rather, what the supreme court and i understand mr. freeman does not like no in venice he prefers they did not sayt, but they do and they largely it is up to the discretion of the district court's. how could be district court -- the district court make any analysis under particularized need without looking at the redacted material? >> again, the supreme court rejected that very argument and what she has to do is what the court did in dennis and what the court did indo. showed is thees obligation of the judge and take into account the factors and make a determination. >> how does a judge do that without looking at the materials? when the house comes in and invokes the word impeachment as everything. get does the law say that? >> no, that is not what we are saying. let's look at that particular case. about what talking judge how ordered. first of all, we are only talking about the mueller report. limited because it is what special counsel mueller decided to put in his report and all judge how gave us where the redaction's, so it is very l

she's flying blind on this. >> again, the dennis -- the supreme court rejected that very argument. so what she has to do way the court did in dennis, and what court did in doe, because, for example, this also was not done in the doe case that we so heavily rely on. what those cases show is that the obligation of the judge is to take into account the douglas oil factors and then make a determination -- >> how does a judge do that without looking at the materials? it seems to me, mr. letter, that the force of your argument is, when the house comes in and invokes the word impeachment, that it's a mantra, impeachment therefore we get everything, and does the law say that? >> i understand your concerns, judge griffith, and no, that is not what we're saying. let's look at this specifics case. we have only -- we're only talking about what judge howell ordered. judge howell ordered a very discreet type of disclosure, so first of all we're only talking about the mueller report, so we're not talking about all of the mueller grand jury information, so first of all it's limited because it's wha

but the truth is, that the supreme court, like most courts in america, is very collegial, warm, and wonderful place to come and work. it's a tiny little place, only a couple hundred people work, maybe a few hundred, you get to know people, kids trick or treat in your office, we flip hamburgers, at the cookout, weaving let the law courts make fun of us in us get at the end of the year, and boy do they, that's a whole other story, of course, do we disagree? yes. you've given us the 70 hardest cases in america of course are going to disagree, but we do it civilly, we do it collegiately and we have fun doing it, we sing happy birthday to one another, poorly but enthusiastically, seemed together at the holidays we eat lunch together, every day we have conference, launches available, justices lunch, now is bring your own, we work for the government,. justice breyer, we don't talk shop, we don't talk shop at lunch, justice breyer's grandchildren, seemed to be a reservoir of nearly endless knock knock jokes, practical jokes, too i don't think sonia would mind me telling this one, so one, day we all l

that our supreme court disagrees with the u.s. supreme court. they can never go below the federal floor set by the u.s. constitution for protection of individual liberty, but they can go above it and so that happens and that's helpful. it doesn't mean we're always going to win. in fact here in alabama we actually lost a case at the alabama supreme court where we challenged a teeth whitening license. that was really a case where we were arguing that the precedent was different than the federal precedent. unfortunately, the alabama supreme court disagreed and we lost that one. but overall we tend to win these cases more often than we lose and win them under the federal rational basis test. so i've won quite a few of them. maybe some day we'll win one in alabama as well. so those are the first two types of challenges we bring. but then of course sometimes there's no reason to think that a state constitution will provide any more protection than the federal constitution, at least when we look at the precedent. other times it's clear there's not goin

carter, although he had only four years and no supreme court vacancy to fill. he did literally change the complexion, of the federal courts, by appointing women, and members of minority groups, in numbers. i think president reagan with say, jimmy carter was right, and i'm going to make big stride forward who pointing a woman to the u.s. supreme court. >> so you saw this as a continuing, of what president carter had started, it was a change, in the opportunities, for women, to be part of the judiciary, anywhere. >> as he will sometimes ask, did you always ought to be a supreme court justice? i said, in the ancient days when it graduated from law school., what we wanted was any job, a job >> but we won't talk too much about job opportunities, where were you how did you learn about this nomination, disappointment, and what was your reaction? >> at the time i was assistant district attorney in new york county, i was working hard to solve you know i got to see it used that night. to me, i just graduated from law school, year and a half before, maybe two years before.

just like executive branch, we're not happy with the supreme court get with articles. we don't have is federal court step in the middle of it levitical food fight because that politicizes the judiciary. the second point and the last speeded can i be clear, is it your view that the opinions of the office of legal counsel that recognize these remedies were not adequate in this context? it's no longer law? >> i'm not quite sure what you are referring to but -- >> i mean, you can't just pass legislation on a unilateral, a unicameral basis. so the notion that the senate this stage is going to go along with some of these things, you know, i mean, it's nice to write a law review article about the derailed in the world is we have two like branches at loggerheads here. the question really is, the fundamental question is, is there no proper role for the courts? your answer is no, not in this type of dispute are either they have to duke it out or nothing happens. the fact that one branch and one part of the branch is stymied and what the founding fathers sought was a critical powe

the supreme court has characterized the case that way in its later decision. we know it matter that he was individual legislators at issue nes and nothing about raynes overruled this court's very clear holding in at&t -- >> does chenoweth suggest that it does? >> chenoweth was a case about, again, members asserting amorphous dilution of legislative power. this is -- i keep going back to this but it matters that this is a subpoena enforcement case. the type of dispute that the courts are personally with answering, and even if there are political question at issue in this case, and we know from the supreme court's decision, even if their political issues the courts would gladly avoid, it is the duty of the court in the case that is otherwise judicial, and we submitted that this would -- this one is clearly with this court's precedent and long history practice between the branches, to say what the law is. that is what we're asking the court to do is to issue a ruling that mr. mcgahn, who again he is a private citizen. he's a former presidential aide, to the extent

decision this week will the supreme court you know issues the law of the land they think that what is showcased here for immigrant support groups and those who are fighting for basic human rights of in. grants is that they can't count on the supreme court to protect them what we're seeing here is an extension of an administration that has shown time and time again that they are pushing. poverty and regulations not only for immigrants but also for american citizens we know that the top administration has back a lot of the obama era legislation specifically around housing affordability and housing access for impoverished individuals we've seen him take food out of the mouths of those who cannot afford to feed themselves by reductions in food stamps and all of this on the backs of him consistently saying how strong our economy is and how well it's doing under his administration so i do think that when it comes to a lot of this anti immigrant sentiment what he is also saying is that he is anti those who are actually here with green cards this is an entirely different type of immig

supreme court precedent. we have seen the most radical group of people appointed to the federal bench that we have seen in the last 25 years. they wouldn't even discuss whether or not they thought brown v. board of education is the appropriate law of the land. these are radical judges. they will strike down a bill or they will uphold a bill banning abortion and force it to be appealed. i think that we do ourselves a disservice to believe that this won't happen. the only reason i'm so emphatic about that is because now is the time to take action. the appropriate action to take is to start supporting state legislators who believe what you believe. whether you are against abortion or pro-choice, the question of how abortion is regulated going forward, whatever we believe, will be determined by who sits in harrisburg and our state capital. it is our obligation to think the most dramatically. to think that this could happen. now is the time to make that change. otherwise, it is too late. you have trifecta does --

we had this case at the supreme court. in the district court we won. they said this is a violation of the establishment clause. the establishment clause is there cannot have a national church established and as to be forced to contribute to prevent gifts that he veterans memorial has to be torn down because it's in the shape of a cross is something our founders would find bizarre, i think. we made this argument. we want at the district court. at the court of appeals we got a different court. three-judge panel ruled that this was unconstitutional under the establishment clause. one of the questions or statements during the oral argument by one of judges was why don't we just cut the arms off the cost because that way we will not have to destroy it and get it won't offend anybody anymore. we knew at that point we might be in trouble in that case, and the decision was against us. the building was this will have to be removed or destroyed by way it was later would have been destroyed. is that an shea-porter can be moved. so went to the supreme court. this

supreme court.ade a nationwide search came up with a spectacular search, justice sandra day o'connor. david: when president clinton became president, we were obviously someone being considered, and then president clinton talked to somebody who was pushing for your appointment , daniel patrick moynihan, and president clinton said women do not want her. how could not -- how could that have been the case when you are the leading lawyer in gender discrimination? how could some women have not wanted you on the supreme court? womene ginsberg: most were overwhelmingly supportive of my nomination. i had written a comment on roe 100%de and it was not applauding that decision. what i said was the court has an easy target because the texas law was the most extreme in the nation. only if could be had necessary to save the woman's life. it does not matter that her health would be ruined, if she was the victim of rape or incest. was anht roe v. wade easy case and the supreme court could have held that extreme law

supreme court to revisit this matter." we believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur. is that the motivation behind passing these laws? to directly ask the court to revisit that? or is it more of a chipping away, as mary mentioned? catherine: well, you can't really understand alabama without also understanding the flipside, states like new york. as you mentioned, you have a lot of people and constitutional scholars, a lot of the public looking at the makeup of the court, seeing changes there. we don't know how those play out. looking at public polling on abortion, particularly on some restrictions or protections for women, things like informed standards,safety informed consent and things like that. also looking at the abortion rate, which is currently at the lowest it has been since before roe v. wade. also noting, more important than that, the abortion rate among unintended pregnancies. looking at the increasing percentage of women who may not have planned to get pregnant, but still are not cho

the first is the supreme court lottery. under this reform every judge on the federal court of appeals would be appointed as an associate justice of the supreme court, the supreme court would heal here court cases on a subject of nine and each panel would be prohibited from having more than five justices nominated by a president of a single political party, no more than five republicans or democrats at a time and the second is a balanced bench and that's the proposal that mayor buttigieg has endorsed. these 10 would select an additional five justices from the current circuit court judges and the 10 partisan affiliated justices would have to select an additional five justices unanimously two years in advance or for a one-year term. powerful, creative, not easy to get through congress obviously to put it mildly. so is it fair to say that the convention might be the surest or most probable way of achieving these reforms and what do you think of the idea of an article 5 convention to achieve the reforms thatyou advocate ? >> when

supreme court president. we have seen the most radical group of people appointed at the federal bench and we have seen the last 25 years. they wouldn't even discuss whether or not they thought brown versus board of education is the appropriate law, so his radical judges. they will strike down a bill and force it to be appealed, it and i think we do ourself a disservice to believe that this won't happen, and the only reason i'm so emphatic about that is because now is the time to take action in the appropriate action to take is to start supporting state legislators who believe what you believe. whether you're against abortion or pro choice, and a question of how abortion is regularly going forward, wherever we believe will be determined by who sits in our state capitals, and therefore it is our obligation to think the most dramatically. think that this could happen, because now is the time to make that change, otherwise is today. you have trifecta as in 22 states, you have nine states have trigger laws. if the

new seed change in how the united states handles its immigration was codify by the united states supreme court on monday in a highly controversial decision to override a lower court injunctions against the white house broadening of what's called the public charge rule the new york times reports that the supreme court's decision now finally allows the trump administration to move forward with plans to deny green cards to immigrants who are thought to be likely to make even occasional and minor use of public benefits like medicaid food stamps and housing vouchers you see originally the public charge rule allowed officials to deny green cards to immigrants who could end up on public assistance but it was narrow in its focus and only in forced around one percent of the time but back in august yes back in august the trump. the trump admit the times reports that the trump administration broadened the criteria to include non-cash benefits providing for basic needs such as housing your food used in any 12 months in a 36 month period as well as other bureaucratic jabs of poor immigrants like if you use

it went to the supreme court.ore too much longer, you are going to see some antitrust class action challenges against some of these boards. that is going to be interesting to see. it is not what i do. i'm not an antitrust lawyer. it could end up being helpful. >> we have time for one last question. >> have you considered joining a consumer to your action? i have a texas lady saying, i don't want to go to a licensed barber, i want isis to braid my hair. you are interfering with my right to have my hair braided how i want and by whom i want. have you considered joining that way? >> yes, we have. we have done that in some cases. we tend to have the entrepreneur as the lead plaintiff but there have been quite a few where one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer. that is true for a lot of our economic liberty and free speech cases. the person who wants to hear the speech is being harmed, too. i think adding them in as plaintiffs is helpful to show the court how ridiculous the governments logic is. the governm

it went up the supreme court and the supreme court ruled in favor.ou're goingonger, to start the season antitrust class-action challenges against some of the licensing boards, particularly the ones that have no oversight from the government and are comprised entirely of private actors and that is going to be interesting to see. it's not what i do, but it could end up being helpful. >> we have time for one last question. >> i was wondering, have you ever considered joining a consumer to your action? a texas lady says i don't want to go to relicense barber, you're interfering with my right to have my hair braided how i want and by whom i want. have you ever considered following or joining in that way? >> yes, we have. we've done that in some of our cases. quite a few of our cases were one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer, and that's not just true for licensing cases, that is true for a lot of our economic, liberty, and re-speech cases where the person wants to buy the service or the person wants to hear this age, they are being harmed, an

ladies and gentlemen, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg.ank you so much, everyone, be seated. applause thank you so much. let's start with the prize. this is a prize that you have been given for the impact that you have made to effect social change in this country. what does it mean to you to have won this? i was overwhelmed with the letter inviting me to accept the berggruen prize. as a government officer, i can't accept money for myself. but this was an opportunity to give money to many good causes. i was a bit taken aback because i'm surely not a philosopher. but i do interpret a text, and the text i interpret most often is the us constitution. applause i can assure everyone here it is indeed a living constitution, because who would want to be governed by a dead constitution? laughter i wonder if i can take you back now to when you first started. and when you graduated from columbia, i wonder what you set out to think about the kind of legal career that you thought you wanted, that you thought you could have. just take us back there. yes

the montana supreme court disagreed that courts held that barring religious schools from the program did not violate the federal constitution. they should reverse that judgment. even respondents could now see that excluding religious schools from the program is now unconstitutional. but they argue that the court avoided this discrimination, by validating the entire program. this is wrong. the only reason the court invalidated the program is it because it relates it included religious schools. nor should the remedy, shield the judgment from review. petitioners brought this lawsuit because they were denied scholarships, based on religion, and they are still being denied scholarships, based on religion. if the court had shut down the program, because it included muslim schools, are african american schools, there was no question that that would be unconstitutional. we ask you to reverse, respondents argue, that in the alternative, the law allows them to exclude the religious schools and let this case falls, but that would allow the exception to swallow the rule. as it was made clear, it

supreme court. at 86 she has spent many decades fighting for women's rights. razia iqbal presents this special programme from new york. i, ruth bader ginsburg, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, so help me god. justice ruth bader ginsburg is the leading liberaljudge on the us supreme court. at 86, she has been fighting for decades for women's rights, including for equal pay and fair access to abortion. it is no exaggeration to say that her crucial work has affected profound change in the legal status for women in america. and it is for this reason that she has been awarded this year's berggruen prize for philosophy and culture — a prize she will be awarded here at a special ceremony in the new york public library in front of an invited audience. but first, i've been given a rare opportunity to talk to rbg — an affectionate nickname — about her career, her popular iconic status, and her hopes and fears for the future of america. ladies and gentleme

chevron itself was a decision by the supreme court overturning the left wing bent of the then d.c. ch was thwarting the deregulatory fishti fi initiatives. depending on the makeup of the court that's making the decision, it's like there was this odd moment during the gorsuch confirmation hearings when senators durbin and feinstein were criticizing gorsuch for his opinions that in turn expressed skepticism about chevron. they were saying they wanted to give rick perry and scott pruitt and betsy devos more power, because if you have strong chevron deference, that means the agencies have more power. it was a bizarre thing to argue. this is not supposed to be a left/right thing. >> back to that original question, how do you think the trump administration is doing so far? >> right. the one interesting regulation which seems like a gimmick but actually has i think been successful is the rule that for every new regulation that's promulgated two have to be withdrawn. that's worked. we've definitely seen a slowdown in the production on the pages on the federal register. if you go to senator

as the judge and the supreme court pointed out. they have a most no reason for grand jury secrecy. second is, the court said these are not going to be used against witness who were witnesses before the trial. -- before the grand jury and the trial. that is extremely unlikely to happen before the senate, so it is not that kind of interest. there is nothing left on the balance of grand jury secrecy. again, the supreme court decision made it absolutely clear mr. freeman cannot deny that. second and then is, what is the interest that is balanced with the interest of justice? this is the most -- this is it. there is nothing more important than determining whether the president of the united states should remain the president of the united states. >> mr. letter, before the district or, you asked -- the committee asked only for authorizing the release of the material. it did not ask for an order compelling the department to produce those materials, is that correct? so if we were to uphold the authorization by the district court, vacate the order compelling the department to produce that in

>> i think it is steelco and this supreme court's decision in williams b. e three jurisdiction is a question that the court always has to satisfy itself, not only the appellate, but the actions of the district court below and our reading of the case, it is clear that you do have to satisfy yourself of article three jurisdiction. the court then, proceeds with the immunity case. although we think that the cause of action question, and the merits of the question are sufficiently intertwined with that. the course has several options available to it. but i think the order of steelco, with the jurisdictional questions have been answered and for that you have to go to the free-standing -- >> obviously, even if, there is a lot of talk about the effect of rule 41 dismissal and satisfied on that point, and think that this court's decision both before and since, including the decision for media energy, support our view and argue the cases that once the district court was divested of jurisdiction by timely notice of appeal, and by the docketing of the case in this court

so we appealed to the supreme court and the u.s. supreme court. there had been a case in the fifth circuit where students had given the right to wear freedom buttons around the civil rights movement and so with the split between the two circuit court, the supreme court agreed to hear the case and at the supreme court, as you mentioned we won 7-2. >> our goal for the next hour and we should also point out we welcome our viewers on c-span3, american history tv is to talk not only about the significance of this case, but also 50 years later, how and why it is relevant today. from the majority opinion, justice fortis with the following, quote. first amendment rights applied in the school environment are available to teachers and students. it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate. can you explain the significance of that decision? >> well, this is the first time that the court, the supreme court had recognized that students in the public will sc

so with the split of the two circuit courts, the supreme court agreed to hear the case, and at the supreme court we won 7-2. >> our goal for the next hour and we will point out that we welcome the viewers on c-span3 american history tv is to talk not only about the significance of this case, but also 50 years later how and why it is relevant today from the majority opinion, and justice abe fortis with the following. the first amendment rights applied in the school environment are afforded to teachers and students and hardly argues that the students or the teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. can you explain the significance of that decision? this is the first time that the supreme court had recognized the students in the schools were persons under the law, and there fr they are endowed with the first amendment rights and with the proviso that they not disrupt the educational environment and there cannot be a material or substantial disruption of the environment, and they cannot infringe on the rights of other, but this is the

senator menendez vote to confirm him, not just to the supreme court but as chief justice of the supreme, and i'm thinking of the 15 republican senators that thought so much of him that they voted to confirm him, voted to make him chief justice of the supreme court, will they listen to him, will they hear him when he asks them to swear to what michael steele said, act as impartial -- 15 republicans are still serving, could probably name them, not on live tv. john cornyn, mitch mcconnell was there. they're part of his legacy, they're part of making john roberts the chief justice. will they listen to him, swear to be impartial jurors? i wish i could be in their heads, wonder whether they'll dismiss what he is asking them to do, take an oath to be impartial as michael steele probably correctly predicts they will, or will there be something about seeing him there, someone they helped install, will they take him seriously. >> senator, in 20 minutes you have somewhere to be. one last question. to the question claire mccaskill was asking, to the talking point frlt nicolle, lindsey graham told u

joining me to believe to discuss the supreme court's decision on the public schools is democratic strategist political democratic strategist and political analyst richard cross who supports you thank you for having me all right i'm usually i want to start off with this obviously you know that i'm not a fan of my little tirade at the beginning being very very just bothers me mark or what this is one of the political and societal implications of the supreme court's decision will the supreme court you know issues the law of the land they think that what is showcased here for immigrant support groups and those who are fighting for basic human rights of immigrants is that they can't count on the supreme court to protect what we're seeing here is an extension of an administration that has shown time and time again that they are pushing. poverty regulations not only for immigrants but also for american citizens we know that the top administration has wall back a lot of the obama era legislation specifically around housing affordability and housing access for impoverished individuals we've seen him

the supreme court the government everyone knows what's happening in the country yet the 4 weeks that was given to the government was done 2 ways we don't think the people of india happy with what the court has said. more than $100.00 petitions have been filed with the court which say the fast tracking of citizenship to minorities from 3 neighboring countries but not muslims goes against india's secular constitution but the court itself has been criticised recently for yielding to government pressure on some of the most contentious issues judges ruled last year on india's most controversial religious site. 1992 hindu mobs destroyed the 16th century mosque and i all the sparking riots which killed more than 2000 people despite acknowledging that the mosques destruction was unlawful the supreme court allocated the land for the construction of a hindu temple while giving the muslim community an alternative piece of land to build a mosque was not a. of course it was. at whatever cost. more. meant. i would like to say critics also point to what they say is the court's inaction in indian adm

and the supreme court is there forever. guest: while the supreme court has a lifetime appointment, that's the way our constitution is structured. with regard to the government -- yes, there are people who ave -- yes, there are people who have worked for the government for a long time. i cabinet think of many instances where experience is considered a bad thing, and people in my position, we have to earn our position whenever there's an election. if people don't like what we're doing they can vote us out of office. i think experience is often a good thing and people should not be discriminated against or forced to leave a job they don't want to leave where they are excelling simple because of age discrimination. host: danny, in oklahoma. good morning. caller: my question, or statement, i'm a welder. i'm 49 now. at several different times, i've ried to work for different unions, and they say they need ore people to join the union but when you are about 40 to 45 or so, trying to join the union, they kind of look at you like we

that being the chief justice of the supreme court. if the chief justice fints that a witness would be probity, that witness would be allowed to testify. if he finds it would be immaterial, that witness would not be allowed to testify. it still maintains the tradition, if you don't agree with the chief justice, you can overrule him. you have the votes and you can disagree with what the chief justice has decided. but would it give this decision to a neutral party. it will be done in line that the schedule that the majority leader has set out. it's not the schedule we want. we don't think it makes any sense to have the trial and then decide witnesses. if we have to do that it way, and it looks like we are at least a neutral arbiter decide. much as he may loathe the task. whether a witness is relevant or a witness is not. and we would hope if there is nothing else we can agree on tonight, that we could agree to allow the chief justice to give us the benefit of his experience in deciding which witnesses are relevant to this and which are n

supreme court and how hopeful are you that the petition will get a fair share hearing at the supreme court again given that it was passed by both houses of parliament by a government that has such a strong mandate a majority in this country right now. the parliament a bill was passed not with the time being majority. but there was good or late 37 percent of the people to vote 63 percent of the peoples of india had water against a government therefore you can't say it is the deal of the majority people of india then the bill passed in the parliament with dierdre brutal murder did this but did this a bill has become to know who are go to before the supreme court we were observing the way in which the supreme court was a reacted did support sympathetic to the supreme court's reaction was quite sympathetic we've learned to believe that it meant war to be a passage also there are police and within 4 weeks time the government of india has had to give all the answers to the petitions and of within the 4 weeks' time the supreme court will do some sort of were hoodwinked. fun shooting. the con

at the supreme court says no. yes. at the supreme court says no. yes. it back to parliament at a later stage but there are 1111 petitions before the supreme court on this matter. this is massive. we‘re going to leave it for the moment because we need to come to the uk, the shouting is over. the withdrawal agreement signed. the uk will leave the european union one week now. that rubicon cross, are the challenges coming to focus? the future relationship with the eu, free trade agreement with united states, after four years an anguished debate of what brexit might be. we are about to see what it actually means. steve, firm predictions? firm production is about what will happen in the trade deal? yes because i wa nt in the trade deal? yes because i want to... a week ago we had a uk chancellor saying we will be nonaligned with the european regulations and then a couple of days later he seems to slightly backtrack and say we don‘t divert shots for the sake of it. yes. the of this is all the big decisions have still to be made. so when britain lives on january