the supreme court is not well. really? the supreme court is not well. perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured. now, what that means is you rule the way we want or we're going to expand the numbers and change the outcome. a political threat, plain as day. as you read the document, you have expected it to end by saying that's some nice judicial independence you've got over there. it would be a shame if something happened to it. it couldn't have been more clear. independence from political passions is the cornerstone of our judiciary and our country. judicial independence is what enables courts to do justice, even when it is unpopular to protect constitutional rights even when powerful interests want them infringed. judicial independence, madam president, is what makes the united states of america a republic of laws rather than of men. it's been almost a century since the last time democrats threatened to pack the supreme court because they wanted different rurallings. -- different rulings. history still judges that d

when we come back, supreme inequality. the supreme court's 50 year a america a more unjust . stay with us. ♪ [music break] amy: "two can have a party" by gaye terrell. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the e war and peace report. i'm amy y goodman. in alababama, condemned prisoner nanathaniel woods offered no fil words thursday night as prison officials strapped him to a gurney and injected a lethal cocktail of drugs into his body. witnesses say woods showed labored breathing. he was put to death just hours after the u.s. supreme court stayed the execution briefly thursday evening, only to lift it without comment. he was executed despite never pulling a trigger in the crime he was convicted for, the 2004 murder of three birmingham police officers. in fact, despite being portrayed by prosecutors as the mastermind behind the crime, woods went to the death chamber professing his innocence. his claims were backed by kerry spencer, a death row prisoner convicted for being the gunman in the killings, who says woods was in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to

supreme court historical society does for the supreme court, the historical society does extremely important work in -- in reminding people of the importance of our constitution and our judicial system and its history and we're deeply appreciative. this evening marks the second of the society's 2019 leon silverman elect tour series, which is devoted this year to dissents in the supreme court. on my way over here, professor justin driver and also jerry libbon reminded me that i've written a few of those. tonight's speaker is professor justin driver. he's professor of law at yale law school. he teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law. and he's the author most recently of a book called "the schoolhouse gate: public education, the supreme court and the battle for the american mind." that book got rave reviews. "the washington post" called it "masterful." named it one of the 50 best nonfiction books of 2018. not to be outdone, "the new york times" called the book "indispensable." it was a finalist for the american bar association's silver gavel award and short listed for the ralph em

supreme court.e made a nationwide search and came up with a spectacular choice in justice sandra day o'connor. david: when president clinton became president, you were obviously somebody being considered, and then president clinton talked to somebody who was pushing for your appointment, daniel patrick moynihan, and president clinton said, "well, women don't want her." now, how could that have been the case when you were the leading lawyer in gender discrimination? why would women have not wanted you or some women not wanted you on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: just some women. most women were overwhelmingly supportive of my nomination. but i had written a comment on roe v. wade, and it was not 100% applauding that decision. what i said was the court has an easy target, because the texas law was the most extreme in the nation. abortion could be had only if necessary to save the woman's life. it doesn't matter that her health would be ruined, that she was the victim of rape or incest. i though

he's also an editor of the supreme court review. professor driver received his ba from brown university, a masters in modern history from modern college oxford, where he was a marshall scholar, and his jd from harvard law school, where he was editor of the harvard law review. after graduating from harvard, professor driver clerked for judge merrick garland, justice stephen breyer, and justice o'connor, sandra o'connor. and i don't know where this rings on the list of professor driver's compliments, but professor driver -- accomplishments, but professor driver was also a student of mine. and i can tell you from those long-ago years that he is super smart and super thoughtful, with a very kenai for -- keen eye for fascinating historical subjects. so you are in, as i am in, for a real treat, justin so you are in, as i am in, for a real treat, justin driver. [applause] >> hey, so i've been introduced by a lot of people over the years, but i have to confess it is an odd sensation to be introduced by a supreme court justice. perhaps one o

why would some web but not want you on the supreme court?ustice ginsburg: just some and most women overwhelmingly supported my nomination. a comment on roe not 100%and it was applauding that decision. court hasd was, the an easy target because the texas law was the most extreme in the nation. only if could be had necessary to save the woman's life. does it matter that her health would be ruined? thought roe v. wade was an easy case and the supreme court could have held that most extreme law unconstitutional and put down his pen. pen.'s abortionit made every restriction in the country are legal in one fell swoop. the country illegal in one fell swoop. that was not the way the court ordinarily operates. he waits until the next case and the next case. -- it waits until the next case and the next case. some women felt i should have been 100% in favor of roe v. wade. it was because i was not. david: president clinton met with you. you had a good meeting. he offered you the appointment and the confirmation went well would you say? justice ginsburg

the supreme court historical society hosted this action or in the supreme court chamber with elena kagan offering introductory remarks. jeremy: good evening. i'm vice president of the supreme court historical society and i'm excited to see you here tonight on the second letter on the supreme court. we're very privileged tonight to have as our host, justice kagan. she will be introducing our distinguished speaker very shortly. let me just tell you a few things about justice kagan you may or may not know already. born in new york, raised in new york, educated at princeton, oxford, and harvard law school. clerk to judge abner mikvah on the d.c. circuit judge, followed by a clerkship with justice thurgood marshall here on the supreme court. and a couple years of law practice, then in 1991, entering academia, teaching at the university of chicago law school, where she met professor barack obama. two years later, invited back to washington tow ork -- to work for the senate judiciary committee at the request of the chairman, then senator joe biden. two years later, judge mikvah becomes white ho

and eventually they would get before the supreme court and what the supreme court did in that case was to hold the purchases invalid on the grounds that the tribes didn't own their own land. and this was the point at which, in 1823, the federal government does adopt a rule about indian occupancy rights being the limit of tribal land rights. and it's a construct of this case. and what the court finds is, that when europeans discovered the new world, they found it in the possession of native peoples. and the question arose, who owns the discovered lands? the europeans says john marshall for the court, determined that the way it should work is as follows. upon discovery, the underlying title to all discovered lands becomes the property of the discovering european sovereign. that's the king of england. fine. if it's the king of france, fine. the tribes retain an occupancy right, which more or less meant a right to occupy. in that formulation. and so they could stay there. and they could sell the occupancy right if they wanted to, or the legal term is alienate. but only to the same discover

marshall and the supreme court. in 1823, second marshall court decision dealing with native land rights. the first deal, and civilly with native land rights. from a latee colonial era land speculation. that was, frankly illegal under british law. the land speculators would push for recognition of title for 50 years. in 1773 and was 1775. what the supreme court did in that case was to hold the purchases and valid on the grounds that the tribes did not own their own land. this was the point at which the federal government does adopt a rule about indian occupancy rights being the limit of tribal land rights. it is a construct of this case. , whenhe court finds is europeans discovered the new world they found it in possession of native peoples. the question arose, who owns the discovered lands? the europeans, says john marshall for the court, determined that the way it should work is as follows. upon discovery, the underlying title to all discovered lands becomes the property of the discovery european sovereign. that is

the supreme court had to wrestle with that. one justice, william johnson wrote, of course the tribes on their land. of course this whole deal is flawed. the majority, john marshall, hedged and said, it is not entirely clear that georgia owned what they would call the title to the land. we are not sure what interest the tribes have, but whatever it is, maybe it is not entirely -- this is hedging language -- entirely inconsistent with ownership. now let's talk about something else. we don't get a clear resolution. we get enough of a holding that the original grant was valid. the speculators could proceed to make their claim. that was allowed in this western part. tuck that-- talk -- way, because it is going to return. what happens in 1802 is the government finally shakes georgia down enough to cede its title claims. so they can become a new southwest territory, and georgia agrees to, but one of the conditions that georgia imposes on the u.s. when it cedes what would become alabama and mississippi is, we want you to get rid of the

-- the supreme court. provision in the law that he wanted the supreme court to enforce the one directing the executive branch to do something, is beyond our power under the constitution so we , can't do it. what he did was stay we, as the supreme court, are here to interpret the constitution, even if it is against legislation as an act of congress and we're the ones who say what the law is. and he did it in a moment where he was taking away the court's own power. so there was no backlash. that is the case any chief justice looks to to say that was the principle that was not established at the time, but the is now the foundation of the court's role in society. host: the current chief justice does point to that. let's return to clips and hear what he has to say about marbury versus madison. >> many countries that have constitutions, they are just political documents. if you have a dispute, it will be resolved however disputes will be resolved. maybe in an election if you are lucky. force of arms if you are n

african-american on the supreme court. it's an important benchmark in his life, but i think it is on the tail end of his real fame. the importance of marshall really stems from his work prior to that, when he was probably the leading civil rights of voice in this country throughout the 30's, 40's, 50's, into the 60's. i think that who marshall was was an architect of the change of the legal structure of this nation, to make it more in balance with the words and the principles of the declaration of independence. it's through his work in the courts where he began to change that. rules are rules, to make them work the right way you can create a more balanced and better way of living for all americans, not just a few. i think he believes in equality, a person who believed in protecting the rights of the poor, the rights of people of color, the rights of those who have been mistreated by the nation because they don't have wealth or the kind of influence that they need. his work in that area really changes the nature of the nati

the supreme court is not well. really? the supreme court is not well. perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured. now, what that means is you rule the way we want or we're going to expand the numbers and change the outcome. a political threat, plain as day. as you read the document, you have expected it to end by saying that's some nice judicial independence you've got over there. it would be a shame if something happened to it. it couldn't have been more clear. independence from political passions is the cornerstone of our judiciary and our country. judicial independence is what enables courts to do justice, even when it is unpopular to protect constitutional rights even when powerful interests want them infringed. judicial independence, madam president, is what makes the united states of america a republic of laws rather than of men. it's been almost a century since the last time democrats threatened to pack the supreme court because they wanted different rurallings. -- different rulings. history still judges that d

supreme court overall.s way pointing to this remark to donald trump. >> take on the intelligence community. they have six ways from sunday at getting back at you. so, even for a practical supposedly hard nosied businessman is he being really dumb to do this. brian: g.o.p. congressman mark meadows and jim jordan join us right now. they see similarities between those two remarks. first, guys, would you both comment on what you just heard on the steps of the supreme court? jim? >> jim, go ahead. >> well, it's inappropriate, but you are right, brian, this is not the first time chuck schumer has tried to intimidate someone. it didn't work with president trump. i don't think it's going to work with justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh. but it still is wrong. you don't do those kind of things. and he is right. the intelligence community did try to go after president trump and we have uncovered that, and horowitz report further exposed what they tried to do. so, you know, he shouldn't be trying to intimidate. it d

supreme court were. at the very best, his comments were astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible. trish: you know what? i'm tired of it and you should be too, right? i'm sure you are. because the gop has been harassed, it has been threatened repeatedly. >> you tell them they're not welcome! >> when they go low, we kick. [laughter] that's what this new democratic party's about. >> you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. trish: you know, the gop if has even been hot at. steve scalise is proof of that -- shot at. and yet the left wants to encourage hate, wants to encourage mobs, wants to encourage violence? is this the goal? to empower the antifa to harass these justices just like they did to a woman running for congress? remember that one? i've played the tape a bunch. they surrounded her car. they screamed at her. they threatened her because they didn't like her stance on an issue. you see, by issuing threats like you did, chuck

supreme court. the supreme court upheld this travel ban. but i want to point out to the gentleman that the department of homeland security has been very clear to these countries that if they comply with the basic reporting requirements, again that every other country in the world that has that same travel agreement with the united states, has, if they were to come into compliance, then they would be removed from the list. chad is one of the countries that was originally listed. chad worked with us as every country should and said, you know what, we are going to comply. we want to make sure that we are properly sharing information so that if people are coming to the united states from chad now they are properly vetted for terrorism and other criminal activities. and they got removed from the list. any other country, by the way, has been invited to do that. they have chosen not to. why is a good question they should be asked, but to criticize the president for using his executive authority to keep this country safe, to keep terrorists from co

the supreme court is not well. really? the supreme court is not well.e the public demands it be restructured. now what that means is you rule the way we want, or we will expand the numbers. and change the outcome. a political threat plain as day. as you read the document, you half expected to end by saying that's some nice judicial independence you have over there. it would be a shame if something happened to it. it couldn't have been more clear. independence from political passions is the cornerstone of our judiciary in our country. judicial independence is what enables courts to do justice even when it is unpopular to protect constitutional rights, even when powerful interests want them infringed. judicial independence, madam president, is what makes the united states of america a republic of laws rather than of men. it's been almost a century since the last time democrats threatened to pack the supreme court history still judges that disgraceful episode to this day. so i would suggest that my democratic colleague spend less time trying to threaten im

presidents have criticized supreme courts.emember president obama shaking his finger at the justices during the state of the union speech over a decision they made. but that is quite different from joining a mob scene over in front of the supreme court building, mentioning supreme court justices by name, and using language that is typically used to bring about some kind of a violent reaction. >> shannon: you been busy this afternoon, all of you on the senate side, passing funding related to the coronavirus. at the same time, there has been plenty of criticism of this administration of republicans not getting things done correctly. there is an ad that is running on facebook. we want to play some of this. it says, essentially, on its face, there is text on the screen for this, and it's is the trump administration would rather pad the pockets of drug manufacturers then provide access to an affordable coronavirus vaccine. what can you say about where we are with vaccine makers, drugmakers, big pharma, in this conversation? >> sena

presidents of criticized supreme court's off and on. i remember president obama shaking his finger at the justices during the state of the union >> over a decision they made. that is quite different from joining a mob scene in front of the supreme court building, administering supreme court justices by name and using language that is typically used to bring about a violent reaction. >> you have been passing funding related to the coronavirus. at the same time there has been plenty of criticism of this administration of republicans not getting things done correctly. there is an ad running on facebook. it says there is text on the screen saying the trump administrator would rather pad the pockets of drug manufacturers then provide access to unaffordable coronavirus vaccine. what can you say about where we are with vaccine makers and big pharma in this conversation? >> in a time of intense partisanship republicans and democrats came together in a matter of days, reached an agreement with the administration and passed in the senate after ha

a sitting senator threatening the supreme court justices. this is an unprecedented attack and it wasn't just senator schumer who attack the justiced yesterday. we have the update. to the secret fisa surveillance court, saying to congress, hey, if you won't punish fbi officials and hold them accountable we will. fisa court banning and blocking from its courts the fbi agents who deceived and misled it to get fisa surveillance warrants to spy on the trump campaign. you won't believe what we found. senator elizabeth warren stops her campaign. nancy pelosi says there is quote an element of misogyny here. the debate. did nancy pelosi criticize her own party and democrat voters? we have growing concerns about joe biden's seemingly never-ending waterfall of flubs and gaffs. we have even more new examples. this debate, candidate biden weaker than candidate hillary clinton? results that we've got tonight. plus, why exactly did this massive brawl break out in turkey's parliament? fists were flying. people standing on desks in order to throw punches. we

no i don't think so in fact as the supreme court said this isn't an entirely new concept in any event obviously they went through the laws as we know them. you know the statutes of the law that parliament made and found that this wasn't something new that they were introducing for the 1st time in any event but 2nd you know i don't think so like they said specially obviously every case is different and we have to look at the facts of each case but for instance in this case the explosive substance that this 22 year old at the time perhaps even younger had made in in the unit in the garden shed in his house was just less than 10 grams of that substance and as the judge said as a supreme court said that even if he had to use it in an explosive in an explosion it would have caused quite an interest on shirt is the word they used. explosion so there was there would be no harm caused and so i think that's basically what the court is saying that just because someone has in their possession you know any amount of any explosive substance doesn't mean that they should be guilty of a criminal off

the door was opened in these citizens united decision by the supreme court. this bill would also secure our elections from foreign interference and restore voter protections that republicans have spent decades attacking for their own partisan political benefit. like many of my colleagues, i am particularly focused on combatting the republican party's efforts to disenfranchise millions of minority voters. i could spend hours detailing the efforts throughout american history to make it as difficult as possible or even impossible for people of color to vote. but today i want to focus on the impact of the supreme court's 2013 decision in shelby county. in this 5-4 decision, chief justice roberts and the courts' conservative justices effectively gutted the core protections of the voting rights act. they decided that states with long histories of discrimination no longer had to obtain federal approval for voting changes under the voting rights act. as author carrol anderson explained, chief justice roberts has long been an opponent of the voting rights act and in s

and i've always said, it's not called the supreme legislative branch or the supreme executive branch,f our laws is the supreme court. >> so it's supposed to be nonpartisan. what do all of these issues say and the fact that they're going to be hearing them, they're going to be hearing them, what does that say about the politicization of the court? >> i think there have always been attacks over time that the supreme court was being politicized. i still have faith in the justices. i mean, even in these days of hyper partsan rhetoric and rancor. i think the justices still try to look at each case on the merits. they can't avoid the political noise that sort of rises around these issues. but this is our institution. this is our system of government, for better or worse. and the supreme court has to wrestle with issues that have significant political consequences. >> glen kirshner, thank you so much. >> thank you. >>> breaking news in the coronavirus outbreak, we're live in california as thousands of cruise ship passengers are finally headed to shore. only to face more uncertainty. >>> plus

coicnps of the supreme court. >> we have a lot of work to do.a lot of work to do in fighting for unborn children. >> reporter: kathleen pitman has just stood before the highest court no the land. she's here to fight in a case that could set the precedent for the entire nation, a ruling many feel could weaken roe versus wade. >> i cannot tell you how moving it is to see all of you here. all of these faces rallying behind us, behind a small, independent clinic in northwest louisiana. [cheers and applause] >> reporter: here, 1200 miles away from our nation's capital in shreveport, louisiana, the real battle unfolds. >> wicked, unimaginable! >> reporter: pitman's small clinic at risk of closing if it's forced to comply with a new state law restrictingerrm artioe outside, a scene the clinic staff is all too familiar with. protesters lined up, many who believe abortions are a sin. >> it's hard. you know, to see women go in here. and come in here with their child in their womb and then leave without it. >> reporter: volunteers double as body guards, es

supreme court is going to hear a case two new judges. threatening them. mincing his his -- words. being cheered by it. that. so much better than i don't care if it was a republican or democrat doing it. it's unacceptable and it is a low. it's inappropriate. it goes beyond just an apology. that what he really meant? we know chuck schumer. he's been a member of congress. senator for quite sometime. and he's been a leader. inappropriate, but to take it to that level, it almost brings a threat not only those members of the supreme ourt to others, for others to act. i don't know if democrats want to change their leadership over t, but i've heard some talk about it. so i wouldn't -- i would -- from just andpoint of censuring, i think there are other actions that could take place. always found inside our party, i think it's a place that you should look at if that's who leader, if your that's the action and words you support, then they would probably do nothing. if they disagree with those think something th-- something should happen. yes. nobod

the supreme port should never have gotten involved, the constitution doesn't mention the word. and so it's not a surprise that politicians are going to treat the court politically when they have themselves acted politically in deciding those cases. what is significant here is that brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch and clarence thomas are going to follow the constitution wherever it leads. that is what chuck schumer and his cronies can't abide by, they want an outcome that favors their political agenda whether the law allows for it or not. that is what really is at stake here. >> raymond: they are no doubt worried, the roe v. wade is as thin as joe biden's hairline at this point. this is the statute that people have been siding, this is 40 u.s. code, 6134. it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a loud, threatening, or abusive language in the supreme court building or grounds. chuck schumer was there at the behest of a pro-abortion group on the stairs of the supreme court. did he run afoul of that statute? >> i think you probably dead, pe

but the supreme court stepped down the formula. the voting act worked was if you were a state or a city or a county that kept african americans from voting in the not so good old days, you could not make any change in voting legislation unless you precleared it with the department of justice, civil rights division, or with the district of columbia. so that suppressed many laws that would have discouraged african americans from voting. the supreme court said, well, the formula for who is discriminating in 1965 is now out of date. congress needs to do it over, because jurisdictions that were discriminating in 1965 may have clean hands today. the political problem was what member of congress, what senator, what representative would stand up and say, my state or my city or my county is still discriminating, so keep it under the surveillance that the voting rights act provides. it just wasn't going to happen. the act itself had a bailout provision. so if a state, city, county indeed had clean hands for several elections, it could bail o

the supreme court never should have gotten involved. the constitution doesn't mention the word and so it's not a surprise that politicians are going to treat the court brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch and sam l irk do and clarence thomas are going to follow the constitution wherever it leads. that's what chuck schumerer and his cronies, can't abide by. they want whether the law allows for it or not s. its that's really what's at stake here. >> they are no doubt worried. this is the statute that people of course citing. this is 40 u.s.kcode 6134. it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, fire work, set fire to a combustible, make a loud, threatening or abusive language in the supreme court building or grounds. chuck schumerer was there at behest of a pro abortion group on the stair stairs. the law that john referred to, which makes it a felony to threaten a federal official. and i think what senator schumer said arguably does constitute a threat. and he said, you won't know what hit you. quote, unquote. >> now, i want to play this. this is

i disagree with supreme court opinions.'ve criticized supreme court justices for some of the rulin rulings. the use to criticize them by name. that's fine. that's not what schumer did. >> harris: brendan? >> i think that's absolutely right. there's nothing wrong with criticizing the court. people did all the time. barack obama famously did it to their faces in the state of the union address. that is far different than what chuck schumer did, he went way out-of-bounds. good for justice roberts for speaking out and defending the court. now, one of the things, i think why republicans know they have an advantage here, is one of the main arguments democrats have been trying to make is that they are the party of norms. they are the party it's going to bring back some level of civility to politics. when you have not just a backbencher but the leader of the senate democrats going out there and making crazy threats, that totally undercuts your argument. now, i understand why chuck schumer is upset on issues related to the judiciary.

chuck schumer issuing threatening statements against two supreme court justices, republican senator john kennedy with reaction to the controversy that erupted over abortion case in louisiana. i am shannon bream, we begin with rick leventhal from the newsroom. good evening. new cases in texas, new york, new jersey we have dramatic developments. just hours after la county made an emergency health declaration, the government issued a state of emergency, a cruise ship with thousands of passengers headed for san francisco being kept at the because 2 dozen people on board are sick possibly with the enger on it last cruise. after the grand princess dropped the man and thousands of other jobs, and now 21 people on board, 11 passengers and ten crew are showing symptoms of the virus, the ship is being held off the coast. >> we are going to be flying to the cruise ship and sitting those back to the state. >> an attorney in his 50s has been hospitalized in severe condition. a friend who drove him to the hospital tested positive along with the man's wife and three kids, 1000 new yorkers under mandato

a sitting senator threatening the supreme court justices.ented attack and it wasn't just senator schumer who attack the justiced yesterday. we have the update. to the secret fisa surveillance court, saying to congress, hey, if you won't punish fbi officials and hold them accountable we will. fisa court banning and blocking from its

the calendar is full for the rest of the supreme court term.oes that mean they're going to start having afternoon sessions when they resume for the last oral argument term in april? are they going to go a little longer? are they going to push these cases off until next term? that's all to be decided. but no oral argument when the supreme court resumes business as it was scheduled to do this coming monday. >> pete, i know we're dealing with the information as it comes into us, you may not know this yet. do you know if decisions will still be announced as anticipated or as scheduled from the supreme court and, two, do we know how they came to this decision? is this a single decision by the chief justice, john roberts, or is this in consultation with the other justices? >> in theory, the chief could make this decision on his own. but i'm sure that he has consulted with his colleagues on the court. that's the way he normally does business. and i'm sure that the other members of the court went along with this. frankly, one of the concerns about the

court and then the supreme court will hear he is being cheered and we are so much better than that. i care republican or democrat and it is unacceptable it is an appropriate and goes beyond just the apology is that what he meant chuck schumer has been a member of congress and he has been a leader so it is so inappropriate but to take it to that level it almost brings a threat not only to those members i don't know if democrats want to change their leadership about it but i've heard some talk from one's standpoint of censoring i have always found its place that you should look at if that's what youou support that they would probably do nothing if they disagree then something should happen. >> sitting before our case to be heard threatening supreme court justices when they have the power of confirmation of how to make a decision on that case with coequal branches but he's doing it as a leader in the senate of an entire party that he leads he voices that concern and doing it with a cases heard at the senate and it is over a case and how to decide the case. >> are there some compromise?

supreme court.eil, if someone called out your name as schumer did to these two justices, and said, you will pay a price. you will not know what hit you. we would view it as a threat. and i think that is why the chief justice did what he did, pointed out where sumer was absolutely wrong and if i were one of those justices i would be concerned. that's a kind of thing that happened to ballplayers in the republican party and before congressional ball game where i their practice field they were a attacked and it became a shooting field with someone trying to kill them. you have to be very concerned with their words and i expect much more from chuck schumer. the chief justice of the supreme court was absolutely right to call him out. >> neil: should he be censored? >> while sensor is something that would happen on the floor of the senate but i think what's more important is chuck schumer ought to personally apologize and ought to do it in person. he needs to apologize for what he said and the direct threa

still ahead on al-jazeera a new bachelor ever born in the united states now new faces of the supreme court could sway. the group of branching out of the world bank should leave an important message. for. how we got some quotes weather now pushing across the middle east following on from a very wet weather this is now in the process of heading towards afghanistan this little area of cloud here brought some violent storms through some wintry weather too over the high ground you can see clear skies now coming in behind still quite a keen. across the gulf running down towards us here in concert temperatures around $25.00 celsius out of the strength of the way it's going to get dusty $25.00 in similar conditions as we go on through friday by and by friday night is that west of weather sliding across northern parts of pakistan towards india then possibility some flooding in one of 2 spots here meanwhile across northern africa not see much of the way of cloud and brian this little area cloud here just clipping the far north of libya will bring some outbreaks of rain having said that a cold