the u.s. supreme court. here to discuss this book, whicu argues that the supreme courtco has become increasingly partisan in the cases he says were threaten the court. what inspired you to write this book?ourse fo >> trump: -- >> as a practicing lawyer i followed the supreme court for many years and became alarmed in recent years reading the cases of the 5-4 decisions and the 6-3 decisions which seemed to be decided along partisan line so had the liberal wing of the court, all aopinioned by democratic presidents and the conservative wing all appointed by republican presidents, and they were taking political positions which could easily be identified with the ideas of the respective parties.oducti about thing wed care bit. excerp rights and preproductive rights. >> let's look an an exert. you say the court's dramatic porlarization is a recipe for the undermining of our greatest institution and has not been fully appreciated by most otherwise well insured americans. what did you mean by that? >> guest: there's

court and i do agree that the supreme court have got the say so all over, all r courts. i would like to comment. i agree with the supreme court on taking the -- when the lady filed a suit against taking prayer out of school. where it says we all created equal. that's what the bible says. host: let's give jim a chance to response to that. the issue of religion in schools. guest: well, we don't necessarily have to agree with supreme court decisions. they are the last word on the constitution. as justice jackson said, we're not final because we're infallible, we're infallible because we're final. it's believed by many that the supreme court is anti-christian, or they want to take god out of the schools, or they don't like it if there's a compulsory pledge of allegiance. but these are all recent decision that is they have arrived at and we entrust these nine individuals to decide these questions correctly. i don't always agree with the court's religion decisions. there's one recent one called count of greece which i strongly disagreed with where christian said at re

the u.s. supreme court. it says a victory by hillary clinton not only would break the glass ceiling at the white house but shake the foundations of the quartz marble palace leading to its first liberal majority since the vietnam era. donald trump selection would continue to perhaps, or even advanced conservative control for decades to come though the change in personnel could happee fast beyond the late justice scalia, three other justices are 78 - 83 years old. the ideological shift may take years to play out particularly in areas of law that has been relatively stable for decades. they predict repercussions from the 2016 elections will grow insignificant over time. you agree this is monumental? >> i agree that they are at the crossroads. we know we have one vacancy that has been filled with a moderatee and extraordinary capability and experience and has been blockedr on the experience which further po contributes and i agree with mike pence, whoever is elected president is going to influence the direction o

the standards here is fixed by the supreme court of the united states. mr. compton: i think state law goes to, your honor -- it doesn't change the supremacy clause. it doesn't change the decisions of the supreme court. mr. compton: they cannot, your honor. >> they can't. so how could it have anything to do with it? mr. compton: it goes to whether or not the state legislature can make a determination as to whether or not its citizens are legally allowed to possess a firearm and what circumstances. if they are not -- if they possess a firearm openly and are not committing a crime by doing so, then that takes away from the dangerousness aspect of it. >> mr. compton, but aren't you ignoring the facts of this case? you said if they possess a gun openly, this man was concealing a gun and we have the factual circumstances of the case that provide the additional information that he was loading a firearm in a public place in broad daylight at, what, 2:30 in the afternoon, and he then concealed the weapon on his person. now, why isn't that indicative of suspicious beha

the u.s. supreme court on this monday morning. ent early is joining us on capitol hill as the sun begins to rise behind him. the supreme court on our facebook page -- we are asking the question of whether or not the vacancy on the supreme court will impact your 2016 vote. you can join in on the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. -- "if theis tweet senate stays republican after the election, can they go for-eight more years before a justice is seated if hillary is elected?" guest: the assumption would be no. mitch mcconnell has said before that the next president should take the appointment. you would think that would mean hillary clinton if she was president or donald trump if he is president. obstructionism that has happened in the senate and the way both parties have been in control the senate, they have a lot of power to stop things happening. seeill be interesting to whether there is more that to come, not just in this year but in future years perhaps when the democrats control the senate and there's a republican in the white

they are presidential loyalists, but they are also advocates before the supreme court all the time. if they get pushed too far by a political president they will moderate their decisions before the supreme court and i think that fact, along with the consummate legal professionals that work in their office, that drives success more than anything. >> how does the us become party to a court case? >> there are lots of different ways, chief among which is the us getting sued by someone. if the us does something an individual thinks violates his or her statutory or constitutional rights they are allowed to file suit in federal court and take that to the supreme court if it is a case that is worthy of it. there are other instances in which the united states can get involved. the primary one is being a party to the case but then as i suggested earlier there is this notion of being an amicus pure i participant. when the government is not party to the case but has an interest in the outcome of the case. in those settings the solicitor general will get involved if the united dates wants, if the

nobody is defending that in the supreme court. the challenger says parcels are parcels and i have to treat them as two and don't use taking saw the turn them into two versus one. wisconsin is saying lots are lots but we have a state law saying when you own substandard lots that are next to each other our state law makes is one lot rather than two and that rule was in effect when you bought the property. it is odd because there are important issues of takings law that seem to go coming up in a case where there is little disagreement about taking principles and lots of disagreement about state law so it is hard to see how that will shake out into anything substantial. >> i believe that is one of the cases pacific legal foundation is involved in. i should note that. i wanted to first ask you all if any of the cases your fellow panelists brought up that you have a comment on or want to talk a little bit about. >> i would just say something about solomon which i think is huge. the insider trading case ted mentioned. you know it is impor

right off the top, first question, what's important about the supreme court is something one justice said about donald trump. on the one hand that was just a fantastic display of ignorant narcissism, right? hey, the supreme court isn't about you. but it's also possible that it was more than that as well. because justice ruth bader ginsburg having once said a critical thing about donald trump really isn't the most important thing everybody needs to know about the supreme court of the united states unless, unless the supreme court of the united states on which she sits is going to be called on to decide the presidential election between hillary clinton and donald trump. right now there are only eight justices on the supreme court since justice scalia died. four of the remaining justices were appointed by democrats, four were appointed by republicans. for more than seven months now republicans in the senate have refused to even consider president obama's nominee for the ninth seat on the court. and if the supreme court deadlocks in a 4-4 tie, they can't rule. i mean, if hypothetically c

the u.s. supreme court on our facebook page we're asking you that question whether or not the vacancy on the supreme court will impact your 2016 vote. you can join in on the conversation on facebook.com/cspan and jodie has this tweet. if the senate stays republican after the election can they go four to eight more years pfr a justice is seated if hillary is he elected? >> well, i mean, the assumption would be no. but just senator mcconnell has said before that the next president should get to pick the appointment so you'd think that means it would be hillary clinton if she is the president or donald trump if he is the president. and with the abinstructionism that has happened in the senate and both parties have been in the senate and stop things happening. and it's interesting to see whether there's more of that to come or whether -- not just in this year but perhaps when the democrats control the senate and there's a republican in the white house they could site this precedent to block a republican president from appointing a justice and then it can escalate that way where it might be -- well, mayb

when several military commission cases came before the supreme court. next, ohio state university benedict michael les delivers the history of ex parte milligan. this is part of a two day conference hosted by illinois state university. i am going to use the lectern for just a minute. thank you very much. pleasure to know our speaker tonight for more years than probably either of us would like to admit. when he was one of the brightest young graduate students at the university of illinois, where we both were heiman, under harold one of the greats in the field of constitutional history and reconstruction. es received his ba and masters degree at the university of illinois, where he was able to root for his beloved chicago that by later deserted going to rice university when professor hyman moved, and received his phd at rice university, where unlike many people, he published not just one book out of his dissertation, but two. unfortunately one of his books that he published out of his dissertation arrived at perhaps an auspicious time, the ineachment of an

. >> the supreme court's new term began today. last week supreme court scholars outline the cases to watch in the upcoming year including key first amendment and commercial cases. this is held by the specific legal foundation and the national review. [inaudible conversation] >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of the foundation d.c. center. on behalf of the foundation and national review institute, we welcome you to today's third annual supreme court review program. i would be ungracious if i didn't also think jones day for this wonderful room and the wonderful accommodations. we would also like to welcome those millions of c-span viewers that i mentioned earlier who are watching at odd hours of the night and day worldwide. national review is supplying our moderator who i will supply in just a moment. as for specific legal foundation, we just one hour ninth victory in a row in the supreme court. that victory in the hocks case was unanimous against the united states government. as was our last victory against the united s

the supreme court kicked off until october after the death of justice scalia. hear about the court and love of law from two justices. let me begin and take note of the fact that they have written books. "my beloved world. " and just ties ginsburg's book, "in my own words." looking back on your life and even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus and how was that? >> my -- "my own words" is a collection of speeches, tributes to colleagues. it's not a biography of me and my life is told in the introductory as my official authors have written. that will come out in the distant future. [laughter] charlie: but your book "my beloved world" you said i am my mother. what did you mean? >> as i tell her, good and bad. i am my mother's drive. she aspired to be more than her circumstances. she wanted to go desperately to go to college, and she lived in the poorest circumstances in her home community and she would watch the college girls walk by her house going to the post office, because that the town's social life

what impact did that have on the supreme court? michael: this would have been more similar to a supreme court justice from the 1850's who dissented from prescott -- from dread scott, took up a pilot against civil liberties-- reverend johnson is a similar person. davis had no use for african-americans. he had no use for abolitionist. he blamed that wing on the republican party for putting the union at risk. he saw abraham lincoln as a conservative whig choice for the republican party. he had no idea what lincoln would do. it safe to say david davis was a republican because he loved lincoln. and he wouldn't have been otherwise. when he got to the supreme court, he would not have indicated he was partisan. when you repeat what he says, he is an old whig. >> other questions or thoughts? >> as give les benedict another hand. [applause] michael: thank you very much. and [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are watching american histo

responsible for getting me out of the kitchen, and doesn't think i should go back in it. >> the supreme court refrigerant certificate filled with some of the leftovers. >> yes. >> rose: what's the best experience for a supreme court justice? because you were on the court of. >> oh, an interesting question. >> rose: tell me. >> well, i'm biased. i think being on the district court was. and since almost all of my colleagues have only had court of appeals experience, with the exception of one elena kagan who was never a judge, and there have only been three supreme court justices in the history of the court with district court experience. but i find it is hard to understand how you can really appreciate the life of a case if you haven't really sat in a court room to see that case develop. and to understand the dynamics that create a record, that create the discussions that end up coming before the court on appellate review. in my judgement, if i were ever privileged to be asked by a president what should he or she look for, i would probably see someone with district court experience. >> rose: be

do you have confidence in the supreme court? ile we wait for your calls, a little more about the headlines about senator cruz's comments about an indefinite block on supreme court appointments if hillary clinton wins the white house according to washington post. senator cruz speak to reporters after a campaign rally for a republican u.s. senate in colorado that there was a precedent with fewer than nine justices, appearing to suggest that the blockade on merrick garland could last past the election. he said, "i think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue." certainly long historical precedent for a supreme court with fewer justices. i would note that justice breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. that is a debate that we are going to have." that was more from ted cruz's comments. right now, we have a call from canonsburg, pennsylvania on our democratic line. do you have confidence? caller: absolutely. i think we have millions of people in america who cannot even na

at the supreme court is not very good than 10 years later they overrule the. but it is a text and judicial opinion that we're not paying attention to that anymore but the supreme court notion but they feel under pressure congress does not like the supreme court. so they were about congress's decisions and if congress does not love them. so to create some sense of the notion that they decided case and are still following it with pleasure the supreme court is brave to decide case. so looking back words that is the worst part of the profession last year it was the 800 anniversary of which people don't know anything laugh laugh so the magnet korda or the jury but magnet korda was from the popular king of england to one - - john and the of baron who was a much higher tier of the aristocracy, they did not like this guy so they managed to get him to agree that if the baron was prosecuted for anything, his guilt would be decided by a jury of his peers. and now ordinary people or the jury's. so after a few years to repeal back neckar up. eventually was restored of the m

justice ginsburg: i think the supreme court is the most respected high court in the world.was not always his way -- this way. it may be a rumor or a legend that president andrew jackson is supposed to have said that the said that about that jerky indians should be treated family, now let them -- that the cherokee indians should be treated fairly, now let them in force it -- enforce it. when the supreme court speaks, people listen. charlie rose: it can decide elections. justice ginsburg: if you have in case, ine-of-a-kind don't think it decided the election. it decided it sooner, but the outcome would have been the same. the election would have been thrown to the house of representatives, which then had a republican majority. it would have been a victory for bush anyway. it would have come weeks and weeks later than the supreme court decision. charlie rose: after the decision, which was 9-0 in the watergate case, everybody understood the court had spoken, and that was it. justice ginsburg: yes. and the president turned over the tapes and resign from office the next day. thin

. >> i think the supreme court is the most respected high court in the world. it wasn't always that way. it may be a rumor or a legend, but president andrew jackson was repeated to have said, well, the supreme court said that about how the cherokee indians should be treated fairly. the the supreme court says now let them enforce it because we have no purse strings and we have no guns at our disposal. yet, when the supreme court speakers people listen. >> rose: it can decide elections. >> i don't think, if you have in mind the one of a kind case, i don't think it decided the election. it decided it sooner but the outcome would have been the same because the election would have been thrown to the house of representatives which had a republican majority so it would have been a victory for bush anyway, but it would have come weeks and weeks later in a supreme court decision. >> rose: after the decision which was 9-0 in the watergate case, everybody understood the court had spoken and that was it. >> yes. and the president turned over the tapes and resigned from offi

republicans pushed past the florida supreme court to an even higher authority. >> the u.s. eme court has agreed to put a stay on the recount in florida. >> on december 9th in a stunning decision, the united states supreme court ruled 5-4 to stop the count. >> any lunch in a sports bar, when the television flashed across the screen that the united states supreme court had issued an order stopping the vote count, my first reaction is that had to be a mistake. >> can't be true. >> was true. >> advantage bush. and so the final showdown was set between two super lawyers. democrat david boyce for gore when was desperate to restart the counting. >> citizens' right to vote. >> it certainly felt momentous. we knew the stakes were very high. >> all we heard today -- >> and republicans ted olson who went to work immediately to keep the count frozen. >> i found literally a broom closet on the floor beneath where everybody was working where i could close the door and think and write. >> after just 36 hours to prep, olson and boyce climbed the marble steps. each ascending into a legal str

charlie: the supreme court began its new term this monday. e focus has been less on the docket and more on the court's future, which hangs on the outcome of the election. the seat held by antonin scalia remains vacant as senate republicans have refused to consider the nomination of judge merrick garland. stephen breyer has served in the supreme court for more than two decades. president bill clinton nominated him in 1994. he was first named to the bench by president jimmy carter in 1980. he served 14 years as a judge, and later as chief judge for the court of appeals in boston. he is known for his love of literature and architecture. his third book was published last year. it explores the work of foreign and international law in american judicial decisions. i spoke with justice breyer in new york city, and here is that conversation. i begin with this book called "the court and the world." we were talking backstage, and somehow this book, which is now in paperback, and you and i have talked about this, it is getting a resurgence. justice breyer

quayle, warm welcome, and of course to the members of the supreme court, and may i simply say that barbara joined nationu and with all the in mourning the loss of you and rehnquist, the wife of the chief justice. let me also welcome the many members of the united states today,s that are with us singled out but a few, minority leader dole and chairman biden, and ranking member thurman of the committee, and so many others, the members of our cabinet over here, and so many friends of parents thomas who work with him here in washington , and of course, i should especially single out senator jack danforth, a man every american would be proud to call friends. [applause] and of course, those special guests and the many members of clarence thomas' family here here in the front row, and clarence's mother, his sister, his brother, his sisters, aunts. that's the way it ought to be. all of you, some of whom drove all the way up. i see a little advertisement here from pinpoint georgia to be here this afternoon. sisters, aunts. that's the way it ought to be. that is 600 long miles that i got a feeling t

the u.s. supreme court by president george h.w. bush in 1991. he was confirmed by the senate in a 52-48 vote. next, the white house swearing in ceremony, held 20 years ago -- 25 years ago this month. this is 20 minutes. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. bush, accompanied by justice byron white, and justice and mrs. clarence thomas. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> the invocation will be given by senator john c danforth. senator danforth: i ask you to please observe a moment of silence in memory of mrs. natalie rehnquist. holy and loving god, who has given us this great nation, and has called gifted men and women to bear the burdens and assume the duties of public service, we give you thanks and praise for raising from humble origins, clarence thomas, to the highest court in our land. we thank you for his strength, his courage, and for the kindness and devotion of his heart. especially we thank you that he has persevered through adversity, that he has fought the good fight, and that with your guidance, he has grown i

rubio: we should understand the role of the supreme court in this country. i don't care what the justice's personal views are. let me tell you the proper role of the supreme court is not -- it is not to write lost. that's right laws -- right laws. that is the job of the legislative branch. the proper role of the supreme court is to take the case and apply the constitution according to its original meaning. what do those words mean to the people who wrote them? if you don't like what the constitution says, we have an amendment process. that is the way you change the constitution. my number one criteria is, they are all smart people that went to ivy league schools. but do they understand the proper role of the court? if the people on that court or -- are not those that understand the proper role, we will lose our own constitution. control of the court is to apply that according to its original meaning. that is the singular criteria i will use in evaluating any nomination that comes before the senate. >> nearly half a million people have died in the war in many

the matter for themselves in a 5-4 ruling in december, supreme court overturned the florida supreme court and stopped the ongoing recount of ballots in the state of florida and that's how we got president george w. bush and everything that befell the country thereafter. today, it's once again the first monday in october and so the u.s. supreme court had its first day of school today for 2016. this year, everybody thinks that the big decisions are going to be probably on race and criminal justice, potentially a big ruling to be had on voter suppression in texas. who knows. we'll see where the court goes, what cases they hear, what lands with a huge splash. you cannot always tell in advance. just ask the year 2000. but let's say, just for the sake of argument, that history does repeat itself this year. let's say that, once again, just like the last time there was an open seat in the white house and we were deciding who would be the next president after two terms of a relatively popular democratic president, let's say history repeats itself again and let's say, like the year 2000, let's

the constitution and the court. charlie: one thing that justice scalia said, probably wasn't the best idea of how many supreme court stices that came from harvard or yale and wasn't a great deal for the supreme court trmmost of them didn't have -- i may be wrong. regardless of whether he said it or not -- [laughter] >> i'll give you that. >> since i'm from yale and ruth spent time of her time at harvard. charlie: you got your degree from columbia. when you switched to -- from harvard at two years to columbia, harvard would not give you a degree. >> i had to stay. charlie: yoir husband was moving to new york, correct? >> yes. >> i didn't want to be a single mom. marty had been diagnosed with a very severe cancer and didn't know how he was going to live and didn't want to be apart that year and didn't want to be a single mom to my then two-year-old daughter. and i asked if i could complete i education at columbia where would get a harvard agree. -- degree. and cornell had taken the first year. she transferred into our second year. i said to the dean, is this a battle we will have in year two or three. and the first ye

. >> it works in the supreme court too? [laughter] >> yes, it does for me. >> what is it like to be such an icon? what does it mean to you that people know who you are, the notorious rbg, there's an opera named after you and justice scalia and all of these things. what does that mean to you? is it awkward, or do you kind of enjoy it? >> i think it's amazing. now i'm 83, and everyone wants to take a picture with me. [laughter] this notorious rbg is the creation of a second-year law student at nyu, now graduated, and it started when the court announced the decision in the shelby county case that declared unconstitutional part of the voting rights act of 1965. she, this student, jana, was displeased, angry, and then she said, well, i heard from someone i admire that anger, envy, these are useless emotions. they don't advance anything, so best do something positive. and the something positive was to put my dissent in the shelby county case on tumblr, and then it took off into the wild blue yonder from there. and when my be law c

us to discuss the challenges before the supreme court. ersus gore. the two teamed up in 2009 to fight california's ban on same sex marriage. the case paved the way for the supreme court to declare same sex marriage a constitutional right. boies says he's voting for hillary clinton. i brought up the third debate, when they brought up the supreme court, i cheered, finally we're discussing this issue. if this election is contested, if donald trump alleges it is rigged, could it make its way to the supreme court? >> it is conceivable it could make its way to the supreme court. it depends so much on what happens in close votes and individual states because of the way the electoral college is set up, the votes are by state. if it is very, very close popular vote, and particular state, as it was in 2000, in florida, it is conceivable that there will be arguments about disputes then, about the butterfly ballot absentee ballots, veterans ballots and how things were counted and recount, it is conceivable that could happen again, highly unlikely. >>

the supreme court justice, they feel under pressure, for one thing congress doesn't like the supreme ourt. the supreme court has a way of invalidating congressional legislation. justices worry about congress and maybe they won't get raises if congress doesn't love them, so they want to create some sense of infallibility so the notion they decided a case a hundred years ago and they're still following it makes it seem as if, well, the supreme court must be really great because it can side a case and a hundred years case later it's still the law. and looking backwards is really that's the worst thing about the profession. they made such a fuss last year because it was the 800th anniversary of magnakarta about which people don't know anything. they think it's the beginning of the jury, great charter of liberty, magnet karda was a very unpopular king of england, john, really bad, and the barons who were a higher tier of english arson to -- aris to -- they managed to agree that if a barron was prosecuted for anything, his guilty would be decided by a jury of his peers. it had to be other b

court. justices will hear the case, today. corey-- we'll let you know when they make a decision. and samsung just can't catch a break... supreme court justices will hear arguments in the ongoing patent dispute between the world's top two smartphone manufacturers - samsung and apple. the two are arguing over how much samsung should pay apple - after copying part of the iphone's design. samsung has already paid 548- million... but that was just part of its liability. the justices have until next june - to make an official ruling. students in chicago will be in class with district leaders - avoiding a strike. just before midnight..the chicago teachers union reached a "tentative agreement" with the country's third-largest district - avoiding what would have been the second major strike for chicago public schools - since 2012. part of the deal includes a four year plan - that would include cost of living increases for union members in its third and fourth year. the deal still has to be formally approved by the union and of members - but chicago's mayor and the union president agree - they're just happy to have nearly 400- thousand

in 1986, the supreme court held the state could criminalize gay sex. thein 2000 something, supreme court reversed itself. >> it is true that cases are occasionally overruled. that is correct. >> you are saying that could happen. it is not likely to happen with this court. >> the current court, i don't see at all. with trump nominees, perhaps. but this is one of those principles that is so settled and ingrained that i don't think this court will give the press any further protection, but nor do i think it will cut back on what for two generations now has been thought to be a core protection. >> can i just note. i believe that chief justice burger and chief justice byron white are the only two justices over a 50 year period who have called for reconsidering times versus sullivan. more.d not agree there is no one on the current court who wants to take a bite out of it. >> we could not expected this court to extend the rights any further? >> katie may have a view on this, but if i were still a press lawyer, i would try pretty hard to keep a press case out o

the judicial power is with the supreme court. donald trump uses the phrase, "i am going to open up he isbel laws," oversimplifying. -- governing law of the law statesaw of the united decisionm a landmark from the supreme court of the from before i was covering for anybody. it is a case that many, if not newt, would recognize -- v. sullivan. if i heard mr. trump correctly, he said that you ought to be able to sue when it is false, defamatory, and they know it is. that is new york times versus sullivan. i do not know how he plans on changing the law to open it up. historical for a sketch. let's go back 300 years to the case of a german immigrant who printed a paper called "the new york weekly journal." some writer, i'm not sure if we know the writer of the story, ofused the colonial governor various acts of corruption and the colonial government charged likerinter with libel, charging your it staff for libel for whatever is published in your news organization. was favorable to the plaintiff and the presumption was that you had the c

the supreme court gets the case.court decision was supporting one side or the other would be affirmed, 4-4, if that's how the courts split. >> sounds like a not good result. for anyone involved. >> i mean, this is why the supreme court has an odd number of seats on it. >> become odd numbered because of the ginsburg factor now? ruth bader ginsburg statements made in an interview with cnn she then essentially had to apologize for about donald trump. what do you think would happen? >> that, again, is a difficult question. one of the oddities about the supreme court is that unlike other federal courts, the lower federal courts, there is no binding rule of legal ethics on the supreme court. it's the honor system. they have to decide themselves whether to recuse themselves in any given case. that's been the subject of some criticism, but that's the rule as it is now. so it could simply be up to ruth ginsburg whether she wanted to recuse hems, and there's no review, no appeal of that decision. it's just up to her. >> so spe

just a couple blocks from here is the supreme court. in big letters at the top it says equal justice under the law that is the purpose of the court to make sure we are a nation of laws u not men and live under self-governed very constitutional people. whether you are wealthy or poor. powerful or powerless, white, black, male, female, that is not the thing that we use to decide whether you are on the right side of the law or not. we have laws and we apply them universally. and equally for all people. so when she says that it's -- that the purpose of the court is to go against wealthy people, that is a very deeply troubling thing. and even more so since the big concern with hillary clinton's political career is that she has not been held, that she is above the law. that she has not been held to the standards of the law. it's something that i think people should really pay attention to. >> there was a time as you suggested earlier when if you were talking about a potential justice of the supreme court, and you suggested that the -- that ju

the time this case i got to the court. i remember going to conference one morning and i bet the justice on the way and in the way supreme courtoffices are set up he was down the hall from me, it is really quite something, he would come out of his office door and he would look down the hall to see if anybody was coming, the two other people down the hall word justice thomas and me. then he would wait for you to come up the hall. i was felt like a teenage girl being, somebody was a wedding for me to walk to school together something like that. it was it was sort about of a -- anyway, so he waited for me to come down the hall and we walked to the rest of the way to the conference room. i said -- everything about the way we do statutory interpretation is different. that you you cannot imagine anybody writing these kind of decisions now. nobody in the court on the left, the right to newbury on the court think you could write a decision which didn't really mention the statutory text. nobody in the court would write a decision which placed front and center random materials from the legislative record and legislative history. nobody