the supreme court of the united states shouldd be opposed of nie justices. there has been considerable debate about the efforts of the radical left and democratic party to pack the united states supreme court. to add for left-wing justices immediately to the court to grow the number from nine-13 because democrats areth unhappy with the decisions being issued by the supreme court. undermining the rule of law was true then and it is true now. they do not support pack in the supreme court. this is amendment to go on record and be clear about whether or not you support pack in the court. >> the constitution does not stipulate the numberr of supreme court justices. honoring the makeup of the court the number of justices has changed sixme times before we landed on the number nine of 1869. only one living senator who has change the size of the supreme court and that is senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky who shrink the court to eight seats for nearly one year and for purely political reasons so he can refuse the nomination by president obama. republicans engaged in

yes, these reforms are actually a very serious reduction in the power of the supreme court of justicehe zionist regime against the concert, that is, he can overrule the decisions of the supreme court of justice, the judges of the court, he can decide to a large extent for the benefit of the government, and in general, the power and independence of the judicial system of the zionist regime and give it to the knesset, the prime minister and the government. cover up and escape from prison and somehow the law go around and create an illegitimate immunity for himself, and for this reason, the second reading of this law will be held today, and it is expected that this law will be approved this evening, but for the final approval, it needs another round, the prediction is made, but the interesting thing is that yesterday and the day before yesterday, nearly 600,000 people from various sources demonstrated in occupied palestine, which includes approximately 10% of the population of the occupation, and it has created a very deep and serious crisis for the zionist regime, for which there is cur

but the families of supreme court justices, by protesting outside their homes. allowing those protests to take place. and then refusing to enforce federal law and make them unlawful today the home of the supreme court justice. was that these attacks imputing the credibility and characters of a lifetime, to build reputations for themselves reflecting on the court of credibility and fairness? perhaps that was a whirlwind. this is part of that world went. and we must defeat it. thank you. >> thank, you senator lee. in defense of ruth bader ginsburg who cannot defend herself, she disclosed 1 million dollar were warned that she was donating it to charity. i might also add any provisions for supply equally to every single member of the supreme court, whether they are appointed by a democrat or your public in, conservative or liberal. now, we're gonna consider amendments. senator graham unbelievably first amendment. but >> yeah. thank, you mr.. chairman i have an amendment that is building off what's nearly said. but section 15 07 of our venerable crowd makes this crime

the supreme court of the united states shall bete composed of ne justices. there has been considerable debates about the efforts of the radical left and the democrat party to pack the united states supreme court. to add four left-wing the justices immediately to the court to grow the number from nine to 13 because democrats are unhappy with the decisions that are being issued by the supreme court when fdr tried to pack the court it was widely recognized to be a grotesque abuse of power undermining the rule of law. that was truth in. it's true now. some democrats in this body claim at least when they return home and talk to their constituents that they do not support packing the supreme court this amendment is an opportunity to go on record and be clear whether or not you support packing the court. i would urge adoption of the amendment. >> thank you, senator. the constitution of course did not stipulate the number of supreme court justices. that is a decision of congress. we have a long history in order to make of the court, the number of justices hasge chang

of powers issue. it also calls for various lower court judicial panels to review and rule on the actions of the one supreme court. and it's justices. so can you imagine lower courts established by congress would be tasked with the supreme court in ways our founders sought to avoid. and all of the hearings they've had on this topic. not one witness was able to articulate effectively out articles -- how to articulate effectively how such measures would be constitutionally sound. the act would create a roadmap for parties to seek out newly defined quote unquote complex. and recusal subprocesses. this could be abused to disqualify justices who may be unfavorable to the far left's view, especially on high profile cases. this bill is currently written undermining the independence and the integrity of the supreme court. chief justice john roberts in his letter dated april 25 included a quote statement on ethics, principles and practices." this statement undersigned by all justices reaffirms their commitment to upholding the integrity of the court. that should also be submitted for the record of this committee.te i would also like to ente

supreme court court justices don't write books. of course, every supreme court justice now writes books. so i think that we are dealing here with a cultural change that has really contributed to diminishing respect for the supreme court. and you know, to answer a little bit more the question that chairman durbin asked of mr. sample, professor sample, you know, the supreme court has a mistake. you may regard it as a mystique not justified in fact, but it is a credibility. a trust. a confidence that is so necessary for a court composed of nine people, unelected, presiding for life, and able to strike down the will of a democratically elected congress, it is extraordinary and democracy. and so, i am really just baffled by chief justice, roberts. because he should know better. and this controversy could be defused, if he were willing to lead. and obviously, we have asked him to lead. again and again and again. and the failure to take the reins here, which could easily supplant these kinds of measures, if he were to voluntarily impose some

supreme court is somewhat unique. we have 9 members of the supreme court. that's not required by the constitution. the number of supreme court justices is established by congress. it was established in the middle of the nineteenth century. it's 9 today, it was other numbers before then. congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the court. when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the supreme court, there is a bipartisan bill which i'm authoring now, cosponsoring with senator grassley, republican from iowa to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the supreme court. we also need -- handle the annual budget for the supreme court as well. as you can tell, the relationship is intertwined, we do not have the authority nor were we trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment, that is up to the court itself but when it comes to the administration of the court and the rules of administration congress has played an important role. senator mcconnell described our concern about the situation in the court is a, quote, uptick in pearl clutching and hysterics. that colorful term

supreme court is somewhat unique. we have nine members of the supreme court. that is not required by the constitution. the number of supreme court justices is established by congress. it was established in the middle ever the 19th century. it's nine today. it was other numbers before that. congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the court. and when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the supreme court, there's a bipartisan bill which i am authoring now, cosponsoring with senator grassley, a republican from iowa, to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the supreme court. we also handle the annual budget. congress passes the annual budget for the supreme court as well. as you can tell, it is a relationship which is intertwined. we do not have the authority nor are we ever trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment. that is up to the court itself. but whether it comes to the administration -- when it comes to the administration of the court and rules of administration, congress has played an important role. senator mcconnell described our concern about the ethical s

democrats are openly calling for increasing the number of justices from 9 to 13 to dilute the supreme court for 20 something years. that is destroying the independence of the judiciary. there is not a worse idea on the planet than have politicians change the number of supreme court justices when they don't like decisions. that's the end of the judiciary as we know it and they are openly talking about doing this. i don't get it, either don't read it and other people do, the new republic, the democrats need to destroy clarence thomas's reputation. what's going to happen tomorrow is fulfilling these ideas. again, the supreme court needs to get their house in order and i hope they will. tomorrow they are going to try to create a law that through congressional statutes would determine the initial of recusal of a supreme court justice. they are going to create a complaint commission that allows complaint against the court to be adjudicated by lower court members. in other words they are going to allow lower court judges to tell the supreme court how to operate when it comes to a complaint against

the zionist regime to increase the powers of his own cabinet and reduce the power of the supreme court of justice regime despite the 21 27 protests approved in the british parliament in this regard with mr. imani, an expert on west asian issues, the wall of hazrat imam hussain is also why the opposition to netanyahu's judicial bill has been so intense. in these 21 two weeks, let's take a look at the reasons for the opposition . a power struggle with the image of the hand the judicial system and monitoring of netanyahu's and cabinet ministers' performance will decrease. also, the shadow of the corruption cases, which are these, and they will be removed from politics to some extent . a week of crisis inside the occupied territories the interior, which has been visible for a long time, the interior will be more visible and it won, it has fallen much wider in the sea, your occupied territories are saying goodbye, the crisis of the regime is getting closer to the end point, it is becoming more visible, it is saying goodbye, but the turkish media is announcing the cancellation of yahoo's trip to ankara

of turkey court justice making judgment of the accused justice. if word to try to design a system that would undermine american states in the legitimacy in the integrity of the supreme court, these judicial panels would be an excellent start they charge a similar force they would charge the united states with issuing a code of conduct governing supreme court justices. when he testified before congress, justice kennedy describe every proposal as legally problematic and structurally unprecedented. it would empower the judicial -- a group composed of district in circuit court judges that would make rules that supreme court justices have to follow. the bill would also create an ethics investigation counsel charged with investigating supreme court justices nastiest violations or colder conduct over any conduct alleged to be prejudicial to the ethical effect of the business of the supreme court of the united states. another bill entitled the supreme court code of conduct act would similarly detonate a supreme court ethics officer which would process complaint that is supreme court violated a code of conduct, federal law, or has done something that they complain it which t

justice kavanaugh. we've seen angry left-wing protesters protesting at the home of supreme court justices and joe biden's attorney general refuses to prosecute them for the federal felonies they're committing each night. this discussion of ethics so, called ethics, is a fraud. they have targeted justice thomas because they have decided they want to destroy justice thomas. they hate justice thomas not because his conduct is different from the other eight justices, but because, a, he's voted faithful to the constitution and, b, he's a black man who dares to be a conservative. and for the modern left, that is the gravest sin of all. the standards they're talking about are applied utterly hypocritically. the conduct they're attacking justice thomas for doing, justice steven brier did the same thing, justice ruth bader ginsburg did the same thing. justice sotomayor has done the same thing. but they don't attack them. because this is about politics. and i want to emphasize what senator graham just said a minute ago. if we sit by and allow the democrats to delegitimatize the supreme court, to tear down the rule

supreme court is somewhat unique. we have nine members of the supreme court. that is not required by the constitution. the number of supreme court justices is established by congress. it was established in the middle ever the 19th century. it's nine today. it was other numbers before that. congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the court. and when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the supreme court, there's a bipartisan bill which i am authoring now, cosponsoring with senator grassley, a republican from iowa, to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the supreme court. we also handle the annual budget. congress passes the annual budget for the supreme court as well. as you can tell, it is a relationship which is intertwined. we do not have the authority nor are we ever trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment. that is up to the court itself. but whether it comes to the administration -- when it comes to the administration of the court and rules of administration, congress has played an important role. senator mcconnell described our concern about the ethical s

and protestors said that the purpose of the food changes was to reduce the power of the supreme court of justice of this regime to protect netanyahu from corruption charges . national interest magazine quoted some palace officials. sefid wrote that the united states is putting pressure on saudi arabia to normalize relations with the zionist regime . the efforts of the biden government to mediate between riyadh and tel aviv are going on secretly and privately. which includes the testing of saudi arabia's access to american weapons and nuclear cooperation, the mayor of moscow announced the attack of ukrainian drones and this city and announced that this attack did not cause any casualties, and an office building was entered with a small apple, the mayor of moscow two days ago from the attack of ukrainian drones he informed this city and announced that this attack was neutralized by air defense systems. ukraine's drone attacks on moscow and the crimean peninsula have recently increased, but russia has repelled most of the attacks. in the city of rotterdam, the dutch police announced in a statement

the competence of the prime minister and rejection based on the current laws of the supreme court of justice of the zionist regime can unanimously cancel anything that it deems to be against the nationality bill of this regime, but it should be considered by netanyahu that the hands of the zionist authorities to cancel it will become more open, as based on these changes for 12 of the 15 senior members of the zionist court consider it sufficient to cancel what is contrary to the layers of nationality. also, based on what is currently being implemented, the supreme court is the authority for implementing the decision with the nationality bill, but based on the changes proposed by netanyahu 61 and 320i crook. naft can ignore the decisions of the supreme court, and netanyahu is looking for it so that he can prevent the supervision of the supreme court if necessary . protesters in the occupied territories see netanyahu's goal of changes beyond the numerous accusations of corruption. cause of approval let's talk about the judicial responsibility bill and the escalation of the zionist regime's inte

the translator said that after the new investigation, the power of the supreme court of justice of this regime will be reduced in relation to netanyahu's cabinet in order to protect him from corruption charges. thank you for your attention. in the name of god, i say hello, dear drivers of khabar network, i am happy to be at your service. they didn't recognize the football magazine tonight and a beach with a look like pasha . in the group of the russian league and the people of oman , the matches will be held from the 14th to the 17th of august, hosted by bruce, and persepolis will be the last football match before defending champion persepolis in the last preparatory meeting before the new season of the premier league today behind closed doors. rafsanjan and 31 days, sadeghi amiri and khodadadi arrived for persepolis and religious for brushing persepolis, all five preparatory games were preceded by a victory , the breath of esteghlal in takhti, the venue of the naft abadan league, esteghlal from the first week of the 23rd league, takhti abadan stadium he announced that participation in

supposed to stop by the name and know what was going on when the produce but it in front of the supreme court of justice. that's the last i found out about the violence and i condemned immediately. mister brown, you'll often declared commitment to democracy. doesn't seem to have been appreciated by everybody when you impart in 2021 your last full year and office human rights watch. so you'll government stepped up its efforts to control the media and cut out this send all star. it is highest and at times, detain jarvis and other members of civil society for criticizing government officials and policies that said, are you proud of that? i wish they would give me specific incidents we have investigated. they would then incidents of dentist, you know, who claimed that they had been mistreated dentist, evidence. my body was only responsible for one of them. my government, which amazingly was emptied. a single 4 of them related to the security bosses we were coming out of the war on debtor. and they didn't part of the these guys, but what was stepping on the think some of wonder but and so on. nothing to do w

a part of the law under the title of responsibility in such a way that the supreme court of justice, if it finds that one of the ministries approved a law that is not rational and does not have a quranic or scientific explanation , it is an arbitrary and irrational law will be canceled. the first d has been removed . the story is that the separation of powers in israel and his future is tied to the future of netanyahu and they want to have a dynastic government and judicial system. someone is an expert on zionist regime issues in pakistan. a meeting was held with the presence of shiraz sunni scholars in order to come to a consensus to deal with islamophobia in the west. seyyed ali razavi reports from islamabad , vakil. in the unity of the islamic ummah to overcome islamophobia , the necessity of following religious teachings to overcome the current problems of the islamic world was emphasized in the meeting of the convergence of religions, which was held in the capital of pakistan with the presence of shia sunni scholars and political, social and cultural figures. is that muslims beca

of the -- chief justice of the supreme court in the 1960's. you do see justice -- chief justice roberts, you get a sense he's trying to wrench the steering wheel away from some of the associate justices on some of these cases. keeping in mind just you what said, that the idea of the legitimacy of the court is now under assault. even though he's refused to appear in congress to talk about some of the ethics rules that the court should be in many people's minds following. what kind of success is he having in wrenching the court toward a middle that seems acceptable? richard: in dobbs he was not successful. in dobbs he wanted to take the position that the 15-week ban in mississippi was ok. but not throw out roe v. wade. there are six conservative justices on the court. it takes only five to reach a decision. so he didn't have his way there. but one of the things that i think we've been seeing increasingly at the court, especially this term, is -- and you mentioned this a little bit earlier in one of your questions. some of the conservative states

to change the size now that they are in the process of taking a section of the law to the supreme court of justice, if it recognizes that one of the government ministries passed a law that is not rational and the rational explanation is in some way an arbitrary and irrational law, it will cancel the law. this is the reason the story is that the separation of powers in israel and its future is tied to netanyahu's future and he calls for the government and the system to rule. an expert on the issues of the zionist regime , a meeting was held in pakistan with the presence of shiraz sunni scholars in order to come to a consensus to deal with islamophobia in the west. seyed ali's report razavi from islamabad emphasized the unity of the islamic ummah to overcome islamophobia in the meeting on the convergence of religions , which was held in the capital of pakistan with the presence of sunni and shia scholars and political, social and cultural figures, on the necessity of following religious teachings to overcome the current problems of the islamic world were emphasized because this is the only way to sa

the supreme court effectively is the last word. the justices are aware ofat when the issue these rulings. >> where are the numbers on the supreme court for this kind of broadis decision sank without te specifics we are declaring administrative agencies and the executive branch cannot do what is essentially their job? >> that was really thedo six -- three votes in the covid case in the epa case in student loan case. in fact justice barrett who used to teach this area of legislation when she was a law professor at notre dame before she was on thero supreme court, she wrote a separate opinion in the student loan case to try to justify this major question's doctorate explain how it is consistent withhi the normal theories of textualism you're supposed to interpret text in a statute in a way the ordinary reader of the english language with think it's interpreted like the original is him we talked about on the constitutional level there's a parallel theory for statute. justice kagan in the dissent said you guys are pulling a rabbit out of the hat. what a joke abo

party in a coalition with likud and netanyahu, it was always considered that this is the supreme court of justiceso and that's why this is the right part or the right-wing political spectrum has always said that, look, people from the left have settled there, who do not understand the problems, and they can influence the political decisions of the government, although by and large, if you take the history of such decisions, there were no such decisions . but this is a game between the old and the new. - and the elites and - and we still have problems, you know , jewish eyes, these are european jews , and - north african jews, who also have their own views on the future, that's where we started we want people who have broader views, both right and left, or religious and soviet, to sit in this supreme court , and this is why these questions started , although if we talk about the three branches of power, even today we have an executive legislator . odno и тоже и есть одна , because it is an independent court . thank you sadly. oleksandr zinker, political scientist, former prince vlad, told us about

of the supreme court under the constitution is written and in terms of administration of the supreme court congress has responsibilities that include something as basic as choosing the number of justices. in 1869 we decided there would be nine supreme court justices. that number will has been for so many years but it was a congressional decision. when it comes to funding the supreme court on the basic rules of conduct we have authority over history and i think we still do but we also had last year a bipartisan bill by senators cornyn and related to stock ownership and decisions by the general courts involving defendants and plaintiffs that reference represents stock ownership and judges to recuse themselves over complex of interest. it passed in a bipartisan basis in congress and it was up to the supreme court or the federal courts and they said we would live by that standard. it's not a radical idea that congress comes up with ethical standards for the court to follow. >> justice roberts has said the court is adept at recusing itself and it does need to adopt additional ethics rules. how does that differ i guess in the ethics rules in the lower courts and their ethics rules for senat

supreme court ruled against him. he said, by the, way what kind of army does the supreme court have? with that being said, you had a lot of good points. going all the way from justice warren. enjoy your. day i will get your book for sure. >> thank you. >> the caller makes an interesting point. a lot of the criticisms of the supreme court have gone on over the decades. of being activists and accountable. democratically unaccountable. all of these criticisms have come from conservatives who are unhappy as the caller expressed with rulings from half a century ago. right now though, the issues on the other foot. in the sense that the supreme court has not really been activist in the way that -- describes on those issues. for half a century. interesting lee, the afterglow from that period both animates a lot of conservative rhetoric about the court at least until recently, but also has given liberals i think something of a false notion of the role the supreme court plays and should place in our system. right now, what people want among other things is for -- and stability. and there could be criticism of the original roe v. wade ruling for example, justice ruth bader gi

supreme court ruled against him. what kind of army does the supreme court have? but with that being said, you hit on a lot of good points from roosevelt all the way to justice warren. c. host: tom, thank you. guest: he makes an interesting point, a lot of criticisms of the supreme court have been from conservatives who were unhappy. as this color -- cold -- caller expressed. the supreme court has not been activists in the way the gentleman describes on those issues for half a century. the kind of afterglow from that period, it both animates conservative rhetoric about the court up until recently but is also given liberals something of a false notion of the role the supreme court plays and should play in our system. what people want among other things is protecting their rights and stability. there can be criticism of the original roe v. wade ruling, for example. justice ruth bader ginsburg was one people -- one of the people who criticized it. but sandra day o'connor wrote in a case, it became part of the fabric of american life. it became an expectation american women have, the ability to have reproductive freedom. when the court said as they did last june, it wa

i didn't even know what was going on when to produce, but it in front of the supreme court of justice. that's the last i found out about the violence and i condemned to immediately. mister brown, your often declared commitment to democracy. it doesn't seem to have been appreciated by everybody when you impart in 2021 your last full year and office human rights watch. so you'll government stepped up its efforts to control the media and cut out this send all star which is highest. and at times, detain janice and other members of civil society for criticizing government officials and policies that said, are you proud of that? i wish they would give me specific incidents we have investigated. that would den incidence of douglas, you know, who claims that there been mistreated dentist, evidence. my body was only responsible for one of them. my government, which amazingly was every single 4 of them related to the security bosses. we were coming out of the war on denver and they didn't part of that that these guys were always stepping in the principal vendor but and so on. nothing to do with

gave permission to the executive for it rights general language with and of course, the supreme court the last word and justicesare aware of that than the supreme court biden picks it up are trying to do so he used the term lacrimal, that's what we are talking about and it's a lot of imagination to try to get around extreme supreme court ruling. >> i'm reminded of the game of twister where you have toga bend around. we try to end on the upbeat notes of their is anything hopeful that you can tell us -- >> i think i quoted the new york timesd saying the decision was bad is good enough awful means democracy. voting rights case put things in place, it could have been a lot worse and ild think public pressure makes a difference the justices are doing and this can make a difference so i view this as not. coming up tuesday morning a number of political parties to the u.s. in conversation with 7:00 a.m. eastern ♪♪ ♪♪ ...

of the supreme court under the constitution as written, but in terms of the administration of the supreme court, congress has responsibilities that include something as basic as choosing the number of justicesyou have to go back to 1869 we decided there would be nine supreme court justices done by statute. that number has held for so many years, but it was a congressional decision. when it comes to funding the supreme court or the basic rules of conduct, and we had that authority in history and we still do, but last year we had a bipartisan bill by senators cornyn and coons related to stock ownership and decisions by the federal courts involving defendants or plaintiffs who represented the stock ownership, judges were asked to recuse themselves from cases where there are conflicts of interest. it was passed on a bipartisan basis in the congress, it was sent to the supreme court and all the other federal courts and they abided by it. they said we're going to live by that standard, so it's not a radical idea that congress comes up with an ethical standard and the court follows it. leigh ann: why -- you know, justice roberts has said that the court is adept at policing itself, that it doesn't

of the supreme court under the constitution as it is written. but in terms of the administration of the supreme court, congress has responsibilities that includes something as basic as choosing the number ofes justices you hae to go back to 1869 they decided they would be nine supreme court justices done by statute. that number has held for so many years that it was a congressional decision when it comes to the basic rules of conduct, we have that authority over history and i think we still do let me also add that last year we had a bipartisan bill by senator cornyn and snorkel relives the stock ownership and decisions by the federal courts involving desperate senator coons -- defendant's replace our purpose in stock ownership, judges are asked to recuse themselves in cases where the conflicts of interest it was passed on a bipartisan basis in congress it was sent to the supreme court and all the other federal courts, and they abided by so it is nott a radical idea that congress comes up with an ethical standard and the court follows. >> justice robert has said that the court is adept at pleasing itself, that it does need to adopt additional ethics rules. how does that differ i guess, ethics rules l

supreme court 11 years ago. i think two or three of the current justices were on the court atta time, urging him to establish a codeconduct for the supreme court. so this is not personal to these justices. it would imply to all justices whether appointed by a democratic president or a republican. as it should. it is a nonpartisan effort to establish the same basic rules of conduct for these public servants as the other federal judges face currently. i want to add one point that should be a part of this conversation. federal judges across the united states are not happy with what the supreme court is doing. the supreme court refuses to abide by the same standards of conduct as they are required to abide by. it is not making them happy at all. so i think we go forward with this for the good of the judiciary. we have the authority to do it. we have been chief justice roberts the opportunity over and over to take control of the situation. he hasn't done it. >> mr. chairman, are you confident that you have all 51 senators, the caucus of the democrats onboard for this? >> one step at a time. we are in the first round. we

court of appeals judge discussed the impact of the recent supreme court rulings. they also discussed the possibility of future term limits increasing the number of justices and court ethics. this isib about an hour. >> we are thrilled to welcome our members and supporters of the great historic sites of our democracy which is downtown. one of the great historic sites of our democracy where the first president was inaugurated in our bill of rights was passed by our first congress. also like to welcome our vips and we are expecting such honorary advisory members. neal, byron, judy miller, and a number of other vips. we are really honored to welcome to renowned and outstanding legal experts to discuss our conservative supreme court and its recent decisions, including some of the most significant rulings and consequential decisions that are raised from affirmative action, student loans and voting rights to election laws, free-speech and lgbtq civil rights. we may also touch on last year's decision overturning the landmark case which has now resulted in 14 states having total abortion bands during any point of pregnancy and effect in four states having similar bands hav

court packing. that has to do with many of the ethical missteps the court has made over recent. pictures of supreme court justices with millionaires and billionaires who had cases in front of the court -- howard: specifically just two, clarence thomas and sam alito were reported by propublica to have accepted fringe benefits from billionaire pals. they deny any wrong doing. but, certainly, opponents of the supreme court on the left have seized on that. >> i think it's beyond just opponents on the left. i think folks on all sides are saying there should be some ethical boundaries that members of the supreme court have especially given the fact they have lifetime appointments and there is no way to say, hey, we're going to unelect them or they're behold. en to the people. that a being said, when you put the affirmative action ruling in the microscope and you say, okay, so if this is true, why not look at this case and say is, hmm, is this really the problem with our admissions system in this country, or is it more so the fact that 40% of harvard's admitting students are folks who are millionaires' or billionaires'

we are following two major decisions on the final day of the supreme court's term. the justicestruck down president biden's plan to cancel more than 400 billion dollars in student loan debt for millions of borrowers. the court also ruled that a colorado website designer can refuse to create a website for a same-sex couple on first amendment grounds. justice neil gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, "colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." toniwithneur" prerage again t anysrciaoy

supreme court justice. prior to that, a confirmation hearing, that televised confirmation hearing, only two justices in the history of the supreme court had confirmation hearings. confirmation hearings were not a thing until television made them a thing. as the televised hearing for supreme court justices aged, it became ever more absurd. a television show that was never a good turned awful and pointless. senate confirmation hearings for supreme supreme court justices are not in pursuit of a truth or examination of the fine points of legal scholarship. they exist entirely because of television. television invented the senate confirmation hearing for supreme court justices, and we are not the better for it. 58 years after joe mccarthy died, a republican politician created by television, who was every bit as stupid as joe mccarthy and is reckless, came along to blow on the embers of mccarthyism and too much surprise, including mine, the embers ignited and the flame began to burn again. with donald trump running for president in a way no one hit ever run for president before, with the marker see kathy's room zealotry ai

contained in that document. - you have a new book, it's called "the people's justice" and it examines the jurisprudence of supreme court justice clarence thomas. you believe that justice thomas is misunderstood? - yes. - why? - i think the critics often say that originalism and in turn justice thomas being kinda the ultimate originalist favors the corporation over the consumer, the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor, and the government over the individual. what i would posit is the book proves the opposite is true. it doesn't mean he's always gonna rule consistent with those lines because he will first and foremost follow the law. he will follow the law but heill always remember there's real people involved in the cases. and what you will find in his individual writings, he will often have a strong black voice which is never reported. and he will talk about the real people involved in the case and the struggles they face. - give me an example of when you feel he is articulated a strong black voice. - he talks a lot about what black people can and have accomplished and how important it is that they not be give

>> you know t chief justice always wants to be calling the shots for the entire judiciary and the court. remember, he's not the chief justice of the supreme court. he's the chief justice of the united states as he likes to remind people. he sits at the head of the entire branch. and any time he smells even a whiff of interference from congress, he gets his hackles up. he does not want to even create the perception that another branch could be intruding into the judiciary's prerogative, of course, all the while gleefully striking down laws passed by congress and enforced by the president. but to him, the supreme court and him must remain a bastian protected from all headwinds and i think he lumps ethics right in there with everything else. he views it as the very premise that they can strike down laws. he says if we're going to start acting ethically, we're going to write our own code and congress sure as hell ain't going to make us do it. >> what can you tell me about "the washington post" about a campaign for clarence thomas apparently organized by leonard leo, an activist. he essentially guards their reputations once on the bench. if an