the court again. so my question about whether the constitution protects a woman's right to choose. is frankly not one bit different. from the types of questions that you willingly answered yesterday from other members of this committee. an tt's a look at whathe current nine justice is on t supreme court had to say about abortion and the law a reminder that all supreme court nomination hearings in their entire are available to c-span.org/history. >> hello. welcome to another edition of at home with roosevelts. i'm paul sparrow, the director of the franklin roosevelt presidential library in hyde park, new york, and we're recording this story on september 17th which is constitution day. what better way to celebrate constitution day than to talk about the supreme court with two outstanding experts on the subject. no president had a more significant impact on the supreme court than the, the dr -- fdr. he appointed eight9 justices during his administration. he helped change american democracy. he got to app

supreme court? releases that, it gives him credibility among establishment republicans. >> but donald trump had nothing to do with choosing the names on his list. >> that list was of course generated primarily by the federal society. >> the faed real federalist soc most powerful group in the country. every one of the conservative justices has strong ties to it. >> it was stunning. the presidential candidate would take a list of judges from the federal society and use those judges as part of a campaign. >> we'll see the president and the supreme court justice. >> the president who chose three supreme court justices. >> congratulations. >> who transformed the court for a generation outsourced crucial decisions to this man. >> he had an idea. what do you think of having me put out a list of people who i would pick from for the u.s. supreme court? i said to suggest to him names of people who would be appropriate. >> leonard leo has long been the power behind the federalist society. amassing hundreds of

the court, i do not know how much the court itself took part in that. we do not know. the book itself does not know what went on behind closed doors. we still don't know. certainly all around the court, the atmosphere in washington at those days was murderous. in that sense, nothing has changed. >> if i am understanding the question, if she's asking about supreme court appointments, where there poisonous fights in that context? generally, no. roosevelt had a big majority in the senate. he could get his appointees confirmed. that is a fundemental difference between his time in our time. the one that did not have hard sailing but an ugly whispering campaign around it from the bad side with the nomination of frankfurt in 39 and the antisemitic reaction to that. frankly, the hold -- the whole nomination -- was roosevelt not giving a about antisemitism. he flicked his chin at adolf hitler by putting america's leading lawyer and prominent american and you on the supreme court. >> also, the senatorial courtesy in those days was very strong. when and if roosevelt nominated a s

they aren't a court.y have 7000 cases come in, after that number, 60, and oh, g ee, its voting rights and women's reproductive rights. that dobbs decision was drawn from the 1600s when they thought women were witches. how does that apply today? i don't understand it. with justice thomas in there, that has put a muddy appearance on the court. you earn trust, you aren't given trust. anything that is done -- look into the future, what they've chosen out of that 7000 to decide on this coming season, it doesn't look good. they can claim integrity all they want. we haven't seen it. host: that is diane out of michigan. this is howard in indiana. your next. caller: good morning. i have no confidence in the supreme court. they have shown they have no commitment to establishing justice, which is the first principle of our constitutional preamble, even though they call -- they carried the title as justice. we don't call them judges. i shouldn't say everything -- the most recent major issues for which they've made ju

on the court. by the time harry truman became president, just weeks into his vice presidency in 1945, the supreme court had already made a mess of itself. >> truman, you know, you mentioned early in the book that it took four and a half years before fdr appointed a justice. truman matched that number in the first four and a half years. he appointed four. he starts with harold burton. it seems like truman's approach is, you know, he is appointing friends or people that he knows. he thinks these are not people that will support him because their fans, even support him politically, but he has his eye on a step ahead. here are legal steps we need to take to do what i need to do. i need to find justices that support that legal theory. is that what he is trying to accomplish? >> he is, but not the time when he appoints burton. that is, you rightly noted, his first nomination to the court. this happens very early in truman's tenure. harold burton was a senator. most importantly, he was a republican senato

court term. then reporter tom frank talks about the state flood insurance program after damage caused by hurricanes. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard. that is why we are providing lower income students aspects to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. cox connected. >> cox, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, the supreme court hearing in oral argument on whether alabama's congressional redistricting -- divided the remaining black population into three other districts with majority white voters. the justices have until june to reach a final decision, but they are allowing alabama to use the current map for the upcomi

jesus, it is one thing to be on the court -- want to be on the court, and then be on it. after a while, you adjust. you say, i do my best and that is about it. do real perk on being on the court, you have to do your best -- the real perk of being on the court, you have to do your best. they will see over time, there are a lot of unwritten's about how you work -- unwritten rules about how you work as a justice. the way we analyze on this case does not affect the next case. there are laws. i think they will see, like everybody sees, that no absolute theory absolutely works. you are there as a justice, you were appointed but you are there as a justice. when you are there as a justice, you are there for everybody. that is what you try, you are there for everybody. everybody has to think, you are doing your best to be fair. a little corny to say, but they are there. we will see over time. no guarantees. no guarantees in this world, but we will see. i say, there are certain features i have described vaguely which i think will go against what you might call as a pure, politicall

the court overturned the injunction. next up, of course, the u.s. supreme court. now, as we know, interestingly douglas was no stranger, the sierra club. we just heard about a hike he took on behalf of the club and there were many, many others. so actually been on the board of the sierra club in the 1960s while he was on the court and the club made him a life member. so he remained member until december 1970, when a ostensibly out of the blue he writes a letter to the club resigning his life membership petition is pending in this case. now the timing was probably pretty suspect, but douglas felt now was absolved of any conflict, and he participated in the mineral king case in discussions with many clerks at the time, they said it was a big behind the scenes at the supreme court as to whether he should have been conflicted out. big question in the case was did sierra club have stand in? the lawyers rolled the dice. so instead of saying that there was an injury to any of their members, they said there was injury to mineral kings and. ultimately, the supreme court ag

the newest member of the supreme court, talked the court a history court lesson yesterday. >> the framershemselves adopted the equal protection clause, the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, in a race conscious way. that they were, in fact, trying to ensure that people who had been discriminated against, the freedmen, and during the reconstructed period, we're actually brought equal to all everyone else in society. the legislator who introduced that amendment said that quote, unless the constitution should restrain them, those states should all, i feel, keep up with this discrimination and crushed to death the hated freemen. >> professor laurence tribe who taught constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. professor tribe, before we get your reaction to justice ketanji brown jackson, debut on the supreme court, can we ask you the detangled the threats for us in the now two tracks of appeals in the case of donald j trump versus united states of america, with donald trump appealing directly to the united states supreme court, while the justice department has an x abided appe

the court again. so my question about whether the constitution protects a woman's right to choose. is frankly not one bit different. from the types of questions that you willingly answered yesterday from other members of this committee. an tt's a look at whathe current nine justice is on t supreme court had to say about abortion and the law a reminder that all supreme court nomination hearings in their entire are available to

court holding of roe. that is a president of the court, and settled in terms of the holding of the court. >> do you agree with justice souter, o'connor and kennedy in their opinion in case, which reaffirmed the court holding enroll? >> as i said, casey reaffirmed the holding in row that. that is the supreme court settled interpretation of what the court holding us and its reaffirm as so. >> all right. >> so let me ask you in a difficult area of the law, a question. the supreme court has decided on more than seven occasions that the law cannot put a woman's health at risk. it said it in a row in 73, in down fourth in 76, in planned parenthood in 83, in thornburg in 86, in case in 92, in carhart in 2000, and in iowa in 2006. with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed because in 2007 in car hard to the court essentially removed this basic constitutional right from women now. here's my question. when there are multiple presidents and a question arises, are all t

upcoming supreme court term. your watching live coverage on c-span. >> we are glad to have you join us whether you are here in person or watching online or in television. i serve as a legal fellow and the manager of the supreme court and appellate advocacy program here in the center for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation. the supreme court is set to begin hearing arguments next week, so we thought this would be the perfect time to discuss some of those cases and preview what we can expect. while the courts last term contained a number of blood duster decisions dealing with abortion rights, gun rights, religious liberty and free speech issues just to name a few, the court this term will also tackle a number of important cases and issues, everything from affirmative action to redistricting to religious liberty cases and cases that touch on the ability that challenges certain agency action and structures. to help us break it all down, i'm joined by two advocates who really need no introduction. i

to district court in the standalone case and basically we were coming from the court of appeals so we didn't make it to the state supreme court. the odds are incredibly against us we have to have justices agreed to take your case so they help at least four have to go over every aspect in your case to make sure it's worth your time and their effort and energy it would take to take this case to the court and we got that. >> what was it like when you found out they were going to the supreme court and what were you feeling. >> that was one of the craziest days of my life. there's a website called scotus innocents for supreme court and is a website you can follow any case that you want to that you're looking at. i followed my case for months as it was relisted which means they had in front of them and they talked about it and said let's not decide this week will put it off next week, put it off, put it off. so i know it was being conferenced or touched about every week. and it was drawing to the end of the court session where they break through the summer the last week ofth the court and i

courts should look like courts. courts should be courts. courts should act like courts. basically, all of the things we talked about in the context of this spider-man opinion and i think justice scalia was right. i learned a lot and it committed me to a lot by writing it. and i have quoted it a lot ever since. moderator: thank you so much. [applause] this is a good segue to talk about how you think about dissent. you have written some memorable dissents. last term you wrote significant dissents. how do you think about dissents and you think you have become the dissenter on the court? justice kagan: i think there are different kinds of dissents. some dissents, you could imagine not writing. you know, i see it differently, but is the world going to change because i wrote this dissent? probably not. in some legal systems, there is a high bar for dissents. there are some we write that in some legal systems they would not write because there is not all that much at stake. it matters to the parties and may be it matters, but once you have written the dissent you are going to g

host: let's stick to the court, why do you think the court is out of touch.ler: abortion was murder and they change that so i think they are in touch. the biden administration is out of touch. host: is abortion the only reason you think the court is out of touch? caller: that's the main reason they are in touch. we've got to be in touch with god and we -- and if we are not in touch with him, we are plum out of touch. some of you responded on our facebook page this morning. that's how you can communicate it -- with this if you want. it's on the idea that the work is out of touch. if you want to call in and disagree with whether they are out of touch were agree. rick on our disagree line in florida, you are next. caller: good morning, i agree with the facebook comment that it is not their job to be in touch. they are there to interpret the constitution and it's been working for hundreds of years where if you don't like the law, you vote for people to change the law. it's not up to the supreme were to run a popularity contest. that's their only job. people need

federal district courts, federal appellate courts. he wanted to bring that to true fruition and in that again, he got lucky. he got four nominations, four men on the court who in this respect ended up not just going with the administration but helping to lead their fellow justices to what is right. there is still something we get to brown versus board of education but truman was not in the office at the time. during the truman presidency the court unanimously, consistency without equivocation very clearly written opinions and the literate american could understand, argued two other citizens the constitution guaranteed the rights of all american citizens. again if there's anyone who made his own luck, professionally and politically it was harry truman. he also did it traditionally as well with three justices and the sip chief justice to the supreme court. >> it is the adage luck or opportunity. >> guest: absolutely. so when i want to close was something i hope gives people hope in the supreme court will incorporate one of the things yo

earlier this evening, trump's lawyers filed an appeal to the supreme court on the ongoing court battle over his alleged mishandling of classified documents at mauler. trump undoubtedly is hoping to get a favorable ruling from the six conservative justices, three of whom trump appointed. from looking at the 100 or classified documents taken from his beach club, but they are attempting to get the review of classified documents back before the court-appointed special master which could potentially throw some fan into the gears of the investigation. despite reporting that trump's legal team is looking to soften its tone in this case, the filing today by trump's lawyers are filled with more angry screams against the department of justice. they accuse the department of, quote, feigned concern about purported classified records in order to pin some offense on trump. it is the latest in a series of aggressive and bellicose moves by trump which he's employed for a very long time to move away from scandal of legal quandaries. and it's more evidence of the mind-set of which he approaches the powe

we hope the courts will do that. most of the time, the courts do that. the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches. if it came down to a bare knuckle spite -- fight, there was no doubt who would lose. plus, judges and human beings. -- judges are human beings. that popular view over time will eventually affect the thinking of judges and they will be less enthusiastic about enforcing those rights. if liberty has to live in the hearts of ordinary citizens and if it dies there, it will die out. john: justice alito, this has been terrific. it has been a real pleasure. i want to invite to the stage our heritage foundation president for a special presentation. [applause] >> justice alito, it is an honor to deliver what was going to be a lecture. thank you for your comments. it is my privilege to present you with a few tokens of our esteem to mark the occasion. we have a two-volume set of joseph story commentary on the constitution. you might want to give them to some of your colleagues. most important, i would like to give you the highest legal award tha

the supreme court? guest: last week, the public can now come into the courtroom. there is a line of people waiting to get inside the building today. that is one big change, the public is allowed in and they will continue doing audio. they are going to be provided for this term only. we don't know if that is a permanent fixture here at the court. it is something that people who don't want to stand in line but want to hear the business of the court. host: kimberly robinson with bloomberg law, we do appreciate your time this morning. we will look for your coverage. guest: thanks, john. host: we are asking you on this first day of the new term about your level of confidence in the court. if you say you have high confidence, (202) 748-8000. if you have some confidence (202) 748-8001. if you have low confidence, (202) 748-8002. kimberly robinson was mentioning the numbers on trust and confidence in the supreme court. gallup has been following that issue for a long time. this is what they had to say in their l

returning to the issue of sadko of the supreme court, the court of cassation of the supreme court and mr. bohdan lviv, the thought of those people who did not vote for him today does not leave me. release, and they will somehow be checked to see if it should be done. and what does our law and our legislation say about it, uh, i am convinced that in fact, uh, although today's vote, it does not have any direct legal consequences for judges who uh, and for by law, in general, such voting is secret, so i doubt that it is possible if there are no additional confirmations about any corruption stories here, i doubt that it is possible to punish judges with legal instruments but at the same time, today's vote once again revealed the problem that we have with the supreme court, which we as members of the public have been talking about since the supreme court was formed, about the fact that a lot of unworthy judges got there and continue to make dubious decisions under pressure, following someone's instructions, and today's vote confirmed that we need to at least clean up the supreme court, and

host: do you think the people will look at the court differently how the court does? guest: most people are not lawyers. it tends to devolve done to did they like the result or didn't they like the result? i suppose that is understandable for most people. that are out in the public but it is very important to uphold what is in the constitution. there are many decisions that the public it's a make themselves through their elected representatives that are not decided by the court. now the supreme court has correctly said abortion is one of those issues. guest: i would make a response which is of course we expect our judges to be independent that is a natural part of our constitutional system. i disagree, i think the american public expects to understand the decisions of the court. it was meant to be a public document for the people to understand and interpret. the people had been told that the decision about that a woman's right to choose was protected. in addition they have been told if we were going to change a major precedent this is how we do it. you have seen law p

the supreme court case that's before the court for this term could potentially legalize the illegal, unconstitutional scheme that trump was demanding of republicans who supported him, to hand him the electors from states that he, in fact, lost. so this is quite a moment, right? at a time when we've got the biggest sedition trial in 80 years under way in washington, i'm doing a podcast about the last sedition threat like this from the late '30s and early '40s, while that's happening in washington as of today, we're not just closing in on an election where people who denied we should have real election results are trying to take over. we're also today starting a new supreme court session with a court that has never had a lower level of respect from the american people in the entire time that pollsters have been asking the american people about their level of respect for the court. with the new conservative super majority on the supreme court, they are reaching way out this term, way, way out of their way to take cases that are expected to serve as a vehicle for them to let state legisl

on the court. of us would be there and somebody'd ask that question, and i'd try to answer it because i didn't want him to, and i'd say, "look, i know "you're not aiming that question at me. "you're aiming it at nino. "ok, i get it. "but what you don't understand is that "some people suffer from a disease. "it's called good writers disease. "and if a good writer finds a felicitous phrase, "he won't give it up. "let the word-- let him destroy himself. let the world come to an end." it's like a good comedian. you can't give up that joke. no. that's nino. he is a very good writer. he has a felicitous phrase, and we all know that and we don't take it personally. david: do you have a lot of unanimous decisions these days, or they don't get that much attention, and do you really have a lot of 5-4 decisions and they get all the attention, it seems, but is that where the court really has its arguments with each other, the 5-4 decisions, and-- stephen: no, not necessarily. what you read about are the ones t

what is the case the court opened its new term on? >> this is a case involving the scope of the environmental protection agency's authority under the clean water act to regulate not just typical waters like streams, lakes, and rivers but wetlands that connect to bodies of navigable water. the epa has long asserted its authority to regulate wetlands where the wetlands have some impact on the quality of water and other parts of the united states and these challengers argue with the epa's authority over wetlands is actually very narrow. and the wetlands have to be physically connected to another body of water in order to be regulated under the clean water act and the epa says that narrow understanding of its authority would curtail its ability to protect and maintain clean waters rout the united states. a big environmental case and a big administrative law case. the term is off to a running start. anchor: at the end of the last term, the court was taking away some of the powers belonging to federal agencies. it will be interesting to see

or a court which will be criminal court or a court which will be criminal court or a court which will be specifically created you know there's a specifically created you know there's a specifically created you know there's a lot of talk now about creating this lot of talk now about creating this lot of talk now about creating this hybrid tribunal for ukraine that would hybrid tribunal for ukraine that would hybrid tribunal for ukraine that would specifically address for example the specifically address for example the specifically address for example the crime of aggression in which again the crime of aggression in which again the crime of aggression in which again the propaganda figures also might be uh propaganda figures also might be uh propaganda figures also might be uh figurines but uh it is for figures like figurines but uh it is for figures like figurines but uh it is for figures like you know president of russian federation you know president of russian federation you know president of russian federation it would have to be an international or it would have to be an internati

that is the issue before the court. it is kind of technical. did the lower court do things right? but we have seen another document case around documents last term, and trump lost badly, except for justice clarence thomas, who ruled in his favor. so it doesn't feel like they are going to give him relief. they will probably deny it. at the same time, they are being dragged in. the political spotlight is on them. the term is beginning. it will probably be resolved next week. it is where they don't want to be. >> not where they want to be, but where they found themselves. thank you for coming on and breakingll of that down. thank you to the panelists for joining and sharing your reporting. tune in saturday to pbs news weekend. after changes this week in the global oil market, they will look at what is ahead for americans at the gas pump. jonathan told us gas prices are going up, but check it out saturday. thank you for joining us. good night from washington. >> corporate funding for washington week is provided by -- >> for 25 years, consumer's your has offered no contract -- consumer

similar 20 court has proposed -- similar to what the court has proposed. that map shows that there was a problem with our map. if you are guesstimating in favor of one racial group, that map to not show that our map was discriminated against group. it is a law of control. >> don't you think there is a overall problem in these cases in determining at the beginning but the comparator should be? >> yes. as this court noted, benchmarks are critical in any sections. we propose a benchmark to the courts the plaintiffs has not proposed any benchmarks. section two rejects a proportionality. they lead to constitutional problems. >> the year agree that the benchmark you propose has never been recognized -- do you agree that the benchmark you propose has never been recognized in these cases? >> i do not think so. the best part they are for multimember districts was neutrally drawn single number districts. >> you are requiring that there be that kind of benchmark. the question is whether it is not permissible, you are requiring that there be a race essential benchmark

supreme court. he's the author of numerous scholarly articles and books on constitutional and administrative law today. he's sharing with us his text, rebuilding expertise, creating effective and trustworthy regulation in our age of doubt was published just this year at the nyu press. professor codrington, an assistant professor of law at brooklyn law school, he's also a fellow at, the brennan center of justice, and he is the coauthor of the people's 200 years 27 amendments and the promise of a more perfect union. it was published last year by the new press. the book aligns very much with his teaching here at the law school, which is on constitution, law, constitutional theory and, also election law. he's a first time book author but has published numerous articles in law review articles in journals, in law review articles, and has served as a legal contributor to various media outlets. on my far right your far left, we have chris fabricant is a new york city native and author of junk and the americ

you see the same thing in courts. so there is an embrace of things like home addresses, the supreme court despite the leaked opinion in privacy for roe v. wade, have said the privacy interest in home addresses, and the revelation of people's home addresses and the suggestion that other people should go there and protest or worse, called doxxing, that there are privacy interests in home addresses. so you see a real push toward privacy in that sense as well. susan: the book is called "seek and hide." amy joins us from tulane university where she is a legal scholar and expert and first amendment law. thank you so much for being with us. prof. gajda: thank you. it has been a delight. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪ >> all q&a programs are available on our website or on our c-span now app is a podcast. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. >> every da

the problem is not with the court. the judges work there, because when the populist president talks about liquidation of the court, and the judges who work there should be transferred to other courts or whatever. actually, it is necessary first, the judges have to figure it out. and the district judge himself. well, the walls are like walls, the floor is like the floor. well, if someone doesn’t like it, you can move it to the premises for a lot of money, but this is all nonsense. the problem lies in the rules introduced by bankova today without depriving her of citizenship in lviv . gives a signal that lviv can be left as the judge and head of the sectional court and none, in general, if lviv and his ilk negotiate properly with the right people, then everything will be as it was before that is, great. i think that these are signals that not only lviv, but also other citizens of ukraine and russia with russian passports who are in high government positions in ukraine, if you can negotiate, if you work with no contract,

now stand so the next step would be to appeal to the colorado supreme court, state supreme court . >> that sounds like very an allusion to china. reeducation camps. and so you talk about this but the government was essentially ordering you to violate your conscience. will there ever was there a moment through this kind of first-tier or second-tier where you are like sort of wavering and wondering if you should just get in and do what they said or just not bake the cake? >> know, i was exposed to that before i would start reading cakes like that. my other question was how far can we go, would we be able to take the next step? i learned that the colorado state supreme court and united states supreme court had discretion in which cases they can take and state he supreme court declined to hear the case and thought it was over, but there was only one option and that would be the appeal to the united states supreme court and so we were willing to do that with the supreme court willing to hear our case. >> apparently the court was willing to hear your case and tell us what the odds are of t

>> watch the supreme court.tion 2 still remains and that deals with voting dilution and whether the power will be exercised. we won the case in the redistricting committeeab in alabama with two appointed trump judges who said given that given the size of the african-american population in alabama there should be a greater opportunity for that community to elect another congressman of their choice and throughout the maps going by the republican dominated legislature. the united states supreme court said look it's too close to the election. we are not going to allow that change t to occur that redraw to occur. vote on the maps put in place by the republican legislature which a federal court, to federal courts actually felt to be inappropriate and unconstitutional. the boats will happen in alabama this year as a result the elections will take place on inappropriate maps. and here's my prediction. section 2 of the alabama case will get to the supreme court and in this radical a supreme court will do to section 2 i f

supreme court and said the north carolina courts don't get to tell us if we violated the north carolinaonstitution. when we are regulating federal elections, they are no check on us. they are asking the supreme court to endorse that view. to say even if the north carolina constitution bans partisan gerrymandering and the north carolina court decides that is what you did, they cannot say anything about it and the gerrymander will remain in place. that's exactly what this would mean for any state legislature enacting a law about federal elections if the court were to adopt this theory. gerald: do you want to venture a prediction about what the current supreme court will think of that argument? sean: i don't like to predict what the supreme court will do, but what i will say is there are definitely members of the supreme court that in the past suggested they would embrace this theory. there is real reason to be worried they will adopt it. that said, i think there has been a lot of advocacy done and still to be done before the court to show them just what a terrible decision with -- that wo

>>ir, we defined diversity the way this court hasn court pre-sedans which means a bad diverse set ofriteria that extends to all different perspectives and backgrounds and not solely limitedo ce. there is factual finding that there are many different diversity factors that are consideds a greater factor in our admissions process than race. we have a particular interestn recruiting and enrolling rural with carolinians. in the last incoming class, four out of 10 entered the cpu doors were from rural or carolina and one out of 12 students has military affiliation, including the most veterans on campus since world war ii we value diversity of all dierent kinds in all the ways that people differ in our society. on the educationalenits question, your honor, i don't think it is disputed here that there are real and meaningful educational benefits that come with derty of all kinds. ja546 agreed enthusiastically on the stand that racially diverse, diversity of all kinds leads to "a deeper and reach her learning environment -- richelening environment, change of ideas and critically reduce bias between

as far as i know the head of the supreme court, mr.curity service of ukraine with a corresponding request, and today at 12:00 the judges of the commercial court of cassation, headed by mr. love, will decide whether they still want him to head this court, or whether they are ready, under the leadership of the question arises as to how in general people get into the system, for example with russian passports, such and such structures, you know when i somehow i got a job at one tv channel, then this tv channel had its own security service that checked and you enter information about your parents there and they check what kind of person you are, what's in your head . and well, a person who is not in the state structure is not just some kind of cleaner working there, the truth is that the question you raise is quite serious, the amount of information published by journalists in lviv received citizenship of the russian federation in 1999 , he was already a judge then, but i will remind you that he now he is a judge of the supreme court, whic