and if we pack the supreme court, politicize the supreme court, they call it democratize the supreme court, than everyday americans need to worry about first amendment rights to speak or worship or second amendment rights to protect ourselves. those rights will be on the line if we have a politicized supreme court filled with liberal judicial activists. pedro: mary on our independent line, fort myers, florida, you are on with ike davis of the article three project. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i listened to both the gentleman speaking about the supreme court. i don't think there is anything supreme about the supreme court. there is no separation between church and state, nothing like that, and they are always in hiding. they hardly work. they should be like every politician all the way up the line, should be punching a clock like every other taxpayer. and they should be accountable for the hours that they spend. and they shouldn't be paid anymore. i would like to see a total of how much of our tax dollars pays all of these people, their health care,

supreme court. the bill would add four justices to the bench and reshape the judicial landscape in america. i'm harris faulkner and you are in the "the faulkner focus". republicans are calling it a dangerous power grab. if it were to become law president biden would be able to fill those additional supreme court seats and tip the ideological balance of the court toward a liberal majority. last week the president announced a commission to study court reforms saying the system was, quote, unquote, getting out of whack. back in 1983 as a senator, biden, well, feelings were quite different. >> president roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the united states senate and congress a proposal to pack the court. it was totally within his right to do that. he violated no law, he was legalistically correct, but it was a bone-head idea. it was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. >> harris: of course the dates have changed. top republicans say democrats are now only concerned with one thing on this day, p

supreme court. he is director of the washington, d.c. office of the mcarthur justice center, a premier national civil rights law firm and deputy director of the organization's supreme court and appellate program. mr. ali also teaches as harvard law school where he directs the law school's criminal justice appellate clinic. mr. ali has successfully argued multiple cases in the u.s. supreme court and has represented several people under death sentences before the u.s. supreme court. mr. ali received his b.s. in software engineering from the university of water loo and his jd from harvard law school. and i'd like to extend a warm welcome to mr. ali. professor michael moorely joined florida state university college of law in 2018 where he teaches and writes in the areas of election law, constitutional law, remedies and the federal courts. before joining fsu law professor moorely was a lecturer in law at harvard law school. prior to his experience in academia, he served in government as special assistant

supreme court. her writing has appeared in the new york times, the washington post, and other publications. leah graduated summa cum laude from the university of michigan law school. after law school, clerked for judge jeffrey sutton of the u.s. court of appeals and for justice anthony kennedy u.s. supreme court. leah maintains an active pro bono practice and serves on the board of academic devises of the american constitution society. finally, a strategic sit -- consultant for the leadership conference on human rights. nancy was a part of various lobbying efforts, including task forces on education reform, hate crime, affirmative action, and judicial reformation and the 1990's. nancy worked at common cause and women's equity action league and was the director of public policy and government relations at the american association university of women. she was chief lobbyist and managed coordination of the equal rights amendment, women's vote project, and civil rights act. let's give all our panelists

supreme court in america." i want to go straight to the chief legal correspondent and fox news anchor shannon bream. shannon, you've worked so closely in and around covering the u.s. supreme court and what we saw today i was not clear about what the bill actually said and i know that democrats sometimes want to pass something and read it later but even speaker the house said she doesn't have plans to call for this yet, what are we just learn about what democrats want to do? >> shannon: harris, there is so much to unpack, not only adding four seats to the supreme court which would all be president biden nominees, but they are also calling for the complete abolition of the filibuster which would change everything on capitol hill, not just about the supreme court but about numerous other issues and i've got to tell you, the last time we saw a big promotion out there on the steps of the supreme court, it was senator chuck schumer, the majority leader, essentially growing a challenge where some people interpreted as

rulings by the supreme court have shown the body to be rather partisan. it is increasingly cannot be trusted to call balls and strikes as john rogers famously said 15 years ago. since 20 -- 2006 the court has consistently ruled favorably on the side of commerce. everything from the shelby county decision in 2013 that gutted the voting rights act to a decision three years ago that allowed states to consent -- continue to engage in partisan gerrymandering, the court is consistently siding with republican interests. both in rulings and how people have been confirmed to the courts, public polls show anna roshan of trust that people have in the -- and -- an erosion of trust that people have in the court. >> our guest is with us to talk about expanding the supreme court. if you want to call and give us your thoughts, republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independence -- independents (202) 748-8002 or text us at (202) 748-8003. the judiciary act of 2021 proposes adding four seats to the supreme court. what do you think about this proposal? guest:

court of appeals one step down from the supreme court. and there's i think only 50 or 51 obama judges reason for that is what you said. for the last two years of obama's presidency, mitch mcconnell basically shut down judicial confirmation actually there was -- there were two circuit judges that got through but that's, i mean, bush got ten or 11 through in the last -- in the last two years as president, and then, of course, there was merritt garland so had an inside impact on the court part it have was that mitch mcconnell was waiting for this moment but a huge part of it was that -- trump effectively filled all he should have gotten in a four-year term plus all of the seats that balm should have gotten to fill in the last two years. and so instead of a two term president with two terms worth of influence on judiciary and one term president who had half as much influence on the judiciary. you wound up having two president who is had effectively six years worth of impact on the judiciary. and again the reason why they did this was because

if the supreme court had succeeded in disenfranchising even a tiny fraction of voters in the supremethat the death of a thousand cuts is also designed to be subtle. i don't want to get into too much because i'm looking at the questions and they are really spectacular and i want to get into them. you wrote about the abortion case that was taken up. he lays out the way in which the court can undermine abortion is to do so in the most technical and boring way possible such that, what action and what levers do we have? we have public pressure, political pressure and so on but if people don't know what's happening if that much easier to mute and he kind of reaction or public mobilization. this is a question i was going to ask but benedict has asked nm wonderful way. i'm going to take this question. how effective or impactful have the nominations made over the next two years? at reversing the damage. more broadly what can be done to reverse the scenario you sketched out here? >> ian: it matters a lot who b then gets to replace. if justice thomas decides to go pursue his dreams on broadway

of the supreme court. >> demand justice claims the supreme court is broken. do you think the supreme court is broken? >> . >> i have never said anything about the supreme court being broken. i was not able to comment on the structure or the size or the functioning of the supreme court. >> finally, demand justice says that the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interest on their website. judge jackson, do you agree with that or disagree? or no opinion? >> again, or whether or not the supreme court so now i don't have a comment. >> i am not aware of that quotation by demand justice or anything they have said quite frankly. but the code of conduct for the united states judges do apply to nominees as well. so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type of views on the supreme court or the supreme court rulings. those would be binding on me as a circuit judge. >> good luck to both of you. >> . >> banks and welcome to you both and the committee. that is the nature of the pandemi

supreme court. they'll change the rules and change the game and add four more people. >> they couldn't get a bill passed in congress or passed by state legislature so they went to a court and got it done. now there are conservative judges and judges that interpret the constitution the way it was written on the bench they think we have a crisis on the courts and they think it needs to be looked at. a pure political employ. >> trace: we'll talk to karl rove appeared andy mccarthy in a moment and we begin with jackie heinrich live on capitol hill. good morning. >> good morning. trace. house and senate democrats will unveil this legislation a couple hours from now in front of the supreme court. the bill would add four justices to the high court bringing a total number to 13. it's being sponsored by house judiciary committee jerry nadler, hank johnson, freshman progressive jones and ed markey in the senate. congressman jones tells fox the majority's doctrine is clear. if the law protects the right to vot

personally, i do not think there is anything supreme about the supreme court. is no separation between church and state, nothing like that, and they are always in hiding. they hardly work. they should be like every politician from local all the way up to the line should be punching a clock like every other taxpayer, and they should be accountable for the hours that they spent -- spend or they should not be paid anymore. i would like to see a total of how much of our tax dollars pays all of these people for their health care, their vacation, all of this other stuff in their security. host: what do you think of this idea of expanding the supreme court? caller: i am against it. why don't they all go away? >> working with mitch and dave and kevin and we have an equitable team and i get to welcome you here tonight and i would lead us in a prayer for our meal. let me quickly don't come up before i do that, as i was listening last night to senator tim scott, and what an amazing job she did. yes, he deserves a round of applause. [applause] i was talking to president of

that the supreme court is broken.you think the supreme court is broken? >> senator, i've never said anything about the supreme court being broken, and, again, you know, i am not able to comment on the structure, the size, the functioning even of the supreme court. >> and, finally, demand justice says that the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interests on their website. judge jackson, ms. jackson, do you agree with that or disagree, or do you have no opinion? judge jackson first? >> senator, i, again, am not able to make any comment about whether or not the supreme court is influenced in the way that demand justice apparently, as you say, believes that it is. so i don't have a comment. >> thank you. ms. jackson? >> yes, senator. i am not aware of that quote by demand justice or anything they have said, quite frankly. but, likewise, the code of conduct for united states judges does apply to nominees as well. and so, like judge jackson, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type of vi

personally i don't think there's any supreme about the supreme court.re's no separation between church and state. nothing like that. and they are always in hiding. they should be like every politician, from local all the way up the line. they should be punching a clock like every other taxpayer. and they should be accountable for the hours that they spend. they should not be paid. i would like to see a total of how much of our tax dollars pays all of these people, their health care, their vacation, all this other stuff and their security. host: 20 think about the idea of expanding the supreme court? caller: --host: what do you think about the idea of expanding the supreme court? caller: i'm against it, the supreme court doesn't do anything. guest: it's unfortunate that we have these groups like demand justice attacking the legitimacy of the supreme court. there's a lot popular support in this country for the supreme court, or judicial independence and the rule of law. it separates america from banana republic's. we know that we have a judiciary independ

supreme court which i did in two cases. i was looking to represent individual clients, i had been a civil litigator for three years and most of my clients were corporations, nonprofit organizations. i was only representing individuals through my extensive pro bono work. i wanted to do it full-time. now with the benefit of 10 times -- 10 years of service, i was correct about the reward that comes from helping our country to live up to its constitutional ideals in the sixth amendment. that everybody should have assistance of counsel. what i did not appreciate when i began but learned was how gratifying it was to walk with someone through the toughest days and nights of their lives when they were being judged for the worst moments in their lives. to serve as a guide, counselor, investigator, social worker, strategist, negotiator, there were so many hats in addition to a trial litigator, appellate litigator, oral and written advocate. there was no end to the variety of ways i was called upon to help people and communities and v

expand the supreme court.t be known that these underhanded tactics will have a response." there is a tweet that says, " i am all for reforming the supreme court. let's see what other reforms are proposed aside from additional seats." " scotus should be expanded. it was packed by an ideologue with ideologues." " yes, there should be parity with a number of lower courts." " no, it is only wanted to be changed for partisan reasons." let's go back to our phone lines and see what you have to think -- have to say about the question should be supreme court be expanded. mark says, yes. caller: for me it is a matter of numbers. all 340 million of us americans are depending on the decision-making skills of nine americans. if we had a larger court, more people would have more equal representation on the court and they could take on more cases. more importantly, all 330 million americans are depending on the decision-making skills of nine people. host: what would be the magic number for you? 11? 15? caller: let's just pic

of the supreme court. it is clear from the recent rulings -- the recent covid cases, trinity lutheran, a masterpiece cake shop that the court is looking into restrictions on first amendment. as they should because the first amendment religious liberty as a core constitutional right. my views comports with what the supreme court has held. i would have to apply the supreme court principles. sen. cruz: ms. jackson-akiwumi. ms. jackson-akiwumi: i agree it is fundamental, all of the freedoms there, assembly, petition for redress and religion. sen. cruz: thank you. sen. durbin: thank you senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chair. before i begin, i want to take a moment to remark on the significance of this hearing. as chairman durbin reminds us and tells us, for the past four years, the prior administration appointed 226 judges to the federal courts. almost 30% of the current federal judiciary. an overwhelming majority of those appointees were white. nearly as many, 171 were men. over the course of the prior administ

, and filed this case in the supreme court. and his theory was, and this is where the case will be argued, georgia doesn't show, his theory was that the federal courts had jurisdiction and had original jurisdiction, which meant he didn't need to go up through the lower federal courts before he went to the supreme court. he could go straight there because the constitution gives the court, the supreme court, original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party, and georgia was a party, and it also -- the federal judicial power extends to suits between a state and foreign states or foreign nations. georgia is a state and the cherokee nation is a foreign state. it's a foreign state because a state just means a political entity and it's clearly a political entity. it's got a constitution and stuff. and it's foreign because none of its citizens are u.s. citizens. so it has to be foreign. it can't be anything else. and this is the argument that he made. and this is -- and so this is the argument on which jurisdiction rested. so if

and those in the supreme court has advocated its responsibility to police gerrymandering. and it's an awful new world we find ourselves in and i will stop on that. thank you. >> thank you to the federalist society and to the professors for joining me. gerrymandering with partisanship goes back to the nation founding. the term gerrymander comes from jerry was the governor of massachusetts in the output of a cartoonist of those legislative districts with that capacity of governor. so the governor of gerrymandering. so it goes back even further still. patrick henry attempted to gerrymander james madison out of congress. in objections to theymandering go back to founding. the very term gerrymandering part of the salamander cartoon which is lampooning.g and it has since the founding. lawsuits don't go back quite that far but they do go back many decades in the federal courts those in a particular state usually retrofitted to the harm they believe they have suffered that the harm is unconstitutional or illegal in some way. but suffice it to say the courts have never fixed upon a

supreme court 1869. four years after the end of the civil war. this commission is a bipartisan commission announced via executive order by president biden. 180 days to come up with a solution about potentially adding or subtracting from the u.s. supreme court the president during the campaign promise that commission to look at multiple issues. the white house says they want to stress bipartisan and before the president receives a report but already getting tons of pushback from publicans at least on capitol hill. senator ben sasse threw a punch of a statement, talking about the president he knows it's going to be a tax payer funded door stopper with the president doesn't have is the courage to flatly tell the radical left he's not going to pack the supreme court. speaking of court packing, it was president franklin roosevelt who made the phrase famous when he wanted to add justices to the u.s. supreme court but failed 1983, then senator joe biden from delaware called the idea a bonehead idea when referring to that plan almost 40 years later, he m

there's much more going on than the supreme court. but i do think the tap on - - the chapter demonstrates, it's not that this issue is impossible to deal with, inevitably results in apocalyptic political conflict. courts have a very important role to play to dial down the temperature of a political controversy in a constitutional democracy that's the role that should be played. >> many of the cases you talk about our supreme court cases. but not all. in the last chapter of the book, you talk about your workplace and the question of speech on campus and how that has become a volatile subject. you discuss the case from a couple of years ago, the auburn case. tell us what that case was about and what your view of the handling of the case by the judge was. tell us how the judge handled the case. i have to tell you, i disagree with you strongly. you really criticize the judge and i think the judge was right. so first, what was the case about, why do you criticize the judge? you can imagine why i disagree with your resolution or your view h

press very short introduction to the supreme court, which is apparently sold out currently at the supreme court. a biography of justice blackmon and co-wrote history of roe vs wade and in her newest book the burger cart, she turns her attention to the court between 1969 and 1986 when the chief justice was the nixon appointed warren burger received wisdom as we were just discussing at the desk about this period in the court's history. isn't that much happened? there was some big decisions. there was roe v wade, so that was good and that that was it. not not so much greenhouse takes the idea part and she and her co-author michael gratz show the ways that the conservative mainly nixon appointed burger court reversed or undercut the president sat by the liberal court led by chief justice warren curbing civil rights and individual liberties while extending first demand that rights to businesses the first time. i could draw some connections here, but you're not actually here to listen to me talk about the court. you're here for linda greenhouse. so please join me in welcoming her to politics. t

to give them a majority on the united states supreme court. now, many people are probably wondering what the crisis was that precipitated this legislation. a crisis so grave that these democrats couldn't even wait for the results of the president's stacked commission. president biden's commission which is stacked with democrats to give them the result that they want is supposed to report back in somewhere, a time frame of believe about six months. they couldn't even wait for that. they had to introduce a bill that would pack the court. why would they have to do that? the crisis that requires us to immediately add four additional justices to the supreme court, after 150 years of the court at its current size, is that a duly elected republican president was able to get three supreme court justices approved. apparently by that, the republicans stole the court's majority, which i guess, apparently rightfully belongs to democrats, and in doing so, quote, politicized the supreme court and threatened the right of millions of americans, end quote. tha

in fact, there was a supreme court case not so long ago relating to this. i wonder if you expect that shift in any state and what the political consequences of a shift like that would mean. >> i don't think you will have that type of a shift. largely because as we look at the census, besides redistricting, which is one of the important things that comes out of a census, it is certainly about allocation of dollars, and therefore, most states probably are not looking to cut off dollars coming from the federal government. but under representing the number that may be there. i think you will find a much bigger push in terms of voter verification, citizen verification -- are you eligible to be a voter? those types of laws probably will be an earlier battleground for some of the republicans as opposed to trying to get a number of just citizens based upon what's going on. that's my own sins. i think it is probably an easier look largely because as we look at immigration, immigration is super important for our country. it is important as we look at how do we talk a

supreme court including during his service as u.s. solicitor general. he served as united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit as counselor in chief counselor in chief of staff to u.s. attorney general william smith and his law clerk to both chief justice warren burger and the fifth circuit judge david dire. as most of you know he was appointed to serve as independent counsel for five investigations including whitewater from 1994 to 1999. many of you know ken through his writing. he is author of first among equals, the supreme court in american life, bear country the baylor story, contempt a memoir of the clinton investigation, which was a "new york times" bestseller and 2018 and religious liberty in crisis which was released this past tuesday and which we celebrate this evening. ken and his wife alice who is here this evening, great to have you here alice, now reside a blog the peaceful banks of the river in waco texas. we are blessed this evening to hear from two devoted giants of faith and freedom who have shaped our thinking and

we can expand the supreme court.ogether, we can finally restore government by the people, instead of government by the powerful. >> tucker: so, the supreme court did the insurrection of january 6th, the qanon court, if you will. bet you didn't knowec that. mondaire jones didn't know it, either, he was just reading what they wrote for him on the card. who is the "they," by the way? that is a slick video. did not maketh it in a basement. who paid for it? was it funded by big corporations who finish telling us jim crow racism? we called around to find out and ask the ceo of coca-cola, longtime head of amazon jeff bezos, other ceos, all of those business titans have been happy to weigh in with full force. it is their business. it's up to them now. we wondered what their view was of turning our highest court into a legislative body. of making our last officially nonpartisan institution into something that is openly partisan, and therefore trusted by no one. we can only guess what they think about that because they did not

rather the supreme court has been an accomplice. in fact the supreme court, specifically the roberts court has been working to dismantle our democracy for years. >> sandra: please stand by, breaking news of the white house and jen psaki was just asked about this effort. >> about proposed potential reform of the supreme court in one of the things they will look at is of course the size of the court but they will also look at at the courts in the constitutional system. the turnover of justices, and they will come back to the president with a report on what their discussions are and what their findings are. so we will wait to play out and still read that report. >> this is coming from some of its current member of congress, this is coming from the chairman of the house judiciary committee. is the president and white house frustrated that chairman nadler didn't perhaps wait for this report from the commission that president biden just called for last week? >> no. and that's a different set of legal position. and i expect, you have more

supreme court an assault on judicial independence. several democrats are bringing forward a bill to add four new seats to the supreme court which would be selected by president biden and confirmed by a democrat run senate already seeking to eliminate the filibuster. kristin fisher has details on this tonight live from the north lawn. kristin. >> few things more controversial in washington right now than killing the filibuster and packing the supreme court but today a group of congressional democrats tied the two together by introducing a bill to 13 and they say they know it would require getting rid of the filibuster to do it? >> some say we are packing the court we are not packing it, we are unpacking it. >> making the case on the steps of the supreme court that it's time to add four new justices to the highest court in the land. democratic senator ed markey blames republicans. >> the republicans stole two seats on the supreme court and now it is up to us to repair that damage republicans say look no further than the words of ruth ba

and i lost in the supreme court. it was a republican-dominated supreme court. and i lost some of those executive powers. we do retain some powers. but we are so, incredibly divided after, i think, the politics of the last-14 months. and so, it is a very difficult moment where i am still trying to get the legislature to just deploy resources the trump administration sent us. so, what might seem like a natural thing to do is much more complicated than what the cdc might suggest when you look at the reality here, on the ground. but we do have some of the strongest protocols in place. and if people would double down on it, and get -- make their vaccination appointment, we will get through this. >> all right. go get vaccinated, michiganders and everyone else. governor gretchen whitmer, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you. >>> as we watched the attack on the capitol unfold on january 6th. i think we all had the collective reaction, in real time, right? as we are watching and the minutes are ticking by. where is the backup? why haven't more police sh

about their plan to expand the supreme court. >> public and still two seats on the supreme court, and it is up to us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy. today, because the supreme court 's standing is damaged. the way we repair it is straightforward. and do the damage that the republicans have done i restoring balance. we do it by adding four seats to the court to create a 13-member supreme court. these four new seats, to be filled by president biden, will reconstitute the united states supreme court. the bench will then rightly flecked values of the majority of the american people on whose behalf they serve. expanding the court's constitutional. congress has done it before, and congress must do it again. host: now, this plan brought for by democrats claim after president biden last week created a partisan commission to study changes to the supreme court. here is what the post wrote about that. president biden created a bipartisan commission friday to study structural changes to the supreme court. giving the group 180 days to produce a report on a range of thorny topi

the supreme court in american life. the baylor story, contempt, emma memoir of of the clinton investigation which was a new york times bestseller in 2018 and religious liberty and crisis. with what was released this past tuesday and with which we celebrate this past evening. ken and his wife alice who is here this evening, great to have you here, alice, now reside along the peaceful banks of the river in waco texas. we are blessed this evening to hear from two devoted giants of faith and freedom who have shared their thinking and strengthened our resolve to defend america's first freedom. please join me in welcoming doctor tom and judge ken starr. >> well, thank you, david. i can see that this is on. i can hear that this is on. i cannot tell you, judge star, what a pleasure and honor it is to be here to talk about this book. as david said, i work at the religious freedom institute and who could be for religious freedom and not -- we will get into what that means tonight. i would like to get right into this because as mu

i don't think anything will happen to the supreme court.uple of senators switch sides on the filibuster, that they might not be emboldened but again it would be disasterous for this country. it is time for americans to stand up to say, infrastructure, what it traditionally means. it isn't just remaking america in your partisan mold with disasterous consequences for future of this country. elizabeth: even president biden at one point said it was boneheaded terrible idea. he criticized fdr trying to do it. nancy pelosi says she supports biden's commission to study supreme court packing, packing the court. that commission, jonathan turley points out, a lot of professors on that commission, harmeet were against brett kavanaugh's combination and appointment. what do you say? >> right. we had some of the most frankly dumb members of congress have a press conference they said justice kavanaugh was incompetent and unqualified. they couldn't even carry his briefcase in a law firm if they were lawyers in the firm this type of nasty partisan fear-mong

supreme court.think is really a merit garland revenge to work for the trying to everything in the power to discredit the legacy of donald trump are the only way they can do with the current composition the supreme court is to pack it which is entirely unpopular. bear in mind plus he's politically savvy. she knows in about 18 months because are the democrats will lose control of the united states house. so to the extent we democrats want to dream this generation the supreme court liberal radicals, now's the time for them to act. because in 18 months are unlikely to control the house not be able to have the policy objective which is to pack the court with the role tourists. >> present biden city setting the issue set for permission to do that your thoughts on that? is that really just putting this offer later? statement it is. there is a serious problem with mark's theory is that your policy last week so that bill is not going anywhere to change the composition of the court. she has no intention of do

to the supreme court story.he roll call reporting on the announcement by several members of congress, supreme court expansion bill faces serious blocks across political spectrum. some from that article -- before democratic members could take to the steps of the supreme court to expand the supreme court from 9 to 13, leaders of the party were already deflating the effort. "i have no plans to bring it to the floor," the speaker said. "i'm not ready to sign on yet," said that majority whip, dick durbin. so the first question to senator markey at thursday's news conference outside the high court was where exactly do you go from here? he was joined by three members of the house judiciary committee. here is senator markey of massachusetts. [video clip] >> republicans stole two seats on the supreme court, and now it is up to us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy today because the supreme court 's standing is sorely damaged. in the way we repair it is straightforward. we undo the damage republicans have

but biden is boxed in on his past opposition to expanding the supreme court. a specific position on whether he wanted to pack the court. that in itself became a storyline. so in a lot of ways biden could be potentially trying to have it both ways, to appease those progressive activists by taking the steps to form the commission, but he's not supporting the idea outright because he knows that's not popular broadly with voters. arthel: interesting point. you said what i was going to say, but you made an interesting point there. i want to share with everyone right now part of what senate minority leader mitch mcconnell had to say about this. it says, quote: this faux academic study of a nonexistent problem fits squarely within liberal' years-long campaign to politicize the court, intimidate its members and subvert its independence. sarah, what we're going to do right now is rewind the tape a bit to this past november, you remember it. then-president trump nominated amy coney barrett five weeks before the presidential election. justice barrett was confirmed by rep

. >> coming up, supreme court justice sonya sotomayor talks about her life experiences. this is part of a leadership conference hosted by the brookings institution and mount vernon. >> you have been to mount vernon, correct? >> absolutely, and isil of join it. -- and i so enjoyed it. it is a trip i thinks most americans should take. the working farm that george washington ran, we think of him as a military leader, president, first president of the united states. but, he was also a working farmer. those farms were custom even back then. he was a working man. and, it was a wonderful experience for me to see the beauty of that spot. and to learn so much more about it. david: justice sotomayor, for everybody who is watching, became an associate justice of the supreme court in august of 2009. she had previously been a district court judge before that. a native, a student could allowed -- a summa come out a graduate of princeton university. winner of a prize given to the most outstanding graduate, she was an editor. that is a pretty impressive background. i which had a backgro

marbury brought a case to the supreme court. he asked the court to order the new president, thomas jefferson, to deliver the commission. in stating the law, he seemed correct. that law probably required jefferson to give him the commission. still, the request put the court on the horns of a dilemma. on the one hand, suppose the court held the law did not entitle marbury's commission? that decision would suggest to many that the court was a weak institution and if it departed from what seemed to be the law, they feared the president would ignore his decision. that would suggest that perhaps the law would not stand in the way of a determined president. on the other hand, if the court held that the law did entitle marbury to his commission, jefferson -- remember he saw the judges as his enemies -- jefferson might continue to ignore the court, and the resulting message would be even more clear. the president was free not to accept the court's decision. chief justice john marshall writing for a unanimous court found a brilliant way o

if the supreme court. >> the debate over the size of the supreme court rages on in washington, some call stephen breyer, 82 years old to retire. should step down to make room for the courts first black woman to serve. here's more. >> 82-year-old supreme court justice stephen breyer slowed down physically over the years, his colleagues say his mind is as sharp as ever but it didn't stop the freshman democratic congressman calling on breyer to retire to make this a question that justice breyer, for whom i have great respect should retire at the end of this term. my goodness, have we not learned our lesson? >> ted cruz offered a warning should democrats succeed in packing the court and raise the number of justices nine to 13. >> if they succeed packing the court, we would have a radical left-wing supreme court that would take away our fundamental right to free speech, right to religious liberty and second amendment. >> the last poll shows majority of americans trust the supreme court and approve of how they handle their job. not all democrats share that view. >> too many americans view our

school district arc ues a supreme court. school district argues a ruling _ supreme court.nst it would centre precedent and make it hard for any public schools to take action against online bullying or harassment. the american civil liberties union seesit american civil liberties union sees it differently. aha, american civil liberties union sees it differently. a standard that the school _ sees it differently. a standard that the school district - sees it differently. a standard that the school district is - that the school district is asking the court to apply here would give them the power to punish not only for emotional outbursts like randy's but would allow them to regulate important political, religious, whistleblowing kinds of speech and for the court to figure out exactly how to do that, i think it is daunting.— it is daunting. the supreme court heard _ it is daunting. the supreme court heard arguments - it is daunting. the supreme court heard arguments in l it is daunting. the supreme i court heard arguments in the case for two hours to do the judge said she is co

supreme court and i lost some of those powers. we do retain some of those powers but we are incredibly divided after i think the politics of the last 14 months, and so it is very difficult. we're still trying to get the legislator, just to deploy research that the trump administration -- would might seem like a natural thing to do is much more complicated than what the cdc might suggest when you look at the realities on the ground. we do have some of the strongest protocols in place, that people will double down on it and make their vaccination appointments we will get through it. >> go get vaccinated, governor gretchen, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> as we watch the attack on the capitol unfold, we all reacted in realtime as we were watching it and the minutes ticking by. where is the backup? why haven't more police showing up? now there is a brand-new investigation from the washington post from the urgent poll -- 17 calls in 78 minutes. that is the story, next. n 78 minutes that is the story, next. tha