has the number of movie goers dwindle it's natural for studios to move away from blockbusters to safer and more manageable production they know can be successful an industry looking to keep its customers safe and itself in business robin fried al-jazeera busan south korea. it is kids have you with us hello adrian franken here in doha the headlines allows us here a surge in corona virus infections across france has forced the country into a month long lockdown from friday people can only leave home for essential reasons presidents of crawl says the 2nd wave could lead to more deaths than the fast. the u.s. supreme court has rejected a republican bid to limit when mail in ballots could be received in the swing states of pennsylvania north carolina it means that votes posted on november 3rd can be counted the several days afterwards aid workers in vietnam said that at

least 50 people have been killed dozens are missing after a powerful thai food triggered landslides in remote areas authorities say at least 12 fishermen are also dead silence louis reports. the 2 villages where the worst of the landslides took place in a coastal province in central vietnam and this is a region that still recovering from floods earlier this month that killed about $130.00 people and destroyed hundreds of homes the government says this typhoon that hit has damaged 50000 homes and left millions of people without electricity and heavy rain is forecast to continue until at least saturday the international red cross is condemning growing violence in the nagorno-karabakh conflict the latest ceasefire between has about a shot at our media appears to failed doctors have tried to move patients as the city of came under heavy shelling from various forces such as a by shot accuses

a media of killing at least 21 people and wounding dozens in a missile strike on the city of baba the u.s. secretary of state mike pump a.o.'s praised his efforts to dispute beijing's claims in the south china sea during a visit to the country promised to find new ways to help jakarta fight what he called beijing's unlawful claims the secretary of state is a 5 nation trip through asia. votes are being counted in turn severe following an election marred by allegations of fraud president john mica fully is looking to secure a 2nd term his government was accused of cracking down on the center head of the vote of the opposition claims that the election was unfair. headlines the news continues here on al-jazeera after today's edition of inside story next. 7000000 people visit around china to gather vital demographic data for the country's 7 relations and says. how china complete such

a huge challenge during the close with $1000.00. special coverage on al-jazeera. how far to the right is the u.s. supreme court shifting newly appointed conservative judge amy kone barrett has declared herself a constitutional originals but what does that mean and how did her arrival influence the decisions of america's highest court for a generation this is it. hello welcome to the program on iran come on she defines herself as an originalist meaning that the u.s. constitution should be interpreted as intended by its authors centuries ago her

critics fit she won't be moving with the times on religious rights the climate crisis health care abortion and to name a few the senate's confirmation of amy coney barrett as u.s. supreme court justice gives a 6 to 3 conservative majority over them more liberal colleagues and that raises concerns over how her philosophy could shape the rulings of america's highest court for decades to come a white house correspondent kimberly help that explains will. with the swearing in of amy coney barrett right here at the white house to the highest court in the united states the supreme court the makeup the ideological makeup of 8 that court has now shifted decidedly to the right on the political spectrum in other words conservative in potential rulings that may i unfold in the area of abortion rights religious freedom and even health care in fact almost immediately after the u.s. election on november 3rd there is going to be at test to see just how conservative

this new court is with the ruling that's expected on november 10th regarding the affordable care act and the ruling could have a major impact on health care in this country but there are other issues that this court could also have an effect on and that is in the area of environmental ism if there are regulations that are seen as burdensome this could be something that could concern environmental activists and also when it comes to corporate america and even also national security that could have a big impact when it comes to immigration policies so these are all areas that are being watched very carefully now that this court has a change in its ideological perspective now there is a way that this may be countered and that has a lot to do with the outcome of the 2020 u.s. election if joe biden wins he is getting a lot of pressure particularly from progressives or further left democrats who

believe that there is a legislative mechanism in order to try and pass the court what does that mean that means expanding the number of justices for 9 potentially 1112 and then allowing a democratic president to make those appointments altering the balance the ideological balance of the supreme court. let's bring in our guests in fairfax virginia tom gypping is a senior legal fellow at they heritage foundation he served as chief counsel to the senate judiciary committee under senator orrin hatch from the california harry letterman is a legal affairs columnist for the los angeles times newspaper he's also a former u.s. attorney and previously served as a law clerk to supreme court justices thurgood marshall and anthony kennedy and in new york is vincent warren he's a civil rights attorney and executive director at the center of constitutional

rights i welcome to each one of you let's begin in fairfax virginia woods' home gypping 1st it seems an anathema to the rest of the world that the highest court in the u.s. has appointees that have a political opinion a political slant. for most of the rest of the world when they think of u.s. justice they think of u.s. justice as being blunt but that's really not the case as it well i just really introduction to this conversation i wrote down 5 words that were said that i think are misleading yang about how the courts in the united states operate those words are policy. what the framers intended the conservative idiom logical and to the right those are all political terms and i think that's the wrong way to evaluate what courts do and the decisions that judges render even the

decision or the case involving the america the affordable care act. the decision will not be announced november 10th that will only be the oral argument and i think most people believe that the outcome of the legal issues that this report will not strike down obamacare but what's important is that. judges approach ish similar issues sometimes as legislators or politicians do but they do so very differently and of the it's neagle issues that are before the supreme court not policy issues and not political issues they do have consequences certainly but judging is about the process of interpretating and applying the law in each case and so so therefore with regard to justice barrett the approach that she has said she finds most compelling what's often referred to as

original in some is an approach that seeks to minimize the extra hermel political and ideological all and all of those pressures as to the meaning of the constitution but judges don't just interpret they also apply and it's the application of a constitution that doesn't change in its meaning to new uncertain new cases that that means that our constitution is just as adaptive as any other but well let's let's bring in let's bring in winston lauren any ok what we're hearing from home shifting is effectively there's nothing to worry about yes she may have this ideology of originalism but actually that's the benefit of the constitution. well i disagree i think that there's a lot to worry about i think both with. judge justice now justice barrett's approach and i think the approach of originalism look here's the challenge is that . you know my colleague was saying that there's

a lot of politics that are embedded in the way that the show described judicial function ng and that judicial functioning is really about the law the problem is that the law does not has not and will never exist outside of the political realm in which those laws have to be decided or evaluated it's in $789.00 when the u.s. constitution was passed that is true and it is still true for 2020 thus it is important and i think it's actually quite significant to look at the question of judge justice barrett barrett and the originalism because in effect the originalist approach is essentially freezing the legal analysis and perhaps the factual analysis to $789.00 when the constitution is passed ignoring and not paying attention to how this society our values our norms yes our policies have evolved since then and the troubling effect and it's almost

a necessary effect is that if you're freezing your analysis in 789 the farther in 4 way that you get from 789 the more intention of the law is going to be with the way that people actually live their lives and i think that's what we're going to see with justice barrett particularly around the affordable care act particularly around environmental as and you know this report out that says that 7076 percent of the time she has ruled in favor of corporations and not with respect to people and you know it one thing i wanted to add is that that's not just a concern to environmental activists that's a concern to everybody it's very much like the coronavirus 'd situations that have . a little issue with the facts and environmentalism and global warming is a fact and we really should be thinking about judges that would help ensure that belonged to be able to help us get to a safer place rather then pretending that it doesn't exist harry lippman it's

interesting because vince and warren brings up something is talking about the environment i was watching a film on tuesday night about the early life of ruth bader ginsburg was called the on the basis of sex and in that one of the characters a judge says to a class of people law should not worry about the weather of the day but it should worry about the climate of the era now we're talking about a judge who is going to bring in a more conservative climate and this is something that she can do because it's a lifetime appointment she is enough to worry about politics so therefore she can do and nail her colors so the most. and it's not just her i mean the issue here is she is joined at least 4 other extreme conservatives and the and the 6 the chief justice is known as relatively conservative himself look there's no doubt that that over the last few years the president along with the senate

has had a concerted effort to put into play justices who are at the very very extreme of the legal spectrum if you had 100 people in a room all responsible respectable intellectually you know people with integrity the problem is you've taken a slice of the people in only the right 5 percent they are out of step that means with the legal profession as a whole and also of course with the results for the american people when the court has been in that position before it's been bad for the court and it's also the case now that they're with 5 they have a monolithic majority and they don't have to interact and reason with people on the other side as they've done before so it's not her it's her joining 4 others. who are really very much on one extreme edge of american legal culture

and that is as you say portend a series of decisions in a series of areas that will be on response of not the best strongest view of the law and for decades to come all kinds of issues we can't even anticipate sitting here now having a good guess in and in new york you still think there's nothing to worry about. well i i didn't say there was nothing to worry about but what i would take issue with 2 things number one what was described as originalism is not original it's. a she describes herself as the no no barrier is original 'd words in her mouth she says no she defines originalism properly which is that the constitution or statutes for that matter that they need in what the authors intended them to me she seeks for original meaning the idea that it freezes anything other than what the

constitution means i don't know what you call that but it's not a regionalism that's why i said at the top. went when original meaning can be applied to cases that you know involve changing facts and adapt to all kind of talking to him when you use that as lives why are constant use words like originalism when you use words like looking at the constitution the way the framers intended the language in parts of the constitution of very clear let's just take one example it cools for the constitution the us calls for a 0 me and the navy it doesn't call for an air force so therefore if you're an urgent best. the f.o.c. is unconstitutional and original and original it's not a literalist the point is when when you and i in our daily lives interpret something that someone else wrote what we're trying to determine is what they meant

by what they wrote so if the question is whether the the framers of the constitution who put our army and navy in the constitution meant literally overlay army and navy and nothing else that would be a literalist approach that senator originalist approach it's a constitution it's not a a set of regulations and it's not even a statute if you ask the members of congress and i work in congress and the senate for 15 years you ask members of congress whether they just simply put words on a page don't mean anything or whether judges have the power to tell them what their statutes mean they would they would look at you like you're crazy because the law maker whether that's congress passing a statute or the process for ratifying the constitution is the same those who have authority to make a lot don't just put words on a page they determine what those words mean judges don't have authority to change

the meaning of the law but it's their job to apply that meaning to new and changing circumstances case by case and that's exactly what they do we're rights like conservative and liberal are political terms you could describe the result of let's let's put that to mean something or even if the political and political servant is a liberal are the wrong terms well let's let me put that some more let's get let's get a response from been some more and i mean these are political terms you shouldn't be using them the low so be applied equally. there really is as i was going back there is no such thing as low without politics i do think now that they are several and i really do think that what we're talking about is this distinction without a difference because every judge every lawyer when they're looking at statutory or constitutional interpretation if interpret it precisely the way that it was just 'd outlined and that's not what makes it dangerous what makes it dangerous is that when you take the literal meaning where the actual meaning of what the framers

minutes it can end will often lead you to a different conclusion as to what that meaning means for us today can you get there from here if they didn't mean it then you don't get it and that's the challenge that we have been so you know the original it's that it's not any that's not regionalism there's no journalist the any you can just you can take what they intend it was the constitution gives you no discipline and then apply them stamps and let me bring in having that many harry you're in california you write about this stuff on the on a day and i thought so i have a couple points to note. you know i you know i have a middle ground here 1st i agree that originalism is not the same as freezing things just disparate in fact testified that the constitution states principles and the job of the court is tell ply those principles to current day affair so i think in that sense it is a different task and i and it's not that that is problematic on the other hand on

this a liberal conservative point it's true that judges do something different from legislators on the other hand it's true undeniable that republican presidents and in particular president trump and present the presidents who have appointed the 5 people who now have a hammer a lock on the majority self consciously try to put i think what they would say are the my. most conservative judicially conservative we could have all about the terms but the fact that they're all from a very narrow stratum that is not representative of either the american people or the legal profession as a whole is what's the deep problem going going forward tom tipping military action well i'm not sure where the standard comes from that a 9 member court must represent an entire country or somehow be reflected on today

that it's a painful out of the united states at it should represent the people or be representative of the legal profession at a particular time i don't know where that idea comes from if it does or not at least effort from politicians but they're also your for lawyers so this is this is about the process of kowtowing to honor to settle it at the current you make a very nice weekend here and i just want you to have had to undergo stalky that say you'll saying what the 9 the 9 supreme court judges do not represent the american people and doesn't have to that we're saying i'm saying that at any group of 9 people cannot represent a country of 330000000 people in any but the most general way and the and the courts the supreme court in particular they are not a representative institution we've got 2 other branches for that the courts are supposed to follow the law not the particular

a political winds of the day and originalism is about limiting the you sort of. discretion and the personal ability of judges to impose upon the lot thank you for clarifying tom i know that we already have no one to get to everybody and give everybody a fair whack some more and i see you say he had what would burn if you go to sites in response to tell him. well i think that i mean i actually agree that it is unfair to ask 9 people to represent the entire country and it is not a representative body except for the fact of the process of judicial appointments the way that we very typically think and litigators very typically think about federal judges is by trying to figure out which president appointed them and to perhaps glean from that of quite meant which way they might be leaning and if you do enough of the practice you begin to see that this is not actually a black box with the facts that were in it and then the case comes out in a in

a way that is unpredictable in fact it's it's very often predictable based upon the conservative or liberal nature of the president were quoted them but i would also say that the while the 9 people can't be held to represent an entire 330000000 1st in country there are it's very rare that 9 people get to affect the lives of 330000000 people and at some level we have to be thinking about that question of accountability to the people rather than having people accountability accountable to the political whims of the presidents that put people in place this particular president has made very clear what his political goal is in appointing justice barrett and i think that does a disservice frankly to the process and to justice barrett because it properly and rightly raises these questions that mentioned i'm sorry i'm just going to come in here because i do want to get to everybody else as well we are running out of time harry lippman one of the reasons judges can be independent is because they have

lifetime terms however that also means that they can be belligerent and their own political position is i don't have to worry about losing their jobs is it time for reform when it comes to that particular lifetime guarantee of a job or is there more to do the more that the supreme court needs to be reformed. right you know that aspect of it the independence. people think of reforming it just because these battles have become so bloody and political and i do want to clarify that when when i talk about a representative court it's not representative in a political sense what is on representative about this court is these 5 people hold legal views that are very much in the extreme and most lawyers and judges would reject and when you have 5 of them making those final decisions you have a problem i don't think life tenure is now necessary to get rid of on the other

hand this so-called court packing idea you know what's happened here over the last 4 years has a knack of rank hypocrisy from the republicans who prevented. president obama's choice from going forward saying the next president had to decide and then complete reversal of form completely on principle and rammed through just disparate that is the packing that's already occurred they artificially low word of the numbers of the court and then raised it to 9 it's been such an extreme and embittering set of political raw maneuvers on their part that you will in fact have very strong sentiment on the part of the democrats should they take the senate for expanding the court just to do the same bring in to him did he said you want to hear from him. connell sorry sorry but i just want to bring in home gypping cool

packing should not be made illegal should we send cool packing packing let's clarify what court packing is filling vacancies come along gates today is not court packing that's what the president's job is that's what the senate strive as we could spend another show talking about the differences between 2016 and. 2020 court packing is changing the institution of the supreme court by adding positions and then selling them if the solution is to increase the number of justices i guess that means the problem is the current number that's not the problem that the supreme court sent 9 member since 869 they decide half the cases they did 25 years ago that the number of justices isn't the problem nor was there anything illegitimate about how either scully a vacancy in 2016 or the or the against her vacancy in 2020 or him going to be with

you at night i realize i realize that one that i remember i don't like the result but the but the solution is not to change let me mention anything eventually more like a rolling out of time and i did ask you both the same question i would like to ask the same question to vincent as well packing lifetime 10 years is it time for supreme court reform lifetime tenure i think is fine and i think it is not the problem i have a different take on the court situation is that this is a situation in which that the court has been sort of inundated with a range of bush that with this presidency in particular with a range of very right wing conservative judges who i think will swing the country in the legal analysis to the right in a very destructive way for generations to come that hass we have 2 choices either we live with it or and say you know that's the way the cookie crumbles or that we have to think more proactively about a way to rebalance the way that this court adjudicates issues that affect our lives

and i don't think that any reasonable person objective person would think that having a far right leaning federal judiciary just because you had a republican senator republican senate and a republican president that it's spewed out. federal court judges like they were handing out candy you know wouldn't get it no more and reasonably could think that that would be good for the polity and for justice moving forward over the next 50 years and there needs to be some attention 8 i want to thank everybody for a very spirited debate that tom gypping harry lipman and some warrant and thank you to you for watching you can see the program again any time by visiting our website which is there at dot com and for further discussion go to our facebook page that's facebook dot com forward slash asia inside story and you can also join the conversation on twitter our handle is at a.j. inside story for me imran khan and the whole team here.

what was described as the world's longest long down cause the largest exodus since the creation of independent india and $947.00. experts believe india is still less than the stage of infection but the long down has already created a humanitarian crisis and driven the unemployment rate for 6 to 23 percent and it's also highlighted inequality religious tensions and a health care system that isn't equipped to deal with a pandemic the following weeks when told of the recent mass movement of people will accelerate the spread to the corona virus from indian cities to its rule hot. one of america's worst coronavirus outbreaks in the prison happened in california after infected inmates were transferred from one facility to another no ventilation when

those are welded shut everyone is breathing the same air all of the time every day for a week straight then result is called man down man down man down man down all day all my fault lines os who is responsible. for the prison some pointed out break on of because you know. do you feel validated in south way is a type of performative activism. let's go back to specifically you calling a white supremacist the lights are on there's nowhere to hide join me richelle carey is up at the front questions to my special guests and challenge them to some straight talking political debate. front. on al-jazeera.

where every. francisco's back into lockdown and germany imposes strict restrictions the coronavirus pandemic continues to impact life across europe. hello i'm adrian for the good and this is 0 live from doha also coming up a typhoon sets off landslides in vietnam killing more than 50 people.