sudden the supreme court problem is receding. a state minimum wage is upheld, the labor relations act is upheld. social security is argued by charles rosinski and inmates constitutionality is upheld. that confluence evreally made it much less necessary to do somethingdramatic . >> then of course that change led to our great catchphrases of the supreme court history which is a switch in time saves nine you want to explain that ? >> roosevelt as i made notes in my notes wouldn't take yes yfor an answer. the court went out of its way to i don't know whether they designed their decisions in order to placate him . that's a good question. or whether it was by design or whether they saw the light and realized they had to uphold these programs for whatever reason the court started to give him what he wanted and i don't know if you want to use this image but don't his gravy in and jumpedin but he didn't have to . he just i mean, it really is amazing how he missed all these signals and just plowed ahead. he was determined to remake that co

and the new deal ran into a supreme court roadblock. in the course of that four-year term, not only did roosevelt have no chance to appoint justices, but the nine who were there struck down major reform relief laws. this is a quick laundry list, the national industrial recovery act, the railroad retirement act, section three of the national recovery act, the frazier-lemke act, the tax component of the agricultural adjustment act, the coal conservation act, the amendments to the bankruptcy law and a state new york minimum wage law that was kind of state-level counterpart progressive effort. so roosevelt was the popular, powerful and democratically-responsive president, and the supreme court was a tremendous obstacle. and so reelected overwhelmingly in 1936, he decided to use his political capital on his supreme court problem. >> what did he do? what was his strategy? what was he trying to accomplish here? >> well, he took it very personally, actually. he had this dream of, that the supreme court would cooperate with him in getting his pr

the supreme court knows more than it did in 1973. after 15 weeks, an unborn baby has more than 90% of its body parts that it will ever have. they've been formed and almost every organ is functional at the 15-week period. that's a baby. that's a human american baby. the child's heart is pumping 26 quarts of blood per day at 15 weeks and has already beaten approximately 15.8 million times by 15 weeks. that's a human. that's a baby. babies at this stage respond to touch and taste and a dominant hand begins to emerge. we know at that point, 15 weeks, whether that baby is right-handed or left-handed. and, of course, we know that that baby can feel pain. that baby deserves the constitutional rights that the gentleman from nontanna mentioned -- montana mentioned of life and the pursuit of happiness as an american. and i do want to congratulate our friends across the sea for actually being ahead of us on this. we like to think that we know best and we're ahead of the curve. but it happens that almost every european country has legislation in

the supreme court with earl warren's leadership in. i think it is constitutional history. >> you couldn't draw a clear division between the congress and the court. the congress was controlled by southerners. and all segregation's they dealt with the administration, the supreme court is taking a radical approach to quality and the new shape of american society. so, if it had been a congress we would never have the segregated the schools. >> yeah, i find it an interesting book end to the case and the other japanese incarceration case it came out during the administration. if this idea of the citizenship essentially throwing it out the window. i have to wonder what those conversations were like. there is a dissenting voice, and this case really scratch the court in a way that forced to make a decision. in the midst of this war in the middle of the fear group in the country. how did that decision come down? and why did they not acknowledge the constitutional way of american citizens that have been that japanese heritage? >> the court decid

try to intimidate the supreme court. it's when the court was considering the consensus at last congress, sensationalized legal question to delegitimize the role in interpreting the law. today the focus is on the pro life and the state of texas. last year the court heard oral arguments in senator schumer stood in front of the supreme court and said this. i want to tell you, i want to tell you cap and on, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price is, you will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. that is not threatening, that is not trying to intimidate, i do not know what is it. he did that in the supreme court that day other democrat members of this committee made good on senator schumer's that they just legislate not one, not to, not to be about four. and why? why might they went for new justices? because of four new justices appointed by president biden's a golden number fading to a majority on the court. even president biden's bipartisan commission criticizing the perimet

and the supreme court was a tremendous obstacle. so, re-elected overwhelmingly in 1936, he decided to use this on the supreme court problem. >> what was his strategy? >> he took it very personally. he had this dream that the supreme court would cooperate with him in getting his programs through. now, maybe john can help and our listeners whether roosevelt was being disingen -- disingenuous. he would cooperate with them or them is insane to our way of thinking today. so, it's mystery to me how much he believed that he could reallymerge these two branchs of government. but what happened is he got -- he was really -- these rejections, the overturning of the nra actually probably helped him in retrospect because it was so unpopular. but he was resolved and this is unlike him with his perfect temperament and sense of timing. his wonderful way of reading the country. he lost it and he decided to put all his chips on this plan to change the court. and there were several -- there were four actually proposals given to him by homer cummings,

court of appeals who end up on the supreme court unless something catastrophic happens. until the democrats decided we are not voting and chuck schumer at a press conference at what can you do to direct him to get a vote? and the senator said at the microphone, nothing. so to break down the process then, we would just end up in a very bad place. >> what do you think about the composition of the court with these three trumpet appointees? are you fearful of an extreme right shift of the court? or do you think it will be a more reserved and moved the right? >> first, i think president trump did, he actually did his job but if there is a vacancy you nominate someone. it's wrong of a president for not filling a vacancy on the court for any reason. whether it's 8:30 in the morning on january 20 here's my name here is the name and putting forward. my big problem right now if the court is almost with the description of the court. the discussion of the conservative justices and the liberal justices. no. there may be too liberal justices on the court. maybe justice kagan, justice

court about the history of the supreme court. what is most interesting, is how it has massive. -- it has gotten massive. there is nothing in the constitution that says there should be a specific number of justices. there is only a chief justice. it doesn't say about the specific roles. the supreme court in particular is fascinating because it was a branch that our framers considered the weakest. it had neither the power of the sword. it is pathetic and cannot do anything. they used to meet in a basement. they did not have their own building, back in the day. it has grown. these justices throughout the years, and the power of the supreme court since the ruling of marbury v madison in order to interpret the constitution, that went through with a whimper and not a bang at the time, but it has grown. the power of the supreme court has grown and changed. i think that is what is fascinating about our constitution. it is a living document. everything can grow and change. i am delighted that there is someone else out there interested in

court in the supreme court will decide if the laws constitutional and only the supreme court of the house judiciary committee. that being said we are here with a texas state law in front of us with the law currently in effect and it is saving the lives of unborn babies. women and babies deserve better than to be told her only option is abortion. many pro-life groups reach out toal pregnant women abortion does not help women. after saying that i have a couple of questions. thank you for being here. thank you for the time you took to share do you characterize elective abortion is healthcare? >> it is not spent does that reflect what happens to a baby? >> is healthcare? absolutely not. >> and those that vigorously objected into those duly elected officials to protect unborn babies and at that point when a beating heart can be protected how early can the fetal heartbeat be protected quick. >> frequently as early as between six and eight weeks are there any other things you could tell us about a baby at that gestational age? >> at that point you can see the beginnings of their arms and h

supreme court. for many in our audience, this is going to be the first time hearing oral arguments from the u.s. supreme court. give us a sense of how things will play out today. >> yeah, it's so exciting, and it's so great that we're covering this live for the first time, because oral arguments happen at the supreme court. you know, roughly, about 65 a year. they're a half-hour per side, normally. it's rapid-fire. i've done 45 arguments at the u.s. supreme court, jose, and i average about 50.9 questions in a half-hour argument. so they are throwing questions left and right. and they're trying to test and probe the weaknesses and strengths of your case. often with hypotheticals and other things to try to get at, what are the contours of your position. and what are the implications going to be for cases going forward? so, for example, here, i think you'll hear one of the big arguments is, if texas can do this, and have a vigilante provision, which allows private people to enforce, you know, their abo

the supreme court has long ruled these are constitutional rights. in fact, new members of the court will say that they will ignore precedent or reverse that. you may recall this from the supreme court confirmation hearings that get covered on tv, it has been kind of a weird tradition, for the even republican appointees to say under oath all sorts of words about roe being a type of settled precedent. >> i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v. wade. >> i don't think that abortion or the right to abortion would change. >> do you think some of the restrictions would change? >> i think some of the restrictions would change. >> the supreme court has held in roe v. wade that a fetus is not a person. that's the law of the land. i accept the law of the land. >> that is the law of the land. all of that was recent. much of it was under oath. that's one reason why these conservative lawyers are trying to lob this pretty far-fetched legal argument to the court, and you know i try to keep it real with you, to overturn roe without overturn

when he came into the court by all accounts, when he came into this supreme court room that day, he had a grand time. i'm sure we'll discuss later. each time he swore in one of the justices, he threw bigger and bigger parties for them. he had a grand time doing it, he enjoyed it. he enjoyed people. he enjoyed having an effect on what he saw as the better course for america and being at the center of it all. >> there's a chance i'm going to get strung up for making this comparison, living here in missouri, kansas city, but as i was reading some of what you wrote, it seemed to me that there were some comparisons that could be drawn to our most previous president, just in terms of the personality and kind of the perception of kind of a bull in a china cabinet, bullying his way through everything. you had a moment in the book that you talk about, resignations. somebody asked him if he had ask for any resignations. do you remember what he said? >> yes, he said i've asked for everybody's resignation, and i expect them all, and i'll accept the ones i want to accept. these are resignations of f

the supreme court. it is a playbook they used when the court was considering the census last congress, a sensationalized legal question. today, the focus is on the pro-life low and the state of texas. last year, while the court heard arguments regarding a louisiana pro-life law, senator schumer student of the supreme court -- stood in front of the supreme court and said this. i want to tell you gorsuch, i want to tell you kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and will pay the price. you will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. that is not threatening, that is not trying to intimidate, i don't know what is. he did that in front of the supreme court that day. chairman nadler and other democrat members of the committee made good on the threat, they introduced legislation that would introduce justices of the supreme court, four -- why might they want four new justices? because four new justices is the golden number to get into a liberal majority on the court. even presid

its way back up to the supreme court. there are several problems with that as far as abortion providers are concerned primarily because antiabortion activists seem to have agreed not to sue under the law and as contrary as that might sound it is because the law is already having its desired and chilling effect on abortion even without providers being sued because the law are really imposes pretty dry coney and sanctions on anyone found guilty. there is a minimum amount of $10,000 against anyone found to aid and abet an abortion after six weeks. there are some other procedural safeguards that were used in the -- that we are use to have been rejiggered in this law. it can eclipse the $10,000 sanction and the law says that's someone who sues can get their attorneys to get just because but under no circumstances can a provider successful in the law get the attorneys fees. these provisions have had their intended chilling effect on providing abortions in texas. host: live oral arguments being released by the court and when the

when he came into the court by all accounts, when he came into this supreme court room that day, he had a grand time. each time he swore in one of the justices, he threw bigger and bigger parties for them. he had a grand time doing it, he enjoyed it, people enjoyed having an effect on what he saw as the better course for america, and being at the center of it all. >> there's a chance i'm going to get strung up for making this comparison, living here in missouri, kansas city, but as i was reading some of what you wrote, it seemed to me that there were some comparisons that could be drawn to our most previous president, just in terms of the personality and kind of the perception of kind of a bull in a china cabinet, bullying his way through everything. you had a moment in the book that you talk about, resignations. somebody asked him if he had ask for any resignations. do you remember what he said? >> yes, he said i've asked for everybody's resignation, and i'll accept the ones i want to accept. these are resignations of franklin roosevelt's nominees. what appears to americans as franklin

it's a blockbuster term for the supreme court. the nine justices are hearing a crucial gun rights case. it could change the way citizens carry firearms in everyday life, possibly leading to more guns on the streets and threatening restrictions in places like movie theatres and restaurants. the case, new york state rifle and pistol association vs. bruen, challenges new york's gun permit law. that law restricts the carrying of guns outside the home to those who can demonstrate a need to do so for self protection. the last time the court issued major decisions on gun rights was in 2008 and 2010. conservative victories that esta gun at home for self-defense. the question now is whether there is a similar second amendment right to carry a firearm in public. joining me now, constitutional law scholar adam winkler, who teaches at ucla. he is the author of "gunfight: the battle over the right to bear arms in america." professor adam winkler, nice to talk to you. what is the supreme court specifically looking at in this particular case? pr

and in the case that was brought up to the supreme court, shelby vs. holder, the supreme court held, in an opinion by chief justice jobts, that -- justice roberts, that you could not apply a 1960's formula using vote numbers from 50 years ago in the context of post-2010 reality. so they vacated and set a i side, rejected, the trigger formula in section 4. i'm sorry, my voice hasn't quite come back since yesterday. we don't have the trigger in place now for section 5 and the bill in congress, h.r. 4, would essentially do that. it's trying to do that at this point in history where a number of states have enacted las that are being seen as erecting barriers to the ballot box for millions of americans. i think in this past year there have been over 400 pieces of legislation introduced and 30 laws enacted by states that would have needed for the most part to have been precleared by the justice department or federal court before they could be implemented. some states in fact enacted voter suppression laws right after the shelby case came down. and that's bee

supreme court justices get life tenure. they caned stand up to popular will when t popular will is -- maybe we will introduce the footnote idea. we teach in constitutionalnt la that there was a case with a famous footnote.oo the court has a special role, it has to play a counter-majoritarian role in three areas. rights are at stake, minority rights arere at stake and where access to the political process is being impeded. t the political process can't work. that's thed conventional story about the court's counter-majoritarian role. jamal, i wantt you to talk abou the cost. i want to ask you whether there aren't benefits to the counter-majoritarian role in cases like brown. >> sure. when we talk about counter-majoritarianism, we talk about courts as being -- standing in a different place from a legislature which is democratically elected. courts are not. i do think courts should sometimes play a counter-majoritarian srole. i think that is partly in response to your a question abo why we accept judicial review. it's because w

proposal to change the structure of the supreme court external limits on the supreme court like judicial review or controlling and jurisdiction. one question i have for you now is about the biden commission. are you optimistic anything could come out of that? and then i went to move to should we be thinking about amending the constitution? what about the biden commission a thought on that? unfortunately none of the three of us were asked to serve on that and i understand why that could have been better. >> you can understand what i was not for this commission. [laughter] we are encountering a lot in the supreme court. your transition plessy versus ferguson to brown versus board. decide what cases they are going to take. there are questions about judicial and the confirmation process. how are we choosing these justices? we have seen this viral for we have parties holding seats open for a year and then ramming nominations are awake before elections we are seeing all sorts of problems that are showing the judicial branch of the united states and the supreme court in particular are seeing a

what the supreme court has previously decided. what makes this particularly unusual is that many states who very much disagreeing with a woman's right to an abortionist, as spoken about by the supreme court. haven't acted these laws out of frustration with their anti abortion constituencies who disagree. and so they have pass laws previously that the federal courts read on, you know, regularly enjoying and stop from proceeding. so texas came up with this sort of one might call it maniacal way of banning abortion and keeping it out of the court system. and so what happens is the abortion providers are scared to go forward because they could get sued by individuals under the texas law and would face so many lawsuits in so many damages that they couldn't continue operating. and in fear of that they've stopped. and there has been no one to be able to go into court to have the law ruled unconstitutional sense. so it has a lot the way that the, the law was set up that makes this so unusual because i, of course, abortion really is a very

s. supreme court patsy, what's happening at the supreme court and how does this feed into the voyager to base a bite abortion rights in the united states? exactly, i just wanna give you a sense of what's happening. the court arguments just wrapped up when almost 3 hours, which is a little bit on an unexpected. now you see the attorneys, the just argued before the court. those are those representing texas and the texas law talking to their supporters. we expect the other lawyers to come out very soon . basically the texas law aims go round roe v wade, which makes abortion most abortions, legal in the united states by not using state officials to enforce it. basically, anyone who thinks somebody's gotten an abortion. can sue anybody who helped facilitate that from driving them to a clinic at the doctors involved, then they can face up to a $10000.00 fine, and they can be sued multiple times. so the question before the supreme court is not, is that constitutional. the supreme court rushed this case up after allowing twice for the law to go into effect, because they want to find out if pe

the supreme court is discussing how the law is being enforced. that means that the way the law is written for private citizens , neighbors and cabdrivers get sued. that outsourcing is at the center of the supreme court ruling. brent: judges have been listening to arguments today. any indication as to how the hearings went or which direction the justices are leaning? guest: given the questions the supreme court justices asked during the hearing today, it appears that the conservative-leaning court may not rule in favor of this texas law, and that would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in september that allowed this law to go into effect. so brent, this court ruling is watched very closely here in the united states, because if the court rules that the law is unconstitutional, this could be a blueprint for conservative leaning states to implement very strict abortion laws. brent: do you know what consequences this would have for the future of abortion rights in the u.s.? guest: it is interesting, it normally takes weeks, sometimes mont

so while those state court cases are pending, the supreme court is going to decide who can sue. can you actually sue or is it wrong? and you know, it is interesting because on november 1 even brett kavanaugh said i could see this as a bounty where if you're an anti-gun state you could put in a bounty against anybody that selling an ar-15. they have disbelief of the loophole in texas and getting a ruling tomorrow will be who has what we call standing. what has the ability to sue over the types of laws. >> if texas maintains the ability to do it, if the supreme court rules in favor of texas, is there a potential domino effect with states across the country? >> sure. if the supreme court says it is okay to allow private citizens and i don't think that will happen but in the immediate sense i think what you will find is abortion providers will sue and then set up an ultimate battle royale at the supreme court level as to the constitutionality about this particular law. all the states will be watching carefully to see does the law survive eventually. meantime on december 1 there is a

supreme court in 1992 which is credited with saving roe v. wade. she is co-founder of the center for reproductive rights and co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." her column in monday's "new york times" is headlined "roe is as good as gone. it's time for a new strategy." thank you so much for joining us, kitty kolbert. you listened to the oral arguments yesterday. what is your take away? >> thank you so much. great to be here. my take away is this particular case, the case is the court heard yesterday, are not about abortion at all but the rule of law and the ability of plaintiffs or people suing to get into federal court to redress the grievances. the clip you play from justice kagan showed the court was conceed about the fact that avenue had been blocked by the texas legislature and other legislatures could do so on a whole host of issues. i think they were concerned about that. let's clear, however, these cases are not about abortion. they are not about whether or not the texas law is unconstitutiona

supreme court in 1992 which is credited with saving roe v. wade. she is co-founder of the center for reproductive rights and co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." her column in monday's "new york times" is headlined "roe is as good as gone. it's time for a new strategy." thank you so much for joining us, kitty kolbert. you listened to the oral arguments yesterday. what is your take away? >> thank you so much. great to be here. my take away is this particular case, the case is the court heard yesterday, are not about abortion at all but the rule of law and the ability of plaintiffs or people suing to get into federal court to redress the grievances. the clip you play from justice kagan showed the court was ncerned about the fact that avenue had been blocked by the texas legislature and other legislatures could do so on a whole host of issues. i think they were concerned about that. l's be clear, however, these cases are not about abortion. they are not about whether or not the texas law is unconstitution

what this case says to the supreme court is you can't review our law, supreme court. it might be flagrantly unconstitutional but it is within bounds for us in texas to do what we want to do and the supreme court had a first crack of dealing with this issue when the cases came up on the shadow docket and the supreme court sort of threw the hands up in the air and said this case, the texas statute, presents novel questions and we can't figure it out and won't block the law. that's why doj is also in this case, reinforcing that point of someone to protect the people in texas and doj cites the supremacy clause saying that it's the power that can directly sue the state of texas and provide a remedy for people whose rights are infringed here. >> anna, we have been talking about the legal implications. i want to talk about the real world ones. what are women in texas dealing with right now? i remember in september we spoke to you and the fear not only to travel state lines but these clinics across state lines are inundated so they have to wait weeks to schedule some appointm

right now our eyes and ears, they're on the supreme court. the justices are hearing two challenges to the new texas abortion law which is virtually stopped abortions in the state, by the way. these cases deal with two distinct questions with this law. first, whether a state can hand off enforcement of a law to individuals. second, whether the federal government has the right to sue an intervene. the stakes are incredibly high. the court fast tracked these challenges which is pretty rare. a ruling likely won't come for a while meaning this law is going to stay in effect. then there is the question of if the law in texas stands, will other states follow suit? last hour the lawyer representing the texas abortion clinics called this law a potential road map for any state to get around court rulings. and now we have unprecedented access. a live audio stream of the proceedings which is very rare, by the way. we have our team listening to what's happening inside the court. so please, bear with us. we're new to juggling this just like all of you are

but the supreme court began misinterpreting the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was enacted in 1868 by the republicans in order to fight the white supremacy that had arisen in the south after the abolition of slavery, which was abolished by the 13th amendment. beginning in 1873, the supreme court systematically gutted the amendment by misinterpreting it, and we have been paying the price for its initial misinterpretation of the 14th amendment ever since. host: evan bernick, what are some of the prices we have been paying? evan: society has paid the price in the forms of one of the most tragic cases in recent supreme court constitutional positions, in the form of the winnebago county social services, a case involving the state action doctrine which holds that the 14th a moment only applies to state action. it does not oblige estates to provide protective services to anybody in respect to their civil rights. it involved a young boy who was beaten repeatedly by his father and whose abuse came to the attention of social services and never intervene

i had missed hearing supreme court arguments. it used to be you had to go down to d.c., stand in line and be physically present to hear an argument. and there had always been a concern that if you opened up the courtroom, it might make the justices conduct themselves differently to really ham it up for the camera, if you will. i did not see that at all, or in this case, just for the audio, of course. what i saw was very serious supreme court argument that was incredibly beneficial to the public, because while these were cases ultimately about the right to have an abortion in texas and how that constitutional right has been curtailed, we barely ever heard about abortion. i think the words roe v. wade for hardly spoken. it was a massive education, i think, to see that that's really not what's at stake here. you know, the both of the petitioners had gone in alongside the trends of the court with the argument that this isn't just about abortion. no matter what you think about abortion, it's really destabilizing to the country and an

court that that moment actually put her forward in a way that other potential supreme court candidates did not have. what do you think about how she may have viewed that moment, amy comey barrett. setting herself apart and maybe the favor of the white house. >> there are many factors that went into it. the fact that president trump's white house counsel at the time, also notre dame graduate. in fact, swearing in for the circuit, he showed up at the event. i think he pronounced that it lives in me, too. it really came from the get-go. appropriate dignity and the situation. it certainly did put her on the screen as a vic odom of religious precedent, you may say politics, you know, sometimes it helps to be a victim. >> you know, lindau, you mentioned her swearing in. he was also sitting right behind her when he was asking those questions. he chose for the appeals court which i think showed a certain amount of allegiance there. they are separated by about a decade. maybe not that much, certainly was a regulator on the circuit. crossing the path over and over. do you know anything else abou

mean that this supreme court is going to now uphold roe v. wade or anything like that. and indeed, a month from today, we'll be hearing a case for mississippi which is designed to overrule roe v. wade. and it is it is very possible the same justices, who today strike down the vigilante, or bounty provision by procedural grounds, may still vote to overrule roe v. wade. so elections matter, tomorrow's elections matter -- in of course, who's on the u.s. supreme court. >> so what are the options for the court in this case? is it -- are they being asked to simply allow people to file lawsuits and bring lawsuits to block this law in federal court? >> right, that's the basic claim that the challengers of the united states government are making, which is let us have a day in court at least argue as to whether the texas law is constitutional or not. if texas had its way, you couldn't actually file a lawsuit at all or you'd have to wait for as long as it takes until someone brought a private bounty hunter for lawsuit under this -- new texas law. so, th

the supreme court has not ruled on that point. it has ruled in a case that 50% of one race is required. whether 50% of multiraces is required is something i think the court will visit sometime in the next few years. >> i think jeff is exactly right. there's something of a circuit split on this issue. but i certainly hope and expect, maybe more hope than expect, i never know, predicting what the supreme court will do has not necessarily being something i would have won a lot of money on at the mgm. but i think given the circuit split, this is an issue we hope the supreme court will address sooner rather than later. >> and this is an issue that -- virginia is an example is debating whether coalition districts are required. the democrats seem to favor that. whereas the republicans are against that. not that they're against it in principle. you could create those districts, but you're not required to create those districts. >> i have a question. how would you prove the different minority groups are cohesive. do you rely on primary ele

how republican supreme court is reshaping america. john allen, and former congresswoman donna edwards is back with. me let me start with you heading into tomorrow section, can you at all, read the tea leaves for us. the court ruled against this case, once before, do you expect it to be different this time, is there anything different in the filing that would make you believe that this is something that will be different this time around? >> i think it's likely that the supreme court will eventually strike down sb8. there was a grief filed by a bunch of groups that said look you have to strike this thing down. because if texas can use this weird bounty hunter system to go after abortion rights, some state could use the same structure in order to nullify the second amendment, and we don't want that. eventually, the supreme court is going to realize that this kind of law, which is set up in order to avoid judicial review, is an tenable, there has to be a constitution that can be enforced, and i think they will eventually strike it down.

a politicized supreme court isn't a new thing. you may have grown up with this idea that generally speaking, the courts are right and fair. but there are actually plenty of examples of the supreme court being on the wrong side of history. take plessey versus ferguson, for example, a landmark decision that essentially upheld the segregation that was based on race. states could legally offer separate facilities like train seats and bathrooms to black and white people provided the facilities were identical, which, by the way, they weren't. of course, we look back at plessey versus ferguson now and can plainly see it was a perversion of justice. but it's fair to say to say that it was not made in a vacuum, it was driven by the racial politics of the time. and although public sentiments often change, supreme court rulings don't always change with them, or as fast as sentiment does. and outdated rulings have long-lasting impact. plessey versus ferguson was decided in 1896. it stood until it was overturned by brown versus board of educat

i was watching amanpour just last night and a supreme court justice was on. she was suggesting that our democracy is in danger. the conservatives have a sense of keeping power by any means necessary. that is fox news. that is sending a dangerous message across our. country i think -- host: let's go to alan calling from south carolina on the independent line. caller: my main concern is medicare scams that are going on during the enrollment period. it is hard to understand what is true and what is not true. host: let's go to dave who is calling from st. peter's erg, florida on the republican line -- st. petersburg, florida on the republican line. caller: i would like all of the viewers to realize that the department -- secretary of the department of energy was asked how much oil our country uses per day and she does not know the answer. she had been in office for eight months when she got approved. that you would think the secretary of energy would know that by noon on her first day of work. that is incredible incompetence. we deserve way better for our officia

it went to the supreme court, and the supreme court said, first of all, as a threshold matter, a former president does have a right to exert executive privilege. in that case there were other concerns, the public interest in obtaining documents and tapes from the watergate scandal overrode that. and the court at that time noted that the executive privilege right actually is something to be owned by the republic, not by an individual president, whether current, past -- especially past. in that instance, the justices who sided with the -- it was the general services administration at the time that wanted the records, said, look, presidents ford and carter who came after president nixon, they weren't asserting executive privilege. that made part of the difference in that case. we've got the same thing here. even though we've never had a situation where the sitting president is absolutely refusing to exert it, it's enough like that that i just don't see how president trump is going to prevail in the end based on supreme court precedent. >> joan, i'm going to read it because i think the lang

court maps by a super majority if the supreme court said something perverse. what do you think of that? out of about 100 students there was one who thought that was an interesting idea. very accepting of the idea of the courts say what the constitution means. why do you think that is? >> i mean, i think that they're, one, because the court -- there is a sort of, i think, a story about how important the court is to our constitutional structure and i think it sort of embellishes on the importance of the court. i think part of this is because of a history we tell about the role of the court. most of us think about the court so of the warren court, the most liberal court we have and they started, as i said, started making good on some of the promises that were enshrined in the reconstruction era. but the court itself has been a fundamentally conservative institution. often counter majoritarian. and i think that part of it is a recent history of the civil right area that we uphold the warren court as heroes and defenders of our rights, but part of it is we accept g