supreme court. the bill would add four justices to the bench and reshape the judicial landscape in america. i'm harris faulkner and you are in the "the faulkner focus". republicans are calling it a dangerous power grab. if it were to become law president biden would be able to fill those additional supreme court seats and tip the ideological balance of the court toward a liberal majority. last week the president announced a commission to study court reforms saying the system was, quote, unquote, getting out of whack. back in 1983 as a senator, biden, well, feelings were quite different. >> president roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the united states senate and congress a proposal to pack the court. it was totally within his right to do that. he violated no law, he was legalistically correct, but it was a bone-head idea. it was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. >> harris: of course the dates have changed. top republicans say democrats are now only concerned with one thing on this day, p

just below the supreme court. the number of seats on the supreme court has historically matched the number of federal circuits. every justice on the court has a sort of jurisdiction to hear last-minute appeals that emanate from that jurisdiction. you frequently hear about death penalty cases that get to the supreme court on appeal and there is a midnight decision about whether to stay the execution. the justices that issue those opinions match up geographically with certain federal circuits they are in charge of. but because there are nine supreme court justices and 13 circuits, certain justices have multiple circuits because we have never had the size be adjusted to match the current level of federal circuit courts, 13. host: when was the last time an adjustment was made on the court? guest: after the civil war. in the 1860's, the court changed three times. tatty as stevens and the republican party supported abolition of slavery and wanted their reconstruction effort to have real teeth added a 10th justice to the

and if we pack the supreme court, politicize the supreme court, they call it democratize the supreme court, than everyday americans need to worry about first amendment rights to speak or worship or second amendment rights to protect ourselves. those rights will be on the line if we have a politicized supreme court filled with liberal judicial activists. pedro: mary on our independent line, fort myers, florida, you are on with ike davis of the article three project. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i listened to both the gentleman speaking about the supreme court. i don't think there is anything supreme about the supreme court. there is no separation between church and state, nothing like that, and they are always in hiding. they hardly work. they should be like every politician all the way up the line, should be punching a clock like every other taxpayer. and they should be accountable for the hours that they spend. and they shouldn't be paid anymore. i would like to see a total of how much of our tax dollars pays all of these people, their health care,

that the supreme court is broken. do you think the supreme court is broken? >> senator, i've never said anything about the supreme court being broken, and, again, you know, i am not able to comment on the structure, the size, the functioning even of the supreme court. >> and, finally, demand justice says that the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interests on their website. judge jackson, ms. jackson, do you agree with that or disagree, or do you have no opinion? judge jackson first? >> senator, i, again, am not able to make any comment about whether or not the supreme court is influenced in the way that demand justice apparently, as you say, believes that it is. so i don't have a comment. >> thank you. ms. jackson? >> yes, senator. i am not aware of that quote by demand justice or anything they have said, quite frankly. but, likewise, the code of conduct for united states judges does apply to nominees as well. and so, like judge jackson, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type o

supreme court, the texas supreme court and lower civilian and military courts. in addition to teaching professor vladic is a distinguished scholar at the center for security and law, a senior editor of the peer reviewed journal of national security law and policy and a supreme court fellow at the constitution project. he's also the co-host of the national security law podcast, cnn's supreme court analyst and the executive editor of the just security blog and a senior editor of the law fare blog. professor vladic received his jd and if you'd give me just one second. welcome professor vladic, and next i'd like to introduce a civil rights lawyer who mitigates issues of national importance in federal courts across the country including the u.s. supreme court. he is director of the washington, d.c. office of the mcarthur justice center, a premier national civil rights law firm and deputy director of the organization's supreme court and appellate program. mr. ali also teaches as harvard law school where he directs the law school's criminal justice appellate clinic. mr

supreme court. her writing has appeared in the new york times, the washington post, and other publications. leah graduated summa cum laude from the university of michigan law school. after law school, clerked for judge jeffrey sutton of the u.s. court of appeals and for justice anthony kennedy u.s. supreme court. leah maintains an active pro bono practice and serves on the board of academic devises of the american constitution society. finally, a strategic sit -- consultant for the leadership conference on human rights. nancy was a part of various lobbying efforts, including task forces on education reform, hate crime, affirmative action, and judicial reformation and the 1990's. nancy worked at common cause and women's equity action league and was the director of public policy and government relations at the american association university of women. she was chief lobbyist and managed coordination of the equal rights amendment, women's vote project, and civil rights act. let's give all our panelists

before he went to the supreme court. he could go straight there because the constitution gives the court, the supreme court, original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party, and georgia was a party, and it also -- the federal judicial power extends to suits between a state and foreign states or foreign nations. georgia is a state and the cherokee nation is a foreign state. it's a foreign state because a state just means a political entity and it's clearly a political entity. it's got a constitution and stuff. and it's foreign because none of its citizens are u.s. citizens. so it has to be foreign. it can't be anything else. and this is the argument that he made. and this is -- and so this is the argument on which jurisdiction rested. so if the court doesn't find that to be true, then they can't consider the case on the merits, and that ended up being the big stumbling block. here is the court at the time. one justice, justice duvall, was absent and didn't participate. these six guys did. they split three ways in

of the supreme court. >> demand justice claims the supreme court is broken. do you think the supreme court is broken? >> . >> i have never said anything about the supreme court being broken. i was not able to comment on the structure or the size or the functioning of the supreme court. >> finally, demand justice says that the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interest on their website. judge jackson, do you agree with that or disagree? or no opinion? >> again, or whether or not the supreme court so now i don't have a comment. >> i am not aware of that quotation by demand justice or anything they have said quite frankly. but the code of conduct for the united states judges do apply to nominees as well. so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type of views on the supreme court or the supreme court rulings. those would be binding on me as a circuit judge. >> good luck to both of you. >> . >> banks and welcome to you both and the committee. that is the nature of the pandemi

press very short introduction to the supreme court, which is apparently sold out currently at the supreme court. a biography of justice blackmon and co-wrote history of roe vs wade and in her newest book the burger cart, she turns her attention to the court between 1969 and 1986 when the chief justice was the nixon appointed warren burger received wisdom as we were just discussing at the desk about this period in the court's history. isn't that much happened? there was some big decisions. there was roe v wade, so that was good and that that was it. not not so much greenhouse takes the idea part and she and her co-author michael gratz show the ways that the conservative mainly nixon appointed burger court reversed or undercut the president sat by the liberal court led by chief justice warren curbing civil rights and individual liberties while extending first demand that rights to businesses the first time. i could draw some connections here, but you're not actually here to listen to me talk about the court. you're here for linda greenhouse. so please join me in welcoming her to politics. t

we can expand the supreme court. and together, we can finally restore government by the people, instead of government by the powerful. >> tucker: so, the supreme court did the insurrection of january 6th, the qanon court, if you will. bet you didn't knowec that. mondaire jones didn't know it, either, he was just reading what they wrote for him on the card. who is the "they," by the way? that is a slick video. did not maketh it in a basement. who paid for it? was it funded by big corporations who finish telling us jim crow racism? we called around to find out and ask the ceo of coca-cola, longtime head of amazon jeff bezos, other ceos, all of those business titans have been happy to weigh in with full force. it is their business. it's up to them now. we wondered what their view was of turning our highest court into a legislative body. of making our last officially nonpartisan institution into something that is openly partisan, and therefore trusted by no one. we can only guess what they think about that because they d

court of appeals one step down from the supreme court. and there's i think only 50 or 51 obama judges reason for that is what you said. for the last two years of obama's presidency, mitch mcconnell basically shut down judicial confirmation actually there was -- there were two circuit judges that got through but that's, i mean, bush got ten or 11 through in the last -- in the last two years as president, and then, of course, there was merritt garland so had an inside impact on the court part it have was that mitch mcconnell was waiting for this moment but a huge part of it was that -- trump effectively filled all he should have gotten in a four-year term plus all of the seats that balm should have gotten to fill in the last two years. and so instead of a two term president with two terms worth of influence on judiciary and one term president who had half as much influence on the judiciary. you wound up having two president who is had effectively six years worth of impact on the judiciary. and again the reason why they did this was because

caller: i/o is called the supreme court the supremacy court. -- i always called the supreme court the supremacy court. if i were european, as the gentleman who called before, i might feel the same way, but the supreme court was beginning -- was racist from the beginning. do you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: you do have two ladies and the gentleman whom they want to retire, but judge thomas -- president george bush's father put clarence thomas there because he thought clarence thomas would not get chosen because he wanted to have an all-white supreme court. clarence thomas took thurgood marshall's place and there were so many more qualified than clarence thomas but george bush thought they will not see him and therefore i will have an all european male court. host: let's go to ashburn, virginia. he says, no, the supreme court should not be expanded. caller: i say no because expanding the court will be a cycle -- remember, the democrats when the nuclear option. secondly, i would say that president trump by not doing the construction work instead of attacking obamacare -- do not

court port -- the supreme court. there will not be a first lady box as there has been historically. while the speech will look and feel different, the president will preserve the future -- will preserve tradition. he will be wearing a mask. he will remove the mask when he delivers his speech. he will also be meeting with men and women who are at that who were at -- men and women who were at the capitol on january 6. host: saying it's 200 billion dollar program offering universal prekindergarten for all three and four-year-olds. 85 billion to increase pell grant's benefit low income and minority students and larger scholarship certification and support programs for teachers. the plan would bill upon -- would build upon the american rescue plan and make the earned income tax expansion permanent. it would make the child tax credit to lower income families. that's just what to expect of the president address tonight and we are asking you if you plan to watch it. i will -- let's start with burlington, north carolina. inde

gerrymandering which is the supreme court decision. and then to go back to the founding and even lawsuits go back many decades why are we hearing so much more about political gerrymandering these days?co and those that call to have more for political gerrymandering a judicial angle to say we have fancy computers now gerrymandering is so much worse. in our case at the was supreme court my friends on the other side will measure how bad of gerrymandering and under that metric in 19759 - - 1972 but then but the hunch it is even worse decades before to be constrained the most effective way to actually partisan gerrymander to create smaller districts for your population inol your political party. so what has actually changed? why is there so much more media attention on gerrymandering cracks because one theory of how to attack gerrymandering in court is labeled partisan symmetry. it favors one political party over the other. that one metric that is a driving force behind the lawsuit systematically democratic party. because there entire map i

but biden is boxed in on his past opposition to expanding the supreme court. he faced pressure during the 2020 race, and he did the not outline a specific position on whether he wanted to pack the court. that in itself became a storyline. so in a lot of ways biden could be potentially trying to have it both ways, to appease those progressive activists by taking the steps to form the commission, but he's not supporting the idea outright because he knows that's not popular broadly with voters. arthel: interesting point. you said what i was going to say, but you made an interesting point there. i want to share with everyone right now part of what senate minority leader mitch mcconnell had to say about this. it says, quote: this faux academic study of a nonexistent problem fits squarely within liberal' years-long campaign to politicize the court, intimidate its members and subvert its independence. sarah, what we're going to do right now is rewind the tape a bit to this past november, you remember it. then-president trump nominated amy coney barrett five weeks bef

in fact, there was a supreme court case not so long ago relating to this. i wonder if you expect that shift in any state and what the political consequences of a shift like that would mean. >> i don't think you will have that type of a shift. largely because as we look at the census, besides redistricting, which is one of the important things that comes out of a census, it is certainly about allocation of dollars, and therefore, most states probably are not looking to cut off dollars coming from the federal government. but under representing the number that may be there. i think you will find a much bigger push in terms of voter verification, citizen verification -- are you eligible to be a voter? those types of laws probably will be an earlier battleground for some of the republicans as opposed to trying to get a number of just citizens based upon what's going on. that's my own sins. i think it is probably an easier look largely because as we look at immigration, immigration is super important for our country. it is important as we look at how do we talk a

. >> coming up, supreme court justice sonya sotomayor talks about her life experiences. this is part of a leadership conference hosted by the brookings institution and mount vernon. >> you have been to mount vernon, correct? >> absolutely, and isil of join it. -- and i so enjoyed it. it is a trip i thinks most americans should take. the working farm that george washington ran, we think of him as a military leader, president, first president of the united states. but, he was also a working farmer. those farms were custom even back then. he was a working man. and, it was a wonderful experience for me to see the beauty of that spot. and to learn so much more about it. david: justice sotomayor, for everybody who is watching, became an associate justice of the supreme court in august of 2009. she had previously been a district court judge before that. a native, a student could allowed -- a summa come out a graduate of princeton university. winner of a prize given to the most outstanding graduate, she was an editor. that is a pretty impressive background. i which had a backgro

critique supreme court precedent. i am unable to answer your question. sen. blackburn: you are aware the groups advocating for you, support that. judge jackson: there are a lot of people that have -- for me and i am gratified but i am focused on this nomination. i am hoping to be confirmed to the d.c. circuit. sen. blackburn: ms. jackson-akiwumi i appreciate the comments about diversity. having good relationships with individuals who are different from being, who have different points of view from me is something that is important. to help me in public policy and to do a better job in representing all tennesseans. i appreciate the comments you have made there. i noted as i looked through your record that you represented many different clients during your tenure, you have been a zealous advocate for those clients. i want to draw attention to a case where you defended a man who preyed on women for sex, prostituted them, his victims accused him of physically restraining them with a firearm. despite believing all women, y

of the supreme court. it is clear from the recent rulings -- the recent covid cases, trinity lutheran, a masterpiece cake shop that the court is looking into restrictions on first amendment. as they should because the first amendment religious liberty as a core constitutional right. my views comports with what the supreme court has held. i would have to apply the supreme court principles. sen. cruz: ms. jackson-akiwumi. ms. jackson-akiwumi: i agree it is fundamental, all of the freedoms there, assembly, petition for redress and religion. sen. cruz: thank you. sen. durbin: thank you senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chair. before i begin, i want to take a moment to remark on the significance of this hearing. as chairman durbin reminds us and tells us, for the past four years, the prior administration appointed 226 judges to the federal courts. almost 30% of the current federal judiciary. an overwhelming majority of those appointees were white. nearly as many, 171 were men. over the course of the prior administ

supreme court in america." i want to go straight to the chief legal correspondent and fox news anchor shannon bream. shannon, you've worked so closely in and around covering the u.s. supreme court and what we saw today i was not clear about what the bill actually said and i know that democrats sometimes want to pass something and read it later but even speaker the house said she doesn't have plans to call for this yet, what are we just learn about what democrats want to do? >> shannon: harris, there is so much to unpack, not only adding four seats to the supreme court which would all be president biden nominees, but they are also calling for the complete abolition of the filibuster which would change everything on capitol hill, not just about the supreme court but about numerous other issues and i've got to tell you, the last time we saw a big promotion out there on the steps of the supreme court, it was senator chuck schumer, the majority leader, essentially growing a challenge where some people interpreted as

the supreme court and filed this case in the supreme court and his theory was and this is where the case will be argued. george doesn't show his theory. was that the federal courts had jurisdiction and had original jurisdiction, which meant he didn't need to go up through the lower federal courts before he went to the supreme court. he could go straight there because the constitution gives the court the supreme court original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party and georgia was a party and it also the federal judicial power extends to suits between a state and foreign states or foreign nations and george is a state and the cherokee nation is a foreign state. it's a far in state because state just means a political entity and it's clearly a political entity. he's got a constitution and stuff and it's foreign because none of its citizens or us citizens, so it has to be foreign. it can't be anything else and this is the argument that he made and and this is the and so this is the the argument on which jurisdiction rested and so if the court doesn't find that to be true then they c

supreme court has handled it. fill that out. the question i have is, are you criticizing the united states supreme court to much? are you saying we have this incredible polarization over abortion and you really point the finger at the supreme court. when i was reading i was thinking there are other actors could he point the finger at other places as well? maybe they were more important but unpack your discussion of abortion, the supreme court of the united states and courts abroad. >> i will start by saying this is a chapter in the book and it's a complicated story. whatever you get out of my synopsis, i encourage you to pick up the book and read chapter five for a deeper dive. i do think the court's decision with roe v wade and how it style this decision contributes to a rupture in abortion politics in the us. there are lots of other things that contribute, so yes i agree there are other actors involved there's a lot of opportunism happening in the seventies around this issue. but the chapter compares what's happ

supreme court. they'll change the rules and change the game and add four more people. >> they couldn't get a bill passed in congress or passed by state legislature so they went to a court and got it done. now there are conservative judges and judges that interpret the constitution the way it was written on the bench they think we have a crisis on the courts and they think it needs to be looked at. a pure political employ. >> trace: we'll talk to karl rove appeared andy mccarthy in a moment and we begin with jackie heinrich live on capitol hill. good morning. >> good morning. trace. house and senate democrats will unveil this legislation a couple hours from now in front of the supreme court. the bill would add four justices to the high court bringing a total number to 13. it's being sponsored by house judiciary committee jerry nadler, hank johnson, freshman progressive jones and ed markey in the senate. congressman jones tells fox the majority's doctrine is clear. if the law protects the right to vot

rather the supreme court has been an accomplice. in fact the supreme court, specifically the roberts court has been working to dismantle our democracy for years. >> sandra: please stand by, breaking news of the white house and jen psaki was just asked about this effort. >> about proposed potential reform of the supreme court in one of the things they will look at is of course the size of the court but they will also look at at the courts in the constitutional system. the turnover of justices, and they will come back to the president with a report on what their discussions are and what their findings are. so we will wait to play out and still read that report. >> this is coming from some of its current member of congress, this is coming from the chairman of the house judiciary committee. is the president and white house frustrated that chairman nadler didn't perhaps wait for this report from the commission that president biden just called for last week? >> no. and that's a different set of legal position. and i expect, you have more

there are indeed marginal cases in the supreme court. actually don't think marriage equality is a particularly marginal case. i think in the rhyme ridge of the law sexual orientation is what should be classified as what's called the quads ice suspect class which means that people who are gay, people who are trans, people who are bisexual have so historically been subject to the kind of discrimination where they are minority and minority status. >> irin: that's right. so i hear you saying it's not actually hypocrisy on sour à which i like, but at least reconcilable. what happened on the conservative side with respect to the courts? is it purely political? something i think you do really well in the book is that you lay out how all the conservatives on the court are not ideologically homogenous. each one has different approaches. i think it is something that broad stroke liberal commentary on the court tends to apply which helped us understand some of the surprising outcomes that all the conservatives are different. could you combine your

court. >> the united states supreme court is broken. it is out of balance. leader mitch mcconnell, his senate republican colleagues, and donald trump broke it. the republicans stole two seats on the

if the supreme court. >> the debate over the size of the supreme court rages on in washington, some call for justice stephen breyer, 82 years old to retire. should step down to make room for the courts first black woman to serve. here's more. >> 82-year-old supreme court justice stephen breyer slowed down physically over the years, his colleagues say his mind is as sharp as ever but it didn't stop the freshman democratic congressman calling on breyer to retire to make this a question that justice breyer, for whom i have great respect should retire at the end of this term. my goodness, have we not learned our lesson? >> ted cruz offered a warning should democrats succeed in packing the court and raise the number of justices nine to 13. >> if they succeed packing the court, we would have a radical left-wing supreme court that would take away our fundamental right to free speech, right to religious liberty and second amendment. >> the last poll shows majority of americans trust the supreme court and approve of how they handle their job. not all democrats share that view. >> too many america

marbury brought a case to the supreme court. he asked the court to order the new president, thomas jefferson, to deliver the commission. in stating the law, he seemed correct. that law probably required jefferson to give him the commission. still, the request put the court on the horns of a dilemma. on the one hand, suppose the court held the law did not entitle marbury's commission? that decision would suggest to many that the court was a weak institution and if it departed from what seemed to be the law, they feared the president would ignore his decision. that would suggest that perhaps the law would not stand in the way of a determined president. on the other hand, if the court held that the law did entitle marbury to his commission, jefferson -- remember he saw the judges as his enemies -- jefferson might continue to ignore the court, and the resulting message would be even more clear. the president was free not to accept the court's decision. chief justice john marshall writing for a unanimous court found a brilliant way o

the supreme court. but conservative justices seated on the supreme court-— supreme court. but the president sa s it's supreme court. but the president says it's out _ supreme court. but the president says it's out of — supreme court. but the president says it's out of whack. _ supreme court. but the president says it's out of whack. he - supreme court. but the president says it's out of whack. he has i supreme court. but the president says it's out of whack. he has a l says it�*s out of whack. he has a point if you care about balance on the supreme court. i�*m sure most conservatives don�*t much. it is six 23 at the moment. it�*s not for two terms it�*s a lie. how does he remedy that situation when the chorus he has control of the white house and democrats have control of the house in the senate? it�*s a unique moment if they want to challenge that. it is. you can change the makeup of the supreme _ is. you can change the makeup of the supreme court based on a simple majority— supreme c

we have had nine supreme court justices, nine seats on the supreme court since 1869 more than 150 years ago right after the civil war. we saw in 1937 during the height of president's fdr presidency he tried to pack the supreme court. it failed. he lost support even among his own party. they saw this as a power grab. we saw the late justice ginsburg come out and make the highly unusual public announcement of court packing because it is so extreme and political and recently justice breyer came out and opposed court packing because it will politicize the court. you have two of the last four democratic supreme court justices making the highly unusual public announcement against court packing and that is all you need to know. host: a previous guest made the case back in 1869 that the number of seats expended, went to the idea of federal circuit courts and made the case this is applicable this time. do you see anything in that argument? guest: the federal court of appeals was not established by congress until 1891. supreme court justices got on their horses and rode around the country before

supreme court including during his service as u.s. solicitor general. he served as united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit as counselor in chief counselor in chief of staff to u.s. attorney general william smith and his law clerk to both chief justice warren burger and the fifth circuit judge david dire. as most of you know he was appointed to serve as independent counsel for five investigations including whitewater from 1994 to 1999. many of you know ken through his writing. he is author of first among equals, the supreme court in american life, bear country the baylor story, contempt a memoir of the clinton investigation, which was a "new york times" bestseller and 2018 and religious liberty in crisis which was released this past tuesday and which we celebrate this evening. ken and his wife alice who is here this evening, great to have you here alice, now reside a blog the peaceful banks of the river in waco texas. we are blessed this evening to hear from two devoted giants of faith and freedom who have shaped our thinking and

to the supreme court story. the roll call reporting on the announcement by several members of congress, supreme court expansion bill faces serious blocks across political spectrum. some from that article -- before democratic members could take to the steps of the supreme court to expand the supreme court from 9 to 13, leaders of the party were already deflating the effort. "i have no plans to bring it to the floor," the speaker said. "i'm not ready to sign on yet," said that majority whip, dick durbin. so the first question to senator markey at thursday's news conference outside the high court was where exactly do you go from here? he was joined by three members of the house judiciary committee. here is senator markey of massachusetts. [video clip] >> republicans stole two seats on the supreme court, and now it is up to us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy today because the supreme court 's standing is sorely damaged. in the way we repair it is straightforward. we undo the damage republicans ha

i don't think anything will happen to the supreme court. that doesn't mean if a couple of senators switch sides on the filibuster, that they might not be emboldened but again it would be disasterous for this country. it is time for americans to stand up to say, infrastructure, what it traditionally means. it isn't just remaking america in your partisan mold with disasterous consequences for future of this country. elizabeth: even president biden at one point said it was boneheaded terrible idea. he criticized fdr trying to do it. nancy pelosi says she supports biden's commission to study supreme court packing, packing the court. that commission, jonathan turley points out, a lot of professors on that commission, harmeet were against brett kavanaugh's combination and appointment. what do you say? >> right. we had some of the most frankly dumb members of congress have a press conference they said justice kavanaugh was incompetent and unqualified. they couldn't even carry his briefcase in a law firm if they were lawyers in the firm this type o

supreme court. the democrats are engagingly i think is really a merit garland revenge to work for the trying to everything in the power to discredit the legacy of donald trump are the only way they can do with the current composition the supreme court is to pack it which is entirely unpopular. bear in mind plus he's politically savvy. she knows in about 18 months because are the democrats will lose control of the united states house. so to the extent we democrats want to dream this generation the supreme court liberal radicals, now's the time for them to act. because in 18 months are unlikely to control the house not be able to have the policy objective which is to pack the court with the role tourists. >> present biden city setting the issue set for permission to do that your thoughts on that? is that really just putting this offer later? statement it is. there is a serious problem with mark's theory is that your policy last week so that bill is not going anywhere to change the composition of the c

always free. >>> i'm looking forward to making sure that there is a black woman on the supreme court to make sure that in fact we get representation >> yesterday, president biden announced his first 11 nominations for federal judgeships he is now in the position to fill the next vacancy on the supreme court thanks to our next guest, jim clyburn joe biden did not just lose. he lost badly in the caucuses and primaries leading up to the south carolina primary without congressman jim clyburn's endorsement, we don't know who would be president of the united states tonight. jim clyburn knew that squeaking out a win in south carolina would not be good enough for the biden campaign it would have to be a huge win, a win that would make everyone think joe biden was strong enough to keep winning primaries after south carolina the story of the biden win in south carolina is told in detail in the new book "lucky." according to the book, jim clyburn believed that the key to a huge win in south carolina for joe biden was not just the clyburn endorsement, but also the promise to appoint the first bl

in the court of appeals held assault requires an intent to commit battery and the supreme court disagreed and rejected that interpretation and said the requirement first of all isn't that the defendant must intend to commit battery but rather need only intend to commit an act that constitutes battery and the court said that distinction was important because the intent suggests they wouldn't just need to know the facts but also need to know his or her conduct broke the law. this is directly from the supreme court's decision i will read for the record. it isn't necessary for the state to prove the defendant intended to inflict bodily harm only that the defendant intentionally applied force to another person without his consent and that comes from 887 at 8:31. >> and it isn't currently in the instruction guide. next. >> the state addressed to the statement on page six of the draft instrument instruction of the third degree murder statute that was twice in the third element it must be eminently dangerous to other persons. the objection stems from the use of the word persons as the instruction

the supreme court of the united states. because senator specter was right. >>> up ahead, in the wake of the derek chauvin conviction, police conduct is under intense scrutiny with retirement surging and a shortage of recruits. will the situation only get harder to fix? i have two of america's most experienced and respected police chiefs coming up. as well as last week, america, again, obsessed with mass shootings and then as usual, we moved on! why does nothing ever change? well, part of the answer lies in the 2008 supreme court decision known as he willer and the criminal justice political lengs leanings. i'll plain. should washington, d.c. the 51st state of the united states? its possible lean so heavily democratic. i'll talk to the congressman who said objections to d.c. statehood are racist. i want to know what you think. answer this week's survey question. should the u.s. establish a 51st state called washington, douglass commonwealth? is what business is all about it's what the united states postal service has always

up next a panel unpacking the supreme court. ♪ ♪ >> i'm not a fan of supreme court packing. >> it was a bonehead idea. it was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. ♪ ♪ to prove our aa battery is the world's longest-lasting, we tested it against our competitor's best battery. (meowing) (clicking) and energizer ultimate lithium wins again! energizer, backed by science. matched by no one. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ now is the time to ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. (vo) ideas exist inside you, electrify you. they grow from our imagination, but they can't be held back. they want to be set free. to make t

court knocked on the supreme court legislation. to 15. >> it was his own party that shot him down. i suspect, you look at the composition of the senate, they would have to weigh in on this, joe manchin, kyrsten sinema from arizona, there is not an appetite to do it it's terrible in terms of public polling, the moderates don't, independent don't and certainly republicans don't. it is a lose politically and it would be a high-stakes scandal and i don't think this is something joe biden wants to take on in the next six months or the midterms or reelection, it is a political loser and i understand the democrats are upset but the answer to this is to win elections, not to break norms for tickly one that's been in place since 1869. eric: the old football player politics is critic admission their way to an agency a group of intellectuals and experts to study something, come back and i'll do with the report says and deep-sixed the report or whatever they're going to do, what do you think the president is going to do and do you think he is

>> they will announce, they will add justices to the supreme court. the limited pastor agenda is to add more people to the courts. only thing stopping them, these far left progressive policies is the supreme court, the things they do through executive orders, things they have already done on illegal immigration, trying to get to the house like hr one it violates the constitution. and and and four more people was. >> what impact does this have, >> speaker ballistic and only was two vote on the floor. and we picked up 15 seats last night. moderate democrats are in a tough position, and and it is very difficult to vote for things like court packing, it is completely partisan overreach, showing an unconstitutional agenda. to withstand the races for these policies. >> >> >> tender female athletes, especially parents up in arms over the situation. where does this go in florida and how do you think the ncaa will react? earlier you said look what the mlb did? >> let the nfl, mlb, anti-aa do what they want to do and have their games only and democratic run sta

well, brought a case in the supreme court. tell thomas jefferson to state the law he seemed likely correct that law probably required jefferson too give him commissin still request put the court on the horns of a dilemma on the one hand, suppose the court held that law did not entitle to his commission. that decision would suggest many that the court was a weak institution and that it did depart seem to be the law for fear the president would simply ignore decision. that would suggest that courts and maybe the law itself did not stand in the way of a determined president. on the other hand if the court held opposite, if it held that law did entitle to his commission, jefferson remember, he saw judge as enemies and surgery right jefferson might continue to ignore the courts and resulting message would be even more clear. the president was free, not to accept the courts decision. chief justice john marshall f writing for a unanimous court found a brilliant way out and courtt first held entitle to may to the commission thereby sh

supreme court. brazil's supreme court has confirmed its decision to end no criminal convictions against former president alluded to silver last month the cold rolled but the note was not treated fairly in a series of corruption investigations justice common to see a reversed her earlier position to bring the court's 5 judge panel in the disfavor that is now eligible to run in next year's election against the current president. well want to have joins us now live from rio de janeiro for more monica explain to us how maajid this is and also have we heard from linda. well. it all started with one justice from the supreme court saying that moola had been tried convicted and imprisoned. by a court that had no jurisdiction over his case a court in the south of brazil and the judge there was judge's mortal the judge that was in charge of investigating the carwash scandal that what this justice said was that moves should have been tried in brasilia of brazil's capital that does not go to say that rule is in