when carter became president, it was only one woman in a federal court of appeals. made her the first ever secretary of education. then there were none again. and nochanged that president ever went back. reagan did not want to be outdone by carter. to put thermined first woman in the u.s. supreme court. search and they came up with a spectacular choice in sandra day o'connor. david: when president clinton became president, you were somebody being considered and then president clinton talked to somebody pushing for your appointment and president clinton said, women don't want her. how could that have been the case when you were the leading lawyer in gender discrimination? why would women have not wanted you or some women not want to do in the supreme court? jus. ginsberg: just some women. most women were overwhelmingly supportive of my nomination. written a comment on 100%. wade and it was not supporting that decision. what i said was the court has an easy target because the texas law was the most extreme in the -- abortion could be had only if necessary to save the

in august it is difficult to know whether or not they will have a sympathetic ear at the federal court of appeals because of all of the politics surrounding who is being named in this case as possible coconspirators as you all know these women are seeking government documents that i would argue would be very revealing and very damaging to some of the people whose names and information and the allegations against them are contained within those documents so it is difficult to know whether or not just as will prevail in this case even though these women have been waiting for over a decade to obtain the justice that they deserve. why is the u.s. court system so difficult for victims of sex crimes and trafficking to find justice it seems to me that if we you know find it so reprehensible if it's you know we've got such high court you know prison sentences and these things why is it so hard for anybody to get justice when they've been the victim of it. i think that part of this has to do with the fact that we live in a patriarchal society that has consistently failed to value the voices and the experi

but in recent years, ae of federal courts of appeals have interpreted it that way.so now t supreme court's going to weigh in. >> sreenivasan: all right, and then we have daca. the trump administration says that basically the obama ministration didn't have the right to do this. they're challenging this. >> yes, and so there's going to two questions before th supreme court. the first is whether or not this is something that cour can review at all, whether this is the kind of decision left to the executive branch of the federal government. and then there's t question of the legality of the trump administration's decision to end daca. but moreadly, this ia program that neay 800,000 ung adults have benefited from. omd it provides them with not only protection deportation, but then potentially unlocks other benefits, like the ability tot driver's license, to work legally in thiencountry. and ore broadly than that, supreme court's going to be weighing in, in essence, on sse hot button of immigration during the mide of the presidential campaign. >> sreasan: right. and one o

when he became president, it was only one woman on a federal court of appeals, a major the first ever secretary of education. and then there were none and carter, although he had only four years at no supreme court vacancy to feel, he did literally change the complexion of the federal courts by appointing women and members of minority groups in numbers. i think president reagan was saying, jimmy carter was right and i'm going to make the big drive forward of appointing a woman to the u.s. supreme court. >> so you saw this as a continuum of what the president carter had started and was a change in the opportunities for women to be part of the federal judiciary anyway, anywhere? >> people ask, did you always want to be a supreme court justice and i say, and the ancient days when justice o'connor graduated from law school what we want it was a job, any job. >> we will talk too much about the job opportunities, at least at the beginning. just as sort of may or where were you and how did you learn about this nomination, this appointment and what was your reaction? >> i was it assistant dis

. >> first of all, federal courts of appeals of the recognizing discrimination against transgender people sex discrimination for 20 years. there are transgender male lawyers in this courtroom following the male dress code and going to the men's room, and the courts dress code and sex segregated restrooms have not fallen. the notion some of this is going to be issued a people, we haven't seen that for 20 years. those no reason you would see that. transgender people follow the rules at the socially with her gender identity. it's not disruptive. as to whether this is a question of interpretation, it is absolutely question of interpretation. how when the world can the court interpreted title vii to say that ann hopkins can't be fired for being insufficiently feminine, but my client can be fired for being insufficiently masculine? there is no textual basis for drawing that distinction whatsoever. that's because our argument rests on text meeting, at a minimum, sex assigned at birth or biological sex, and everybody agrees -- >> did you want to address judge lynch his arguments were or no? >> i

cole: federal courts of appeals have been recognizing discrimination is sex discrimination for 20 years. lawyersder male following the dress code and going to the men's room, and the courts dress code and sex segregated just code have not fallen. we have never seen a people for 20 years, there is no reason to see that, transgender people follow the rules associated with their gender identity and it is not disrupted. as whether this was a question of interpretation, it is, how can a court interpret title vii to say ann hopkins cannot be fired, but my client can be fired for being insufficiently masculine? there is no textual basis for drawing a distinction is our argument is on text meaning at a minimum, sex assigned at birth for biological sex, and everybody agreed. justice gorsuch: do you want to address judge lynch's comments or not? mr. cole: i think i have. aam not asking you to address policy question that would be more appropriate for congress, but asking you to interpret the statute as written, and everybody agrees it applies to sex assigned at birth. thank you. chief justice rob

when he became president, it was only one woman on a federal court of appeals, he made her the first ever secretary of education. and then he went on -- >> shirley hefsted? >> yes. carter, even though he only had four years and no supreme court vacancy to fill, he did literally change the complexion of the federal courts by appointing women and members of minority groups in numbers. i think president reagan was saying, jimmy carter was right and i am going to make the big stride forward appointing a woman to the u.s. supreme court. >> so you saw this as a continuum of what president carter had started. it and it was a change in the opportunities for women to be a part of the judiciary anyway anywhere. >> yes. people sometimes ask, did you always want to be a supreme court justice? i said, in the ancient days when justice o'connor and i graduated from law school, what we wanted was a job, any job. >> well, we won't talk too much about the job opportunities, at least at the beginning. justice sotomayor, where were you and how did you learn about this nomination, this appointment? and wh

judiciary. , there became president was only one woman on a federal court of appeals, that was surely have settler. and thenas shirley. there were none. carter, although he only had four years and no supreme court face -- vacancy to fill, he did literally change the complexion but a federal courts by appointing women and members of minority groups in numbers. i think president reagan would say jimmy carter was right and i'm going to make the big stride woman toppointing a the u.s. supreme court. >> hear more about former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor's judicial impact monday at noon and 8:00 p.m. eastern. you are watching american history tv, only on c-span3. >> campaign 2020. watch our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. 2020, you'reaign unfiltered view of politics. >> monday night on the communicators, the former senior advisor to fcc chair tom wheeler and the senior vice president at u.s. telecom talk about the recent d.c. appeals court decision on net neutrality. >> the court said the fcc's decision to regulate

of time. soon a court has brought matter,. >> about 50000 cases go to the circuit courts. the federal circuit courts. about 8000 of those cases, are appealed to the supreme court unless you are the supreme court heard 77 of those cases. so of well over 7900 of those cases were appealed, the constitutional law at the moment, is determined by that circuit judges decision unless the supreme court decides to establish some new criteria. it matters are making a difference there in the present appointing constitutional conservatives are making a difference in a talk about and pull, cases that trump employees decided it will be the kind of cases the you'd expect the constitutional conservatives to decide. >> al back danny's demise makes whose world a much better place folks. i would like to commend the president our intelligence community and of course our wonderful special operations forces for their accomplishment in whose mission and make sure he was brought to justice and there is information that was released and smart information gives us indication that the likely successor to him was also killed. and again folks, our world is the much bet

of three federal judges. this is a federal appeals court, so they're sitting in a court just one level below the supreme court time streaming live on c-span and nbcnews.com. this is an appeal of this federal court ruling calling the president's claim to executive immunity from crimes he committed while in office or before, calling that, quote, repugnant to the nation's governmental structure. i wonder how the appeal's going to go. if you are able to check it out, i will say the thing to listen for is not only whether the subject of this case is going to get resolved, whether the president's financial records and his tax returns are finally going to be handed over in response to the subpoena. obviously, that's a significant public interest and that will be something to watch for in terms of listening to those hearings -- listening to that hearing tomorrow. but beyond that, the other thing to really listen for is that this ruling against trump that is being appealed tomorrow, it not only smacks down the president for this incredible executive overreach in terms of what he says he can get away with, it also basi

>> if there is any court fight, a federal judge or a court of appeals, the supreme court knows, this is the action of the people's house, not of the speaker saying i hereby smile on what these different oversight committees are doing. it would also have the practical effect of centralizing the inquiry as opposed to this balkanized approach that seems to be getting underway in the house judiciary committee come as we saw, in the clinton inquiry years ago. host: that is former whitewater counsel ken starr. paul rosenzweig, your thoughts? guest: well, it is very difficult for me because -- and he is an old and dear friend. i worked for him. i think he was deeply and unfairly maligned by president clinton at the time. i continue to believe that the actions he took, that i took while working with him in investigating president clinton were proper and appropriate. that having been said, most of what he just said is unfortunately not really persuasive, and in some cases wrong. for example, the house rules do not require a vote of impeachment. so his structural point is in error. the house h

, through death and we will very shortly and less than a couple of months we'll have 182 federal judgeships including appeals judges, court of appeals 182. >> [applause] president trump: and we were getting killed with the court decisions. if you look at our first few months i think i was 0 for 8 and then we won one in a newspaper i think it was the failing new york times, what would they do without me? the paper was dead until i came along. two months before i ran, i remember holding one up that was like from a grocery store the things that you hand out it was like this. it's all right when we leave in 10 or 14 years, they'll fail. >> [applause] president trump: i'm only kidding by the way. i told you he wants to stay. did you see the crazy comedian? i won't even give him the name, but you know who. he said he's interviewing a guest a couple of weeks ago and he said very liberal guest and he said you know he's going to win don't you? you know he's going to win. the guest said no, no, we're going to fight very hard. no, no, he's going to win and you know he's not leaving after that don't you? he's going to stay. there's n

appealed to the. see court. an enbanc rehearing means they were take all of the judges that sit on the d.c. federalpeals and there may be as many as 14 or 15 of them and re-argue the case to all of those judges to see if all of those judges agree with the two out of the three judges that voted against trump in the first instance. assuming they go through that process that will take some time. if the entire court sitting enbaue enbanc against president trump his lawyers will undoubtedly appeal. the. see court doesn't have to accept it for review and say we see no significant constitutional interest involved that would warrant us actually hearing this case. i predict, however, this is one of those cases of first impression as we say. i suspect the supreme court would exercise its jurisdiction and, again, this whole process unless really expedited can take another several months. >> several months. then all of that said, a lot of people are wondering when would the house democrats actually get to set eyes on his tax returns? >> it could still take some time depending how the appellate court handles th

court of appeals for the ninth circuit. mr. van dyke fits neatly into this administration's pattern of picking federal judges for our circuit courts of appeal without meaningful input from home state senators. the president continues to select ideologically extreme nominees like mr. van dyke, and the white house is putting forward people without enough experience for the momentous roles they have been chosen to serve. mr. van dyke has been nominated to fill a nevada seat on the ninth circuit, even though he's not a nevadan. he didn't grow up in my state, he doesn't appear to own property there, he doesn't seem to have family ties, and he was only an active member of the nevada state bar for two years. senator rosen and i engage with the white house to put forward highly respected nevadans with bipartisan support, but our suggestions were summarily ignored because the white house was laser-focused on mr. van dyke. i want to be clear. the administration did not meaningfully consult about this nomination with nevada senators, and the result is a poor nominee. first and foremost, i'm extremely concerned about the effect that lawrence

of south haven to kill him. in technology news, a federal appeals court has largely upheld the federal communications commission 17 appeal of net neueutrality protections but the court did rule that individual states can pass their own net neutrality regs. supporters of net neutrality say protections are needed to preserve an open internet and bar internet service providers from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites. facebook's c.e.o. mark zuckerberg has privately slammed senator elizabeth warren's proposal to break up facebook and other tech giants. on tuesday the technology website the verge published a leaked audio recording saying zuckerberg s say a war on presidency would suck for the government and would sue the u.s. government if it attempts to break up the company. >> elizabeth warren thinks it's the right answer to break up the companies. if she is elected president, we'll have a legal challenge and i bet we'll win a legal challenge. does that still suck for us? yeah. i don't want a major lawsuit against our own government. that's not where you want to be. we care about our country and want

and then we will very shortly, in the next couple of months, have 182 federal judgeships, including appeals judges, courtf appeals. [cheers and applause] president trump: 182. and you know, we were getting killed with the court decisions. if you look at our first few months, i think it was 0-7, 0-8, then we won one, it was the failing new york times -- what would they do without me? the paper was dead before i came along. i remember holding one up, it was like a thing from a grocery store, those things you hand out? it was like this. it's all right. when we leave in 10 or 14 years, they will fail. [cheers and applause] president trump: they will fail. i am kidding, by the way. they will take it seriously -- you know he wants to stay. you saw the crazy comedian -- i will not even give him a name -- he was interviewing a guest a couple of weeks ago. a very liberal guest. you know he's going to win, don't you? you know he's going to win. no, we are going to fight -- no, he is going to win, and you know he's not leaving after that, don't you? [laughter] president trump: he's going to stay. there is no way we

of the law, as per our great constitution. [applause] that is why i have already had a pointed appointed and approved 158 brand-new federal judges and court of appeals judges, who are committed to upholding the laws of the constitution as written. we should soon be up to 182. we are way over record territory. nobody has seen anything like it. i want i think you, president obama, for giving me 142 open judges. how you allow that to happen is beyond me. beyond me. [applause] thank you, president obama, very much. everybody in this room thanks you. we will have 182 very shortly. in cities such as philadelphia, boston, and here in chicago, we have also seen a growing number of radical politicians and prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law. you've heard about that. for example, local prosecutors have declared that they will not charge certain offenders, including many theft and drug crime offenders. they just won't charge them. this is a fundamental violation of their sworn duty. the most dangerous and shameful attacks on the rule of law, from and in the form of sanctuary cities. sanctuary cities ordered jails and prisons to release criminal aliens. p

it's pending at the court of appeals for the federal circuit. ere's also a court of international trade case there. i'll send you the court number on it. >> jeff, let me give you a chance to weigh in and then we'll go to the audience questions. >> sure. thank you. well, on the last point that mr. cameron made, i think his concern is with congress and the way that congress set up the laws. congress actually changed the laws to permit commerce to both impose counterveiling duties and dumping duties at the same ply. congress applies the law vigorously and commerce decided what's unfair tried and commerce applies that in cases. we have a fair commerce that's subject to judicial review. if we ever depart from the statute there may well be a consequence in the form of a court case that appeals our determination. so, you know, again, all of our determinations are rigorous. they adhere to the statute and, you know, we administer the law the way that congress enacted it. on the other topic, your original question about whether the form of government is im

litigated in the courts of more than 20 states and the district of columbia and federal appeals courts and in the highest courts of 10 states. usa" called him the greatest first amendment attorney in the united states. with that, please join me in welcoming our panel. [applause] >> beauty is an honor to be here ith my fellow panelists -- is an honor to be here with my fellow panelists. free press is necessary for republican government. contained in its principles is a corrosive side. of the present behavior over the past several years is driving people away from it. in creating this trust, it loses its salutary effects on society. the 2016 election was a shocking moment in which many americans witnessed much of the press doing all in its power to select the president on behalf of the american people. these actions disclosed the tacit opinion the press has of itself, not really the fourth estate, but the creator of would-be rulers and therefore themselves the master or at least the kingmaker. media often thinks the freedom of the press refers to it alone and that it's freedom is absolut

of breath. lou: a federal appeals court in washington, d.c. ed a stay blocking the release of mueller grand jury material pending a department of justice appeal. house democrats were demanding the department of justice release the grand jury material, redacted sections as well of mueller, report as part of their so-called impeachment inquiry. judicial watch obtaining new records through an april foia request showing comun station between peter strzok and doj official bruce ohr. records the department of justice previous lur -- previout couldn't find. find. joining us, hans, good to have you with us. and sara carter. let's start with the ukraine. we have a transcript of a presidential conversation with ukraine president zelensky, straightforwardly. it is according to the justice department harmless and certainly no culpability of any kind on the part of the president. so what do you make of what we are witnessing now in the house? >> well, i would have to say i'm not sure why we need to hear witnesses such as the lieutenant colonel who testified

of the law, as per our great constitution. [applause] that is why i have already had appointed and approved 158 brand-new federal judges and court of appeals judges who are committed to upholding the laws of the constitution as written. we should soon be up to 182. we are waiting over record territory. nobody has seen anything like that. i want to thank you, president obama, for giving me 142 open judges. how you about that tobacco is beyond me. it's beyond me. thank you president obama very much. everybody in this room thanks you. we will have 182 very shortly. in cities such as philadelphia, boston and here in chicago, we've also seen a growing number of radical politicians and prosecutors refuse to enforce the law. you heard about that. for example, local prosecutors have declared that they will not charge certain offenders, including many theft and drug crime offenders. they just won't charge them. this is a fundamental violation of their sworn duty. the most dangerous and shameful attacks on the rule of law comes from and in the form of sanctuary cities. sanctuary cities ordered jails and prisons to release criminal aliens, people had

of the law, as per our great constitution. [applause] that is why i have already had appointed and approved 158 brand-new federal judges and court of appealswho are committed to upholding the laws of the constitution as written. we should soon be up to 182. we are way over record territory. nobody has seen anything like that. i want to thank you, president obama, for giving me 142 open judges. how you allowed that to happen is beyond me. it's beyond me. thank you president obama very much. everybody in this room thanks you. [applause] we will have 182 very shortly. in cities such as philadelphia, boston, and here in chicago, we've also seen a growing number of radical politicians and prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law. you heard about that. for example, local prosecutors have declared that they will not charge certain offenders, including many theft and drug crime offenders. they just won't charge them. this is a fundamental violation of their sworn duty. the most dangerous and shameful attacks on the rule of law comes from and in the form of sanctuary cities. sanctuary cities ordered jails and prisons to release criminal aliens, pe

of the pentagon aerial system. that is tonight beginning at eight eastern on cspan2 and enjoyed book to be this week and every weekend on cspan2. a federal appeals court is upheld the fcc's appeal of the obama administration role. it hearts internet access. they can set their own rules in different states. next a discussion on what that means for internet users, and possible next steps by congress. the congressional internet caucus academy hosted this if it. last about an hour. [background sounds] >> going to go ahead and get started. welcome to the sludge panel titled circuit court, what now. it is hosted by the congressional internet caucus academy in conjunction with another. one of the cochairs of the caucus, so long with representative collins, and others. the internet caucus was created 20 years ago. to help inform the debate in the discussion about key internet policy questions and of course net neutrality is at the top of that list. even though, all of us and all of our buses may not agree, this case is important for all of us. i'm glad we get a chance to hear from various stakeholders and their views on how we should be thinking about this. t

court of appeals and allie rasmus is already there to explain two controversial trump administration policies that will be examined. >> reporter: about one hour from now, advocates will gather outside this federaluse, the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco, to show opposition to two of the president's immigration policies. they will hear arguments for and against the trump administration's remain in mexico rule, that says asylum- seekers at the southern border, no matter where they come from, must wait in mexico while their cases are processed in the u.s. the other policy they have the hearing for in the ninth circuit would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross from the southern border from seeking asylum unless they cross through an official port of entry. the three-judge panel will hear the arguments for and against these separate policies and the hearings are scheduled to start at 9:00. they've expressed opposition and likely will be going inside to hear the legal arguments in the hearing and wait to see what the judges decide. we are live in san francisco, allie rasmus, ktvu fox news. >>> it's 6:35 and a new california law would let current high school sports stars earn

of presidential immunity." the president's lawyers immediately appealed, and this afternoon, a federal appeals court blocked releasereturns for now. prosecutors in new york want thr records as part ofrobe io payments made to two women who claimed to have affairs with mr. trump. in iraq, the prime minister ordered the army to leave a baghdad neighborhood where dozens of protesters were killed or woundte this weekend. the troops are being replaced by police. it's an attempt to ease tensions after protesters burned tires in the streets on sunday, and soldiers again opened fire, breaking up the crowds. but today, the demonstrators sounded undaunted. >> ( translated ): we are calling on the people and the army to stand by us. our revolution will continue until the regime falls. we have demands and they makeeym promises but they do not fulfil them. >> nawaz: more than 100 people have been killed in the last week during protests aimed at corruption and a lack of jobs. hong kong remained on edge today after a government ban on face masks sparnt banother weekend of violence. the first two protesters charged with violating t

a ias american institute for imported steel versus the united states pending at the court of appeals for the federalircuit. there's also a court of international trade case and i'll send you the court number. >> let me give you a chance to weigh in and we will go to the audience question. >> on the last point that mister cameron made, i think is concern is with congress and the way that congress set up the law. congress changed the laws to permit commerce to impose countervailing duties and antidumping duties at the same time area congress applies the law rigorously as congress enacted. congress decided what's unfair trade and commerce applies that in various cases faithfully. we have a process of commerce that is subject to judicial review and that means if we ever depart from the statutes , there may well be a consequence in the form of a court case that appeals are determination so again, all our determinations are rigorous, they adhere to the statutes and we administer the law the way congress enacted it. on the other topic of your original question about whether the formal government is importa

of or have already retained legal counsel. in washington, lauren blanchard, fox news. >>> u.s. appeals court has ruled in favor of the federalmmission in appeal of obama net neutrality rules. that barred internet service providers from blocking or slowing online traffic. the ruling is largely a victory for the ftc. the judge said the agency had overstepped its authority when it barred states like california from adopting internet protections of their own. >>> the nra is declaring victory over san francisco after the mayor told city departments to ignore part of the city resolution labeling the gun rights lobby a terrorist organization. the resolution was approved by the board of supervisors last month and directed the city to assess fines between contract and the nra. in a letter to department heads they said that supervisors cannot change city laws by resolution. and the nra said that they were backing down in the memo was a clear concession to its lawsuit. >>> juul said it has blocked his support for proposition c and that is the ballot measure seeking to overturn the citywide ban on e-cigarettes sales. juul said it will n

of his supporters. in a federal appeals court over fight over access of the president's tax returns trump's lawyer arguedt the president can't even be investigated and enjoys absolute immunity from criminal investigation while in office which led one judge to ask trump's attorney about the 2016 claim. >> what's your view on the fifth avenue example, local authorities couldn't investigate, they couldn't do anything about it? >> i think once a president is removed from office, any local authority -- this is not a permanent immunity. >> i'm talking about while in office. nothing could be done, that is your position the. >> that is correct. >> well, the president's attorney's argument he can't even be investigated when he's in office comes as the president's allies are failing to respond to mounting evidence in the impeachment inquiry. matt whittaker made this claim, that abuse of power is not a crime. >> i'm a former prosecutor and what i know is this a perfect time for a preliminary hearing where you would say show us your evidence. what evidence of a crime do you have? you know, the constitution -- abuse

friday, congress can lawfully now seek eight years of president trump's business records from his accounting firm. well, that's what federal appeals court did rule. it upholds a subpoena that the administration refuses to comply with so far. but they could appeal. and there is more. acting secretary of the u.s. department of homeland security, kevin mcaleenan, resigned. a former dhs official close to mcaleenan said he did so on his own, and was not forced out. joining us right now, reuters white house correspondent jeff mason, senior staff writer for the hill covering congressional leadership, scott wong, vice president for the security program, and first we go to msnbc white house correspondent, kelly o'donnell, with the very latest, and kelly, we will start with you on this, and day 19, and where do you want to pick up in terms of the latest? certainly rudy giuliani and the investigation into him causing a lot of talk in the building behind you. >> reporter: well, and now, what we're hearing, richard, from the president is a more supportive tone from president trump, on his twitter feed, and i say that because earlier in the week, the

court of appeals. the way it works in federal court when you appeal, it always goes to a three-judcourt. that is one option is to go to the full panel. and then the other option is to go to the supreme court and lawyers often decide where are their best options, where are they more likely to prevail. the trump administration has had some success in getting stays on lower court orders from the supreme court. the supreme court doesn't usually like to do that, but they've had some success. and i would predict that's probably what they'll try. >> nbc's pete williams. thank you very much for bringing us breaking news. as soon as we hit a commercial break i will text the president's attorneys and see how they plan to respond. our team is working on that. also checking in on a response, i want to bring in the top democrat on the foreign relations committee. bob menendez. are you for being on the show. >> good to be with you. >> we want to talk to you about syria. i have to start with the series of developments that we have heard this morning. let me start with what we just heard from pete willi

for me to defendants before the supreme court, litigated in the course of more than 20 states and the district of columbia, and appeared in most federal appeals court and at highest court of ten states. chambers usa called him quote, the greatest first amendment attorney in the united states. and with that please turn in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> it's an honor to be here with my fellow panelists. we are friends of the free press because it's absolutely necessary to republican government. you cannot have political liberty without a free press. but contained in its principles is a corrosive side. the press as people of the past several years is driving people away from it. and in creating great distress it loses its softer effect on society. the 2016 presidential election, for example, was a shocking moment in which many americans witnessed much of the press doing all in its power to select the president on behalf of the american people. these actions disclose a test of the pain at the process of itself, not nearly the fourth estate but the creator of would-be rulers and, therefore, themselves the master or at least the kingmaker.

federal judge in boston ruled today that the school does not hold asian american applicantsri dardth, e asca ase could end upe u.s. supreme court. meanwhile, a federal appeals court in wasngton upheld the repeal of the so-called "net neutrality" rules. but, it allowed states to enact their own standards. the federal regulations had barred internet provider rioms rvfr ove others. the federal communications pe wnaleml street today, stocks sank on news that u.s. manufacturing is down for at second strainth. the dow jones industrial average lost 343 points to close at 26,573. the nasdaq fell 90 points, and the s&p 500 slipped 36. and, former president jimmy carter turned 95 today, making him the t americanresident to reach that milestone. mr. carter had hip replacement surgery in may, and survived brain cancer in 2015, but he remains active. happy birthday.e still to c the newshour: rnatthtoey gen a know, and why it matters. fears of global surveillce, as china exports its technology to the world. and, much more. >> woodruff: for all of the t focus so fs week on president trump, and the there has also been renewed scrutiny of the u.s. justice department. william brangham reports on the new questions