which chief justice -- [laughter] the supreme court goes on forever? >> someone told me this was a rap trivia. [laughter] >> misleading questions. >> it's a hefty question. >> come on. >> taft. who, ofis right, course was president and justice. >> next question. last term, chief justice john roberts wrote that the infamous cora martinez decision had been -- infamous korematsu decision had been overruled by history. dissent byhe 1965 which justice? they letter -- later left the court. >> goldberg. >> was the hint too much? [laughter] >> all right. team jefferson. which long serving justice just asn a dissent that a corporation is considered a person before the courts, quote, so it should be as respect to gross of trees, swampland, or even air? which justice says that air can file a lawsuit? douglas.e >> correct. [applause] next question for team madison. which staunch defender of democracy declared, if the people want to go to hell, i will help them with it? >> oliver wendell holmes. >> that is correct. [applause] >> that concludes the first category. w

supreme court came down. but justice scalia dissented and in his dissent he said the right of fit parents to control actions of the children is one of the unalienable rights the declaration of independence speaks of and one of the unenumerated rights the night and it refers to. but that amendment doesn't authorize him, he says, to say what those rights are much less to enforcement. the problem he has got there is that he's already said that this is a constitutional amendment insofar as it is recognize under the 14th amendment, through the ninth amendment. and so the question is, as with all such constitutional rights, it's up to the court to protect them from the tyranny that fit parents were put to by the statute. and so he left it, he would leave it to the state it well, the state has spoken and is said there isn't this prosecution right, which he himself said there is, so he's in something of a dilemma there. i'm just curious how ed would handle a case like this. my time is up so i believe my real thoughts

and we have a supreme court case -- yes, there's a supreme court case. i'm sorry, i can't remember it right now. and third down to do with a group home being located in a city where they weren't wanted. i put it that way. they were zoned out. made its way to the supreme court. the supreme court said, again, the city can't arbitrarily zone out a house that is providie housing and accommodations for persons with disabilities. it really is unconstitutional now to say, you cannot put a group home here now, for example. >> [ inaudible ] many are living on homelessness. there really is no place for people to live. >> and, again, what happens is they're either on the streets -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, for health care, they go to the emergency rooms and a lot of them wind up in our jails. vagrancy laws are still around. not ugly laws but vagrancy laws. yeah, that's where they wind up. we need a better social compact, my friends. a better social compact in our country than what we have, but that's another side, that's another story. >> among budget cuts we are

you think a lot about the supreme court. you think about how to convince nine justices of the court to agree with the governmental position on various things. my current job is trying to convince eight justices. [laughter] it is a job where you are sort of steeped in the supreme court. supervisesor general all appellate practices throughout the united states, but the main job is to think about supreme court business. argument go to every anyone in my office participated in, which was about three quarters of the argument. i would go to about 60 arguments and think about what they were interested in, think about the things they were thinking about. theird think about procedures. i was sort of in the mode of thinking about the court. that was exceptionally helpful. in some ways i think the best, single preparation for being a supreme court justice is being a solicitor general. there were a lot of differences between appellate judging and judging on the supreme court. i would say, less obviously, i think about what i used to do

supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg talked about a number of topics. this lasts about an hour. going to escort the justice to her seat. you know how famous brian townsend is these days. welcome back, justice ginsburg. i want to begin by welcoming you back to the very courtroom where in your some 13 years on the d.c. circuit you heard 46 bank cases, 46. and including one you wrote went to the supreme court. all three were reversed. [laughter and not only that, the opinion reversing yours was written by none other than your friend, justice stevens. but pardon me-- it was a warrant case. but a powerful dissent by justice marshall, demonstrating that as usual, the d.c. circuit was correct. [laughter] justice ginsburg, when justice scalia gave the lecture some eight years ago, he went forward to judge flannery as a judge's judge, he referred. and i'd like to use that as our theme today and have a conversation with you about the art of judging. want to say something about that. david, i'm glad to have one of my favorite conversation partners with me and i wo

supreme court. what the historical society does is very significant to the court in promoting understanding of the court, of the constitution, and i don't know if some of you saw the very sad news today that justice o'connor is retiring from public life because she is in the early stages of dementia. in the statement that she wrote, in very typical justice o'connor fashion, she used this sad occasion to do good. if you haven't read her statement, please do so because she talks about the importance of civic education for our society, for the way that we govern ourselves and for the way we live in a democracy, and surely, the supreme court historical society should go down on the list of institutions that do such excellent work in that regard in promoting our understanding of the court and the constitution. thank you, greg, for everything that you and your colleagues do. thank all of you for being here. as greg told you, this is the leon silverman lecture series, which is focusing this year in honor o

supreme court. what the historical society does is very significant to the court in promoting understanding of the core of the constitution, and i don't know if some of you saw the very sad news today that justice o'connor is retiring from public life because she is in the early stages of dementia. in the statement that she wrote, in very typical justice o'connor fashion, she used this sad occasion to do good. if you haven't read her statement, please do so because she talks about the importance of civic education for our society, for the way that we govern ourselves and for the way we live in a democracy, and surely, the supreme court historical society should go down on the list of institutions that do such excellent work in that regard in promoting our understanding of the court in -- and the constitution. thank you, greg, for everything that you and your colleagues do. thank all of you for being here. as greg told you, this is the leon silverman lecture series, which is focusing this year in hon

you think a lot about the supreme court. you think about how to convince nine justices of the court to agree with the governmental position on various things. i used to say the only difference was that one was trying to convince nine justices, my current job is trying to convince eight justices. [laughter] it is a job where you are sort of steeped in the supreme court. the solicitor general supervises all appellate practices throughout the united states, but the main job is to think about supreme court business. i used to go to every argument anyone in my office participated in, which was about three quarters of the argument. i would go to about 60 arguments and think about what they were interested in, think about the things they were thinking about. i would think about their procedures. by the time i got to the court, even with a fairly short stint as that, i was sort of in the mode of thinking about the court. that was exceptionally helpful. especially considering that i had not been a judge. in some ways i think the best

court or only by the supreme court. he said the constitution, if that were true, is a mirror thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary in which they may twist and shape into any form they please. he went on to say, my construction of the constitution is very different from that. it is that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution. then he went on to say -- this is sort of a low blow -- he said the judiciary of the united states is the subtle core of zappers and miners constantly working underground of our fabric. later on, a few decades later, andrew jackson entered the scene, and he was a strong executive branch advocate, being the president. and when congress -- when the supreme court made a decision that he didn't like, he uttered those famous words that have been repeated many times attributed to him. john marshall, the chief justice, has made his decision. now let him enforce it. indicating that it was up to the court sin

[applause] next up, we have paul larkin, resident supreme court expert. he cranks out law review articles on all kinds of things. he once served in the solicitor general's office and has argued dozens of cases at the supreme in court. welcome, paul. rounding out team madison is kevin marshall, a partner at jones day, one of the only ones left around after don raided the place for judges and a former bush administration lawyer. welcome, kevin. [applause] keeping score for us tonight is madison, no affiliation with team madison. we will check in with her throughout to see how the teams are doing. now for the ground rules. we will flip a special coin to determine which team starts. then we will alternate reading questions by team. team members may confer with one another before answering. if the team answers incorrectly or doesn't know the answer, the opposing team may steal the question. regardless of whether the opponent gets it right or not, they get the next question, and so on. each question is worth one point -- each answer is worth one point, and ther

the series of supreme court decisions have thrust the supreme court into the conduct of war and in particularly, the handling of the unlawful combatants who had been captured on the battlefield in both iraq and afghanistan. the supreme court stepped into that to an extent, and in handling matters never before believed to have been in the province of the federal judiciary. that has made the end the question that we are talking about today even more relevant to the present time, and it raises to an even higher level of questioning what is the role of the supreme court and what is the relationship of the supreme court, and what is the responsibility of the president and the congress to obey the orders and decisions of the supreme court? that leads us to today's debate, and where the topic is resolved, congress and the president are required to obey the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution. to moderate today, we are fortunate enough to have thomas jipping, deputy director of the center for legal and judicial studies and the senior legal fellow, and part of the institute for constituti

, on the supreme court. the supreme court has been effectively much more politicized and i think chief justice roberts since anthony kennedy announced his resignation has become the swing vote. that crucial pivotal point. i think he saw it as his duty to break his silence and protect the integrity of the supreme court. he does not want the supreme court to become a total of donald trump's politicizing of the judiciary being dragged into gameplaying and politicizing of judges, court decisions. i think that is why he spoke out. he sees trump going after the fbi, undermining judges in courts. he said if i am ever going to speak up, this is the time to do it. genie: the e.u. says it agreed in printable to a text setting out its relationship with the u.k. a statement from the summit chair says a deal has been agreed on a negotiators level and the political level subject to the endorsement of leaders coming in to sign that deal three days from now. spain is threatening to oppose it unless it gets assurances over t

court. >> i don't think that the doctor matters at the supreme court, but i think the way the supreme court is perceived by the public matters to future supreme court cases is -- cases, and how justices write opinions can affect that. >> i actually admired justice kennedy for taking the high road i think the supreme court does better than the vast majority of american society and disagreement with some sort of respect, but i admire justice kennedy. i don't inc. that affected the durability, but i think what might in fact how enduring his opinions are as a matter of law is because, and i am not sure i am right about this, but because they are less final, you are more likely to have confusion in the lower courts about how to apply them, and it might make them more likely to get to this record which could rewrite it or overturn it in a way different from what justice kennedy intended. this is a point that i saw that jamaal made after justice kennedy announced his retirement and regardless of how many of his opinions are still good law, he made the point that he wrote an incredible number

and that's exactly the way the washington state supreme court and the u.s. supreme court came down. but justice scalia dissented and in his dissent, he said the right of fit parents to control access to their children is one of the inalienable rights the declaration of independence speaks of and one of the unenumerated rights the ninth amendment refers to, but that amendment does not authorize him, he said, to say what those rights are, much less to enforce them. well, the problem he's got there is that he's already said that this is a constitutional amendment insofar as it is recognized under the 14th -- under the 14th amendment through the 9th amendment. and so, the question is, as with all such constitutional rights, it falls to the court to protect them from the kind of majoritarian tyranny that fit parents were put to by this statute. and so he left it to the -- he would leave it to the state. well, the state has spoken, and it said, there isn't this constitutional right, which he himself said there is. so, he's in something of a dilemma there and i'm just curious how ed would

bush by members of the supreme court. on the other side, however, you have this attack on the federal judiciary in such a way where a president could say look, i told you these are political animals. >> you know, these are -- i mean, this is -- this is historic in the negative. right? this is like the low a country has hit because this is not just a president who continuously, as neal said, continuously attacks the independence of the judiciary, he consistently attacks the independence of any institution that suggests he can't do whatever he wants when he wants. you know, the judge in this case, judge tiger in this case, has a federal statute that he read the plain language of that said no, actually, when people come into this country they can come into the country and seek asylum. and there's nothing in the statute that requires them to walk into a particular door. so you don't get to just ignore the federal statute that congress passed. this is like constitution 101. right? branches of government. you don't get to just

it interferes with how the supreme court -- that is true. the supreme court relies and likes to have circuit courts disagree because it gives them a better opportunity to come up with the right decision. this invalidates that. and of course, i don't think there's any law that says the district court can't but the district court didn't indicate why, in this instance, we shouldn't give further consideration to that. so that is the first point. let me roll-on and then you can answer the entire one. the other difficulty is that comes into this case is we have pointed. very carefully in our court decisions that studying and then coming up to get a decision from us isn't going to help too much in the final episode. that is, we have a different standard of review, and permanent injunction, it comes up with testimony instead of just written issues. and so, we are pointed out that there's no big reason to come up here and get a permanent injunction, try to indicate that in the seven cases. in our courts. so, what is the problem that we have now, now

to the supreme court. somehow, she has also found time to write some books. about her life in particular, i commend them to you as well. but let me just turn the program over to justice sonia sotomayor, it is a privilege for me to introduce her at this time. [ applause ] >> it was a miserable night last night. >>> good evening everyone and welcome to the court. i am delighted that so many of you could join us this evening for this first lecture in the supreme court historical societies 2018, leon silverman lecture series. this term as you heard will focus on the supreme court in world war i. 2018 marks a century since the first world war ended. a fitting moment for our societies first series to focus on that important chapter in our nations history. this lecture series is named for the historical societies late chairman and president, leon silverman, who is a titan of the new york legal world. it was impossible to practice in new york as i did, without knowing leon. he was everywhere. among the many import

the supreme court has rejected that view. one of the things that emerges from the cases that i examine, is the way that different supreme court justices have different views about the role of teachers in american society. sometimes those who wish to have deference to school authorities offer an incredibly rosy understanding of the dynamic that exists between teachers and peoples. often that can be a role of mentoring but sometimes it is an adversarial mode. including one important those imposing corporal punishment, thinking about due process rights with respect of suspensions and another thing that the question triggers for me is thinking about the transforming nature of the public school. that is to say, in the 1980s, it was relatively rare for police officers to be in public schools and now the presidents of uniformed police officers are especially in our urban schools. so again, i think the shifting nature of the relationship if the child is level of problem child or as some kind of behavioral issues the teacher is requir

not block their view for titian in the supreme court. would also take measures to back off the obvious. travel abroad and in that don't profess to those numbers agreed on ending the protest and that's what they have ended. but the problem the disagreement is that after islamists threaten judges they want it said that they were do the judges also call on their also urge officers to revolt against the government on the chief general bargewell after all this and my brother mr khan said in a sense this speech that he would be reduced numbness with an iron hand this kind of surrender kind of the boredom is numbness and now you see that there has been it is become room including because you're going to be around family to leave the country all who live in baathist on safely channel shams from asia desk thank you. and you can find the full interview with the abuse husband on our web site that's d.w. dot com democrats and republicans in the united states are making their final pitches to voters ahead of tuesday's midterm elections and leading th

supreme court. what the historical society does is very significant to the court in promoting understanding of the core of the constitution, and i don't know if some of you saw the very sad news today that justice o'connor is retiring from public life because she is in the early stages of dementia . in the statement that she wrote, in very typical justice o'connor fashion, she used the sad occasion to do good. if you haven't read her statement, please do so because she talks about the importance of civic education for our society for the way that we govern ourselves and for the way we live in a democracy, and surely, the supreme court historical society should go down on the list of institutions that do such excellent work in that regard in promoting our understanding of the court in the constitution. thank you greg for everything that you and your colleagues do. thank all of you for being here. as great told you, this is the leon silverman lecture series, which is folks in this year in honor of the

he just couldn't potentially use that supreme court, need that supreme court with all of these court decisions going against him. that's what made this fight so interesting. never mind, jim, it is on the eve of thanksgiving. >> absolutely. >> of. >> reporter: jim. >> cnn's jeff zeleny. thank you very much. let's bring in laura jarrett, cnn's justice reporter. laura, take us through this spat. as jeff was saying, it is unprecedented and unseemly. why is there happening? >> this never happens. you never see justice roberts speak out like this, and it makes you wonder why now. this is not the first day we have seen trump attack judges, much less the ninth circuit. we all remember his attack on the so-called judge he had for the judge out in seattle during the travel ban and, of course, who can forget during the campaign trail when he viciously attacked the judge for his mexican heritage when he was over seeing the trump universities. the attack on judges aren't new. the fact that roberts hit back is the part that's fascinating and you wonder why now, but this is a losing battle i think

to the supreme court. in a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the validity of the law. wartime circumstances had close -- with a public interest so great just by regulating bylaw. in times of trouble such as war, governmental action otherwise considered impermissible, it must be allowed. one line in the opinion deserves special notice. the question that he declared was whether congress was incompetent to meet the emergency in a way that had been met by most of the civilized countries of the world. he took a very broad view of federal police power, a power that many conservatives denied even existed, in which he claimed extended to all of the great public needs, it could be exerted to meet whatever the prevailing morality or public opinion deems necessary, and it would be adequate. in this case as in several others, the court majority essentially said that emergencies could close the government with expanded powers. not only those under specific constitutional clauses, but also under general police power. it wa

the supreme court has agreed to have more than one decision is a very good thing for the supreme court, which court will eventually make the decision. so, maybe we should set aside that stay, that nationwide stay, in light of the actual admonition that we've already had from the supreme court. what would be your response to that? >> your honor, i think looking at whether the district court abused its discretion here and where the government hasn't pro offered an alternative to a nationwide injunction, there may well be -- it seems to me there would be administrative difficulties and burdens for the government to impose anything less than a nationwide injunction where there's an accommodation and an exemption process in place with employers located throughout the country but employing people within the sovereign state. >> well, that argument might have -- i might have accepted that argument except that you, the state of california, are going to delay the final determination because the supreme court isn't going to care what we say about a preliminary. they will care what we say about a

supreme court. from an institutional standpoint the supreme court is very much well protected. this was a president who campaigned, david, on the notion of appointing supreme court justices to the supreme court. he's already appointed two. there's openings now for even more potentially in the conclusion of his first term and if he were to be re-elected for more judicial appointees. that was the trucks of his campaign argument. you talk to the base of president trump's political movement and nominations to the supreme court was a key at the net of their political calculation. the question becomes as robert mueller begins to conclude his investigation as the president has respond and written responses to robert mueller's investigation team, democrats seem poised to take control of several gavels and now the situation where cases could ultimately end up in the supreme court. you're seeing the president, whether it's chipping away with arguments at the supreme court or even jockeying for ranking members

the supreme court is operating. i've never been a complete spouterrer supporter of everything the supreme court does. a judicial conservative is someone you writes an opinion over what you do agree with. the debate of whether it's an alive or dead constitution. i used to fight with my friend anton sceleah, he would talk about how the constitution was a dead constitution. my response is, your partly right. there are parts of the constitution that a are dead. the requirement that you be 35 to be president, is dead.if if you're 34 in 10 months you can't be president. and if you're 117 and senile you can be president. there is no prohibition of it. that's dead. on the other hand, how can you say that the part of the constitution that talks about equal protection or due process or cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require some interpretation, even justice scalia wrote a brilliant decision about whether or not the fourth amendment applies to gps's that are put on the bottom of cars so you can track people. what he basi

the supreme court chief justice appointed by president george w. bush has been striving to bring civility to the bench. >> we speak for the constitution. that job obviously requires independence from the political branches. >> reporter: it was his statement defending the judiciary that provoked the response from trump. all this tonight as the president finally submitted his answers in the questions. but special counsel robert mueller may be far from finished with the president. guiliani, one of the president's lawyers, is bracing for new questions from mueller about potential obstruction of justice. a move he said the trump team would fight. we'll consider them and answer them if necessary, relevant and legal, guiliani telling cnn. if it was something that would be helpful, relevant, not a law school exam. as trump opens his six-day holiday visit to his florida resort, guiliani's comments tonight signaled the russia probe and the president's role in it is very much alive. despite repeated attempts to diminish it, like yesterday while leaving the wh

minnesota supreme court justice , he became a supreme court justice, he's nervous with all these u.s. supreme court justices. justice allen page. very special man. a college football hall of famer, allen helped notre dame secure the national championship in 1966. he went on to have a 15-year nfl career with the minnesota vikings and the chicago bears. he became the first and one of the only defensive players to earn the league's m.v.p. award. that happens very, very seldom. while allen was still playing for the vikings, he went to law school and earned a law degree if the university of minnesota law school. in 1993, he became the first african-american justice on the minnesota supreme court. where he served for more than two decades. that's very impressive. what do you think? that's a very impressive job, really is. thank you, allen. allen and his wife, diane, founded the page education foundation which has provided nearly 7,000 scholarships to civic-minded students. sadly, one month ago, diane passed away after a heroic struggle with cancer. said to be a great woman. allen, we know t

trump comes before the supreme court. your point is, i presume, that the president will have soiled the notion of supreme court justices, the federal bench, as all agents of politics? >> exactly. these judges are going to make the decisions they make based on on the law, but not towards a particular person. so no matter how much donald trump says all this stuff, i don't think it's going to matter to the ultimate position. but the president has taken so many legal positions, it's a fair bet that this supreme court is going to say no to him on some things. and what i think president trump is doing right now is laying the groundwork for an attack on the institution of the supreme court, an a tack of the institution of an independent judiciary. so when he loses, he'll be able to say, oh, it's just those bias judges. they were upset with what i said, what i he tweeted. they want upset politically. but that's the danger when you have something like this and that's why presidents have not crossed this red line before. >> in our

he became a supreme court justice, he's nervous with all these u.s. supreme court justices. justice allen page. very special man. a college football hall of famer, allen helped notre dame secure the national championship in 1966. he went on to have a 15-year nfl career with the minnesota vikings and the chicago bears. he became the first and one of the only defensive players to earn the league's m.v.p. award. that happens very, very seldom. while allen was still playing for the vikings, he went to law school and earned a law degree if the university of minnesota law school. in 1993, he became the first african-american justice on the minnesota supreme court. where he served for more than two decades. that's very impressive. what do you think? that's a very impressive job, really is. thank you, allen. allen and his wife, diane, founded the page education foundation which has provided nearly 7,000 scholarships to civic-minded students. sadly, one month ago, diane passed away after a heroic struggle with cancer. said to be a great woman. allen, we know the goodness, grace, and

do you believe based on your view of what the supreme court should be that that reliance on the supreme court, to have that role is mistaken? justice roberts: no. the point i was trying to make in the examples i gave is an important part of our role is to support viewpoints that are not the viewpoints that are dominant with the majority. for example, i am pretty sure that in west virginia versus barnett was decided, if you took a poll, most people would say schoolchildren should be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance. but because we have the supreme court independent of political pressure, the court was able to say no under the first amendment. that child and the child's parents cannot be forced to express views that they don't agree with. the same thing perhaps in the steel seizure case. president truman needed a piece in the labor area in connection with the korean war. i don't know what the vote would have been about whether or not he should be able to take over production capacity. those were all meant as examples of the role of the court to protect minority r

do you believe based on your view of what the supreme court should be that the reliance on the supreme court, to have that role is mistaken? justice roberts: no. the point i was trying to make in the examples i gave was the important part of our role is to support viewpoints that are not the viewpoints that are dominant with the majority. for example, i am pretty sure that in west virginia versus barnett was decided, if you took a poll, most people would say schoolchildren should be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance. but because we have the supreme court independent of political pressure, the court was able to say no under the first amendment. that child and the child's parents cannot be forced to express views that they don't agree with. the same thing perhaps in the steel seizure case. president truman needed a piece in the labor area in connection with the korean war. i don't know what the vote would have been about whether or not he should be able to take over the production capacity. those were all meant as examples of the role of the court to protect mino

the supreme court generally doesn't take these things. what they like to do is see how the lower court decides things and then take them. they are almost never granted. the trump administration says this is one of the cases where you should grant an exemption. we don't know how soon the supreme court will act on this. if i had to bet the odds are against this but you never know. >> the argument is this is part of national security which is why it needs to be hurried up. >> right. >> interesting. this caught and i know this is not your beat but this did catch the pentagon by surprise when donald trump tweeted out the ban. it's been slow walked by james mattis. is he going to have a hard time, legally speaking, considering the disconnect between the administration, the white house and the pentagon on this? >> i think that will be less important to the supreme court than another factor. for a time the military operated under a policy of permitting transgender people to serve and enlist and remain in the military. this is change in policy and

now the supreme court being asked to weigh in. since whitaker is overseeing the mueller probe into alleged russian occlusion in the 2016 election and is given no indication he will recuse. some white house supporters worry that kavanaugh and his conservative colleagues could do to trump what they did to his predecessor. justice clarence thomas last year ruled against president obama's decision to appoint a top labor board official without senate confirmation. presidential power of another sort. in february, the justices were weighted to the controversy over plan statuses and should question to the twin twentysomethings. also on the high court's docket whether this war memorial in the shape of the cross violates the constitutional separation of church and state. it's on government land and lower courts have ordered its removal. could be the first divisive social issues justice kavanaugh will face, testing his conservative credentials. his approach to these hot button issues, say legal experts, may surprise some. >> he's not going t

appeals, handling patent cases, that the supreme court would also be spared, it court would also be spared, it hasn't turned out that way. judge tatel: i take your point about the supreme court reviewing -- you are not addressing these complex issues initially. they come to you from the district courts and the courts of appeals. but in recent years, there been an increasing number of amicus briefs become direct to the court that offer fairly complex statistical and scientific information that hasn't come through the lower court fact-finding process. that happened, for example, in the texas affirmative action case, where an amicus briefs submitted a very complicated methodological approach to disproving the affirmative action argument that was being argued there. and several members of the court cited it in oral argument in their opinions, and so what do we do about that, about the fact that an increasing number of cases, although this information is coming directly to the court without being through the rigorous fact-finding cross-examination and fact-finding process? do you think t

the supreme court is operating, i've never been a complete supporter of everything the supreme court has done. i agree with you that definition of an activist to some of the rights and opinion you don't agree with and to judicial conservative somebody writes anything to do agree with. the debate over whether it's a lively constitution for a dead constitution is an absurd debate. i used to fight with my friend antonin scalia what known since he was a law professor. he would talk about the constitution was a dead constitution. my response is you are partly right. there are parts that are dead. the requirement you be 35 to the president is dead. if you are 34 and ten months enjoy the most brilliant accomplished person in the world, you can be president. if you're 117 and senile, you can be president. there is no prohibition against it. that's bad. on the other hand, how can you say the part of the constitution to talk about equal protection or due process or cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require some interpretation? even justice scalia wrote a brilliant decision about whether or

opposition parties and car petitioning the supreme court to review the president's decision to dissolve parliament and call a snap election president. has already fired and replaced the prime minister but sacked ministers say it's illegal and there's no constitutional provision to call an election at this time but now for an end this is joining us from colombo so the supreme court is sitting well can we expect from outside. basically there are ten petitions so far that have been filed briefs before the supreme court the building you see behind me this morning and the chief justice had to be approached this morning by senior counsel of those petitioners basically urging him to take up the petitions for the first stage obviously is for the court to give leave to proceed basically look at the petition decide if there is a case and then basically agree to go into that so that is basically the first hurdle and this chief justice has agreed that the cases the petitions will be heard this morning as i speak the petitioners are in a courtroom which is expected to take up those petitions so most

she's never miss a supreme court argument. they aren't expected to hear arguments before november 26th, it seems like she has time to keep that trend. >> shannon: hospital, teaching assignments, abroad, they're always working. she showed up the day after the husband passed away her commitment to the court is undeniable. thank you very much. the release of a christian woman on death row, the nation's highest court acquitted her late last month, the nation's foreign ministry confirmed her release, she's been offered asylum by several countries her whereabouts are unknown. nt for targeting tucker carlson and his family, after the break wow. he won't even recognize you. seriously. i don't even recognize myself. and thanks to my cashrewards credit card from navy federal with never-expiring rewards it's gonna be a killer honeymoon. woo! maui!! boom navy federal credit union. our members, are the mission. ♪ >> shannon: tucker carlson weighing in tonight on the angry mob that damaged his front door and made threats at his home as hi

supreme court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. her mind is a shot. it resigned. she has made clear she had zero intention of doing that anytime soon. >> bret: there is also an issue that has been frustrating to this administration that a single local judge can shutdown the president's nationwide policies. what about that? >> there has been a lot of discussion at the justice department about this concept that one judge in the lowest level federal court can completely block a presidential action all across the entire country. the president's opponents have really leveraged this tool, filing and courts where they know they are likely to get a sympathetic ear, and a judge who isn't afraid to use these nationwide injunctions. justice clarence thomas wrote about this in the big travel ban case back in june where a president won and a a 5-4 decision. these injunctions are relatively new phenomenon's, calling them legally and historically dubious. a federal court to continue to issue them, this court is duty-bound to adjudicate their auth

us versus nixon is a precedent, the supreme court of the united states, one of the court's landmark decisions. if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed i would follow us versus nixon mother binding precedent of the supreme court as well as president of the 11th circuit. >> you won't take a position as a judge on what a court can do if a government official refuses to follow a court order. >> i would site first off the canon of ethics and look to some other folks that sat here have said. you look at what justice ginsburg said, we shouldn't give any hints. look at what elana kagan says, no thumbs-up, no thumbs down. respectfully i believe your question does go to a political question that would be inappropriate for me to answer. >> i concur with my fellow panelist, jean-paul boulee. a hypothetical situation is one that could come before the courts and it would be inappropriate under the canon to respond. >> senator leahy, i have respect for the separation of powers but this is a question that in 20 years of practice i never had to encounter. i've never been in the role of a judge to hear some

bounds. >> here is president barack obama going after the supreme court. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. i am confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> is an observation. it is healthy to have our 3 branches of government fighting with each other because that is the balance of power. >> there has been a little bit of freak out mode on the part of the media going this never happened before. when president obama criticized the supreme court the media went after justice alito who melt about the citizens united case. sometimes i wonder, it is not that donald trump is so unprecedented but his style is so often serve. they react to one another. >> donald trump saying i'm going on twitter and i will attack you. is more direct about it but saying something similar. >> unanimous verdict acros

an apology, we had three supreme court reporters, three procedures, supreme court reporters in the country that were supposed to be here today, on wednesday around noon, all three called me up and said, we are so sorry, but we cannot come, i do not know why that would be, but -- >> -- [ laughter ] >> there will be a lot of professors in the room, i apologize for them not being here. today is about discussions, not a speech and we will have a conversation, and i will expect to have questions, but i will not allow speeches, i apologize in advance if i cut somebody off, it is all about the best conversation that we can have. i am not going to do introductions at all. other than their name and where they teach these are all, >> i just want to say that justice kennedy was the dominant and median justice of our court from 2005 when justice alito and roberts got on the court and in constitutional law, every fight decided since 2005, justice kennedy was in the majority opinion and in many of those, he wrote the majority opinion. the law of this country today on affirmative action, abortion, gay ri

of those 46 cases, three, including one you wrote, went to the supreme court. all three were reversed. [laughter] judge tatel: and not only that, the opinion reversing yours was written by none other than your friend, justice stevens. but pardon me-- it was a warrant case. but a powerful dissent by justice marshall, demonstrating that as usual, the d.c. circuit was correct. [laughter] judge tatel: justice ginsburg, when justice scalia gave the lecture some eight years ago, he went forward to judge flannery as a judge's judge, he referred. and i'd like to use that as our theme today and have a conversation with you about the art of judging. do you want to say something about that? justice ginsburg: david, i'm glad to have one of my favorite conversation partners with me, and i would just like to say a word about judge flannery. i had the privilege of knowing him when i was on the d.c. circuit. he was a prince of a man. he -- you can't hear? how is this? is that better? well, judge flannery was universally respected by his colleagues and the lawyers who appeared