in the same issue, robert kagan. and who does not remember does not know let's say.is better. so let's say, yes, actually the most famous ideologue of the liberal liberal hegemony of the liberal world order. e, who more than once advised everyone there, the most inveterate russophobe adviser was john mccain hillary clinto. well, and so on and so forth, uh, they, like you, you know, have created such a closed family clan cycle. yes, robert kagan provides the ideological justification for any military aggression. the united states was the architect of the invasion of iraq, giving out false information at one time that saddam hussein was associated with al-qaeda, which means banned in russia, that’s his brother frederick kagan, which means he is a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex worked and works as an adviser to petraeus. uh, the former head of the king, who is now one of the talking heads accordingly, on american tv channels about the military effectiveness of ukraine, his wife frederick kagan created and headed the institute for the study of war, which is

uh, this same robert kagan explains to us.horrified. what fate is being prepared for him. it 's just embarrassing there, to be honest. after so many years of talking, again appealing to the cynicism of the western world, but i have to talk about it again. let me remind you that 20 years ago, when the americans entered afghanistan, including them, when the biden was already leaving it. he said they planned to plant. democracy was planted there, and yesterday's news, wonderful from democratic afghanistan , 30 women and 15 children were taken to the central square and beaten. whips for immoral behavior there is now a new government in afghanistan , not everyone is unanimous about it, the americans think they even said a word, maybe they remembered the rights of these women, maybe these afghan children. no, now americans are not interested in afghans, but in transgender people. well, for example, with regard to zelensky, he, of course, should draw such parallels, should try to think about it, since even the hell newspaper reports

in the same issue, robert kagan. and who does not remember does not know let's say.rld order, uh, who more than once advised all the most inveterate russophist adviser there was john mccain hillary clint. and so on and so forth, and they as you know, they created such a closed family clan cycle. yes, robert kagan provides the ideological justification for any military aggression the us was the architect of the invasion of iraq complicated information at the time that saddam hussein was associated with al-qaeda means banned in russia here , uh, his own, brother frederick kagan means he is a military lobbyist -the industrial complex has worked and is working as an adviser to him , petraeus, uh, the former head of the cia who is now one of the talking heads, respectively, on american tv channels on about the military operations. in ukraine, his wife frederica kagan created and headed the institute for the study of war, which is referred to in fact by all the world's media. well, over here's the top. this very one stuck to the american vika nuland, which all ensures the

chief justice roberts: justi kagan? justice kagan: on your side of the poumwe have one vote in favor of a gap between constitutional and statutory qutis and one vote saying it'th same, so you get to decide. (laughter.) general prelogar: i love casting a deciding vote. we don't think that there is a -- justickan: just on your side of the podium. general prelogar: say,es. i think that it wouldn't make sense to deploy a different standard or formulation with respect to statutory and constitutional questions because,ga, you'd be testing for the same thing, when is this nothcourt acting like a court when it has gone off the rails and it's just doing policy dethe guise of statutory interpretation or constitutional terpretation. but i agree with mr. verrii that i think, in application, this could often comou differently in the sense that usually in statury interpretation you have a text before you and it might be more evident whether this is just a stark departure from the legislate's work. in the context of constitutional adj

chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: if i could go over some of the ground that you've been asked about about the rehnquist concurrence and ma se i understand your position and the issues that are in frontf and so forth. soas i understand it, the -- the one area of agreement i found between u d mr. thompson is you also think that the rehnquist concurree about statutes, not about constitution -- mr. ty: correct. juickagan: -- as in this case. so your viewasr. thompson's view, is that the rehnquist courrence by its terms isn't implicated here? mr. katyal: correct. justice kagan: but youay there, you say you have no doubt that there's a kind of corollary for the constitution se of things. mr. katyal: yes. justice kagan: so does that mean it's not just like there may be a corollary? you think that there is a corolly? mr. katyal: yeah, i think the elections clause at some point could be violated in the -- like the example of absentee voting that gave you a moment ago. justice kagan: yeah, but you say so it's sk

justice roberts: justice kagan. justice kaga verrilli, i've been thinking a good deal about this constitutional analogue to the rehnquist principle. and your colloquy with justice alito made me feelney about it. and i think that the reason is because it shows how very good judges on very good courts can find it incredibly easy disagree with each other. and so if justice alito asked you can it be flunked, tnk what i want to ask you after hearing that colloquy, is, is there a dangert's going to be satisfied too easily? and i think that every single one of uonhis bench has written opinions at times, you know, saying that other judg, whether it's other judges on th court lower court judges, you know, have engaged in policymaking rather than in law. and, i mean, it's ju st of one of the things that judges say when they really disagree with another opinion. if you say acting as a legislature, not as a court, acting as a policy mernot as a court, i mean, these really are things -- i's not just this court, its eryourt -- th

amy: you don't necessarily see it in the courtroom, but the chief justice, john roberts and justice elena kaganwho both are very careful and very measured in what they say in public, sort of talking about the court's legitimacy. and to me, that was a sign that things are probably, you know, tense behind the scenes. soledad: amy howe is a co-founder of scotusblog and a supreme court expert. always nice to talk to you, amy. thank you. amy: thanks so much for having me. >> coming up on "matter of fact." chad: when i was in the military, i received some injuries where i had physical therapy and my nurses were like, my top advocaters. >> now, this retired marine is in training to help meet a critical need. chad: i can still give back. and what better thing to do than to be a nurse? >> and still ahead, as the earth warms, farmers have concerns. we explore an unexpected link between frozen cow manure and climate change. soledad: america's healthcare system depends on nurses. and now, with an estimated 1 million registered nurses likely to retire by 2030, the current nursing shortage is expected to get

roberts: justice thomas? justice alito? justice kagan? justice kagan: i am going to ask you a question about alabama's argument and m should've asked it to alabama's lawyer but he can lten and you are there. can.prelogar: i will do what i justice kagan: you understand why alabama should be satisfied with this idea that iyo can produce one race neutral map? if the theory is you can run millions of these programs and we ce out race neutrality foany of the reasons alabama suggests we ought to at the first step of gingles come have the verse precondition, why would one be enough? if you ran one should't the state come back and y u need more than one in a million? surelyhod have 100. surely should have 1000. surely it should be the median map. why one? ms. prelogar: this is the under theorized aspect of alabama's approach. they do not try to answer any of those questions about how you erationalize the sndard and program the algorithm to take account of the complex redistricting criteria or how you interpret the results along the lines you are

chief juste roberts: justice kagan. justice kagan: ii can go over some of the ground that you've been asked about, about the rehnquist concurrence and make sure i understand your position and the issues that are in front of us and so forth. so as i understand it, the one area of agreement i found between you and mr. thompson is you'd also think that the rehnquist concurrence is about statutes, not about constitution. as in this case. so your view, as mr. thompson's view, the rehnquist concurrence by its terms isn't compli implicated here? mr. katyal: correct. justice kagan: there is no core lear for the constitutional side of things. it's not like there may be a correlary. mr. katyal: the example of absentee voting i gave you a moment ago. justice kagan: you say it's sky high, stratospheric, whatever. when you look at the rehnquist occurrence -- and it was only a concurrence so it didn't have to pick a single standard. there were actually a lot of different standards voting around in the rehnquist concurrence and some s

clearly to me elaena kagan captured it when she said, look, we have these checks and balances for a reason throughout our system. you saw justice robertswhat would this mean? here's me talking now -- could any state legislature do whatever they want when it comes to elections and there would be no review by the state supreme court? that's why this is so important. we await their decision. i predict people may be surprised by the outcome of this. >> we'll wait a few months to find out. >> the implication, if it's not the surprising decision, if it is where the state legislatures can do this in. >> yes, if it goes their way, the way of the north carolina state legislature, it would mean that perhaps electors could be appointed that aren't even consistent with where the people are. it would mean that election laws of any kind could be passed. this is a gerrymandered map that's at stake here that the supreme court said was unconstitutional under their laws. it could mean other election laws that the state legislature could just do what they want. it might be extreme where you don't have to respect the governor's veto. that's why this is so

roberts: justice jackson. justice jackson: yes, so on the merits it was very clarifying to me in your exchangewi justice sotomayor and justice kagan, that you said you're not challenging the removal determination, that you're saying this is really about detention, as thstute says in that you are interpreting section22c to require the detention of certain criminal noncitizens before dhs decides to iniatremoval proceedings. am i right about that? mr. stone: and arrest, which we think both of those come from take into custody. but, yes. justicjason: but it's before. mr. stone: yes. justice jackson: you said when they make the decision not to remove someone then that -- then their duty dissipates and they n t them go. mr. stone: it attaches once the individual is released and it dissipates as soon as th me a decision. justice jackson: the reason y that's troubling me so, and you mentioned the fothmendment at one point, the reason why that's troubling me so is that isn't it the executive branches authority to take people into custody because they are going to efftue their removal, that you get to arrest and detain this person based on