justice breyer: justice kagan: say -- justice breyer: million factors. ms. underwood: justice breyer: you know. i mean -- would it be right to -- there are a yes. there is pet dogs, ms. underwood: yes. justice breyer: i mean, there are cats. and -- and so if, in fact, there were some factors that are relevant, which were not in the data, because they only controlled for six other factors instead of 600, i would expect somewhere in this record someone to have written that there were these other factors that also should have been controlled for. i know what you are going to say, unless i'm wrong, you better not tell me that i am right if i'm not. but i could not -- (laughter.) justice breyer: -- find any such place in the record. ms. underwood: nobody proposed, that i know of, proposed factors that might be alternative explanations that should have been tested for. justice kagan: and -- and would it be right to say, general, that it was the census bureau's conclusion, a bureau full of statisticians -- ms. underwood: yes. justice kagan: -- that it was the citiz

ho: yes, justice alito. justice alito: ok. and so then this is territory that we've, we've covered, but, if the secretary is told here's the error rate that we can expect for those who answer the citizenship question, and on the other hand, we have this model and we can't tell you how accurate it is, but trust us, it's going to be better, is it arbitrary and capricious for the secretary to say, i don't want to go with this model because i don't know what the accuracy of that is? ho: justice alito, respectfully, mr. i think the census bureau said a little bit more than trust us. what the census bureau said was we can develop a highly accurate model for this that's going to be better than getting the question wrong one-third of the which is what -- justice alito: yeah, well, they said, in our opinion, this would be better, but they can't quantify it. they, they don't provide a specific number. they don't even provide a range. am i right on that? mr. ho: they do say that it would be more accurate than responses to the citizenship

kavanaugh, rockets, justice breyerand justice kagan. you can tell the argument on this one,the crossis going towin and the onlyquestion was, what wasthe basisfor winning. was itgoing to be anerror decision whichis what they wanted? and kavanaugh and roberts werewilling togo along, which is to say, look, this cross was put up100years ago and put up as awar memorial, it wasbasicallyacommunity, it wasa city saying let's put up abig christian symbol to showeverybody that this is a christian community. it was essentially a war memorial just like at arlington cemetery there are crosses. and justicebreyer made hispoint before, you don't want togo down theroadoftelling the al -- aclu and lawyers, hey, let's go out and try to tear out monuments all around the country courthouses that much the 10 commanledscommantments on the wall or -- commandments on the want r moses -- we don't togoback and tearup monuments that have beenthere for 80 or100 years.so the way to write that opinion,you could get a goodvote was to saywe'redeciding this becauseit's

justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. both rules embody the understanding that the constitution's implicit promise of equal justice under law depends on at least two things that our court must be fair, independent and impartial and that we must also believe that our courts are fair, independent, and impartial. justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. it might take a second but we intuitively understand that. it means that as the supreme court recently explained, "both the appearance and reality of impartial justice are necessary to the public legitimacy of judicial pronouncements and thus the rule of law itself." i think that's why people are so surprised when they learn that the supreme court isn't bound by a code of ethics unhike nearlik other court in america. it doesn't fit with their understanding of what it means to be a judge let alone a justice of the united states supreme court. and that's why it's so concerning when a justice does something prohibited by the code of ethics they don't follow and that every

, to proportionalty. >> i think just to play out justice justice's hypothetical.hen it would be a lot on effects and 5-3 would be hard to prove. 7-1 is easy to prove. that sounds like something where something that's balanced, to use your words, which is a word you used, 5-3 would be okay because it's close to the proportion of democrats and republicans in the state. something that's really extreme would not be okay, 7-1, because it deviates so far from the proportion of democrats. >> it's just where there's smoke, you're probably going to find fire. >> another way of putting the test, i know it when i see it? [laughter] >> certainly not, your honor. >> so it sounds like you might be comfortable with justice briar's two-thirds limit. 5-3 is probably okay. 7-1 is not. i mean, that suggests some sort of rough mathematical threshold. >> i don't think a mathematical threshold is probably the way to go about it, in large part because every state is different and how the geography plays out in every state is different. and whatever other justifications there will be i'm

chief justice roberts: justice ginsburg. mr. clement: i'm sorry? justice ginsburg: exactly what you said, just what you said now, that was the exact same argument about don't go to one person/one vote, the courts are going to be flooded with cases and they'll never be able to get out of it. that's not what happened. mr. clement: but, justice ginsburg, sometimes an argument that's not a great argument in one context turns out to be pretty darn good in another context. and here is the thing: state legislatures can deal perfectly well with a one-person/one vote requirement. legislatures that are literally divided down the line in the middle with an aisle. if physical aisle between democrats and republicans. if you tell them that they can't take partisanship into account, then you're really either telling them to get out of the business of redistricting entirely or you're opening yourself up for case after case after case. i'd like to reserve my time. justice kavanaugh: on proportional representation, can i ask a question, which is, first, isn't propor

justice gorsuch: justice ginsburg's point takes us back to justice kavanaugh's, i think, which is you look at the -- the seven words at the end of the red brief and there are shocking numbers of ones granted and ones refused that -- that do look remarkably similar. how is a reasonable citizen supposed to know? what notice do they have about how the government's going to treat their mark? mr. stewart: well, i -- i think one of the -- i think the notice is in --in part the -- based on the pto decisions, but, obviously, whatever the court says, if it upheld the provision, the court can say what it wants to say about the permissible -- justice gorsuch: no, no, but let me -- we -- we can fix your problem for you, i got that. but -- but -- but the government, presumably, the pto is supposed to be doing this itself and without our interference. and it's allowed a lot of marks with these words, and it's refused a lot of marks without these words. i could not myself see a rational line through that chart at the end of the red brief. is there one that the government's aware of or -- mr. stewart

[applause] justice kennedy: thank you very much. [applause] justice kennedy: thank you, thank you. thank you so very much. only the litigators need to remain standing. [laughter] distinguishedy: members of the judiciary and at this university, my colleague justice alito, mr. and mrs. bolch, and all of you who are commitment andur your dedication to the idea, and the reality of the rule of law. thank you for this gracious reception. thank you for this magnificent, beautiful, prestigious award that my family will share with me today and for many, many years to come. ofis accepted in recognition the constant effort by hundreds ,f people, thousands of people whose names we do not know, we have not met, but who do work day-to-day and the justice system to preserve and defend the ideas that underlie the will of law, to preserve and protect the rule of law, that is the only secure foundation to which we must always aspire. thank you vary -- thank you very, very much. law is sof will of essential that it is importantly -- that it is important to always defining to the rest of the nation, b

roberts, kavanaugh, justice briar and justice kagan. the argument on this one, the cross was going to win. the only question was what was the basis for winning? was there going to be a narrow decision which is what briar and kagan wanted and kavanaugh and roberts were willing to go along with to say this cross was put up 100 years ago as a war memorial. it was basically a community -- it was not a city saying let's put up a big christian symbol to show everybody that this is a christian community. it was essentially a war memorial just like at arlington cemetery there are crosses, and justice briar made this point before. he didn't want to go down the road of telling the aclu and lawyers hey, let's go up and try to tear out monuments around the country, little county courthouses that have the ten commandments on the wall or moses holding -- you know, we don't want to go back and tear up monuments that have been there for 80 or 100 years. and so the way to write that opinion that you could get a good vote was to say we're deciding this b

chief justice roberts: why is that not so -- justice alito: why is that not so? have we ever said there is such a thing as benign discrimination? you can't discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, but it just has to be small. of kimberly: i think most this work has begun at the justification stage. mirror andersen verdict balancing, it does not have to come of it as long as we have a consideration of the way people have voted in the past and make it more difficult or those voters to achieve and lunch oral succes electoral justice alito: what would be of potential success? mr. kimberly: i think it would be a balance map, pursuit of competitive districts. justice alito: and what is a balanced map? what does that mean ? mr. kimberly: a proportional map, so either a 6-2 delegation or a 5-3 delegation. you set out toif draw a 5-3, we want to be fair, we have five democratic district and three republican districts, democrats come individual democrats that you sort into republic industries are going to be able to say we are being deprived of our ability to be treated wit

justice sotomayor: but this is not -- chief justice roberts: you -- justice sotomayor: -- the plaintiff acting; this is third parties acting. general francisco: yes, and that makes it, we think, even worse because the court's cases have generally said you don't rely on third-party standing. but -- chief justice roberts: you -- you said you had two responses? general francisco: yeah. the second is that on naacp against alabama, that was a case where the naacp was being directly regulated by the statute that they were challenging. they were forced to disclose their private membership lists, and that was their injury. there was nobody that stood in between them and the disclosure of their private injury -- private membership list. but turning to the agency reviewability argument, there really is nothing in 141(a) that provides courts with a basis to review this decision. the language is quite similar to what the court addressed in webster. every -- the addition of any particular demographic question is always going to be a tradeoff between information and accuracy. and i'd -- i'd -- i'd ur

we've seen justice gorsuch also be the swing vote and side with the democratic appointed justices.e haven't seen that so much yet with kavanagh so it will be something interesting to watch there, as well. host: simone pathe, you asked about the role the judicial crisis network will play in 2020. what role do they have an 2016 and how big are they compared to other grassroots groups on the outside that are trying to push the campaign one way or the other? simone: they are primarily focused on lobbying and what we call an electioneering communications. these are not necessarily specific super pac adds you see for an individual candidate but trying to shift the conversation politically one way or the other. you saw that last fall in the heat of the midterms after the kavanagh vote. they did run ads thanking senators for their votes and pressure at before the vote saying talent -- tell so and so to vote. i think they will play an important role, as you heard with the judiciary being such a motivating factor for a lot of voters going back to 2018. i remember there were a lot of competit

justice kagan: i mean, going down that road would suggest that justice gorsuch's attempt to sort of say this is not so bad because the people can fix it is not so true because you're suggesting that the people really maybe can't fix it, you were wrong about the people being able to fix it, and if the people could fix it, while it's not the constitutionally prescribed way because it's never been done before, so justice gorsuch's attempts to save what's so dramatically wrong here, which is the court leaving this all to professional politicians who have an interest in districting according to their own partisan interests, seems to fail. mr. clement: well, i -- i would disagree, justice kagan. i mean, i took the import of justice gorsuch's question being that, you know, maybe we can allow the states to solve this problem for themselves. but i think then, when you get at the starting point of justice breyer's question, which is at a certain point -- the federal government through its justices and judges are going to intervene and put limits on what the state does. justice breyer: all right,

other justices also wrote, concurring in part. amy: some of the justices would have deferred altogether to the agency's decision, just as stephen breyer would have not deferred to the agency at all. so they are all over the map. but five justices were able to come together and send the case back to the department of commerce. it is interesting, because the federal government has been telling the supreme court for some time that it needs to act quickly, because it needs a final ruling on whether it can include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census by the end of june, just a few days away, so it can finalize the questionnaire and start printing the form. so the supreme court did not say that in the end, the department of commerce can use the citizenship question, it just means they have to come up with a better explanation. so the clock is ticking. battlesee farther court of the next few months. >> and there is another case on the census question in the fourth circuit. does that come into play later on? what is the next st

by chief justice roberts and the four other conservative justices to stay out of this but justice roberts in his opinion defending that decision saying this is not the role of the courts to decide this and instead let this play out in the states that have already established commissions, in the state legislatures and perhaps even in congress. poppy? >> jessica schneider, thank you. it says a lot she's reading that dissent from the bench. we're going to take a quick break and we're waiting on the census decision. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ his life is pretty comfortable. then, he laid on a serta and realized his life was only just sorta comfortable. i've been living a lie. (laughs) the serta icomfort hybrid mattress. not just sorta comfortable, serta comfort

>> justice kagan, two responses. i did notice every time justice kennedy asked that question, he did ask it the way that justice sotomayor did a. i do want to drop the footnote -- >> this seems pretty enshrined. go do it 10-3. that's the current, that's what we want to maintain. >> i think there's a difference. i'm happy to respond to your question about can you have it as an express criterion for a particular districting. i think the answer is absolutely yes that's not a problem, and by the way, i think actually being candid about it probably serves accountability principles in the long run, which is to say if you think, which i think almost everybody does, that implicitly that's what the republican legislature was doing in bandmere. they were explicit in their footnote testimony that the people who drew that map, the speaker of the republican house of indiana was expressed that his goal was to preserve as many republican incumbents as possible. >> can i take you to the way justice kennedy formed the question which

chief justice. i will pick up where he ended, which is that this has never been the rule in the country -- in this country today. it's the rule in at least 20 -- 20 states. it's the rule in 37 states with respect to certain crimes. and it also seems to have worked out ok. i did want to return to the issue of stare decisis and respond to what they were saying. we have a legal framework for answering stare decisis questions. it's a law of stare decisis. and i think it provides some pretty standard guidance on this. we have to be right on the merits, that's true, but if we're right, if we're assuming we're right on the merits, then the question is what else do we need to show? and i already told you about one key factor under this court's jurisprudence, which is a jurisprudential change. and i think incorporation is a pretty significant one. second, there has been a massive expansion in federal law as this court has recognized. that was recognized by this court in murphy and elkins as the kind of chang

justice ginsburg. is a poster of other supreme court justices with second circuit connections. so, we are very proud to have chief justice roberts as a justice with second circuit connections. he connected in two ways. he clerked for henry friendly in this building. , called the space create space where kids do -- students do podcast and videos. the year's election or space. this is the lab space where students use this material and is all kinds of touchscreen opportunities. so, let's say thurgood marshall over the years, ok? we enter the space. so, you see he was born in 1908. of of all the line are things -- above in the world the line are things happening in the world. cooper v aaron, 1958. this is a case that marshall argues when he is a lawyer. we have to think about these children and their parents. these need grow --negro children who went through this every day and the parent to state a home wondering what was happening to their children, listening to the radio about bomb threats and all of this business. i do not see how anybody under the sun could say that after those

justice alito saying i don't have a five justice majority, i will give justice kagan a fifth vote, uphold the statute. why wasn't the case reargued? brett kavanaugh wasn't on the court at the time as you say. there was a 4-4 tie. usually in that situation, you have the ninth justice be part of the court, but no one in the court suggests this. i can't figure out why justice alito said if i only had a ninth justice, i would consider the question. brett kavanaugh is over there, weighing his arms, like hey, but the court just -- >> i find it puzzling. one line people have said is that alito concurred in the plurality to get the chief on record as dissenting, but that doesn't explain why you wouldn't grant for reargument. that explains why you don't want it affirmed by equally divided court. i don't know why they didn't go for that. it could be, and i think this may be the case, i don't think alito was so sympathetic to the delegation argument here. i think he may be more sympathetic to the delegation argument in big regulatory statutes, not necessarily in the case of -- >> not going to race t

what order do the justice talk? is the it chief justice first and the senior justice next? >> that's exactly. you start in order of seniority. you start in the descending order of seniority starting the chief. and you work through it. that's why i said earlier that the biggest change is the order in which i vote. >> but now, when the judge -- when you make a decision of who's going to vote how -- the case, the chief justice if northeast the majority he recollects assigns the opinion? >> that's right. >> and if, let's say you're in the majority or minority, you would assign the opinion? >> exactly. >> opposite of him? >> that's a good point. that's another change. because i moved up in seniority, it is more likely that i will be assigning an opinion when the chief justice and i disagree if the majority votes my way. >> in your book, you point out that you haven't come from a wealthy family and sometimes you were struggling with credit card debt and things like this. right now, what is the compensation of a justice of the supreme court? >> oh, goodness. i think it's plenty. [

justice ginsburg. is a poster of the other supreme court justices. the second circuit in commissions. very proud to have chief justice roberts as a justice with second circuit connections. he is connected in two ways. one he was born in buffalo. secondly he thinks for family. one that is called the creating space. he does podcasts and videos. there is a lecture space. there is a library space. how to use the material. opportunities. >> you see, above the line of things that are happening in the world. 1958. this is a case. >> i think we have to think about these children and their parents. these children that went through this everyday. the parent that stayed home wondering what was happening to their children. listening to the radio about the bomb threats. i do not see how anybody under the sun to say that after those children and families want for years. all you have done is gone. which are considered to be democracy. we go back to the segregated scope. i just do not believe it. >> if you are a student and you listen to it. off of the teacher's poi

justice. >> i did not go to prison. >> you pled guilty to obstruction of justice. i'm dplad you got to stay out of prison. >> what bothers me the most is this committee's failure to investigate how the trump/russia thing started. how this whole thing began. i said this a few weeks dpoe. i want to remind this committee what the attorney general of the united states said eight weeks ago when he testified in front of the senate. he said four important things about the beginnings of the trump/russia investigation. he said there was a failure of leadership in the upper echelon of the fbi. that is certainly true. they have all been fired. he said spying to the -- he said there is a basis for his concern about the spying that took place. and he used two terms that again i think this committee should find frightening. unauthorized surveillance and political surveillance. scary terms. so the good news is even though this congress has memorandums of understanding between the key committee chair men on how they will coordinate their attack on the president even though this co

to donate that's not justice that's it that's not justice to donate to the trust fund for something else that's not just the system this program takes there is no conviction am i right or wrong in thinking that a prosecutor's job is to bring to court he winnable case based on solid evidence that will stand up in court and that hasn't been happening you lost me little questions and he did not want to be easy if he seems to be written out that is simply what we can write a p.c. thesis now so you don't have anywhere you can give me a much simpler than that i cannot give you bad simple answer some things are not susceptible to simplistic answers you sense an excuse is not it is not an excuse the fact of the matter is this if you focused on accountability and we need to focus on the room started promised counter ability to people he did not promise that every case that comes to court must result in a conviction that do you know. we are not here running for your cause i think it can. be the holy of the soul of the inquisition even. right did not convict everybody or else when failed to stand u

>> yeah, so justice kennedy has been replaced by justice kavanaugh and we could see transformation in this field. in a couple of different ways. one would be with respect to the establishment clause. which deals with religion and the ability of schools to be proselytizing and things of that nature. can they side with the liberals in order to set erup prayers before high school football games ythat are in effect sponsored by the school, violated the establishment clause. when kavanaugh was in private practice, he wrote some, a brief that the case should come out of the way andrew is reason to believe he rwould be more receptive to religion in the public schools. another area to keep an eye on would be with respect to unauthorized immigration. texas in the 1980s had a statute that made it permissible to exclude unauthorized immigrants from public schools. and they invalidated that measure and as a result of the decision, many children have been able to receive an education through otherwise who would have been denied one. when chief justice roberts was at that time, a young attorney wor

for all this time the justice department has been saying no, no, you can't see it. the denial of that request led to a subpoena. that subpoena led to a defiance of the subpoena. that became a threat to hold the attorney general in contempt. that then became a vote on the judiciary committee to hold the attorney general in contempt for defying that subpoena. and that tomorrow was about to be a vote in the full house to hold attorney general barr in contempt. at which point the attorney general went uncle, uncle, uncle, no, no, no i give in. don't hold me in contempt. whatever you do don't hold that contempt vote. okay, i relent. here you can see some of the underlying materials from mueller's report. which as a process is interesting. i mean, now we know that this is apparently how things are going to go. apparently we're going to have to do this in this exact order over and over again in order to get any progress here. i mean, there are things like this in life. first you put on your undies and then you put on your pants and then you put on your belt and then you ca

in the report constitutes multiple crimes of obstruction of justice.yone other than a sitting president committed this conduct, that person would be charged with crimes. >> joining us now is former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor barbara mcquade who testified today before the house judiciary committee on their first hearing on the mueller investigation. i know it's been a really long day. >> glad to be here. >> lou was it? do you think this is a useful thing? do you think congress can get anywhere by holding hearings like this on the findings? >> if nothing else it was an opportunity to educate the public what's in the mueller report. it's understandable that many people have not read the 448-page report and don't know what's in it. people have said all i've heard is no collusion, no obstruction. today was an opportunity to walk through all the episodes of obstruction of justice and help the public understand how serious it was. >> was there anything you were hoping to get to say today or misconceptions you were hoping to rebut or something else yo

justice kagan wrote a very forceful dissent for four justices, as she has in previous decisions, but this takes the supreme court complete lid out of the business of having any role of putting limits through the constitution on part an jerry mandering. >> correct me if i'm wrong here, rick, so in essence the question is when it's too much, the court is saying that's not up to us to decide. >> that's essential correct. the court has said we're not prepared to saul all partisan jerry mandering is all constitutional. that would be a clear rule. instead the court has said the question is how much is too much? on that question, the court says we haven't been persuaded there's a principled clear, judicial rule for draws that line. obviously four justices dissent and don't agree that the courts cannot come up with clear rules here, but this is a very momentous decision, lower courts have been striking down partisan jerry majerrgerrymanderers, and federal epps courts say they have no role to play. >> pete, do you have more? >> reporter: just a couple points. lower courts had ruled there was

that's a kind of strange way, isn't it, to do justice? >> yes.l, first of all, the special counsel did say there was insufficient evidence with regard to conspiring with russia, conspiring -- gerry: right. the obstruction. >> right. they were clear on that part, although barr had suggested that there was no evidence in his framing of it. so what mueller said suggested that there might be some evidence, but it was insufficient. but that was an important statement. the other part about obstruction of justice is problematic from various points of view. first of all and normally -- and andrew's right about this -- normally prosecutors outside of an indictment or a trial, they don't comment on the person's possible guilt or possible innocence. i mean, that's not a job of a prosecutor. but this is something that's very special and very different. and it kind of falls in the middle of a variety of different issues because what we're talking about is how does a prosecutor deal with whether a president, sitting president has committed a crime? how do we g

up in court justice cavanagh makes history and justice ginsburg given credit for it.t is next. family. we had a lot of leftovers...[chuckles] i couldn't have asked for better parents, but like most people they didn't have anyone to teach them the best financial habits. so we changed that. as a financial health coach, i help people every day. i try to put myself in their shoes from my own experience. i connect to them because i've been there. helping families like mine save a little money changes everything. this is personalized guidance. this is wells fargo. the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. shannon: brett kavanaugh being praised by an unexpected source, ruth bader ginsburg gives them credit for keeping a promise from contentious confirmation hearing bring on an all female group of law clerks but not everyone agrees he should get a pat on the back, let's discuss this with the chief counsel of the judicial crisis network, good to see

that was probably obstruction of justice. when whoman and ehrlichman were departing, they pled with the white house that they be given pardons. i think because nixon knew he he could only compound his situation at that point, that he refused to even entertain the request. finally let me close on the note, and i explain this at some length, i certainly hope don mcgahn is a key witness before this committee. because of my testimony the model code of the a.b.a. today makes very clear in rule 1.13 that mr. mcgahn represents not donald trump but the office of the president. his client is the office of the president. and i think he owes that office his testimony before this committee. thank you. chair nadler: thank you, professor vance. professor vance: good afternoon chairman nadlerks ranking member collins. -- nadler. ranking member collins. i'll start over. good afternoon, chairman nadler, ranking member collins, and members of the committee. thank you for calling this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify and ans

were he not chief justice i think he'd be a lot like justice alito.t the court but there are concerns about the roberts court and he has that worry. the roberts court and that's a long way from his hearings when he said the responsibility was to call balls and strikes without regard to any other thing. this is a really bad thing that the courts are worried about in their appearance to the good degree that they would rule a different way from what they might rule on the constitution. paul: would you think of the gorsuch kevin na difference? do you agree with that? >> i think it's interesting to have a dance at my favorite moment was this term across case where the war memorial was being challenged in maryland but people who said they were offended by it and gorsuch's opinion said you can be offended is essentially his point he as for roberts i think all that's fair but sometimes he comes through like in the gerrymandering case with the 5-4 essentially said this is a political ticket. the constitution gives courts no criteria for defining a fair distric

justice kagan explained the decision as four of the justices joined the majority and the fifth justice came to the same outcome but didn't sign on to the opinion. chief roberts, clarence thomas and gorsuch dissented. the court heard oral argument back in october of 2018. this oral argument is about an hour. >> we will hear arguments in gundy versus the united states. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the provision grants power to the nation's top prosecutor to expand the scope of criminal laws and to impose burdensome, sometimes lifetime registration requirements on hundreds of thousands of individuals. it combines criminal law making and executive power in precisely the way that the constitution was designed to prohibit. the delegation is unconstitutional. this delegation can be distinguished from every delegation that has previously been upheld by this court, due to a combination of its total lack of standard and the nature and power -- nature and significance of the delegated power. unlike other delegations that this court has approved, this has no standard to guide

is one state unable unwilling to do justice but the i.c.c. is. titled to intervene now that means that for some states the ones we call the states they call them as a mirror of conscience that they need to do justice so that justice does not become an orphan in the territory of sovereign national sovereignty i understand but your answer can the other. question and this is relevant to it and the 2nd part of the cause to restriction those who are not able to do justice there are lots of countries around the world where when these things they're up they cannot administer justice it is easier to do atrocity than to do justice we saw that in rwanda a before the times i understand that right my question was do does the court stand by its 2016 point 2 percent there was a reasonable basis to believe the us military committed torture secret tensions do you mean that because we mean in the court reporter you're talking there are examination report sunday which are made public been given to the general assembly this is one of the intrinsics let me expla

as we reduce the number of youth in the juvenile justice system, this is our opportunity to pivot to prevention. this is our opportunity to leverage the things that have worked, to maximize and expand upon those strategies in order to continue to drive down those numbers and to achieve additional benefit with respect to young people and families in the city. i would propose that we be allowed to continue in that regard, ultimately it is my belief whatever recommendation come from the blue ribbon panel panel the city and department will need to reframe its priorities to meet those needs. >> what does school based probation officer in a mill school do? >> several things officer can do is facilitate groups. our capacity to be on site to work with the staff in the school to help problem solve to help young people and practitioners to understand the role of the juvenile justice system and what the alternative options are. that is an incredibly valuable resource. we are not seeking to implement an informal probation or supervision program with young people in the schools. it's clear part m