poland, of course, governed by the nationalist law and justice party, has taken in 1.9 million ukrainian rest of the world put together. i mean, it does — some would argue — vindicate and presage a rise in nationalism as a result of what we're seeing. would you accept that? uh, so, first of all, nationalism can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. we've seen the bad effects in russian nationalism because their national identity is somehow inseparably connected to dominating all of their weaker neighbours. but there's another concept of nation that isn't inherently aggressive and it's not inherently exclusive, and it is compatible with liberal values and i think that that's the kind of national identity that a modern democracy really needs to cultivate. and i think one of the weaknesses of liberalism is the universalism. i mean, you know, the lack of comfort with the idea of a nation, but there is a liberal nation possible and that really has to be the core. it's that idea that there's no cohesive idea to bind a group together when you're focusing on the individual, but you're talkin

law and justice party is accused of, because of poland's importance to the war? >> well, those are concerns that the biden administration definitely has had about the human rights situation, in poland. there has been some democratic black siding in poland but now that this crisis has happened, it's almost as if the house next door to poland has suddenly caught fire and while poland certainly needs to maybe correct the dry rolt that's -- rot that's going on in its own house, putting out the fire next door has suddenly become a much more dangerous threat to democracy, not only in portland but really throughout all of europe. so concentrating on the most urgent emergency that is on poland's front doorstep right now doesn't mean that we're less concerned about the other problems that you mentioned. >> and finally, poland is you pushing for a permitted presence of u.s. and nato troops who up until now have been rotating into poland back to back. that permanent presence would go against the promises that poland made to russia in the 1990s. why is poland pushing for a m

whole most an empire in the making of today the countries elite is represented by the law and justice party. and they have been on a pro american and aggressively anti russian path. for the last 10 years. i can recall a different time when poland russia actively tried to restore their relationship, especially in the wake of the tragic death of the parties. president and it looked quite doable because they would know impossible obstacles between us. but once the opposition party i just mentioned, rose to power the country's vector changed dramatically, it became wildly were surviving. i cannot call it anything but political imbecility, since there is nothing more to it. the trying to consolidate the vote is that a very anti russian, and it's no secret opponent has quite a number of such people as there are historical reasons for that. so they're trying to take advantage of that and put their think and ukraine's affairs, especially since poland is now hosting a fairly large number of refugees from ukraine. opponent is trying to use that for its own benefit. shut their, adopting some measures

a third candidate from the justice party is expected to garner young female support.mbers have been low. leaving a close battle between conservatives and liberals. >> of course voting issues taken into act will be the economy, housing, real estate issues, and employment. this comes as well as we are seeing close to record number of new covid-19 cases here in south korea. there will be many procedures and restrictions in place as people are voting to try to make the process safe. >> all right. many thanks for that report. appreciate it. in ukraine a separate race for safety coming up the push to save cultural treasures from russia's offensive. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. so you can enjoy it even if you're sensitive to dairy. so anyone who says lactaid isn't real milk is also saying mabel here isn't a real cow. and she really hates that. >>> updating our breaking news. just minutes ago we learned that ukraine and russia have agreed on a humanitarian corridor to evacuate civilians from the northeast city of sumy. which has seen heavy fighting in

whole, most an empire in the making of today, the countries elite is represented by the law and justice party and they have been on a pro american and aggressively anti russian pop. for the last 10 years, i can recall a different time when potent russia actively tried to restore their relationship, especially in the wake of the tragic death of the polish president. and it looked quite doable because they would know impossible obstacles between us. but once the opposition party i just mentioned, rose to power the country's vector changed dramatically. it became wildly were so phobic, i cannot call it anything but political imbecility. since there is nothing more to it, they tried to consolidate the vote is that a very anti russian, and it's no secret that the husband has quite a number of such people as they are historical reasons for that. they're trying to take advantage of that and put their finger in ukraine's affairs, especially since poland is now hosting a fairly large number of refugees from ukraine. opponent is trying to use that for its own benefit. shut their, adopting some measures

we are helping to pool that evidence together, present it to international justice parties, and thend that is met but there's no doubt terrible things are going on in ukraine. >> we see them every day with our own eyes and reporters on the ground as well. is there a feeling that vladimir putin is a war criminal or thug, how does that change the relationship going forward? does that preclude a phone call. do you have a phone call with a thug? do you have a summit a year or two from now with a thug or war criminal? >> john, i don't want to get ahead of the horrible situation we are in. we have dealt with all kinds of difficult people over the years. what's critical now is for every nation all over the world to call on vladimir putin to end this horrendous war of choice, this war of carnage, that's where we are, and that's what we have to be focused on today, every day ukrainian people, women, men, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandparents are losing their lives. yesterday as you have reported, helping out someone he loved. it is a time where we need to be focused on ending this

in court because of the group like the federalist society, the republican party's nominees, the justicesho have recently been confirmed our to the far right even of lawyers in that party in terms of their judicial philosophy. and there to the far right of this moment. and because of life tenure, what tends to happen with the supreme court over time is that justices outlast the politics of their moment. and because the parties represent judicial philosophies and processes and values that are american, when justices are on the court over the long haul, they just represent american values that then no longer are left to right. that are just american values . that no longer have a strong identity with the party of the now. right now we happen to have a cohort. that represents the far right position of the party that represents one of the political parties right now. but it creates a very fractious confirmation process. so you know, our instinct as an historian i have is maybe we don't have to tinker with things so much. maybe wecould just get through the next decade or two and see what happe

part because of the involvement of the federal society and the vetting of the republican party's nominees the justices who have been recently confirmed are to the far right even of lawyers in the party in terms of their judicial philosophy and to the far right of a philosophy of this moment. now because of life tenure, what tends to happen with the supreme court over time is justices outlast the politics of their moment, and because the parties represent judicial philosophies and preferences and values that are broadly american when justices are on the court over the long haul they just represent american values that then no longer are left or right that are just american values. that no longer have a strong identity with a party of the now. but right now we happen to have a cohort that represents the far right position of a party that represents one of the political parties right now. that's a momentary problem but creates a fractious confirmation process. and so one instinct as a historian i have is maybe we don't have to tinker with things so much. maybe we could just get through the next decade or

issues a dissental, if it is an appropriate case, we might reconsider, they are asking for the parties so the justices can be considered. >> not just the parties. i think in some ways, you are talking about originalism, the supreme court clerks and the justices do not have the time and probably should not be doing it cold themselves. to do it right, it does require a lot of work. >> can i just say, i do not think clarence thomas's views on commercial speech have anything to do with being pro-corporate. 44 liquor mart is an excellent opinion, i think. i do not read him as saying there are no circumstances in which commercial speech is subject to content-based regulation. what he is saying is the government cannot use corporate speech -- excuse me, commercial speech regulations as a way of regulating primary conduct by individuals. this is a case where the underlying purpose of the role was to try to discourage people from drinking too much. it is about using commercial speech to regulate primary behavior. i do not see anything in his jurisprudence that is against regulating misleading ads, that would n

justice. she's not party to any lawsuit pending in front of the supreme court. can be held responsible for their own political views. of all the circus hearings we have heard in washington, d.c., you, do you ever remember any justice being questioned? what is your spouse's view on abortion, what do you think about election reform, what does your spouse think about donald trump -- of course not! look at ruth bader ginsburg, she is one who went to every pro-abortion dinner in town. she never accused herself on pro-life cases. by the way, and reminder. in 2016, ruth bader ginsburg said that she couldn't think of a world where donald trump would be president. in fact, she said that she would move to new zealand if donald trump was elected president. do you think she recused herself from lawsuits that involve donald trump or any executive order of donald trump's pending before this supreme court? no. this is a hypocrisy of the left. >> sean: i look at the double standard. ginni thomas sent out a text. hunter biden made millions and millions and millions of dollars. j

former law clerks to supreme court justices, justices appointed by both political parties, most have regularly argued before the supreme court. their words -- strikingly talented, exceptional, respectful. finally, we went beyond what judge jackson does in the courthouse. we looked at the other contributions she has made on the governing council of the american law institute, united states sentencing commission, chief justice roberts' appointment to the services committee, representatives from every organization said again and again, humble, brilliant. the question we kept asking ourselves, how does one human being do so much, so extraordinarily well? reflecting the combined views of more than 250 judges, attorneys and academics, the standing committee concluded judge jackson is well-qualified to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court. i now turn to jean veta on more specifics on the findings and then joseph drayton with comments on the reading groups and the breadth of judge jackson's experiences. ms. veta: thank you. my name is jean veta and i am the co lead evaluator of

you saw that in poland with the law and justice party. you saw that in hungary.rth star was always vladimir putin who was the most tyrannical. that's all changed in the past week. my god, poland, what extraordinary allies they are right now. you look at hungary, even orbahn came out, who would have believed it, came out criticizing vladimir putin. you have so many other people here speaking, republicans talking like republicans used to speak when i was a republican, when ronald reagan was in the white house, when margaret thatcher was at 10 downing. they're lullity talking about librariual democracy and what is at stake there. you look at the institutions of nato over the past week. the european union, as i said, and you jokingly responded, hey, the chocolate makers? pretty damn good allies after y'all. and you said, yeah, and i hear they make a few good cars, too. the world has changed. it is a crisis in ukraine. but the western world that was under attack from vladimir putin, from donald trump, from victor orbahn, from trumpists in america, it is no longer unde

a rough relationship because of the law and justice party.se dark times proving to be really one of our most steadfast allies. >> poland has stepped up as an ally. president duda has stepped up. president duda has moved i think somewhat more to the center my polish friends tell me. it is good to see america's vice president on the scene in poland, speaking as one of our top executives only can, vice president or president, on behalf of the american people to the people who were suffering in this crisis. i thought that was good. it is good that she went out there. it is good she was bringing some new offers of aid. there is a desire that the united states open the gates more, provide more and more. that's something that the administration will have to deal with. that was just -- i want to say it was a good moment for kamala harris to be representing the united states in this crisis. >> you have a question for the ambassador? >> ambassador, i have read your book and enjoyed it. i have to tell you, reading your book and thinking about this terri

new fishes even good as yet, but she them, the beginning us rocket judy, i'm the as if a party night with justice visits. jason, scott g up polasta to produce 2 zeros in the middle school. oh, install that new source, the results go in for them to look at that for you. let's go across up on y'all are still a sequential. so, oh, the good that much premium row will stop and talk a little plymouth. yup, my dear, but can you please again what's to buy with key nose up on the let's look at move seals are you still a nuclear? you know, what else with america was the growth some with your sense akila, a yellowish bushel and all still kept busy. but the cell in this washing, you know, some of the dates at the source, schwinney police felt emphasizes reason younger issue digital is probably a unofficial course to get us to deal with that music or with some stuff. they're still school as a cultural issue. go spoke with a boy with us. no, but keep rusty come, which makes me she does not belong to us cuz we're still greens come or with a lot of money. boy who's doing this? i'm shameful, simple machine. you'r

that is free of embarrassing antics that it become the democratic party's routine whenever a republican president nominates a new justice. the baseless smears, the shameless distortions. pain to stacy rigorous and befitting the seriousness of a lifetime appointment to our highest court. i come up for one do not care what judge jackson's wrote in her high school yearbook. i care that american families are facing major crises that bear directly on federal courts enter legal system surging violent crime and systematically weak prosecutors to open borders, to campaign to shrink religious freedom and the rights of conscience. what's more, one of our two major sides about attacking the very legitimacy and structure of the supreme court itself. the countries a serious and sober examination of all of it. look forward to discussing these issues with judge jackson when i meet with her tomorrow morning's bid less than one year since judge jackson was confirmed in the d.c. circuit. since then iot understand she's offered only two opinions both in the last several weeks. i am troubled by the combination of this slim appellate record

remember duck hunting and justice scalia, the very party raised the motion under this very provision.lia was the one who decided and said uh-uh. yes, that's out there. he's duty bound in a sense to apply it but he decides for himself. unlike other levels of the federal judiciary. it's tenuous to call it a law. the supreme court is looking at trying to bolt things up. it's why people need more confidence in the court because it will be up to thomas and he's already rebuffed these motions in the past. >> well, just so everybody knows what we're talking about. let me just read one of the texts in is to mark meadows. quote, help this great president stand firm, mark. this is november 10th. you are the leader with him who is standing for america's constitut constitutional governance. america knows biden is attempting the greatest heist. she's fall for the big lie. want justice thomas fellow justices pressure him to recuse himself? >> no, is the short answer. it's so well established. same with justice scalia. it's possible the chief justice roberts has a word with thomas who is the most se

former law clerks to supreme court justices, justices appointed by both political parties, most have regularly argued before the supreme court. their words, we went beyond up judge jackson does in the courthouse, we looked at the other contributions and she had made. the united states sentencing commission of bipartisan commission. chief justices roberts appointment to the judicial offender services committee. representatives from every organization said again and again, humble, brilliant, since -- consensus builder. the question we kept asking ourselves, how does one human being do so much so extraordinarily well? reflecting the combined views of a more than 250 judges, attorneys and academics, the standing committee concluded that judge jackson is well qualified to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court. i'm now turned to jean for more specifics on the findings from judges and lawyers, and then joseph drayton with comments on the reading groups and the judge jackson's experiences. >> thank you members of the committee. i am the co-lead evaluator of our committee's evalu

the majority former law clerk's two supreme court justices, justices appointed by both political parties, most have regularly argued before the supreme court. their words, strikingly talented, even-handed, exceptional, thorough, respectful. >> there is no higher level of evaluation of a judges work than that. jane via added this finding in the a va's investigation. >> as part of our evaluation, we considered whether judge jackson demonstrated any bias that favored criminal defendants. notably, no judge defense counsel, or prosecutor expressed any concern in this regard. and they uniformly rejected any accusations of bias. for example, when asked about the allegation that judge jackson is soft on crime, one high ranking attorney in the u.s. attorney's office responded, i vehemently disagree. >> joseph creighton offered more detail about the eva's study of judge jackson's writings and then summarize the valuation this way. >> our teams of law professors and legal experts from stanford law and the university of illinois, college of law, as well as practitioners that includes former supreme

here today will you stand with president biden and kamala harris and the democratic party will opportunity for justiceor democracy, will you stand with joe biden kamala harris for immigrant rights so the dreamers and their families do not have to live in fear every single day. will you stand with joe biden kamala harris in support of our workers in unions and the right to organize and collectively bargain, will you stand with joe biden kamala harris to protect universal background checks, close the gun show loophole and make nra stanford not relevant anymore in american politics, will you stand with joe biden kamala harris for criminal justice reform, we owe in apology to an entire generation of african-american young men who were incarcerated as a result of the failed war on drugs black votes matter, black lives matter, that is our message. now is the time, you are the people and as much as we have to be proud of what we have already done we have more work left to do i think everyone for ensuring that we are fighting for a more fair, more just healthier, cleaner, safer world for everyone in our count

his name is hunter when they get a black supreme court justice is you get another democratic party roboth the same rigid and totally predictable views as your average professional class white liberal. but who happens to be tailored to joe biden. identical, identical to everyone else in power. just a different shade. that shade to be a fair does make all the difference. that's the whole point of the exercise. because of the way she looks, brown jackson a cardinal variety white liberal in the way she believes but because of how she looks, the nominee gets nowhere near the bedding of a typical supreme court justice. whatever your politics are, it's a shame. as ruth marcus of "the washington post" put it a few years ago when democrats were basically accusing a republican nominee of rape all right, we are on board with that actually. today, not surprisingly, that same newspaper, jeff bezos' how low will they go to taking on kentucky job kentucky brown jackson? it's low to ask questions of a supreme court nominee. the supreme court one of the most powerful institutions in the world. joe biden

the republican dogma on this seems to be we'll confirm supreme court justices of president of the opposite partyington post," it's a tricky situation, graham said. if thomas or another justice were to die in 2023, before the actual primaries and caucuses start and the presidential campaign, he said it's sort of uncharted territory. which, of course, it's actually not. twice before has the senate confirmed a supreme court nominee in a situation like that. we're just in kind of no man's land when it comes to this, i think. >> i mean, i think the process being broken is really a valid point to bring up. i'm not entirely convinced this will not electorally backfire on republicans, to some degree. i think the assumption that you can be, i mean, you know, democratic organizers were telling me they thought particularly women of color, they thought some of the questioning was disrespectful and rude. that all being said, the midterms are a long time away. i'm not sure -- >> mitch mcconnell is not committed -- if he's majority leader next congress to confirming a supreme court nominee if there's a vacancy

behind me here will roll out this new supreme court ethics plan as more and more members of the party call on justice claire rebs thomas to recuse himself from any cases involving the capitol insurrection after reports that the january 6 committee has sexes between his wife and former trump chief of staff mark meadows. in those texts thomas asks meadows to stop donald trump from conceding the election he legitimately lost. it is one of a bunch of headlines coming out of the committee. and the "washington post" is reporting that they are getting deeper into the gaps in the white house communication logs. we've known that there was a gap in those logs, but the "post," bob woodward, bob costa, is saying specifically the gap is more than seven hours long and they have the receipts to back it up. those hours coincide with the attack on the capitol. all of it is raising new questions about what the former president was doing. was he on burner phones, was he back channeling stuff? remember msnbc and others reported that he spoke with three members of congress on january 6. and joining me now, leigh ann cald

will you stand with president biden and kamala harris and the democratic party for opportunity? for justicend democracy? will you stand with joe biden and kamala harris for immigrant rights so the dreamers and their families don't have to live in fear every day? will you stand with joe biden and kamala harris in support of our workers, unions, and their rights to organize and collectively bargain? will you stand with joe biden and kamala harris for universal background checks, close the gun show loophole. make the nra stand for not republican anymore. will you stand with joe biden and kamala harris for criminal justice reform? we omit apology to an entire -- owe an apology to african-american men who work incarcerated as a part of the failed war on drugs. black lives matter, that is our message. now is the time. as much as we have to be proud of what we have already done, we have more work left to do. i think everyone here: ensuring that we are fighting for more fair, more just cleaner, safer world for everyone in our country and all across our planet. thank you also much for everything. [a

justice. number two, she's not party to any lawsuit pending in front of the supreme court. the spouses can. be held responsible for their own political views. and of all the circuits hearings that we've heard in washington, d.c., do you ever remember any justice being questioned? what's your spouse's view i on abortion? what do you think abouts election reform? what is your spouse think about donald trump? of course not..ur but look at ruth bader ginsburg .. she's the one that went to every pro-abortion dinner in town. ab she never recused herself on pro-life cases. and by the way, reminder in 2016, ruth bader ginsburg said that she couldn't think of ta world where donald trump would be president and in fact ,shemo said that she would move to new zealand if donald trump e was elected president. do you think shepr recused herself from lawsuits that involved donald trump or any executive order of donald e trump's pending before order of donald trump's pending before this supreme cour no, you know, this is the hypocrisy of the left or i look at the double standard and look, ginni thomas sent o

party. when you look at the court she'll be on, only one justice had an overwhelming confirmation, john roberts was qualified the president had the discretion to put that person on the court. now we're at a point where the court is politicized and all members of the court were largely confirmed by one party or the other. >> what a position the chief justice has right now. >> look, you get the big money, you got to do what you got to do. you get to sit in the middle and decide how the court moves and assign opinions. you have a tough job. what we heard from inside the curt, from the justices, inside those nine it's much better than portrayed. they do work well with each other. when you saw the rumors out there about justice sotomayor and justice it vehemently. justice jackson has been through the justice system. if you're a republican, you're replacing stephen breyer with judge jackson. same thing. >> that's all we have time for. we'll be right back. >>> we kept going through the commercial on the round table. that's all for us this sunday. stay with us live tomorrow for coverage of judge ketanj

justice system. he doesn't want to be party to that.says that the risks of prosecuting, not prosecuting, are greater than the risks of prosecuting. so, tell me. in this system, inside the system, this gets leaked. it puts brag on his back feet. what exactly could happen as a result of this? >> i suppose, greg is an elected official. he might feel political pressure to go forward. when people say, even your own, very skilled, very experienced prosecutors say that you have this case. you can't be too skittish. there's nothing in the letter that accuses him of misconduct or corruption, anything like that. just that they have a difference of opinion. but that mr. pomrenze is absolutely convinced, as well as his colleagues, that there is a crime here and that not only can it be brought, but it should be brought. i suppose one goal for leaking this letter would be to put public pressure, as an elected official, on brag to take the step. i think it's important to note, elliott. minds can disagree about whether charges should be brought. there

period of time, and i know it will be of some comfort today that some justice can be seen to be done. if found guilty, all partiesould face up to two years in prison. tfl says it will consider the proceedings, and safety will always be the highest priority. the case will be heard at croydon magistrates. the family of a young woman who was kidnapped by her ex—boyfriend has told the bbc they finally feel they've got some justice after his sentence was almost doubled yesterday. angel lynn was 19 when she was bundled into a van by chay bowskill in 2020 before falling from the vehicle at 60 miles an hour, suffering life—changing injuries. bowskill�*s sentence of seven and a half years has been increased to 12. rachel stonehouse was in court. emotions running high, just minutes after angel's family were told chay bowskill�*s sentence would be increased to 12 years. i'm really pleased with the outcome. i'm glad we did it. to be fair, when they went in, i thought, this is not going to go our way. but i'm pleased. even though angel's going to be poorly for a lot longer, you know, we've done what we could do and now we can

ethics of the supreme court are only about if there is a financial interest for the justice, or if their spouses is a partyt in which they have to recuse themselves. but i think this could be a call for higher levels of rutgers on the supreme court, perhaps the same rules we see at other levels of the court, where recuse is necessary if members of the public could fairly questioned their impartiality. and i think here, there has to be some question, especially since we know that clarence thomas was the only one to descend from the opinion in the case for donald trump challenged the national archives production of documents to the january six committee. he was the only one of the nine that felt that donald trump should prevail. did he know that clarence thomas would be there and that's why he wanted to stop? i think his partiality or impartiality could be reasonably question. recusal seems to be the only way to preserve the legitimacy of the court. >> can we slow down and say that again and underline it? a steady risk losing himself, clarence thomas was the only supreme court justice to vote, to block the j

was appointed in april 2002 and 11 months later we executed operation justice, i signed the indictment and arrested all the parties and all the conflict in west africa, and could you five minutes in an operation called operation justice -- 55 minutes in an operation called operation justice. this can be done in two parts, we have a focused international prosecutor that will do what is appropriate under law and his procedures to do what he can. that is happening, the cui has stood up and the human rights council will afford with the work they have been doing. following behind that would be some kind of an is him related to the crime of aggression. i cannot give you time, i wish i could, you know me better than that, the bottom line it will happen appropriately and as quickly as long procedure will allow it. when you are at the international level you cannot make a mistake and sit there and blow the -- it and have an appellate court throw it out because we did too quickly. >> does that also apply to the potential tribunal that the general assembly could create for the crime of aggression? david kramer: any -- -- to

justice on the bench with experience as a trial court judge. as a circuit court judge, you have written decisions joint by judges appointed by presidents from both parties. let's not forget you have nine years of judicial experience, more than four other justice is currently on the court prior to their confirmation. that is worth counting. judge jackson, i expect it to come through loud and clear during the hearings, you have the experience and record of a jurist dedicated to the fair application of the law, committed to consists is, determined to make sure that the court and the constitution work for the people of today. one last point, judge your confirmation hearing comes at a moment in our history when the people of this country are once again seeing this time in ukraine at demarcus he can never be taken for granted. eternal digital is, it has been said, is the price of liberty. last week i was at the ukrainian-polish border with refugees streaming through checkpoints, leaving everything behind with only a suitcase and a backpack, walking into the loving arms of their neighbors in poland, a country with a long, hard history of having been invaded by

attorney and msnbc political contributor who is founder of "country over party" and "revelations on the river". justicep's election lawsuit. but, the problem isn't just that he sided with trump it's that he failed to recuse himself in the first place. is that potential grounds for impeachment? >> well, look, it certainly is in the sense that, you know, any time a justice of the supreme court does something that really impunes the neutrality of the court itself in a serious way, it's grounds. there simply is no question about that. the reality that. the realit there simply is no question about that. the reality of impeachment, for one thing the justice -- the supreme court itself is not governed by an ethical code, which is its own problem, but also while there's a statue on the books that says you should be impartial and recuse yourself, as we know impeachment is a political process and just as we have seen congress actually impeach donald trump twice but fail to get conviction, only in one instance in the history of this country has a justice of the supreme court been impeached and with no conviction.