of the moscow city court. in 1986, i am the thirteenth chairman of the supreme court of the russian federation vyacheslav mikhailovich lebedev became chairman of the supremer in july 1989, life turned out so well that soon there was neither the soviet union nor the supreme court of the ussr and the supreme court became the highest judicial instance in the country russia powerful strike to you now to the order run. i will not shoot. i shoot not yet. i have cartridges on the nineteenth of august. we learned about this information from tv and saw that such a committee had been created. that's his position came to work, and i was followed by a lot of phone calls from chairmen of crooked republican regional courts. what are they doing, and together with the minister of justice of the ussr, we signed an appeal to all courts of the russian federation that all decisions are like an emergency, they are illegal in that situation. it was a dangerous decision, since the outcome of those events, as we understand it, was not obvious. this was the position. why because there are situations when well a few tips should be advised and decide to decide what will happen next

morning dear participants of the meeting the supreme court, why does it depend on it, probably, our judicial system. i am saying this not because i am the chairman of the supreme courtf russia in accordance with the procedure established by law, the supreme court can appeal to 39 million different categories of cases only at first instance a year today, the supreme court of russia recognized a former traffic police inspector from irkutsk reached the supreme court. recognized by the supreme court of russia left the supreme court unchanged, considered the constitutional complaint, which suffered an overwhelming majority. this is a civil case, when a citizen himself comes to court for protection. if you don't find the truth in the district court , you go to the regional court. if you have not succeeded in the regional court, it is true, you go to the court of cassation and so on up to the supreme court of russia, we consider complaints. here complaints are one of the few words that have slavic origin. and the word complain and initially it is first a person's stay in sorrow in grief. and in this context. well, in general, i appeared in our legal sphere, therefore, when

particularly in israel, we're looking at a law that has been discussed a concerning the supreme court of supreme court is one of the only checks and balances on the government. the country doesn't have a constitution, it doesn't have a 2nd house of parliament. so the supreme court is one of the only checks and now the new government are wanting to pass a law that will, is called the override clause. that will mean that the elected government will be able to override supreme court decisions, basically giving it free will to doing what it's like some other policy things that are really ruffling feathers to do with civil rights. and many of the ultra orthodox parties looking to roll back gay rights. you know, netanyahu for his part has come out and said, you know, this is just fear mongering. that he is still going to be the hell that he'll be maintaining the status quo. and that this is just, as i said, fear mongering and that no one has anything to worry about. but that remains to be seen ah rude brochures or whether we're here and it goes from oklahoma. all way to why only in, in wyoming, the main rou

court. >> there's no law against it, -- we leave the behavior of the supreme court justices to the judgment of supreme court justices. that is service reasonably well, throughout the history of the supreme court. until now. now i have clarence thomas, really not cases that could involve his wife's communications with the white house. you know that clarence thomas's wife was communicating with state officials in 2020, trying to get them to change the electoral college votes in their states, without the benefit of a supreme court opinion. -- clarence thomas cannot recuse himself in that pending case. -- no reports of roger kelly green party with brett kavanaugh on friday night. and saturday, this is what she said about the january 6th attack on the capitol in which she attackers chanted among other homicidal chants, hang mike pence. >> that's the kind of stuff, the people brett kavanaugh was parting with an friday night, fully support. matt gates supports every word that marjorie taylor greene says. and supreme court justice was parting with him on saturday night. the supreme court will not be hearing an appe

court. there's no law against it. leave the behavior of the supreme court justices to the judgment of supreme court justices. that has served us reasonably well, throughout the history of the supreme court. until now. now i have clarence thomas, really not cases that could involve his wife's communications with the white house. you know that clarence thomas's wife was communicating with state officials in 2020, trying to get them to change the electoral college votes in their states, without the benefit of a supreme court opinion saying that they could regally do that. clarence thomas did not recuse himself from that pending case, and could end up writing the opinion that could be legalize what his wife was illegally trying to do. no reports of marjorie taylor greene parting with brett kavanaugh on friday night, but on saturday night, this is what she said about the january 6th attack on the capitol in which the attackers chanted, among other homicidal chants, hang mike pence. >> i've gotta tell you something. if bannon i had organized that, we would've won. [applause] not to mention, it would've been armed.

supreme court earlier this year and asked the supreme court to intervene and said that under independent state legislature theory that the state supreme court cannot step in and we have the sole power. caller: -- host: much ofhis was done earlier this year correct? guest: it started and february and march. they asked is the supreme -- they asked the supreme court to step in and the supreme court declined to do that but they agreed to take up the case and weigh in on the validity of this theory. host: why do we hear some people in the media write about this independent state legislature theory as a fringe theory, critics say, and why do supporters say it is an integral part of the whole process? guest: they point to the text of the constitution and there are two clauses. one is the elections clause in there is another one called the electors clause. the text refers to the legislature meaning the body that makes the laws. it does not mean the state supreme court or a referendum i the voters or a veto by the governor. this is a theory that the supreme court has not endorsed. back in bush versus gore then chief gusted -- chief justice william rehnquist wrote a second concurring opinion that was joined by scalia

the supreme court were confident that when the case reaches the supreme court, it will be considered with due attention a citizen who wants to apply to the supreme court can come to the reception ofourt of the russian federation pay the state fee prepare all the necessary documents together with a complaint and submit it in one of the complaint windows continues its movement. oh, the supreme court of the russian federation here several operations are made registration complaints sorted into those which are primary repeated complaints here is checked for compliance with their requirements of procedural law. there is a group for registering complaints on economic disputes, the scope of work. you can see for yourself here the comments are unnecessarily. the supreme court, having considered the complaint, makes certain decisions on it, this may be the answer of the judge, this may be a letter of certiorari, complaints are received from all over the country. this is a tenth of the correspondence that came to the supreme court. today, current production facilities are stored here. all types of legal proceedings without this large-scale technical work of justice would be impossible here

particularly in israel, we're looking at a law that has been discussed a concerning the supreme court of the supreme court is one of the only checks and balances on the government. the country doesn't have a constitution, it doesn't have a 2nd house of parliament. so the supreme court is one of the only checks and now the new government are wanting to pass a law that will, is called the override clause. that will mean that the elected government will be able to override supreme court decisions, basically giving it free will to doing what it's like some other policy things that are really ruffling feathers to do with civil rights. and many of the ultra orthodox parties looking to roll back gay rights. you know, netanyahu for his pot has come out and said, you know, this is just fe mongering that he is still going to be at the helm. but he'll be maintaining the status quo. and that this is just as i said, fear mongering and that no one has anything to worry about, but that remains to be seen. but let's talk about netanyahu's return to power because it wasn't that long ago that an ideologically diverse coali

of negotiations and our european integration will be delayed for at least a year. and what is happening with the supreme court now ? what is happening in the supreme court? will also ask you about the supreme court, when will the head of the supreme court be finally elected instead of oleksandr mykolayovych tupytskyi, who is hiding in austria, in vienna, ukrainian justice is looking for him, just in the supreme court , now actually different things are happening and one of them is quite healthy, it is headed by the head of the supreme court of the prince, in which actually and deducted bohdan lviv from state probation when the sbu directly confirmed that he has a russian passport. but that's not the end, as you and i know, the story is a legal one, and because the defender alina mykhaylova by the way, happy armed forces day, today is her day even more than a month ago, a petition that gained very quickly, very quickly , 25,000 votes about the deprivation of ukrainian citizenship in lviv because there is such a practice of the president. he deprived us of the ukrainian citizenship of those from whom citizenship was found of other countries. at the same tim

of justices on the supreme court. a member of this committee tweeted out, the supreme court expansion is infrastructure. hy do you think they want to expand the size of the supreme court? >> for many, many years the supreme court has basically been a super legislature, putting in place sort of policies that dissent -- and essentially laws, but they could not get enacted through the democratic process. so they want to return to those days and increase the court size so that they can get these policies adopted. it's a terrible development in undermining the legitimacy of the supreme court. >> we have a democrat who tweeted out, republicans stole two supreme court seats to have a far-right supermajority, and now the court is ready to strip away our fundamental rights, expand the court before it's too late. that corroborates what your premise is. you asked what would agencies do if they did not respond to letters from congress? i sent 75 letters a year and i get no response from the administration, mister chairman. >> your time is expired. i now recognize myself for five minutes. i want to begin by thanking

of them, on our website, c-span.org/supreme court. stella in new milford, new jersey, independent. good morning to you. your view of the supreme courtcaller: good morning, greta. i'm not sure that opinions regarding the supreme court matter anymore. i'm not sure that opinions regarding congress or the presidency matter anymore. my deepest concern is i -- i have been stuck here at home and i am listening to all of these hearings and politicians. i think our government has just become too big to succeed. there is so much. we have news reports about censorship. host: why do you say you are not sure it matters, the people's view of their institutions? why wouldn't it matter? caller: i think we have gotten to the point now, where our system is just too overwhelmed by everything. i was recently listening to a hearing, the information about committees. and they were saying that the way that the committees are scheduled, most of our representatives, senators and representatives, can't even show up. so, i am just so confused. now, we have this cryptocurrency and president biden shined -- signed an executive order to pursue the federal reserv

court. and remember this committee between out that supreme court expansion isis infrastructure. why do you think hay want to expand the size of the supreme court? >> for many, many years, the supreme court has basically been a super-legislature putting in place sort of policies and, essentially, laws that they couldn't get enacted through the democratic process. so they want to return to those days and increase the court size so that he can get these policiesro adopted. it's a terrible, it's a terrible development and undermining the legitimacy of the supreme court. >> we have a democrat who tweeted out: republicans stole two the supreme court seats and now the court is ready to strip away our fundamental rights. expandin the court before it's o late, that corroborates what your premise is. i'll just tell you, i'll close, mr. sherman, you asked what would happen ifing agencies didn't respond to letters from congress? i send 75-100 letters a year, i don't get any responses from this administration. >> the time of the gentleman has expiredded. i now recognize myself for 5 minutes. i want to begin by thanking the witnesses for their testimony tod

supreme court earlier this year and asked the supreme court to intervene and said that under independent state legislature theory that the state supreme court cannot step in and we have the sole power. caller: -- host: much of this was done earlier this year correct? guest: it started and february and march. they asked is the supreme -- they asked the supreme court to step in and the supreme court declined to do that but they agreed to take up the case and weigh in on the validity of this theory. host: why do we hear some people in the media write about this independent state legislature theory as a fringe theory, critics say, and why do supporters say it is an integral part of the whole process? guest: they point to the text of the constitution and there are two clauses. one is the elections clause in there is another one called the electors clause. the text refers to the legislature meaning the body that makes the laws. it does not mean the state supreme court or a referendum i the voters or a veto by the governor. this is a theory that the supreme court has not endorsed. back in bush versus gore then chief gusted -- chief justice william rehnquist wrote a second concurring opinion that was joined by scal

supreme court. now, supreme court is one of the only checks on the government here in israel, and they're pushing to try and be able to have the elected government override decisions made by the supreme court. that's very concerning. another thing that we've seen in these coalition agreements is that the government promised to look at is introducing at what they call a discrimination. well, that means that anybody would be able to refuse business or a fuse. pretty much anything to anyone on religious grounds. i so the l g b t q i community very concerned about that as well as other people in the community, other minorities are these, these are particularly concerning anna being same, you know, as really, right wing extreme policies. rebecca, thank you very much. our correspondent rebecca ritter's there in jerusalem, catch up on a few other stories making headlines around the world today. italy has calling on the european union to follow its lead and imposing covered 19 testing on travelers from china. milan airport is testing passengers arriving from beijing and shanghai almost half are infected. other you members say there is no need for new restrictions. indian regulators are inves

supreme court to these wealthy donors. i mean the back and forth between this group of basically wealthy activist, and supreme court justices, during moments and where the supremederek really influencing them and part of their sort of ideological crusade. shocking breach of ethics that the justices have to understand how just destructed that is to the legacy of the court. >> so it's not even that. it's not something that these people are wealthy and they have access, but for most ordinary americans, the work of the quite was incredibly inaccessible instilled a pandemic when the courts began live streaming audio of all arguments. otherwise, just go down, there it's a waiting line to get in, unless you knew the justices -- >> right. >> and they would give you the seats, no one has this kind of access to the court. the east donors did, and that is the part that is really unfortunate. for most of us, if you want to influence the courts, you write a lot rubble article about it, and hope someone reads, it and they. don't you write it and the kiss briefing you have someone reads it and you know what side it. you don't buy a building across the street from the supreme

know, you can mention well, for example, the history of the united states of america when the supreme court and the supreme courted states of america essentially perform the same functions and that we have the constitutional court of ukraine and in the conditions of the war, he was such a balancing lever in the relations between the president and the senate, for example, that is why i wanted it to really be preserved as an independent branch of government to the extent that it can be independent if this appointment is carried out directly by the verkhovna rada of ukraine in these conditions, so that it seems to me that everyone is himself can give an answer for himself well, we understand, taking into account the difficult, i would say, experience of the last years of selection for vacancies and sometimes not quite vacant positions for a constitutional judge yes a judge of the constitutional court how do you see this selection, oleksandr, three chairs will have to be filled with really cool specialists, respectively. they need to be determined and hold some kind of competition. is there any hope that this will h

say that, it's ok for a state to set up the state supreme court as the counsel of revision or that it would be ok for the supreme court, a state supreme court to simply say, the essence of our constitution is fairness. you would say that can be done. so that sound like no standard at all. mr. katyal: we're saying ordinary checks and balances, that's all you have to do here. yes, we think there are other checks that deals with those precise problems if there is in a clause that's abstract and being misinterpreted. both the state process itself as well as congress can come in and supplant that. those accusations -- this is judge griffith's brief -- are made all the time even decisions by this court. he points to stins united -- citizens united and heller's example. what he says is there's a special check here because you have congress being able to -- justice alito: i don't know why that's an answer because congress can come in anytime under any circumstances no what we say the election clause means. congress can come in and establish the manner in conducting federal elections. mr. katyal: what that causes is a distrust. what you said i

supreme court acts ahead of wednesday's deadline. >> the supreme court can choose to issue an unpublished, short, unsigned order this week on monday or tuesday that would block the lifting of title 42. the supreme court also may choose not to act at this time >> reporter: either way the white house is stressing it will continue to fully enforce immigration laws and work to expand legal pathways for migration while discouraging disorderly and unsafe migration. advocates on the ground concerned about the growing humanitarian crisis. with migrant centers overwhelmed as temperatures continue to drop >> the numbers are just simply greater than the capacity to receive them and offer them hospitalality while e we assssim to makake travelel p plans to me further into the u.s. where they may have family, relatives, friends. >> and monica alba joins me now. what is the biden administration doing to prepare for wednesday's deadline >> reporter: well, dhs is planning to surge resources to the border including personnel, transportation, and medical support. but it's unclear at this point just how vast the need will be jose >> monica alba at the white house. thank you. >>> we have breaking news out of peru w

supreme court is doing. as chairman johnson said their hearing in april, the supreme court is not even have a code of conduct. symone sanders, msnbc >> i wasn't gonna jump in in note that. there was no oversight for member years and justices on the supreme court. there is actually no one forcing. what is the enforcement mechanism? it does not exist. >> you hold tight. you're going to kick us off in the lightning round. mr. king? >> it strikes me that whether we are talking about the gutting of the voting rights act of 1965, the reality is that the voting rights act is on life support. if section two, which is eliminated, it will be there. i don't think that we are talking enough about that. number two, i think the reality is it a lot of conversation that we are having around the court now, a lot of those things are issues. they are bubbling up to the supreme court. these are things that are not new. history is unbroken continuity, as a mentor set to meet. give me historical context. as a child of the civil rights movement, do you see what is happening right now, and i have to imagine that this weighs on you and your colleagues heavily. >> first of all, there is no question. let me also think congressman johnson and jones for having all

like this will end up with a pluralistic and integrated class regardless of what the supreme court does. so the center the supreme court. class thank you so much first of all doing this to and day. i see one more round to follow up on this question which is related to the halo that's mentioned around the supreme court. i guess of the month the panel before your wonderful talk was this need for reorientation of progressive politics away from finding a way within the boundaries that the court has drawn into progressive legislation and more to viewing the court as something of a strategic adversary or actor to be engaged with in a strategic way. and i see that as something that the democratic caucus is currently there yet about but i'm interested in your progressions on ... class would you explain the difference between those two because i see that as the same thing . >> let's hope that they don't invent new rules to invalidate whatever wehave . but then the other way is strategies like jurisdiction or enact things where here's a clause saying here's something that might even less. basically strategies that c imagine the

supreme court . now, the supreme court is one of the only checks on the government here in israel, and they're pushing to try and be able to have the elected government override decisions made by the supreme court. that's very concerning. and now the thing that we've seen in these coalition agreements is that the government promises to look at is introducing at what they calling a discrimination will. that means that anybody would be able to refuse business or refuse pretty much anything to anyone on religious grounds at so the l g b, t q i community very concerned about that as well as other people in the community of the minority. so these, these are particularly concerning anna being saying, you know, as really, right wing extreme policies. rebecca, thank you very much. our correspondent rebecca ritter's there in jerusalem now to ukraine and russia has again launched large scale missile attacks on several regions across the country. the ukrainian military reported that it shot down most of the incoming russian missiles and explosive drones, but some still reached their targets. these are pictures from a key of neighbourhood that was here. at least 3 people were injured. there are explo

supreme court. now, the supreme court is one of the only checks on the government here in israel, and they are pushing to try and be able to have the elective government override decisions made by the supreme court. that's very concerning. and now the thing that we've seen in these coalition agreements is that the government promises to look at is introducing at what they calling a discrimination. well, that means that anybody would be able to refuse business or refuse pretty much anything to anyone on religious grounds at so the l g b t q i community very concerned about that as well as other people in the community on the minority. so these, these are particularly concerning anna being same as really right wing extreme policies. rebecca, thank you very much. our correspondent rebecca ritter's there in jerusalem. the vatican says the former pope benedict remains gravely ill but is stable and lucid. pope francis has called for prayers for benedict. the former pontiff is receiving round the clock hair at his home. within the vatican. benedict shocked the world in 2013 when he became the 1st pope and centuries to resign. you later chose to be called opened a meritus bennett had been presente

instances, because the court of first instance is a feeling, the final decision is the court, and the second instance has supervisory complaints, the supreme court. now the decision of the supreme, we can apply to the supreme court in order to challenge the decision of the court of first instance, if it does not suit you, we have a court. first instance. if this decision is not satisfied with the appeal, then an appeal is written and the court of second instance is already on, then the court of second instance, when everything passes, uh, that is, then the decision comes into force. let the second instance come here, but a person still has the right to appeal already this decision is called entered into legal force and go with a complaint in the order of supervision. and what do you think, how many years will it take to go through these instances. you know what hmm well it's a year, it seems to me years went by while she went through the chain of command. if you recall the cases that i have already mentioned and nothing has been decided yet. well, let's take a break for a while, i remind you, we have a telegram channel. say don't be silent. subscribe ask questions and suggest g

court of first instance is not yet final. the decision is the court, and the second instance there are supervisory appeals, the supreme court. now the decision of the supreme can apply to the supreme court in order to challenge the decision of the court of first instance, if it does not suit you, we have a court of first instance. if the appealed against this decision is not satisfactory, then an appeal is written and the court of second instance is already on, which means the court of second instance, when everything passes, uh, then, there is, and so on. the decision takes effect. let here the second instance, but a person still has the right to appeal against the decision already. it's called enforceable and go with uh, a supervisory complaint. what do you think, how many years will it take to go through these instances? you know what hmm well it's a year. it seems to me that years passed while she went through the authorities. if you recall the case that i have already mentioned and nothing has been decided yet. well , let's take a break for a while, i remind you, we have a telegram channel. say don't be silent. subscribe ask questions and suggest gues

the center for american progress discusses allegations of supreme court leaks on the broader effort to establish a code of efforts for supreme court justices. texas republican congressman august, a member of the foreign affairs and homeland security committees talks about the border security and other priorities for the 118th congress. limburg government reporter alex discusses the final report of the house elect subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis and its recommendations going forward. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> coming up tonight on c-span, the white house national security advisor updates reporters on the upcoming africa summit in washington, then we hear a discussion on the nation's response to the covid-19 pandemic from the white house covid-19 response coordinator. in later, a panelist will discuss the cdc's handling of the pandemic. quick c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including buck

of supreme court justice clarence thomas. in june, the washington post reported, virginia ginni thomas the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas pressed 29 republican states lawmakers in arizona -- 27 more than previously known -- to set aside joe biden's popular vote victory and choose presidential electors, according to emails obtained by the washington post. joining us now is barry berke, served as special counsel to the white house, so the house judiciary committee during donald trump's first impeachment trial in the senate. and chief impeachment counsel during donald trump's second impeachment trial. also with us, harry lippman, former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general. harry lippman, let me begin with you and this new revelation of suddenly, from a storage facility -- here is two more classified documents! and the oddity of the way, the handover of those documents, seems to be in conflict with the trump's lawyers arguments about the special master process. >> yeah, that's a really transit observation, lawrence. the way that it came about is very odd. so they are in the somewhat secrets pro

that it would be okay for a state tseup the state supreme court as the council of revision or that it would be oy r the supreme court -- a state supreme court simply to say the essence of our constitution is fairness, you would say that that can be done. so thasods like no standard at all. mrkatyal: again, your honor, we're saying ordinaryhes and balances, that's all you have to do here, but, yes, we think there are other chkshat deal with that, those precise problems. if there is in a clause that's abstract a bng misinterpreted, both the state procesitlf as well as congress can come in and sula that. you know, those accusaon-- this is judge griffith's brief -- are made all the time about even decisions by thicot. he points to citizens united and heller as examples. what he sa ithere's a special check here because you haveoness being able to come in. justice alito: i don't know what that is an answer, because congress can come in anytime, under any circumstances, no matter what we say the elections ause means. congress can always come in and establish the manner of conducting conesonal elections. mr. katyal: but what this court said i

competition of the lawsuit of the ex-deputy chairman of the supreme court, the holder of a russian passport, bohdan lviv, against the supreme court judge yevgeny abv is considered according to the auto-distribution of cases. ablov was elected on the second attempt. he is known for his scandalous court decisions regarding the activists of the maidan, the so-called avakov backpacks, and the delay in the case regarding the presidency of yanukovych . we remind the court administration that the owner of a russian passport, bohdan lviv, demands reinstatement as a judge and the recovery of his earnings for the period of forced absenteeism. in the donetsk region, unknown persons shot the so-called judge of the self-proclaimed supreme court of the dpr , oleksandr nikulin, he is in serious condition during the life of a collaborator. he received a gunshot wound. local doctors are fighting for a position in the supreme court of the terrorist dpr . issued death sentences to three foreigners who defended ukraine as part of the armed forces and were captured in mariupol, they were returned during the september exchange of prisoners one of the

of san francisco to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. that ignited the fight across the nation. in 2008, the california supreme court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage. the u.s. supreme court following suit in 2015. now, passage of today's legislation comes amid fears that the current supreme court, which has a conservative majority, might revisit the right to same-sex marriage after it overturned roe v. wade. bay area couples say the new bill offers a bit of relief for same-sex couples. >> oh, it's a huge victory. i mean, it's like groundbreaking, you know. it's like everything that i've ever wanted, you know, in my life. >> joining us now is a constitutional law professor at u.c. davis. professor, nice to have you back on the program. can you explain what this exactly means today for same-sex marriages? >> sure. what congress did is it passed a law that said that states are obliged to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. as a result, if the supreme court overturns the obergefell case that authorized same-sex marriage throughout the country, that will still protect it across the country. if one state bans it, the couple can go to another state that authorizes i

supreme court to affirm what they are seeking, they're going to be over ruling a state supreme court interpreting its own state constitution which never happens. >> and the association of state supreme court justices weighed in on your side of this, opposing it but not your specific state supreme court chief justice in north carolina. he didn't join it. >> well, it came from the association. i don't know he embraced the argument made by the association. >> you don't know why? >> well, he was in the decent on the state supreme court decision that said our state constitution proscribes partisan dperr gerrymandering. our state constitution has words that are not in the federal constitution like free elections and popular sovereignty, which means that all political power rests with the people and the people only, not the politicians and the general assembly who are trying to draw lines to dictate the outcome of an election. the people should be choosing who represents them in washington, the politicians in our general assembly should not. >> north carolina attorney general, thanks for being here. appreciate it. >>> coming up, dozens are arrested in a coup plot, thankfully not here in th

supreme court to the we will -- wealthy donors. the back and forth of the activists and supreme court justices during moments in which the supreme courting cases that directly influence them and are part of their sort of ideological crusade, i mean, it just such a shocking breech of ethics that the justices have to understand how just destructive that is to the legacy of the court. >> it's not even that. it's not simply that the people are wealthy and access, but for most ordinary americans, the work of the court was incredibly inaccessible until the pandemic when the court began live streaming audio of oral arguments. otherwise, you had to go down there, wait in line to get in. unless you knew the justices. no one has this kind of access to the court. but these donors did. and that is the part that is really unfortunate. for most of us, if you want to influence the court, you write a law review article and hope that someone reads it and they don't. you write a brief and hope that someone reads it and wants to cite it. you don't buy a building across the street from the supreme court which is what this reverend did. he raised over $30

the competition, the lawsuit of the ex-deputy chairman of the supreme court, the owners of the russian passport of bohdan lviv against the supreme court is considered by the scandalous judge of oask, yevgeny abv , according to the auto-distribution of cases, abbul was elected on the second attempt. he is known for a number of scandalous court decisions regarding the activists of the maidan, the so-called avakov backpacks, and delaying the case regarding yanukovych's presidency, also by ablovier-figure of the wolf film, which testifies to the corruption of vaazka and the state judicial administration, we remind the holder of a russian passport, bohdan lviv, demands reinstatement as a judge and the recovery of his earnings for the period of forced absenteeism in uglehirsk, donetsk region, unknown people shot the so-called judge of the self-proclaimed supreme court of the dpr oleksandr nikulin, he is in in serious condition for the life of a collaborator who received a gunshot wound, local doctors are fighting for a position in the taxed supreme court the terrorist dpr was appointed as an adviser in september. and in june, nikulin was th

of supreme court justices themselves. >> congressman, he makes it sound like a bad thing. i, for one, would be happy to see the tax returns of supreme court -- top supreme court justices, thomas clarence and others. -- >> supreme court justices should be public. i think that's in the public interest. but put that aside for a second. his main claim that, suddenly now, every feature ways and means committee is going to be able, on a whim, to get the tax returns of political enemies and release them -- there was a crocodile tears. remember, it took us four years in the courts to be able to do this. ultimately, a republican dominated supreme court found in our favor. and the reason why they found in our favor is because we were able to demonstrate that we had a legitimate legislative purpose in this pursuit. so, the idea that anyone of either party moving forward will be able to, on a whim, for political reasons, get tax returns of an ordinary citizen or release, them it's just not so. >> one last question for you, congressman. and i plan to ask this question all night long to all of my guests. but let me start with you. because we just menti

of work. you can see for yourself there is no instance above the supreme court in russia the centenary of the supreme courtfederation or with closed eyes the premiere of a documentary on sunday after midnight on the russia channel a man has two children, let him adapt, beloved women, like doctors, but my brother is waiting for you, sister. pavlova in half an hour, like netherese on the train. now it's even bigger guess who oh who is it? hello beautiful. artificial respiration, because you are a doctor to deliver. hello andrey saturday 18:00 on the channel, russia i will answer the agenda, where were you going? at the place of registration maybe she has some relatives? do you have any phones? maybe she's sick? i don’t know your father during the life of her somehow not very well. well, we've seen each other a few times. i wouldn't even eat. yes, my wife insists. well, then, in the end, he does not live in an apartment. well, what, we kindly offered to change? take it out to her, the investigator has something there. wrote waved, and now she's in the black, and we're sitting and nyutina. you beat me until my

courts. the reason biden wins pennsylvania is because you had smart justices of the pennsylvania supreme court and they tried to go to districts to make sure they did have statewide elections. we have federally opponent supreme court. or justices are elected. when we talk about electoral politics, we rarely talk about judges who are running. we have to educate our people to understand you can't just yell expand the court if you won't even vote for who is in your state. so the state court matter and that is where democrats have not paid attention. democrats could right now take control of the wisconsin state supreme court if they take control of the wisconsin state court they could follow -- file a gerrymandering suit now determine gerrymandering to be illegal which will change the composition of the legislature and if it goes to state to state to state, it is multipronged. we have to get folks centered realize that the state court you could control some of those and change the clinical dynamics where you live. >> i am talking about giving people hope and i want to find some hope. >> i am giving hope. >> the reality is, with the decision that overturned roe v. wade and set the issue back to the states, i think it i

appellate cases including supreme court cases, and you argue cases in front of the supreme court and occasionally in other appellate courts, but not usually. mostly, you go up to the supreme court once a month to argue the most important case the united states is interested in. it is quite an extraordinary job. i did it only for a small amount of time before president obama put me on the court. a little more than one entire supreme court term, but was a fantastic job. it is funny that chief justice rehnquist said that. i clerked for chief justice marshall as they said and justice marshall was one of my predecessors as solicitor general. if you had asked justice marshall what was his best job in law, remember, this is a person not only a supreme court justice, but the head of the legal defense fund and that rule --role has reshaped all of american society, but if you asked justice marshall what was his best job in law, he would say being solicitor general. this idea, for him, just a special meaning and residence, -- residents. --resonance. the idea of a black man walking up to a podium saying, i'm here to represent the united states, when in his prior legal career, he was

mine are once again concerned that an activist, out of step supreme court is going to take those rights away. and just so we are clear, that supreme court and the members in opposition of this legislation today, are out of step with the american people. today i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the respect for marriage act. a bill that takes the wrong standing overdue step of repealing doma and ensures same section and interracial marriage is recognized in every state. we made progress. let's not go back. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i would first say that the previous speaker talked about being out of step with the american people. are you kidding me? the democrats are the party think men can use women's rest rooms. boys can participate in girls' sports. democrats are the party that think you can take the life of a child up to their birthday. saw she thought men could get pregnant. we are the ones who are out of step with -- you got to be kidding me. i would yield