justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: you seem to rely heavily on legal separation, but the first amendment, it's not clear to me why that cares, as opposed to the imputation in her lye as justice sotomayor pointed out. can you speak to that further please? mr. michel: the reason to follow corporate separation here is that is how the grant program is organized. this court, in hur lee, there was a forced association the court ruled attribution matters. but in every one of their funding case, the court looked to the effect thope recipient of the funds itself and here respondents and foreign entity -- foreign entities are making the choice to apply for separate grants and agree to separate conditions. justice gorsuch: i think the argument goes beyond the forced nature of the association to the concern about chilling of speech. can you speak to that? the first amendment does not care just about protecting speech, it is concerned about avoiding chilling speech. mr. michel: i think you are right about that. i s

justice roberts: justice gorsuch? totice gorsuch: in response justice ginsburg and justice thomas, you indicated that the primary harm your client has suffered is the risk of attribution, mistaken attribution of a foreign affiliate's speech to the domestic entity. sounds a bit like an alter ego argument that the ordinary listener will be confused and attribute the speech of foreign affiliates to domestic entities. at the same time i assume that you would resist any effort to pierce the corporate veil from those foreign entities and impose liability on the domestic entity. it and whenect is should we attribute speech for actions of foreign affiliates to the domestic entity? why would we pierce the corporate veil sometimes but not all the times. >> we don't ask the court to pierce the veil or treat these entities as alter ego's, rather we are focused on the unique nature of speech and the way speech can be attributed even when corporate formalities are observed. i think the right line of case law here is not just this c

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: i understand your argument is that a $1000 fine doesn't diminish or negate the fact that the elector here is voting. and has in some real sense of a to vote that's being honored. but what about the new law that both washington and colorado have adopted, the uniform faithful presidential electors act. i know you are going to tell us it is not before us, so put that aside for the moment. i understand it, if an elector renders a faithless vote, that automatically removes him from office as a matter of law and in fact votes aren't even counted until the secretary of state has collected the requisite number of ballots marked for the right people based on pre-existing pledges. is that consistent with the constitution's prescribed order of appointment, meeting and voting? it seems like the voting comes first and then the appointment under the uniform law. and as it also consistent with the federal electoral count act? if you can speak to me about those questions i would be g

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: could a state ask an elector to make a sworn statement as to his present intention to vote for a particular candidate make the pledge an oath? mr. lessig: yes. justice gorsuch: could a state leader prosecute the elector for perjury if that statement, under oath, if there is evidence it was false statement? mr. lessig: in principle, absolutely. we think and practice, that would be just like a judge making a promise to a senate committee prior to a confirmation. that would be incredible difficult to imagine enforcing would bethat retaliatory against a particular elector. justice gorsuch: could a state say we will pay her per diem only if you carry out your promise to vote in a particular way that you have pledged initially? mr. lessig: no, that is what washington's new law does. that is a penalty as well. justice gorsuch: why couldn't it do that if it can do the other things? mr. lessig: again, the difference between a legal consequence or legal penalty based on your ju

justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: good morning. if i understand your point correctly, it is that the government concerns about the competitive advantage are minimized or mitigated by the fact that marks like booking.com are relatively weak. because you are putting together two generic terms. consumers may well have your company in mind when they see that. we can argue about how good that is. but there may be no consumer confusion. that may also be true with the booking or hotel booking. booking or hotel booking. and the relative weakness of the is your answer, together with fair use doctrine, to the government monopoly concerns. is that a fair summary? >> much better than i said. justice gorsuch: will you expound on that, please? >> sure, let me help you with the reason they are so weak to begin with and why mccarthy has this chapter where similarly worded marks cannot sue others. let's take a weather.com. turns out consumers, when you have descriptive marks like both of those that are registered, consumers become very conditioned

government gorsuch? gorsuch: we've gone from the full-time to part-time lineion teacher and the i'm struggling with is a part-time teacher is less but what if the school can't afford a full-time teacher. maybe they can only afford a part-time teacher. you mentioned that you think it they be part of the faith but we drew from that withdrew from that a bit recognizing that one could be part of another faith and in this faith, catholics, jews, whatever -- i'm struggling with and howu draw the line much entanglement both sides are going to get us in here in deciding what's an important enough person in a particular we avoid that difficulty. mr. fisher: justice gorsuch, let me talk about the part-time hypothetical and the importance of entanglement. on the part-time question, i may not fully understand your apothetical, but i think if school said we're limited funds, teaching religion in our school important to us but we don't have the funds to hire a full-time religion teacher, going to hire a part-time teac

. >> justice gorsuch? just disgorge it: i would like to follow up -- justice gorsuch: i would like to respond on a previous question on that religious activities would not qualify. you are asking a secular court to make that judgment. even when some deference is given to a religious organization in a qualified, immunity sort of way or otherwise, you're still asking us to make a judgment between all fis as a minister and who does not -- judgment between who qualifies as a minister and who does not. and i am wondering, does that pose some problems for you? and for your clients some of these cases? i could easily see as school in wichita they are teaching these kids to become apart of a faith. that everyone is a minister and not just limited to clergy. what do we do about that? the next case is going to be a school in which a janitor takes a pledge, or a school bus driver, or a coach, and the all believe sincerely they are all ministers, and you will have us tell them, no,. mr. rassbach: i think is apart of t

justice gorsuch: one dollar nominal damages. why should we exercise our discretion to get the case when a nominal damages are one dollar, he didn't seek congress -- as you point out, it is unclear whether there is a mechanism to do so, and we have a call to action that doesn't exist -- we're asked to overlook the cousin of the stipulation by the parties. why is that a manufactured litigation that this court should decline -- that we should bother with? mr. harrow: because once there is jurisdiction, and i will just emphasize that the question of whether -- justice gorsuch: i understand jurisdiction but this court has discretion over what to entertain. it also has some authority to emphasize the importance of the adversarial process. and this properties. it does and i think the argument show this is highly adversarial on the merits. there was a conflict in the lower courts on an important issue and the unique chance that this court has to decide the issue of presidential selection outside of the very contested context of an activ

gorsuch? justice gorsuch: is some of my colleagues noted the irony of the first amendment challenge leading to the suppression of more speech as a remedy. i wanted to explore that a little further. as i understand it, you've taken the position there's no right way to do severance here but should we take coming any distance to the fact striking down the government debt provision was not relief that the plaintiffs sought in this case? and we normally take some coming any distance of the adversarial process and the laintiffs request for relief we chided plaintiffs in this term of not including all the relief they might have wanted in this complaint and what do we do with the fact the plaintiffs seemingly would have no standing to challenge an exception for government debt collection activities. so they didn't seek the relief and don't have standing for this relief. should those things tell us anything? mr. stewart: you could do it that way and the court of appeal coos have done it that way. that'

justice gorsuch? -- justice gorsuch: i would like to return to the question about how you would distinguish, yes this took place in federal court but as been civil case, and pointed out, it could have been multiple versions of that in multiple different districts across the country. what is different about that? how do we avoid the conclusion that the president wasn't subject to some special immunity but here is? i think the nation of the case station line --

it was a colloquy justice gorsuch near the end of the argument. for the free speech purposes, it is very different. and indeed, it would be hypocritical or disingenuous to continue the particular policy while one body still refuses to adopt it or another one does. at the end of the day, this is a question if the corporate entity exists and not even for some sort of a legalistic immunity or protection with respect to corporate law or tort liability, but because in many countries around the world including the united states, you have to have a locally incorporated affiliates to be able to do business. whether as a nonprofit or a for-profit. so, in many cases this came right off the top with the chief justice's first discussion with the government lawyer that they had no choice to incorporate the local entities, so it isn't even a matter of wanting to have some legal separation that they happened to be able to operate in that area. so again, just in the speech context it works differently. or in terms of many fundamental rights rather and civil litig

i guess the question justice thomas and justice gorsuch have is are we going to have litigation over what particular students take out particular coaches were particular teachers i'm not sure how we do that if he were to win this case and then we go on in the next case. >> i think that the limiting principle was looking at what was laid out. the important functions are not just one exercise but sort of the sub set of the functions the person is performing at the religious community and that's the main part of their job, so it can't be something where it is just something you have to physics teacher that has a crucifix on the wall, that is one thing. they add a sermon to every single class, that is a different one -- >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice and may i please the court. there are three approaches to the exceptio exceptional the ta. first, the most has been central to the analysis. in the ninth circuit and employer must check off one or more formalities even if no religious function is clear and third the court should go even further in the formality with f

just as gorsuch once said we don't wear rede robes or blue robes. it is white. they are not trying to insert their opinions in any case. some of them have made it difficult. we have overcome it so far. they will not be able to keep president trump and i from continuing to change the american courts for the better for as long as we possibly can. this has been important. it doesn't get talked about enough the impact of this will have. in addition to what you mentioned, the supreme court justices, also around 200 federal judges confirmed very what will be the ultimate impact of having these defenders of the constitution on the bench for future generations? sen. mcconnell: it means you will feel more comfortable the judge has already made up his mind before he heard the evidence and the argument. in other words, an impartial observer follows the constitution and the laws as they were written. justice scalia used to say you are not a good judge if you are -- it is not your personal opinion. he said if you want to make policy, run for office. that is not what we do he

this was a colloquy with justice gorsuch toward the end of the argument. for free-speech purposes, it is very different. hypocriticaluld be , it would be disingenuous to continue with the particular one body still refuses to adopt it or another one does. is ae end of the day, this question of imputation. cases, thethese corporate entity exists, not even for some sort of legalistic immunity or protection with respect to corporate law or tort liability, but because in many countries around the world, including the united states, you have to have a locally incorporated affiliate to be able to do business, whether as a nonprofit or a for profit. this came out right off the top with the chief justice's first discussion with .he government lawyer they had no choice to incorporate local entities, so it is not a matter of wanting to have a legal separation that they had to to be able to operate in that area. just in the speech context, it termsdifferently, or in of many fundamental rights, then when we are cocking about -- when we are talking about before we digr,

justice gorsuch? >> a major feature of the opinion below and the arguments in the briefs, at least, is the government failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the apa, and i did not want that major component of the case to go unaddressed today. i want to give you a chance to respond to that. >> thank you, just as gorsuch. on the apa, there are a number of different ways to come out differently than the way the third circuit analyzed it. -- think the third circuit e we think the third circuit erred . we think the original was satisfied. we think the good claws was satisfied for the same reasons that the government had good cause for example to make immediately effective moderations in light of the court's order. we think likewise, my friends on the other sides as there was good cause for the original exemptions and the like in the mandate because they needed to make changes quickly for additional upcoming plan years. we think all of those same things apply here. another way to rule against

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: justice insuch: counsel, i believe earlier discussions with justice alito, you indicated congress might be able to regulate the area of financial disclosures of the president. the is one of the interests house has asserted here. what more would you require the house to do to assert that interest? what would be enough in your mind to demonstrate the heightened need you suggest is needed? mr. wall: i don't think it has to go provision by provision or anything like that, but i do think it has to describe the possible legislation with enough specificity to enable meaningful judicial review. we know the president is required to disclose different things from the ethics in government act. i am -- justice gorsuch: i am sorry to interrupt, but let me stop you there. let's say the house says, we are considering legislation on whether to require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns for a set number of years. would that be sufficient and if not, why not? mr. wal

so what is this test so justice gorsuch says any analysis at all is entangling. but what we believe it is correct so you have to look at more objective criteria. it was about title and duty but all of these important factors and also what is the institutionng saying how were they holding themselves up to the world? but also for what they signed up for as to a disability or race claim or age claim that even though you taught art so if you have the courts to say that you lead plays or taught was one - - listens to on one line or the other of this factor is important religious function test. - - is one of the pieces that you should look at under hosanna table or and you cannot have a system that is wholesale difference to religious institutions if any employees were covered by the civil rights law that this throws to the wind and then also think about who is being harmed. 300,000 and lay teachers bringing up nurses and workers.e women, people love color that are protected with multiple identities bear the brunt while religious institutions get a free blank check eve

. >> just as gorsuch? >> i would like to pick up where you left off. that there is no demonstrated need or substantial legislative purpose. i'm sure we will hear the house that there is substantial legislative need. not defer to the house about its own legislative purposes? >> to begin, the subpoena power is an implied power and this court made that clear recently. congress cannot use its implied powers to challenge the structure of government. requestingchart -- the presidents personal documents is challenging the structure of government. the court did not apply that because it was a battle between the branches as justice scalia pointed out in his opinion. there's simply no need for a presumption on either side whatever might normally apply to thendividual because president has own powers creed by the constitution. this happened in a number of cases. that wet has recognized do not proceed against the president as we do against an ordinary litigant. whether that was in cheney or the limiting obstruction -- >> my question was more practical than that. s

. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome supreme court associate justice neil gorsuch escorted by reagan foundation and institute board chairman, fred ryan. [applause] >> good evening everyone. i name is don hi bush and i had the honor of being the executive director of the ronald reagan presidential foundation and institute. thank you all for coming this evening. if you would in honor of our men and women in uniform who protect our freedoms around the world please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. thank you, please be seated. before we get started i would like to take a moment to recognize some special guests we have with us this evening and i will begin with our board of trustees. we have with us governor pete wilson and his terrific wife, gail. [applause] from north carolina mr. bennett sutton. [applause] former congressman retired but just as busy as ever alton [inaudible] and his wife janet. [applaus

. >> just as gorsuch? toi would like to return your conversation with justice alito >> thank you. >> i would like to return to your colloquy with justice alito and justice sotomayor. i am uncertain with the daylight is between the test you're .roposing and when the it seems like they should be resolved in federal court. was angested there objective basis. your i understood discussion with justice sotomayor, the solicitor general thinks there should be an absolute immunity until the end of the term. briefidn't read the that way. i understood your discussion with justice alito to agree it would be irrelevant consideration. what am i missing? >> putting aside the language differences, the most important distinction is what i try to know at the onset, which is the sequencing of the showings that need to be made. but the doj is proposing, as i understand it, is that in the first instance it has to be the prosecutor who goes to federal court and makes an affirmative showing that the standard has and it can't be

gorsuch? >> good morning. some of my colleagues have noted the irony of the first amendment challenge, leading to this suppression a more speech as a remedy. i wanted to explore that a little. you take the position that there's no right way to do severance here, but should we take cognizance of the fact that striking down the government not reliefion was that the plaintiffs sought in this case? and we normally take some congress -- cognizance of the adversarial process. earlier foraintiffs not including all of the relief they might have wanted in their complaint. and what do we do about the fact that the plaintiffs seemingly have no standing to challenge an exception for government debt collection activities. they did not seek the relief and they don't have standing for this relief. should those things tell us anything? it that way in the court of appeals and the court of appeals could have done it that way, the principal argument the respondents have made all along is that the government debt

justice gorsuch. >> thank you, chief. counsel, we've heard a little bit about if they would like to give you the chance to discuss it further the argument that they are going to be terrible, practical consequences that would follow from the ruling for your clients. we can c put aside the criminal convictions. you've addressed those but on the ground of difficulties that we have heard about administering .-full-stop. they want to respond to the generally igenerally in-house sm our analysis of interpretation of the statute in the treaty? >> here is what i would say. there would be consequences far from any of the court ruling nor are they overly serious. but more important, they are the kind of consequence that have routinely. they are routinely resolved as representatives brief in the case and throughout the nation the mci agreed and experience of tacoma indicates. these are routinely addressed by congress. it shouldn't affect the reading of the text and that is true for several reasons. it is but it is into the court's jo

justice gorsuch? counsel, weuch: have heard a little bit about it today, but i would like to give you a chance to discuss it further. the argument there will be consequencestical from a ruling for your client. we can put a side the criminal convictions, just the difficulties we have heard about in administering tulsa. do you want to respond to that parade of horrible's? and how should it inform the analysis of the interpretation of the statute and the treaty? >> here's what i would say. there will of course be consequences as there are from any ruling, and they are not trivial. they are not existential or overly syrians, but more important they are the consequences that habit routinely in indian country. they are routinely resolved by agreement in oklahoma, and as theout the nation experience of tacoma indicates. these are routinely addressed by congress. with respect to how it should influence the text, it should not. that is true for several reasons, the text is what it is. court parker, the separat

those two things together with a case of severability leveling up or leveling down and with justice gorsuch and i would help and with the strong points about severability strike those two strongest points of the communications act it would be a tail wagging the dog to be in place for 30 years that has been popular with consumers with a vast array of people to preserve government debt collectors so which law was it with the constitutional validity it would have to be the 2015 law. so it would be natural. >> there is a severability clause that says any provision of the communications act it would be in valid. and for purposes to determine the invalid provision and those that have that constitutional infirmity. >> and just to underscore the severability argument is that is thoroughly constitutional. >> that the underlying band was constitutional before 2015. >> felt the exception it is perfectly constitutional. >> how much do we take into account what congress would have intended with that analysis of attorney general's brief about of the calls of the common consumer point of robo calls is tha

. >> justice gorsuch. >> council, i would like to return to the question of clinton versus jones and how he would have us distinguish back. yes, it took place in federal court, that it was a civil case and as it has been pointed out, others, there could have been multiple versions of that and multiple different districts across the country. what is different about that and how do we avoid the conclusion that president wasn't subject to some special immunity. >> the nature of the case that we are dealing with here is not in a vacuum itself. there are other cases the president is dealing with the ae same time. so the situation we have multiple litigation going on including with the new york attorneattorney general, so i te supremacy clause here is pronounced as the court eluded to in clinton v. jones for that very reason. this idea that the local prejudice would impact the president. so the idea that we would wait until there are more of these, we are already here on the three or four subpoenas involving multiple subpoenas much of which govern the same documentation. so, i think that i

and with your identity. >> thank you counsel justice gorsuch. >> good morning if i understand your point correctly, it is that the government's concerns about competitive advantage are minimized or mitigated by the fact that marks like booking.com are relatively weak because you put together to generic terms consumers may well have your company in mind when they see that but there may be no consumer confusion consumers may or may not have particular companies in mind but it's your answer with the fair use doctrine because of the monopoly concerns. is that a fair summary. >> much better than i said. >> please expand. >> the reason they are so weak to begin with some we were reworded marks can sue for others but whether.com and accuweather.com. it turns out consumers with very descriptive marks like those that are registered and then they are conditioned to focus on the difference and look at e-booking there is the e1 so it's very hard to show that confusion because the more similar the market it becomes extraordinarily impossible or unlikely to prove that and that is not specific it is th

courses -- justice just as gorsuch wants the courts to refer to religious institutions, but how can you -- maybe in a good-faith way because they all personify the faith, or maybe to avoid liability. for any of those reasons you hear how a whole host of workers denied all of their civil rights protection. there's so much at stake here from the health care industry, camp counselors, football coaches. justice kagan gave a whole line of hypotheticals. and there was not a clear through line for the responses. mr. rosen: thank you so much for that. those were amazing hypotheticals. i am just calling them up. she wanted a yes or no answer on that. we deathly covered? probably not -- would that be covered? probably not. you mentioned a math teacher, takes 20 seconds. would that count? no. she just ran through them all. america'su're one of leading experts on free exercise clause. i take it from the discussions that they are arguing that this expanded ministerial exemption is located in the free exercise clause. response to justice breyer, who said that the ability to fire or do what people who

[applause] [applause] >> coming up here on c-span2, supreme court associate justice neil gorsuch author of "a republic, if you can keep it" talks about his 30 year career and the u.s. constitution. followed by former counterinsurgency advisor to general avett pretorius, author of the dragons and the snakes. and then new york times magazine contributor peggy orenstein examines sexual culture and mail masculinity, author of the boys and macbook. >> you're watching a special edition of the tv airing during the week while members of congress are in their districts due to the coronavirus pandemic. tonight memoirs. first holocaust survivor max eisen reflects on his life and his imprisonment at auschwitz during world war ii. then simply up around long works to reform sentencing guidelines. later nikki haley recounts her time as u.s. and fastener to the united nations in the trump administration. look tv now and over the weekend on c-span2. >> oh yea, oh yea, all supreme court of the united states will manage to draw near and give their attention to rid the court is now sitting. >> for the firs

. >> both justice gorsuch and justice kevin as a practical question how congress could meet that standard. why isn't the subpoena supporte supported? the answer is congress hasn't specified with that plus one - - specificity to ask for documents going back over ten years. in response to justice kavanaugh and then the answer was to consider general legislationn that would be very difficult has to be more suspicious and then to enumerate that with some specificity? >> it shouldn't be too hard to provide a couple lines most commercial lines are held with the 1000 page statute first to explain why he wants information because the subpoenas are so broad with that potential legislation could be served so are the spending habits to four -year-old grandchild how is that relevant to anything that congress is doing? it's a very strange demand every one including grandchildren with that specific standard and then to articulate in just a couple lines and you have to write a thousand pages but if it was narrower to satisfy that standard but of those strange things to has nothing to do with legislation

gorsuch on your machine gun. suck on my machine gun. why would i back it down when i watching the enemy not just hating me for promoting it but being effective in passing unconstitutional infringements on our second amendment rights? i realize i had to turn up the heat. heat, iurning up the cannot tell you how humbled and how proud i am of getting the highest votes ever at the top votes, i think behind charlton heston, on the board of directors. the national rifle association. the most important civil rights association in the world. the right of self-defense. if you do not have a right to defend yourself, you do not have any rights at all. i actually welcomed if not sherished the attacks by idiot who would be against the perfection of hunting and self-defense. so i have probably lost my manager did an analysis one time. it is a lot of money. donald trump jr.: by the way, i have been in that same boat. when you are from new york city and hospitality and you think about being a vocal proponent of the second amendment and a vocal sportsma

and the governor in the governor's mention said they would appoint justices, antonin scalia and neil gorsuch and clarence thomas and down the line, folks that understand the role of the judiciary and that is what matters here. the outcome of upholding the constitutional amendment is the state flips blue or has a literal consequences so be it, i did my job as a legislator but we need to remember as americans elections do matter, judicial appointments do matter because we have a judge in judge henkel who thinks he is a member of congress, think these president rather than a judge. i want those who uphold the law without imagining it. jillian: thanks for your time, appreciate it. rob: all right. uly transformati. so, no more tossing and turning. because only tempur-pedic adapts and responds to your body... on opope. . es millionaires and billionaires. >> i don't meet behind closed doors with big dollar donors. billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the united states. rob: this is precious. remember this? now elizabeth warren is going to be hosting a top dollar fundrais

gorsuch are new animals. they are political figures. they ran political campaigns in order to get seats on the supreme court. lookedolitical campaign different from the one that you when i have run, but they are political campaigns nonetheless and involved a pretty unapologetic ingratiation with political figures throughout their career. there was kavanaugh sitting right behind ken starr during the inquisition of clinton in the 1990's. that is his celebrity moment that puts him on the list for elevation into the federal judiciary. and so, it is a very dangerous role. in all apology -- and unapologetic nature to the political agenda and affiliation of those that are now being put on the supreme court. this is probably an answer, but i think that move toward extreme political agenda on the court in some ways is reflective of our -- of what is happening in our broader politics. we in congress right now are unfortunately vulnerable to the extremes of the left and the right, which causes the nominees our parties but forward to be less situat

at times be counted on to a stalwart support er of reproductive rights and now we have kavanaugh and gorsuch whose views are to the left. this is a huge case. if the court decides that l. louisia louisiana's law should stand, it would embolden other states. and also important here is the court inserted an additional question to be answered. whether the physicians bringing these kagss on behalf of their clients are the appropriate parties to be bringing these cases and if they determine that they're not, that will have enormous repercussions for the litigation of abortion cases going forward. >> melissa and dahlia, thank you so much. wraps it up for this hour. al sharpton takes over at the top of the hour m he'll take to ma magic johnson about the unique way he's trying to get funding to minority owned businesses. that's up next on politics nation. this is my body of proof. proof i can fight moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. proof i can fight psoriatic arthritis... ...with humira. proof of less joint pain... ...and clearer skin in psa. humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation

just as gorsuch did say about a $1000 fine does not change the way and elector is voting. what about this new law in colorado and washington, where if an elector renders a faithless vote that removes him from office as a matter of law. is that consistent with the constitution? -- there are good, in its current firm at -- in its current format, the judges work hard to pose the most challenging questions to the advocates on both sides. inis harder to get a read or where theyon might be leaning -- on where they might be leaning. i really hope they do. i hope this is not one of the has standingobody where we do not have jurisdiction or whatever. this issue should be decided now and not in december, 2020 or 8 when it is in the middle of a contested election where the supreme court decision would describe -- would decide the outcome of the election. it is important to have clarity in advance. >> your brief for the campaign legal center -- i think i can disclose the date. you get outke sure before our listeners all the arguments and it. . -- and it -- appointment and for that rea

ushered in such a great, robust economy with 7 million new jobs, deregulation, energy independence, gorsuch and kavanaugh on the bench, the list goes on and on. our voters want to see you run with him, and that's your best way to win and keep the senate. lou: hooray. and this isn't clear and apparent to the majority leader of the united states senate. i -- he is one of the most confused pablum-spewing majority leaders i've ever seen, and there have been some beauties for the republicans, as you well know. but for this man to do that going into an election five months from now against, i think, the greatest president this country's ever had. no one's ever had to meet the challenges he has, overcome them and secure and restore prosperity and, by the way, maintain piece throughout. peace throughout. while dealing with a, an attempt to subvert and a plot to overthrow him. i mean, good lord almighty, what in, what does mitch mcconnell drink? what does -- because it sure isn't kentucky bourbon. >> well, i'll give you data on this. so we went and did an autopsy of 2018 and the races that were lost

justice gorsuch. >> i would like to continue the same line of questioning. if states enjoy plenary power to remove electors what would prohibit them from passing the ball to say that all have to vote for presidential candidates that support certain positions or who have done certain things or have visited the state? i understand your argument that is the states can't change the rules after the election and have to provide a notice. but they did it well in advance what would prohibit them from doing so in your view? >> i'm trying to square how this fits with the popular vote system because if you give people the power to vote and they exercise the power, then the argument is you count their vote. what i believe he would be getting out a is a preclearance process where you have to be clear what could be on the ballot before people can vote on them. >> you indicated it would be fine for people that have an advisory vote for those two then make the final decision. why couldn't you also have a system in which they provided advice and certain parameters set by the