the supreme court needs a public binding code of conduct. f the court does not adopt its own, then congress should require it to develop one. that code needs to have significant limitations on the types and amounts of gifts that justices are allowed to accept and on their participation in outside events or speeches with politically aligned organizations among others. the code also needs to include a clear standard for recusal, and require justices to make those recusal determinations public. one of the central lessons of operation higher court is how easy it is for the wealthy and connected to buy access to our justices. reasonable people can and should question how that access undermines the credibility of an institution tasked with providing equal justice under law. although reverend shank is in the proverbial hot seat today, the arrogance and benign neglect of the supreme court are the actual reasons these scandals persist. in closing, the people have given supreme court justices the power to expand or take away our fundamental rights, and

the supreme court of the russian federation will continue to study the practice of applying security legislation by courts. and this year the plenum of the supreme court of russia will discuss the enforcement of obligations the practice of applying the rules on the pledge of things and on certain issues related to the application of the provisions. a-a suretyship when considering a bankruptcy case and in addition, this year the presidium of the supreme court of the russian federation approves a review of judicial practice on certain issues related to the implementation of e by an arbitration manager assigned to him the obligations of bankruptcy in the field of public law, arbitration relations courts satisfied 49% of claims, and businesses in the same nasser 53% of claims in the area. floor regulation and 25% of the tax sphere, observance of the constitutional rights of citizens to a favorable environment, is provided with compensation for damage caused to the environment as a result, and last year the courts satisfied 87% of the requirements for production activities, and compensatio

that is something that has to be done in order for the courts to be seen legitimately area our supreme court and our court system has basically taken a bath in terms of legitimacy. there are polls that suggest only 25% of the american people have a positive you the supreme court that's because they sense there is a great deal of politicizing going on. the goal here, -- there are many goals, it's replacing people who are extreme but also getting people to feel more confident again that the courts are on the level. that's the most important thing in our society and we believe that courts matter. host: russ feingold is joining us, the president of the american constitution society and served in the senate and if you want to ask him questions -- being outside of the senate, other ways to streamline the process that would satisfy both sides? guest: i'm not sure it would satisfy both sides but there are ways the process should be streamlined. i will talk first about the lower courts first. we have proposed is an organization, three changes be made to move this process more weakly. that is to get r

the supreme court and court system has basically taken us back. polls suggest 25% of the american people have a positive view of the supreme court and that's because they sense that there's a great deal of politicizing going on and so the goal here replacing people who are very extreme but also getting people to feel more confident again that the courts are on the level, that's the most important thing to us at the american constitution society. we believe the courts matter. >> joining us for the conversation of the constitution society served in the senate from 1993 to 2011 and if you want to ask questions about legal and judicial matters, 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 for independent usl are there ways to streamline the process that was satisfied both sides? >> not sure it was satisfied both sides but the process should be streamlined and let's talk about the lower courts and courts of appeal. we've proposed as an organization three changes be made to move the processic more quickly and that is to get

yes, it's only only judges of the supreme court, judges of the highest courts and constitutional. and of course. i for us it is very important and honorable, but i say prestigiously, we are very responsible. the judges understand this and we will prepare for this very seriously in every sense. you touched upon the topic of the entire belarusian national assembly. how do you rate the role? wns, here in consolidation of the belarusian society. you know , i'm hmm here is a person of interest you can say, because i was a participant in all six, if belarusian people's meetings, but at the first people's meeting. i even acted as minister of reality. here and there he substantiated the role of necessity. uh, all the people's meetings at the first meeting. that's why, in general, i said that it is very important. well, this is a forum. its status in the role of value is very important and in the future it is necessary to give it the legislative status of a permanent legislative status, and i was still minister of justice then. here, and now as the chairman of the supreme court. i'm proud

so, you know, 1967, loving virginia, the supreme court says states can't ban interracial marriage. and that's part of the second reconstruction, what people called the second reconstruction, the warren courts, the civil rights movement. and certainly it moves us towards equality. but i absolutely wouldn't say. and now we're done. i think there's a temptation always to say, oh, we're done right now we can just move forward. everyone's equal. i think that's a bad idea. and i also think that equality movements tend to inspire backlashes and you see that with the civil rights movement, the warren court and the second reconstruction, because that's sort of what gives rise to the reagan revolution, where we get this idea that we want to go back to the original understanding. so reagan's justice department is really the driving force behind originalism in the 1980s, which really sort of comes onto the scene then and they want think very consciously to go back to 1776 and 1787 because they're less interested in reconstruction. well, know, you and you you talk about national that unite the n

the supreme court could not. this supreme court takes it as the case comes.e of the other questions that the caller raised, the question of fundamental fairness. that's an important consideration. one that is debated in congress. it underscores the fact that by taking this out of the legislative branch and doing it through executive power, biden did not allow the people's representatives to debate it. elizabeth: the congress has already ran this discretion to the secretary. when they were coming up with targeted student debt relief they look particularly at data that along with the constraints of the heroes act, which show who would be worse off because of the covid-19 pandemic in relation to their student loan debt. so those because of their lower income would more likely be in default or delinquency with their student loan payments and targeted it through the heroes act. it doesn't matter what school you went to. if you have a federally held loan it applies to you. some of these questions are policy choices. there were people who wanted the heroes act to go

all you need the supreme court said was reasonable to believe that the person had done something wrong or in the case of a search, that they had something on their person that created a danger so although court viewed this as compromise, i think between two competing considerations this reasonable suspicion standard has come to play an enormous role in the fourth amendment and just. one example there is a requirement that is centuries old that before police enter your home they have to a knock and announce their presence in order to the people inside know that the police there and the view is that this will protect both property so that doors won't have to be broken down and the like and also will people's safety they won't think that some intruder is breaking into their home. they will know that it's the police. but the supreme court, the nineties said that officers can do away with the requirement of knocking and announcing beforehand so long as they have a reasonable suspicion. the language from terry to believe that knocking in announcing would be fruitless or be harmful to their i

not just a supreme court. but also in the lower courts.issued one terrible ruling after another. we know where his politics than. we know where his view stand. he's an idealogue. and he's a very dangerous man. and the decisions he's making are going to cause many people to those are lives. >> let's talk about the politics at play here. this week, the book signing in houston, mike pence the former vice president was overheard saying we need to ban abortion pills in this country. we talked a little bit about this with attorney general earlier on the show. but why would republicans want to make this a big deal right now when we know it is not a politically popular position and was widely credited as a reason why the republicans did so poorly in the midterms. >> my only explanation is that republicans are enjoying losing. i don't see any sort of strategy involved here. what you mentioned previously about the gop choosing christina--. their head or chair. there's not a lot of logic that seems to be going into these decisions. leaning into elect

ah, the supreme court.urisprudence in cases related to the protection of children's rights, for example, will begin and clarified a number of fundamental issues of providing, labor and pension programs for citizens, as well as many other sensitive problems for our society, i also note that a number of legislative decisions have recently been adopted on social support for military personnel, mobilized citizens and their family members, and the corresponding amendments on included in procedural legislation. they provide additional grounds for suspension of proceedings, including if the citizen who is a party to the case participates in hostilities as part of the armed forces and other military formations, as well as many, and also perform tasks in a state of emergency or martial law, i draw your attention to the consideration of such cases of such issues should be carried out in the most thorough manner, taking into account not only all legal aspects but also specific life circumstances. the rights of our mil

wade ending supreme court.er for reproductive rights. thank you for joining us tonight. >> following thank you for following this all-important story. >> this is literally a five alarm fire if you care about women's reproductive freedoms. the fact that it's applicable nationwide -- we are talking about the form of abortion that most women choose could be not available to people all over this country. how likely do you think it has that will get a ruling on this tomorrow? and what is your level of optimism here? >> let's just start by -- i'm sure your listeners are saying, how it is even possible that this could ban medication abortion native nationwide? it's because, as you pointed out in your opening, they've said that the fda approval back over 22 years ago was not correct. and, of course, that's fundamentally wrong. the science and the facts supported. so, it's a baseless lawsuit. but why are we on high alert? why are you on high alert? because, before -- before a judge, they shop the forum, in amarillo,, te

there's no set of standards that applies to the supreme court. they are exempt. and so what we're calling for here is an independent body that already exists in the judicial conference to setup a code of conduct that looks very much like what appellate court judges and district court judges are held to, so at the very least we know what rules apply and what rules don't apply to the supreme court. i just think we're at a moment of real crisis of legitimacy when it comes to the court and i think the court would be helped by outing this code of conduct that everyone could see. >> if someone on the court violates the code of ethics is there punishment? what kind of enforcement mechanism do you see here? >> so this is the real problem, right? it is probably beyond the bounds of the legislative branch to provide an enforcement mechanism in our bill we would establish a form of independent counsel who could undertake investigations. but sanction would have to ultimately be up to the supreme court itself just like sanction of members of congress is ultimately up to congre

with the supreme court said was, yes, the fourth amendment applies.f you do not have unfettered discretion to do these searches, but it is not as much as the fourth amendment's full protection. you do not need a warrant or probable cause. all you needed was reasonable suspicion to believe that the person had done something wrong or in the case of a search that they had something on the person that created the danger. so although the court viewed this as a compromise i think between two competing considerations, the reasonable suspicion standard as come to play an enormous role in the fourth amendment, and just as one example, there is a requirement that is centuries old that before a police officer enters your home they have to knock and announce their presence in order to let the people inside know the police are there, and the view is this will protect both property so doors will not have to be broken down and the like and will protect people's safety. they will not think some intruder is breaking into their home, they will know it is the police. bu

roberts former colleague was not delivered to the supreme court.w that it was mailed, spattered ran congress, because there's no inbox for somebody at the supreme court with a concern about ethics take drop off a complaint. even if they had that in bucks, is nobody emptying the inbox, there's nobody conducting the investigation into the allegations. there's nobody to reach conclusion based on the ethics code. there's no resolution and report at the end. in my line of work, you can go through the senate ethics committee to have them investigated, after they complain. in the executive branch, you can go to the inspector general, the entirety general and they can look into the complaints about some of these ethics. in the lower courts, you can go to the chief judge of the court and say that i have this ethics claim, and they look into it. in fact, there were a whole raft of ethics investigations pending against brett kavanaugh when he moved up to the supreme court. they all vanished because there is no profit for the supreme court. they have to fix th

there is no set of standards that applies to the supreme court, they're exempt. l look very much like the appellate court judges, district court judges are held to. at the very, least we know what rules apply, what rules don't apply to the supreme court, we're at a moment of crisis of legitimacy when it comes to the, court the court would be helped by having this total contact that everyone can see? >> it's someone on the court violates the code of affix. is there punishment? what kind of enforcement mechanism do you see here? >> this is the real problem, it's probably beyond the bounds of the legislative branch, to provide an enforcement mechanism in our bill. we would establish a form of independent counsel, who could undertake investigations. but sanctioned what action -- up to the supreme court itself. just like sanction of members of congress. it's ultimately up to congress. but we have a code of, affix we have a process by which investigation is done on a member of congress. it's simply what we want to happen here. have a binding code, having a process of in

the closest any state in the country came because of the radicalism on our state supreme court. we had just defeated dan kelly, the current conservative candidate in the spring of 2020. that's why he wasn't on the court to cast what would've been the tie breaking vote for the gop. we cannot let him back on the supreme court before 2024. >> nathan, before i let you go, i want to say that you are the reason for the four of us are sitting here. you had a tweet that tied for me what's happening in wisconsin to what happened in virginia. because there is so much going, on it was easy to miss the possibility that there was something to look at in the fact that both of these races happened in the course of one week. what was the fabric that held those two stories together for you? >> what held the stories together, just like polling, we don't to say that these are predictive of what the results are going to be. what they do show is that as the republican the new republican house begins the start and as the summer's republican candidates are going to start announcing their presidential r

defense chb marriage act and all marriage bans we know (inaudible) own words that this new far right supreme court can not be trusted to up hold precedent or protect our civil rights. in contrast to the court this week's victory comes at a time when nation wide support is all time high. 71 percent of all americans from all walks of life acrautss dem graphics geography and party lines agree loving committed couples deserve equal rights equal justice and (inaudible) equal dignity under the law. it is big victory to be celebrated but not the sunsitute for full lived equality for all lgbtq plus people and will not end discrimination across the country or the hateful rhetoric. less then 2 weeks after the mass shooting in colorado springs 5 people murdered and dozens injured we continue to morn the lives loss and support the community shattered. all people deserve to feel safe and respected in the place we call home. we thank you senator pudia and senator feinstein for colleagues and leadership. tomorrow we fight for a world healthy just and equal for all lgbtq plus people. next is a friend and colleagu

court judge in milwaukee county will face off against daniel kelly, a conservative former state supreme court justice on april 4th. the winner of the race will serve a ten-year term. and though the election is nonpartisan, british voters face a rare chance to flip control of the court for the first time in 15 years from conservative to liberal, which could impact two key issues. abortion, and voting rights. okay, we will have to take a break so we can get judge for to say let's back on the line. we will be back after this. line. we will be back after this we will be back after this struggling with the highs and lows of bipolar 1? ask about vraylar. because you are greater than your bipolar 1, and you can help take control of your symptoms - with vraylar. some medicines only treat the lows or highs. vraylar treats depressive, acute manic, and mixed episodes of bipolar 1 in adults. proven, full-spectrum relief for all bipolar 1 symptoms. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor a

[laughter] amy: the supreme court has just heard two major cases that could reshape the very structure of the internet. we will speak to the electronic frontier foundation about what's at stake and why the future of free speech online could be in jeopardy. then to malcolm harris, author of the new book "palo alto: a history of california, capitalism, and the world." and we look at a new partisan push to ratify the equal rights amendment a half-century after its passage. >> solution will help address centuries of gender discrimination in america by removing the unnecessary barriers that prevented us from enshrining the dignity, the community, and the quality of women into our united states constitution. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. at least 62 people died over the weekend after a boat carrying refugees fell apart at sea after -- off of italy's calabrian coast. at least one baby and 12 children were among the deceased. around 80 survivors from iran, pakistan, and afghanistan were pulled to safet

about the justice department's response and i'm curious what happens to this as it goes to the supreme court, this was, in fact, a very conservative federal appeals court that was made more conservative by president donald trump's nominees. as you said, it validated this law that blocked a person who is under a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm. but here is what's critical, is that this appeals court decision was rooted in a supreme court decision from last spring, a landmark decision, where the supreme court changed the framework that lower courts are going to use going forward when they look at laws. the supreme court said in that big opinion that from now on judges have to look at whether the law fit into what the supreme court called a historical tradition in the u.s. so this appeals court looked at this law and it said that the government hadn't convinced the court that this law fit into that tradition. so they invalidated it. attorney general merrick garland was quick last night to release a statement, a lengthy statement. he said he' peeled but he also

supreme court prepares a ruling on moore versus harper. >> ayman, pleasure to be with, you you flashedr law that's because the justice is supposed to be impartial. the concern about what the north carolina supreme court did is just as you noted, that in one day they issued an order to re-hear two cases which they had only done twice in the previous 30 years. and whatever cases get re-heard by an appellate court, it's always almost because of two things, either there was a change in the facts or there had been a change in the law that really implicated the reasoning, the rationale of the original decision. these decisions were just rendered by the north carolina supreme court two months ago, and nothing has changed other than the partisan calm position, we went for majority democrat, to majority republican after the last election. frankly, this is troubling. >> let me ask about what happened on thursday as well, sir, the state supreme court they held a hearing on whether people should have the right to vote while on probation or parole. last year a supreme court in white county as i und

administration, the military leadership of the united states of america, representatives of the supreme court, and vice - the president first gentleman ah the first lady will also be special guests invited by the first lady by the way oksana markarova the parcel from ukraine to the united states will also be to have a seat in the first lady's box today in addition to those guests there will also be other cats for the next half hour they're meeting in the united states congress then at about 9 o'clock and that's half an hour from now uh will be the start of biden's speech we expect at least yes, according to the official schedule , we are promised that the speech will last approximately 50 minutes , and after that, the president says goodbye to the guests, goes back to the white house, and after that, in about half an hour, we can expect a response from the representatives of the republican parties their response to joe biden's address to the american congress to the american nation is roughly the following schedule . today we expect once again the broadcast will last approximately three hours

something needs to change, i agree, but they cannot cancel the supreme court.l be no one to protect us. >> this is the thing that many protesters are concerned about, that these reforms will potentially give the israeli government the upper hand. if the supreme court decides to strike down a law or decision that is faced by parliament, knesset could change that. they got also, through simple majority, decide who becomes part of a judging panel. a lot of administers in the coalition government have -- including benjamin netanyahu who is on trial for corruption. he says that these protesters out here are unhappy that the coalition won this general election and he is also called for there to be no civil disobedience. protesters continue to come. there has been rare intervention from the u.s., which has asked the israeli government to put the brakes on these readings, on this vote on judicial reform. also, the president himself, the israeli president, has called for all sides to come together to be able to negotiate, to put a pause on changes to the judicial system

but what do we notice what the supreme court does? you have a president, the united states, who says, in all due deference, he does launch a broadside the supreme court and the decision they had just handed down. and what does the supreme do in response to. they don't stand up. they don't stand up. they actually never stand up. presidents know this. right now they do. when when it is a completely unobjectionable point. right so at the outset, presidents introduced and everyone stands and applauds for them out of respect when the president introduces a hero sitting the the audience. the supreme court will stand up when it's an unobjectionable clearly non partizan overture that the president is making. then the court respond accordingly. but for the entire address, when presidents are that laundry list of policy proposals members of congress are plotting few seconds the supreme court sits there and they don't respond. why do we think that it's why? why do members of the supreme court sit there in in silence? yeah, because they're suppos

the arguments in the supreme court — debt relief?rlier _ debt relief? the arguments in the supreme court earlier focused - debt relief? the arguments in the supreme court earlier focused on | debt relief? the arguments in the . supreme court earlier focused on the fairness of the situation. a question was raised by a conservative justices about different sections of society to stop that some people wouldn't benefit from what would amount to a colossal government payout. we are talking about almost half $1 trillion here. what about those people who didn't go to university? what about people who already paid off their loans? that people would benefits or not benefit from this to different extents. the liberal justices had a counter argument to that saying that in the normal course of events, people benefit from different government schemes to greater or leg lesser extent depending on their individual circumstances. so, the students we have just been here from, clearly expressing the fact that this is crucially important to them. i thin

supreme court. was. [buzz] you can always spot a first timer. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. step up. prep up. to help keep you free from the risk of hiv. descovy for prep, the smallest prep pill available, is a once-daily prescription medicine that helps lower the chances of getting hiv through sex. it's not for everyone. descovy for prep has not been studied in people assigned female at birth. talk to your doctor to find out if it's right for you. descovy is another way to prep. descovy does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections, so it's important to use safer sex practices and get tested regularly. you must be hiv-negative to take descovy for prep. so, you need to get tested for hiv immediately before and at least every 3 months while taking it. if you think you were exposed to hiv or have flu-like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. they may check to confirm you are still hiv-negative. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life

it reaches the supreme court and the supreme court prosecutes the convictions. reasoning given by the preme court is that ts behavior is not protected constitutionally. so that just opens the door and it is a message across the country that they can proceed without fear of federal intervention. what it means is it sets the stage for an abandonment by the federal government. until 1939 when the civilized unit is launched and frank murphy who would later become a supreme court justice is appointed by fdr to head up civil rights for the federal government. >> would you explain the particular role of joseph b bradley in underscoring the jim crow era? >> it was bradley who wrote the opinion in cruickshank. he was at that point a lower judge but his opinion was accepted when it got to the supreme court. bradley was on the supreme court but at the point the judges also served in an appellate capacity. it is bradley's opinion in which he says look, this is not a 13th amendment problem. slavery is over. so the 13th amendment provides those protections. 14th amendment pro

committed the crime of extremist orientation of the president discussed by the chairman of the supreme court at working meetings with valentin tsukala it was about improving the judiciary and pairing its innovations with the constitutional reform, the basic law regulated general issues of the judiciary and the status of judges, including taking into account the formation of a new body of the entire belarusian people's assembly to introduce the powers of the head of state, it will form. the courts decide a number of other issues, for example, bringing to disciplinary liability, assigning qualification classes, suspending the powers and determining the number of judges of the supreme court, and so on independence the judiciary has thus strengthened, according to the chairman. in general , legal proceedings, as the process has become more economical than audio and video recording of the meeting , on the one hand, have made them stricter, and on the other hand, digitalization of the system has made it possible to observe the work of all district courts from minsk. this also improved the quality

and it did not go to the supreme court to challenge it.a sudden, when it is about our students, they challenge it. the corporations challenge it, the student loan lenders challenge it, that is not right. that is not fair. >> jeanine: okay. greg. [laughs] are your ears okay? >> greg: how can you be a liberal when everybody that represents you screams? >> dana: right, i agree. >> greg: so loudly. just saw four people screaming, as if they were faced with the apocalypse, because other people don't want to hand over their money to them, and somehow it is the end of the world, because we refuse to hand over our money for nothing! >> jeanine: and it appears the supreme court chief justice john roberts, in the sound that we got earlier, comparing two students who graduated from high school, one gets a loan to go to college, the other gets a loan to buy equipment for his lawn company. and justice roberts says it is basically a question of fairness. is that with this is all about? >> greg: it's definitely, they call it debt relief, but it is more l

in according to the chairman of the supreme court, justice is already being felt in the system, the organization of the work of the courts has been handed over - this is indisputable. and when we introduced the audio recording of the court session, and now we are introducing the video recording of the court session. uh, it becomes completely different lawsuits . that is, they are less conflicting. they are more strict. they more closely comply with the law, people are restraining themselves and the participants in the process have practically no complaints about the behavior of the judge for violating the rules of the trial . and it's like justice did and public and also take more time. the overall digitalization of the system allows you to control from minsk what is happening in all 142 districts. in addition, for the first time in the history of such work, the supreme court received a constitutional status, which has a positive effect on the entire judicial system of the country. and look right after the panorama. how the mechanism for returning fugitives to belarus will work, we will reveal a