supreme court. i was also heartened to learn from justice kagan's recent testimony that the supreme court may also be discussing whether to adopt a code of ethics on its own. this would be a welcomed development and i hope that this hearing and the shove support for my bill will encourage this discussion to continue in earnest. i would like to turn to the second principle framing today's hearing. that no one can be a judge of their own case. everyone understands this. that's why people find it so troubling that when a potential conflict of interest arises, each justice decides for him or herself whether or not to be recused from a case without anyone else reviewing their decision. the same basic concern rises when people learn when they think a lower court judge is too biassed to fairly decide their case, that same judge is the one who decides whether he or she needs to step aside. the fact that judges don't normally explain these decisions doesn't make things any better. i think it's clear that the

for example, noted supreme court analyst alexandria ocasio-cortez recently observed that the supreme court and i quote has gotten things horrifying wrong in the past. a sentiment that i'm sure we all share, although we might disagree with her on some of the details. now ironically her solution to this problem is itself a throwback to the past. she urges that we pack the supreme court. again, in the abstract that's not necessarily a terrible idea. but the devil is in the details. not to be outdone would-be president elizabeth warren has also urged packing the court which she assures us would be a means of quote, depoliticizing the supreme court. wrap your mind around that one if you can. maybe aoc can explain it for us. well, i could go on but fortunately we have with us yet another noted supreme court analyst whose views may differ slightly from those i just mentioned. today's speaker, miguel estrada is no stranger to this podium having delivered the annual supreme court roundup to acclaims. his resume is filled with remarkable achievements so i'll mention a few highlights. after gra

the supreme court also has a band of lawyers that work for the supreme court as a court. that manage some of its business as well. the motions that come in over the summer for example. i think the relationship -- i did krerk for a federal court judge, a lower court judge, the relationship between the clerks and the judge or justice is very personal. at least at the lower court level. some judges would actually ask clerks for insight and their thoughts and views how to come out on a case. other judges might say, this is how i want it to km out. write the opinion, for example. and i can't speak on the supreme court. but at either extreme the clerks are really important, because if the clerk is putting pen to paper on behalf of the justice, which happens sometimes, how those words are framed can have a tremendous influence on many, many cases later than that because as i said earlier, because there are so few case that is go to the supreme court and because the supreme court is the entity, not congress, that tells us what the constitution means, when a court issues a decisio

the supreme court thought this was hunky-dory. the supreme court took the case.unanimously flipped the. it is indeed incorporated. there you have it. the justice concurred separately to say that under his feud, all of the business should happened on the immunity clause. they concur separately to say in his view, it did not matter a hill of beans. it is a six amendment case. or at least what he understands it. we start the story with roe versus ortega in 19 years ago. you otherwise have pursued. you do not have to face or to win the ability to demonstrate under strict. you do not have to demonstrate it. you lost the appeal because jetliner was incompetent. that is why. they have several crimes. he gets specified since his. the judge gives him exactly the sentence he bargains for. 's sissy waives all the right to take any appeal. you got exactly what he bargained for. returns to his lawyer and says file an appeal. the lawyer having just landed from mars or perhaps attending the expo. if you understand how this works, he would be in breach of the plea agreement. he

say aboutl i want to the constitution and the supreme court is the supreme court is supposed to make rulings on the constitution and protect the rights of every citizen in the u.s. since mr. trump been in there, and mr. mcconnell, it seems we are going backwards in this country. there are a lot of laws that got past two protect the rights of everybody -- to protect the rights of everybody, gaze, black people, white people. court, go back to what you're supposed to be doing and protect the rights of everyone, not of the few. that is my only comment. maryland,, ashton, republican line. mr. trudeau: good morning -- >> good morning. people say that a woman that has a right to choose, should finish the sentence. choose why? -- what? killing a baby? anyone that consents to sex, should bear the responsibility of a possibility of a child. if they are able to enjoy , andelves and have sex killing the baby is -- we will continue the conversation about the supreme court taking a look at the key decisions of the last term and looking ahead, what might be ahead in the upcoming term in the fall of

the supreme court also has a band of lawyers that work for the supreme court as a court. it manages some of its business. the motions that come in. -- i did click for a federal judge, it was a lower court judge. the relationship between the clerks or the judge and the justice is very personal. in my experience, some judges actually would ask their clerks for insight and their thoughts and views on the case. other judges might say, this is how i want to come out, write the opinion. on the supreme court, but at either extreme, the clerks are really important. pen toclerk is putting paper on behalf of the justice, which happens sometimes, how those words are framed can have a tremendous influence on many cases later. a as i said earlier, because there are so few cases that go to the supreme court, and because supreme court is the entity that tells us what the constitution means, when a court issues a decision on one case, those become precious. lawyers carefully look at them and try to discern them in the next case and so on. if a clerk is the person that phrase, that could

we get this issue with the supreme court cannot fix it and also it's difficult for the supreme court fix. if you know that is good to be a democratic district, the election is decided in the primaries and you will get the most extreme views on both sides. we just get wildly conservative and wildly liberal people, they go into the legislator and can't work together. i think it really has a series of deeply problematic effects. on that happy note, let's transition into another incredibly important power, the -- part of the supreme court's docket, it has enormous role in how -- in capital punishment in the united states. in talking about those cases and cases about a legacy for justice kennedy was whether and to what extent people who have mental illness and mental incapacity are eligible for the death penalty and also, the recurring concerned with methods of execution. >> i always start on a happy note talking about the death penalty. also an ohioan and continue representing. i think starting on separate notes from the past term would be talking about one of the court opinion's was mad

the supreme court says that is ok. that is an example where the president is dipping her toe or his tow into the sandbox, because congress gave it away in the statute. here, agency, make laws for me. expertise, i have to get reelected, i do not want this political hot potato, whatever the reason. and this gets very thorny and complicated. in the book, i lay out ways of , because the question is so good. newput your finger on the ones of the constitution. students in law school will get very frustrated when they do not get an answer. no one will pay you a bunch of money as a lawyer if the answer is on wikipedia. it is hard. the book does what you are suggesting. it walks through the three enumerated powers and explains what the plain language me and some of where the wiggle room is, how to fill in those blanks muscle i am glad you put your finger on that particular question, and i cannot call if there was a second one that you wanted answered or not host: chapter five, religion and the first amendment, chapter seven, gu

federal agencies to turn over citizenship documents and data to the commerce department after the supreme court recently ruled against the administration's efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. the president spoke about his latest action from the white house rose garden alongside attorney general william barr and commerce secretary wilbur ross. >>> thank you very much, everyone. are you a citizen of the united states of america? oh, gee, i'm sorry, i just can't answer that question, and that's after spending billions and billions of dollars. there used to be a time when you could answer questions like that very easily. there used to be a time when you could proudly declare i am a citizen of the united states. now they're trying to erase the very existence of a very important word and a very important thing, citizenship. they're even coming after the pledge of allegiance in minnesota. i'm proud to be a citizen. you're proud to be a citizen. the only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word citizen. today i'm her

at 12:30 p.m., the federal society hosts a review of the supreme court's term. friday, the house plans to vote on whether to reauthorize the 9/11 victim compensation fund. the fund was created to provide financial support to people suffering from medical issues as a result of the 2000 one terrorist attacks. the legislation would extend funding through 2090. legislative debate gets underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern. also, house majority leader steny hoyer and speaker nancy pelosi announce the house will criminalvote on a contempt of congress resolution for attorney general william barr and commerce secretary wilbur ross regarding the census citizenship question. you can follow the final votes live on c-span. former vice president joe biden outlined his foreign-policy agenda at a campaign speech in new york city. he criticized the trump administration's foreign policy regarding the muslim ban, family separation at the border, and international agreements on climate change. he spoke about threats posed by china and russia. from the city university of new york graduate

i really wanted to talk about the supreme court. johnson truly put forward a plan to increase the size of the supreme court to at least i think the number of circuits. how we end up doing it over several administrations. that would make each supreme court vacancy less of a threat to either side and take some heat away. why is no one looking at this? guest: i think people are looking at these plans. it takes a long time for this sort of thing to happen. the point about doing it over several administrations, because you can't immediately do it, but i think it will take decades, probably, to get real structural changes. it is because the court has become so important as the decider of our political disputes. the court handles a bunch of cases no one pays attention two that our business cases. they do those fine. it is the big ones that they are polarized on. host: amy, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a 48-year-old african-american woman. in the 1960'smade and the 1970's, i think that the court that we have now and wha

as the supreme court recognized, it would be perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the united states. and it's entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and noncitizens there are in the united states. in fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions relating to citizenship ever since the 1820s, but while the supreme court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the commerce department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 census. because as the supreme court recognized, the defect in the commerce department's decision was curable with a better record, the president asked me to work with secretary ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. i did so. in my view the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the

the supreme court said -- the supreme court said in a number of severability decisions, that you must uphold. congress did no what had been aware. nfib. it was congress said we are going to zero out the penalty. you just did something unconstitutional because you left in place the individual mandate but you put the tax at zero. you distance having unconstitutional. but the other way -- but there is another way to read it. the other ways to read what the supreme court said. he said you have not done anything constant -- unconstitutional. you made the tax zero. everybody agrees congress has the power to do that. that simply means the choice that chief justice roberts made clear to all of us is there. i know texas is unhappy with what chief justice roberts did. they wish he had done something different. but he did. and that is the majority of the supreme court. and that was binding. and that is binding on the district court. judge elrod: if you don't believe that the statute changed . its changes have made that not a possible reading anymore. mr. letter: that is not correct your honor. b

all of these cases in the supreme court start in lower courts. host: if you look at the recently completed term and do a scoresheet in your head, you think about who came out on top of federal regulations versus state interests, what would you say? guest: given the court decision in gundy, the case about the nondelegation doctrine where a number of members support reconsidering long-standing supreme court precedent allowing congress to confer authority on federal agencies as long as they have an intelligible principle to guide these. when you disses her -- when you consider that decision and the decision john talked about, there is real reason to be worried about what a majority of the court is willing to do in terms of federal regulation. i think that is critically important, because the federal government, federal agencies play a critical role in enforcing laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and water to drink, to ensure consumers are protected, ensure that we are safe and healthy in our work isis. what we have seen over the past seve

electric grid. 12:30 p.m., the federal society hosts a review of the supreme court's term. friday, the house plans to vote on whether to reauthorize the 9-11 victim compensation fund. the fund was created to provide financial support for people suffering medical issues as a result of the 2001 terrorist attacks. the legislation would extend 19. ing through 20 the house speaker announced the house will vote tuesday on a criminal contempt of congress resolution for attorney general william barr and commerce secretary wilbur ross regarding the census citizenship question. you can follow the floor debate and final vote live here on c-span. former vice president joe biden

e "that's what the supreme court said. of course, i'm sure everyone in this room agrees with those sentiments. i stated it before, mr. chairman, myself. of course, we all agree discriminatory treatment is abhorrent. it's prohibited by the constitution as it should be. it's prohibited by federal statute as it should be. regarding discriminatory treatment in voting that's based on race, section 3 of voting rights action, permanent federal statutory law, remains in place and full effect as it should be. several years ago, for example, u.s. district judge lee rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required the city of pasadena, texas, to be monitored by the justice department because it had intentionally changed its city council districts to decrease influence by citizens of hispanic descent. the city which the court ruled has a, quote, long history of discrimination against minorities, unquote, was required to have their future future changing rules preclaired by the department of justice the next six years,

you have known five supreme court chief justices of the supreme court. looking back, who is the most influential person in the court in this century? not this century, but since the 1900s. justice stevens: john roberts. he is by far the best chief justice. >> say it again? justice stevens: john roberts. >> that is a surprising answer for body you don't agree with. justice stevens: i don't, but he is a very fine man. you cannot help but like and admire him. 100% in his corner. >> you are both midwesterners. indiana, illinois. justice stevens: notre dame. >> notre dame mafia. other than the fact he is a likable guy, why is he effective as chief justice? justice stevens: he is a very efficient chief executive. he handles all matters that come to that office and require attention. he does a very good job. >> were you ever tempted to go back and contact your colleagues and give them your two cents on what is going on? justice stevens: yes. [laughter] i'm tempted, but i don't do it. >> that's great. justice stevens, it has been a pleasure talking to you. you a

you've known five supreme court chiefs -- justices of the supreme court. who would you think is the most courtntial person in the in this century? since the 1900s? hon. stevens: john roberts. the best chief justice of the court has had. really? that is a surprising answer. for someone you do not agree with. hon. stevens:hon. stevens: he is a very fine man. you can't help but like and admire him. 100% in his corner. frank: you are both midwesterners. indiana, illinois. hon. stevens: notre dame. frank: other than the fact that he is a likable guy, why is he effective as chief justice? efficientns: a very chief executive. handles all the matters that come to that office that require attention. he does a very good job. frank: you've attempted to go back and contact colleagues and give consent on what's going on? hon. stevens: yes. [laughter] hon. stevens: i'm tempted but i don't do it. frank:frank: it has been a pleasure talking to you today. you are a treasure of the united states of america and we thank you for your service. hon. stevens: you are very nice.

every solicitor general goes to the supreme court, for example -- >> sure. >> -- and says, hey, supremewe won this case in the lower courts. we're actually wrong. we should have lost it. the interests of justice require us to -- require you to rule against us. that's the kind of credibility i'm talking about, which has been built since 1870 over generations, and the president is just literally torching that right now and saying, all of these representations that were made, even the very fact the supreme court heard the case because of this june 30th deadline, oh, that, no, disregard that. and that's why i think you see all these lawyers from the justice department. i've gotten calls all day from justice department lawyers. >> really? >> who are saying, this is horrible. please, you know, help us, you know. that's a pretty sad state of affairs. >> you've heard from multiple career justice department lawyers -- currently serving the trump administration -- calling you, you said, quote, horrible? >> yes. i don't remember the exact words, but the effect of it is horrible. and unprecedented.

looking back on-- you've known five supreme court chiefs, justices of the supreme court.looking bag back further on, how would you think is the most influential person in this court in the last century. >> john roberts. he's by far the best chief justice the court had. i don't agree with all the-- >> i'm sorry, say it again? >> john roberts. >> the current-- >> yeah. >> that's a surprising answer for somebody you don't agree with a lot. >> i don't, but he's a very fine man. you can't help, but like him and admire him. 100% in his corner. >> really? that's interesting. you're best midwesterners. >> yesments indiana, illinois and-- >> notre dame. >> there you go, the mafia, notre dame mafia. other than that he's a likeable guy, why is he effective as a chief justice? >> well, he's a very efficient chief executive and handles all the matters that come to that office and then require attention. he does a very good job. >> r you ever tempted to go back to your colleagues and give them your two cents on what's going on? >> yes. [laughter] >> i'm tempted, but i don't do it. >> w

>> well, no, again, back to the supreme court decision itself.crystal clear, you know, to any lawyer looking at it that there's a world of difference between this question has serious problems or it's invalid versus you stated the wrong justification and it was crystal clear that there were other justifications that would back it up and make it viable. that's what bill barr was saying. you know, again, it's like, you know, real quick, when they went for trump's tax returns they said with a straight face we're conducting oversight on presidential returns and of course, that was sort of a laughable rationale. so here, by analogy, a little bit, they're saying don't tell us you are going to be litigating vote rights cases. come on. david: by the way, trying to figure out what underlying intent is, is a very difficult thing. even chief justice roberts said decisions are routinely informed by unstated considerations of politics. so he admitted that you can never really get into the mind of the people who make these things. >> so by the year 2023 and 40

that is not what the supreme court said. they didn't say anything as far as majority is concerned or nefarious motives. they said the particular rationale put forward reason.the real they didn't say it was a bad reason. they said it was a good reason, but not the real reason. it happens all of the time where epa, federal energy regulatory , the exchange commission have the rules struck down because of administrative deficiencies. the entire administrative state would come to a halt. if you try something badly the first time, and you cannot fix it. it doesn't work like this. it doesn't work as a philosophical matter about what you should do, and it doesn't work like this as a matter of law. host: david rivkin, constitutional lawyer and other law here in washington, d.c., a longtime person of washington as far as working in the administration, served as the deputy director of policy to 1989.nt from 1981 lee is from the democrats line. georgia. good morning. caller: be honest with the people. man who put in that book was hired

him on the supreme court. so, this was the beginning of the famous list for trump. the idea of putting forward some names to reassure conservatives. conservatives were really worried but trump. been a democrat in new york, contributed to plant parentedhood, his sister was federal judge in the new jersey-pennsylvania district had ruled on some abortion rights issues that were -- so cruz was running around, spreading the idea that trump was going to either appoint his sister, who is proabortion, or somebody like his sister and he was using this pretty well in south carolina. so trump and mcgahn are trying in figure out a way to stop this and one way to stop it was to start throwing out names of conservatives. trump, because after his sister being there he kind of got the federal judiciary and get a little more than he got other parts of the government. trust me. at that point. he didn't understand it perfectly. i have a quote from him talking about the bills his sister had signed as judge. so that didn't happen.

supreme court. yesterday he threatened to defy the supreme court and today he just surrendered to the supreme court, 24 hours later, right after the threat. we'll be joined by a lawyer who forced donald trump to surrender to the court today, neal katyal, later in this hour. and there's a very important lesson in today's surrender for what will happen the next time a new president is sworn in and donald trump is forced to leave the white house. there are actually people who are gaining more and more currency with the belief that that won't happen, that donald trump simply will not accept the inauguration of another president, especially after the president tweeted a video suggesting that he was going to stay president forever. but of course donald trump will surrender the white house because he always surrenders to the stronger power. as he did today. we will see that lesson at the end of this hour, the lesson of donald trump once again surrendering, the thing he does more than anything else. >>> in

you have had a seat on the supreme court since its foundation ten years ago.is something new in the british constitution, do you think it is made a difference? it's made a bit of a difference. there was of course always a top court for the whole united kingdom, but we used to be a committee of the house of lords. and then in 2009 we became this brand—new institution, the supreme court of the united kingdom. so we moved out of the houses of parliament, across the square, into the old middlesex guildhall where we have a very beautiful, open, transparent, accessible building where we do the same job that we did before. and that is interesting. that creation of a sort of clear, blue water between you and parliament. do you think it has changed the public perception of the uk's most senior court, the top of the pyramid, if you like? i don't know whether it's changed the public‘s perception of us, it's certainly means the public are more aware of us because they can watch what we're doing, they can wander in off the square, you know, people do. you were — you judges

that is not what the supreme court said. they didn't say anything as far as majority is concerned or nefarious motives. they said the particular rationale put forward was not the real reason. put forth by the secretary of commerce, compliance with the voting rights act. they didn't say it was a bad reason. they said it was a good reason, but not the real reason. it happens all of the time where epa, federal energy regulatory commission, the exchange commission have the rules struck down because of administrative deficiencies. under the colors logic the , entire administrative state would come to a halt. if you try something badly the first time, and you cannot fix it. it doesn't work like this. it doesn't work as a philosophical matter about what you should do, and it doesn't work like this as a matter of law. host: david rivkin, constitutional lawyer and other law here in washington, d.c., a longtime person of washington as far as working in the administration, served as the deputy director of policy development from 1981 t

with him one saw the supreme court at its best, which is the supreme court rising above predictable political partisanship, predictable political sides and standing for the majesty of the law. and one could go on and on in different fields of law, but his influence on the law tremendously consequential. gay rights, abortion, free speech on the internet, just on and on and on. he had a -- such a profound impact in his 35 years. >> i know that -- sorry, go ahead, sir. >> i'm sorry. i was just going to say, as great as he was as a justice, he was truly a very special man. he was kind and gentle. and let me just give you one example. and, you know, for his powerful legal insight and his intellect, he was the most unassuming guy and he would love to tell the story of when he first moved to washington when he came on the supreme court. he was doing the things that you do when you move to a new city. he was opening a bank account and that kind of thing. and he's filling out the bank application and there is a space for occupation, and he puts down justice and the bank official kind of shrugs and say

i wonder if you're concerned that given the conservative majority in the supreme court, that the supreme court will derail or sideline or even prevent legislative measures like the ones you've mentioned here. >> so i am. one of the reasons that i voted against brett cavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court is very likely holds a radical view of the second amendment. we can get into a long discussion about what the second amendment is really about, but there's no doubt in my mind that even if it does allow for the private right of gun ownership, it allows for congress to regulate that right. but kavanaugh and gorsuch and perhaps others may interpret the second amendment moving forward as to allow zero regulation or restriction from congress or state legislatures, allowing private citizens, even criminals, to obtain any kind of weapon that they want and that, i think, would be an abandonment of the founding fathers' understanding of government intervention on the question of second amendment rights, but it would make our country an even more dangerous place than it is today. i am very w

the supreme court struck this down. it ruled that it was illegal to try to put this question on the 2020 census. and what reason they try to contrive now, i don't think it will make any difference. >> part of the strikedown of the supreme court, the whole case was basically you were arguing that the administration lied about why it was trying to put the question on, that it was misrepresenting it. it misrepresented it before the court and congress, and basically they'd they did so it egregiously that two different courts and the supreme court said you're lying and that's against the law. justice roberts said come back with maybe another reason. they basically nod to furnishing another rationale. it seems to give away the game that there are some people who are going to invent some other reason? >> that's what they seem to suggest that they may try to do here. but i want to make clear what chief justice roberts' opinion for the court said. it said the administration's reason for adding a citizenship question to the censu

it's a reminder of how important the supreme court is. it shows how important the lower courts as our -- our is well. >> if you had a look at the recently completed form -- term and think about who came out on top in terms of federal regulations versus state interests, what would you say? >> given the court decision about the nondelegation doctrine where a number of members of the court signaled that they are willing to reconsider long-standing supreme court president that allows congress to confer authority on federal agencies as long as they have an intelligible principle to guide the agencies. decision,onsider that the signals that many justices sent. there's real reason to be worried about them -- what the majority of the court is willing to do in terms of federal regulation. that's critically important. , federalal government agencies play a critically important role in enforcing laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and water to drink to ensure that consumers are protected, to ensure that we are safe and healthy in our workp

evaluating this fight, it went obviously to the supreme court.seemed to back down and the president tweeted and said, no, that was fake news. you have the attorney general come out and say, oh, no, it's going to happen in some different way. so i think in many ways, he wins, even though there is a bit of a capitulation here with the method of doing this. >> and an administration that is marked by and characterized by chaos. and policy by tweet. this is about as chaotic as i can remember. the whiplash of, they're going to have this citizenship question, never mind, they're going to go to print without the citizenship question. then, oops, conservative media is telling the president that he was a coward and he backed down and so the president directs the justice officials to, the day before fourth of july, to go back to a judge and say, i've got to figure this out, because the president told me to in a tweet, and then it turns out that that's not even possible to do. the back and forth, back and forth on something that is so fundamental because the

that doesn't come down to five votes on the supreme court. so for example during the garland denomination we could talk about his record that they wanted to proceed to a vote if those that have not been confirmed totally that regular way but with the kavanaugh confirmation to have the name smeared that is something that should be taken off the table for both sides. >> we have a story of merit garland worried he would be subject to some of these personal character attacks and they talked about how it was handled or considered but he did not receive personal attacks of that nature and was told you don't have to worry about that at all. they will not do that. there are consequences how you fight and republicans did take some consequences how they fought the garland situation but also with justice gorsuch there was a little bit of character assassination it did not go well and they left that filibuster but. >> so keep the personal attacks out but basically isn't there a situation now where it is almost entirely political the president makes the n

arrives at the supreme court 9:15. arrives at the supreme court 9:15. at 10:30, he will lie in repose and the public is invited to pay their respects. watch coverage on c-span two, c-span.org, or listen with the free radio app. >> the senate devils in monday at three: -- 3:00 p.m. -- the senate gavels in monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. is expectedon vote tuesday. also tuesday, both on the house 9/11 victims compensation fund. follow the senate live on c-span two. the house plans to work on a bill to secure retirement savings. they also debate legislation border security and accountability at all levels of the homeland security department. watch the house live on c-span. >> robert>> robert mueller testo congress on wednesday about possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by president despite the near given split among all americans, there are a significant differences when you look at the partisan breakdowns regardless of americans's views on space's itself, national security came in second behind environment.rth

the supreme court said that. our committee's investigation uncovered evidence that secretary ross launched a secret campaign to add the citizenship question within days of assuming his post. we learned that secretary ross ignored warnings from experts inside and outside the census bureau. including the bureau's chief scientist that adding a citizenship question would be costly and harm the accuracy of the census. in other words, they were saying if you do this, you're not going to have an accurate census. our investigation also revealed that secretary ross spoke with attorney general sessions, steve nnon, and chris, contrary to his testimony to the congress, the commerce department conjured up the voting rights rationale to hide these interactions. this entire congress should be insulted by this. committee democrats first asked for documents from the department of commerce and department of justice when we were in the minority in april and may of 2018. both departments ignored us. when i became chairman i renewed

debate goes o going toe supreme court. this is the beginning of the famous list for trump. the idea of putting forward some names to reassure conservatives that were worried about trump at this point. he'd been a democrat in new york and contributed to planned parenthood. his sister was a federal judge in the new jersey pennsylvania district and ruled on some abortion rights issues he would either support his sister or somebody like his sister and was using this pretty well. one way to stop this was to start throwing out names of conservatives. because of his sister being there, he kind of got the federal judiciary's got a little more than he got other parts of the government, trust me, at that point. she didn't understand it perfectly though where he's talking about the bills that his sister signed as the judge, so that didn't happen. but this was. the book makes the case that this vacancy in his ability to use the listin list into some or things was crucial and probably instrumental. that's what i mean by making history.

they want to federal court after the supreme court decision and said don't worry. we are going to print the census without this question and the lawyers even the next day had all these presidential tweets said we don't know what's going on. it's a weird thing for barr to say i'm in the loop and not let his lawyers know. that's not the way to run a justice department or an organization. the problem is even if they come up with a reason that they invent, they have gone to federal court and the supreme court of the united states and said supreme court, you have to decide this by june 30th. that's our drop dead date. now it's july 8th and they are trying to add the question. it's way too late and calls into question everything this justice department has said not just in this case, but in all the cases. this is an administration that plays fast and loose with the facts and the law and now the american public and the federal courts are seeing it. chief justice roberts called president trump's reason contriv contrived. you don't see that in supreme court opinions. >> if