supreme court. i'mdc not trying to put myself n their league, that the answer to question is yes, there certainly is a long history of academics being nominated to the federal courts. >> and i guess you've also been criticized for your relationship with judge kavanaugh. you clicked for judge kavanaugh on the d.c. circuit, is that right? >> that is correct, senator. >> and i think the way judge kavanaugh was treated during the confirmation process is a stain on the senate judiciary committee and on the united states senate. it was absolutely disgraceful and completelys unjustified. now, you made some statements in defense of judge kavanaugh while you were law professor, correct? he uk some tv interviews and the like? >> i did. >> is it unusual in your experience for law professors to opine either on judicial nominations or on legal matters that are being considered in the public arena? >> it's not at all unusual. in fact, i think i could go so far as to say that for many law professors eats these imp

court today, which will also take their place in history among the 2020 supreme court

were not held in the supreme court chamber. and lori garrett is back with us tonight. we'll get her reaction to the testimony we heard from members of the trump coronavirus task force in that senate hearing today. tonight, donald trump is a man alone. the republican senate, who stood by president trump in his impeachment trial, are not standing by him in his trial by a public jury during the coronavirus pandemic. and that means that dr. anthony fauci was able to speak publicly today about the pandemic, without donald trump over his shoulder disagreeing with him. in testimony to the senate health education labor and pensions committee, when dr. fauci discussed his expectation that there will be a second wave of coronavirus in the united states, donald trump was not there to grab the microphone after him and say, i don't think that will happen. when dr. fauci said that it was not extremely likely but just more likely than not that we will have a vaccine within a year or two, donald trump was not there to offer his scientific opin

. >> "dissenting at the supreme court" is a lecture series hosted by the supreme court historical society. next on american history tv, university of arkansas law professor is introduced by justice stephen breyer, then discusses the dissenting opinions delivered in cases between 1810 and 1927. >> good evening. i from atlanta. serve as president of the supreme court historical society. i am pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this year's series. this year we are examining dissents, not majority opinions, different aspects thereof. you have been warned about your cell phones and apple watches so forth, so i will not appear that, but you will be in the doghouse if it goes off during the period of our evening. i also want to thank our host , justice stephen breyer, who against all odds agreed to come and introduce our speaker this evening on the first day of a busy term. justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends of the society. whenever we have called on him to help us out, he has shown up and done a wonderful job. i want to thank him for taking time away from his busy sch

supreme court with the possibility of lower courts so in that hierarchy whatever the supreme court says, that is the law for a lower court judge whether on the western district of kentucky or if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed to the dc circuit. >> the problem is we expect honesty, humility and impartiality. you have not been the least bit impartial with the affordable care act. your legal or constitutional contempt is obvious. you call it the indefensible decision to uphold the affordable care act at your own ceremonial investiture is the supreme court standing by you you mocked it when justice kennedy was told the rationale for the affordable care act , now we are in the midst of a pandemic the question is asked can i protect myself, my family if i have to face this virus? that's a question people face many times each day. here you come before us asking for a lifetime appointment mocking the law that provides the attempt to extend health insurance to more americans do you understand the angst and concerned that we have to put you in that position at this moment in history? >> speakin

claiming in court that maybe nixon wouldn't comply with the supreme court's ruling, the nixon white house did pledge to comply with the court order and they did. mostly by then, the country was just agog, they wanted to hear what was on the tapes but in terms of the constitutional issue at the time, the nation was just agog that nixon even tried to get away with it, that nixon even tried to get away with putting himself above the law like that, by saying that subpoenas didn't apply to him, they couldn't be enforced, and maybe he wouldn't even listen to the supreme court. a lot of what was going on the last time the supreme court heard a case this big like the one they're about to hear tomorrow, the feeling of the country was it was astonishing that nixon had even tried it. >> the president elected in history's biggest landslide, 19 months after his inaugural address, threatened with impeachment, and removal from office. his vice president already gone. in disgrace. and now, hearing from the supreme court, that a president, any president, must obey the law, and the courts. only in re

no one was actually in the supreme court when the supreme court heard arguments in two cases involving donald trump's tax returns. neal katyal, who has argued many cases, was listening to every word. he will join us with his assessment of who is likely to win the legal battles over donald trump's tax returns. trus we turn to the most certain thing there is. science. science can overcome diseases. create cures. and yes, beat pandemics. it has before. it will again. because when it's faced with a new opponent, it doesn't back down - it revs up. asking questions 'til it finds what it's looking for. that's the power of science. so we're taking our science and unleashing it. our research, experts and resources. all in an effort to advance potential therapies and vaccines. other companies and academic institutions are doing the same. the entire global scientific community is working together to beat this thing. and we're using science to help make it happen. because when science wins, we all win. they're going to be paying for this for a long time. they will, but with accident forgiveness al

did the supreme court -- for what was right. >> supreme court justices are not shy. some of the justices felt that too grand,lding was was too grandiose. chief justice stone is alleged to have said that the justices were like nine black beetles into the temple of karnak, and maybe they should ride in each morning on elephants. >> setting a record with over 75 million pounds of marble used in its construction, when it opened in 1935, seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers in the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices their -- and didn't want to leave the former chambers which were in the basement of the senate. he said, if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again. but he was wrong. brandeis said he would not come in here. the reason justice brandeis would not come is because he said the building was so elaborate, it would go to their heads. maybe he was right. it has become over time it , becomes a symbol of the third branch of government, and the need for stability, rule of law, which is what

we can't go to the supreme court this time. we can't even camp out to be able to watch those arguments, and that's a drag. but unusually because of the crisis that we're in, we can all listen in live to tomorrow's arguments because the circumstances of the epidemic mean that these cases are now not conducted at the supreme court building. they are conducted telephonically. so there is public access to the arguments in real time, which is going to make tomorrow an amazing day. i mean this is the case tomorrow where president trump is arguing that his financial records, his taxes, his bank records can't be handed over in response to subpoenas because the president says he has absolute immunity from the law, absolute immunity from having to comply with any kind of oversight, including having to respond to lawful subpoenas. this is the case, you may remember, where the president's lawyer literally said in open court that the president really could not be charged with murder. he couldn't even be arrested. he couldn't even be stopped

regardless of the political overtones of the supreme court decision, we still know what we need to do. as i said before, the virus hasn't changed and neither has the science. we will continue with our testing and contact tracing efforts around the state and we'll continue to ensure our critical workers have the equivalent they need to do their jobs safely. i urge anyone who needs a test to go get tested at one of our community testing sites and help protect your community and family from this virus. let's stay the course, wisconsin. i know we're up to this challenge. and now, before secretary d designee andrea palm gives her updates i'd like you to hear from one of the workers on the front line, laura anderson. laura? >> my name is laura anderson and i'm a family and women's health practitioners in beloit. we're one of 18 healthcare services in wisconsin providing health care to services who need them the most. our doors are open for whatever. families, children, farm workers, the homeless and those who are uninsured, on medicaid, or who have private insurance. we are usually located

the supreme court of the united states has ruled many times that a state supreme court has the final say on the meaning of a state constitution and state statutes. so this is it. the governors people know it's not even worth trying to file an appeal because the supreme court simply won't. >> bill: is wisconsin that exclusive or could you find this elsewhere? >> you could find this in almost any state in the union. it actually begin right here where i am in new jersey, the new jersey supreme court which had been repeatedly reversed by the u.s. supreme court for making rulings on federal issues and realize if it based its rulings on state issues, the u.s. supreme court would not get involved. the state supreme court ruled 4-3 upholding the authority of the governors locked on orders. same orders, different state constitution, different state statutes and different state supreme court. so you may have as these cases mature and get the states to supreme court, a variety of different rulings. unless they are based on several issues than the u.s. supreme court is not going to get that. >>

justice ginsburg in the hospital as a major case lands in the supreme court tomorrow morning. we will update you on both but first, lieutenant governor planning to reopen the economy including california, oregon, washington, virginia and pennsylvania. we are talking about reopening's across the country. what is next for your status each governor take specific steps tailored to his or her state. a new study on the nature of communication says researchers created an antibody that neutralizes the coronavirus. they say the antibody could alter the course of the virus or protect the healthy host from ever being infected. mark stein tweeting nba practices may soon return. facilities will be open to teams in states where shelter in place regulations are lifted by friday pending new developments. a massachusetts golf course owner will reopen this we going against the state's lockdown orders. the owner of the golf club says her family business will not survive if it stays closed much longer, golfers will be required to wear gloves and facemasks before they can tea off. yep, free. class

first, the supreme court has not been consistent. if you look at the common sense that they were pointing to, you have say an entity like planned parenthood. you have the aclu and then the 501 c. four. and on the one hand, planned parenthood saying we are a nonprofit group and on the other hand in entity battling for particular candidates and that is their right to do that. but it's also legitimate for congress to say you are entitled to the nonprofit status if you are a campaign entity. so, you have the same logo, same name, same general worldview and get the formalistic distinction if you had a different formal status. is the guy on the street going to say it looks the same to me? probably. does it matter nonetheless. we have advanced the inconsistency on whether it is decisive and people have said in the context that it does matter. so why can't the same distinction apply for domestic entity that is restricted but we have the entity that is restricted and that is part of the territory. now the second point i want to make is part o

supreme court life. this month, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the court is hearing oral arguments in 10 cases by telephone. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the justices here the court of the trademark office against booking.com. toinvolves the site's effort trademark its website. live, today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. immediately following the live supreme court session, joint jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center, leading a live discussion with scholars. heard that you have done cybersecurity checks in your office. concern thatt of members of congress don't know how to practice good cyber hygiene. >> i have taken two trips and i have a phone that checks out from the travel office. many members do this but many don't know its a priority. you never know if you plug that phone and if it will charge or what will get loaded on it, who might come in contact with it. >> virginia democratic representative abigail spanberger on the steps she takes t

supreme court's president as well as the supreme court's precedent. whether i faithfully like the outcome or not or agree with the president or not. that has no case either in judging. sen. ernst: my time is expired, but i appreciate you being here, being willing to serve the american people, and being very upfront about some of the issues that you tackled as a member of the house in mississippi and what we can expect for you federal bench, so thank you very much. i appreciate it. judge wilson: thank you, senator. sen. graham: thank you. now the very patient and kind senator blumenthal. [laughs] sen. blumenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the very kind and patient senator graham. ishink your nomination really unfortunate and in many ways indefensible, judge. it is not that i disagree with you -- i do, i many of the positions that you have taken. you have called marriage equality "a french idea," you have spoken out against women's reproductive rights, you supported positions that would involve voter suppression, but on this issue of the aff

supreme court li life. in may due to the coronavirus pandemic the court is hearing oral arguments in ten cases by teleconference. c-span will provide live coverage of each of these sessions. first up, on monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern the justices hear the case of u.s. patent and trademark office versus booking .com for the case concerns the travel companies cite to trademark its website via -- be a part of history and listen to the supreme court oral arguments as they are heard by the justices live monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and ondemand@c-span .org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> 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 uni

and focuses all the time on the supreme court. i'm fascinated by other institutions that are really intertwined with and do a lot of constitutional law. presidency. congress. so i've been particularly interested in how presidents impact the understanding of the constitution and its development over time. i'm also -- this is the second reason. i think of myself sometimes as a child of watergate. i grew up in the shadow of watergate and watergate shaped a lot of my understanding of constitutional law particularly the conflicts between presidents and congress. and so, out of that shadow we get jimmy carter. but we also get nixon and ford. it also changes i think a lot how we view constitutional law these days. that's another reason i got interested. >> jeffrey rosen? >> susan said i'm a journalist at heart. i only write on deadline and to assignment. [ laughter ] the first biographies i wrote were assignments. for taft it was this wonderful presidential series. i didn't know much about the man before the assignment and i was so excit

was actually in the supreme court when the supreme court heard arguments in two cases involving president trump's tax returns. neil, who has argued many cases, was listening to every word. he will join us with his assessment of who is likely to win the legal battles over president trump's tax returns. dad? i didn't do it. #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide. that family doesn't have to take out of their house. it relieves stress off of me to let me know i'm doing something good for the community, not just papa john's. iibut that doesn't mean ayou're in this alone., we're automatically refunding our customers a portion of their personal auto premiums. we're also offering flexible payment options for those who've been financially affected by the crisis. we look forward to returning to something that feels a little closer to life as we knew it, but until then you can see how we're here to help at libertymutual.com/covid-19. [ piano playing ] ♪ ambient sound fades in and plays throughout. ♪ ♪ ambient sound begins to rise. ♪ ♪ ambient crescendos and then goes s

code having been drawn by congress of a series of supreme court decisions. the reservation language was what the argument in the precursor to this case that was last year's murphy case and there is loads of history and everyone who goes to school the united states is about indian reservations and treaties in the sort of thing, the indian community is a little unusual for people and it's actually a new mexico creation, what happened new mexico was a territory, federal territory for a long time and in the course of new mexico's territorial history the question arose are the plum blows indians for purposes of application and federal indian statutes specifically a statute called the trading intercourse act among other things prohibit the sale of alcohol to indians in indian countries and a bunch of merchants and speculators in the non-indian communities in albuquerque running out to the problems selling alcohol to the public citizens and getting busted for it by the feds. prior to statehood, the state turned to real court said this is fine because they are not i

but today he was at the supreme court hoping that the supreme court unlike every other court that has heard these arguments thus far will agree with him, block the enforcements of those subpoenas, and hopefully, i'm assuming, they want the court to side with the president in what appears at least to me to be a truly novel argument that he is not only immune from prosecution, he is immune from being investigated. a supreme court ruling against the president would mean that the financial information he's been fighting so hard to keep secret could be turned over to congress as soon as this summer. but it seems like anything including a black and white yes or no decision and a lot of gray areas in between is possible at this point. boy is this a moment where i would like somebody to explain to me what we can glean from today's hearings, someone who has, say, decades of experience dissecting supreme court oral arguments. thankfully joining me is nina toten berg, npr's correspondent. thanks for making the time. >> and it's a pleasure to be here and to actually be able to have put on a littl

justices of the supreme court of the united states. all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to get their attention where the court is now sitting. we will hear an argument this morning on case 1946 united states patent and trademark

the supreme court live wednesday on c-span. on demand, on c-span.org or listed on the free c-span radio app. immediately following the live supreme court session, joined jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center leading a live discussion with scholars. >> today the house revealed its plan, the covid for bill. it's big and bold, just what america needs. our problems are large, they are enormous. they are on the health from the economic front and it will take big, bold, action to help the american people. and so i am supportive of the plan that speaker pelosi has put together. the bottom line is very, very simple. what is it going to take for mitch mcconnell to wake up and see that the american people need help and need it now. what is it going to take for him to understand there are miles and miles of lines trying to get food. the first time people who have always fed their families are trying to get food to feed their kids. for the first time, people who never worried about paying the mortgage or paying the rent are wor

the supreme court made it clear. this is not our gig. what we were going to be continued to focus on is making sure we have contact tracing and massive testing to make sure we have equipment for those frontline workers. and that we attack and deal with any surge that will happen, because of this discussion -- or decision by the state supreme court. >> thank you, emily. >> now to riley from the wisconsin state journal. riley? >> thanks for taking my call. governor givers, can you please describe -- governor evers, can you please describe the bare minimum restrictions that you are willing to accept and that republicans are willing to accept in this emergency world? >> we made no decisions on that today. >> thank you, riley. >> now to glenn from the wheeler report. glenn? >> governor, can you say what you plan to advise state employees to do? will you make any changes with the state parks or opening and closing of the state capital? >> state parks, we have opened them up. i don't see any changes there. i have not had a chance to talk to the

supreme court life this month. due to the coronavirus pandemic the justices are hearing oral arguments by teleconference. c-span will provide live coverage of each of these sessions wednesday at 10 :00 a.m. eastern. the justices hear two cases, little sisters is of the poor versus pennsylvania and trump versus pennsylvania, and argument on the constitutional ity of the health care act. and a first admin that case on banning automated calls to cell phones in order to collect debt on behalf of the united states. be a part of history and listen to the supreme court oral arguments as they heard by the justices live wednesday at 10 :00 a.m. eastern on c-span, on demand on c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. immediately following the live session, joined jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center with a live discussion with scholars. today the senate banking committee holds a confirmation anding for brian miller live coverage begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ television has changed and c-sp

the supreme court is imbued in great tradition. we joke that the quills they give to the oral advocates is how they would write their opinions. there are justices that still write out in longhand on a legal pad rather than type at computers the way most people would do today. ♪ >> the supreme court, rich with tradition, is a very human institution. a newer custom takes place following oral argument. one encouraged by the first female justice. [bell ringing] ♪ >> it is a beautiful room. very well furnished. but the food is not exactly haute cuisine. it comes from the public cafeteria. the justices eat the same things that any visitor to the court might choose for lunch. you will be surprised by the high level of collegiality. justice scalia once commented in his early years on the court, there was no justice with whom he disagreed more often than justice brennan. and yet, justice scalia considered justice brennan his best friend on the court at that time. he thought the feeling was reciprocated. >> this is a tradition, eating lu

they can sue each other in the supreme court. those cases, the disestablishment indian cases are a subset of that, where you have been expressed constitutional provision that says you have to have consent. you have to fight it. it is a psalm statute in the constitution. the court has addressed these cases and there is a set of factors that are relevant and all three of them broadly mentioned. but with the court has those cases and has had to deal with them, it goes through all the history that justice kavanaugh is talking about. the way that these have gone has made it difficult. justice kavanaugh is saying if you go to the history, you may find the answer you're are looking for in a different place, in a different way and it may be informed by the history. so just really quickly, i will try to tell you a 100 year story that should be a miniseries with six seasons on hbo. when settlers came here and there were different tribes, there were different responses to what was going on. there was a lot of violent conflict. there were so

on the supreme court. i am fascinated by other institutions that are intertwined with constitutional law. the presidency, congress. i have been particularly interested in how the president impacts the understanding of the constitution and its development over time. the second reason, i think of myself sometimes as a child of watergate. i grew up in the shadow of watergate, and watergate shaped a lot of my understanding of constitutional law, particularly the conflict between presidents and congress. and so, out of that shadow we get jimmy carter. but we also get nixon and ford. it also changes i think a lot of how we view constitutional law these days. that is another reason i got interested. jeffrey: i am a journalist at heart, so i only write on deadline and to assignment. [laughter] the first biographies i wrote were assignments. i did not know about either man and i was excited about learning about an underappreciated figure and was excited to share him with the world. i resonated with the writing hist

. >>> today, the supreme court continues hearing oral argument via teleconference. first, a consolidated case dealing with president trump's financial records and whether the president's personal financial records prior to becoming president can be subpoenaed. then a look at whether the president has immunity from subpoenas. the supreme court live today on c-span, on demand on c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. immediately following the live supreme court session, join jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center, leading a live discussion with scholars. >>> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events, from the presidential primaries through the impeachment process and now the federal response to the coronavirus. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online or listen on our free radio app and be part of the national conversation through c-span's daily washington journal program or through our social media feeds. c-span, created by america's capable tele

i think we're always doing that and it's not just the supreme court federal courts larry so big cases that happen in federal courts we don't see we never see these cases and it's unfortunate it's really unfortunate because it's our government you know that they work for us the judges the prosecutors they don't work for us yet we don't get to see them do our work vinnie you're always on the mark thanks for joining us good seeing you again great to see you larry have awesome day stay safe vinnie politan more politicking after this. you cannot be done with yet you are. during the vietnam war u.s. forces also bomb to neighboring laos it was a secret war. and for years the american people do not know. how my skin is especially the must have rebounded country per capita all human history millions of unexploded bombs still in danger lives in this small agricultural country jordyn wieber went on a canal tap and then even today kids in laos full victims of bombs dropped decades ago is the us making amends for that tragedy and what help do the people need in that little land of mines. seemed wr

i think we're always doing that and it's not just the supreme court federal courts larry so big cases that happen in federal courts we don't see we never see these cases any other foreign it will but it's really unfortunate because it's our government you know that they work for us the judges the prosecutors they all work for us yet we don't get to see them do our work vinnie you're always on the mark thanks for joining us good seeing you again great to see you larry have awesome day stay safe . vinnie politan more politicking after this. we go to work so you straight home. it's. easy to guess that if you skip the you because you knew you could see you could only keep so close we could feel lucky if you could. still see. it's a clue someone is not jealous contents and should want to. thank you sure this means for us please include this is. just a cute name you can anything use if there's. going to sleep let's just are you finished. to get food you got the. money and come down you from me my siblings want to do you no more. pleasant i don't think not. 54 jobs and more than 1300 militar

gore ended the election when al gore accepted defeat after the supreme court ruling. he didn't take his fight on to congress. this year the loser as rick said might not accept the feet, even a judicial defeat and says i'm still going to keep fighting. and if the dispute goes to congress, congress does not have adequate rules. goes back to the 12th amendment we talked about different aspects of the 12th amendment of the 12th amendment doesn't tell us what to do if there's a fight over who one. this surface back in 1876 which nobody remembers because we were not around then, but that was a fight that was even uglier than 2000. i'm worried that this year if we get the kind of nightmare scenario that rick is talking about, it will look more like 1876 that will 2000, and congress is ready for that and that worries me. >> wow. well, several of our viewers have questions about these nightmare scenarios. stephen smith as should we because -- should be concerned house instead of not be able to meet in january to certify winter or anything of the candidate receiving the majorit

it will be a big day on the supreme court. we're going to leave it there. >>> coming up, we're going to go back to coronavirus and reopening america. the biggest worry experts are sounding the alarm over. people, americans, not adhering to the new rules. why? because they don't believe the dangers of coronavirus. and that could cost lives. a doctor here next with the life-and-death warning. and we're watching capitol hill where dr. anthony fauci will testify in less than half an hour from now. do not go anywhere. it's a big day in news. so you only pay for what you need! [squawks] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ happy birthday! so, it goes... ♪ hold up your answers. how is mickey doing today? ♪ you're just a really hard worker. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a c

supreme court riven this judge that someone who doesn't want to plead guilty and a prosecution that doesn't want to go forward and there is some evidence as potentially exculpatory now has now come out i can't imagine that conviction standing up but we shall see because politics are a bath and a thing can happen supreme court heard arguments or news day on the trial much to lois's from has us president kenny be sued can he be for sure lisa's taxes they seem mix in their questioning how do you think it's going to come up. all right and there's 2 separate issues right there's a there's a congress that is trying to get a hold of some financial documents and you've got a grand jury with the new york state attorney general doing an investigation looking for the tax returns and again looking for stuff from 3rd parties but obviously president trump is in the middle of all this i think that i think congress is going to have a difficult time because this is about a balance of powers and you know 2 separate branches of government and i think the supreme court's going to step in and ultimately

but the supreme court is open. it is a central part of government that confronts issues that will not wait. they ruled on whether to spare or green light executions or whether to force the release of donald trump's tax returns. the court tackled that very case this week. or how the electoral college must function, or tackling these big obamacare lawsuits, or deciding whether key political convictions stand. the court now issuing a huge ruling on that infamous bridgegate scandal, the payback controversy that exploded inside new jersey governor chris christie's administration as he was prepping a presidential run. i'm sure you remember the big picture of it. key officials shut down lanes on the world's busiest bridge creating not only massive traffic back in 2013, but some risk to the citizens they were supposed to serve. it was a revenge plot to punish a democrat that christie was mad at. now tonight we have an exclusive for you on this story given a set of new court documents in this scandal, which of course set of

this parts of the court order was brought by republicans to the supreme court to try to get the courts to reverse it and that's what the courts did on 5 Ã4 vote breaking along the traditional ideological lines we've seen with the courts the conservatives saying even in the context of emergency you can't change the rules for election close to an election, that's the per Ãbthere are going to be some voters who will not even receive their ballots absentee ballots in the mail we will have a chance to bow, those voters will be disenfranchised, voters should have to put their health up against the right to vote. in the end we know that voting took place many more people voted by a valid turnout overall was not Ãbwe know at least hundreds of voters probably thousands of voters did not get a chance to vote by absentee ballot because of the supreme court ruling. it really put this classic question, when is it important to in elections to sit to rules and winter circumstances so exigent you need to bend those rules in the name of preventing disenfranchised. that's how i would characterize the

a number of cases coming before the supreme court this week. on monday, whether states can prosecute native americans for crimes committed on tribal lands. and then schools are exempt from oneral discrimination laws, tuesday, two cases that deal with president trump's financial his personalhether financial records prior to becoming president can be subpoenaed. wednesday is another day of combined cases. whether states can act against electoral college delegates who failed to vote for the presidential candidate they pledged to vote for. you can watch oral arguments on the c-span networks. on c-span.org and listen with the free c-span radio app. new york governor andrew cuomo held a briefing on his state's response to the coronavirus pandemic. the governor reported the latest mortality numbers, along with the decline in hospitalizations and new cases. governor cuomo said the new york department of health is investigating how covid-19 impacts young people after hospitals reported that some children were diagnosed with an inflammatory illness. diff

the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court.

for the first time in american history, the supreme court has been broadcasting live oral arguments in the national constitutional center and c-span has been here with you to convene the arguments. america's leading thinkers on both sides of the case to be heard, and to learn together the cases we have heard. we have developed a nice ritual together of beginning our by reciting the inspiring mission of the national constitution center, which comes from the u.s. bicentennial, which is when the national constitution center was founded. along with me. the national constitutional center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to andease awareness understanding of the constitution among the american people. time ihe chills every recited. that is what we are doing together, in the spirit of learning. thanks for engaging us in this experiment. tom excited to welcome you talk about the remarkable arguments we just heard about whether or not the states of washington and colorado can pass to v

and he wanted to be appointed to the supreme court. and he thought that woodrow wilson would appoint him. so he was so devoted to the legitimacy of the court, that he would join decisions, even if he disagreed, and they would set aside their disagreements to converge and they end up working together well. but test shows that there's no necessary correlation between virtue, because he was it an incredibly devoted husband, he lovingly nursing his wife back to health, after she had a stroke, and taking days to teacher to speak again, devoted to his kids, who did so well and his daughter helen, who became a distinguished history professor, but none of that means you're good man or good leader. because leadership requires things like deliberation, flexibility, competing points of view, listen to your opponents, just thinking aloud i, remember reading one anti nixon historian who said that nixon was the only truly wicked president that we have. i do not think that's true, i love presidential biographies and there is such a human side to nixo

c challenges which o of the wisconsin supreme court and the united states supreme court. theyey refused to also postpone splitting onby ideological lines. there were manany, many more peoplele trying to vote e by man wisconsin than ever had done befofore. they went from 3% over 70%. that w was really hard for local election officials to handle. they got behinind on mailing out ballots. there were prprobably about 12,0 people w who did not get theirir ballots in time to vote.e. the otheher problem was there we cities that could only open a few polling place is because a lot of their poll workers, a lot of the older people, did not feel safer working the polls. you saw these very long lines of people trying to social distatae , standiding in line to vote. unfortunately, there been some coronavirus infectionsns that we linked t to the polls t that da. amy: how many do you expect? closely last time i checked it was over 50. amy: i would ask about that moment i the wisconsin primary that laid bare the voting crisis that coronavirus poses here. election took place on april 7 af

the supreme court live monday on c-span. on demand at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. immediately following the live supreme court session, join the national constitution center leading a live discussion with scholars. ofouncer: next, university california berkeley law professor john yoo, who served as the deputy assistant attorney general during the george w. bush administration on federalism during the coronavirus pandemic. mr. yoo explores the constitutionality of contact tracing, states rights to requisition coronavirus tests, and the presidential power to utilize the defense production act. >> today's briefing is from john yoo. it is entitled covid-19 and federalism. john is a fellow at the hoover institution and served in all three branches of government, including the u.s. primitive justice, senate judiciary -- department of justice, senate judiciary committee, and supreme court. prof. yoo: thanks for tuning in. i can see you on the others of the zoom. sometimes that can lead to very disturbing imag

supreme court advocacy, appellate work, criminal law, private practice, academia, and so on prior to their nominations. mr. walker has been a district court nominee -- a district court judge, rather, for less than a year. less than a year. he had no trial experience retire to that. inexperience aside, bad enough as that is, walker's views are way out of the mainstream. in 2018, he described chief justice roberts' opinion upholding our health care law as indefensible and catastrophic. meanwhile, he praised a dissenting opinion by then-judge kavanaugh's road map for the supreme court to validate it. every republican who votes for this nominee, mr. walker, will be voting to dismantle the a.c.a. and take millions of people's health care away from them if his statements prove to be how he judges things, which seems very likely, given previous experience of other nominees like this. this week, legal briefs are due in the supreme court case that will determine the future of our health care law. in the midst of a global pandemic, at a time when our health care system has never been more impo

. >> dissenting at the supreme court is a lecture series hosted by the supreme court historical society. next on american history to become a university of arkansas law professor mark is introduced by stephen breyer. they discuss the details of several dissenting opinions decided between 1810 and 1927. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am from atlanta. and i currently serve as president of the supreme court historical society. i am

. >>> the honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court for the united states are admonished to give their attention for the court is now sitting. we will hear arguments first this morning case 189526 mcgirt