in different courts. nationwide injunctions do not work that way. to end where i began, i raise the problem of nationwide injunctions as a matter not of and the opportunity to opt out. partisanship, but of the rule of law. one can easily imagine a future administration's policy say on climate change, or employee rights freezing under nationwide injunctions for years on end. imagine for example if a new administration were to abandon a zero tolerance policy only to see a district court order it back in place. one can draw up countless of other scenarios. i don't want to see any of them. nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process. may depart from our history and tradition, violate constitutional principles, and impede sound judgment of the administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions and particularly, in our courts. the justice department will continue to oppose nationwide injunctions as we have across administrations of different ideological perspectives. i hope you

courts of appeals. there is nothing like that in this case. in fact, the only cases we have are zipes and arbaugh, essentially, and those are cases that cut in our favor. every other case that this court has analyzed jurisdictional rules in, where the scheme is similar to us, you have to do something before you go to district court. those have looked exactly like our case in terms of the final resolution. this court has held that they are not jurisdictional. so eme homer city, union pacific, mach mining, all those cases, henderson, reed elsevier, all of them come out our way. and in some of those the language and the text of the statute is better for our friends on the other side than this statute here. chief justice roberts: well, what about elgin? mr. melkonian: elgin, your honor, i think handles a very different set of circumstances. as justice ginsburg was saying, those are cases where essentially jurisdiction has been stripped from the district courts. an administrative agency adjudicates the case,

in family court?k over 15 or 16 years is that although of course in that length of time i have seen cases where i think that things are not being dealt with as they should be, generally speaking, particularly where there are convictions, the convictions are taken into account. does that mean that access isn't given? it depends on the circumstances of the individual case. sometimes people will come to the family courts and there will be convictions that are historical, not connected to the other parent in the case. they may be teenage convictions for taking a car without consent or something. and nobody would think that would be relevant to access to a child. let's stick to this. at the beginning of every family court case now for the last several years, there's convictions are obtained and checked and an initial triage is undertaken by cafcas to see if any convictions are releva nt cafcas to see if any convictions are relevant and to see if there are any other convictions that are not which the family

or courts of appeals. the eeoc is with us through the united states and they don't think their prerogatives - >> what sort of empirical evidence are you looking for? it would be hard to find it. >> i can see that. >> we get this argument quite a bit. there is no great crisis there, no great crisis there, it is hard when you think about it to figure out how that evidence would be compiled. >> i have two answers to try to get there. one is that the eeoc has the empirical rules to observe what is happening in the district courts to make sure the same number of charges are going forward and there is not a sudden drop off. and their world and in general, it is hard to bubble up because these cases are rare and see some evidence in courts of appeal as people come with these claims they haven't all gone to eeoc on and why do we have this case at all? not a single case looks like that. they all look like this case where there is a charge, the question is is this charge sufficient? is that enough to get there? >> t

the justice department has tried to get the supreme court to review the lower court decisions ordering us to keep daca in place. but the court has not granted any of those." d they languageish on the -- langish in the court's dockett. we are unlikely to see a decision before mid 2020 at the earliest that is right before the next election. it's hard to imagine a clearer example of the stakes of nationwide injunctions. they have injected the courts into the political process. the first injunction from the northern district of california came down on january 9th, 2018 profile ddle of high legislative discussions. hours earlier, that day, president trump had allowed cameras into the cabinet room to broadcast negotiations with bipartisan leaders from both houses of congress over the dream act, border security, and broader immigration reform. and most people at that point thought that all the pieces of a grand compromise were on the table which would involve on the one hand concessions on the dream act and on the other increased border security. but, of course, once the district court forced

court. when title vii's exhaustion requirement is satisfied, the power to address an employment discrimination claim shifts from the executive to the judicial branch. the exhaustion requirement is therefore jurisdictional, and the planed - in the plainest sense of the word. that is confirmed in at least three ways. first. the text and structure of section 2000 e- five demonstrates the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. and shoring that courts do not reach the merit of a claim before it has been presented to the expert agencies. >> the expert agency, unlike the samples that you give, -- adjudicatory authority. the eeoc has no authority to adjudicate. yes, you have to let the complaint stay there for 180 days. but, they don't decide anything. even if they decide to dismiss your claims, that has no preclusive effect in the court. so, it is one thing to say, when congress sets a scheme where the agency is the equivalent of a deck court of first instance, it makes a decision and that decis

members of the court? it has been proposed lately that we expand the number of members on the court from nine to 11 or 13. what do you think of that? >> i think nine is fine. i'm not speaking about anybody's proposal, but i've discovered that nine seems to work. and the massachusetts supreme judicial court has seven. i've seen them at work, and i think seven's a better number. i mean serve is fine. eight is fine, nine is fine. and it's hard, you know, because these are not shrinking violets, any of the members of the court, and yet they are going to be helpful really when they produce opini opinions which have more than five or more members signing on to those opinions because basically the country is not -- maybe a few reporters are, but the country is not interested primarily in what sandra o'connor or what i or david or somebody else think of the constitution. they want to know primarily what does the court think because that's what the law is, and that's what they'll have to follow in the courts and th

in the lower courts. nationwide injunctions turn that process on its head. and they treat the first case like it is the last case. i mean, after all, why do we have three judges on the intermediate appellate level and nine justices on the supreme court? it is because of the significance of that last decision by the supreme court adopting a uniform rule for the country. congress and the federal rules committee have also designed mechanisms for aggregate litigation where appropriate. but none authorizes nationwide injunctions. consider federal rules of civil procedure 23, which allows plaintiffs to bring class actions on behalf of unnamed parties sometimes across the nation. still, they must meet a series of procedural and substantive requirements, including that the class member share claims, and that the named plaintiffs adequately represent the members of the class. the rules also provided in many cases for absent class members to receive notice of the action and the opportunity to opt out. members of th

supreme court, the roberts court argued that the role of the court is more to protect the rights of the state to do with voting as they wish. the roberts court felt that the problem of racial discrimination in the past and the voting rights act must reflect this new historical viewpoint. the preclearance section of the voting rights act in its four decades blocked more than 1000 voting laws and procedures here that's the equivalent of 1000 successful lawsuits that have been brought under section two. imagine what that cost her justice ginsburg, i think, had one of the more apt rejoinders to the majority notion that the voting problems were all wrapped up, and she said throwing up preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. she was right. time that hardly any shelby was announced that a storm of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters upon states deviously subject preclearance. for example, mere hours after in texasion, officials put into motion a voter ident

of the court term. >>> your argument first this morning case 18-431. >> may it police the court. in order to render section 924-c 3 b unconstitutional, respondents need to show the only plausible construction is one in which a defendant's guilt or innocence depends on a judge's imagination rather than a jury's finding about how a particular defendant acted. that is a very unusual way to draw a line between equipment and noncriminal conduct. -- against a cat negotiations at approach. the operative lang wang of the statute. >> mr. fagpayin feigin, what dok consequence intended in 1986. >> they probably didn't focus on this question. >> i understand that it didn't. >> but if congress had thought about it. >> no, i didn't ask "had." that's rewriting their intent. given the circumstances of 1986, that it would been read in the categorical approach, that they adopted it for the bail reform act, and you're not challenging that that's a categorical approach, that for decades you've been say that 16-b is better read as a categorical approach, what do you think congress intended in 1986? >

the supremes of court supreme court has ratcheted up since the 1980s. the court stated parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification for that action. the court also stated the burden of justification is demanding and rests entirely on the state. as a just as noted in his concurrence the court had in effect made the governments more burden worse than it was previously. the justice pointed out the standard governing review of the governments actions of the discrimination based on sex the have been previously in place was quote a standard that lies between the extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny. we have denominated this intermediate scrutiny and have inquire whether the statutory classification is substantially related to important governmental of active. yet the justice pointed out the majority in that case had executed a de facto abandonment of the intermediate scrutiny that has been our standard for sex-based classifications for decades. it was replaced with an even

but somehow she got to court. then she's ordered into a residential program where she could leave at any point? i just don't see it. >> is she making a stop at the healing center on the way? >> we may need -- some of these individual may need to go to a higher level of care initially. it would depend on -- >> the whole point of giving melanie's case is that we know what -- who melanie is. she's a real person. we're not using her real name. you know melanie. so tell me -- >> i do not personally know melanie, i'll let you know. it is -- >> i'm using your example. >> supervisor ronen, i think you came to the -- to court one day, and so you actually had the opportunity to observe our community independence participation program. >> yes. >> that's a non di a non-contesd program for people who are gravely disabled. >> amazing program. >> we serve a small number of individuals through this program, but it is a non-contested lps could notsive conservatorship. >> i visited and asked everyone there, including you and the ju

we can't report anything said inside the family courts, anything from documents submitted to the courtsw. but the politicians, lawyers and campaigners we heard from all told us why they thought aspects of the family court system needed reform. as a labour mp and a member of the women and equality select committee, jess phillips, how do you respond? i feel bereft that this is not something that we are discussing for the first time, this is something that has been before parliament for many years, and lots of research has been done about — previously it was 19 child homicides, to sit here today and hear that, since all that work and trying to highlight that, four more children have died, it is just so depressing. what is it going to take to change this? how many children are we going to let die while the lack of scrutiny, and it is such a delicate and important institution, is allowing children to be murdered, and it is as simple as that. this should be, if i was the justice secretary, this would be my single and top priority, yet itjust seems constantly like we are pushing at a closed do

. >> you talk about the warren court or the burger court or the roberts court, we're living in the erannell courtca now e he did what he did. and it very well could be the mcconnell court for several decades to come. >> claree thomas doesn't want to serve on the high court anymore. >> clarence thomas comfortableth retiring now, ane's a couple of others... >> surgeons today removed two malignant nodules from supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg's left lu. >> the 85 year old is said to have fractured three ribs...o >> rbg's health has the subject of much attention in recent years... >> go to pbs.org/frontline for frontline's latest transparency project, and explore the dozens of interviews in "supreme revenge." w >> imeked up to capitol hill... (makes explosion sound) >> it was theepitome ofto ally broken system. >> i'm going to submit a list of justices... >> that list wasmassive seller. and idon't think he'dbe president without thatlist. >> connect to the frontline community on facebook d twitter, and pbs.org/frontline. >> narrator: "sex trcking in america." >> what happened to me

we will go to court. the president cannot prevent congress from investigating obstruction of justice. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, and i appreciate my 6 1/2 minutes. first of all. i know it's difficult these days because schools teach to the federally mandated tests and they don't include civics. but i know surveys have shown that more college students and recent college graduating can identify the three stooges more so than the three branches of government. but let me help in that regard. when the president of the united states tells the attorney general that he is going to waive executive privilege with regard to things that he has used his white house counsel for and met with him and shared things with. that does not waive the executive privilege outside the executive branch. we're a legislative branch. one of the three. and so the executive privilege can be contained within the executive branch without waiving it to another branch. so it's an acute difference but worth noting especially

but the court didn't do so. it decided those on the basis of a very limited expectation of probation. chief justice roberts: although it's -- it's -- you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse. and if the law says if you're going to operate a motor vehicle on our highways, you -- you impliedly consent to this. and so people are supposed to know the law, so they know if they drive, that their -- will be deemed to have consented. why -- why do you need to have them actually sign a piece of paper, as i guess some states do, but -- mr. hinkel: sure. the maxim "ignorance of the law is no defense" is -- is really another way of saying that we typically, in criminal statutes, don't make knowledge of illegality an element of the crime. criminal statutes, of courts -- of course, define crimes, and they do so by operation of law. that's a very different thing from saying that a -- the existence of a statute can, by -- by means of legal presumption, bring about the factual situation of consent in the individual. justice a

go to court as needed. there's our who is are saying with the absence of don mcgahn, his not appearing before the kb committee at the direction of the president goes across the line. here is a sampling of the different democratic moods that we're trying to sesassess. >> i see a lot more people believi believing impeachable offenses occurred sdplp we have come occurred. >> we have come to the time of impeachment. this is no longer about politics but upholdsing the rule of law. >> opening an inquiry does not advance the cause of getting the testimony. we still sl to go to court. we still have to get an order. it really is a diversion at this point for us to be talking about that. >> reporter: as we're watching this, when you see member who is are speaking for themselves and maybe their constituents talking about this, that's one form of information. what we're looking for signs from committee chairpersons and leadership to see if something has changed. we're not there yet. part of it is nancy pelosi has said

chief justice and may it please the court. in order to render section 924 (c)(3) the unconstitutional, respond to speak to show they are plausible constructions when which a defendants guilt or innocence hinges on a judges imagination about how an ordinary defendant might act rather that a juries binding about how a particular defendant acted. that's a very unusual way to draw a line between criminal and noncriminal conduct in the context of a jury trial and i don't think lower courts would really have accepted it if section 924(c) with only for the first context to present a choice between a categorical approach and circumstance specific one. the operative language of the statute -- >> what do you think congress intended in 1986? >> i think congress in 1986 probably didn't focus on this question particularly heavily. >> i understand it didn't. >> but it think if congress had >> speedy no.it -- i didn't ask had, because that's rewriting their intent. given the circumstances in 1986, that 16(b) had been made in the categorical

a law designed to get to the supreme court. will the court overturn roe v. wade? that's next.ent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? -motor? -it's pronounced "mo-tour." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. -it's pronounced "mo-tour." the wifi that set just raised the bar again. introducing xfinity xfi advantage. it comes with everything you love about xfi. the best speed, coverage and control. but it doesn't stop there, you also get enhanced network security, safer browsing, and more. plus it helps to optimize your network's performance. giving you the best coverage from attic to basement. so you can focus on streaming your favorites. not finding a signal. make the best wifi even better,with xfi advantage. simple, easy, awesome. ♪ (buzzer) ♪ olly. >>> alabama passed the most restrictive ab

what did the supreme court do? the supreme court in an h-one 8-1nion invalidated -- opinion invalidated the provision of the act of 1875. what was their thinking? first,t as follows -- they really focused on two constitutional provisions that ofht have authorized the act 1875. they focused on the 13th amendment, and the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was really the constitutional provision that they spoke about the most. and what they said was as follows, take a look at the 14th amendment, the first section provides that no state shall deprive any person of privileges and immunities, due process, equal protection of the law. and what the court focused on state."phrase "no no state shall deprive any person. of these rights. now, what does the civil rights of 1875 say? says that 1875 discrimination, whatever the source, discrimination with respect to places of accommodation, racial discrimination from places of accommodation are prohibited. the law does not talk about the state, the law says that if you are, if y

it was in court., their rating. again, another one from him. the shanks have to be legitimate. not prostitutes. may the best man win. we should probably get tested this summer. this one from joe clark. no reheats allowed. that apparently means not being able to have sex with the same person. and again, alex hepburn, there be me dragging them home and you raping them. what do you think of those messages? what do you think of those messages? what do you think of those messages? what do you think of this discourse between these young men? shocking. absolutely vile. to talk about women that way. we are just items, we are just another number, a competition, it‘s so degrading. for who they are. actually, aside from who they are a doesn‘t matter who they are, to talk about women in that way. it‘s disgusting. absolutely. but in terms of who they are, you know, they are role models, they have blue takes on instagram, they are celebrities, in such a small city like worcester. on social media these days it so ea

. >> mister chief justice of it may please the court. the only damages of the monopolization action is a 30 percent commission apple charges voters - - developers that causes them to increase prices to consumers the developers pricing decisions are in the chain that links the commission to any consumer damages if the commission increases beyond the competitive level the developers do not change the prices consumers suffer no damages but if they do to pass on some or all of the overcharge, then that is precisely the kind of theory the that they prohibit. >> is there any first buyer? . >> there are two different buyers in the picture there are the developers by contract with apple have a package of services with intellectual property and testing but the plaintiff in this case are buyers of the apps themselves that are made with that package. >> but my question is is there anyone that would qualify standing to sue apple? . >> the developers. yes. without a doubt those are in the first instance pay the 30 percent commission it is important t

the court made two decisions, first, the court has left in place a block on a key part of the law, meaningect. now this part of the law would have prohibited abortions that were motivated by race, sex or disability. in not taking up that case, the justices in an unsigned opinion also noted importantly that they were not expressing any views on the merits of underlying abortion debate. that's the first issue here. secondly, the court has decided that a second part of the law that mandates that fetal tissue be disposed of by burial or cremation, that law may actually go into effect. these were unsigned opinions, but in these opinions there was some indication that justices ginsberg and sotomayor disagreed with the court in part. interestingly here, justice clarence thomas weighed in on this with pretty strong language here, and he said that the court could not really avoid this abortion issue for much longer. he said this, while the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever, having created the constitutional right to abortion as they did in roe v. wade, thi

these mps wa nt is a court —based review. these mps wantan is a court —based review.s the best disinfectant in this instance. senators in the american state of alabama have passed legislation which would ban almost all abortions — even in cases of rape or incest. if it's signed by the governor, the law will be the strictest in the us. aleem maqbool sent this report. my body, my choice! it was a last—ditch attempt to stop the passing of the most restrictive abortion law anywhere in the us. so the discussion, the question for me, for all of us is when is a person a person? alabama republicans argued that abortion should be banned at all stages of pregnancy, even in cases of rape or incest. you can't deny any longer the assault on women's bodily autonomy. jenna king shepherd had an abortion in alabama at the age of 17. she is alarmed that the new bill itself likens abortion to the holocaust. this is nothing like the holocaust. the thing that i want voters to understand and that i want our legislators to understand is that you cannot give rights to a foetus that doesn't h

(camera clicks) >> it's moving the court to a tireally very, very conser court.t's mcconnell's dream from the time he was first in the senate, and maybe his dream when he went into politics. >> this is going to be a rough battle on capitol hill...c >> narrator: mitchnell's determination to transform the supreme court had been his life's work. >> ...the dismay of several senators, u.s. supreme courtho nominee clarences managed to... >> potentially ensuring a conservative majority for decades... >> narrator: through bruising nfirmation battles... >> ...democrats to keep an open mind about kavanaugh... >> narrator: a struggle over ideology and power... >> ...white house has been packaging clarence thomas like a political candidate... . expected to be one of the most contentious confirmation hearings in memory... >> narrator: ignited by ade stating defeat... >> ...rejecting the nomination of judge bork... >> ...judge bork, the long public ordeal. >> narrator: and a promise to retaliate. >>he administration is marshaling all its resources for what may be the last grea

the supreme court decision will keep in place a lower court injunction on the measure. the supreme court however decided to allow indiana's so-called "fetal burial" law to go into effectct, which stipulas that abortion clinics must dispose of fetal remains either through burial or cremation. the measure was signed into law by then-governor mike pence in 2016. in more reproductive rights news, the sole remaining women's health clinic that provides care in missouri says it could be shut down this week. planned parenthood said it filed a lawsuit after missouri's health obama refused to renew its license. a judge is scheduled to hear the case today, if planned parenthood's license is not renewed by friday, missouri would become the first state in the country without an abortion clinic since the landmark roe v. wade ruling. 1973we will have more after headlines. meanwhile, netflflix is the firt major studio to threaten a boycott of geoeorgia in the wake of the passage of the six-week abortion ban earlier this month. chief content officer ted sarandos said tuesday it would wo

we can't report anything said inside the family courts, anything from documents submitted to the courtbreaking the law. and technically, if our guests today — politicians, lawyers, campaigners — repeat anything that's been said in the family courts, they too could be in contempt of court, punishable by a fine or even jail. this morning we want your own experience of the family courts. i'm going to ask you not to tell us anything that's in breach of a court order. get in touch in the usual ways. first, let's hearfrom three mums who were brave enough to speak out to us about the impact of the family court decisions on theirs and their child ren‘s lives. and a warning that they are describing incidents of domestic abuse and sexual assault which some of you might find distressing. this is emma ailes‘ exclusive film. the family courts — a secretive world where decisions about children's lives are made out of sight and behind closed doors. the law requires courts to put the welfare of the child first. but this programme can reveal that children are often being forced to spend time alone with

other state courts introducing protections, for example, the kansas supreme court recently issd a decisionongly i protecting aborti that state's constitution. other states are considering cluding neww, in mexico, so we probably have not seen the end of efforts like the ones in vermont to kind of create a world in which abortion is protected in some states afteonr roe ise. >> nawaz: so back in alabama, brian, the republican legislators who voted for this did not include any exception for rape or incest in this. so they did that only with the assumption that this law would nevellactuago into place, is that right? >> the supporters of the bill are arguing this is purely a legal challenge to roe v. wade. and ey have kind oried to hedge the effects of this bill by arguing that if roe were overturned, the state could come dock and ts own abortion law which could include exceptions for rape and insist the problem is -- well, there are two problems. fae is that alabama last approved a constitutional amendment that said there was no right to an abortion in the alabama constitution, which seems like

that is the latest from newcastle crown court. thejury latest from newcastle crown court. our political correspondent jessica parker reports. is this a make or break, prime minister? is this the last chance for your brexit? it could well be. the prime minister is set to make a fourth attempt to get your brexit plans approved by parliament. but her own mps are signalling they are not open to endless compromise. we will never betray the promise that we made at the last general election that we will deliver the full brexit, unlike the broken promises from the party opposite. he mentions the last election and commitments that were made at the last election because he and i both stood on a ma nifesto because he and i both stood on a manifesto promising to deliver the best possible deal for britain as we leave the european union, delivered bya leave the european union, delivered by a smooth, orderly brexit, as we seek a new deep and special partnership, including a cop offensive free trade and customs agreement with the european union. i‘m committed to those objections, i believ

to the circuit court of appeals, delay in appeal to the supreme court. perhaps it's a tactic to try to stall past the 2020 election. >> stand by. bring in another guest. from california, a democrat. representative, a member of the house oversight and armed services committee. thank you for being with us today, representative. and what does your reflection, at least on what we're watching in froblnt of us at the moment? specifically what the panel reflected on at the moment and this is, of course, chairman neal requesting those six years of tax returns. seems we have a lot of time in front of us at the moment before that could happen. >> well, the law is very clear. chairman neal has the authority to get these tax returns. the authority is highest when there is potential misconduct or conflicts of interest, which may be the case here. my belief is this is all going to come down to justice roberts. justice roberts' clerked for judge friendly one of the great jurists of our time and should believe about the credibility and court of the constitutional system

the court decided last week. but justice breyer who is a very moderate justice was signaling his concern that the more conservative members of the court are not going to follow this rule of precedent, and the number one example is abortion. are they going to follow that 1992 decision or not? in alabama it's about this, ari. we think the conservatives on the supreme court will overturn roe vs. wade and promised to put justices on who are pro-life justices. >> this is where the politics meet the law. do you think that was smart of them or make it harder for some of the votes they would need to get on the court? >> thurgood marshall said i have this ultimate goal, desegregation of our society but i can't do it all at once. the courts aren't going to buy it. here alabama has tried to go in and do it all at once. this is a very extreme bill that bans abortion at any stage including for rape and incest so it doesn't even meet the ronald reagan test for an abortion law. i do think there's a risk that if this was the cas

date, the location of the court and invite them to come to court. that's what i can do. now if the client says it sounds good, i want some services. and i may want to come to court, then i say do you need any assistance to get you to court. and then i will contact the case manager and the conservator and let them know the client would like to come to court, please provide transportation. that's the extent of our involvement. >> but, i mean, what would your -- what would the conversation look like with the client? i mean, this is a client who has been 5150 eight times and who has been, according to the appropriates of 1045, been offered every service under the sun and has refused to accept it. and so there's been a process initiated where, against their will, go to conserve this person, force them into services. the person they're rely on to get them to court, to force them into services they don't want is you. that's what they're saying. >> so i'm an attorney. i don't-- i don't like to specu. i haven't done a 1045 petition yet. >> but they're sittin

supreme court derived a right of the abortion. it was from the newly discovered constitutional right of privacy and autonomy. the same reasoning, in a sense, lay behind the courts decision more recently about same-sex marriage in 2015. in both cases the supreme court's decisions were unnecessarily based on the perception of the justices. this is what liberty now requires, yet it seems likely that if the same issues had come for the first time before the court as it is now constituted, the result would have been different, although nothing would have been changed apart from the outlook of individual justices. one can draw two lessons from the broad range of outcomes, which at different times in american history have been justified under the due process clause. one is that on politically controversial issues the decisions of judges almost always involve a large element of political valued judgment. the case for or against labor regulations is a question of economic and social policy. the case for or against abortion is a question of

may it please the court. the only damages theory in this monopolization action is rooted in a 30% commission that apple charges apple developers, in which allegedly causes those developers to increase app prices to consumers. pricing decisions are in necessarily in the cargill chain that links the commission to consumer damages - coggal chain that links the commission to the consumer damages. if app developers do change their prices to pass on some or all of the overcharge, that is precisely the kind of damages theory the illinois doctrine prohibits. anyn your view, is there first fire in this? >> there are two different -- first buyers in this? >> their already different -- there are two different buyers in this. they are buying a package of property,ncluding intellectual property, testing, and so forth. >> my question was, within illinois breaks, was there anyone who would qualify as first buyer? >> the developers. without a doubt, the developers of the ones who, in the first instance, pay the 30% commissio

a long history in the supreme court.justice frankford and justice douglas stay too long because he did not want to give up their power. she was worried about that that she had a clerk check-in. she did fear her mother had alzheimer's and her aunt. and her husband. she feared it terribly and it was her greatest fear. it became. she was diagnosed in 2014. before that her husband, this is a heartbreaking story, she leaves to support to take care of her husband and he's in a home and they form a mistake attachment. he has a girlfriend named kay, and he would be sitting there in kay and say to sandra, i want you to be my wife turning to kate, and she is publicly said i am happy for him because he had been depressed and now he's happier. privately a broken heart. of course it did. in typical, she would come in and you'd be holding hands with kay and she would come down and sit down and hold his other hand. >> you have another question? >> you mentioned that justice o'connor was an activist but what was the field from people wh

courts. we won two court decisions, the courts have said -- >> what if they don't or what if he doesn't listen to him. >> then i do think you have a full constitutional crisis. >> don't we have one now? >> you would have a majority of the congress i think if there is a willful defiance of a court order, that's when i said i think that would be the red line where people would say, this is -- this is enough. but i don't think that we have gone there yet. i mean, i think the courts have actually been encouraging, the courts have ruled he has to give up his tax returns, the courts have ruled initially against the worst version of muslin ban and judge roberts, he is an institutionalist he has to understand that the state of american democracy is at stake and i'm hoping that the courts will follow precedent and save our democracy by doing what's right. >> i know we are out of time but i will end on this. is that hope a strategy? because you're counting on a majority of republican supreme court, don

like drug court, behavioral health court and community justice court.one of the problems with having courts that are probation-based is that people are coming in and out of jail and from my esperance, staffing san francisco's drug court, i know people wait in jail for week and months to get into residential treatment and we must make people who want it, they can access it. the congestion wawe need to reme streets, but we are here today because we know that those approaches have failed for a long time. people are are subsistance sellers are not exclusive. in thinking about the actions, we encourage the committee and partners to embrace a paradigm shift. redirecting resources housing, treatment and jobs. expanding current prebooking and rearraignment programmes reich leave. one of the things that i was noticing today as it relates to some of the statistics in the budget and legislative analyst's report is that as i understand it, since october of 2017, there have been only 11 his 11 hispan% of people have been -- only 11 people have been referred to lead,

but we have inherent content powers that courts have upheld to take action irrespective of the court. had a house they jail. i do not think we will go that far. the courts have upheld that as well. not beress' power will abdicated. we will enforce it. we can start imposing fines on that person immediately upon contempt off the house floor. we will go there if he does not cooperate. pennsylvania, democrats line, nicholas. hello. caller: thank you for c-span. nation of laws under the constitution, or we are not. these people in power, the republicans, these general attorneys refusing to show up to testifies, and refusing a subpoena, congress should either implement the law -- i'm sorry, i lost my train of thought. hillary clinton, bill clinton, they were investigated multiple times with whitewater, benghazi, uranium. donald trump has been investigated one time, and it was in relation to russians and our election. ather we are going to be country of laws where all people -- with all people, or we will have a dictatorship. my only other question -- i don't know why these republican senato

the district court sought for that, i think the courts of appeal will see it for that.preme court will give them time. but that's what he's bargaining for, but they can't overturn it. >> john, max, laura, thank you for your time. >>> is the president starting to fear impeachment? what his behavior today might tell us about that. that's next. beautiful, isn't it? just wait'll you get to the register. introducing new lower prices on produce. atta boy it's toughcold turkey.king so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. d

effects all of the branches, the supreme court's makes decision -- the supreme court makes decision on the federal reserve. the president trying to be independent, but good economic news is good for presidential reelection bids. the congress rights laws about it. guest: the president has indirect control of monetary policy by appointing members of the reserve board and the members get to make decisions on interest rates and they are approved by the u.s. senate. host: let us take another question from the social media, because i think this is one that we needed to get to. sidney wants to know how will the multiple choice and frq sections be graded? if i do better on one will my score from the other section hurt the overall grade. she wants to shout out from -- to mr. for kari -- mr. vicari. guest: the mechanics are important. the multiple-choice section and the essay section are 50-50. that you can do a little bit less on the multiple-choice, but if you cross your -- pressure frq's you will do better. in some fashion some exams they cross reference. exam, do as best as you can in the mu

i think the better option for us is to proceed with the court case. >> we will likely proceed to court as quickly as next week. the black letter of the law appears to be clearly on the democrats' side, this latest stone walling by the white house on a request is not a surprise. while the battle over the president's tax returns will likely be the marquee court fight, it is one of approximately 20 different congressional investigations that the administration is either ignoring or saying flat-out no to. some of these fights have received less attention. the white house continues to rebuff democratic attempts to get information on the white house security clearance process. and the president's potential violation of the emoluments clause and the citizenship question to the 2020 census. donald trump actively filing lawsuits to stop deutsche bank and his accounting firm mazars from implying with congressional subpoenas to turn over financial information. this latest escalation tonight over the president's tax returns, it's another indication that this standoff between the executive and legi

i'm sure we'll go to court. but it's not at all clear how that court will rule. there is a very strong argument that to allow the candid advice by senior advisers, the president can invoke this kind of testimonial immunity. >> thank you, ilya, thank you, david. we have jim and poppy rejoining us from new york. jim and poppy. >> thank you, evan. slight technical difficulties there, which we worked out. good to have you three smart people there to help us break down. >> we appreciate you having our back. >> what happened? ilya shapiro, thanks for coming on. i wanted to ask you, you're saying that the court precedent here that nadler is sighting is not relevant. why? >> not that it's not relevant. it's not decisive. there's one district court ruling from about a decade ago that was quickly stayed by the d.c. circuit, the federal appellate court. and that's it. then there was a settlement. and presidents from both parties have asserted this kind of privilege, this kind of testimonial immunity, so we're really, you know, this is open field that the lawyers are going t

how do you get melanie to court. [please stand by] >> she'll go up shares and see a judge to start this process. still shaking her head. we want to agree that enticing individuals who do not accept voluntary services to come to court on a voluntary basis is going to become a challenge. angelica has had experience doing that successfully with a small number of individuals that have gone through the aot court process. we're hopeful that sb-40 which is looking likely to pass at the state level will actually strengthen and really make the process to move somebody towards conservatorship more efficient and it will provide them with an opportunity to meet with their public defender because they'll be in the hospital and they'll be able to provide with due process right there. >> i understand that. either we're not going to pass this law -- i can't make a decision today based on a law that may or may not pass. that is not before us. i don't know the time line of it. i don't know if it goes into effect automatically. i have