three times what the supreme court is honorable. with the enactment of this legislation, our highest court in the land can make that claim. i now yield the center to graham. >> thank you mister chairman. i appreciate it very much. this will be a spirited debate. i hope you have nowhere to go today because we have a lot of amendments worthy of your consideration. a couple points, what you're trying to do is not improve the court, you're trying to destroy it. it's been an ongoing effort here. [silence] you have to look at this in terms of what's been going on for a couple of years. so senator schumer, this is the court. goes over to the court awhile back and says i want to tell you kavanaugh, you have released a whirlwind, you will pay the price. you won't know what hate you if you go forward with these awful decisions. this is the majority leader of the united states senate. supreme court justices know they're in for opposition. they have security. that was the explanation given by a representative from new hampshire when conservative

group that the constitution says is in the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. w, there is a limit on it. congress cannot direct the court like in the case of smith versus jones, there is a limit on what congress can do in terms of governing the supreme court's affairs, but under the constitution, under our system of checks and balances, congress has a great deal of authority with regards to how the supreme court operates and how justices operate. the justices have to file tax returns. nobody says that they should be immune from that because congress cannot speak to the justices. the code of ethics falls in a similar category. you can say it is different because it is focusing directly on the supreme court as opposed to the same allegations as every citizen, but i think that congress has a lot of authority with respect to this type of issue. >> one more elephant in the room. you teach governor justice at perhaps -- and have two deal with some of the most important cases coming up, the truck trials. are you teaching them as they are happening in real time, and the

supreme court during world war ii. then, the british prime minister fields question from the members of the house of -- questions from the house of commons. and then the first amendment summit, a discussion on current legal controversies, such as book bands and defamation cases. ♪ >> cliff sloan, your second book is about the supreme court but a very different era from the first one. tell me about the court at work. >> the court that war is about the supreme court during world war ii, and it is a very, very interesting and momentous time for the court, and it is really the roosevelt court. let me back up and tell you how i got interested in the subject. i was working at -- as a special envoy for the closure of guantanamo in 2014, and i was reading the decisions on military detention, including the notorious and shameful korematsu case. i noticed that the first of the shameful anti-japanese decisions , which was about a curfew targeted at japanese-american citizens, was decided exactly one week from -- one week before o

you open the path to the supreme court. if they say we're not going to enforce this, how does he get into court? maybe some public interest organizations sues, but maybe they do not have standing to do that. the railway to be sure you get supreme court determination as if some secretary of state says i think champs barred from office. he is not eligible to be on the ballot and the trump campaign sued. the courts decide that and because of the supreme court quickly and get the answer we need. host: phone lines as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. richard, augusta, georgia. democrats. caller: good morning. professor roosevelt, how many states would it take to enforce the 14th amendment? could there not be a bipartisan bill presented by congress, especially when we know that donald trump said he would try to abolish the constitution of the united states? guest: that is a great question. it rings at 1.i wanted to make which is how narrow disqualification -- brings up how

tell me about the court at work. >> the court that war is about the supreme court during world war iiand it is a very, very interesting and momentous time for the court, and it is really the roosevelt court. let me back up and tell you how i got interested in the subject. i was working at -- as a special envoy for the closure of guantanamo in 2014, and i was reading the decisions on military detention, including the notorious and shameful korematsu case. i noticed that the first of the shameful anti-japanese decisions , which was about a curfew targeted at japanese-american citizens, was decided exactly one week from -- one week before one of the greatest civil liberties decisions in the courts history, west virginia for the -- board of education versus burnett, where justice rep. jackson: gave an opinion that struck down the compulsory flag statute that the jehovah's witnesses had objected to. i noticed that within seven days the supreme court had issued one of the worst civil liberties decisions in history and one of the greatest civil liberties decisions in its history. and, so tha

i think bessie would be particularly pleased to know that the supreme court historical society invited me to share her story. the court was a very special place for her. here she is pictured in 1991 with her niece charlotte margolin dressed up and on their way to the historical society's gala dinner that evening. as for the book, i think she would also be happy to know that her biography has received a fair share of positive published reviews. i'm sure none of them would please her as much as this unpublished and hand-written review which is also one of my favorites, and i will quote an excerpt. as daunting as the undertaking must have been, you have accomplished an important mission in bringing the working days of a remarkable woman vividly to light. although bessie's path and mine never crossed, i had heard much about her. thank you for enabling me and legions of other lawyers to appreciate what a front-runner she was. and it's signed ruth bader ginsburg. thank you for your attention. francis perkins in congratulating bessie on her very first supreme court argument and victory said s

he represents a broad array of clients in the supreme court and in federal and state appellate courts. last year he successfully argued supreme court cases involving significant issues of energy regulation, statutory interpretation, states immunity and article iii standing. and successfully argued a trademark appeal in the fourth circuit anticonstitutional appeal before the en bloc 11th circuit. mr. clement earned his bachelor of science degree summa cum laude from georgetown university school of foreign service, master of philosophy degree from darwin college at cambridge, and juris doctor, magna cum laude, from harvard law school. where he was supreme court editor of the harvard law review. following law school, mr. clement clerkedou for judge lawrence h silverman of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and for justice antonin scalia of the united states supreme court. after his clerkships he went on to serve as chief counsel of the u.s. senate subcommittee on the constitution, federalism and property rights. please hope to welcome mr. clement. [applause] -- please help m

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

supreme court. his guidance and insightful analysis always demonstrates his role as a prominent legal luminary. he has inspired and educated generations of students, we are so thrilled to have you back thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, it is an honor to be with you. >> we are also thrilled to have judge michael luttig having served admirably on the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit for over 15 years. he showed promise from the start. for becoming the youngest federal judge at the time of his appointment, he began his service to the law starting with the reagan administration before clerking for antonin scalia a then working to confirm supreme court justices during his time at the justice department. he represents true courage and steadfast commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law during one of the most critical moments of our democracy, he played a crucial part in upholding our election system when he advised mike pence that he could not overturn the 2020

it wasn't clear the supreme court had the ability to review a final decision out of the supreme court. wasn't clear whether the supreme court had the authority to pass on the constitutionality of the presidency. .. opinion written by chief justice john marshall. so they were talking about legitimacy in a much more fundamental sense that, was, you know, essential to, you know, to the nation that we live in today. and and of course, president jefferson was a howling, mad about all of this. i mean, he was constantly complaining about it and trying to get congress to enact legislation to strip the court's authority, its jurisdiction. and so, you know, it was a it an extraordinarily intense conflict. and the brilliance of marshall is as he's trying to establish the legitimacy of the court and the institution of judicial review, he picks the marbury case and the statute that he strikes down. it's uncommon stitution is a statute that purported to give additional to the supreme court a statute of the judiciary act. and so the brilliance of picking the brilliance of taking that to establish re

it wasn't weird the supreme court had the ability to review a final decision out of the supreme courtit wasn't clear whether the court had the authority to pass on the constitutionality of an act of the president. every one of those principles was established as an opinion written by chief justice john marshall. they were talking about legitimacy in a much more fundamental sense that was essential to the nation that we live in. and of course, president jefferson was howling mad about all of this. he was constantly complaining about it and trying to get congress to enact legislation to strip the courts authority . it was an extraordinarily intense congress. >> the brilliance of marshall is in trying to establish the legitimacy of the court and review he picked the marble case and the statute statute he strikes down as unconstitutional is the statute purported to give authority to the supreme court, the mandamus act. the brilliance of picking that case to establish judicial review is nothing the other branches can do about it or evendefine his will . if he picked instead an act of congr

earlier this, week alabama filed an emergency application to the supreme court to pause a ruling by theurt order that the supreme court already upheld months ago. i will take you back for a second. the supreme court ruled that the congressional map divided the voting rights act because it diluted black voting power. the decision held the high court a unanimous ruling by a lower court which required alabama to create a second majority black congressional district. now, melissa, alabama didn't do. that instead the legislature approved about the increase blackford form 30% in a particular majority white district to 40%. it was not what the supreme court said. very hard to. tell and putting at these. maps very hard to tell from these two maps. if you look closely on the left is alabama's 2021 congressional numb. on the map is the right approved by the legislature in july. on the new, map district seven, is the only majority black district. district too is where republicans up the number of black voters from 30 to 40%. republicans are saying that is going to fix what the supreme court says.

our question for you today, what is your level of trust in the supreme court? at can be done to increase your trust in the high court? democrats, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you live. you can find us on facebook.com/c-span and on x and instagram @cspanwj. let's start off by talking about recent polling by gallup on what members of the public think about the supreme court. the headline of the article says supreme court approval at record low. i want to bring up highlights. it says that 40% of respondents toheool approve of the court handling of its job, 62% of republicans, 17% ofemocrats and 41% of independents approve of the court's performance, so a big partisan divide there. when asked about justice thomas, 42% express an unfavorable view of justice thomas versus 39% had a favorable opinion of him, so those are some highlights from the recent poll on the supreme court. let's l

>> i believe, and i have said publicly that the supreme court has shot himself in the foot in the midst of very controversial terms in which it decided the most controversial cases of our time. if i had been the court, i would have cautioned the court not to conduct and behave self on the way in the way that it has outside the court at the very moment that it has decided these controversial cases, because as i said in my testimony to the senate judiciary committee, in which i was really sticking to the supreme court itself, i said t look, all that you have by design of the constitution is the respect of the american people for your judgments. it is respect for your judgment and also, the public's respect for the court as an institution by virtue of the way it conducts its self in its nonjudicial capacities outside the court. that was to say, very pointedly to the court, that in fact, i put it this way, whether or not you, the court, believe that these criticisms about your legitimate the are correct or not is not the question. you should, at all times, take every step possible to ensure

election, judge kelly would have absolutely no chance of being elevated by donald trump to the supreme court or the court of appeals, after issuing a 22 year sentence to the leader of donald trump's army. no future republican president is likely to reward judge kelly with a promotion. and sell, in a sense, judge kelly also sentenced himself today to a career it's a federal district judge who will probably never be promoted. in fact, most federal district charges are never promoted. there are simply aren't enough appeals openings to allow for that. and very few federal judges ever have to make a decision that they know will and even the theoretical possibility of being promoted. judge kelly did that today. you can spend a lifetime in the federal courts and never see that happen. but this is the age of trump, full of things you've never seen before. also today, there was a mystery followed by special prosecutor jack smith and the case of united states all of america versus donald trump. the motion could not say publicly what it is actually about. quote, because the motion first to sensitive ma

and it came to the supreme court on a certain petition. there were two questions posed in the petition itself. one of them was 40 for standard cert petition question. did the court of appeals in this case with this statute correctly find or not that chevron applied? but the second question and the only question for which cert was granted was should chevron be overruled? and if not overruled, , should t at least be limited to the circumstances or limited to not include circumstances where statutory silence was the basis for the court's decision? because here of course there's nothing in the statute relevant to this particular type of monitoring that talks about paying for monitors to be on your boats. there is, in fact, other information and other parts of the statute that talks about funding monitors, but not here. what the majority of the d.c. circuit does was to extrapolate from those other portions of the statute and some general necessary and proper language and create a whole new obligation. it's up on the supreme court on both that na

so saying, basically the courts in israel and especially the supreme court, has too much power. they always sold, it's too liberal and too left and they want to see the, the courts powers here, um diminished. tanya, is this hearing likely to change and, and do we have any idea of when the supreme court is going to reach a decision? well, this could take some time. i talk to some expert, they're saying, you know, to take some weeks, but they're hoping to get some idea of what the judge is. i mean, see the 15 dresses sitting there, what they would be thinking over the course of the hearing. this would be broad cost by so to get some kind of hint where they're going as a, as i said, until now the high court of justice has never on another side to basic. so an amendment to it. we're also going to get into a period of the 2 is high holidays and also the connected with only start by mid october. so it could take some time. now what that will decide, we have to see it all depends also a lot of experts saying, how's the government will then respond to it? whether this comfortable go into

as justice kagan said, those rules don't apply to the supreme court. l note they have been talking about adopting some sort of formal rules for at least five or six years now, and reporting on that is the court is looking for unanimity among the nine justices and apparently having trouble getting that. so i think it is something that if they adopt any rules, we'll have to take a close look to see if it is abstractions about being independent and -- amy: we just showed a picture of ken burns, david koch, and justice clarence thomas. can you talk about that gathering? >> sure. another part of this story can expect to our previous reporting on harlan crow, who is a republican billionaire political donor out of dallas. he has been essentially subsidizing justice thomas' life for many decades. vacations around the world, paying tuition for relatives and other things. what we found now is harlan crow has been taking justice thomas on more trips over the years to this all men's retreat that takes place every july in a redwood forest where essentially political

only other topic i mentioned is that we are likely to have more defamation, which may reach the supreme court and there are at least three of the most conservative members of the court who have said in so many words that they would -- two plus one that we know that they want to set aside what may well be the greatest press victory in american history, which is the new york times versus sullivan of 1964 as the court has become more conservative and asked some members of the court have become unambiguously anti-press. it makes it all the more likely that that case may well come up before this court and while for what it is worth i do not think they are going to reverse or set aside, we don't know. it is in play, it is in play intellectually. it is in play ridiculously. and so i think they will take it , one of these cases. some very sympathetic case from the point of view of someone who has really been wronged and because we protect speech so much, it does not have a remedy. the only other thing i can say is i really cannot talk about twitter, because it has just been filed. >> understood, unde

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

out and out defiance of the supreme court and the constitution which make decisions of the supreme courthe supreme law of the land. they are defiant. when you look at january 6, and you look at this in a totality of the circumstances situation, we have a bat until this country right now which is between democracy and autocracy. and we bert understand -- better understand that the 2024 election is not a test of personalities. it ain't about age. it's about agendas. wake up. stay woke. be woke. and be aware of the work we have to do next year. simone: we talked a lot about the supreme court case in the last section and first i want to say thank you. because -- [applause] simone: the lawyers need the people on the ground who are doing the work to stand up and say i'm going to put my name on this -- i want to bring suit. we are going to sue. and the victory. the numbers in alabama, i know we did this before, you have named the states. alabama's black population was 27% of the state's population. 14% of the representation. the black residents, not just alabama, we can say louisiana, florida,

our question for you today, what is your level of trust in the supreme court? at can be done to increase your trust in the high court? democrats, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you live. you can find us on facebook.com/c-span and on x and instagram @cspanwj. let's start off by talking about recent polling by gallup on what members of the public think about the supreme court. the headline of the article says supreme court approval at record low. i want to bring up highlights. it says that 40% of respondents toheool approve of the court handling of its job, 62% of republicans, 17% ofemocrats and 41% of independents approve of the court's performance, so a big partisan divide there. when asked about justice thomas, 42% express an unfavorable view of justice thomas versus 39% had a favorable opinion of him, so those are some highlights from the recent poll on the supreme court. let's l

how has that impacted outcomes on the supreme court? ms. lidsky: unfortunately it does impact outcomes. a lot of our institutions are not popular with people including the supreme court itself. it is at an all-time low in terms of popularity. but the press likewise, there is a great book i would recommend to you called why americans hate the and why it matters. the thesis of the book is basically that the dislike of the press and press practices does make its way into legal proceedings and herbs back even if you do not have key decisions overturned, the way they are applied curbed. you also don't get legislators passing laws that supplement constitutional protections for the press and then when you have juries deciding cases for example defamation involving the press, maybe they want to punish the press more and judges become skeptical of press claims about freedom but what is interesting to me as this is occurring at the same time when it is becoming so evident that we need reliable information. we the people need reliable information in o

authorities have declared a state of emergency fighting schools and imposing a terrific israel supreme court is preparing for a crucial hearing on the government's controversy. all judicial reforms. thousands have protested outside the court on the eve of proceeding on the side of the changes would we can democracy or 15 to supreme court justices will stick together for the 1st time the he appeals against the plan changes issue his sharply divided this row with huge crowds taken to the streets, every point really is, is a, has an issue. so galvanized and so divided as riley's as this was these with the same downside is males. parliament has the 1st bill from the government, controversial. diesel is the whole time was tossed into life. it's a sad day. today's really democracy. uh, the slow uh, we'll enable government to pass any load that they would like to point any person to a position regardless of their skills or background. and we're going to point to that, i don't know to say those off the benefits of israel doesn't have a constitution or a sick and chamber of parliament making the supr

well the next stop in our tour was the supreme court building. this is where they decide whether our laws follow the meaning of the constitution. uncle jim told me to notice the inscription over the entrance equal justice under law. he said that this pretty well sums up the purpose of the supreme court then he went on to explain what it meant. the supreme court is the judicial branch of the federal government here. the law itself is on trial. it is judged according to whether it violates our constitutional rights. the court is composed of nine justices who hold office for life members are nominated by the president, but their appointments must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea of how the constitution sets up the three main branches of our government. the legislature which is congress. the executive branch which is the president. and the judiciary which is the supreme court. the legislature is charged with making policies. that is it passes the laws. the executive is responsible for carrying out policies. and the judiciar

as president as called us lead, if it's to try and eradicate cooking, perhaps a 5, the israel supreme court is preparing for a crucial hearing on the government's controversy. all judicial reforms, thousands protested outside the court on the eve of the sitting opponent, say the changes would weaken democracy or 15 supreme court justices sit together for the 1st time to hear appeals against the planned changes, issues sharply divided. israel with huge crowds taking to the streets every really is, is a, has an issue. so galvanized and so divided as rainy's as this was these were the scenes outside is males. parliament has the 1st bill from the government. controversial diesel is the whole time with policy engine light. it's a sad day, today's rally. democracy uh the slow uh, we'll enabled this government to pass any load that they would like to point to any person to a position regardless of their skills or background. and we're going to the point that i don't know to say those office government. most of the benefits of the israel doesn't have a constitution or 2nd chamber of parliament maki

and these ran supreme court . here's the 1st challenges to the governments. controversial traditional reforms as supporters and opponents of the over a whole rally outside the i've been visible and woke up thousands of people, the data off the catastrophic funding and leave yet the international red cross says some 10000 people, a missing stone. daniel, close the floods which swept away whole neighborhoods in a number of east and coastal areas. the destruction is west in death, not to the heavy rains lead to, to dams, collapsing, wiping out a corner of the city emergency services, put the current desk, told there at 2300 relief efforts. complicated by the fact that libby is internationally recognized. government in tripoli does not control the eastern pods hit by the flooding. whole neighborhood submerged by will to residents in this area of eastern libya come face to face with the devastation caused by the storm. some buildings were swept away entirely by the force of wind and rain while i'm going to the regions

on behalf of the american people and even now in recent years as a supreme court has touched on a number of the issues. this criticism the court itself is imposing value judgments, it may be disagreeing or imposing itself and what should be a more pluralistic process for decide the nation of constitutional rights. what you make of those criticisms? the harvard case for example more pluralistic approach would have been to let colleges choose what they are going to do a let every choose differently puts a case the supreme court saw the rule of law today. flex are some choices that list to the political process. that includes protections for individual rights. at might be more pluralistic to let universe discriminate on the basis of race. the equal protection of the law means no discrimination on the basis of race it. where the constitution to the political process of for instance on the matter of abortion the court leaves space for political pluralism for it on the other had the constitution for tax individual rights incumbent upon the court to enforce those rights again. >> was struck by

the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act.gives the supreme court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct. it allows the public to submit ethics complaints for review by randomly selected panel of lower court judges, allows for more stringent rules for disclosure and gifts and travel and requires justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public. where are you in this effort, and how likely is it that what you're trying to do will come to fruition? >> we are through the judiciary committee, and we are awaiting opportunity for a floor vote in this congress. at the moment republicans are not willing to participate in this effort, but we only know the very beginning of the mischief between the justices and the right-wing billionaires. as more and more evidence comes out i think a time will come when republicans will say, okay, we've got to throw in the towel, we held out as long as we could but let's look at a bill because even this reporting by justice thomas we've just seen is still very incomplete and full of m

a fundraising draw for a right wing network that has invested a lot of money into an upcoming supreme court standing precedent known as chevron defense council. conservatives have been asking the court to overrule chevron in areas ranging from the environment to labor rights. the koch network has long pushed to see chevron overturned. justice thos did not respond to a request for comment. and telling propublica, quote, the idea that attending a couple of events to promote a book or give remarks as all justices do could be of undue influence just doesn't hold water, end quote. let's see how much water it holds. joining me now is retired judge, who served on the california superior court, and law professor, leah litman. how damaging is this new report on justice thomas. aren't judges supposed to disclose this kind of activity and avoid participating in fundraising of any kind? >> the answer is yes, but let me take us back real quickly. in the 1980s, ronald reagan used the trope of the welfare queen and he used it to characterize black women as being on welfare, lazy, and clarence thomas jumpe

these converge on the supreme court ahead of a crucial seat hanging on the government's controversial judicial reform. the jared raid, welcome to discharge. nearly 3000 people are now going to have been killed in last week's clanking morocco. the search for survivors is being said back because of the difficulty in reaching flattening, villages and remote mountain regions. risk of a side i will not give up hope of finding people alive, and everyone is aware that time is running out. amongst the rubble of the villages. survive is mon, for their loved ones. the quakes lessened entire villages in the high atlas mountains burying families under the homes. abdul rahman survived, but he lost his wife and 3 sons. no. normally we buried them yesterday, miss scofield, i felt so sorry for them. okay, no more than waiting. second smith. when we found that they were all huddled together, the 3 boys because of that, they all died and the earthquake, the weed, that homes destroyed people and left to sleep outside aid is trickling in. but many of the villages are remote and difficult to reach. some s