what did the supreme court do? the supreme court, in an 8-1 opinion invalidated the public accommodations provision of the act of 1875. what was their thinking? their thinking went as follows. first, they really focused on two constitutional provisions that might have authorized the act of 1875. they focused on the 13th amendment and 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was really the constitutional provision that they spoke about the most. what they said was as follows. listen, let's take a look at the 14th amendment. the fist section of the 14th amendment provides that no state shall deprive any person of privileges of immunities, due process, equal protection of the law. what the court focused on was, the phrase, the term, "no state," no state shall deprive any person of these rights. now, what does the civil rights act of 1875 say? the act of 1875 says that discrimination, whatever the source, discrimination with respect to places of public accommodation, racial discrimination with respect to public accommodation

supreme court. that's why it's so concerning when a justice does something prohibited by the code of ethics they don't follow and that every other judge does. that's why i was proud to introduce hr 1057 the supreme court ethics act which would require a code of ethics floor at the supreme court. i was also heartened to learn from justice eleanor kagan recent testimony that the supreme court may also be discussing whether to adopt a code of ethics on its own. this would be a welcome development and i hope that this hearing and the show support for my bill will encourage this discussion to continue in earnest. i'd 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 the case without anyone else reviewing their decision. the same basic concern arises when people

the supreme court said the supreme court the end of its opinion.i think it's a statement we are at the point that i try to make already. this case is very contemporary it is part of our law. and our ongoing struggle. listen to this. quote, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of the legislation has taken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage of the progress of his elevation, and he takes the rant of a near citizen, and ceases to be, the special, favorite of the lauded. 1883. 1883. the great mass of african- americans in 1883. in 1883 can remember bondage. slavery is close in 1883. and even then the spector african-americans seeking to be the special favorite of the laws. sound familiar? it ought to. now, there was a dissent. professor finkelman mentioned that -- suggested that john marshal harlon was the one justice who expressed a keen attentiveness to racial justice, largely correct. i wouldn't want to go overboard in celebrating justice harlon. in question and answer, maybe we can get into that a

the supreme court disagreed. yet, the district has continued to argue that it remains not bound by the second amendment. and there judges that have agreed with that position. they have embraced that position broadly and other jurisdictions as well. essentially concluding that entire cities can be deemed sensitive places. we litigated a place years ago in california that involved special restrictions, fees that california puts on the ability to engage in a firearm s transaction. they have a fee you have to pay that then they put into an account that they use to go engage in law enforcement activities against people who unlawfully use firearms. so they -- firearms. so they basically make it a condition of obtaining a firearm as a law-abiding citizen that you help pay for special cost generated by citizens who violate the law. when we challenge that provision, the district court that we started before invoking , the language of heller about laws imposing conditions on the sale of arms said that all commercial restri

as we even have on the supreme court. i could see maybe with a different administration, stephen breyer might have wanted to leave. or even ruth bader ginsburg. >> where almost out of time. what happens to the composition of the court if donald trump --ael acted in 2020, and israel acted in 2020 and republicans continue to control the senate? reelected in 2020 and republicans continue to control the senate? >> i'm a lawyer, not a doctor. >> i'm a lawyer, not a fortune teller. is 86. bader ginsburg stevens did not step down until he was 90. she said she wanted to wait to retire until she got to his age. he said stay longer. when she told that, people have applauded in the various liberal leaning audiences. justice feeling that ginsburg and justice breyer will hold on as long as they can. justice breyer turns 81 this month. i think it is not possible to predict what is going to happen. justice scalia was a relatively young man when he passed. >> >> by the standards of a supreme court justice. he was 79. >> nobody was lookin

and the supreme court is clear on that. in fact of the things the , one supreme court relied on in ruling that these kind of investigations are totally proper, it pointed out that it was a major investigation of john brown's raid on harpers ferry. why it happened, how it happened, causes, etc. again, that's clearly criminal conduct and yet, the supreme court gives that as an example as to why it's perfectly appropriate for there to be congressional investigations. investigations of whitewater, investigations of 9/11 -- congress did a massive 9/11 investigation. two subpoenason: are identical and there are some references in the records about the committees working in parallel. is there anything you could say to illuminate us about that? mr. letter: as i understand has procedures, individual committees don't issue joint subpoenas. individual committees can agree to cooperate with each other and share information, and plenty of times, they do. this is an instance where the two committee chairs recognize there was significant

impeachment of a supreme court justice could happen after the election? >> well, i mean, there are people, democrats, who say of course they would like to impeach both gorsuch and kavanaugh because they're illegitimate, and i think kavanaugh gets more attention in that area. you know, i don't see it. the process is the process. they went through the process. you might not be happy about the way it worked or the way the republicans handled it or the outcome, but it would also require a republican senate and a 67-vote majority to impeach someone. i don't with see any of those numbers in the future. but you do hear people talk about it. and i say in the book that both of those guys are going to have an it's risk, sort of a roger maris asterisk after their names because of the way they got in. people really, the democrats really think the way they got -- certainly the scalia/garland seat was stolen from them, and these things linger for years, right? if you say something to republicans about the way they've handled this, they go, well, what about bork, right?

then you are in the territory where the supreme court has said , the courts do not -- the supreme court has said for you to interfere with congress in doing its carrying out of its article one responsibilities. in addition, there is one thing the justice department does not deal with, because it's inconvenient, the justice department has had their brief , the justiceal department is not deal with the history of this country -- does not deal with the history of this country. we pointed out some illustrative examples, george washington, abraham lincoln, harry truman, they had situations where congress was being very intrusive. they wanted to know, president lincoln, how are you carrying war?he civil you are the commander-in-chief and you seem to be doing a bad job so we want to investigate how the war is being conducted. makesstorical record clear that president lincoln grumbled about this but cooperated, he talked to congress. you might say that's different and it shows voluntariness, but it's not, -- >> but i was president lincoln as president lincoln, not as a private individual. >> th

walter nixon case in the supreme court, the supreme court said the the court cannot review way congress operates, which is about its procedures. so, we wanted to remove this argument from the table, so after it was raised, congress ratified these subpoenas, the major subpoena -- the house ratified the deutsche subpoena. judge livingston: house resolution 507. on the face of it, that resolution does not satisfy their concerns because it is a resolution that purports to authorize all subpoenas so long as they involve the president and his family. mr. letter: i do not think the justice department said it did not satisfy. judge livingston: it did not provide the connective tissue of what are the subpoenas for, and and how thepurpose, rest of the subpoenas satisfy that purpose given that it is all directing subpoenas into the future. mr. letter: i am so glad you brought this up. we pointed out that it modified the subpoena -- ratified the subpoenas and the justice department does not the lie that -- deny that, but then it says you ratified others in advance. if that happens, we can litigate

supreme court justice john catrin. sort of without any context about who john catri was. he doesn't get the same kind of attention like some of his contemporaries do. it's a mistake to overlook this man. he was a critical behind the scenes player in the mid-19th century and particularly in james k. polk's life. getting to know catrin helps us to better understand how the supreme court fits into the political culture of the mid-19th century. we're lucky to have daniel walker howe here as part of this conference. in his really important book, the political culture of the american wigs, he talks about the unspoken or rarely spoken system of beliefs, attitudes, modes of operation, and especially methods of solving problems underlying american politics. this is the key to understanding political culture. now maybe you're saying to yourself, but we're about to talk about a supreme court justice. why are we talking about political culture as opposed to judicial culture. how does political culture apply here? certainly court observers and many of the justices today would have you

supreme court. the stakes are very high. amy: as the trump administration again tries to push through a rule that would effectively ban all central american migrants from seeking asylum in the u.s., we look at the latest deadly government policies targeting immigrants, from trump's plan to end a program that allows severely sick immigrants to stay in the u.s. for treatment to ongoing family separation. we'll speak with lee gelernt, deputy director of the aclu immigrants' rights project. then as the second border patrol agent this month pleads guilty to assaulting an undocumented immigrant, we look at the devastating death of jose antonio elena rodriguez. killed on mexican soil in 2012 -- more than six years after the killing, but the family is ststill waiting for justice. >> it is so frustrating and it makes me so angry knowing that a person can stick his hand in there and kill mexican children with impunity. lonnie happened to swartz. he is still free. he still has a job. he left my family completely destroyed. amy: in the

we're joined now by cnn's supreme court reporter ariane de vogue. and what can you tell us about her condition here? >> we know that she completed a three-week course of radiation treatment. it began august 5th for a tumor on her pancreas. the hospital calls it a localized malignant tumor. it was detected july 31st. we also know that she canceled her vacation, but she's appearing at a speaking event monday in buffalo. and during her treatment, she went to broadway and met kate mckinnon, the actress who plays her on "saturday night live." and last night, she was on broadway again, watching "the "" she was speaking at an event and was asked about her retirement plans, if they were going to happen. listen to what she said here. >> as long as i can do it, full steam, and that means at my age, 86, you have to take it year by year. so i know i'm okay. i was okay this last term. i expect to be okay next term. and after that, we'll just have to see. >> well, listen, she has had other cancers. >> four times, right? this is the fourth time. >> yeah, 86 years

supreme court associate justice john catherine. i've heard a lot of papers today that reference letters to john catrin but without any context about who he was. he doesn't get the same kind of attention that some of his supreme court contemporaries like joseph storey or roger tawney do. but it's a mistake to overlook this man because he was a critical behind the scenes player in the mid-19th century and particularly in james k. polk's life. getting to know catrin helps us to better understand how the supreme court fits into the political culture of the mid-19th century. we're lucky to have daniel walker howe here as part of this conference. i'd like to borrow howe's definition of political culture to help explain what i mean. in his really important book, the political culture of the american whigs, he talks about the unspoken or rarely spoken system of beliefs, attitudes, modes of operation and especially methods of solving problems underlying american politics. this is the key to understanding political culture. you may be thinki

still has no need to apologise sions of delayed the vote to confirm a new governor the supreme court is expected to soon rule on whether they ban who came into office on friday is eligible for the job. under polls from someone who was street protests like this pushed out the puerto rico governor but the fate of the new one. is now in limbo his fate now rests with 9 justices of the supreme court who will decide if he's illegitimate governor after the senate filed a lawsuit saying he was sworn in prematurely last friday without their confirmation the court is expected to hand down a ruling in a day in a press conference pierre lisi said the supreme court would now be the last word on the matter i then asked him this if the supreme court rules against you or you can resign immediately or you alway i guess i'll have to i don't know what the ruling will be but but we should we should just wait for the ruling and it will speak for itself but the supreme court will decide it i trust them and they'll do the right thing for puerto rico many legal minds think. acted unconstitutionally the puer

supreme court. the ultimate rejection of african-american rights granted by the 15th amendment was the supreme court's approval in williams v. mississippi in 1898 of the 1890 disfranchising conventions in the form of confederate states. with that stamp of approval, then the states of the confederacy instituted all sorts of voting restrictions. you know about a lot of them. then there's an outrageous oklahoma case where they said we'll allow black people to vote, but we just won't count the votes. the united states government accepted jim crow, but african-americans never did. the black community continued efforts to enforce voting rights, but to little avail until the civil rights movement of 1960s. it was really a century before congress finally followed charles sumner's advice about that law, and that's the voting rights act of 1965. it was hard fought just as the first reconstruction had been hard fought. the act was necessary for enforcement because so many other laws to guarantee the right to v

he was going to enlarge the supreme court by six justices.e was going to take the court from nine members to 15. of course, everybody knows that these would be liberal leaning, new deal supporting roosevelt holding judges. and wheeler not only opposes the presidents party on that initiative, but he leaves the opposition in the senate. he works hand and cloak with a number of republicans to create a bipartisan majority that eventually defeats his plan. roosevelt's never, after the supreme court in 1937, it is hard to believe how consumed the country was by that debate, it literally was a runny debate every single day from february through the summer of 1937. the country absolutely turning on every aspect of this debate. after 1937, roosevelt never was able to count on a working majority in congress on his working agenda. it might be a cautionary tale for some of the democratic presidential candidates who are running around talking about enlarging the supreme court. if he can speak beyond the grave, he would say that that would probably not be

please of the kind of supreme court justices i'm going to nominate. can that issue still propel his base to the polls, or do you need to make the economic argument you've been making? david: right, so conventional wisdom is if the economy is strong, the president will be reelected. there is data going back multiple decades that will be the case. so, the economic issue is always really important. but your point is a good one. the courts became a symbol on a lot of the social issues because the court had driven issues on marriage, issues on life. those are ones we don't engage in. but i think president trump successfully harnessed that conservative momentum by picking really good potential justices and campaigning on that. i see that happening again. i would project that one, he'll want to make that another issue. and i suspect the democrats will want to make their view a central part of the campaign, given what happened on the last supreme court nomination, where you saw a very stark divide between the party. not about confidence, and it ended up being

the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington dc and around the countryyou can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span has brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. cspan your unfiltered view of government. >> every year cspan awards fellowships to several middle school and high school teachers who have demonstrated innovative methods of incorporating cspan programs in their teaching. they joined the relations team in washington dc, for four weeks in july, to develop new teaching materials. they also help lead cspan summer educators conference. one of our 32019 teacher fellows is middle school teacher maureen mcguirl of jamestown rhode island. 2019 maureen mcguirl of jamestown rhode island, tell us a little bit about your school. >> are schools on island for one, he pretty much have k-8 and they are excited when we have make 25 percent of our population because of the war college. new people, to meet and brain information to our classroom so basically, the island started out as a farm for sheep, and then state that weight r

i want to turn to cnn supreme court reporter ariane devogue. >> supreme court announced today she has just completed a three-week radiation therapy for a treatment that began august 5th for a tumor in her pancreas. it was first detected july 31st, and it's called a localized malignant tumor. here is what's interesting. she canceled her annual vacation to santa fe but will appear monday night at a long planned speaking engagement in buffalo, and we learned that during this treatment, she actually went on broadway and she saw kate mckinnon, who plays her, the actress who plays her in "saturday night live," and on top of that, last night, she was on broadway taking in a production of "moulin rouge." she's tough. >> this is the fourth time that she has had cancer. i mean, she is someone, she's a fighter. she defies odds. >> yes, she's 86 years old, 1999 she had surgery for colon cancer. 2009 early stage pancreatic cancer. she had a heart procedure in 2014. in 2018, she had, as we know, those two cancerous nodules removed from her lung. that was the first time that she ever missed oral arg

same thing with packing the supreme court. you don't get the nominations you want, therefore it must be abolished. >> kat: it's crazy that they plainly say they are doing it for political reasons. that's outrageous. >> elizabeth: to your point about the electoral college, it underpins all civil liberties paid the framers said, "we want the minority states to have sufficient say, too." i think those of the far left forgets. if you go to what they want, these institutions, they may not like the outcome. >> dagen: that's a very good point. i would add this one thing -- if the supreme court decides the law here in new york city is moot, there are some other cases -- >> chris: are more cases coming. massachusetts. >> dagen: if you are a nerd, there's one out. if you are a nerd like me and need some labor day weekend reading. that's about a gun law out in california. the supreme court -- >> lisa: homework assignment! [laughs] >> dagen: it's really fascinating. >> elizabeth: i love when your inner geek comes out! [laughter] >> dagen:

treasury department chose to use the words iran's supreme leader in the accusation . there has been a trend by a secretary of state by john bolton especially with the state secretary on it we see that more important was 1st to the islamic republic of iran as holidays regime or the regime of common a mean a way that they're trying to this is themselves from sort of any effort to hurt the iranian people but secondly they're trying to recognize the man of power is not mr rouhani the president is not was a czar of the foreign minister it is the supreme leader ayatollah ali hum and he was in charge of the armed forces the judiciary and of course of after us intelligence agencies ministries and so on and so forth and not not to say that he is as the sole power broker power maker in the country but by far the most important and all the armed forces special of the russian parts that you dish your source so forth are most loyal to it and then any other entity or person that country so by recognizing that they're saying hey we're trying to make sure that this thing wish we did

given to the president and handed over to the supreme court. the other picture is that it's like a trial they see him on order. -- on law and order. see the process with which the justices go through a case, what they are studying. constitution and due process. bigou are in washington as decisions are coming down from the supreme court. >> absolutely. i used to go versus bell as something. they love to debate their rights. the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. they were really disturbed by how it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate itself. they have been doing a lot of letters about that. this week, i was watching a few of the committee hearings on that. i'm looking forward to bringing clips of that to have them evaluate what the next app is -- step is. how would they do with the program -- problem? >> used teach seventh and eighth grade. >> looking at how different historical events have shaped the constitution. i also do history day with them. >> you mentioned

supreme court.everal of the justices were talking about locker rooms in junior high school and justice ginsburg said no, you don't know what it's like the be a 13-year-old girl, you don't know how humiliating that kind of experience is. aknew 8-1 in the end that was an illegal search. having diversity on the court is essential for public confidence and the development of the law and an increasingly diverse america. >> thank you very much for being here tonight. >> thank you so much for having me. nk you so much forav hing me -guys, i want you to meet someone. this is jamie. you're going to be seeing a lot more of him now. -i'm not calling him "dad." -oh, n-no. -look, [sighs] i get it. some new guy comes in helping your mom bundle and save with progressive, but hey, we're all in this together. right, champ? -i'm getting more nuggets. -how about some carrots? you don't want to ruin your dinner. -you're not my dad! -that's fair. overstepped. -that's fair. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why acce

supreme court.a's attorney general is going to join me next. general going to join me next. look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ dprevagen is the number onemild memopharmacist-recommendedng? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow. not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. the business of family time... ...and downtime. ...and you time. ...and forgetting what time it is...altogether. modernized comfort inns and suites have been refreshed because when your business is making time, our business is

>> the supreme court. it's the most, i guess, less as to what it does and how it functions, because they to , when they get to me, think that a law is passed by congress, given to the resident, and then handed over to the supreme court to see if it's constitutional. he other picture, it's like a trial they see on law and order, o dispel the type of jurisdiction it is, and, as well as the process at which the justices go through a case, what really deciding, guilt or innocence, for the most part, jurisdiction, but rather to look at the constitution and due process. in washingtonhere as the big decisions are coming down from the supreme court, as you?happening, too, aren't >> absolutely. often use tinker versus bell because that captivates my students, they love to debate their rights, and so the idea of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. >> the vaping issue? >> because they were really it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate itself, so they have

how is the white house kept apprised with the supreme court?is just a personal issue given how much weight is on the supreme court justice's shoulders in that position? >> well, certainly, the president of the united states is getting as much information, more information, usually, than the rest of us are, about supreme court justices, about their health. about usually, typically, members of congress. you know, depends on the relationship between the president and the justice, you would expect, in most cases that in a situation like this, there would be some sort of personal communication. a note, a phone call, something like that. i'm not sure what the relationship is between the president and justice ginsburg. but the supreme court is a relatively regional place itself. these folks are in a club that only nine of them are in. i think you'd be surprised to find out how well they get along among themselves. surprised to find out where the friendships lie among them. and it's one of the last bastions of that kind of friendship. >> we've had seve

it is that you need another supreme court appointment to overturn. and it's that reason that many think even they won't be in a hurry to overturn even as it might chip away or overturn if that is the answer. many have written about this. it was perceived. it exhibits this backlash is which is so dramatic about this moment we are about to enter into. imagine a scenario the questioner signals and i mentioned before, say the clerk to overturn roe over the marriage equality decision which are not conceivable, that would put the cork in conflict and regulations that are supported by the majority of american people. what happens next and they might be talking again about the court packing and not funding the courts and the definition of a constitutional crisis i might when one doesn't fund the other and those are some of the scenarios that might play out same but this gets out of step with public opinion and its peril and they have a way of fighting back. >> this is about eisenhower inching ahead and wondering what happens especially considering truman gav

>> the supreme court. it is the most less known as to what it does and how it functions, because they tend when they get to me, that they think that laws passed by congress, given to the president and handed over to the supreme court to see if it is constitutional. their other picture is like it is a trial they see on "law and order." the type of jurisdiction it is an as well is the process in which the justices go through a case, what they are deciding -- guilt or innocence, and the appellate jurisdiction, but rather, look of the constitution and due process. >> you are here in washington as the big decisions are coming down from the supreme court, as it's happening. >> absolutely. i often use tinker versus bell. that captivates my students. they love to debate their rights. so the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. >> the vaping issue. >> because they were really disturbed>> by how it wasn't b eing dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate it

i'm not sure writing a letter to the supreme court, what you're expecting the supreme court to turn around and do. i'm going on read this as a politically motivated action. let's try to decipher what it is. is it trying to offer motivation potentially to what they call those reluctant trump voters? folks who might like republicans more than democrats, but don't like donald trump? >> sure. it is a way, i guess, an idea to sort of put something in front of the court to say, we take this very seriously. this president has been very successful at putting two conservative justices on the bench. and i think for the base, that is certainly a big kudos for that. so this is a remind per republicans rthing about the court as they have been, as you know, for is well over 20 years. the democrats are late to this conversation. and of course, they're coming to the conversation, talking about, we want to add five independent seats. that's not what this is about. this is about whoever is sitting in the white house, is about. having the senate of their party in power, that's where the play is. and this is

we start with some shocking news to me from the supreme court.t three weeks, 86-year-old justice ruth bader ginsburg was treated for a malignant tumor on her pancreas. joining us out that more is the full post of fox news tonight also fox news chief legal correspondent, shannon bream's. >> and i we are learning more details about the health talent challenge for the supremes all this court justice. she announced that she has undergone radiation certain therapy in new york for the cancerous tumor and other than

court and the supreme court held the supreme court of india held that it is unconstitutional and illegaland despite the supreme court ordered this practices were continuing and women were being you know thrown out of the houses and therefore there was a lot of quiet to criminalize it and to make it as a deterrent you also have such kind of laws and in other islamic countries which is which is penal nature and people are sent to jail if they do not follow the lead down procedure so opposition by certain sections of people is on account of that would bend. attacks which they are playing and kind of creating a fear mongering you know fear among the muslims in india that there are legion is being affected their society is being affected but end of the day this is about being their fundamental rights uploading their fundamental rights and other rights that the busy constitution of india gives them come out for ok in new delhi you're opposed to the bill of people like you and he women has as has been claimed many times in the debate leading up to the passing of this bill. subtle thank you very

it was a 1980 supreme court c e case. the very first time the voting acts right was challenged a lot. very first time the supreme court ruled against the voting rights act that got myself involved in voting rights cases and a lot of other historians as well. and that's mobile vs. bodden. it was about an at-large election. we've talked about the dilution process of at-large elections. the supreme court and mobile declared that henceforth, plaintiffs must prove not only that an at-large system has discriminatory effect, that is that blacks could not get elected there in the at-large system but also that it was adopted or maintained for the purpose of diluting minority votings. now, take note, it's not just discrimination but purposeful discrimination. thus, the court really hindered racial equality by welcoming what seemingly neutral but actually discriminating practices. who's trained to look at intent and purpose among politicians? it's historians. and attorneys know that they need to show this so they turn to historians

supreme court. i tend to think that in academia and politics, these people on this fringe of racial thinking, they tend to find each other like magnets and iron filings do. do you remember how back in the 2016 campaign trump used to tell this totally made up story about the way we used to get rid of terrorism is that we'd dip the bullets in pig's blood and wrap up the muslim bodies in pig skins and that's how we got rid of muslim terrorists in the past and now we're too wussy to do that. there's a little controversy in the 2016 campaign that he just made up that story. this guy who was just nominated to be a federal appeals court judge has also made that same argument that trump made on the stump in 2016. he has told that same fake story in the course of his academic career. this was crazy enough to hear candidate trump run with this, this completely made-up story during the 2016 campaign. >> they took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pig's blood. you heard that, righ

the democratic senators say supreme court is not wealth. the people know it. demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics, particularly the urgent issue of gun control in the the nations need it to hill. mr. chairman, what does that say to you? >> several things, first of all it is brazen and secondly, banana republic politics. they want the court to be healed of politics, they should stop filing a brief because that is clearly politically motivated. and designed to try to threaten the court which i think is a very, very bad tactic. but it threatens the independence of the judiciary, which is one of the most sacred aspects of protecting the civil liberties and assuring that justice provides two people. you are going to have people on the supreme court have different constitution but if they would focus on that, on reading the letter of the law, then the republicans and democrats could come together to make sure we have justices that pay attention to what the law is and not politics. i would say they are gauging politics and not the j

court and the supreme court held the supreme court of india held that it is unconstitutional and illegaland despite the supreme court ordered this practices were continuing and women were being you know thrown out of the houses and therefore there was a lot of quiet to criminalize it and to make it as a deterrent you also have such kind of laws and in other islamic countries which it's just been only nature and people are sent to jail if they do not follow the lead down procedure so opposition by certain sections of people is on account of that would bend. text which they are playing and kind of getting a feel monk you know fear among the muslims in india that their religion is being affected their society is being affected but end of the day this is about being their fundamental rights up all in their fundamental rights and other rights that the constitution of india gives them come out for ok in new delhi you're opposed to the bill of people like you and he women has as has been claimed many times in the debate leading up to the passing of this bill. son of a thank you very much across

court and the supreme court held the supreme court of india held that it is unconstitutional and illegaland despite the supreme court ordered this practices were continuing and women were being you know thrown out of the houses and therefore there was a lot of quiet to criminalize it and to make it as a deterrent you also have such kind of laws and in other islamic countries which is which is penal nature and people are sent to jail if they do not follow the lead down procedure so opposition by certain sections of people is on account of that would bend. olympics which they are playing and kind of creating a fear mongering you know fear among the muslims in india that their religion is being affected their society is being affected but end of the day this is about being their fundamental rights according their fundamental rights and other rights that the constitution of india gives them come out for ok in new delhi you're opposed to the bill of people like you anti women has is as has been claimed many times in the debate leading up to the passing of this bill. subtle thank you very much

the real supreme question was will the u.s. remain a white republic? in the film, it wants to rally support by stressing national unity. he escapes to's tennessee. he learns how to read and write and becomes a spokesman for poor white. they would be needed for the war effort. his love of the union made him loyal even when tennessee succeeded causing lincoln to choose as vice president in 1864. as president he is committed to following lincoln's policy rather than stevens. you can see through world war ii you will have a huge opportunity. you need to have north and south reconcile, you need to have democrats and republicans getting together. african-americans were needed as well. reversing, johnson is a fugitive and he has a shackle on his leg. he has to have that cut off. he keeps a shackle all his life. then when stevens comes in and offers to help him, i'll help you in the next election. johnson replies i've been chain before. he promises that he will free southerners. you can imagine they were so happy with this, and they protested. worker gave a co

consequently with star a decisiveness the rule that they are bound to respect precedent supreme court justices clutch fidelity to the constitution alone and if their predecessors have construed willingly they must say so and overturn. lawyers and professors the idea of this settled law is shockingly radical. and explain so few y-letter of thomas' opinions are majority most are a dissent or a concurrence but not the reasoning often he rejects the premise on which the majority relies. he is perfectly comfortable with being a minority of one and point to justice marshall loan dissent in plessy the ferguson as his model. to that holding separate but equal facility for blacks had countered that our constitution is colorblind that neither knows nor tolerates classes but as thomas says to quote from the majority or the dissent so lays down the markers and the contempt to let history judge. so to take this back to the very first act of constitutional subversion. and arguably the finest and then to violate the fourth amendment but not in the way the court says that it does. that declares every