it felt somehow fitting because justice to justice o'connor had momentum -- justice o'connor had momentum. she never looked back. she wasn't bitter about december advantages in the past -- disadvantages in the past. she didn't dwell on any can disappointments. she did not extend disagreements from one case to the next. she was always moving forward, and she carried other people along with her. of course, she was a pioneer, but she was not a loner. she was generous and collaborative. she gave other people both the credit and the benefit of the doubt. her parting message was that we should all try to help others along the way. she really believed and she often said that we do not accomplish anything in this world alone. as just one example, when she received the assignments to draft a decision requiring the admission of women to the virginia military institute, justice o'connor immediately suggested that justice ginsburg write the landmark if discrimination opinion instead. and she said this should be ruth's. she was a connector for all of her colleagues. she got the supreme court justices

there is no transparent process, at least, by which the justice cost, as justice -- by which the justice's conduct can be assessed and there are no consequences if the justice fails to comply with the code of conduct. justice kagan recently spoke about this. and said, it's a legitimate concern. typically when you put in place rules there has to be a mechanism to enforce them. and what president biden called for in his call to action, and we have seen a lot of different legislative proposals as well would be some mechanism by which people can -- where complaints can be filed and there can be public adjudication of potential violations of the code of conduct. is that within the power of congress? i would say absolutely. i don't think it is even close. congress has had to your power and it has exercised that power over centuries in many ways in terms of regulating the supreme court and the lower courts as well with respect to the ethical question. currently, there are statutes that require justice's refusals in certain situations, certain financial disclosures. is that enough? but certainly,

justice jackson made. i.e. mailed the supreme court about a week ago. it's important to know who they are meeting with. host: what is this incident you asked to clarify? guest: justice jackson attended a dinner with the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office. the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office is named the litigant of the supreme court. there is a picture of him with justice jackson. there's many cases where he is the lead litigant. her personal capacity on the one hand. if you had justice sotomayor meeting with merrick garland. they might be friends even though it is a friendly event, because they are litigants, you want to be sure no gifts are being exchanged, that this is a one time thing hosted. if this is only a new thing that justice jackson and her would have met because of her position , we are all worried about harlan crow, he only became justice thomas because he was a justice. the timing is a factor. host: we will go to alan in sterling colorado, republican. we are listening

government justice. the main work of the constitution is the relationship with the judiciary and the parliament, and the relationship between the judiciary and the government can play a very important role. our plan is to bring this interaction to the city level in the 14th government . mr. rahimi, who has the experience of the ministry of justice of the 13th government , said about the programs followed by the ministry of home affairs in the past three years . no minister has given so many bills, so our brigade is the first rank, and then the parliament took care of the livelihood problems of the judges and employees of the judiciary, whose salaries are very low. it cannot be said at all and i am ashamed of them , but our judges, judges who are new to work , are busy, they do not receive as much as their house rent, so it is the duty of the minister of justice . it requires the interaction of all institutions, now you are in the law , but the transfer of prisons to outside the cities was mentioned as on

we've had to put justices under 24/7 police protection., a deranged young man is about to go on trial for trying to kill a justice and his family while they slept in order to change the outcome of a case. in polling last year, the court was the branch of government with the highest level of trust from the public, but that hasn't stopped democrats from devoting the last eight years to an all-out campaign against the court's legitimacy and ultimately against its very existence. radical liberals have called for court-packing. influential members of this body, including the senior senator from rhode island and the chairman of the judiciary committee, have threatened ominously that, quote, perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured. the left wages daily warfare against the justices, illegally picking their neighborhoods with impunity, trying to harm their spouses' careers, and even spying on what kinds of flags they fly in their yards. today, the biden-harris administration, which desperately wants these radi

the ministry of justice seeks to shorten people's time in the justice system, the minister of justice stated that the time to deal with injury accidents will be shortened, and he said that according to the 7th program , a regulation has been written so that people can get their rights sooner in these accidents. curfews for people at the moment also said that this is the right of citizenship according to the law of the program seventh, anyone who is banned from going out must be informed about this person. it is given that the condition is to have a senate system, this task exists for the judiciary and other institutions that are prohibited from exiting by law. now it is not complete for the shadow of the judiciary . he is informed every moment unless it is a matter of security which is foreseen by the law . after india limited its rice exports to african countries, sahel aj turned to the cultivation of a high-yielding type of rice, according to the network. sahel aj rice sector development authority has predicted that the country will become self-sufficient in rice production in the n

justice kagan and justice gorsuch went to iceland? justice barrett: they went to iceland.ustice sotomayor: to teach together. neil gorsuch and i speak together as i do with justice barrett on civic issues with a variety of different audiences. it's not as if we are not spending time together. we do. we have dinners with virtually all my colleagues. i try to invite all of them to my home when they join the court, that's part of my way of welcoming them. justice barrett: justice sotomayor invited us and it was right around my daughter's 18th birthday, and she knew that and had a gift and a birthday card waiting for my daughter. again, it is small gestures and thoughtfulness. i think that's probably one of the things that was striking to people, not just that justice scalia and justice ginsburg spent a lot of time together, i think it was probably more surprising later in their lives, closer to the time of justice ginsburg and justice scalia's death, people found it remarkable because by that time our culture had gotten to a place where those kind of friendships were more rem

it felt somehow fitting because justice to justice o'connor had momentum -- justice o'connor had momentume never looked back. she wasn't bitter about december advantages in the past -- disadvantages in the past. she didn't dwell on any can disappointments. she did not extend disagreements from one case to the next. she was always moving forward, and she carried other people along with her. of course, she was a pioneer, but she was not a loner. she was generous and collaborative. she gave other people both the credit and the benefit of the doubt. her parting message was that we should all try to help others along the way. she really believed and she often said that we do not accomplish anything in this world alone. as just one example, when she received the assignments to draft a decision requiring the admission of women to the virginia military institute, justice o'connor immediately suggested that justice ginsburg write the landmark if discrimination opinion instead. and she said this should be ruth's. she was a connector for all of her colleagues. she got the supreme court justices to h

more liberal justices. talk about politicizing the court, this whole attempt is a partisan move. it is not something that came from both sides coming together and maybe setting something that would work in the future they think better for our country, which still i think is very dangerous because i think the founders really thought through this well and i think their system is the very best choice of those available. host: we are talking to the president and ceo of first liberty institute, the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated to defending religious liberty for all americans according to your website. robert in minnesota, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. i think the man you've got on there is steering the public the wrong way. we are trying to get honesty in our judicial system, and that one time there was honesty but you know what is going on now, they are accepting money, motorhomes, what have you. they are breaking the law. the law doesn't pertain to them. they work for the

and you allow them, for instance, take the judicial conservative justices and justice thomas and lee toe and getting rid of conservative justices on the court and going with them and that is talking about going on the whole attempt as a partisan move and it's not something that came from both sideswhat have you and couldn't have asked a lot and they're going foror democrats and work r the people and they're beyond completely baselessel and probay the leading one is on attacks like thomas and it's going for them after they have a plain and going on this plane to like his summer home to visit and spend a week and they're riding on an airplane with somebody. that has changed now since the controversy and jews were commissioning and changing that and it's now reported that the idea that justice thomas did something unethical because he didn't report something that wasn't supposed toin be reported is an example of the types of attacks that were occurring and they were collecting the daily information from the groups funned by the left and running these articles and they were sometimes ave

justice gorsuch, justice kavanaugh, justice barrett, and another joined the opinion. every time there was a i have to respond to that because that is something i do not agree with. it was the first time the court decided to try the world what brewing -- bruin meant. it gets to the point where why don't we just write something else at this point, but all of that takes time. >> on the topic of a lot of different decisions, what does that reflect about the court right now? justice kagan: we do not seem to coalesce all that easily in some cases, and as i said maybe bruin is a separate case, but the fact is there was a lot of this. i have one end of the spectrum view on this, and i know i do because i just looked at some statistics, and it is about different justices and how many separate opinions they have written, so this is not impressionistic. i am right down at the bottom not only on the current court but the courts for 100 years or something, so i think i have an atypical view of this question, end of the different justice was sitting in the chair you would get a dif

justice roberts: justice alito. justice sotomayor. kaga justice gsuch. justice gorsuch: one specific thing in the government's replied brief and i want to get your response to page 21 of the applied brief, the government notes the background check system that congress has created to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons. domestic violence, protective orders are promptly incorporated into that system. it's resulted in more than 75,000 denials, the government says, based on these provideds in the last -- protective orders in the last 25 years. in your order it would not stop people from buying firearms. just want to get your response to that. mr. wright: i think that's wrong for a couple of reasons, justice kavanaugh. the same system that incorporates state prohibitions against firearm possession, and so if there is a lawful provision imposed by state law and a judge in the court. it could be incorporated into the background check system. second, i would have to concede there is a historical tradition of limiting who citizens people in the com

justice jackson made.. mailed the supreme court about a week ago. it's important to know who they are meeting with. host: what is this incident you asked to clarify? guest: justice jackson attended a dinner with the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office. the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office is named the litigant of the supreme court. there is a picture of him with justice jackson. there's many cases where he is the lead litigant. her personal capacity on the one hand. if you had justice sotomayor meeting with merrick garland. they might be friends even though it is a friendly event, because they are litigants, you want to be sure no gifts are being exchanged, that this is a one time thing hosted. if this is only a new thing that justice jackson and her would have met because of her position , we are all worried about harlan crow, he only became justice thomas because he was a justice. the timing is a factor. host: we will go to alan in sterling colorado, republican. we are listening to y

became friends with justice thomas because he was a justice. so the timing is a factor with the supreme court to clarify for. >> allen is in sterling, colorado republican. >> yes, hello. >> question or comment? >> a little bit of both. where does the speaker think our justices are not following the constitution? we have checks and balances and the supreme court is the major balance and checks for irregularity for our constitution. they need to follow the constitution here regardless of whether they are republican, democrat or independent. go ahead. >> in terms following the constitution that frankly other organizations concerns. my concern is of their opinion might concern is are they following federal ethics law other other federal ethics laws that can be drafted that are similar for congress the president have to file the supreme court a lower court judges should also follow. when someone like justice thomas or justice jackson does not file a financial disclosure report accurately there is a federal law that says you judicial conference refer

the senate finance committee chairman says justice thomas never reported that flight justice thomas hasmented its alleged actions like that, though, that have president biden proposing some major reforms to the us supreme court. at the same time, the public's approval of the nation's highest court is at an all time low. cbs ed o'keefe looks at the president's plan on the table. >>>>we need a mandatory code of ethics for the supreme court, and we need it now. >>>speaking at the lyndon b johnson library, president biden says he's pushing for a constitutional amendment stating any former president could be prosecuted for crimes while in office. he thinks the nine justices should be required to disclose all major gifts and travel and recuse themselves from cases in which their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. >>>>these scandals involving the justices have caused public opinion to question the court's fairness and independence, >>>and he's calling for 18 year term limits for justices, plus a new system where the president would nominate a new justice every two years as

amin hossein rahimi, the minister of justice of the 14th government, the minister of justice, according to the principle of article 160 of the constitution is the relationship with the judiciary and the parliament and the relationship of the judiciary with the government can play a very important role , this is our plan. in the 14th government , we should bring this interaction to the city level as well. mr. rahimi, who has the experience of the ministry of justice of the 13th government , said about the programs followed by this ministry in the past 3 years. he didn't give a bill, so we are the first rank of the governors, and then the parliament took care of the livelihood problems of judges and employees. the judicial branch of our employees, whose salaries are very low, it cannot be said at all, and i am ashamed of them i will kill you, but our judges, judges who are new to work , are busy, they do not receive as much as their house rent, so it is the duty of the minister of justice. you brought a ruling that the transfer of prisons outside the cities was mentioned as one of the oth

calle chief justice roberts: justice thomas, justice alito? justice kavanaugh, justice jackson? >> one quick question. you were asked if the agency is in-- infallible. i'm wondering about the flip side. do you think that courts have specialized scientific knowledge with respect to pharmaceuticals, and as a company that has farmsdo you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies? >> yes, your honor. i think we have significant concerns about that. there are two amicus briefs from the pharmaceutical industry that expand on why exactly that's so concerning for pharmaceutical companies who do depend on f.d.a.'s gold standard review process to approve their drugs and then to be able to sell their products in line with that considered judgment. justice jackson: can you say a little about what they say? >> i'm happy to. i think the reality is, this court -- this decision below is a good example of it. you have a district court that among other things relied on one study that was an analysis of anonymous blog post. another set of studies he relied on not in the adm

, and society can't function without justice, but justice is rooted in some very fundamental principles, values, morality, ethics. what is that morality? what is that ethics? well, in the modern day we can see that there's moral. relativism being thrown around this immorality and immorality are strongly in the field competing for for the rule of law competing within society generally from a cultural social political base. so what is, what is the the the fity, the natural, primordial uh and most fair and balanced uh sense of justice in this world? well, the quran is very clear, it gives some very clear guidelines and i think you know they're based on wisdom, a wisdom which is beyond human, because it requires the beyond human analysis of humanity itself and the in order to create a balanced uh sense of what justice really is. so i think islam is the only faith i think who has which has that that complete if you like if you like if you like holistic sense of what justice is and i think it's for us to explore and to look at the the principles and there are jurisprudents who do it a profess

and other justice has resigned. and it wasn't just students calling for his sons resignation. relatives of victims of enforced disappearance under the government of former prime minister shake has seen a also came out calling for justice. they alleged, the judiciary failed, their loved ones, which it is sure you didn't win an investigation noted of a justice. we want all of those involved, including the chief justice to resign. then we'll find the case against all those who filed for low suits and towards the innocent people they must be brought to justice as well. as son was a loyalist to ousted prime minister shake his email. he was appointed to head to supreme court in 2023. his downfall began when he called a meeting of the countries high court and supreme court judges to discuss working with the new government. but the students say they won't tolerate any connection between the traditionally and shake has seen as and why re leak. and they calling for a clean slate. the whole thing, the newly formed interim gove

justice rts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> mark sherman is a supreme court reporter for the associated press and we just heard the oral argument from november, 2023. how did the court rule in this case? mark: well, 8-2 vote upheld the law, the domestic violence law. and it reversed the fifth circuit which said the law couldn't stand. >> how does the ruling fit into the expansion of gun rights that you saw in 2022? mark: well, the chief justice wrote the opinion for the court, and he wrote that there does have to be, you know, something in history, either the founding era history or the history of when the 14th amendment was ratified. the court really didn't specific which, didn't decide that, but he did say there has to be some sort of historical analogue. but he said -- he said the law is not trapped in amber. so that it didn't have to be a perfect, perfect match. and in this case he said there were laws from the founding era which sort of -- sort of spoke to the same issue and allowed this law to re

justice jackson: to pick up justice barrett left off. en if we decide here rule that you prefer, that isthe somehow separating outte from official acts and saying that thatuld apply here, there's sufficient allegations in tictment in the government's view that fall into ivate acts bucket that the case should be allo proceed. michael: correct. justice jackson:se in an ordinary c wouldn't be stopped just because some of the acts are allegedly immunized even t some agree some are immunized and if there are other acts that aren't, the case would go forward. michael: thaight. justice jackson: going back to the clear statement argument. i'm sing with that argument. because my understanding was that when a charged criminal statute is rrrowly in the presidential context to not ply to the presia constitutional question is being avoided and you're doing that to avoid having to deal with constitutional question. so what is the constitutional question that is being avoided in those kinds of siatns? michael: a serious one. this is just an application

justice, justice, you shall pursue. that is why we are here. in pursuit of justice and in defense of our democracy. thank you so much for being here. let's died in. after this up -- let's dive in. you wrote the decision you fear has changed the course of history. please elaborate for us. how has this decision endangered our democracy and changed the course of american history? >> first of all, thank you for having me. i am always talking to groups of jewish voters and democrats. there is no group i like talking to more and find more rewarding than talking to jewish democrats and the tremendous work that you and the entire team do to both promote democratic candidates but also through the lens of jewish values and jewish history. in order to understand the recent supreme court decisions that ruled in favor of donald trump on the claim of immunity, you need to do it through two lenses. the first is the lens of the law. what did it actually do to the law? it basically says presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for virtually all of their

was written by justice kavanaugh joined by the chief justice and justice kagan. in issues tough when the georgetown prep guys cannot agree. even more broadly this is an interesting division of the court. what i think it shows the most often think about the court as being a left/right court. there are other ways to think about the court. other was to think about the court more serious, more pregnant tests and sort of the division you are seeing here. the chief justice, and i think justice is not classically with the other three. get to results to make pragmatic sense of. even with this little bit of imperfection. i think some of the justices in the majority are more of the school the bread the team bus off the cliff if that's what it requires us to do. there are pros and cons to those interpretive methodology. my point is simply it is worth understanding there's another way to think about the justices in those terms then you are in simple left/right terms i promise of time for questions i will there's a couple of the cases i'd be happy to talk about where the cour

justice roberts: justice alito. justice sotomayor. kagan. justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: one specific thing in the government's replied brief and i want to get your response to page 21 of the applied brief, the government notes the background check system that congress has created to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons. domestic violence, protective orders are promptly incorporated into that system. it's resulted in more than 75,000 denials, the government says, based on these provideds in the last -- protective orders in the last 25 years. in your order it would not stop people from buying firearms. just want to get your response to that. mr. wright: i think that's wrong for a couple of reasons, justice kavanaugh. the same system that incorporates state prohibitions against firearm possession, and so if there is a lawful provision imposed by state law and a judge in the court. it could be incorporated into the background check system. second, i would have to concede there is a historical tradition of limiting who citizens people in the com

sotomayor, justice kagan, and justice jackson about 45% of the time. that's the court i know. - the court is intended, and was intended by the founders, to be insulated. do you feel that the court and you and your colleagues are insulated from the per-polarization that so many of the electorate experience? - well, i do worry about the safety of my colleagues after what happened to one of them. - and what's just happened to a former president. - and what just happened to a former president. and i do worry about that. but internally, the court functions very well, and i'm very happy about that. but, yes, i worry about the way we talk to one another. i worry about the way we treat one another. and democracy can't work without disagreement. that's the beauty. the whole idea is we take the best ideas and we distill them down through everybody. and we have to disagree for it to work. you can't do that when you hate the person who disagrees with you. you have to remember that the person who disagrees with you loves this country every bit as much as you do. st

sotomayor, justice kagan, and justice jackson about 45% of the time. that's the court i know. - the court is iended, and was intended by the founders, to be insulated. do you feel that the court and you and your colleagues are insulated from the hyper-polarization that so many of the electorate experience? - well, i do worry about the safety of my colleagues after what happened to one of them. - and what's just happened to a former president. - and what just happened to a former president. and i do worry about that. but internally, the court functions very well, and i'm very happy about that. but, yes, i worry about the way we talk to one another. i worry about the way we treat one another. and democracy can't work without disagreement. that's the beauty. the whole idea is we take the best ideas and we distill them down through everybody. and we have to disagree for it to work. you can't do that when you hate the person who disagrees with you. you have to remember that the person who disagrees with you loves this country every bit as much as you do. st

finally, in civil justice, it was ranked 123rd among 128 countries. apart from international reports, the people of afghanistan were completely dissatisfied with their judicial system introduced by the us. according to the report by world justice project. the people had the highest degree of distrust in the afghan judges, that's why most of people felt like the formal judicial. system could not ensure justice, so they prefer the informal judicial system, a network that was traditionally in place to resolve disputes within afghan society. in 2016 we conducted um a study that aimed at looking at what these perceptions and experiences were like, and we saw that a large number of afghans were pursuing these informal mechanisms. based on the world justice project's report, the first thing that came to mind when people regarded the courthouses of afghanistan was corruption. after the fundamental problems of the afghan judicial system, the international court of justice at the hague considered the afghan judicial system completely. collapsed because of its a

justice breyer is an example. if you have justice sotomayor or justice thomas speaking at the federal society or one of these other groups, it is important for the public to know about it. i think the supreme court police could manage that. the justices meeting with people in their chambers. this is the historical society. if you remember 18 months ago, the historical society was being used to get to influence the justices. him and the political operatives use the supreme court historical society to get close to the justices to influence them on issues of choice. i think knowing a little bit more about who the justices are speaking with, i just found an appearance justice jackson made >> we take you live to the white house where president biden is speaking to the families of u.s. citizens released as a result of the prisoner swap with russia. president biden: good afternoon. this is a very good afternoon. a very good afternoon. today, three american citizens and one american green colored -- green card holder, all

and of the justice has resigned. and it wasn't just students calling for his sons resignation, relatives of victims of impulse disappearance under the government of former prime minister shade casino. also came out calling for justice. they legs, did you did the rates failed the loved ones? did you did? sure, you didn't run an investigation noted of, of justice. we want all of those involved, including the chief justice to resign. then we'll find the case against all those who filed falls lawsuits and tortured innocent people. they must be brought to justice as well. as some was a loyalist to ousted prime minister shaken. so you know who was appointed to head the supreme court in 2023. his downfall. big down when he called a meeting of the countries hi called. i'm a supreme court judges to discuss working with the new government. but students say they won't tolerate any connection between the jew disarray and shaken, seen as a why me lead. the hoping the newly formed into him government headed by my how many units wi

and other justice has resigned. and it wasn't just students calling for his sons resignation . relatives of victims of enforced disappearance under the government of former prime minister shake has seen a oh, so it came out cooling for justice. they alleged the judiciary failed. they loved ones which of did sure you didn't run an investigation noted of, of justice. we want all of those involved, including the chief justice to resign. then we'll find the case against all those who filed for lucy's and towards the innocent people. they must be brought to justice as well. as son was a loyalist to ousted prime minister shade casino, who was appointed to head to supreme court in 2023. his downfall began when he called a meeting of the countries high court and supreme court judges to discuss working with the new government. but the students say they won't tolerate any connection between the traditionally and shake has seen as and why re leak. and they calling for a clean slate. the whole thing, the newly formed interim go

and other justice has resigned. and it wasn't just students calling for his sons resignation . relatives of victims of enforced disappearance under the government of former prime minister shake has seen a also came out calling for justice. they alleged, the judiciary failed, their loved ones on the subject to show you didn't win an investigation noted of, of justice. we want all of those involved, including the chief justice to resign. then we'll find the case against all those who filed foes low suits and towards the innocent people they must be brought to justice as well. as son was a loyalist to ousted prime minister shake his email. he was appointed to head the supreme court in 2023. his downfall began when he called a meeting of the countries high court and supreme court judges to discuss working with the new government. but the students say they won't tolerate any connection between the judiciary and shake has seen as and why re leak. and they calling for a clean slate. the whole thing, the newly formed interi

palace was constructed with his help to establish justice in the world, justice peace. the first meeting of the international court of justice, icj was held in 1946 after world war ii. the first case that the court was supposed to deal with was the corfuu channel incident. the judges of the court were supposed to issue a fair verdict on the water conflict between albania and britain, a maritime confrontation that damaged british ships by albanian naval mines. britain, the plaintif in this case, was very optimistic about the legal processing of the case. that battle for freedom from fear, in which all men of good will are now engaged, the judicial settlement of disputes on the basis of law and justice is an essential and indispensable. the case was closed. many years past, and probably the residence of the hag palace, or better known as the international court of justice, were not aware that the most important that was going to be referred to the court was not one of those lawsuits related to blue-eyed europeans. the most important case of the court was dealing with huma

justice, peace. the first meeting of the international court of justice, icj was held in 1946 after world war ii. the first case that the court was supposed to deal with was the corfu channel incident. the judges of the court were supposed to issue a fair verdict on the water conflict between albania and britain, a maritime confrontation that damaged british ships by albanian naval mines. britain, the plaintive. in this case was very optimistic about the legal processing of the case, generals, that battle for freedom from fear, in which all men of good will are now engaged, the judicial settlement of disputes on the basis of law and justice is an essential and indispensable, the case was closed. many years past, and probably the residents of the hag palace or better... known as the international court of justice were not aware that the most important case that was going to be referred to the court was not one of those lawsuits related to blue-eyed europeans. the most important case of the court was d

thanks so much for being with us. want justice want justice free want justice just doctors want justicejustice v justice po justice justice the kingdom of morocco and the israeli apathi regime agreed on december 10, 2020 to normalize relation. a deal broker with the help of the administration of former us president donald trump. now this deal was betrayal of morocco's historical commitment to the palestinian cause. despite sif opposition by moroccans, the monarchy is entrenching this betrayal by signing military and security deals with the israel regime. in the most recent move, these north african kingdom plans to acquire a satellite from the israeli genocidal regime in a shameful $1 billion dollar deal. العوده الى ارض الاجداد لعل هذا الادعاء هو من اوائل الاساطير. المؤسسه لفكره الدوله الصهيونيه خرج الاسرائيليون اكثر من مره اول مره يعقوب عندما ذهب هو وبنيه استجابه لدعوه يوسف الى مصر ثم رفضوا العوده لها على الرغم من دعوه نبي الله موسى لهم ثم عادوا واخرجوا منها في السبي البابلي ثم عادوا بمساعده الامبراط. الفارسي كررش ثم خرجوا منها وطردهم الرومان منها واسست فيها حاضره مسيحيه ثم جاء الفتح ا

justice is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars -- gifts to justices worth hundreds of thousands ofollars from wealthy benefactors. conflict of interest from those connected to january 6 insurrectionists. and the blatant attack on nominating and confirming justices to the court itself. do y'all remember when justice scalia died in february of 2016? the republicans blocked the president's nomination, president obama's nomination, to fill that vacancy for nearly a year, by making up an entirely new standard that there be no confirmations of the court during an election year. but then, when justice ginsburg died in 2020, republicans rushed to push president trump's nominee at the same time votes were being cast in any election that trump would lose. it is outrageous. [applause] i know i don't look it, but i served in the senate for 36 years. [laughter] including as chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee. i have been told that i have ever seen more supreme court nominations as senator, vice president, and resident than anyone alive today. -- senator, vice president, and

justice thomas. you look at the kinds of manner in which documents and records are to be impaired and then you look after to see what the effect is. i will submit that the effect is the same in order to cause the impairment of the integrity of the evidence that's to be used in a proceeding or to prevent its availability. we look back and we look forward. >> wouldn't it be easy to look the c2 and then ask what it has in common with c1 andse that c2's provisions as a basis for that similarity? >> no, in c2 speaks to the effect of the actions that the otherwise clause covers. in other words, we look at c1 and we see that congress is concerned about documents and records and other objects and things that are done to those to impair the integrity of those. the effect of that is to obstruct. c2 omits that object and verb section -- >> you can just as easily say that congress is really concerned about things that struct, influence or impede official proceedings. that's c2. why isn't that e basis for the sim

o'connor, called telephone justice. taking orders from the party or are they trying to do the rule of law. and measure that way, i'm very, very, very sorry to say i think democracy is eroding somewhat. i don't think it's necessarily cat -- cataclysmic or can't be reversed. i'm not an expert. but signs after the great spread of democracy, it's sliding back. >> host: well, before we get into "ike's bluff," another one of your books, how would you describe the '50s? >> guest: well, confusing because we -- my generation, i grew up in the 1950s. he early 50s was boring. nice time, american prosperity. i think american incomes roughly doubled in the 1950s. the growth of the middle class. america did a spectacular job in the 1950s or creating and growing a middle class, washing machines and cars and houses and people just did great. so that's the sort of positive view of it. but of course it was also a scary time because the soviet union was building nuclear weapons to kill us maybe, and we didn't really know how many or what

justice thomas. you look at the kinds of manner in documents and records are to be impaired and then you lo aer to see what the effect is. i will submit that thefft is the same in order to cause the impairment of the integrity of the evidence tt'to be used in a proceeding or torent its availability. we look back and we lk forward. >> wouldn'e easy to look the c2 and then ask what itas in common with c1 and usehat c2's provisions as a basis for that similarity? >> no, in c2 speaks to the effect of the actions that the otherwise clause covers. in other words, we look at c1 and we see that congress is concerned about documents and records and other objects and impair the integrity of those.to the effect oth is to obstruct. c2 omits that object and verb section -- >> you can just as easily say that congress is really concerned about things that obstruct, influence or impede official proceedings. th c2. why isn't that the basis for the similarity? >> becsehe presence of the otherwise provision. otherwise,

the supreme council of justice was never able to establish justice.me time , the case about the alleged corruption crime, in which, in addition to the prince, the majority could have been involved, is losing its relevance. on the majority of members of the grand chamber of the supreme court. we know that at least 13 judges were there in the collegium in the case where the prince accepted a bribe. and with great probability, many facts in that case indicate that this bribe could be intended not only for the prince, but also for some other judges from the grand chamber, that is, the key conclusion, the highest judicial instance, the supreme court in our country. exchange needs its own cleaning. as a result of the vrp's decision, the grand duke of knyaz promised to appeal his dismissal in court, and it will only be about the circumstances of the housing lease. meanwhile, the story of the largest bribery in the judicial system, thanks to such members of the vrp as serhiy borlakov, lost any chance of being considered by the supreme council of justice. for

but when i want is for the justice department to come into court.ike they did in the senator ted stevens case. he confessed air can't stand behind this conviction. becauseey of the wrongdoing of r own attorneys. imagine for a second the people that would cause the department of justice disown the convictions on the cover up trial and the plumbers trial in the naming of nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator because of lives told to the federal grand jury. a lot of this except for that complaint and came after the book that was the publisher. all of this is extensively documented in my revised website. www., shepherd on watergate.com. both of you who happen to be lawyers may remove from law school the prominent professors all had casebooks. they were inevitably named after themselves as offers. and kasner and leach on property tenant on administrative law. i consider myself to be in the n authority on the watergate prosecution. i have named my website my digital casebook name shepherd on watergate.com. most authors develop their website to sell their

justice, peace. the first meeting of the international court of justice, icj was held in 1946 after world war ii. the first case that the court was supposed to deal with was corfu channel incident. the judges of the court were supposed to issue a fair verdict on the water conflict between albania and britain, a maritime confrontation that damaged british ships by albanian naval mines. britain, the plintif in this case, was very optimistic about the... processing of the case generals are hard showcross, that battle for freedom from fear, in which all men of good will are now engaged, the judicial settlement of disputes on the basis of law and justice is an essential and indispensable. the case was closed, many years passed, and probably the residents of the hague palace, or better known as the international court of justice, were not aware that the most important case that was going to be referred to the court was not one of those lawsuits related to blue-eyed europeans. the most important case of the

so joan, what do you make of these comments from the justice? >> well, you know, first of all it was that interview was taped before we had today's big news with special counsel jack smith reframing his indictment. but it's still really interesting to have a supreme court justice speaking out about a case off the bench without the black robe. and, her comments to norah o'donnell, did reinforce what she said in a separate dissent back on july 1 justice jackson is our newest member of the court and instead of just signing on to the dissent written by more senior justice sonia sotomayor, which usually is what happens if for these dissents, she wrote her own, she wrote a separate one that talked about the importance of accountability for the president and her her concern that she said was that the you know, that there's the model of accountability, there's a paradigm of how the country would hold the chief executive to account. and that the majority opinion here was flying in the face of that. so she didn't say anything new. it's just that we're get

justice, we want justice, justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we were that. the netherlands, the hague, near the sorflet national park, peace palace, building constructed in 1913 with the help of andrew carnegy, scottish american financer. andrew believes that he who dies rich dies shameless. spend your wealth not on charity, but gift it to institutions that work for peace.