i have very little confidence in the supreme court. cially six --since chief justice roberts has been on the court. i don't understand how he claims integrity in his court. he can say it, but we don't see it. it started in 2010 citizens united. they took a left turn there. they've become a legislative body. they aren't a court. they have 7000 cases come in, after that number, 60, and oh, g ee, its voting rights and women's reproductive rights. that dobbs decision was drawn from the 1600s when they thought women were witches. how does that apply today? i don't understand it. with justice thomas in there, that has put a muddy appearance on the court. you earn trust, you aren't given trust. anything that is done -- look into the future, what they've chosen out of that 7000 to decide on this coming season, it doesn't look good. they can claim integrity all they want. we haven't seen it. host: that is diane out of michigan. this is howard in indiana. your next. caller: good morning. i have no confidence in the supreme court. they have shown

supreme court? releases that, it gives him credibility among establishment republicans. >> but donald trump had nothing to do with choosing the names on his list. >> that list was of course generated primarily by the federal society. >> the faed real federalist soc most powerful group in the country. every one of the conservative justices has strong ties to it. >> it was stunning. the presidential candidate would take a list of judges from the federal society and use those judges as part of a campaign. >> we'll see the president and the supreme court justice. >> the president who chose three supreme court justices. >> congratulations. >> who transformed the court for a generation outsourced crucial decisions to this man. >> he had an idea. what do you think of having me put out a list of people who i would pick from for the u.s. supreme court? i said to suggest to him names of people who would be appropriate. >> leonard leo has long been the power behind the federalist society. amassing hundreds of

>> so we'll see the president and the supreme court justice -- >> the president who chose three supremeourt justices. >> congratulations. >> who transformed the court for a generation. outsourced crucial decisions to this man. >> he had an idea. what do you think of having me put out a list of people who i would pick from for the u.s. supreme court? i set about to suggest to him names of people who would be appropriate. >> leonard leo has long been the power behind the federalist society, amassing hundreds of millions of dollars to nurture a network of conservative judges. >> $1.6 billion from just one donor. >> leo hit the jackpot earlier this year with a record-breaking donation for another conservative group he controls. >> the largest single donor contribution that's ever been reported. >> leo told the "washington post" he doesn't like to talk about money. >> i don't engage in that conversation because, one, i'm not particularly knowledgeable about a lot of it. but secondly because it's just not what i do. >> all of this is important because leonard leo, a man elected by no one, a m

and sort of a converging on the supreme court and the people on the court. and robert jackson in particular, someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general, was confirmed by the senate through roosevelt appointments to five separate jobs in a very short run of years, became my big project. and for our topic, it matters that jackson was an assistant attorney general in 1937, a principal witness defending the president's court-packing plan and then the solicitor general who argued in defense of new deal laws' constitutionality before the supreme court. so it's the jackson path that brought me into this roosevelt world ask court packing, court reform as a topic. >> jackson was also, of course, part of the nuremberg trials which we can talk about separately. so president roosevelt, give us a little bit about your background both as a reporter and as a -- of the library's collection. one of the key members of fkr's administration -- fdr's administration. >> thank you, paul. i really appreciate being on with you and john. in hi capacity, i supervise ou

supreme court.t the ballot box, my republican colleagues and their allies could never win on the merits of their deeply unpopular policy ideas. they have -- they won't step of voting rights, the environment or our need to address gun violence or the climate crisis. justice thomas told us that marriage equality, intimacy and even contraception are all within the sites of this far right 6-3, hyper-partisan majority. those who argue that republicans may do the same in the future, i would invite them to understand that that nightmare scenario is already upon us as chairman johnson said, court expansion is about unpacking the court. the court is already packed. they don't need additional partisan hacks and the majority to accomplish whatever they want. not even justice roberts has control over this majority anymore. he is no longer the swing vote. court expansion is not a novel idea. congress has change the size of the court seven times before in our nations history. after abraham lincoln was assassinate

and sort of a converging on the supreme court and the people on the court. and robert jackson in particular, someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general, was confirmed by the senate through roosevelt appointments to five separate jobs in a very short run of years, became my big project. and for our topic, it matters that jackson was an assistant attorney general in 1937, a principal witness defending the president's court-packing plan and then the solicitor general who argued in defense of new deal laws' constitutionality before the supreme court. so it's the jackson path that brought me into this roosevelt world ask court packing, court reform as a topic. >> jackson was also, of course, part of the nuremberg trials which we can talk about separately. so president roosevelt, give us a little bit about your background both as a reporter and as a -- of the library's collection. one of the key members of fkr's administration -- fdr's administration. >> thank you, paul. i really appreciate being on with you and john. in hi capacity, i supervise ou

this doesn't necessarily mean we have the right sit on supreme court cases. this is until one expires. it can be structured that they move into service court or become a senior bench in the recusal or something. they want to give it to be justices. in the meantime, it would be a vacancy that would be created. let's say every president in a four-year term got two appointments, that would be a much more regular thing. that might take some of the political venom out of this process. of course, it would take a statute. it might be challenge. it is ironic to see how the supreme court would be asked in deciding them. after we got past that he would take some number of years before we were in the new regime of orderly and less politicized supreme court opponents. it's a very hard question. >> also, when roosevelt came up with this court plan, it was immediately,, seized upon that one of the justices -- now cardoza. anyway, he was great and really popular. not because people are living longer, that age does not seem to old anymore. secondly, look at the differences be

returning to the issue of sadko of the supreme court, the court of cassation of the supreme court and mr. bohdan lviv, the thought of those people who did not vote for him today does not leave me. release, and they will somehow be checked to see if it should be done. and what does our law and our legislation say about it, uh, i am convinced that in fact, uh, although today's vote, it does not have any direct legal consequences for judges who uh, and for by law, in general, such voting is secret, so i doubt that it is possible if there are no additional confirmations about any corruption stories here, i doubt that it is possible to punish judges with legal instruments but at the same time, today's vote once again revealed the problem that we have with the supreme court, which we as members of the public have been talking about since the supreme court was formed, about the fact that a lot of unworthy judges got there and continue to make dubious decisions under pressure, following someone's instructions, and today's vote confirmed that we need to at least clean up the supreme court, and

wade on the supreme court. ted kennedy defeating the borg nomination. ted kennedy did not live to see us forced into a version of robert bork's america by the current supreme court. one justice, samuel leto, wrote the supreme court opinion overturning roe v. wade. he also in effect overturned what he told senator kennedy in a private meeting before his senate confirmation hearing. i am a believer in presidents, judge alito said in a recollection. the center recorded and had transcribed in his diary, people would find that i adhere to that. our next guest, john ferrell, had access to senator kennedy's diary for his new biography of ted kennedy. in a new york times article published today, he reveals ted kennedy's private account of what judge alito told him. i believe that there is a right to privacy, i think it is settled as part of the liberty clause of the 14th amendment and the fifth amendment. mr. kennedy quoted him as saying that. mr. kennedy continue this recollection of judge alito's words. so i recogniz

that's what we really need is for that to change versus the supreme court. : are you saying -- the court as far as its job, you expect them to make these decisions, do they do this on a consistent basis? caller: i think they do it on a pretty consistent basis and it changes when a new judge comes in. they all try to work together to interpret the constitution and the laws as written and if congress doesn't like a decision, they need to go and try to figure out what's the right way to write the law so it's more clear so the supreme court can judge on what they need to do. we vote them in to make the laws in congress. host: do you think society changes the actions of the port and the work should change as well? caller: i don't think the court can change how they judge and the supreme court is doing with the laws are written but i think as society changes, we vote people in that work to what we want and they make laws to what we want. if we want abortion to be legal, that should be very clear in the constitution. if that's what the public really wants, we vote t

at least in certain segments of the population so the left has had its way with the supreme court for quite some time dating back to the warren court era and offer for the first time there is a subtle majority that are textual lists and originalists. if i were in his position i would feel the same weight but the supreme court is there to follow and uphold our founding document, the constitution, not to win a popularity contest. host: do you think the people will look at the court differently how the court does? guest: most people are not lawyers. it tends to devolve done to did they like the result or didn't they like the result? i suppose that is understandable for most people. that are out in the public but it is very important to uphold what is in the constitution. there are many decisions that the public it's a make themselves through their elected representatives that are not decided by the court. now the supreme court has correctly said abortion is one of those issues. guest: i would make a response which is of course we expect our judges to be independent that is a natural part

you would be justified to think of this analogy, the cases in which the supreme court decide between congress and executive branch. that what the court is doing in more versus harper --moore vs harper. as a general matter, the federal government doesn't have any authority over the state and certainly not the organization of the state governmental body. that's what they are asking in the case of moore v harper. to intercede in the separation of powers, if you will, of the state so that -- so as to limit the state supreme court authority in reviewing the state legislatures redistricting decisions. that's about as simple as i can explain it in short form. and then i would invite underscoring in particular about -- underscoring all that i have said in particular about the politics of the case, namely this is not a political case. of course, fully aware of the political ramifications, but this is a pure matter of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation. we all want to believe, and i do , but that's the supreme court will decide it. i think it will be interesting on -- interest

they are free to criticize the supreme court. if they want to say it's legitimacy is in question, they are free to do so. i don't see the connection between opinions and the legitimacy of the court. if the court doesn't retain its legitimate function, i'm not sure who would. you don't want the political branches telling you what the law is. you don't want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is. all of our opinions are open to criticism. our members do a great job criticizing. simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. host: that was chief justice john roberts, speaking about the legitimacy of the court. sometimes the courts own members do a good job of criticizing the court. this was an event, justice elena kagan spoke about the supreme court in the united states. >> there are some things the court does that protects democracy. the first amendment is one of those things. ensuring that everybody has political speech opportunities. the 14th a

as i said, i casey reaffirmed the holding in row that is the supreme court's. settled interpretation of what the court holding is and it's reaffirmance of it. all right. so let me ask you in a difficult area of the law a question the supreme court has decided on more than seven occasions. that the law cannot put a woman's health at risk it said it in row in 73 in danforth and 76 in planned parenthood in 83 in thornburg in 86 in casey in 92 in carhart in 2000 and in iota in 2006 with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed because in 2007 in carhart 2 the court essentially remove this basic constitutional right from women. now here's my question. when there are multiple precedents and a question arises. are all the previous decisions discarded or should the court reexamine all the cases on point? it somewhat difficult to answer that question because before the court in any one case, this is particular factual situation. and so how the courts precedence apply to that. unique factual situation because often what comes

as i said, i casey reaffirmed the holding in row that is the supreme court's. settled interpretation of what the court holding is and it's reaffirmance of it. all right. so let me ask you in a difficult area of the law a question the supreme court has decided on more than seven occasions. that the law cannot put a woman's health at risk it said it in row in 73 in danforth and 76 in planned parenthood in 83 in thornburg in 86 in casey in 92 in carhart in 2000 and in iota in 2006 with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed because in 2007 in carhart 2 the court essentially remove this basic constitutional right from women. now here's my question. when there are multiple precedents and a question arises. are all the previous decisions discarded or should the court reexamine all the cases on point? it somewhat difficult to answer that question because before the court in any one case, this is particular factual situation. and so how the courts precedence apply to that. unique factual situation because often what comes

a reminder that all supreme court

when clarence thomas was the only member of the supreme court to disagree with the court's decision,rump white house communications had to be handed over to the january six committee, we did not yet know that those communications could include text messages from clarence thomas's wife, then white house chief of staff mark meadows, since that decision, we had discover that virginia thomas was texting the white house urging on, any attempt to overthrow the presidential election, long after there were any legal options left for contesting that election. and early in the process, virginia thomas texted mark meadows saying, the biden climb family and a ballot fraud coconspirators -- are being arrested and detained for ballots fraud right now, and over coming days, and will be living in barges off gitmo to face military tribunals for sedition. mrs. thomas is a lawyer and she actually wrote the things. since those text, have become public, chief justice john roberts has not said one word about the obvious conflict of interest that clarence thomas has in any case involving donald trump. in f

clarence thomas is on the supreme court.re's never been one whisper of impropriety on behalf of clarence thomas. there has been a decades-long attempt to smear clarence thomas and to degrade him over time. this is a continuation of that. in regards to the approval ratings at the supreme court. they're not supposed to be reading polls. they're supposed to be reading the constitution and laws and make the decisions therein. you don't want this branch of government worried about its approval rating. you want them only worried about the law and doing the job that they were put on that court to do. the idea that they can't function unless they are waking up every day and checking a poll -- that's mob justice, that's mob rule! >> i don't think they are like teenagers checking their twitter feed. when i talk about the idea of the approval rating for the supreme court, and i agree, they are not supposed to be ruling to somebody like me. it's not like sally fields getting a award. the idea is whether or not you can operate if the pre

the solicitor general reminding the supreme court that the supreme court itself, quote, has emphasized courts should be cautious, before insisting upon an examination of records whose disclosure would jeopardize national security, event by the judge alone, in chambers. >> the solicitor general told the supreme court, that the appeals court has already fast-tracked this case for an early decision by the full appeals court -- and that makes donald trump's emergency request to the supreme court unnecessary. especially since donald trump's lawyers have told the appeals court that the case does not require fast action! and actually asked the appeals court to delay any arguments at the appeals court level, until next year. we have our team of legal experts ready to analyze today's supreme court filings. including harvard constitutional law professor professor laurence tribe, who says the filing quote, pulverizes all of trump's arguments. the new york times is reporting more details about the trump lawyer who has a criminal defense lawyer of her own, and is cooperating with the justice depart

usually you go up to the supreme court once a month to argue the most supreme important case. it is quite an extraordinary job . i did it only for a small amount of time for 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, and he was one of my predecessors as solicitor general. if you had asked justice marshall what was his best job in law, and remember, this is a person not only a supreme court justice, but the head of the legal defense fund and that rule has reshaped all of american society, but if you asked justice marshall what was the best job in law, he would say being solicitor general. for him, just a special meeting -- meaning and residence, just 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 run out of town on a rail as he traversed different courtrooms across the southern united states. it meant an enormous amount to him from that perspective

were willing to do that with the supreme court willing to hear our case. >> apparently the court was willing to hear your case and tell us what the odds are of the us supreme court hearing your case? >> the odds are extremely small that you will be heard. there are a petition with 1000, 10,000 cases every year and there were like 70 or 80 of those cases. usually we're in circuit courts ninth circuit and fourth circuit ruled on these things so that was split so they have to justify that because the cast as you can mean one thing and support. it has to support all of this so they're dealing with a larger case and from my case, we came from and on non-circuit court or district court for any large thing. it was a case and basically we were coming from the court so we didn't make it to the state supreme courtbut the odds as i said are incredibly slim . you have to have four justices agreed to take your case so at least for have to go for every aspect of the case to make sure it's worth their effort and energy to take the case to court. >> what was it like when you found out how you are go

that is the supreme court settled interpretation of what the court holding us and its reaffirm as so. >> all right. >> so let me ask you in a difficult area of the law, a question. the supreme court has decided on more than seven occasions that the law cannot put a woman's health at risk. it said it in a row in 73, in down fourth in 76, in planned parenthood in 83, in thornburg in 86, in case in 92, in carhart in 2000, and in iowa in 2006. with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed because in 2007 in car hard to the court essentially removed this basic constitutional right from women now. here's my question. when there are multiple presidents and a question arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court riyadh examine all the cases on point? >> it's somewhat difficult to answer that question because before the court in any one case is a particular factual situation. and so how the courts president applied to that unique factual situation because often what comes before the court it's something that's different tha

what are you most proud of having done and what's the pleasure of being on the supreme court? s a great privilege to be on the court. i mean, there's no doubt. and from a personal point of view, i'd say it requires you in middle age, when you get there, to give your best to this every minute. and you say, "is that a big virtue?" yeah. yeah. and the older you get, the more you see it as an enormous virtue. david: einstein famously said if you try something over and over again and expect a different result, that's the definition of insanity. so, if somebody asks you a same question over and over again expecting a different answer, i guess that's the definition of an insane interviewer, but let me ask the question you've already been asked many, many, many times. i know you're not gonna give a different answer, but i have to ask you the question. what is your thinking about all of the issues relating to your retirement? stephen: yes. david: ok. stephen: einstein was right. david: einsteiwas right. ok. so, you have said that you don't want to die on the court and presumably, nobody

supreme court clerks? does that mean calls to virginia thomas, the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas who we know from her text messages was in consummation with white house chief of staff mark meadows and her attempts to illegally overturn the election. donald trump just lost in the supreme court and he is angrily asking, why didn't we make more calls? it has been established that donald trump knows that mark meadows was in concert communication with the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas. did donald trump order mark meadows to call virginia thomas to try to interfere with the supreme court decision? did mark meadows a baseline order if he was given one? or did he defies such an order if he was given one? is this one of the many reasons why mark meadows has fought the subpoena to testify to the january 6th committee? why didn't we make more calls. about a supreme court decision! some of the most striking evidence in today's hearing was the video recorded by speaker nancy pelosi's dau

we recall franklin roosevelt's epic struggles with the supreme court. it culminated in what became known as his court packing plan. he preferred to call it judicial reform. up until that time, presidents had used the judiciary as a bit of a goalie. presidents would enact their policies with congress, and act laws. they would hope that those laws and policies would pass the monster with a judicial brown branch. harry truman turned on his head. for the first time, we had a president who was using not just the supreme court, but the federal judiciary. he took full control of the department of justice to push his policies. that is what we expect in both parties in the united states. that is what we expect from our presidents and presidential nominees. >> it seemed like it almost came out of necessity because of the state that the court wasn't at the time. can you set the stage for us? you know, go back to the end of the roosevelt administration. what was happening on the court that made this a special circumstance? >> franklin roosevelt, unlike truman's nomi

and in 2019 case, it posted five, the supreme court said they will get the federal courts are the gerrymanderinghat my viewer might use over here is that congress of the united states can pass laws, but they could be challenged at the supreme court, it is important to say that a lot of thought contort with the constitution of the united states. it is an illegal law. fix it or do something else. that's the point over here. you can't take the point away from the state constitution or the courts, to be able to say you did something wrong. >> think about the very nature of the founding documents. it rests in the ideas of checks and balances. nobody has unchecked plenary power to do whatever they want. the idea that will do with this, a state legislator, an antidote by the founders were very dubious about giving plenary power over anything, they love and reviewable, uncheck-able power. and the supreme court will then determine, without any state intercession, whether that is fine? that is just so utterly wrong, and constitutionally wrong. and historically wrong. as you say, this is an idea which was

>> yeah, watch the supreme court. section two still remains, and that deals with the whole vote dilution whether power can exercise by communities come various communities. we won a case that is a national democratic redistricting committee won a case in alabama with two trump judges, two appointed trump judges who said you know if given the size of the african-american population in alabama there should be a great opportunity for that community to elect another congressman or congressperson of their choice. and through out the maps that it been recently done by the republican dominated legislature. this happened this year. the united states supreme court said well, too close to the election. too close to the election. we will not allow that change to occur, that we draw to occur, vote on the maps that were put in place by the republican legislature which a federal court, right, two federal court actually found to be inappropriate, unconstitutional. so the votes that will happen in alabama this as a result of the supr

it's the fist time anyone's tried to go to the supreme court. about 100 classified documents separate under this review of what was seized from trump's mar-a-lago residence. the filing tries to get the supreme court to overrule and reverse that and argues there was a jurisdictional problem with the review of a special master order. this is a largely technical matter but you have the trump lawyers arguing any review of materials seized would erode public confidence in the system of justice. now, this is not the time where the supreme court could normally get involved at all, but this is not a normal case, and this is some high stakes poker the president's lawyers are playing. they could get shut down early or might crack the door in to even more review. that's what we know at this hour, but we'll keep you posted on any signs of action from the supreme court. coming up, a story we have promised you we will stay on, accountability for alex jones. stay with us. d. (man) wahoooo! (vo) you can be well-groomed. or even well-spoken. (man) ooooooo. (vo)

>> watch the supreme court.tion 2 still remains and that deals with voting dilution and whether the power will be exercised. we won the case in the redistricting committeeab in alabama with two appointed trump judges who said given that given the size of the african-american population in alabama there should be a greater opportunity for that community to elect another congressman of their choice and throughout the maps going by the republican dominated legislature. the united states supreme court said look it's too close to the election. we are not going to allow that change t to occur that redraw to occur. vote on the maps put in place by the republican legislature which a federal court, to federal courts actually felt to be inappropriate and unconstitutional. the boats will happen in alabama this year as a result the elections will take place on inappropriate maps. and here's my prediction. section 2 of the alabama case will get to the supreme court and in this radical a supreme court will do to section 2 i f

that is to use the judicial branch is often called franklin roosevelt epic struggles with the supreme court culminating in what became known as this court packing plan he the judicial reform. up until that time these the judiciary as a goal they would enact their policies with congress and active laws and hope the laws and policies would pass muster with the judicial branch. harry truman turn that on his head and for the first time he had a president who was using not just the supreme court but the federal judiciary taking full control of the department of justice to aggressively push his policies. that is so we expect them both major parties in the united states. it almost came out of necessity stately court was in at the time. i wonder if you can set the stage for us. go back to the end of the roosevelt administration. what was happening on the court that made this a special circumstance? >> on like truman nominees to the court, they are well known by many americans certain certainly anyone who suffer there with your law school. as a profound jurors in the joints and pillars of the west.

that is a real problem because the supreme court justices, it's tough to ask a supreme court justice use themselves for this reason, because unlike a lower court, you cannot put in a substitute supreme court justice, so that would mean going with eight justices instead of nine, and that's a problem because you have an even number of justices. you don't have an uneven number of justices, so you would have a split. the problem here is that ginni thomas was not just writing an article or talking to schoolchildren or just a friend of mark meadows, she actively took part in sending communications to the white house about the very subject that is being investigated. that is the difference here. it is difficult for me to see how clarence thomas does not recuse himself the next time one of these matters goes to the supreme court. >> it seems to me, as well, that she is not just posting her opinions on twitter, she is messaging people involved or had a say in the outcome of these elections, and encouraging them to act the certain way, whether it's telling the president to his chief of staff to

, clarence thomas did not recuse himself when donald trump's lawyers filed their appeal to the supreme court directly to clarence thomas. asking him to overrule the 11th circuit court of appeals that ruled in favor of the justice department by exclusion 100 classified documents seized by the fbi from donald trump's residence for examination by the special master in the case. the appeals court decision was a unanimous finding by three but judge panel that included two judges appointed by donald trump. tonight, and a 37-page brief to the supreme court, the trump lawyers said the circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the special master reporter, which authorized the review of all materials seized from president trump's residence, including documents bearing classification markings. accordingly, president trump respectfully requests -- the court vacate the courts september 21st, 2022 state order, as to the authority of the special master to review documents bearing classification markings. the trump appeal is asking the supreme court to allow a special master and the trump lawyers to review clas

earlier this evening, trump's lawyers filed an appeal to the supreme court on the ongoing court battle over his alleged mishandling of classified documents at mauler. trump undoubtedly is hoping to get a favorable ruling from the six conservative justices, three of whom trump appointed. from looking at the 100 or classified documents taken from his beach club, but they are attempting to get the review of classified documents back before the court-appointed special master which could potentially throw some fan into the gears of the investigation. despite reporting that trump's legal team is looking to soften its tone in this case, the filing today by trump's lawyers are filled with more angry screams against the department of justice. they accuse the department of, quote, feigned concern about purported classified records in order to pin some offense on trump. it is the latest in a series of aggressive and bellicose moves by trump which he's employed for a very long time to move away from scandal of legal quandaries. and it's more evidence of the mind-set of which he approaches the powe

that's not a process that the supreme court is going to look on with any sort of happiness. e mood of the country as it considers whether or not it still has confidence in the courts. this is in many ways an opportunity for the supreme court to do the right thing and fix some of the damage it's done, and i hope for all of our sakes they'll take advantage of that opportunity. >> and if they don't, joyce? >> well, if they don't, they'll make a decision that the 11th circuit didn't have the right to issue a stay in this case. they will, in essence, return the issue involving the classified documents that doj is now continuing to use in its investigation to the special master, raymond deering. it will up to him to review those documents and make determinations about whether doj can use them. ultimately trump can delay, but he can't deny doj's criminal investigation. in many ways what he's doing, and you'll have to forgive me, i've already used bench-slapped, but trump is very close to committing one of the most serious crimes that my atf special agent in charge, jim cavanaugh def

i stated that we are not going to meet with supreme court nominee. if you rewind the tape all the way back, we go back to senator chuck schumer. we had george w. bush's nominee for the court of appeals. we mentioned earlier that it is still the second most powerful court in the united states. everyone who pays attention to these things knew that if this person got onto the central court of appeals, they would end up on the supreme court unless something catastrophic happened. the darker wickets just decided that they were not going to vote. they said, well, what can they do to get a vote? the senator said at the microphone, nothing. we began to break down the process then. you just end up in a very bad place. >> what do you think about the composition of the court with these three trump appointees? are you fearful of an extreme right shift on the court? do you think it will be more reserved moved to the right? maybe not at all. >> i don't blame them. i think that president trump did his job. if there is a vacancy, you nominate someone. i would highly

supreme court? >> yes. and the supreme court ruled against bill khreupb and allowed things to go forward in the civil suit. this is so granular. this is not of that magnitude in any way at this point. it is donald trump who is just not going away. it is a large el deal even though i would never compare it. we have national security interest here. but the tapes case and paula jones/bill khreupb case are a different magnitude. >> there are skeptics i hear out there who say this court is doing whatever the hell it wants to do. >> they would be right to counter me on that. >> all right. jessica and joan, thanks to both of you. elie honig was the assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. what is trump's argument here? >> the first is procedural and jurisdictional. the ruling establishing the special master was not a final ruling, a this side or that side wins. they argue the appeal was an inter lock tore appeal, while the game is in progress essentially. he was arguing that the court of appe

in the united states supreme court had a discussion in the state supreme court declined to hear my case. i thought it was over we were done and there's only one option left and that would be to appeal to the united states up in cour. so we were willing to do that but was the court willing to hear a case, that was a question. >> you pulling the court was willing to hear your case, tell us what the odds were of the u.s. supreme court hearing your case. >> the odds are extremely small that you would be heard. their petition with 8000, 10000 cases every year and they only grant seven or eight of them. those cases have to be through the circuit courts ninth circuit and ruled differently on two differentrc things. so that's the circuit split so they have to testify that, the constitution can be one thing it california and another thing in florida. has to be the same across the board if there's any larger cases like that and from my case we came from not circuit court to district court in the standalone case and basically we were coming from the court of appeals so we didn't make it to

what are the most important cases coming out of the supreme court, especially thinking about everyday american lives? >> so interesting to hear her there. usually when a justice starts on the court, they want to sw they know what they are doing. and they ask a few questions. she actually dominated those arguments. she went on and on, and she knows she's has these conservative colleagues. what was interesting is she saw her conservative colleagues who believe in originalism. she is making an originalism argument. don't talk to me about how the maps have to be race neutral, when look at the 14th amendment, they took race into consideration. so fascinating to see her take that away. so we have these big cases coming, we've already had the section two case. another case infused with race, again this term, it has to do with affirmative action. there are two disputes. court precedent says you can take race in consideration as a factor in admissions. but now a conservative group is coming to the court saying we don't want you to take race -- you can't look at race at all, otherwise you are v

that is a real problem because the supreme court justices, it's tough to ask a supreme court justice e themselves for this reason, because unlike a lower court, you cannot put in a substitute supreme court justice, so that would mean going with eight justices instead of nine, and that's a problem because you have an even number of justices. you don't have an uneven number of justices, so you would have a split. the problem here is that ginni thomas was not just writing an article or talking to schoolchildren or just a friend of mark meadows, she actively took part in sending communications to the white house about the very subject that is being investigated. that is the difference here. it is difficult for me to see how clarence thomas does not recuse himself the next time one of these matters goes to the supreme court. >> it seems to me, as well, that she is not just posting her opinions on twitter, she is messaging people involved or had a say in the outcome of these elections, and encouraging them to act the certain way, whether it's telling the president to his chief of staff to n

i do not consider myself an expert in the supreme court, i'm a documentary filmmaker. it is surely true that he is now one of the most -- that he's a strong influence on the supreme court. and some people thought the court, i think he's perhaps the strongest influence at the moment and that's why it's important for people to see the movie and read the book and understand his politics. and we wanted it to be on pbs, we wanted a broad swath of america to see him and understand him and we want that for the book as well. >> one of the themes that came out in the book, in the interview is that justice thomas likes to take the long review. >> i think that's true. i mean, we call this "created equal", because his life is based on the way he sees the declaration of independence and core principles and how they're recognized in the constitution. and i think you can understand that if you follow his life story. i mean, you know this, i think, yourself and maybe not all of your listeners. he's born in georgia, an area off the coast of georgia. so english isn't his first language,

supreme court justice. general as the court takes up a challenge that can got the voting rights act. we'll be right back. when a cold comes on strong, knock it out with vicks dayquil severe. just one dose starts to relieve 9 of your worst cold and flu symptoms, to help take you from 9 to none. power through with vicks dayquil severe. ♪♪ at booking.com, finding perfect isn't rocket science. kitchen? sorted. hot tub, why not? and of course, puppy-friendly. we don't like to say perfect, but it's pretty perfect. booking.com, booking.yeah. woman tc: my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. doctor tc: ruby's a1c is down but it'swith rybelsus®. pretty perfect. man tc: my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. son tc: mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than the leading branded pill. anncr vo: rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. anncr vo: don't take rybelsus® if you or your family

i say 18 years are we go on to say that presidents should appoint supreme court justices a justice in the first year of his or her term and in the third year of his or her term and. that way you have new people coming on to the court, new blood coming on to the court and if you do an 18 year term, it would ultimately reduce the size of the court back down to nine. i also think we need to expand the court given. the fact that those two seats were stolen in the that the way that i describe. i think that you want to have term limits because you point people now to the supreme court at 50 or so i guess the judge in florida who a good judge might as well whatever he rendered an important decision just a little while ago she's 33 years old, right? 33 years old. never tried a case. we haven't gone that far yet in the supreme court. but you can serve on the court now for 30 years, perhaps 40 years. that's too long for somebody to be in a position of power, in an unelected position of power, to have an impact on the direction of the nation. and so i so i think, you know, just all the other rea