the u.s. supreme court. u know, i find the decision that was made that i think supported sandra day o'connor's decision that this archly is an -- this largely is an issue of state sovereignty. but with the abortion pill drug, confidence has to be more aligned on how scientific or is there a legitimate complaint that this drug some 20 years ago never really went through the proper protocols to begin with and never satisfied so much safety as well. i guess some 5 million women have terminated pregnancies through it. in the past i was a year with a reporting system that there is a deaths associated with it of only be not a direct cause. my level of confidence, i think, is probably high. i just don't want to -- i think it is probably pretty high, because i think court decisions from the u.s. supreme court generally have stuck to principles of respecting state rights and respecting what administrations do to regulate drugs to the protection or medical necessities of populations. host: ok, chris there in california

the history of the supreme court is yours. story. we aspire to preserve your glorious traditions and constantly turn to your invaluable experience with a feeling of great gratitude. today we remember the former leaders of the supreme courts that devoted their whole lives to justice and, in fact , brought up more than one generation of successful judges by example without cherished service. the supreme court today is a unique team of professionals of the highest level. this team of like-minded people successfully combines youth, maturity, and experience and wisdom are aimed at the creative train of extremism to constant perfection. among our colleagues, a lot of judges, marked by high state government awards, five people bear the honorary title honored lawyer of the republic of belarus , today another 12 judges of the supreme court solemnly received high state awards from the hands of the president of the country for their selfless work. all this is undoubtedly evidence of the high authority and respect that the supreme court enjoys to

of course, he established the status of the supreme court, as the highest body heading the system of on, the role and importance of the supreme court has increased significantly in the system of state power, and the principle of separation has found further development. authorities. the principles of the administration of justice are fundamentally important this is the first time in history, by the way, that we are proud of it. the fact is that today the supreme court has received such a high status of 157 courts, almost 5,000 working, and we need to make sure that everything is very sufficient every day, all types of ensuring the conduct of our courts receive about 4,000. solution. it consolidated the position that was adopted during the years of judicial and legal reform, and the judges of the supreme court themselves received a higher constitutional status , taking into account the changes that are supported society, the cadre of judges of the highest judicial instances will be formed through elections, the entire belarusian people's assembly of representatives of the people is ens

i have been covering the supreme court for a handful of months now. this happened to be the first thing we decided to publish. we are interested in the entire court. i am contractually obliged to say that we welcome tips just in general, and you can find my contact information. there is an interesting history here. there was a major supreme court scandal, involving a liberal justice back in the 1960's. it was a camp located scandal. -- it was a complicated scandal. justice ford is giving back the money initially, but in the ensuing scandal he ended up resigning. i bring that up to say this is not something -- the question of financial entanglements with justices is not something that leads historically -- that is historically associated with democratic versus republican appointed judges. this is matter of concern. host: let's go to kansas city, missouri next, republican, bruce. caller: i have read the wall street journal yesterday morning. there was a reporter, crediting the old question of the article and you're taking on clarence thomas. they cited e

and now it's all in the supreme court today. the fact that he was elected a judge of the supreme court there, was going to be dismissed when the people's assembly was publicly open at such a high forum. yes, we understand the degree of responsibility that we are entrusted with is not only the election, but also the liberation in general with the belarusian people as an assembly. that is, judging the supreme court received a higher constitutional status. you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was nurtured and suggested itself significantly quite a long time ago it happened that i took part in all belarusian people's meetings, and at the first belarusian people's assembly i even spoke . in the future, the minister of justice justified the need. here is such a forum and, of course, even then it was clear that mmm this is a very effective form, and she it is necessary just very such extreme situations such emergency situa

if approved by the fda over 20 years ago, but suspended by a lower court. the supremert expected to decide at any moment. option one, preserve access to the drug as the case works its way through the courts. option two, agree with it a appeals courts and impose restrictions which prevent women from accessing wom the drug seven weeks of pregnancy. or option three, agree with the conservative judge in texas who ruled that mifepristone should never have been approved by the fda in the first place and should be taken off the market. the court can decide to take up the case themselves. this will be the justices first major decision on abortion nearly one year after roe vs. wade was overturned. it could significantly change the landscape of abortion rights in this country. if restrictions on mifepristone go into effect, and impact women in states even where abortion is legal. >> we should not be in a position where politicians and judges who do not have medical backgrounds are making decisions about medical care. >> rachel scott joining us outside the supreme court and we ar

the fifth circuit will come up with decision. but this supreme court order makes clear that it will remain status quo from kristen beyond the fifth circuit's ruling until maybe this works its way back up to the supreme court and whether they can decide whether or not to take the case as well. anderson all right, jessica schneider, thanks for joining by cnn senior supreme court analyst joan biskupic, author of the new book, nine black robes. inside the supreme court's drive to the right and its historic consequences. so of all the options of the court that they had. was this always the most likely, you know, anderson. i really think it was, but it's hard to predict the court on reproductive rights these days, given what they did last june and reversing roe v. wade but this was the sort of the most sensible approach given the kind of case that the justice department made on behalf of the fda explain the chaos that would come if suddenly there were new regulations. out there on this abortion pill that has been available since the year 2000 and the other t

and now it's all in the supreme court today. be elected a judge of the supreme court, she was going to be dismissed when the native assembly here at such a high forum is publicly open, when we understand the degree of responsibility that we have, this is not only the election, but also the release in general from the belarusian, probably assembly, that is, the supreme court received from a higher constitutional status. you you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was nurtured and suggested it happened a long time ago that i took part in all six belarusian people's assemblies, and at the first people's assembly i even spoke as a future minister justice substantiated the need. here is such a forum. eh, and, of course, even then it was clear that, uh, this is very effective, and the form, but it is necessary just in such extreme situations, in such emergency situations, maybe in life of each side that it was not fixed. it

>> the airfield court, supreme court, whatever court has to understand this rule by this one judge overturns not just access to the abortion drug, but any number of drugs. >> what if they don't? >> that is speculation i believe is not worth engaging. >> are you taking off the table you recommend the fda ignore a ban? >> everything is on the table. the president said that. every option is on the table. host: that was from yesterday. for the open forum. a caller from florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. you had that guy on there who was talking about social security and where the money is coming from. what nobody ever talks about, when is the last time they raised the level of money you have to pay for. most people think everybody pays on all the money that they make. if they are a billionaire they are paying into social security. on a billion dollars. that is not true. the maximum amount you can be charged i think it's something like 150 thousand or even 200,000. and after that you pay no social security. that is what needs to be raised, according with the cost of living.

all eyes are on the supreme court. as we tick down toward midnight , the supreme court could rule at any point here, and there's a number of ways that they can roll. but there are really two ways that are most likely here. first they could extend the hold on this lower court ruling, which is something that the justice department the fda is pushing for, because if they did , that it would keep the status quo when it comes to the abortion pill. it would be completely available as it is now. the second option is they really could allow the restrictions to take effect by not extending that stay. and what does that mean? if restrictions took effect, it would mean a number of different things in the way that kristen is administered. first of all, it would only be allowed for women up to seven weeks. pregnant. currently, women up to 10 weeks pregnant. are allowed to get this pill. secondly women would have to go in person multiple times to their doctor. they also have to get this abortion pill in person, as opposed to via the

and now it's all in the supreme court today. well, the fact that judges of the supreme court are elected there. to gather for a homogeneous meeting here at such a high forum publicly openly. yes, we understand the degree of responsibility that we impose is not only the election, but also the release of the belarusian people's assembly. that is, the judicial court of the supreme court received a higher constitutional status you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was hatched and suggested itself. yes quite a long time ago it so happened that i took part in all six russian people's meetings myself, and at the first one after the belarusian people's meeting. the minister even spoke in the future , together with me, justified the need for such a forum, and, of course, even then it was clear that hmm it was very effective. and the form, but it is necessary just very such extreme in situations of such emergency there may be

cycle memory of my land on tv channel, belarus solemn meeting dedicated to the centenary of the supreme court of belarus is declared open prime minister of the republic of belarus roman alexandrovich golovchenko and chairman of the supreme court of the republic of belarus valentin olegovich sukava are invited to the stage. dear present at this solemn meeting. greetings from the president of the republic of belarus alexander grigoryevich lukashenko to judges, employees of the apparatus and veterans of the supreme court of the republic of belarus, dear comrades , i cordially congratulate you on the significant date of the centenary of the formation of the supreme court. having traveled a century-old path inextricably linked with the development of the belarusian statehood and the formation of a national model of justice, the highest judicial bodies of our country have always been at the forefront of legislative and organizational initiatives in the field of judicial activity. today. it can be said with certainty that in belarus has created a stable national judicial system that meets all intern

i have no confidence in the supreme court but i have never had confidence in the supreme court. we all know they are corrupt. the real issue in the supreme court is that it represents the conservative black of taking action -- lack of taking action. i live in new york city and i am not sure the mayor would care about violating some constitutional idea to use power as he sees fit. this is something we need to do with conservatives. host: do you think it is the supreme court's position t wheeled power -- to wield power? caller: i don't see any real method the democrats don't care. they have the majority of the supreme court if they had it, they would do whatever they want. host: west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning. regarding the supreme court, it is a political organization, because we see the battle's on what brand or flavor they are and it has to be political. there is no reason for it. we could get rid of that. mr. thomas is corrupt. most of our politicians are corrupt, we all know that. we should have term limits, age limits. we should have one term of any polit

let's say the status of the supreme court has fundamentally changed. lready changed in essence since the fourteenth year, when the supreme court took over all the functions of the ministry of justice in, say, judicial administration and judicial support for all types of activities. it is made to assume an additional sophisticated function in the organization of the pro you. and of course, here is the fourteenth year. this is the period when the supreme court, having received these additional functions, assumed a very high degree of responsibility, when it became a being head the entire judicial system of courts of general jurisdiction. and, of course, this had to be enshrined at a fairly high legislative level, and the fact that article 112 note today, the constitutional status of the supreme court is enshrined in our constitution. i'm fundamentally important this is the first time in history, by the way.

. >> joining us now is executive director of the organization fix the court and joining us to talk about the supremert and how it approaches disclosure, thanks for coming on the program. thanks for having me. host: can you talk about your organization when it comes to matters of the supreme court, what position do you take and how you are funded and who supports you? guest: it's been around since 2014. we are a 5013 c profit organ is -- nonprofit organization and funded by various foundations and individual donors. host: when it comes to matters of the supreme court, generally, when it comes to justices on the supreme court, how they handle disclosure of the of activities? guest: each justice like each member of congress in each top-level official in the executive branch has to file an annual financial disclosure. they tell the public once a year what debts they have and outside income they might have earned from teaching or book royalties and any trips they went on paid for by third parties. there is a personal hospitality exemption but disclosures they file are fairly similar to what members of co

it is now in the hands of the supreme court. american bianna, you know, we're expecting that potentially the supreme court might rule by the end of the business day, but really a. they don't have to act here. although it's likely they will and they could act all the way up until that one am east coast deadlines, so we'll see. the clock is really ticking here and a lot is at stake. guys it's going to be a busy next few hours for you, jessica schneider, thank you so much. keep us posted. we're keeping a close watch on what will happen in washington, d. c in florida, a new law banning abortion after just six weeks when many women still don't even realize they're pregnant republican governor ron desantis signing that bill late last night in his office, saying at the time quote we're proud to support life and family in the state of the white house issued its own statement, calling the new band extreme dangerous. and out of step with the majority of people in florida and all the united states joining us now to discuss this florida stat

there needs to be congressional legislation to oversee the supreme court on the issue of ethics. there has been legislation proposed by congressman hank johnson of georgia cosponsored by senator chris murphy of connecticut to impose ethics rules on the supreme court. why is that not the discussion we are having as opposed to durbin asking john roberts to come by and talk this out. there is no official power for chief justice roberts. he doesn't have the authority to remove or punish a supreme court justice. constitutionally, only impeachment can remove a supreme court justice. but roberts is in the position where he could promulgate ethics rules for his own court. if justices do not follow those ethics rules, he would at least be in the position to call them out, to use the power of the pulpit, use the power of the press to say this is wrong, please stop it. that's not an official power but i think it would matter to certain people if john roberts got up in front of a microphone and said the stuff we have learned in the stuff we've learned is unacceptable and we cannot have it her

. >> coming up i have a few things to say about the supreme court. chief justice, john roberts, has been invited to testify to the senate judiciary committee about the ethics of the suprem court. everything the chief justice has said about the subject, th last time he had anything to say about it, which was 12 ful years ago. has now been proven, b clarence thomas, to be completely wrong there was once a time when the supreme court would no tolerate even a hint of an ethics violation my discussion about the suprem court's history of ethic problems is next and i have a lot to say abou it ole new way of manufacturing. disrupt buying habits before they disrupt your business. and fuel the search for what comes next. so...what are you waiting for? my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6 key indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger. staaaaacccceeeyyy! i'm the sizzle in this promposal. and tonight, sparks are gonna fly. kyle? and while ro

and the 234 year history of th united states supreme court, n member of the united state supreme court has ever appeare clearly to break the law until now. clarence thomas absolutely violated the federal law cited by senator whitehouse in his demand florida investigation o the -- by the attorney general. the law could not be more clea or more simple it requires supreme cour justices and other federal employees to report any real estate transaction, quote, which exceeds $1,000 in real property other than property used solely as a persona residents of the reporting individual the law makes it clear tha clarence thomas and othe federal employees do not hav to disclose real estat transactions involving their personal homes the place where they actuall live clarence thomas clearly an sharply violated this law by not reporting the sale of 89 years ago that he owned but di not live in. that sale exceeded $1,000. do not report that sale is a definite and clear violation o federal law by supreme court justice clarence thomas. and it gets worse. clarence thomas secretly sol the property to billi

he doesn't want to destroy the supreme court. he wants to make the supreme court of israel. busy like the supreme court of the united states, canada, and new zealand, england, and many other countries. right now the supreme court of israel has far more power than any supreme court in the world. today. it is the only supreme court to strike down legislation it deems to be unreasonable. the only supreme court that doesn't require standing before you become bring a case. so any n g o can bring a case and these are reasonable debates. this is the base that occurred in the united states over the years. you said earlier that, that yahoo is looking for compromise. i'm wondering where that compromise will be, especially if he keeps somewhere like been given or been smarter in the finance minister in his cabinet. what room is there for compromise? if those 2 remain pretty office 3 or 4 examples? one compromise would be to allow override on political and economic decisions, but not on core human rights and civil liberties and minority rights decisions. i propose that to benjamin not to

and the supreme court has pulled back. know again, as jessica said, we don't know what will eventually happen when it results the merits of this case, but i think what we see now from the supreme court at this point is they are not going to try to extend kind of this aggressive anti abortion. movement against what states individually want to do and against a federal agency that approved this drug dating back to the year 2000 and has done its own scientific determinations about its safety and effectiveness. it's not in a position to second guess that at this crucial. but still temporary, pointed the case. steve latoc, i'm anxious to get your reaction as well. go ahead. hey, wolf. i think joan has it exactly right. and i would just add. you know, i think it's absolutely isn't that big of a surprise because of the chaos we would have seen at midnight tonight if judge kaczmarek for long have gone into effect. it's not the court telling us how they might rule eventually, if the question of mythic kristen access reaches them in a

. >> coming up i have a few things to say about the supreme court. chief justice, john roberts, has been invited to testify to the senate judiciary committee about the ethics of the suprem court. everything the chief justice has said about the subject, th last time he had anything to say about it, which was 12 ful years ago. has now been proven, b clarence thomas, to be completely wrong there was once a time when the supreme court would no tolerate even a hint of an ethics violation my discussion about the suprem court's history of ethic problems is next and i have a lot to say abou it ways get the whole home not part of it but the whole upstairs the whole downstairs the whole fridge and the whole secret nap room because is it really a vacation home if you have to share a house with a host? ♪ only with vrbo when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis keeps flaring, put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable, i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. and left bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc got in my way, i got lasti

the supreme court could then rule to ban it nationwide. as christy smith reports, one legal analyst says the final decision could set a dangerous precedent. >> reporter: from los angeles to new york city, supporters of abortion rights protested over the fate of the nation's most commonly used abortion pill. on friday, the supreme court moved to keep mifepristone available for the coming days. it temporarily halted a texas ruling that would jeopardize access to the drug. gilda gonzalez is ceo of planned parenthood, northern california. >> the ruling that the supreme court issued was a temporary stay, and that is effective until this coming wednesday. so what that means for us is that there is no change in our health care delivery, nor in the medication abortion protocol that we have been utilizing. >> reporter: the move allows the full court to review appeals from the biden administration, and a drug maker and gives the plaintiffs until tuesday to submit arguments. the white house is standing by the fda's approval of the drug, which has been

do you think the sureme supreme court. do you think the sopreme court — supreme court. upreme court. do you think the supreme court delhi road - supreme court. do you think the supreme court delhi road will i supreme court delhi road will ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban. it’s ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban.— ultimately ban this pill will ultimately ban. it's a tough court. when _ ultimately ban. it's a tough court. when it _ ultimately ban. it's a tough court. when it overturned i ultimately ban. it's a tough i court. when it overturned roe v. wade, is thejudges and courts need to get out of this business, return it to the states, return it to the people's elected representatives stop so the first case that comes back to them is not a case about that, it is one that would affect people nationwide, women all across the country who want to take this drug to ease early pregnancy abortions. and so it was an unusual case for the court and one that you could see the court might be a little regular reluctant about. band r

you know, the supreme court of israel is the most influential and powerful supreme court anywhere in the world, even more powerful and influential than the german constitutional court. and so there are people, many people, the majority of israelis want to limit that power. the issue is how much you limit the power. i want to limit it only a little bit. the government wants to limit it more than a little bit, but frankly, mind your own business. take care of european concerns. don't concern yourself so deeply with israeli domestic issues. it is a form of anti semitism to focus. so obsessively on every every domestic issue in israel, no other country the world receives that kind of negative attention and criticism. so far, problem is the answer to all the protests of the criticism has been by law. i won the election. this is what people voted for. it's called democracy, so suck it up. the israeli historian you valerie dismissed. that is the oldest trick in the book. he said 1st you use the law to gain power and then you use your power to distort the law. as you go to point, that's a for

let's say the status of the supreme court has fundamentally changed. dy changed in essence from the fourteenth year, when the supreme court assumed the functions of the ministry of naturally, let's say judicial administration and judicial support of all activities. he made himself an additional complex function of organizing the vote and of course, that's the fourteenth year. this is the period when the supreme court, having received the response of an additional function , assumed a very high degree of responsibility, when it became the existence of a judicial system of courts of general life. and, of course, it had to be fixed. gotta high enough legislative level and the fact that here is purely 112 with

the references to dobbs, the decision that overturned roe and what the supreme court would do. t has left access to the abortion pill in place that is procedurally, a smackdown against some of the lower court judges who seized on that ruling to try to do otherwise. we have this procedural decision what we don't have yet is, of course, a final decision we'll keep that in our minds as we cover this docket thank you for spending time with us have a great weekend you have been watching "the beat" with ari melber. joy reid takes over our coverage now. >>> good evening, everyone we have breaking news from the supreme court moments ago, the high court blocked in full a decision by texas based u.s. district judge matthew kacsmaryk on april 7th that invalidated the food and drug administration's long time approval of the abortion pill mifepristone conservative justices clarence thomas and samuel alito publicly dissented from the decision. this means the supreme court has allowed the pill to stay on the market and remain widely available at least for now people can still obtain mifepristo

there is no special position the other courts in the country are not because of a single supreme courtreated by the constitution. it's a codependent or co-independent branch of government and therefore they have to govern themselves. >> i hate to be cynical professor but so far through republican nominated justices clarence thomas and trips with a wealthy friend, neil gorsuch and a sale of real estate in john roberts to a very successful attorney himself and what she does for a living. just this morning the new york times is out with the piece pointing out that the supreme court justice actually work at a law school for a meager $30000 a year which i would be embarrassed for working for that little but it seems like the media is targeting republican judges or am i being hypersensitive. >> you are if you look at liberal justices like ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer they took in hundreds of trips on the supreme court, the activities being reported on now about the conservative justices they're not new nor are they legal by the way, the only difference this is being painted in a ba

the u. s. supreme court has decided to preserve access to a popular abortion pill. the decision means that the drug with a prestone will continue to be broadly available in the united states. a conservative judge and texas suspended approval of the commonly used drug on the 7th of april, questioning its safety. the justice department of the bi administration filed an emergency appeal, asking the supreme court to block the lower court ruling. w. washington correspondent, i mean as if explained what this decision means. the supreme court basically ruled today that access to this pill that is important for many women to terminate pregnancies will remain unhindered. they were responding to a case from a texas judge, a federal judge appointed by form president donald trump, a conservative and appealing to anti abortion advocates. and he essentially wanted to stop access to this drug, mr. prestone. based on his assessment that the f d a, the food and drug administration which approves medications had not done a proper job and approving this pill. this went onto an appeals

the lower court. president trump would say see you at the supreme court. he upheld his travel ban. all along, he was always acting as if i on the supreme court. i can get what i want. there were some cases that came to the court at this time. they already have a sensitive caseload. we are not going to hear this now. or the chief himself especially during the time when he controlled it. he would end over to the left. that way they would not issue a ruling that would seem so obvious and political. this was between when justice kennedy stepped down in june of 2018 and october of 2020 when just as amy coney barrett came on. they could have control just about everything. he is no longer at the center and he has five justices to the far right you can control this as we saw last june. grace as you tell the story throughout the book, this has been a goal. i wanted to go through. this should have been about the role that they played and achieving the goal they set out decades ago. how powerful are they in creating not just the majority in the supreme court but the records as well. it was fou

court, it is a very, very likely to - the maps will come before th supremeat became a bone o contention during this >> what is it about he election that is interesting is it just her and her qualifications, is the thing you say that this was a bastio of progressivism or is there a -- is there's something about where conservative politics is going in the nation, in statewide election, or electio might be a signal that don't g too far, don't get crazy >> i think all of those things it's very complicated. you can see a lot of thing that are interesting in he election namely the push back against the dobbs decision i wisconsin. basically, the operating law became the 1849 law that completely prohibited th practice except for say th life of a mother, very extreme it was passed one year after the state, after wisconsin became a state it basically threatene abortion providers with si years in prison and what struc them of their medical licenses this was a law that was passed when women could not vote fo seven more years and basically they didn't even know the term

in front of the supreme court. terests are maintainin power for the corporate wealth elite, which he is one and clearly, he's got a friend on the court that agrees wit him on that point. >> i'm just shocked that clarence thomas might not have been - in rvs, walmart parking lots apparently he likes a yach trip as well megan, i just want to ask you, take a look at this tweet from professor steve >> he says whe the majority has been appointe by democratic presidents, 1969 where we hadn't walked on th moon by my count we've had four democratic presidents, and yet for 50 years, republicans have control disappearing court at what point do they say in the name of democracy we'r going to balance the supreme court? >> >> they should say righ now. i think it's not just th ethical problems one of the reasons that this situation, these big protest are happening in tennessee our gun laws are a mess in thi country. it was true even before th decision of the supreme court. but now we're in a situation even with our state were gonn

court, but, of course, the supreme court ve itself a code of conduct and, look, most of the justices on the supreme court typically come up through the federal courts so, it is not like they don't sort of know those rules and why they're valuable. >> but there are rules in the supreme court as well. they do have to, you know, set up some forms, et cetera certainly vastly different than the rules set up for the other judges how is that process of the rules set in the supreme court done? and are they ever changed? >> well, so, there are other disclosure obligations they have to make, like other people who work for the government, and they do have some of their own rules. when i was clerbi ingclerking a supreme court, i would see this. they had systems for making sure the justices recused when there might be a personal conflict with a particular case i think in matters for the public that these would be binding and the same is for everybody else, not just individual justices sort of sometimes deciding what they think is right we

the concern of the supreme court is, what is that body that sits for a supreme court justice? d the statue, there is no provision for a panel of lower court judges to evaluate the conduct of supreme court justices. the justices judgment on each other, it is a hard question. kristen: your rate. they are at the top. -- kristen: you're -- you're right. they are at the top. do you see this as a tipping point? one of reforms you think might be needed? >> to things can be true at the same time. one, we absolutely need stricter codes of conduct and ethical rules to apply to the supreme court justices as any other federal judge. this may be a tipping point for that. it depends on how angry the public will get about it. at the same time, i think it'll be a mistake for moderates, progressives, independence worried about the future of the supreme court and the role it's playing in because it's to view a code of conduct as a solution to the problems the supreme court is facing. at the heart of the court's loss of public confidence right now is how its rulings are out of touch, out of step

let's start first with abortion and the supreme court. ura, explain to me what the doj is asking the supreme court to do? >> the justice department and the manufacturer of this pill mifepristone are essentially asking the supreme court to freeze everything in place right now, to stop this looming deadline that is on everybody's mind when the clock strikes midnight tonight, part of that texas ruling will go into effect, and so all they're saying is supreme court, please make sure you take that off of the sort of parade of horribles that could happen, if you will, and then allow the place to play out. now, the justices may do nothing, in which case, as of midnight central time tonight, the part of the texas ruling that has to do with sort of the ways the fda had tried to make this easier to get, like getting it through the mail and not having to see a doctor, all of those are now blocked. as of midnight tonight, unless the supreme court steps in however, you also have a federal court that has said the impact opposite, and that court has told

amy: adam, wrote a book about the supreme court called "supreme inequality: the supreme court's 50-year a more unjust america." can you relate the ethics scandal that clarence thomas is facing today to the theme of your book? >> it is a great point, amy. what i argue in the book is we think of the supreme court as being a force for equality and fairness. but if you look back to the last 50 years after nixon packed the court with conservatives, it has been a force for protecting rich people for increasing inequality. in areas like campaign where they obstruct out these often good laws that congress passed try to regulate the amount of money from rich people going into politics, education with a world in favor inequality of funding, and on and on -- that is been the theme. we have had a court for 50 years that is been fighting for rich people over poor people. that is only gotten worse in the last few years. it is worse than it has ever been. this is strongly related because think about when you have corruption, financial corruption, when you have justices taking free trips for 20 years -

the activities of the courts. do you understand how it works? who pays who orders the music, that is, who listens to it, and so the head of the supreme courts of russia ky a for deputies from uzbekistan azerbaijan tajikistan chairman of the judicial collegium for criminal cases of the supreme court from kazakhstan guests to the palace for a meeting the president will designate we countries partners actively, we cooperate on many directions, including within the framework of international obligations under the cis of the eurasian economic union, the highway of rapprochement of contact and the exchange of experience in the formation of judicial systems is also no exception. life itself confirms the validity of the aspirations of the peoples of the former soviet republics for closer interaction. this is especially true in our very difficult times. we are united in the desire to ensure law and order in our states. protect the interests of our citizens. i believe that your current visit to minsk will serve to further develop professional cooperation. many reforms in the field of judicial activity. we can carry out synchronously. and agreed , our country i

jan, there's great irony in the fact that supreme court sent the decision on abortion access back to the states after dobbs and now we're talking about going back to the supreme court to decide on it again. will the justices -- mine how involved will they get? do you think this is inevitable it ends up there? >> well, i think it's going to go right back to the supreme court because whoever loses will appeal it and ask the justice to get involved and decide it. i don't think they will. >> you don't think they will hear it. >> i think they'll have to hear it, but i think they will dismiss it on standing grounds. they're going to say that these challengers who went after the fda authorization weren't able to show that they had right to be in federal court in the first place. let me just -- those are kind of bedrock conservative legal principles that go to the heart of this case. to get into federal court you can't just be upset about some issue. you have to show you've been harmed, that you have a stake in the case. it can't be just something speculative in the future. i think that's a r