the troops are sofa troops, respectively, various neo-windows there robert kagan can give quizzes andwer is not retiring. what is this about? this is about the fact that, after all, the united states , despite everything, despite biden’s dementia and all american systems intend to maintain their global dominance at any cost. i haven’t studied history at all. why because all the powers? well , why should he study history? why should he read? why should he read? this is not in trend, but what is most striking, of course, is the feeble-mindedness and courage of our elochka vonderlein, who are preparing to accept the entire western balkans , ukraine and moldova, entry, even going to change the regulations of treaties and legislative norms of the european union , which attribute a certain level of economic development, a certain level. there is permissibility of corruption and so on and so forth, respectively. well, what is it? well, yes, this can be considered as such a political carrot dangled in front of montenegro, bosnia and herzegovina and moldova and other strange things. but this i

the jungle as robert kagan calls it, would return to life.hey fought alongside allies who were not deeply committed to their own cause, let alone the larger cause of freedom. from afghans and iraqis to the south vietnamese and even the south koreans. the ukrainians are different. utterly committed to their independence but also to the values the west holds most deeply. ukr ukrainians understand they are in for a long war of attrition. they understand they are up against a formidable foe. russia is almost four times ukraine's population and about 15 times its economic size. they are ready to persevere. but they worry that their allies are not. go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my "washington post" column this week and let's get started. >>> president zelenskyy is almost always working but this week seemed particularly eventful and busy for him. last sunday, he announced he was replacing his long time defense minister. a day later, he was visiting troops in two of his nation's front line regions. then on wednesday, he received secretary of sta

the jungle as robert kagan calls it, would return to international life.ften fought wars alongside allies who were not deeply committed to their own cause, let alone the larger cause of freedom. from afghans and iraqis to the south vietnamese and each the south koreans who were defending a nasty dictatorship during the korean war. the ukrainians are different, utterly committed to their independence, but also to the values the west holds most deeply. ukrainians understand that they're in for a long war of attrition. they understand that they are up against a formidable foe. russi russia is almost, cr ukraine's population and they're ready to persevere, but they worry that their allies are not. go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my washington post column this week, and let's get started. ♪ ♪ >>> president zelenskyy is almost always working, but this week it seemed particularly, ventful and busy for him. last night he announced he would be replacing his longtime defense minister alexei reznikov and he was visiting two of his nation's frontline regions and on

geopolitician george friedner in 1997, neoconservative political scientist william crystal and journalist robert kaganiples for this project said we must accept responsibility for the unique role of the united states in preserving and expanding an international order friendly to our security , our prosperity, and our principles . the statement of principles for the new american century project was signed by all leading neoconservative us policymakers in the 21st century. entered with a certain political program and a new president. elections 2000 . was the most controversial election in american history, many of us believed that there was a political coup, they bribed and fooled everyone on the right wing in the senate and congress, and they did everything they could to rig the vote count, and then they were still on edge that it was outrageous, that bush should never have to be president. the influence of neoconservatism on the bush cabinet was already extremely powerful. the new president's cabinet includes vice president dick cheney, pentagon chief donald rumsfield , diplomat permanent representati

sofa troops, respectively, various neo-windows there robert kagan can victoria nolan and so on speak its global dominance. in general, i didn’t study history. why because everything was holding up? well , why should he study history? why does he need to read thin ones? why should he read? this, as they say, is not in trend, but what is most striking, of course, is the stupidity of the courage of our little elochka fondaem, who are preparing to accept as many as the entire western balkans, ukraine and moldova , entry, even by going to change the regulations treaties and legislative norms of the european union that attribute a certain level of economic development, a certain level. there is permissibility of corruption and so on and so forth, respectively. well, what is it? yes, this can be considered as such a political carrot dangled in front of montenegro, bosnia and herzegovina and moldova and other strange things. but this is exactly what, returning to the topic of the standard of living of the population - these are people who live quite modestly. and this is just human material.

at the same time, we internally have an obligation and i think the court chief justice roberts and justice kaganhave talked this, that they internally, each other accountable. they have an ethics code internally where hold each other accountable. i think if you look over time, the has worked the checks and balances within the system itself has worked. we have not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination in holding each other. but we've tried tried our best and we're getting better it and i think no one is at least i heard a better solution than what got now. and i do firmly believe that the nine people on the court, as i've said before publicly, people of integrity, i know almost all of them and i really have think if the public knew them like i knew them, they would truly believe they're all people of integrity that are just trying their best to get the result and they do hold each other accountable internally. it's just something you see outside. judge, you have a fascinating background. we could spend the whole program just talking about you. i think i learned recently that neither of y

our work is transformed and that was the argument and kagan wrote this opinion a few weeks prior in the first amendment but side is kicking and robert in the opinion so he writes this photograph here is kind of the baseline. it's not just slap some paint and holiday. those of us have seen, that's not -- nice but that is not all there is to it. the question is not merely whether it resulted in a different work of art, of course it did. the question is whether it's the type of difference. there is a real tension and it requires or reserves this work but on the other hand it allows others to use this. this is the real you want to comment on others movies and etc. and just as kagan said -- i quote, majority should go back to school. that is, the tone of the opinion but ultimately they don't really get that issue. instead, they talk about various tests and with the world look like with copyright law applied in lawrence and whether or not the great painters but kind of just as kagan's points, both photographs and these paintings serve the same purpose, i think both are there arguments. these points i make in my article is that people tend

kagan said that. that was yesterday afternoon. john roberts has said similar things.plementing these rules. however, justices have been publicly saying that the court is going to implement a code of conduct soon for least four or five years now. it has not happened yet. so i think it's a big open question about, what are the obstacles to doing that? will this come to fruition? and also, of course, what does that look like? a code of conduct that is vague and has no enforcement mechanism might not be that different from the current status quo. >> right. >> josh kaplan, propublica, thank you very much for coming to the saturday show. >> thanks, -- >> up next, deadlocked, a documentary series digging into the politicization of the united states supreme court. just have to flip the courts decisions shaped the day-to-day fabric of our everyday lives, for better or for worse. you are watching the saturday show. on msnbc. on msnbc on msnbc oh... stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhh

our work is transformed and that was the argument and kagan wrote this opinion a few weeks prior in the first amendment but side is kicking and robert in the opinion so he writes this photograph here is kind of the baseline. it's not just slap some paint and holiday. those of us have seen, that's not -- nice but that is not all there is to it. the question is not merely whether it resulted in a different work of art, of course it did. the question is whether it's the type of difference. there is a real tension and it requires or reserves this work but on the other hand it allows others to use this. this is the real you want to comment on others movies and etc. and just as kagan said -- i quote, majority should go back to school. that is, the tone of the opinion but ultimately they don't really get that issue. instead, they talk about various tests and with the world look like with copyright law applied in lawrence and whether or not the great painters but kind of just as kagan's points, both photographs and these paintings serve the same purpose, i think both are there arguments. these points i make in my article is that people tend

understand standing in biden versus nebraska is it is the new -- alana kagan is half right when she criticizes the majority opinion roberts not having a concrete are more imminent harm. if you read scalia's opinion and the more recent decisions in trans union, it is impossible to square the text of the roberts opinion withstanding doctrine as it is standing now. the only way to understand it is a revival of massachusetts versus epa and i'm disappointed in all of the justices, maybe most disappointed in the liberals for not being consistent. they were not on the massachusetts supreme court. i should pause and say what massachusetts versus epa was about on the standing question, on climate change and greenhouse gases, did massachusetts and other states have standing to bring the claim and it was as much a speculative, not imminent question but the court recognized special solicitude for states as a sovereign and i'm not sure what quasi-sovereign is. what is dual sovereignty? states are sovereign, that's part of the doctrine but roberts dissented on that question. to connect some dots here, what also came down was texas vers

gabe, safe to assume that kagan, sotomayor and jackson are for more ethics. would you put roberts oh, wow. anybody else? >> so i'm having some trouble beyond the five. i think there's some -- you know, it's interesting. "the wall street journal" reported in 2019 when this was being talked about, the head of the office of the court, justice alito made edits to that document. so i think while we all think, okay, alito might be against something, at least he's been engaged on this. we haven't seen any engagement on thomas in this area. barrett hasn't mentioned this head-on in her public appearances. so i don't know if it's necessarily 7-2 or 6-3 or 8-1 right now. but historically, look, in recent history, the justices have all acted as a team of nine when they changed internal policy. historically, justices, whether it be chief justice warn burger being the first to say okay, we're putting out our financial statements before that was passed. he said okay, we're putting out our financial statements. he said that unilaterally. so i think that chief justices can act unilaterally. i woul

kagan disagrees with the conservatives, hey, it's a day that ends. and why. but 5 to 4 in the sba case, the fourth was chief justice roberts. and one of the points that i think really to underscore how the critique of the shadow docket are not at least strictly partizan is one of the most, you know, sort of one of the repeat players in criticizing the conservative majority has the conservative chief justice who dissented in the sbrt case, who dissented in the alabama redistricting case, who dissented a clean water case in april 2022, and his dissents are always saying the same thing. so, hey, i'm john roberts, right? i have not changed my stripes. i am absolutely sympathetic to where my conservative colleagues he's in institutionalist and he that the court's legitimacy credibility is impacted negatively by playing these games. well, and by using the sort of the emergency mechanism as a way of doing things that are supposed to be done with full throated deliberation on the merits docket. so capital punishment is a through line in this book. so incident is religious liberty a through line? there are to be a number of cases in