and i want to take you now to war so to our correspondent a live courtis who is standing by to give us the latest live in a massive street protests have been and now still what are demonstrators hoping to achieve and if that materialise. well that's a very good question actually they mostly want to see and show their their anger so for 8 days now we see purchases going to the streets using very strong language to basically tell the ruling party law and justice to leave the protesters face has announced a couple of things he wants to reach earlier this week they were very broad thor for example that was she said that she wants to see human rights being implemented in poland and she wanted to see. courts that are independent and she wanted for example the constitutional court president to leave now the course ruling last week effectively imposes a near total ban on abortion so what happens next now. the prime minister mark matters more of yes he said that he wants to see a man once being implemented to the abortion law as fast as possible and more of us clarity set before earlier this we

had courtis came after the alleged poisoning of russian opposition figure alexei navalny let's go live to our europe correspondent the developments in berlin with the latest on this what do we know peter about these upcoming measures against russia. well it's a busy e.u. council summit that we've got coming up over the next couple of days coronavirus dominating those talks break that also being chucked in there as well but we are expecting on thursday that we'll hear more about the sanctions the e.u. is proposing against russia for the alleged poisoning of alexei novelli now on monday e.u. foreign ministers agreed to go forward with these sanctions the exact details of them haven't been revealed yet but what has leaked out over the the subsequent days is that they're likely to target 6 individuals and one organization they will take the form of travel bans and asset freezes those are the type of sanctions the e.u. council can can push through without any further approval russian foreign minister sergei lavrov far from happy about this news following monday's announcement from foreign m

supreme courty. case may or may not resolve that big money dispute. what else do we have coming up? pretty much it's lower intensity issues. but as soon as the election is over, things begin to get exciting once again. we're going to have a big, big religion versus secular interests case where the question arises about whether these private nonprofit foster care agencies that receive t ntracts from the city of philadelphia must adhere to the city's nondiscrimination rule. the city of philadelphia requires that no discrimination against lgbt people. the cath hick social services agency -- catholic social services agency, which has been a foster care agency for decades and decades in philadelphia, says we won't place children with same-sex couples. the city said, fine, we're not going to give you a contract then. whether the catholic services had a constitutional right to exclude couples and still qualify for funding comes to the supreme court a day after the election. one week after the election there's a case about the affordable care act. anyone remember that? that was passed durin

courty that the supreme unanimously rejected the panel's view that house rules and regulation authorizes. and curious about that because when you argue that before the court, the court never mentioned this issue at all. it would not have had to even address the question. those arguments -- the adequacy of the house resolution -- norris: yes, your honor. judge tatel: could you explain that to me? if that is an average, what we meant was that the for house rules reasoning was rejected by the supreme court. quite clearly, this subpoena does raise separation of powers and constitutional concerns. yes, but that was to articulate four factors. they didn't say anything about the adequacy of the house. right? norris: there is no discussion of the house rules and the court opinion. it vacated this court decision. it vacated it with instructions to proceed with the opinion? right? here, i wantstions to be sure we understand your position. let's set aside the debate about rulings here. even if you are right. right that ite doesn't have to go back to the district court. we will be sure that we under