for the supreme court. the supreme court would be required to issue a code of conduct regarding the justices and have procedures for disciplinary department of justice is. new recusal and disqualification requirements, and six and seven impose party and amicus briefs within the courts of appeals. let me start with the imposition of the code of conduct. this is an extraordinary mandate. it infringes on the separation of powers. a bedrock principle that underpins our constitutional democracy. our founders well understood the importance of separating the legislative branch from the judicial branch. it is -- as the supreme court explains, the rumors of art -- the ruins of lay among the powers which had been present along before the revolution and after the revolution had used factual strikes and partisan oppression. the shared experience is reflected in james madison who wrote, that the preservation of liquidy requires that the three departments of power, should be separate and distinct. ordering the justices t

when the supreme court issues and unsigned, onyx plane order, it is usually come without the supremert having heard argument, without an opportunity for everyone to have been heard. especially when someone is asking the supreme court to intervene earlier than usual, a so-called emergency application where let's say i lost and a lower court and want the supreme court to let me keep doing the challenge while the case works its way through the court, now i am asking the court to step in without the normal amount of briefing or litigation in the lower courts. a typical ruling on the shadow docket comes with a lot less process. it comes with less transparency. it often comes a lot faster. for us, the public, it is harder to figure out why the supreme court ruled the way it did. last month, the supreme court's stay in a case challenged the fda's approval of mifepristone medication abortion. the supreme court put on hold a texas judge's ruling that would have blocked access to per stone on a nationwide basis -- if a per stone on a nationwide basis. they basically preserve the status quo had

most people know about thefe supreme court which has nine justices and below the supreme court is the appeals court 13 circuit courts in this country known as thee appellate level d the district court judges. some states have just one district and some have multiple districts so the lower courts refers to the district and appellate court levels. the judges on the district and appellate court levels have a binding -- an entity called the judicial conference to impose these rules and ethical guidelines on lower court judges and ensure thene judges followe. in a code of ethics there's a process in a complaint to the file for matters to be investigated. none of that applies to the supreme court justices. the code of ethics the judicial conference hands down to the lower court judge says advisory when it comes to the supreme court justices. they will say they look at it and they confirm make private decisions. ultimately they make their own calls about whether certain situations call for a stay or it will be improper to for them to take a trip sponsored by wealthy person. if certain situat

supreme court. nevertheless, exercise of discretion has agreed to respect to comply with those respective guidelines. constitutional speaking, the supreme court would be regulated in two ways through direct regulation and the other would be in direct regulation where congress regulates the lower courts but the justices voluntarily agreed to abide by them. >> i agree with his profile to us the system works. acid mechanics, the rules of general application applied to all cords applied to judges and justices. as was pointed out before, you filed your report, you file your form and sometimes i get back to you. they will ask for greater detail when necessary and generally it is provided. the attorney-client general making a determination of willfulness, i don't know if that is ever been litigated. that is not anything that has ever been tested. sen klobuchar: do judicial conference did the right thing by strengthening the disclosure requirements. the supreme court justices are still not filing to the cod

in october 2021, vsevolod knyazev is elected head of the supreme court of ukraine . you

the judge of the supreme court of ukraine is elected for a term of four years, and the supreme courtghest body in the ukrainian justice system, it is interesting that a day before the election of the head of the supreme court, specialized experts wrote about the fact that there is already an agreement in the court to elect kravchenko, as noted by mykhailo zhirnakov, co-founders, chairman of the board of the dure foundation, this is an analytical center that monitors work in the field of justice in ukraine, judge kravchenko has a negative opinion of the public integrity council because he made a decision in violation of human rights, which was recognized by the european court of human rights person, but he did not indicate this in the declaration of integrity and did not declare property. in addition, zhernakov claims that the judges voted for kravchenko because he allegedly promised them free apartments in exchange for votes. a worthy representative of the reformed judicial system and , in particular, the reform of the reformed supreme court of ukraine. we will talk about this now ,

he is a seasoned litigator before the supreme court. he served as the just- -- at the justice department during the bush administration and served as assistant attorney general for the civil division and became the principal deputy assistant attorney general. he was responsible for managing the government's most significant cases involving constitutional matters, the white house, and senior federal officials. he has testified before congress on constitutional matters numerous times. he is a graduate of williams college and university of chicago law school, where he served as editor of the "university of chicago law review." he clerked for judge jerry smith on the was court of appeals. sen. durbin: after the witnesses are sworn in, they will have a five minutes to make a presentation and members will have a five minutes to ask, and i asked the witnesses to stand and raise your right hand. do you affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect tha

investigation began, as well as the details of the high-profile case surrounding the head of the supreme court, all the details will be told by the news team good evening and i will start with the situations surrounding bachmut, within a few days our troops released about 20 m² from the enemy in the south and north of the suburbs of bakhmut , deputy minister of defense hanna malyar reported, while at the same time the enemy is advancing somewhat in bakhmut himself is completely destroying the city with artillery, in addition, the enemy is raising units of professional paratroopers , heavy battles continue with varying results, the painter was torn apart in a year, it was possible to return 20% of the defenders of azovstalia, the head of the public organization council of women and mothers of steel women, nataliya zarytska, during the year , about 500 returned home more than a thousand defenders are still in enemy captivity , zarytska also emphasized that during the entire period of stay in russian prisons , the soldiers were not given food and their relatives were tortured defenders of p

we carved out the supreme court on purpose. it was one of the reassurances that the republicans wanted. so when mitch mcconnell then broke through that, that was a second problem. >> you know how this goes, is that each side blames the other for the escalation. and i can sit here and rationalize like, yeah, okay. no, it starts here. it starts here. how do we de-escalate this? because it does feel like this, what we have now is judicial activists. most people think the courts are red and blue robes. there are no more black robes. so we've created this. how do we de-escalate from this? because somebody has to be willing to say, "hey, this shouldn't -- this doesn't work." >> it is not going to be easy. the work that we're doing on ethics in the court ought to be easy. and yet it's not. it's partisan also. so i think that the first step is going to be for the judicial conference, the other judges to put some constraints around the supreme court's behavior and treat the supreme court the way all other federal judges are treated. and

i think there were a lot of years were people in this room would look to the supreme court and the supreme court would decide a case in justice scalia or justice thomas would author a ringing dissent and it was fair. perfectly fair to criticize the majority, and to praise the position articulated by the justices in dissent. but i don't think people took to the extremes of going after the integrity and the legitimacy of the institution. i think we have seen that happen , i think some of the criticism coming from the left is perfectly appropriate and perfect -- particular decisions but some of that goes beyond questioning the legitimacy of the court. in my view that is a dangerous game to be playing. if you study the supreme court through history, it is not in a position to enforce all of its decisions. it's legitimacy has to be built up over time and it's been a careful effort that has literally taken centuries, and i think we are blessed to have chief justice marshall in the early days who picked his battles and build the legitimacy of the court. it is no accident that chief justice marsha

appointed supreme court justices living outside the rules, the supreme court of the united states isin crisis tonight because there are no rules. there are no ethics rules that in any real way control the behavior, and choices of supreme court justices, and their spouses, whose income benefits the supreme court justices. but supreme court justices are not the only people in washington who, in effect, get you live without rules. there are two more people who get to live that way if they choose to. the president, and the vice president. there are no effective ethics rules that can truly control a president or vice president. like supreme court justices, no one can fire the president, or the vice president. the only way they can be removed from office is impeachment by a majority of the house representatives, and conviction by 67 votes in the united states senate. that's what chief justice roberts said no. that is why he said i must respectfully declined your invitation. in a letter to the senate judiciary chairman, declining to testify to the judiciary committee tomorrow about the ethi

courtjustices, like supreme court justices, the like supreme courtjustices, the conservative ones arehey feel safe, there is nobody who is defending the supreme court rhetorically at least from these types of criticism and he feels like a lot of what's being done is being done for partisan reasons because people on the left don't agree with the direction supreme courtjustices are taking. supreme court 'ustices are takina. ., ., taking. you mentioned the oles, taking. you mentioned the poles, there _ taking. you mentioned the poles, there is _ taking. you mentioned the poles, there is a _ taking. you mentioned the poles, there is a lack- taking. you mentioned the poles, there is a lack of. taking. you mentioned the i poles, there is a lack of trust in the supreme court and its ability to be neutral, do you think ethics codes could change public perception of the trustworthiness of the court? may be around the margins if it prevents things like the stories about clarence thomas from coming out, i think definitely hurts the view of the supreme court purports affecting the public�*s view

how much confidence do you have in the supreme court? >> i think this is an activist court. >> getting rid of roe v wade was an incredible thing for pro-life. >> simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. >> is the u.s. senate confirmation process to blame for polarizing the entire judicial branch? >> what you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. >> donald trump, mitch mcconnell and their republican buddies are shoving aside the wishes of the american people in order to steal the supreme court seat. >> is the court now out of sync with the american public? >> a court that's already pretty illegitimate is going to be in full crisis mode. >> and now new questions of ethical standards. have the justices damaged the court's reputation further by failing to disclose financial relationships and gifts from wealthy donors? >> the perception of the american people is important to me. >> the highest court in the land should not have the

and yet that's the way the supreme operates. say nobody tells there's no investigation, no inquiry, there's no determination, there's no reporting. they just play play it the way they want to. yeah. nice job. if you can get. it that joy. there was a hand up back there. what does the chief justice mean? i mean, what is why did they say chief justice? there's no it doesn't seem like he has any power to say anything, thomas or no, i'm not going to be expert on this, but are a couple of things that the chief justice has. he has the ability to assign the case as long as is in the majority, he can decide which of the justices. in the majority is going to write the case. if he's in the minority, he doesn't have that. the senior justice who's in the majority of the case then decides who's to write it. right now, that's thomas. so he has that he has. preeminence in questioning to go first and all of that so there are some ceremonial aspects he leads something called the judicial conference and, calls it every year to an annual meeting th

the thing is that supreme court, those rules do not apply to. that supreme court, those rules do nothe way congress _ do not apply to. that is the way congress passed i do not apply to. that is the way congress passed the l do not apply to. that is the i way congress passed the law? and that is how the supreme court wants it. and there is a question about whether congress could pass a law affecting supreme court because it is the highest court in the land, the head of thejudicial highest court in the land, the head of the judicial branch. there has been a little bit of concern about whether congress could step into that anyway. but there is more pressure now for congress to do something, at least for the democrats but again the reality is there is not much likelihood of this current make up of congress that this will happen. {line current make up of congress that this will happen.- that this will happen. one of the justices _ that this will happen. one of the justices themselves i that this will happen. one of| the justices themselves thing about this?— about this? the chair asked jo

because i will remind you that in the 17th year, the competition for the reform of the supreme courtnd the selection of judges of the supreme court took place under the watchful eye of western partners . under these circumstances, it's strange how it seems to me that this judge of the princes was a kind of compromise between the supreme court and the bank . well, now these mistakes are being corrected , let's see in general, i have the impression that this process is is weakening in general the independence of the supreme court, because this institution in our country, in principle, maintained maximum independence until the last moment, not volodymyr, in fact, the situation is two-sided or from one side, eh . it really hits the reputation of ukraine, what is happening in us now, and in fact, the head of the supreme court is suspected they are detained for a bribe for a huge bribe, and on the other hand, it is not known whether in ukraine, if there had been a similar situation 12 years ago or something like that , it would have been possible that such a person with such a position cou

black seat on the supreme court. even affirmative action in play there, that is one of the great ironies about justice thomas's profound dislike of affirmative action as an issue or a way to elevate minorities and others into positions and others into positions of power or education and whatever. so he gets to new england after series of rejections in his life which are provided, heartbreaking back story on clarence thomas thathe o the fim spends a considerable amount of time on,pe trying to understand where his mind was. it's 1968, 1969 bobby kennedy has been murdered. martin luther king has been murdered. clarence thomas is in college as part of, a college that has 2000 students, catholic catholic college, all-male, and 28 black students there as an affirmative action early-stage affirmative action approach taken by holy cross. it's there for the first time in his life really where he has a cohort of friends were also black. as a child he was made fun of by the black kids and you can see why in the film. so by the

the supreme court, the so-called supreme court of the nation, does not have an ethics policy.that is the comment. the main question i want to ask you, everyone --i saw on the news this morning about the debt ceiling, the president should invoke the 14th amendment. doesn't that have to go through the supreme court? people act like the president has a wand and he can execute the 14th amendment. doesn't the courts have to hear that first? june 1 is coming next thursday. guest: that is a great question. the short answer is, i think it is very possible. two be a bit of a legal nerd for a second, there are procedural reasons why it would be hard to think of what that lawsuit looks like. the same thing happened with the student loan program. there were real questions about whether anyone would be in a position to challenge that program. to go back to mark's question, all it takes is a simple, federal judge somewhere in the country who is willing to say, yes, i can block the executive branch from taking this action. i think there is a more than frivolous chance that if president biden

of particular supreme court justices.little that touches the supreme court justices. there are three levels to the federal judiciary, most know about the supreme court that has nine justices currently. below the supreme court is the appeals court, there are 13 circuit courts and district court judges, some states have just one district, some states have multiple districts. the lower courts refers to district and appellate court levels. the judges on district and appellate court levels have a binding code of ethics that they are forced to follow, there is an entity called the judicial conference that was set up by congress to impose the rules and ethics guidelines on lower court judges and ensure that the judges follow. if judges deviate from the code of ethics, there is a process in place for a complaint to be filed and for the matters to be investigated. none of that applies to supreme court justices. the code of ethics the judicial conference hands down that governs lower court judges is advisory when it comes to suprem

when the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, it somebody else that they cannot -- interfering in too many things in our lives. transgender, gays. that is none of their business. they are paying taxes. we have bigger things to worry about and we are never hearing about these doctors. what happens if somebody comes in with a miscarriage and cannot perform? with no brains, some with no lungs. they cannot abort those because of the laws. this could cause a woman -- this could cost a woman's life. host: let's get a response. guest: a miscarriage is not an abortion. a miscarriage is as different from abortion as dying from natural causes is as different from dying from homicide. everyone knows the difference. this has nothing to do with miscarriage. with regard to having bigger issues, in my view, there is not any bigger issue than whether innocent human beings can be killed for any or no reason. i don't know a bigger issue of that that there is, so i think this is the biggest issue. we do need to wrestle with it because a lot o

. and colleagues of the supreme court.well , the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor 's office reported suspicions against the head of the supreme court, the princes and the lawyer of gorod goretsky, who were detained the day before. well, and according to what this how this story will unfold and in general what i could do, i do not know the level of influence of the head of the supreme court, well, this is actually a very disturbing story for me. and i would not like to talk about the fact that the princes were appointed there on december 1, 2021 , that this is a creature of this government today we are not talking about this and today we are talking about the institution of the supreme court of ukraine as an institution that was actually already created as a result of judicial reform, it was the first step of judicial reform that was positively perceived by ukrainian society and by our western partners, therefore, this thing is quite significant and dangerous, first of all, any manifestation of corruption must be puni

of the supreme court low ethical standards. which has held the lowest ethical standards of any governing body in the federal government. >> i want to assure people, i am committed to making certain, we as a court, and here to the highest standards of conduct. we are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment. and i am confident that there are ways to do that that are consistent with our status as an independent branch of government under the constitution's separations of power. >> you can see the obliviousness there. john roberts is completely oblivious to how wildly out of control the ethics standards of the supreme court have become. because of clarence thomas's flagrant use of private jets, yachts, in violation of the disclosure requirements that supreme court justices. and also, because of john roberts wife 10 million dollar income from selling her services to many of the major law firms in the country, who have interests in the outcome of supreme court cases. john roberts has not mad

just stating we are even going to have a supreme court nominee. to go back to senator chuck schumer with president george w.'s nominee for the circuit court of appeals which you mentioned earlier was the second most powerful court in united states and everyone knew he would end up on the supreme court ends something catastrophic would happen. they decided where voting on it and chuck schumer at a press conference said what can we do to get a vote and the senator said that the microphone, nothing. so we break down the process then and would end up in a very bad place. what do you think about the composition of the court with these three trump appointees? are you fearful of an extreme right shift on the quarter do you think it will be a more reserved court? >> first i don't really think president trump, he actually did his job when you nominate someone. i would never fault the president. i would fault the president for not fulfilling it vacancy for any reason. it's 8:30 in the morning on july -- here's the name. my big problem right now the court is

court have passed, our supreme court is the only reformed court. except for the supreme anti-corruption court, which was also formed from scratch, in fact, but the supreme court is the selection system itself, and we can say it is the same procedure for the ucha and western partners the formation of the supreme court took place even well, i would say very, very competitively, i want to remind you that, for example, the former prosecutor general must dictate some people did not pass, that is, on the one hand, the supreme court really had a chance to be a very independent and very, well, truly independent branch of government , but i want to remind you that zelensky first started with an attack on the constitutional court the constitutional court was the first to split and recognized the illegal extraordinary elections as legitimate, the whole country knew that this act was even worse than the recognition of the first term of the second term of kuchma as the first. what has already happened in the history of the permanent court, so it started with an

the supreme court then turns around and strikes it down.hat i hope happens, eventually, is that the court realizes that it needs to voluntarily install its own code. it needs to appoint some kind of independent wandered to make sure that they are dealing with that code. and i suspect the reason -- because this is starting to become an embarrassment for the entire supreme court -- the reason why that hasn't yet is because any ethics code would say that what clarence thomas has done is absolute positively forbidden. >> but, a follow-up to your point, even if the supreme courts were to appoint an independent entity, what would the consequences be? who is in charge of enforcing it? i think the real question is, here, can you expect, again, the supreme court to police itself? >> i think that with what clarence thomas has done, it just goes beyond so far beyond what the acceptable is in any system. and it's a flaw in our constitution that there is nothing that can really be done about it except for the impeachment process. i think we are an ethic

court and the judges of the supreme court were not made.ow, let's say that among the people who applied for the position was judge ivan mishchenko , who from the first days was at the front, but then he was recalled from the front, for that he performed other tasks precisely as a judge, so he recruited if no the number of 13 or 14 votes is wrong, well, this is a person who went to the front , risked his life, fought for ukraine, judge well, there is one judge who, according to me, got 13 or 14 votes, and there is a judge who released a fart , is friends with alcohol, and created with them this one the supreme court is a specialized court and in general cannot explain where the money just fell on his head. well, this is actually about the court and can we say now that the supreme court, which made uh, made decisions that, well, went against the will of the president, let's say it directly some decisions that this court will be subject to control in the future. and this is the only court that has already been reformed. let me remind you that

after six years, we managed to hold the meeting of the supreme council with all our strength.i have the courtesy to serve the honorable nation of iran. i want the dear viewers of this program. i am happy that there is a possibility that it will be done anyway and it is based on the development of the country. it is necessary to see all the capacities of the country . we will do many seeds in our country let's play 100 important issues, the hour game, 50 issues about the issue, and 555 main issues, which in my opinion, and the sea and marine industries in general, are very important and important issues , that the importance of jafari chabahar in the government why has it not been held for six years since this important issue is also a legal obligation and the supreme council should be formed in this field since 2019 ? and we play beautifully , i learned about the capacities when in the practical world we are entering, unfortunately, we cannot make a decision to implement the projects that are in hand, unfortunately, the marine industry has not been paid for that reason, i beli

court , and law enforcement officers received information that the supreme court has a so-called back office, and this is the bar association, which communicated with people who have cases in the supreme court suggested what should be done, what documents should be prepared and what money to give to whom in order to solve the case, and now they were able to insert their agent, this is a criminal group, and who gave them these evidences, and they organized the recording of this eh bribe a-ah which we saw a few days ago. that's why knyazev, the head of the supreme court , was caught red-handed right in the process of transferring this money. this information was, as i told you, eh, acquired by the law enforcement officers even before the appointment of kryvonos a's seeds for few months before, that is, in january 2023, they already had this information and began to work on this investigation. meanwhile, another ukrainian oligarch who is also abroad, this is dmytro firtash, a very influential figure under yanukovych, received suspicion from the security service of ukraine and the bureau

on spigot robert h jackson ever on the supreme court. it is not corrupted by having to go to law school. so what is writing ability intact. to suspect he wanted to be president. douglas decided he wanted to be president. robert h jackson is to be chief justice disease battles happen and they begin to suspect each other. by the time her truman became president just weeks into his term as vice president in 1945 the supreme court had already made a mess out of it. trucks truman early in the book it took 40 half years before fdr got to a point for justice and truman match that number in the first four and a half years, right?very early and he was a senator,os most importantly republican senator. what they understood then tons contextualize this is the beginning of the gallup poll being the gold standard of polling in the united states. when they became available, one of the most important is when you ask americans if you think they should nominate a republican or democrat to the supreme court and the anathema stabout the questions because we

[000:00:00;00] the detention of the former chairman of the supreme court knyazev, who is suspected of bribery, and the special anti-corruption prosecutor's office was satisfied with the decision of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor's office to agree to the detention of knyazev , 14 members of the supreme council of justice voted for this, and more fresh news that will interest you will be told in a moment by my colleague iryna koval, thank you oksana well, as a matter of fact , the project with the head of the supreme court, we will talk in the issue about how our security service of ukraine continues to identify traitors of our country. and we will also learn about how the international forum europe with a view to the future is currently taking place in poland, i promise to tell you more about all this in the news broadcast in ukraine at 15:00 news time on the espresso tv channel in the studio iryna koval welcomes all viewers and i want to start our broadcast with an urgent message from the head of the kharkiv regional military of the administration of oleh sinogubov, who re

and so on there is a lack of judges , this is not about the supreme court, but about the judicial branchovernment in general, here you have to be somehow so wise and at the same time try to implement some fair decisions, on the other hand, we understand that we are not the judge the only ones who live in the court, in particular, it is about various additional positions where people receive well, it’s just ridiculous money, but they work in the courts despite all that, and this, most likely, can also affect the growth of the level of corruption or its existence as such. it is true that the employees of the apparatus, unfortunately, now receive very low wages, but when we speak in the context of judges, it is necessary to understand that this is actually a very separate, in fact , won status of a representative of the state, so when we we are talking about competence, it must go with the acquisition because uh. what difference does it make if the practice of the european court of human rights is indicated in the hand, what exactly is it considered competent to indicate it there. if this p

, , supreme court? yes, definitely. on tuesday when _ supreme court? yes, definitely.t? yes, definitely. on tuesday when he was _ supreme court? yes, definitely. on tuesday when he was arrested, - supreme court? yes, definitely. on tuesday when he was arrested, last night his legal team filed an application to the supreme court. saying that his arrest was illegal. and we have seen in the remarks today from the supreme court during the hearing, they said that from the premises of the supreme court you cannot arrest anyone because the person who is coming to the supreme court he or she must be coming to seek relief from the court so you cannot arrest that person from the court premises. so making that ground, the court order to release imran khan, and they also said imran khan has got to present himself in front of the islamabad high court. but we have still not seen him but i suppose the question it begs is, is this enough to enter the street protests for imran khan supporters or is it likely to fuel them?- or is it likely to fuel them? there is an interesting _ or is i

court of appeals who end up on the supreme court unless something catastrophic happens. until the democrats decided we are not voting and chuck schumer at a press conference at what can you do to direct him to get a vote? and the senator said at the microphone, nothing. so to break down the process then, we would just end up in a very bad place. >> what do you think about the composition of the court with these three trumpet appointees? are you fearful of an extreme right shift of the court? or do you think it will be a more reserved and moved the right? >> first, i think president trump did, he actually did his job but if there is a vacancy you nominate someone. it's wrong of a president for not filling a vacancy on the court for any reason. whether it's 8:30 in the morning on january 20 here's my name here is the name and putting forward. my big problem right now if the court is almost with the description of the court. the discussion of the conservative justices and the liberal justices. no. there may be too liberal justices on the court. maybe justice kagan, justice

i mentioned how i've always had mantra about the supreme court. this is your supreme court. but there was another mantra that had that more recently has been swirling my head or another of line that i thought of and that from when a court official to me, when i was asked an incredibly easy question, all things considered, if we had wanted you to know that we would have told you that, and it wouldn't like. why have that added? you are you are part of the government. you are you know you have a public so anyway you but as i always do say they it one thing that will get them together they will close ranks against precedent queries. the one thing they can agree on sadly. yes. right, right, right, right. well, we do have a question here about about justices and harassment mean. so there is i mean, to some degree you know, i don't blame them for not wanting to talk to public. it has not gone particularly swimmingly every time had interactions. and i'm thinking in particular or the attempt on justice kavanaugh and you know said that he received death threats as well after after the

it's why nothing has changed as a result of what the supreme court did. they have to let the appeals court play out the normal process. that's why it's going to go back in front of those three judges today who tend to lean conservative. we don't know what they will do when it comes to mifepristone, but they have a history of upholding prior abortion restrictions in past cases. >> whoever wins or loses, the supreme court will eventually -- the stay, the way they wrote it, you pointed out, the stay will remain in place. it will be on the market no matter what happens today. go back to the supreme court most likely. then we will see what they do. >> right. the stay will remain in place while the supreme court decides whether to take it up. why didn't they just take it up if they knew it was going to come back? remember, they might not have had the votes for that. there might have been wrangling. this was happening at lightning speed because they were up against a deadline with the federal judge saying the order was going into affect unless the supreme court

that stanislav kravchenko now looks the most incredible head of the new, well, new supreme court, but most dubious because, as correctly noted by my colleague, there are already doubts about him in advance, because the public council of integrity in 2017 adopted a conclusion about non-compliance with the criteria of integrity, and as you correctly said, the reason was that the judge was a member of the panel of judges that made the decision, which was later reviewed by the european court of human rights. the human rights court stated that the panel of judges, where stanislav kravchenko was present, referred to the recognition of the testimony of a person who was given without a defense attorney and that there was a violation of human rights, the right to defense and the judge this is not taken into account, and it looked like stanislav kravchenko tried to hide it during the competition to the supreme court in the declaration of integrity for 2015, perhaps because he did not mention the fact that such a decision had been reviewed in the supreme court, and it was not the only problemati

just - supreme court today. pretty spectacular day. just at - supreme court today. be in police custody for a further week we knew that many members, senior leaders of his party were also being arrested. we'd seen two days of unrest across the country but the big questions were, what can happen next. this intervention by the supreme court who called imran khan to appear in front of them with about an hours notice, took a few hours to get him to court. i was inside the court complex, would be waiting outside the entrance will be suddenly heard he would be appearing in another media roomful that ran through the card is admitted to see him for his first appearance in the course of two days with up the first i would see him since s was up he came through, didn't answer see him since s was up he came through, didn'tanswerany through, didn't answer any questions, through, didn'tanswerany questions, went straight into the courtroom where he appeared in front of three chiefjustices of the supreme court. as you say, they then told him the arrest against him would've happened