supreme court. well everyone i've talked to fully expects that this case will go to the texas supreme court. i would not be surprised if after that it goes into the federal court and could make its way up there everyone i've talked to including people at the attorney general's office says that they fully expect it will go to the texas supreme court i can assure you that whoever wins on october 15th whoever wins that trial it will be appealed and whoever wins the appeal it will be appealed to the supreme court of texas there's no question about it one of the reasons this case is so interesting to a lot of the legal authorities is my son does not present exclusively as one gender hicks' he has a normal gender self identity with me and he has an abnormal so gender self identity with his mother and so it's the question here is how do the courts decide how or how should the law decide what should be the role of the courts in deciding how the parents work through a disagreement about that. well jeff i wish it courage and from the bottom of my heart i wish for the outcome to be the best possible fo

breyer, the brother of supreme court justice stephen breyer, discuss the human side of judging at the university of california berkeley law school. other participants include texas supreme court justice eva guzman. the first latino elected to statewide office in texas. and moderator michael lewis who wrote the blind side, moneyball and the big short. all tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. thursday president trump will speak at a fourth of july celebration at the lincoln memorial in washington, d.c. you can watch it online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. tonight on the communicators. we talk about the future of journalism in the age of big tech firms with news media alliance's david chevron and matthew shears. >> facebook, google, apple. they employ exactly zero journalists. so the amount of journalism they are doing is zero. they are not going to city hall. they are not going to school board meetings. they are not covering the president. on delivering our content and monetizing around that content and if you don't do that anymore we don't have local journalism. the question isn't whether or not we want a strong and vibrant journal

supreme court. the court down there will likely rule very similarly to the judge in texas because the affordable care act was held in the supreme court based on the text accessibility of the federal government and now the tax for the individual mandate is zero dollars which we did in the tax legislation. the bottom line is we need to make sure whatever happens that people don't lose their health coverage because approximately 20 million people have health coverage either through the expansion of medicaid or the federal exchange. i think both are concerned about making sure whatever happens that people don't lose their health coverage. >> what could that look like with the republican party when they were in power in the house and many swings of the affordable care act passing a number of laws and in some cases ending the affordable care act. if the supreme court does come with some decision to make a blow to the affordable care act are the things you are hearing and perhaps working on the sorts of programs that could be implemented to preserve some of that? the biggest thing is we have to make sure th

that testimony will include that of the office of the texas attorney general, which i understandargued in the supreme court 31 times since 2000. the texas attorney general's office has also argued two of the most important vra cases in recent memory, evan well and perez, and won them both. in those decisions, texas won a total of 13 votes at the court for its position, compared to just four votes against. this is an office with a proven track record of legal acumen and understanding confirmed at the highest levels and by the u.s. supreme korkts itsecourt, itsel. thank you, all, again, for your time and testimony. we look forward to hearing from you and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. johnson. it's now my pleasure to recognize the chairman of the full committee who was the chairman of this committee for many years and today i will announce him as the chairman emeritus of this subcommittee, but i chairman i guess is emeritus of all committees. mr. nadler. >> thank you, mr. chairman. voting rights act of 1965 is one of the most effective civil right statutes that's ever been enacted into law. six years ago to

texas district judge nominees on the docket, seven. among those well qualified nominees is a former army paratrooper and marine j.a.g. officer, former and current intermediate court judges, federal and state prosecutors, and a texas supreme court justice, a job i once held. they've all proudly served the lone star state in a variety of capacities, and i'm again impressed by the outstanding nominees that the president has recruited to fill these important judicial vacancies. when these nominees are confirmed, we will finally break down two barriers in the texas district courts. ada brown will be the first african american woman to sit in the northern district of texas and jason pullman will be the first african american in the western district of texas. each of these nominees has shown their legal acumen, clear judgment, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law and i look forward to voting for their nominations later this week. in addition to confirming these texans and a dozen other district judges, the senate will confirm a critical cabinet level position in the administration. when niki haley announced that after two years of dedicated service as ambassador to the united nations at the end of last year, we knew it

i have the great privilege and pleasure of serving the supreme court of texas. it is the highest civil court in texas. i have been on the court since 2009. i served on an intermediate appellate court before that for about a decade, and initially entered the judiciary as a trial court judge appointed by then governor bush. my journey has been marked as the first latina on the trial court in harris county and first latina in the intermediate appellate court and first latina elected to statewide office in texas, and it is a job i enjoy. michael: and he received more votes than anyone has in the history of texas. judge guzman: since you brought it up, texas elects judges riddled with all sorts of cons and a few pros, but the last election, 2016, i did come the highest vote-getter in the history of the state of texas for any office. [applause] michael: who voted for you? >> fortunately, we did not have an election. i thank my lucky stars. when the first case that i had, rosenthal,volving ed who had what is called the oaks and cannabis club, and it was a case that ulti

i had the great privilege and pleasure serving on the supreme court of texas. it is the highest civil court in texas. i have been on the court since 2009. i started on an appellate court and initially entered the judiciary as a judge appointed by then governor bush. my journey has been marked as the first latina in harris and first latina elected to statewide office in texas and it is a job i enjoy. more votes than anyone has in the history of texas. >> texas elects judges that are riddled with all con and a few pros. go-getterhe highest in the history and the state of texas for any office at any time. chuck. for you, .> i thank my lucky stars my first case was one that who had a rosenthal what was called the oakland cannabis club and it ultimately went to the united states supreme court today prosecuted people who had manufactured and distributed marijuana. hadurned out that rosenthal been authorized by the city of oakland to be the official grower of marijuana. he oughtdecided that to be prosecuted for this thing called the supremacy clause and he was prosecut

the supreme court, in a case called even wheel out of texas, dealt with a question where the plaintiffs argued it is constitutionally required to use the citizenship numbers. the supreme court was not impressed with that argument and rejected it, leaving on the stateshe question if wanted to use citizenship numbers rather than total persons could do so. there will be quite a bit of litigation on this issue, but for purposes of the 2020 senses, all of your viewers need to be assured that having decision -- the citizenship russian would not -- citizenship question would not take off from the citizens. the criticism you may have heard was that the noncitizens might be scared to answer so they would take themselves out of the census, if you will, instead of two, you would have 10 and one. i'm not a statistician, so i don't think that argument makes a whole lot of sense. host: this is from virginia, nadia, independent line. hello. caller: hello. sir, in my opinion, this administration and the supreme court's opinion, this administration wanted to place the question, the citizenship question

>> guest: is a supreme court case that says no deadline that early to not have the controversy with the state of texas that is the shortest one. the supreme court decision as it was explained to me says that you don't have to have this done until after the convention. c-span: is there a state that makes it impossible for you to bring? >> guest: i it is and pretty in any state because the two parties over the years have it set up a s. a whole series of difficult series to get through. if you are in the primary, you can sign a petition. it varies from state to state but there are always hurdles. they are out there in all 50 states on their own now. c-span: when you think of a running mate are you thinking of somebody already in office or somebody that's not? >> guest: somebody that's not. c-span: a woman or man? >> guest: the most qualified person i can find. c-span: and a certain region of the country? >> guest: i don't want to get political. a state so small there isn't even a delicate, not that there is one, but the best qualified person, that is all that matters. c-span: looking for a different busi

the supreme court, in a case called even wheel out of texas, dealt with a question where the plaintiffs argued it is constitutionally required to use the citizenship numbers. the supreme court was not impressed with that argument and rejected it, leaving on the table the question if states wanted to use citizenship numbers rather than total persons could do so. so there will be quite a bit of litigation on this issue, but , for purposes of the 2020 census, all of your viewers need to be assured that having the citizenship question would not take off from the citizens. the criticism you may have heard was that the noncitizens might be scared to answer so they would take themselves out of the census, if you will, instead of having 10 and two, you would have 10 and one. i'm not a statistician, so i don't think that argument makes a whole lot of sense. host: this is from virginia, nadia, independent line. caller: hello. sir, in my opinion, this administration and the supreme court's opinion, this administration wanted to place the question, the citizenship question on the census for extreme

that time, was so homophobic, sod my was still illegal in the state of texas until i was a junior in high school. that supreme court case happened 2005. so, i took it all in . i think young people are very observant. we see everything going around us and we read the writing on the wall and for me i thought the writing an the wall was back a gay black man is a death sentence. i am a generation of gay men who -- hiv is ---hiv aid is not what it was to us but when we were teenagers wait common to believe if you were gay, you were going to get- hiv-aids and you wouldn't do but you would get it. so figure, out how to navigate what just seemed like all these cautionary tales while being a young person, being in the closet, growing up in he bible belt, i was very close to my mother. we had a wonderful relationship but we weren't good at talking but sex and sexuality. surprise. and when you're on your own, you'll make some more stakes. going to make concludes you won't have made if hey had better information. but in that isolation, i think i in many ways read into the worst suspicions. it breaks my heart. makes me really s

replacement. 20 million americans will lose their health care and they have a lawsuit in texas to get to the supreme court to kill obamacare. who's the extremist? >> we know what you think the answer to your question is for sure. >> common sense. >> thank you for being with us. >>> democratic presidential front-runner joe biden rolled out his massive criminal justice reform plan this morning. this includes $20 billion for states to shift from incarceration for nonviolent crimes to prevention. >> no one should be going to jail because they are addicted. they should be going into rehabilitation. >> this comes just one week before cnn's democratic debates where biden will be standing next to senators cory booker and kamala harris. both of these candidates have criticized biden's support of the 1994 crime bill, which many believe led to mass incarceratio incarcerations, especially of african-american men. cnn's jessica dean is in new orleans ahead of biden's campaign stop. give us an overview, jess, of biden's plan. >> well, good afternoon to you, brianna. you're exactly right. this is a comprehensive plan. h

supreme court. this after a texas judge ruled that the affordable care act is unconstitutional. ump administration agrees with that court ruling and said the entire law should be struck down. an appeals court about to hear arguments from both sides. joan, tell us about what we should expect today. >> reporter: hello, john. yes, hanging in the balance is health care for millions of americans with this challenge, the third major challenge to the affordable care act. lawyers for texas and for the department of justice are going to argue that in 2017 when congress amended a tax penalty, it effectively invalidated the individual insurance requirement and also invalidated the whole affordable care act, sunk the whole thing. democrats who are coming in from california and other states and from the democratic-led house of representatives are going to counter that that 2017 law did not change the individual insurance requirement and it certainly did not doom the entire affordable care act. this case, john, is going to be heard by a three-judge panel. two republican appointees, one democra

court. or --uessing that texas they would take that to the supreme court. i don't believe this must go back to the district court. >> if we held hypothetically that it was severable, we would say district court, do your best severability in the first instant, take out your blue pencil. mr. letter: you would do that. >> and any other normal case you would send it back to the district court in the first instance to make the best stab at trying to implement the ruling that we made. that would either normal proceeding in 100 cases we have for this month. court, the appellate that says the law directs all the rest of the statute based on and i want to emphasize we are talking about the text, the 2017 statute that all the rest is severable. that is what we think. if you were going to find and strike down the individual mandate, that is what you would do. we think you have to do that. reasone would not be any to send that back to the district court to say go line by line and figure out which part is severable. you would have ruled the supreme court doctrine says n

texas v. azar. did the supreme court find the mandate unconstitutional? ms. gluck: no. mr. roy: the mandate was not found unconstitutional? ms. gluck: respectfully, there is no mandate. what the supreme court found was the mandate was not -- could not be construed constitutionally of the reach of the commerce clause power but it's a tax. mr. roy: the mandate is unconstitutional. pure and simple. the mandate is unconstitutional. you didn't have a power under the commerce clause. the only power that remained was the taxing power. the tax was zeroed out. the tax does not exist, correct, there's no tax. is there a tax today? ms. gluck: the tax is set at zero. mr. roy: there is no tax today. there is a mandate in the legislation. the mandate is unconstitutional. the supreme court said this body does not have the power under the commerce clause to have a mandate to make people -- make americans go purchase a product in commerce. the tax is now zero. the tax no longer exists. therefore, where do we sit today? the very thing, the very thing that saved the mandate, the tax, which is

texas. and a news update: the u.s. supreme courtstration to redirect $2.5 billion in military funding toward the constructiona of a borde. the court's five conservative justices voted for the move, even though lawmakers in congress refused to provide funding. i'm judy woodruff. that's the newshour for tonight. good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> kev. kevin! >> kevin? >> advice for life. fe well-planned. learn more at raymondjames.com. >> consumer cellular. >> babbel. a language program that teaches spanish, french, italian, german, and more. >> supporting social en epreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> t william and flora hewle foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world. at www.hewlett.org. >> the william and flora hewlett >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and friends of the newshour. captioning sponsored by . >> tonight on kqed newsroom rabbit mueller awlon

nixon, who had started the first branch of the naacp in the state of texas in el paso, took his case to the supreme court twice. and through his courage and his persistence and his patients, he integrated our democracy. he took the first step in texas, and in 1944, almost 20 years to the day, he walked back into fire station number 5 , and probably cast his ballot. that is owing to the tenacity on the leadership of this organization. and it was the inspiration for our campaign last year in texas, where we encountered the state that previously had ranked fifth the a thin voter turnout. not because we love our democracy any less than you do here. in michigan. but, we were literally drawn -- based on your race, your the city, your country of national origin, you are drawn out of a congressional district to diminish the power of your votes, or the likelihood that we would hear your voices, but to transcend that, we went to every single one of over 254 counties of texas, showed up for everybody, and one more votes than any democrat had in the history of the state of texas. that is how we are running this camp

texas court denied reid's latest appeal. now his family citing what they say is new evidence in the case hopes the us supreme court steps in becauseeve if you can i give it back take it and they can i get back to life 43 years ago this week the supreme court reaffirmed the use of capital punishment. but opponents here say the practice needs to and we look for >>compassion and mercy and forgiveness last year, 25 people were put to death in the us 13 of those in texas alone. supporters of the death penalty say it's a necessary deterrent, especially when it comes to violent crimes for now roderick holds out hope the supreme court will step in even though with the way for 23 years. >>us to have faith in god then we will find their way out reporting in washington, i'm trevor shirley. ventura county man took his wounded daughter to a fire station for help but according to reports of firefighters wouldn't come outside to do that. >>police say the firefighters didn't come out possibly because they feared for their own safety. the father went to the fire station because help was slow to come. police say the 7 year-old girl and her pregnant

meanwhile, michigan representative paul mitchell and texas representative pete olson also announced their retirements last week. >>> the supreme courtn the green light for the trump administration to use military funds to build sections of a planned border wall with mexico. $2.5 billion in pentagon counter drug program money had been frozen by lower courts while a lawsuit proceeded. by a 5-4 vote, the supreme court late friday lifted a stay that blocked the use of those funds allowing trump to progress on his 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term. the president tweeted wow, big victory, supreme court overturns lower court injunction, big win for border security and the rule of law. the pentagon funds can be tapped from now, and work can begin, which is quite different over trump's consistent promise over who will pay for the wall. >> i have said many times that the american people will not pay for the wall. and i've made that clear to the government of mexico. >> the wall will be paid for very easily by mexico. it will ultimately be paid for by mexico. when i say mexico is going to pay for the wall, that's wh

the drugs and protocols that states have been using, in georgia, texas, others states, that have been blessed, including by the supreme courty on a state level. so we'll see if though excuses happen as planned. >> thank you, even. >> thanks. >>> is this moving the country forward, amanda? >> i just question the timing of why now? what's the justification for moving on this? the only thing i can think of is maybe trump wants to pick a fight about the death penalty for 2020, given the firm opposition by so many presidential candidates. if that's the reason for moving on this, i mean, that's really, really unsettling. we should always be leery. i support the death penalty in some cases, but it should only be used in the most rare and severe circumstances. moving in this rushed way like this really gives me paul. >> what do you think? >> i was on a phone, got a message from a friend who is into death penalty policy. one of the questions they raised to me is there's no independence judicial review that will occur. the real questions about prosecutions when it comes to the death penalty, right now on federal death row 34 out of 6

court in texas struck down obamacare, but stayed his ruling. i think that issue, certainly if obamacare -- if that lower court decision is upheld by the fifth circuit court of appeals, i think the supreme court will have to take that case. talking about the fifth circuit case pending, i agreed john that this is a case that could end up in the court depending on what the fifth circuit does. the fifthgood chance circuit will disagree with the district court judge. fervente of the most opponents of the affordable care act, individuals part of the initial challenges that made it through the court agreed that the district court decisions in the case was totally at odds with the law. his decision to strike down the affordable care act in its entirety, based on his view of the constitutionality of one provision, the individual mandate. it was at odds without the supreme court said courtship engages. that is a question of what courts do and when they can decide a laws unconstitutional. they are supposed to leave the rest intact if they thought that is what congress have done. here, congress zeroed out the penalty, the shared responsibility tax, but left the mandate and the rest of law standing

as a supreme court litigator someone who watches the docket, , the supreme court hasn't taken up a substantive abortion case in quite a while and we had the texas case over the course of this term a couple of significant cases, including one from alabama. but fully, 10% of the supreme court documents are about abortion. particularly on the left led by elana kagan, the justices have really decided now, although i agree in the past it was like if you like the precident you would continue to follow it, now the left has really realized the threat to roe and to a variety of other legacies and forseeing and the prospects that the more conservative majority in the absence of justice kennedy is going to be more aggressive about overruling it at least in stages. so, the left is deeply , deeply concerned. we saw this was justice breyer complain bitterly and wondering what other precidents will come next. kagan came along and said that didn't take long. her incredibly pithy way. this has taken on an enormous structural importance in terms of how aggressive they will move further to the right. i think it does have some traction with the chief justice. he i

court in texas struck down obamacare, but stayed his ruling. i think that issue, certainly if obamacare -- if that lower court decision is upheld by the fifth circuit court of appeals, i think the supreme court will have to take that case. talking about the fifth circuit case pending, i agreed john that this is a case that could end up in the court depending on what the fifth circuit does. the fifthgood chance circuit will disagree with the district court judge. fervente of the most opponents of the affordable care act, individuals part of the initial challenges that made it through the court agreed that the district court decisions in the case was totally at odds with the law. his decision to strike down the affordable care act in its entirety, based on his view of the constitutionality of one provision, the individual mandate. it was at odds without the supreme court said courtship engages. that is a question of what courts do and when they can decide a laws unconstitutional. they are supposed to leave the rest intact if they thought that is what congress have done. here, congress zeroed out the penalty, the shared responsibility tax, but left the mandate and the rest of law standing

the supreme court has upheld the aca twice, but it's back before the federal courts after a federal district judge in texasntire law invalid last year. as "the washington post" points out, no matter the circuit court's ruling republicans stand to gain little. if the court sides with democrats, republicans walk away defeated. if the fifth circuit sides with republicans ruling the aca unconstitutional, the would almost certainly catapult the issue back before the supreme court. and if that happens and the high court were to decline the case, the drama would raise fresh uncertainties for millions of americans who could lose coverage and protections that were created under the law. that includes people with pre-existing conditions whom president trump has promised to protect. as one former house republican leadership aide told the washington post quote, rehashing the issue that perhaps most largely cost us the house doesn't. giving them all kinds of arguments about the president taking insurance away. trump is, quote, really playing with fire. this hearing is set for tomorrow. the court expected to take a coup

the 1990's or early 2000's, part of a team that worked in texas against enron and they convicted arthur anderson of abstraction, the supreme courtverturned the obstruction counts saying they were creatively written and i wanted mueller to make a comparison of those charges against arthur andersen and the charges against trump, because the court said they were created but not real law. host: for our viewers who may not have recognized the lawmakers, mary gay scanlon, a freshman, following behind her is matt gaetz from florida, republican, members of the committee making their way into the room to take their seats to have their turn to ask robert mueller five minutes worth of questions. we understand inside the binders at the seats at each lawmaker is that the mueller reports. we're almost ready for mr. mueller to make his way to the witness table. we have about 10 minutes before we bring you into the room and let you watch what is happening as the committee starts to kick off at 8:30 a.m. eastern time is when they are expected to start. they will go for three hours for the house judiciary committee and then mr. miller will get it

texas will consider arguments on the aca. whatever they rule could land in the supreme court again.more, let's welcome health policy reporter from capitol hill. how in danger is this law of being overturned? thinkot of lawyers don't this argument is solid, but there is still concern that the law could be overturned, that it could go to the supreme court, and the entire law could be struck down. vonnie: explain what the current appeal is on. it has to do with california and 19 other states that challenged the lawsuit, right? other state of texas and general --torneys is the penalty that people pay if they don't have insurance. do we have any idea as to how this particular appeals court might rule? can we tell by the hue of the judges? >> we are not sure but we tend to think it will be rolled 2-1 in favor of the district court ruling, and then the case will go to the supreme court. vonnie: if it does go to the supreme court, what our expert saying? will they find that striking down the individual mandate means that the whole thing is moot? >> it is really uncertain. this lawsuit is so

. >> in a landmark ruling, the supreme court today legalized abortions. the majority in cases from texassion to end a pregnancy during the first three months belongs to the woman and her doctor, not the government. thus, the anti-abortion laws of 46 states were rendered unconstitutional. >> roe v. wade accepted that a woman really cannot be equal if she doesn't have control over her reproductive ability. it was as simple as that. >> the newly liberalized abortion law brought immediate reaction. >> i think that the judgment of the court will do a great deal to tear down the respect previously accorded human life in our culture. >> what's interesting about roe versus wade is while it does legalize abortion, it as much really mobilizes the opposition. >> we protest today the holocaust of the 1970s in america. >> conservatives didn't used to mess with politics that much. and they start to campaign. it was the rise of extreme activist conservatism in america. >> certain conservatives don't know what to do with their frustration and with their yearning for the good old days and decide the prob

supreme court. the court down there is likely to rule very similar to what the judge down in texas did. fordable care act was upheld in the supreme court based on the taxation ability of the federal government and now the tax for the individual mandate is zero dollars, which we did in the tax legislation. the bottom line is, we need to make sure whatever happens that these people don't lose their health coverage because approximately 20 million people have health coverage either through the expansion of medicaid or through the federal exchange. both parties are concerned about making sure whatever happens, people don't lose their health coverage. host: potentially what could that look like? when republicans were in power in the house, there were many swings of the affordable care act, passing a number of laws to make changes or in some cases ending the affordable care act. looking ahead, if the supreme court does make a decision that is a major blow to the affordable care act that requires congress to act, one of the sorts of things you are hearing or perhaps working on that could be imp

texas attorneys general and others. this will all end up back at the u.s. supreme court. the third time it would go there.he affordable care act is likely to be in the hands of chief justice john roberts. alisyn? >> the supreme court seems to be very busy lately. joan, thank you very much for explaining all of that. let's bring back our panel. we have ellie honig, errol lewis, john avalon, bianna golodryga. so what happens to the millions who use the affordable care act? >> i don't think there's a plan, right? and there's a real chance this happens. the affordable care act is in genuine legal jeopardy. the forces are aligning against it. first of all, doj changed its position during this administration. now under barr it's the whole thing needs to go. the trial federal level judge said whole thing needs to go. it sounds like based on joan's reporting that the court of appeals is leaning that way too. and it's going to come up to the supreme court. and the only thing that kept john roberts that aligned him with the liberal justices was the individual mandate which is now gone. >> remember how many people w

fifth circuit court of appeals that was made in the case texas v.eus where the trump department of justice is not defending the affordable care act even though it was upheld by the supremeourt. this could have a consequence for 130 million americans with preexisting conditions who if the republicans, if the administration are successful in getting the court to overturn it could really lead to a significant loss of coverage for millions of americans. >> it's definitely something we are absolutely paying attention to. senator, big picture here with jeffrey epstein, i mean, the reality is, you know, his only ties to prominent politicians in the united states, it's not just donald trump, he also has ties to bill clinton, he has ties to prince andrew in the uk. what does it say about our society that this is something that was allowed to continue and go on for so long with so much seeming, you know -- with it seeming to happen basically in plain sight? >> well, this is part of what the whole me too movement has been about which is to finally blow the whistle on this kind of good old boy behavior where not just inappropriate or unseemly action, but in this case actually crimi