supreme court. if you wanted to live a short life, retire from the u.s. of in court. and so, justices have tended to stay for a very long time. my very favorite quote from thurgood marshall. they asked him if he planned to retire anytime soon to he was in his 80's. he said, " absolutely not. i was appointed to a lifetime tenure. and i intend to serve every single day of that. not only that, i plan to live to be over 100 years old, and not only that, when i finally die i plan to be shot by a jealous husband." that's quite the aspiration. he served on the court for a good, long time. but, of course, longevity has dramatically increased lifetime tenure. at the time of our nation's founding, the average age of appointment of a supreme court justice is about the same as it is today. it was age 50 at that time to however, life expectancy at that time was in the 30's. so, the average age of the appointee was older than the average age of death. so that the logical explanation tenure wouldetime be that you

supreme court. u.s.istrict judge derek watson said thursday that the supreme court is the proper venue to deal with the issue. he denied request without prejudice to its refiling but the supreme court. hawaiitely attorneys for appealed that to the 9th circuit in already ruled that federal appeals court panel late friday declined to absolve itself in the latest dispute over president trump's travel ban, any grandparents and other extended relatives of people in united states cannot the exempted from the president's executive order. what do you expect to happen next while we wait for the supreme or to take of the merits of the case in october? guest: i think the fact the 9th circuit said you can take this back to the district court's and judge watson certainly puts pressure on the district court to take it up. it is within his authority to provide some interpretation and clarification of that. that is not unusual for unprecedented. i think it was surprising for some people to see the judge did not want to

-- muslim ban play out in the supreme court? >> they didn't base it on the constitution, they based it on the immigration act and said that under the immigration act, he didn't have the power to ban people based on their nationality or to discriminate against them based on their nationality and what was interesting is they were willing to use the messages as evidence of what the policy was. however they did not go so far as to say we can find from what he said during the campaign or after the campaign. i don't think they are going to take the case there is no split in the circuits and i just don't see that they are going to get into it and get into the question of separation of power and national security and all the rest. but if they ever did they could clearly find the intent to discriminate against muslims based on religion and i think they could find that there is no overarching national security interest to. what is the rational basis with the guantÁnamo cases in other cases they have shown lately a willingness to look beyo

the united states supreme court has taken the case. it only takes four people to take a case out of the nine people on the court and i think there is a real possibility though that this case still will be won. justice kennedy does not like the idea. he is a conservative, but he has not lost his common sense. theicularly if what is result is making a person feel like a second-class citizen. when somebody who is your baker refuses to bake a cake for you because of what you are, because of who you are, i would say that is a good reason for justice kennedy to say, no. decision inat 7-2 the playground case shaker confidence a little bit? guest: just a little bit. that was about funding. this is whether you have a clash between a claimed right of religious liberty, which is what the baker in this case has, against the claim of being treated like everyone else, as the two gentlemen who wanted the phillips, during the deposition in the case out in colorado, said that he had dogs'aked a cake for two wedding. honestly, apparently he has had some

there's one possibility the supreme court may never hear the case.that this is a temporary travel ban. it expires on its own terms after 90 or 120 days. by the time the case comes to the supreme court, unless the president renews it or makes it permanent, we may see reports simply say the case is mute and it can't be further litigated in the supreme court. we just don't know. >> armstrong: how much do you think when you see what has happened with cnn and they are terminating three of their reporters on a bogus russian story and some of the stories coming out of new york times where they also have to make retractions. how much does this damage the credibility of what could be in some ways legitimate concerns to make people think that this is a witch hunt and the media will do anything to get headlines, and they retract and eventually the reporters that cover the stories. >>> if there's any new source, it helps them. the fact that they were prepared to retract. the president doesn't often retract and he has made mistakes, too. i think we're seeing gene

almost 60 years earlier in which the supreme court from almost 60 years earlier in which the supreme court upheld the internment of japanese-americans. he actually wanted to be a party to this, to make his voice heard in this case. i think you have heard of sally yates. sally has served for 27 years in the department of justice first , as united states attorney for the northern district of georgia. in that capacity, she litigated a wide range of cases including issues involving cases of political corruption and terrorism. in 2015, president obama appointed sally to be deputy attorney general of the united states, and during her confirmation hearings -- i love this fact -- then senator jeff sessions asked sally offensive she would refuse to enforce a president's unlawful order, to which she replied that she would have an obligation in all circumstances to follow the law and the constitution. a commitment that she later had an opportunity to fulfill. so, sally, on this initial point, perhaps you can talk about the historic independence of the department of justice. the core for the dep

paul: article applies to the supreme court. >> right.l: you saying there are plenty of supreme court precedents that says on matters of national security courts must defer to the political branches in particular when those political branches the congress and the president are united behind a povment you are saying that the lower branches here the 40 and ninth circuit, the lower courts really just ran roughshod over this in part because they don't like this president. >> they don't like this president and they have done it in a way that was most disingenuous. as i said they paid no attention to the supreme court precedent. it's just not a matter of deference. what's important here is this, this transcends immigration. the same logic could be applied to the decision to use drones, decision to impose economic sanctions, frankly decisions to use economic force. once it's bonafide reason why doing something, this is it. the judiciary takes it on board. there is no balancing type of analysis that you invariably see in domestic affairs. paul: i

supreme court. it is not exactly the biggest blockbuster, but there were a few cases of interest and a few that are decided to hear the next term that are of interest. i'm delighted we have a distinguished panel. a few preliminary thoughts for next year. it graduated the george mason school of law. for justice thomas on the supreme court. he represents the constitutional issues. law and astrative variety of other matters. a the fifthntily on circuit. before starting his own firm, kyle was louisiana's general counsel for religious liberty and nationally recognized public interest law firm. ,o the left is joseph palmore the cochair of the practice whop from morrison foerster got his undergraduate degree from harvard and master's degree from the university of virginia. he worked with judge gleeson in the eastern district of new york. judge jacobson on the second circuit and for justice ginsburg on the supreme court. he's served as deputy general counsel for the federal communications commission for thr

supreme court. briefly they said policies of the executive order could go into effect with respect to aliens who had no connection to the united states but cannot go into effect with respect to those with a bona fide connection to the united states. the parties are now back in hawaii in the district court fighting about what counts as a bona fide objection and the government in its filing said we think you should adopt our view, but if you don't we want you to stay your ruling immediately so we can go back up to the supreme court get clarification. there could be emergency stay litigation back into the supreme court in a matter of days on this court. >> you have anything you want to add. >> everything you said, i think there's a lot going on for the lawyers beyond an issue that dominated public attention. i think it's a real concern. one thing i would say as a word of caution is the past term. we were focusing on issues which were camping statements are generally on the line now in these kind of con

supreme court, and is the primary author of 150 cases before the supreme court. let's jump right in. pretty significant redistricting cases. why don't you tell us a little bit about those cases? mr. consovoy: the supreme court heard two major redistricting cases. i will not get into the weeds, mostly to keep you from falling asleep and me from messing up. in both cases, it was the intersection between traditional principles. from the perspective of the state, they have a variety of objectives. traditional lines, political later, and the state must consider race because of section 2 of the voting rights acts requires the state to ensure minority representation. in the mid-1990's, the supreme court explained to states that if you use race too much, it becomes a dominant factor in redistricting and you violate the equal protection clause. what is going on is the states feel, and i think with good reason, they are caught in between. if they use race too little, they have a potential section 2 violation. too much, an equal protection violation. these cases are both ab

i read every old supreme court decision. i read every brief that came into the office word for word. i read books on justices and what made them good justices. i did everything possible to inform myself and figure this job out. after three years, i am still learning. i can't tell you that i am a perfect justice, far from it. i don't think there is such a thing. one of my colleagues mentors, john paul stevens, who retired when he was 90 years old, one-day said to me when i was expressing my doubts, said, sonia, nobody is born a justice. you are born a person, and you learn and grow into everything you do. so, have i got in there? -- in their? no. i am working at getting there. every day in this job come i think about what i do. i reflect on what i am doing. every time i have a discussion with my colleagues and something does not go the way i wanted to, i go back and rethink it and figure out what i did wrong, and then i try a different approach the next time. and if i address something that people don't like and i have to mak

the other issue was what the supreme court was supposed to be doing. nowhere in the constitution does it say they have the power of judicial review. nowhere in the constitution doesn't say they have the power to declare an act of congress unconstitutional or the act of the president constitutional. hamilton was killed in a dual -- duel in a two to four but before that he had a pal andy wrote this opinion receives the power of judicial review and of course this is what was meant for the power to clear with allies. it was a starting .. and that's when it all started. hamilton said the judiciary is the weakest branch of government because they have no army and he knew a lot about armies. they had no money and he knew a lot about money the first secretary of the treasury. where does the power come from? it comes from the fact that they have lifetime tenure and they are independent. from matt john marshall said in the federalist papers you have madison are giving the power of judicial review. they didn't put it in the constitution because it wouldn't have g

supreme court. a member of the edward coke court and codirector of the supreme court clinic. he has now been named for several years running as a rising star. next to will is kyle duncan. a founding partner and has argued over 30 cases in federal state appellate courts. he is a graduate of lsu law school and got an llm from olumbia law school and clerked on the fifth circuit. he also served as general counselgeneral counsel for religious liberty and nationally recognized public interest law firm. to the left is joseph palmore, the cochair of the practice group from morrison foerster who got his undergraduate degree from harvard and master's degree from the university of virginia. he worked with judge gleeson in the eastern district of new york. judge jacobson on the second circuit and for justice ginsburg on the supreme court. he's served as deputy general counsel for the federal communications commission for three years and five years as assistant solicitor general at the department of justice. he

but that's not the way the supreme court works because the supreme court is really looking at thelegal issue as a whole . and it's not even necessarily looking at how to apply that legal issue to the vast set of particular facts. it's looking to announce the legal principle that can control the direction of the law in that area. that's a very different focus than a trial judge. the trial judge is trying to make a ruling for the parties before him or her. they're trying to do justice for those parties. the supreme court is trying to do justice for the development of law. it can have and always has consequences on people and it's not that we forget those consequences but we can and often do look at the situation before us and say this might be a bad outcome for this particular party, but in the long run, society is better served by the ruling that looks at the outcome long-term and where it leads us. so for me, it's finding that balance that i work on. always informed by being a judge that deals with people. an understanding and never losing sight that laws do affect people first and for

the decision memade by the supreme court last month. the supreme court handed the administration a partial when in june ruling that it was reasonable for the government to read enforce travel restriction from six muslim majority countries if they did not have a quote credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person already in the u.s. credible claim a bona fide relationship is what it's issue. hawaii says the government is not properly many the courts ruling in their definition of those terms is too narrow. on thursday, judge watch watson expanded the definition of familial relationship if there from one of the countries listed in the executive order. he ordered the government to allow refugees and if they are formally working with the resettlement agency in the states. the department of justice says the court oversteps and they want the supreme court to settle it. writing in the petition quote only this court can definitively settle whether the governments reasonable implementation is consistent with this court stay. the justic

the supreme court majority said yes. no problem with that, justice soda mayor, in dissent, wrote a very clear competent dissent saying this is way more significant than just about playgrounds. it's about whether churches, for the first time in american history can actually get tax dollars from the general public. >> as you said it was a 7 - 2 decision. it wasn't close. why don't you think groupshi like yourself, who you filed a friend of the court briefing, why weren't you able to give convinced the justices, even those more in the middle. >> i think there was some confusion. i watch the oral arguments and there was some confusion about how this should be treated. should it be treated as a nonreligious thing after all is just scrap tires, and i think several of the people numeral were convinced it's just an equal justice matter. if we can give it to other people who are secular, why not to churches. the difference should be clear and i think justice soda mayor s understood this. we fund all kinds of things in this countr

supreme court. he's a member of the edward coke appellate court and a co-director of the supreme court appellate. next to will is kyle duncan. he's argued several federal cases. he's a graduate of lsu law school and got an lml in law school. before starting his own firm kyle was louisiana's first solicitor-general and also served as council at the becket fund and recognized public interest law firm. joe got his under graduate degree from harvard and jd and masters degree from the university of virginia. he also served as deputy general council at the federal chukzs commission for three years. and for five years he served as an assistant solicitor general at the department of justice. he's argued ten cases for the u.s. supreme court and primary author of briefs in over 150 other cases of the high court. so let's jump right into this. so, will, the court heard two pretty significant redistricting cases. why don't you tell us a little bit about those cases. >> i'd be happy to. and thank you for having

neil is one of the nation's leading supreme court advocates, he's argued 34 cases before the supreme court of the united states and one of those involved guantanamo detainees, so neil, if you could talk a little bit about that experience and how that illuminates the rule of law. >> thank you, and thank you, sally for being here. so that was my very first case, and you know i come into the clinton administration, and i was national security advisor to the justice department there and i just loved it and i thought my dream job to be one day to be national security advisor to the president. and i taught constitutional law and my students would always tease me and say you think whatever the president does is constitutional, you're such a hawk on these issues, then on november 13, 2001, i was watching cnn a couple of months after the nation had been horribly attacked and i saw that news ticker at the bottom. and it says president issues military tribunal for prisoners at guantanamo bay. we tried to do that after the embassy bombings and it was declared unconstitutional. and i looked at th

supreme court. first, in the dred scott decision, and later in roe, end of quote. so senator feinstein and i decided to ask mr. bush to explain. he did not disavow the comparison that he made in this anonymous blog. here's what he said instead. he claimed that he had referred to roe v. wade as a tragedy, quote, in the sense that it divided our country, close quote. so i asked mr. bush to explain his logic, asking whether he would characterize brown versus the board of education as a case that divided our country. he answered, and i quote, i wasn't alive at the time of brown, but i don't think it did, end of quote. that's an incredible statement made by a man who seeks to serve on a federal circuit court for the rest of his life. his logic and his historical analogy have fallen apart. there is no dispute that brown vs. board of education, which ended up in the official desegregation of public schools across america, was a landmark supreme court decision that deemed racial segregation unconstitutional and as a result led to controversy and division across the united

that's what the supreme court ruled.hat the trump administration did with that ruling is they came up with what we consider to be a rather nutty categorical exceptions that took out grandparents, aunts and uncles and said those people aren't close family which is not only illogica illogical it's also hurtful. a lot of the people who are refugees or coming from these different countries actually come from families where the grandparents or someone who is two degrees removed is actually their close family member. and the supreme court didn't take that definition to heart and so we are asking, we have asked the court to make sure the supreme court ruling is followed. >> the supreme court is not likely to act until this fall, october. what happens in the meantime? this could lead to confusion as the attorney general suggested, couldn't it? >> well, what you have right now is you do have a court order on a nationwide injunction that the supreme court said applies to people who have a bona fide connection to the united states

supreme court chief justice. up next, new york university law professor john sexton talks about his legacy. he served as nyu's president and law school dean. the event was hosted in the supreme court chamber. gregory: good evening. welcome to our 42nd annual lecture. before we do anything else, i will ask everyone to take out their phones and turn them off. even on silent mode, they will interfere with the sound system here in the court. i am greg joseph, president of the society. welcome. we are delighted to have you here today. -- we are honored to have resident emeritus of nyu john sexton, whose topic tonight is warren burger, the founder of our society and of immense importance to us. there is no one more qualified than president sexton to deliver this lecture. he was a warren burger clerk, but he had a long history before that. president sexton earned his ba in history and ma and phd and religion, and taught religion in brooklyn before he went to harvard law school. he went to harvard law school, graduating

i don't think that's consistent with the supreme court's order. i think you're going to see lawsuits very quickly. and a lot of litigation over the next few months. >> like if you say i'm twee's grandparent can the state department say sorry, you can't come in? are they saying that's illegal? >> i think it could be illegal. because the supreme court opinion certainly doesn't say no grandparents, it doesn't say no fiancees, so the state department has some discretion. but it's got to be consistent with this order. which was agreed to, now the aslu is looking for plaintiffs, i think you're going to see a lot of litigation. >> what does it mean for silicon valley. where the last travel ban created chaos. you had engineers, folks who didn't have family connections. unless they have a job now. is that the guideline? >> well i think it's clear that if they do have a job lined up, the travel ban can't be applied to them if they're from these six countries. but i think it's also clear that if you're in the process and create a bona fide relationship. they

these issues are far from easy, and the supreme court has spoken to them in many respects incompletely or unclearly. so when a nominee will not tell me how he plans to approach constitutional interpretation, even though his record strongly reflects a hostility to reproductive rights, how can we evaluate it? how am i to do my job when i don't know how he is going to do his job. and how am i supposed to take seriously his pledge to faithfully apply roe v. wade and related precedents? all i have left in evaluating mr. bush's nomination is what he said outside of the confirmation process before he was nominated for this position, and as many of us know, mr. bush was a blogger, authoring hundreds of posts over several years under a pseudonym. i have read his blog. in the words of one of my colleagues, i am not impressed. he once wrote, quote, the two greatest tragedies in our country, slavery and abortion, relied on similar reasoning and activist justices at the united states supreme court first in the dred scott decision and later in roe, end quote. never mind that this statement is absurd

the supreme court historical society hosted this 50-minute event in the supreme court chamber. >>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. on behalf of the officers and trustees of the supreme court historical society, welcome to our 42nd annual lecture. before we do anything else, i'll ask everyone to take out their phones and turn them off. even on silent mode, they will interfere with the sound system here in the court. i'm greg joseph, president of the society. welcome, we're delighted to have you here today. we're honored to have you as our lecturer, john sexton of nyu, whose topic tonight is warren burger. and the warren burger, of course, is the founder of our society and is of immense importance to us. there's no one more qualified than president sexton to deliver this lecture. he was a warren burger clerk, but he had a long history before that. and it's worth a moment, president sexton earned his bchl a. in history and m.a. in ph.d. and religion from ford ham and taught and shared the religion department at st. francis college in brooklyn before he went to harvard law school. he

one of the top supreme court advocates. and really, the father of the modern supreme court bar. his influence from him in this club? >> without question! as i was burnt up we talked about things that federalism and separation of powers around the dinner table. figures before god is not every family does that. i think they should. they certainly make for interesting dinner conversation in our home. my databases say you know, there are these two structural protections in the constitution that are as important as any other feature of it. and that one is vertical. recall that federalism. the others horizontal" separation of powers. when you put those together they prevent any one person or group of people from getting too much currently abusing those are subject to the document. >> maybe for the audience is going a little bit about what federalism need and what separation of powers means and how they are different. >> share! federalism distributes power within our system of government. it organizes the balance of power with federal government in the state or the people on the other

an affirmative action plan that have been upheld at supreme court level. t measuring thought it was outrageous that the court was imposing scrutiny and overturning this. he began the decision, and this was important to him to say this is the capital of the confederacy folks, and it ought to be a sign of racial progress when the the capital of the confederacy recognizes a problem of the racial -- in its mythids. this is our history year. >> my year -- was reenstated and i don't think there was an issue that was closer and more important to his heart than the death penalty. in 1973, firmen against georgia court invalidated the death penalty because it was improperly enforced. tm thought we were done the death penalty's done. reinstating the death penalty as to the united states for airplane piracy and suddenly it was back. and -- and in march of '76, the death case, griffins against georgia was argued and justice marshall talked a lot about death. he told us stories, some of which are in the devil in the grove if you've read it, about defending people, mostl

a lifelong enthusiast of the supreme court's, watching supreme court arguments at the age of 10. i would love nothing more the supreme court decided to start televising arguments. i don't think it is up to me as a member of the article i branch to tell the article tree branch the supreme court how to manageo in the sense that i don't think it would be appropriate for us to pass legislation requiring them to have cameras in the courtroom. that said, if they allowed c-span in their or their cameras, i'd be thrilled. post what you would be thrilled but my question is don't yoube think it would be right for the american people to be able to see this? i understand respecting constitutional boundaries and you will not pass legislation, that they give each other advice all the time. would you be willing to give the supreme court some advice in that regard? >> guest: would be a good idea. it would be a net benefit for the public. members of the public saw the way arguments are handled at the supreme court. they may not agree with the outcome of the courts to liberations in every instance

any supreme leader has the authority to dismiss the president. it kind of ties the hands of the president. if i could comment about the money, it was a remarkable ability of the obama administration to make what was a good deal for the united states about settling a court dispute. it took hard work on the part of the obama administration to take what had been an objective for 30 years, settling the dispute, and make it look like it was a cash for hostages deal. i have to congratulate the obama team on the job you did on that. host: let's go to zach on the independents line. caller: i think the nuclear deal allows us to shift our weight away from saudi arabia to a more balanced posture in the middle east. think saudi arabia has been a very bad manager of the region. iranians have proven to be more pragmatic and so have the turks. they are proven to be more pragmatic in resolving regional issues. they have outplayed the saudis on every issue, whether it is the nuclear deal, yemen, syria. they are proven to be better players. we ought to utilize the

uest: well, i think since last year the supreme court had a ruling which decided that veryone who was sentenced to a life without parole sentenced as a juvenile needed to go through resentencing and in the intervening months since, of the states have had to scramble to come up with a problem, o solve this right? state his varying number of people serving now unconstitutional sentences and needed to figure out a fair get them out. r at least to give them the opportunity to get parole. host: okay, you mentioned the issued a urt, they series of decisions over the for 10 years that made it, example, that forbid the death enalty for minors that prevented life imprisonment for in certain nced categories and that this state's these -- the obligation to do something about those who had already been those matters, since it was made retroactive; orrect? guest: correct, the last decade, the supreme court and the of es, as well, have sort shown general trend, which is to treat juveniles different from you can see this beginning with outlawing the eath penalty for crimes committed as children, all

it has been decided by the supreme court. but the argument in the other direction is if it is not federal, it is not made federal by the constitution, then natural questions. >> it was decided at no level. i am curious how do you decide to let the government decide with this particularly when there is an equality concern. >> when you diffuse the power and make a single decision that governs the entire country, you have bolstered government. going back to the bundle of arrows we talked about. it is a strong bundle and difficult to break when the power is more diffused and the decision making authority is left at a local level. people breakthrough and make changes and move forward at a state level and once people see something has worked in one state people in another state might follow it. there is no easy mathematical formula. i understand the question. but it has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. in many instances, unless talking about a question of federal constitutional law, people are free to decide if they want gove

the supreme court only rolled on the conjunction. they have yet to will on the actual merits of the case. doubled up happen until fall. we will find out how the supreme court decides. -- way the the wave homeland security department will implement it. family members could be affected by this. all the current law calls for, which the supreme court was supporting and trump was trying to go by when he implemented these executive orders, all it says is they can suspend immigration for any class of people in the interest of national security. we will have to wait for the courts to hash this out and for them to decide what a bona fide relationship is. does it only included nuclear family members or include the extended family? host: mike from florida on the independent line. you are on with chris chmielenski. caller: hi, everybody. i really enjoy your show. chris, this is mostly for mr. walden previously. i am independent. the democrats can work with moderate republicans. you can see in the republican party the moderates are kind of agains

crisis intensifies as the military clash with hundreds of protesters trying to march towards the supreme court in caracas. london's great ormond street hospital says staff have received death threats and online abuse in relation to the charlie gard case. and victims of heroin: we'll hear from the people fighting an addiction, leaving them sleeping under bridges and off the tracks in philadelphia. hello and welcome to bbc news. president trump has insisted he has complete power to pardon people. it comes amid reports that he's been looking at ways of pardoning himself and his family should investigators conclude there was collusion with russia during the us election campaign. next week, his eldest son and his son—in—law are due to testify before congress. but there was no mention of the controversy when the president spoke at a naval ceremony in virginia. from washington, laura bicker reports. donald trump hoped this week would be a celebration of all that is made in america, including this new state—of—the—art aircraft carrier. instead he finds himself gearing up for what could be one of

people can grow and he was an incredible justice of the supreme court. this writer, william thrilling, this is the second about the road of the union, the civil war, vietnam, american civil war. extraordinary writing and very complex. there was a lot more complexity and nuance to the south before the breakout of the war but one might have suspected. he draws the distinction between the border states and the northern part of the southern states into the deep south but shows the attitude toward slavery and what was happening in the institution. it was buying out in a lot of the border states and the northern part of my states like virginia. great history documented loss of data. the new biography for the character who influenced the last czar of russia is an incredible biography. the rest of history takes a little getting used to because the names are daunting and long. it kind of debunks the mysticism. he stopped his character he was made out to be. a lot of people were either anti-czar feelings or the revolution or both. so he used it to justify that in

from here are the supreme court back to you.omist. thank you. what you make these figures? they are little bit slower i expected but it isa are little bit slower i expected but it is a healthy slowdown in the sense that we have now got the brexit devaluation and that has cooled down consumption and is pushing up exports which are 10% up on volume since the referendum. and so on volume since the referendum. and so that is really what the devaluation is supposed to do, to push demand in exports and into profits and put money into industry and take it away from consumers, so it is pretty much playing according to the post brexit plan really. you we re to the post brexit plan really. you were a big supporter of brexit. those who oppose brexit might well say this sort of sluggish performance is as a result of the referendum decision. in a way they are right because we had a huge devaluation of 15% and what every student of economy knows, is that when you get that there is a diversion of demand away from consumers through a reduction

people according to the supreme court and many states. but now those extensions are ended. everybody born in the united states is a citizen. of course, pick up your newspaper today, that is a public issue right now because it has to do with the status of the children of undocumented immigrants born in the united states. those children are citizens. there is no question about that, even though there are people who deny it. or don't understand it. because of the civil rights act -- the14th amendment 14th amendment, which put this into the constitution f. it says nothing about race, it says anybody. it is a statement that anybody can be a loyal american, it doesn't matter what your races is, national origin or the legal status of your parents. anybody born here can be a good citizen of the united states. citizenship from race, which is something abolitionists have been demanding for a long time. the civil rights act goes on to say, and now these citizens have to have certain rights, what are they? equality before the law. the law cannot disc

that's not my reading of the supreme court decision. chief justice roberts said himself-- and this is a quote from his opinion-- "there is no doubt that this case is distasteful. it may be worse than that." so, this wasn't an exoneration. they looked at what you did and called it "tawdry." >> mcdonnell: i would disagree with that. you've... you've picked two sentences out of a 28-page opinion. but the import of that opinion, bill, is not the language that you've read. it's the other 99% of the opinion. >> wke saying is that "i will accept 99% of what the supreme court justices said, but that 1% that sort of slaps my wrist?" >> mcdonnell: no! >> whitaker: "i'm not... that, they got wrong." >> mcdonnell: no, i'm not saying that. i accept that. >> whitaker: they found that your behavior was not something that they sanctioned. >> mcdonnell: you know, the words are what the words are. i accept 100% of the opinion. and so, you know, with my own conscience, that's really between, i guess, me and god about how i did. >> dad, how about a game? >