supreme court. that they can somehow affect the jurisdiction of the united states supreme court. the supreme court is the majority and chief justice roberts said we hold onto this judgment that came from the previous case as a technical matter, we are still holding onto it and as a result, when we affirm or reverse, it will affect that judgment in the case. the justice thomas dissent points out that the state supreme court has overturned his decision that was the basis for us hearing this case in the first place. on the one hand, you technically have a judgment but on the other hand, you have the reversal of the precedent that form the basis of the judgment. it's a fight between the majority and the dissent about whether to hear this case. i think there was a sense from the majority that they wanted to address the issue when we are not in the middle of a heat election. -- a heated election. we are deciding this well before any election is happening and well before these issues might come back to the

the supreme court can overturn it. you are actually taking black people getting their rights taken away with other groups of people getting the rates expanded. no matter what the democrats say , unless they add members to the supreme court, minority rule will continue in the united states. instead of you saying whatever you want, the right wing extremists are implementing minority rule in the united states just like what israel is doing. we are sitting back and listening to it and taking it. joe biden and the democrats, chuck schumer and all of them, they are maintaining white privilege in the united states. this is exactly what is doing so a lot of democrats have done this because of their kids and grandkids in their lives just like affirmative action. you took rights from black people in the united states. it's generation after generation. dred scott is a change you want to talk about. it's still in effect. in my right that the supreme court can overturn any rights that the democrats pass in the congress if they have

sample, professor sample, you know, the supreme court has a mistake. you may regard it as a mystique not justified in fact, but it is a credibility. a trust. a confidence that is so necessary for a court composed of nine people, unelected, presiding for life, and able to strike down the will of a democratically elected congress, it is extraordinary and democracy. and so, i am really just baffled by chief justice, roberts. because he should know better. and this controversy could be defused, if he were willing to lead. and obviously, we have asked him to lead. again and again and again. and the failure to take the reins here, which could easily supplant these kinds of measures, if he were to voluntarily impose some code of ethics, and there would be enforcement questions. but at least there would be a code of ethics and the judicial conflict, someone could enforce it. you know, i don't want to be unfair to any particular justice, because i recognize these questions can be asked of any or all of them, but thinking to justice thomas is presiding over quest

supreme court declaring a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. he said nobody would let that stand. i think that's a preview of what we are going to see once it makes its way through the court in september and october. halie: amir, in addition to that question, i also want to ask how you believe this will be -- what will be the response of the israeli people to this? this weekend will be the 29th consecutive week of mass protests, hundreds of thousands of israelis in the streets. and do you believe that this will continue in response or will the protest movement -- amir: that is the million dollar question, halie. i was in jerusalem on monday when there were these massive protests in front of the knesset, i wanted to see it with my own eyes. there were tens of thousands of people there. i have to say that energy is not going to disappear. these people are not going to just go back home and close the door. they have a sense that right now it's either fight or flight. either fighting for the character of israel and averting this grand plan to weaken

it was interpreted by the supreme court in 1986 in a way that created an easy roadmap for the courtso follow in addressing the complex fact in cases all over the united states. as a result of effective implementation of section two, the voting rights act, in many areas of the country, african-americans have been able to approach the degree of proportional balance and never exceeding it for all practical purposes. because of the effect of section two in supreme court in the decision authored by chief justice john roberts, simply reaffirms the way in which the court would handle these cases despite the challenge that the state of alabama which was a lower court decision and ridged alabama and purge the supreme court creating a new standard requiring completely race neutral redistricting in which legislatures didn't even take a count of the racial composition of their state. the court said it wasn't going to abide by alabama's efforts to recast the way in which the court interprets the voting rights act. host: our guest will talk about this case, looking at voting rights and you probabl

but ultimately given the timing, the fact that a decision was made after the supreme court vindicated the constitutional rights of my client by a six to three vote, it really says more about the firm's view of the court they it does about the firm's view of any particular client. and it communicates a very pernicious message. that big law is on one side of these controversies without regard to what the supreme court says and if the supreme court takes the other side they should be harshly criticized and lawyers should effectively be asked to leave for having the temerity to take the winning side in the supreme court of the united states on behalf of an individual asserting their constitutional rights. all of this would be bad enough if it were an isolated phenomenon but unfortunately it corresponds with two trends that i think end up reinforcing each other and reinforcing the problem. first, it corresponds to a change in rhetoric about the court and about criticism of the court. the supreme court in my view has always been a fair source of criticism for its decisions and if the suprem

i'm supreme court analyst. so that's the low-hanging and a great piece inho slate last week the shouldsa reignite the conversation with every 10 years about why we cover the court the way we do but i wrote about the resignation of that justice in 1949 in forbes resigned over don't think it's remotely inaccurate what happened in the justice thomas case. it had been paid back before it became a public -- why did he resign because earl warren went to to him and he said you have to resign for the good of the court and if you don't resign nixon and congress will go after you. that was 1969. the last thing i will say is i think the other place where the current ethics kerfuffles dovetail with what i'm trying to do in the book is the same disease of congress advocating any responsibility. when john roberts and -- he said actually it was a separation of power concern and interfering with judicial independence were i've voluntarily will testify and he's not making that up. he generally believes that because we live in an

cases before the supreme court.hat was the job scalia wanted. he was passed over. then he was passover when president reagan named an individual to fill a vacancy on the pc circuit court of appeals, which is one rung below the supreme court, the second most powerful court in america some say. he was passed over in favor of his friend again. when the vacancy appeared on the supreme court, sandra day o'connor was named instead. scalia had been passed over three times in about seven months. i call this chapter bitterly disappointed, because he told his first biker for that he was bitterly disappointed at not being chosen to be solicitor general. and i quote from tom petty, the waiting is the hardest part. a vacancy opened up again on the pc circuit court and scully was nominated for it. before that happened, he was offered a seat on the seventh circuit court of appeals which operates out of the midwest. and scalia really had cut his teeth on the ministry of law, to most lawyers it is the dreary us the most dismal subje

administration, trump administration took an aggressive t approach to this nerdy procedural maneuver in thf supreme courtties so the george w. bush and obama but the government goes to the court nearly eight times so once every other year and the decisions have been so in seven cases as though obvious partisan and it's par for the course looking at the historical average. trump course of the court 41 times four years and justices released in 28 of those cases that almost all of those part of chapter four i believe at the beginning the justices were not leading the charge off the charge is led by the trump justice department but there are always opportunities not these applications in the kept saying sure. >> how much of this is discord? you cannot talk about the trump years without acknowledge during his presidency he appointed, and barrett. it is the composition of the court because of those four years. not only in terms of outcome decisions but in the way the court operates. the new conservative majority is used to shift americans to the right so two-part, is that what is goinger on? they are open to t

has been holding for 45 years, the new composition of the court had a disagreement on how supreme court precedent -- has been going for many years. host: i want you to respond what justice sotomayor said in t dissent. the court submits a superficial goal of colorbss as a constitutional principle in an endemically -- the court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality and education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. guest: schools can no longer use race and it considering who they will admit to the campuses and universities is what justice -- justice sotomayor for justin there -- sotomayor suggested there. what is wrong with that? there are plenty of problems in the united states, plenty of problems that follow along race lines like disparities and educational achievements but they will not be solved by positive discrimination which is what individuals who believe affirmative action is going to solve those problems is. there is no such thing as good discrimination and justice sotomayor and he

work of the supreme court.et is a term coined by a chicago law professor in 2015, basically to describe everything else of the supreme court does. by volumeng it ends up being almost 99% of what the supreme courtoe does is not the merits t docket, but rather these unsigned, usually unexplained orders. and, youou know, most of those e banal. i don't think we would all be here on the thursday night if we were really upset the parties got more time to file a brief in the case. but one of will's insight the book tries to build upon if not shamefully exploit is that a lot of important stuff happens in these unsigned unexplained orders. increasingly more and more important stuff happens through these unsigned add unexplained orders. so we who care about the supreme court whether professionally, personally, or both should be paying more attention to what happens in these inscrutable, often inaccessible rulings. >> so i was curious after reading the book about the will boat coining of this term. and i went back and rea

this is a series looking at 2022-2023 supreme court cases. c-span's washington, join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org.

watch the supreme court arguments this week or 9:00 p.m. eastern. joining us now is william eskridge, professor of public law at el law school. -- at yale law school. the supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of lorie smith, who wanted to refuse service to same-sex couples. can your spending hundreds of that case and her argument? guest: smith is the creator of 3 03, established website design company. she wanted to expand into customized wedding website hurt stipulation before she opened it -- and she never did before the supreme court decision -- was that she would only do websites for marriages that met with her approval. that did not exist -- king -- include same-sex marriages. she stipulated that this would be her position. she feared she would be prosecuted. so she brought a preemptive lawsuit in federal court to get an injunction against the application of colorado's antidiscrimination law. indeed, her business would be considered a public accommodation. colorado statute says that public accommodation has to give full service regardless of race, c

as the supreme court, the work of the supreme and the shadow docket. this is term that was coined by a chicago law professor then will both in 2015 basically to describe everything else that the supreme does by volume, it actually up being almost 99% of what the supreme court does, not the merits docket, but rather these unsigned usually unexplained orders and. most of those are banal. i mean, i don't think we'd all be here on a thursday if we were really upset. parties got more time to file a brief a case. but one of the will's insights that the book tries to build upon not shamelessly exploited, is that a lot of important stuff happens in these unsigned, unexplained orders, more and more important stuff happens through these unsigned, unexplained orders. and so we who care about the supreme court, whether professionally person or both, should be paying more attention. what happens in these in able, often inaccessible rulings. so i was curious after reading the book about the will bode coining of this term, and i went back and read the paper that he w

you talk about the supreme court. supreme court victories go back to -- i think we have been arguing since the 1990's. the flow of the court has changed dramatically. it has not been this court or that court, but these issues are about individual employee rights. our supporting -- supreme court when justice scorches words there, cited workers had a first amendment right to object to government and government unions using money to advocate government policy. and said, this is a first amendment question. the idea of giving force to a private organization to compel 100% agreement in what they are doing does not make sense to me and is the antithesis of what it means for this country. host: phil is a union member in colorado springs. caller: hi there. the right to work is a right to work for less. in the states that have the right to work, their wages are usually lower. if you do not want to join a union, do not go to work in that particular business. if you want to join a union that has benefits, retirement, health and w

supreme court.e note what is going to happening there. they will throw it all out. get ready for that because it is going to happen because everything is going to be an appeal. host: bob on the democrats line. your reaction to the indictment yesterday of the former president. caller: yes, sir. [indiscernible] host: your phone is breaking up a bit. can you give us a call back. curtis in maryland. on the independent line. caller: good morning. i've been trying to express this thought of mine for a while now. happy to get through this morning. it amazes me that people are supporting donald trump. after he is broken so many laws when it comes to the election, when it comes to other things he has been in court for. i understand why they support him the way they do. any time you support an individual who says that if he was to get back in office, he is going to repeal the constitution, demolish the court system or the justice system, and any other institution dealing with the government. these people who

all you need the supreme court said was reasonable to believe that the person had done something wrong or in the case of a search, that they had something on their person that created a danger so although court viewed this as compromise, i think between two competing considerations this reasonable suspicion standard has come to play an enormous role in the fourth amendment and just. one example there is a requirement that is centuries old that before police enter your home they have to a knock and announce their presence in order to the people inside know that the police there and the view is that this will protect both property so that doors won't have to be broken down and the like and also will people's safety they won't think that some intruder is breaking into their home. they will know that it's the police. but the supreme court, the nineties said that officers can do away with the requirement of knocking and announcing beforehand so long as they have a reasonable suspicion. the language from terry to believe that knocking in announcing would be fruitless or be harmful to their i

the supreme court. australia - court did not shut down... the supreme court. e supreme court. australia as a| court did not shut down... the - supreme court. australia as a high court, not supreme court. australia as a high court. not a _ supreme court. australia as a high court, not a supreme _ supreme court. australia as a high court, not a supreme court. - supreme court. australia as a high court, not a supreme court. it's i court, not a supreme court. it's just what it's called. but it didn't shut it down.— shut it down. what was the compensation _ shut it down. what was the compensation for? - shut it down. what was the compensation for? manusl shut it down. what was the - compensation for? manus island is not in australia, _ compensation for? manus island is not in australia, it's _ compensation for? manus island is not in australia, it's in _ compensation for? manus island is not in australia, it's in papua - compensation for? manus island is not in australia, it's in papua newl not in australia, it's in papua new guinea. this was a matter for papua new

when you couple that with what is going on in alabama, and the recent controversy with the supreme court, and you consider that, even in the wake of having a supermajority of conservative justices, the republican house in alabama still refuses to comply with the court order -- the notion of law and order and anything that reconciles with that, and consistency, is completely thrown out the window. so, quite frankly, it is no surprise that he went there. because we are not talking about a group of people who are representative of the majority of americans. but we are talking about a very devoted, very, very engaged -- >> -- >> and that's exactly what he is doing. >> yeah, to choose alabama -- which is -- i mean, i think we all remember, months ago, when the roberts court basically issued alabama a -- more than a slap on the wrist. a pretty significant ruling in favor of racial equity -- it's like, is this the same court that we have all come to know? they could -- >> write. when you are two races for this supreme court -- >> yes, that's saying something. >> then trump, on the heels of this

i mean, congress funds the supreme court. congress historically has made changes to the court's structure and composition. congress historically has made changes to the court's appellate jurisdiction. and indeed there's a provision in the constitution that says something like, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction under regulations that congress provides. or -- i'm mission the exact words, but -- missing the exact words, but it actually talks about congress having a role in our jurisdiction. talks about congress regulating the jurisdiction of the supreme court. and i think more generally, this is not surprising. our whole system is one of checks and balances. and usually when the court talks about that, we're talking about other actors and the way they check and balance each oregon or the way we -- each other or the way we check and balance them. but it can't be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to any checks and balances from anybody else. i mean, we're not imperial. and we too a

can we get it to the supreme court, summit him to delay? >> there are some types of motions that can be appealed pretrial, where you can go to a court of appeals and ask for a determination before trial. but those are for few and far between. in large part we leave questions the defendants have to follow a verdict if there is one against them in to be appealed at that point in time. but let's say trump does posture a motion into a form that is immediately appealable, the courts of appeals across the country are particularly good at handling these motions quickly. sometimes you will see a situation where a criminal trial can be delayed extensively while a court can consider the matter. but in this situation with so much at stake for the public as well as for the defendant, the courts should be able to push it through more quickly. >> right. that's the question. if he can come up with the plausible interlocutory appeal, that is what appeals or call that are exempt from the final judgment rule, appeals after final judgment. if you can find an i

his central argument is the constitution creates the supreme court. congress doesn't do it. e lower courts. we didn't go into what -- paul: the lower federal courts. >> right. the appeals and district courts. and congress crypts what are called article i courts, administrative counts. but the supreme court is created by the constitution and, therefore, it's an independent branch of government, and congress has very limited authority over it. paul so if, if congress decided the pass some of these ethics rules, for example, and said we're going to impose -- and the judiciary committee democrats have said to the court if you don't impose your own ethics code, we will impose one on you with, and that includes recusal rules. so let's say they pass something like that. that would then, presumably, be adjudicated, if it were challenged, and until go up to the supreme court, i assume. >> yes. it would be an awkward matter to adjudicate. but the supreme court would be within its authority to adjudicate it because it is a law passed by congress, and it is the, it is -- there is a const

and despite the order judgment of the supreme court, they will be making things west for themselves. prime minister, moody, and his party has been accused of playing politics to push rivals out. the b. jp denies this and says the recent court rulings proves is not the one pulling the strains. how many you guys get a little? we all the people of one country under one society. but unfortunately, opposition parties have made this very one identity based on abusing and bullets name us. despite this, we've tried to maintain cordiality and dignity of politics. gandhi's great grandfather was india's 1st prime minister. the 53 year old may be popular, but it hasn't. lets a victory at the post. under his leadership, critics said the opposition congress party has been weakened while out on bail, he managed to merge several parties into one alliance under the acronym india. but so far it support has been limited. some analysts say gandhi's case has shifted the national conversation, raising questions about the politicize ation of courts, political rivalry, and the state of democracy in india. ka

that's exactly what the minnesota supreme court said w. ey actually called it a and what this court did unanimously reversed and it said no because, here, u e acting "as a lawmaking body," which is what i was saying to justice gorsuch from page 364. it's the exact opposite of his example of the leser case. leser aut article v. it's about a totally different te. the text of article v is application of the state legislatures. the whole point of smiley, justice jackson, is this is different because it's a lawmaking system not just because of the word "legislature" but also because of the word "regulation." there is no regulation that has ever existed that has been exogenous to the state constitution. i's literally a species that never existed. justice alito: mr. katyal, can i ask you some questions about the boundaries of your argument. so suppose a stastitution says that congressional districts will be determined by e state supreme court exercising legislative power. is that consistent with the mr. katyal: we don't think it would be, your hon

so that is a final order of the north carolina supreme court, and it pseon the relevant questions. in addition, theresecond final order, which is on february 23rd, there was a denial of st application. that too is a final order of this court. justice thomas: we don't normally review state supreme urts' interpretations of state constitutions. so, what i'm looking for is why, for example, if this were a case about a state legislature or a legislative district, it would be doubtful you would be here under the state constitution. so, i'm looking for an explanation as to why this c is here, and what's the jurisdiction for this case? how does it differ from a purely state case? mr. thompson: well, your honor, our position on the merits is to take as given state law as interpreted by the north na supreme court. we are not asking this court second-guess or reassess. we say take the north carolina supreme court's on on face value, and its fairly reflecting north carolina law. when one does that, we see that there is a vio of the elections clause, and that's why we are here. chief justice rob

because of the effect of section two in supreme court in the decision authored by chief justice john berts, simply reaffirms the way in which the court would handle these cases despite the challenge that the state of alabama which was a lower court decision and ridged alabama and purge the supreme court creating a new standard requiring completely race neutral redistricting in which legislatures didn't even take a count of the racial composition of their state. the court said it wasn't going to abide by alabama's efforts to recast the way in which the court interprets the voting rights act. host: our guest will talk about this case, looking at voting rights and you probably member it from the recent season of the supreme court and if you want to ask specifics on the case, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002 you can send your questions are comments via text at (202) 748-8003. peer is a part of what chief justice roberts wrote on this decision when it was leased -- when it was released back i june. can you elaborate on what he s

trey: the fight against the june supreme court justice begins when you are up for appellate court judgeontinues well beyond their conversation to the high court. now a senator from illinois of all places is concerned about ethics. judicial crisis network president ke ♪ ♪ we're reinventing our network... ...with smarter, more efficient routes... ...so you can deliver more value to your customers. fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service. trey: welcome back to "sunday night in america" members of congress have become more aggressive in criticizing members of the supreme court at least one justice is pushing back a little bit. justice samuel alito is doubtful congress can impose ethics guidelines on the high court. a recent interview said congress did not create the supreme court, no provision of the constitution gives them the authority to regulate the supreme court. carrie severino is the president of the judicial crisis network enjoins us now. i'm going back 30 years was is an extremely dangerous thing for me to do but i think the constitution provides fo

arbitration court of the donetsk people's republic in seventeen out of 39 district courts, the supreme court of the lugansk people's republic, the arbitration court of the lugansk people's republic , and twenty-four out of thirty -one district courts of the lugansk people's republic. in addition, the start of work will be announced days of the zaporizhia region zaporizhzhya regional court zaporizhia arbitration court in three of the five districts of courts, zaporozhye region, and also in the court of kherson region and in three out of fifteen. and also, in three of the 13 fishing boats, work will be constantly carried out, as you said, but rhythmically, depending on the number of applications received. in order for the courts to work in normal conditions , 185 buildings are now needed , 101 buildings for courts and regional level and district courts are registered by the end of the year, and it is planned to complete repair and restoration work in sixteen courts. well, we are working hard in this direction. ah, with marat usmanin, very fruitful constructive interaction and fast operational.

i think that there likely is beginning to be pressure within the supreme court. udges are the chief judges of all the different circuit courts of appeal and selected district court chief judges, very powerful and august group, and they have to follow the rules. they know the rules in though the supreme court justices are cheating. they know that the excuses are being made and they make no sense, are not correct, and they also resent that by treating this behavior of supreme court justices as legitimate, they impute to the rest of the judiciary that they might be doing the same thing. so i think the pressure is building within the judicial conference to take the necessary steps against these relatively rogue supreme court justices. >> senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you for staying on the case and thank you for joining us again tonight. coming up, tuesday night was a very big win for democrats and supporters of reproductive rights in ohio. ohio senior senator joins us, next. r joins us next ♪ chevy silverado has what it takes to do it all. with up to 13 camera vi

trey: the fight against the june supreme court justice begins when you are up for appellate court judgeontinues well beyond their conversation to the high court. now a senator from illinois of all places is concerned about ethics. judicial crisis network president kerry severino joinspp us next on "sunday night inme america". ♪ an the way that i see it, if you're buying it, flying it, or wining n' dining it, then you gotta be cashbacking it. [chuckles] come on now. earn big with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback? ♪ ♪ we're reinventing our network... ...with smarter, more efficient routes... ...so you can deliver more value to your customers. fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service. (aidyl) hi, i'm aidyl, and i lost 90 pounds on golo. i struggled with weight loss and weight gain my entire life. with all the yo-yo dieting i did in the past, i would lose 20, 30, 50 pounds just to gain them over and over again. thanks to golo, i've been able to steadily go down the sizes in my closet and keep the weight off. for the first time in forever, i feel i

is this fast tracked back to the supreme court as quickly as that plan of last year moved to the supreme court? >> then -- potentially. even though this is a repayment plan, it is a plan that actually allows a bit of a grant, if you will, so, loan holders are not paying back and that may spark some contest in this particular plan, so, i think there is a great potential for this to be fast tracked back to the court for a decision on this particular plan. >> this is casey in silver spring maryland. she has paid off student loans. go ahead. >> morning. yes. i pay off my student loans. about two days ago. in all. i would say that i completely support any effort by the biden administration to reduce student debt for any students out there. i really -- i have a phd. i feel like i've received pell grant's in college. i've been looking these loans around with me for the better part of my life, and even after getting a phd, i still struggle with these loans. by the way, when you are in college, especially from 2005 to 2009, the interest rates are insanely high. i had some that were 10%, 8%, 7%. w

even the fact this is in event hosted by the supreme court inside of the supreme court building by justice, that is very rare. there are not many groups who have that sort of access. on top of that, we found the association, which is a charity group that raises money for college scholarships -- also a very exclusive association for industrialists, wealthy entrepreneurs, self-made millionaires and billionaires -- a fund raised directly off of this event. they charge donors x amount of dollars. if you're not a member, it be $7,500 per seat at all of the events, including the supreme court all whipped to $100,000 for a table of 10. this is a little bit of an unprecedented arrangement. in different judiciary rules and regulations around each branch of government, people are told you're not supposed to use your position to fund raise, even if it is for a good cause. you're not supposed to use your position, title, your name for fundraising for a charity, let alone inside of national government building. amy: word is ginni thomas fit in this, the well-known activist, very involved with the whole

you talk about the supreme court. supreme court victories go back to -- i think we have been arguing since the 1990's. the flow of the court has changed dramatically. it has not been this court or that court, but these issues are about individual employee rights. our supporting -- supreme court when justice scorches words there, cited workers had a first amendment right to object to government and government unions using money to advocate government policy. and said, this is a first amendment question. the idea of giving force to a private organization to compel 100% agreement in what they are doing does not make sense to me and is the antithesis of what it means for this country. host: phil is a union member in colorado springs. caller: hi there. the right to work is a right to work for less. in the states that have the right to work, their wages are usually lower. if you do not want to join a union, do not go to work in that particular business. if you want to join a union that has benefits, retirement, health and w