chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsuch? justice kavanaugh? justice barrett? justice jackson: just one quick clarification. you say the lloyd's meeting is an explicit threat. so, fine, let's say they state a claim. what's next in terms of proof? don't they have to show something about her motivation? mr. mcdowell: so, justice jackson, that gets to, i think, something mr. cole was talking about. there are two kind of aspects of this sort of claim. there's the coercion question, and then there's the first amendment harm question. here, the first amendment harm is based on viewpoint discrimination. so, yes, they would have to show that she was motivated by the -- the targeting of a particular viewpoint, as opposed to the targeting of conduct. we just think that the complaint alleges that that's what her motive was because, on page 223, it says -- i think says it most explicitly, 223 of the petition appendix, she was engaging in this threat in order to get lloyd's to aid dfs's campaign against gun groups. so there's a focus on the speech aspect of the nra, as oppo

chief justice roberts: justice thomas? justic alito? justice sotomayor: already previewed y question would be. how do you see writing the opinion and how do you wantt and tell me what the differences are and why are they important? mr. mcdowell our first order of preference is to u guidance letters as a way to reinforce the plausibility of the alletis about the lloyd's meeting and to hinge the first amendment analysis on th lloyd's meeting, becaus is an explicit threat, this case.rward way of resolving as i said, the guidae letters reinforce the plausibility those allegations b the guidance letters were sent not also to banks, and there is not suggestion that the nra was doing unlawfuless with banks. and of coursehe guidance letters also expressly urge insurance companies and banks to cut al with the nra, not just lawful business. those aspects of the guidance letters reinforcellegation that in the lloyd's meeting she was trying to coerce lloyd's to stop all of its business gun groups, not just your target unlawful conduct -- to target

chief justice roberts: justice thomas? justice alito? justice alito: on the question of the meaning of coercion, i can think on the spectrum -- one end of the spectrum, a government official says, look, suppress this speech, and if you don't do it, i have legal weapons i can use against you and i'm going to punish you for using those. very clear coercion. at the other end, the government official who has no authority to do anything for any practical purposes to that entity that the government official is speaking to says you should do this, it would be a good thing to do, you would be a good citizen if you did it. in between, there are a lot of different gradations, particularly when the official making this request has that power, and you have to assume the person or the entity to whom or to which the request is being made does matter. just as i am sure that these insurance companies were well aware of the power of ms. vullo. how do you define when it goes too far along that line? mr. cole: so, i do think that the power of the official

chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: mr.sive powers under the electors clause. you talked abouttates having a rolnacting, you know, tyballot access sovisions. limits on that. and i will just give you rson versus celebrezze as an example of that, where we anoff a ballot, and that was a case about minor party candidatt the reason was that one state's decision to take a candidate off the ballot affects everybody else's rights. and we talked about the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office. we talked about how an own borders. so, if that goes for minor cal party candidates, why situation in this case?ihe mr. murray: well, certainly, constitutional principles like section iii apply to everybody, but in celebrezz issue there was a first amendment question. and, certathere's no doubt that states' exercise ofhetrby t principles. and -- and in -- in that case, the -- the state law des for when a minor party candidate got on the ballot just came too soon to be reactive to what major parties had

it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not a one way street. for example, there are from douglass to murphy this period where he refers to frankfurter as der fÜhrer and the little --. so there's all of personal enmity then among the justices and. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i'll focus to some of the cases in what's going on, both in terms of the war and in terms of domestic affairs. but it's so much it does play out in public there regularly to groups around the country in what almost seems like very political way. or maybe they are just overtly very political. you know, again this is remarkable and this is part of their allegiance to fdr. but again, in 1941, when country was really sort of split, there was strong isolationist sentiment. just about every one of the justices delivers, a very public speeches, strongly supporting fdr his war preparation and talking how important it is. and some of these were explicitly with fdr and the white house. frank murphy was the only catholic on the

justice kanah: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr. martinez, i want trern to the question that justice sotomayor raised about stare decisis. so you said that overruling chron wouldn't have an effect the many cases that have gotten to chevron step t a then deferred to the agency. you said -- am i -- did i understa y correctly? martinez: those bottom-line so isn't it inviting a flood of litigation even if for the moment those holdings stay intact? mainez: so i would say the bottom-line holdings in os cases, i would just quibble slightly, i ul-- i would describe the bottom-line holding as being that the en's action was lawful. and so that's the bottom line. i think it's true that people could come and s, ok, the interpretive methods have changed since this bottom-ne holding waised and we think that -- that, you know, a different result n suld apply. and -- and that's why courts consider requests orturn precedent. but i just think that they would apply the same standards that they would apply to other stare decisis inquiries, and i think

chief justice roberts: thank u. justice thomas? justice alito? justice alito: mr. martinez, would you age at one of the reasons why chevron was originally so popular was concern that judges were allowing their policy views, consciouslornconsciously, to -- to -- to influence their interpretation of the statut in question? martinez: yes. justice alito: why w tt fear unfounded? why do you think now that e fear was unfounded? martinez: well, i think three things. first of all, i think the fear has -- it's reasonable to think the fear has diminished over time, regardless of what iwathen, in large part due to the very salutary developments in the way that this couranthe lower courts generally now think about stutory construction. in the old days, there was a lot of reliae legislative history and on sort of more free-form analysis that i think made it easier for policy nserations to infect the judicial decision-making process. but this court has now mad clear that, you know, really, we should be text-focused, we should be focused on faithful agency to congress. so i think

chief justice roberts:ha you. justice thomas? justice alito? justice alito: mr.arnez, would you agree that one of the reasons why chevron was originally so polawas concern that judges were allowing tirolicy views, consciously or unconsciously, to -- t--o influence their interpretation of the statutes in question? martinez: yes. justice alito: why was that fear unfounded? why do you think now that the fear was unfounded? martinez: well, i think three things. first of all, i think the fear has -- 's reasonable to think the fear has diminished over tim regardless of what it was then, in large part due toheery salutary developments in the way that this court and the lower courts gerly now think about statutory construction. in the old days, treas a lot of reliance on legislative historanon sort of more fr-form analysis that i think made it easier for policy considerations to infect the judicial decision-making process. but this court has now made clear that, you kn, ally, we should be text-focused, we should bfosed on faithful agency to congss so i

justice barrett? justice jackson?ice jackson: you are asked if the agency is infallible and i guess i am wondering if you think that the courts have specialized scientific knowledge y that has pharmaceuticals, you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies? ms. ellsworth: yes. i think we have significant concerns and there are two amicus briefs from the pharmaceutical industry that expands on why exactly that is so concerning for pharmaceutical companies who depend on fda's gold standard review process to approve their drugs and be able to sell their products in line with that considered judgment. justice jackson: can you say what they say? ms. ellsworth: i am happy to. i think the reality is and this decision allow is a good example of a. you have a district court that among other things relied on one study that was an analysis of anonymous blog posts. you have another set of studies that he relied on that were not in the administrative record and would not be because theisions. they have been

the benefit to having smooth and swift justice system-— justice system.e county courts which handle 95% _ justice system. the county courts which handle 95% of _ justice system. the county courts which handle 9596 of civil- justice system. the county courts which handle 9596 of civil work- justice system. the county courts| which handle 9596 of civil work are which handle 95% of civil work are operating entirely on a paper—based system, which causes massive delays were stopped would you take away the proposition that considerable benefit could be achieved for some capital investment in improving the technology and support systems? i will will happily do that. we have invested money in digital transformation in courts. that is not apply to civil courts? plat transformation in courts. that is not apply to civil courts?- not apply to civil courts? not in the county _ not apply to civil courts? not in the county court. _ not apply to civil courts? not in the county court. we _ not apply to civil courts? not in the county court. we had - not apply to civil cou

chief justice roberts: justice kagan?: on the cores in question is there anything we have to review on clear error? mr. fletcher: historical fact, this statement was made. it was not made if there were specific factual findings made. things like -- this was pressure or coercion, we think those were characterizations. and the timate first amendment■á standard of was this viewed objectively in context, we think that is the overview. justice kagan: and on the past harm-future harm question, i take it that if no future harm, that is independently sufficient, is tri mr. fletcher: correct. justice kagan: would there be any difficulties with confining the holding to that if we were to find for you? mr. fletcher: i think in some ways that is the easiest way to resolve the case. this is an action for injunctive relief. we don't have to adjudicate parties over past harm, we just have to execute the burden. justice gorsuch: in your view, one is the time we should be considering that? probably not today at findings, right? mr. fletch

human justice.s shows that even a christian perceives the imam (peace be upon him) in this way, and regarding the speech of his highness gibran, khalil gibran says that what would happen , what is the secret and secret that every century no one like hazrat ali, peace be upon him , gave the world the meaning of justice. what is justice and justice in the words of the prophet, peace be upon him, well, it has been talked about a lot during the past 14 centuries, as he said in the qur'an, according to the commentators in the life of muhammad and the family of muhammad , especially amir al-mu'minin, who is generally known between your friend and your enemy, everyone writes murder in the altar. the worship of justice is one of the manifestations of amir al-mu'minin that everyone pays attention to, not only shia or sunni or muslim or christian, everyone recognizes ali as justice and justice, of course this should not prevent other aspects of the personality amir al-mu'minin should also be recognized by hum

justice thomas? justice alito? >> mr.e -- colquwith my colleagues have gotten off into questions that i didn't ta fm your brief that we actually need to decide in this case. so, i thoughyo principal argument w tt whatever coeroneans is sufficient and coercion doesn't applon when the governmentay do this, and if you don't will be legal consequences, when it says that in the same breath. but it is a more flexible stda, and you have to take into account the whole course of the relationship regardinghi matter. that is what i took to be your principal argument. did i understand that correctly? >> that is corre, ur honor. we've got 20,000 pages in this record of the government persist -- persistently goinba to platforms time and time again, pushing them to adjust the policies, do more censoring. i think that is what makes this ca sunique is you have this fast repetition of counications, but it is all, the bulk of it, is behind closed doors. that is what is so pnious about this. if we don't have a remedy in this case, it is hard

there are many verses about justice and justice . one of the issues that is very prominent is the discussion of justice, in such a way that the christian jagdad writes a book about the voice of justice, the voice of human justice, and this shows that even a christian person is like this. imam (peace be upon him) takes it and says about the speech of his highness gibran, khalil gibran, what would happen, what a secret there is a sign that every century, no one like hazrat, peace be upon him, gave sustenance to the world . what is the meaning of justice in the words of hazrat, peace be upon him. and justice has been talked about a lot during the past 14 centuries, as he said in the quran, according to the commentators in the biography of muhammad and the family of muhammad, especially amir al-mu'minin, who is known to be between your friend and your enemy. of the manifestations of amir al-mu'minin that everyone pays attention to, not only shia or sunni or muslim or christian, everyone recognizes ali's world as justice. in other words,

>> not in the civil rights department -- not in the civil justice department. >> did the civil justice department do anything? in this case? >> i won't bring that back to my colleagues -- >> i will give you the answer, they did not do anything. they did not do a thing. that gives you the answer from earlier. it shows you help clinical you are. when texas passed that bill in september 20 21, eight days later, the department of justice announced something into that bill. help me pass the state senate and the governor. you guys are in there contesting that 8 days later. you guys have something in new mexico. that is an assault from the government. it did not go to the legislator. the department of justice does nothing. >> the civil rights division is deeply committed to enforcing the laws that this body gave us. committed to standing up for the rights of all americans, chairman. >> based on some of your answers, not knowing what is on missouri v. biden. that is why we are concerned. >> you asked previous questions about the texas law. you said that you guys, the civil rights division, you

justice alito? justice alito: you said that the xth circuit did not give any reason to think that the changes would be more dangerous in combination than individually, but isn't that obvious that three things that might be innocuous or not excessively dangerous if engaged iby themselves might become very dangerous when they are all done together? and whshldn't the fda have address that? ms. prelogar: the only way that wod true is if the three changes are interconnected and mutually reiorng, guarding against the same kind of risk. if there was reason to think that theean why mifepristone is up to safe up to 10 weeks is beuse it is being prescribed by doctors instead of nurse practitioners then those changes would be interconnecd cause one change would be the safety net for another. there is nothi le that. the studies at the fda examined demonsat with an exhaustive examination that the changes were safe not because there were otr feguards to guard against risk because if you go up to 10 weeks there is

what is the meaning of justice in the words of the prophet (peace be upon him), justice and justice, well, it has been talked about a lot during the past 14 centuries, as he said in the qur'an , following him, the commentators in the life of muhammad and the family of muhammad, especially amir al-mu'minin, who is generally known between your friend and your enemy, all write murder in the altar of worship, the severity of justice is done. adla is one of the manifestations of amir al-mu'minin that everyone paid attention to, not only shia, sunni, muslim, or christian, the whole world of ali. they know justice, of course, this should not prevent them from doing so other aspects of the character of amir al-mu'minin can be known by humans, for example, you know that we now know imam hussain for his epic, martyrdom, sacrifice, and courage . i am surprised by imam sajjad when he buried the headless body of baba in that pit. it was and it is true that this direction is in his character, but it is not that only amir al-mu'minin is justice, not that amir al-mu'minin is a perfect human being in

justice t? justice jackson?infallible and guess i am wondering if you specialized scientific knowledge with respect to pharce and as a company that has pharmaceuticals, you have concerns about judges parsing medical d ientifictusiifant concerns and there are two amicus briefs from the pharmaceutical industry that expands on why exactly that is so concerning for pharmaceutical mpanies who depend on fda's gold standard review prosso approve their drugs and be able to sell their pr justice jackson: can you say what thesa mselworth: i am happy to. i think the reality is and this decision allow is a od a. you have a district court that among other things reld one study that was an analysis of anonymous blogos. you have another set of studies that he reedn that were not in the administrative record and would not beecse they postda t decisions. they have been retracted for a lack of scientific rigor and misleading presentations of data. those sorts of errors can in fact judic because judges are not experts in statistic

i want to thank our justices■

but, you know, the really moves today as chief roberts and justice kavanaugh and justice barrett want it to move in every, you know closely divided issue in a lot of what happens the scenes. it's really they are the movers and i'll say that like i think one of the reasons why i'm i sound positive is because i'm a mets fan and it's march. but but another reason is because i actually think that if you look not at what justice alito is saying but what the is doing there is at least sign that the justices matter actually are responding at least to some respect to public pressure and pushback. the code conduct that the supreme court last november on one, you know, to call it a half measure is to gravely insult half. but the fact the court felt compelled to do anything is pretty remarkable. if you look at the history of the and its attitude toward else. i we went in seven months from the first propublica of stories about justice thomas to the supreme court saying maybe it's a good idea if we have some rules, even if the rules aren't very good. and i take as a sign, you know, my book talks a

so, justice sonia sotomayor , associate justice, was born in the bronx on june 25th, 1954.rned a ba from princeton university, graduating summa, loudly, and receiving the highest academic honor presented to an undergraduate. in 1979 she earned a jd from yale law school. she served as editor of the yale law journal. she later served as an assistant district attorney in the new york county district attorneys office and then litigated international commercial matterf pavia and harcourt, where she served as an associate and leader partner. president george h. w. bush nominated her to the u.s. district court, southern district of new york and she rved in that from 1992 to 1998. in 1997, she was nominated by president bill clinton to the us court of appeals for the second circuit, wherehe served from 1988-2009. and president barack obama nominated her as an associate justice of the supreme court on may 26, 2009. and she assumed this role, august 8, 2009. [applause] >> associate justice amy coney barrett was born in new orleans, louisiana on january 28, 1972. she married■é jesse b

justice sotomayor and justice kagan and justice jackson highlighted the wild inconsistency of the roberts court by quoting chief justice roberts himself who wrote this when he joined the majority opinion in overturning roe v. wade. quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is not necessary to decide more. the three justices then said, that fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our republic, yet the court continues on to resolve questions not before us. in a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course. today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how section 3 can bar an oath breaking insurrectionist from becoming president. although we agree that colorado cannot enforce section three, we protest the majority's efforts to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision because we would decide only the issue before us. we concur only in the judgment.

>> politics have no place in the justice department. >> are you aware of anything that the justice department ? >> not in the civil rights the department. ng expected the justice department to anything? >> we enforced the laws that congress gave us. >> in this case, did the justice department do anything? >> i will have to -- >> i will give you the answer. they did not do a darn thing which gets back to the point mr. mcclintock was making earlier. it shows how political you are because when a pro-life bill was passed by texas, on gi september 1, 2021, eight days later, the department of justice announces an investigation into that. that is a bill that passed the state house and senate and was signed by the governor and you are contesting that eight days later but you have something in new mexico, which is an direct assault on the first amendment. the governor, the department of justice does nothing. >> the civil rights division is deeply committed to the laws that is body gave us a committed to standing up for the civil rights of all americans. >> you can say it but based on some of your othe

>> i have three answers to that, and that is justice kagan, justice sotomayor, and justice ketanji brown jackson. in other words, this is a unanimous decision, and it's a point of law. i think, you know, this is really about, should the states have the ability to disqualify somebody versus it being decided by some federal mechanism? and that's where there's a disagreement among the justices, whether congress is the exclusive means or not. it seems like actually all the justices agree that it may not be the exclusive means, but it's certainly a primary means to congressional action. notably justice coney barrett says that the reason she didn't want to go so far to say that it's only congress is that she thinks it's very important in a political season to have the sort of rhetoric of a political season. the temperature taken down, not up, and so i think she's trying to say in her short concurrence is she's saying, this is not a political decision. this is just about who should be able to decide this issue saying it should be left to the feds, not to the states, and to reiterate something i

justice thomas? justice thomas: mr. mitchell, i think you would agree that the bump stock accelerates the rate of fire. mr. mitchell: absolutely. why wouldn't you then take the further step of saying it changes the nature of the trigger in doing that? >> because the trigger still has to reset after every single shot. it's not accelerating by changing the trigger, it's accelerating the rate of fire -- >> that's not really what -- >> i'm sorry. >> why wouldn't you say that you have enhanced the triggering mechanism by using the bump stock? >> because it's not changing the triggering mechanism at all. it's simple making it easier for the shooter to bump that trigger repeatedly. the nature of the triggering mechanism remains exactly the same. what's going on inside the gun after the trigger got bumped is no different than what it would be if it were a semiautomatic rifle without the bump stock. that's why the government can't win on this single function of the trigger. >> i think the difference is that there may be some who

justice alito?eople who have possessed bumpetween the time of the atf's new rule and the present day, or between the time of the new rule and the fifth circuit decision can they bprecuted? mr. fletcher: probablye unless they have gotten some jucial relief. the rule has not been vacated right large, so the government has been clear ts is what we think the statute means. justicalo:sturbing? people in firearms since the beginning of 2023, let's say they are aware of the fifth circui's decision they can be crimill procud for doing something the court of appeals that governs their territory has said is not illegal. mrfletcher: i will give a practical answer and a doctrinal aner practically i am not aware of the prosecutions beingerin. that happens all the time, circuits disagree about what a criminalaweans a someone might do somhi they think is lawful under circuit president that other circuits disagree with and this court ultimately holds is covered by the statute. justice alito: when we speak about the

that is obstruction of justice. host: there were headlines leading away from january 6 about one supporter arrested for having a gun. you said there were no arms present. i wanted to know if you want to clarify? guest: they found one person with a weapon? blm and nt for supporters who attacked the white house who burned the secret service guard station who torched st. john's church, who attacked u.s. senator rand paul leaving the white house who attacked the portland federal courthouse on a nightly basis? how about the abortion industry activists who threatened and intimidated supreme court justices outside their homes while they were deciding the dobbs decision, which led to justices and their families being taken to a safe house. even after the 1:00 a.m. assassination attempt against justice kavanaugh and their two teenage daughters, the biden just department allow this to continue to happen. we have people from the justice department, we have the white house press secretary jen psaki saying from the white house p

justice alito?lito: what is the situation of people who have possesd mp stocks between the time of the atf'sewul and the present day, or between the time of the new rule and the fifth circuit decision? can they be prosecuted mr. fletcher: probably yes unless they have gotten some judicial rie the rule has not been vacated right large, so the government has been clear this is wt think the statute means. justice alito: isn't that disturbi? people inheifth circuit who have been possessing firearms since the beginningf 2023, let'say they are aware of the fifth circuit's prosecuted for doing something the court of appeals that governs their territory has said is not illegal. mr. fletch: i will give a practical answer and a doctrinal answer. practically i am not aware of these prosecutions beingrought because we recognize there is legal uncertainty. that happens all the time, ciui disagree about what a criminal law means and they this lawful under circuit president that other circuits disagree with and th

>> sure, justice thomas. we don't think there's any case in this court that empowered the fda to ignore other federal law. with respect to the comstock act is relevant here, the act says drugs should not be mailed through the mail or through common carriers, and we think the plain text of that, your honor, is pretty clear. >> when did you first raise the comstock act? >> i believe the comstock act was first raised at the district court, your honor, and we think exhaustion does not apply for two reasons. first, it would be plainly futile, and this is a whole other kettle of fish, but section 706, it's required in two instances, either by statute or when the agency rule has stayed litigation, and the lower courts have taken conflicting opinions, and we think the better reading of section 704 is there's no exhaustion required unless a rule stays the judicial review. >> may i ask about your view of traceability? on one understanding, and i want you to tell me if you agree with this, and even beyond proving whatev

the main idea of ​​government was justice.not understanding, not understanding why amir al-mu'minin is now another amir al-mu'minin, why did it take ali after two and a half decades to reach this in fact. the point that what our islamic society needs, our islamic society has prayers, the quran , it has interpretations, it has everything in the period when there was no justice , when he came to amir al-mu'minin , there is an interpretation . hassan and imam hussain, who are careful about me , will be trampled under the hand of amir al-mu'minin, as if i had a water spring at my disposal and the people would rush. toward i want to say that we understand the value of the idea of ​​justice at different levels, and the society is realizing that these structures, for example, were supposed to stop oppression with a resolution . we counted the numbers, until 70 years ago , there was no name of the zionist regime. this year , many people may think that this zionist regime, which it claims, actually has a jewish school. on the basis of

again, the 3 of 4 justices who had their explanation they wanted to offer, justice sotomayor feelinger opinion went too far and got into questions they didn't think need to be at two-sided. but justice brings the whole thing together and said this, for the present purposes, or differences are far less important than ever decision. they online -- that is the message that america should take home. >> harris: that is amazing that they would actually make this point in their comments. that is how critical juncture that we are at in this country. divided on things and thank goodness that we are because we would be so boring if we were all the same. we get together and we are a great country but we have to be able to do it it with civility. shame and, as you were talking, what are voters in the state who suddenly know today ahead of super tuesday, that this is in some way settled here and now, look at those states can do what they want and try to fight the good fight, but i'm pretty clear what 9-0 says in the u.s. supreme court. so now i'm wondering, you talk about excitement and intensity

about when someone should be disqualified and justices barrett, justice, and then the three liberals writes separately. and what's key here, it is, justices i'm listening to two different things. excuse me. a second >> seem to two different conversations, but i'll listen to our its first >> okay. this is an important part that even though they came out and gave us something unanimous, that's very useful in the political scheme, especially for tomorrow, for super tuesday. it shows how divided this for important still is because the three liberals broke off and said, you majority are going too far in terms of how you would dictate the rules for future disqualifications and again, it was a three liberal specifically writing i less justices sotomayor, sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and our newest justice, ketanji brown jackson. now, justice barrett, one donald trump's appointees. the third one, in fact, split off a bit also, but not joining the liberals. >> interesting and aly, i'm just wondering read, it looks like page 13 of those it says for the reasons given responsibility for enforci

and all the victims and families receive justice. so i want to thank you for that. i have raised the issue before with your department about my state, the state of texas and governor greg abbott. and the way that he is engaging specifically in border communities like my own and operation lone star is, is has been a project of governor abbott's that has essentially created some chaos in border communities like my own, high speed chases by dps that result in fatalities and significant property damage. but there are other violations as well. racial profiling, due process violations, unlawful detention of migrants without charges being filed and i could go on and on with the impact that operation lone star has had in texas. ms. clark, will you commit to a review of whether federal funding sources are being used to support operation lone star and whether such support violates the civil rights act? >> thank you, congresswoman. we continue to monitor um operation lone star and um yes, we, we, we, we can commit to doing that. >> wonderful. t

justice for the amir al-mu'minin. you want to be ahead of the imam, you want to be ahead of the imam of the islamic community , you want to question ali, yes, hajj sir, one of the arguments is that we have a book called nahj al-balagha, which is both in arabic literature and in content. it is unique and this is said even by others who are not sure, and some are now again one among those who raise this issue is jaghardad, a christian who says that he came, i met him for a few hours, he came a few years ago, yes, may god have mercy on him , he says that i have read this book 200 times, what happened to the islamic society from the content of these orders and rules and knowledge and the insights that are in this book fell far away, it was not possible to put them into practice. actually , i want to answer this question together with the previous question , because your previous question is almost similar to the same one. the messenger of god, may god bless him and grant him peace, said that no prophet was bothered like m

all nine justices agree on that. what they disagree on wolf is how exactly the 14th amendment could be enforced moving forward, the five justices said, only if congress acts as the only way this could work. and the liberal justices i think plus barrett, slightly different tones but the other justices say, well, there could be other ways this could be enforced, other than congress, for example, what if somebody was criminally charged with insurrection and convicted? and so sotomayor and kagan and jackson say that should be enough the bottom line here though, is this is unanimous. it's not up to the states. and another really important point, this is nationwide all the 14th amendment challenges, maine, illinois, the dozens of others that had, had failed or were still pending it's over the 14th amendment will not be applied to donald trump. he will be on the ballot in every state where he wins the primary producer court has decided not to the decision. go ahead. >> think really gives us a clue. and as joan was saying ab

justice department attorney. so he sort of gets to speak as mind here. so a few things jumped out to me from his opening statement. number one, here, he talks about the independence and how they are separate from the justice department and not not reporting to the attorney general. talked about accuracy and fairness and sort of boring justice department and prosecutor buzzwords that everybody says and nobody believes. but the big one he really does take on the memory point almost recognizing that this was going to be a central point at the hearing. it is, but one of hundreds of pages of that one point in the hundreds and pages of his report, but he chose to latch on to that, devotes a few paragraphs is saying the president chose to make his memory and issue here here, i think he's just trying to preempt and anticipating that it's going to be the source of a lot of questioning and more to the point he seemed to make an issue of the president's memory because that largely was the reason why at least according to th

ahbak says that this is not justice in the heart of this lady. this is not justice. this is kindness and mercy. my mercy means passing. mercy means that if he does something wrong, justice requires you to take his wrist, but mercy says to let him go. haji agha, one of the arguments is that we have a scripture called nahj al-balagheh, which is unique both in arabic literature and in its content, and even this others who are not certain also say , and some say again, one of those who raise this issue is jaghardad christian, who says that i met him for a few hours, how many years ago, yes, god bless him, he says, i read this book 20 times, what happened ? that the islamic community is protected. you could not follow these commands and rulings, the knowledge and insights that are in this book . actually, i want to answer this question together with the previous question because it is almost similar to your previous question. toil and in the words of the messenger of god, may god bless him and grant him peace peace and blessings of god be upon him said that no prophet was

justice is swerved! plus, stephen welcomes justice stephen breyer and justin thomas. featuring louis cato and "the late show" band. and now, live on tape from the ed sullivan theater in new york city, it's stephen colbert! [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ >> stephen: oh, come on. ♪ ♪ please have a seat, my friends. you are too kind. welcome, one and all in here, out there, all around the world to "the late show." i'm your host, stephen colbert. [cheering] my fellow americans, today was supposed to be a special day, a day that donald trump had to either fork over $464 million for a bond in his new york fraud case, or attorney general letitia james was going to grab him by the property. but then, this morning, a new york appeals court cut trump's bond to $175 million. [booing] and gave him ten more days to pay. every time, every time it seems like consequences of any kind are closing in, he gets away with it! who let this guy wish for more wishes? especially after how racist he was to the genie! in addition to cutting the bond by more than half and giving him an extension, the