procedure for for applying for asylum so this is being litigated in the courts and it will eventually get to the supreme court of course the supreme court has been packed by trump with the right wingers although at times they have done the right thing particularly when john roberts is more concerned about the legacy of the court than pandering to the right wing's so stay tuned indeed author and professor marjorie cohen thank you again for your time here and for your context and perspective on this important story. thank you holland coming up scam stars of come up with a new way to rip you off and if they succeed you will be the last to know how to avoid synthetic to the theft next this is the big picture on our team america. why a paradise with some. turned into a round the experimentation feels that agricultural chemicals we know that these chemicals have consequences they are major here tell us there's no question otherwise why would the chemical company workers themselves be geared up that suited up locals attempt to combat the. they did experiments but also in day you have many of these people one foot into the biotech pharma

out all the stops to provide federal power in favor of slave owners trying to recapture their human property, what did the supreme court do? the supreme court said, well, implied rights, of course it makes sense to give federal backing to the authority of slave owners trying to recapture their property, implied rights. supreme court very solicitous of the sentiments and the interests of the slave power, and then frederick douglass said but look at us now after the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments had been passed. now what is the supreme court doing? now the supreme court is pulling out all the stops to put limits on federal power. harlan made that same point, and then harlan at the end of his opinion answered the supreme court's dig about the special fay favorites of the law, and this is what he said. it is, i submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. what the nation through congress has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every state in the union for the white race to secure and protect rights belonging to them as free men and citizens, nothing more. the one underlying purpose of congres

the supreme court. that's paid off in dividends for those people, because, of course, he has picked two people to be on the supreme court something that's going to have effects for a lifetime. so that's, of course, the question that comes to mind when people do talk about reututh ba ginsburg and what her future is going to look like and whether or not that's something the president will have another opportunity to do if he does get re-elected in the next election. and it's very much a conversation that the president has regularly with his white house councsel, with people inside the administration, about who it would be he would pick if he did have that chance. >> so let's watch and see what lindsey graham said about this in october of last year. >> if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election. and i've got a pretty good chance of being -- >> you're on the record. >> yeah. >> all right. >> hold the tape. >> we're holding the tape, rebecca. i see the look on your face, right? because mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader said in

the details. >> supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg completed a three-week course of cancer therapy. the radiation treatment began august 5th to treat a tumor on her pancreas. the supreme courtssued a statement saying justice ginsburg tolerated the treatment well and had to cancel her annual summer visit to santa fe, she continued to maintain an active schedule u she dismissed concerns about her health. >> i think it was after the pancreatic cancer who allows with great glee that i was going to be dead within six months. that senator, whose name i've forgotten is now dead. i am very much alive. >> according to the court's statement, the tumor was treated and no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. in january 2019, her recovery from surgery to -- forced her to miss oral arguments, she continued to work if home. on social issues like abortion and separation of church and state. she's won the admiration of many conservatives for her grasp of the law and carefully considered opinions. mona kosar abdi. >>> one of the richest men has died. the 79-year-old had been battling prostate cancer. david koch and charles koch were huge forces since the '80s in american politics donat

supreme court. justice ruth bader ginsburg today completed a three week course of what is called seo tactic ablated radiation therapy. this happened at memorial sloan cancer center here in new york center. this is all coming from the supreme court. they add that the focused radiation treatment began on august 5th and was administered on an outpatient basis to treat a tumor on her pancreas. the abnormality they say was first detected after a routine blood test in early july. the biopsy performed on july july 31st at sloan-kettering confirmed a localized malignant tumor. as part of her treatment, bile duct stent was then placed. the justice tolerated the treatment while they say, she canceled her annual summer visits to santa fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule. that tumor, which i repeat was found to be and make malignant, was treated definitively and there was no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. justice ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans, no further treatment is needed at this time they say. so when you are diagnosed with a malignant tumor, there are many different avenues in which oncologists will treat this sort of cancer. when you are diagnosed with a malignant tumor the first thing they want to know is was that metastatic? that it spread? in this case that they know. that is a very good prognosis for someone at her age who has dealt with health issues in the past. for her to have been basically told that no further treatment is needed at this time raises many metric all questions and i can't speculate but i will say for my personal knowledge either been treated and it has been controlled, and she could potentially be in remission. if there was no treatment and you have a malignant tumor, and less that tumor is fully removed and there was no other cancer cells attached to it, you can continue to live a normal happy healthy life. however if that cancer then attaches itself to other organs or those cancer spread cells spread to other parts of your body that's where things go downhill pretty quickly. reading between the lines, the fact that she does not have to have further treatment sounds like good news. hopefully we can get a medical expert on the phone to talk to me more about this and break down what exactly is going on. justice ruth bader ginsburg, she has not been heard from or seen in public eye for quite some time after having a fault many months ago. with her health deteriorating she has come out of the background and reminded her followers, her supporters, that she is doing okay and that she still has a say, i have a in the justice department and has been weighing her opinion on many different cases. behind the scenes that she has been suffering. back in july she was told that she had in fact a malignant tumor. it justice ruth bader ginsburg, if you are just now tuning in, today completed a three week course of what's called seo tactic ablated radiation therapy. this happened in memorial sloan cancer in new york city. this is one of the lead to cancer hospitals in the country. the very, very best are treated there. the doctors there are excellent and this is where she has been treated from the very beginning when she had her first diagnosis of cancer. this abnormality was first detected according to the supreme court after a routine blood test early july. when you get a routine blood tests it doesn't necessarily mean that you have symptoms of cancer, but a routine blood test is what many of us get at a regular doctor checkup. at her age she was in for a regular checkup and that's what they are telling us. this is huge news coming out of new york city, it has huge implications in washington. zach i will go to you first on your reaction to this news. >> i think we are all going to be praying for the notorious rbg. she is a legal line as many in my party support her and she is also supported across both sides. one of her best friends with justice scalia. irrespective of what it whether you agree with her legal stances she is well respected in the legal field, well respected on both sides of the aisle. she's an absolute remarkable person. she's broken a significant amount of barriers. obviously in the country should be praying her, should be praying for her health i hope that we have nothing but

supreme court justice has been impeached, is there a likely possibility ever that impeachment of a supreme court justice could happen after the election? >> well, i mean, there are people, democrats, who say of course they would like to impeach both gorsuch and kavanaugh because they're illegitimate, and i think kavanaugh gets more attention in that area. you know, i don't see it. the process is the process. they went through the process. you might not be happy about the way it worked or the way the republicans handled it or the outcome, but it would also require a republican senate and a 67-vote majority to impeach someone. i don't with see any of those numbers in the future. but you do hear people talk about it. and i say in the book that both of those guys are going to have an it's risk, sort of a roger maris asterisk after their names because of the way they got in. people really, the democrats really think the way they got -- certainly the scalia/garland seat was stolen from them, and these things linger for years, right? if you say something to republicans about the way they've handled this, they go, well, what about bork, right? and then if you say to the democrats, what about garland, right? these things, they just last forever, these kind of feuds. and i actually wasn't here the day of the actual vote on the last rules change which was on just the cutting of the debate to two hours, but i watched it later. and mitch mcconnell's there with schumer, and he goes you started this, you started this, you know? and that's the way -- that's what's going on in the senate right now which is also not doing anything else. there's no votes, there's nothing happening. the institution is almost becoming irrelevant except for nominations. >> carl, what's -- [inaudible] >> so the blue slip, i love the blue slip. people don't get it. so this was a super old tradition in the senate which, like the fill thely buster -- filibuster, was really used for bad with purposes. it was used by dixiecrats to hold up civil rights legislation. at the time james eastland, who no one's talked about for years until joe biden brings him up as his ally back in the day. of all the people you want to talk about. so james eastman becomes chairman of the judiciary committee and really ennowses this practice -- enforces this practice where he's not going to move any jobs unless the senators from the home states sign off on this blue slip of paper. and that lets the dixiecrats -- they want to control, definitely, who's in the federal judiciary in their states now, because that's who's opposing all these new rules. there's flexibility. and joe bide within again -- joe biden, he ignores blue slips from democratic senators, not republican senators. so it stays in, and this allows the republicans that even when harry reid got rid of the filibuster on nominations to block a bunch of judges. and there's a thing where trump talks about disingenuously about this all the time, oh, obama left us this gift, 100 judges. why didn't he fill them, was he lazy? well, of course, they didn't fill them because the republicans blocked them with blue slips. so once they got in, i actually asked mitch mcconnell for a podcast, what about the blue slip? oh, that's grassley, chairman. but my personal opinion, we need to get rid of the blue slip for appeals court judges. so on appeals court judge us, there's no longer blue slips. they rolled democrats in california, essentially on the ninth circuit, because, i mean, trump's trying to remake that. there's really no break on either party. you can get anybody through, and you see it. every day they're doing nominees and democrats are screaming. we just approved someone who will say that brown v. board of education was decided correctly. that's kind of the way it is. >> [inaudible] >> okay, one more. come on. >> in the unlikely event that a democrat wins the presidency and republicans hold the senate, and let's say clarence thomas leaves the court for some reason, are they going to -- >> yeah. so mcconnell was actually asked this very question. now, there was more attention focused on mcconnell saying he would consider a judge in 2020 despite saying previously e let the people decide. so but this is a whole separate issue, and he was asked and kind of an interesting answer. okay, there's a democratic president, republican senate, can any supreme court nominee get through? and he said, well, you know, if it was early in the first year, it'd be politically unsustainable to not have a hearing and a vote on someone. you'd have to have a hearing and a vote. but that doesn't mean they'd be confirmed. so, and that was his quote. so you'd have the, you'd have the idea that there'd be a hearing, but they could easily vote that person down. actually, mcconnell -- and he talked about how there probably wouldn't be any vacancies certainly right now on the liberal side, i just liked his phrasing here, he said without a significant life-ending event. [laughter] if oh, you mean somebody died? i don't know any inch significant life-ending -- insignificant life-ending events. [laughter] you know, this is going to go on for a long time, and it's a big problem. and there are people up there that know it, but there's very little they can do about it. >> [inaudible] >> well, he's got this opponent now, she's going to have a gazillion dollars, bec