demanding that everyone in our government is accountable, including the president of the united states and the supreme court of the united states. thank you, mr. president. i yield. and i subject the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask also consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you very much. 40 years ago the united states supreme court ruled that nonunion public workers who benefit from the work conducted by a union to negotiate contracts that they benefit from should have to pay a fee to cover costs associated with this work. if all workers benefit, it's only the right thing that everyone contributes a fair share fee. however, in recent years, there's been a well-funded effort by special interest groups backed by corporate billionaires to dismantle unions and silence the voice of work

widely respected and accomplished state supreme court justice from his own state whom his constituents actually support? because our colleague doesn't agree with the united states supreme court justices whom the nominee admires, one of whom the nominee happened to clerk for. so i applaud chairman grassley for not allowing the blue slip courtesy to be abused in this fashion, and i look forward to learning more about justice strauss' views from today's hearing.

two in the united states supreme court. two arguments in the united states supreme court and numerous cases on the briefs. that didn't get to argument. so i think a fair number. senator lee: these are separate disciplines. trying cases versus arguing. mr. duncan: absolutely. senator lee: different skill set. different style. it's a different function, isn't it? mr. duncan: yes. i completely agree with that. it was a choice i made early in my career. one reason i went from louisiana to texas early in my solicitor as general's texas, there was a specialty doing appellate law. it's a different skill set. it's one i thought i would be more adapted to. i liked research and writing more than picking juries, i guess. senator lee: if confirmed to the position you have been nominated, how many trials would you be doing in that capacity? mr. dun ran: i wouldn't be doing trials. -- mr. duncan: i wouldn't be doing trials. it is sitting on an appellate panel and listening to the arguments and of course i am very familiar with how those c

by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the united states supreme court to be of the united states supreme court. i think there is blame on both sides. i don't have any doubt by the and you don't have any doubt by the either. jesse: that was the charlottesville news conference. that really hurt the brand. no real legislative accomplishments yet to speak of. sean: this past week i did a mini monologue. and i addressed it especially to the senate. we lost virginia, new jersey and washington, blue state. this is a foretell of the future. the republicans do hold their destiny in their hands. the senate failed miserably on repeal and replacing. if they fail on this economic plan and fail to get the economy on its potential growth,er in all risking their future. jesse: you are tax are going up, too. sean: it seems like the republicans have abandoned reagan conservative supply-side economics. reagan was able to show by cutting the top marginal rate, we doubled the revenues in government. 21 mill new jobs created -- 21 million you are in jobs created. i started as a dishwasher. jesse: we can tell.

maximize their zone of authority within indian that needs the approval of the united states congress and the united states supreme court. sometimes, both sides seem to be going in the same direction and there has been a recognition and appreciation of tribal sovereignty. at other times, the relationships seem to be going theopposite direction when federal government is and them a call if not actually hostile to tribal -- is an enema: if not -- toanti-of actually hostile tribal sovereignty. one of the initial dilemmas is was going to deal with people who are already here. when they first came here, native people were numerically and militarily stronger than , but overmmigrants time, immigrants began to have more power numerically and they began to have the upper hand. had to be was there this continual western expansion for native land, and that has motivation tory obtain as much indian land as possible. from the native perspective, what they have tried to do is give up as little land as possible, to retain as much land as possible. one of the problems in that is trying to know what actually anchors that relationship. i

constitutional due process rights as those have been elucidated in the courts in california and the united states supreme court because i think those arguments are better left to a court of law. the second thing i learned today, as i heard some of the comments -- public comments by the homeowners on presidio terrace, and i found it noteworthy that the only comments you heard in support of rescission were made by the people that live on the street or in one case, a person that lives right across the street. you didn't hear an outwe willi willing -- outwelling of support by the community for rescission of this sale. but i did tell you that some of the homeowners told you that there had been an audit, and this have been sales of these houses in the last several years. lo and behold, the audit didn't turn up any taxes that were owed on this street and neither did the audit that were done in conjunction with the sales of the houses, yet. yet. the homeowners association wants you to put mr. cisneros to that onerous task of doing more due diligence than these homeowners themselves did in selling their property or buy

from the united states supreme court know the. climate. system live reports from the climate conference in bone and from the front lines of global warming climate s.o.s. one zero. even a man without a doubt not find that out i guess it's all about the heart and not the media and let me do that if we are holding a prime minister modi is going to wake up and listen to us for what we have been trying to say it's hard to be years and be blamed the need adequate compensation from union carbide and dow chemical entities many because people from the. daily show that after thirty years they have not given up their fight for justice and magic with monkeys asians. whatever we have the longest in the country the only way to low carbon is to fight this and one day we have large one ever living on the station medical and rehabilitation people have done because of the guns and by other people. shouldn't think of this but we handle that is going to be an anniversary and also a warning as you know leverage and you know waking up our politicians actually m

constitution as originally written tried to do that, i think through both axis congress and the united states supreme court, they lost sight about the original relationship as described in the constitution. native people historically have had struggles to be recognized as a united states citizen. they had to struggle to be recognized as state citizens and they fought not to have been, you would've thought that at some point native people would have been welcomed into the constitutional structure. both as federal citizens and state citizens. across-the-board native people have become federal citizens until 1924. the 14th amendment which we generally regarded as providing both federal and state citizenship to everyone including african-americans in the aftermath of the civil war, there's a case that that was decided by the supreme court in 1881. that said because of language in the 14th amendment the 14th amendment and not make native people united states citizens, didn't make them state citizens so it was labeled sort of the post-civil war amendments which we always thought very positively about, we feel th

. >> it would be settled by federal courts and eventually by the united states supreme court on a fast track. the court can act very quickly to prevent presidents from getting around the law and they're not above the law. this is not richard nixon if i say it it is the law, although trump is kind of a nixon wannabe, and a putin wannabe whenever he wants to be. >> so do you see that the filing of that kind of injunction likely is happening this weekend so that monday folks who work at the cfpb know who the interim is? >> well, it could happen. i am not privy to anyone's litigation strategy, but i think the reality on the ground is important. if mulvaney slides into that office, locks the door and says leandra, you're very nice but you're not getting my desk, that will create status quo. that would create status quo. it would be a dramatic picture. i think the law is clear, the crisis would arise if the courts don't apply the law and allow trump to get away with consumer murder which is really what this would be. >> wow. very strong. all right. harvard professor, lawrence tribe. that you

also worth noting that there is same sex sexual harassment so for example there is the united states supreme court case from a few years back which said that that is illegal to which involved a man who is working on an oil rig the other men who we work with thought that he was to a feminine and he experienced terrible sexual harassment and sexual threats as a result and so there are a lot of different ways the harassment can look which really again goes back to the point of the importance of workplace cultures that take this seriously and really don't make assumptions that only these sorts of people can be sexually harassed really these sorts of people can be harassers really communicate to all employees here's what the expectations are and here is how to make a complaint if you're experiencing harassment right there's so much most little the . i'm going to take you to ask second show we have two shows about this because there's so many areas to discuss and. they see emily will be in our next edition of the stream as we talk more about sexual harassment around the world but before we get to that p

it's a tax because chief justice roberts of the united states supreme court called it a tax. democrats have made two arguments. first, the repealing this mandate is a tax increase, only in the parallel universe known as washington d.c. woodcutting the tax be called a tax increase. and second, they said the repeal kicks people off their insurance coverage. which is demonstrably not true. but let's start with the first argument. the repeal some of represents a tax increase on the poor. it's a pretty strange thing to say that eliminating a financial obligations simultaneously entails an additional fiscal burden. in other words, a tax schedule a tax increase. only here in the parallel universe of washington, d.c. does that, could that possibly be true. it defies all logic. what actually happens under our plan is that certain low income individuals get a tax cut, if they voluntarily decide not to buy obamacare coverage they would receive an additional tax cut because they will no longer be penalized by their own government for failing to buy insurance policy that they can't afford

another promise to the american people by nominating judge kneel gorsuch to be of the if united states supreme court. i think there is blame on both sides. and i have no doubt about it and you don't have any doubt about it either. jesse: that was the charlottesville news conference, that really hurt the brand. you have lower regulations but no atlantic lay touch accomplishments to speak of. sean: this week on my show i did a mini monologue. ii addressed it to the senate. we lost virginia, new jersey and washington, a bluee state. the republicans do hold their destiny in their hands. the senate fails miserably on repealing and replacing. if they fail on this economic plan and fail to get the economy and its potential growth, they are all risking their future. jesse: your taxes are going up, sean. sean: it seems the republicans have abandoned republican supply side economics. i'm not a nationalist pop latest. i'm a reagan conservative. saw that cutting the top marginal rate, 20 million new jobs created. at the time it was the longest period of peacetime growth in history. i started as a dishwasher. je

state judge he stirred controversy by trying to inject religion into his courtroom the united states supreme court created out of thin air a right of marriage for two persons of the same gender. as a judge who refused to enforce a supreme court decision that legalized same sex marriage that gives me a violating the rule of law that came when he is a violation of rule of law when we have a country thinking that whatever the supreme court comes out with in their eloquence. is law. that refusal to enforce a supreme court's ruling got him removed from the bench for a second time. the first time was when he installed a giant monument to the ten commandments in a government building and then refused to take it down i want to bring god back into. he's also said that a congressman shouldn't be sworn in because he's muslim and he's running voters in one of the country's most divisive issues undocumented immigrants the liberals hollering to put these people on television. that worked hard no doubt they did. no doubt they're very sympathetic toward their position they were brought here as are children the gr

the sea of upturned faces, i thought most of the time before i was appointed before the united states supreme court, i would be sitting out there with you, calling my clients, counting up the fees, and smoking big black cigars. [laughter] and because of an act of friendship, i am here. [laughter] brian: was he married to a jew? david: no, he was not. carol, also graduated from yale law school. brian: was he a practicing jewbrian:? david: not at all. he, like front for her, grew up in an orthodox family. -- it was more at his wife's behest. there was no practice of judaism in his home. -- and thisis wife led to the scandal that led to his resignation -- he and his his wife had950's, extremely lavish lifestyle. s.ey had twin rolls-royce 's wife had one closet of 150 shoes. offered by lbj to be attorney general. his wife said not on my life. he would have had to take such a big salary cut. he took a 90% salary cut to be on the court. his wife was livid. -- he hadeard this thaten two letters to lbj he would not accept an appointed to the court. to the ovalted him office to have a discussion. it was abo

these are people who go into that office with the possibility that they'll become united states supreme court justices. these are people who come out of clerkships on the united states supreme court, one of the highest academic achievements a law student can have, and end up joining the office of legal counsel. so the office of legal counsel ought to be held to a very high standard. and what happened when the office of legal counsel was asked to take a look at the c.i.a. torture program in the bush administration was that it fell down or rolled over in virtually every respect. the factual investigation into what the c.i.a. was actually doing was weak and ineffectual. the legal investigation into the past and to precedents was, as i said in previous speeches at the time, fire the associate quality legal work. and it's particularly bad coming from the office of legal counsel because office of legal counsel is supposed to be, as i said, the best of the best. it's hard to say that these guys failed having tried their best. they just weren't smart enough to figure it out. they just weren't hard wo

>> there the a variety of other ways that don't involve warrants, for example the united states supreme court a case today, united states against carpenter that involves the use of warrantless self trucking. >> they can follow bob woodward's phone right into the basement? >> they could. mark felt would know the whole story. there wouldn't be a watergate expose. >> nixon may be president. thank you, katie townsend. we need to keep doing this exposing. up next, president trump goes to war with chuck and nancy. he spent the past 24 hours blasting democrats being weak on crime and immigration and staged a photo op scolding them for missing a meeting. i don't think he sat democrats left and right like that. that is a phony blowny setup. you are watching "hardball." so that's the idea. what do you think? hate to play devil's advocate but... i kind of feel like it's a game changer. i wouldn't go that far. are you there? he's probably on mute. yeah... gary won't like it. why? because he's gary. (phone ringing) what? keep going! yeah... (laughs) (voice on phone) it's not millennial enough. there are a

united states constitution demarcate exactly what is the relationship between these two sovereigns. although i think the constitution as originally written tries to do that i think through and act of congress and united states supreme court the native people is starkly have had struggles to be recognized as united states citizens. they have had to struggle to be recognized as citizens and that was not -- he would have thought at some point these people would have been welcomed into the constitutional structure by federal and state citizens. across-the-board people have been citizens since 1924. the 14th amendment provided federal and state citizenship to everyone including african-americans in the aftermath of the civil war. there is a case decided by the supreme court in 1881 that says because of language and the 14th amendment the 14th amendment did not make native people united states citizens. it didn't make them state citizens so the post-civil war amendments that we always thought positively about, they didn't really do anything for native people to move toward their citizenship as federal citizens and state citizens. in that case he was a native person living in omaha, nebraska and living off the reservation and h

widely respected and accomplished state supreme court justice from his own state whom his constituents actually support? because our colleague doesn't agree with the united states supreme court justices whom the nominee admires, one of whom the nominee happened to clerk for. so i applaud chairman grassley for not allowing the blue slip courtesy to be abused in this fashion, and i look forward to learning more about justice strauss' views from today's hearing. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: now, first, before i get to my main issue of taxes, i just heard the majority leader talk about taking away the blue slip. now, we hear from the other side professing they want to work in a bipartisan way, but every step they take takes away bipartisanship. reconciliation takes away bipartisanship. getting rid of the blue slip takes away bipartisanship. unfortunately, the majority leader has taken so many steps this year to remove any hint of bipartisanship, most notably reconciliation on this major, major tax bill. this is the first time we're doing tax reform in 36 years, but then it was done in a bipartisan w

and here he is. >> by 1962, the united states supreme court took prayer out of the school.le reading followed in navington versus shift. >> they started to create new rights in 1965. i wonder what new rights they were talking about. >> notice the code word, '60s, civil rights. civil rights act of '64. white religionists who were segregations were against civil rights of '64. they were against the voting rights act of '65. they were against dr. king. he says they took prayer out of the school. but we have segregation in the school. so this is so crazy. it's so heretical. it's so wrong. this has nothing to do with christian policies. this is about a form of greed, not a form of grace. it's about lies and racism and not redemption and love there is no scriptural basis. this is not christian. this is why the church is making a bad mistake. those who claimed they represent christ to support this kind of foolishness. even before the claims. >> yeah. >> i'm saying he wasn't supporting christian policies before. now the claim and the accusation, the true accusations about what he h

. >>> we've got a chief justice of the united states supreme court. zero legislative achievement.hange in a lot of regulation, but not a strong record and i'm just being objective. >>> still to come, nuclear policy discussions and a game of golf both on president trump's itinerary for his 12-day trip through asia presidents in asia have experienced some awkward things in the past. hey, man. oh! nice man cave! nacho? [ train whistle blows ] what?! -stop it! -mm-hmm. we've been saving a lot of money ever since we switched to progressive. this bar is legit. and now we get an even bigger discount from bundling home and auto. i can get used to this. it might take a minute. -swing and a miss! -slam dunk! touchdown! together: sports! pabut with odor free blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, i can box out any muscle or joint pain immediately. blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, it works fast and you won't stink. how much money do you think you'll need in retirement? then we found out how many years that money would last them. how long do you think we'll keep -- oooooohhh! you stopped

we have a chief justice of the united states supreme court zero legislative achievement.aybe a change in a lot of regulation, but not a strong record. and i'm just being objective. >>> still to come, nuclear policy discussions and a game of golf, both on president trump's itinerary for his current 12-day trip through five asian countries. presidents in asia experienced awkward moments in the paftst. here to give trump helpful tips. e sugar in your family's diet coke, dr. pepper, and pepsi hear you and we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula to visibly reduce wrinkles. neutrogena®. throughout my career, i've been fortunate enough to travel to many interesting places

considered for the supreme court, and that happened with measure rick garland, who was barack obama's nominee to the court. and then neal gorsuch came in and he became confirmed to the united states supreme court. i think it's a function of the general tendency of the people within a party to support the nominees of their president. there have been some anner agsz from that. just like week not in the context of a supreme court nomination, but you had john mccain oppose the nomination of stephen brad bury to a very important position to the department of transportation. it happens from time to time, but it usually takes a maverick to decide to oppose a nominee. but generally speaking these things end up being a party line vote. and the responsibility to nominate well qualified, honorable people with good records and the right credentials comes from the president. >> but as you know, these are also lifetime appointments. so what's the long-term impact as a result of this? >> well, for each nominee who gets kwirld, it's a lifetime impact for that person. you know, some of the other -- i think there's an argument to be made that the trump white house does not put qualification and ex

in 1812, the united states supreme court right after the founding of our country established a clear rule that said, there must be a statute before there can be a crime. we reject the approach of countries that say, you can make up crimes as you go along. the essential protection of our constitution is, statute first, crime only after the statute is clear. it is not a crime to collude with a foreign country. the united states has tried to influence many, many elections that have occurred in foreign countries. so i challenge my opponent to come up -- he mentions conspiracy. conspiracy is the broadest accordion like crime. but you need to have an agreement to commit a crime. it is not a crime for a campaign to try to get dirt on an point. i'll going to make the extreme argument to you right here and you will be surprised by this. hypothetical case. i'm a law professor. i'm allowed to use hypothetical cases. this didn't happen. hypothetical case. candidate trump calls vladimir putin on the phone during the election and says, vlad, do i got a deal for you. i want to be president of the u

right now city hall fees like the supreme court of the united states. both sides are citing supreme court cases in terms of property ownership. this goes back several years. >> the exclusive presidio neighborhood of san francisco, while the homeowner's nightmare or a dream come true, depending on you believe. >> for me to have the possibility of owning property. that's an amer an amer an amer r the city auctioned it off of $14 a year over many years. today they appealed to the board of supervisors to get the street back. >> it could have been posted. trying harder to find the address. picking up a telephone. >> does that mean when you live on one of the most exclusive streets in san francisco, and you're wealthy and politically connected, that you get a different system of government than the rest us? >> among those weighing in, homeowner diane feinstein who wrote to the board. in the united states of manager no, one should lose property at the hands of the government without knowing about it. >> they simply did not pay attention to take care of the prop

that case went to the united states supreme court. you are absolutely right. today, the administration is taking a person's ability to exercise their religious beliefs and turning it into an ability to discriminate against others on the basis of race or sexual the right toand exercise your religious belief is a personal right, but not a right that extends to the ability to discriminate against .thers for example, in the marriage license case, we sued the court who said i will not issue a marriage license -- the clerk in the court to set i will not to a a marriage license same-sex couple because it is against my religious believes. it is against your beliefs, you need to resign. another client involved a baker taking the position that they can violate the colorado antidiscrimination law because they have a religious belief that they do not want to bake a couple, because it is a form of artistic expression. is that your right to exercise your religious belief stops at the door when it comes to discriminating against people. you are operating a business that is o

he was willing to sue the united states supreme court to win the right to vote in the democratic party primary. particularly for students that won't get the significance of that, the south democratic party devote es. the only republican party members were african americans and a few strange birds we grew up within the south. my kind of birds i might add. southern that a accoladec party would say to an african-american -- you don't need to vote in the democratic primary. we let you vote in the big election. the general election. that is when the final decision is made so you will get your site in the final election. the african-americans were smart enough to say that the general election is irrelevant. all the decisions are made in the primary. so lonnie went to the supreme court and said you are not a private club and for the statees of electing officeholders, you cannot exclude african-american voters. >> they say we are private. >> no you are not when you are collecting state officials. they struck down the texas law april, 1934, this was seemingly the law of land except in georgia w

widely respected appellate lawyer who has litigated over 30 cases in federal state appellate courts, including the united states supreme court. my friend and colleague, senator kennedy of louisiana, has declined to return a positive blue slip. however, senator kennedy expressed that while he is undecided on mr. duncan's nomination, he does not oppose a hearing for mr. duncan. now, this seems to me to be a vincennesable approach. it's a correct distinction that a senator should make when deciding whether to return a blue slip. the blue slip is not meant to signify the senator's ultimate support or opposition to the nominee. it only expresses a senator's view about whether the nominee should have a hearing. senator feinstein made this precise distinction in 2003 for carolyn cool's nomination. i have referred to that nomination earlier in my remarks. senator feinstein returned a blue slip that noted that she, quote, reserved judgment, unquote, on carolyn cool. she also supported holding a hearing for judge cool. ultimately, after judge cool's hearing, senator feinstein decided to oppose the confirmation. eventually, the h

united states. 600 federally judges, district judges in america. each one with the ability to issue overreaching nationwide eroding theder her power of the president of the united states and the supreme court has made clear that courts should a limited relief to the parties before them. if lower courts continue to ignore that precedent the supreme court should send them that message again. joining the entire federal .overnment is an extreme step to take that because of a political agreement absolutely be acceptable. -- unacceptable. the constitution gives judges no walk -- only folks on decisions that go against the department of justice. we also have some important winds. vacatedeme court has both of the appellate court rulings against the president's travel policy. vacated the injunctions. we have also successfully staying a rare order abusive discovery disorder to stop the winds down of the daca program. overreach. i don't know how many time you've seen it be granted but this one was and we appreciate the appellate court for doing so. some district courts have initially ruled against us, i am confident our positions will be vindicated and if necessary in the supreme court. has the statu

supreme court decision. how is that true? >> in arizona versus the united states, the supreme court said simply being here undocumented is not a crime. there's civil violations and criminal violations. >> tucker: it's not a crime. so why -- in other words, the u.s. government has no right to deport people or to put them -- >> they absolutely -- >> if it's not a crime -- >> tucker: why are they not doing it? >> they have a civil liability, this is about keeping a city safe, upholding the contusion -- >> tucker: look, i'm trying to be respectful. you know you're not telling the truth. if someone is here illegally and working, he's using forged federal documents and that is a crime. okay? because the congress passed a series of laws after 9/11 because all 19 hijackers had fact documents that made a serious crime. so your city is 40% foreign born. probably a ton there illegally and used forged documents and you're not doing anything about it. you don't think that that is a threat to the safety of people in the other parts of the country? >> that's not local municipali

i am not aware of that supreme court decision, how is that true? >> and arizona versus the united stateseme court said that simply being here undocumented is not a crime. there are civil violations, and then there are criminal violations. >> tucker: it is not a crime, so in other words the u.s. government has no right to deport people or to put people in -- because they -- >> tucker: if it is not a crime, what are they doing? >> it can be a civil violation, they absolutely have a right. so this is about keeping a city safe, and secondly upholding the constitution, which i swore to uphold when i was sworn and -- >> tucker: i'm trying to be respectful, but you know that you are not telling the truth. if somebody is here illegally and working, he is using forged federal documents command that is a crime, they passed a series of laws after 9/11, because all hijackers had fake documents i made that a pretty serious crime. so your city is 40% foreign-born, probably a ton of people there illegally.pr they are using forged federal documents and you're not doing anything about it. you do not thin

it's a tax because chief justice roberts in the united states supreme court called it a tax. democrats have made two arguments. first, the repealing this mandate is a tax increase only in the parallel universe known as washington, d.c. would cutting the tax be called a tax increase. and second, they said that the repeal kicks people off their insurance coverage, which is demmons demmons extraively not true. it's a pretty strange thing to say, madam president, that eliminating a financial obligation simultaneously entails an additional fiscal burden. in other words, that a tax cut is really a tax increase. only here in the parallel universe of washington, d.c. could that possibly be true. it defies all logic. what actually happens under our plan is that certain low-income individuals do get a tax cut if they voluntarily decide not to buy obamacare coverage, they receive an additional tax cut because they will no longer be penalized by their own government for failing to buy an insurance policy that they can't afford. it's worth noting in 2015 that 80% of the people paying the

not to the people of alabama. >> however, the people of alabama are part of the united states of america and the supreme courtprecedent regarding same sex marriages actually stands. it's more than persuasive. it's binding. and the first amendment talks about the separation of church and state. i'm not making it a partisan issue. and you're absolutely right. i'm not con naturing the allegations -- what i am saying is that the people in the court of public opinion in alabama have more than one thing to actually look at to figure out if this pesh should be disqualified from the senate or the race. they also have the fact that he's trying to run for an office that requires you to adhere to the principles of the law and he's already proven not just in the court of public opinion, not just the "washington post" allegations, but that he's unwilling or unable to do so. but you're absolutely right. the idea of con naturing these for partisan gain would be the wrong thing to do. but i heard in that press conference that she did not do that. in fact, she said i voted for donald trump and it's not a republican issue. >>

should -- a man who rejects the ruling of the supreme court should not be in the judiciary and should not be an elected representative in the united stateserica. supreme court rules, you go with them. stuart: i mean, this is the reason -- >> i mean, this is the reason he was expelled as chief justice -- stuart: yep. >> -- because he rejected twice. once he rejected an opinion of the 11th circuit court of appeals on a federal issue and once the opinion of the united states supreme court on a national issue, on an issue that the matter is now closed whether same-sex marriage is lawful. he directed judges in alabama not to solemnize or accept the licenses from same-sex marriages because he believes it's immoral. he's entitled to that belief, but he's not entitled to frustrate the law of the land because of that belief. stuart: well said, judge. we'll see you again in the 11:00 hour. >>> democrats going to the well to attack the gop tax plan. one leading democrat calls the tax plan a dagger in the heart of new york. another one says it's just another giveaway to billionaires. republicans, in my opinion, they've read the writing on the wall.

they took their case to the united states supreme court and prevailed saying obamacare should be upheldluding the individual mandate because of congress's taxing authority. they've admitted it's a tax, the original purpose of the individual mandate was to drive young and healthy into the exchanges. that's a failed experiment. the young and healthy didn't go there, costs and premiums have exploded. obamacare has left 28 million americans still without coverage and so that's a huge tax burden on average families. more than half of the -- 58% of those. it's very smart. the president how he feels about tax cuts and repealing and replacing obamacare. we support measures that will reduce the tax burden and let's face it, the individual mandate is a tax. >> sandra: all right. overall the president saw this as a big win yesterday. is that fair to say seeing the reform pass through the house? we saw the celebration on capitol hill. paul ryan praised president trump for helping get it done. it all seemed to be -- there was a cloud over washington yesterday in the sexual harassment and assault all

in the title ix process there it was the united states supreme court justice. one of the most respected lawyers and judges in the state. you're telling a 22-year-old victim to go up there and in interviewer friend. and most of these hearings at universities across the country lawyers are not allowed to talk. they can advise their clients but they are they're not allowed to speak during these hearings in a lot of cases you are determined whether or not someone sexually assaulted someone and whether a young man or woman has been accused of it is going to be kicked out of school. i think there are changes that need to be made. the as a point. we senior vice president telus on the record until the stuff came up at baylor he thought it was a lot that required him to have as many female scholarships as mail scholarships and sports and that was the only thing he was responsible for this is a senior vice president. i thought that mattered that i have enough scholarships to give the girls get the girls as i did the boys. where lots of people were before 2011. we had set

quarterback who was accused of sexual assault and the title ix processal there was the united states supreme court justice, one of the most respected lawyers and judges in the state who oversaw it. telling a 22-year-old victim and most of these across the country lawyers are not allowed to talk to you they can advise their clients but they cannot speak during the hearings. in ahe lot of cases you determie whether or not somebody sexually assaulted somebody and whether or not a young man or woman has been accused of it is great to get kicked out of school, so i think there are changes that need to be made. >> that's a great point. i could see the civil rights law. that's the point is to uphold civil rights. >> we had a senior president on the record tell us, i think it was on the record -- [laughter] >> we will find out. >> until this stuff cam came upt the baylor come he thought the title ix was the wall that required him to have as many female scholarships as male scholarships in sports, and that was the onliwas the only thing s responsible for. it's innd the book. this is the senior vice preside

learn about the life and legacy of john marshall , the fourth chief justice of the united states who served on the supreme court from 1801-1835. my name is tom and dimes a senior fellow for constitutional studies at the national constitution center. about chiefto talk justice john marshall in our new exhibit, john marshall: patriot, statesman, chief justice. we cover what is most familiar about john marshall. he was the fourth chief justice of the united states, and he is thought of as our great chief justice. this takes you from the beginning of his life, his fight in the american revolution, through his time as a lawyer and state legislator in virginia all the way through his time as a the john adams administration and his time as chief justice. we have amazing we began our story with a young john marshall in virginia. he is the eldest of 15 children. his father was a state legislator and taught history, law, the classics. was a militia member in the local militia. he works his way to become an officer in the continental army. much as anynce, as other experience in life, forges his constitutional views about

united states. we have nearly 600 federal judges, district judges in america, each one with the ability to issue an overreaching nationwide executive order eroding the power of the president of the united states, for example. the supreme court is consistently and repeatedly made clear that courts should limit relief to the parties before them. so that if lower courts continue to ignore that, the supreme court should send them that message again. and joining the entire hetero government is an extreme, dramatic step to take that step because of a political agreement would be unacceptable. the constitution gives judges no right to beat out a president's actions because they disagree with him on policy grounds. the medium, let me note, only folks it seems on decisions that go against the department of justice, but we are -- we also have important wins. the supreme court has vacated both of the appellate court rulings against the president's travel policy. they are taking on marriage but they had vacated injunction. we have also successfully obtained before the second circuit a rare mandamus order saying a premature and abusive discovery order in a case to stop the wind down of the daca program. this is an overreach. i do not kn

united states. we have nearly 600 federal judges, district judges in america, each one with the ability to issue an overreaching nationwide executive order eroding the power of the president of the united states, for example. the supreme court is consistently and repeatedly made clear that courts should limit relief to the parties before them. courts continue to ignore that, the supreme court should send them that message again. and joining the entire hetero government is an extreme, dramatic step to take that step because of a political agreement would be unacceptable. judges notution gives right to beat out a president's actions because they disagree with him on policy grounds. note, only let me folks it seems on decisions that go against the department of justice, but we are -- we also have important winds. -- wins. the supreme court has vacated both of the appellate court rulings against the president's travel policy. they are taking on marriage but they had vacated injunction. we have also successfully obtained before the second circuit a rare mandamus order saying a premature and abusive discovery order in a case to stop the wind down of the daca program. this is an overreach. i do not know how many times you agreeden

united states. we have nearly 600 federal judges and district judges in america. each one with the ability to issue an overreaching, nationwide executive order power of the president of the united states, for example. the supreme court is consistently and repeatedly made clear that courts should limit relief to the parties before them. if lower courts continue to ignore that precedent, the supreme court should send them that message again. joining the entire federal government is an extreme, dramatic step. to take that step because of a political agreement would be absolutely unacceptable. judges notution gives right to veto a president's actions because they disagree with them on policy grounds. by the way, let me know. the focus, it seems, goes against the department of justice. we also have some important wins. the supreme court has vacated both of the appellate court rulings against the president's travel applause. they have vacated the injunction. they have obtained before the second circuit, a rare order saying a premature and abusive , a case to stop the wind down of the daca program. it is an overreach. i don't know how long you've seen it be granted, but this one was. and we appreciate the appellate court p

and to do that that means the approval of the united states congress and the united states supreme courtmetimes both sides seem to be going in the same direction and there has been an appreciation and recognition of tribal sovereignty and historical context. at times it's easy going the opposite direction or the government is in fact hostile to tribal sovereignty. host: at 6:00 p.m. you can also catch our c-span cities tour citiestour.-span.org/ anna from blackwood, new jersey. caller: i want to tell jerry on the older white women person he is talking about. number one. number two, we have to put up with barack obama for eight years. all we wanted was a fair chance with donald trump and we are not getting it. the media, the liberal media is nothing but talking about russia and their scandals. what about hillary clinton. what about the dnc scandal? when will that be brought up on the news. it is very unfair. it has been a very tough year and it is very unfair to the people that back donald trump. there are more people that back donald trump that you realize. he is not a racist. this racis