i didn't find that in the district court's record. >> that was absolutely argued before the district court. >> you say that he didn't raise his sexual orientation claim in the complaint before the district court, correct. >> sexual orientation claim is what he was before the district court which judge bianco addressed and the first panel acknowledged. >> your memorandum of law, right, in support of your motion for summary judgment, and i'm quoting says, one of the plaintiff's theories was he was terminated because of his sexual orientation and you responded, didn't you, by arguing that plaintiff cannot advance a title vii argument for sexual orientation because of this court's decision in simonton. so, aren't you conceding that these claims were, in fact, properly before the court? >> i am not conceding that. they're alternate arguments. so if he does not raise the issue of being discriminated against because of his sexual orientation, in his eeoc charge, then he doesn't get the opportunity now, seven years after filing the eeoc charge, after all the facts are out in this case, to now

court twice now it was up there before on the technical issue whether or not it was frivolous the district court corrected this without even appointing the three-judge court. the supreme court said no. you should have appointed theco three-judge court and they held the case is the barrier that is there a clear standard to apply the judges can decide the constitutional issue if there is too much political bias so the case proceeds and the plaintiffs in the junction motion is denied by a vote two/one and they go to the supreme court. and it is a very different case seeking to achieve in the legal theory it will be interesting to see how the court responds. the challenge is a single district in maryland at the far western end it was republican control and in 2011 the democrats decided in their wisdom to take the rural area to draw that down into montgomery county so it became more blue than in the past starting to elect the democratic member you end up with the delegation seven democrats and one republican but the argument they are making not that it is unconstitutional but the one is and the chang

but that the swings are less radical between the district courts and the court of appeals. the president had engaged in a bit of discrimination and it seems pretty likely, but not certain, that whatever the supreme court winds up saying, that will not be the ultimate [indiscernible] it may be featured in the argument. i'm sure it is something that the justices are thinking about. when the justices decide questions about whether something should be reviewable, they always think down the road. they are certainly also think about the case before them right now. it is certainly something they think about, but i would be surprised if the basis of the decision were the president has engaged in discrimination throughout the writing of all of these orders [indiscernible] amy: and now we will move on to the weighty issue of online shopping. [laughter] south dakota versus wayfarer. this is a case in which i am deeply conflicted. my husband represents south dakota. trying to require out-of-state retailers to collect and pay with pictures of things that you would then not buy. but they

versus mcmanus on the technical issue of whether or not it was sufficiently frivolous that the district courtrrectly dismissed it without appointing a three-judge court which ordinarily decides the case. the supreme court said no, it is not substantial at all. he should have appointed a three-judge court. they did and the three-judge court held that the case is just -- the big variance these cases have been for a number of years. is there sufficiently clear standard to apply the judges with the constitutional issue of whether there is too much political bias or otherwise. and so, the case proceeds along.further wisconsin case in the court, the plaintiffs in maryland file a motion and it is denied by a vote of two to one. an is a different case and what they are looking to achieve and will be interesting to see how the court response to these two different kinds of theories. the challenge is to the single district in maryland the far western end of maryland. the district 6, a district in the general area for many years was republican-controlled. elected congressman name is bartlett. in 2011 th

the district court agreed with us. >> even had an executive order to the supreme court is an executive order to the supreme court above the standards as well. >> they stated for the individuals but to not have a bona fide cynic commute. microphone or talk louder. >> the district court agreed with us that the proclamation satisfies requirements of 1182f. i like to begin their. >> you mention the critical differences between the proclamation now an executive order can you delineate what you think are the most important critical differences? >> the procedural component to it. on the procedural side the critical differences it would involve a multiagency process for the president instructed these agencies to see what was missing. >> i did not read the if any into what the president directed people. he directed that certain countries be found to be banned. >> section today -- which country should be banned. >> in section two a of the order whether there is information that foreign governments are not providing. it didn't say that there is information. >> it didn't say if any either correct.

under the name of shapiro versus mcmanus under the issue of whether it was prif louse and the district court dismissed it even without a three-judge court. supreme court said, no, that's not insub stan ashl at all. and on the remand it did. and three-judge court held that case is the big barrier to the cases. it has been for a number of years. is there a sufficiently clear standard to apply that judges can decide the constitutional issue of whether there is too much political bias in the map or otherwise. so the case proceeds along. the plaintiffs make a preliminary motion. it is denied by a vote of 2-1. and they go up to the supreme court. and as amy mentioned, it is a very different case. and what it is seeking to achieve in the legal they'rery. and it would be interesting to see how the court responds to these two different kinds of theorys. the challenge is to the single district in maryland at the far western end of maryland district 6. a district in that general area for many years was the republican controlled, ross bart let, and in 2011, republicans in control of maryland, decided in

you were counsel in district court, correct? >> yes. >> when this question came up before the strict court you told the court, you think what's in the proclamation supports it under the relevant legal standard it should be upheld. if you think what is in he proclamation isn't sufficient to support the relevant legal standards, then it should be invalidated. so do you stand by that position or have a new position now? >> we do think if you don't think the proclamation by itself satisfies it and you don't want to look at the -- >> no. no. there were two sentences. and i'm asking you if you stand by them. and i don't think this requires a long answer. if you think what is in the proclamation supports the relevant legal standard, then it should be upheld. if you think what is in the proclamation is not sufficient to support the relevant legal standards, then it should be invalidated. that was the case you put to the district court, and i assume that was the case you would put here. >> it is, we do stand by that. >> that's the mandell

versus mcmanus on the technical issue of whether or not it was sufficiently frivolous that the district court correctly dismissed it without avoiding a three-judge court. supreme court said no, it's not insubstantial at all. you should have pointed a three-judge court. on remand it to did and the three-judge court held the case is the big barrier to these cases has been for a number of years, is very sufficiently to apply that judges can decide the constitutional issue of whether there's too much political biasi in the map or otherwise. the case proceeds along. we're getting our wisconsin case of the court. maryland makes a preliminary injunction motion to it is denied by a vote of two to want and they go up to the supreme court. as amy mention it's a very different case, it is what is seeking to achieve in the legal theory and will be interesting to see how the court response to these different kinds of theories. the challenge is to the single district in maryland in the far westerne end, district six, district in that general area for many years was republican-controlled, elected congressma

greg, i don't want to get too far into the weeds here, but they took it district court order and said that you cannot enforce this right away. how often does the supreme court reach down into the district court to get involved in these things? >> very, very rarely, david. first, about the only exceptions are when it is already considering an issue in a alated case and wanted to add case on the district court level two provide extra context. or if it is something like super important, like the nixon tapes or the seizure of the steel mills. this was an unusual request by the administration and, in a lot of ways, not a big surprise that the supreme court said they would take it. against thats stay march 5 deadline. how long will that likely remain in effect? of how longny sense it might take to get to a final decision? greg: they reported the move quickly, adding language that they would assume to move expeditiously. one key point to emphasize is that march 5 early stop having any significance once the district court entered that ruling and once the administration said that they wouldn't

district court district of columbia district court the most heavily democratic yeah election district or court district in the united states and so if you look at polling data on what people believe about was quote unquote rushing gate democrats in a vast majority buy into this whole narrative and so the jury pool you have a group of people who are in a process that can will follow basically wherever the prosecutor leads them who are already inclined to buy into this thing and so they didn't require any evidence and actually none was presented in the indictment to the public we don't know what was shown to the grand jury but what they would cite as showing to the grand jury doesn't make a case that also the thing itself no but john is also on top on top of this don also is that those russian nationals will never face trial they know that there isn't there is no extradition treaty between the two kind of i mean point was just that was yeah that's it i mean it was just for display here adam let me go to you because it was interesting for me in looking at what you said like that because

district court for the eastern district of arkansas.ere that judge susan webber wright had been pouring over legal briefs filed by attorneys for paula jones and the president of the united states. >> on december 28, 1994, u.s. district court judge susan webber wright ruled that paula jones' lawsuit could not go to trial until after president clinton left office. she accepted the argument that a trial would constitute a significant burden for a sitting president. >> lawsuits take up an enormous amount not only of time, but of emotional energy. >> although, she did allow fact-finding procedures to proceed. >> we could ask him for documents. we could take his deposition. >> the jones team immediately asked the eighth circuit court of appeals to reverse the ruling, arguing that paula jones should have the same rights as anyone else. >> we said, "look, mr. president, you have no immunity. you have to answer these charges." he said, "well, i'm too busy. i'm running the country here. i'm the most powerful man in the world. you can't bother me.

versus mcmanus on the technical issue over whether or not it was sufficiently frivolous that the district court correctly dismissed it without appointing a three-judge court. the supreme court said, oh, no, it is not insubstantial at all. he three-judge court held that the case is jusdiciable. is there a sufficiently clear standard to apply that the udges can apply -- decide the issue whether there is too much political bias or otherwise. the case proceeds along. as we are get in the whitford wisconsin case, maryland makes a preliminary junction motion. it is denied 2-1 and goes to the supreme court. it is a very different case. what it's seeking to achieve and the legal theory. it will be interesting to see how the court responds to these two theories. the challenge is district 6 in maryland, a district for many years republican-controlled, elected a congressman named ross bartlett. in 2011, the democrats being in control of maryland, decided in their wisdom to take some of the rural area out. draw it down into montgomery county so that it became much more blue than it had been in the past and

they also advance nomination to the south carolina district court. more work on judicial nominations expected tomorrow. also on the senate floor, north carolina senators richard burr and tom tillis spoke about the life and legacy of reverend graham. he is laid in honor at the u.s. capitol today and tomorrow. >> mr. president, i rise with my colleagues from north carolina and my colleagues in the senate and the american people today to honor the life of the north carolinian tillie graham, a man who has reached millions around the globe. reverend graham grave marker will be described this way, preacher of the gospel of the lord jesus christ. as the son of a minister myself, i am uniquely aware of the sacrifices and the responsibility that come with this calling and indeed this is a calling that he fulfilled honorably andri nobly, bringing hope and comfort around the globe. roots on a north carolina dairy farm. he committed his life to jesus christ at the age of 15 and lived the commitment with face for the next 84 years. he was married for 64 years to

district court in washington. i want to show you this. it's a very short.ump campaign aide. he heard mercedes schlapp say the charges against him have nothing to do at the white house today. i'm tired of thinking, but it's true. count one against rick gates, conspiracy against the united states, and we think that's the tax fraud charges against him and falsified tax returns. count two, false statements to the fbi. the line to the fbi is not the first we've seen amongst the people scooped up in the robert mueller investigation. the mueller investigation looking for any signs of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. the white house saying this isn't that. we are watching it, and when it happens, the hearing were these counts are talked about, and he has his chance for it, we will show it to you via today on fox news. now let's go to this. >> i do want to say because people asked in north korea. we impose today the heaviest sanctions ever imposed on a country before. frankly, hopefully something positive can happen. we will see. hopefully something

district court it is called. and let's see. a struggle to get there. but decisions flip flop back and forth. finally we won in the appellate court, and d.c. said we're going to challenge this. >> by saying you won, you got to the appellate court, which you know they're regional around the country. d.c. appellate court said you won, meaning d.c. can't ban completely owning guns. then d.c., the mayor, said we're going to appeal to the supreme court. >> exactly. >> and that was a tactical mistake well known now by the d.c. mayor, city council, because it opened up which a lot of people did not see coming, supreme court made a ruling in 2018 in the landmark heller case that said what? >> the supreme court, my favorite quote. there's a lot of stories, interesting stories to get to the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i didn't know anything about the law, i didn't know how the decision might go, but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i like to -- this is my quote. here is what scalia

american tonight a purchase under this bill would have the opportunity to petition a federal district court i receive a decision within 14 days. and, if the government which would have the burden of proof failed to prove its case it would have to pay attorney fees for that individual and the purchase of the firearm would go forward. in 2016 when the senate voted on our bill it have both majority of bipartisan support. our bill was endorsed by a distinguished group of military and intelligence leaders. and during the 2016 presidential debate, both candidates agreed with our principal of no-fly, no buy. surely this is a sensible, reasonable policy around which we can build consensus. mr. president, another step that we can take right now is to pass legislation i introduced with senator leahy to explicitly outlaw straw purchasing. this is intended for one purpose only. that is to put a gun into the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. our bill would stop illegal trafficking and provide law enforcement with an effective tool to fight the violence that goes hand-in-hand with drug t

the administration appealed to the supreme court after district court judge issued an injunction sayingcould not rollback the daca program. usually that goes to a circuit court and in this case the ninth circuit so before the ninth circuit has ruled the trump administration is asking justices to step in -- they are asking them to issue the case. >> this is unique because they are skipping a level. for a person who doesn't understand the circuit court, judicial and all that stuff. what does this mean for the president? >> it is very interesting because an injunction issued by federal court in california there is also one from a brooklyn court, the one from the california court issuing at the supreme court but for the president really, nothing will happen until the circuit court, ninth circuit or the supreme court decided to take the case and that is when his argument would seem relevant because at this point with two injunctions by district court, no daca rolling the way president obama, nothing donald trump could have done being implemented at this point so he does need a favorable ruli

one is a third circuit decision another is a district court in oregon that if the department of homeland security makes a mistake with a detainer request of wrongful identity by the police force to hold someone that is an american citizen so therefore it is erroneous detention, if that happens and local law enforcement comply, under theseha court decisions the local municipality could be held liable for that ensuing litigation on the person wrongly detained. so my bill addresses this problem by simply saying that when aal local law-enforcement officer complies with the immigration detainer request duly issued than the local officer has the same authority as dhs the way they would be considered an agent from department of homeland security and the entity person would sue in the event they are wrongly detained the civil rights are violated the responsibility should be on the federal government after all it was a request initiated with the federaln government my legislation does not curb an individual's ability to file a suit if there rights are violated intentional or accidental there is n

he appointed i think over 25 women to the federal trial court and federal district courts. appointed 11 to courts of appeals, and i was one of the lucky 11. so when people ask, did you always want to be a judge? i smile and say when i graduated from law school, there were no women on the federal appellate bench. there had been florence allen, who was appointed in 1934 by president roosevelt, and she retired in 1959, and so then there were none until one was appointed by president johnson to the court of appeals for the ninth circuit. she was the first ever secretary of education, so then there were none again. and then jimmy carter became president and set a pattern that no president has departed from. president reagan, not to be outdone, was determined to appoint the first woman to the supreme court. he made a nationwide search and came up with a splendid candidate, sandra day o'connor. when i was a new justice, invariably someone or another would call me justice o'connor. [laughter] justice ginsburg: they knew there was a woman on the supreme court, so a woman's voice mea

so if you lost in the district court for the district judge judge, you might appeal to the circuit court, which would assist -- consist of the same district judge, plus a supreme court judge. in some cases, cases would go directly to the circuit court depending on the nature of the case. because he was a supreme court justice, story would give charges to the grand jury's. story towards20, tours newd -- story england and give charges, ordering federal grand jury is in providence, boston, manchester, and ultimately main when maine becomes a state, to investigate illegal trading in slaves, to investigate americans violating the laws against the african slave trade. these charges are phenomenally powerful and vigorous in his condemnation of slavery and his condemnation of the way in which americans are involved in slavery. that, story here is one case involving the slave trade where he reaches the same sort of conclusions. case about a french ship actually owned by americans , a phony french registration. the ship involved in the trade. story hears this case and he is vigorously anti-slavery

district court it is called. and let's see. it was a struggle to get there. flip-flopcision back-and-forth, and finally we won in the appellate court. d.c. said we are going to challenge this. emily: by saying you won, you got to the appellate court, which they are originally around the country. the d.c. appellate court said you won, completely owning guns. then the mayor said we would bring this to the supreme court. dick: exactly. emily: that was a tactical mistake am a well known by the mayor.- the d.c. it opened up a lot of people -- the supreme court made its ruling in 2008 in a landmark heller case that said, what? dick: the supreme court, my favorite quote -- there is a lot of stories, interesting stories to get to the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything about the law. i did not know how this decision might go. but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i liked -- this is my quote. here is what scalia said. we are not here today to a race the second amendment -

gucci for two came out with those documents that that lawsuit there were two hearings held in the district court in fort lauderdale florida where the lawsuit was filed which is also happens to be debbie wasserman schultz's district and of course she was named as a defendant with the d.n.c. as the former chair person and so the court held two hearings. of eventually the court dismissed the lawsuit and said that our clients who were donors to the bernie sanders campaign didn't have what is called legal standing to pursue claims against the d.n.c. and debbie wasserman schultz for rigging the primaries but in the course of. these lower court proceedings something very very interesting happened in open court before the judge hearing the case and what happened is that the d.n.c. is counsel got up and said that the d.n.c. had every right to go into back rooms and select the candidates like they did in the old days smoking. cigars and he said those precise words and there is absolutely no. nothing no legal resource recourse for that in fact the d.n.c. has every right to rig the primaries that way and th

he appointed i think over 25 women to the federal trial court and federal district courts. he appointed 11 to courts of appeals, and i was one of the lucky 11. , did youeople ask always want to be a judge? graduatedd say when i from law school, there were no women on the federal appellate bench. is one appointed in 1934 by president roosevelt, and she retired in 1959, and so then one wasre none until appointed by president johnson to the court of appeals for the ninth circuit. she was the first ever secretary of education, so then there were none again. and then jimmy carter became pattern that set a no president has departed from. president reagan, not to be outdone, was determined to appoint the first woman to the supreme court. he made a nationwide search and came up with a splendid o'connor. sandra day justice,s a new someone or another would call me justice o'connor. [laughter] justice ginsburg: they knew there was a woman on the supreme court, so a woman's voice meant that i should be justice o'connor. nowadays there are three of us, 1/3 of the bench, and because my se

and after some bumps in the road, at the district court level, the circuit courts have embraced that so the ftc has over the last four years won cases in numerous circuit courts, so i think the mode of analysis is established. now, you see hundreds of hospital mergers every year, why are only a handful of them challenged. many don't raise concerns. the hospitals are 200 miles away and don't compete. there are numerous hospitals in the other market. there's a brand new competitor coming in and building a new hospital. sometimes the facts show that the hospital being acquired would go out of business and the government doesn't want to see a hospital closed. these are case by case analyses. the physician consolidation looked at largely the same way, case by case. there was recently a situation where a combination of physicians in north dakota got challenged and the ftc blocked that because it would have led to too much consolidation. my time is up and i've talked about health care. i'm happy to talk about pharmaceutical questions as well. >> good morning, i guess it's my turn. i'm an ec

that, presumably, would be on a rocket ride to the supreme court, regardless of what the district court and the court of appeals did, because it's a very serious constitutional issue. i don't think anyone knows for sure how this supreme court would resolve it. and it would be a roll of the dice on both sides if they decided to take that fight all the way. it would also be a substantial delay in the investigation. >> you think mueller might be willing to just do it in writing? he submits questions in writing and then the president and his lawyers and his team can write back the answers? >> i think that proposal is a complete nonstarter. because everyone knows that what are known in the legal world as intering interin interrogatories are handled almost entirely by the lawyers. and you are not getting anything like a spontaneous result -- response from the subject that you're hoping to interview. so i think written questions and answers is something mueller will reject without hand. there are a lot of other variables. how long the interview would be. what subjects would be covered. would t

despite that, judge prior wrote, "the district court properly allowed the secession to continue." in new york city, mayor bill de blasio said wednesday he hopes to accelerate the closure of the notorious jail at rikers island, which he previously promised to close within 10 years. the plan would see the city build a new jail in the bronx while expanding existing jails in manhattan, brooklyn, and queens. mayor de blasio said it would also require a sharp reduction in t the number of people new yk puts behind bars. >> for this plan to work in addition to the new facilities, we have to keep driving down the jail population. i will say this every time we talk about this issue. we now are at about 9000 individuals in our jail system on any given day. that number must go down to 5000 for this overall plan to work. that is going to take a lot. we believe it can be done. we believe when it is done, it will be crucial to breaking that cycle of incarceration. amy: a 2017 investigation by the justice department found that rikers is home to a culture of violence that regularly sees prisoners

the general rule is that all of the article 3 judges at the district court level and the court of appeals level are bound by the precedence set by the supreme court. and that's true of every supreme court precedent, not simply mccullough. >> are there particular provisions of the constitution -- we have referred to the necessary and proper clause that are directly related to this case and that people should know about. >> well, there are various things. the federal government has the power to coin money, although we didn't have a central federal currency at the time. the federal government has the power to do a number of things with regard to financial affairs, infrastructure for the postal roads, to raise taxes to spend for the general welfare. and part of what marshall does in mccullough is give you a list of these other powers that congress expressly has, and then draws the connection that that, the necessary and proper clause means it then has the ability to give effect to those, many of which are relate dodd this question of managing the financial affairs of the nation. >> this twitt

judicial overreach. >> now, there are currently 147 vacancies on the federal courts, 122 in the district courts 17 at that important appellate level. a record 12 appeals court judges. obama only got three in his first year, so that's really good. a lot of work remains to be done. the only way to counter, is for trump to fill the bench with his own jurists, men and women who stay within their constitutional boundaries. meanwhile, we'll continue on this show to expose the arbitrary and capricious rulings of judges who frustrate the public will and exceed their authority. and that's the angle. joining us now for reaction, just outside the washington dc, he's at cpac. all right, nigel, you're there at cpac with all those judges. if we don't keep this momentum going, we won't get judges on the court and a lot of his agenda can be undone. what was your sense from the president's speech? >> it's all about the midterms. he's achieved amazing things. he said today that he kept more promises than he actually made during the election campaign, which was a great line. but he's doing his stuff. he got tax r

for us, we have nbc justice correspondent pete williams, ken dilanian, kelly o'donnell outside district court and nbc's jeff bennett is on the white house north lawn. pete, i have to start with you. you have been looking into the details of this plea agreement. what are the headlines here? >> the big point here is that rick gates who was charged in late october along with paul manafort has now agreed to plead guilty to a vastly reduced raft of federal charges here. it's basically the same case that the government made when it filed a case against manafort and gates last october saying that they profited, made millions by representing the government of ukraine and then through a series of financial transactions illegally tried to conceal that income from the government for the purposes of registering as foreign lobbyists, evading taxes, defrauding banks and so forth. that's still the general case, but the number of actual charges is vastly reduced. it's basically two charges. a general conspiracy charge to do all the things i just said and a charge of lying to federal investigators after they

a district court of a peelts last year ruled that he violated the coastal act for blocking public access. the supreme court will likely decide within three months whether it will take the case. >>> a new revelation out of florida. authorities say an armed deputy was on campus of stoneman douglas high and did nothing during the shooting rampage. this is the debate over arming teachers. maggie rulli has the latest developments. >> reporter: teachers have found themselves on the frontlines in america's battle over guns. >> if i can carry a gun in school and protect anyone in my classroom, then i will. >> this is not stoneman prison. this is a high school. >> the president weighing in. >> this school has no guns. we are gun-free. let the people know the opposite. you come into our schools, you're going to be dead and it's going to be fast. >> he suggests about 20% of teachers should have training and guns. >> they have to go to training, i would say every six months or every year, they have to have a fairly -- a rigorous course in what they're doing. they should be paid extra money. >> the p

district court. on friday afternoon, jessica forde made her fourth attempt in the last year to try and get into the white house. this time she was armed when she reportedly drove a white van into a security barrier prompting a lock down. the secret service retrieved the done, despite her ignoring commands to drop the weapon. her mother claims the 35-year- old suffers from mental health issues. she remains jailed without bail. >>> and san francisco police confirm uc san diego basketball coach lamont smith was arrested today on domestic violence charges. he was arrested as he and his team prepared to return home. he faces three charges stemming from an incident at the team hotel. the woman was treated for life threatening injuries. she told police she had a relationship with smith. uc san diego confirms the allegations in a statement and says the school will be investigating the incident. smith is now charged with domestic violence, assault with force likely to create great bodily injury, and imprisonm

any case before the united states district court judge will representing the government, criminal cases or civil cases. host: one's criminal justice reform. your thoughts on the florida by some for a call stricter gun control. guest: it is a terrible tragedy and something we have to fix as a country. assistant united states attorneys feel deeply about these situations. be potentially federal crimes. they tend to be more dressed at the local level. i think that we need to look at the frequency of the kinds of weapons being used and perhaps limit those kinds of weapons. we will not eliminate the problem. there will always be people that are deranged that do terrible things, but we should limit the causey of them to destruction by limiting the weapons available to them. host: where get this be a violation of federal law? are clearlyeapons probably not made in florida, so the interstate nexus would give us federal jurisdiction. host: what then? guest: we would prosecute them for a firearms offense. they being the people using the weapons illegally. the government would prosecute those who v

any case the ghost for the 19th district court judge isth going to be in it and assisted attorney whether it's k-uppercase-letter's are civil case. >> in one of those issues is criminal justice reform we get to that your thoughts on the florida shooting and a call by some lawmakers and others for stricter gun control. >> guest: terrible tragedy of something we absolutely have to fix isin the country. we feel deeply about these types of situations and these are could be potentially federal crimes and they tend to be more a test of the low-level and i think we need to look at the frequency of the kinds of weapons thatd are being used and limiting those weapons and were not going to eliminate the problem because there will always be people who are drains like this man who do terrible things but we should be able to limit the ability of them to cause the death and destruction by illuminating weapons available to them. >> host: where you see this possibly been a violation of federal law? >> guest: they move into state and the weapons are clearly and probably not made up for in this instance bu

have advanced a bill that would allow land disputes in the occupied west bank to be settled by a district court rather than being considered by the high court the proposed change in the law follows several high court rulings against settlers palestinians view this proposed changes part of a wider process of gradual an exception which imposes israeli jurisdiction of occupied land as hairy forces now reports. israeli students hit the books in the university library by the looks of it it could be anywhere in israel but it's not this is a real university in one of the largest illegal settlements in the occupied west bank settlement universities have until now been governed by a specific body earlier this month israeli m.p.'s passed a law bringing the universities under the auspices of israel's national higher educational forty for palestinians it's another step in normalizing news really presence in the occupied territory part of a longer term program of an accession the university's chancellor sees it differently two states solution is go going to work we are in two thirds of corp we seem to be re

district court in san francisco. it alleges that when uber implemented a feature called up front pricing in the year 2016, it did not pay drivers their fair share. so far, no comments from uber. >>> not many people love their driver's license photo. that's pretty much a universal truth. what if you could pick your photo? a southern california lawmakers introduced a bill to allow drivers to choose their own license photo. this measure gives people the opportunity to take more than one photo at the dmv and select the one they like. the catch? the more photos you take, the more money it costs. another option is take a photo somewhere else. josh newman of fullerton said the bill creates new revenue sources. >>> musk's brother is giving away a tesla model 3. in fact, it's one of the first ever made. find out how you can get behind the wheel for as little as $10. >>> asking strangers to get a matching tattoo. >> no. >> she said yes. >> see it next "right this minute." >>> welcome back. thousands of drivers wait to buy the

all first judicial district courts are going close as well. so if you're scheduled for jury duty expect that to get reschedule. you can expect a lot of street closures tomorrow as well but if you're driving into the city, the ppa says parking on residential streets will be free. so if you live in the city trash pickup will be suspended tomorrow for a full list of everything you need to know for tomorrow's big parade like street closures, the root of the parade head to our website at fox29.com. >>> it is going to be a massive party all day tomorrow. millions of fans expected to pack the city to celebrate that super bowl win and officials have been pre paragraph for tomorrow's parade for will now to make sure everything goes off without a hitch. philadelphia mayor jim kenney talked today giving out few pointers to those who were headed to the parade. he covered everything from what you shall wear to cell phone service, crowds and transportation. >> with such an outpouring of excitement, we expect that there will be long lines everywhere. and jus

. >> sessions also claimed federal district court judges are not up holding the rule of law. one example they blocked president trump's policies on immigration. >>> let's get back to your fox 29 weather authority. as we take a look in doylestown, bucks county tonight. the roller coaster of temperatures continues. meteorologist kathy orr has got a full check of your forecast in just 152nd. >>> in weather we're talking about some cooler temperatures tonight but it's not going to stay that wage looking good with clear skies tonight in wilmington, temperatures today in the 60s now in the 40s. a cold front moved through and that changed everything. it's 41 in philadelphia. after a high of 61. 42 degrees right now in millville. 41 in dover and 36 in allentown. as we look at the country you can see that colder air coming in. pittsburgh 32. buffalo 23. and detroit it's 26 degrees. so much colder air coming our way for sure. now, today high temperatures early in the 60s tomorrow we go below the average of 43. wednesday about 10 degrees above normal. and by thursday, 20 degrees above n