he was a long haul truck driver, signed a contract that declared him independent contractor rather than employee, and contained an arbitration clause. when he went to court to file wage and hour claim, the important thing to know. federal arbitration act contains an exception. although the supreme court held that the faa requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements in most employment situations, the statute doesn't apply to contracts of employment of workers engaged in interstate commerce. contracts of employment of sea men, railroad employees, or other class of workers engaged in interstate commerce. the issue is weather he's been test ig natd as independent contractor had a contract of employment. so to answer that, the court looked at what the phrase contracts of employment meant in 1925 when the faa was enacted. today, the distinction between independent contractors and employees, people are careful using contract of employment, turns out that was not the case in 1925. in 1925

supreme court. it took only four months for brett kavanaugh to vote to enforce abortion restrictions in a louisana case that was essentially in conflict with a supreme court decision, supreme court precedent, that is barely two years old. brett kavanaugh wrote the only dissent in this recent supreme court decision. almost as soon as neil gorsuch was confirmed to the court, he provided the crucial fifth vote in janus v. afscme. that case overturned a 40-year-old precedent and a setback to the rights and protections of public sector workers. this new 5-4 majority in the court has emboldened extreme conservatives to go on the offensive on issue after issue. of course, what we are seeing is an all-out assault on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. a flood of states like alabama, georgia, louisiana are racing to pass antiabortion laws that are clearly unconstitutional under roe v. wade. the silver lining, if there is one in all of this, is the growing recognition that who sits on our courts mat

the challenge is to get the supreme court to send the case back and the supreme court has said that they can act as late as october 31 as long as they have extra funds. so they could hear arguments at the beginning of october, if they wanted to. there's a lot of speculation and uncertainty. >> the next term is not until october. any particular petitions you were looking at that could come before the court next term that are huge? amy: we are watching several closely. one, the justices likely to hear today and tomorrow, a group of petitions filed by the federal government involving the child administration's decision to end dhaka. the program was started during the obama administration. it allowed undocumented children to get drivers licenses and work in the country legally. the trump administration decided to end the program in several different courts across the country blocked the administration and asked the justices to review those decisions and allow it to in the daca programs. we could hear whether they will review those tomorrow. the supreme court could decide it is not going to h

supreme court. and this is a moment that is not about -- >> you mean as a constitutional matter? >> because, i mean, we saw in bush v gore. the court does not need to reasons to strike the things the court doesn't like. this is not a moment to my mind that's about mitch mcconnell or donald trump or merrick garland. this is about the republican lightingiction to gas that goes back a generation. they cannot avoid gas lighting because of their strategy for in amassing power. to my mind come to my mind it is actually unhealthy and even arguably irresponsible to other have an academic debate about reform ideas they can't get through the court, they can't work, they can't sell politically when we are in a dire democracy crisis. >> one thing that i think is important for us to think about is, i take aaron's point that the members of the court are acting in bad faith in how they do interpretation, we will finally succumbed outcomes that they prefer. if you believe that though, then we have to note that they

go to the supreme court website and read the majority and the dissent. you'll get a sense of how the dissenters think this is the most fundamental political question, and he despondent that the courts will not play a role in resolving it. >> we'll talk more about justice kagan's dissent,every, but i want your overall take on the argument that cheever justice john roberts and others are making of why they felt like they could not make a determination on just how much partisan gerrymandering is too much. >> cheever roberts olympic has the doctrine, with the one man/one vote, and that doctrine says when a question has no clear judicial standards and could risk embarrassing the political branches and basically isn't susceptible to resolution, courts are not going to decide it. in baker versus carr, the court refused to apply the doctrine. justice ginsburg said, why is it we want it was appropriate for the court to require one man/one vote and police malapportionment cases, but not the same for gerrymandering. there's just a few cases where the courts have app

if this came back up to the supreme court , where would the lower court decision?ave to work in the summer? is there something unconstitutional about that? it's unbelievable we take it for granted that the supreme court is entitled to take the summer off. wouldn't it be nice for all of us? but in fact, the next thing that's going to happen is not at the supreme court but go back to judge fuhrman in new york and he's going to have to get briefs, hold some hearings probably and he's going to have to address these questions and then it will come up back to the supreme court and maybe, you know, the precious vacation for the justices will not be interfered with too much. >> maybe. elizabeth, to you, what's your read on this? do you have the same read as jeffrey does that this ultimately may mean that the citizenship question maybe ends up there? >> yeah, i'm not so sure. i think that with the supreme court's decision here, the eyes of america are on this issue like they've never been before. and as the case goes back to the lower court, we're going to see additional ev

there been a number of suggestions for altering the supreme court. i wonder if i can enlist you in general, as an observer of the court. not so much feel free to give me your opinion but maybe there some good ways for me to sort through some of those proposals, i'm assuming that you're familiar with them. or maybe some ways to think about them or learn about the various issues at play there. if that is a fair enough question for you? >> sure, that is a fair enough question. i will describe some of the y proposals that i have heard. much of this arises in response to what happened in 2016 with respect to the nomination of judge garland to replace the deceased justice antonin scalia. i should say that judge garland was my old boss.that is who i clerked for the d.c. circuit. i thought that the way senator mcconnell treated him was shameful. and an embarrassment in the real breach of what had ea happened before to a really fine jurist and he'd been a wonderful addition to the supreme court. so this got liberal detention they feel that there is a stolen se

amy served at counsel at over two dozen cases in the supreme court and argued two cases at the supreme court. then we have tony morrow. he's covered the supreme court since 1979. most recently for the national law journal and american lawyer publicatio publications. he began covering the court in usa today and moved to a publication that most of you don't remember called the legal times of washington which was a wonderful newspaper in town in 2000. it merged into the national law journal and so he's continued to work covering the court of national law journal. we found out yesterday that tony is stepping down from full-time coverage of the supreme court that he's been doing since 1979. a career of great service and friendship for all of us involved. i'd like to ask for a round of applause to tony for that. [ applause ] beth is a friend of mine and distinguished supreme court practitioner. many are recovering from yesterday and still trying to digest today's recordorder list didn't feel like they could commit to be here. he was the head of the appellate civil decision in the obama admin

supreme court 21 times. and has secured numerous victories including an important cases and liberties. i was lucky enough to be in the chamber of the supreme court when paul skillfully and successfully argued on behalf of the plaintiff in the landmark gay rights case. as a young gay man who is considering whether to attend law school, i have slept on the sidewalk outside the supreme court for this chance to enter the chamber and observe a pursuit of justice. let me tell you, i would have been bummed if i had not gotten him. but, it paid off. i was able to hear the oral arguments and they were amazing. in addition, paul has argued a number of important voting rights cases at the supreme court. one involving partisan gerrymandering, a topic that no doubt is on many minds today after yesterday's decision involving voters from north carolina maryland. paul has been honored nationally by a variety of publications and organizations in recognition for his work promoting civil rights and civil liberties. paul previo

it's not the role of this committee to be trying to influence or sway the supreme court. and we know that is a desire of this committee because it's been stated by a member of this committee within npr, literately stated that the democrats south information so the courts could use it. it's public knowledge. it's what has been stated by even a member of this very committee here. so, even if you set that aside, if you set aside the attempt and the majority to influence the supreme court, there's also issues here taking place here with the mere process of it all. contempt is something that should be reserved after all other options have been placed on the table. and we are not there. we are far from that. this is an investigation that's still under way. t we have not run up against a brick wall. there's no reason for contempt at this point. there are transcribed interviews scheduled in the next couple of weeks. we have not completed what investigations are even under way. i understand the majority party is frustrated that they have not received what they want, some vast nefar

at least in the united states we've had supreme court candidates run for political office. in your lecture you mentioned the political value judgments that justices sometimes have to make is there a time the courts weren't politicized or have they always always been political institutions. >> talking about the unique or the zbluns i know about the united states. i was more asking about the united states. because it during your kavanaugh answer were saying it would politicize the courts. oom eye i'm not sure there's ever ban been a time they weren't politicized >> i don't think that the british courts are politicized to any significant degree. what i do think is that they are often asked to decide political issues of a kind which are frankly impossible to decide without reference to a judge's own assessment of the policy issues in question. which is one reason why i don't they ought to be asked to decide that. but we recently had a -- -- shortly after the referendum on brexit -- sorry to get back to brexit -- the supreme court had to decide whether the government had power to

supreme court case was pending. and this is why the actions of this committee could potentially influence that case. we would never want that done. >> would you sure that warning with the committee? >> it has been shared before but i shall. regarding our obligation to recognize executive privilege, that is reflective of the parameters of our own. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes i yield. >> the gentleman is trying to get cute because he is a constitutional professor and i get that. but he knows very well in the jurisprudence of this particular, and i will be glad to go off line and we can have this debate and i will be glad to do that. but, the gentleman knows all too well that executive privilege has been recognized, does he not? >> yes or no. >> there's a huge debate about it. it is not written in the constitution. >> i reclaim my time. i would just like to say that this is the legislative branch of government. this committee did not succumb to the level of visceral division that we witnessed unnecessarily acro

court. >> thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >>> later today, another review of the supreme court's decisions in the court's most recent term which ended yesterday. that's live from the washington counsel of lawyers. >>> joining us is amy howe. two major decision, jerry man gerrymandering combined. what was the ruling on that one? >> we had two different cases involving partisan gerrymandering. one out of maryland. another one out of north carolina. they ruled that partisan gerrymandering is something that courts should not get involved in. it's what they call a political question. something that should be left to congress and the political proce process. the problem with political gerrymandering is that everybody has long known and accepted that when you've got state legislatures who are drawing maps, of course they will consider politics and the problem with political gerrymandering is how do you decide when a districting map has gone too far when you've considered politics too much. we've never been able to come up with a workable standard to figure out when a map crosses a line

that was not outlook and the supreme court -- that was not outlawed in the supreme court until 1964 or so. these divisions remain in the state legislature. host: you brought it up, and i'm glad you did. talk to us about malapportioned it. ment ismalapportione kind of like gerrymandering, the state gets freedom to divide up their own political power. who is going to vote, how many people will vote, where the districts are going to be, so if you are a rural legislator -- california is a great example of this. in california, the rural areas were extremely powerful. they controlled the state legislatures, and they made sure that their districts included many fewer people, so, you know, au can have, let's just use loadable as an example, 10 voters in california, a member ure, andtate legislato that same number for an urban district would be, like i'm a 3000 voters. so in essence, the rural voters have much greater power. until the one person, one vote rule in 1964 to really rule this out. host: ok. going back to voting rights, we have a question from one of our social media followers, who w

-- not a single -- first amendment right. 10% of college graduates think that judge judy is a supreme court justice. us in this room are troubled about this state of affairs. of the learning center marks an important milestone in the development of the justice for all: courts in the community civic education initiative of the courts of the second circuit. >> young people get to experience a world beyond their classroom walls the give them the full to develop research skills, that allows them to work together, and helps them know that they have a role in building a better country. my own interest in developing a project like this actually predated 2014. i was chair of one of the judicial conference in the administrative, policy arm of the courts, and one of the missions of that committee was to increase public understanding of the courts. so, we commissioned a study that done.ghted what was being became chief judge, i thought, how can we move this to another level? in 2014, we began this project. what we tried to do was to reach out to students and we want to give students a sense of their o

this had nothing to do with the supreme court. mr. chairman i am baffled by the heated claims that the work of this committee is to influence the supreme court. our colleagues know that every member of the committee on the majority side understand how the supreme court works. you bring controversy under article 3 before the supreme court. if you want to intervene in someone else's case you apply for it. are they accusing us of unethical or unlawful conduct? it is ridiculous. the supreme court justices know exactly how they are supposed to proceed. we have an independent constitutional obligation under article 1 to conduct the census, that is our job. to see that the american people are counted. the very first sentence of the constitution is we the people. it is directly into article 1 of the constitution setting forth the powers and duties of the congress. one of them is to conduct the census in actual enumeration of the people. they may not like the fact that women weren't counted, everyone is counted under our senses. that is what w

the government could not implement the policy until the supreme court acted. that is not the only example. the ninth circuit recently ordered a briefing on whether in nationwide injunction from pennsylvania district court mooted the appeal of an injunction from the ninth circuit. giving a single district court judge such outsize power is irreconcilable with the structure of our judicial system. it only allows them to wield unprecedented power, it allows the district court to wield that power asymmetrically. when the court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. but when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it means that all litigation on the issue is largely irrelevant. think of what that means for the government. when congress passes a statute the president implement a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the government has to run the table. we must win every case. the challengers, however, just have to find that one district court judge out of the available 600 willing to enter a nationwide injunction. one judge c

consistent with the supreme court instructions the district court conducted only a minority view against the estate plan but this court order made extensive changes. the texas legislator repealed its challenge plan and probably adopted the quarter plan in the next session. what we have seen in the case of texas is estate conforming and falls to the requirement of the constitution, the voting rights act in the supreme court. that is a far cry from the landscape in 1965 when the cover jurisdiction were deliberately acting to evade the review of the supreme court installed or compliance and suppressed voters illegally. >> that is federalism at work. the state is responding to the court's direction with affirmative legislative action. >> it is representative. that is one of the supreme court themes in the shelby county decision. the states created the federal government, and no other context to state have to run their laws by the federal government to get permission in advance of enforcing them. the preclearance regime is a voting attacked created the one exception to the general world and j

you want because the supreme court will not intervene. st: you got my next question your response. some states are taking on gerrymandering through their state courts and election commissions. so what are states doing since the supreme court said that we will not be involved? what are they doing to tackle the problem, if they are? guest: there are certain states, through ballot initiatives, and legislative reform efforts, have created bipartisan commissions to try to draw these maps. arizona has a commission that has been in place for the last couple of decades. california has a commission that was created in advance of the 2010 redistricting cycle. some states are deciding to reform things. i mentioned pennsylvania, where a lawsuit throughout those maps. but there was a partisan element to that because democrats had actually controlled the state supreme court, even though the republicans control all of state government when they passed those maps. i think the action is kicked to the states and the reformers will try to find creative ways

supreme court rulings. the justices for now blocked the citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census. that question could result in minorities being undercounted, but the president says it's totally ridiculous that the government can't ask the question. he wants to delay the census. that comes as democratic presidential candidates clash in their first set of debates. the party's left within tilt was in full display in the initial round. candidates focusing in on health care and immigration. tonight front-runner joe biden will square off with benties sanders and eight other democrats. he is thattial candidate seth moulton and our correspondents will have full coverage. >>> let's begin with the emergency funding for the border crisis. let's go straight to our manu raju. what is the latest? >> reporter: after a bitter and emotional debate, one in which democrats pushed back by plans by the speaker of the house, and in just a matter of moments it will pass a business initially approve by the senate

some 10 percent of college graduates think that judge judy is a supreme court justice. i think all of us in this room are troubled about this state of affairs. the opening of the learning center marks the important milestone. the justice for all court and the community civic education initiative of the court of the second circuit. in this beautiful space, young people get to experience a world beyond the classroom walls to give them the tools to pursue the truth by learning research skill. it allows them to work together on group project. it helps to know that they have a role in building a better country. >> the judicial conference. one of the positions of the committee was to increase public understanding of the courts. we commissioned a study through the judicial center. highlighted work that was being done. i became chief judge in 2010. i can when will this to another level. we began this project. we tried to reach out to students. we want to give students a sense of the possibilities and the future. their graduates of public school in new york. we have students come

amy: so that was brett kavanaugh before he became supreme court justice. he was approved. is officially the roberts court, some call it now the kavanaugh court. what does it mean what he saidd andnd where o you see the supreme court going right now? >> i don't think we can give a lot of credence to what people say confirmation hearings. they tend to say what they think the senate wants to be heard. see thismously said, i as an oak park, calling balls and strikes. think we can say from that cap and i would not vote overturn roe v wade. for a long time we have had one justice in the middle thomas went justice, o'connor, then kennedy, who although conservatitive, have not been lg to pull the trigger to overturn roe v.v. wade. do w we have onene of thohose sg justices or do we now have five justices who would all overturn it? we don't knowow the answer. amy: what about roberts come and chief justice roberts, where you think you would stand? many were surprised when obamacare, when the affordable care act came before the supreme court, that he actually voted for it, even though

let me begin with the final two decisions by the supreme court. they called them stunning and proof that chief justice john roberts is making this court his own. what is your view of the rulings and imprint he is having on this court? >> talking about the gerrymandering case and the census case, what we are seeing is the gerrymandering case was a wonderful opportunity for the justices to step back and say we are being asked to do something that judges aren't entitled to do in the constitution which is second-guessed the redistricting going on. there is not a legal standard for that. it is political and judges shouldn't get into that. that was a great conclusion. majority, the chief justice and the other conservatives. we saw the court going the other way in the consensus case and the chief justice leading that. he seems to want to be chief justice marshall and give a little to each person and the less out. unfortunately, that is not the role of the judge and it worries me because it does show a political nature to some of those decisions. not ever

but today's supreme court decision effectively reverses that ruling. the court saying political matters like this should be handled not by the court but the states. similar in north carolina. three-judge panel said no. after 2016, republicans won 53% of the popular vote in north carolina. but representation they got 77%. ten of the state's 13 house seats. gerrymandering. in dissent, justin kagan read from the bench for the first time ever this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. that ruling a win for republicans. the second decision is a settle-back for the white house. one the president called this afternoon totally ridiculous. the ruling deals with the 2020 census. the supreme court blocking for now the trump administration's proposal to -- as part of the census to ask whether the respondent is a citizen. john roberts said the rationale was not adequate. he said the evidence does not tell the story that matched the explanation. officials with the census bureau said if they had a c

supreme court, the roberts court argued that the role of the court is more to protect the rights of the state to do with voting as they wish. the roberts court felt that the problem of racial discrimination in elections was in the past and the voting rights act must reflect this new historical viewpoint. the preclearance section of the voting rights act in its four decades blocked more than 1000 voting laws and procedures here that's the equivalent of 1000 successful lawsuits that have been brought under section two. imagine what that cost her justice ginsburg, i think, had one of the more apt rejoinders to the majority notion that the voting problems were all wrapped up, and she said throwing up preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. she was right. it was not hardly any time that shelby was announced that a storm of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters rained down upon states deviously subject preclearance. for example, mere hours after did decision

the mississippi supreme court ignored what this court has said about history being relevant. iseverything the court said [indiscernible] to the history. what are we to make of that? >> if the court had taken into account the history could not have come to this conclusion. there's many reasons in the opinion to believe they did not. they said considering the history, it is not alter our opinion and they pasted in their prior opinion that was history blind. they said history does not undermine his stated reasons. that is wrong. it undermined those reasons. it may or may not be sufficient for anistory of a desire of-white tour, a history willingness to miley the constitution and a history of willingness to make all statements, those things in the past with respect to three other jurors, that does [indiscernible] and when we look at what they did there is no point in which they say, yes, we are more skeptical of the reasons that he stated because he was dishonest before. or my yes, when i look at the false statements he made here, the eight false statements he made here, those ma

the mississippi supreme court ignored what this court has said about history being relevant. iseverything the court said [indiscernible] to the history. what are we to make of that? >> if the court had taken into account the history could not have come to this conclusion. there's many reasons in the opinion to believe they did not. they said considering the history, it is not alter our opinion and they pasted in their prior opinion that was history blind. they said history does not undermine his stated reasons. that is wrong. it undermined those reasons. it may or may not be sufficient for anistory of a desire of-white tour, a history willingness to miley the constitution and a history of willingness to make all statements, those things in the past with respect to three other jurors, that does [indiscernible] and when we look at what they did there is no point in which they say, yes, we are more skeptical of the reasons that he stated because he was dishonest before. or my yes, when i look at the false statements he made here, the eight false statements he made here, those ma

call, click or visit a store. >> sandra: breaking news from the supreme court. king the citizenship question sought by the trump administration to be added to the 2020 census. that case is now being sent back to the lower courts for more consideration. that news from the supreme court just moments ago. meanwhile, house democrats on the hill are modifying the bipartisan border bill passed yesterday by the senate. revisions will target safety and migrant kids. mike emanuel is live on the hill for us where all of that is happening. >> speaker nancy pelosi -- we are calling on the trump administration to engage in immediate conference to do the best we can for the children before we leave for the fourth of july holiday. she is addressing reporters now. a lot going on now, but there is intense pressure to deliver with federal agencies, some democrats would like to go further than the senate bill, but with the vote yesterday, 84-8 here that is about as bipartisan as things get on a deal that was hammered out by republican richard shelby and democrat patrick leahy a sho

you talked about the supreme court in mind when they went to the polls. if there was another vacancy ahead of the 2020 election, is there a historical record about who is energized most by that? carrie: the received wisdom is it seems republicans are more energized by it. there are a lot of people on the left trying to get their base encouraged to care about it. it is something voters across the spectrum no -- are seeing the importance of, as our federal government has grown -- and i would say out of proportion where it should be constitutionally, it has more impact on every american's life and that means the stakes for the supreme court are higher. wasn't think it is how it supposed to be originally but if you have justices determining laws that will be for the whole country in some of the different areas, it is natural that the stakes become very high. i think there are a lot of people realizing more and more have significant the court is. our goal is to make it that the within itserating constitutional structure so there is that representation. it is t

the supreme court has yet to weigh in and that continues here. highest court in the land will eventually say but it won't be this term. >> highly political questions coming before the court, there have been a couple of cases where the supreme court said, listen, we're not going to do it right now. >> not now. but we will get some really important decisions in a few minutes. >> jessica schneider up there on the court. moments caught on video terrifying. if you watch this video it really is. police pointed guns at a dad, pregnant mother and two children. it all started over a doll the little girl allegedly took from the store. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. welcome to fowler, indiana. one of the windiest places in america. and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to rene

otherwise, we need supreme court justices on that court.ast 99.9% of the time because it is, indeed, not a prize to be won, but an institution that deserves our respect by all parties. we need justices on the court 99.9% of the time. democratscall standing up and applauding that process. some thought it was okay, some thought it was not. according to mitch mcconnell, he would act as if every democrat stood up and applauded biden's comment. host: that is mike in ohio calling. a few comments from social media sites. this off our twitter feed. a viewer says there is no "biden's rule." no more bringing a conscience to a knife fight. patrick gilmore off facebook saying -- bill king saying it is time for a compromise. mitch mcconnell allowed a vote on a scotus nominee on the condition that the nominee is barack obama. you can make comments and usually people post well after the segment is over, but you can do so at @cspanwj and our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. a couple bits of international news, this one is specifically featuring mike po

i have been often asked if i ever imagined as a child being on the supreme court, the highest court of the united states. no, i say. when i was a child , my family was poor. no lawyers or judges lived in my neighborhood. i had no idea of the supreme court, its work in interpreting the constitution and the laws of the united states affects people's lives. you cannot dream of becoming something you do not know about. you have to learn to dream big. education expose us to what the world has to offer, to the possibilities open to you. it teaches you how to navigate your profession and life in general. for me, education opened my eyes to what i could become. education enriches you as a person. i often ask kids to identify the most interesting person they have met. inevitably, they identify a person who speaks about his or her worth with knowledge, who inspires others to consider a new idea or perspective or simply amuses people with a play on words or an insightful poke of fun on a human condition. education expands your knowledge and your ability to relate with and in the world. education

>> i think the justice wants to keep the supreme court out of politics as much as possible. the court, a majority, allowed this case to proceed and actually decided it on the merits, then they would be opening the door for any disgruntled political party to challenge a lower court decision even if that legislature or the state itself decided, we don't want to pursue this. i think this is an attempt, lower the application of what the court will consider which will make it less likely that the supreme court has to step in and make political decisions. >> it's a race question here, right? >> not really because if -- for him to go to that merit, he would have to have firm ability to reach it. that question was before the court during the oral argument. when you go back and listen to the oral argument, attorney clement was arguing these republicans should be able to bring this case. the court said then they saw a problem. even the conservatives on the court said there was a problem with standing of these republicans. because once democrats took over the governorship and the attorn

the supreme court ends its term with two big rulings. blocked for now from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. and the court's five conservatives unite to say the high court should not get involved over fights over extreme political jergerrymand r gerrymandering. plus debate night take one. the 2020 contenders spar over just how left their party should go on questions ranging from abolishing private health insurance to decriminalizing illegal border crossings. and this note for the

supreme court begins its last week of cases for this term monday. two issues remain. mandering and whether the court should rein in district shine drawing. and whether a citizenship question should be aloud on the 202 -- should be allowed on the 2020 census. sunday night high over new york city's times square. nick wallenda and his sister. i'm aishah hasnie. professor mcc, progressive movement is not all, that concerned about the constitution. when you read woodrow wilson or john dewey or all these other fellows at the end of the 1800s, early 1900s and they viewed the courts, in particular, as a change agent and they would be dismissive of the declaration and the constitution and they wrote about it this constitution comes from wilson talks about, as you know, you can have separations exists in the federalism stuff is quite an interesting but now were an industrial power and a superpower in the different body parts have to work together. it's like a living organism. they don't seem to be all that worked up about the constitution in terms of complying with it. >> the pr

maybe you are saying to yourself, but we are about to talk about a supreme court justice. why are we talking about political culture as opposed to judicial culture? today wouldjustices have you believe the court is a political, not involved in the political system whatsoever. i will leave the current system and questions about that maybe to a later time. century, wethe 19th need to completely erase the idea of an apolitical supreme court from our minds. reframing the catron-polk relationship gives us a much more meaning a picture of -- much more meaningful picture of how the federal government operated in the 19th century. there are a number of elements that make up this culture of the court but when i talk about polk and catron's relationship, i would like you to keep three in mind. the first is what i call fluidity. government was messier in the mid-19th century. because of the nature of political networks in this period, there was political overlap and less hardened boundaries between the branches of government, the levels of government, and political organization. seein

and the supreme court upheld that. dred scott, a black man suing for his freedom, came right before the united states supreme court. and what they said was that the u.s. constitution did not give african-americans citizenship. they have gotten it wrong. the supreme court has gotten it wrong. an unspeakable violations of human rights and civil liberties have been executed by the united states government in that -- in light of that. and i can tell you with this supreme court argument, they could very well get it wrong again. and i don't even want to think about how far that could be pushed. but that is not even what the question is at hand today because what this subpoena is about and what this contempt is about is the fact that we have asked for information, and there is a refusal to comply with a co-equal branch and our power. that's all that this is about. that's all that this is about. so we have to execute our power and hold that power to account and vote on contempt. so the reason i do not want to support this amen

i hope the united states supreme court hears this. religion was defined specifically by our founding fathers. we have forgotten it. when we forget it, we forget the the united states constitution. james madison once said that the difficulty isn't framing a form of government of men over this. first, you must enable the government to control the governed and then the next controlblige it to herself. we're living in a society today where we have no problem obeying obeying laws. we're a very obedient people to law. the supreme law of the land is the united states constitution, a problem when government is out of control and does not control itself. intrusion to our lives, taking away of our vital liberties, our rights, the right of a child to be born. gode are rights given by and they can't be taken away. so i'm in the race. yes. question] a very excellent question because in the memorandum sent to the judges of the probit courts, i said i can't tell you what to do. alabama supreme court to make that ruling. i said they have the case bef

the government could not implement prop -- policy until the supreme court backed it. that is not the only example. the ninth circuit ordered ether an on wh injunction from pennsylvania district court mooted the appeal within the night circus. eth circuit. this is not compatible with our judicial system. it not only allows the courts to too much power, but also asymmetrically. when a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. when a court grants it, it renders all other litigation irrelevant. think about what this means for the government, when congress patches -- passes a statute or the president issues a policy that is challenged, the government must run the table. the challenges have to find -- challengers have to find one district court judge willing to render a nationwide injunction. one judge can cancel the policy. even the chief justice of the united states must commence at least four other justices to bind the federal government. injunctionsnwide undermine confidence in the judiciary. when a single judge can freeze policies,

the supreme court basically said that's not true. he was thinking about this way before that. so what they've done is they've sent it back to the court where this came from. according to york they ruled in favor of 18 states and other groups that challenged this decision to put the citizenship question on and that court had sent it back to the census bureau to say try again. tell us now why you really want this question. so that's where it stands. the census bureau can come back now, they will go to the judge in new york, he will probably rule against them, the trump administration will ask the supreme court to take the case and the question is by the time all that has played out, has it simply been too late to get this process going. >> peter, isn't that stunning? a cabinet member isn't honest about the way in which he makes a request that major. are there any consequences for secretary ross? >> well, yeah, right now the census -- the census bureau can't put that question on the census form. that's a pretty big slap-down to him saying you weren't honest with us with the suprem

. >> you mentioned the supreme court. there are several abortion-related lawsuits and states across the country. several cases could get to the supreme court in the next few years. can you talk me through what cases you are following most closely? which are you most concerned could reopen the debate around roe v. wade? and is there anything you can do with the case were to get to the supreme court? are you but hold into what those nine justices may decide? is there any strategy you can do? dr. wen: i'm glad you brought up this question because it is something i think about every that weis the nightmare in planned parenthood are preparing for every day. i came from the world of public health, where there are natural disasters, disease outbreaks that we prepared for. well, this is an emergency in the public health crisis, but it is man-made. there are 16 cases right now that are one step away from the supreme court, and any of them being heard could lead to roe v. wade being further chipped away or being completely overturn