including a supreme court. if they have self inflicted wounds, if they do bad things, it is our job to criticize them and to show that to the public. we are not here to prop up institutions if they don't deserve to be. now one reason the united states supreme court is as low as approval rating in u.s. history is because multiple supreme court justices allied to the american people. i have some questions for professor frederiksen. these justices slide during their confirmation hearings and this is how we know. in the davos majority opinion, the majority states that roe was egregiously wrong from the start. justices courses and kevin assigned under that opinion. they had to know in the time the confirmation hearings that roe was egregiously wrong from the start. professor fedor extended, justice kavanaugh tell the american people under oath during his confirmation hearing that roe was egregiously wrong from the start? >> no, i don't believe so. >> did justice gorsuch tell the american people that he believed roe

this supreme court was stolen. it was stolen by mitch mcconnell and donald trump. they deny president obama's right to fill seats and they basically stole future president biden his opportunity to fill the ginsberg c. the court has been basically stolen in terms of the legitimacy of who is actually on the court. we need reform. we need to do something because these folks are in their early 50's mostly and they will be there for probably 30 years of something has to be done to undo this unfair attack on the legitimacy of the court area the first thing we think we should do is add seats. congress and the president can add seats, it's been done before and that something you want to do but given the theft of these two seats, we think and many other people think, that needs to happen in the near term. secondly, we support having term limits. one of the callers said, the conservatives were the first ones to talk about that. they proposed an 18 year term limit. we don't weigh in on the exact time. these people can continu

the supreme court could not. this supreme court takes it as the case comes. some of the other questions that the caller raised, the question of fundamental fairness. that's an important consideration. one that is debated in congress. it underscores the fact that by taking this out of the legislative branch and doing it through executive power, biden did not allow the people's representatives to debate it. elizabeth: the congress has already ran this discretion to the secretary. when they were coming up with targeted student debt relief they look particularly at data that along with the constraints of the heroes act, which show who would be worse off because of the covid-19 pandemic in relation to their student loan debt. so those because of their lower income would more likely be in default or delinquency with their student loan payments and targeted it through the heroes act. it doesn't matter what school you went to. if you have a federally held loan it applies to you. some of these questions are policy choices. there were people who wanted the heroes act t

and so what the supreme court said was the fourth amendment applies. you don't have unfettered discretion court cops to do these searches, but it's not as much as the fourth amendment is full protection. you need a warrant or you don't need probable cause. all you need the supreme court said was reasonable to believe that the person had done something wrong or in the case of a search, that they had something on their person that created a danger so although court viewed this as compromise, i think between two competing considerations this reasonable suspicion standard has come to play an enormous role in the fourth amendment and just. one example there is a requirement that is centuries old that before police enter your home they have to a knock and announce their presence in order to the people inside know that the police there and the view is that this will protect both property so that doors won't have to be broken down and the like and also will people's safety they won't think that some intruder is breaking into their home. they will know that it'

the supreme court and court system has basically taken us back. polls suggest 25% of the american people have a positive view of the supreme court and that's because they sense that there's a great deal of politicizing going on and so the goal here replacing people who are very extreme but also getting people to feel more confident again that the courts are on the level, that's the most important thing to us at the american constitution society. we believe the courts matter. >> joining us for the conversation of the constitution society served in the senate from 1993 to 2011 and if you want to ask questions about legal and judicial matters, 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 for independent usl are there ways to streamline the process that was satisfied both sides? >> not sure it was satisfied both sides but the process should be streamlined and let's talk about the lower courts and courts of appeal. we've proposed as an organization three changes be made to move the processic more quickly and that is to get

supreme court threw them out. there were a lot of issues that have not yet been litigated but i think very well could be litigated down the road. >> >> wisconsin turning general, john golfer thank you so much are coming back in the program. we appreciate your time this evening. >> up next, republicans continue to loosen gun regulations despite an increase in gun violence. my panel tries to explain there in the despicable position after the break stay with us. puffs has 50% more lotion and brings soothing relief. don't get burned by winter nose. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv i think i changed my mind about these glasses. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. yeah, it happens. that's why visionworks gives you 100 days

term limits for the supreme court. i actually agree on that because i'm opposed to term limits overall. but i think you should definitely have term limits for the supreme court because the polls, the process has gotten so, so broken. you know i mean that was they used to be one of the few by partizan things left that you know you could if you were a republican president, you could report appoint a conservative justice and if you were a democratic president, you could appoint a liberal one. but, you know, mitch mcconnell has broken that and. it's become so politicized now. but anyway, well, you're such a popular we have a lot of questions here. so why don't we start to get you a couple of questions from the audience here. and so the first question is either wealthy, the ones who are able to create wealth politicians can't and workers can't. i know this is true true. i think that's more of a statement than a question but. well, do the wealthy create wealth? i mean, money makes money. that's true some people might say tha

you trained in the development of fourth amendment law to the courts, and i mean the supreme court's concern about the police and the ability of the police to conduct investigations and police work. i do not know, when i look at the fourth amendment i do not see the word police there. that is just me. prof. schwartz: it is not there. prof. burkhalter: you kind of look at terry v. ohio and the occurrences with detective as a watershed moment. tell us a bit about that. why do see that as a watershed moment and tell us about the case? prof. burkhalter: -- prof. schwartz: sure, you are right. i do not see the word police in the fourth amendment either and the protection against unreasonable search and seizures does seem focused on the subject of those searches, the victims of that overreach, but the supreme court as repeatedly interpreted the fourth amendment not in terms of what we the people are entitled to in terms of the sanctity of our homes and possessions and our bodies but in terms of what the police are authorized to do in light of their need to prevent and control crime. and th

supreme court threw them out. there were a lot of issues that have not yet been litigated but i think very well could be litigated down the road. >> wisconsin turning general, thank you so much for coming back on the program this evening. >> up next, republicans continue to loosen gun regulations despite an increase in gun violence. my panel tries to explain there in the despicable position after the break stay with us. [beep... beep... beep...] i'm your glitchy wi-fi and i've decided... well, if you're on vacation, i am too. ha-ha-ha! which means your smart home isn't so smart. sprinkler on. and now i'm sending mixed signals to your garage. and, if you haven't bundled your home and auto coverage, trying to unpack this isn't going to be too much fun. hey, check the router! so, get allstate and be better protected from mayhem while saving up to 25% when you bundle home and auto. i think i'm ready for this. and be better protected from mayhem heck ya! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college.

roberts former colleague was not delivered to the supreme court. reports show that it was mailed, spattered ran congress, because there's no inbox for somebody at the supreme court with a concern about ethics take drop off a complaint. even if they had that in bucks, is nobody emptying the inbox, there's nobody conducting the investigation into the allegations. there's nobody to reach conclusion based on the ethics code. there's no resolution and report at the end. in my line of work, you can go through the senate ethics committee to have them investigated, after they complain. in the executive branch, you can go to the inspector general, the entirety general and they can look into the complaints about some of these ethics. in the lower courts, you can go to the chief judge of the court and say that i have this ethics claim, and they look into it. in fact, there were a whole raft of ethics investigations pending against brett kavanaugh when he moved up to the supreme court. they all vanished because there is no profit for the supreme court. they ha

wade ending supreme court. joining me now is nancy northrup, president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. thank you for joining us tonight. >> following thank you for following this all-important story. >> this is literally a five alarm fire if you care about women's reproductive freedoms. the fact that it's applicable nationwide -- we are talking about the form of abortion that most women choose could be not available to people all over this country. how likely do you think it has that will get a ruling on this tomorrow? and what is your level of optimism here? >> let's just start by -- i'm sure your listeners are saying, how it is even possible that this could ban medication abortion native nationwide? it's because, as you pointed out in your opening, they've said that the fda approval back over 22 years ago was not correct. and, of course, that's fundamentally wrong. the science and the facts supported. so, it's a baseless lawsuit. but why are we on high alert? why are you on high alert? because,

rules don't apply to the supreme court. i just think we're at a moment of real crisis of legitimacy when it comes to the court and i think the court would be helped by outing this code of conduct that everyone could see. >> if someone on the court violates the code of ethics is there punishment? what kind of enforcement mechanism do you see here? >> so this is the real problem, right? it is probably beyond the bounds of the legislative branch to provide an enforcement mechanism in our bill we would establish a form of independent counsel who could undertake investigations. but sanction would have to ultimately be up to the supreme court itself just like sanction of members of congress is ultimately up to congress. but we have a code of ethics. we have a process by which an investigation is done on a member of congress, and that's simply what we want to have happen here, have a binding code, have a process of investigation, and then when that investigation is done and the american public can see it, that will provide pressur

if everybody thinks, -- the supreme court. lindsey graham's expressed interest in proposals like this. and will continue to try and find some partners across the aisle. right now as you said, republicans seem to like the fact that policymaking -- on the supreme court. >> senator chris murphy, we wish you luck in your bed to restore some integrity to an institution that can use some of it right now. thanks for your time tonight. good luck. when we come back, the story have been promising you, no one that'll make you look for your doctors -- that's next. that's next. prilosec otc reduces excess acid for 24 hours, blocking heartburn before it starts. one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner. when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people that we needed and the people that have been here taking care of us. see if your business may

we are praying that we get control of our supreme court back. and not just control about the issues, i think the perception is that our supreme court is so extreme that it is not fair that decisions are being made before the lead against even get into the courtroom. and, you, know i was at an event in a small town where a 90-year-old woman came in in a snowstorm. she said to me, judge, i shouldn't be here today. if i slip outside and break my hip, things will all go downhill for me. i am here today because i support you so much, because i love our state so much, because i have lived here my entire life, and i am so scared of what is going to happen if one of those extremists wins this election in april. so, the outpouring from people across the state is utterly incredible. >> so, judge, real fast. how can people find you? what is your web address? >> take a look at jennifer justice stockholm. >> all right, judge janet protasiewics. thank you so much for coming to the saturday show. and i would turn the commonwealth of virginia where history was

yes, we're talking about the wisconsin supreme court. the panel technically nonpartisan but whichever side wins the open seat will take the majority. liberal judges gain control. they could fix wisconsin's extreme gerrymandering and overturn the pre-civil war abortion ban. conservatives keep their grip on the court, they're likely to give the big lie a victory come 2024. right-wing candidate dan kelly was part of wisconsin's fake electors plot. he will face off against a left leaning judge janet per se what's per se when it's as wisconsin voters know what's on the line. everywhere we go the turnout that we get from people around the state wanting to talk about this election, wanting to share how concerned they are about the state of wisconsin going forward, how important this racist to them. >> i have people coming up to me in tears saying we are praying that you win this race. we are praying that we get control of the supreme court back. >> it's not just wisconsin we have our eye on. in virginia, democrats are sending these states first

courts and eventually the celebrations after the supreme court ruled same sex marriage the law of the land. just a few minutes ago i had the honor and privilege of officiating a vow renewal ceremony for a san francisco couple, (inaudible) chavez. where did they go? there we go. [applause] there is such a beautiful story and it is because of couples like them all across the country that bipartisan group of senators came together this week, because their right to marry is worth protecting, so this-the senate took a bold step to affirm the lives of millions of lgbtq and interracial couples in america. we sent a clear message members of the lgbtq community are worthy of equal treatment under the law regardless of who you are, who you love or who you choose to marry. and i'm looking forward to seeing this bill pass the house. we hear tuesday will be the vote in the house of representatives overseen by none over san francisco own speaker nancy palosi and on to president biden's desk for signature. let's be clear, you heard from other speakers . we have so much more work to do to achieve ful

[laughter] amy: the supreme court has just heard two major cases that could reshape the very structure of the internet. we will speak to the electronic frontier foundation about what's at stake and why the future of free speech online could be in jeopardy. then to malcolm harris, author of the new book "palo alto: a history of california, capitalism, and the world." and we look at a new partisan push to ratify the equal rights amendment a half-century after its passage. >> solution will help address centuries of gender discrimination in america by removing the unnecessary barriers that prevented us from enshrining the dignity, the community, and the quality of women into our united states constitution. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. at least 62 people died over the weekend after a boat carrying refugees fell apart at sea after -- off of italy's calabrian coast. at least one baby and 12 children were among the deceased. around 80 survivors from iran, pakistan, and afghanistan were pulled to safet

cnn's supreme court reporter arian deveau joins us with more. i wonder if you could tell us about the justice department's response and i'm curious what happens to this as it goes to the supreme court, if it does. >> well, this was, in fact, a very conservative federal appeals court that was made more conservative by president donald trump's nominees. as you said, it validated this law that blocked a person who is under a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm. but here is what's critical, is that this appeals court decision was rooted in a supreme court decision from last spring, a landmark decision, where the supreme court changed the framework that lower courts are going to use going forward when they look at laws. the supreme court said in that big opinion that from now on judges have to look at whether the law fit into what the supreme court called a historical tradition in the u.s. so this appeals court looked at this law and it said that the government hadn't convinced the court that this law fit into that tradi

something needs to change, i agree, but they cannot cancel the supreme court. there will be no one to protect us. >> this is the thing that many protesters are concerned about, that these reforms will potentially give the israeli government the upper hand. if the supreme court decides to strike down a law or decision that is faced by parliament, knesset could change that. they got also, through simple majority, decide who becomes part of a judging panel. a lot of administers in the coalition government have -- including benjamin netanyahu who is on trial for corruption. he says that these protesters out here are unhappy that the coalition won this general election and he is also called for there to be no civil disobedience. protesters continue to come. there has been rare intervention from the u.s., which has asked the israeli government to put the brakes on these readings, on this vote on judicial reform. also, the president himself, the israeli president, has called for all sides to come together to be able to negotiate, to put a pause on changes to the judic

one is a redistricting case that has since made its way to the supreme court. moore versus harper a case we have discussed a lot on the show, north carolina republicans as the supreme court to intervene after two of their congressional maps were struck down by state courts because of partisan gerrymandering. at the center of these cases of fringe theory that we have talked about before, it's called the independents state legislator clause which republicans have used to argue that the constitution, gives state legislators the power to determine rules in federal elections. the other case centers on border i.d. requirements, in december you might remember the supreme court strikes down a voter identification law, ruling that republicans intentionally discriminated against black voters. since 1993 the north carolina supreme court has only re-heard two cases, and now, in the short time since the quart switch from majority democratic to majority republican, two more cases will be re-heard. as judge anita earls and michael morgan right in there dissenting opinion, it

but what do we notice what the supreme court does? you have a president, the united states, who says, in all due deference, he does launch a broadside the supreme court and the decision they had just handed down. and what does the supreme do in response to. they don't stand up. they don't stand up. they actually never stand up. presidents know this. right now they do. when when it is a completely unobjectionable point. right so at the outset, presidents introduced and everyone stands and applauds for them out of respect when the president introduces a hero sitting the the audience. the supreme court will stand up when it's an unobjectionable clearly non partizan overture that the president is making. then the court respond accordingly. but for the entire address, when presidents are that laundry list of policy proposals members of congress are plotting few seconds the supreme court sits there and they don't respond. why do we think that it's why? why do members of the supreme court sit there in in silence? yeah, because they're suppos

supreme court. much more straight ahead after a quick break. don't go anywhere. here she was. [buzz] you can always spot a first timer. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. step up. prep up. to help keep you free from the risk of hiv. descovy for prep, the smallest prep pill available, is a once-daily prescription medicine that helps lower the chances of getting hiv through sex. it's not for everyone. descovy for prep has not been studied in people assigned female at birth. talk to your doctor to find out if it's right for you. descovy is another way to prep. descovy does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections, so it's important to use safer sex practices and get tested regularly. you must be hiv-negative to take descovy for prep. so, you need to get tested for hiv immediately before and at least every 3 months while taking it. if you think you were exposed to hiv or have flu-like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. they may check to confirm you are still hiv-negative. serious side

these results are for the wisconsin supreme court primary. come april voters will have two choices for who will serve on the state's supreme court for the next decade. one is a liberal milwaukee county, emily zalist, the other is a conservative former state supreme court justice who advised republicans on legal efforts to overturn the presidential election in wisconsin. joining me now is nbc news correspondent, shaq brewster. give us the update. >> hi there, katy. we talked a little bit yesterday, you ran that piece showing the stakes in this election, the election that's been called the most consequential general election on the calendar, and now we know the names, and the battle lines cannot be more clear. on one side you have a liberal judge. she identifies with the democratic party. democrats immediately endorsing her. someone who says that she's going to rule based on her values, saying abortion is one of those values. and another, daniel kelly, who is a conservative judge. he was a justice before on the bench, and he is asking to go bac

it reaches the supreme court and the supreme court prosecutes the convictions. the reasoning given by the preme court is that ts behavior is not protected constitutionally. so that just opens the door and it is a message across the country that they can proceed without fear of federal intervention. what it means is it sets the stage for an abandonment by the federal government. until 1939 when the civilized unit is launched and frank murphy who would later become a supreme court justice is appointed by fdr to head up civil rights for the federal government. >> would you explain the particular role of joseph b bradley in underscoring the jim crow era? >> it was bradley who wrote the opinion in cruickshank. he was at that point a lower judge but his opinion was accepted when it got to the supreme court. bradley was on the supreme court but at the point the judges also served in an appellate capacity. it is bradley's opinion in which he says look, this is not a 13th amendment problem. slavery is over. so the 13th amendment provides those protections. 14th amendment

and it did not go to the supreme court to challenge it. all of a sudden, when it is about our students, they challenge it. the corporations challenge it, the student loan lenders challenge it, that is not right. that is not fair. >> jeanine: okay. greg. [laughs] are your ears okay? >> greg: how can you be a liberal when everybody that represents you screams? >> dana: right, i agree. >> greg: so loudly. just saw four people screaming, as if they were faced with the apocalypse, because other people don't want to hand over their money to them, and somehow it is the end of the world, because we refuse to hand over our money for nothing! >> jeanine: and it appears the supreme court chief justice john roberts, in the sound that we got earlier, comparing two students who graduated from high school, one gets a loan to go to college, the other gets a loan to buy equipment for his lawn company. and justice roberts says it is basically a question of fairness. is that with this is all about? >> greg: it's definitely, they call it debt relief, but it i

we will bring you the latest from the supreme court pivot -- supreme court. ed: meta-taking cues from twitter. we will run you through the details. caroline: we will hear from brad smith as it looks to save is activision deal in europe. let's check in on these markets first and foremost. we have a day where the wind has been taken out of the sales for these benchmarks. back 2.5% on the nasdaq, the 10-year borrowing cost spiking higher. we worry about the federal reserve having to tackle inflation, and though macroeconomy -- the macroeconomy, the details we see from these retail numbers. in the equity market, over the last couple of days, bitcoin has been under pressure, but some of these correlations are breaking down. we are seeing the lowest correlations of years. we still managed to be holding over $24,000 despite the music. ed: it is the same themes, worries about the fed. tesla down five percent. across the nasdaq, 97 names close lower this tuesday. this was a story we were tracking, sigma, up 16%, biggest jump since 2021 a. according to sources, tesla i

. >>> but first, the supreme court on the record. hear what the justices said about president biden's plan to cancel billions of dollars in student loan debt, and whether biden even remotely has the authority to do so. welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. we're starting today in the money lead in fate of president biden's plan to wipe out $400 billion, that's b with a billion now rests with the supreme court. justices today heard oral arguments in two cases challenging biden's plan. the biden administration argued yeah, they have the power to forgive financial loans in order to protect americans brought in by the covid pandemic. six republican states and a conserve advocacy group, however, questioned biden's authority to do so, without congress play anything role. and they also asked whether it was fair to relieve those loans when so many other americans had already paid theirs off, or did not take any loans. here is how two of the justices reacted to arguments today. >> some of the finest moments in the court's history were pushi

you were at the supreme court hearing today. can you talk to us about how justice amy coney barrett is questioning whether your side has standing to bring your case? >> well, sure. that's actually one of the two questions that was before the court today. the first is whether or not we have standing or the right to sue, and the second is whether or not the president has the authority under the heroes act to create a $400 billion student forgiveness program. and we feel really strongly about our arguments. our plaintiffs in texas were denied their right under the administrative plead yours act through -- procedures act through notice and comment to participate in the development of this rule that the secretary of education made. they basically went into a backroom and created a rule arbitrarily and decided who was in and who was out. some people got some and some people got none, and that's not how a regulatory system works. the american people deserve to have and have a right to have their voices heard by unelected bureaucrats th

a lot of court watches think the supreme court might strike down the program. all of these loan payments have been on pause in the meantime. biden administration says if they are to go back into effect and loan forgiveness program not put back into effect those would be due 60 days after a decision in this case likely end of june. >> likely end of june. wait for the final word, jessica, appreciate you setting that up. let's get outside the court. crowds, hundreds rallying in favor of debt relief. renee, what are you seeing? >> i will tell you a lot of the people who hold the student loans feel like they are in a state of limbo as this all works itself out and works its way through the nation's highest court. in the crowd we have students, graduates, advocates, all of whom are rallying around this issue of forgiveness of student loan debt. word i keep on hearing out here is generational wealth. very clear in spending time amongst the people in the crowd they understand this is not just about the student loans itself. it is about the repercussions on life, financ

and this policy is specifically particularly the supreme court. if they ever followed suit the policies of the government visit with the palestinians and they normally use their law, been stamped a on the decisions of the government. so normally more often than not, they didn't actually give any a, you know, a justice for the palestinians. yet, although not really often, sometimes the cold did assist the palestinians in there, give them some justice. but i think that's not the main issue. the main issue is that thus far, although, as i said before, when i emphasize israel cannot be regarded as a democratic state as long as one, there is an ongoing occupation near which control be a military control over millions of people that lack any basic lights. secondly, it cannot be regarded as a democracy, as long as it is the fight at the out, as it defines itself as a jewish state, and not that they belong to the to the all state. is it just the tempe, arizona? because there are still many tens of thousands of people in israel who do consented themselves