i have only been covering the supreme court for 4 or 5 months. it takes a long time to produce these stories. we go where the facts lead us. we are very much still reporting on the court. i encourage anyone who has any information about any justice that they believe is newsworthy to get in touch. host: we talked about how a lot of democratic lawmakers have been calling for investigations and hearings. what has been the response from republican lawmakers? guest: we have not heard too much yet, i believe. senator mcconnell was asked about it yesterday, and he did not say too much. i believe he said he thought that the chief justices could take care of any internal issues at the court. we saw senator mitt romney say that the stories were --say that if the stories were accurate, it was potentially troubling. assign interview with congressman matt gaetz, not about this specific episode, but about the larger question about whether there should be some sort of code of conduct for the supreme court as there is with lower court federal judges, and the cong

judicial system and should be celebrated today by the entire judicial community, in general, the supreme court is only the top of the judicial pyramid. and her the foundations of the foundation are district regional courts. they are integral parts, inseparable. they interact with each other and are the bearers and subjects of the judiciary and together they must ensure effective judicial protection of the rights of citizens and economic entities . these were very easy periods of restoration of the rule of law. drilling public peace and order, and each of them has its own significant dates anniversaries of the event, however, the most important place in the overall history of the supreme court is occupied by the so-called post-soviet thirty-year period, which already belongs to the recent history of both belarusian statehood and belarusian justice after the collapse of the soviet union and its judicial system. our country has become a sovereign independent republic, belarus has faced the most difficult choice of its own model of national justice. that was very a difficult time of searching for

supreme court.e pass appropriations bills each year to cover judges' paychecks and our court houses. we have disclosure laws like the ethics in government act and refusal laws that apply to all federal judges, including supreme court justices. we have long known their shortcomings and ethics standards from the highest court in the land, the supreme court. host: senator durbin serves as the chair and invited that invitation to chief justice to talk about ethics reforms. you can talk about your confidence. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for stem -- for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independence. this is the democrat from rhode island adding on his twitter feed, you know it is serious when a fox news analyst joins my call for an investigation of justice thomas. bill paschal junior from new jersey saying, clarence thomas hurt election cases while his wife conspired to overthrow democracy. he should resign from the supreme court. on a twitter feed, justice, should be subjected to a full i

constitutionally, only impeachment can remove a supreme court justice. but roberts is in the position where he could promulgate ethics rules for his own court. if justices do not follow those ethics rules, he would at least be in the position to call them out, to use the power of the pulpit, use the power of the press to say this is wrong, please stop it. that's not an official power but i think it would matter to certain people if john roberts got up in front of a microphone and said the stuff we have learned in the stuff we've learned is unacceptable and we cannot have it here at the supreme court. that would mean something to somebody. roberts won't do that. host: justice thomas or just is gorsuch, is it still in your mind to the appearance of wrongdoing or was there actual wrongdoing? guest: figuring out the quid pro quo is the difficult part. in the gorsuch situation, one of their cases was a big obama climate change case where near gorsuch to paste -- where neil gorsuch took a strident position against the obama administration with the legal positio

supreme court. i was able to decide on my own. mong courts throughout the country, dividing the load, the volume of justice has literally grown in a short time at least one and a half times. the history of the supreme court in people candidate of law honored jurist of belarus rima filipchik became a people's judge at the age of 30, then voted for judges and gained 98%. it started with the district court. gained vast experience, being a judge here in the constitutional, then the supreme speaks of all categories of cases, perhaps the most difficult civil. wherever you are. you still think about the case that you considered and about the one that you have to consider. and why exactly said so? this witness, you evaluate not only his words, but also his actions, his view, his attitude to the issue, which later helps to evaluate the truth. he spoke or untruth in civil cases and the evidence is presented by the parties and this is the difficulty in assessing this evidence, the most difficult cases are housing. you are cases of compensatio

all eyes are on the supreme court. as we tick down toward midnight , the supreme court could rule at any point here, and there's a number of ways that they can roll. but there are really two ways that are most likely here. first they could extend the hold on this lower court ruling, which is something that the justice department the fda is pushing for, because if they did , that it would keep the status quo when it comes to the abortion pill. it would be completely available as it is now. the second option is they really could allow the restrictions to take effect by not extending that stay. and what does that mean? if restrictions took effect, it would mean a number of different things in the way that kristen is administered. first of all, it would only be allowed for women up to seven weeks. pregnant. currently, women up to 10 weeks pregnant. are allowed to get this pill. secondly women would have to go in person multiple times to their doctor. they also have to get this abortion pill in person, as opposed to via the

how remarkable is it that a supreme court justice? was publicly saying the executive branch. i mean, it was he saying they can't be trusted to follow a court order? yes. and as you just acknowledged all the signs from the biden administration were that they were going to follow us. they never. they never said that they were going to buck this. in fact, you know, across the board, they were saying, we're going to have to follow what they do. they wanted to wait and see what the litigation did. you know, i think justice alito is clearly angry that he lost this one. and he lost it big and you might feel that the court is going in another direction. and abortion, and i do think the court is really signaling here that as much as they were ready to roll back roe v. wade they want to step back from the abortion issue for now and truly leave it to the states. we're going to talk a little bit later about how this ruling may give moderate republicans kind of a sigh of relief in the short term, but part and parcel of that is the reality that this could very well wind up back in the supre

and now it's all in the supreme court today. the fact that he was elected a judge of the supreme court there, was going to be dismissed when the people's assembly was publicly open at such a high forum. yes, we understand the degree of responsibility that we are entrusted with is not only the election, but also the liberation in general with the belarusian people as an assembly. that is, judging the supreme court received a higher constitutional status. you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was nurtured and suggested itself significantly quite a long time ago it happened that i took part in all belarusian people's meetings, and at the first belarusian people's assembly i even spoke . in the future, the minister of justice justified the need. here is such a forum and, of course, even then it was clear that mmm this is a very effective form, and she it is necessary just very such extreme situations such emergency situ

what is the supreme court of belarus like today? when for the first time in the history of the country's fundamental laws its high status was enshrined. what are the tasks of our time? what is the principle of justice? what is a speedy court and what is the efficiency of justice today, if the criteria for its quality of the level of trust are the right , the law, justice, all this is a question number one and gost of the project is a person for whom a judge is not only a profession or vocation. this is a way of life and this man who stood at the origins of the national reform. the judiciary in one of your interviews you said that you would become a judge. it wasn't your childhood dream at all. such a conscious choice of an already mature person. what influenced this decision? you know, it seems to me that there are elements here, even accidents, maybe some kind of romanticism, because to say that since childhood i dreamed of becoming exactly that. it seems to me that it would not be entirely correct thought. they began to visit me m

the supreme court occupies a worthy place. among state bodies it has a well-deserved authority and a high level of trust in society its status as the highest judicial body is enshrined in the constitution the basis of the activities of the supreme court are the principles of the rule of law, legality and justice achievements in the judiciary are marked by fruitful work and professionalism of all generations and employees i am convinced that in the future you will responsibly cope with the tasks entrusted to you, faithfully and selflessly serve in the field of justice in the interests of your native land and the belarusian people , i sincerely wish you good health, prosperity and professional success april 15, 2023 alexander lukashenko friends take this opportunity i want on behalf of the government of the republic of belarus and on my own behalf, add a few words of congratulations to the entire judicial community in the history of the supreme court, many significant and glorious pages over the past century, the judiciary. it has acquired the status of an independent and influential f

and the 234 year history of th united states supreme court, n member of the united state supreme court has ever appeare clearly to break the law until now. clarence thomas absolutely violated the federal law cited by senator whitehouse in his demand florida investigation o the -- by the attorney general. the law could not be more clea or more simple it requires supreme cour justices and other federal employees to report any real estate transaction, quote, which exceeds $1,000 in real property other than property used solely as a persona residents of the reporting individual the law makes it clear tha clarence thomas and othe federal employees do not hav to disclose real estat transactions involving their personal homes the place where they actuall live clarence thomas clearly an sharply violated this law by not reporting the sale of 89 years ago that he owned but di not live in. that sale exceeded $1,000. do not report that sale is a definite and clear violation o federal law by supreme court justice clarence thomas. and it gets worse. clarence thomas secretly sol the property to billi

do you think the supreme court delhi _ supreme court.ad - supreme court. do you think the supreme court delhi road will i supreme court delhi road will ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban. it’s ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban.— ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban. it's a tough court. when _ ultimately ban. it's a tough court. when it _ ultimately ban. it's a tough court. when it overturned i ultimately ban. it's a tough i court. when it overturned roe v. wade, is thejudges and courts need to get out of this business, return it to the states, return it to the people's elected representatives stop so the first case that comes back to them is not a case about that, it is one that would affect people nationwide, women all across the country who want to take this drug to ease early pregnancy abortions. and so it was an unusual case for the court and one that you could see the court might be a little regular reluctant about. band regular reluctant about. and one that a — regular relu

we have a resignation letter from the supreme court in these circumstances, it seems clear to me thatis not my duty to remain on the court, but rather to resign in the hope that this will enable the court to proceed with this vital work, free fro extraneous stress. that is the letter tha clarence thomas should b writing to chief justice, john roberts tonight. indeed, to follow supreme cour precedent, clarence thomas should have written that resignation letter years ago because he has been in violation of judicial ethics for many years and we now know he has been in violation o federal law since 2014 when he refused to follow th law requiring disclosure of th sale of real estate that h owned in georgia to clarence thomas's favorit right wing billionaire, harlan crow, who has also showere several hundred thousand dollars worth of private jet travel and your travel that we know about along with othe perks on justice thomas, without justice thomas eve disclosing those gifts harlan crow has directly put money in clarence thomas's pocket and as many ways as h could find including by buying

the supreme court expected to decide at any moment. on one, preserve access to the drug as the case works its way through the courts. option two, agree with it a appeals courts and impose restrictions which prevent women from accessing wom the drug seven weeks of pregnancy. or option three, agree with the conservative judge in texas who ruled that mifepristone should never have been approved by the fda in the first place and should be taken off the market. the court can decide to take up the case themselves. this will be the justices first major decision on abortion nearly one year after roe vs. wade was overturned. it could significantly change the landscape of abortion rights in this country. if restrictions on mifepristone go into effect, and impact women in states even where abortion is legal. >> we should not be in a position where politicians and judges who do not have medical backgrounds are making decisions about medical care. >> rachel scott joining us outside the supreme court and we are waiting on the decision tonight, suprem

a small town in mississippi or the united states supreme court. host: thank you, caller. est: we expect judges in our meniscal cords and lower federal courts to lead by example and lead with integrity. i think there is a yawning gap between what should we should expect from supreme court and what's actually happening when it comes to their ethical responsibility. host: from rich in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. let me start this way, if it wasn't justice thomas appointed by republican, this wouldn't be a story. guest: of course it would be. host: let him finish and we will get your response. caller: did you do any investigation on our bg or sotomayor? none of them have ever taken -- guest: they have not taken a nickel but they have flown --host: let him finish and then you can respond. caller: where is the report on all democrat appointed justices? there isn't any? for 30 years, you guys have been going after justice thomas for every little thing since he was appointed. this is a nonstory, percival. -- first of all. how about putting biden and his son

and now it's all in the supreme court today. be elected a judge of the supreme court, she was going to be dismissed when the native assembly here at such a high forum is publicly open, when we understand the degree of responsibility that we have, this is not only the election, but also the release in general from the belarusian, probably assembly, that is, the supreme court received from a higher constitutional status. you you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was nurtured and suggested it happened a long time ago that i took part in all six belarusian people's assemblies, and at the first people's assembly i even spoke as a future minister justice substantiated the need. here is such a forum. eh, and, of course, even then it was clear that, uh, this is very effective, and the form, but it is necessary just in such extreme situations, in such emergency situations, maybe in life of each side that it was not fixed. it

host: when it comes to matters of the supreme court, generally, when it comes to justices on the supremert, how they handle disclosure of the of activities? guest: each justice like each member of congress in each top-level official in the executive branch has to file an annual financial disclosure. they tell the public once a year what debts they have and outside income they might have earned from teaching or book royalties and any trips they went on paid for by third parties. there is a personal hospitality exemption but disclosures they file are fairly similar to what members of congress and other lower court judges file on an annual basis. host: what are the differences between a person -- if one of the justices travels under hospitality or something else? guest: that changed recently. until three weeks ago, if you were flown on a private plane by a friend, you didn't have to report it your annual disclosure. if you state at a resort or ski chalet or hunting lodge owned by a friend or a commercial property owned by a friend, you didn't have to report it on your annual financial discl

it is 100 supreme court cases everyone should know. it gives a pretty good understanding thoroughly and covers a case and only takes two to three pages and they go into good detail. host: you seem interested in court activities per what led to this -- activities. what led to this? caller: you pay attention to what is going on if you are a person in the united states because you have to have input and a lot of us have opinions and they are different. i like to see what the reasoning is. the other thing is, we have the greatest country in the world. we should at least follow with the reasoning is behind it. nobody is going to be happy all the time. half of the viewers are ok and half are not ok, but it comes down to what the constitution is. we are never going to agree on everything. an abraham lincoln quote, you can please some of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time. host: that is bob in north carolina, for public in line, -- republican line, talking about his views. some of the opinions on capitol hill concer

as of midnight tonight, unless the supreme court steps in however, you also have a federal court thatas said the impact opposite, and that court has told the fda, maintain the status quo, do not make any changes to the drug. because of that tension between these two decisions, that's why, again, you see the justice department saying supreme court, you have to step in and do something right no. >> this is fallout from the decision to overturn roe v. wade all of these cases have now gone to state court or the state to decide, and now there are all of these cases being brought in those states, and they're getting the dueling decisions in the red state and blue state on the issue of abortion. when the supreme court does decide this, do we have an idea of how they might hear this case >> i think what the most likely scenario is, and i preface in with anything could happen the most likely scenario is you can see justice alito, the one who receives these papers as the one in charge of the fifth circuit where this came from you will see him potentially putting what's known asan administrative

in hobby lobby, the suprem court notably it was a cas that was authored by justice alito, the supreme court was willing to defer to a group of businesses that said that they believed that contraceptives - factually inaccurate, no supported by any medicine or science whatsoever, the suprem court was willing to lean into that the supreme court was also willing to lean in by saying well, we carved out this decision to only apply t matters involvin contraception. what a businessman, claimed yo have this belief, which had no happened before and they use that religious belief to den their employees certain type of health care this will apply to contraceptives we have seen that before, we even saw that in the dobbs case, mississippi is an absolutely deadly place for anybody to be pregnant if you're a black woman there, your 18 times more likely to die by hearing a pregnancy t term than having an abortion the supreme court refers to th state of mississippi and it is claim is about protecting th health and safety of women i that state, which could not be true we have a supreme court that sadly

he doesn't want to destroy the supreme court. he wants to make the supreme court of israel. busy like the supreme court of the united states, canada, and new zealand, england, and many other countries. right now the supreme court of israel has far more power than any supreme court in the world. today. it is the only supreme court to strike down legislation it deems to be unreasonable. the only supreme court that doesn't require standing before you become bring a case. so any n g o can bring a case and these are reasonable debates. this is the base that occurred in the united states over the years. you said earlier that, that yahoo is looking for compromise. i'm wondering where that compromise will be, especially if he keeps somewhere like been given or been smarter in the finance minister in his cabinet. what room is there for compromise? if those 2 remain pretty office 3 or 4 examples? one compromise would be to allow override on political and economic decisions, but not on core human rights and civil liberties and minority rights decisions. i propose that to benjamin not t

if this does travel through th united states supreme court, we've already had the suprem court rollback roe v. wade where they took away the federal limit as to when a woman can receive an abortion. the limit as to what term or timeline she can have an abortion now we're in this moment where this pill, this pill deemed safe by the fda is now going back to the supreme court. they just rollback roe v. wade so we can't assume but the president is already been se about this what this supreme court thinks about abortio issues >> hey, look deemed safe by th fda and a news for 20 years, i mean, we it's as if that was forgotten. but let me ask you a questio -- >> and there's a - >> let me ask you, question if it gets to the supreme court what they view it differentl than they did roe v. wade? where will they rule against abortion rights? >> you have a conservative court that has mad unprecedented decisions to rollback roe v. wade think about it right there this could go right along with rolling back abortion issues for this court the issue i what the fda said about th safety versus what texas i

you know, the supreme court of israel is most influential and powerful supreme court anywhere in the world, even more powerful and influential than the german constitutional court. and, and so there are people, many people, the majority of israelis want to limit that power. the issue is how much you limit the power. i want to limit it only a little bit. the government wants to limit it more than a little bit, but frankly, mind your own business. take care of european concerns. don't concern yourself so deeply with israeli domestic issues. it is a form of anti semitism to focus. so obsessively on every every domestic issue in israel, no other country in the world receives that kind of negative attention and criticism . so far, problem is that, that yahoo is on 3rd to all the protests of the criticism has been by law. i won the election. this is what people voted for. it's called democracy, so suck it up. the israeli historian and uva harry dismissed. that is the oldest trick in the book. he said 1st you use the law to gain power and then you use your power to distort the law as you go

supreme court hit pause pause on the

they serve on the supreme court. they are professors at major universities, they're subject to affirmative action. the status there in israel is better than the status of arabs in countries in the middle east. it should be better, it should improve, but so we have the latest human rights report by the u. s. government, the state department, israel's closest ally, and the message is as bleak as ever talking about significant human rights abuses, including credible reports of unlawful, arbitrary killings, arbitrary detention off an extra territorial detention of palestinians. it's not a great, it's not a great recommendation. is it? it, israel's record of human rights is better than any country in the world face with comparable threats. no country faced with comparable threats of terrorism, of nuclear taxonomy. ron of attacks from within no country has a better record of human rights. all right, professor document, let's talk about donald trump. you've brought out a new book which looks at some of the legal issues faci

in front of the supreme court.nterests are maintainin power for the corporate wealth elite, which he is one and clearly, he's got a friend on the court that agrees wit him on that point. >> i'm just shocked that clarence thomas might not have been - in rvs, walmart parking lots apparently he likes a yach trip as well megan, i just want to ask you, take a look at this tweet from professor steve >> he says whe the majority has been appointe by democratic presidents, 1969 where we hadn't walked on th moon by my count we've had four democratic presidents, and yet for 50 years, republicans have control disappearing court at what point do they say in the name of democracy we'r going to balance the supreme court? >> >> they should say righ now. i think it's not just th ethical problems one of the reasons that this situation, these big protest are happening in tennessee our gun laws are a mess in thi country. it was true even before th decision of the supreme court. but now we're in a situation even with our state were gon

s supreme court?ot of them have, you know, as you know, have been sort of hesitant to weigh in on this case at least so far. you know, because we've seen several of the republican presidential candidates either would be or actual candidates stumble on this and trying to find their way again. i believe that this supreme court decision today gives them a bit of an out because they can say this is a conservative court. a lot of trump appointees. ah ah ah, and they have spoken for now, and my guess is that's what we're likely to hear unless there are candidates and that we know there are actually say, with the exception of candidates who want this this drug to be completely eradicated and that the fda should not be able to, uh to approve it, i think, given the real politics of what has happened across the country, particularly in swing states, wisconsin a few weeks ago, is the most recent example of a democrat winning in a judge race because there was so much focus on the issue of abortion. and that's one

and now it's all in the supreme court today. well, the fact that judges of the supreme court are elected there. to gather for a homogeneous meeting here at such a high forum publicly openly. yes, we understand the degree of responsibility that we impose is not only the election, but also the release of the belarusian people's assembly. that is, the judicial court of the supreme court received a higher constitutional status you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was hatched and suggested itself. yes quite a long time ago it so happened that i took part in all six russian people's meetings myself, and at the first one after the belarusian people's meeting. the minister even spoke in the future , together with me, justified the need for such a forum, and, of course, even then it was clear that hmm it was very effective. and the form, but it is necessary just very such extreme in situations of such emergency there may be

amy: adam, wrote a book about the supreme court called "supreme inequality: the supreme court's 50-year a more unjust america." can you relate the ethics scandal that clarence thomas is facing today to the theme of your book? >> it is a great point, amy. what i argue in the book is we think of the supreme court as being a force for equality and fairness. but if you look back to the last 50 years after nixon packed the court with conservatives, it has been a force for protecting rich people for increasing inequality. in areas like campaign where they obstruct out these often good laws that congress passed try to regulate the amount of money from rich people going into politics, education with a world in favor inequality of funding, and on and on -- that is been the theme. we have had a court for 50 years that is been fighting for rich people over poor people. that is only gotten worse in the last few years. it is worse than it has ever been. this is strongly related because think about when you have corruption, financial corruption, when you have justices taking free trips for 20 years -

supreme court blocking lower court restrictions on the abortion pill as a litigation proceeds they areo we have our other guests on hand, as well? i think michelle goldberg is joining our coverage we are in breaking news. michelle, can you hear me? >> i can >> great renee bracy sherman is here. michelle, your reaction to the supreme court here >> well, i think it's a measure of how low this is in the supreme court that there was a question that this might go forward. this ruling is so egregious, it's so lawless, that he took it upon himself to overrule the fda and more than two decades of medical practice and so it just means it's going to be available for now. this case is still going to go forward. it's still going to be heard by the circuit court. and it's shocking that this wasn't a unanimous decision. but we know that at least some people on the supreme court are every bit as lawless as this judge is >> you're making the point that, as i mentioned, we say procedural, what we are saying is that this is not the ultimate outcome or resolution where it affects people's lives because i

the concern of the supreme court is, what is that body that sits for a supreme court justice?nd the statue, there is no provision for a panel of lower court judges to evaluate the conduct of supreme court justices. the justices judgment on each other, it is a hard question. kristen: your rate. they are at the top. -- kristen: you're -- you're right. they are at the top. do you see this as a tipping point? one of reforms you think might be needed? >> to things can be true at the same time. one, we absolutely need stricter codes of conduct and ethical rules to apply to the supreme court justices as any other federal judge. this may be a tipping point for that. it depends on how angry the public will get about it. at the same time, i think it'll be a mistake for moderates, progressives, independence worried about the future of the supreme court and the role it's playing in because it's to view a code of conduct as a solution to the problems the supreme court is facing. at the heart of the court's loss of public confidence right now is how its rulings are out of touch, out of step

s. supreme court has decided to preserve access to a popular abortion pill. the decision means that the drug with a prestone will continue to be broadly available in the united states. a conservative judge and texas suspended approval of the commonly used drug on the 7th of april, questioning its safety. the justice department of the bi administration filed an emergency appeal, asking the supreme court to block the lower court ruling. w. washington correspondent, i mean as if explained what this decision means. the supreme court basically ruled today that access to this pill that is important for many women to terminate pregnancies will remain unhindered. they were responding to a case from a texas judge, a federal judge appointed by form president donald trump, a conservative and appealing to anti abortion advocates. and he essentially wanted to stop access to this drug, mr. prestone. based on his assessment that the f d a, the food and drug administration which approves medications had not done a proper job and approving this pill. this went onto an appeals

i have only been covering the supreme court for 4 or 5 months. es a long time to produce these stories. we go where the facts lead us. we are very much still reporting on the court. i encourage anyone who has any information about any justice that they believe is newsworthy to get in touch. host: we talked about how a lot of democratic lawmakers have been calling for investigations and hearings. what has been the response from republican lawmakers? guest: we have not heard too much yet, i believe. senator mcconnell was asked about it yesterday, and he did not say too much. i believe he said he thought that the chief justices could take care of any internal issues at the court. we saw senator mitt romney say that the stories were --say that if the stories were accurate, it was potentially troubling. assign interview with congressman matt gaetz, not about this specific episode, but about the larger question about whether there should be some sort of code of conduct for the supreme court as there is with lower court federal judges, and the congressma

>> absolutely, nicolle the reason si think when and if this package ever moved, a supreme court reform address different problems afflicting the court right now. we need term limits, strategically timing your retirement so the president can pick a supreme court justice that is of their party's affiliation is a problem what happened in 2016 with merrick garland is a problem the fact that jimmy carter was president for four years and picked zero supreme court justices, donald trump was president and got to pick three. it's gaming the system with strategically timed retirements and appointment process. we should have court expansion to address how donald trump and mitch mcconnell, and jammed amy coney barrett down people's throat we need supreme court ethics reforms for all the reasons these stories are bringing to light thanks to the great reporting with propublica and heidi przybilla. they would deal with various problems arising out of the supreme court as a broken institution. we need all these things. >> let me come back, harry litman, to you law firm head gorsuch owned property a de

well, we don' want to turn this into a circu that the american people are paying attention to the suprem court. they want big changes. the one ethics reform, the want the court to be fai arbiters of justice and th law. you don't need to look further than wisconsin to see that people do care about the cours of understanding how the court impact their lives and so it's not a circus t hold the supreme court accountable. >> and talking of circuses when i talk after the brea about the abortion dru decision by another right-wing judge in taxes but before we get to that,, tim, i spoke at my monologue abou if daniel perry gets pardone from murder in texas, it'l only be because he killed th right kind of person, th person that right wingers don' care about, a black live matter protester am i being unfair. how grotesque is governo abbott's move? he's calling for a - before an appeal is evolved? >> he's essentially saying tha he knows better than a jury. a jury that adjudicated th facts of this matter, whic perry said, the man he shot an killed was approaching his gun and it was self-defense. the other s

no hearing, no motion in the order was sealed we let off out with the supreme court, the supreme court argument, you're the supreme court and under our constitution should police the integrity of the orders coming out of your judges just like i am policing conduct averse solicitors in south carolina. >> you know general, you are a lawyer, and attorney general, not an investigator but i want to ask anyway whether or not you have learned or you know, did the prosecutor initiate this, was that the lawyer legislature that you and i both made reference to, god knows it was not the judge they came up with the idea. whose idea was it to go to the judge, the prosecutor or the defense attorney. >> it was a defense attorney's petition the judge and the facts of the petition that there was a motion and the motion was verbal in the judges chambers on the last day of the judge being in office and there was no formal motion it was the petition of the defense attorney. notably we are grateful that the supreme court took up this case so quickly and i sent a letter to the chief justice of the supreme c

this, time it went all the way up to the supreme court. and yesterday, justice alito responded and temporaril restored full access t mifepristone that does not mean that th battle is over you can see here, in his order that alito state that lowe courts ruling for just a few days until this coming wednesday at 11:59 pm to be exact after, that the high court's conservative majority coul still rule in favor of nationwide restrictions on mifepristone millions of americans coul lose access to essential healt care, some are at risk of dyin because of it. the real life fear and dange of the government continuing t try and tell us what we can an cannot do with our own bodie is still very much here in 2023 thankfully, the coordinate offense on that right to choos has been out with some coordinated defense. democratic governors across th country have responded swiftly to the recent attacks on reproductive rights, for example of washington's that who was the first of man states to stockpil mifepristone almost two weeks ago democratic governor jake and

it's time to send in independent oversight over the supreme court that the supreme court does not haveice with. so the thing i wanted senator hirono to say, that i want senator durbin to say, that. >> want anybody in congress to say is to use congress' congressional authority over the power of the purse to bring these justices to heel. it is congress that controls supreme court funding. now, we have seen because of some of the drip drip drip of scandals that you mentioned, joy, we have seen that these nine people are probably able to live without their government salaries, right? between their land deals and book deals and their laundering money through their spouses, they probably don't need their government salaries, but i bet they like having a courthouse. i bet they like having clerks. i bet they like having access. i know they like having taxpayer funded security details. if congress starts taking those away, if congress puts the stick to these people and starts taking away some of their perks and some of their privileges, then i bet you the supreme court would see the virtue in s

where does that leave the supreme court? here is the deal. ook at the court's popularity over the last three years alone, it's sunk from 58% to 40%. no doubt because of the controversy regarding dobbs and many other cases that this court has handled. so we got a tough one, not just for the public or those that use the drug, but for the supreme court literally and its authenticity. where do we go now when so many people are skeptical about our american institutions. >> right. skeptical of one another. skeptical of all of this. larry, i suspect you will be back on wednesday to talk about all this. sorry i didn't welcome you. thanks for joining us. >>> it is 7:51. up next, a quick look at the top stories, including the cleanup efforts still >>> welcome back. here's a quick look at the top stories we are following on this sunday morning, including residents in san francisco who say they are fed up with crime and drugs in the city, and they're doing something about it. >>> later this morning, a group called save ss will rally at city hall over rece

i have only been covering the supreme court for 4 or 5 months. es a long time to produce these stories. we go where the facts lead us. we are very much still reporting on the court. i encourage anyone who has any information about any justice that they believe is newsworthy to get in touch. host: we talked about how a lot of democratic lawmakers have been calling for investigations and hearings. what has been the response from republican lawmakers? guest: we have not heard too much yet, i believe. senator mcconnell was asked about it yesterday, and he did not say too much. i believe he said he thought that the chief justices could take care of any internal issues at the court. we saw senator mitt romney say that the stories were --say that if the stories were accurate, it was potentially troubling. assign interview with congressman matt gaetz, not about this specific episode, but about the larger question about whether there should be some sort of code of conduct for the supreme court as there is with lower court federal judges, and the congressma

a small town in mississippi or the united states supreme court. host: thank you, caller. pect judges in our meniscal cords and lower federal courts to lead by example and lead with integrity. i think there is a yawning gap between what should we should expect from supreme court and what's actually happening when it comes to their ethical responsibility. host: from rich in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. let me start this way, if it wasn't justice thomas appointed by republican, this wouldn't be a story. guest: of course it would be. host: let him finish and we will get your response. caller: did you do any investigation on our bg or sotomayor? none of them have ever taken -- guest: they have not taken a nickel but they have flown --host: let him finish and then you can respond. caller: where is the report on all democrat appointed justices? there isn't any? for 30 years, you guys have been going after justice thomas for every little thing since he was appointed. this is a nonstory, percival. -- first of all. how about putting biden and his son on every d

the supreme court did is natural for what it does a lot some cases, which let the state is will sit on the case than moving up to the lower courts. they want to at the lower courts here most of the arguments are there going to get the benefit of different opinions from different judges in different courts around the country. one way to think about this, trace, is the prudent choice groups have one make a scrimmage today but it is only a skirmish. real bad was coming in just about three weeks when there are going to be unguez in the fifth circuit court of appeals about the real merits of the case. >> i'm wondering if you think they might have waited too long to go after this, john. >> i think the pro-life doctors here, they might have made a few mistakes. they might have waited too too challenge the original fda decision, which was to allow the sale of the drug in the first place. didn't wait to challenge a second set of decisions to open up and make it easier to get access to the abortion drug. that might explain why the supreme court did not want to intervene too quickly because there

don't know everything about that at this point but i can tell you what i know about inside the supreme court, there is no formal ethics code. the chief justice and other justices say they follow the rules for lower court judges who do have a formal ethics code. they are obviously supposed to report this and things of value. under a federal law, they are not supposed to take any money from people they can influence a case but there is a gray area of who influences them and what kind of gifts they take. one thing that would interest your viewers is that only recently did the judicial conference amendable to say that personal hospitality would be something you should report when it gets to the figures. a private jet fighters implies, these resort vacations. this is all unfolding as we are speaking now thursday. but this is something that has concerned some members of the court but there has not been unanimity among the justices of how to communicate to the public that there actually follow ethics rules. >> how would the process work? were they have to have a unanimous vote? >> excellent questio