, my colleagues, the supreme court term begins with the announcement by the marshal of the united states supreme court. he strikes the gavel and says, the honorable, the chief justice and associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yay. all persons putting businesses before the honorable supreme court of the united states were drawing nearer and giving attention to the court is now setting. god save the united states, and this honorable court. three times what the supreme court is honorable. with the enactment of this legislation, our highest court in the land can make that claim. i now yield the center to graham. >> thank you mister chairman. i appreciate it very much. this will be a spirited debate. i hope you have nowhere to go today because we have a lot of amendments worthy of your consideration. a couple points, what you're trying to do is not improve the court, you're trying to destroy it. it's been an ongoing effort here. [silence] you have to look at this in terms of what's been going on for a couple of years. so senator schumer, this is the court.

not a oral argument actually there is a alesson there which is arguingn behalf of the united states and the supremecourt of the united states is the greatest thrill about being the solicitor general or the office of the solicitor general it is the point of a lot of what we do. but for every 30 minutes at the podium therere are thousands of cases written in the process and cases that never gets argument and all of the briefing is very important and when i was in the office as a deputy. there was a challenge from the bipartisan campaign format and it was a special provision with the direct mechanism and a three-judge district court to the supreme court of the united states. these proceedings took place after the law passed there were 11 different challenges to the law that consolidated in a single case, the three-judge court produced a thousand page opinion with four different opinions for three judges, showing how dismissive and how messy this was there were 11 different petitions for review filed from that decision of the supreme court and they were all supposed to be consolidated in a single case.

court to expect that the united states supreme court is going to allow a state to anoint the loser as the winner of the presidential election after the u.s. supreme court said, do not bother, we will not do that. host: our next caller is in mississippi, james on the independent line. caller: i wanted to know, sir, about electoral college votes. why did the republican party insist on something that is being disingenuous with voters? why is it that they do not understand that the popular vote is more important to them then the way they have the system set up now? that means they don't have to work hard to prove a point to the american people that their policy is right, so they do not want to have one vote, give every person one vote, so why is it that they keep saying that it is something illegal and then said, they don't show president trump's investigation, if they don't show it in front of the court to let the american people see it, i am not going to vote because i want -- even president biden. if he gets indicted and the american people need to see it, they joked about jan

know, it's it's there's a lesson there too, which is, you know, arguing on behalf of the united states in the supreme court of the united states is the greatest thrill about the solicitor general or the office of the solicitor general. and it's a focal point of a lot what we do. but for every 30 minutes at the podium there, thousands of pages of briefs that are written, including in the cert process. yes. in cases that never get to argument, all of that briefing is very important. and when i was in the office as a deputy, actually we had there was a challenge to the mccain feingold or bipartisan campaign reform act. and there was a special provision in the law that created a direct review mechanism to go right from a three judge district court to the supreme court of the united states. and so these proceedings took place after the law passed. there were like 11 different challenges to the law that were consolidated in a single case. the three judge court produced a thousand page opinion with four different opinions for three judges to just show and kind of how divisive and kind of messy this was ther

the office of solicitor general supervises and seconducts litigation on behalf of the united states and the supremeourt. they are very busy because approximately two thirds of the cases the supreme court hears on the merits involved the united states. so bs g, solicitor general has been called the 10th justice and the reason for that is because that office has developed over time a reputation of fairness and reliability. i know when i clerked we think of the great resource and so i think it's important and what we're going to do is tell a little bit about the history of that office and here's some more stories along the way i hope. let's just start off withsome basics . what's it like to prepare a supreme court oral argument today and then maybe we can draw some comparisons to earlier years. i'm guessing it's kind of hard, what's the hardest part about it. >> it's hard all the way around but the hardest part for me , there are cases when you're solicitor generalyou have to argue where you know you're going to lose . you've got to go in there and represent knowing you're going to lose and get your h

but as the united states supreme court has said, if the reason for a particular curricular decision, including removing a certain book, is because of partizan disagreement of the idea or discrimination against the author, that is not a justification and under the rubric of pornography and obscenity. many states and local school districts are now removed in books by lgbtq authors or about lgb. q characters i hate as endorsements from both cornell west and former tennessee republican senator lamar alexander and nadine streisand writes in this book that nothing strengthens hate groups more than censoring them as it turns them into free martyrs. she on to say that free expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. nadine strossen thanks for being on book tv. thank you so much for having me.

>> and yes, this is tying in the overall what we are seeing the declining views of the united states supremerd and guess where we are now. 44% of the americans have a favorable view of the united states supreme court, and maybe it has to do with the honesty and integrity and also with the fact that the supreme court has made a number of decisions that the mile an hamericans don't li mostly the roe v. wade and maybe that the supreme court has too much power. and going back to 2019, and the supreme court has too much power and a slight decline this year, but the fact is that we are at double where we were just four years ago, and so americans are overall not that hot on the united states supreme court. >> the slide that you showed me, this is a two to three-year trend and not 50 years, but 2019 here, and it is basically has doubled in people thinking that they have too much power and the same with favorability, and the same with three years ago. >> it has happened very, very fast, and americans' minds have changed rapidly. >> thank you. >> rahel? >> and coco gauff made quite a turn around in f

united states. thought it would give you context for why that is such a big deal and what it means. . of others that are solicitor general conduct litigation on behalf of the united of the supreme court and they are very busy because approximately we 2 thirds of the cases the supreme court years on the merits in. the united states. the solicitor general has been called the 10th justice. the reason for that is because that office has developed over time a reputation of fairness and reliability. we always pick up the gray leaf first. and so i think it is important, we are going to talk about the history of that office and here are some more stories along the way, i hope. start off with some basics. what's it like to prepare a supreme court oral argument today? we can drop that into earlier years. i am guessing it is hard. what' s the hardest part about it? is hard around the hardest part at least for me, there are cases as solicitor general you have to argue where you know you are going to lose. you've got to represent the united states but you know it will get your head beaten and but you can't go to the lectern thinking that way. getting your self and positions so you stand up

state of alabama. [applause] and today we see that progress in the honorable ketanji brown jackson. [applause] the first african-american woman elected to the supreme court of the unitedtes of america. [applause] in acknowledging that progress, brothers and sisters, we are also mindful that there are vestiges of issues from 60 years ago that we certainly, certainly could not imagine to be the issues on the table in 2023. yet here we are addressing similar issues. and because of where we are as a community, we need to be inspired by familiar and new voices that still challenge us, to let nobody turn us around. we need to be inspired by familiar and new voices that still challenge us to continue to look to the hill from whence comes our help. we must be inspired by familiar and new voices that would challenge us to always make sure that four young girls and two young boys and all the others before and since were not taken from us in vain. so on this occasion, we must honor their lives today, tomorrow and always. amen. [applause] >> amen. there are so many elected officials in our audience today. i'm going to ask all elected officials, former elected officials to stand s

it would go up to the united states supreme court. y there's a 6-3 conservative majority right now on the united states supreme court. and that's why i really think the likely outcome here is either that the court narrowly construes that provision and essentially says that it doesn't apply to the situation or says that it's what's called a political question, in other words, courts aren't going to get involved in this, which then would i think create a lot of issues because obviously different states would have different ways of interpreting that provision. ultimately trump would potentially be kicked off the ballot on a number of states. it would create a lot of conflict, let's put it that way. >> now, quickly on the georgia elections and racketeering case. trump has already pleaded not guilty there, but we're also looking for arraignments of some of the other co-defendants in this particular case. what is the next big step you're watching for here? >> i'm really interested in how the federal judge decides mark meadows', you know, mot

the supreme court of the united states is the authority to finally decide this question. constitution literally created and established as the supreme court of the united states. and this supreme court will decide this question, as i said, sooner rather than later. >> judge, what an honor to have our viewers get access to you and your legal mind. we appreciate your time again this morning. judge j. michael luttig, a former federal judge for the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. make sure to check out the addition of the trump indictments, 91 criminal accounts against the former president of the united states, which has the full complete unabridged indictments against donald trump. i edited the addition and wrote a forward which sets the scene, which and the context for it. it's been published on september 25th. it's available now for preorder. still ahead on velshi, democracy is in peril around the world, including in israel. i will bring you the information you need to know, plus white house vivek ramaswamy joined my colleague al sharpton yesterday to

it the united states supreme court has said that it must be a formal exercise of government power.one is not a formal exercise. saying listen, do my friend favor is not a formal exercise of government power. the reason these democrats are willing to let criminals out with no bail but want this senator out of the senate is because the senate is so close and they are afraid he's going to lose. the truth is the new jersey democrats the last time he was indicted, they wanted him to stay. the difference was so big, his remaining there would make a darn bit of difference. they've got fingerprints on gold bars, fingerprints on envelopes, all kinds of evidence. quaid. we don't have a quote. but they could configure prints of a glassing bag with cocaine in it. it's a question of who they want. >> greg: this hunter biden story. $250,000 bribe sent to joe's house, it's not a smoking gun, as cnn used to say. it is a neutron bomb but it's all been journalists who chased the story. they tried to bury the story. it had to come up through republicans. >> martha: because they are too busy saying th

the united states supreme court is the authority that can make a determination on the disqualification challenge regarding a presidential candidate that would apply to all of the states. at a time when we need election officials to ensure transparency and build confidence among voters, around the country, the delegate selection process should not be the battleground test this competition will question. -- constitutional question. new hampshire has a proud tradition of welcoming all qualified candidates participating at a presidential primary and will continue here. host: mr. roosevelt, do you think this is going to need to go to the supreme court? do you think it's going to get there sooner than later? guest: absolutely. it would be terrible if you had different practices in different states and we have 30 states and reaching different conclusions and it is happening before the election. that would be a disaster. that's what we have one supreme court that answers this question in a way that binds everyone. the argument if you got individual secretary of state is making this determinati

first of all, just yesterday afternoon my office did file an amicus brief before the united states supreme court just like the governor asking the u.s. supreme court to overturn the case of martin versus boise. that case has ham strung many people on the west coast and ninth circuit. this is a local creels is made worse by local decisions. the governor has given plenty of resources to local authorities and those resources have been squandered. where did the money go locally and what programs are working or not working? i'm calling for an audit here in sacramento. >> bill: i'm asking for the city to do its job. we mentioned all the cities across california. you aren't alone, right? san diego, l.a., san francisco, on it goes. but you have homeless coming in from arizona and nevada. why do you think the democratic leaders in california are so accepting of this lifestyle? >> you know what i really think about is our local officials. when you don't enforce the law at a local level, then this is what you get. a lack of accountability and lawlessness on the local level. here is a stat advertise i

let alone one from the united states supreme court.his just further evidence that alabama republicans think that there is another standard for them? as they continue to pursue disenfranchisement of the black vote in their state? >> i think this is a brazen example of why the voting right acts was first created. you know, states passing discriminatory laws, striking them down, and then states passing laws that do the exact same thing all over again. and so this is unprecedented in the modern era. it is not something that alabama and other states haven't done before, in terms of trying to disenfranchise voters with the different variations on old discriminatory laws. >> lawmakers for instance didn't even have to create an additional district with a majority black population. just one that came close. so why this is such an issue? why does it continue to be such an issue? >> i think alabama is trying to go back to the supreme court. they've been pretty blatant that they think that the supreme court is going to change its mind, even the co

all of this matters pretty made a promise in my campaign for the first black woman on the united states supreme[cheering] and i meant to, we did it with the support of the cbc ketanji brown jackson is on the bed she's the brightest of anyone on the bench. i want to publicly thank cory booker and dick durbin on the committee for getting it done. look, with their help i've appointed more black women appellate judges and any other president in the history of united states combined. more than everyone. with the largest increase in pell grants it over a decade helping students and families who nearly make less than 60000 bucks a year to afford college. it matters more than 70% of black undergraduates, borrowers are pell grant recipients it matters. our new student debt repayment plan is when help millions of borrowers including a significant number black students. when a black college graduates out after 25000 dollars more in student debt than white graduates. our plan is that black students and families cut their total lifetime payments per dollar and half, and half a. were going to get it done and

hell of a statement for a democratic governor from california saying, we need help from the united states supreme court and it's time for cities to step up. it's no longer acceptable what's happening on the streets and sidewalks. enough is behavior. we cannot put up with it. it's not right. and people are dying on our watch and we own this. and so what we want more than anything else is accountability . >> and phil benioff kind of ruffled a few feathers a few weeks ago when he suggested that dreamforce could actually leave san francisco. so did that come up at all? >> yeah, it sure did. and he did. and you know, the mayor was not happy with that, saying that the last couple of dream forces were largely successful. but the exchange had the big issue was the perception of the city that we're starting to see and have seen around the country. and that's far from stellar. and if you listen to the noise coming from around the country, well, let's just hear what they had to say, not how many of you have had a good experience so far in san francisco. >> raise your hands. all right. seeing in my favorite

while today's ruling is expected to be appealed to the united states supreme court. daca is a federal program that allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the us as children to live and to work in the country legally. the ruling comes after the biden administration codified daca into a federal regulation last year. tonight, we spoke to a daca recipient, katherine lee, who also works with the immigration advocacy group united we dream. and she says with the daca program still under legal review, president biden and lawmakers need to pass permanent protections. we definitely want to call on congress in this moment to not only introduce bills in this moment, but also to pass them. we need congress to pass bills for protections and a pathway to citizenship for all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. lee says she anticipated today's ruling and does expect the supreme court will take the case. still to come tonight, four sports legends from the south bay honored at a special ceremony tonight. this year's inductees into the san jose sports hall of fame.

united states, you know, most law schools don't teach all fine. right. so most law students who go to law schools don't study the supreme court decision. that is the reason why our native women faced the highest rates of domestic violence, sexual assault and homicide in the united states. america has started a lot about the kind of educational piece and the bit of the cultural peace care. what else can be done to undue this violence, this legacy of violence against indigenous people? well, 1st we need to adequately fund and provide resources to tribes. tribes are consistently set up to fail by this chronic under funding. so we need to ensure that tribes not only have the authority, which is what we talked about, a little bit with vala, but also the resources to hold defenders accountable to provide culturally centered services to their community. to prove data collections that we really know the extent of the problem and can help identify more victims across jurisdictional lines. and so the sooner we give native people and that's especially need of victims and families of victims, a seat at the table in decision making. and i'm sure tha

the attorney general cannot be compelled to testify consistent with the reasoning in the united states supreme court in the united states. the courts is clear. you may not call the attorney general as a witness. finally, i would take up motion 5 by respondent attorney general paxton entitled motion -- that motion is denied. to both parties, what we will do at this point is, and to the members, it is a little odd today because we have a break coming close to the lunch break. we will take a short 10 minute break because we are going to break around 12:15 for lunch. we will take a 10 minute break. be back in 10 minutes. i have not dismissed you yet. to both parties, when we come back, i will have a short statement about the rules. then we will read the articles of impeachment. attorney general paxton will be asked, how do you plead after each article. and then we will swear in witnesses, those here, then we will break for lunch. after lunch will be when the opening statement for those parties who choose to make that will be given. that is the schedule. it is 11:20. be ready to go at 11:30. thank

united states. chairman of the judicial conference of the united states. supremece chairman roberts. i write to lodge an ethics complaint regarding recent public comments by supreme court justice samuel alito, which appear to violate several canons of judicial ethics, including standards the supreme court has long applied to itself. that is the beginning of a seven-page ethics complaint, written by senator sheldon whitehouse, who's the chairman of the senate judiciary subcommittee on federal courts. the ethics complaint focuses on one of the most constitutionally ignorant things as a cream court justice has ever said publicly, which also constitutes an ethics violation, according to senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse writes, the wall street journal, on july 20th, 2023, published an interview with justice alito. during the interview, a justice alito stated that no provision in the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate the supreme court. period. justice alito's con meant appeared connection to my supreme court ethics recusal in transmitters the a

this conversation, but we no longer have the legal protections or the support of the, of the united states supreme court and helping us to send off attacks like this. and so it's going to be up to those of us who, who are concerned about christian nationalism who don't want to see this is a religious state of who care about religious freedom for all people to stand up in huge at those foundational ideals. but what i think the 3 of you for an amazing conversation, are you right? that is our show up front will be back next week, the, the bronx, new york, 1973, the birthplace of hip hop, a young man named 5 campbells, better known as d. j. cool. hurd. got the movement started and people danced out of back to school party. it was right here on the cedric avenue in the bronx. and this ordinary looking apartment building where a party full of teenagers help launch a music style using funk, soul jazz and rock classics. be created an entirely new south west since become a multi $1000000000.00 industry, the universal hip hop museum, currently under construction 6, to preserve the movements roots, residents

this conversation, but we no longer have the legal protections or the support of the, of the united states supreme court and helping us to send off attacks like this. and so it's going to be up to those of us who, who are concerned about person nationalism who don't want to see this is a religious state of who care about religious freedom for all people to stand up in huge at those foundational ideals. but what i think the 3 of you for an amazing conversation, are you all right, that is our show upfront. we'll be back next week the the the to the in depth analysis of the days headlined 1000000 euros to help to nancy address migration. is it going to ease the micro crisis, will make it worse, informed opinions, we need more investors and more people that make the decisions and regiments for frank assessments. this balance between the toe and zones reassurance is a teacher leads to the volume missing destruction. inside story, on al jazeera staples control information the controlling the narrative to dominating the media. how does the narrative improve public opinion and enormous fight? it might not

this conversation, but we no longer have the legal protections or the support of the, of the united states supreme court and helping us to send off attacks like this. and so it's going to be up to those of us who are, who are concerned about person nationalism who don't want to see this is a religious state of who care about religious freedom for all people to stand up in huge at those foundational ideals. but what i think the 3 of you for an amazing conversation, are you right? that is our show up front will be back. next week the, the the, i have the right, the boycott, anyone i want to in the state has no business getting involved in that was just opening my annual contract from the state of arizona. and i was rather shocked to see this. the new 3 part series explodes, the implications of us and people who called lowe's for freedom of speech and 1st amendment. brian got chosen and blessed us because we protect israel. i'm going to continue. do you want to state level all that? i can't support that one on which is era. one of the last remaining ancient forests and southeast asia is a lifeline to

i'm so sad that the fifth circuit on friday which is one court down from the united states supreme courtthey're like facists at this point. the fifth circuit court of appeals said biden, the center for disease control, the fbi and the surgeon general cannot coerce social media platforms to remove information. they use the platforms to make moderation decisions by way of intimidates ing decisions. that is fascism and that's where we are in america today. let's stop with the misinformation, the disinformation, they're shutting down communication. they're taking doctors to licensing centers for them to lose their licenses and the truth is at the end of the day this administration is not in a position, nor do they have the medical licenses to decide what any individual should or should not do vis-a-vis the vaccine which we know doesn't prevent you from getting covid. >> have a response as bright as your jacket. >> okay. threads is a great example of a company that destroyed it's own brand. so when it launched, everyone was like oh, this is great. it will be like a better twitter. and then yo

. >> and that needs to be determined by probably the united states supreme court, who is privy to allind of taking this conversation one step further, if you believe -- you made the point that, as you just did, that 14th amendment questions would be appropriate in the general election. are you saying that you think there may be merit to that argument? >> no, i'm not. i'm not saying that there's merit to the argument, and i'm not saying there's not merit to the argument. i'm saying as the chief election official in new hampshire, as the secretary of state, i don't have the facts and the information available to me to make that determination. >> i want you to listen to what congressman adam schiff has to say about this subject. >> i think he is disqualified under the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment provides that if you take the oath of office and then you engage in acts of insurrection or rebellion, you're disqualified from holding office. under those very plain terms, and according to both very conservative as well as liberal constitutional scholars, he is disqualified and should no

the united states supreme court case from 1971 santa bella vs.ew york that allows a defendant to move for specific performance, make the plea deal happen. based on representations made by the prosecution. but it's going to be a tough way to go in this case, i think, because, remember, it fell apart because there clearly was not a meeting of the minds between the defense team and the government in that case that required one of his lawyers, mr. clark to withdrawal because is he going to be a witness. they will certainly have a battle over whether to enforce that plea agreement or not. i think abbe lowell is right to try to enforce that remember, also, the judge never had to accept it. the judge could have rejected that plea as she did and wanted to do additional consideration of it. i think that's going to be a tough battle. i'm skeptical of the whole process. i'm skeptical of anything that happens with mr. weiss now. i think that was a sham appointing him as special counsel. i think abbe lowell if push comes to shove is going to challenge that ap

stocking conviction could not stand because his works did not fall into one of the few categories united states supreme court held protected by the first amendment mainly true threats of violence. when exactly announced the threat of violence outside the production. compared to other categories of speech might think about, incitement or obscenity, the truth is relatively new as the supreme court has recognized, in 1969, the court overturned the conviction for lyndon johnson during 1966 antiwar rally to the washington monument so complaining about these, 18-year-old watts told the crowd they ever make me carry a rifle, but first man to sell, they laughed. the court deemed political hyperbole stresses the first amendment does not safeguard true threats which failed to define in 1969 in 2003 the court offers partial definition and observed, states with the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit acts of unlawful violence for particular individual or group of individuals. what does that really mean? it was unclear they disagreed with this for the period that actually required

today's ruling is expected to be appealed to the united states supreme court, which is expected to take on the case. daca is the federal program that allows young undocumented immigrants to live and work legally in the united states. the judge ruled that the program is illegal even after the biden administration made a change to it last year. the ruling bars the government from approving any new applications, but it does leave the program intact for now for the existing daca recipients. the american civil liberties union sent out a response to this ruling. the statement is from a daca recipient and staff member. there at the aclu. she said in part, the united states is our home and no court decision can change that. this ruling is wrong on the law. but sends a clear message congress must act to provide permanent protection, inns and a pathway to citizenship for dreamers and the millions of other undocumented residents who call this nation home. the california state university board of trustees has unanimously voted to increase tuition every year for the next five years. it was the first

fortunately trace, the united states supreme court decided a hundred years ago that children are not creatures of the state they belong to parents and there is a constitutional right to direct the upbringing education and the care of their children under the united states constitution. >> trace: yeah. when you brought this up to the school district and the school board, michele, what did they say to you? did they defend their actions? >> yeah. they complete -- yes. and i asked them, did you not read her school forms that when your child goes to school, you fill out the forms where i clearly stated that she had trauma as a child. she had been in inpatient for five days the month before and that she was struggling with her mental health. they were quite aware of it. i made it quite clear. >> trace: it really is fascinating and kind of, as you said, bernadette, it's become a nationwide push, right? these parents and parental rights. but i want to, moms for liberty has come under attack from the southern poverty law center and they also, from the media. here's some of the people on the v

when they think of judges, and particularly supreme court, their minds probably go to the united states supremehose people are appointed and they get lifetime appointments. what you are talking about is as a bring court justice who is not appointed, she was elected by the people. that adds to the constitutional crisis that you're talking about. it's not just dethrone-ing a supreme court justice, it is defying the will of the people. >> that is exactly it. it would nullify the votes of 1 million voters, we had a record high turnout and we are a 50/50 state. janet protasiewicz won by an 11-point landslide. you don't see that very often in a state like wisconsin. these republicans are really playing with fire in a dynamite factory. they are saying to voters that if they vote for someone who those politicians don't like, the politicians will just undo the election decisions that the voters made, but the voters ultimately are in charge. and, frankly, i think a lot of these republicans know in their hearts that this is not only wrong, but it is dangerous. it is something neither side should ever be c

they said it wa going to bring down gun violenc in they were right, and then, and extremist united states supremere not going to let you do it. >> entered delusion from stage left, michelle everyone from th attorney general to the police chief everyone says this is bananas, well welcome to banana land. >> she is the mayor and the governor of banana land and my opinion, but it's funny that yo said enter stage left because i wouldn't count as stage right. there are two issues for me, wh was the governor do this, why did she think that she could suspend a portion of the constitution against legal carriage of guns for citizens for it is this is some had a trial balloon to see how people would react? the second part of it was she said it was a public health emergency we know what happens when people rely on this subjec of the public health emergency. and it's terrible what's happened there, don't get me wrong, these debts, especially the ones of young children they get killed by gun violence, it is gut wrenching, but to have that knee-jerk reaction it's th guns faults, everybody put your guns away. th