this supreme court 'ud . ment view today. this supreme court judgment is _ view today. is hugely _ view today. this supreme court judgment is hugely significant. | judgment is hugely significant. first and foremost for our clients, some of whom are victims of torture and trafficking, but it is an important day for the rule of law in this country. it demonstrates the government cannot act with impunity. nobody is above the law and today the supreme court found that in line with our international and domestic obligations, this policy is not lawful. , u, , obligations, this policy is not lawful. ., , lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis. thank— lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, thank you _ lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, thank you very _ lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan lewis, thank you very much - lawful. sophie lucas, from duncan. lewis, thank you very much indeed. sophie representing six of the claimants in this case and we had a statement from the prime minister, rishi sunak, in reaction to the judgment, a fa

and now we have the supreme court. and the supreme court has an incredibly important role in the preservation of our democracy. because it has the capacity to make decisions about legislative actions and whether what the legislator did fits within the parameters of the constitution. and it's an awesome responsibility. and as my colleagues have said, i have an enormous amount of reverence for the institution of the judiciary, and i have an enormous amount of reverence for the particular role of the united states supreme court. and i have immense respect for the individuals who have achieved that status of being a member of the united states supreme court. they serve an important institution, they have a very important job, but they're not more important, as individuals, than any other american. they're not. they have more responsibility, they have a special obligation as justices to the supreme court, but they're not above the law. this is not exactly about whether there are legal questions involved. it is about whether

supreme court. i think these are fascinating questions that are incredibly important, and i think they are just beginning to get attention. >> one question i think is raised by this -- i'm sorry, deeper question than if congress can change rules of precedent. of course, if the rules of precedent are common-law rules, it may be that congress can change the rules of precedent and create these structures. of course, they are limited. they cannot create special rules for certain kinds of cases, but i don't think it is clear if you agree that precedent rules or common-law rules that come from the structure of the constitution's power, that does not necessarily mean congress is disabled from getting involved. >> they were common-law rules in 1787. did they get baked into article three in 1788 so that they are no longer common-law rules but now constitutional ones? >> i don't think so. there were hearsay rules, all sorts of rules and rules of evidence, and i'm not sure they were baked in. they had the unus

the document will be approved by the supreme council. therefore, it is not the case that pyramidal governance is the rule in the governance of science and culture, this is the result. the collective identity is formed not only among the members of the council, but also among the government and governing bodies and people's organizations. when this document was approved and the honorable president announced it , the body that is in charge of the implementation and the people and zinfan who they are in charge of implementation, they implement because they themselves have a role in the governance process. governance means policy -making, regulation, entrepreneurship. we did not come to say that the council should make policies by itself, others should take over the implementation. we said to others that zainaf should participate in policy making, this is a good part. there is a fear, even though those who are active in the headquarters in this way are in special desks. perhaps they will pursue their union issues in a way that is self-intere

court of ukraine to the supreme court, a new supreme court was formed. as a result, many judges, left from the supreme court of ukraine, without work and all this time they are sitting, waiting to be allowed to work . the corresponding amendment number eight allows you to solve this problem in accordance with the decision of the ecthr, which , unfortunately, already exists today, which clearly indicated that these judges should continue to administer justice from the moment the supreme court of ukraine was renamed the supreme court, that is what this amendment is about , i ask you to support it so that this law corresponds to this norm of the decision of ecplmenyuk and others against ukraine. thank you please. the position of the committee on amendment number eight, dear colleagues, the committee rejected this amendment, unfortunately, until now the time machine has not been invented, therefore, to return the opportunity to administer justice from the moment when the supreme court was renamed, there is no such physical possibility, therefore please rejec

their agreement _ with at supreme court... their agreement was _ with at supreme court... supreme court... their agreement was similar to - with at supreme court... their agreement was similar to the l with at supreme court... their - agreement was similar to the uk? the home agreement was similar to the uk? tue: home secretary agreement was similar to the uk? tte: home secretary did agreement was similar to the uk? tt2 home secretary did not attach enough weight to that failure, because he said what the argument is where was that the government have the expertise and experience in negotiating the contract, they can trust what the rwanda governor to saying, and the supreme court said you cannot, because the evidence shows that rwanda does not protect refugees. this was a balanced judgment. the supreme court also dismissed the cross—appeal by one of the claimants, to say that since we have left europe we have retained law, which says that you cannot return somebody to an individual where they have no connections. this was not a win—win, it was a balanced judgment by our ind

yes, the supreme leader of the population policies and communication. well, i was responsible for these seats . at that time, some university professors in the universities of shahristan and tehran told us about the policies communicated by the leadership. we have a critique. we set up a scientific chair in the university environment. the professor came and presented his critique . other professors answered and other professors and students were present and listened to discuss their arguments. we also submitted the summary of the discussions to the supreme leader's office and it was fully welcomed. that is, we are in the discussion we had no boundaries. the fact that thousands of free -thinking student seats are held in public universities, azad universities, and that we have not had a single case where the judicial or security systems interfered, or the ministry of interior, for example , entered, shows that such rationality and wisdom there is a large community and capacity in the country, so, god willing , we will start this section of free-thinking

for years, and last year, the supreme leader of the revolution submitted a draft from his office to expediency analysis group . what he wants to implement as sea-oriented development is that our development has not been sea-oriented so far, which means that we have not used the capacity of the sea as much as we should. the main development of our country is land-based development, and now the sea-based development is a very broad chapter it opens up for our economy sector and for our nation because when we talk about the sea, it means what has been neglected so far and that is the capacity of the sea, the capacity of the indian ocean, the capacity of the north sea, the south sea, and the sea of ​​oman. let's take many and many times the capacity of our land for our future economy can be used and exploited. get a date the issue of sea transportation. the world's largest transportation is in the sea domain. and the cheapest global freight shipping is by sea. i would like to state that marine sciences. marine science. we now have two universities. one in khorram shahehar, khorram shahe

court, _ this is the conclusion the supreme court, did — this is the conclusion the supreme court, didtate of the rwandan asylum system, _ current state of the rwandan asylum system, history of allegations of atruses— system, history of allegations of abuses and critically, history of what _ abuses and critically, history of what is — abuses and critically, history of what is called in legaljargon, refoulement. that french word relates — refoulement. that french word relates to _ refoulement. that french word relates to the risk a genuine refugee _ relates to the risk a genuine refugee could be sent back to their home _ refugee could be sent back to their home country where they could be subject _ home country where they could be subject to — home country where they could be subject to ill treatment at they fled from. �* , . , fled from. and the five “ustices here have i fled from. and the five “ustices here have said * fled from. and the five “ustices here have said there _ fled from. and the five “ustices here have said there is h fled from. and the five justices here have said there

supreme court in a few cases. i think, based on what happened recently in shelby county or invertebrates, in other cases there truly was a lot of fear that the supreme court was going to fly back what has really been given for nearly 40 years. almost an uncontroversial given for 40 years. which is that these protections remain in place for the legal standard has been affirmed by the supreme court on numerous occasions. by congress. an institutional unanimity about what this provision means that a real fear that maybe the supreme court was going to do some damage to it but i think a lot of relief that the supreme court upheld what we have all been relying on them what black voters in the south in particular need and have every reason to rely upon for nearly four decades but >> we know that the shelby versus holder decision, eric holder, hates to have the word holder with it. the shelby decision really gutted that preclearance provisions by fighting unconstitutional congresses framework for determining which states

the supreme court did grantham sir, she or i? so what happened was, you know, i, in, you know, of course, each side would like the support of the solicitor general's united states. right? and the client here is the department of health and human services. you know, of the, by the end in ministration. so we did try to convince them to come in on our side, the other, you know, side, you know, the petitioners also try it. and what happened was they split the baby, so they ended up coming. have a guest coming in against us on the nursing home questionnaire. helped understand when this case got to the supreme court. it really blew up because the question was not just about the nursing home question, it was actually about the 1st question that was presented to the court was really a monumental question. is whether anyone who is the recipient of any of the sage, the social safety net program type of laws like medicaid, medicare, chip, snap, tanf, whether any of these individuals came to states or in the county as i'm written, municipali

yes, the supreme leader announced the policies of the population. well, my servant was in charge of these seats in the university in the cities of shahristan and tehran. they said that we are critical of the policies announced by the leadership . he came to present his criticisms, then to answer and other professors and students to be present and listen to their arguments and raise them. in universities the government of azad universities, units of azad university, academic jihad is held, and we did not have a single case where the judicial or security systems interfered, or the ministry of interior, for example, entered, we did not have a single case , which shows that such collective wisdom and high capacity exist in the country, so god willing, we will launch this section of free thinking chairs, god willing, that is, we now have free thinking chairs for students. are not academicians want to speak in this national house of free dialogue, but they don't want to speak. he should bring up his discussion in the university, we will provide this packa

looking at matters of the supreme court. heading over to the house of representatives, expected today, stopgap measure bill. which is the deadline in four days. expected to vote on that day. several republicans have expressed concerns over the text expressed concerns over the text they spread support on the house side and senate side and you can comment on either of these topics, whether it be the government possibly shutting down and running out of money in four days and the code of ethics from the supreme court as well, 202-748-2000 or 202-7488002. and if you want to text us, you can do it at 202-748-8003. comments on either of those things and post on social media, too,@ facebook.com and on x there, too. one of the people when it comes to the matters of the supreme court and the release of the code of ethics, it was on the senate floor yesterday senator dick durbin, the chair of the judiciary committee spoke about the release. some criticisms he had of it and here's a part of what he had to say yesterday. [video clip] >>

it's just been it been a constant assault on the supreme court. and in this case, and many other cases, the supreme court didn't make the right decision. and, and uh, you know, they, they should be commended for that, but they did their job correctly. let me ask you about that. this decision is monumental. as you said, it gives people now the right to sue under section 1983 to the best of your knowledge has that happened? have there been significant changes made in the industry since this decision? you know, there are only about 1500 or so nursing homes that are publicly owned across the country, but more than half of those are, i think more than half are here in the state of indiana. wow. so is going to make a big, big difference here in the, in the, in, in, in indiana. and also i know, in pennsylvania and some other places it might affect, you know, some other kinds of facilities. you know, that are state on you know this, this will definitely now have impact certainly. so i mean health and hospital corporation, marin county has a choice. they c

you've worked in the supreme you you still supreme court.still do work it. work around it. >> i do, indeed. >> i do, indeed. >> were you surprised it? >> were you surprised by it? >> were you surprised by it? >> at all. the issue >> well, not at all. the issue of third countries going on of third countries been going on since that's almost since 2004. that's almost 20 years. same mistakes are years. the same mistakes are made by the secretary of state 20 ago are being made 20 years ago as are being made now, as my colleague said, as night follows this night follows day, this was entirely a policy entirely predictable. a policy set up in 2020 september during lockdown by the cabinet committee , initially rejected by committee, initially rejected by the foreign office . this becomes the foreign office. this becomes law . law. >> so here we are. we've got to see our lawyers. they know their onions , as neither of them are onions, as neither of them are at all surprised by this ruling. and yet the prime minister decided to ignore his home secret

why are they not doing that for the supreme court? the power of the purse -- we could talk about that, but the power of the purse is where congress can say, you want your $150 million. fine, but it is going to come with conditions related to accountability. host: we have lots of questions coming in. dale in our load -- dale in arnold, missouri on the democratic line. caller: i would like to speak with mr. roth about ginny thomas'connection. and clarence thomas. shouldn't he be regulated by the attorney general because of the amount of fraud that the supreme court has been committed? i hear you saying they are entitled to $150 million, but there should be paperwork sent in to our merrick garland, our attorney general, make sure that if it is not turned in at the right time then some charges should be brought on. host: let's let gabe respond. guest: that is a great point. in the federal law passed after watergate, it says for everyone -- the justices make about 300 thousand dollars a year and have financial disclosure requirements, thei

way to the supreme. we've seen a lot more of those in the last ten years on everything from sb eight texas's six week abortion ban to trump biden, immigration policies to covid mitigation measures to alabama, redistricting. and one of the things that the book really tries to help show is that these unsigned unexplained orders, which are inscrutable enough to lawyers, let alone to non-lawyers, actually in the aggregate, are part of a pattern in which the court, has exercised them more more power over more and more things with less and less justification, with fewer and fewer opinions, telling why. so, steve, the court was famously described by alexander bickel as the least dangerous branch and in and i think for much of its history, least postwar history, it was in many ways most respected branch, i think for a number of reasons. esteem the supreme court has dramatically lessened and obviously risen in other parts of america among certain segments. you know, how are the justices how seriously are they tak

how has that impacted outcomes on the supreme court? ms. lidsky: unfortunately it does impact outcomes. a lot of our institutions are not popular with people including the supreme court itself. it is at an all-time low in terms of popularity. but the press likewise, there is a great book i would recommend to you called why americans hate the and why it matters. the thesis of the book is basically that the dislike of the press and press practices does make its way into legal proceedings and herbs back even if you do not have key decisions overturned, the way they are applied curbed. you also don't get legislators passing laws that supplement constitutional protections for the press and then when you have juries deciding cases for example defamation involving the press, maybe they want to punish the press more and judges become skeptical of press claims about freedom but what is interesting to me as this is occurring at the same time when it is becoming so evident that we need reliable information. we the people need reliable information in o

you've worked in the supreme you you still supreme court.still do work it. work around it. >> i do, indeed. >> i do, indeed. >> were you surprised it? >> were you surprised by it? >> were you surprised by it? >> at all. the issue >> well, not at all. the issue of third countries going on of third countries been going on since that's almost since 2004. that's almost 20 years. same mistakes are years. the same mistakes are made by the secretary of state 20 ago are being made 20 years ago as are being made now, as my colleague said, as night follows this night follows day, this was entirely a policy entirely predictable. a policy set up in 2020 september during lockdown by the cabinet committee , initially rejected by committee, initially rejected by the foreign office . this becomes the foreign office. this becomes law . law. >> so here we are. we've got to see our lawyers. they know their onions , as neither of them are onions, as neither of them are at all surprised by this ruling. and yet the prime minister decided to ignore his home secret

now this decision by the supreme court seems to have blown that the author of the water because the supreme court has made clear, unanimously that this plan is unlawful. there are big questions about what the government does now. we are expecting to hear from the prime minister, rishi sunak. he will be addressing questions from mps at prime minister's questions and then we will get a statement from the new home secretary james cleverly and there will be a press conference from rishi sunak later on this afternoon as well. be under no doubt this is a hugely significant blow to the government's plan and big questions about where they go from here. . , , ., , ., here. there has been a statement from the prime _ here. there has been a statement from the prime minister _ here. there has been a statement from the prime minister where . here. there has been a statement from the prime minister where he i here. there has been a statement l from the prime minister where he is saying, we have seen today's judgment and will consider next steps. he said, this was not the outcome we wanted. people have be

i don't know how the supreme court stands with the american people in terms of polling. i bet you they're better off than we are. just about everybody in america has a better image with the american people than the congress. you know, there's probably a lot of reasons for that. a lot of shared blame. all i can tell you is that you made this decision here to go after private individuals, go after the court, in a way that we believe is trying to delegitimize, not just clarence thomas but the court in general. you've opened up pandora's box and you'll get a look into it. it's not very pretty. we could spend all of our time talking about what we would like to subpoena. versus what you would like to subpoena. you've got to understand pretty soon today, there's a pent up demand on our side for information. a lot of us would like to know a lot of things about what's going on in the biden world. what's going on with sotomayor selling her books. i want to know how 240,000 people from four countries achieved parole when the law says it should be done on an individual basis with tw

supreme court.ased live right away. >> joyce vance, the trump lawyers suddenly going for cameras, does seem like a reaction to what they perceive as donald trump's successful circus atmosphere that he has created in your chorus. >> perhaps so, but they sucker punched prosecutors on this one, because prosecutors want to trump lawyers before they filed, and ask what their position would be. they are obligated to do that under the procedural rules here, and they were told by trump's lawyers that they would not take the position, so they really set jack smith up. he then dog in, because the existing lot to say that there is no possibility of cameras in the courtroom, and that trump lawyers use that to launch this attack. jack smith was against transparency, that he wanted to conduct a show trial. i think that was really what was going on here. they were looking to score political points on jack smith, and they did it, and neal is absolutely correct when he says that federal courts like state courts can

court, he said that the supreme court is not likely to -- if this gets to the supreme court, he said supreme court is going to be hung up on, the difference in the wording between the presidents oath, which says he's there to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, and the federal employee out that says they're there to support and defend the constitution. your thoughts? >> it's interesting, just listening to melissa and not just thinking about the -- ruling, but the michigan ruling and the minnesota ruling. we have courts around the country who have a humility problem. their problem is in one version or another, they say to themselves, look, it's not on me to take this guy off the ballot. this is kind of too big a question. so, there is a real paradox here, if you think about the fact that when we went through the impeachment process, we heard lots of political actors saying, no, this is not something we should do in the political branches. if you want to bring a criminal case or if you want to bring a case under some theory that donald trump should be removed, do it in the

and you see, this our supreme court. but this is our supreme court.ut the human the european court of human rights stands . rights ruling still stands. that's right. that's the that's right. right. that's the point. there's a thing point. and there's a thing called rule 39. it's very technical she's technical. but what she's basically is that the basically saying is that the assumption the british people assumption of the british people that the government wins in that if the government wins in the planes the supreme court, the planes take the wrong take off. that is the wrong assumption. that a massive assumption. that is a massive shock everybody. so this shock to everybody. so this ruling a lose for the ruling is a lose lose for the british people. and if we didn't have to leave the european court of human rights to have what she wanted, we just could have have a derogation that she could have put into the legislation that actually notwithstanding any other international law or indeed our own human rights act this is what would happen. so it had be

. >> narrator: mitch mcconnell, the consummate political operator... ...who reshaped the supreme court and ushered in an era of partisanship and polarization through shrewd choices and sacrifices facing ongoing challenges, politically and physically, to his long hold on power. >> "remember me." >> this is polio. some may carry the mark and burden of polio paralysis for life. >> narrator: polio. mitch mcconnell was only two years old when it struck. >> would they recover, or would polio never be over for them? >> today, it's hard to imagine how scary polio was. there was no cure for it. i had classmates who were in an iron lung-- in other words, lying on their back, breathing with help all day long-- some died from it. >> there are so many to be remembered in the grim polio fight ahead. for them, polio is still a terrible reality. >> "you can walk, but you can't walk." that's what my mom would say to me after i was struck with polio at age two to explain why she wouldn't let me get up on my feet. >> he was basically confined to a bedroom. and his mother would come in and they would do t

if you want to know what to do asked the supreme court. t they're the ones that came up with this idea, not me. but you can't end up with just factors that have a discriminatory impact. and then try to hide behind the fact that it wasn't intentional. therefore, not actionable under title six, because we don't have a private right of action. i want to thank our witnesses, particularly mr. jose who pointed out the discredited tory impact of what is left after affirmative actions and the challenges we have to make sure equal opportunity is alive and well. >> thank you again for our witnesses here. this is such an important topic. let me just set the record straight, for those who are not aware of this. failure is not in the dna of black americans. black americans can think as well if given the same opportunity as any other american. for us to enter this conversation thinking that black america is, because they are black, and because they had slavery 200 years ago our inherently less intelligent is, indeed, racist. do not -- i will go back --

it may end up at the supreme court. think though, alex, if there is a snack decides to delay the trial, it's more likely to be around some of the very broad claims, in fact, the claims of absolute immunity that the former president trump has put forward in the case, basically saying that he cannot be prosecuted for these events, because they involve things that took place while he was president. we expect judge chutkan to deny the emotions that he's already brought on those grounds. those that could see definitely going to the supreme court, and those are the ones that i think if we derail the trial, it will be coming to that particular direction. >> we know that trump has filed an appeal disappoint business ads to dismiss the case for selective and vindictive prosecution tonight. am i wrong when i believe that this is the sort of throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, delay strategy? >> it is. i think this was clearly expected based on all of his rhetoric, based on what his lawyers are saying. it's not surpr

the supreme court has been reluctant to weigh in.there are not that many cases but they are starting to take some which makes us trepidations, but when they -- in counterman versus colorado which dealt with threats, they were very sensitive to the misinterpretation that you could put on threats and internet context, and they set standards high so that we did not accidentally punish speech that was not really a threat, and then they rejected the invitation to you know, make twitter responsible for all extremism on the internet generated by its algorithms. they are trying to be careful in the adaptation of these principles and it gives me hope . the point is the principles, and we reason by analogy but sometimes the companies are not analogous to anything we have seen before. they're kind of like newspapers and kind of like common carriers. so hopefully the supreme court will be modest in their own abilities and be very careful in that adaptation process this term. >> i think the three of you are a pretty great three-judge panel. i wou

the government wants the supreme courtjustices to - the supreme courtjustices to overturn the appeal to rwanda might end up in the country from which they fled, breaching their human rights under the european convention. this lawyer represents asylum seekers who originally challenged the lawfulness of the rwanda policy. the supreme court will be _ the rwanda policy. the supreme court will be considering - court will be considering whether rwanda is a safe third country and will consider a wealth of evidence including from the unhcr about fundamental deficiencies in the asylum system of what wonder. if the government wins ministers open the flights will take off for christmas. ii ministers open the flights will take off for christmas.- take off for christmas. if they lose it is thought _ take off for christmas. if they lose it is thought the - take off for christmas. if they lose it is thought the home i lose it is thought the home office will seek a new treaty with the rwandan government to take account of the concerns of the supreme courtjustices. but there are some in the conservat

install people in the supreme court like leo.de to assail the send its right to investigate this evidence of corruption from this investigative reporters, their claims are just baseless. in fact, ludicrous to -- the separation of powers right to secretly influence the supreme court justices pay for their luxury lifestyle and congressman do nothing. this is a big step forward. obviously there more steps that need to be taken. but this is a really important step for because the american people get it. by huge numbers. democrats, republicans, and independents agreed the senate judiciary committee has to investigate this stench, this corruption, this corruption that surrounding the supreme court and in particular justice thomas and certainly justice alito as well. >> kathryn, let's talk about the subpoenas for a moment. you have -- they've been subpoenaed. they've come out with statements denouncing the judiciary's move to subpoena. them if and when they are issued, how can the democrats go about enforcing it given the lessons we've

if you say that the supreme court -- what the supreme court -- supreme court rulings are the law of thed and you allow people to defy those rulings, it's not going to be just alabama defying it. it's not going to be other actors who don't like the outcome of certain cases. so in that case the decision was i believe unanimous in terms of telling alabama the second time to go back and draw that district. but that was a direct challenge to the power of the supreme court. and this case is -- is a statutory case. it's not a direct threat to their power, and so they can rule safely without undermining their own authority. >> it's about the power of the court and not necessarily disenfranchising black voters. thank you so much for your time. happy thanksgiving to you and everyone at home. that is our show for this evening. >>> tonight the temporary pause in the israel-hamas war now delayed. israel says no hostages in gaza will be released before friday as families eagerly await to hear ifir

if donald trump loses before the colorado supreme court and the colorado supreme court says he should not be on the ballot, i would bet the supreme court would not want to hear that appeal only on paper, that it would feel it was important enough if it was going to take the case to actually hold oral arguments and that could happen with a briefing in early january to try to meet a january 5th deadline. now, again, i'm just gaming this out. here is the other thing i would say. if donald trump continues to prevail, if he wins before the colorado supreme court on appeal, there is no split in the circuit at that point. whatever the petition appeal comes to the supreme court, there's no split. he's won in every case and the justices might think they just reject the petition, the attempt to try to reverse the lower courts out of hand. that might be an easy thing for them to do, or they might feel given there's this big cloud hanging over the presidential ballot because of these arguments fully joined now they might have to resolve it so that it's clear going forward for the primary. so i ho

the supreme court right fully struck them. they say this for asian americans as all children should no longer be treated as second-class citizens. all americans with the mayor trust -- also in advance america towards the counter plan society as martin luther king dreamed of 60 years ago. equity and inclusion have not given up. they have issued guidance that advocates as a program. this guidance is important. college enrollment is a failure of the k-12 education preparing black and hispanic children for colleges. improving the constitutional ways in higher education. further all k-12 education is behind other indoctrination's that they are responsible further of the legal operation standard. a plaintiff speed where they urge stopping the race race proxies in college admissions. by hiding students name disclose the rate make students inaccessible to what is evaluated. the criteria on the needs of the program for the equity. restore standardized testing. the factor is 81% have made standardized testing possible. the entrance exam

that's not the case with the supreme court.kes some pains to explain that principle and explain that the need to sit is also quite high for the supreme court and plays into recusal decisions. >> paul: so dan, the political impact of this, though, seems to be that it has not nullified the critics, no big surprise. therefore, was it a mistake, to kyle's point, that maybe the critics will say uh-huh, we've got them on the run because they did this? was it a mistake to issue this? >> i think it might have been a small mistake. the fact is whether they did this or not was not going to change the attitude of the democrats. the democratic left simply wants to break the independence of the supreme court because the conservatives hold a majority now, and they just can't stand that. they have to find a way to break that, either through recusals by forcing these justices somehow to remove themselves from cases. that's what makes the 2024 election so important, if perchance the democrats were to run the table and get in charge -- be able t

just technically, because the supreme court is, there's a hint in the name, supreme. they're not really supposed to answer to anyone else. so how do you hold them to account? for complying with this ethics code. it is a mess. it is overdue, obviously needed, it is also a mess. my friend dahlia lithwick is going to be here live to talk about it as soon as we found ou that the supreme court had madee this surprise move, we called dahlia right away.is i'm really looking forward to that conversation. >>> also, looking ahead to tomorrow's news, we are expecting a giant protest tomorrow in washington, d.c. something like 50,000 people are expected on the national mall tomorrow, which is a very big , number for a national mall protest. and this comes tomorrow at the tail end of what has been a very intense few days of protests around the world over the mounting death toll and the jush unbearable suffering in gaza, and in israel. this was friday in new york. the latest in what is now almost a daily series of pro-palestinian protests in new york. this briefly shut down grand c