following in the footsteps of scotland's supreme court, the uk supreme court asserted the rule of laws, as was the decision of scotland's supreme court, chaired by scotland's most seniorjudge, the lord president of the court of session. both of these courts unanimously found that the decision to advise her majesty to play red parliament was unlawful, void and of no effect. —— to prorogue parliament. the question i'm interested in is how did it come to pass that this was ever allowed to happen? redacted documents lodged with the scottish courts confirmed the suspicion that this was a plan cooked up in number ten by the prime minister and his special advisers. but i want to ask about documents that mrs lee found their way into the public domain yesterday afternoon when an unredacted document found its way to sky news and revealed that the attorney general had said at the advise to prorogue was lawful and anyone who said otherwise was doing so for political reasons. i want to ask the attorney general this, i'm sure knowing him that his advice was more detailed and nuanced, then the three

absolutely delighted that the united kingdom supreme court has agreed with scotland supreme courts that the prorogue ation was unlawful and therefore it is invalid and void this is a huge victory for the rule of law and for tomorrow to see and it's very much in keeping with the scottish constitutional position that neither the government nor indeed the monarch are appalled the law as regards mr boris johnson the highest court in the united kingdom has united mostly 5 and that his advice to rule this parliament is advice given to her majesty the queen was unlawful his position is untenable and he should have the guts for wants to do the decent thing and recite. where. we. really are as soon as possible many of us are here already the taking of this on democratic minority tory government to archives must take precedence above all else that is why we were elected to parliament to do that and the supreme court city has emphasized that the principle that the government and the crap in it are a cunt able to parliament is fundamental to the british constitution. the courts have decided to it's

there are 11 supreme court justices. thejudgment? there are 11 supreme courtjustices.es. what if they disagree with each other? a majority verdict, sixjudges could go one way and five the other. the outcome of the case will be dictated by the majority so you can win on a 6—5 split, there is no var. i expect that lady hale, the president, will read a summary of her findings or go straight into the mainjudgment but i think they will want to get to the point quite quickly knowing the media and public interest in this case. if they do say that this is for them, the courts, and it was unlawful, what then are the broad implications for the constitution, the unwritten constitution of this country? then we face very big question is, and the big question of this whole case is what is the balance of power, the separation of power, the place of parliament, government the courts? if they find it unlawful, a difficult question arises of what next? what we are most likely to see is a declaration of unlawfulness, a statement probably from lady hill saying this is unlawful. but then a

well, that's the situation here at the supreme court, the supreme courtjustices, here at the supremethe supreme courtjustices, all 11 of them, have ruled the prime minister acted unlawfully when he suspended parliament. parliament, we have heard from the speaker, will resume sitting tomorrow morning. from 11:30am, uk time. i think we can show you the scene there and parliament now. the speaker said the decision from the judges, the justices had been unambiguous. and from tomorrow morning at 1130 mp5 can get back to business. parliament will reopen. you have been watching special cold fridge, goodbye to viewers on bbc one. —— coverage. many issues to consider. not least what happens to the prime minister, what happens to the prime minister, what is his reaction. we can go to new york and join james what is his reaction. we can go to new york and joinjames landale, diplomatic correspondent. james, i suppose mrjohnson, i understand it was 5:30am your time. we are in the city of borisjohnson's both, he finds himself with his team closeted together, working out what reaction together, wor

let's go live to the supreme court right now. we are doing everything in our power to sort out the sound right now. hopefully we will sort that for you. ina in a second now we are going to get the sound back for you. iam going i am going to apologise again. a p pa re ntly apparently this is a problem within the supreme court although this is no consolation to you. apparently it is related to the rain, would you believe?! i think potentially unless you are inside the supreme court at the moment no one is able to hear what the baroness is saying. 15th of august, nikki da costa, director of legislative affairs at number 10 downing street sent a memorandum to the downing street copied seven people, civil servants and special advisers. recommending that his parliamentary private secretary approached the palace with a request for prorogation to begin within ninth — 12th a request for prorogation to begin within ninth —12th september and for a queen's speech on the 14th of 0ctober. for a queen's speech on the 14th of october. the prime

the supreme court. —— who will be watching it all as it unfolds at the supreme court.er now to speak to our assistant political editor norman smith about the political implications of this decision. we might get the judgment early next week when the prime minister is at the un in new york? it would be an astonishing rebirth for boris johnsonjust as he is astonishing rebirth for boris johnson just as he is trying to talk to eu leaders in the margins of the un summit to hear he would have to backtrack and recall parliament, i think that would fuel a sense among eu leaders that borisjohnson cannot get any deal through parliament given the clear opposition he faces. that said, talking to ministers privately, they are very confident that thejudges will privately, they are very confident that the judges will strike down the edinburgh court, in other wyatt's they will not order parliament to be called back and i think that is because they have taken the view that this would be such a massive step for the supreme court to intervene in that way in what ministers clearly believe

let me return to the supreme court.ughout the hour. in europe there've been a variety of responses of the supreme court decision. a spokesperson for the european commission declined to comment, saying "we have all seen the news but it is not for us to comment on the internal constitutional matters of the united kingdom." but the president of the european parliament david sassoli welcomed the ruling, tweeting "any brexit agreement needs to be approved by both uk and eu parliament, so proper democratic scrutiny on both sides of the channel is essential." the pa rliament‘s brexit coordinator guy verhofstadt was not so restrained, saying, "at least one big relief in the brexit saga: the rule of law in the uk is alive & kicking. parliaments should never be silenced in a real democracy. i never want to hear boris johnson or any other brexiteer say again that the european union is undemocratic." here's katya adler in brussels on what else the eu had to say. the ruling today of course raises all sorts of questions for the eu. w

supreme court. he was a prosecutor during the norm for a trial. when he was serving in the supreme court. iner franklin roosevelt 1942, japanese internment took place. executive order 9066. the executive court case worked its way through the case. robert jackson was one of the justices that dissented into the case that was unconstitutional to be imprisoning american citizens without some due process. he really was the voice and conscious of the supreme court. at his work during the norm for trials. set the standard for what we think of as crimes against humanity. it was the first trial, the first international hearing which war crimes were prosecuted and prosecuted successfully. please welcome william casto, and he will be talking about his book on liam jackson. -- robert jackson. mr. casto: i am not really much on giving speeches or reading papers, i like to chat with people. so i am going to chat with you all like i chat with my students. ok? i want us to have some fun this afternoon talking about

the supreme court's time.in the end, there has been pretty much exactly the year, first the travel then case and then of course the senses case. next term, the docket docket case. having a real common thread. the question in each of those cases has been to what extent does the administration have to show its homework before launching one of these initiatives. going to the question of the extent to which the president and executive branch have to provide explanations that can stand up for actions that would otherwise be indisputable in their power on the constitution. that is a little bit of an oversimplification. constitutional challenges to the travel ban as well. at its core, that is what these cases are about. a really interesting question. the extent to which these will have future administrations and other contexts. i think the census case with its scrutiny of its reasons for the president's actions, you know, in my opinion, probably will not have audit force and other administrative contacts. stick to th

the executive i not supreme.t should get back to the job of scrutinising the executive. the executive's attempts to do so were unlawful. i am executive's attempts to do so were unlawful. iam proud executive's attempts to do so were unlawful. i am proud as a scot and asa unlawful. i am proud as a scot and as a scottish lawyer that the scottish courts have taken this unanimous decision. does the court have to make a ruling cancelling suspension? is that within the law of the courts? if something has been done and it is unlawful, it has no effect, it is void due to lack of legality. it is true to say the case is going to be supreme court next week, the united kingdom's supreme court, and will be heard alongside the english case and the northern irish case. it was open to the government's lawyer to move this morning, in effect of the judgment to be suspended, they do not do so. the law stands at this prorogation is unlawful. as things stand, would you welcome the cancelling of the party conferences so that mps could

so that was an odd posture coming up to the supreme court.ian do think the current court with the change of membership will go a little g bit in the direction of religious liberty i don't know if it will be radical movement with those exercise clauses and whether it's a distinct lack of clarity. but this is one of the areas. >> i will just refer to the case that was a little bit like the trinity lutheran case like the funds for the playgroundop so i think what we will have is the court will go conservative with justice sotomayor or being the main protester to that. >> and with the opinion of the chief justice to be highly accomplished as a lawyer. >> that this case is applicable only to rubberized playgrounds and no others. [laughter] >> but for justice kagan but nobody else. >>. >> and there are several title vii cases before the court. the question when is sexual orientation and gender with the whole kit and caboodle and the background and what the court will do quick. >> you can help and what the court will do quick. >> you can help there

a children's book is not exactly where you would expect a supreme court justice to be.xpect it to be a book about law or a book, you know, about what's happening in the country or life and legalese, but a children's book is what you wrote. why? >> i write law every single day. ( laughter ) and most of it -- and most of it is going to go down in the history books, and after much time passes, some people may read one or two of those decisions. but if i can affect the lives of children, if i can inspire them to be bigger, better, braver than they believe they can be, then i've left a real legacy, in my judgment. >> trevor: you are talking to kids from a very personal place. >> right. >> trevor: the book is called "just ask." what i really love about the book is you have these stories of a group of kids going to a garden and really it's a tale about children who may be facing difficulties in their lives. you have a child who has a.d.h.d., another childs has tourette's, sonia has diabetes -- i wonder where that came from -- and it's a story about the kids having whatever the

and deliberately missed that the queen the supreme court in scotland said exactly that the supreme court of the united kingdom said the didn't need to go into the because the judgment stood in italy ok i don't think he did it on purpose but that's a moot point the fundamental issue for me is that there's almost no way out for bars to escape the promise he made that we would leave on the 31st of october he has to try to do that and if you plays clever here i think you could line him self up with what is definitely a junk bond risky strategy for a general election but a strategy that could actually propel him into majority and that's because this only works against boris johnson if the country is against him my feeling is this is causing the rage amongst the bracks it community which is far more motivating then the comfortable smugness of the remaining people but when you've been a member was a fierce critic of policy johnson but unusually you've always believed that he actually wants to do a deal would dispute the impetus if he can't get an election let's say that the only thing left is t

i think the supreme court really went back and forth on this. you sought in last term plus term'ssaw that in last decision in the census case which was an opinion written as if it kind of goes like this and then at the end goes over here. most of it seems to be about how much deference we will give to the commerce department in deciding how to run the census and then at the end, i thought it was telling the chief justice quoted his old judge, we can't ignore as judges what we know as people. don't be naive as a judge on something everybody knows. the administration claimed this was about ensuring enforcement of the voting rights act. to quote jerry seinfeld, i'm offended as a jew and as a comedian. [laughter] it is just absolutely ludicrous to make the point that that's why you're doing it and everybody knows it so what does the court do when faced with something that makes it look as if to uphold what they would normally do in terms of administrative deference and deference to the executive is to count it as a lie. this one went much further th

so that was the presiding judge of the supreme court a brenda hey let's now go straight to the supreme court in london where our correspondent charlotte part is standing by charlotte again none of this decision from the 11 judges tell us more about what was said and what this means. what a momentous and historic ruling here in the united kingdom today we have to remind ourselves this was a power struggle between the executive the legislative and the judicial to basically boris johnson overstepping his powers as prime minister as the supreme court just ruled in palm and and sending them on this force break and the supreme court with lady hale there presiding as the chief justice ruled that it was not a normal probation not a normal short probation but a longer one that parliament from speed dating matters especially of course breaks that related at this crucial time in u.k. history so what we're seeing right now is the 1st reactions coming in to this momentous ruling and those for example from john bercow the speaker of parliament. parliament should now reconvene immediately so that mea

the supreme court has just announced its decision. labour leader's conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. and it shows that the prime minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament. it demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him, andi democracy and an abuse of power by him, and i invite borisjohnson in the historic words to consider his position. johnson out, they chanted. 0ne position. johnson out, they chanted. one member of the government told the bbc the prime minister should quit, but that is far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats on the green benches themselves. there are still quite a few tourists in the chamber, i'm just talking to colleagues and trying to find out what we are doing but we need to go back to holding the government to account.|j but we need to go back to holding the government to account. i am in a taxi going back to parliament, which should never have been suspended, i

the supreme court has just announced its decision.the labour leader's conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. and it shows that the prime minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament. it demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him. and i invite borisjohnson, in the historic words, to consider his position. johnson out, johnson out... "johnson out," they chanted. one member of the government told the bbc the prime minister should quit, but that's far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats on the green benches themselves. there are still quite a few tourists in the chamber. i'm just talking to colleagues and trying to find out what exactly we are going to be doing, but we need to go back to holding the government to account. i'm just in a taxi going back to parliament, which should never have been suspended, it was not suspended, and therefore we should be back in there doing ourjobs, holding him t

unlawful byn ruled the supreme court. not managed to stop a lob passing that prevents a no deal brexit. this mustersonally, be a b blow to his credibility. all eyes on whwhat boris johnson could do next. perhaps he could sit tightht and stay in new york. he is do to o have his first engagement very soon. we will see if he has any reaction on this ruling. he also said he is s not plannig to fly home early. we w will see if that is maintained. he has meetings with donald trump, is you to give a speech at the u.n. general assembly. it is a clearly unprececedented situation back home with calls for him to resign multiplying. >> he vowed the u.k. would leave at the end of october with or without a deal. where does this decision leave brexit? >> parliament could be reconvened as early as wednesday, 11:30 a.m. in the u.k., 12:30 a.m. in paris. that has to be confirmed by john bercow. parliamenttime, when comes back, what does it do? does it hold a vote of no-confidence and what will that mean for brexit? will we get a general el

etched over the entrance of the supreme court equal justice under law. and you say in your book few americans can afford a lawyer. i cannot afford my services when i was in private practice. >> and i really cannot now. [laughter] i am not pollyanna about america there is a lot of good reason to be optimistic. i do have discussions of access to justice issues we should look with clear eyes where we can prove. i worry when nobody can afford a lawyer. it takes way too long to get to trial if you're lucky enough to get into court then you don't get a jury and look at how many things are now criminalized. i asked my law clerks how many laws are there? they came back told the 4500 federal statutes that's on top of everything in the states but all of those delegated legislative authority now they make criminal law. like caring hearts. how many of those are there? they scratch their head. i have asked them for a few times for an answer i finally got we stopped counting. they stopped counting i think in the 19 nineties even academics cannot keep up. that is over

and it basically says thatis supreme court.for a prime minister to do something which has the affect of excluding parliamentary accountability, due to the effect of the five—week propagation being in effect closing down the parliamentary scrutiny since in no reason at been given for by the prime minister yet they put before the courts and they concluded that it did as shared news clip so the head of the supreme court set as a result, a prorogation is not in void. it is a stunning example of the courts being willing to move an extremist to protect parliamentary democracy. and that the event of the bully, do you think borisjohnson should resign? -- in the event of the ruling. that is a matterfor the politicians to decide. it is devastating for the prime minister for any prime minister to have been held and have done something to the effect of which is to undermine the fundamental of our constitution. i wonder whether or not people will think that person is safe as prime minister. the effect of the ruling in the senses like an ele

it was awful until the supreme court judgment. the supreme court made its judgment.rt made its judgment and the government will now have to act accordingly as a result of thatjudgment. have to act accordingly as a result of that judgment. would have to act accordingly as a result of thatjudgment. would you expect him to apologise when he returns to the house? i don't think he will apologise i think he did what he thought was right at the time to stop now he's been proved it's wrong, he will have to act accordingly faster i don't think it needs to apologise. should boris johnson resign, lord heseltine?m normal circumstances, the prime minister would have resigned but boris won't resign. should he? it's a different issue. in normal circumstances, a prime minister humiliated in this way, would go. but boris is not like that. his strategy since he became prime minister is that of hedge down —— my grey head down, charge, bowler in a china shop. 0ur of the election process was to get rid of parliament. brecht said and the effect on the constitution. the law lords have deal

supreme court aside it but never opined on it.sometimes constitutional rights do end up collecting dust. in part as a result of a concerted effort, if you like a social movement, advocates and scholars and judges, politicians, the popular interpretation and understanding of the second amendment changed. we don't have polling on this going back to far but by the time heller was decided in 2008, the court of the holding, the individual right to keep and bear arms was quite popular. 75% of americans said in 2008 they agreed with it. i suspect if you'd asked the same question earlier, even a few decades earlier you would've gotten a different answer. here we have more anecdotes than politics i can't say this for certain that there are voices left, right, and center when the people often referred to as warren burger, robert bork, other people not known as left-wing judges saying that the second amendment did not protect an individual right. today it does and that is in part as as a result of this movement outside the court. but he came

speaker, it wasn't the supreme court verdict, it was the judgments of the supreme court.inister might start to show some respect for the judiciary. we are here today because the prime minister was absolutely humiliated by the supreme court. by a count of 11 Ãzero. [inaudible] that we might have had some humility. that we might have been able to acknowledge that what we had is the unlawful shutting down of parliament. mr. speaker, who Ãb the former prime minister à tierney begins. mr. speaker, will it pains me to say it, the prime minister is still standing here today, he in fact does believe he's above the law. mr. speaker, he is not. and thank heavens for the action that was brought forth in scotland and england that i want to pay tribute to my honorable fred à [applause] [loud shouting] >> thank goodness the courts have done their job and made sure the parliament is getting it back to where they should be in this house and in the government court. the ruling of the supreme court has been absolutely crystal clear. the actions of this government, this prime minister, led

to the supreme court library. [laughter] in 93 and 94 to serve as a clerk as kennedy as reagan's third and final appointment to the high court. thirty years later would be the first clerk to serve alongside his former boss as a fellow supreme court justice. it is no secret what they wanted that legacy to be. it should interpret the law do not make it. that the principles of law are based on the constitution. it is a users manual for the interpretation of our constitution and if they stray too far from the constitutional principles. the title of his book is a republic if you can keep it. that phrase is how franklin was said to answer questions of how it was created at the constitutional convention he was trying to convey just how fragile our liberties are and how vigilant the citizens must be to preserve them. is never more than one generation away from extinction. and then to preserve the constitutional freedom for the next generation please welcome justice gorsuch. [applause] >> justice we are honored to have you

let's go to ben brown who is at the supreme court.m both sides of the brexit divide are here outside the supreme court, the highest court in the land. the decision made by the ii judges here could have profound implications legally, constitutionally and politically. this morning the court heard claims that borisjohnson sees parliament as an obstacle and potential threat, and he suspended it in order to silence it. richard lister reports. the suspension of parliament by a new government is usually a routine affair, but not last week. as conservatives filed out to shouts of shame on you, the opposition stayed in their seats, convinced parliament was being denied its voice on the eve of brexit. thousands of pages of legal arguments were brought to the supreme court so the justices could consider whether the proroguing of parliament was done lawfully. the businesswoman gina miller believes it was not but she was asked, is it right for the courts to intervene? if it is an overarching power yes. she is appealing the ruling at the high court

as we even have on the supreme court. i could see maybe with a different administration, stephen breyer might have wanted to leave. or even ruth bader ginsburg. >> where almost out of time. what happens to the composition of the court if donald trump is reelected in 2020 and republicans continue to control the senate? could ruth bader ginsburg hold on for another four years? justice breyer? what happens in the court? >> i'm a lawyer, not a doctor. [laughter] >> i'm a lawyer, not a fortune teller. >> ruth bader ginsburg is 86. justice stevens did not step down until he was 90. she told a great joke recently she wanted to wait to retire until she got to his age. which was 90. he said stay longer. when she told that, people have applauded in the various liberal leaning audiences. i have a feeling that justice ginsburg and justice breyer will hold on as long as they can. justice breyer turns 81 this month. >> i think it is not possible to predict what is going to happen. justice scalia was a relatively young man when he passe

so, let's turn back to the news from the supreme court today.ument over whether the prime minister's suspension of parliament was legal. in the first case, the businesswoman gina miller is appealing against an english court ruling that the suspension was "purely political" and therefore not a matter for the courts. lord pannick qc, who's representing the appeal, said the move was done to "silence" mps in the run—up to brexit. meanwhile, the government is appealing against a ruling from scotland's highest civil court, which said the suspension was unlawful. lord keen, who's representing the government, suggested the court would be meddling in political matters if it ruled against the prime minister. what are illegitimate political considerations and how is the court equipped to judge the difference between a legitimate political consideration or an illegitimate political consideration? it starts, i suppose, by being told what the consideration is. absolutely, and i'm going to come on that in a minute and deal with that in more detail if i may. bu

supreme courtjustices early next week, as you say. tuesday. it is only the second time by the way, in the history of the supreme court that we have had such a big panel, 11 judges considering this hugely important constitutional, legal, political question really. this is the grey area of the unwritten constitution between the grey area between that and the law and politics. lady hale, president of the supreme court judges saying none of this is easy. they will have to wrestle over this over the next few days as to whether borisjohnson did over the next few days as to whether boris johnson did break over the next few days as to whether borisjohnson did break the law, acted unlawfully when he suspended 01’ acted unlawfully when he suspended or prorogued parliament for five weeks. lord keen, for the government, warned thejudges, don't stray into forbidden territory, don't stray into this political minefield. let's get this report on the third and final day of these hearings at the supreme court, the highest court in the land, here is ric

the supreme court said yes, we'll take it. and then the solicitor general at the time who had been dean of the law school i first attended, he asked to have a meeting with the top military people and said this case has lost potential for the government. you should waive catherine instructs discharge and then change the rules prospectively so that nancy is no longer an automatic discharge. [applause] and the air force did and immediately the government moved to have the case returned to the court of appeals and the determination was moved, no longer a alive, she remained an air force officer. so i called captain struck and said is there anything you're missing so that we can claim this case is stillmialive . she said i have all my pay and allowances so nothing there, but there is one thing . and this conversation is going on now in 1972. she said all my life, i've dreamed of becoming apilot . but the air force doesn't give flight training to women. and then we laughed because we knew in 1972 it was much too early . it was still

supreme court.et's listen to the government's representative here. supreme court. let's listen to the government's representative herelj paraphrase of course from the opinion of hodge in the case of her goal. mark reference has been made to constitutional principle. constitutional principle may embrace legal rules but it may also embrace the convention. convention that is not amenable to enforcement in a court of law. and an example of that was seen in miller one in reference to the convention which was expressed in statutory form but nevertheless remained a convention. in orderto nevertheless remained a convention. in order to proceed under the heading of constitutional principle, there has to be an element of legal content and if you take the example that was cited by mr fordham of the unison case, there one could clearly identify the legal right of access tojustice and identify the legal right of access to justice and therefore rely upon that in order to determine the declaration of a rights and

supreme court dr greg thank you very much thank you good night good night. all right the day is almost done the conversation continues online you'll find us on twitter either at u.w. news or you can follow me at brant goth t.v. don't forget to use the hash tag the day and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see you then everybody. has. a choice to go with the world economic forum 2019 on sustainable development from new york trust how do we create a market people want our answer to that question would be to involve people in the planning for those markets involve the young people take our 8 years as crazy as they might be t.w. presents a high profile panel discussion hosted by sarah kelly. coco to the euro max you tube channel. close to a gold mine of storage. with exclusive. the must see concerning culture. to be curious minds. do it yourself networkers. subscribing don't miss a. world unto itself. the finest musical compositions. don't do me that's you with the don't tell me that those he never wrote. and the jointe

the supreme court is there to come toa the supreme court is there to come to a definitive answer, which supreme court might give different answers for different jurisdictions, that suggests we could possibly downplay the possibility of a different answer for each jurisdiction. if they did find, if they found against the prime minister, what would they say? the suspension of argument was null and void and he now has to recall parliament? would that be the implication? this territory is extremely legally complex. the declaration it is unlawful, does it mean the advice was unlawful? what pannick has also said, it means the order of council and the procedure inside parliament to prorogue parliament, it is all made void. if thatis parliament, it is all made void. if that is the case, it is extremely difficult because proceedings in parliament cannot be considered or questioned or impeached in court. if there is such a legal chain then there is such a legal chain then there are serious questions. if the initial decision is wrong, questions as to whether it puts a cloak over all the decisions

speaker, it wasn't the supreme court verdict, it was the judgment of the supreme court. and perhaps the prime minister might start to show some respect for the judiciary. you know, we're here today because the prime minister was utterly humiliated by the supreme court, by a count of 11-0. and you might have thought that diatribe that we had, that we might have had some humility, that we might have been able to acknowledge that what we've had is the unlawful shutting down of parliament. mr. speaker, this is the hardest word for the prime minister. it was said by a former prime minister, when low ends, tirrany begins. he does in fact believe he is above the law. well, mr. speaker, he is not and thank heavens for the action that was brought in the courts in scotland and england and i want to pay tribute to my honorable friend. and thank goodness the courts have done their job and made sure that parliament is back where it should be, in this house. the ruling of the supreme court has made it absolutely crystal clear, the actions of this government, this prime minister led to

following and if it steps of scotland supreme court the u.k. supreme court asserted the rule of law of the separation of powers and the restored democracy and it's worth emphasizing that their decision was unanimous asshole's the decision of scotland supreme court unanimous chaired by scotland's most senior judge the lord president of the courts of session. most of these courts unanimously found that the decision to advise her majesty to rule parliament was unlawful void entrepreneurial effect but the question mr speaker i'm interested in is how did it come to pass that this was ever aligned to how you redact documents lost with the scottish quarters confirm the suspicion that this was a plan cooked up a number 10 by the prime minister and his special advisers but that well i want to ask itas documents at least used to find their way into the public to me yesterday afternoon when an unproductive version of one of the documents launch of the scottish courts find its way to sky news and revealed it turn. the general had said that the advice to pr

through this lineage today supreme court reflects the reagan legacy. it was no secret what president reagan wanted the legacy to be. america's courts, he said, "should interpret the law not make it. the role of the supreme court in his view was to "make sure the principles of law are based on constitution". justice gorsuch book is new book is practically a user manual for the faithful interpretation of our constitution. it's also a wake-up call about what we might risk if we stray too far from our constitutional principles. the title of justice gorsuch's book is a republic, if you can keep it. that phrase is how benjamin franklin is to have answered citizens questions about what type of government the founders had created have the constitutional convention. with his response, franklin was trying to convey just how fragile our constitutional liberties are and how vigilant our citizens must be to preserve them. it's the same caution the president reagan urged in his famous line " freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. during toni

kennedy of the supreme court of the united states. from 1995 to 2005, he was in private practice in from the 2005 to 2006 the associate general attorney general at the department of justice. he was appointed to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit in 2006. he served on the standing committee on rules and practice and procedure of the u.s. judicial conference in the chamber and advisory committee on rules of the appellate procedure. he taught at the university colorado law school and president donald trump nominated him as the associate justice of the supreme court, and took his seat april 10, 2017. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the honorable neil gorsuch, associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. [applause] it's wonderful to have you back. we are here just after you were seated in may of 2017 to swear in the national counterintelligence executive staff in the rotunda comes with nice to have you back with us. >> it's always nice to be here. it's a wonderful place and i am rich all young peo

this was five cases that came before the supreme court and was consolidated.n this case, which is probably one of the most important of the supreme court cases case -- cases, the supreme court found the 14th amendment granted congress the right to regulate only the behavior of the states, not private businesses, not individuals. of course, it foreshadowed the plessy decision that would come a little more than a decade later. there must be a time, the court stated, when black people cease to be the special favorite of the law and instead take their rank as mere citizens. there would be no time when black people could take their rank as mere citizens, because protesting, that rate was not available to them. to andrew available jackson, who wrote that he his wife, and unfairly held her as a slave. was not available to black men in wilmington, north carolina who were sold into --very in 1866 by this the civil authorities in that county. available to persons, black men and women who are acquitted, and this has continued relevance to our society, who were acquitted

the supreme court said yes, we 'll take it. the solicitor general at the time, who had been dean of the law school i first attended, he asked to have a meeting with the top military people and said, this case has lost potential for the government. you should waive captain struck's discharge and then change the rule respectively so prospectively so that pregnancy is no longer an automatic discharge. [applause] justice ginsburg: and the air force did, and then immediately, the government moved to have the case returned to the court of appeals for determination whether it was moot, because she got all the relief she was seeking. she remained an air force officer. so i called captain struck and said, is there anything you are missing so we can claim the case is still alive? my she said, no, i have all pay and allowances, so there is nothing there. but, there is one thing. this conversation is going on now in 1972. she said, all my life, i have dreamed of becoming a pilot. but the air force does not give flight training to women. th

the first case in the supreme court. and ultimately the case the court first said it was a violation of the 14th amendment. i do not understand this. the 14th amendment was enacted to cover slaves and african-americans, and it does not say anything about women. i called you up at you gave me an hour-long lecture. [laughter] ms. totenberg: i am going to ask you for a 62nd version. 60-second version. justice ginsburg: you said, i thought you said the 14th amendment was about race. i said, it is, but the 14th amendment means no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the law. [cheers and applause] justice ginsburg: the first time the supreme court heard such an argument was in the 1870's. a woman wanted to vote, and she said she read the constitution and it said no state shall deny any person equal protection of the law. the court's response to her was, you are indeed a person, and you are a citizen of the united states. but so too our children, and no one would suggest that children should have the right to

supreme court dr greg thanks very much thank you good night good night. all right the day is almost done the conversation continues online you'll find us on twitter either at u.w. news or you can follow me at brant goth t.v. don't forget to use the hash tag the day and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see you then everybody. forced to find decent accommodation. number of applicants for a flight often enough. to manage up to $100.00 euros per square meter. last minute maisha more than a 100 years ago. to secure and affordable housing if you coming from a scarce commodity. made in germany. farmland has been called ethiopia's green gold the country has an abundant supply and leases it to international coverage for giants the government is after high export revenues for corporations high profit margins but not everyone benefits from the booming business the selling out of the country dead donkey comes here no one knows in 45 minutes on d w. world unto itself. the finest musical compositions. the but. don't kill me t

but the supreme court chose to disagree with it! repeated, it has been obvious that this attempt at prorogation was about brexit. isn't the real reason why nobody would testify under oath as to what the governments reasons where was that, even in the government, no one believed that the prime minister's reasons where the truth? if the prime minister had wished to prevent this house from debating brexit, he would have prorogued it from the 5th of september two 14th of october. because he allowed, even we knew, does it seriously suggest that the government was blind to the possibility that in the first few days of resumption after the 4th of september, it was not possible that exactly what happened would happen? if we had wished to close down all debate, and prevent the option of legislation, which was ultimately taken by this house, with the consent of mr speaker, we could have prorogued it from the fifth, but we didn't! and furthermore, on the 14th of october, there would have been 2.5 more weeks for this house to act. with respect,

thejudges but battle in the supreme court is wading the judges but you battle in the supreme court isill happen and it might have helped borisjohnson in the long—term? helped borisjohnson in the long-term? let's not forget, this idea you need to get brexit done... what stephen is pushing for is a no—deal brexit, that is what boris johnson try to shutdown parliament to achieve. he says he wants a deal. he says that but he's not arguing for it and the eu hasn't received any proposals, he is biding his time hoping we crash out on october the sist. hoping we crash out on october the 31st. as with no—deal, you are a former leave means leave person, leave means leave put out graphics saying 69% of leave voters want a no—deal, 69% of 52% is a minority. with democratic legitimacy, in the 2017 general election, the only opportunity we have had to say what kind of brexit we would want, 40% voted for parties whose manifesto is ruled out no—deal, so that would be undemocratic to leave the eu without a deal. have you been out out manoeuvred by remain, have you lost it in the last couple of weeks?