given that the supreme court's judgment, judgment of the court. ll now, iam bound and as the honourable lady will now, i am bound by the long—standing convention that the views of the law officers are not disclosed outside officers are not disclosed outside of the government without their consent. however, iwill consider of the government without their consent. however, i will consider it over the coming days whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the government on this subject. i am unable to give an undertaking or a promise to the honourable lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration. joanna cherry. mr speaker, i also took a close interest in the case. let me start by assuring the attorney general i am not going to call for his resignation yet. yesterday was a very special day for scots law and the scottish legal tradition coming back to the declaration of arbroath that the government is not above the law. following in the footsteps of scotland's supreme court, the uk supreme court ass

supreme court the highest court in the united kingdom where the court has ruled on notably galaxy of johnson and 5 week suspension of parliament ruling that it was 'd on or for. let's bring in our correspondent rory challen see is outside the supreme courts in london a damning ruling there by the u.k.'s highest courts clearly this is going to be a huge blow for the british government and for prime minister boris johnson where can he go from here. this is as you say a deep blow heavy blow for boris johnson and his parliament the ruling given by the supremes courts on the 3 questions that it was considering was unanimous all 11 justices essentially ruled against the government on this they were being asked was this matter just a simple is it's a thing that the courts should have decided on raw being just a political matter the boris johnson as the prime minister had every right to do separate parliaments well the supremes justice did hear from server celebration after. campaigners who say have black was saying silence m.p.'s over there they are very pleased with this decision so yes th

court, the supreme court justices, all 11 here at the supreme court, the supreme courtjustices, all 11nded 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, working out what reaction to get. he is working out practical decisions and substantive ones, does he go h

the supreme court needs to decide whether prorogation is a matter for the courts.ecides it's not a matter for the courts, borisjohnson wins. but if it decides it is a matter for the courts it must rule whether the advice to the queen was lawful or not. if the court rules that advice didn't breach constitutional law or principle sufficiently or at all — again the pm would win. or it could rule that advice to the queen was unlawful either because of mrjohnson‘s improper motivation to frustrate parliament or perhaps more likely that the effect was that legislation was lost and parliamentary scrutiny was improperly denied. in this case the government loses. let's cross to ben brown, he's outside the supreme court in central london. a lot of possible outcomes to discuss. yes. we will get to the judgment at 10:30am from the panel of 11 supreme court justices. 10:30am from the panel of 11 supreme courtjustices. they will not all be here in person but we will get their judgment. before boris johnson here in person but we will get their judgment. before borisjohnson it is a

we're full of respect for the justices of our supreme court. . i think that is what the british people want. in other words, he has been very nice to the courts. he has total respect for the court. the opposition did not unite over brexit, but they are together in their desire to return to parliament. here's the reaction of one former conservative mp anna soubry, who left the party over its brexit policy. parliament is not suspended. it has not even adjourned. effectively, it is still sitting. the sooner we get back into that chamber, the better. what will you do now? i have already contacted the speaker on behalf of all the opposition parties that are here. and we have said we are here and we are willing or ready to get into the chamber to hold this government to account. here's is the view of a conservative mp who is still in line with the party, and chairs the group of brexit hardliners called the european research group or the erg. it is an earthquake moment, and yet we must uphold parliament democracy in the rule of law. but the real proble

our political editor laura kuenssberg has this report on the supreme court's dramatic ruling and whatcould mean for brexit. the storm burst, well and truly. campaigners and lawyers gathering at the highest court in the land... ready to pass judgment on the prime minister. when it came, the ruling was polite but devastating too. borisjohnson broke the law. was polite but devastating too. boris johnson broke the law. the decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. jubilation outside in the rain. it restores some kind of hope, doesn't it? who needs hard booze when you have judgment like that. suspicious he had prorogue parliament to close bait on brexit which he denied. the effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. no justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. the conclusion... it was illegal, so it never happened at all. the prime minister's advice

supreme court. he was a prosecutor during the nuremberg trials. when he was serving in the supreme court. under franklin roosevelt in 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. it really 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 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 ro

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

so that was an odd posture coming up to the supreme court. an 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 i

in scotland without having any recourse to a supreme court in the u.k. but that's something that would have to wait for eddie if and when scott to becomes an independent nation there was a distinction between the 2 judgements of course that the court of session and of chambers said that and the prime minister's more troops were under suspicion whereas the supreme court in the u.k. and the estimable leader here will say that the only matter what the prime minister's mortals were taught what was that the cat from the a difference of emphasis between the the courts of scotland and south of the border well there was a slate difference in that regard but nevertheless i mean in some ways the supreme court judgment of shoes he was even more robust than anything that was said by the 3 judges at the court of session some came before because she made it quite clear a lady he was. that not only was johnson's action not only with the unlawful but in fact him parliament wasn't proved to toll and please hurry back to work folks and that was i think a step further than

the supreme court assured in that case. >> wears the court going to go?>> it is going to do the right thing. [laughter] it will hold title vii. making it pretty clear that regardless of what congress may have expected, sex discrimination. >> the balance of circuits is on that side. seventh circuit in the second circuit when en banc. pretty overwhelming vote said it was sex discrimination. i think they both got it right. >> i do not know that much about the cases. i think this is one of the cases where it is going to have a tough time. i think textually, they admit admit that interpretation. those judges who would think, well, that is true and there is the pool for those that would think it's in the mind of the legislature. was it enough that this was within the meaning of the words used. is it, you know, reaching the court had in the '90s about whether it was sex discrimination if you had same-sex harassment. yes. even though that was perhaps not what people had in 1964. it may have been a difficult case for the court for those that would like to say that

that is the scene outside the supreme court. spension has so far been challenged in two separate cases, with each resulting in different judgments — london's high court said it was not a matter for the courts, but edinburgh's court of session said the parliament shutdown was unlawful. here's our legal affairs correspondent, clive coleman. first, edinburgh's court of session accused boris johnson first, edinburgh's court of session accused borisjohnson of changes tiny parliament are misleading the queen. here's our legal affairs correspondent, clive coleman. constitutional law, dry and dusty? not a bit of it. a prime minister stands accused of misleading the monarch and undermining parliament. the supreme court will have to resolve two dramatically contradictory judgments. scotland's higher civil court ruled that the prime minister's advice to the queen to prorogue was motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing or frustrating parliament during critical weeks before brexit, but the high court in london ruled that proroguing was

so regardless of the appeal in the supreme court? immediately. g the appeals on both sides and parliament will set and arranged for us to sit within the next 26 hours. and to be clear, if parliament is recalled, what happens then? if we are recalled, the house of commons will continue its work as before. it has been suggested we should adjourn the session for the party conferences, but it was clear last week and is tired of this week, that if given the opportunity to vote on that, the house of commons will decide not to adjourn because of the nature of the crisis the country is facing. it is quite wrong for us to go away for three weeks. he makes that happen? to mps and somehow engineer a vote on cancelling the recess? no, if we are back, it is for the government to bring ina back, it is for the government to bring in a recess if it wants it and for parliament to refuse. it also opens up, does it not, the possibility that boris johnson will have to release those papers around prorogation, which you succeeded in passing a motion on this week? yes,

if the screen courts going to overturn roe, it's up to the supreme court. the question is when we find two judges on one of the courts of appeals who are eager to get it up there and disregard. >> you have seven cases from the supreme court that expressly say in so many words that even if you believe there is a precedent of the court that has not -- foundations and will no longer by the supreme court, you should leave that and you have to follow it. there's no way any court of appeals judge doing his or her job can uphold those laws. i think the supreme court would not uphold this law but i have to. >> something earlier about honesty and lack of honesty which is i think on roe v. wade the court has been with the exception maybe, it has been in the project of kind of hollowing out roe v. wade by finding stuff not to be an undue burden. he would like to keep doing that project, i don't think he is eager to overturn roe v. wade because i think he is thinking institutionally about where that puts the court vis-a-vis a large part of the american public. but it on

but the truth is that the supreme court like most courts in america is collegial in a warm place to come to work. it's a tiny little place only a couple hundred people work there. may be a few hundred. you get to know people. kids trick-or-treat in your office. we flip hamburgers at a cookout. even let the law clerks make fun of us in the skit at the end of the year. [laughter] and boy do they. [laughter] that's a whole other story. of course we disagree. yes this is the federally hardest cases in america of course we will disagree sometimes. but we do it civilly and collegially and we have fun doing it we sing happy birthday to one another. poorly but enthusiastically. we sing together at the holidays we eat lunch together. a lot. lunch is available at the justices interim. and justice breyer, we don't talk shop at lunch his grandchildren are an endless reservoir of knock knock jokes. i don't thinks sonja would mind me telling this. we were lining up in robes to go out to the court and we shake hands every time we gather, 36 handshakes no matter what is going on that has been going on f

i am cautiously optimistic the supreme court will follow the scottish court.is possible under the british constitution for a prime minister of a minority government to shut down parliament if it is getting in his way and that cannot be right. anotherjudge said, whatever boris johnson did cannot be right. anotherjudge said, whatever borisjohnson did albeit disgraceful, it is not a matterfor the court, it is a political matter. i respect him but three scottish seniorjudges have said otherwise and had given detailed reasoning. one of the most senior qcs this morning has adopted the proceedings of the scottish court but i think what the scottish court has said will prove decisive and persuasive. if it is ruled that borisjohnson has not acted lawfully, what you think will happen? i think will start to sit immediately and mps like myself should be able to get back into the chamber and get back into committee and get on with the job of scrutinising parliament. that isjoanna job of scrutinising parliament. that is joanna cherry from the job of scrutinising parliament.

you said people get their news from the tv, headlines and sound bytes. >> mm-hmm. >> trevor: the supreme courtly in written and audio form, and i'm saying, like, i could produce, like, a courtroom show where you guys are on camera. ( laughter ) do you think maybe the court should jump into the era of tv and broadcast what you're doing? >> no. ( laughter ) you walk into our courtrooms and we're not made for tv, and i think if our arguments were televised, it might change the dynamic, and we're human beings and the draw to play to tv affects every human being. >> trevor: now that you've said that, i feel like no part of the u.s. government should be on tv. ( laughter ) >> actually, that's what some senator said to me, that the partisanship in the senate started to grow when cameras went into the senate room. those senate rooms now are completely empty. it's the chair of the senate, it is the senator speaking and some members of his staff. there is no one else in the room but the camera, and they're speaking to the camera, not to each other. but many senators told me that they felt that much of t

he has been inside the supreme court listening to the proceedings. exploring the grey area between politics and the law. the atmosphere in court is very calm, despite the size of the constitutional question, in contrast to this atmosphere out here where we have seen shami chakrabarti being accused of some of being a traitor. inside because it comes down to who is supreme to the prime minister or polymer? the qc for gina miller effectively says that either by his intention or the effect, the prime minister has silenced parliament and its ability to scrutinise the executive and that is a huge breach of the uk constitution. the great big invisible elephant in the room as the prime minister himself because we learned this morning he has not prepared a witness statement for the ii justices explaining why he advised the queen the way he did. lord pannick for gina miller says in the absence of that witness statement, it speaks volumes and shows the prime minister was trying to hide what he was really up to. thank you. there will be three days of hearings at

from the prime minister, but he also referred to westminster‘s balance of power, suggesting the supreme courtling in what were political matters if it ruled against the government. the court is not equipped to decide what is a legitimate political consideration and what is an illegitimate political consideration. the legal arguments may seem dry, but there are deep passions at play, asjudges unpick the complex relationship between legitimate power and political ambition. from the supreme court, mark looks at how the prime minister might respond to anyjudgement undertaken. you heard me talk about the declaration, they with the prime minister is saying that he will do whatever is necessary to respond to the decision of the court. but the justice asked a number of questions saying with the us the queen to recall parliament, would you potentially prorogue, suspend parliament a second time and the lawyer to that said that i am not in a position to comment. at which point the justice set in that case, that undertaking, we would like that in writing, if you don't mind. it is also emerged today that

saying we have a supreme court which is a junior court.onths ahead. as we do that, do you think there is a chance that we start to move towards an american system where the politics of the justices i looked at more closely? absolutely not. the whole system is against that. i think rightly so. because the courts actually are not involved in politics at all. they are in legal questions, would sometimes broach onto political issues. but legal issues are legal issues. i don't think we want to know anything at all about, the political background of the judges extremely uninteresting. i don't think... you will know that obviously there was going to be a debate about who they are and whether they are setting against brexit. it is completed whether we like it or not. these are the times we live in. nothing to do with brexit. absolutely the idea this is a brexit issue is not correct. but there will be that argument. people come up with all sorts of silly arguments. that is where my fears, perhaps in a strange backwards way this plays into boris joh

you say what about the supreme court? i said, you realize we hear 70 cases a year? the hardest cases in the country and those are where the lower courts had disagreed on the underlying legal issue. that's why we take cases to resolve disagreements of people in california have the same rights and freedoms under our laws but as a people in new york. and everywhere in between. that's our job is to resolve circuit splits as we call them. fine. 70 cases out of 50 million. think about that. think about the sturdiness the reliability, the predict ability, the fairness of our rule of law, it's incredible now let's deal with those 70. there are nine of us, not three anymore, appointed over about only five or 30 years by five different presidents. from all across the country. the liberals of new Ãbthe boroughs of new york continued to be represented. [laughter] out of those 70 cases about 40% are resolved anonymously. do you ever hear about that? 40% you think that happens magically? heck no. get nine people to agree on where to go to lunch. [laughter] yet we managed to reach

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 passed

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 was highly critical of the government's case. mean for the relationship between courts and government, and what impact could it have in the future? our home editor, mark easton, reports. what you're watching never happened. it may look as though, in the small hours of september the 10th, the royal commissioners attended the house of lords to suspend or prorogue parliament, but today the most senior judges in the land said the ceremony was void and had no effect. ..to prorogue this present parliament. when the royal commissioners walked into the house of lords, it was as if they'd walked in with a blank sheet of paper. parliament has not been prorogued. this is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. this was a constitutional thwack on the nose of government, delivered by the judiciary on behalf of the uk parliament. thejustices made it clear this judgment was a one—off, but its implications will echo down british history. around parliament square in westminster, there are hidden power lines, a triangle of authority joining the

[applause] >> there was the case you had that you wanted to taketo the supreme court , but you couldn't because the case involving i think the army air force informant. >> this is a star case. yes. i had hoped that would be the first reproductive choice case that the court would hear. in the case of rose in 1971, when captain stubb was serving inthe air force , and he was serving abroad, when she became pregnant. pregnancy in those days was a mandatory route for discharge. the base commander said to her, 1971, two years versus before roe versus wade, you can have an abortion on base. we provide those for women in service and wives of men in service. but if you do, you can remain in the airforce . but if you choose to go through the pregnancy, you are discharged. no exceptions. susan struck said i'm a roman catholic. i cannot have an abortion. but i made arrangements to have the child adopted at birth. i will cost the taxpayers nothing because i'll use only my accumulated leave time for the birth . and she said so here we are at crop air force base where some of my male colleagues get ho

but we all know from following the television and high coverage of the supreme court appointments or he hearings and the non-hearings that there seems to be, politically, a great deal of interest in who gets appointed to the court. so as advocates, of people who have submitted briefs to the supreme court, when you submit those briefs do you see yourself as submitting briefs to advocates are wearing black robes, or do you see yourself submitting briefs to neutrals are going to neutrally interpret what you say? [laughing] [applause] >> i actually, you know, call me pollyanna-ish but i really do believe, look, the justices disagree with each other because the justices have fundamentally different views about how to interpret the constitution. of course if you have fundamentally different views about how to interpret the constitution or how to interpret the statute or other, all the types of issues the courts deal with you are going to come up with fundamentally different answers. that's not the product necessarily. it's easy to look at that and say it must just be completely results driv

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

spain's supreme court also delivered a decision today that will undoubtedly impact the country's future one that addresses the remnants of spain's dark past and the shadows that they continue to cast into the present today the court approved the socialist government's plans to remove the remains of former dictator francisco franco from a large muslim near madrid and have them re buried in a family plot as franco's current grave site will then be rededicated to the victims of the spanish civil war. a fascist salute to the dictator they says franco's tomb more than 40 years after his death people still come here to show their respect. franco's remains rest in this basilica carved into a mountainside outside madrid more than 20000 political prisoners were forced to carry out the construction work. franco ordered the monument as a tribute to those killed in the spanish civil war and the remains of more than $30000.00 fighters from both sides are buried here most though without the knowledge of their relatives. franco ruled spain with 9 faced for nearly 40 years tens of thousands of his enem

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

the former supreme court judge, lord sumption, disagrees and says the court has reinstated parliamentto our system of government. this government sought to marginalise it and the supreme court has reinstated it in its proper place. there couldn't be anything more conservative. it's perfectly true they have invented a new legal doctrine to achieve that result but the result itself is clearly admirable. what has happened is that our famously flexible and informal constitution has responded to an abuse by restoring the previous position. that is how constitutions do develop. governments have powers, they abuse them, people shift the goalposts. david leakey is a former black rod at the house of lords — a senior officer responsible for controlling access to and maintaining order within the house and its precincts. speaking earlier he explained some of the items that are likely to come up in the house of commons today. there are some practical things. conferences are going on at the moment and likely that the parliament would have been in recess anyway. they will discuss various things, lik

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

our political editor laura kuenssberg has this report on the supreme court's dramatic ruling and whatcampaigners and lawyers gathering at the highest court in the land... do you think you've won? i really hope so. ..ready to pass judgment on the prime minister. when it came, the ruling was polite, but devastating too. borisjohnson broke the law. the decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful, because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. jubilation outside in the rain. cheering yes! it restores some kind of hope, doesn't it? who needs hard booze, right, when you've got a judgment like that? those outraged the prime minister had advised the queen to suspend or prorogue parliament for five weeks, suspicious he'd done it to close down debate on brexit — which he denied. the effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. no justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. the conclusion — it was illegal,

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

district their case to court, where they lost and faced tragedy, and took it to the supreme court, where they ended up winning and securing student rights to free speech. >> how did you hear about this story? >> we are actually in ap weernment and politics, and are going through the landmark court cases throughout history. this stood out to us because it involves students around our age, and it is important to us because looking out in the world now, there is a lot of student activism occurring, and it is important to understand why we have these rights and who to appreciate for gaining us these rights. >> i look at the design here, the way you did this. can you hi you decided to create the visuals of the exhibit? >> we decided to take the top three movements that kids in our community, or students in our community participate in. matter, march for our lives, and the local hawaii a 30 meteris telescope that was going to be mountain inacred hawaii, and there is a lot of controversy in the state, whether it should be built or not. >> and tell me about your school, where you are from. schoo

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

but we were disappointed that in the end the supreme court took a different view and of course we respect the judgment of the court given the supreme court's judgment even legal turns the matter is settled and as the honorable lady will know what i am by owned by the longstanding convention that the views of the officers are not disclosed outside the government without their consent. however i will consider over the coming days whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the government on this subject i am very busy to give my mom to taking or a promise to be honorable maybe this point but the matter is under consideration. mr speaker i also too close interest in the case. i can assure start by assuring the attorney general that i'm not going to call for his resignation yet. mr speaker and yesterday's. yesterday was a very special day for scott savol and scottish legal tradition going back to the declaration of arbroath the government is notes of of the loss. following and if it steps of scotland supreme court the u.k. supreme court asserted the r

the supreme court judgment is of need to be strengthened. ment in the past always exercise just by itself now has to appear before the court of reasonableness and, if not by the supreme court will rule against them. boris johnson walking down the steps of the plane. we cannot compete with that. i am sure that will be delivered and then you had norman smith on earlier. i think we will prorogue again. he will grovel to the queen and say, i hope this one is legal. it is friday night and you are doing a queen's speech next monday or tuesday. what would be the point of that? the prime minister is not without ability and that queen's speech will be packed with the giveaways he has promised. he cannot get anything through. if it is about making sure you get better policing birkenhead, a better health service in birkenhead, contracts which deny workers any dignity. i do not think there will be a problem getting that through. you pulled a face. i think frank is right about the policing birkenhead and the police in birmingham. i'm not going to vote aga

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

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

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