the court. i think that's really the confluence of two largely unrelated developments which is a general disengaged by congress in the historical role it had played vis a vis the court which predates the more recent polarization of congress. i mean, which really starts, gosh, the 1940s and fifties, and that that sort of builds, builds and builds and builds so that by the 1980s, when the court goes to congress and says, hey, congress, take away all the remain in, you know, handcuffs on our jurisdiction, conflict sure. what else can we give you? and that's you know, that's before think the current generation. and then you have really fluky historical moments that provide for radical transitions in the center of gravity on. the court. i mean, you know, if justice marshall had not retired when he did he died a month into bill clinton's presidency. right. a world in he replaced by bill clinton as opposed george h.w. bush is a world in which you know, i mean, he was replaced by clarence thomas. imagin

last december, the world's highest court, the international court ofjustice, began considering a case which has stirred debate and controversy around the world. the state of south africa accused the state of israel of violating the genocide convention in gaza. in its initial ruling, the court overwhelmingly found there was a plausible case to answer, but a finaljudgment is likely to take years. today i have an exclusive interview with joan donoghue, thejust—retired president of the icj, who delivered that initial court ruling that sent shock waves around the world. in a sense, the whole idea of internationaljustice is on trial. how will it fare? joan donoghue, welcome to hardtalk. happy to be here. you sat on the international court ofjustice for pretty much iii years. the last three years as president of the court. one of your last cases was the case brought by south africa against israel on the basis of genocide in gaza. were you aware of the scale of international scrutiny on that particular case? yes, absolutely. it was very clear. and in particular, or, for example, outside of th

the supreme court. so what do i mean by that? right i mean, so look at sort of some of the big things that have happened with the supreme in the last couple of years. you might have noticed there have been some ethical questions about behavior. some of the justices, many of the most sincere issues that have arisen related behavior that was in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago. why are we only learning about it now? because there's an entire press corps that covers the supreme court that never thought this was part of their job. right. to actually look at the justices personal behavior and that it took propublica and its reporting. when we look at sort of the supreme decisions. i suspect you guys have been following some of them lately. this is a it's relatively new for the court to be in the headlines every. right. and yet is. how did that happen? well, that actually happened because quietly. but gradually over the 20th century, congress gave and the court took more and more power over stuff no one cares a

because people often think of court as a conservative court or even a radically conservative court. my thesis is a little bit different. it's that it's a captured court in exactly same way that in the bad old days the railroad captured and ran for own benefit. the railroad commission. so that's come stepped one concept to to keep in mind is covered operations. i was on the intelligence committee for a while. my father spent an early part of his career before he officially became a state official as an agency. the official and i love reading spy novels. so for all those different reasons, you know, you see how a covert operation runs and very often governments run operations against and in other countries and very often they have the purpose of trying disrupt the foreign country to foment dispute to prop up political parties to put poisonous propaganda into the political discussion in that country, to bribe and cajole and even capture organizations that country. and my thesis is what has happened in the united states is internal covert operation and run largely by the fossil fuel ind

to the supreme court. first off, supreme court justice thomas should behind anything near anything like this. we all know his wife backed the insurrection and it is just disgraceful. but that court, the lower court said that he is not -- that he cannot get presidential immunity. >> there is not absolute immunity. >> absolutely not. and there shouldn't be absolute immunity when they were discussing how it is personal or presidential. nothing he is doing is presidential. there is -- i keep hearing the word unprecedented. everything is unprecedented. i'm really tired of hearing that word. to me, that is an excuse, and there is no excuse for anything this man has done. he has treated the united states like it's his own personal bank account. i am so tired of hearing from anything from him and i told my husband, my worst nightmare is when he does not get elected this time because he still didn't get a second term, is he still going to run his mouth for the next four years, four more years of campaigning until g

the court should reaffirm there is no income without realization pre-i welcome the courts questions. >> when you say realization do you have a definition or explanation as to what it is? how is it different from, say, attribution? like thank you justice thomas. realization in the main will be receipts. in other situations it will be other types of enjoyment of economic gain such as the taxpayer can put that game -- gain it to his or her uses and benefits. that might be forgiveness of a loan or assignment of income to a third party. >> there is certainly realization here by the corporation, if not the taxpayers. it's not a case like appreciation of property were nothing has happened. you buy property and you are holding it for 20 years and you have not sold it and nothing has happened. here, something has happened. income has gone to the corporation. >> guess the corporation has income. we don't dispute the corporation realized income over the decade plus years taxed by the mrt. i think it is like the instance of property from the point of view of the shareholders. the shareholder int

of holding a preparatory court hearing, it was, the case had been in court since april 2, and the court was able to hold this hearing and consider everything during these days. question, this thought itself was quite clear to us, and we believed that on april 19, since the client's preventive measure ends at night, he should be released, because it the issue was not considered in this way. activists who were present at this court session, which lasted for 3 minutes, informed us, and the court itself informed us that the session will no longer take place, a break has been announced at 6:50 p.m., we will inform you of the next date after the court. the meeting reflected in the court documents, after, after that, this is important, my colleagues, lawyers kostyantyn globo and andriy yosypov, they arrived at the court there and tried to enter the territory of the court, they could not do this, it was immediately after this the closing of the court session, its adjournment, no, they were not allowed in, the kirovohrad court is threatened by a fence, sorry for the russianism, and there is even

for the court to understand the destabilizing consequences of that reading in the lower court. just as was -- just last week, the court invalidated the prohibition statute on its face as applied to the most violent and horrific crimes imaginable on the theory the government did not have a sufficiently precise historical analog. several district court have credited perception by armed criminals who have multiple convictions for criminal assault, drug trafficking, armed robbery, clearly violent crime because we do not have a historical analog, and the court has also invalidated on its face the provision of federal law that prohibits possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers, again on the theory that we don't have a founding era analog that is sufficiently precise. i think those are clearly untenable. they are profoundly destabilizing, and bruin does not require them. once the court correct the misinterpretation, i think the constitutional principle is clear. you can disarm dangerous persons, and under that principle, section 922 g8 is an easy case for three reasons.

is that court protected conduct, >>> >> we don't think that is court protected conduct.ould characterize that episode quite that way. we do agree that the department of justice allegations were a use of the president's official power. in many ways, we think that aggravates the nature of this offense. seeking as a candidate to oust the lawful winner of the election and have once self certified with private actors is a private scheme to achieve a private end and many of the co-conspirators alleged in the indictment are private. for an incumbent president to then use his presidential powers to try to enhance the likelihood that it succeeds makes the claim, in our view, worse. >> on february 29th, on this program, senator sheldon whitehouse outlined the reasons why clarence thomas should not have been hearing this case today. >> jack smith's case could very well introduce evidence about the insurrection, introduce evidence about justice thomas's wife jenny thomas role in that insurrection, including correspondence directly with the defendants, trump's chief of staff, justice

shannon, you are at the court. this is the last case that the court is going to hear this year and arguably, no question, the most consequential. >> absolutely to all of these federal actions now pending against the former president. and there has been criticism of the supreme court they didn't handle this quickly enough. actually we all know in covering the court this is rocket speed for them to get a petition, take it up, have briefing and arguments and add something to the calendar this quickly. normally the most sub staetive cases come in late june and early july. because of what's at stake in this case we think it could come sooner than that. >> gillian: trump wanted to be here today at the supreme court. he is not. he is at new york supreme court facing criminal charges in his trial there. do you think his presence here today would have made an impact, any kind of difference on the judges' mindset coming into the oral arguments? >> i don't think it would change the judges' mindset. in some ways having them in

it is the 1st court ruling of its kind. today, europe's top of human rights court ruled in favor of a group of swiss pensioners who had argued their governments in action on climate change has put their lives in danger. it's a landmark decision that could influence legislation all across europe. and you could give a boost to activists who say their governments are failing to tackle global warming . of these women have made climate history some 2500 swiss pensioners suit their own government because it's handling of the claimant crisis, put their health at risk. the european human rights courts and strossberg funds ruled in their favor. a landmarks decision cementing the idea that governments clements in action can violate human rights. as the step by step talk, this is the best they. yep. that's we have the right thing history. and as i pushed on the way i understood it, switzerland has done too little, took up the time of crisis and violated human rights. that's a nice victory bagley's. i do not see. some of the applicants

court, they could not do it, it was already immediately after the closing of the court session, itsnt, no, they were not allowed, the kirovohrad court was threatened. a fence, sorry for the russianism, and there is even a small hole into which they tried to pass, it was closed, respectively, and that is, they did not succeed even to go to the territory of the court, not that in the premises, we appealed to the court with the relevant petitions, that we are asking to extend the preparatory session, because we arrived at it, it was already 7 p.m. there, we applied in writing through an e-mail address with electronic signatures - digital, and i and my colleagues, but the court session was extended and did not take place, from which we concluded that roman should actually be released, but roman was received all this time in a car of the convoy service under the court and somewhere only about at 10 p.m., he was taken somewhere. where did they take us? at that time it was unclear, unknown, he was actually not released. what did roman himself say when the court session was held at 6 p.m. h

what would a court do? would a court look at the statute -- a statutory term like that that's a hard -- presents a hard interpretive question and say: well, this is hard, it's sort of 52/48, it's kind of close. i think the law has run out and i'm just not going to be able to decide this. i think the court would go with the best interpretation. justice kagan: the -- the -- the -- the court might -- the court in that case would have to make a choice. but, you see, here, the court can say, you know, the best option is to listen carefully and to defer if it's reasonable and if it's consistent with everything that we know that congress has said, to defer to people who actually know things about these things -- martinez: but -- justice kagan: -- to -- you know, to people who understand the way particular questions fit within a broader statutory and regulatory scheme, to people who have understanding of the policies and of the facts that led to this. i'll give you a third example. martinez: can i respond? justice

a sharply divided supreme court. arguments for the special counsel and donald trump of whether the president can be prosecuted after he or she leaves office. this was a messy case. there was pushback against the special counsel lawyer here. you could see the court and at least two justices that i counted, wanting to send it back -- not just to the appeals court but possibly the district court to argue over legal issues about immunity. >> indeed. it's just been an extraordinary thing to be able to listen to this. there is a precedent setting requirement for what is going on today. the big question is which of the justices felt that this was something maybe they should be deciding on in a complete fashion or maybe send it back. >> i think what was interesting -- we started with the extremes. the lawyer for president trump coming out saying, the president has absolute immunity for official acts. you had the lawyer representing the government, special counsel, who brought the case in the d.c. election interference crimin

supreme court today. a sense from the line of questioning there is a view that some level of presidential immunity might be required? >> the first thing i noticed was the gravity of the day. it felt a lot like the january 6 hearings where you just had to get it right. we knew on the committee we had to get the facts right. you could feel from the justices today they really wanted to not just create a rule for today but create a rule for future misconduct as well. there is competing interests going on. you can see it from the justices. one of a ruling that would have a chilling effect on the president being able to act in practice. on the other side, whether a president really should think about not violent criminal statutes. that is really what's going on here today. it will be interesting to see what the court comes down within its ruling. caitriona: given the gravity you are talking about, there seem to be a suggestion the whole issue needs a deeper examination and perhaps needs to go back to the lower

there's court reform, there's stacking the court? what is the path because clearly something more structural is necessary. >> i think as we think about this administration and its legacy, i think it was -- it will go down as having been a historic miscalculation. >> biden administration. >> biden administration to not have made aest at supreme court. they put together a commission that produced a report no one red it was not a serious effort. >> why? because the president biden i worked for him at that time i was a part of the transition, and i worked in the white house and i know for a fact and you been asking the questions there i was there. he himself does not believe that that is an avenue that should be explored. you know, joe biden is somebody that believes that in the rules and laws and systems, and one could argue, it's time to do things differently. >> i mean, yeah, i am aware of that view and he is holding the wrong view. this court is running rough shot through the constitution. they in the last few years, they overturned

this is the judge of the civil cassation court of the supreme court of ukraine, alla oliinyk.he loves her family very much. professional activity of the judge is very is often intertwined with personal life and it is sometimes impossible to determine where this line is. from 2011 to 2015, allainyk lived with with his nephew in a one-room apartment in kyiv. at that time, the boy was studying at the kyiv national university of culture and arts, where oliynyk taught by coincidence. i did not take any exams from him, i did not communicate with anyone, and it would even be immoral for me, because i know that i am a judge, and for me my reputation is quite important, on the contrary, these are strict training requirements , about his behavior. indeed, in the third year , i taught civil procedure to him, because i was the only teacher. after graduating from the university, the nephew was looking for a job, but by coincidence he was able to get a job at the higher specialized court where his aunt worked. then he went to work at the kyiv court of appeals, where, as you might have guess

and may it please the court. throughout the litigation at times this morning, petitioners have characterized this case as presenting a fundamental question of the separation of powers and a test of article iii. will courts continue to say what the law is? but i want to make sure what doesn't get lost in the shuffle is that petitioners have made an important concession that i think illustrates that the issue here is actually far narrower and their attacks on chevron lack merit and are unnecessary. the concession is this. petitioners acknowledge congress can expressly delegate to agencies the authority to define terms and fill gaps. and imagine if the statute said they were asked to define the administrator. i take both petitioners to give that up and recognize that is a delegation and courts should respect that. the role of the court in that circumstance is to make sure the agency has followed the procedures and stated within whatever outer bounds congress has set. and all of that complies with the constitution, o

. >> may it please the court. this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immune eyes former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, tree son and murder and conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. they never devised a system to check abuses of power especially the use of official power for private gain. here the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. but established legal safeguards provide layer

in 2017 , the competition in the supreme court is ongoing. the highest court of the country. for the post of judge in bohdan lviv claims this newly reformed institution. this was a big and loud reform of 2017. then the public integrity council , having analyzed the activities of lviv and its property status, came to the conclusion: the judge does not meet the criteria of integrity. however, lviv still got to the reformed court. how was the selection? is a person admitted to state secrets without restrictions. in the written questionnaire, then still a candidate. when dad asked a fundamental question whether he has the citizenship of another country, lviv said: no, but we know what yes, he had the citizenship of the russian federation both at the stage of the competition and has not lost it until now. bohdan lviv received his russian passport at the end of the 90s. at that time, he was already administering justice in ukraine, as a judge of the military court of the central region. here is an extract from the official register of rospassport, which schemes they received. there

to date, we have indeed received confirmation from the court, from the court's decision, we see that court has moved him there to kirovohrad sizo, but that's all for now. during this year, as the charges have changed, if the charges against chervinsky have changed, what are they accusing him of as of now and what is at stake for him as of now? well. there was just a plot in which everything was explained in detail, he is currently in the kiroograd court, there is neither the purpose of roman hryhorovych's actions, nor the intent, with what criminal intent he acted, and these are mandatory elements of any crime, it must be established criminal intent of a person. i remember when a year ago i immersed myself in this case and analyzed, well, as a journalist, the main question before me and my interlocutors at that time. was whether roman chervinsky could organize and implement this whole special operation at the samotuzhka airfield. please tell me whether the investigation and the court gave an answer to this question, whether he organized it on his own, or if someone helped him, well,

s. supreme court today begin here. we are arguments in unity case brought by former president donald trump. justices are deciding whether he can be prosecuted for conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election . trump argues former presidents can not be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed while in office with trump back in court today at his hush money trial in new york, he complained about not being a proceedings for this even bigger case in washington, dc. i asked our washington bureau chief and his pull to set the mood for us at the supreme court. a yeah, right, friends and you know, just to give you a little bit of an idea of the space, the supreme court is right behind me in the capital is just a couple of 100 yards away. and this is, of course we are a trump supporters. i tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power in january of 6 of 2021 day of feeding cards done by donald trump to do so. and then of course, it took donald trump a couple of hours before you ask them to stop trying ac

court. this is the place where the mobs overwhelmed the capital which is right across the way, bashed in those injured. i mean, i watched it from a building across the way. i looked out the windows and saw them attacking the sayyed of the building. >> the justices have said that they want to decide whether or not the then president can be held accountable for that day. >> and that is an incredibly weighty question for us as a republic. and it really inserts the supreme court into a central role in deciding whether or not that same person is going to become president in the united states again. and i mean to your point, paula the delays here and this their decision, how they decide this could generate another set of potential delays if their decision ultimately is what means that there's no answer to whether or not trump is accountable for that day before the election. that means that millions of americans are going to have to go and decide whether they want to put donald trump back in office

they see national law journal's supreme court reporter. jimmy hoover was at the court today. what is former president trump's legal team arguing here? >> former president trump's legal team is arguing that he is absolutely immune from criminal conversation over anything that can be considered his official actions while taken in office. it is a fairly sweeping argument to say the least. it was fully rejected by the d.c. circuit below. as we saw today at the supreme court, there is more receptiveness to the immunity claims that trump was making than perhaps many court watchers had anticipated, but basically it boils down to the idea that presidents can't operate if they are looking over their shoulder thinking about prosecutors coming down the road and charging them with criminal conspiracies after they leave office for continue controversial actions is essentially what it boils down to. a separation of powers and that the president is a unique office that should be cloak dmd this type of immunity so the president can make the the tough decisions that the president needs to mak

it was not raised in the district court and it was not raised in the court of appeals. the analysis i would use to get there is a fusion of a couple of principles. the court has often resolved threshold questions that are a prerequisite to an intelligent resolution of the question presented. in a case like united states versus grubbs, the court reached out to decide whether anticipatory warrants are valid under the fourth amendment before turning to the question of whether the triggering condition for an anticipatory warrant had to be in the warrant. that is one principle. and then a precedent that bears some analogy to this is vermont natural resources agency v. united states. the first question was whether a state agency was a person within the meaning of the act and the second question was whether if the state agency was 11th amendment immunity kicked in, and the court wrote an analysis of why it could reach both questions. reaching the person question did not expand jurisdiction and it made sense as a matter of constitutional avoidance to do that. there are consider

, each judge... considered approximately 60 cases, in arbitration courts, arbitration courts consideredround 170 cases per month, and if we talk about the workload, it is uneven between the courts, but as the chairman of the judicial panel for economic disputes, these figures are closer to me, i can tell you that with an average workload of 170 cases, somewhere there are such courts. when making changes to the civil procedure code, one of the proposals was to increase the threshold of cases that are considered in simplified procedures; previously, simplified procedures considered cases where the amount of the claim was up to 100.00 rubles. we contributed proposal to increase this amount to 500,000 rubles. we hope that our proposals will be adopted in the second reading, which will put a very heavy burden on the arbitration courts. give cases of insolvency and bankruptcy so that you understand that there are such isolated disputes, they are simple - in terms of their plot and in nature, they are not difficult for the courts to consider, but their number, last year there were 2,600 such c

stay tuned for that at the new york state supreme court, dueling courts today.ow. we will sea you then. 's v. >> more on that in a moment not that. day

now with the time to take some time before that court ruling or any court ruling will be pronounced, what impact can legal action have on the conflict? like the one we're seeing right now in gaza? it's it's cons. have an impact on what is actually happening on the ground because many people who are suffering there are some things running out of time. and what it does have an impact on is the political debate of, of what is taking place in gaza and hit united states and germany. i've seen as pretty much the last 2 powerful nations backing israel's actions that we're also seeing the human rights council of the un, which israel basically reject calling for an end for arms of arms delivery. so that's also part of these proceedings. and so this is part of a political debate and also political campaign to put pressure on israel and his allies to ascend, sleep, stop the, the death of civilians on the ground and history will decide what actually took place is the case of the thank you very much and that's it from me of those team for now. thanks for watching the questions. got any issues wit