can you talk about william rehnquist's judicial philosophy.hat with his view of the role of the constitution, for example? the great tension is the original versus the living document. elizabeth: if you are to categorize him and i'm not sure it is possible to do so, simply possibly more on the , original list side. what stands out to me in , contrast to some of the justices we have been talking about, william rehnquist's jurisprudence focused on the vertical component, between the federal government and the states. host: ronald reagan's issues. his federalism issues. elizabeth: exactly. very relevant, the federalism. the william rehnquist court re-embraced the idea that, and this harkens back, it has echoes of chief justice hughes reacting to the new deal legislation. there are certain prerogatives the federal government and local branches have, but it is for the court to say when they go too far, whether infringing in a branch of the federal government or the states and individual rights. so i think what we saw during chief justice rehnquist'

can you talk about william rehnquist's judicial philosophy.t with his view of the role of the constitution, for example. the great tension is the original list versus the living document. elizabeth: if you are to categorize him and i'm not sure it is possible to do so, possibly more on the original list side. in contrast to some of the justices we have been talking about, william rehnquist's jurisprudence focused on the vertical component, between the federal government and the states. host: ronald reagan's issues. elizabeth: very relevant, the federalism. the william rehnquist court re-embraced the idea that, and this harkens back, it has echoes of chief justice hughes reacting to the new deal legislation. there certain prerogative the federal government and local branches have, but it is for the court to say when they go too far, whether infringing in a branch of the federal government or the states and individual rights. we saw during chief justice rehnquist's tenure is a refocusing of a court attention on the relationship between the feder

he may take the position that william rehnquist took it's a largely ceremonial role and he won't do lot that affects the course of the senate trial, ordering witnesses to appear, things of that nature. i think it's likely he'll urge the senate to work out those determinations internally. maybe with guidance from roberts, but not him making the decision. >> that could lead to an interesting situation. let's say the democrats say we want to hear from mick mulvaney or mike pompeo. roberts gives it over to the senate. it's not certain you would have a majority against seeing mick mulvaney come forward. you have a few senators on the fence that could vote for that. >> it could. it would be viewed as heresy within the party. maybe they'll be able to peel off a view. i think we're looking at it the right way. i think kate is right. the idea that chief justice roberts is going to be a hero for the left and he's going to force witnesses to testify and the senate will have to overturn him, that's a pipe dream. it's going to be based on senate votes. the best they can hope for is peeling off a few

but there were also 14 love letters from william rehnquist to sandra day. william rehnquist and sandra day were classmates. he was number one in the class. they went out first year. the story they told always was we went to the movies a few times. it was actually a little bit more than that. >> double feature. (laughs) >> and, bill rehquist's third year, he got a job as a supreme court clerk with justice stevens, justice jackson. and he was lonely. he started writing sandra and remembering their romance. about letter seven, he said, sandy, will you marry me? when i took that letter of the box i gave a little yelp. they had not told her own families. i love this, justice blackmun, he sat next to justice rehnquist when sandra came in the court, blackmun turned to justice rehnquist and said, no fooling around. basically nobody knew. and the sweet thing about this is they ended up having a great friendship. yes, sandra turned them down. she strung him along for a little while but she did turn him down in a gentle way. they both married the loves of their lives.

and it is more william rehnquist. that has changed quite a bit, one of the most liberal justices on the court. i don't think that will happen with these two justices but it is a mistake now when people try to predict what the supreme court is going to do. we may get more clues this term but argument has changed now. the oral argument used to be a time when justices would ask questions like these two guys solely to get justice kennedy's vote. you could really tell where the justices are going or what with a thought based on their questions and their questions are important because they are trying to sway justice kennedy. that has changed now. without justice kennedy, the whole composition of the oral argument is different. >> you get to talk in the beginning now. the chief justice and other members of the court, the council simply couldn't have a moment to make a comprehensive argument so they have two minutes at the beginning of a 30 minute argument and which counsel was allowed to speak uninterrupted. there have been

the opinion written by a young william rehnquist who, as you know, went on to be a chief justice of theted states. been reaffirmed in nine administrations under both parties, it's a very simple proposition. it's called the mediad vising immunity. -- immediate advising immunity. they cannot command that he appears before them, those people are essentially his alter egos. but i want too emphasize one moe pointfo, there's another form of absolute immunity that is based upon a 1988 opinion by mike ludig. that stands for the proposition that national security information, no matter in whose hands it is, cannot be shared in the compulsory fashion based hiupon something even more venerable than 1989's secrets privilege. of course, t the president -- te people are being asked to testify not about some domestic policy issue, paul, but because of national security -- paul: does any of this change, this immunity change because it's part of an impeachment probe which is a core power of the u.s. house? >> it's an interesting question, never been litigated this way. i would like to think that even th

to this opinion from the justice department that was actually written by former chief justice william rehnquist when he worked at the justice department back in the '70s. and the argument goes something leak this. you know congress has its authorities and its powers to investigate. but the president and his close advisers also have their responsibilities and powers and it wouldn't make sense the argument goes if congress could force the president or his close advisers to come in and testify and answer questions at a specific place and time that would effectively make the president's subservient to congress. it would make congress the president's boss. now the two judges who ruled on it have not been very impressed by that argument. but there is that argument and the fact is, it's been made by the department of justice in both the republican and democrat administrations. so you know you get if trouble when you try to predict conclusively what the supreme court is going to do with something. certainly, the two courts have looked at it. the two trial judges haven't been impressed. >> the supreme c

you know, in 1998 when there was an impeachment trial of bill clinton, william rehnquist presided asef justice and literally made no decisions the entire time. i mean, he talked about playing solitaire off on his own during breaks. whether that's also true in the more contentious environment of today, we don't know. the structure of the senate trial and the power of the chief justice is one of the many things the senate is going to have to sort out. >> in 1998 to work out an agreement beforehand which is what both sides you get the sense want this time too. chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell could work this out beforehand. his decision to decide much of this. finally jeffrey, ruth bader ginsburg. back in the hospital this weekend. back at home now. 86 years old. just more questions about her health. >> you know, look. she is about this tall. i doubt she weighs a hundred pounds, and she's obviously as tough as any nfl linebacker. this woman has had every disease known to humanity. she's trying to hang in there. she's an icon. she's very popular among liberals in the united states. but,

he walks across the street and would preside over any senate impeachment trial just as william rehnquistt. that means he's there to govern and make some key calls so it could be really interesting to see what tone he sets. then frank f. asks, why did the founding fathers make impeachment so confusing? was that intentional? well, that's a really interesting question. i think it goes to what you think the text of the constitution implies. the framers did give broad guidelines, so there aren't specific rules for what happens once impeachment gets going, and there isn't a list of all high crimes. you've heard a lot of debate about abuse of power. everyone understands that to be an impeachable high crime, but a lot of the rest is broad. bribery is impeachable. they say that. the house starts the process. the senate holds the trial. but over these next weeks, whether it feels really clear or more vague is really going to depend on how it goes. we do think that when you look at what's happened in other impeachments, there are clues, but they are not rules. the presidents tell us what's been don

. >> lewis powell, william rehnquist.re names you'll remember because they will add distinction and excellence in the highest degree to the supreme court of the united states. >> by design or not, the president has emerged from the controversy as having tried but failed to place a woman on the high court. the objection played conveniently into his hands and escaping the much anticipated historic appointment. >> let me say that at least we have made a beginning and there will be a woman on the supreme court in time. >> do any of you want to go out to dinner tonight? >> i tell you if mommy would like to go, i think it would be a nice idea. you start with her. is patricia around? >> yeah, i think she would like to go. everything's great. >> okay, yeah, bye. >> the traditional high ladies in government was filled in a conventional way. the president nominated mrs. bonuelos to the post of treasurer of the united states. >> the ramona food company is owned by the nominee to be treasurer of the united states. yesterday, federal

o'connor turned over her family papers to evan thomas and he discovered a marriage proposal from william rehnquist to sandra day o'connor. they were different in those days and said she was still at stanford and something like hell about getting married this year or something like that but she said no. [laughter] >> and in fact you actually said that and you start out with those type of questions. your first interview was with john meacham. >> was the first one who had written a book on jefferson and john is a turkic scholar, now the head of the thomas jefferson foundation. .. >> in addition to our historian historians, i interviewed john roberts. in the interview i said did you always want to be chief justice of the united states? he said no when i was little i had no interest in that. did you want to be a justice? know. a judge? know. know i didn't want to be a lawyer either but i wanted to be a and historian about american history and my father said that's a nice profession but you won't make any money you will write books nobody will read how do you support your family? so he went to harvard a

tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the senate before chief justice william rehnquistas house impeachment managers, we presented our case against president clinton. we were somber, but confident knowing we had afforded mr. clinton every due process right to defend him. process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. house democrats led by adam schiff have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. it will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the house and the nation. that this morning from inside the wall street journal. sonya from south carolina, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. simple comment, this impeachment goes on and on, i never hear one good thing of how great our president trump is and he is. it is like when he got elected, the people put him there. it is like he said in the beginning -- it came from something inside. thank you. host: president trump on sunday again reiterating his calls to reveal the name of the whistleblower behind the complaint that led to the house formal impeachment inquir