it basically says, it basically hands out a 50% off coupon to companies that shut down in youngstown and move to mexico. they pay 21% rate. corporations if you're producing in ohio in the united states, you move offshore, you'll only pay 10.5%. it really is a 50% coupon off on their tax bill.

on that latter question the scope i have made clear in the context of national security in the youngstown framework and administrative law my cases questioning unilateral rewriting of the law. criminal law i reverse convictions and i am not afraid at all from my record of the last 12 years to invalidate executive power. >> let me ask you this you refer to the youngstown p case in the decision by a president immensely unpopular and the decision of the supreme court that could of been very unpopular. and where we are as a nation now? w and that expansion of the executive branch. as they are found around the world asking you over and over to give reassurance about your commitment to the democratic petition country in face of a president prepared to cast aside whether voter suppression the role of the media, case after case we hear the president willing to walk away from rule of law. that is the historic context. not a particular case the particular moment. >> with my 12 year record shows in my statement show. [protesting] show my commitment to independence of the judiciary the crown jewel ju

you have mentioned youngstown, u.s. versus nixon, those that you admire because they involved the judiciary standing up to the president and putting limits on executive power. these precedents certainly restrain presidential power. but i'm curious what limits are there, if any, that would prevent a president from centralizing the executive power and using it for his own political or personal purposes. what protections are there? statutory, constitutional, judicial, that are built into the system? can you talk a little about that? we talked about the positive things that give a president or endow the executive with power. what constraints are there? >> first, senator, there are the constraints built into the constitution, which the appropriations power, the senate confirmation power, which is often used, as you know, of course as a way to restrain executive action or at least to prevent the -- not only to prevent the appointment of people for principal executive officers who might be the -- the senate might not approve,

i go back to youngstown steel.ut a 6-3 decision, where the supreme court rules that president truman has violated the law by seizing the steel mills. this is a time of war. a time of war where lots of americans were killed. the supreme court is under pressure to defer to the president's war effort. in a 6-3 decision, what's interesting to me, justice clark, and we don't usually talk about him in the decision, but he was appointed by president truman to the supreme court. what a moment of judicial independence there, to rule in that case. you think about justice jackson, who had been working for president roosevelt. he dissents in the korematsu case. says, letting racism like this is like letting a loaded women lie around. dissents against president roosevelt's decision. justice jackson's -- justice jackson's concurrence in youngstown which is, of course, what has become the law, that three-part category one, two, three, again, he writes the concurrence in youngstown. why is that a moment of judicial independence? h

you think about youngstown steel, you think about "brown v." where the court came together and knew they were going to face political pressure and still enforced the promise of the constitution. you think about united states versus nixon which i've identified as one of the greatest moments in american judicial history where chief justice burger, who had been appointed by president nixon, brought the court together in a unanimous decision to order president nixon in response to a criminal trial subpoena to disclose information. >> there's great moments of independence and yunnan timty are important. respect for precedent is another one. precedent is not just a judicial policy. it's sometimes stated that it's just a policy. precedent comes from article 3 of the constitution. article 3 of the constitution refers to the judicial power. what does that mean? what does that judicial power mean? judicial power, you look at federalist 78 and what's described there as a system of precedent. so precedent is rooted right into the constitution itself and i

i think you told me the car bombing capital of the world was youngstown, ohio. william: youngstown where the is,ian side of my family they were on the business side. they had to deal with it all the time too. something that you heard of as defacing or you lose face. my grandfather had eight shoe -- he had shoe repair shops throughout youngstown. my mother, as a young girl, would occasionally help him at the store in the morning, which children did back then. she came to the door one time on a saturday morning, not a school day, she was working on the weekend. there was a dead man laying in the shop alcove. gone.ce was it and ourou look at family when we talked about it, was it a warning or was it a person people left there? i think it was probably taken to heart. scott: i am glad i am sitting over here. [laughter] i want to thank -- gw of i want to thank the you, i know the audience enjoyed the conversation. thank you very much for being with us. victoria: thank you. william: thank you so much everyone. you can get to see some of these artifacts of these artifac

they're the deciding votes in the youngstown steel case, which was an extraordinary moment. your role of a judge is about the law. that's distinct from policy and our judiciary depends on having people in it. we are fortunate to have a wonderful federal judiciary. people in it that understand the difference between law and pomsy and willing to apply principles of equal justice under law to anyone who comes before the court even the most unpopular possible defendant is still entitled to due process. >> it's hard to me to imagine a more unpopular defendant than osama bin laden's driver. and personal body guard. so i find the suggestion that somehow you're prejudiced against the small guy in favor of the big guy or that you are picking and choosing what you're going to render judgment in favor of based on something other than the rule of law, i think this answers that question conclusively for me. the fact that you could separate yourself from the emotional involvement you had along with so many people you worked closely with in the white house on september the 11th and you cou

it basically says, it basically hands out a 50% off coupon to companies that shut down in youngstown and move to mexico. they pay 21% rate. corporations if you're producing in ohio in the united states, you move offshore, you'll only pay 10.5%. it really is a 50% coupon off on their tax bill. why would our government do that? why would these special interests that run the trump administration and the congress possibly do that? this tax bill, though, is far from the only threat american workers face. extremist judges, from the supreme court on, hand down decision after decision siding with corporations, choosing corporations over workers, corporations over, over consumers, limiting workers' power in the workplace. the supreme court consistently stands on the side of large companies -- companies that outsource jobs, instead of siding with workers. and it's getting worse. right now more than a million and a half americans live under the looming threat of drastic cuts to the pensions they earned over a lifetime of hard work. millions of americans work long hours, but struggle to get by a

they are the deciding votes in the youngstown steel case which was an extraordinary national moment, one of the great moments. and so it's -- your conception of the role of a judge is, it's about the law. that's distinct from policy and our judiciary depends on having people in it. and we are fortunate to have a wonderful federal judiciary. people in it who understand the difference between law and policy and are willing to apply principles of equal justice under law to anyone who comes before the court, even the most unpopular possible defendant is still entitled to due process and the rule of law. i've tried to ensure that as a judge. >> it's hard to imagine a more unpopular defendant than osama bin laden's driver. personal bodyguard. so i find the suggestion that somehow you are prejudiced against the small guy, in favor of the big guy, or that you are picking and choosing who you're going to render judgment in favor of, based on something other than the rule of law, i think this answers that question conclusively for me. the fact that you could separate yourself from the emotiona

and i go back to youngstown steel. and you think about, it's a 6-3 decision where the supreme court rules that president truman has violated the law by seizing the steel mills. now this is a time of war. a time of war where lots of americans were killed. what's interesting to me, justice clark, we don't usually talk about justice clark in that decision, he was appointed by president truman to the supreme court. what a moment of judicial independence there. to rule in that case. you think about justice jackson. who had been working for president roosevelt and then he dissents in the koramatsu case, stands up and says -- letting racism like this is like letting a loaded weapon lie around. roosevelt's decision. [ crowd protesting ] >> justice jackson -- [ crowd protesting ] >> justice jackson's concurrence in youngstown, which is of course what has become the law, the three-part test, category 1, category 2, category 3. he writes that concurrence in youngstown wirks is that a moment of judicial independence, he had taken

justice clark and burton, are the two deciding votes in y youngstown.they get to the supreme court and they're the deciding vote. one of the great moments and so your conception of the role of the judge is about the law. that's distinct from policy and o our judiciary of having people in it and we are fortunate to have people in it who understands the difference between laws and policies and willing to apply equal justice under the law to anyone who comes before the court even of the most unpopular possible defendant is entitled to due process to the rule of law. >> my personal body guard. i find this suggestion that somehow you are prejudice against the small guy and favor the big guy or that you were picking and choosing who you are going to render judgment in favor of based on other things other than the rules of laws. the fact that you can separate yourself along with the involvement that you had along with people that you work closely at the white house, and then as a judge, taking the oath of office, you can render a judgment in favor of osama bin

i go back to youngstown. you think about, it is decision with the supreme court ruling that president truman has violated the law. this is a time of war. a time of war where lots of americans were killed and the supreme court's are under pressure to defer to the presidents war effort and in the decision is interesting is justice clark and we don't usually talk about justice clark. he was appointed by president truman to the supreme court. what a moment of judicial independence to rule in that case you think about justice jackson who had been working for president roosevelt. he stands up and says letting racism like this is like letting a loaded weapon light around. president roosevelt's decision. justice jackson justice jackson [ crowd protesting ] -- justice jackson's concurrence in youngstown would has become the law. category one, two, three, he writes the concurrence and why is that a moment of independence? he had worked in the executive branch and the roosevelt administration but he is a judge and sees

and i go back to youngstown steel. and you think about, it's a 6-3 decision where the supreme court rules that president truman has violated the law by seizing the steel mills. now this is a time of war. a time of war where lots of americans were killed. what's interesting to me, justice clark, we don't usually talk about justice clark in that decision, he was appointed by president truman to the supreme court. what a moment of judicial independence there. to rule in that case. you think about justice jackson. who had been working for president roosevelt and then he dissents in the koramatsu case, stands up and says -- letting racism like this is like letting a loaded weapon lie around. dissents against president roosevelt's decision. [ crowd protesting ] >> justice jackson -- [ crowd protesting ] >> justice jackson's concurrence in youngstown, which is of course what has become the law, the three-part test, category 1, category 2, category 3. he writes that concurrence in youngstown wirks is that a moment of judicial

as justice jackson's frame work in youngstown made clear, it's important to understand, that even in the national security context where the constitution gives the commander-in-chief power to the president, the president remains subject to the law. both the constitution and the laws of -- passed by congress. so for example, as i've said in writings and my review of judge baron's book and in some of my cases, congress has substantial power. this is often forgotten. substantial power in the war powers arena. of course, to declare war, we go late the war effort as congress has done so including post september 11th on issues such as interrogati interrogation, detention, military commissions, surveillance. congress has been actively involved in those areas historically and through post september 11th and i've made clear in my writings that the president has very limited power in youngstown category 3 to disregard a law or practice. the historical example set by the supreme court is command of troops in battle, for example, that couldn't get in the middle of that. outside examples like tha

you think about youngstown steel. you think about, for example, brown versus board of education where the court came together and knew they were going to face political pressure and still enforce the promise of the constitution. you think about united states versus nixon which i've identified as one of the greatest moments of american judicial history where chief justice burger appointed by president nixon brought the court together in a unanimous decision to order president nixon in response to a criminal trial subpoenaed to disclose information. those great moments of independence and unanimity are important. respect for precedent is another one. we are a system of constitutional precedent. precedent is not just a judicial policy, it's sometimes state that had it's just a policy. precedent comes right from article 3 of the constitution. article 3 of the constitution refers to the judicial power. what does that mean? what does judicial power mean? judicial power, you look at federalist 78 and it's what's described th

as justice jackson's framework in youngstown famously made clear, it's important to understand that, though, even in the national security context, where the constitution gives the commander in chief power to the president, the president remains subject to the law, both the constitution and the laws passed by congress, so for example, as i've said in writings in my review of judge david behrens view of war, and in some cases, congress has substantial power, and this is often forgotten, substantial power in the war powers arena, to declare war, authorize war and also to regulate the war effort and congress has done so historically and currently including post-september 11th on issues such as interrogation, detention, military commissions, surveillance. congress has been actively involved in those areas historically and through post september 11th and i've made clear in my writings that the president has very limited power in youngstown category three to disregard such a law, and/or practice. the historical example that is accepted by the supreme court is command of troops in battle, f

who is caring about you in youngstown, ohio and akron, ohio, and pittsburgh, pennsylvania? or not, look at those rallies. and they stay there for hours. they wait 10 hours to get a seat in front. david: so as you approach the midpoint of your career -- ken: yeah, i am getting there. david: getting there. looking back, as you did in this book, what would you have done differently if you had to do it over again? ken: you know my problem with that question? if i move this thing up here, what happens to that thing down here? david: the butterfly effect. ken: right. i have to look at the totality and say i made a lot of bad decisions. i made some good decisions. i made a lot of mistakes. i did a lot of things right. i think it is a risky game. or, i wish, for example, that i didn't always get -- off. i was more rational when i was angry, i wish for that. i still wish for that. i wish i had more compassion and understanding for people. you can always, you never have enough of that. so i wish i had more sensitivity to the plight of other people. and i still do. i wish i was more i

you have mentioned youngstown, u.s. versus nixon, those that you admire because they involved the judiciary standing up to the president and putting limits on executive power. these precedents certainly restrain presidential power. but i'm curious what limits are there, if any, that would prevent a president from centralizing the executive power and using it for his own political or personal purposes. what protections are there? statutory, constitutional, judicial, that are built into the system? can you talk a little about that? we talked about the positive things that give a president or endow the executive with power. what constraints are there? >> first, senator, there are the constraints built into the constitution, which the appropriations power, the senate confirmation power, which is often used, as you know, of course as a way to restrain executive action or at least to prevent the -- not only to prevent the appointment of people for principal executive officers who might be the -- the senate might not approve,

who is caring about you in youngstown, ohio and akron, ohio, and pittsburgh, pennsylvania?not, look at those rallies. and they stay there for hours. they wait 10 hours to get a seat in front. david: so as you approach the midpoint of your career -- ken: yeah, i am getting there. david: getting there. looking back, as you did in this book, what would you have done differently if you had to do it over again? ken: you know my problem with that question? if i move this thing up here, what happens to that thing down here? david: the butterfly effect. ken: right. i have to look at the totality and say i made a lot of bad decisions. i made some good decisions. i made a lot of mistakes. i did a lot of things right. i think it is a risky game. or, i wish, for example, that i didn't always get -- off. i was more rational when i was angry, i wish for that. i still wish for that. i wish i had more compassion and understanding for people. you can always, you never have enough of that. so i wish i had more sensitivity to the plight of other people. and i still do. i wish i was more inter

but again he writes concurrence is youngstown.taken positions contrary to that when he worked in the executive branch in the roosevelt administration but he sees it differently as an independent judge. how about chief justice burger in united states versus nixon. moments of judicial independence. it is resisting public pressure, political pressure. it's treating everyone equally no matter where you are, what station. when i was -- became a judge on the d.c. circuit i had a case versus homdon versus united states. [yelling in the back of the room] homdon is one of bin laden's associates. you'll never have a nominee -- should i proceed? >> this is coming out of my time but that's okay. let these people have their free speech and interrupt the other 300 million people listening. this is your opportunity to speak to the american people and for them to make a judge about it. if they want to effect what the other 300 million people hear from you, then that's just too bad. you proceed now. >> homdon is one of bin laden's associate before

has anyone ever been to youngstown, ohio? it's a mess. east liverpool, ohio? ford heights, illinois? i mean, we have left people behind, and instead of addressing it, we make fun of it. both parties do. there was a possibility that romney could win, because these people were wanting to do something different. a lot of these voters voted for obama twice. but they wanted to do something different. in mitt romney, they saw someone very similar to barack obama. it was about the multi-nationalism, multiculturalism, and about being a world citizen, and it was not being about american first, and i think that is this little nuance that people missed, you know, in this election. in the great revolt -- has anyone read it yet? "insideok, it's called the coalition to reshaping american politics" -- it is not about about donald trump. it is a book about the people who put him into office. we break them down into seven different archetypes. very surprising archetypes. very few people see it. if you did not see this coming, this is a book for you. if you did see it coming, b

they drove the youngstown to sell the pistols. he was arrested and he goes to trial with short pants on and the judge said that the disk clean cut young guy. he never would have done anything this dastardly or what have you. he was paroled to the care of his parents. his mother and father were fighting about how he should be disciplined and in the late fall thanksgiving of 1928, chester decided after getting a tip about some money and jewels at the home of mr. and mrs. miller that he would try a robbery and he conducts a home invasion. he waits for them in the garage. he forces the way in and steal some money individuals and make us to chicago where he was arrested and brought back to cleveland. he has made and and he received a lot of support from his family when he had these other -- i wouldn't say criminal second allows, but were all of the stolen items were returned and he promised never to do it again. chester went before a judge, one of the rulings i did notice was upholding racial segregation in housing in 1928 in cleveland

i grew up in youngstown, ohio, a steel meill. >> i might even like to tell people how to fly. >> reporterssage for a long time. >> that's why you're so special. >> reporter: and then one day -- >> during that segment, we made eye contact. and he said, you know, i like you just the way you are. you know, you make every day a special day. and i like you just the way you are. and something inside of me turned on, like it's turning on right now. and i thought, he's talking to me. >> we've just got that inside of us. and when we can know it for sure, it's such a good feeling. >> no man had ever told me he loved me, and he did. and i knew he meant it. i knew he meant it. >> he certainly made me a better person. >> reporter: in 1969, joanne rogers watched from home as her husband testified before congress. >> all right, rogers. you've got the floor. >> i could tell that he was nervous. >> reporter: defending public television to a skeptical senator john pastorry. >> i'm the host and i do all the puppets and i write all the music and i write all the scripts. >> i'm supposed to be a pretty tough g

who moved those jobs from youngstown oversees. instead of doing that, he turned arpd t around the anger and said muslims, got to get angry about the muslims or immigrants or the way he denigrated women. and then finally, the exposer, the embodiment. he came into office talking about fighting for the common man and even after everything he said in the campaign, he could have come into office and built things for america. he could have built bridges and put his name on it. instead he used his time in office to enrich himself and promote his own hotels and agrandized the name trump while pretending to fight for others. and that tendency in our country did not with begin with donald trump. i find it fascinating this conversation now about who will be the saviors from trump on the left. we talked about howard schultz, michael bloomberg. whatever you think of those people, look at yourself, what is it in us that gravitates to these billionaires sugar daddies and sugar mommies when we feel scared in our society. i am trying to point us t

one of these people is ed barker, iii, from youngstown, ohio. he worked for 45 years driving a truck. he worked 60 to 70 hours a week. six to seven days a a week. cut in his a 50% pension. he missed baseball games. he missed birthdays. he missed family events because he was driving truck with the promise that at the end of his career that there would be a solid pension. and now him and his wife are taking care of their 96-year-old father. they try to babysit for their kids when they get deployed to try to help out with the grandkids. and they try to help their kid through grad school. make a better life. all based on the promise they were given. but now they face the horrendous situation where they may lose half of their pension. and cuts to health care and all the rest that come with that. they did nothing wrong. and this is going to cost money. let me share with the american people and remind some of my colleagues that we had no roblem in this congress giving $142 bailout to bank of america. $280 billion bailout to citigroup. $25 billion to th

. >> you've referred to youngstown case.n the context of war by a decision of a president that was unpopular and might have been popular and the decision of the supreme court that could have been up popular. what i'm trying to ask you, do you understand where we are as a nation now? when books are being written about how democracy dies, when fear of authoritarian rule and expansion of the executive branch are rampid. why we're asking you over and over again, give us some reassurance about your commitment to the democratic institutions of this country in face of a president who appears to cast them aside. whether it's voter suppression, role of the media. case after case we hear this president willing to walk away from the rule of law in this country. that's the historic context this is in. not a particular case but a particular moment in history. >> senator, my 12 year record shows and my statements to the committee show and all my teachingteach ing articles show my commitment to the independence of the the judiciary as the

what we can tell you, in texas, calls for thorough investigations, in state of ohio, diocese of youngstownf priests removed for sex abuse offenses. in oklahoma, the diocese plans to review all the files of every priest who served since 1960. in iowa they're looking at their options. joining me to talk about it, someone impacted by this, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse by a priest in pennsylvania. he's been fighting to end the statute of limitations for all childhood investigations. we were in touch earlier this week when we got word about new york. we got word about new jersey. what does that mean when you see the steps certain states are taking? >> it's magnificent. this is pushing the envelope further. here in new york the legislation has had the opportunity for decades to pass the child victim's act. it's not been going anywhere in the republican-held senate. leader flanagan refuses to bring it to the floor. it will pass overwhelmingly. the attorney general is going to give us more reason and give us excuse after excuse after excuse as to why this legislation shouldn't be delayed a

think about youngstown steel. think about, for example, brown v. board of education with the court came together and knew they were going to face political pressure and still enforce the promise of thew constitution. you think about the united states versus nixon which identified as one of the greatest moment in american judicial history, or chief justice burger who had been appointed by president nixon brought the court together in a unanimous decision to order president nixon in response to a criminal trial subpoena to disclose information. there is great moments of independence and unanimity are important. respect for precedent is another one. we are a system of cost additional precedent. precedent is not just a judicial policy. sometimes stated as just a policy. it comes right from article iii of the constitution. article iii of the cost edition refers to the judicial power. what does that mean? what is judicial power mean? you look at federalist 78 and it is described there as a system of precedence. precedence is routed right intoa the cons p

they're the deciding votes in the youngstown steel case, which was an extraordinary national moment. one of the great moments. so your conception of the role of a judge, it's about the law. that's distinct from policy and tour judiciary depends on having people in it. and we are fortunate to have a wonderful federal judiciary. to anyone who comes before the court, even the most unpopular possible defendant is still entitled to due process and the rule of law. and i've tried to ensure that as a judge. >> well, it's hard for me to imagine a more unpopular defendant than osama bin laden's driver and personal bodyguard. so i find the suggestion that somehow you are prejudiced against the small guy in favor of the big guy or that you are picking and choosing who you're going to render judgment in favor of based on something other than the rule of law, i think this answers that question conclusively for me. the fact that you could separate yourself from the emotional involvement you had along with so many people you worked with closely with in the white house on september 11th, and you can

so i have always identified marbury versus madison, youngstown steel, brown versus board of education and united states versus richard nixon. and why have i -- brown versus board by the way the single greatest -- >> was it rightly so i have sa court's holding that a criminal trial subpoena to a president in the context of the special counsel la counsel regulations in that case for information, a criminal trial subpoena for on information under the specific regulations in that case, i have said that holding is one of the four greatest moments in supreme court history. so not only -- i can explain how that misunderstanding came up because i know there was a news story about that and that is just not correct impression of my views. my views have been consistently why was it one of the greatest moments? because of the political pressures of the time, the court stood up for drjudicial independence in a moment of national crisis. the supreme court -- we need the supreme chourt to decide the things that we can foresee, but one of the things that is really important, we'll have crisis moments

he tald about the youngstown case and how the court stooup to another exertion of power.named four other similar cases, one which responded to what states were doing with respect to racial discrimination. so you see him describing his view of the court and the role of a judge and a jus being independent from the political system and deciding cases on the law, not on their own personal politics or on the politics or personality of the person who appointed them. d> woodruff: neal katyal, comment on that n the section that we just heard with the exchange with senator feinstein about presidential wpowers. l, judy, you and i talked about how this is the most consequential supreme court nomination and hearing really in our lifetimes because it is to replace justice kennedy's seat, the swing seat. yesterday, we gedn't reall too much a sense of judge kavanaugh because all we had was a prepared statement about him and skirmishing about other things, but today we started to get that, and i think the first ingeterchou played, which was about guns, i think marcia set it up actly righ

the four i've always identified are marbury verse madison, youngstown steel, brown versus board of education, and united states versus richard nixon. why have i -- brown versus board, by the way, the single greatest -- >> was it rightly decided? >> i have said that, yes, that the court's holding that a criminal trial subpoena to a president, in the context of the special counsel regulations in that case, for information, a criminal trial subpoena for information, under the specific regulations in that case, i have said that holding is one of the four greatest moments in supreme court history. not only -- i can explain how the misunderstanding came up. i know there was a news story about that. that's just not correct impression of my views. my views have been consistent. why was it one of the greatest moments? it was one of the greatest moments because of the political pressures of the time. the court stood up for judicial independence in a moment of national crisis. we need the supreme court to decide the things we can foresee. one of the things that's really important for the supreme court,

that is the lesson i think of the youngstown steel case. category three as i said in my writings, where congress has prohibited the president from doing something, is critically important. that's essential to the rule of law as justice jackson said. that's the equilibrium of the country is at stake in category three. i have written about that quite frequently. >> got it. thank you. today we have a president who said co-authorize worse than waterboarding. how would you feel >> i'm not going to comment and don't think i can -- >> you know what the law is. >> i know what the law is. >> i asked specifically, how do you feel about that? >> i feel that i should follow the law as a judge. i know what the law is. i know your leadership on this issue both with the report you did, which was the thorough documentation of things that happened as well as recommendations for the future. i know your leadership with senator mccain on the 2005 act as well. i know what the law is. i have written about the -- how the separation of powers works when congress p

that is the lesson i think of the youngstown steel case of justice jackson's categories. category 3 as i've said repeatedly in my writings which is where congress has prohibited the president from doing something. it's critically important that it's crucial to the rule of law as justice jackson said. that's the equilibrium of the country is at stake in category three and i've written about that quite frequently. >> got it. thank you. today we have a president who said he could authorize worse than water boarding. how would you feel about that? >> senator, i'm not going to comment on -- and don't think i can sitting here on current events. >> well, you know what the law is. you've made that clear. >> i know what the law is. >> i asked specifically, how do you feel about that? >> i feel that i should follow the law as a judge. i know what the law is and i know your leadership on this issue, both with the report you did, which was the thorough documentation of things that happened as well as recommendations for the future, and i know your leadership with senator mccain on th

you've referred to youngstown case in the context of a war and a decision by a president that was immenselypopular. >> yes. >> and the decision or might have been popular i should say and the decision of the supreme court which could have been very unpopular at that moment in history. what i'm trying to ask you is historical context. do you understand where we are as a nation now? when books are written about how democracy dies, when fear of authoritarian rule and the expansion of the executive branch is rampant in this country, when illustrations are found around the world why we are asking you over and over again, give us some reassurance about your commitment to the democratic institutions of this country and in the face of a president who seems prepared to cast them aside. whether it's voter suppression. the role of the media. case after case we hear this president willing to walk away from the rule of law in this country. that's the historic context this is in. not a particular case but a particular moment in history. >> senator, my 12-year record shows and my statements to the committ

. >> the youngstown framework, context of administrative law, questioning unilateral executive rewriting of the law, in the criminal law where i have reversed convictions, i am not afraid at all. washington, wein have been hearing lawyers for a woman accusing brett kavanaugh of sexual assault asked the senate judiciary committee to push back a hearing on her claims until thursday and take testimony from additional witnesses. bloomberg has learned the attorneys have said she could not appear monday as the committee's chairman, chuck grassley, plant -- planned. formernt trump's personal attorney has had lengthy interviews with investigators working for robert mueller. sources say he was asked about trump's business and any business dealings with russia. he has been one of trump's closest associates over the past decade and admitted he made illegal campaign contributions in the 2016 presidential election at the behest of trump. as.-canadian trumps over post-nafta deal have missed the deadline. an american trade representative and canadian foreign minister met again yesterday in washington.

that is the lesson of the youngstown steel case, of justice jackson's categories. category 3, as i've said repeatedly in my writings, which is where congress has prohibited the president from doing something, is critically important. that's essential to the rule of law, as justice jackson said. that's the equal lib reyum of the country is at stake in category 3. i've written about that quite extensively. >> got it. thank you. today we have a president who said he could authorize worse than water boarding. how would you feel about that? >> senator, i'm not going to comment on -- and don't think i can sitting here on current events. >> you know what the law is. you made that clear. >> i know what the law is, senator. and i know -- >> i asked specifically, how do you feel about that? >> i feel that i should follow the law as a judge. i know what the law is and i know your leadership on this issue, both with the report you did, which was the thorough documentation of things that happened as well as recommendations for the future. and i know your leadership with senator

two appointees of president truman were the two deciding vote in youngstown steel and they both wereappointees of president truman it is wartime against korea they get to this sre precor and they are the deciding vote which was extraordinary national moment. so what is your conception of all of the judges about modesty from policy. the judiciary depends on having people in it with the federal judiciary who understand the difference between thought and policy can apply those principles to anyone who comes before the court. he'd been the most possible defendant is due to do process of the las vegas hard to imagine a more unpopular defendant than osama bin laden driver and bodyguard. i find a suggestion you are prejudiced against a small die or favorite things i were you are picking judgment i think this answers that question inclusive for me. you can separate yourself from the emotional involvement while so many people worked with at the white house on september 11. then as a judge, take the youth about this to render a judgment in favor of the lesson because you apply the law equally

because i would challenge him to come to steel valley, youngstown, ohio. to four different union halls and see if he can find five electricians that aren't working. see if he can five iron workers that aren't working and see if he can find five brick layers that aren't working. everybody is, wog. this is trump's economy. this is what he does. it's amazing. brian brian is it possible that he cares more about union workers than he does workers? >> no. i don't think it's that i think he cares more about the democratic party. i really do. you know, his mind set is the same mind set they were talking about judge kavanaugh earlier. those people have four sets of signs to see if ho they were going to protest. is he not fighting for workers. is he fighting for the democratic party. you know, come on, guys, let's all get together and raise everybody's vote. he is not doing that. ainsley: geno, what is it that the president did that is allowing companies to hire more electricians and brick layers? is it the tax reform. >> it's the tax reform my own situation the com

. >> places like youngstown are already getting that rain. melissa constanzer is following this.ll, it's going to be a wet go of things here in the midwest. just look as we go through friday, saturday, even into sunday here. you can see all the rain just building and streaming through parts of illinois and indiana. and there's trou atlantic here. we're watching florence. one of the two options is toward the u.s. mainland. we do need to stay on the watch for the tropics next week. to the west coast, things are getting quite hot not just for friday, but into the weekend. no help for that fire danger. terrell, diane? >>> and the frantic search for survivors continues after the deadly earthquake in northern japan. at least 16 people are dead and dozens missing. authorities say many of those missing may be trapped in collapsed buildings. the dama heavy rains in the forecast may hamper rescue efforts.>>> ford produced between 2015 and 2018. the devices that automatically tighten seat belts can cause a fire. no injuries have been reported. >>> today the birthplace of the cappuccino welc

the youngstown steel seizure case. and one of the things i admire about brett kavanaugh is he has in a speech that he gave, he has said that robert jackson is a role model for him. and robert jackson, like brett kavanaugh, worked in the executive branch. knows the executive branch for a -- very well, but also, when it came down to it, was willing to rule against the executive branch. an executive branch controlled by his own party, very famous, the youngstown steel seizure case, and brett kavanaugh in his writings off the bench, in a piece in the marquette alumni magazine actually celebrated robert jackson, held him as a role model. i think that is actually a good choice of role model. he is not the only one that brett kavanaugh has, but i thought that was a good one. >> you have followed judge kavanaugh's career. you also had him in the classroom. you were one of his professors at yale. what was he like as a student? >> i had him very, very briefly because it is what we call a shopping period. his schedule required hi

he also used it in the 2016 law journal article along with marberry versus madison, youngstown and brown v. board of education in the context of a judge needing a backbone. he didn't say it was rightly decided. and he repeated that several times during the hearings. so i don't think he has informed this committee of his real position on that very important case. >> yeah, and actually through a rather clever subtrifuge which i think is -- if that's the case. we will pursue that further. some powerful statements have been made perhaps one of which is there's liberty on both sides. as you know, we usually see in politics the polluter big money side heavily engaged and then, you know, good luck to the individual victim, like hunter here earlier with his asthma and we very often see phony baloney studies that are put together that look at the cost benefit of regulation but only look at the cost to the polluter, to the regulated industry, totally omit what happens on the other side. could you speak a little bit more about the liberty side of the beneficiary of the regulation, and how they stan

the youngstown steelcase, we are at war with korea and the president seizes steel mills, well-intentioned because it's well-intentioned to serve the war effort but the court says it's not consistent with law and therefore unlawful and the court rules against president truman. we talked a lot about the united states versus richard nixon case, the unanimous decision in 1974 by justice burger who had been appointed . the clinton versus jones case itself was a moment where the president of the united states was ruled cagainst by the supreme court including two of his appointees. the hamdan case in the supreme court before hamdan came back back to me for cases by justice kennedy in 2008, ruling against president bush and a wartime case and so to my hamdan case. i look at that is the case where the rule of law protects all regardless of who you are and no one is above the law and the president is subject to many legal restraints in terms of the official capacity, the war effort and i think my decisions have shown that independence in a variety of areas. >> let me shift gears and my final couple