world, and therefore the hero judge of every republican in the united states senate who would all vote to confirm her to the united states supreme court, in a flash. you heard former federal prosecutor barbara mcquade on this program last night say something she has never said here before. i agree with william barr. and that is because donald trump's last confirmed attorney general, william barr, is now saying every day, that judge cannon's decision is wrong. and he's doing it, interestingly, on rupert murdoch's fox propaganda channel, which means that is a command decision being made by rupert murdoch, to invite william barr on fox every day so far this week, to condemn judge aileen cannon's attempts to help donald trump. today, william barr told the fox audience this. >> there is no scenario, legally, in which the president gets to keep the documents government documents, unless it's whether it is classified or unclassified. -- if you find very sensitive documents in trump's desk, along with his passports that ties trump to those documents. the passports are things that the government -- you know, they are personal stuff to tr

>> forwards are inscribed in the stone above the united states supreme court. equal justice under law. equal justice under law. in many ways, the story of america has been about making those words true for all americans. sometimes we take boldot steps forward and other times unfortunately we take disturbing costeps backwards. we all know when the constitution was written there wasn't equal justice under the law. that's pretty obvious. so many people were excluded from voting and other rights but we've tried to move forward and that's one of the things about america. we keep moving forward. we push. but unfortunately today, america finds itself in one of those frightening moments of regression. a few months ago tens of millions of women solve their fundamental right to choose taken away before their very eyes. justiceop thomas in a concurring opinion suggested other rights like the freedom to marry protected might come next. the thought should make us sick to our stomachs. the senate has a responsibility now to act. because of this threat, the senate will hold a

we should all be proud of justice ketanji brown jackson and her historic investiture to the united states supreme court. more than 100 justices have served on the united states states supreme court over the past 200 years.

why should only five members of the united states supreme court get to decide the final interpretationlaw of the land? why doesn't senator sinema advocate a minimum of a six vote threshold in the united states supreme court, instead of a mayor majority. why is the united states of america the only country that has a 60% threshold to win a vote in a national legislative body. senator sinema went to kentucky to deliver that speech at a government funded university, at a place that calls itself the mcconnell center. senator mitch mcconnell as effectively purchased the naming rights by delivering federal funding to the university, which of course includes taxpayer money obtained in a much richer state of new york and california. the united states constitution says that the president shall nominate, and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint judges of the supreme court. the constitution does not say that mitch mcconnell shell prevent a nominated supreme court justice from even being considered by the united states senate for its consent as mitch mcconnell did tumeric garla

. >> forwards are inscribed in the stone above the united states supreme court.al justice under law. equal justice under law. in many ways, the story of america has been about making those words true for all americans. sometimes we take boldot steps forward and other times unfortunately we take disturbing costeps backwards. we all know when the constitution was written there wasn't equal justice under the law.

decision and, so senators democrats and a handful of republican safe we may need to, if the united states supreme court can overturn something like roe v. wade and perhaps they can overturn other long-standing precedents. like the protection for the use of contraception, like gay marriage. so this bill sponsored by tammy baldwin she is teaming up with susan collins basically in shrine to protect same-sex marriage as well as interracial marriage as a right. this is a priority of tammy baldwin. she is the first openly gay senator to be elected. right now, things are a little bit in limbo. there were discussions that things would be attached and use that as a vehicle to move it forward but what baldwin and chuck schumer have said in recent days as they want to move that separately. they think the best chance for that is to hold a standalone vote on that bill and there are negotiations happening. there are concerns on the right about protections for religious freedom whether or not religious freedom would be infringed by the tammy baldwin bill. so there are bipartisan negotiations and they're looking

but the united states supreme court in 1954, desegregating america schools. the supreme court order to president richard nixon was a unanimous decision of the supreme court ordering the president of the united states to hand over evidence to a special prosecutor investigating that president. that case was decided on the law and the constitution, not politics, and certainly not because of who appointed those supreme court justices, three of those justices who ordered richard nixon to hand over evidence to a prosecutor were appointed by richard nixon. and that is what made us believe in the legitimacy of the supreme court, and sometimes even the nobility of the supreme court. and now those days are gone. because donald trump won the electoral college. and when the party to appoint federal judges. and using his appointment -- law and the constitution, not politics, and certainly not because of who appointed those supreme court justices, three of those justices who ordered richard nixon to hand over evidence to a prosecutor were appointed by richard nixon. and tha

those laws were authorized by the united states supreme court. he united states suprem court. that was the first in history to take rights away from women and girls, and insist that suddenly ten year old girls in this country, by law, must give birth after being raped. john roberts wonders why people do not simply stop at politely disagreeing with that opinion, and take that next step to question the very legitimacy of the court. the court quoted the 400-year-old opinions of british judges, who believed in putting witches to death, and did indeed themselves sentence which is to death. they quoted those british judges in opposition to a portion to justify their own decision in 2022. in order to force young girls in this country to give birth after being raped the courts legitimacy is being questioned by members of the supreme court itself. justice is stephen breyer, kagan, wrote in their dissent that john roberts supreme court majority overturning roe v. wade, quote, undermines the courts legitimacy. joining us now is the senior editor and foreign

help deliver, justice to could tonja brown jackson on -- justice ketanji brown jackson on the united states supremeourt. validating their promise and potential as they watched a brilliant and qualified like jurist take their place on the highest court in the land. i could go on and on, the chips and science act that's helping return manufacturing to the united states and stay ahead of the competition from china. the pact act will finally do right by my generation and every generation, leadership delivered that, including some of the leaders who are here in this room. and of course the inflation reduction act that's going to lower cost for americans, lower the deficit, finally allow medicare to negotiate prescription jar -- drug prices and the most significant vomit legislation passed in any country ever. that is a big deal. in this washington where supposedly nothing gets done, we've done so much that it is hard to keep track of it all. i'm just going to start calling it the big deal. teddy roosevelt had the square deal, fdr had the new deal. i'm going to say this body of defining in cream it -- ac

and ultimately, the united states supreme court. they have shown they have a willingness to change is the sting law. there's not much law and executive privilege. but it's pretty clear right now that former president doesn't have a say-so on privileges. it's decided by the current president, the current government official. i have real concerns of the united states supreme court is anxious to step into the -- of law. i'm more concerned about them. and the 11th circuit, as you pointed out, there are a number of trump appointees there. i'm more concerned about them. i think maybe the best place to be is with a special master. we all know who that person's going to be. -- that person's gonna have to be really neutral and have to follow current laws. i think that maybe a better place to be. and you can build a record with that special master that makes it harder for the supreme court, who i think is -- makes it hard for them to jump. and i think you have to be very careful about that throughout the whole process. >> i don't think we're

can appeal that to the 11th circuit, and then from there the loser can appeal that to the united states supreme court. that is also true about harry litman's point about the. stay the stay can be decided on these documents. it could be decided in the course of the next week, but i expect a loser in that litigation to also go to the united states supreme court. it's on an emergency basis, so it can be done pretty quickly. i do think within two weeks we could have resolution on the hundred documents. on the special master as a whole, though, we are talking about a card that donald trump has played which, honestly, no federal defended i have ever seen has ever gotten this, but he somehow asked managed to get it from judge cannon. that is a recipe for delay. what the government has done here is so smart, by surgically taking out these hundred documents and saying, let's decide that on an emergency basis. as not-so-as the rest of the ruling is, we can talk about that in the later time. >> what do you think about that? >> it's true that an emergency state can give go very quickly. the loser can -- >>

within the scope of that investigation. >> what do you make of the public its trust of the united states supreme court dropping to historic lows? gallup who records whether the public approved of the supreme court tracked a 20 point drop and at the same time, you have the wife of a sitting supreme court justice who is the lone dissent in a decision to turn donald trump's records over to the committee investigating a deadly insurrection. you have her at the center of what we know is under criminal investigation, the fake electors plot. what do you make as a member of a co-equal branch of government about the public sentiment about the united states supreme court? >> well, i think unfortunately the court's actions on a number of cases have made the court seemed like just another partisan institution. and the justices should take care that their actions don't feed that perception. the fact that new justices voted to throw out a 50 year precedent after telling the u.s. senate that they had no intention of doing so helps also undercut confidence in their nonpartisan activity. so it is not for me to t

it would also empower the united states supreme court because it ultimately be the one to determine whente courts have gone too far and somehow created a federal constitutional problem. but the other thing that it would do is it would create some chaos and potential for election subversion, the stealing of elections, because this theory was relied upon by the trump allied forces going to court after the 2020 election, arguing that state legislatures had the power to redo the state's choice of presidential electors and pick a different slate of electors, turning states that biden won into states that trump won. i don't think the supreme court is going to go that far in this case, but it certainly could provide the kind of decision that could be relied upon by state gislatures if they try to take the power away from voters and be able to choose who should be president in their state. geoff: well, a question on that point, because there are people who see this effort by conservative activists as part of a longer term strategy to hold on to power in the face of demographic shifts that aren't

long-standing decision and so senators, democrats and a handful of republicans said if the united states supremeourt can step in and overturn a precedent like roe v wade perhaps they can overturn others like marriage and the protection for the use of contraception. this bill sponsored teaming up with susan u collins the republican from maine what basically and trying and protect same-sex marriage as well as interracial marriage as a right. this is a priority of course the first senator to be elected and so right now things are a little in limbo. there was discussion about maybe they would attach that bill to the cr and use that as a vehicle to move it forward, but what baldwin and chuck schumer have said in recent days they thinknk the best chance for that is to hold a standalone vote on the bills so there are negotiations happening. there arear concerns raised abot protections for religious freedom whether or not it would be infringed by the tammy baldwin bill so there are a lot of bipartisan negotiations and they've been looking for sort of that middle ground. >> does she say that there's nine

we have confirmed the first black woman who will sit on the united states supreme court. i was the first black attorney general of the united. i mean, just one generation after my was told to leave a whites only car while wearing the united states army uniform. during course of world war two, he his was able to serve as attorney general the united states. and that's something that's progress now that's progress that my parents and generations before would never have imagined. but we to be extremely clear that progress did not simply. it was won by those who confronted forces of injustice throughout the history of this to make america a better more equal and more fair place. it was built by individuals we talk about in the book who are committed to our highest ideals, and it was achieved as it always has been, in the midst of unrelenting, escalating attempts to fight against and against democratic ideals. you know, for as long as america has existed to opposing forces have clashed over how express and how we can for the rights and privileges of citizenship from the founding

the united states supreme court court just took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of america, from the women of america, and now these extremists so-called leaders are passing laws to criminalize health care providers and punish women. they believe that government should make personal decisions for women, that government should make decisions for women about their own body. well, we do not. we trust women. [applause] and on a further point to be made on that subject, on the subject of choice and with the dobson decision has done and what it means, it is an important point to acknowledge that you do not have to abandon your faith or belief to agree that the government should not be making that decision for her. [cheers and applause] and thank, kansas. [cheers and applause] -- thank you, kansas. [cheers and applause] you guys are here. [cheers and applause] those extremist so-called leaders say we should return this issue to the voters in the state. well, isn't that ironic? [laughter] because some of these same people are the ones passing laws that make it

the library of congress the united states supreme court the thurgood marshall judiciary building and all of the outdoor sculptures such as the one that is preserved today. senator blunt talked about mr. blanton's work and his education at the naval academy it is my honor to present to you. brett blanton architect of the capitol thank you for that warm. welcome. good morning, and thank you for being here. i'm honored to join senator blunt, miss campbell mr. white. and members of the united states capitol historical society in celebrating the 200th anniversary of president grant's birth and the 100 anniversary of this memorial. now i'm not going to talk about president grant. and i do agree that he is one of the greatest presidents in our union and i will also acknowledge as well that i firmly believe that he did save the union and we would not have a capital complex like we have today if it wasn't for president grant not only was he a great leader in the military, but he was a great leader for our nation and i'm truly honored to be here. as many, you know, this memorial was sculpted b

the second remedy you have is an appeal to the united states supreme court. i tried that too. once i got a case that i lost in the fourth circuit taken by the united states supreme court and i was able to be successful there in getting it reversed. if you're a party that's unhappy, that's your remedy, to appeal, whether you're rich or poor, whether it's a corporation or individual, a civil or criminal case, if you don't like the ruling of a district court, you appeal to an appellate court and if you don't like the appellate court decision, you try to go to the supreme court. that is a rule that should apply to all litigants. in this case what the mountain pipeline is asking is, in my view, an egregious and dramatic overreach. they don't like the rulings of the fourth circuit. they haven't been able to get the fourth circuit to take the case, they haven't been able to convince the supreme court that the fourth circuit is wrong, what the mountain valley pipeline owners are asking the senate to do and what this bill proposes is that we would take jurisdiction away from the fourth

a chapter where we have just gotten knocked back, with a supreme court of the united states taking away our right for the first time the supreme court did. and we are in the midst of a time where our politics have gotten more afraid, more divided. and each chapter in our american democracy has been written by people who rise up, ordinary americans, and demand more, demand change, and demand forward progress. this next chapter in our american democracy in many ways is going to depend on the outcome of this governor's race here in pennsylvania. whether we are going to allow our democracy to be compromised by someone like my opponent, this dangerous, chaotic extremist, who has already said that he would use his powers as governor to decertify voting machines in pennsylvania to pick the winner. if he thwarts the will of the people here in pennsylvania, that compromises the will of the people all across the united states of america in 2024. so, yes lawrence, we feel a certain humbleness in this campaign. and i think the good people of pennsylvania feel a certain responsibility to be able to

more evidence of why it is that we need ethics rules that are the law and that apply to the united states supremecourt. conflicts of interest, having a family member that might be engaged in a matter before the court. we need rules in place so that it is not up to the justice himself, himself or herself to decide whether or not to say i will step back. but we've got a set of rules that apply to everyone. that is true in the lower courts in the federal system. but the supreme court is the one place where they get to make the rules for themselves. i think it is wrong, we need legislation to put a stop to it. >> so that folks if they don't know. it's a judicial code of conduct binding on lower court judges. but the supreme court, if your own son or daughter say we're arguing the case, you would not have to recuse yourself, you would think public pressure would make you do it, but right, now you could just go ahead and listen to the case. >> that's exactly right. or if you have financial interest or you had a spouse that had a financial interest or if you had taken free vacations from somebody who ha

but i expect the loser of that litigation shelters are going to the united states supreme court. it's on an emergency basis,, so it can be done pretty quickly, i do you think within two weeks we will have resolution of the hundred documents. as as a special master as a whole, though, we are talking about a car -- has ever gone in this. but he somehow has managed to get it from judge cannon, it's a recipe for delay, that's why would the government's done here is so smart, by surgically taking out these hundred documents and saying let's decide that on an emergency basis, as not-so-as rest of the ruling, as we can talk about that later time. >> what do you think about that? >> sort of. i it's true that an emergency state can go very quickly. of course the loser can. >> can but doesn't necessarily have to go. >> yes, but i really think the state. there's nothing meritorious about it. it's straightforward. i don't see the court taking it. but the point meal was just raising, which is the process of executive privilege review? let's review under completely unsettled law. and you can s

supreme court ruling back on precedent. it is on heard of. and this is in the wake of, just as we have talked about, high rates of maternal mortality in the united statesurt could issue a decision like that, citing to past legal theorists who believed in marital rape being illegitimate and domestic violence as being legitimate. you know, in a court that anchors itself in the jurors prudence of the 15th and 16th century, it doesn't respond to the lives of girls and women today. that is why people are losing faith in this court. it is a court that one has to take, you know, in some ways, think of it in some cynical ways. that could be legitimate. i mean, let's be clear. this is a court that says that if people don't like this decision, just go vote. right? let's think about what that means in this mississippi. a case where a state where black people were forced to guess how many bubbles on a bar of soap to vote. how many jelly beans in a jar in order to vote, beside the state's constitution in order to vote? and a supreme court that very recently held to dismantle any provisions of the voting rights act. so when americans say that they are doubtful about

and then in the united states, it is ultimately whatever five supreme court justices say it is. if there were five ginni thomas 's or aileen canyons on the supreme court, it's entirely possible that trump would have gotten away with attempted coup. as of now, this ruling stands. what comes next, nobody knows. i am joined now by someone who may have an educated guess, andrew weissmann, spent years working with the department of justice, who spent years working with the lead prosecutor in robert mueller's special counsel investigation. he wrote a piece in the atlantic about the special master case titled, a ruling untethered to the law. he joins me now. tell me how you really feel. i guess, let's start at this. i try to check my own bias here. obviously, i have them, i have my own principles and politics. i read the ruling, and, again, i am not a lawyer. give me your distillation for non laywers what makes this such a strange ruling. >> i think there are two things. one is that as you mentioned at the very outset, when january six happened, we all saw in the district courts that t

midterm election in which so much is on the line take, for example, the issue of choice the united states supreme court in the dobbs decision just took a constitutionalright that had been recognized from the women of america, from the people of america. well, how does that relate to the midterms our president has said he will not let the filibuster get in the way. if the senate through a majority vote votes to pass the women's health protection act, he will sign it into law do you know what that means in the midterms we need to hold on to the senate and get two more and then we can put into law the protections of roe v. wade. everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in america who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman's right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do. >> 52 senate seats, legislative filibuster gone or just on this issue? >> the president has been clear, on this issue and on a very important issue in addition to that important issue, which is voting rights. and the p

the united states supreme court just took a constitutional right.t had been recognized. >> this comes as the dnc unanimously approved a measure calling for president biden to grant clemency to activists. leonard helped here from prison. >> and now kron 4 sports. >> all right. we'll stanford has gone from handling an fcs school. colgate last saturday to taking on the nation's 10th ranked team in usc this afternoon. and what a difference a week makes feel. nice moment prior to the game today, stanford honoring their former all american quarterback andrew luck who was inducted into the college football hall of fans and graduations out to him. stanford here was down 14, nothing in the 1st quarter when current stanford quarterback tanner mckee, it's j smith on the 7 yard touchdown plate. days that emmitt smith enjoying the play. stanford down 14, 7 now, but it only took us 11 seconds to get the score back. quarterback jalen williams, caleb williams drops back, fires it down the field to jordan. addison there. great catch eludes. a defender scampered. 75

now, with regard to the united states supreme court. so there's a loss of respect and it's appropriate that there's a loss of respect. well, let me make one quick comment on this. i agree with marcus comment. of course. but i think what what we have, particularly in the decision that i cited, which is not yet a decision, it's only a leaked draft opinion. but if roe versus wade were to be overruled, this would be the first case in which a settled constitutional right in, this case, a right that has been established for over half a century or about half a century, would be explicitly overturned. and the disruptive quality of that, leaving aside entirely the question of the values underlying that, is huge. and the role of the supreme. should not be one one of disrupt thing. this society in a fundamental way is what what this decision will causing all of effects that are only now beginning to be explored. so in that sense the court is truly radical. it's operating in a system where there's gridlock in the other parts of the government, of t

united states of america was stolen from ex-president donald trump. all of it entirely unprecedented as is the politics and perception problem for the united states supremet help. new polling just this week shows that trust in the court is at a historic low. the justices themselves now publicly feud over their own legitimacy. from politico this week, we cannot recall the last time justices sparred with each other in the press in this manner. let's bring in harry lipman, now the host of "talking feds podcast." i want to dive into the specifics, but i just want to step back for a minute. i mean, i know some people are shocked, but i'm shocked. i still think it is a bombshell that the wife of a sitting supreme court justice doesn't accept the results of a 2020 election in the united states of america. her husband is one of nine people who sit on the highest court in the land with unchecked power. the most opaque branch of the united states government. there really aren't any ethics laws that govern any of them, so i suppose it's a good thing that she went before the 1/6 committee. but what she said there is a bombshell. she doesn't believe that power should

in 16 different states and at all levels of the state and federal judiciary, including the united states supreme court. he previously served as the acting assistant attorney general and deputy assistant the attorney general for the civil rights division of the united states department of justice from 2017 to 2019. that role, he left -- of the federal civil rights laws nationwide. next, we have professor derrick miller, a professor of law at the university of iowa college of law. he is nationally recognized as a scholar in the field of election law, has researched the role of states and administration of federal elections and constitutional contours, voting and election administration. the limits of judicial power in the domain of elections and the electoral college. as the bipartisan working group worked on the bill, they provided them with an expert guidance and advice, and i want to thank all five of our witnesses for joining us today and we look forward to your testimony. >> very good. if you will all stand, including our witnesses, raise your right hand. do you swear that your testimony that

the united states supreme court, they will join us next. >> will join us next >> or more - can be overwhelmingnts headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they even start. it's the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. so far, more than 5 million botox® treatments have been given to over eight hundred and fifty thousand chronic migraine patients. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. in a survey, 92% of current users said they wish they'd talked to their doctor and started botox® sooner. so, ask your doctor if botox® is right for you. learn how abbvie could help yo

which regulates texas has ruled in nra 1 and nra 2 decisions that were denied review by the united states supreme court that age limits are appropriate. to your point, there are 18 states that have age limits, some of which are hybrid, some are handguns, some are handguns and long guns. we need to do the right thing here. most importantly, we need to be truthful with people. we have a governor unfortunately who has decided to go down a different road, a road of disinformation, it seems. >> texas state senator roland gutierrez, thank you so much. >> it isn't officially fall, but the fall campaign season is in full swing. excuse me. why pennsylvania may be the key to control of the senate. stay with us. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6ey indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger. oh, that i can't believe i scored this price feeling! wayfair always delivers small prices for big dreams. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ we lost about everything trying to pay for presc