and for those keeping score at home, it s two democratic appointees and one republican appointee who are hearing this case, which i think lends some optimism to the jack smith s team because of that makeup. it s also true, this argument for donald trump is a pretty extraordinary stretch. remember when we covered the mueller investigation. and there was much sdiscussion that there s is a justice department policy. not a law, but a policy, that says a sitting president should not be indicted. implicit in that policy, of course, he could be indicted later for something he did. that s always been the assumption. gerald ford pardoned richard nixon for his crimes in watergate. if he couldn t be prosecuted, there would be no need for a po pardon. for a former president, for conduct while in office. that s what the pardon was for. everyone assumed without the pardon, he could be prosecuted. once you are out of office, you are an order citizen like everyone else. interestingly
division spilled out into the public view in ways that we hardly ever see or hear or read. justices that are usually pretty buttoned up had pretty raw and emotional opinions when it came to the big decisions that they were making. and it was clear some of them disagreed vehemently with one another on the ultimate outcome. tonight of the high court with our senior analyst who literally wrote the book on the supreme court and knows it better than anyone. you were actually in the room as a lot of these opinions and dissents were being read. what stood out to you about these last two days and the interactions we saw between these justices, who come from very different ends of the spectrum here? you re exactly right, kaitlan, that they re a buttoned up group, and they try to keep it in check. by the time we get to the last week in june, they just can t anymore. you know, they have kind of a they operate under a fairly
senior analyst who literally wrote the book on the supreme court and knows it better than anyone. you were actually in the room as a lot of these opinions and dissents were being read. what stood out to you about these last two days and the interactions we saw between these justices, who come from very different ends of the spectrum here? you re exactly right, kaitlan, that they re a buttoned up group, and they try to keep it in check. by the time we get to the last week in june, they just can t anymore. you know, they have kind of a they operate under a fairly useful fiction for a grouch nine tha that is appointed for life and have to deal with each other every day. and that fiction is everything s okay here. let s use for example the student loans case. chief justice john roberts, you won that one big, you already talked about it. but at the end of his decision he says, you know, he admonishes critics to say, we re not disparaging each other in this case. we actually get along, a
base. i mean, there have been attempted terrorist attacks. certainly nothing on the scale of 9/11, fortunately, but al qaeda is not gone. and judge polley in new york is making the point that it s not gone and it s still a threat, and that s why we need this program. so what do you well, paul, i m curious. i want to know if you guys think it will go all the way to the supreme court? paul? yes, i think these things will and we should understand this decision was issued really right at the beginning of the case. there hasn t been any discovery or extentative depositions. this judge said there s no case here, and i m dismissing, throwing the whole thing out. judge leon on the other hand said the case is so strong, i m granting a preliminary injunction. these two judges are at total opposite end of the spentroom. when that happens, it goes up to appeal on the circuit court and eventually maybe the supreme court. jeffrey, you have written the book on the supreme court. you re our ex
interference with states rights and thus unconstitutional, and the four democratic appointees, ruth ginsburg, the most senior, wanted to try to bring him along and that question was a way of trying to bring him along on that. it is interesting you talk about how it is a campaign pitch. just because you write the book on the supreme court decisions, explain to us who don t follow it as closely, what happens. now that they heard the oral arguments before they all decide, how do they sort of sit individually, parse through all of this, and it is ultimately the chief justice, correct? well, what happens is every week when there are arguments, arguments monday, tuesday and wednesday this week, on friday morning, they meet in the conference room of the chief justice. and this is the holy of holy of supreme court moments, no secretary, no law clerks, the nine justices, and they go around the table and vote. if the chief justice is in the majority, he assigns which