0 facts, i m applying the law in as neutral and consistent a manner as i can. because that is the duty and requirement of the judicial oath. i m also very conscious of the limits of judicial authority, of the restrictions that exist in the law to prevent me as a judge from becoming a policymaker. this means that i carefully scrutinize my jurisdiction. it means that i look at the text and focus on the text and the intentions of the legislatures that drafted that provision. or the intention of the framers that put forward that constitutional principle. it means i m looking at precedent if i was fortunate enough to be confirmed to the supreme court, i would be upholding the principles as i consider the precedents, and making sure that the court is putting forward consistent and predictable rulings. you re watching msnbc s live coverage of the confirmation hearing of judge ketanji brown jackson. this is ari melber. we ll continue our live coverage here on the beat. soon we ll be joined
issue of supreme court reform. i wouldn t look for anything to happen quickly. the courts move in a very traditional pace and a decision to alter the formatting of the supreme court would have a lot of consequences. so we ll have to see what that commission concludes and whether or not ultimately there can be sufficient bipartisan agreement to reform the court. the real issue we will see come to a head in the abortion issue is this, is this a supreme court that s willing to override 50 years of binding precedent to take the country a different direction that s consonant with the political beliefs of the politicians who put them in office. you know judges are notoriously independent once they hit the bench. it s possible that we could see roe versus wade altered but permitted to remain in place. ultimately, the real issue here for democrats is this. republicans have had a lot more success rallying their voters around the notion that they should accept candidates who were perhaps unpalat
office of legal counsel memos that they treat as binding precedent. they have block letter policy that they treat as the rules. when those things are broken, you can t just say we re not going to do it that way anymore, we re going to go back to following the rules. it s not a self-repairing machine. i ve started off a couple weeks ago feeling very urgent about this. now i got to the point where i m feeling more than urgent about it. we are going to hear from attorney general merrick garland tomorrow. he s going to talk about voting rights. his agency has done nothing we can see publicly visible thus far. i imagine he ll talk about some of this stuff, too. we ll see what he has to say tomorrow. thank you, lawrence. thank you, rachel. thank you. well, nixon didn t do it, but trump did. richard nixon committed crimes as president of the united states. richard nixon wire-tapped
senator mcconnell, he s kind of in a bit of a bind here because if he moves forward, pelosi will accuse him of taking an initiative without in fact, an impeachment but if he waits, this is hanging over the president s head forever. my question is as constitutional law professors, how long can this don t go on? is there a legal binding precedent here? there is no legal binding precedent but impeach me as a process that starts with a house and must go to the senate. it would be utterly unconstitutional for speaker pelosi to accept my colleague larry tribe s idea, impeach, but don t ever bring it to the senate. so the impeachment hangs over the president s head forever with no opportunity to vindicate himself. i want to comment about one thing. you showed david to bring that before saying the world is come to an end. i have to comment about that because david redneck is the problem today. he is the poster child what is wrong with the media.
because if he moves forward pelosi will accuse him of taking an initiative without in fact an impeachment, but if he waits this is hanging over the president s head forever. my question is as constitutional law professors, how long can this don t go on? is there a legal binding precedent here? there is no legal binding precedent but impeach me as a process that starts with a house and must go to the senate. it would be utterly unconstitutional for speaker pelosi to accept my colleague larry tribe s idea impeach, but don t ever bring it to the senate. so the impeachment hangs over the president s head forever with no opportunity to vindicate himself. i want to comment about one thing. you showed david rennick that n before saying the world is come to an end. i have to comment about that because david rennick is the problem today. he is the poster child what is wrong with the media. he makes up facts. he wrote a story and i tell about it in my book, guilt by