they can't label is an adjudication.this is somewhat of a theoretical question because the dc circuit which ruled in front of the government, and the hallmarks of the wall. >> if there are no further questions? >> four minutes, mister neither --kneedler. >> the tax does not shed light on what congress did in 1987. the term, subsection a 2, include statement of policy so there is some redundancy, and no matter how you read it. the conference committee report in 1987, i want to stress this, recent court rulings could only have been apa rulings and i take my friend to acknowledge with the american hospital association says was the leading case and that case discussed the distinction between substantive rules and interpretive rules and procedural rules, not just the one and as we point out on page 11, it did it in terms that are echoed in hh itself. it says the notice of comment requirement applies only to substantive rules that create law which goes to justice so5 tomayor, establishing a standard of conduct which forced the

>>or it could not choose adjudication? . >> not as a means to establish every hospital nationwide and the government said when they do this by the same rule for each hospital so no. if you do something like this you can call it the adjudication that's fine but you have to go through notice and comment changing that legal standard so they now cannot label this as the adjudication so now this is a theoretical question even the district court ruled in favor of the government rejected their claim this was the adjudication and says it has all the hallmarks of a rule. >> if there are no further questions. >> four minutes council. . >> subsection d by the way was enacted at a later time so that doesn't necessarily shed lighte of 1987 but the term rule c leading in to subsection a-letter two has statements of policy so there is some redundancy or superfluous they are anyway no matter how you read it so it is imprecise the conference committee report of 1987 i want to stress that the recent court rulings only could have been apa ru

that comes their national adjudications. there are thousands of those that are done every day with the agency, a contractor gets a medicare claim. and that is just mind running, there is a rule on it. i apply the rule is this drug country. >> do you have any idea why this change wasn't put through the ordinary rulemaking notice? >> because they tried. they did. in 2004 they did this through notice and comment rulemaking and try to do it. >> i am now and forgotten why. i remember the 2013. >> they did the proposed rulemaking in 2003. that said look, we want to quantify our long-standing policy and practice of excluding artsy days from the medicare fraction. then in 2,000 and four they did a hundred and 80-degree turn. but they did not do any further notice her comments in the issue to the final rule include the part few days. they said that is a logical failure because you have now flipped your long-standing policy without any notice and comments. so they try to do it through notice and comments but because they got rejected

it has prospective -- >> it's a big adjudication. >> well, i think what distinguishes the adjudication from the rulemaking is does it have general applicability. that's the definition in the apa. and this, as the d.c. circuit said in its opinion, and, in fact, as the government's counsel in the d.c. circuit oral argument conceded, when asked in oral argument, doesn't this policy affect every hospital nationwide, and the answer is yes, it does. and not only that, it's prospective, because these fractions are used, again, for every hospital nationwide to calculate their interim payments for the intervening year until the new fractions come out. >> well, but -- >> this looks nothing like an adjudication. >> well, i guess, again, we can hear rebuttal, but it's an adjudication where they're doing what you would like to see people do in adjudication, which is apply the same rules to similarly situated parties. this happens to be a lot of them. >> right. well, that would be fine. but you can't issue a -- a policy that changes how you were treating it and have it have prospective effect for ev

there will be sizeable funding for additional judges to more quickly adjudicate these cases so that it doesn't become, well, they are here such a long time. we have such a backlog. there would be funding to send money to the countries where most of these people coming from, the northern triangle, to try to alleviate some of the conditions that have exacerbated the situation there, to mitigate for the horror that some of them face. we have to see how that money if ent, but a recognition we can solve some of the problems at home then people can stay home. they come here because they have no choice. it's just a matter of life or death or danger for their families. there are other areas where we can find common ground but those three are very personal in terms of the adjudication of the case of them coming and try to help them stay at home. always like to place us in time. you come at a time that's very interesting and, again, the respect and dignity of the evangelical community that always contributed to newcomers coming to our country. it might be interesting that the president i quoted

if someone comes, we should adjudicate those cases probably. 80% to 90% of people who request asylum do not get it because they do not have a legitimate cause. but we are delaying this allsion two to three years , people come into the country and use our resources. border security is right for humanitarian reasons. it is right just because a country should have borders. and it is right from a fiscal point of view. host: necklace in maryland, a republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make the comment that i have not heard the argument made that the wall would deter terrorists. whether or not it is invested, as long as that is a perception amongst the people come, trying to get into the united states, that there is a wall that is effective, it will be a deterrent. host: congressman harris? guest: a wall clearly deters people crossing the border. i said -- sat on the homeland security and we had customs and border protection coming in and saying you do not need a wall along the entire border. chuck schumer agreed with this. he voted for the voter act that basically

support for migrants coming to the morer, also provides border patrol agents and asylum judges to adjudicate the situation. the circumstance remains we have a couple thousand mile border and we have finite resources like everyone else. we are trying to optimize the resources we have by making sure when people come, they go to the right places. if they seek to come illegally, they will avoid the right place and go where there is a minimum of eyes watching and people there to interdict them. what we are trying to do is maximize our resource by making those off limit places where people are crossing illegally then to goivation is to the place where you can be adjudicated properly and also to stop the cartels from exploiting these weaknesses in the american border and exploiting the people. they exploit those people. this trip is not an easy trip and the things that happen to a lot of these people, 30% of the women suffer sexual assault. that is from the cartels and the people along this route. those things don't generally happen at the ports of entry, they have been people are crossing illegall

that the two adjudicators said no, makes complete sense to me. it's exactly what would have happened to my clients. this viblindividual, mr. kline, did he over rule them and grant the top secret clearance raises questions whether there was improper political inflew we think so a-- influence and showing cia balked and said are you kidding us, we're not giving him sci access. >> i feel like there is two lenses to look through for this story and one of them is definitely a -- this is why there is rules against nepotism story. one of this is this is a very dramatic story about the president's son-in-law being elevated to a position and given what appears to be very special and potentially dangerous treatment in that position. but there is also this reporting that this supervisor has done this at least 30 times f. jared kushner didn't exist, the idea there are 30 people working in the white house who have been red flagged as unsuitable to receive a security clearance who have nevertheless been given these clearances, which means with those clearances,

that the two adjudicators said no makes complete sense to me. that's exactly what would have happened to my clients and what we expected would have happened here, that this individual, mr. kline, and he had the authority to do this, let's be clear, but it's a questionable decision as to why that he overruled them and granted the top secret clearance. raises significant questions about whether or not there was improper political influence and what the basis for the determination is, especially as you indicated and as ken dilanian's reporting show that cia balked and said are you kidding us? we're not giving him sci access. >> the -- i feel like there are two lens to look through for this story. one of them is definitely a, you know, this is why there's rules against nepotism story, right? one of them is this is a very dramatic story about the president's son-in-law being elevated to a position and then obviously begin what appears to be very special and potentially dangerous treatment in that position. but there's also this reporting that this su

pallet and now it's going before the united states supreme court and hopefully that will be properly adjudicated because if it is. the talks will begin on larger immigration matters having to do with dhaka having to do with other things so that is taking place we may add a few things on to our discussions over the weekend but i'm going to ask mike pence and then i'll have leader mccarthy say a few words and we'll take a couple of questions but we're very proud of the jobs in the job numbers that was incredible and i think i'll be even more proud if we could have great border security for the first time in really the history of our country the southern border is a dangerous horrible disaster we've done a great job but you can't really do the kind of job we have to do on less you have a major powerful barrier and that's what we're going to have to have so first we start with mike pence and. all right so we've just been listening to president trump speaking there at the white house taking credit for a strong jobs report today he was very keen to emphasize that this after a fair bit of turbulence in

having a separate adjudicator helps to serve on a check of that bias. this risk of bias is of particular concern in this because in the framework for investigating misconduct requires judges to investigate other judges. judge would never, i hope, preside over a case involving rulesst friend, but the prevent -- permit exactly this arrangement. they are almost nonexistent, and at best, very vague about when someone must recuse. this arrangement puts judges in difficult positions and also compromises public confidence in the way his complaints are handled. process isd that the intended for a wide variety of complaints in this process may make a lot of sense for complaints if someone violated certain rules or complaints about judicial disabilities. but for complaints about , we strongly believe that, at a minimum, this interested individuals from outside the circuit should be investigating credible allegations and that these cases should be resolved outside of the circuit in which they arise. a fair and balanced framework for investigating these complaints

khashoggi a spokesperson for the high commissioner for human rights insisting that it's impossible to adjudicate on the impartiality of the process underway in riyadh the trial there of the eleven suspects in the murder beginning this week the spokes person had this to say we are not present in saudi arabia to be able to assess these trials and we can't give an assessment of the trials ourselves we as you know have been pressing for justice in the case for months now. and we've been calling for an investigation independent investigation with international involvement and this has not happened yet now while we are aware that a trial has taken place in saudi arabia this is not sufficient first of all and second of all we are against the imposition of the death penalty in all circumstances a number of human rights organizations have also cost outside of the legality or impartiality of that process in riyadh also calling for some kind of international independent investigation into the murder but the situation is that the un is quite capable of initiating such an investigation by itself all it requi

khashoggi a spokesperson for the high commissioner for human rights insisting that it's impossible to adjudicate on the impartiality of the process underway in riyadh the trial there of the eleven suspects in the murder beginning this week the spokes person had this to say we are not present in saudi arabia to be able to assess these trials and we can't give an assessment of the trials ourselves we as you know have been pressing for justice in the case for months now. and we've been calling for an investigation independent investigation with international involvement and this has not happened yet now while we are aware that a trial has taken place in saudi arabia this is not sufficient first of all and second of all we are against the imposition of the death penalty in all circumstances a number of human rights organizations have also cost outside of the legality or impartiality of that process in riyadh also calling for some kind of international independent investigation into the murder but the situation is that the u.n. is quite capable of michigan such an investigation by itself all it requi

and those services for post adjudicated youth, young people who are wards and have had a disposition. as can you see, there's a heavy dose of community resources and programs for youth at that phase of the system. when you look at services that young people have received in our community, we took a look at a snapshot of young people on october 4 of this year. there were 301 youth. we literally did a pain staking review case by case of each young person's case file to determine what services they were involved in, if any. 85% of the young people who are under our supervision are receiving services from some agency or resource. there are about 45 young people who are not receiving services, and on this very same slide, i've laid out who those young people are, youth who are employed, young people who are not responding to the referrals or following through with the community agencies. young people who have had their community involvement interrupted by a new referral, young people who are attending college courses, and some of these young people who have other situations that are -- are

khashoggi a spokesperson for the high commissioner for human rights insisting that it's impossible to adjudicate on the partiality of the process underway in riyadh the trial there of the eleven suspects in the murder beginning this week the spokes person had this to say we are not present in saudi arabia to be able to assess these trials and we can't give an assessment of the trials ourselves we as you know have been pressing for justice in the case for months now. and we've been calling for an investigation independent investigation with international involvement and this has not happened yet now while we are aware that a trial has taken place in saudi arabia this is not sufficient first of all and second of all we are against the imposition of the death penalty in all circumstances a number of human rights organizations have also cost outside of the legality or impartiality of that process in riyadh also calling for some kind of international independent investigation into the murder but the situation is that the u.n. is quite capable of michelle such an investigation by itself all it require

having a separate adjudicator helps to make sure, act as a check on that investigative bias. this risk of bias is of particular concern in this context, because the framework for investigating judicial misconduct requires, as i mentioned before, judges to investigate over judges. a judge would never, i hope, preside over a case involving his best friend as a litigant, but the rules permit exactly this arrangement in cj&d act proceedings and the rekulz rules are almost nonexistent and at best very vague about when someone must recuse based on personal relationships. this arrangement, i think, puts judges in difficult positions and it also compromises public confidence in the way these complaints are handled. so -- and i understand that these -- the jc&d act process is intended for a wide variety of complaints. and this may make a lot of sense for the complaint that someone violated the political activity roles or perhaps for complaints about judicial disability. but for complaints about harassment or inappropriate workplace conduct by a judge, we strongly believe that at a min

but even if it doesn't, you want to have this debate in a process that can adjudicate the claims. if you do it in public through rumor and innuendo it is a recipe for further partisan division and rather than taking a president who has destabilizing norms and rules and conventions, what you're doing is you're responding in kind and further destabilizing rules and norms and conventions. there's a process here, and we should use it. >> you say waiting to impeach trump presents dangers. what do you mean by that? >> i think there's a bunch. at one level i think they're procedural. what we've got right now are dots of people around trump who leave office and tell us, don't blame us for what the president has done, actually thank us for everything we stopped him from doing. it is corrosive in a democracy to have a bunch of people whose power comes from the president of the united states asking us to thank them from stopping the president from doing what he wants. that's not how it's supposed to work. if they think he is unfit then congress ought to intervene. often what they are aiming

even if it doesn't, you want to have this debate in a process that can adjudicate the claims.do it in public through rumor and innuendo it is a recipe for purgt partisan division and rather than taking a president who has destabilizing norms and rules and conventions what you are doing is responding in kind and further destabilizing rules and norms and conventions. >> you say there is danger. >> lots of people around trump leave office and tell us don't blame us for what the president has done. actually thank us for everything we stopped him from doing. it is corrosive in a democracy to have a bunch of people whose power comes were the president of the united states asking us to thank them in stopping the president from doing what he wants. if they think he is unfit they should intervene. often what they are aiming at is his malice and his intentions rather than his acts. it will bind future presidents of the united states. the last set of damage is what we ought to focus on. president trump has assaulted the idea of, he ma. he has inflamed america's racial divisions. he has d

it's the same thing in my mind. >> we'll see if it is ever adjudicated., of course, is the complicated question you're allowed to spend as much money as you want on your campaign. you have to declare. >> that pesky little rule. >> stuff it in a boxing glove and stick it in someone's carry-on bag. this is remarkable. emily jane fox, senior "vanity fair" reporter. thank you very much. all right. much more to get to. stay with us. e to get to. stay with us eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? well sure, at first, but jj can help you with that. jj, will you break it down for this gentleman? hey, ian. you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. that's taking options trading from wall st. to main st. hey guys, wanna play some pool? eh, i'm not really a pool guy. what's the hesitation? it's just complicated. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's ha

we had a situation where they are making asylumy seekers s in mexico, waiting for caseso be adjudicated. >> we have a lot of -- we have to tell the truth to ourself as thert democratic needs to be a real alternative to what the republicans are offering the last couple years in termsf immigration. that's going to be the point at which nancy pelosi, leader of the party to hold the coalition together. have got to not ld when it comes to things that are important to the base. >> they all sported the act of 2006, which provided almost $2 llion in funding for fences and secure borders. there's supposedto be a second fence. they didn't fun they are all on the hook. there are half a million people undocumented that come into the country a year. they have to address that issue. i will tell you, it's not going to be drones and blimps. they have to dort some sof barrier that actually works. the issue with regardsto, we are all giving nancy pelosi kudos for tooling the president, but she's only better than the guy or gal who is her opponent. the republicans stood on the sidelines saying this. mccon

and we spoke with a number of those from higher ed institutions who have to adjudicate these things.t was very clear the bottom line was it simply was not working as it was framed up then. so we set about to go through a proper regulatory process. and the draft rules are out there now. we're receiving lots of comments. and the comment period closes today. we will then be taking all of the input from the public and looking at that in light of the draft and moving toward a process where we will issue a final rule. but the -- the fundamental focus from my perspective is ensuring that we are being fair and balanced for all students. i said it often and i'll say it again, one sexual assault is one too many. and we need to move to a place where we are educating and assuring that those horrible situations don't occur. but when they do, we need to have a process and a framework that is fair for everyone and that -- and that the results can be counted on by everyone involved. shirley: so as a member of an association who has been involved, because that's our job, we have really appreciated th

i don't know the basis that you have an individual adjudication and what would happen if they say we will not listen if we are required to the agency's position. if one case tells you it is wrong then is that the new policy? i'li

i leave your lordships to adjudicate on that one.untable eu officials, who powers corrupted and who visited pain, misery and financial hardship on the most vulnerable throughout the eu. what is there to like about this construct over which they already hangs a sense of decay and morbidity? with or without a deal, this ghastly saga must end now, so that we can begin once again to build bridges, revive old friendships and look once more to the world outside, where real growth resides. i suspect that we would be much more divided if actually, a second referendum was held. and what would happen is actually, the decision would be reversed, and then a very large number of the people who voted actually to leave the eu would then feel that parliament had betrayed them, and they would be given no option but to take to the streets, because they couldn't look to parliament to look after their interests any more. a former cabinet minister said the fear of leaving without a deal and trading on world trade 0rganisation rules was overstated. proble

this isn't an administrative decision in a rule making or adjudication. you're saying it's a memorandum, the acting secretary of homeland security and to her discretion but there's something about your argument. you're arguing in your papers -- and have good reason to be -- that this is the type of agency action that can't be re bute because there's no standard to apply. but at the same time you're saying it's ok to do this in use review was conducted another circuit and the government agrees with the ruling on daca. but if you are consistent you wouldn't care what the ruling was because it's the kind of decision just like this one that there's no standard review to apply. >> yes, your honor. i'm sorry i haven't been clear. our position is it is not reviewable. these other conversations only ome in at the -- decisions only come in where the court thinks it's reviewable. we think it is a decision, prosecutorial discretion that couldn't be more clear. >> so everything else is just for judges who don't buy your first argument. >> that's basically right, your

results, and that would be a comprehensive package or border security, technology, additional drug adjudicating the asylum claims, more space to house people who need to be housed, and you can have some infrastructure as part of that, but to make the whole thing about the wall is to be symbolic rather than practical and result oriented. let's just i want to come on to the points that you raise and what could be done, but one possibility the president has been talking about has been reported is that there could be funds used for the army core of engineers which is part of the federal emergency management to build dikes and levies and things like that money could be diverted from there to build the wall. and the problem there is with the army core is doing is literally protecting us against the next storm. we've had a couple of really bad storms in the last year. if you don't start to sure up and make repairs, you're going to have people lose property and lives that could have been prevented so again that is sacrificing real important missions for symbolic activity. >> the president though back t

border security measures that donald trump has no time for, for example, maud judges to hear, and to adjudicate he wants that border wall, and it's a no—brainer, as far as he is concerned, he reiterated that sentiment this morning, boarding air force one. the democrats for their part believe that the wall is not only ineffective, but would be immoral. an affront to american values, if you like. so, i don't think we are going to see anything that is going to break his impasse, whether the president takes to the microphone at the white house and about four hours' time. what he might do, is he might offer some concession regarding the so—called dream is, that the 750,000 young people who enter this country illegally, through no fault of therein, and are 110w through no fault of therein, and are now facing deportation. it is a subject that is close to the heart of many in the democratic party. but whether it will be enough, as i say, to really bend the neal on this, is really doubtful, i think. to really bend the neal on this, is really doubtful, ithink. david, do you know what, it has been quite a

this is adjudication of illegitimate claims to regression, it is the notion that besign ghettoizationdemographic traits and accidents of birth is progress strikes me as nine. it is regression on a scale that should be resistive who has attachment to the american ideals. >> it seems like you may be actually to use begyneghettoization. >> the idea that we can create safe spaces for individuals of different racial, ethnic, demographic traits to prevent "uncomfortable learning" which is something members of the faculty are saying is something students need. that's not something i think is advancing any sort of justice. it is creating grievance-based and small-mindedness communities that are definitely not part of the american experience as i understand it. i don't think we'll have a good outcome for the american social compact. >> let's do this. are you around tomorrow? >> i think i am. >> are you just hanging out tomorrow? can you hang out here tomorrow? >> sure can. >> that would be good. why don't we do this. expand it longer. mika will be here. and we'll have many other people here. t

for example, more judges to hear, to adjudicate asylum claims.orts of entry, that sort of thing. he wants that border wall, and it's a no—brainer as far as he's concerned. he reiterated that sentiment this morning boarding air force one. you saw a clip from itjust now. and the democrats, for their part, believe that the wall is not only ineffective, but would be immoral, an affront to american values, if you like. so i don't think we're going to see anything that is going to break this impasse when the president takes to the microphone at the white house. meanwhile, hundreds gathered in london for the annual women's march, which was launched two years ago following the swearing—in of president trump. protesters marched from portland place to trafalgar square holding banners with slogans. campaigners from anti—austerity groups, refugee organisations, the campaign for nuclear disarmament and family planning charities were among the speakers. protests are also taking place in cities in the united states. the headlines on bbc news: former prime minis

for example, more judges to hear and adjudicate asylum claims.thing. he wants that border wall, and it's a no—brainer as far as he's concerned. he reiterated that sentiment this morning boarding air force one. and the democrats, for their part, believe that the wall is not only ineffective, but would be immoral and an affront to american values, if you like. so i don't think you're going to see anything that is going to break this impasse when the president takes to the microphone at the white house in about four hours' time. what he might do, however, is he might offer some concession regarding the so—called dreamers. that the 750,000 young people who entered this country illegally through no fault of their own and are now facing deportation. it's a subject that is close to the heart of many in the democratic party. but whether it will be enough, as i say, to really bend the needle on this is doubtful, i think. david, you know what, it has been quite a week in washington. so much tit—for—tat going on, many thinking that this latest move from the

there does appear to be -- i mean, this isn't an administrative decision and a rule-making or an adjudication. >> you're saying it's nothing but -- it's a memorandum, an acting secretary of homeland security, and it deals with something that is confided to her discretion. but there's something odd about your argument. because you're arguing in your physical therapy papers, and you have good reason to seem to argue, that this is the type of agency action that can't be reviewed. because there's no standard of review to apply. and yet, at the same time, you're saying that it's okay to do this, because the -- because ruf was conducted in another circuit and the government agrees with the ruling on top of it. but if you're consistent, you wouldn't care what the ruling was on dapa, because it's the kind of decision, just like this one, that there's no standard of review to apply. >> yes, your honor. i'm sorry if we haven't been clear. our position is it's not reviewable. these other considerations only come in at the point where the court thinks it is reviewable. we think it's prosecutorial discret

we don't think this case is right for adjudication. or they could of said we are not going to love it legislate a grand policy. or they could have done that. she has frequently said. too far too fast. they would've done better to rule narrowly. it's also i think it's controversial. friends had attacked me for it. they are responsible for the radicalization of the republican party. they are things you read about. you would've never had ronald reagan. it is not a straight line. it certainly helped radicalize the party. not a straight line. they are people who argue with some persuasiveness that might've happened otherwise. i think the far better argument is that he did things within the political system both asides could fight it out. when the court finally woke up to the fact that racism was an enormous problem and was not being dealt with by the political branches the loss of the south. south. not because of roe because of brown and really enforcing that. would we be better off with segregated schools. is not browned by any stretch. no