indeed the barkers outside the court of appeals for a sin central london if the court has done its job today what will the government do that's the question isn't it nice. but we already know the british government intends to appeal this decision not on the basis of the decisions to be made in terms of the rulings but on more procedural level we're expecting some kind of statement from the british government a little later on but as we've heard the campaigners are very pleased indeed this is being a reasonably long road for them it now means not that the british government needs to immediately suspend sales or the licensing of sales of weapons to saudi arabia but does going forward need to apply pressure the. did levels of scrutiny when it comes to the licensing of its weapons to saudi arabia on the basis that these weapons have been used in the theater of war where indiscriminate attacks on civilians have taken place so an important day for the campaign is most certainly how this moves forward given that an appeal is on the cards though is yet to be seen as a set of state from the gov

of the waiver that's at stake in that case. >> do you think that congress meant that if you take a case, title 7 case, take it to a district court, take it to a court of appeals, the defendant has said not one word about exhaustion, the defendant loses in district court, loses in the court of appeals, and says, aha, there was no shauexhaustion. all bets are off. we win. >> i think that is one effect of this being jurisdictional. yes, congress did say this is a jurisdictional rule. but i think that is focusing on one relatively rare instance rather than on the reasons that congress would make a provision like this jurisdictional. >> what about the notion that if congress wants to make something jurisdictional, of course it can like it's made the amounting controversy jurisdictional in diversity cases. but it didn't do that here. it didn't say it's jurisdictional. >> i think that it did. i think that the text of section 2000 e 5 makes very clear that a civil action may be brought only after the eeoc has either dismissed the claim or has 180 days have passed, and then section 2000 e 5 f 3 only confers jurisdiction over actions brought under this subchapter. so i

on the cake, it turns out a judge gibson was nominated by the president to the eight circuit court of appeals in the middle of my application process. i did not even know it. thed up with a clerkship on eighth circuit court of appeals that i did not even apply for. good of me to apply to judge gibson to be sure, but certainly nothing to be intimidated about when you think about the clerkship. the second thing about the room where it happens is that all of you are capable of handling the most difficult issues in that room, those are the ethical issues. integrity, and justice. as to those questions, there is no advanced degree of honesty and truth. there is no clerkship on the supreme court of integrity. no one's credentials give them a monopoly on ethics. no one's credentials gives them -- a backbone and needing to choose no when everyone else is saying yes. don't ever let anyone tell you that you do not belong in the room where it happens. finally, truth can be your client when you joined the public debate. as as a lawyer, but simply concerned member of society, as a participant in ours -- in

court does not necessarily mean any of the decisions would be different. we are supposed to be the guardians of international humanitarian law. not the people found in breach of it. the court of appeal'stoday is a damning indictment of this government's handling of export licenses to the kingdom of saudi arabia. finding that they did not lawfully do so will stop indeed, the court found, and i quote, "the government made no concluded assessments of whether the saudi led coalition had committed violations of international humanitarian law in the past, during the yemen conflict, and made no attempt to do so". the secretary of state has tried to excuse himself by pleading that thisjudgment is not about whether the government has made the right or wrong decision, but whether the decision—making process was rational. surely even he must understand that if the decision process was not rational, then the government could have no confidence that it was correct. that the government has failed to carry out such assessments as a matter, i think, of national shame. and the secretary of state's suggestion that there has been anxious scrutiny over these decisions, i'm afraid looks threadbare. that a

of reforms to the supreme court. the first is that we should appoint every court of appeals judge as an associate justice on the supreme court. you have about 180 associate justices on the supreme court and the supreme court would hear cases in panels of nine chosen by lottery from the entirety of the court of appeals and it would be a super majority requirement for overturning statutes. we think of that is the lottery approach. part of this is that it will severely reduce the importance of particular people and expand the number of people who are participating in these cases. the second proposal we call the balanced bench. you may have heard of it as the 5, 5, 5 approach. five republican judges, five democratic judges, and those 10 have to unanimously choose five judges from the court of appeals to sit with them for a year and these 15 will be the supreme court for that year. the 10 judges cannot choose five, there is no quorum and they are not allowed to hear cases for the year. this will force the people on the court to actually find some court of appeals judges who both sides can agree are at least relatively balan

of an impartial judiciary. the consequences will be far reaching and could include politicizing the district court confirmation process in ways similar to what we have seen for the courts of appeal and the supreme court, and none of us should want that to happen. fourth, nationwide injunctions create unnecessary and unhelpful emergencies. when a nationwide injunction constrains a significant executive policy, the justice department has little choice but to seek emergency relief. no one benefits from emergency litigation. not the government, not courts. not the plaintiffs, not the american people. but the alternative is for a government to wait months or years for their appeals to run their course before the executive implement its policies may at all. finally, nationwide injunctions conflict with the litigation system that congress has chosen as the mechanism for aggregate litigation. one of the few potential defenses of nationwide injunctions is that they promote uniformity. of course, we value uniformity in our legal system. but we already have ways to achieve it. usually through the review by the supreme court on a writ of certiorari after an issue has percolated through the

courts. here also, we have posters that describe the job of the supreme court justice. what is a u.s. court of appeals circuit judge. that was a magistrate judge. is one of the great judges. the second circuit. he was not a judge of the second circuit. he did a lot of great things. we are proud to highlight. considered along with the judge. the judiciary. i would go through an exhibition. from the supreme court. what we have here are the justice. the e the judge on the second circuit or have some other obligation. thurgood marshall. justice ginsburg. is a poster of the other supreme court justices. the second circuit in commissions. very proud to have chief justice roberts as a justice with second circuit connections. he is connected in two ways. one he was born in buffalo. secondly he thinks for family. one that is called the creating space. he does podcasts and videos. there is a lecture space. there is a library space. how to use the material. opportunities. >> you see, above the line of things that are happening in the world. 1958. this is a case. >> i think we have to think about these children a

of in the other shooter or threats to the fbi over that investigation. supreme court set a same sec's discrimination case involving a bakery back to oregon's court of appeals. so the court will take another look at whether the bakery should hava to pay a $135,000 worth of fines in this particular case. now this comes after the owner refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sec's couple because of religious concerns so the attorneys representing the former bakery owner, they feel vindicated with the court's decision. >>kind of feel like we're you know getting another go at this and. >>to stand strong on it. the process will continue for a bit longer which is i think stressful on everyone involved and it's not particularly helpful. the ultimate result. we are very confident is going to be the same. >>well the kleins a closer bakery back in 2016. and it's unclear how long it may take to schedule a hearing before organs court of appeals will definitely keep you posted. a boeing 7.37 max airplane might be getting a name change so the company is looking to. >>leave some of the negativity associated with its flagship lane of the past. the planes are at the cente

the war is not yet over this is a legal battle a huge precedent a huge victory for cats but the court of appeal has said the government now has to reassess its judgment in regards to supplying saudi arabia with arms in the future and it can also apply for a court of execution if it wants to continue selling those arms with billions of pounds to the u.k. economy of u.k. government though has been told today that it must also pay court fees back to catch up with more than a $130000.00 pounds but of course the u.k. government does have a right to appeal this decision and we're waiting to find out whether it intensity so yeah a huge development for them to. speed the record in london now story happening here no because we live the last hour or so russians nationwide right now road cycling president putin is direct this is the largest in the the issues that matter most to them so far health care living standards are dominated the usually lengthy queue in a matter of direct line to the presidency is called and we can have the if they get through of the one and a half 1000000 questions are suggested.

surely, mr speaker, the court of appeal... f appealjudgment should be a wake—up call to the prime minister and the government. so, instead of appealing the judgment, why not accept the judgment and stop arms sales to saudi arabia now and bring about peace in the yemen and save those lives? theresa may said she was trying to bring about peace. also, the right honourable genetleman is talking about the relations we have with saudi arabia. that is a relationship that has saved the lives of british citizens in the past. but let's just look at some of the relationships that the right honourable gentleman supports. when people were killed in salisbury, his sympathies were with russia. when terrorists were killing... when terrorists were killing our people, his sympathies were with the ira. and in the recent tanker attacks in the gulf, his sympathies were with iran. he never backs britain, and he should never be prime minister. well, that last exchange was much more typical of the sort of prime minister's questions we've become used t

court, does not necessarily mean any of the decisions would be different. we are supposed to be the guardians of international humanitarian law, not that people found in breach of it. the court of appeal'sf saudi arabia. the secretary of state has tried to excuse himself by pleading that this judgement is not about whether the government has made the right a wrong decision, but whether the decision—making process was rational. surely even he must understand that if the decision process was not rational, then the government could have no confidence that it was correct. barry gardiner. now, what happens when a commons committee produces a report, and the government ignores it? the environmental audit committee has called for action to put a stop to throwaway clothes and poor working conditions in the fashion supply chain. but the government says measures to tackle the impact of fast fashion are already in place. the committee chair mary creagh says this isn't the first time a report has been ignored. she spoke to faye kidd. they have hinted that they might want to look at an extended producer responsibility scheme but they are talking about consulting on it and introducing it by around 20

previous decision by the high court back in 2017 the sales of. the court of appeal specifically. one element where it said that you. were. in a significant way and the judgment went on to say that that's because the u.k. government made it clear assessment of whether the saudis that coalition had committed violations of international. monitary in yemen in the past and had made no attempts to do you saying this was the reaction following judgments this close to the very top of the conservative party we now need a judicial review in the whole licensing system parliament has been shown to be totally broken we had 4 years to sort this out and the committee failed to meet the 2 years we now need a public inquiry on this matter the government should not waste time in appealing this judgment the government should fix our system all the sales to saudi arabia by the u.k. government significant amounting to around 4700000000 pounds since 2015 in the u.k. is the 2nd biggest exporter of all to riyadh the united states exports. poems and missiles well we've been speaking to cat 2 brought this

of a impartial judiciary. includeequences could politicizing the district court confirmation process in ways similar to what we have seen the courts of appeals and supreme court, and none of us should want that to happen. create unnecessary emergencies. the nationwide can -- injunction constrains a nationwide policy in the justice department has no choice but to seek emergency relief. no one benefits from that. the alternative is for a government to wait months or told -- or years for appeals run their course before the executive may implement its policies. nationwide injunctions conflict with the litigation system that congress has chosen as the medication -- the mechanize -- the method. preventde injunctions conformity. we value uniformity in our legal system but also have ways to achieve it, usually by review -- by review through the supreme court. court issues ae nationwide ruling we have more confidence that it is due to the proceeding efforts in the lower courts. nationwide injunctions turn the process onto its head and treat the first case like it is the last case. threeall, why do we have judges on the intermediary appellate level an

. >> up next, a conversation with chief judge for the court of appeals for the second circuit. he spoke about their role to x -- to educateociety -- is part of an initiative called justice for all: courts and community project. according to a recent anniversary of a, only 30% of americans can name all three branches of government. in a museum institute survey, more than one third of americans could not name a single -- not a single -- first amendment right. 10% of college graduates think that judge judy is a supreme court justice. us in this room are troubled about this state of affairs. of the learning center marks an important milestone in the development of the justice for all: courts in the community civic education initiative of the courts of the second circuit. >> young people get to experience a world beyond their classroom walls the give them the full to develop research skills, that allows them to work together, and helps them know that they have a role in building a better country. my own interest in developing a project like this actually predated 2014. i was chair of

for the court of appeal. the case represents a significant. using british made weapons to devastating effect. one minute past 5 pm here in moscow this thursday june the 20th a very warm welcome to our to international i mean and. let's get straight to the annual q. and a with the public. as always just about every conceivable subject was touched upon the president said for instance there will be tighter control over the actions of russia's law enforcement it follows a controversial case on an investigative journalist here which caught the attention of media around the globe after he had drugs planted on him and was then jailed he was later released due to insufficient. that after the event the president also held a press conference let's cross live to the question of who is at rest just the latter point. after that mara thin 4 hours plus of feeling those questions he also went out and spoke as he said to the media what was spoken about there. it was almost like answering questions for hours here in this hall behind me was not enough for him bu

after the court of appeals ruled the previous. case represents a significant victory for peace activists. or international news this is r.t. revery you're tuning in from home hello welcome our top story the russian president has finished his q. and a with the general public after a 4 hours from utilities on salaries to conflict. took questions on just about every subject no matter. small some of the biggest takeaways though a stronger response to sanctions on a call for mutual understanding with the u.s. space the president did not stop there. as he then met with foreign on russian journalists during the briefing he give a warning against military action in iran and call for russia to be more involved in the final conclusions of the da and to m.h. 17 passengers back in 2014 r.t.c. course a dollar falls out the address. most like answering questions for hours here in this hole behind me was not enough for him but well one of the 1st things he was asked as he will showed up for a media conference was the 17 and the question was whet

after the court of appeal. the case represents a significant victory for peace activists who say that riyadh is using weapons to devastating effect in yemen. government protesters a time to the parliament building in the georgian capital tbilisi. it's midnight here in moscow and you're watching all t. international live from our studio with me welcome to the program. the u.s. president has spoken out on iran shooting off an american drone over the strait of hormuz some saying to iran has made a major miscalculation iranian state t.v. has shown a video that allegedly tried to capture the moment the u.s. drone was shot down. i made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters clearly we have it all documented it's documented scientifically not just words and it made it very bad mistake because i mean you'll find out and you maybe you'll find out you'll find. obviously. you know we're not going to be talking too much about it you're going to find out they made a very big mistake we've heard trump indicati

office of the court of appeals rules the previous. represents a significant victory for peace activists who say that is using british made weapons to devastating effect in yemen. government protesters stormed the parliament building in the georgian capital tbilisi. it's 11 o'clock here in moscow and you're watching all the international live from our studio with me. welcome to the program. the u.s. president reacted angrily to iran's shooting of an american drone over the strait of hormuz on thursday saying to wrong has made a major miscalculation. well i made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters clearly we have it all documented it's documented scientifically not just words and it made a very bad mistake. you'll find out and. you'll find out you'll find. obviously obviously you know we're not going to be talking too much about it you're going to find out they made a very big mistake. we've heard trump indicating that not only did iran make a mistake but also hinting that this could have been some kind of human error

ek government suspends new arms sells to saudi arabia after the court of appeals rules that previous exports broke the law or the case represents a significant victory for peace activists who say that riyadh is using british made weapons to devastating effect in yemen that. the back of a bullet's water cannon and tear gas are used as anti-government protests rocked the georgian capital tbilisi. i am. a very warm welcome you are watching r.t. international with me making erin our top story this hour the u.s. president has spoken on iran's shooting down of an american drone over the strait of hormuz on thursday saying to wrong has made a major miscalculation meanwhile iranian state t.v. has read a video that allegedly captures the moment the u.s. drone was shot down. you know i made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters clearly we have it all documented it's documented scientifically not just words and emitted a very bad mistake because i didn't read it i'm afraid you'll find out and maybe you'll find out you'll find. obviously obviously you know we're not going to be t

government says spans a new arms sales to saudi arabia after the court of appeals ruled the previous exports and broke the law represents a significant victory for peace activists who say that riyadh is using weapons to devastating effect in yemen. government protesters attempt to stall nepal them and building in the georgian capital tbilisi. 1 o'clock here in moscow and you're watching altie international live with me and welcome to the program. the u.s. president has spoken out on iran's a shooting down of an american drone over the straits of hormuz on thursday saying to wrong has made a major miscalculation meanwhile iranian state t.v. is a video that allegedly kept as the moment the u.s. drone was shot down. you know i made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters clearly we have it all documented it's documented scientifically not just words and emitted a very bad mistake. i'm sure you'll find out and maybe you'll find out you'll find. obviously obviously you know we're not going to be talking too much about it you're going to find out they made a very big mistake

of the purse, is thrown out. i'm advised that the house has appealed the decision and i expect a very different result in the court of appeals. i think it will be reversed, and the house will be allowed to move ahead with this lawsuit. guest: while i agree with mr. nathan was to whether -- as to whether the d.c. court should have considered this lawsuit by the house, both of us joined in an amicus brief but argued that point in that case, that the house should be able to bring this case to court. that the house is a party that is injured in a very substantial way, itself, because it has the power of the purse. it is supposed to be the house. that appropriates money. and yet, the allegation is the administration has gone off and went money without an appropriation from the house. so i agree on that. i do think that this is an evolving area of law, they're just haven't been a lot of cases in which -- i believe this is the second case -- in which the house or the senate has sued to enforce an ppropriations power. the other one was the one nathan just discussed, where republican house sued democratic administration, s

of london. a british court has ruled that the uk's way of vetting arms sales to saudi arabia was unlawful, after a legal challenge at the court of appealke down in court today as he told the jury how he was described as a child murderer and paedophile decades ago by a man who is now on trial accused of lying about those claims. harvey proctor was giving evidence at the trial of carl beech, who's accused of making false accusations to police about a vip paedophile ring. mr beech denies 12 counts of perverting the course ofjustice and one of fraud. michael buchanan reports. almost five years after being accused of murder and sadistic sexual abuse, harvey proctor came to court to denounce his accuser and vehemently deny the allegations. occasionally breaking down in tears, the former mp said he'd never met carl beech, who he described as a fantasist. sitting just metres apart, harvey proctor said mr beech‘s litany of charges against him were, "horrendous, horrible, heinous allegations, the worst thing that one could say against another human being. i was horrified that anyone could think me capable of such things." asked directly whether

jack shepherd has lost a court of appeal challenge against his conviction for the manslaughter of charlotteas thrown from a speedboat when it capsized on the river thames in december 2015. our correspondent lee milner is at the court of appealfor us. correspondent lee milner is at the court of appeal for us. there were two appeals today, let's start with manslaughter. we heard that straight after the incident shepherd was interviewed by police but wasn't cautioned or offered a lawyer, so his barrister claimed that made the conviction unsafe. the crown argued that was dealt with within the trial and even if it wasn't fair, evidence that was submitted was valid so that appeal was dismissed. jack shepherd is currently serving six years for killing 24—year—old charlotte brown, who was thrown from the high—powered speedboat when it capsized on the river thames during their first date in december 2015. he's also serving a further four years after admitting a further four years after admitting a drink fuelled attack on a barman during his bail. earlier today we saw katie brown, charlotte brown's s

first of all we think that the case we presented was a very strong one and that is why the court of appeal came betty strongly dayin in our favor and we are confident in bakkies and confident that should be government who in an appeal that will lose again that is no surprise that the government isn't tending to appeal because the u.k. government like the has spent decades arming and supporting human rights abusing regimes and dictatorships all in the world and it is not going to give up those highs easily because it spent decades building them up and say the arabian no matter how many atrocities breezing has committed were it has been the murder of jamal khashoggi or whether it has been the atrocities committed against yemen no matter how little it thinks it's always been able to rely on the. uncritical political military support of u.k. prime ministers and u.k. government. but the contender is remaining to become britain's next prime minister will be possibly for a short term jeremy hunt boris johnson both defend arms sales. to riyadh is it something that's popular with the voters that. f

well let's hear now from the has more from outside the court of appeals in london. this is very much being seen as a partial victory for campaign groups sort of for the long and hard for this well they're hoping for eventually is a total ban on all british arms sales to saudi but that may be some way off yet the british government in response to this ruling has decided to freeze all pending arms sales to saudi looks into it although the british government has said that it will challenge this ruling the courts has not what's in any way. the british government to completely suspend licensing sales of weapons to saudi what it has ruled upon is that it was a lawful for the british government to grant these licenses of weapons sales to saudi arabia knowing that these weapons were potentially end up in yemen and used potentially against civilian populations there we know that many tens of thousands of civilians in yemen have been directly affected by the saudi led a bombing campaign over the past few years the british government has license sick . $1000000000.00 worth of s

case which we put to the court because it was a very strong one the court of appeal has come down verystrongly on our favor and to settle for usually important cases but andrew as one of the judges said the decision of the court today does not mean that the licenses to export arms society arabia must be immediately. and so on how are you going to convince the u.k. government to reconsider that matter. the u.k. government as a result of the u.k. government has just do a review into how u.k. arms have been used and to take a view on how if so you do you foresee violated international humanitarian law and very devastating war in yemen the main result from today can't be any new licenses awarded going forward for excess is happening this isn't just a legal question it's also a political one and we have to make sure that this judgment is not cast to one side just because much political pressure on the government to act as possible the court has done its job today is taken for the government to do this. the latest figures show that the death toll in yemen's war is fast approaching 100000 you

president trump, we've confirmed 123 federal judges, including 80 district court judges, 41 circuit court of appeal justices, and two supreme court justices, including neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. cheers and applause] i came to washington to try to help change the direction of the country but we needed somebody like president trump to break some eggs up here and actually get it done, guys. [cheers and applause] these are definitely promises made and promises kept. now the president's focused on immigration, trade and infrastructure. let me tell you. he's not taking a victory lap. on all his accomplishments, he's now looking forward, he's driving ahead. he calls me early in the morning, he calls late at night. i spend time with him at the white house. sometimes he's exhausting, guys. [laughter] but he works. he works. and he cares about people in america. isn't it great to have somebody in the white house who is ocused on getting results? [cheers and applause] and here's what i'm most proud of. i really am. he will never articulate it this way. we have a little different style of communicating,

court of appeals. there's look at the oral argument which the supreme court heard back in january. next, azar. vs. allina health services. >> if it may, please the court it did not require cms to go through notice and comment rulemaking before it could furnish its calculation of one component of a hospital's reimbursement to the contractors that performed the initial reimbursement for the agency it was not binding on the agency or the courts and it could be challenged on administrative appeal as the respondents did here. >> i have a problem with this. i know that you say that, but i don't know how you take this outside of being a policy that it applies to every single provider uniformly. i don't know the basis that you have an individual adjudication and what would happen if they say we will not listen if we are -- even though we are required to listen to the agency's position. if one case tells you it is wrong then is that the new policy? i'm a little lost as to how this isn't an agency policy. >> several points, the first is that we are relying on the operative language whether t

speaker, i welcome the judgment of the court of appeals against the uk arms sales to saudi arabia. the court found that the government had, and i quote, made now concluded assessments over whether the saudi led coalition committed violations of international humanitarian law during the yemen conflict and made no attempt to do so. does the prime minister dispute this finding? >> we continue with one of the most robust arms regimes in the world and we take our responsibility on arms export licensing very seriously, indeed in the words of the 2017 judgment that the government engaged in anxious scrutiny, indeed at what seemed like anguished scrutiny at some stages. we are disappointed that the court found against the government on one ground and will be seeking commission to appeal this judgment . >>> jeremy corbyn . >>> mr. speaker, germany as an eu member state and denmark in the u.s. senate and they voted to ban arms exports as well. the un describes the situation in yemen as humanity's biggest preventable disaster in the government sees fit to continue to sell arms to saudi arabia

so it is for these reasons we ask the court to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the fifth circuit and hold a combined 24 residual point for vagueness. >> you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i have four points. one is i think that my friend there is a plausible interpretation if it were to come to the court you should apply the rule of quantity for me because i want a circumstance specific approach. i understand that an ordinary defendandefendant whodefendantde commercial trafficking with a minor does so by threatening a minor with force, but that is in the way my crime was committed and i want to prove that to a jury and i would argue on the other side that didn't matter. it just matters what an ordinary defendant does you have no right to show the jury what you did. i don't think anyone would think that it's a slamdunk case to the government that they should apply ordinary case category approach. third, the shows why it shouldn't have any application here because it cuts both directions. a defendant who committed his actual crime in a manner

of ethics for the je supree court. it has had a direct impact on the nomination process of the newest justice. chief justice roberts referred 15 complaints against judge circuith to the tents court of appeals. chief justice roberts instructed the council to review the complaints. commenced itsit review, the 15 complaints grew to 83 but on december 15, the council determined it did not have jurisdiction to review the complaint due to judge kavanaugh ofinning sworn in as justice the supreme court. i am the chairman of the house ethics committee, we lose your his diction over members of this the ethicsforce rules of the house when a member leaves the house of representatives. now, in theeems judicial branch of government, no longer laws binding on judges once a judge is confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the united states supreme court. right. not seem quite i think it is understandable that people would be puzzled by the situation that we find ourselves in. specifically the process for reviewing substantive ethics complaints against sitting judges who ultimately are confirmed to me, numbers of the supreme court. iat specific situation come wonder if any of our witnesses have thoughts. mr

court and this is an affirmation of that. but the case copies. and the government could appeal this to the u.s. d we also have to go back to the district court and get the policy struck down once and for all. >> this is a policy that makes reference to the constitution and its protections for all women in the united states. the administration has tried when it comes to asylum seekers or migrants from other countries to suggest certain laws don't apply to them the same way. this ruling affirmed the idea that roe v. wade and the constitutional protections that are afforded to women in this country do cover them. >> absolutely. and actually, the government didn't even make the argument that the constitutional right to abortion for these unaccompanied minors was somehow diluted because of their immigration status. instead they tried to make a whole host of other arguments to get around the very clear command of the supreme court that says that anyone who is seeking access to abortion cannot be prohibited by the government from doing so. >> they made the argument if they can't get it here, they can g

comes up with another way of justifying this, the lawsuits that are not going back -- that are now occurring at the district court level with the permission of the court of appealstill block the commerce department from putting this question on. this question has not been on a census since 1950. the commerce department does not need to put this on the census, because the merit department has a survey every single year going after some he e-mails where they ask be income, commute times, characteristics of it is households. they have never needed this question to help he enforce the voting rights act. this was purely political it undermines the beity of the census bureau whether they cake up with this fictitious reason, so the professionals already predicted putting this question on would lead to an undercount of primarily hispanic latino voters to a magnitude they had never seen before and it would affect the voting power of latinos, it would affect theal indication of seats in congress, and also affect the division of legislators, who you talked before with respect to the gerrymandering case, could then continue to gerrymander districts and boundaries for congre