supreme court. 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 was proud to introduce hr 1057 the supreme court ethics act which would require a code of ethics floor at the supreme court. i was also heartened to learn from justice eleanor kagan recent testimony that the supreme court may also be discussing whether to adopt a code of ethics on its own. this would be a welcome development and i hope that this hearing and the show 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 recused from the case without anyone else reviewing their decision. the same basic concern arises when people

the supreme court said the supreme court the end of its opinion.i think it's a statement we are at the point that i try to make already. this case is very contemporary it is part of our law. and our ongoing struggle. listen to this. quote, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of the legislation has taken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage of the progress of his elevation, and he takes the rant of a near citizen, and ceases to be, the special, favorite of the lauded. 1883. 1883. the great mass of african- americans in 1883. in 1883 can remember bondage. slavery is close in 1883. and even then the spector african-americans seeking to be the special favorite of the laws. sound familiar? it ought to. now, there was a dissent. professor finkelman mentioned that -- suggested that john marshal harlon was the one justice who expressed a keen attentiveness to racial justice, largely correct. i wouldn't want to go overboard in celebrating justice harlon. in question and answer, maybe we can get into that a

what did the supreme court do? the supreme court, in an 8-1 opinion invalidated the public accommodations provision of the act of 1875. what was their thinking? their thinking went as follows. first, they really focused on two constitutional provisions that might have authorized the act of 1875. they focused on the 13th amendment and 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was really the constitutional provision that they spoke about the most. what they said was as follows. listen, let's take a look at the 14th amendment. the fist section of the 14th amendment provides that no state shall deprive any person of privileges of immunities, due process, equal protection of the law. what the court focused on was, the phrase, the term, "no state," no state shall deprive any person of these rights. now, what does the civil rights act of 1875 say? the act of 1875 says that discrimination, whatever the source, discrimination with respect to places of public accommodation, racial discrimination with respect to public accommodation

the supreme court disagreed. yet, the district has continued to argue that it remains not bound by the second amendment. and there judges that have agreed with that position. they have embraced that position broadly and other jurisdictions as well. essentially concluding that entire cities can be deemed sensitive places. we litigated a place years ago in california that involved special restrictions, fees that california puts on the ability to engage in a firearm s transaction. they have a fee you have to pay that then they put into an account that they use to go engage in law enforcement activities against people who unlawfully use firearms. so they -- firearms. so they basically make it a condition of obtaining a firearm as a law-abiding citizen that you help pay for special cost generated by citizens who violate the law. when we challenge that provision, the district court that we started before invoking , the language of heller about laws imposing conditions on the sale of arms said that all commercial restri

as we even have on the supreme court. i could see maybe with a different administration, stephen breyer might have wanted to leave. or even ruth bader ginsburg. >> where almost out of time. what happens to the composition of the court if donald trump --ael acted in 2020, and israel acted in 2020 and republicans continue to control the senate? reelected in 2020 and republicans continue to control the senate? >> i'm a lawyer, not a doctor. >> i'm a lawyer, not a fortune teller. is 86. bader ginsburg stevens did not step down until he was 90. she said she wanted to wait to retire until she got to his age. he said stay longer. when she told that, people have applauded in the various liberal leaning audiences. justice feeling that ginsburg and justice breyer will hold on as long as they can. justice breyer turns 81 this month. i think it is not possible to predict what is going to happen. justice scalia was a relatively young man when he passed. >> >> by the standards of a supreme court justice. he was 79. >> nobody was looking

because there is a presidential primary debate that night, degrees president, ted cruz a former supreme court court, has a lot of experience in this area and if this becomes ted cruz's idea to block the nominee the republicans are not going to want to do it because nobody wants to do 10 cruz's bidding so that is why mcconnell acted so quickly. he needed to get in front of this so everybody is looking at scalia's death knowing it will be a big thing at this debate and trying to strategize around it. another person who is strategizing around this is donald trump. don mcgann, a major character in the book, very interesting guy, don mcgann, trump's campaign attorney, had been appointed to the fec, by george w. bush and put on with mitch mcconnell's help because don mcgann i have known a long time. i call him a radical libertarian, don is anti-bureaucratic person and when he got on the fec, became the chairman, he basically shut down the federal election commission and stopped them from doing some of the regulation. to don mcgann that is what he wanted to do and exactly what mitch mcconnell wanted

walter nixon case in the supreme court, the supreme court said the the court cannot review way congress operates, which is about its procedures. so, we wanted to remove this argument from the table, so after it was raised, congress ratified these subpoenas, the major subpoena -- the house ratified the deutsche subpoena. judge livingston: house resolution 507. on the face of it, that resolution does not satisfy their concerns because it is a resolution that purports to authorize all subpoenas so long as they involve the president and his family. mr. letter: i do not think the justice department said it did not satisfy. judge livingston: it did not provide the connective tissue of what are the subpoenas for, and and how thepurpose, rest of the subpoenas satisfy that purpose given that it is all directing subpoenas into the future. mr. letter: i am so glad you brought this up. we pointed out that it modified the subpoena -- ratified the subpoenas and the justice department does not the lie that -- deny that, but then it says you ratified others in advance. if that happens, we can litigate

so please understand, the supreme court long ago unanimously rejected almost everything that mr. strawbridge is saying today. so really what this means is mr. , aawbridge is asking you court of appeals, to go against a massive amount of supreme court precedent. the separation of powers concerns the justice department raises, do you agree with it that the subpoenas is tied directly to a third party seeking the president's personal information implicates separation of powers concerns? mr. letter: your honor, the subpoenas issued here do not raise separation of powers concerns, much of the justice department brief you will note is hypothetical. because the justice department says what if there were a whole batch of subpoenas, what if the president -- i forget if they use the word raft, but basically were burying the president with subpoenas and a key thing that justice marvin talks about is what if congress was -- justice department talks about is what theongress was delaying president from carrying out his functions. >> is the other side correct in saying this is the first congress

supreme court. the stakes are very high. amy: as the trump administration again tries to push through a rule that would effectively ban all central american migrants from seeking asylum in the u.s., we look at the latest deadly government policies targeting immigrants, from trump's plan to end a program that allows severely sick immigrants to stay in the u.s. for treatment to ongoing family separation. we'll speak with lee gelernt, deputy director of the aclu immigrants' rights project. then as the second border patrol agent this month pleads guilty to assaulting an undocumented immigrant, we look at the devastating death of jose antonio elena rodriguez. killed on mexican soil in 2012 -- more than six years after the killing, but the family is stilill waiting for justice. >> it is so frustrating and it makes me so angry knowing that a person can stick his hand in there and kill mexican children with impunity. lonnie happened to swartz. he is still free. he still has a job. he left my family completely destroyed. amy: in the

in addition, it would be inconsistent with the supreme court precedent. we have illegal issues here. legal issues here. the appellate courts can take an injunction and turn it into a final one. i'll give you one example. in the supreme court, it was in the top of my mind because i was one of the lawyers for the justice department for moonov, the supreme court said there is -- took a preliminary injunction and said there is no good argument here and it made a final decision. that's what we would urge you to do. as far as for the actual standard of review, i'm not criticizing that this court has not necessarily been consistent always. sometimes, you've said in these circumstances reasonable likelihood of success, sometimes -- other times you have said serious question. i frankly have not read the case and i'm not positive which one applies. we think your case, most likely it's a serious likelihood of success and we are comfortable with that. i think judge ramos dealt with whatever standard there was. just doesn'tere seem to be any reason to take this final.

supreme court. the ultimate rejection of african-american rights granted by the 15th amendment was the supreme court's approval in williams v. mississippi in 1898 of the 1890 disfranchising conventions in the form of confederate states. with that stamp of approval, then the states of the confederacy instituted all sorts of voting restrictions. you know about a lot of them. then there's an outrageous oklahoma case where they said we'll allow black people to vote, but we just won't count the votes. the united states government accepted jim crow, but african-americans never did. the black community continued efforts to enforce voting rights, but to little avail until the civil rights movement of 1960s. it was really a century before congress finally followed charles sumner's advice about that law, and that's the voting rights act of 1965. it was hard fought just as the first reconstruction had been hard fought. the act was necessary for enforcement because so many other laws to guarantee the right to vo

you may be thinking, we're about to talk about a supreme court justice. why we are talking about political culture? how does plul culture apply here? court observers and many of the justices today would have you believe that the court is apolitical, right? that it is not involved in the political system whatsoever. and i will leave the current system and questions about that maybe to a later time. but in terms of the 19th century, we're going to talk about the supreme court in the 19th century, and james k. polk's era in particular. we need to completely erase the idea of an apolitical supreme court from our minds. reframing the catron/polk relationship from the perspective of political culture. those unspoken or rarely spoken beliefs, attitudes and methods, gives us a much more meaningful picture of how the federal government operated in the mid-19th century. so there are a number of elements that make up this political culture of the court in this period. but as i talk about polk and catron's relationship, i want you to keep three in mind. the first elem

what's more, confirmation as a supreme court justice did not bring an end to the close relationships with their political friends. while today we might be uncomfortable with a justice speaking openly about politics after assuming his role on the supreme bench this raised no eyebrows in the mid-19th century. it was no surprise then that fwichb catrin's close relationship with polk, the former was deeply involved in the latter's political life, and this manifested itself in many ways. while polk was in congress and catrin on the court, the two men often discussed congressional legislation, sometimes this had to do with bills regarding jute dish area and other times not. catrin hoffered his friend advie for how to effect a reasonable solution. the political relationship was more than just discussion. when a judiciary bill that the other supreme court justices didn't like came up for discussion in the house, they implored catrin to convince polk to get rid of it, to make sure it did not pass. this kind of political conversation and maneuvering was particularly possible because catrin and

also breaking, the supreme court's liberal icon, ruth bader ginsburg, treated for pancreatic cancer. the 86-year-old justice just completed radiation therapy. the court says her malignant tumor was treated definitively with no evidence that the disease had spread. i'll get reaction from democratic congressman roe kana. he is a member of the oversight committee and our correspondents and analysts are also standing by. first to cnn white house correspondent abby phillip. and abby, the president is really raising the stakes tonight in this trade war with china. >> that's right, brianna. the president this morning spent the day lashing out at china. and as he tweeted his attacks, the dow industrial average took a nosedive. but then later he huddled with his advisers to try to figure out what to do to respond to those $75 billion in tariffs that china announced on u.s. products. the president now is upping the ante, announcing his own tariffs would increase in the coming weeks. >> reporter: president trump tonight hitting back at china. increasing tariffs on $550 billion in chinese goods i

believe of the puerto rico that he is illegitimate as governor in a moment and let's see how the supreme court of puerto rico decides maybe today and in the makes they say. we are a part. of the issue we will be. trying to help the court understand the constitutional issues but always remembering one thing this is not only a legal. illegal. it's not only about jurisprudence this is about the people of puerto rico we're still suffering from some economic humanitarian crisis and how does this affect the people of puerto rico that it's very important for us if the court rules against peer luis e. and he resigns street protests like this could erupt again. al-jazeera san juan puerto rico the noble literature prize winner toni morrison has died at the age of 88 in new york also in georgia looks back at her life and her work. she was the 1st african-american to win literatures ultimate prize the nobel in 1903 breaking barriers along the way when i think there can a call for writing. has got to be the nobel prize but what toni morrison really did was create space to discuss racism sexual abuse injust

the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington dc and around the countryyou can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span has brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. cspan your unfiltered view of government. >> every year cspan awards fellowships to several middle school and high school teachers who have demonstrated innovative methods of incorporating cspan programs in their teaching. they joined the relations team in washington dc, for four weeks in july, to develop new teaching materials. they also help lead cspan summer educators conference. one of our 32019 teacher fellows is middle school teacher maureen mcguirl of jamestown rhode island. 2019 maureen mcguirl of jamestown rhode island, tell us a little bit about your school. >> are schools on island for one, he pretty much have k-8 and they are excited when we have make 25 percent of our population because of the war college. new people, to meet and brain information to our classroom so basically, the island started out as a farm for sheep, and then state that weight r

supreme court.everal of the justices were talking about locker rooms in junior high school and justice ginsburg said no, you don't know what it's like the be a 13-year-old girl, you don't know how humiliating that kind of experience is. aknew 8-1 in the end that was an illegal search. having diversity on the court is essential for public confidence and the development of the law and an increasingly diverse america. >> thank you very much for being here tonight. >> thank you so much for having me. nk you so much forav hing me -guys, i want you to meet someone. this is jamie. you're going to be seeing a lot more of him now. -i'm not calling him "dad." -oh, n-no. -look, [sighs] i get it. some new guy comes in helping your mom bundle and save with progressive, but hey, we're all in this together. right, champ? -i'm getting more nuggets. -how about some carrots? you don't want to ruin your dinner. -you're not my dad! -that's fair. overstepped. -that's fair. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why acce

she's a giant on the supreme court. we need her to be on the court. she's great in her interpretations of cases that she has had a major impact on. she's a great balance on the court. i am convinced she will continue to fight as long as she possibly can and i think we all wish her well and hope that she'll be strong, and can stay on the bench for many years. >> let's talk russia, because after the u.s. tested this new type of cruise missile, it would have been banned in the inf nuclear pact, were it still in place. vladimir putin says he's ordering his military to develop new weapons of ththeir own. do you think we're looking at another cold war? >> here we go again. clearly russia violated the int nuclear treaty. they did, but the way president trump handled that, he started now potentially an arms race. that is not in the u.s. interest. it's not in russia's interest, and certainly not in the world security interest. we need to continue as we did with new s.t.a.r.t. to find a way to reduce nuclear forces in the world, not increase them and give other

he was going to enlarge the supreme court by six justices. was going to take the court from nine members to 15. of course, everybody knows that these would be liberal leaning, new deal supporting roosevelt holding judges. and wheeler not only opposes the presidents party on that initiative, but he leaves the opposition in the senate. he works hand and cloak with a number of republicans to create a bipartisan majority that eventually defeats his plan. roosevelt's never, after the supreme court in 1937, it is hard to believe how consumed the country was by that debate, it literally was a runny debate every single day from february through the summer of 1937. the country absolutely turning on every aspect of this debate. after 1937, roosevelt never was able to count on a working majority in congress on his working agenda. it might be a cautionary tale for some of the democratic presidential candidates who are running around talking about enlarging the supreme court. if he can speak beyond the grave, he would say that that would probably not be a

that they wanted appointed, cery losing it with supreme court nominations. that's the backstop. what is the go-to? we are going to stamp our feet, we are going to change the rules, we are going to change the structure of the court, maybe packaged. we know that pete buttigieg is for that. but it will work, kamala harris, and elizabeth warren have said they want to pack the court. go to the nth degree, serve this country so well for centuries. >> chris: they may be overreacting. the republicans have made deal after deal after deal with democrats. "all right, we will get one conservative judge, you get a liberal judge. it's a liberal state, maybe you get to cope liberal judges." >> elizabeth: merritt garlin, though, right? >> chris: the democrats are playing to win it over and over again. >> dagen: "the wall street journal" wrote it of trial, about this amicus brief filed by these five democrats. david french wrote it for the national review online. "the wall street journal" wrote that the fear is clear that the court will clarify its second amendment jurisprudence and protection fo

please of the kind of supreme court justices i'm going to nominate. can that issue still propel his base to the polls, or do you need to make the economic argument you've been making? david: right, so conventional wisdom is if the economy is strong, the president will be reelected. there is data going back multiple decades that will be the case. so, the economic issue is always really important. but your point is a good one. the courts became a symbol on a lot of the social issues because the court had driven issues on marriage, issues on life. those are ones we don't engage in. but i think president trump successfully harnessed that conservative momentum by picking really good potential justices and campaigning on that. i see that happening again. i would project that one, he'll want to make that another issue. and i suspect the democrats will want to make their view a central part of the campaign, given what happened on the last supreme court nomination, where you saw a very stark divide between the party. not about confidence, and it ended up being

how is the white house kept apprised with the supreme court?is just a personal issue given how much weight is on the supreme court justice's shoulders in that position? >> well, certainly, the president of the united states is getting as much information, more information, usually, than the rest of us are, about supreme court justices, about their health. about usually, typically, members of congress. you know, depends on the relationship between the president and the justice, you would expect, in most cases that in a situation like this, there would be some sort of personal communication. a note, a phone call, something like that. i'm not sure what the relationship is between the president and justice ginsburg. but the supreme court is a relatively regional place itself. these folks are in a club that only nine of them are in. i think you'd be surprised to find out how well they get along among themselves. surprised to find out where the friendships lie among them. and it's one of the last bastions of that kind of friendship. >> we've had seve

>> the supreme court. it's the most, i guess, less as to what it does and how it functions, because they to , when they get to me, think that a law is passed by congress, given to the resident, and then handed over to the supreme court to see if it's constitutional. he other picture, it's like a trial they see on law and order, o dispel the type of jurisdiction it is, and, as well as the process at which the justices go through a case, what really deciding, guilt or innocence, for the most part, jurisdiction, but rather to look at the constitution and due process. in washingtonhere as the big decisions are coming down from the supreme court, as you?happening, too, aren't >> absolutely. often use tinker versus bell because that captivates my students, they love to debate their rights, and so the idea of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. >> the vaping issue? >> because they were really it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate itself, so they have

supreme court.a's attorney general is going to join me next. general going to join me next. look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ dprevagen is the number onemild memopharmacist-recommendedng? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow. not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. the business of family time... ...and downtime. ...and you time. ...and forgetting what time it is...altogether. modernized comfort inns and suites have been refreshed because when your business is making time, our business is

and he is a strong sense of personal loyalty and he had ambition he would've reappointed to the supreme court and had a fantasy that the democratic president would appoint him. but the thing about him he made up with them and he was so devoted to the institutional court into massing the court. that he would join the decisions which you degrade were disagreements to converge and they ended up working together well. but he shows there's no correlation between virtue and he was a devoted husband in nursing his wife back to health after she had a stroke and taught her to speak again. incredibly devoted to his kids. none of that means your good leader. because leadership requires things like liberation, flexibly, accommodation, willingness to listen to your opponents that may not correlate with public virtue. i remember reading one anti-nixon historian that said he was normally truly a wicked president. i don't think that that is true. the recent biography shows there were such a human side to nixon, he so vulnerable and also did a great deal of good inform policy and even his failed attempts to c

>> the supreme court. it is the most less known as to what it does and how it functions, because they tend when they get to me, that they think that laws passed by congress, given to the president and handed over to the supreme court to see if it is constitutional. their other picture is like it is a trial they see on "law and order." the type of jurisdiction it is in as well as the process in which the justices go through a case, what they are deciding -- not guilt or innocence at the appellate jurisdiction, but rather, look at the constitution and due process. >> you are here in washington as the big decisions are coming down from the supreme court, as it's happening. >> absolutely. i often use tinker versus bell. that captivates my students. they love to debate their rights. so the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. >> the vaping issue. >>>> because they were really disturbed by how it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate i

thus, in 1966, the supreme court ruled section 5 preclearance requirement was constitutional. in 2013 the roberts court ruled in shelby county v. holder that section 4, determined that is the trigger clause, the jurisdictions that were required to submit proposed election changes for preapproval was unconstitutional. the ruling disables section 5. now, this was in spite of a huge amount of testimony evidence presented to congress when they renewed the voting rights act in 2006 and section 5. this finding really eviscerated the essential preclearance of electoral changes in the covered districts and crippled the voting rights act. chief justice roberts stated his reasoning for shelby. our country has changed. this depressingly echoed a ruling in 1852 in the early dred scott cases which said african-americans could not be citizens at the time, which previous decisions in missouri had a pattern of ruling for freedom, but with the new decision would be ruling for slavery. times are not now as they were. now, while roberts said he acknowledged that any racial discrimination in votin

given to the president and handed over to the supreme court. the other picture is that it's like a trial they see him on order. -- on law and order. see the process with which the justices go through a case, what they are studying. constitution and due process. bigou are in washington as decisions are coming down from the supreme court. >> absolutely. i used to go versus bell as something. they love to debate their rights. the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. they were really disturbed by how it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate itself. they have been doing a lot of letters about that. this week, i was watching a few of the committee hearings on that. i'm looking forward to bringing clips of that to have them evaluate what the next app is -- step is. how would they do with the program -- problem? >> used teach seventh and eighth grade. >> looking at how different historical events have shaped the constitution. i also do history day with them. >> you mentioned

of course the supreme court being restructured has become a daily talking point among 2020 democraticuggestion being court packing meaning to increase the number of justices. former vice president joe biden and bernie sanders bernie sanders are against court packing. though sanders thinks that justices should be rotated to other courts. conservatives currently outnumber liberals on the high court 5-4 but the past year a number of cases where conservatives including president trump's picks, that cavanaugh have sided with liberals. and for the record democrats are considering if the supreme court takes up this case involving now defunct new york city gun laws, it could prevent other cities from passing similar gun control legislation so they want the court to just leave it alone. shannon. >> shannon: we will see if they do, trace gallagher things. the democrats think they can lose the key gun rights case and the supreme court. is it fair to issue a threat to the justices? fox contributor richard fowler and chairman of house judiciary committee bob, good to have you tonight. let me read

. >> a warning to the supreme court. top radical dimms and senate telling supreme court justices tto -- heal the court or face a fundamental restructuring. one of the most bizarre warnings in history of the supreme court. this country calm was not order of the day on woot, investor exuberance rallying the stock and bond market, dow soaring after trump administration announced delay on tariffs of some chinese goods on 3 1/2 months, dow jones up almost 400 on the day. with the administration's decision, edward lawrence reporting from washington. reporter: president deciding to put some items under tariff on september 1, others delayed until december 15, largest group items on september 1, they include many things like milk, meat, agriculture products, sour cream, also steel products. and u.s. trade representative delayed tariffs on other items until december 15 or health, safety and national security reasons, that is cell phone, laptop. video game, toys and clothing, u.s. and china trade teams had a phone conversation this

he and his fellow republicans took the rare step of writing a letter to the supreme court. they warn that the court, quote, must not be cowed by the threats of opportunistic politicians. calling them a threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all americans. here to talk about all of this. michael steele, and amber phillips, reporter for the "washington post" political blog. let me ask but this. i'm not sure writing a letter to the supreme court, what you're expecting the supreme court to turn around and do. i'm going on read this as a politically motivated action. let's try to decipher what it is. is it trying to offer motivation potentially to what they call those reluctant trump voters? folks who might like republicans more than democrats, but don't like donald trump? >> sure. it is a way, i guess, an idea to sort of put something in front of the court to say, we take this very seriously. this president has been very successful at putting two conservative justices on the bench. and i think for the base, that is certainly a big kudos for that. so this i

we start with some shocking news to me from the supreme court.t three weeks, 86-year-old justice ruth bader ginsburg was treated for a malignant tumor on her pancreas. joining us out that more is the full post of fox news tonight also fox news chief legal correspondent, shannon bream's. >> and i we are learning more details about the health talent challenge for the supremes all this court justice. she announced that she has undergone radiation certain therapy in new york for the cancerous tumor and other than

this is from democratic senators who say the supreme court is not well and people know it. rhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restricted to reduce the influence of politics particularly on the urgent issue of gun control. the nation desperately needs it to heal. what does that say to you? >> several things. is brazen. secondly it is banana republic politics and they want the court to be healed of politics they should stop filing amicus briefs because that is clearly politically motivated and designed to threaten the court, a very bad tactic but it threatens the independence of the judiciary which is one of the most sacred aspects of protecting the civil liberties and assuring justice is provided to people. and differing interpretations of the constitution, if they focus on that, reading the letter of the law, and make sure we have justices the pay attention to what the law is and not politics. shannon: conservative news daily and this headline, democrats tried to bully supreme court into inaction on gun control. should the court ruled against new

supreme court. i tend to think that in academia and politics, these people on this fringe of racial thinking, they tend to find each other like magnets and iron filings do. do you remember how back in the 2016 campaign trump used to tell this totally made up story about the way we used to get rid of terrorism is that we'd dip the bullets in pig's blood and wrap up the muslim bodies in pig skins and that's how we got rid of muslim terrorists in the past and now we're too wussy to do that. there's a little controversy in the 2016 campaign that he just made up that story. this guy who was just nominated to be a federal appeals court judge has also made that same argument that trump made on the stump in 2016. he has told that same fake story in the course of his academic career. this was crazy enough to hear candidate trump run with this, this completely made-up story during the 2016 campaign. >> they took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pig's blood. you heard that, righ

then on the other side, a president who nominated a supreme court justice.he senate majority leader refused to take it up and an entire year went by and nothing was done. now, the narrative is that if it does come up in an election year, we will go ahead and do it. from a separation of powers point of view, just to look at the contrasting examples and maybe to just examine that a little bit because there was some discussion about norms of behavior and other things. and just to put the hard politics into this and the reality of the hard politics and the separation of powers and functions. thanks. david: anyone want to take that? >> i think the separation of power system sticks about the relative powers as actors but it is controlled by how the public's fear response to things, which means some sense of public opinion will lead to election results. certainly when leader mcconnell was not bringing up the supreme court nomination in the senate, he was making a gambit in a democracy and public sphere that the public would not punish them as much as this was worth

are various legal challenges to the revocation decision, which are going to head towards the supreme court court today has issued a ruling saying it won't intervene in the decision of the curfew and the lockdown, saying that the government has every right to impose this policy and let things stabilise. it is not clear the court is going to be on your side. if the parliament represents the majoritarian sentiment, then courts should represent the minority sentiment, that is our understanding. as of now we are about to challenge these articles. some political parties have already filed petitions. i know it is going to be a long battle. it won't be easy for the supreme court also to undo what the majoritarian government, the bullying government, has done in this country. i know it will be hard for supreme court justices to stand for the cause of truth. you make your passionate points about the constitution, but is there not a way of looking at this that is much more pragmatic and technocratic? you yourself i think pride yourself on being something of a technocrat. mr modi makes the point that

and a warning to the supreme court. topic radical dems in the senate telling supreme court justices to quote - heal the court or face a fundamental restructuring. one of the most bizarre warnings in history of well, the supreme court. in this country, calm is not the order of the day on wall street. outright investor exuberance rallyingthe stock and bond markets. the dow soaring into the trump administration announced aid a delay. the dow jones industrial almost a 400 points on the day. and on that news. with the administrations decision, edward lawrence reported from washington. reporter: the president decided to put some items under tariff on september 1 and others delayed until december 15. large group go under tariff on the september 1. including milk and sour cream. they say they delay tariffs and other items until december 15 for health, safety and national security reasons. the list includes cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, toys and clothing. u.s. and china trade teams had a conversation this m