citizens united supreme court struck down as unconstitutional ban on corporations and unions, using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures, trustee advocating for the election or defeat of canada. sexually the court held wrongly in my view, this ban on independence day centers violated corporations first amendment free speech rights, citizens united representative unjustified extension of public reversible supreme court discussion in 1976, the struck down independent expenditures by individuals. handled decision have since decided citizens overturned decades the presidents helping the government regulate, corporations, unity is negative effect this is denied it was immediately apparent, same years reports aside since united u.s. court of appeals at the u.s. district, decided, speak now versus fec, strike it down federer -- taken together these two discussions resulted in the rise of the so cold, super pac committees, because of these decisions individuals and corporations could make unlimited contributions to packs, dedicated only to making independent expenditures,

i don't think the supreme court will do that. >> david, tell us exactly what the supreme court will be documents we're talking about here? >> well, essentially this is a request for the tax filings and business records that back them up. back to 2011 and what donald trump is asking the supreme court to do is extend the idea of immunity. in fact, he's promoted this idea of absolute immunity that the supreme court said does not exist to his actions when he did not hold office. this is an extraordinary and dangerous claim that a sitting president of the united states cannot be investigated for conduct that took place before he assumed office. and let's remember that his lawyer, george consavoie told the federal district judge, kenny chen, do you mean to say if the president actually shot someone on 5th avenue, that the new york police could not investigate the murder and constable said correct. that's donald trump's claim. you can't even investigate me and he's not a witness here. this is a subpoena for documents from the trump organization and from his accounting firm. >> and i remember

. 9 seats on the supreme court.s not in the constitution but that's been the tradition. roosevelt doesn't like the court because a majority of the court is knocking down his rather radical programs as unconstitutional. so decides i can fix that. i can add five seats. what happened? >> he was very upset that the supreme court struck count national recovery act and the agricultural adjustment act. he had no appointees in the supreme court during his first term. he ultimately appointed 8 out of the seats. but in -- in 1939 he won by a large margin. roosevelt wants the agricultural adjustment act to continue so he wants to pack the supreme court. he wanted to get it up to 15. he could then carry more legislation through. so he has a bill that he is promoting to pack the supreme court. he uses the influence he has in the southern senators instead of use it on a federal bill, he uses it to pack the supreme court. for a while it goes well. he calls in various congressmen and the senate is the key group. he's telling them t

so, it starts with maureen scalia, and it is one of the best selling books in the supreme court gift shop. [laughter] >> i think that is quite an achievement to say you haven't cooked a meal for decades. justice ginsburg: something else, the supreme spouses meet quarterly for lunch, and they rotate catering responsibilities. marty was always the number one pick to be cook. >> for good reason. well, the aba commission on the 19th amendment is ticking after suffragetteser the , and we are going to publish a digital cookbook to celebrate the 19th amendment, so i wonder what recipe would marty contribute to that and which one of your rotating seven would you pick out? justice ginsburg: you wouldn't want any of those. [laughter] i thought my one fish, to fish, blue fish was pretty good, but my children don't agree. marty's lime souffle was sublime and then there was the ultimate not kosher dish, pork braised in milk. i think his crowning achievement was a french baguette. he worked for a year to get that recipe right, and he had the highest praise he could get was the french ambassador to

one might be threatened in the future by an endlessly creative supreme court majority. there is overwhelming support for a constitutional amendment among the american people to overturn citizens united and related decisions. it does not support among democrats only. it crosses party line. it is felt about the country. it is overwhelming, it is reflected in 20 states have passed resolutions calling for constitutional amendment, more than 800 cities and towns that call for a constitutional amendment. yet strong enough to urge congress to take action to pass h.j. res two and send it to the states for ratification to restore our democracy. thank you very much. >> thank you. our next witness is mr. bradley smith, rarely is a witness thanked for, and complement by the site, so you are special. the joshua blackmore second know capital -- professor lachman initially affords on election law and second financial and co-author of polarized election law meeting casebook in super he served for five years as member of the fec and chair of the commission 2004. he received his j. d. cu

i don't think the supreme court will do that. >> david, tell us exactly what the supreme court will behat are the various piles of documents we're talking about here? >> well, essentially, this is a request for the tax filings and the business records that back them up, back to 2011. and what donald trump is asking the supreme court to do is extend the idea of immunity. in fact, he's promoted this idea of absolute immunity that the supreme court has said does not exist, to his actions when he did not hold office. this is an extraordinary and dangerous claim that a sitting president of the united states cannot be investigated for conduct that took place before he assumed office. and let's remember that his lawyer, george konsevoy told judge chin that do you really mean to say that if the president actually shot someone on fifth avenue that the new york police could not investigate the murder and said correct. that's donald trump's claim. you can't even investigate me, and he seas not's not a witness. this is a subpoena for documents from the trump organization and maser's usa. >> the op

the future by creative supreme court majority. there is overwhelming support for constitutional amendment among the american people to overturn citizens united and related decisions. it does not support among democrats only. it crosses party line. it is felt throughout the country. it is overwhelming. it is reflected in 20 states that have passed resolutions calling for constitutional amendment, more than 800 cities and towns. take action to pass hj res 2 and send it to the states to restore our democracy. thank you very much. >> thank you. our next witness is mr. bradley smith. rarely is a witness thanked for coming by the other side. so you are special. joshua black bore second professor of law at law school. leading election and campaign finance and coauthor of voting rights leading case book in the field. he previously served for five years and chair of the commission in 2004. he received his j.d. from harvard law school. can't any of you get accepted at any other school? professor, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairm

that case gets to the supreme court in 1948 and the court says bars can be pretty raunchy places and we need to protect the women, we do this by prohibiting them from being bartenders. so matthews saw from the beginning that these so-called protections were not real favors for women, she was a very effective advocate. >> you argued in the supreme court at a time when there were few women advocates, and of course you argued a number of these upside down cases, model discrimination, we know there are inroads being made, little by little in terms of women arguing in the supreme court, but, you probably know a lot more now than you did when you argued your first case in the supreme court. so, what do you know now having been a justice and been on the other side of the bench that you would like to convey to advocates for the court or court of appeals or otherwise? >> i think i knew then what has been reaffirmed over and over again. the supreme court is what lawyers call hot bench. that is, every justice has done his or her homework, is armed to the teeth for oral argument, uses their powe

argued a number of these upside down cases of discrimination in terms of women arguing in the supreme court but you probably know a lot more now than when you argued your first case with the supremede court. so now to be on the other side of the bench what would you like to convey to advocates before the court? >> what i knew then was reaffirmed over and over it was the hot bench every justice was to be used ueeffectively. that's not true of all appellate benches. i remember one argument. and i start to argue and then i can sense early on that they hadn't even read the opening brief so i had to go back to being a kindergarten teacher to leave them in the direction i wanted them. that would be very disillusioning to the advocate. >> but the opposite of that is when advocates are making an argument and some of the more recent studies suggest both the female justices and the advocates are interrupted more than the male counterparts in the even suggested the mail justices interrupt the female justices three times as much. sometimes that pattern has been reversed in the gender related cases. why

she argued before the supreme court. she chairs the environment committee and appointed by chief justice roberts to the national workplace conduct working group. she travels all over the world assisting foreigni isjudiciary h their judicial code and she survived an avalanche during a mountain climbing expedition in tibet. so i'm thrilled to invite cool woman the honorable m. margaret mccuen to the stage. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, everyone. please be seated. be seated. good evening and thanks to justice ginsburg for joining us tonight. i was looking at your justice ginsburg and i noticed you had a lot of name changes over the years. you were called kiki when you were little or kiki baby and then went by a more dignified name ruth. then you became professor ginsburg. then judge ginsburg and finally justice ginsburg. most people would just quit there but you have this new moniker of notorious rbg. can i just call you justice ginsburg? >> you can call me ruth. >> [ laughter ] >> okay. >> ruth. so on behal

supreme court, equal justice under law. i stand here today in support of our constitution which has made our nation that shining city on a hill. i stand here today for equal juchts -- justice under law. i stand here today for a full and fair trial as our constitution demands. i stand here today to say that a president who has abused this office by soliciting a foreign country to intervene in the election of 2020 and bias the outcome, that individual, that president betraying the trust of the american people, undermining the strength of our constitution, that president must be removed from office. i yield the fe dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i i ask unanimous consent that following my oral

supreme court again. now he's calling if for ruth ba ginsburg and justice sonia sotomayor to recuse themselves. >>> the roger stone case is back in court after he asks for a new trial, and the judge starts the hearing with a message. we have all of this and more, you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. we'll be right back. hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber. if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good. we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. b11 is that? steve harvey? give me b11 isn't bingo just an ok use of your hosting abilities? it's like getting a samsung galaxy s20 5g, and not getting it with at&t. bingo! no, i only called out two letters. now, you might have go, you could have bi, but you can't have

here. >> i think the content is important, because judge sotomayor is using the outlet that a supreme court is supposed to use. h her decide to stay that the trump administration asked the court to stop a lower decision on. for your context, the professor at the university of techs of t school, recently published a study about the obama administrations, so in 16 years there were only a block of requests going straight to the supreme court. there were 21 brought by the trump administration asking the supreme court to overrule what lower courts had done and allow it to immediately, on an emergency basis, implement its policy. this is usually really extraordinary, they have to show that there's harm, but the reason the trump administration is sidestepping the lower courts is because, as justice sotomayor pointed out, they have had a great success doing so. lower courts have said, actually, this needs to go through the normal process. we need to adjudicate this, we need to have evidence in this and the supreme court has written a blank check to the trump administration and that's what justice s

eric: pretty unusual when they go public, you know, behind the confines of the sacred supreme court. she wrote, called it a thumb on the scale. quote: i fear this disparity erodes the fair and balanced decision making process that this court must strive to protect. and one study says there have been 23 stays during president trump's three years, 23. versus 8 over 16 years of both president obama and president george w. bush and that 65% of the time supreme court justices side with president trump. so maybe, you know, would a neutral observer look at those facts and say, you know, what's going on here? >> well, i think you would have to see the context of it, and i'm sure the conservative justices would point to perhaps maybe there's too many courts taking a broad view of what their powers are in stopping the implementation of laws. i think that's a fair legal debate. but i think where it kind of breaks down is the idea that, for instance, justice john roberts -- who's a supreme court justice, chief justice appointed by president bush -- is some taxi of the republicans in the trump whi

never has the senate referred such rulings in nixon versus the united states the 1983 decision the supreme court held that federal courts have no way to review the procedure that it was not a political question and the judiciary and the supreme court in particular were not chosen to have any role in the impeachments. the supreme court in that decision even foresaw the delay that white house counsel threatened us with and saw them as an argument against any judicial role. the court said, quote opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used would expose the political life two months or perhaps years of chaos. ". the court immediately went on to particularly highlight the concern witht respect to the impeachment of president it would be nice if white house counsel when threatening delays would have addressed the supreme court decision. constitution, common sense all put responsibility squarely on us we should never shirk back responsibility this has been a sordid moment for the senate. it has done harm enough. lad at not provide any credit for the full white house argument and not for f

walter, nixon, the united states, reported that 506 us 20 february 24, 2019 three decision the supreme court held that federal courts have no power to review procedures used by the senate in trying impeachments. that it was a nonjusticiable political question and that "the decision the judiciary and the supreme court in particular were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. the supreme court in that decision, even for saudi delays that white house counsel's threatened us with.and saw them as an argument against any judicial roles. the court said "opening the doors of judicial review to the procedures used by the senate and trying impeachments would expose the political life of the country to months or perhaps years of chaos". the court immediately went on to particularly highlight that e concern with respect to the impeachment of a president. it would have been nice if white house counsel, when they were in this chamber arguing for their threatened delays, would have addressed this supreme court decision. the constitution, common sense, and our impeachment precedents all put the respon

begin to supreme court and they got to make those decisions. ority here, allowing the overruling, are the right, on the legal merits. using his lower court judges issue injunctions time and time again. and they stop policy before we even get to the merits of the case. the supreme court is coming in and saying, these national injunctions are just 20. kim: that's what made the language below in disingenuous blow. she knows that the the conservative members, this is a deeply held belief with the lower courts on the issued these, is very corrosive to the judicial system because you don't allow the arguments to play out and across different circuits. and there's no importance of getting eight certain administrations policies. so these nationwide injunctions are bad in principle. that is why they have been saying them. because they are pretty some of the top administration, it would do this in any situation. it is appointed think the needs to be made. paul: kyle, another interesting result pretty different court, federal second circuit court of appeal

the supreme court recognizes the 1972 e.r.a. expired and the department of justice issued a ruling saying congress may not revolve -- revive after the deadline has expired. pretending that we can remove the time limits is futile and deceptive. secondly, if the time limit could be extended, the e.r.a. would not bring women any more rights than they currently have right now. but it would entrance the legality of abortion. we know this from listening to those who have the most to gain from constitutionally protecting abortion. in 1998 the new mexico supreme court ruled that the equal rights amendment in their state constitution requires state funding of abortions. some reports are likely to do the same -- some courts are likely to do the same. pro-choice america says with this ratification the e.r.a. would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion. the national organization for women says an e.r.a. could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion. that is not the only concern with passing this

governor fallon issued an executive order which essentially said she didn't believe that the oklahoma supreme courte was trying to override, usurp what the court had done. >> the governor said the supreme court exceeded its authority. i don't know that's ever happened in oklahoma. and no one really questioned whether she had the authority to do that or not. all the supreme court was really asking for was more time for the attorneys in the case to brief these issues. >> reaction also came from state representative and former police officer mike christian who immediately introduced legislation to impeach the judges who voted in favor of lockett and warner. >> well, see, the way i see it these are evil doers, animals. you can call them demons if you may, and the people across this country, in particular oklahoma, we want justice. >> people in oklahoma strongly support the death penalty. they feel we don't spend enough time talking about the victims of these crimes. a 18-year-old girl ends up being savagely duct taped, shot and buried alive. and we're talking about mr. lockett and his rights. >> mike c

opposition filed by the office of the service general under the philippine constitution the philippine supreme court has originated restriction over these kinds of petition and under rule $66.00 of the revised rules of court we always g. is in fact authorized to fight these petitions. having said that i don't think the petition will prosper in any way it is in the nature of a prior restraint and in our jurisprudence all prior restraints come to court with a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality sole short of a clear and present danger i don't think the supreme court will act in the petition specially since the life of the franchise of e.b.'s b.n. it's only until march 30 by for us prediction is of the point when that act on it until the franchise of e.b.'s i've been expires in which in which case it becomes most an epidemic and not right for judicial determination let me bring in don't you know iraq in many ways don't seem to agree with harry dimino when he says that this petition has nothing to do with president attended that president or ted had nothing to do with the petition yeah that's every

next, discussion on the possible copyright implications for software development ahead of the supreme court case google versus oracle. that's an institute hosted this event looking at the history of copyright protections and the importance of code being protected by copyright laws. it's an hour ten minutes. >> all right. i believe we will now begin. thank you all for coming to our event today on google versus oracle case. officially titled consequences of the case here i actually have my own subtitle, which is copyright in the future of the software industry. very significant case and absolutely delighted to have adam mossoff here to speak to us today about the relevant legal policy in commercial issues that are raised by this case. my name is adam mossoff and i am a senior fellow at the hudson institute and also now the chair of the newly constituted forum for intellectual property at the hudson institute. this is, in fact, our inaugural event and so we're delighted to have it on such an important issue and with such a great speaker. the forum will be hosting events sponsored and promoting

inside of trump's upside down views on the supreme court. and michael bloomberg gets one last chance at a do-over after his disastrous performance last week. what to expect from the former new york mayor. all of those stories coming up. e ninja foodi pressure cooker, the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. be stronger... with nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor. it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. nicorette ice mint. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath.... ...that[ sigh ]s your craving. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which

when was the last time the supreme court heard a case about the software? >> i'm not aware. >> this will be the first time the supreme court has ruled on copyright ability of software programs. congress waiting in 1980 and amended the copyright code, the code is copyrightable. this is the first time the court decides the bounds of that statute that congress enacted and fair use decision was similarly a very long time. probably since the 90s. >> copyright has been a static body of law. everybody including if you look at some of the evidence in the case from the district court, you know that google knew what they were doing. they knew they needed a license for their use of java and they intentionally didn't get one. >> commercial benefit, create a competing product, at least on its face not the scope of what is typically considered fair use which is for use in a classroom, teaching my class and find something that is relevant and haven't decided to incorporate this permanently into my teaching material that just came out recently and might take a paragraph. i

adam: and so google has appealed to the supreme court. and this is a really significant case, right? because the two question nas the supreme court has granted review on is the copyright ability of a.p.i. and whether this copying of the a.p.i. if it is copyrighted it counts as fair use. adam: when was the last time the supreme court heard the copyrightability of a software program? >> i am not aware. adam: this is the first time they will rule on the copyright ability. this will be the first time knew the -- supreme court decides the bounds of that statue. and the fair use decision has been a long time since the last time we had a fair use -- tim: i mean, copyright has been a really static body of law. i think everybody and including, you know, if you look at some of the evidence in the case, you know, from the district court. you know that -- that google knew what they were doing, right? they knew that they needed a license for their use of java. and that they intently didn't get one. >> yeah. so -- and commercial benefit, right for crea

heavy presumption of unconstitutionality so short of a clear and present danger i don't think the supreme court will act on the petition specially since the life of the franchise of e.b.'s b.n. it's only until march 30 by for this prediction is of the court when that act on it until the franchise of e.b.'s debate expires in which in which case it becomes moot that epidemic and that right for judicial determination all right let me bring in our in manila you don't seem to agree with harry dimino when he says that this petition has nothing to do with president attested that president teddy had nothing to do with the petition. everything to do with us we just need to realize that early s 27. in the 2nd state of the nation and the us he identified that he has made organization see through the cd and or either that or. they buy the public as well allegations or in ownership and besides the obvious the solicitor general acts in behalf of the got their man and we cannot deny the fact that the head. man even if there is cleared it all also out of the legislature and the judicial branches of government

that is the law of the land, decided by the supreme court. we believe the courts are the place to debate those kinds of issues. and not to put that on the back of equality for women. we should be able to get this done in a very speedy and fair way. pay andr comment about she works for the federal government, let me ask you about title vii and title nine. title vii applies to the civil rights act and prohibits discrimination against women in the workplace. with 15es to workplaces or more employees. title ix prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in schools. in title vii, why hasn't that been enough to equalize both pay and treatment in the workplace for women? think, in so many cases, it is a person by person, case-by-case kind of approach. you have to go to court and have a lawyer and pay thousands of dollars in so many instances to get your due course. moni --where all the money has been donated and given the time's up for lawyers and given to women who feel that they have been discriminated against. moneya time-consuming, consuming app

he's winning at the supreme court. >> and at other levels of the court as well, joan, thank you very. >>> remembering a sports legend. friends and family honored nba legend kobe bryant and his daughter januao gianna, includi appearance by his wife. the emotional tribute next. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. people, our sales now appla new low!10 frames. at visionworks, our sales are good on all of our frames. why are you so weird? use your tax return and get 50% off any pair. visionworks. see the difference. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. whoh no, that looks grossit. what is that? you gotta try it, it's terrible. i don't wanna tray it if it's terrible. it's like mango chutney and burnt hair. no thank you, i have a very sensitive palate. just try it! hey

next month there will be oral arguments at the united states supreme court involving the president's taxes and his financial records. there have already been multiple court rulings about whether or not subpoenas are valid and can be enforced. at the federal district court level, the federal appeals court level, those decisions have all gone effectively against the president. they have all gone in the same direction, which is if congressional commit ees or prosecutors are subpoenas financial institutions to obtain the president's taxes and his financial records, court orders till now have said there's no reason those subpoenas should be blocked. they are valid and those records should be handled over to those committees and those investigations. next month is when the supreme court is going to hear oral arguments on that matter. we don't know how those arguments will go, we don't know how the supreme court will rule. but we do know about president trump's hyperdesperation to avoid the exposure of records like this. there is nothing that he has fought harder or on more fronts or at more

wade, is the law of the land, decided by the supreme court. and we believe the courts are the place to debate those kinds of issues and not to put that on the back of equality for women. .. a againstrk women in the workpla. title ix prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in schools. title vii in particular, why hasn't that been enough to equalize both pay and treatmento in the workplace for women? >> well, i think in so many cases it is a person by person, case-by-case approach. you have to go to court and you have to have a lawyer. you have to pay thousands of dollars in so many instances to get your due course. that is all the money that's been donated,, given to times u, to provide lawyers for women who feel they have been discriminated against. it is a time consuming, money consuming approach to inequality and we believe that era would assist those. we are not talking about replacing that or talking about diminishing the effect or the value of that. keep that at that era. this enhances his push for equality for women and gives it a fu

so it's not unusual for presidents to not always be happy with the supreme court. sident has already added two justices. i suspect if he gets rehe elected another couple in his second term and leave behind a court much more conservative it would have been in hillary clinton had won or if bernie sanders wins. he will eventually get there. trump, i've never seen a president more dedicated to the principle he is allowed to speak his mind as a normal citizen, which he is not. he is the president. no rule that says you can't have your own opinion. dwight eisenhower said appointing warren was the biggest mistake of his presidency. people are allowed to have strong opinions. >> ed: one minute left. before the president can nominate more people to the supreme court he needs to get reelected something he is focused on right now. that prospect more likely now do you believe when you have bernie sanders as the frontrunner for the democrats and doubling down and tripling down on his support for fidel castro? >> well sure, look. sanders is such a radical that he may well take do

it's very hard to get into the supreme court. now, with regard to the appellate court, shockingly disappointing that they would uphold an unlawful standard. i would simply say to your viewers and you take a look at the mccormick case. 1991. establishes the standard. senator menendez was given the lawful standard and his case was ultimately thrown out by a judge. me, they used the standard the court said was not the law and that is basically a dirty cop planting a murder weapon to frame an innocent man and then you talk about the primacy of the supreme court, let me remind you in 1857 the best judge in america, chief justice taney said that dred scott a black man was not entitled to the same rights as anybody else. and so they don't always get it right either. i've learned something in these eight years and that is we have a racist and corrupt criminal justice system in many areas. >> right. >> this is why i hope one day maybe you'll join me in the fight to reform our criminal justice system and do something about the problem of ov

and then when the supreme court first weighs on the second limit in detail, there were two or three supreme court decisions in the 19th century, but nothing in depth -- this is different because they addressed more of the heart of he issue and it's very cryptic. but courts after the supreme court issued that decision, saying it was a collective right, not an individual right. that remained to be status quo, at least legally speaking. the average person in the street did not think that was the case, but legally speaking, until it was recognized as the right to keep and bear arms distinct from the militia and that includes the right to self-defense. ? show less text in the 1930's is when we started to see gun control in this country? i think more modern as you know it today. the categories that are being regulated in the 1920's and 1930's are really no different than the 19th century, but you start to see more modern laws and regulation. they are becoming more comprehensive, if that answers your question. you said the formation, the genesis of the nra post-civil war, how they view the second

when it comes to the supreme court, i approach this wearing my hat as a lawyer. historically there have been times where there have been discussions about changing the composition of the supreme court. it has always been to advantage one political party or another. i think our supreme court functions best when it is seen as an impartial institution that can deliver justice on behalf of all of the american people. belief is that if we democrats care about outcomes on the supreme court we will have to redouble our efforts to ensure that we put a democrat in office come november and that we are able to control appointments for the next four years. host: with bernie sanders now the democratic front runner he refuses to release his medical records. ishas had a heart attack, he 79, should he release them? host: for the last three years democrats have made calls for transparency a hallmark of their criticism of donald trump. i believe that on on our side we should show the same transparency that we expect of republicans. that sander should release medical records and ta

. >> recently on our author interview program "after words," los angeles time supreme court correspondent david savage interviewed mollie hemingway and carrie severino about the confirmation hearings of supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. here's a portion of that program. >> a specific category where someone has no memory and then claims to have kind of developer one interview. it's not clear she's claiming that. what we know is she doesn't have anyone until therapy but this one the things and rachel mitchell processor, on one side to using these notes as evidence and as a lawyer if using these as evidence you would expect a court, if his legal situation the court would examine it. they want to use those as corroboration of her statement but refuse to produce them. it is significant come to see what the experts we spoke to talk to, , have therapy went because there's no therapeutic techniques that could suggest memory or to manipulate the content of those memories so you could attach the wrong person to a traumatic event and this happened to 30, can happen just the regular discussion w

in 1998, the new mexico supreme court ruled that the equal rights amendment in their state constitution requires state funding of abortions. federal courts are likely to do the same. perhaps that's why every pro abortion organization is endorsing passage of the e.r.a. naral pro-choice america says with the ratification the e.r.a. would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion. national organization for women says an e.r.a. properly interpreted could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion. but that's not the only concern with passing this resolution. besides being unconstitutional and shredding state and federal pro-life protections, the e.r.a. would also erase decades of progress which have provided opportunities for women, advance women's progress through federal programs, and secure necessary protections for women and girls. how? by incorporating gender identity in the definition of sex jeopardizing private spaces for women, girls, sports programs, and women's educational institutions. the e.r.a. endangers laws, programs, and funding designed

that's the reason you have so many emergency petitions in the supreme court, to make sure the articles aren't running the country. >> harris: harry, i want to hear from you and quick to get to senator lindsey graham. >> fine. so, look, this is a statement in a dissent come in a judicial opinion. if it was a problem that required recusal to criticize either your colleagues where the administration and an actual written opinion, they would be nobody on the supreme court. ian is talking about other episodes of extrajudicial conduct, but it's impeccable. and no one on any side of the aisle who is at all responsible would ever suggest that something you say in the judicial opinion, which is their job, would somehow be the basis for a recusal. >> harris: now to senator lindsey graham, who says -- he talked about this and kind of defends them. let's watch. >> i don't think they are going to recuse themselves. judges have opinions, too. she was pretty vocal in her dissent, and i disagree with her dissent, but she has the right to do it. i don't think that's going to happen. >> harris: harry,

>> yeah, what the supreme court says about the constitution is not the same as the constitution with the constitution is about that. this is about what the sabrina court has said, for better or for worse and often times or worse. we basically identified the 100 supreme court cases that everyone should know and discuss each one of them in very short chapters, something adaptable to the general public, homeschoolers, college students and we have a video that is multimedia for all the - we have 63 videos and when you buy the book you get a scratch off coat on the inside cover that gives you access to the 63 videos that we spent two years making that illustrate all these cases with multimedia. we have oral arguments, links with experts from oral arguments and the justice statements have them reading their own opinions in their own words and pictures and graphs but this makes constitutional law, not the constitution, so much fun constitutional law come alive. now you understand - you read this book and you will know more than most lawyers who graduate from law school about the constitutio