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

he came up to the supreme court earlier, almost a decade ago on arguing his death penalty conviction on and samuel alito was on the court at that time emma john roberts and clarence thomas who are on the court at that time said no, go off and die. will oklahoma actually pause the executions and that gave him an opportunity to gather new evidence. he has evidence that likely exculpate them from his alleged crime. is accused of murder, the person who actually -- the victim, of that testimony has been called into question and now he's coming back to the court, asking to throw away his confections. not tech eakly a death penalty case, it is trying to get a new trial, based on new evidence this man, the fact is alive is a miracle. has been able to bring forth and the supreme court might just try to kill him again. that is what these conservative justices do. >> a man who is broadly thought to be innocent of his crimes was put to death. melissa, the case involving mexico suing gun manufacturers in the united states is interesting. because the gun industry generally enjoys broad legal protec

.— the supreme court.g chad _ the supreme court. remember the famous hanging chad 's _ the supreme court. remember the famous hanging chad 's case - the supreme court. remember the famous hanging chad 's case in - the supreme court. remember the famous hanging chad 's case in the | famous hanging chad �*s case in the year 2000, famous hanging chad �*s case in the year2000, but famous hanging chad �*s case in the year 2000, but how frequently... ? year2000, but how frequently... ? bush year 2000, but how frequently... ? bush versus gore was a very unusual case. the supreme court in 2020 for example was asked to weigh in on a couple of cases related to the election, but declined to do so, so i think that is certainly what they would like to do as well in 202a. are there other cases still in the mix that we can expect to come forward? ., mix that we can expect to come forward? . ., ., , ., forward? there are a variety of cases relating _ forward? there are a variety of cases relating to _ forward? there are a

supreme court not to weigh in on this. i think this is pretty clearly the fourth circuit confirmed the district court opinion. it is likely the supreme court is going to stay out of these very state-specific, although this one does involve federal law. host: how concerned are you about non-us citizens voting a week from today? guest: i'm not very concerned and that is because of the documentation and work that frankly republican election officials have done to show how extremely rare the problem of noncitizen voting is. the reason is extremely rare, one it is illegal and has been for 30 years under very specific statutes that say it is a crime with jail time and a fine if he noncitizen votes. also they are going to get deported if they vote as noncitizens. a lot of people don't necessarily realize this, in 2002 there was a law in the u.s. that requires every single voter who registers to provide id when they register. most always a driver license which is checked against data. you have to show proof of legal presence. if yo

and i don't think that the supreme court would take the case if it were challenged so my point is that if trump the election the case is over all the cases in the federal courts against him are over. that's my prediction. if trump i think case will continue. i think the odds are very high that judge chuck finds no immunity for the four counts that are in the revised department justice indictment or if some of them viewed as official acts that the present immunity is rebutted. i think that goes back up the supreme court and as i've said, you can flip a coin the air as to which way roberts is going to vote. it's likely to be a 5 to 4 decision. so what that in my emphasizes is the importance this election. if you're about whether or not the president has immunity and whether or not the former should be found guilty. okay. well, that concludes it. think we're out of time. so thank you everybody for being here. we appreciate it. and we'll see what happens. and thank you for doing. oh, yeah. and. we buy a book here and i don't know where. oh, yes, we're selling. we can you can take questions

my colleagues and i appreciate the work of the supreme court. historic coal society, all that it does to preserve the history of the court, the constitution and, the judiciary, and to expand educational outreach to the public about that history. this evening marks a return to the court for the society's lectures, and we all also welcome our friends from mount vernon, for the society's turn to host what has been an interesting exchange of programs. tonight's topic nicely links the supreme court historical society in mount vernon. the topic is justice bushrod washington nephew of president george washington. justice washington was appointed to this court by president john adams in 1798 and served 31. very consequential. until 1829. our our speaker is professor gerard magliocca. he is a distinguished professor at, the indiana university school of law. he's a graduate of stanford and yale law school. following graduation from law school, professor magali oka as a law clerk to the famed judge guido calabrese easy on the u.s. court of appeals for the s

one of the other sort of smoke filled room deals was to put a southerner on the supreme court. there had been an unbroken string of republican presidents and all the court justices were northerners, largely corporate attorneys and the south had no representation on the supreme. so hayes takes office and faces this complex later question like who counts as a southerner? and then he also has a judiciary committee, a senate judiciary committee run by northern republicans, radical republicans who are strong civil rights supporters. so he needed to find a republican in the south who was sort of acceptable as a southern figure, also could maybe get confirmed. eventually, he came around to harlan and came to believe in harlan. strong personal skills and intelligence and ability of the law. but it was a difficult confirmation and at various points friends of harlan's would go to washington to try like persuade george edmonds, who was the head of the judiciary committee, and from vermont, a strong civil rights supporter. that harlan, despite the fact that he was not an abolitionist, he w

>> curtis: i like the supreme court, ironic that when the supreme court is not making decisions that are in harmony with an individual's beliefs somehow it is the fault of the supreme court. i join carlton in saying i like the decisions, the chevron doctrine is an incredible important decision not just for the united states but utah. are federal agencies have grown out of control and the chevron doctrine is a way to rend the men. i don't support term limits for them. i don't support increasing or packing the court and i think the supreme court has done a fabulous job the last few years and through history even though i haven't agreed with all their decisions. >> gleich: i support term limits for our supreme court justices and for federal judges because the longer someone is in office the more likely they are to be unduly influenced by foreign actors or other influences, corporations, billionaires. we need to make it easier to get new leaders with fresh ideas and better leadership and representation. >> moderator: 30-seconds. >> bowen: this constitution that establishes judiciary for

the supreme court needs to be reformed. >> a quick follow-up. hear a yes or no on what used to be called packing the court. >> i agree with either increasing the number of justices, or term limits. yes. >> a follow-up for mr. hogan. on the trump nominees to the court in particular, how would you have voted? i think justice kavanaugh got through with no votes to spare . he>> is just adding an additional thing. >> i think, if there is one thing we should not be for politicizing, it is the supreme court. yet it has been politicized by both sides. i think trying to change the rules to jam things through on the party-line vote is not the right way to go about it. i probably have more experience about in this than most people in the senate. i appointed 190 judges when i was governor including six members of our supreme court. every single one of them, three republicans and three democrats, two african-american women. the most diverse and most inclusive appointments in history. every single one of our supreme court justices was unanimously confirmed by

this is a justice of the supreme court. e court.ave sense enough not to hit back and so should he. he should keep his flap shut. >> you might as well face it, some men haven't and some men don't, you are no good without it. do you understand? fire in the belly. >> yes, sir. >> i'm sorry, sir, no matter how i figure it, i can't get your income tax any lower. >> i don't mind paying taxes, that's the way i buy civilization. >> let me take a look at you. you are ancient. you must be all of 75. do you know what i think when i see a pretty girl? >> no, what? >> oh to b 80 again. >> -- peter: was he well known enough in 1950 to make a movie about him? >> i can't wait to go see the streaming version. isn't it amazing, making a major biopic about a supreme court justice, and having him be so well-known that you can call him the magnificent yankee. that book is jumping off the famous book "olympus." which was a national bestseller. he was lionized in literature, but it's pretty amazing and kind of wonderful to see our justices be a central pa

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

the supreme court is always on the ballot. but this is different. this is really a proposal. ats are serious about changing the structure of the court. could it get done? >> there is a bill to make the court into a 15 justice supreme court and i tend to think even in the harris administration that would poll so surely with the general public that it would be unlikely but there are other lesser ideas floating around including term limits on the supreme court justices, setting up some sort of ethics situation where they would be investigated, complaint again justices would be investigated by lower judges, the justices would take votes whether to recuse other justices from cases. they are very serious about that. some of that could get a majority of democratic senators right now and creates all sorts of problems, ethics investigations would turn into basically running impeachment probes of the justices. the summer shut down, ethics complaints against judge eileen cannon, got like a thousand duplicate complaints. that's the situation we are driving toward. paul: he calls for an au

supreme court and the supreme court excises the challenged provisions from the city's oceanside permit, the city's challenges are not going to go away. the city still will have combined sewer overflows that discharge millions of gallons of partially untreated treated storm and wastewater into the bay. there is no dispute that those discharges cause violations of water quality standards. the city will need to address that problem and epa and the regional water quality control board are obligated by law to compel the city to address that problem. additionally, the city will still be subject to the other 99 pages of the oceanside permit and the next permit that epa issues will probably include. the more specific language that the city is claiming to ask for. so at most, what the city can get out of the appeal that is, before the supreme court is a very brief and partial reprieve. my second key point is that the city and san francisco share important goals here, and those are goals that could be hurt by the resolution of this case. epa's key interest is in protecting its ability and the st

we are witnessing a minority takeover of our democracy, the supreme court has stood by in the face ofidemocratic actions and allowed partisan gerrymander's and allowed states to impose burdens on voting and the court has intervened in the political process. the only reform that fixes this problem now is court expansion. that could give us a majority of justices who would defend democracy instead of dissipating in them. i've viewed expansion as a last resort, but we may be at the point of breaking that glass now. court expansion may be the only thing that will save our democracy for the next generation. for more on this i'm joined by sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. he released a report revealing the trump white house actively sabotaged an active investigation into multiple sexual assault allegations against red kavanagh. thank you for being with us this morning. >> thanks for having me on. >> in real time, many of us wondered why the fbi is not able to dig up basic information around the allegations that were swirling around brett kavanagh during his confirmation process. you told

the supreme court handed down its ruling on trump be. p. presidents were deemed immune from prosecution for criminal acts, a term the court chose not to define. they were in lockstep with one another, but out of step with two centuries of constitutional presidency. as justice sotomayor wrote in her dissent, quote, the relationship between the president and the people he serves have shifted irrevocably. in every use of the official power, the president is now taking above the law. according to project 2025, the conservative playbook for a second trump presidency, the president should be aching with every lever of government serving him alone. project 20 25,002/the federal workforce and replace it with trump loyalists. because all sorts of policy laid out would be impossible to implement without loyalty to a president and administration, not a constitution, across the government. especially because some of its plans also radical, pesky things like expertise would simply get in the way of implementing them. on page 21, project 2025 says quot

there is a big debate on the supreme court right now about when you look at history and tradition shouldou just look backward as the court did in overturning roe and saying that the right to abortion was not deeply rooted in tradition for most of american history order you also look forward and ask what you people today think of early term abortions for example. and just making this up but he might have been moved by evidence today that most people in most states don't restrict abortions before fetal quickening as it is called or at least a certain point in pregnancy. and all of these considerations which combine history, tradition, law, pragmatism and imperial evidence that possibly have gone into his complicated deliberations. peter: some of the issues that oliver wendell holmes worked on when he was on the supreme court included labor rights, free speech, i.e. fire in a crowded theater statement which we will get to, illegal searches and the espionage act. let's go to free speech mr. rosen. jeff: dear c-span friends watching. give yourself a treat and after the show is over because we

it's not what the supreme court terms up you know in terms of the cases for me. looking going into this election of what the balance of this court is going to look like after the election. how to you see the political strategy involving the court? >> well, i wanted to take it into one illustration. many people may be thinking how much worse can it get? they overturned roe versus wade and that's done and now it's at the states. and donald trump saying don't worry i am letting the states do whatever they want. so, that is really wrong. in terms of what to expectdown road on the mifepristone case saying there was no standing but it's coming back to the court. and so, you know, dobbs is not the end. the mifepristone case is going to be back before the supreme court deciding whether it's legal and disseminateed to every state in the union. second, all you have to do is read black and white what is in project 2025 about what is on the agenda for women's rights to control their own bodies. where the agenda is not to leave it to the states. it is to have a national ban. i

butler county turned to supreme court, state courts have said people who cast early ballots and returnedhem are being allowed to cast provisional ballot. provisional ballot shall not be counted if received by county board of election, does not say if your ballot was spoiled. >> the pennsylvania supreme court after mail-in voting started, changed the law and said if you mail in your ballot and it is invalid and you cast provisional, we will pretend it never existed. >> john: that is voting twice. >> runs counter to the law. >> john: overseas ballots that republicans are concerned about because there were no id requirement. and lan caster county, possible fraud in 2500 ballots. >> that is one to watch, we're hearing from local government, local d.a. and officials. this is not a random person saying, i see someone throwing out ballots, this is government saying we have suspicion of wide-scale voter fraud operation in lancaster and two other counties not named yet. >> john: nevada, fight over county ballots received after election day that do not have a postmark on them. >> that was litigate

this tome had been used for the oath taking by every supreme court appointee since then. each new justice had also signed one of the books, flyleaf eaves, after being sworn in when the court curator brought the bible to me in my temporary chambers later that afternoon so that i could add my own signature to the venerated role. i thought about the justices of harlan's era who collectively decided in the plessy versus ferguson opinion that state laws mandating the separation of people by race did not violate the 14th amendment of the constitution so long as the separate facilities were equal. harlan had been the sole dissenter in the notorious. 1896 case, and now here i was affixing my signature to his bible in black fountain pen ink. only one generation after my mother and father had experienced the spirit crushing effects of racial segregation in housing, schooling and transportation while growing up in florida, their daughter was standing on the threshold of history, the embodiment of our ancestors dreams, ascending to a position that justice harlan and his colleagues lik

supreme court for any further clarification. so what's so interesting is in this filing and this was flagged by our supreme court reporter, john footsie, is his clearly trying to supreme court proof what remains of his case by making a separation of powers argument, he is arguing that the executive branch has no role in selecting the president. so then he says, look, so anything trump did was outside his role as president, and therefore, it was private and should not be protected heck, did he says, quote, they sought to encroach on power specifically assigned by the constitution to other branches to advance his own self-interests and perpetuate himself in power contrary to the will of the people that is supreme court justice, love language right there. jake he right there is making an appeal to the supreme court foreseeing another trip to the high court if trump is not reelected, kaitlan, the special counsel is apparently paying close attention to donald trump's campaign speeches. >> not only that, they want to use his own words

supreme court and the supreme court excises the challenged provisions from the city's oceanside permit, the city's challenges are not going to go away. the city still will have combined sewer overflows that discharge millions of gallons of partially untreated treated storm and wastewater into the bay. there is no dispute that those discharges cause violations of water quality standards. the city will need to address that problem and epa and the regional water quality control board are obligated by law to compel the city to address that problem. additionally, the city will still be subject to the other 99 pages of the oceanside permit and the next permit that epa issues will probably include. the more specific language that the city is claiming to ask for. so at most, what the city can get out of the appeal that is, before the supreme court is a very brief and partial reprieve. my second key point is that the city and san francisco share important goals here, and those are goals that could be hurt by the resolution of this case. epa's key interest is in protecting its ability and the st

week finds 90% of those polled support code of ethics for the supreme court justices. while the court did adopt a code late last year, it's been criticized because it lacks accountability by allowing justices to police themselves. among the proposed responses, the adoption of a code with more teeth as well as 18 year term limits for the supreme court justices. what if any new rules do you support for the supreme court? please start our 62nd responses. mr. hovde: i think we should have a code of ethics for the justices. i don't think they should be engaging in any kind of private investment in the stock market while they serve in that capacity. i understand the desire to have a term limit. i'm supportive of term limits. i think career politicians should have term limits. in fact, when we talk about a code of ethics, this is a very important point to get from the get-go, i said i'm not going to take special interest money. i won't be owned by anyone. unlike senator baldwin who not only has taken massive amounts of special interest money some -- from big pharma and big tec

supreme court for three decades.nue to influence the legal world and our lives today. tonight, to help us learn why the common-law is a book that shaped america is jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national consti look at the development of american law through the eyes of oliver wendell holmes junior and his book the common law. reagan a federal appeal in 1881 jeff, welcome back to c-. what was holmes'objective in writing the common-law? >> he had come back from the civil war where he was wounded three times. he believed in abolitionism and equality, and seeing the carnage at antietam where he almost died in the bloodiest day in american history, he lost all his ideals and almost seized nihilism in despair. he looked to systematize the law to come up with some way of understanding that would give him meaning. he tried it a bunch of different ways, and found it goes back to english law and german law and roman law. he had thought there was a logic to the law that developed, but he discovered that was only part

the supreme court has spoken. that's the reverence in which he and the american people held the supreme court. i don't think the court plays quit that role today. when i think of election chaos, the court is a part of that. >> one of the things that struck me in the mcconnell, getting these excerpts from it, and it's clear mcconnell wants this to come out because he wants his cake and needed to. the guys like it bad guy but i support him. less than a month after special counsel jack smith brought the charges mcconnell said, if he hasn't committed indictable offenses, i don't know what one is. he said the same thing in a speech when he was denouncing his impeachment vote. he is subject to criminal and civil accountability. little did he know what the court had in store. that plain truth there, if this is indictable i don't know what it is speaks for a large majority of the country. >> i agree. first, let's talk about mcconnell. mcconnell calls him despicable and a federal felon and says he tried to overturn our dem

we shall see if that were to happen, i suspect there would be an appeal to the supreme court. ut that on hold while they review the case. we saw that with the ghost guns and litigation. there was a ruling in the lower courts in favor of the challengers looking to keep ghost guns unregulated. the supreme court said we will let the feds implement the rule while we review the case. that could be what happens or something similar. host: james in pennsylvania on the independents line. good morning. caller: how are you guys doing? host: we are good. go ahead. caller: i am all for the supreme court being four four. the reason why is we don't want to do a 5-4 because that gives us a marginal vote. let's go with 4-4 so you have to go with a 5-3 swing. you have to have the information, facts and truth. this will get rid of the frivolous cases, frivolous lawsuits and daca has been going on for a long time, since bush. these people are fine. most of them are 99.9% no criminals. regular americans are above that. host: you will get a response from alex. guest: i think it could be that the su

so the supreme court case. mcgirt v oklahoma was about whether or not the muskogee nation still had a reservation that was sort of the central question at the supreme court. muskogee nation argued only congress can get rid of a reservation. and there was no act of congress that disestablished the reservation. oklahoma. well, no one's recognized that reservation in over century so it'd be crazy to say that it still exists, which isn't how the law works, but was what oklahoma was hoping would happen. and so this is the part of the book that talks about the ultimate supreme court decision in that case. and we'll start we'll start that. on the far end of the trail of tears was a promise. the opinion began. forced to leave their ancestral lands in georgia and alabama, creek nation received assurances that their new lands in the west would be secure forever. today we are asked whether the lands these treaties set aside remain american indian reservation, the purposes of federal criminal law because congress has not s

supreme court will act?ght have said they wouldn't get involved right before an election. >> i think this is a victory for common sense and a victory for the constitution. as governor, i swore that i would support and defend the constitution of the united states of america, of the commonwealth of virginia. i'm just so proud of the team's to stay with what we know is right. it is constitutionally correct and it's consistent with our law that's been on the books for 18 years, and on top of that, common sense says that noncitizens should not be on the voter rolls. >> harris: we went on to talk a little bit about speaker johnson's bill for national law in the regard of keeping people who are not u.s. citizens yet from voting. that would completely wipe this away. we are going have to go state-by-state at this point because this is going to be challenged. this has been virginia's law for a long time. >> emily: is worrying of the flurry of cases where, to the governor's point it is confirming and reassuring that t

that is the reverence with which he and the american people held the supreme court. i don't think the court plays quite that role today, so when i think about election chaos, i think the court is part of that. >> one of the things that really struck me with my connell, you know, we are getting these excerpts and it is clear my connell wants this stuff to come out. oh, i think he is a bad guy and also i support him. you know. less than a month after special counsel jack smith brought charges, mcconnell said of trump in an interview, if he has not committed indictable offenses i don't know what one is. he said the same in a speech basically saying the guy is subject to criminal and civil accountability. little did he know what the court had in store, but that plain truth, like yes if this is not indictable i don't know what is, i think again speaks for a large majority of the country. >> i totally agree with you, but first let's talk about my connell for a second. mcconnell calls him despicable. calls him a federal felon and says he tried to overturn our democracy and y

i put three supreme court justices, who all voted, and they got something that they've been fighting for for 64 years. >> reporter: throughout his presidency, trump proclaimed himself a staunch opponent of abortion rights. >> i'm proud to be the most pro-life president in american history. >> reporter: now with the election fast approaching and trump struggling to win over some women voters, he insists he wanted the matter of abortion returned to the states. vice president kamala harris says don't be fooled. >> he intended for them to undo the protections of roe v. wade. and as he intended, they did. now, in more than 20 states, there is a trump abortion ban. >> reporter: tonight, donald trump responding to his wife's new words. >> we spoke about it, and i said, you have to write what you believe. i'm not going to tell you what to do. you have to write what you believe. >> reporter: again, david, none of the passages released so far of the book make any mention of roe versus wade being overturned, or her husband's role in appointing three of the supreme court justices who ultimately

see what foam can do for you. . >>> the supreme court says it will allow virginia to move forward with statewide voter rolls purge. the high court's decision leaves around 1600 voters, including some who might be eligible now unregistered for an election that is just six days away. state republican officials say the move was necessary to prevent noncitizens from voting something experts say is extremely rare. tonight, the virginia governor celebrated the supreme court's decision >> it is a big win for common sense and for the constitution. of course, i am pleased with the supreme court's ruling. it affirms the fact that the process is not a purge. >> for more i want to bring in ari berman. can you explain what is going on here? >> steph, thank you for having me. what virginia did is they removed people, they said, were suspected noncitizens from the rolls, now, as you mentioned there is little evidence that noncitizens are voting in u.s. elections. but the purge was a problem because it happened so close to the election in pretty obvious violation of the natural voter registration act

well sui the supreme court does.ania, butler, pennsylvania, the town of butler in the county of butler where trump was shot and what they are saying with the mail ballots is that they put that secrecy envelope or neglected to put that ballot back inside the envelope and i voted by mail, first time i ever have. i will never do it again and tell you why. it was far too easy for me to make a mistake. signature, date, do i have it in the right envelope? do i have the bar code where it needs to be? i screw up bills on my electricity, all right? i don't want to screw it up on a mail ballot and i will never do it again. here is the case in butler, pennsylvania. will the court take this case up? >> it is a great question and to your point there are rules that govern ballots. there have to be some kind of order to make sure that our elections are fair and free. here in this particular situation in pennsylvania you had two individuals who mailed in their ballots during the primary. they failed to put it in the secrecy envelope

if he doesn't, it may go to trial but tells me how this bumps up against the supreme court. tom is right, what happens then ? what happens if this gets back to the supreme whcourt in some fashion and jack smith has parsed this as well as he can. play hithis out for me. >> reporter: i think he is not re-elected there some portion of jack smith indictment that even the supreme court would agree is fair game that is because going back to their decision in july, they set up former president trump's conduct into three buckets. there is a bucket of core constitutional conduct for which a president can never be prosecuted. they explained that, for example, the conduct with respect to department of justice officials falls into that jubucket. all the conversations he had with then acting attorney general jeff rosen and richard donahue in the days right before january 6th. that is part of what had to come out. indeed, it came out of the superseding indictment. and then you have what is the holy unofficial conduct. what is in the center is the part that bumps up against the supreme cour