Justice Kagan on Legitimacy and Public Confidence in the Supreme Court
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 07. 2022
- Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan: "If, over time, the Court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment that's a dangerous for a democracy...That's why the legitimacy of the Court is so important and why public confidence in the Court is so important." www.c-span.org/video/?521729-...
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org/c-spanNow/
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org/quickguide/
C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service.
Subscribe to our CZcams channel: / cspan
Follow us:
Facebook: / cspan
Twitter: / cspan
Instagram: / cspan
Subscribe:
C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org/podcasts/
Newsletters: www.c-span.org/connect/
#cspan
Excellent interview
Justice Kegan,
Page 65. A Member not a Leader.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
R.W.N II
"Having people think we are a legitimate institution" News flash, they are not. But I'll leave it alone.
That would be for the best because ppl like you are the problem
@@jacksoncowsert6964 Sheep like you are the problem 😂
@@dominicrutledge7384 Me knowing that the supreme court is a legitimate institution doesn't make me a sheep, it just means I live in reality. Have in mind, I don't like the current supreme court at all, however I have the basic logic and common sense to understand that reality doesn't bend to my every will. That would be entitled wouldn't it?
Playing with the audio is so disrespectful and very intentional to disrupt thought.
Continuity and consistency must be manifested in the methods of law.
......... and that's all I've got to say about that.
She quotes Federalist 78 here in that the Court indeed hath neither "influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever". The power if our High Court stems solely from it legitimacy alone.
That is what is under attack. The Court is seen as compromised - politically compromised. The resolution is thus, that, as "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers", Justices of the Supreme Court may be selected and nominated by the President, but he must send several names and people, who then all ought to go before a seperate Congressional Body, the Judiciary Committee, which ought to be equally divided by Republicans and Democrats. Then once confirmation of one has been reached, the sitting Supreme Court must approve unanimously that they believe the Judge will do justice rooted in the Rule of Law alone.
Only once the Courts are seen as more separated from the whims of the other two branches of the Federal Government, can it re-grain it's role as independent of politic.
We don't need people who have no idea of their civic duty changing our principles because of their lack of understanding, just to appease them.
Madam Honor, & if it pleases the court May I restate the facts of this case?
Bloomberg Government is refusing to hand over the hardware vital to small business in their respective fields of industry.
Earnestly & Sincerely,
R.W.N II
Jesus what a bad moment to have a tech fuck up like that. I respect her composure lolol
Entertain on You.
A Supreme Court Justice needs to be dedicated to the LAW, and to the Constitutionality of the Law, not how the law is publicly perceived. If a law needs to change, there are mechanisms to change or enact the law. It is merely up to the justices to ensure that when challenged, the law conforms with the Constitution. To be social justice warriors, as many have been and are, from the bench is to illegitimize the court.
It is a matter of deciding what a three power base government system should act. It has really never been enunciated-
@@jeroldpaquette9068 Well for a start, they need to stay in their own lanes and instead of bashing one of the other two legs, they need to ensure that they live up to their own personal responsibilities in a fashion that is not detrimental to furtherance of governance.
Your point is technically true, but it neglects that there can be a genuine disagreement on the very question 'What is the law' and how is to be extracted from texts. That is, the public, especially an informed public has a right to disagree with the court on how it extracts legal content out of text and may genuinely come to a conclusion that the court is doing it wrongly. This raises questions whether a court can remain legitimate where its interpretation is totally out of keeping with what a normal, well informed person believes the objective meaning of the law is?
@@gugulethudube2249 if only the law was “objective”? It reflects statutes and Regulations in effect and, oh yes, the sometimes opate
The sometimes understandable USConstitution!
She came to CO and we can still smell her. Or is that the money she made? So confusing.
Royal and Regular have always had differences...
SCOTUS is legitimate, they said so. That's just what the Gestapo said.
Justice Keagan,
You’re discredited in the eyes of the Christian Science Board of Directors according to Article XII and shall be admonished according to Article XI, Section 4 of the Church By-Laws.
Thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
R.W.N II
P.S~ Pastor Emeritus Mrs. Eddy is not a strong basis for argument in my opinion.
The Court will do what the court does. The Court can’t control what the public thinks of them, and they’re not going to. It’s all up the individuals to believe that the Court is legitimate. Unless you want the Court to pander to the public then what difference is that and the legislative branch of government?
The court lost legitimacy with McConnell stealing a seat from the Democrats (unconstitutionally). Trump then packed it with ChristoFascists. We are not Gilead!
@@xfer43 in what way was filling a vacancy unconstitutional?
The conservatives are corrupt. Kavanaugh for one had millions of dollars of debt magically vanish when he got his seat. They are put there to serve right wing billionaires that run with he lunatic federalist society..
Lolololol 🙄
Such an important, albeit brief, “discussion”.
Too bad the audio quality’s so poor.
Kagan looks like Jon Lovitz after a sex change operation
#billysword
Sadly, this hasn't aged well. In particular the comments about the importance of precedent, and one justice leaving should not "change the law".
The Supreme Court absolutely must be expanded to thirteen . Or America will continue to live under a one minority party rules for decades to come.
😄 wait til November when the democrats get curb stomped... cry baby.
Do you understand Dobbs? It sent power back to the states.
@@cognus3372 and look at the chaos that has caused
@@judysocal8682 so… nothing? Your idea of chaos is pretty weird
Completely disagree. Why not then expanded to 23 or 53 or 103? Why should we change the courts numbers because an executive disagrees with it rulings? That would destroy the republic. We need an amendment securing 9 as the official and only Number of judges on the court. 9 is perfect. Keep it at 9 or never allow a judicial activist in the court again. Both would solve the issue.
if the supreme court position is "for life" and gets chosen "by the current president"
there SEEMS to be a very simple fix to the 6/3 issue.
just need one person, and a dream. 😏👌
or make it an elected position with term limits. 🙄
Please acquaint yourself with the principle of judicial independence, a very important concept to the framers of the constitution (see Federalist Paper #78 by Alexander Hamilton).
@@johnconway6976
Look at what paper? No. Look at the facts: the Bar association said, both Kavanaugh and Barrett both unqualified for that position. Neither were properly investigated, and both lied (a federal offense, felony) to Congress; either during their congressional hearing for federal court seat, or SCOTUS seat. Watch the tapes of both, many discrepancies of their answers to the same questions asked.
@@roxannwatson8896 What paper? 😅🤣😂 The Federalist Papers! If you've never heard of them then someone failed to educate you properly in your government and US history classes OR you blew them off when you had the chance to educate yourself. Authors of these papers include Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, et al. Everyone should be somewhat familiar with these in order to understand the importance of an independent judiciary -- which was STRONGLY advocated by these framers of our constitution and government.
@@johnconway6976
My apologies for the misconception I've caused by saying "what papers"! I am quite aware of the Federalist papers. I am also aware of the importance, and relevance, of the independence of each individual branch of our government. I was driving to the point of the illegitimate way many judges have been seated in federal courts, and our supreme Court by one individual, Mitch McConnell. He had awarded himself more power than a POTUS. Able to stack our courts, by his refusal to take a name, nominated by a president, to the floor for a vote, that was his job. Our constitutional democracy, laws, rights, health, security, and freedoms taken away, by not just one branch of government, but one man. Where is that written? I'm talking how our system, no longer works, or is no longer enforced; it needs amended to stop chipping away Americans rights.
Supreme court was designed to not be a popularity contest that justices had to pander for in order to make unpopular decisions
I’m not talking about any particular decision cough cough
Too bad Justice Thomas doesn`t adher to her summations/ overview ?
You are an IDIOT too.
A black conservative,. Gee, I wonder if he thinks slavery was ok . hat's how you know he's really fucked up. He serves a bunch of people that think he's inferior.
The current court has been captured by a political party and large money donors. The intent spelled out in the Powell memo , the creation of all the front groups, the citizens united case and the obsession by Alito on the persecution of christians all have lead to the lack of confidence. We have always had right and left justices, we just now have 5 justices that are not concerned with impartiality and the rule of law but very determined to push their agenda. They are unconcerned with appearances or tradition.
That's a man
WORTHLESS.
The characterization that the Supreme Court should consider “public opinion” or “public sentiment” coming from an Associate Justice is frightening & exposes her illegitimacy to hold the lifetime appointment. The reason for a lifetime appointment is specifically to insulate the court from public opinion or public sentiment.
The legitimacy of the court lies completely in the rule of law. The court’s legitimacy is founded and lies completely in the foundation of our rule of law, namely the Constitution of the United States as written by the framers of that constitution. Politics nor public opinion should have any traction in the decisions of the court. Public opinion & public sentiment has its place in the other two branches of government, most completely in the legislature meaning the Congress.
Speaking of legitimacy of Supreme Court Justices, what about recently added justices, from the previous president, who lied during their confirmation hearings. Lies that were blatantly revealed during a recent ruling.
@@bclark97 Miss direction is a typical tactic of the uninformed. My post was pointing out that the Supreme Court, actually the whole judiciary but certainly Article III justices, should be apolitical. Public sentiment should never be a concern in the federal judiciary. State and municipal courts can and should follow their respective state constitution and if poll taking is a component of those courts decision making process then take a poll & make decisions based on public sentiment but in the FEDERAL COURTS life time appointments were created to insulate those justices from public sentiment. Justice Kagan sat there and trashed that fundamental understanding of the roll of the federal judiciary.
But to your accusations, if there is reason to remove a Justice then impeach them. Appellate Justices have been removed from the bench by impeachment.
@@jrsands She has herself voted to legalise the homosexual marriage in all 50 states despite the fact that the American people were against it.
California voted in 2008 with 52% of the vote to ban same sex marriage the same happened in Florida with 60% of the vote and in north Carolina.
So these referendums prove that the American society and the public opinion were overwhelmingly against same sex marriage even in the Progressive state of California.
But yet this justice voted in favour of legalization.
She is a hypocrite she cares about Public opinion only when it matches her Woke Vision of society.....
Americans opposing the homosexual marriage didn't matter to her.
10% FOR THE BIG GUY.
Whatever failure runs this channel failed to put in the DESCRIPTION...sigh..."During an appearance at the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit’s judicial conference in Big Sky, Montana", but I'm giving up finding exactly where it was. It's embarrassing how poor the reporting on this is/was. JFC do better. it's your MFing job.
Oh. We can throw the bums out. Lol. Just watch, Neolib.
Why is it low they're finally getting it right 😏
Cheering while my civil rights are being stripped away. This is the path to authoritarianism.
It’s not right. They took freedom from 51% of the population
Let me guess? Your a religious fanatic right?
@@mbell1220 no I'm not particularly religious but abortion should be a State issue not ruled by nine. They also stopped bullshit regulation on the 2nd amendment
@@Cheesytarian Thee second amendment says we have the right to have a REGULATED militia stupid . You believe politicians that like you have never read the constitution.
Private property rights and standing.
NEVER SAY HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP FROM HELL ON C-SPAN WASHINGTON JOURNAL 😉
I love the Supreme Court and it will never lose legitimacy. The more originalist the judges the more trust I have in the court.
The last two seated Kavanaugh and Barrett, neither should hold that position. Both lied to Congress; check out the federal court seating the Senate asked them the same questions years ago, yet both answered questions differently than they did at their previous hearing.
@@roxannwatson8896 I don’t think they lied about anything. Their “belief” in a political topic doesn’t mean that is what the legal ruling would be. They could have fully intended to do something along the lines of old rulings but new cases can be subjected to different opinions.
CNN is noted for audio that really needs help. Maybe you ( CNN) should fire your audio people and hire competent people.
The court is supposed to be interpreting the Constitution and nothing else. It should be plain enough for you to do because it's written in 7th grade english.
this is why the supreme court needs to be an ELECTED position, with term limits
Hahahahaha
I disagree. It needs to be a life appointment so they are not influenced by politics.
Lol, sorry it Already has been influenced by politicians and personal interest abolish the Supreme Court is the true answer
@@paulhahn2004 not true Paul
An Aum Aah Auh Auh Aum! What's with all of these glottal stops! Her way of responding leaves a lot more to be desired about her apprehensive manner of sharing her experience and insight into the question asked. It should come off the top of her head and not like reading a book on the supreme court process.
I miss Justice Antonin Scalia. She comes close to his response when asked the same question asked on Uncommon Knowlege and the Rehnquist Center. .
So...if SOME of the public decides that murdering babies is ok, then the Supreme Court should follow what that percentage feels at that time?
No. The Supreme Court is NOT the people, just for that reason. It is not supposed to be fickle. It's supposed to uphold the constitution...not the sentiment.
@@JackieC831 Because it violates the constitutional rights of citizens...tiny citizens, but little American humans with rights.
@@mikrokozm9 Forced Birthers see 50% of Americans (aka women and girls) as incubators with mouths, without any Civil Rights whatsoever. Those incubators can also be exploited as the white men's sex mechanisms.
Forced Birthers' supposed concern for fetuses is utterly bogus. How do we know this? Just for starters, because it's so obvious when we see that supposed concern evaporate after the fetus actually becomes a child at its birth.
Y'all aren't fooling anyone who is not a Forced Birther.
Beep. Boop.
@@mikrokozm9 God bless you. You are wrong on your statement here, legally, that’s why the gentleman did not respond. You played your little ending drums too soon.
@@eviliswhereevilthinks9617 It's law. The right to live. Confirmed by the Supreme Court. Bu-bump, shhhh....