when you look at the supreme court and what has gone wrong, how do you see it? >> thank you, michael. i want to pick up on one point christina was making, but may be from a more fundamental level. we have court as a third branch of government. we have two political branches of government, congress, article one, the executive branch, article two. the constitution wanted these neutral arbiters. think of what it meant to be a judge in the latter part of the 18th century. people still want that. they want there to be a difference between policy and law. we can all debate what the differences for quite a while. but what i can say as a setting appellate judge was it was critically important -- was i trying to craft a decision just because i thought it ought to turn out that way, or, was there some bigger force at work, some constitutional principle, some principle of the statute guiding not just me but my colleagues, whether it was two other colleagues on a panel, or two -- 10 other colleagues on the event court. we are losing that confidence. if the court is one more

these fringe rulings are not the signs of a healthy supreme court. the signs of a court run amok. the good news is that the constitution provides a remedy to the supreme court's current morass, congress has the authority to issue strong checks on the judiciary through legislation and congress has the authority to speak on constitutional issues. the constitution is clear, the supreme court does not get the final word. an option i'm seriously considering is drawing up legislation clarifying that the president is not immune from violations of federal law. one of the justices recently claimed there is to this provision in the constitution that gives congress authority to regulate the courts. i respectfully suggest that this justice reread the constitution because it's plain as day that congress is well within its rights to conduct oversight. accountability shouldn't be a dirty word when we talk about the supreme court. americans across the ideological spectrum agree that checks and balances are necessary and they agree it should apply to the supreme cour

right now we are continuing our conversation on reforms to the supreme court for joining us is gabe roth executive director fix the court. your group advocated on reforms to the suprememe court. if you go far enough away propose? >> is definitely a good start bu' we have been advocating for term limits and ethics go for about 10 years. we are pleased to see the president is on board with these reforms 70, 80% no matter how you asked the question favors in forcible ethics code foods are popular policies they want to put forward popular policies. it's very consistent where they went to seat the court the court is acting more political, acting more ethically certain guardrails should be established that would skew the court back to a more traditional background. forr the justices were not serving for 30 years like they theyare now the average was abo6 years up until recently. and in terms of ethics as an ethics crisis on the court despite your last guest says anyone reading it on the press as seen over the last years lasted longer than that. that will be the really important step for presid

i wonder sometimes how did our nine supreme court justices when there are 13 judicial district? i also wonder how did any other federal judge including aileen cannon, donald trump's court master who presides over his last criminal trial was decided to be a special master over the supreme court. it just gave a current sitting president, joe biden, immunity from any criminal act including removing the supreme court today. he could be prosecuted. guest: my organization doesn't deal directly with supreme court opinions. it should be a good steward of moral leadership. on your first point about nine justices currently, the country has expanded since they were initially created. it is not difficult for justice roberts to oversee one circuit. other justices are seeing more than one circuit. the argument has been made, america needs to have more justices. i don't necessarily buy that argument. i think that is sort of to the notion that we will be a joint democracy. i would lab -- rather our elected officials moving forward and whatever the supreme court is. it is an interesting thing to

him to get to the point where he thinks that the constitution has to be amended to constrain the supreme courtg >>>deal, and the questionable behavior off the bench. >>>>does this court today or in the future, have to understand and care about its public perception >liz>and i'm anne makovec in for liz. today, president biden says he wants to ensure nobody is above the law. so he is proposing major reforms to the nation's highest court and the presidency itself. we're going to talk with the bay area law professor to break down some of these proposals and ask what it would actually take to put them in place. we're going to have that conversation coming up in just a few minutes. but first, a look at your news headlines. vice president kamala harris has selected her running mate minnesota governor tim walz, and here is a live look right now in philadelphia where vice president harris and governor walz are appearing together for the first time at a joint campaign event. let's listen in >live>we will win pennsylvania we will win pennsylvania. and i thank you, josh. i thank you so philadelphia. >liz>

there's the supreme court.ut on our constitutional system, the highest above all of them, the highest of the high are the people. right? so we are the people who can be the highest of the high. and what we need to do is to vote in december. i'm sorry, we need to vote in november. we need to vote in november like the future of democracy is on the ballot because it is. we need to make sure we are all registered. we need to make sure our friends and families are registered and we need to cut away the could be webs and the -- cobwebs and the nonsense and all of the other things caught in people's brains and we need to tell them to vote for a democrat from the top of the ballot to the very, very bottom. i don't want to hear about it, i don't want to hear anything else about why this candidate or that candidate or this moderate republican or that sensible centrist. you need to vote for democracy. and that means voting from top of the ticket to the bottom, democratic. and that's why i love the work that jewish democra

supreme court to change it and make supreme court. they just hope that one of these days they'll get up there and the court will change its mind, do away with subsistence hunting and fishing rights for for those tribes. alaska, it's strange part of this political process that i was referencing earlier. absolutely. and speaking of the supreme and there's a question that came in about the 2020. mcgirt case. that's mcgirt v oklahoma and essentially the united supreme court determined that the eastern portion of oklahoma was never diminished pursuant oklahoma's the treaty rights of those particular, i think for purposes of jurisdiction. that's a land landmark case. but currently with the composition, the supreme court, what is. do you have any insight with respect to where we're going here? well. mcgirt case was really kind of a landmark case. the muskogee creek tribe prevailed, 5 to 4, 5 to 4 vote based upon principle, federal indian law that we understood very well. and that is, you know, reservation is established in it stays a reserva

supreme court that we should have went under the federal indian law we knew. but we lost all for that totally shocked and devastated the tribal leaders. again it depended on the courts in the tribal sovereignty movement winning these cases. the supreme court ignore or throughout the change of federal indian law like theyd did. it just shocked everybody per the tribal leaders called a national meeting to address a crisis in indian country. that was called the united states supreme court. so we all came appear on 9,112,001. we started meeting, talking about thesean issues. we had the chairman of the senate indian affairs committee with this there that morning. he also served as chairman of the defense committee there in the senate. not too long after we started some people came in and whispered in his ear, stood up and took over the microphone and said i am sorry. going to have to leave the meeting. the united states is under attack in new york city and over at the pentagon. and 911 was happening. the tribal leader said let's get out of here. we need to go home a

councils of justice and the supreme court may try to interpret the decision of the supreme court in sucha way as not only to help unscrupulous officials of fimida, but also to undermine the future procedures of evaluation qualifications. it is very important in fact that these the two institutions continued the qualification assessment in the same order as it was before, and the decision in the case of judge usatovoi was considered an individual decision, specifically in this case, which should not be applied absolutely to everyone. cases, but, well, it is already clear that in these institutions there are also members who believe that this decision should be applied to the rest of the judges, so there will be a kind of struggle here, and what will be the result and what will be the consequence, in fact, it is difficult to predict at the moment . the precedent set by the grand chamber regarding sharp and baseless change in own practice indicates that there may be other decisions of the supreme court ahead, which in the end will simply bury the judicial reform, take over in the center of

council of justice and the supreme court of justice may try to interpret the decision of the supremen such a way as to not only help unscrupulous servants of themis, but also to undermine future quali procedures assessment it is very important, in fact, that these two institutions continue the qualification assessment in the same order as it was before, and the decision in the case of judge usatovoy is considered an individual decision, specifically in this case, which should not be ignored. absolutely to all cases, but it is already clear that in these institutions there are also members who believe that this decision should be applied to the rest of the judges, so there will be a kind of struggle here, and what will be the result and what will be the consequence, actually at the moment it is difficult to predict, precedent that created the great chamber regarding the drastic and groundless change of its own practice indicate that there may be other decisions of the supreme court ahead, which in the end will simply bury the judicial reform, take over the center of anti -corruption,

a supreme court justice not knowing how to comply with tax law where the supreme court is ruling on tax. we have never seen that before. >> to me, this looks like the justices trying to define basic rules of common sense, transparency and rule of law. >> and honor to have you here mr. chairman. thank you very much. >>> coming up, if there is a president harris next year she will need a democratic senate in order to accomplish anything. jackie rosen is running for election in that important electoral college state. she is running nine points ahead of her republican opponent in nevada and what could be a very good sign for kamala harris's campaign. she joins us next. so i started my own studio. getting a brick and mortar in new york is not easy. chase ink has supported us from studio one to studio three. when you start small, you need some big help. and chase ink was that for me. earn up to 5% cash back on business essentials with the chase ink business cash card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. why do couples choose a sleep number smart bed? fromi need help withess. he

supreme court and i think that his success rate was well over 90%. for some of you, you might think maybe that is what it is when you are just a great lawyer but you have to understand the times they were committed to win before the court as he did during the time of jim crow in the united states and so many really don't understand what jim crow really was in the united states and that will be part of our conversation tonight but please first let's welcome jenae nelson again and we will have a conversation that is really one that could be longer, truly longer. it is going to be a tightly run conversation. we are joined by c-span, to bring this into people's homes, which is really terrific we are going to have a conversation about civil rights and understanding what it means to look back so before i begin asking questions, just with 1865 the 13th amendment was ratified, 2013 when mississippi ratified the 13th amendment, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the united states. this is a be is also the state that brought us dobbs which overturn

and the supreme court of justice may try to interpret the decisions of the supreme court yes, in ordert only to help the unscrupulous servants of themis, but also to undermine the future procedures of the evaluation quals. it is very important , in fact, that these two institutions continue the qualification assessment in the same order as it was before, and that the decision in the case of judge usatovoy be considered an individual decision, specifically in this case, which should not be applied to absolutely all cases, but come on it is clear that there are also members in these institutions who believe that this is the solution. but apply to the rest of the judges, so here there will be a kind of struggle, and what will be the result and what will be the consequence, in fact, it is difficult to predict at the moment, the precedent set by the grand chamber in terms of a drastic and groundless change in its own practice indicates that there may be other decisions of the supreme court ahead, which in as a result , they simply bury judicial reform, take over the center of anti-corruptio

he did that by nominating thurgood marshall as the first black justice of the supreme court. pplause] and by aggressively defending civil rights throughout the courts. but now we live in a different era. in recent years, extreme opinions that the supreme court has handed down have undermined law and established civil rights principles and protections. in 2013, the supreme court versus shelby county case guided the voting rights act, opening a wave of restrictive voting laws that have seen states across the country past. in 2022, the court overruled roe v. wade, the right to choose. it had been the law of the land for 50 years. 50 years. the following year, the same court eviscerated affirmative action, which had been upheld and reaffirmed for nearly 50 years as well. and now there is an extreme movement and agenda called project 2025. by the way, they are serious, man. they are planning another onslaught attacking civil rights in america. for example, project 2025 calls aggressively attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion all across all aspects of american life. this extrem

working in the plenary for almost 8 years, and it was followed by both the previous and current supreme courteals. the great chamber also recognized this. in particular, in the decision regarding ex-judge solomyanskyi district court of kyiv, maria zelinska and judge gospodarskyi. pavlo gorbasenko of the kyiv region. we counted at least five decisions of the grand chamber of the supreme court, which earlier in the same grand chamber indicated a completely different position, they indicated that it is really necessary for such a decision to be supported by the entire plenary composition of the highest qualification commission of judges, and the decision of the panel itself is not enough. the decision of the grand chamber of the supreme court contains a number of dangers for judicial reform. according to preliminary estimates, it can help about 180 judges who have already received negative conclusions from the public integrity council to remain in their positions. this is the decision of the grand chamber helps these particular 180 people now avoid this procedure and in fact they already automat

even this term which certainly had its share of important and divisive cases supreme court decided almost half of its docket, 27 cases unanimously. there's a car that eight -- one and seven -- two decisions essentially over half the court's docket was either unanimous work near unanimous decisions. there were also 20 to six -- three decisions and just five, five -- four decisions. right from that statistic alone you can tell this was a little different term than last year. this was a very good term for the chief justice in particular where he was not only in the majority and a lot of these six -- three cases but wrote some of the most consequential decisions of the term which were often six -- three decisions. it also bears emphasis in that 226 -- three it was not always the same six insane three. it's about 11 of the cases fit what you might think is the usual six -- three pattern but half of them are a different group of six and a different group of three. the same thing is true of the five -- four decisions for the last thing i will say and i have alluded to one of these points and i w

one of the supreme court justices put it this way. government may neither proscribe or prescribe religion. when you are talking about public schools, that is a government agency and the line the supreme court has tried to enforce is that the government through public school teachers or officials may not favor or disfavor either religion in general or particular religious beliefs. but they have upheld the right of individual students and teachers and in a fairly recent case, a coach, a football coach to engage in their own personal individual exercises of religion in a way that was not conveying government approval. this is just my own individual exercise. i'm not acting in my official capacity in trying to indoctrinate my students for or against religion. you look like you have a follow-up question but i think -- which i would love to answer but i think out of fairness, i will take other questions and then perhaps we can talk afterwards individually. >> hello. good evening. y'all probably touched a little bit on this early on in the c

there is simply no way because in the immunity ruling that came out in july, the us supreme court said, donald trump has the right to appeal whatever the district court, the trial court finds is in or out of the case. so again, this is a big win for donald trump. i mean, i think it's a smart tactical move by jack smith. but half of the case or so, maybe more just fell away against donald trump that said, he's not going to be satisfied. he's still going to argue the whole case should be dismissed. i think that argument will be rejected by the district court, but the supreme court said donald trump's still can appeal that meaning to the dc court of appeals and then potentially back to the supreme court before trial. so there's no way phil, that we get through that whole appeals process and still started trial between now and november 5. i mean, that's just not going to happen. all right. elie honig, stick with us. we got a lot more to get to on this we want to go back to cnn's kaitlan poll answers continued digging through this kaitlan. what are you seeing right now? what stood out to yo

i wonder sometimes how did our nine supreme court justices when there are 13 judicial district? so wonder how did any other federal judge including aileen cannon, donald trump's court master who presides over his last criminal trial was decided to be a special master over the supreme court. it just gave a current sitting president, joe biden, immunity from any criminal act including removing the supreme court today. he could be prosecuted. guest: my organization doesn't deal directly with supreme court opinions. it should be a good steward of moral leadership. on your first point about nine justices currently, the country has expanded since they were initially created. it is not difficult for justice roberts to oversee one circuit. other justices are seeing more than one circuit. the argument has been made, america needs to have more justices. i don't necessarily buy that argument. i think that is sort of to the notion that we will be a joint democracy. i would lab -- rather our elected officials moving forward and whatever the supreme court is. it is an interesting thing to thin

a supreme court justice, a supreme court justice not knowing how to comply with tax law where the supreme on tax law every year, we've never seen that before. >> we certainly haven't. to me and senator white house, this just looks like the justice is and if i that basic rules of common sense, transparency and the rule of law. >> senator ron wyden, chairman of the senate finance committee , and honor to have you. thank you very much. >>> coming up, if there is a president harris next year, she will need a democratic senate in order to accomplish anything in congress. nevada's necrotic senator jackie rosen is running for reelection in that important electoral college s 3x stress sweat protection. secret works. [♪♪] it's time to feed the dogs real food in the right amount. a healthy weight can help dogs live a longer and happier life. the farmer's dog makes weight management easy with fresh food pre-portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. with dexcom g7, managing your diabetes just got easier. so, what's your glucose number right now? good thing you don't need to fi

why did the grand chamber of the supreme court change its practice? case clearly shows that there are problems with the supreme court. but which of the unscrupulous can remain in office? a number of judges who... can be so sensitive, important for the judicial mafia. congratulations, judicial control is on the air. institutional rebooting and personnel renewal of the judiciary based on the norms of professional ethics and integrity is the basis of the judicial reform currently being carried out in ukraine. its successful implementation is the main requirement for our further path to the eu. about how successful the transformation is. and whether the moral and professional qualities of justice officials meet high standards, let's talk today. as part of the judicial reform in ukraine, a lot of attention is paid to personnel issues in order to overcome corruption among judges and to increase the trust of citizens, every servant of themis must pass a qualification assessment. this applies both to new candidates for positions and to current judges. a body

i'm not even the supreme court. suggested the absolute polar opposite, that the president of the united states of all persons is not above the law and subject to the constitution and the laws of the united states. the supreme court created this role out of whole cloth. >> and that needs to be fixed. it is always an honor and pleasure to talk to you and thank you for making these complicated matters very clear to those of us who have not studied the law, judge michael luttig is our guest tonight. we will be right back. we will my recommendation is simple: every home should have salonpas. powerful yet non-addictive. targeted and long-lasting. i recommend salonpas. it's good medicine. ♪ hisamitsu ♪ they started as dreamers. but today, they're stars. follow every moment of team usa on the network that brings you legendary speed and reliability: xfinity mobile. with xfinity mobile, you'll have the most powerful mobile wifi network with you on the go with exclusive access to speeds up to a gig in millions of locations nat

she loved the supreme court building.ugh she was a person of faith, her biographer, evan thomas, aptly described it as her marble temple. on this bright, cold and blustery day, she was carried up the steps for her lying in repose, and she approached the equal justice under law engraved on the west pediment of the court. her clerks, almost a hundred of us, lined the steps, and just as she reached the top, an enormous gust of wind swept over all of us and was later remarked on by almost every person standing there. it felt somehow fitting because justice to justice o'connor had momentum -- justice o'connor had momentum. she never looked back. she wasn't bitter about december advantages in the past -- disadvantages in the past. she didn't dwell on any can disappointments. she did not extend disagreements from one case to the next. she was always moving forward, and she carried other people along with her. of course, she was a pioneer, but she was not a loner. she was generous and collaborative. she gave other people both the

>> it certainly seems that supreme court reform is the hot new club. eform, term limits and people are really in support of it and the reforms that president biden proposed are actually quite modest. he said nothing about packing the court, adding more justices, which is something that many on the left had advocated to rebalance this court. he put forth the most modest solution so a binding code of ethics, which is something judges throughout the world in here to and certainly lower court judges in this country. he put forth term limits which again is something every other democratic system in the world has for the court of last resort in the most extreme thing he offered was a constitutional amendment that would overturn trump versus united states, the presidential immunity decision. the fact that joe biden, former chair of the senate judiciary committee and an institutionalist decided to put this forth shows how far this court has gone and even joe biden has to say it is time to call the question on this. i think that poll reflects the fact that most

coming up, the democratic plan to push back on the supreme court's extremism is next. court's extremism is next. it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with key nutrients to support whole body health. one a day. science that matters. the itch and rash of moderate to severe eczema disrupts my skin, night and day. despite treatment, it's still not under control. but now i have rinvoq. a once-daily pill that reduces the itch and helps clear the rash of eczema —fast. some taking rinvoq felt significant itch relief as early as 2 days— and some achieved dramatic skin clearance as early as 2 weeks. many saw clear or almost-clear skin. plus, many had clearer skin and less itch, even at 3 years. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin, heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. di

obviously an orchestrated effort, and you think that is bad when we don't have these fools with the supreme court talking about politicizing something and creating less confidence in the court, it is a really, really bad idea and again, i think people who are upset with really just a few opinions of the court are taking incredibly extreme measures that i think would damage the court permanently, if not lose the rule of law. host: let's get our viewers involved. ed in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead, question or comment? caller: i have a question. i myself, i republican and it's very interesting to hear mr. shackleford talked this morning given his background. we are talking about things that would deface the court, but he doesn't seem to have any problem with the federalist society and his own organization efforts to gain the court and engage in court packing of their own. all these things that politicize supreme court justices and make people lose faith in the rule of law as mr. shackleford has described this morning have bee

Ñ■a moving it to federal court in order to throw it out based on what the supreme court has ruled. >>the direct answer is, it is highly unlikely that he is going to be able to get it to federal court. as you noted, he has made that motion, lost it, and the only intervening fact is this supreme court decision, again, not enough to have judge haller stein revisit his ruling. remember that whether it's in state court or it's in federal court, that changes who the judge is whether the supreme court gets to ultimately weigh in on the 34 counts, to say were they tainted by immunized testimony, is something that the supreme court of the united states gets to weigh in on eventually. that's what i'm sort of mostly worried about, because even if it goes through the state court process, eventually donald trump -- >> they'll get it back. >> exactly. >> and it's clear to me, and i think it's now clear to most of our fair viewers, that john roberts is going to protect him and at the moment he gets it back, he's going to find a way to get him out of going to jail. that's what's happening. >> well, l

indians are to have trust in their system, theirjudicial system, they have to have trust in the supreme court the independence of the supreme court? i am not convinced that this is the forum on which i would want to discuss that. but... why on earth not? well, because that's the court before whom my clients seek justice. and, um... but in terms of independence, there are... the appointment is still independent, although we have seen some challenges there... it's independent, but the way the appointment system works... there are challenges... ..which is an internal college system. only three of the 3a justices are women. there is a self—serving sort of nature to the way in which new appointments come about. and to quote one leading indian sort of legal analyst in the atlantic magazine from earlier this year, "the court's autonomy is crumbling. "today, the court seems to be aiding, not arresting, "india's descent into authoritarianism." i just wonder what you think. so, i think we're conflating two opposite ideas here. the first is this — is that there are two ways you can appointjudges in the

the work on the complaint regarding the bribery of the ex-chairman of the supreme court was assigned erhiy burlakov, a member of the supreme council of justice, a figure in our investigations. and he, in turn, was in no hurry. the record holder is simply the first to close cases. secondly, on failure to prosecute judges where they should be prosecuted. according to experts, borlakov is considered a creature of borys gulka, the head of the civil cassation court within the supreme court, one of the most influential judges and a member of the so-called of the judicial mafia, which destroyed the judicial system of ukraine all these years, since serhiy burlakov himself now holds an influential position in the vrp, he has all the leverage to manipulate the consideration of judges' complaints. so, in order to remove the prince from office, while not investigating the facts of global corruption , a completely different, much smaller and actually artificial case was initiated in the supreme court. in december 2023 , the pechersk district court of kyiv received materials from nazk about bringin

in 2020 so she signed this contract pretty quickly to write about her personal journey to the supreme court and it's as we understand it, and i haven't seen the book yet. it comes out on tuesday it's more about her personal story. it isn't really about the court, but it will still something that will be interesting to us. justice sotomayor, who has a very distinctive story herself is the first hispanic woman on the supreme court. justice jackson is the first african-american woman on the supreme court. justice sotomayor wrote a book in 2013, which came about four years after her bike men, they both have compelling stories and it'll be interesting to see how justice jackson portrays her life and all also what she says in these interviews that i'm sure alex we'll be seeing more of. in fact, cnn, we'll have an interview with justice jackson down the road and we'll see how much you'll talk about what the court is up to and not just her life story quite prolific, those justices don't biskupic. >> thanks very much. thank you. >> coming up the significant details quite remarkable about how israel