a recent poll showed 72% of americans favored supreme court term limits. and we simply cannot keep going through this cycle of allowing a death on the court to create chaos or leave the balance of the court to the whims of partisan justices who decide when the time is right to retire. it is not tenable in the long term. term limits and a structured apartment process, where there is a timetable for the justice's apartment and replacement on the court i think would provide stability and a level of fairness to the process that does not now currently exist. second, we need to expand the number of judges on the work courts. far too many cases take far too long to work through district and appellate courts. my hope is the president's commission will study how great the need is and recommend an expansion of judges based on that analysis. third, i would also consider adding a minimum age requirement of 50. now i do not suggest an age requirement lightly. i was 37 years old when president reagan appointed me to serve on the superior court of the district of columbia

that would've been doubling the size of the supreme court. part of the lesson what were seeing in the state courts there may bee more support for more modest expansion that we might have thought before. >> chris, i hope i'm notan puttg words in your mouth but i think you advocated for court expansion as being a necessary but maybe not sufficient reform and that really expansion is kind of the single most important and promising path to walk down. not just ideological balance but also for diversity issues and elsewhere. i'm curious what is it that you think court expansion is so important, and why if we couldn't marshal a a sufficiet coalition for term limits or other jurisdictions there's lots of proposals out there, why that isn't enough to set us on the right path? >> i definitely think the court expansion has to be the cornerstone of any further reforms that happen. i think one as they mention, the supreme court is going to determine with cause additional in the future, whether not term limits are constitutional or limits. this partisans po

supreme court nominee. dating from the '30s there had been a fairly normal practice where senate -- supreme court nominees would testify before the senate judiciary committee, get asked about their opinions and offer some feedback. these tended to be quite routine hearings. nothing like what we've -- what we saw in the last few weeks was nothing like we had seen before. but setting aside the garland hearings, nothing like that where there would be a television spectacle. but nonetheless, you would have to go through the motions. the problem for johnson is that the judiciary committee in 1968 is probably the single most hostile committee to the president and to liberal philosophy that exists in the senate. think back a few weeks ago to the kavanaugh hearings. the kavanaugh hearings, we have 19-member committee, 10 fairly conservative republicans, 9 fairly liberal democrats. it's essentially -- it's an idealogically split committee. but the democrats are liberals who are on the committee. that was not the cas

who's on the supreme court? he doesn't particularly care as long as it will serve his political purposes. that is a pattern you see with nixon on a whole bunch of domestic issues, not just the supreme court. sure. >> isn't it interesting to see the integrity with the whole chief justices, the sitting justice being able to have a conversation about, he's basically being swayed in his decision. i guess that goes back to hamilton as well, what he thought the justices were supposed to be. it's kind of going far left. >> right. one of the things with the tapes, this is highly inappropriate behavior. fortas should not be having private conversations with lbj. rehnquist should not be cooperating to the degree with nixon, although rehnquist he does recuse himself from watergate. and you have to assume that these kinds of conversations occurred with truman and fdr and probably with eisenhower. it's just that we don't have recordings of these conversations. so to some extent we have moved towards a more ethical supreme co

a supreme court justice should not be providing political advice to a sitting president. verybody knew fortas was doing. it fortas says he cannot get this advice because that would be an improper intrusion into the courts freedom of action, and the three conservative democrats say that doesn't make sense. you're willing to talk to the president but you're not willing to talk to the senate? that seems to be not respecting the authority of the senate, and fortas this is always a problem with fortas and lbj. fortas fought like a lawyer, you tend to give these very specific legal list icky answers, that sounded very deceptive defensive. he was not a particularly good witness. but the star of the hearing is not and if the democrats. the star of the hearing is this man, strong thurmond, republican senator from south carolina, former republican, independent 1948 flipped to the republicans in 1964. he was originally a democrat. he understood how to prosper in politics, it's a sharp opponent of civil rights. in thurman's mind, the questions that were coming from fortas and -- and e

get a sustained interaction with one justice over repeat questions in a way that in the normal supreme court arguments, some other justice would interrupt. that feels a little more like a court of appeals argument where there only three and one of them is going after you for a while. that can lead to sometimes a whole line of questioning that is deeper and more probing of a position. on the others, i find -- the other side, i find the thing we do one of the reasons for our job is we go in and read the room. we are watching body language and we are watching intonation and so many things to understand , is our position resonating? on the phone, we are operating blind. i find it hard even though -- even to know when to stop and answer. i do not want to drone on, but i also do not know if i have satisfied the justices asking me a question because i cannot see them. i find them to be a challenging environment. what do you think? paul: i will start with another upside of the new format, which is -- i typically drive myself into the court the morning of the argument. for a typical supreme court arg

what mitch mcconnell and senate republicans have done to the supreme court and the federal judiciary has created a crisis of legitimacy. the american people should not be forced to accept the court system that has been stacked with ideologues leverage rulings on their stuff and mindsets with little regard to the real world impact of those decisions what i want and what i know all of you want is to restore balance and fairness to our court system. these ideas adding justices, and judges, creating an agent apartment with the federal judiciary working the way it was intended to and the way it should. they are not by any means the only ideas worthy of consideration and i'm sure we will hear many more discussions in the panel but i think at least a helpful starting point for a conversation about policies that can and should implement it so thank you for inviting me to join today and thank you for advancing this call and shedding light on reform that can and should be implemented in the months and in the years ahead susan, while turning back to you . >> susan, i think you are muted. >> than

sometimes getting a sustained interaction with one justice over repeat questions in the way the normal supreme court arguments, usually some of the justice, in essence it's more like a court of appeals argument with there's only three. one of them is going after you for a while. that can lead to i. think, sometimes a line of questioning that is deeper and more probing of a position. and on the other side i find the thing that i think that we do, one of the reasons for our job is we read the room and were watching intonation and in so any things to try to understand the position resonating. and on the phone, were operating live. like i i find it hard to know winter stop and answer. these adult want to go on but i don't know if i've satisfied the what the justice has asked me. i cannot see them. so overall, i find that . challenging environment. anything fall prey to. paul: so i will start with another outside of the new format which is just, i typically drive myself into the court the morning of the argument so for a typical supreme court argument, i have anxiety about what will a crash on the 14th s

they all put supreme court justices on the court presumably to pursue the jeffersonian vision of limited government. but marshall, through his openness to compromise, through his own force of personality, helped forge the court together and build unanimity. one of the great innovations was to move beyond the practice were each justice would write his own opinion for every decision, what to instead issuing opinions of the court. during this, marshall writes the vast majority of the court decisions. unlike today, they tend to be unanimous even on divisive issues. let's dig into a few we see here. the first artifact we see here toward the back of the case is the court decree from a case in 1824. gibbons versus ogden. the state of new york issues a monopoly to steamboat operators. isey constitutional question , how broadly do we read the commerce power, the federal government's power over the economy? this is a debate that goes all the way back to the founding and the washington administration. effectively, marshall reads the commerce power broadly. he says it covers things like navigation o

john marshall, who in the case of marbury versus madison declared that the supreme court could rule anss unconstitutional, making the court and not congress the final authority on the validity of law. william howard taft, who was the only form of president to serve as a chief justice, a post he enjoyed more than the presidency. and the present chief justice, earl warren. in addition to the chief justices, there have been other members, such as oliver wendell holmes, who have left a deep imprint on the court and its deliberations. but, again, the powers of the supreme court are not absolute, not without their checks or balances. each member of the supreme court is appointed by the president, and the appointment must be confirmed by the senate. and although appointment is for life, any justice can be removed by congressional impeachment. just as a president can be removed from office. the vision of our founding fathers as seen beyond the years. the three branches of our federal government have worked together with mutual respect and individual integrity for almost 200 years. we today are

that we changed in the supreme court. there were one or two casesha where the prior administration had takenn a position in a lower court believe that had been of the solicitor general's office and the office had a different position. i remember making one or two cases where frankly the word expected. one of the cases i know we took a different position with the justice department in the lower courts in the supreme court of the university of michigan affirmative action case. if you think about that issue, the word suspect that will change when there is a transition from republican to democratic administration or vice versa. but the vast majority ofjo issues even if controversial even if it was writing on a clean slate, if it was not changed and that continuity was preserved which reflects well on the office. maybe you occurred talk about your experience and to the extent you perceive things to ou different right now? it is 100 percent right not relatively nonpolitical staff and to make it implicit for the audience but it'

next month the supreme court will decide whether to hear a case called school district versus b.l. re are the facts. the minor, known as b.l., was a ninth grader who didn't make varsity cheerleading. from the appellate court opinion, here's what happened next. b.l. was frustrated. she had not advanced in cheerleading. was unhappy with her position on a private softball team and was anxious about upcoming exams. so one saturday while hanging out with a friend at a local store, she decided to vent those frustrations. she took a photo of herself with a friend and their middle fingers raised and posted it to her snapchat story. the snap was visible to about 250 friends, many of whom were students and some of whom were cheerleaders and it was accompanied by a caption, f school, f softball, f cheer, f everything. to that post b.l. added love how me and another student get told we need a year of jv before varsity, but that doesn't matter to anyone else. well, one of b.l.'s teammates showed the snap to her mother, who was one of the cheerleading coaches. b.l. was then removed from the jv sq

supreme court not rather than state supreme court.hn roberts a lot of responsibility many this you have based on deciding when to act when not to act he's afraid of being appearing political -- afraid of appearing partisan. he, obviously, is very worried about how the roberts court will be perceived not just in washington -- but also in history. and really if he would have maybe done what he should have done in the first place, then maybe all of this wouldn't have happened now again seems unfair to blame robertson i'm not for this. you know for all of the states and every state and certainly in the case of pennsylvania. i think so. >> i'm very concerned it is only going to get worse ting there was a lot of pressure based when chuck schumer plans to pack the court i feel that was a direct threat against the united states supreme court had a decision not to attack up at least two or three very significant cases that could have helped the country. >> i think the court now being with the addition of amy coney barrett as well the court pac

the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional not because the supreme court was integrationists but thesupreme court for those of you who know some american history in that time from the -- beginning of the 20th century through the mid 1930s the supreme court thought its main role in life was to protect property rights. and the zoning ordinances interfered with the property rights of a homeowner to sell to whomever he wanted. that was the basis of the supreme court decision. city leaders who wanted to segregate their communities were panicked by this decision. how are they going to do it without these ordinances. in 1920 when harding was elected president, his secretary of commerce was a fellow named hubert hoover and hoover -- herbert hoover established a committee on zoning and it was made up of prominent segregationists, planners who in the cities they came from had designed racially designated zones but understanding the supreme court now prohibited it came up with the idea of economic zones as a way of keeping out african-americans. and they published a pamphlet on zoning that was

artifacts it is important , to think about john marshall's legacy of building up the legitimacy of the supreme court. again john jay was offered this , commission to be chief justice again and he turned down because he did not think it was a good job. marshall sits on the court for 34 years. is our longest-serving chief justice. during this time, he is nominated by the federalist john adams. john adams is seceded by a series of democratic republicans, numbers of the opposition party all looking to , lay claim to the constitution. great figures like jefferson, madison, monroe, eventually jackson. they all put supreme justices on the court, presumably to fulfill the jeffersonian vision of limited federal government. but marshall, through his openness to compromise, helped forge the court together. and build unanimity. one of his great innovations was to move beyond the practice were each justice would write his own opinion for every decision, to instead issuing opinions of the court. marshall writes the vast , vast, vast majority of the court's decisions. unlike today, they tend to be unanimous even o

. >>> breaking news, the president-elect has chosen former obama supreme court nominee merrick garlandttorney general. former attorney general william barr called garland a great choice. garland, a judge on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, has ruled in favor of gun control and more environmental regulations. also breaking this evening after four years of failure, the radical dems are trying one last time to overthrow the trump presidency. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer calling for the president's cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to remove the president. they say they're standing by if that fails to try impeachment. for a second time. derangement even in these waning days of the trump administration raging strongly across the democratic landscape of capitol hill. our next guest defended president trump from the radical left's impeachment farce last year. joining us now is former independent counsel kenneth starr, fox news contributor. ken, great to have you with us. >> thank you, lou. lou: i want to start, first of all, by -- and i wish we had even more time, but the supre

and worse than that, the courts have been told by the supreme court don't actually review the decisionake sure it's not completely unreasonable. so if the court -- if the agency says the statute means x, court can't, can only ask itself was that an unreasonable interpretation of the statute. i think it means why, but i'm crazy to say it means x -- means y, but i'm crazy to say it means x. so totally against the constitution and then being allowed to have, essentially, the final word on what the law means contrary to, quoting from chief justice marshall, emphatically the duty and province of the judges of the judiciary to say what the law is. when my colleague, judge bork, resigned from the d.c. circuit and i tried to persuade him to stay, he said to me i just can't go on deciding whether the secretary was reasonable. [laughter] >> a good point. >> the constitution we were given, tony. >> yeah. i want to jump back in. i know there was a point, and you talk extensively about the commerce clause in the video too. >> yeah. so this is very simple. the congress shall have the power to regula

nevertheless, the supreme court said that is not a good enough reason. no, you have to apply heightened scrutiny. even in this case, it is such an important principle under our constitution that the states cannot discriminate on the basis of race that we are even going to say you cannot use that tool to even mitigate violence in prison. what happens when sexism is considered the same level of scrutiny? physicalto me that the of women in comparison to men make women uniquely vulnerable if they were to be put into prisons with male inmates. the way we treat race with this question, that would not be considered a good enough reason to keep separate men and women resins which is a discrimination on the basis of sex. that is the tip of the iceberg of new laws that recognize this very real differences between men and women, that again, might not matter in an academic context. they don't matter in 99% of situations in life, but the matter enormously in certain types of situations. again, for example, public universities have male and female sports teams. we are

supreme court, rather the state supreme court.justin john roberts bears response ability for this. based on deciding when to act and when not to act and is afraid of appearing political and afraid of appearing partisan and obvious that he is very worried about how the roberts courts will be perceived not just in washington but also in history and really if he would have maybe done what he should have done in the first place then maybe all of this would not have happened. again, it seems unfair to blame roberts and i'm not for this i'll be up for all the states and every state but certainly in the case of pennsylvania i think so. mark: i'm concerned it will only get worse. i think there was a lot of pressure placed on the spring court when chuck schumer announced that he intends to pack the court and i feel there was a direct threat against the united states supreme court that has an impact on their decisions not to take up at least two or three very, very significant cases that could help the country. >> i think the courts now bei

david: when you became a member of the supreme court, sandra day o'connor was already a member of the court and you had a chance to get to know her. i'm curious, did she talk about her interest in civic education? after she left the court, she got much more involved and i want to hear from you when did you get so interested in this as a justice of the court? you have a lot of other things you are worried about but as a justice, did you focus on civic education as a result of your conversations with sandra day o'connor? jutice sotomayor: when i joined the court, she had stepped down as an active member. as most people may know, she was the first female justice on the supreme court and she was appointed in 1981. it was a momentous time for me because i had just graduated from law school in 1979, 2 years earlier. at the time, there were no women on the supreme court, there were no women on the highest court of my state, new york, the court of appeals, and women were still a fraction of the judges throughout the country. tiny, tiny fraction. when sandra was appointed, it was such a beacon

that's unconstitutional according to the 1917 decision but the supreme court ignored the lower courts finding or fact that this is the purpose of the sudden law. it upheld sony. since then we've had this economic sony across the country. racially motivated initially. i'm not saying that every -- is economically elitist rather than racially discriminatory but there is a big aspect of racial motivation behind these laws and it has contributed a great deal to maintaining the segregation that we have in this country, and suburbs around the country. >> hi. so my question to go back to your thoughts about remedies. i know philadelphia has a policy. i'm not sure if it's still active today, where they are terry down those big public housing units, and public housing authority is buying dilapidated policies and building to places and single family homes in the heart and core of the city. and then i guess it's like a lease to buy a program where but we come families can buy the homes that the low income authority has bought and built. to think that is a valid and wrap likable model for cities?

at the moment the supreme court has not forced to stay on - court has not forced to stay on these lawsl deliberate on the grievances of the farmers. they will speak to the farmers and various other stakeholders and then come to a conclusion on then come to a conclusion on the recommendations will then go to the supreme court which will then decide what to do. but this is the problem really is. the problem that —— the farmers who have been protesting have rejected this. they said that this is simply just a carrot dangled before them because members of the committee, according to the farmers, unknown and vocal supporters of these bills so they fear that this committee essentially will not come to a concrete conclusion in favour of the farmers. they say that this is just to of the farmers. they say that this isjust to buy of the farmers. they say that this is just to buy time for the government and this is a ploy by the government to get the laws enforced in the end. so that is where the situation stands. the stalemate is expected to continue over the course of the circumstances. does tha

when the president introduces a hero in the audience, the supreme court will stand. is an unobjectionable and nonpartisan overture the president is making, the court will respond accordingly. but for the entire address, when presidents are issuing policy proposals, members of congress are applauding every few seconds, the supreme court sits and does not respond. what we think that is? why do members of the supreme court sit there in silence? >> because they are supposed to remain above the political debate. prof. ubertaccio: they are supposed to remain above it all. why? >> because they are supposed to be the independent judiciary who decides what is constitutional and what is not and not try to get involved in the nuances of politics. prof. ubertaccio: their commitment is to the rule of law. it would be detrimental to rule of law if the president said something like i want you to pass this campaign finance bill and half the supreme court applauded and the other half did not and then they were called to adjudicate the issue, which we know, they will be called upon to

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

you write that the president wanted this intervention with the supreme court right after the court dismissed a lawsuit tiled by texas the state which was seen by many as his last legal hope. your article states he wanted us, the united states, to sue one or more of the states directly in the supreme court. the former administration official said. the pressure got really intense. an outside lawyer working for mr. trump drafted a brief the then justicent department wanted to file, but officials refused. it sounds like trump's own circle stopped this from happen sfg even they are conservatives, republicans, they are also good lawyers and know when the case has legs and when it does not. the president was obviously unhappy when the texas case was dismissed by the supreme court. the supreme court said texas had no legal interests in ow other states administer their election laws. apparently, mr. trump was told by some of the people around him that he might have -- or the united states, the federal government, might have standing where texas didn't, to bring such a claim. justice department lawyer

and boards for that battle in pakistan are independent and when bennett is supreme court decides on something it's very difficult to change that decision the family and the provisional government can go all fired because he should but they will have to go to the scene go to the same supreme court review its own decision and what happens now to ahmed omar saeed shaikh is the essential step for a doesn't return to the u.k. which is where he's a citizen from. actually he was sent free by the previous decision of the high court but then the government as i said provincial government is you know they had a bargain and it exercised their boller and they detained him but 90 days and during that time they appealed to the supreme god so that was an executive order by the british government otherwise the court had set him free now that he is acquitted again i don't know what the federal government would do what action would they do if he is sent back to a little karate which is the capital of say the progress is we have to see what would be the action of the syrian government permission go

the cases went all the way up to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled.hose students have a right to wear a black arm band, it is another manifestation of what? speech. it's another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so then a few years later you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag and they got arrested for burning the american flag. and then the question became, you know, you're convicted and you're going to do time for burning the flag, and the argument was in burning the flag it's my way of what? expressing my speech. yeah, john. >> how does this tie in with the big tech companies censoring people they don't agree with? >> give me this again. >> how does this tie in with big tech companies like twitter, instagram, facebook, snapchat, they're censoring people they don't agree with politically and taking their content off their platform, so what they want to say can't be -- >> that's a hot issue right now. are you familiar with snowden and the snowden case? there's a lot right now of controversy about these various facebook and,

it's supreme court justice sonia sotomayor.the first time a woman of color will become vice president after being sworn into office by the first woman of color to sit on the supreme court. harris says she was inspired by sotomayor's background. both of them previously served as prosecutors... harris in california and sotomayor in new york. supreme court chief justice john roberts will swear in president-elect biden. president-elect joe biden laid out his plans for the first hours of his presidency. he plans to take executive action to roll back some of the most controversial decisions made by president trump. they include-- ending the trump adminstration's restrictions on immigration to the u-s from some muslim-majority countries. - rejoin the paris climate accord. - mandate mask wearing on federal property. - extending a pause of student loan payments. - and preventing evictions and foreclosures for people struggling financially during the pandemic. you can find complete list of proposed actions on our website kron 4 dot com.

five supreme court justices, had as many as ten supreme court justices, so no, it is not fixed in thexpand, it becomes a race to the bottom. this may have started with harry reid in 2013 when he dropped the filibuster for most presidential appointees, it was mitch mcconnell in 2017 who dropped the filibuster for supreme court nominees, but the bigger question is that to expand the court, democrats need to get rid of legislative filibuster all together. so the democrats have to figure out whether they're comfortable doing that. if it was mitch mcconnell, he would do it in a heartbeat. we have seen pure power plays from republicans in the last five years as relates to the supreme court. is there appetite on the democratic side to get rid of the legislative filibuster to expand the court? time will tell. >> i always learn so much talking to you. thank you for joining us. author and attorney and coauthor of federalist society, how conservatives took the law back from liberals. >>> new concern whether the coronavirus vaccines protect against the new covid variants. we'll have everything yo

where was the supreme court?ormer prosecutors who don't know any of this stuff, professors, eggheads, who know none of the stuff because they don't like the constitution. what did the supreme court do? well, in the michigan case there was an appeal and a federal judge interfered with what was going on there and the supreme court said you know what, federal judge you can't do that. corsets wrote the state legislators decide, not state courts, not federal courts but it says legislators shall direct. this is not even confusing. this is black and white. even joe scarborough or can read and understand it which is a low level. that's what it says. so then we come to pennsylvania and the republican party of pennsylvania brought a lawsuit and said that the supreme court of pennsylvania and the governor and the state secretary of state are all destroying the section of the constitution and undermining the legislator and the legislator have to adapt to this so the supreme court does what? nothing. john roberts decides that

the court cases went all the way up to the supreme court and the supreme court rule. though students have a right to wear a black armband. it is another manifestation of what? speech. it's another way of speaking. another way of speaking. so then, a few years later you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag. and they got arrested for burning the american flag. and then the question became, you are going to be convicted and do time for burning the flag. the argument was, in burning the flag, it's my way of what? expressing my speech. >> how does this tie in with company censoring people they don't agree with? prof. prevas: say this again? >> how does this go with big companies like twitter, instagram and snapchat censoring people they don't agree with politically and taking their content off their platform, so what they want to say -- prof. prevas: that is a high issue. are you familiar with the snowden case? there is a lot of controversy about these various things with facebook, what is it, twitter and all this. one argument they would give you is, you

the courts will be reluctant to step in and that is regardless of who was on the supreme court. . clerks do not want to run the country. they want those that are elected to run the country. that is exactly what the court said in bush versus gore. now the florida supreme court is changing things. you cannot do that. i agree with you on pennsylvania. that was clear-cut it seems to me. agreeing totally with you on this that the supreme court of pennsylvania and governor of pennsylvania exceeded their powers. [inaudible] lou: yeah. yeah. b he saidd so, but they did not do much. we appreciate it. you are right. you have out argued me as you suggest. now i am upset. not t only with the supreme cout but all the other courts. both political parties and, of course, all of state government and all of the areas in which there was t a high number of questions about their integrity. kenneth starr, you elevate us every time. we appreciate it. thank you so much. >> always the white towel to throw in. [laughter] lou: thank you very much. we appreciate it. up next red storm rising and rising fast

and the will of the people the supreme court authorized the use of drop boxes where ballot harvesting could occur the legislature never authorized that form of voting and the court had absolutely no right to do so responded to the secretary of state cappy book for the supreme court ruled that mail in ballots need not authenticate signatures once again the court not only defied the constitution and the will of the people but by so doing they created a separate class of voters thereby violating the equal protections clause prescribed in the constitution how can we have to legally separate classes of voters yet the court made it so not the legislature. the constitution doesn't mention the court when determining the time place and manner of elections because they're not authorized to make those decisions and yet they did it and the u.s. supreme court has refused to hear the case denying the evidence and denying to demands for justice from the people of pennsylvania and america these are my opinions these are partisan viewpoints these are era futile facts 6 days before the election guides

>>> well as soon as today, the supreme court may begin acting on several controversial issues includingnt trump's tax returns. >> the high court will decide if the returns could go to the manhattan district attorney and the biden administration is determining over whether to turn over the federal returns to congress. we are joined now to discuss. two separate tax related issues here and what is interesting, kira, i believe it is a trump appointed judge making the decision on the house request for the documents, right, and it is like giving it a two-week delay here. >> reporter: right, poppy. so this is a trump appointed judge that has over seen this lawsuit since 2019 and he wants to hear from the parties next week, february 3rd, from the biden administration and the house democrats and the lawyers to see where they all stand on thissish of whether the biden administration will comply with the subpoena and turn over the president's taxes. this came about because the case has languished in the courts for quite sometime but trump's lawyers had asked the judge for a hearing last week out o

the courts, the cases went up to the supreme, the supreme court ruled.se students have a right to wear a black armband. it is another manifestation of what's? speech. it is another way of speaking. in another way of speaking. . a few years later, you had people demonstrating and burning the american flag. and they got arrested for burning the american flag. and the question became, you're going to be convicted in a due time for burning the flag. and the argument was, in burning the flag, it's my way of what? expressing my speech. yeah john. >> how does this tie and with the big company censoring people they don't agree with. >> say that again? >> how does a tie with big tech companies who are censoring people or things they don't agree with? >> that's a high issue. they are you familiar with the snowden case? you know one argument they would give you is, you don't have to go on. your free not to use it. so what we do with your data is up to us because if you don't like it don't get on. nobody is forcing you to get on. doesn't answer your question? are yo