supreme court. which mcconnell and were republicans in the senate created a new standard as justification for blocking the vote for merrick garland. for more than a year, they reduce the number of justices on the court to eight, simply because it suited their political needs in that moment. of course, just a few years later, they walked back their phony justification for locking merrick garland to rush through the nomination of amy coney barrett in the middle of an election, in which they lost control of the presidency and the senate. there was no principle behind these decisions. what they did was purely a producing new for to lock in conservative control of the court. they used the power that they had. we have already felt the ramifications of these decisions. i understand that people focus on the mechanics of how republicans blocked judge garland, but we do not pay sufficient attention to what the has meant legally. if merrick garland had been on the court instead of neil gorsuch, there would hav

court level. what is happening at the state court level and is it a cautionary tale that five years and it will have 97 supreme court justices if we take this for step, or is it evidence these are concerns are overblown and actually the way court expansion plays out in practice is quite different than sort of what our initial expectations might be? >> sure, it's a great question. the work i am done as you mention look specifically at the state courts. in the fall obviously we started getting a lot of talk about court expansion, more than we've had inur recent memory, and you saw a lot of republicans coming out and saying this is something that should be off the table. if you look a little more closely ofin what's happening at the state level you can see that's not the same approach that's been taken there. if you look in the last decade and in particular that was the time focused on we actually see lawmakers in 11 different states introducing at least 20 different bills all aimed at expanding or c

court. two basic principles. counter majority organism, the idea that it is a particular job of the supreme court to stand up on behalf of people who may not have majority support, whether it was atheist, or civil rights activists, or criminal defendants throughout the 19 sixties. and second, was the emergence of this philosophy that some historians have called rights of related liberalism. liberalism in the united states was primarily devoted to the protection of individual rights, and as a result, the supreme court became a very important 1ourt became a very important one problem, which is that if your governing is going to approach the supreme court, you have to a supreme court justices, and as we see this becomes an increasingly fraught prospect for the liberals. so the backdrop. lbj. after 64, after the civil rights act, 65 with the voting rights act, he has a sense that the supreme court is going to be significant, but unlike with kennedy, there are no openings on the courts, so johnso

in the courts.some of that is around the ideological makeup of it but also as you see president trump nominating the most white justices fortunately they were seen in decades reversing all this progress and people are people of color will not have much confidence in the courts when they don't see people literally that look like them and refunding the diversity of their nation there. it's incredibly important reason to expand objects with the supreme court the lower courts as well. i think it's a great question and i'm really glad we're starting to think about court reform in such an expansive and important way. >> so that just brings about us to the end of our time. molly, chris, dan and attorney general holder, thank you so much for joining us today and kicking off this really important conversation. >> thank you. >> thanks so much. >> thank you. >> you are watching c-span2, your unfiltered view of government. c-span2 was created by america's cable television company and today we are brought to you

the appeals court to the supreme court. they say he's a republican, very conservative, if you want to go with a southern conservative nominee, he is your man. nixon says, that sounds great. he'll nominate him. there are two problems with the carswell nomination. the first is that hainesworth did have a couple of votes that were hostile to civil rights but there was no indication that hainesworth was racist or that he was personally hostile to african-americans in any respect. he would stay on the circuit court after his defeat for several years and was well liked by both parties. you might have liked his votes or disliked his votes, but he was not personally problematic. carswell before entering the judiciary had run for public office. not in florida, but in georgia. it doesn't appear as if the nixon people had picked this up. and in 1948 running for state legislature in georgia, he had delivered a speech saying he was in favor of segregation forever, disparaged the idea of racial equality for african-americans, so if hanes

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? ruth: just some women. most women... were overwhelmingly supportive-- 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. doesn't matter that her health would be ruined, that she was a victim of rape

they all put supreme court justices on the court presumably to pursue the jeffersonian vision of limited government. but marshall, through his openness to compromise, through his own force of personality, helped forge the court together and build unanimity. one of the great innovations was to move beyond the practice were each justice would write his own opinion for every decision, what to instead issuing opinions of the court. during this, marshall writes the vast majority of the court decisions. unlike today, they tend to be unanimous even on divisive issues. let's dig into a few we see here. the first artifact we see here toward the back of the case is the court decree from a case in 1824. gibbons versus ogden. the state of new york issues a monopoly to steamboat operators. isey constitutional question , how broadly do we read the commerce power, the federal government's power over the economy? this is a debate that goes all the way back to the founding and the washington administration. effectively, marshall reads the commerce power broadly. he says it covers things like navigation o

court says, no thank you. do you have any different view? neal: 100% political question. totally. paul: i think we are getting pretty close to our time together. anything else you want to share? neal: a lot of students are watching. you had mentioned before a case you had argued against me in which you said you saw the justices -- i went first. they were receptive. that case was the guantanamo case. we have had some heated cases over the years. the affordable care act as well. i think it is really important for folks to know we are good friends. that is one of the things i love about this bar and i love about you in particular that i love about georgetown. we can be on opposite sides of really hard stuff that we care tremendously about. with every fiber of our souls. but respect the person on the others making the other argument because our profession at the end of the day is all about precisely that. you have taught me so much in addition to teaching somebody georgetown students. i wanted to take the opportun

there are many less court of appeal judges. there's only about 200 court of appeals judges. and there's about 700 or 800 district court judges. so, for the court of the peels, every president has a committee of some sort within the white house, made up of people from different departments of the white house counsel's office, the department of justice, advisors of various kinds. they get together and usually supply recommendations to the president. david: you were appointed by president clinton? jutice sotomayor: by president clinton to the court of appeals. was it unusual -- david: was it unusual to have someone who was a republican president rubbed -- appoint you to a position and a democrat to appoint you to another? was that unusual? jutice sotomayor: it was unusual. there are only a handful of justices who have had that happen. david: when you were appointed to the federal district judge ship, i assume you told your mother about it and i assume she said terrific things, but did you tell her how low the compensation is to be a judge? jutice sotomayor: yes, and i will tell

and the court and the idea of court system is that it really brings forth justice. show that it doesn't. this hopes any people have because it's really no other institution is ideally set up today that. the resistance of these defendants who are disadvantage, sometimes it's about hope that they get a better legal outcome. but often resistance would operate in the face of not caring at all with the legal outcome plans as long as they are able to share that abusive was happening. and articulate the differences in how they view the alleged criminal's behavior that they were engaged in. >> and back to that idea of silencing. if and when they're trying to tell what their experiences hard. and how they connect. if there being silenced through it. i see why this is so important to write about some thank you. what more questions you have. we can be doing this for a while yet. so my question is mainly, when this particular movement in some ways the movement is getting through the public impression of the things that's really important moment. about defining and abolishing po

that we changed in the supreme court. there were one or two casesha where the prior administration had takenn a position in a lower court believe that had been of the solicitor general's office and the office had a different position. i remember making one or two cases where frankly the word expected. one of the cases i know we took a different position with the justice department in the lower courts in the supreme court of the university of michigan affirmative action case. if you think about that issue, the word suspect that will change when there is a transition from republican to democratic administration or vice versa. but the vast majority ofjo issues even if controversial even if it was writing on a clean slate, if it was not changed and that continuity was preserved which reflects well on the office. maybe you occurred talk about your experience and to the extent you perceive things to ou different right now? it is 100 percent right not relatively nonpolitical staff and to make it implicit for the audience but it'

hello again i'm watching al-jazeera live from doha also coming up pakistan's top court rules the man who was charged in the murder of the american journalist daniel pearl can be released from prison. a team from the w.h.o. emerges from hotel quarantine in new hand to investigate the origins of covert 19. 0. 00 to his call on u.s. president joe biden to do more on immigration reform. he returned to russia 10 days ago and was whisked away to detention almost immediately and despite making an appeal a court in moscow has ordered alexina bonney president vladimir putin's most prominent critic to remain in jail he was arrested on january the 17th to returning from germany where he was being treated for poisoning the valley appeared in court via video link and said he'd been denied proper access to his lawyer. i understand my rights and i want to draw the attention of the court to the fact that since i was detained i've not had a single opportunity to meet with my lawyers in private not a single one. now on weapons to several friends and allies of the valley including his own brother which

the courts. article three sets of the courts.an article three, is shorter than to an article to a shorter than article one. what does that mean? when i look at it, it means the primary responsibility, lies with congress. congress makes the laws. put that in your notes it's important. congress makes the laws. the president, carries out the laws passed by congress the. you the president generally doesn't make law, the president carries out the laws, made by congress. and the courts, the function of the courts, the main responsibility of the courts is to make sure, but no law passes or passed by congress, and put this carefully in your notes by the way, no law passed by congress, and carried out by the president, violates, the constitution. no law passed by congress, carried out by the president, violates the constitution. that gentleman is a simplified overview of the constitution of the united states. the functions. the third part of the constitution, preamble, articles, the third part is the bill of rights. the bill of rights. an

russian opposition leader alexina volumnia appears in court to appeal a decision to keep him in jail ahead of this trial next week. i'm on inside this is al jazeera life and also coming up. a team from the w.h.o. emergence for hotel quarantine and we come to investigate origins of covert 19. course in pakistan upholds a decision to free the man convicted then quit said of the murder of the american journalist daniel. students in greece are angry as a proposal to put police officers in universities to cut down in violent crime. let's begin in russia where opposition leader alexina addressing a course in moscow in an appeal hearing you can see live pictures there he is asking to be released from jail ahead of his trial next week we can speak to our correspondent alexander godfrey to his lawyer in moscow so this is going on live what can we expect from court today. well what is happening today is that it's a no one is bill hearing he is as you said appealing the decision of the court to be in custody for 30 days this happened immediately when he landed in russia he was arrested now the

court they don't necessary people obliged to. follow through with what they're doing is no mechanism for making sure they get it and this is all quite controversial in itself and the parliamentary reviews many parliamentary of these this point who look to actually just in system and to keep us you can't tradition treaty this year infusion of very much on the map there so yes another life extradition issue that may well come up with appeal in the only thank you very much for coming in from ensuring you refuse especially the last number of days whistleblower advocates a long term supporter of julian and we call them thank you. 21 minutes into the program let's move on to more world news germany has toughened its . extended its lockdown as the country surpassed $35000.00 covered related debts our europe correspondent peter oliver looks at how berlin is trying to slow the pace of the disease. following a meeting between uncle merkel the german chancellor and the leaders of germany's 16 states locked down in the country will be extend

all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states where the court is now sitting. the united states in this honorable court. we will hear arguments this morning in case number 19422 acting as the conservator of fannie and freddie renegotiated the financial obligations to the treasury replacing the multibillion-dollar dividend to the obligation they were themselves from the capital commitment. the shareholders statutory constitutional challenges to the third amendment where there were three key defenses. first both claims are brought by the recovery act with the authority to decide whether shareholders bring derivative suits on behalf of the enterprises. the type of shareholder alleged the corporation's assets have been unlawfully dissipated to a particular shareholder is plainly rather than direct. they haven't had a single case to the contrary. the claim is marked by the recovery act and injunction clause which prevents the courts from restraining exercises of the conservator's powers. the conservator acted well within its authority citing the nego

he even argues a case for the supreme court during this time. he is elected to the virginia state legislature. one of the most important projects at the time is that he is a delegate to the virginia ratifying convection. here it is connected to the story we tell throughout this museum of the framers crafting the constitution, forging it through compromise and then sending it to the states for ratification. when we think of virginia, we think most important state in of the largest most important state in the union at the time. , eight states have ratified the constitution. we have three state ratifying conventions meeting, virginia yorkost influential, new and new hampshire, wondering will they be that key night state that will bring the constitution into effect. the virginia story is an amazing one. it brings together some of the most important figures in early american politics. opposing the constitution we have great revolutionary figures like patrick henry, richard henry lee, george mason, were opposing the constitution. supporting it was jam

court turned down the u.s. request on monday over concerns that a song would commit suicide but a song is legal to say he hasn't given up they are they are saying that they are going to a pale wednesdays decision. this denial of baby the most likely hood fluke the appeals to the high court within hours for a few days and we.

supreme court, rather the state supreme court.justin john roberts bears response ability for this. based on deciding when to act and when not to act and is afraid of appearing political and afraid of appearing partisan and obvious that he is very worried about how the roberts courts will be perceived not just in washington but also in history and really if he would have maybe done what he should have done in the first place then maybe all of this would not have happened. again, it seems unfair to blame roberts and i'm not for this i'll be up for all the states and every state but certainly in the case of pennsylvania i think so. mark: i'm concerned it will only get worse. i think there was a lot of pressure placed on the spring court when chuck schumer announced that he intends to pack the court and i feel there was a direct threat against the united states supreme court that has an impact on their decisions not to take up at least two or three very, very significant cases that could help the country. >> i think the courts now bei

and that's the court of last resort.ve we learned going forward that can be applied and change to save the republic? >> i'm going to say this, i think we've got to be much better prepared to go into court. in my observation, some of our efforts fell short because we just didn't have the facts to show what prosecutors frequently say as you know, you've heard this, lou, there's a difference between what i know and what i can prove. and you've got to be ready and raring to go -- lou: well, we all know that now. >> okay. so be prepared. the boy scouts were on to something with respect to that. the other thing is you've got to take these legal rules which you might not like into account, but they are the rules of the road that the courts are going to be reluctant to step in, and that's true regardless of who's on the supreme court. and it goes back from the very, very beginning of the republic. courts do not want to run the country. they want those who are elected to run the country. and that's exactly what the supreme court

let's be a realistic about what the court will do. will the court actually send women into combat on the same basis of men? no. will the court actually say women have to share prison cells with men? no. will the workforce -- no. amy barrett just joined the court. she is 48 years old. let's be a little realistic about what's actually going to happen and let's take a look at the e.r.a. as something we put in the constitution so that -- just the way people say now, i have my right to free speech, you can tell me what to do. actually come that is not true. a work does not have a right to free speech and the factory. that phrase is about state action. but people in the u.s. say i have free speech. until a girl can say i have my equal rights and she will say i have my equal rights and that's how we will get our equal rights because she will stand up for them because of principles in the constitution. so -- jeffrey: thank you very much for that, and for that historical argument for an all prongs thoughtsand for your about how the e.r.a. is l

and the courts, the function of the courts, the main responsibility of the courts is to make sure that no law passed by congress, and put this carefully in your notes, no law passed by congress and carried out by the president violates the constitution. no law passed by congress, carried out by the president, violates the constitution. that, gentlemen, is a simplified overview of the constitution of the united states, the functions. the third part of the constitution, preamble, articles, and the third part is the bill of rights. the bill of rights. and the subject of our lecture this afternoon. now, gentlemen, as i go through these rights, if you have questions and comments about them, stop me and ask them. i don't want you to wait until the end of the class, because you may find we may run out of time, or you may find by the time we're done, you've forgotten the question you were going to ask anyway. so any of these, interrupt me whenever you want and let's address your question. the bill of rights. the bill of rights, gentlemen, were added onto the constitution. that's why they're ca

this is what the court used and then to explain and that the court focused on two things and there is substantial policy discretion that they say the fh fa does not regulate we are not talking about the same force and power of the state and likewise congress has articulated what this agency can do i can instruction manual and then has control to this type of agency. >> thank you. >> one minute to wrap up mr. nielsen. >> thank you, your honor. going to the point of justice kavanaugh witnesses and? i think the court will have to answer some very hardy questions including what is the constitutional basis for any of this? is so then why did that go with the civil service? if so, how could a provision that allows for removal of insubordinationov prevent a person from executing the law? how relaxed of a standing in these cases is the court willing to go? these are all questions that are far beyond appeal and thankfully however because the acting director doesn't have tenure to begin with. >> thank you mr. council. mr. thompson. >> mr. chief justice may it please the court fannie and freddie

courts.plus 10 years when the international criminal court in the hague or i.c.c. to investigate israeli settlement activity in 2019 the prosecutor said she believes there are grounds for opening an investigation into alleged war crimes in palestine this actually supports the prosecution's contention that the state of palestine does have jurisdiction over all or all areas or all parts of its territory. and also over all people in its territory the i.c.c. is pretrial chamber has yet to rule in its jurisdiction in palestine but many palestinians say they have little faith that the court's decision will change the reality back in but he never says he plans to keep building his house no matter how many times it's vandalized. the occupied west bank. italy's government could collapse this week with the prime minister decepticon to facing a vote of no confidence of the economy under lockdown a new emergency decree means not john regulations have now been extended stephanie decker reports from run. t

high court will restore. the respect that you may call u.k. judicial have to do well if i have any doubt here josh meant that he's freedom of the press when the announcement was made on monday what was the reaction in germany because this thing to many commentators certainly around the world some were saying look this is an attack on investigative journalism clearly because the judge has ruled there's no public interest defense if he if you publish classified information you are likely to get prosecuted was there any well i just wondered what the at reaction was in germany when that was announced. we happy huge human also for. people that are. demonstrating in front of the u.s. consulates and embassies drowsy and all of the people who are elite to see that joining us on it was not going to be extradited and face potential death call us prison cell. for example jeffrey accented you know. how. i say my son. so we're very relieved to see him not be extradited by the state hi maybe people of germany very very angry that coffee such as the u.k. tha

court. so i say told you this are just this is going to be a great. but we're still going to fight to come. back that it was a good act that was quite good at that. time just to have him tell us how. well why well what she said about darkies much more worried because she said there's no public interest there's no we just go to print journalists. like proper journalists all you like to do what most journalists do because mr wilson there's no public interest but these are these were very very bad remarks but it. happened. that night and it hit me that this is still in the power it's not the sergeant where the fight for freedom of the press lies in this country. and. i don't know that's very difficult to tell chops on his way out even though he doesn't think yes he's we aren't sure what the british question would think about this so i think that's very difficult to tell followed by it was coming i'd be very glad to british judge a result this problem for the post right now i think they were hap

but the appellate court merely shortened the bypassing to 10 days. note that the arizona legislature was no longer in control of appointing presidential electors because the court had set a new deadline. even though the appellate court found the legislatures's deadline was constitutionally sound. during that window, more than 32,000 voters registered. here are copies of those voter registration records. in going around the deadline set by the legislature, the court ignored the arizona legislature's obligation and right to direct a mentor for choosing presidential electors as set forth in article two section one. as a consequence of that judicial usurpation, more than 32,000 people were allowed to unlawfully cast ballots in arizona's presidential election in 2020. the arizona legislature seeks an independent audit of the election. the governor refuses to call them into a special session. the county board of supervisors has refused to comply with subpoenas. arizonans have used the limited amount of records to investigate the 2020 presidential election.

he petitions the court to review the entire regulation. added motive for halting the regulation. a court delay now could even grant time for the election of a new president, one more favorable to his cause. >> page four. >> with two weeks to go, barbara brown makes final recommendations. for her, each turn of phrase has potential for protecting or endangering the parks. >> an integral vista is the view of a scenic landmark. that is too limiting. you should say feature or view. court'svember 10, the verdict is due on henry nickel's verdict for delay. he makes contact with his legal counterpart at epa. >> henry nickel. >> henry, how are you? >> what is up? what have you heard? >> we have not heard anything, so i thought i would find out from you -- we raised the question of whether or not the agency should not be rethinking the entire package. to do that, there would have to be an extension of the deadline. >> which will give the epa until november 24 to respond to your motion and give counsel two weeks from today. >> this is not henry nicke

he petitions the court to review the entire regulation. an added motive for halting the regulation. a court delay now could even grant time for the election of a new president. one more favorable to his cause. >> with two weeks to go, barbara brown makes final recommendations. for her, each turn of phrase has potential for protecting or endangering the parks. >> an integral vistas is a park. that's too limiting. we should say feature or view. >> on november 10th, the court verdict is due on the motion for delay. he makes contact with his legal counterpart at epa. >> henry, how are you? >> we haven't heard anything. so i thought i would find out -- >> we had raised the question as to whether or not the agency shouldn't be rethinking the entire package. to do that the agency would have had to get an extension in the court's deadline. >> the judge is going to issue an order which will give epa until november 24th in order to respond to your motion. >> this is not henry nickel's round. the regulation will go forward. when the rule is published

supreme court not rather than state supreme court.hn roberts a lot of responsibility many this you have based on deciding when to act when not to act he's afraid of being appearing political -- afraid of appearing partisan. he, obviously, is very worried about how the roberts court will be perceived not just in washington -- but also in history. and really if he would have maybe done what he should have done in the first place, then maybe all of this wouldn't have happened now again seems unfair to blame robertson i'm not for this. you know for all of the states and every state and certainly in the case of pennsylvania. i think so. >> i'm very concerned it is only going to get worse ting there was a lot of pressure based when chuck schumer plans to pack the court i feel that was a direct threat against the united states supreme court had a decision not to attack up at least two or three very significant cases that could have helped the country. >> i think the court now being with the addition of amy coney barrett as well the court pac

but, again, the powers of the supreme court are not absolute, not without their checks or balances.f the supreme court is appointed by the president, and the appointment must be confirmed by the senate. and although appointment is for life, any justice can be removed by congressional impeachment. just as a president can be removed from office. the vision of our founding fathers as seen beyond the years. the three branches of our federal government have worked together with mutual respect and individual integrity for almost 200 years. we today are the posterity to whom the founding fathers referred to in the constitution. we are the inheritors of the "more perfect union" that has been passed on and handed down in peace and in war, in good times and in bad, decade decade, generation to generation. to us and to each new generation to come is the continuing challenge to preserve for ourselves and posterity the blessings. music in a -- ♪ ♪

so i think that when you're talking about speech that the court -- the lower court found was not disruptivet all, when you're talking about that kind of speech, the idea that you could punish that when it takes place outside of school is a very dangerous one. you know, we think school should be teaching students about their constitutional rights and not violating them. unfortunately, the school district violated brandi's first amendment rights in this case. >> hey, brandi, final question. how have you applied your time? what have you done outside of school, if cheerleading was not in the cards? >> more or less just like studying and finding out how to get a job and college stuff. >> all right. i wish you good things. take it easy -- hey, take it easy on me on social media, okay? thank you, guys. happy new year. >>> let's check in on your tweets and facebook comments. what do we have? smerconish, is snapchat or instagram really outside of school when one's audience is all of your classmates? dave, that's why i love this case. and the supreme court, it's been, as i pointed out with sara, the

the courts will be reluctant to step in and that is regardless of who was on the supreme court.ack to the very beginning of the public. clerks do not want to run the country. they want those that are elected to run the country. that is exactly what the court said in bush versus gore. now the florida supreme court is changing things. you cannot do that. i agree with you on pennsylvania. that was clear-cut it seems to me. agreeing totally with you on this that the supreme court of pennsylvania and governor of pennsylvania exceeded their powers. [inaudible] lou: yeah. yeah. b he saidd so, but they did not do much. we appreciate it. you are right. you have out argued me as you suggest. now i am upset. not t only with the supreme cout but all the other courts. both political parties and, of course, all of state government and all of the areas in which there was t a high number of questions about their integrity. kenneth starr, you elevate us every time. we appreciate it. thank you so much. >> always the white towel to throw in. [laughter] lou: thank you very much. we appreciate it. u

by the court we're going to. go in there to remember ben generates 2 members decided to continue with the enforcement of their lives announced by the i think the high court one day standing judge now. saying that he. the only option left for damage to fire and you think they should be changed. to be viewed however he's. gone for years and die because it would be the same bench which would be heading back toward the fact that this particular. has surprised many and that's gone that been condemnation even from the committee to protect journalists c p j which has come out saying that they were strong evidence and. disappointing and it's maybe. worth remembering isn't it kemal that the world was a different place in 2002 pakistan was a different country than the events of 911 had happened in 2001 that the bush administration in washington was pursuing osama bin laden and he eventually of course was found to be alive and living in pakistan. 911 and the optics surrounding the killing of mr pearl it was compelling aroun

they know president trump and his allies have suffered the defeat in court after court across the country losing no fewer than 62 legal challenges in many republican appointed judges some appointed by the president rendered those decisions.ll they know, you all know that joe biden and kamala harris will be sworn in as president and vice president of the united states january 20th. but they will object to the counting of the vote anyway and in the process, embarrass themselves, they will embarrass their party, worst of all they will embarrass theirth country. this insurrection was fortunatelysh discouraged by the leadership of the majority party but it was not quelled. it is a very sad comment on our times to accept the results of the election is considered an act of political courage. more dangerous still is no element of the republican party believes their political viability hinges on the endorsement of the attempted coup. that anyone much less and elected official would be willing to tarnish our democracy to burnish their personal political fortunes. over the course of the afternoon, h

well we simply cannot understand the decision from from the british british court. we believe that if there is no reason no good reason to extradite him then there is no reason to keep in even detention you believe that this decision is a political one julian assange and in our view should we consider as a political prisoner. with regard to the ruling that happened on monday how concerned are you because initially when it happened there was jubilation but when you look at it particularly from a journalist's point of view there's a lot to be concerned about. well yes indeed. this case is not just about julian assange it's about press freedom. but it's also about human rights you know the british judiciary established that julian assange. was at risk of suicide extradited to the u.s. and we believe that he runs the same risk in the u.k. in addition to the health risks associated with it. and then meet in belmarsh prison so we expect the british high called to reject. the u.s. and to all the julian assange it's. ok but we will i mean it is likely isn't it that this cas

elections it is true we now have the 2nd courts in u.k. court in 3 years saying that u.s. prison conditions are so bad that they can't be trusted people alive i think that prison reform of the united states should have a look at this they missed larry's ruling a bit but this one is very high profile. but ultimately that's less impactful than saying that you know this was a political prosecution or the u.s. is violating the your family you can actually are violating the terms of the bilateral treaty which if you like is the least controversial way of putting a stop to this case and of course we're not out of the woods yet there will almost certainly be an appeal but the presumption has to be that union is in quite a strong position going into that appeal now because of the way he's one of its kind of thank you so much for coming on the program and sharing your thoughts on what's son sure is an emotional day for you and and many people who've been close to julian assange the u.k. arlan program director the blueprint for free speech and you the only covering the only thought.

, not a federal court, no court.here was the supreme court? former prosecutors who don't know any of this stuff, professors, eggheads, who know none of the stuff because they don't like the constitution. what did the supreme court do? well, in the michigan case there was an appeal and a federal judge interfered with what was going on there and the supreme court said you know what, federal judge you can't do that. corsets wrote the state legislators decide, not state courts, not federal courts but it says legislators shall direct. this is not even confusing. this is black and white. even joe scarborough or can read and understand it which is a low level. that's what it says. so then we come to pennsylvania and the republican party of pennsylvania brought a lawsuit and said that the supreme court of pennsylvania and the governor and the state secretary of state are all destroying the section of the constitution and undermining the legislator and the legislator have to adapt to this so the supreme court does what? nothi

and in the lower courts and j te supreme court was the university of michigan's affirmative action case. and whatever you think about that, it probably can maybe suspect thatin will change when there's a transition from a republican administration to atr democratic administration or vice versa. but other than that, the vast majority of the issues, even some that are controversial. even some of the bush administration was running on a clean slate and wanted to come out differently. the position was not changed in resort of the continuity was preserved. i think that reflects well on theof office. maybe you can talk a little bit more about yourxp experience and how you perceived things to be different right now. neal: first of all when you think about the office, it was different than the office of legal counsel. that is 100 percent right. tnot just because of a relativey nonpolitical staff, but also because of the function. your function is nine people. it is just different than the other government job. yours. audience is the president or something like that, that you got these nine peop