what is the recourse on the supreme court. is there a recourse on the court when a justice decides they are not going to recuse themselves from what needs to be a very obvious conflict? >> at the moment, there is not. >> i agree that there may be some sort of a two-tiered justice system that's playing out in our country. but it seems like the two-tiered justice system is inuring to the benefit of the highest court in the land from what i can ascertain. as my colleague has already laid out, ms. stansbury, the people want to know what we're going to do. as one of the cochairs for the court reform task force, there is three specific bills we are pushing that we really want to hopefully see brought to fruition. obviously, we're not doing this in a full committee hearing because the people that are running the madhouse right now are not here for it. but we are, because we believe in law and order and overall rule of law. when we talk about things such as expanding the court, is there a history in this country of expanding the suprem

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

if you remains on the supreme court until he's 90, the aged john paul stevens retired. he'll be a justice for 47 years. or of amy coney barrett. she was 48 when she was confirmed for court in 2020. if stays until she's 87, the aged ruth bader ginsburg died. barrett will be a justice into the 2059. this is just too much power in one person's hands for too long a period time. but as i say, i think constitution amendment is at least possible if we choose to work for it. but i also raised in the book what you say rather than have a lot of piecemeal amendments. is it time to start thinking about a new constitution? in some ways, it's absurd that we're governed in 2024 by a document that was in 1787 for a very small agrarian society with enslaved people that occupied one coast in the country. it time. at some point it will be time to think about how do we draft a new constitution. take the more the supreme court says that this constitution has to be interpreted to mean the same thing it did in 1787. the more absurd it becomes to be governed that document. so let's say you have

there's the supreme court. but 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 democ

supreme court that we should have won. the federal indian law we knew but we lost all four and that totally shocked and devastated the tribal leaders who depended on the courts in the tribal sovereignty movement winning these cases andnd just to have e supreme court ignore or for out federal indian law the way they did shocked everybody. tribal leaders called a national meeting to address the crisis in indian country that was called the united states supreme court. so we all came up there on 9/11 of 2001 started meeting talking about these issues. we had the chairman of the senate indian affairs committee daniel in a way with us and he served as chairman of the depends -- defense. we started some people came in and whispered in his ear and he stood up and took over the microphone and said i'm sorry i'm going to have to leave thein meeting because the united states is under attack in new york city at the pentagon and 9/11 was happening. whoa. the tribal leaders said let's get out of here. we need to go home and do we can to

the impact of the more conservative court got our attention before the supreme court under the federal law that we knew but we lost all four and it totally shocked and devastated the tribal leaders who, had depended on the courts and the triple sovereignty movement in the cases to have them ignore or throw out or change like the way they did so the tribal leaders called a national meeting to address the crisis that was united states supreme court. so we came here and started meeting and talking about theseh issues. some people came in and whispered in his ear and stood up and took over the microphone and said i'm sorry i'm going to have to leave the meeting because the united states is under attack in new york city and the pentagon and 9/11 was happening. the tribal leader said let's get out of here. we need to go home and do what we can to protect our people and here the airport is closed down so the tribal leaders came back and said he was sovereignty is under attackso and/or triple sovereignty is under attack so let's figure out what we are going to do about it. stretch strategize t

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.rvard case will be the seventh case. patience, patience. none of these happened overnight. thanks for tolerating me through all of that. it's been a busy 40 years. chase really knows how to put the hart in your local community. see what i did there? hey, jackie! (♪♪) evan, my guy! you're helping them with savings, right? (♪♪) i wish i had someone like evan when i started. somebody just got their first debit card! ice cream on you? ooo, tacos! i got you. wait hold on, don't you owe me money? what?! your money is a part of your community, so your bank should be too. like, chase! for a limited time, subway just dropped the price of every footlong in the app to $6.99. wait, subway did what?! $6.99 footlongs? yep! says right here. $6.99 for any footlong. get this deal in the subway app now before it's too late. dad i got a huge barbeque wing stain. this bottle says i need to pretreat. that stuff has way more water. a little bit of tide goes a long way, so you can save your shirt and maybe e

but it was basically a 2 -- two or three decades where the supreme court you could say really was on the side of the freedoms and rights of people but for most of its history the court has been very backward and it has retreated to that historical baseline after a war in court with the burger court, the rehnquist court, the roberts court and we see what they have been doing, they dismantled the voting rights act, shelby county versus holder. they overturned women's rights to choose. a fundamental right this ring court has declared which existed for more than 50 years in the country and despite what they testified they would do in terms of respecting precedent they just threw that out the window. they just elevated the president above the rest of the country saying he or she would not be subject to criminal prosecution for actual felony crimes committed as long as it was in the course of their acting as president of the united states within a core function. exposing the fact that they are not remotely textual list, they completely disappeared the text of section three of the 14th amend

raskin: i think most of the supreme court has abandoned a war in court sensibility. it's not like justice thurgood marshall or william brennan. i think they do have their defendants on the court today. -- descendants on the court today but it's really a 6-3 court. i think roberts has an institutionalist values but make him embarrassed about what's happening. president biden has advanced the right agenda. we have the highest court in the land with the lowest ethical standards. in the whole country. it's the only court in america that does not have a binding ethics code. how do you have justices who are running away with millions of dollars in private contributions paying off family members tuition, paying off family members mortgages, justice thomas got a recreational vehicle with a dining room in it and a kitchen. a bedroom, and it started as a loan that just became a gift. that is scandalous. in congress we have a $50 gift limit and we don't go near it. it doesn't make any sense. aoc and i have legislation to apply the $50 gift ban which exists for congress and the

it's the first since prosecutors revise their indictment last week following the supreme court's landmark ruling on presidential immunity. earlier this year on the left side of your screen you will see what's happening in court coming from our reporters in the room. let's get straight to cnn, chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid shoe. she's outside the courthouse for us. paula, what are we expecting? >> oh, good morning, jim. today is all about how to move forward in this case after the supreme court issued an opinion that really limited what prosecutors can charge former president trump with and which evidence they can introduce in this case. now there are no cameras in federal courts, so we are relying on our team of reporters inside to provide us with updates. also, the former president is not in attendance today. he that appearance has been waived. but what we expec is that judge tanya chutkan, let me tell you, jim, she is all business. she's going to come in with a plan. she's going to have questions for him defense attorneys and for prosecutors all about scheduling and how t

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

the supreme court. supreme court. current ethics code is weak and even more afraid to involve untried volunteer any code of congress must be enforceable under the reform. i propose, justice would be required to disclose gifts refraining from public political activity, recuse themselves in cases which they have their their spouses have a financial or other conflict of interest. most people don't. that congress passed the law decades that says all judges, including supreme court justices have to recuse themselves in such cases. but the current justices insist on, of course, you're not required themselves without any public oversight or compulsion. so that's their decision. they don't have to tell us how they made it. that might work. the court was actually enforcing those requirements, but they are not. the court is not. so policing. the court is not with the obvious conflicts of interest. we need a mandatory code ethics for the supreme court and we need it now now. my fellow americans, based on all my experience. i'm c

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

an appeal of the case to the united states supreme court earlier this year allowed trump appointed supreme court justices to create a brand new law of the land based on nothing in the constitution granting criminal immunity to donald trump for some of what he did leading up to and on january 6th. jack smith and his team, limiting what evidence they can present about crimes committed while donald trump was president. empaneled a new garage in washington dc which issued a new superseding indictment of donald trump which preserved all four criminal charges including conspiracy against the united states of america. but eliminated some of the underlying evidence that supported those charges. special prosecutor jack smith obviously believes there is enough evidence in the superseding indictment which is nine pages shorter than the original indictment to convict donald trump of the alleged crimes. in court today, jack smith's team led by thomas windom urged the judge to first do what the supreme court has ordered her to do. and evaluate the new indictment to see if it conforms to the limits impos

does the supreme court not have h.r.? i don't understand. has publicly read many times about the court thing perceived as political. he reports that only 18% of americans believe that scotus keeps politics out of rulings. do you share your mentors concerns about this public perception? >> justice brown jackson: well, i'm aware that that is the public perception. and i think it's problematic for the court that's a perception that the public caps. because we really rely on public trust in order to do our jobs. >> stephen: your legitimacy comes from the public's perception. >> justice brown jackson: i think so. yes. it's a concern. >> stephen: what do you think concern? way to address that- >> justice brown jackson: i think i am doing my best to do what judges do, what justice breyer modeled for me when i was a law clerk for him. having integrity, separating out my personal views, staying in my lane. >> stephen: how do you separate your own personal philosophy or your political philosophy, which is influenced by your personal philosophy, from y

profusely is a law firm that specializes in trying to change the law by bringing cases before the supreme court and you know, the court where the husband of ginni thomas, clarence thomas, is a sitting justice. even if you don't know first liberty by name, you may know some of the cases the group has brought before the high court and they sued to strike down the state of maine banning using public funding and they represented that bakery in oregon whose donors refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and they brought a big case opposing vaccine mandates for religious groups. all of those cases made their way to the supreme court and first liberty won all of them. but it actually isn't the work she is praising and that email the first liberty. she was thinking the group for their work on this kind of stuff. >> so now they are coming right out and saying it, political elites from the radical left want to overthrow the supreme court. how do they plan to go about this? by flooding the high court with additional justices, enough cronies to gain the system and pet political projects will win ever

he does that as a way of explaining exactly what first liberty is doing for scandalous supreme court justices. >> it reminded me of when the seals know how to fight they can't fight in court. we came to them. they were so appreciative because we were doing something for them they could not do. these judges are that same thing. they can't go to the political sphere and fight. they are trying to protect the existence of the court. it is neat that those of you on the call are part of protecting the future of our court. they really appreciate it. >> really appreciate it. that is the group ginni thomas is thinking for their work. that was after she held a meeting with a staffer. a staffer from a group that is fighting for her husband clarence thomas in the court of public opinion. a staffer for a group that will undoubtedly continue to bring major law changing cases before her husband at the supreme court. the fact that ginni thomas and a conservative activist group like first liberty are this cozy is a real problem both in theory and in practice. the supreme court is supposed to be a neut

term limits for supreme court justices and a binding code of conduct. are important reforms to put in place. how likely are we to see these reforms for a court that doesn't even want to have a conversation about its own ethics? >> exactly. i was honored to be with president biden during the trip to the lbj school in late july when he unveiled his support for this package. i am proud to say it's based on legislation we have introduced in the senate. this hearing, shedding light and build the public, build support for these commonsense reforms. given the types of rulings we have seen coming out of the supreme court in recent years, the general public is aware they're getting more extreme and more key issues to american society and we need reform. we need a thick reform, we need change to bring about stability and not court stacking and get them back to the place where people respect the supreme court and the supreme court has credibility because they has been jeopardized. >> senator, it strikes me on september 15, "the new york times" had, what i would arg

supreme court. this discussion is part of the association of american law schools 2024 annual meeting. f the american association of >>>sc okay, i think we can get started with our program on democracy at the podium. arguing the rules of politics before today's supreme court, i'm going to tweak or explained that title a bit. i think it means not just today's supreme court, ot 23 but the supreme court in recent years when my two colleagues up here have been very active participants at the highest level of making constitutional law at the supreme court. they don't need any introduction . donald verrilli, both of them are leading members of the supreme court bar, donald verrilli was solicitor general for six years on five years in the obama administration, paul clement was solicitor general in the george w. bush administration both before and after that, they had and maintained very active supreme court practices including some of the hottest cases that have come before the court in recent years to i'm

the senate has confirmed 205 judicial appointments by biden for supreme court and there are 21 biden appointed judges currently waited -- waiting to be confirmed by the u.s. senate and next year there will be 70 appeals court federal appeals court judges reaching the retirement age and if the next president gets to a point, 70 appeals court judges, that would be almost 40 percent of all the federal appeals court judges. the difference between the republican appointed judges and democratic appointed judges is stark and republican appointed judges created a new doctrine of criminal immunity just for donald trump with no previous presidents having criminal immunity from george washington to barack obama but suddenly a supreme court with three trump appointees granted donald trump criminal immunity and the three justices appointed by democratic presidents, obama and biden sided with the constitution against criminal immunity for donald trump. federal judges serve for decades. they exert power over the american people for decades. clarence thomas voted to overturn roe v. wade 32 years afte

your argument that another district judge in florida, that opinion plus in a concurrence in the supreme court, those two things combined towards me again going against binding d.c. circuit precedent? what i am saying is that the court should consider this issue, and justice thomas in effect directed us to raise this issue and suggested that we do it immediately in light of this view and that concurrence. the judge, he directed you to do that? well, i shouldn't say he absolutely said, you know, do it . but when you read that opinion, it's absolutely clear that is something we have to do now to preserve this issue. the judge, well, i certainly don't read the opinion that way. there is no suspense on how the judge is going to rule on that motion. when it does finally reach her consideration. >> >> let me begin with you. when you performed it for me it was kind of a bigger moment. >> oh yes. >> you are saying there was a moment with a year of background. >> it did. it was a deep sigh. she was slumping back on the bench very deeply. at the moment where the transcript recorded that through the rest

i do think it's illegitimate in composition design which move to 13 member supreme court wherevery federal circuit and every part of the country,'s representative. >> with the embarrassed, were they just triumphant that they took over the spring court to and from interest in your question i don't with the answer but i will tell you that there's new documentary which is coming out this week orr next week. it's about the confirmation process surrounding right kavanaugh. what happened with people who tried to testify about the whole alleged assault and someone. >> a great. >> you will be interesting to see what people think about that. it is e justice alito would burt about the fact that they turn the american flag upside down in the displayed that the front yard. they displayed another mega symbol in the embrace of the appeal heaven like which actually historical report because of the perfectly honorable radical w democratic flag against british monarchy which hena somehow adopted and turned it into something else. >> it sounds subversive. >> yes well you know, they think appeal

and so i guess the question is is the supreme court any different? and i guess i have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the court is different than the other courts. >> are you considering supreme courting an enforcement mechanism? >> i am considering supporting it as a general matter. i'm not going to get into commenting on particular policy proposals. but from my perspective i don't have any problem with an enforceable code. >> this is justice thurgood marshall's mantle clock. >> reporter: justice ketanji brown jackson will likely be on the court for decades. but she's already been sewn into history. >> it was handmade by a woman from texas. and i have it right across from my desk. >> reporter: and the opinions from her desk will shape the nation, just as she hopes her story will. >> your family went from segregation to the supreme court. >> yes. in one generation. >> yeah. it is the story of the promise of america. >> i think so. >> is it also still a story of exception? >> i think less and less every day, which is really what progress means.

supreme court. but i think, again, to play a role in some of these structural cases about democracy is a particular privilege. >> let me echo everything paul said about what a pleasure it is to be here and have this discussion with both of you, such good friends and amazing people. i am looking forward to this. so, in addition to everything paul said, there is another, to me, quite interesting dimension to these kinds of cases, which is, as an advocate, i think makes them interesting and challenging. that is that they invariably have some kind of partisan valence to them. in that, there is a sense that the rules that one or another of the parties in front of the court is arguing for our rules that will confer some kind of political advantage or disadvantage. i do not know how you feel about that, paul, but i think that is a challenge to me in arguing these cases. because you want to try your best to subtract that out. certainly, of your presentation. and it to the extent you can, subtract that out o

i think we have entered a great new age of supreme court reporting for journalists are no longer just ethnographers for the justices, but are asking difficult questions, cultivating sources behind the scenes and treating the court like the institution of flawed government employees than it actually is. that gives me a lot of optimism this will not be the last week was he about the roberts court. >> nor should it be. it's always great to have you on this program and hear your thoughts on this stuff. thanks for your time tonight. that is your show tonight. now, it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening. i want to add a few thoughts about the united states supreme court in this hour, especially their moral responsibility in the moral diagram in the death of amber nicole thurman, which were also talking about in this hour. >> i am eager to hear that and that is important framing for this moment. have a good show. >> well, they got what they wanted. the 278-year-olds, former republican presidents who appointed the majority of republican supreme court justices wh

supreme court. if the question during the 1982 reauthorization and was about section two and intent versus effect the goal in 2005 was to build an unimpeachable that section five of the voting rights act pre-k clearance was still necessary. the goal was to tell the court that mean it this time that it tracked the continued ingenious defiance of the voting rights act that still continued across the south over 16,000 pages. pre-clearance was the crucial enforcement mechanism of the voting rights act. if essentially it put communities the worst history on probation it said if you have any changes you want make to your voting laws and procedures, you have to run them past the department justice first or past a court. washington, d.c. it was established because quite simply, the civil rights act of 1950 759, simply were not enough because they left up to judges, local officers in some of these communities that simply would not the law and so that right taken away over five decades pre-clearance would the

supreme court. if the question during the 1982 reauthorization and was about section two and intent versus effect the goal in 2005 was to build an unimpeachable that section five of the voting rights act pre-k clearance was still necessary. the goal was to tell the court that mean it this time that it tracked the continued ingenious defiance of the voting rights act that still continued across the south over 16,000 pages. pre-clearance was the crucial enforcement mechanism of the voting rights act. if essentially it put communities the worst history on probation it said if you have any changes you want make to your voting laws and procedures, you have to run them past the department justice first or past a court. washington, d.c. it was established because quite simply, the civil rights act of 1950 759, simply were not enough because they left up to judges, local officers in some of these communities that simply would not the law and so that right taken away over five decades pre-clearance would the

donald trump's poison will live on in the supreme court. and if kamala harris wins the presidency, and the future of the federal courts can be saved. the future of those courts can be imposed. the stakes have never been higher. leading off our discussion tonight is democratic senator, peters. the chair of the homeland security and government affairs commit treatment he's also chair of the democratic senatorial campaign committee. senator peters, thank you very much for joining us tonight. i'd like to talk to you about your effort to once again try to maintain a democratic majority in the united states senate. you have succeeded in this position before, which is why they're keeping you in this position. what is the state of the race tonight on control of the united states senate? >> well lawrence, you certainly played out what can happen if we lose the senate that we have to maintain the about. and i can say right now, these races are incredibly tight. we've got a number of incumbents that are in races in the margin of error with opportunitie

where the supreme court said to obstruct a proceeding, it must involve documents. so it points out it's all about the documents. it's about the slates of electors, the balance that are kept in the big box that was carefully safeguarded by staffers during the chaos at the capitol. so the case remains strong. i think jack smith is itching to dpo. >> i'm just looking at what's happening now inside the courtroom. and the judge did start out making a a joke with donald trump's lawyers noting that he looked rested. it had been almost a year since they had seen each other. so she said you look rested, as he introduced himself and joked telling him to enjoy it while it lasts. ken, you talked about how because of the delay and sort of the backlog of decisions that have to happen before this can go to trial, where does this case go next? >> reporter: it depends on what the judge rules today. if, as we all believe she's interesting in expediting and getting things moving, presumably there could be a hearing or a series of hearings examining this question of what evidence shou