, a single balanced system was formed, which is headed by the supreme court the supreme court continues to act as a locomotive of rule-making initiatives, taking into account your invaluable experience the constitution of the republic of belarus has been updated and is effectively carried out work on changing the fundamental procedural regulations. the parliament is preparing to adopt a code of civil procedure. every year , tens of thousands of court decisions are issued in the republic in various types of cases, and representatives of the judiciary demonstrate commitment. the spirit and the letter of the law are fulfilled with honor civil and judicial duty. your work is a great emotional and psychological burden, which requires consistency with rich life experience and high professional and moral qualities, because the faith of people in the equality of all depends on your impartiality, objectivity, balance. respect for the state before the law. in general, i am grateful to the leadership of the supreme court , judges and employees of the apparatus for the daily hard work, business int

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

here is the whole system of courts, it is built in such a way that each superior court checks from allho are of all sight, then the decision that was lower, the present court up to 2% in general , the abolition of judgments. we do not have the main thing connected. this is a percentage of ours. well , because we are looking at the burden on the middle of the complexity of justice in addition. it will surprise you that we have a specialization of a judge in specific areas of justice and we evaluate the quality of the work of a judge in the totality of updating the basic law of the country. we know that it is planned to elect judges of the supreme court in a public format. will this give an additional guarantee of their independence and impartiality. here, in your opinion, if we talk about the constitutional changes that have taken place, that is, directly, of course , we did not expect them very much. we were very much looking forward to them, because they consolidated at the constitutional level those provisions that were adopted in the course of the judicial legal reform. let's say th

simplified procedures of court proceedings are by and large weight higher than economic court.association of the judiciary system, uh, and its direction from the supreme court one center. ensured the unity of judicial practice efficiency in the administration of justice improved the quality of justice more complete and fair resolution of those disputes that appeared in the courts the system became more compact and manageable the reform made it possible to quickly see and eliminate problems. supreme court. i was able to decide on my own. how to distribute judges among courts throughout the country, dividing the load, the volume of justice has literally grown in a short time at least one and a half times. the history of the supreme court in people candidate of law honored jurist of belarus rima filipchik became a people's judge at the age of 30, then voted for judges and gained 98%. it started with the district court. gained vast experience, being a judge here in the constitutional, then the supreme speaks of all categories of cases, perhaps the most difficult civil. wherever you

if we are allowing our supreme court, the highest court in our land, that makes the biggest decisions in our land to be bribed and compromised, it is over. i remember clarence thomas saying "when i first came someone told me i did not have to disclose these things." who told him that? let's investigate that justice. i'm so disgusted by this. i heard that the harlan crow guy along with clarence thomas were the ones who told donald trump who to put on the supreme court! even worse. i remember him at the beginning with the whole anita hill thing. he is shady. he needs to be impeached and fired immediately. a supreme court justice cannot even take a free limo ride from somebody. host: any actual evidence of influence? guest: a few thoughts. we have no reporting that these are bribes. our stories are not claiming that. the caller is correct on at least one point. the rules for supreme court justices are much looser than they are for many other government officials. what we have been talking about so far is the question of mere disclosure of gifts. many of the ethics lawyers we have spoken

the defence team not in court yet.he latest from inside the courtroom, judith morris is there. that is on a life page as well. —— life page. i will keep that posted. next, though, let's take a look at some of the wider issues, because olivia's parents work the third family that were affected by gun crime. he died in hospital after being found in the street, then ashley dale was to become fatal gunshot wounds on the back garden, asked officers were going to list a was killed in the 22nd of august. it was the 50th anniversary of the murder of reesjones, ii—year—old of the murder of reesjones, 11—year—old who was mistakenly scott two shot. just talk us through some of this context of the gun crime? what just talk us through some of this context of the gun crime? what we have 'ust context of the gun crime? what we have just been _ context of the gun crime? what we have just been watching, _ context of the gun crime? what we have just been watching, i'm - context of the gun crime? what we have just been watching, i'm sure i

so will we hear for the 1st time in the court room? those charges we just don't know or will it come out when the paperwork is revealed afterwards? we're expecting to learn this today, but nothing is a 100 percent confirm the district attorney out when brad will speak publicly about the case for the 1st time. after all the proceedings are done, he's called the press conference to address the media at that time and assumable we will get a lot more information at that point about the specifics. and of course, we know from the witnesses who've been called to speak in the secret grand jury proceedings and from leaks from from the court house does involve the hush money payment that the former president made through his fixer to adult film star. and the president has always denied that there was an affair with his film star or knowledge of the payment payment itself wouldn't be illegal unless it was combined with covering up other crimes. and that's the details of which we're waiting to hear from the court house from the lawyers. up until n

court.f formation of the young belarusian statehood, in principle, after the formation of the independence of the belarusian state. and of course, it was necessary to form not only the state body of power as a whole, but also judicial system. moreover , i do not constantly form in the process of work, and justice is not for one day. it was difficult enough, it was difficult at all. you remember in the nineties it was the complexity of the budget for the signals. to carry out reforms, well, then you were given the task of the head of state to form a national judicial system and a national model of belarusian justice. and so, since it turned out that this task was entrusted by the president of the country to the supreme court in judicial and legal reform. here for these 30 years. three stages of judicial reform have been carried out. today we can talk about the completion of the third stage, and i must say that in my opinion. we managed to create such a centralized rubber organizationally stro

so of all the options of the court that they had. was this always the most likely, you know, anderson. i really think it was, but it's hard to predict the court on reproductive rights these days, given what they did last june and reversing roe v. wade but this was the sort of the most sensible approach given the kind of case that the justice department made on behalf of the fda explain the chaos that would come if suddenly there were new regulations. out there on this abortion pill that has been available since the year 2000 and the other thing i want to stress is if the court had done anything different, it would have gone back on the premise of its dabs, ruling that abortion would be left to the states and if you undercut the bill, availability of medication, abortion states that make abortion legal right now it would be diminished. the right to obtain an abortion would be diminished in those states. anderson there were two public descents elite. oh, and thomas, as we were saying the order actually, granting this day was unsigned.

we believe this court would appropriately advise those lower courts tt that's not correct and that the correct metric is the conduct of the business. >> tre might be -- there are differences between a.d.a. cas, u.s. e.r.a.as pregnancy work act cases. they alyo a diskreet category of villes. title vii has a broader scope. i'm wondering if that's the sort of issue we needo address here when we -- seems to me there's enough on our plate perhaps with respect to the undue burden standa. >> your honor, we don't disagree. we'd be fine with an opinion that doesn't say anything about the a.d. or other statutebu just interprets the plain text that the court so clearly eviscerated in hardison and we thinkhaagain the a.d.a. and these other stutes just confirm the plain meaning. while there are differences as to all the types of accommodations urn the different statute, congress chose the se basic undue hardship metric for of them. >> excuse me. u are really asking us to overrule not justhe de minimus test but the entire holdingsf hardison. you appear t be saying that the re holdings of hardison, a

court.erhaps it is the chief justice thomas story that affects that and also on the abortion pill. call us and let us know what you think. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. an independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from earlier. [video clip] >> serving as a federal judge and a supreme court justice is one of the highest honors in the nation we can confer on an individual, above all it is a public service. judges and justices are interested by the american people to serve the public interest and administer equal justice under the law. that is why taxpayers and not billionaire donors from judicial salaries and court houses -- funded judicial salaries and court houses. they have to put this above their own self interest. a reporting tells a much different story. it shows justice accepting secret, lavish luxury trips and real estate purchases from a wealth or donor with interests affected by the court. this is conduct we cannot tolerate, whether it is from a mayor,

the court alternated. it described it at oth pnts in the opinion in fooot 14, at substantial cost and expenditures. so that has been the way that the eeoc and then the lower courts over 46 years have essentially, we think, properly interptethat language in light of the context of the case. >> general, i'struck by your statement regdls of what hardyson says for the last0 50 years the eeoc and lower courts have interpreted the decision in a way that properly respects the rights of the minority religions. i'm struck by that because we have amicus briefs here by many representatives of nyinority religions, mlims, hindu orthodox jews, seventh day adventistsndhey all say that that is just not true. an that hardison has violated their right to religious liberty. are they wrong? they misunderstand what the lower courts and the eeoha done? ge plogar: in our view they are n accurately portraying how hardison played out in the lor urts and the substantial zone for protection of religious exercise that lower courts ha

of court decisions. nothing to do with it. this process is there further they are well, because we are looking at the additional loading on sony on the complexity of justice of this or that master, because we have a specialization of a judge in specific areas of justice and evaluate the quality of the work of a judge in the aggregate updating the basic law of the country e we know that it is planned to elect judges of the supreme court in a public format. and will it give an additional guarantee of their independence and impartiality. here, in your opinion, if we talk about the constitutional changes that have taken place, that is, directly of course, we did not expect them very much. we really expected them, because they fixed at the constitutional level the type of provisions that were adopted during carrying out judicial reform wire. let's say the status of the supreme court has fundamentally changed. it has already changed in essence since the fourteenth year, when the supreme court took over all the

the court. during the trump years and the immediate aftermath. i have become -- begun detecting different kinds of behavior during the trip years and i said -- as each document that. i pitched this book. a group portrait, never knowing it would culminate in the dobbs really reversing nearly 50 years of abortion-rights but when i went back to at this and into the story i was telling, i realized i had the narrative arc of how we got the dobbs really already in this book. it began with a look at the trump effect on the court and it culminates in this major reversal of precedent. >> one of the statistics in the book was the gallup tracking poll. it is that it has essentially reversed itself. that was not very long after the bush versus gore decision. the approval rating was 62% approved, 25% disapproved. now 40% approve of the court. what is behind that? >> it is really important. something is different. it is not just this is a conservative supermajority. it is not that it has been dominated by six

instead the court carefully pahe court in the case. easy coworker burden people quitting, the union grievance files ultimately the third circuitse's i acknowledge this arification. >> on the ask you one other question. guess one thing that concerns you about your prose approach is a just discourse which is said and basicallyo one is defending this. with amicus brief for separation of church and state sayin partisan was wrong since no one isis defending task you are sayg here's what the eoc has saids consistent with a more robust understanding of the de minimis test announced. we supposed to go back and look of this body of court appeals law and assur ourselves in effect is consistent with this test. is this languageinimus, as a leading the courts of appeals a straight what is the point of retaining that standard which everybody agrees has led courts appeals astray. >>ognize and do not want to suggest a particular attachment to the forwards more than de minimis andtion. i do have a great attachment to the body of law hasac developed aut

court, to a conservative leanin supreme court.emocrats called on a boar is to resign from the suprem court and knew that th republican, richard nixon that would get to replace him, bu they still demanded hi resignation. this guy was the first democratic senator to demand a protest resign from the suprem court. he went on to serve as jimmy carter's vice president, and then the democratic nominee fo president in 1984. who lost 49 states to ronald reagan it never crossed senators -- mind that abe fortas should no resign because there is republican president the democratic-controlled hous of representatives was threatening to impeach the supreme court justice appointe by the democratic presiden because of that $20,000 that abe fortas received, and returned abe for this did nothing compared to what clarenc thomas has done. nothing. in his resignation letter ford said there has been a n wrongdoing on my part. there has been no default an the performance of my judicial duties and the accordance with the high standards of th office i hold

that is, the judicial court of the supreme court received a higher constitutional status you know, if we talk about the constitutional consolidation of the entire belarusian people's assembly, let's say this is also, in general, an idea that was hatched and suggested itself. yes quite a long time ago it so happened that i took part in all six russian people's meetings myself, and at the first one after the belarusian people's meeting. the minister even spoke in the future , together with me, justified the need for such a forum, and, of course, even then it was clear that hmm it was very effective. and the form, but it is necessary just very such extreme in situations of such emergency there may be situations in the life of each party that this was not fixed on, so to speak, necessarily. level probably it should have been suggested it was necessary in a modern judge of the supreme court, what kind of person is, in short, this is certainly the best judge in the country, a judge who was recognized by the children's community as the best authoritative judge judge not only as high professi

this decision talking about in recent cases the court has been lambasted for staying a district court order based on the scanty review this court gives matters on its shadow docket this opening with lots of criticism of people who have been critical of the court, is that normal? and what do you make of it >> this is a court that isn't getting along particularly well, joy, so you're asking me, is this normal? it hasn't been normal up through the trump presidency, and yet, we now have nine justices that are largely at each other's throats and defying the collegiality that has defined the supreme court. but you're right to say justice alito is indeed casting shade and criticizing folks like justice kagan who have been critical of the court for mapping on its policy preferences to a number of different things through decisions they don't explain, by use of what they call the shadow docket those are cases that are not litigated on their merits but come to the court on some application for emergency relief as this did. and to me, it smacks of i know you are but what am i. justice alito has

does this go back to the lower courts and likely impossible that he goes back to the supreme court on road? >> reporter: it sure does and the supreme court and the one paragraph order just now to acknowledge that this could come back to the supreme court and a future time. they are going to let the fifth circuit court of appeals hear the case on the merits and that scheduled on that x by dating basis for next month depending on what the court decides the decision can be appealed and it can come back to the supreme court in a future date so we will wait to see if the supreme court takes it up then. for now, they are not getting involved in the status quo. >> whit: devin dwyer, thank you. it let's bring in abcs rachel scott outside the supreme court. you've been covering the story for months, i wonder what is expected from both sides after this ruling has come down. >> reporter: whit, more legal challenges is one days expecting here while abortion rights advocates will be breathing a sigh of relief, they note that this will continue to play out in the courts and quite frankly the landsc

we go back to the court, manchester crown court.s there as well. just out of shot. just checking you can hear me, and if you can't, just bring us the latest of what is happening inside the court. ., ., . , the court. you had the references that a victim _ the court. you had the references that a victim impact _ the court. you had the references that a victim impact statements, | the court. you had the references i that a victim impact statements, and we have started to get some. the first one is a statement that was read out under behalf ofjohn pratt, olivia's dad, it was read by the prosecutor, henry riding. it was directed to thomas cashman, even though he is not in the dock. it was quite upsetting, it gives you a sense of the impact that this has had. he says in his statement, i want you to know that you have changed my life and my family's life forever. john pratt then went on to explain how he only saw his daughter for the first time in two years on the day before she was killed, he says, i have nightmares about how she died, a

we now heard from the court. ~ ., ., , , decision. we now heard from the court. ., , ., court.t does this mean? i've not court. what does this mean? i've got a _ court. what does this mean? i've got a ruling _ court. what does this mean? i've got a ruling here. - court. what does this mean? i've got a ruling here. it's - i've got a ruling here. it's pretty short. most of it is made up from dissenting words from two justices, thomas and alito. but the supreme court has broadly decided to do is to freeze those restrictions decided by lower courts. nothing changes on access to mifepristone for now. originally we had texas federal judge halting the approval of mifepristone, widely used by many women as part of a due drug regimen across the united states. that you had an appeals court actually only partly upholding that but saying the potential of what you can see is mifepristone restrictions of women could only take it up to seven weeks of pregnancy and would be able to order by mail. all of these things hanging in the balance but status quo is maintained for now for that what the

court ruling in bruin. current throughout the post hell or two-part test that courts were using to assess the constitutionality of firearms laws. and now requires courts to rule solely based on historical tradition. to be blunt the historical tradition when it comes to women in particular includes burning women at the stake as which is, permitting and even encouraging physical chastisement of wives in other words domestic violence in turning a blind eye to rape and other forms of gender-based violence post bruin court across the country applicable federal laws disarming adjudicated partners and have come to dramatically different conclusions. while most courts that are considered the protective order prohibits or have upheld it, a three-judge panel of the fifth circuit court of appeals found unconstitutional in the united states. the legal implications of this ruling aren't limited as it applies only to texas, louisiana and mississippi it does not apply to state laws. does not apply to the relief written di

the court. can see the flowers being laid at the time, they are not from today, they are from at the time of olivia's death. some really, really difficult details in the courtroom, we want to stay focused on the inside, because at the moment, there is no feed inside. the cameras are set up and ready to go, but they are not switched on yet. we can go back now to daniel sanford who can explain to us just the process behind these cameras being switched on, when and where that happens. having done the experimentation, the appeal court in the supreme court, the decision was made eventually last year, that we should go back and start thinking about whether there should be cameras allowed in there should be cameras allowed in the criminal courts, the crown courts, the place where the most serious cases are heard. and so eventually a decision was made. that yes, cameras should be allowed in court but only for that very last bit of the process, the final bit for thejudge passed bit of the process, the fi

and then any international courts. these are simply hegemonic courts and no, nothing, but new. for us, these are just analogues of intranational courts. uh, since a world united under a hegemon is just an analogue of a sovereign state, extended to the entire global globe the second variant of such an order is, for example , if there is, relatively speaking, a certain extended situation with the un general assembly where there will be no world hegemon, and the world hegemot will be represented, as it were, by some kind of world parliament. uh, this is the second uh, the second option that was offered there in the middle of the 2000s in the mid-10s. this is considered such a european version of global international law, and not under the leadership of any particular state. e. well, then, in fact, the situation doesn't change at all. simply conditionally, this is not some specific state. they are, well, a certain number of subjects. not only, by the way, it was proposed to turn off the states there. and representatives of

as of midnight tonight, unless the supreme court steps in however, you also have a federal court thatas said the impact opposite, and that court has told the fda, maintain the status quo, do not make any changes to the drug. because of that tension between these two decisions, that's why, again, you see the justice department saying supreme court, you have to step in and do something right no. >> this is fallout from the decision to overturn roe v. wade all of these cases have now gone to state court or the state to decide, and now there are all of these cases being brought in those states, and they're getting the dueling decisions in the red state and blue state on the issue of abortion. when the supreme court does decide this, do we have an idea of how they might hear this case >> i think what the most likely scenario is, and i preface in with anything could happen the most likely scenario is you can see justice alito, the one who receives these papers as the one in charge of the fifth circuit where this came from you will see him potentially putting what's known asan administrative

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

to the chairman of the supreme court of buryatia and the chairman of the tula regional court.sign early in this sense , i think that the creation of such a commission is, of course, evidence. e special attention of the country's leadership of the judicial system of the supreme court to the voiced facts and to the urgency of this situation. we must understand that we are talking not just about a judge and not just about the chairman of some subject court, we are talking about heads of the cassation instance, under which there are nine regions. this is a mystery station that decides from me the sentences previously handed down on the territory of almost everything by the volga chairman of the national anti-corruption committee. kirill kabanov believes that mr. efanov should be removed from office during the inspection. there is no law, it turns out, on the contrary, but the law says that when there is a check for the presence of, e.g., corruption offenses, a person is removed from office dismissed it continues to work. i said to work, yes, we got through to mr. efanov and asked.

asking the court to put in a court order against the fda. i mean, there's just a lot of, um chaos, confusion and unsettled view from doctors, patients. the drug manufacturers here so that uncertainty is not going away. they'll continue to be on edge until at least friday . let's be frank. it's not just chaos and confusion right? it's genuine concern because if the fifth circuit court of appeals ruling goes into effect, if those restrictions or some of those restrictions stand there, not insignificant. i mean, you mentioned the generic manufacturer this this would no longer be approved under this ruling, and that accounts for two thirds of the market right and i imagine there's a financial aspect of that because the generic versions are typically less expensive, perhaps much less expensive, but other things as well window to obtain cristo narrows to seven weeks from 10, the dosages would change. these are significant rules changes if this stands in some form or some of them stand right and one of the things too, that the fda told the supreme

that's the whole system of courts, it's just built in such a way that each higher court checks from alliew, the decision that was lower by this court up to 2% in general , the abolition of court decisions. we have nothing to do with it. this is a percentage of the sale they are well because we look at and load on among the complexity of justice addition. she will surprise you with our specialization of judges in specific areas of justice and we evaluate the quality of the work of a judge in the totality of updating the basic law of the country e we know that it is planned to elect judges of the supreme court in a public format. and will it give an additional guarantee of their independence and impartiality. here, in your opinion, if we talk about the constitutional changes that have taken place, that is, directly, of course , we did not expect them very much. we were very much looking forward to them, because they fixed at the constitutional level the type of provisions that were adopted in the course of the judicial legal reform. let's say the status of the supreme court has fundamenta

getting to the court?>> it could happen very fast because the biden administration -- you know, we have the situation where there are conflicting rulings. the fifth circuit court of appeals has been wanting a judge out of washington state has said in 17 states and washington, d.c., the fda may not impose any new requirements. so the fda is facing these two conflicting rulings. i think what abortion rights advocates are hoping is this are room court is going to act -- supreme court is going to act between now and saturday before the fifth circuit court ruling would take effect in order to preserve access to mifespristone , medication abortion. that is the best case scenario that we don't know if the supreme court is going to say. even if they do, in and save the day when it comes to medication abortion, i think everyone should be paying close attention to what they say on the 1873 comstock act and whether they think it could apply to the mailing a medication abortion drugs. and devices. amy: on thursday, de

the reputation of the court should matter than any individual on the court. the other thing about thomas's people need to remember why he got his job. thomas replaced thurgood marshall in 1991 when he retired. he didn't die. thurgood marshall didn't die until 1993, 2 weeks after bill clinton was sworn in as president. thurgood marshall was alive but because he was sick and didn't think he could do the job at the level the supreme court requires , he resigned and under a republican administration was replaced by a republican nominee because of the about the institution of the court was more important than his own personal political and ideological beliefs. that is the spirit that clarence thomas denigrates with his continued presence on the board. -- on the court. host: let me ask you about justice alito when it came to the abortion drug case last week. i will read you last sentence on this -- there is more there but elaborate on that. guest: alito was mad and that to pigeon -- in that decision. he called out three of the four women who were on the court by na

some of that, they had to go to court to get court orders _ they had to go to court to get court ordersry. but they work really hard with the local community to build trust. _ with the local community to build trust. to— with the local community to build trust, to get people to come forward and to— trust, to get people to come forward and to give _ trust, to get people to come forward and to give them information and to -ive and to give them information and to give them _ and to give them information and to give them statements they could use in court _ give them statements they could use in court. certainly to the point where — in court. certainly to the point where thomas cashman was arrested. that reassure people that made them feel that _ that reassure people that made them feel that the police were making progress — feel that the police were making progress and that led to others coming — progress and that led to others coming forward and being prepared to make statements and ultimately that meant _ make statements and ultimately that meant the cps felt they had enough of a case _

the court house complex . and then from will be free to leave. and in terms of the case itself, it seems that it's the felony counts on the, the falsifying business records took us through how this came about and what to do with the falsifying and not to do with the paying cash money. that's right. i mean, what began this investigation is the alleged payments of money to a former adult film star stormy daniels. but that is not a crime. the district attorney is never claimed that is a crime. what potentially is a crime and what was being investigated was not if he paid that money, of which donald trump, by the way, says he never did. it is how he potentially paid that money by falsifying business records. for example. did he write a check to michael cohen, his fixer, and asked michael cohen to give that money to stormy daniels? and by way of doing that, did he falsified business records by doing that? that would be a potential crime. but then beyond that, a potential crime would be, did donald trump, knowingly

so other conservatives on the court and with just us roberts and three liberals on the court to allow the state to take place while this case moves through the process. >> we are out of time. i would love to have a conversation that goes beyond standing what it means broadly for anyone bringing a case on anyone if you don't have to show harm. we will have to leave that for another. thank you very much. and that is going to do it for me on this friday. "deadline whitehouse" starts right now. >>> happy friday it's 4:00 in new york. he has held no press conferences, done no interviews that we know about he is elusive. the inner workings of his highly sensitive assignment a bit of a mystery outside of what some journalists worked to uncover. when it comes to the special counsel jack smith and his federal investigations, plural, into donald j. trump it takes an ear to the ground adept and trained to know when progress is being made this afternoon trusted voices suggest it is time to buckle up. here's why in dates since the federal appeals court in washington rejected the ex-president's bid

i don't want to mess with the supreme court, but the supreme court is messing with our democracy.acy our democracy is based on separation of powers an ethical, just and fair-minded supreme court is part of that. that court has disappeared, captured by a handful of extremists who want to use the court to further their own extremist personal views instead of advancing the law >> i don't have to tell you, you can tell me and teach me how democrats have the opportunity to use the supreme court as a political issue, the way republicans did for the better part of five decades republican voters vote on the supreme court. you know how the supreme court on the other side of the plurality, of all voters, not just democrats, on abortion, guns, democracy, voting rights who is running the campaign to make sure that a broader coalition than just democrats, democrats, independents, republican women, suburban men and women vote like the future of our democracy depends on it >> well, the event from which that clip you just played comes i think speaks to the fact that there's a shift occurring. to

i hope that the court of appeal will happen to our god.ecause these are, well , unconditional things in our view about the threat. can you elaborate a little more about these threats ? from the portman, tell us what exactly he was at the time of the year, this is the situation of the 20th year, when the car was burned, according to what was just told. it was the driver of pepper mazur, according to the year before this, and the transport e-e distributed arsenal data i will mention his place of residence, which he definitely should not have known, but he not only found it out, but also made public access to this matter, a criminal proceeding was opened, in addition, accordingly, in the telegram channel itself, mr. portnov announced directly for a minute in the shadow of a bucket to a radio employee freedom, accordingly, to accompany them in the dark hours of the day . well, and to carry out educational work. this is exactly what gave me the reason to mention him as the first candidate when i asked who might have had something to do with the

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

it's not just the courts. right. it's everyone from prosecutors to probation departments who are profiting this way. let's start with how. one child can benefit police officers, financial. sure. a lot of ways a child, his family you know and in the book i talk about a i write about a child who's both simultaneously real and hypothetical. i call him sean the s what that with a dollar sign and real to the extent of you know of of former youth that i've represented and the parents that i've represented and real based upon the statistics. right. and the real data and you know, he's hard to write about, you know, you know, because i know sean and you know, and i and i and i know his parents. so, you know, like i know the story. and he could be pulled into the system again. so he could be first process by the courts to generate revenue through removal. and then of course my generate more revenue by pursuing his mom write for child's to repay the cost of foster care that the court just ordered the prosecutor's office

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