supreme court. that's why it's so concerning when a justice does something prohibited by the code of ethics they don't follow and that every other judge does. that's why i was proud to introduce hr 1057 the supreme court ethics act which would require a code of ethics floor at the supreme court. i was also heartened to learn from justice eleanor kagan recent testimony that the supreme court may also be discussing whether to adopt a code of ethics on its own. this would be a welcome development and i hope that this hearing and the show support for my bill will encourage this discussion to continue in earnest. i'd like to turn to the second principle framing today's hearing. that no one can be a judge of their own case. everyone understands this. that's why people find it so troubling that when a potential conflict of interest arises each justice decides for him or herself whether or not to be recused from the case without anyone else reviewing their decision. the same basic concern arises when people

what did the supreme court do? the supreme court, in an 8-1 opinion invalidated the public accommodations provision of the act of 1875. what was their thinking? their thinking went as follows. first, they really focused on two constitutional provisions that might have authorized the act of 1875. they focused on the 13th amendment and 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was really the constitutional provision that they spoke about the most. what they said was as follows. listen, let's take a look at the 14th amendment. the fist section of the 14th amendment provides that no state shall deprive any person of privileges of immunities, due process, equal protection of the law. what the court focused on was, the phrase, the term, "no state," no state shall deprive any person of these rights. now, what does the civil rights act of 1875 say? the act of 1875 says that discrimination, whatever the source, discrimination with respect to places of public accommodation, racial discrimination with respect to public accommodation

level, the appeals court level for the supreme court. by putting out lists of names and encouraging people to buy thethese positions, opinions we are seeing generated below. many of these people would probably be ruling and writing as they are doing, but there is a lot of attention getting opinions in the lower courts that are almost designed to play two people from the federalist society that would be looking for folks to move up in sequence. i went to new orleans for the new affordable care act challenge. a very strong challenge to the entire law heard by the fifth circuit. stronglyre of just how conservative -- that is a circuit that is very much unlike the ninth. it has been traditionally conservative. it is getting more so now. i am seeing it in lower court rulings where it is a big deal. it is making a difference. to the victor goes the spoils. court isme interpreting the law of the land, but it is the appeals court where most of the cases stop. jenscompletely agree with point about the seeming increase in the number of attention g

the supreme court disagreed. yet the district continue to argue that it remains not bound by the second moment. and there judges that have agreed with that position. -- not bound by the second amendment. and there are judges that have agreed with that position. that entire cities can be deemed sensitive places we litigated a place years ago in california that involved special restrictions, fees that california puts on the ability to engage in a firearm transaction. they have a fee you have to pay that then they put into an account that they use to go engage in law enforcement activities against people who unlawfully use firearms. so they basically make it a condition of obtaining a firearm and the law-abiding citizen that you help pay for special cost generated by citizens who violate the law. when we challenge that provision, the district court that we started before invoking the language of heller about laws imposing conditions on the sale of arms said that all commercial restrictions having anything to do with

on their supreme court nominees. you may know that 19th centuries justices did not have the same kind of credentials as they do today. state and federal judges often moved seamlessly between traditional political positions such as state representative or lieutenant governor, then into the judiciary, and then back into those political positions, and so as a result there were really no feeder courts from which presidents could find a farm team of suitable supreme court judges as they often do today. instead, political experience was often the best indicator for who was going to join the supreme court. 19th century presidents typically made supreme court nominations squarely based on partisan reasoning rewarding political friends with a job in the judiciary. to give you some sense of this, in 1844 when polk received the nomination for president, catrin was serving on the bench with eight other men. he was the only justice of these nine who did not have experience working in some other official political office, whether

the supreme court said the supreme court the end of its opinion. i think it's a statement we are at the point that i try to make already. this case is very contemporary it is part of our law. and our ongoing struggle. listen to this. quote, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of the legislation has taken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage of the progress of his elevation, and he takes the rant of a near citizen, and ceases to be, the special, favorite of the lauded. 1883. 1883. the great mass of african- americans in 1883. in 1883 can remember bondage. slavery is close in 1883. and even then the spector african-americans seeking to be the special favorite of the laws. sound familiar? it ought to. now, there was a dissent. professor finkelman mentioned that -- suggested that john marshal harlon was the one justice who expressed a keen attentiveness to racial justice, largely correct. i wouldn't want to go overboard in celebrating justice harlon. in question and answer, maybe we can get into that

and the supreme court is clear on that. in fact of the things the , one supreme court relied on in ruling that these kind of investigations are totally proper, it pointed out that it was a major investigation of john brown's raid on harpers ferry. why it happened, how it happened, causes, etc. again, that's clearly criminal conduct and yet, the supreme court gives that as an example as to why it's perfectly appropriate for there to be congressional investigations. investigations of whitewater, investigations of 9/11 -- congress did a massive 9/11 investigation. two subpoenason: are identical and there are some references in the records about the committees working in parallel. is there anything you could say to illuminate us about that? mr. letter: as i understand has procedures, individual committees don't issue joint subpoenas. individual committees can agree to cooperate with each other and share information, and plenty of times, they do. this is an instance where the two committee chairs recognize there was significant

supreme court associate justice john catherine. i've heard a lot of papers today that reference letters to john catrin but without any context about who he was. he doesn't get the same kind of attention that some of his supreme court contemporaries like joseph storey or roger tawney do. but it's a mistake to overlook this man because he was a critical behind the scenes player in the mid-19th century and particularly in james k. polk's life. getting to know catrin helps us to better understand how the supreme court fits into the political culture of the mid-19th century. we're lucky to have daniel walker howe here as part of this conference. i'd like to borrow howe's definition of political culture to help explain what i mean. in his really important book, the political culture of the american whigs, he talks about the unspoken or rarely spoken system of beliefs, attitudes, modes of operation and especially methods of solving problems underlying american politics. this is the key to understanding political culture. you may be thinki

still has no need to apologise sions of delayed the vote to confirm a new governor the supreme court is expected to soon rule on whether they ban who came into office on friday is eligible for the job. under polls from someone who was street protests like this pushed out the puerto rico governor but the fate of the new one. is now in limbo his fate now rests with 9 justices of the supreme court who will decide if he's illegitimate governor after the senate filed a lawsuit saying he was sworn in prematurely last friday without their confirmation the court is expected to hand down a ruling in a day in a press conference pierre lisi said the supreme court would now be the last word on the matter i then asked him this if the supreme court rules against you or you can resign immediately or you alway i guess i'll have to i don't know what the ruling will be but but we should we should just wait for the ruling and it will speak for itself but the supreme court will decide it i trust them and they'll do the right thing for puerto rico many legal minds think. acted unconstitutionally the puer

please of the kind of supreme court justices i'm going to nominate. can that issue still propel his base to the polls, or do you need to make the economic argument you've been making? david: right, so conventional wisdom is if the economy is strong, the president will be reelected. there is data going back multiple decades that will be the case. so, the economic issue is always really important. but your point is a good one. the courts became a symbol on a lot of the social issues because the court had driven issues on marriage, issues on life. those are ones we don't engage in. but i think president trump successfully harnessed that conservative momentum by picking really good potential justices and campaigning on that. i see that happening again. i would project that one, he'll want to make that another issue. and i suspect the democrats will want to make their view a central part of the campaign, given what happened on the last supreme court nomination, where you saw a very stark divide between the party. not about confidence, and it ended up being

supreme court. the stakes are very high. amy: as the trump administration again tries to push through a rule that would effectively ban all central american migrants from seeking asylum in the u.s., we look at the latest deadly government policies targeting immigrants, from trump's plan to end a program that allows severely sick immigrants to stay in the u.s. for treatment to ongoing family separation. we'll speak with lee gelernt, deputy director of the aclu immigrants' rights project. then as the second border patrol agent this month pleads guilty to assaulting an undocumented immigrant, we look at the devastating death of jose antonio elena rodriguez. killed on mexican soil in 2012 -- more than six years after the killing, but the family is ststill waiting for justice. >> it is so frustrating and it makes me so angry knowing that a person can stick his hand in there and kill mexican children with impunity. lonnie happened to swartz. he is still free. he still has a job. he left my family completely destroyed. amy: in the

we're joined now by cnn's supreme court reporter ariane de vogue. and what can you tell us about her condition here? >> we know that she completed a three-week course of radiation treatment. it began august 5th for a tumor on her pancreas. the hospital calls it a localized malignant tumor. it was detected july 31st. we also know that she canceled her vacation, but she's appearing at a speaking event monday in buffalo. and during her treatment, she went to broadway and met kate mckinnon, the actress who plays her on "saturday night live." and last night, she was on broadway again, watching "the "" she was speaking at an event and was asked about her retirement plans, if they were going to happen. listen to what she said here. >> as long as i can do it, full steam, and that means at my age, 86, you have to take it year by year. so i know i'm okay. i was okay this last term. i expect to be okay next term. and after that, we'll just have to see. >> well, listen, she has had other cancers. >> four times, right? this is the fourth time. >> yeah, 86 years

supreme court. several of the justices were talking about locker rooms in junior high school and justice ginsburg said no, you don't know what it's like the be a 13-year-old girl, you don't know how humiliating that kind of experience is. aknew 8-1 in the end that was an illegal search. having diversity on the court is essential for public confidence and the development of the law and an increasingly diverse america. >> thank you very much for being here tonight. >> thank you so much for having me. nk you so much forav hing me -guys, i want you to meet someone. this is jamie. you're going to be seeing a lot more of him now. -i'm not calling him "dad." -oh, n-no. -look, [sighs] i get it. some new guy comes in helping your mom bundle and save with progressive, but hey, we're all in this together. right, champ? -i'm getting more nuggets. -how about some carrots? you don't want to ruin your dinner. -you're not my dad! -that's fair. overstepped. -that's fair. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why ac

then you are in the territory where the supreme court has said , the courts do not -- the supreme court has said for you to interfere with congress in doing its carrying out of its article one responsibilities. in addition, there is one thing the justice department does not deal with, because it's inconvenient, the justice department has had their brief , the justiceal department is not deal with the history of this country -- does not deal with the history of this country. we pointed out some illustrative examples, george washington, abraham lincoln, harry truman, they had situations where congress was being very intrusive. they wanted to know, president lincoln, how are you carrying war?he civil you are the commander-in-chief and you seem to be doing a bad job so we want to investigate how the war is being conducted. makesstorical record clear that president lincoln grumbled about this but cooperated, he talked to congress. you might say that's different and it shows voluntariness, but it's not, -- >> but i was president lincoln as president lincoln, not as a private individual. >> th

walter nixon case in the supreme court, the supreme court said the the court cannot review way congress operates, which is about its procedures. so, we wanted to remove this argument from the table, so after it was raised, congress ratified these subpoenas, the major subpoena -- the house ratified the deutsche subpoena. judge livingston: house resolution 507. on the face of it, that resolution does not satisfy their concerns because it is a resolution that purports to authorize all subpoenas so long as they involve the president and his family. mr. letter: i do not think the justice department said it did not satisfy. judge livingston: it did not provide the connective tissue of what are the subpoenas for, and and how thepurpose, rest of the subpoenas satisfy that purpose given that it is all directing subpoenas into the future. mr. letter: i am so glad you brought this up. we pointed out that it modified the subpoena -- ratified the subpoenas and the justice department does not the lie that -- deny that, but then it says you ratified others in advance. if that happens, we can litigate

how is the white house kept apprised with the supreme court? or is this just a personal issue given how much weight is on the supreme court justice's shoulders in that position? >> well, certainly, the president of the united states is getting as much information, more information, usually, than the rest of us are, about supreme court justices, about their health. about usually, typically, members of congress. you know, depends on the relationship between the president and the justice, you would expect, in most cases that in a situation like this, there would be some sort of personal communication. a note, a phone call, something like that. i'm not sure what the relationship is between the president and justice ginsburg. but the supreme court is a relatively regional place itself. these folks are in a club that only nine of them are in. i think you'd be surprised to find out how well they get along among themselves. surprised to find out where the friendships lie among them. and it's one of the last bastions of that kind of friendship. >> we've

court sunday but didn't know he would be the guy to put him on the supreme court. this was the beginning of the famous list for trump. the idea of putting forward some names to reassure conservatives. conservatives were worried about trump at this point. he had been a democrat in new york, contributed to planned parenthood, his sister was a federal judge in the new jersey pennsylvania district and had pulled on abortion rights issues so ted cruz was running around spreading the idea that trump would appoint his sister who is pro-abortion rights or somebody like his sister and using this pretty well, so they are trying to figure out a way to stop it and one way to stop it was to start throwing out names of conservatives. trump because of his sister being there got the federal judiciary and a little more than he got in other parts of the government. he didn't understand it perfectly, talking about bills his sister signed as judge so that didn't happen. the book makes the case that this vacancy, trump's ability to use the list to do some other things was crucial and i

he was going to enlarge the supreme court by six justices. he was going to take the court from nine members to 15. of course, everybody knows that these would be liberal leaning, new deal supporting roosevelt holding judges. and wheeler not only opposes the presidents party on that initiative, but he leaves the opposition in the senate. he works hand and cloak with a number of republicans to create a bipartisan majority that eventually defeats his plan. roosevelt's never, after the supreme court in 1937, it is hard to believe how consumed the country was by that debate, it literally was a runny debate every single day from february through the summer of 1937. the country absolutely turning on every aspect of this debate. after 1937, roosevelt never was able to count on a working majority in congress on his working agenda. it might be a cautionary tale for some of the democratic presidential candidates who are running around talking about enlarging the supreme court. if he can speak beyond the grave, he would say that that would probably not b

. >> a warning to the supreme court. top radical dimms and senate telling supreme court justices tto -- heal the court or face a fundamental restructuring. one of the most bizarre warnings in history of the supreme court. this country calm was not order of the day on woot, investor exuberance rallying the stock and bond market, dow soaring after trump administration announced delay on tariffs of some chinese goods on 3 1/2 months, dow jones up almost 400 on the day. with the administration's decision, edward lawrence reporting from washington. reporter: president deciding to put some items under tariff on september 1, others delayed until december 15, largest group items on september 1, they include many things like milk, meat, agriculture products, sour cream, also steel products. and u.s. trade representative delayed tariffs on other items until december 15 or health, safety and national security reasons, that is cell phone, laptop. video game, toys and clothing, u.s. and china trade teams had a phone conversation this

consequently with star a decisiveness the rule that they are bound to respect precedent supreme court justices clutch fidelity to the constitution alone and if their predecessors have construed willingly they must say so and overturn. lawyers and professors the idea of this settled law is shockingly radical. and explain so few y-letter of thomas' opinions are majority most are a dissent or a concurrence but not the reasoning often he rejects the premise on which the majority relies. he is perfectly comfortable with being a minority of one and point to justice marshall loan dissent in plessy the ferguson as his model. to that holding separate but equal facility for blacks had countered that our constitution is colorblind that neither knows nor tolerates classes but as thomas says to quote from the majority or the dissent so lays down the markers and the contempt to let history judge. so to take this back to the very first act of constitutional subversion. and arguably the finest and then to violate the fourth amendment but not in the way the court says that it does. that declares every

>> the supreme court. it is the most less known as to what it does and how it functions, because they tend when they get to me, that they think that laws passed by congress, given to the president and handed over to the supreme court to see if it is constitutional. their other picture is like it is a trial they see on "law and order." the type of jurisdiction it is an as well is the process in which the justices go through a case, what they are deciding -- guilt or innocence, and the appellate jurisdiction, but rather, look of the constitution and due process. >> you are here in washington as the big decisions are coming down from the supreme court, as it's happening. >> absolutely. i often use tinker versus bell. that captivates my students. they love to debate their rights. so the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. >> the vaping issue. >> because they were really disturbed>> by how it wasn't b eing dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate it

supreme court. the ultimate rejection of african-american rights granted by the 15th amendment was the supreme court's approval in williams v. mississippi in 1898 of the 1890 disfranchising conventions in the form of confederate states. with that stamp of approval, then the states of the confederacy instituted all sorts of voting restrictions. you know about a lot of them. then there's an outrageous oklahoma case where they said we'll allow black people to vote, but we just won't count the votes. the united states government accepted jim crow, but african-americans never did. the black community continued efforts to enforce voting rights, but to little avail until the civil rights movement of 1960s. it was really a century before congress finally followed charles sumner's advice about that law, and that's the voting rights act of 1965. it was hard fought just as the first reconstruction had been hard fought. the act was necessary for enforcement because so many other laws to guarantee the right to v

thus in 1966 the preem supreme court ruled section 5 was constitutional. in 2013 the roberts court ruled in shelby county that section 4 was determined that is the trigger clause that jurisdictions that were required to submit proposed election changes was unconstitutional. the ruling disables section 5. this was in spite of a huge amount of testimony and evidence presented to congress when they renewed the voting rights act in 2006 and section 5. this finding eviscerated the essential preclearance of electoral changes in the covered districts and cripple d the voting rights act. the chief justice stated his reasoning for shelby. our country has changed. this depressingly echoed a ruling in 1852 in the early dread scott cases that said african-americans could not be citizens at the time, which previous decisions in missouri had a pattern of ruling for freedom, but with the new decision would be ruling for slavery. while roberts said he a acknowledged that any racial discrimination is too much, he considered more important that congress consider current con

we believe these articles, article 370, the supreme court has laid it down. these articles in itself are part of that basic structure that the parliament cannot change. i suppose the logic of the opposition is that this will end up in the supreme court and i know there are various legal challenges to the revocation decision, which are going to head towards the supreme court, but let's face it, the court today has issued a ruling saying it won't intervene in the decision of the curfew and the lockdown, saying that the government has every right to impose this policy and let things stabilise. it is not clear the court is going to be on your side. if the parliament represents the majoritarian sentiment, we hope the courts should represent the minority sentiment, that's our understanding. as of now, we are about to challenge these articles. some of the political parties have already filed their petitions. i know it's going to be a long battle. it's not going to be easy for the supreme court also to undo what the majoritarian government, a bully government, has do

supreme court. i tend to think that in academia and politics, these people on this fringe of racial thinking, they tend to find each other like magnets and iron filings do. do you remember how back in the 2016 campaign trump used to tell this totally made up story about the way we used to get rid of terrorism is that we'd dip the bullets in pig's blood and wrap up the muslim bodies in pig skins and that's how we got rid of muslim terrorists in the past and now we're too wussy to do that. there's a little controversy in the 2016 campaign that he just made up that story. this guy who was just nominated to be a federal appeals court judge has also made that same argument that trump made on the stump in 2016. he has told that same fake story in the course of his academic career. this was crazy enough to hear candidate trump run with this, this completely made-up story during the 2016 campaign. >> they took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pig's blood. you heard that, righ

supreme court needs to change its ways, writing this -- "the supreme court is not well and the people know it. perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." some 2020 democrats have expressed openness to the idea of expanding the court, but now democratic senator sheldon whitehouse, one of the five signers of this brief, says the g.o.p. response shows exactly why democrats are speaking out. he accuses republicans of trying to bend the court to the interest of big donors. this brief, this threatening brief from these five senators -- and i would like to name them, just so you know they are. sheldon whitehouse, mazie hirono. richard blumenthal, dick durbin, and kiersten children. it is threatening to the court because they're worried about scotus taking up a gun case for the first time in the decade, that could rule the gun laws unconstitutional. >> chris: absolutely. >> lisa: don't ask me when that's by those democrats did it. >> chris: they feel they don't have choices right now, except to scare roberts an

i want to turn to cnn supreme court reporter ariane devogue. >> supreme court announced today she has just completed a three-week radiation therapy for a treatment that began august 5th for a tumor in her pancreas. it was first detected july 31st, and it's called a localized malignant tumor. here is what's interesting. she canceled her annual vacation to santa fe but will appear monday night at a long planned speaking engagement in buffalo, and we learned that during this treatment, she actually went on broadway and she saw kate mckinnon, who plays her, the actress who plays her in "saturday night live," and on top of that, last night, she was on broadway taking in a production of "moulin rouge." she's tough. >> this is the fourth time that she has had cancer. i mean, she is someone, she's a fighter. she defies odds. >> yes, she's 86 years old, 1999 she had surgery for colon cancer. 2009 early stage pancreatic cancer. she had a heart procedure in 2014. in 2018, she had, as we know, those two cancerous nodules removed from her lung. that was the first time that she ever missed oral arg

and a warning to the supreme court. topic radical dems in the senate telling supreme court justices to quote - heal the court or face a fundamental restructuring. one of the most bizarre warnings in history of well, the supreme court. in this country, calm is not the order of the day on wall street. outright investor exuberance rallyingthe stock and bond markets. the dow soaring into the trump administration announced aid a delay. the dow jones industrial almost a 400 points on the day. and on that news. with the administrations decision, edward lawrence reported from washington. reporter: the president decided to put some items under tariff on september 1 and others delayed until december 15. large group go under tariff on the september 1. including milk and sour cream. they say they delay tariffs and other items until december 15 for health, safety and national security reasons. the list includes cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, toys and clothing. u.s. and china trade teams had a conversation this m

supreme court. why? arizona's attorney general is going to join me next. general going to join me next. look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ dprevagen is the number onemild memopharmacist-recommendedng? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. a cockroach can survive submergede guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah, wow. not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. the business of family time... ...and downtime. ...and you time. ...and forgetting what time it is...altogether. modernized comfort inns and suites have been refreshed because when your business is making time,

the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington dc and around the country. you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span has brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. cspan your unfiltered view of government. >> every year cspan awards fellowships to several middle school and high school teachers who have demonstrated innovative methods of incorporating cspan programs in their teaching. they joined the relations team in washington dc, for four weeks in july, to develop new teaching materials. they also help lead cspan summer educators conference. one of our 32019 teacher fellows is middle school teacher maureen mcguirl of jamestown rhode island. 2019 maureen mcguirl of jamestown rhode island, tell us a little bit about your school. >> are schools on island for one, he pretty much have k-8 and they are excited when we have make 25 percent of our population because of the war college. new people, to meet and brain information to our classroom so basically, the island started out as a farm for sheep, and then state that weight

supreme court. jim breyer injustice can grow. >> go to scott and how the happen. >> there is a theory that buchanan wanted the decision topic. what he deafly wanted he was going to solve slavery. i don't know that he had a particular solution but it was a case winding around and use a former slave had gone up to minnesota and he comes back in the master guys and he said he is free because he was living in the territories that were not supposed to have slavery. at any case the court case comes and he's a chief justice, all these guys are related. anyway but there's a split side, not conservative and liberal as today but southern and northern. i am buchanan apparently had a discussion with him before he took office and said what are we going to do about this and he says nobody is going to buy into that. if you can convince somebody to change his mind. buchanan, did anybody go to dickinson college? you responsible for the civil war. there's a third supreme court justice that went to dickinson intention

and there will come a day -- and i'm no profphet, but the supreme court will confine citizens united to the same file that did dredd scott and plessy. as you mentioned, supervisor mar, one big allowance that we can still take care of in terms of people being sure that government is not totally bought, and that is disclosure, that even though money can be given by anyone, the people that are giving it, the u.s. supreme court has said unanimously all along, disclosure of who these people are is something that's fine. it does not fall or fly in the face of the first amendment or anything else, and even the other courts that have been procitizens united. well, we don't have disclosure. we have minimal disclosure. disclosure is virtually nonexistent. i've been watching the political process in san francisco for about the last 50 years in various things as chief assistant public defender, dean of a law school, and members of two commissions, ethics commission and police commission. and one of the things that i see, and particularly i saw it with great vividness on the ethics commission --

i'm not sure writing a letter to the supreme court, what you're expecting the supreme court to turn around and do. i'm going on read this as a politically motivated action. let's try to decipher what it is. is it trying to offer motivation potentially to what they call those reluctant trump voters? folks who might like republicans more than democrats, but don't like donald trump? >> sure. it is a way, i guess, an idea to sort of put something in front of the court to say, we take this very seriously. this president has been very successful at putting two conservative justices on the bench. and i think for the base, that is certainly a big kudos for that. so this is a remind per republicans rthing about the court as they have been, as you know, for is well over 20 years. the democrats are late to this conversation. and of course, they're coming to the conversation, talking about, we want to add five independent seats. that's not what this is about. this is about whoever is sitting in the white house, is about. having the senate of their party in power, that's where the play is. and this is

the joy i felt in 1954 when the supreme court decided the brown vs. board of education case was connected to those generous strangers, and even know, wind dried sheets can sumen up my memory of what that decision did and what it meant for all our futures. >> this book is a celebration of the power and justice of that decision. so remember, because you are part of it. the past was not entrance, the gate was not opened, the road was not taken. only for those brave enough to walk it. it was for you as well. in every way, this is your story." thank you. i have agreed to entertain some questions or even comments. some of the questions are long, and they help me by having some of you -- some of you wrote questions. questions down on file cards. and i have looked at them. and i have chosen some that i thought i could answer. and disregarded those i couldn't. but i did notice that about a third of the questions were really about the same subjects. and i think i can read a few of them together. do you agree with some that even though it's been 50 years since b

it was a 1980 supreme court c e case. the very first time the voting acts right was challenged a lot. very first time the supreme court ruled against the voting rights act that got myself involved in voting rights cases and a lot of other historians as well. and that's mobile vs. bodden. it was about an at-large election. we've talked about the dilution process of at-large elections. the supreme court and mobile declared that henceforth, plaintiffs must prove not only that an at-large system has discriminatory effect, that is that blacks could not get elected there in the at-large system but also that it was adopted or maintained for the purpose of diluting minority votings. now, take note, it's not just discrimination but purposeful discrimination. thus, the court really hindered racial equality by welcoming what seemingly neutral but actually discriminating practices. who's trained to look at intent and purpose among politicians? it's historians. and attorneys know that they need to show this so they turn to historians

given to the president and handed over to the supreme court. the other picture is that it's like a trial they see him on order. -- on law and order. see the process with which the justices go through a case, what they are studying. constitution and due process. bigou are in washington as decisions are coming down from the supreme court. >> absolutely. i used to go versus bell as something. they love to debate their rights. the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. they were really disturbed by how it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate itself. they have been doing a lot of letters about that. this week, i was watching a few of the committee hearings on that. i'm looking forward to bringing clips of that to have them evaluate what the next app is -- step is. how would they do with the program -- problem? >> used teach seventh and eighth grade. >> looking at how different historical events have shaped the constitution. i also do history day with them. >> you mentioned

i know he did argue cases before the supreme court. i don't know about the specifics of your story. >> thank you for a wonderful talk and wonderful lecture. i've learned a lot of things from listening to you. >> thank you, bob. >> i've got more of a comment than a question. i met wheeler and visited with him at some length when i was a kid in the navy back during the war and in washington, d.c. i had dinner with him in his home in a suburb there of washington, d.c., fox hole road or something. >> that's right. >> we were served by house servant, simeon, who he called simi. this was after mrs. wheeler died. >> yes. >> his eyesight was so poor he had a goose neck lamp, the college kids call it, over his plate so he could see what he was eating. i had several impressions. one, he intentionally disliked senator murray. >> no doubt about that. and the feeling was reciprocated. >> he said when fdr came to montana he tried to give the impression he was responsible for the dam. he said murray didn't give credit or help anybody that was a boot

that question has never been considered by the supreme court. the context for question of whether or not you count eligible citizens or people has been in the context of one person one vote, which is an important issue. but it's never been debated in the context of structural separation of powers. and that's, again, new. it did not exist by and large for a long period in our history. and then for many decades there after it wasn't that important. but if john baker is right and we are talking about a baseline of 15, 18, 20 million people who are distributed very asymmetrically. again if they were sprinkle throughout the states wouldn't make a difference tp distributed very asymmetrically that puts structural stress on separation of powers which is the a core element of the constitutional architecture. i don't know how one takes it off the table. >> so stewart may i respond. >> go ahead, sure. >> as justice kegan said we are all text you'llists now and if the question is about apportionment among the states i think the constitution which is not a

the democratic senators say supreme court is not wealth. the people know it. but the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics, particularly the urgent issue of gun control in the the nations need it to hill. mr. chairman, what does that say to you? >> several things, first of all it is brazen and secondly, banana republic politics. they want the court to be healed of politics, they should stop filing a brief because that is clearly politically motivated. and designed to try to threaten the court which i think is a very, very bad tactic. but it threatens the independence of the judiciary, which is one of the most sacred aspects of protecting the civil liberties and assuring that justice provides two people. you are going to have people on the supreme court have different constitution but if they would focus on that, on reading the letter of the law, then the republicans and democrats could come together to make sure we have justices that pay attention to what the law is and not politics. i w