supreme court case. talk, theyminute talk about the struggle of jehovah's witnesses and her r efforts to advance human and civil rights globally. >> i am privileged to introduce our keynote speaker. philip brumley is general counsel for jehovah's witnesses world headquarters offices and he will be presenting the topic, jehovah's witnesses, canaries in the coal mine of human rights. ladies and gentlemen, phil brumley. [applause] it is a real privilege to be here at the jackson center to commemorate the anniversary of west virginia v. barnette. we want to thank mr. peterson, mr. loftis for what they have done for the office of public information in collaborating with the jackson center. as mentioned, the title of our consideration is jehovah's witnesses, canaries in the coal mine of human rights. mining is a dangerous job. you hear of collapses all the time. miners face another danger. it is poisonous gases. they are not aware of. as recently as 1980, coal miners had the custom of carrying canaries with th

the case found its way to the supreme court. may 20, 1940, unanimously, the supreme court held in favor of the cantwell family. let me read you one sentence that shows you a turning point in the progression of american jurisprudence. the court said this, "the first amendment declares that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." up to cantwell, the spring court -- the supreme court had determined the first amendment as protecting the people of the united states from the wrongs committed by federal authorities. who was arresting jehovah's witnesses? not the federal authorities. it was the municipal authorities. in a landmark turnaround, the supreme court added a sentence, "the 14th amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states" -- meaning connecticut -- "as incompetent as congress to enact such laws." this was a shift that expanded the protection of the first amendment. so as an american today, you are protected under the first amendment not just by wro

gunfight weaves together the dramatic legal drama blind the landmark supreme court case, the first supreme court case to clearly and unambiguously hold that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for personal protection. it weaves together that story with the stories of our remarkable, fascinating hidden history of guns. in my research, i found that the right to bear arms is one of the oldest most established constitutional rights. yet, at the same time, we've also always had gun control. americans have always tried to balance gun rights with public safety. our efforts to balance those two things have shipped america in really fascinating and unexpected ways. so i look at the lessons of our efforts to draw that balance between gun rights and public safety, and also tried to map out a way that we can break the current stalemate on guns by looking back to the past and understanding better how the right to bear arms has coexisted with gun control since the founding era. host: so the book itself centers on a supreme court case, district of columbia versus heller. can y

adam: the supreme court in the heller case defied both the extremes of the gun debate. although gun rights activists were extolling the decision while gun control supporters were promoting the decision. it has not spelled the end of gun control in america and the opinion goes out of the way to make clear that while there is a right to bear firearms for self-defense, there is a room for good public safety laws that regulate without banning the guns. since heller was decided, there have been a little more than 300 federal court decisions on the constitutionality of any number of gun control laws since 2008. uphold almoste all of the laws. i think it is likely to continue to be the case that the courts will strike down outliers, really unusual, overly aggressive gun control laws like washington, d.c. had. the only city in the nation that really part firearms for self-defense. will continue to strike down some outliers. as long as gun-control supporters keep supporting ineffective laws, you will have these. a case out of chicago where chicago had its handgun ban struck down

and her life on the supreme court.eorge washington university hosted this event last month. [cheers and applause] justice sotomayor: hello. [laughter] ooh! what a welcome! what a welcome! eva, it's been so long since i've seen you. eva: i know. it's been a while. justice sotomayor: and a lot has happened in both our lives. [laughter] you've gotten married. eva: i got married, yeah. justice sotomayor: you have a baby who's in the front row. eva: hold him up. justice sotomayor: you have a fully active -- [laughter] eva: he's going to steal the show now. justice sotomayor: that's it. and you have a fully active career. you're directing. eva: yes. justice sotomayor: but i want to talk about something that was happening when i first met you. you had "you were on "desperate housewives"." you were a huge, huge star, wanted everywhere, doing everything. and at the same time you had gone back to school. eva: uh-huh. justice sotomayor: and i read in the newspaper when you graduated and you got your diploma. eva: my masters. just

and not just the supreme court. the federalist society played and continued to play a huge influence on nominees to the circuit courts. no other presidential candidate had so willingly and openly outsourced judicial nominations this way, but it mollified the hard right and the president has dutifully nominated people from the list to the supreme court. he has made similarly ideological choices for the circuit and district courts. this is an alarming strategy because over the last two years president trump has nominated and senate republicans have advanced the most unqualified and radical nominees in modern times. consider the nomination of ryan bounds who misled the oregon senators by partisan judicial selection committee about his controversial writings in the past, writings in which he dismissed efforts to increase diversity as mere race thing, criticized stanford university yes for -- university's punishment for defacing a pride statue and criticized a group for firing workers who tried to unionize and disavowed

supreme court what does that mean what do you do at the u.s. supreme court you're going to have to ask the president about it he has a legal strategy and if you want to know what that is then you should call the white house but support the impeachment is not a legal case it's a political case by the house of representatives the senate the constitution makes very clear it's only for the senate and the house to decide impeachment supreme court doesn't play a role but we're actually in claiming the supreme court has a role to play the house starts impeachment process and the senate has to ratify yes the supreme court can weigh in all sorts of things as they like vassar it happen that's not true where is your the supreme court in one thousand nine hundred three said impeachment is only in the senate and nowhere else nobody thinks. all sorts of things will be going to the senate are going to go on the supreme court plays no role in impeachment you know and i know it i don't know why you're defending the president i said i guess i said the supreme co

court the supreme court have effectively described.this review with one hand tied behind his back he didn't have the power to compel witnesses he didn't have the power to see documents he relied on the goodwill of those relevant government departments and to meet the obligations of what we have asked for for a number of years is that there must be a two. spar and unfairly a kind of will process which is what happened and it was incapable of reaching the silly in fact that doesn't of the supreme court it's hugely significant where the political decision comes in is that this night with very firmly on the desk of dining street they have failed to live up to their obligations for thirty years a police or if you didn't call it a review by a judge and reviewed by a barrister didn't meet the obligations what is left we say the only thing that is left is what they should have done many years ago amounts have a fully public independent inquiry it's going to get on to downing street today and juries i'm a bit geraldine david cameron invited you

but as a politician on the supreme court. tenure, she5-year was the only one who had been an elected legislator before she came to the bench. i felt like she learned to maneuver among the justices, to coordinate to get those critical votes. that is how i saw her, and that was how i viewed sandra day o'connor. host: she is not well? guest: right. host: do you know anything new about her situation? guest: no, as you're probably aware, the family put out a letter in 2018 which was technology alzheimer's -- where she was acknowledging alzheimer's, but that was going on for a while. host: you did a book on antonin scalia. what is your number one takeaway? guest: he completely owned he was. he was proud of some of his outrageous statements. he felt he was always right, never in doubt, as they say. i would sit with him for two to three hours as i did with the chief, and i would be exhausted. i would usually be the one to say, "ok, we are done," because he was so interactive and he loved talking about his childhood. that was a real c

robert barnes, supreme court reporter with the washington post, thank you. last month commerce secretary wilbur ross testified on the 20 $.20 a citizenship western being taken up by the supreme court this morning. congressman elijah cummings of maryland chairs the house oversight committee. we will show the hearing beginning with his opening statements. >> we will hear from secretary of commerce the honorable wilbur ross about preparations for the 2020 census. ourconstitution requires government to conduct a census every 10 years. the constitution also requires personount every

bill: well, the next stop on our tour was the supreme court building.s is where they decide whether laws follow the meeting of the constitution. uncle jim told me to notice the inscription over the entrance. "equal justice under law." he said that this pretty well sums up the purpose of the supreme court. then he went on to explain what it meant. uncle jim: the supreme court is the judicial branch of the federal government. here, the law itself is on trial. it is judged according to whether it violates our constitutional rights. the court is composed of nine justices who hold office for life. members are nominated by the president, but their appointments must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea of how the constitution sets up the three main branches of our government. the legislature, which is congress, the executive branch, which is the president, and the judiciary, which is the supreme court. the legislature is charged with making policies. that is, it passes the law. the executive is responsible for carrying out policies. and

in the arguments with the supreme court, natural gassing would bea supreme court, natural gassing wouldorm supreme court, natural gassing would be a betterform of supreme court, natural gassing would be a better form of execution. supreme court, natural gassing would be a betterform of execution. the court has said they do not buy that, they do not believe he has sufficiently argued that execution through nitrogen gas would result in a significantly less pain. the five conservative justices have also argued that essentially his legal opposition to which came just days before his original execution date, was a delaying, stalling tactic to delay his eventual execution. there has been a lot of controversy about the apparent secrecy behind the methods used, especially as it applies to lethal injections, in a number of states. this could have a wider reaching implications and, of course, a lot of people pointing out the political differences on the supreme court and how five conservative justices here believing this execution should go ahead as a lethal injection. the liberaljudges dissentin

supreme court and the department of -- sec. ross: the issue is before the supreme court and is pending in a couple of lower courts at this time. onisn't it also true that october 22, 2018 the supreme court issued a stay granting the administration's request to halt your deposition. >> that is correct, sir. collect the u.s. supreme court has stayed your deposition and we are here today to posing you under oath where the rules of evidence and civil procedure do not apply, is that correct? sec. ross: i am here voluntarily and under oath. placing thist on question on the form and all of the questions were directly trying to elicit answers to the questions before the court, is that correct? sec. ross: yes sir. >> i would like to continue to read into the concurring opinion. a lower court ruling that secretary ross devastated bad faith in trying to reinstate the but therep question, is nothing unusual about a new cabinet secretary coming to office and trying to favor a different policy direction. support for other agencies to bolster

court, but as a politician on the supreme court.uring her tenure she was the only one elected as a legislator before she came to the bench. i felt like she learned to maneuver among the justices to coordinate to get those critical five votes. that is how i saw her. that was how i viewed sandra day o'connor. brian: we have read that she is not well? do you know anything new about her situation? joan: no. the family put out a letter in 2018 where she was acknowledging alzheimer's. that was going on for a while, unfortunately. brian: you did a book on antonin scalia. what was your number one take away from him? joan: he completely owned who he was. he was proud of some of his outrageous statements. he felt that he was always right, never in doubt, as they say. i would sit with him for two to three hours and i would be exhausted. i would usually be the one who said, we are done. he was so interactive. he loved talking about his childhood. that was a real contrast. antonin scalia loved to talk about where he came from, his people. the cu

supreme court oral argument on citizenshipsus question. for more on the case we will look at some of today's "washington journal." constitution that requires the census to be done every 10 years. "representatives shall be apportioned among several states according to their respective number. the final meeting of the congress of the united states of america and with every subsequent term in 10 years in such manner as they should by law direct." the senses gathers a lot of information. some goes to re-apportioning districts for representation in congress. this is the language that the commerce department wants to add to the 2020 senses. a citizen of the united states? guam, puertoorn in rico, the u.s. virgin islands, or the northern marianas? yes, born abroad? yes come u.s. citizen by naturalization. or, no, not a u.s. citizen? wilbur ross testified before the citizenship committee. here is what he had to say. >> you wrote to the committee a few months ago that the reason you did not mention all of your efforts to add a citizenship doj's let

supreme court. help me understand this. why would the supreme court have any role in impeachment?the supreme court has been very clear. there is a precedent called nixon versus the united states which says quite clearly we have the supreme court have no rule in impeachment. so president trump can try, i guess, and go to the supreme court. i think he would lose 9-0. but i think the deeper point is the way in which he is talking about the supreme court, as if it's his court and his justice department acts that way and tries to rush things to the supreme court, blows off the lower courts. there is a whole culture around this white house when it comes to the supreme court and lower courts, which we've never seen in our lifetimes. it's a very dangerous and corrosive thing. >> the president learned the hard way there are three separate but equal branchs of the government. the judges don't work for him. congress doesn't work for him. does he believe that the supreme court justices work for him, specifically, because two of them got their seats on his watch? >> i mean, the genius of our f

supreme court. the president's belief that he can get the supreme court to stop the impeachment process, professor tribe has much to say about that, and what is likely to be now a protracted legal battle between the house of representatives and the president of the united states. and at the end of this hour tonight, we are going to have another episode of political hypocrisy theater. this time with nor john thune. senator john thune has had nothing and i mean nothing to say about the revelations in the mueller report about the lies told by donald trump including lies to the american people. but we have video of june thune absolutely outraged, outraged and morally outraged at a president lying to the american people. it's what juohn thune had to sa the day before as a member of the house of representatives he voted to impeach bill clinton. you'll want to see this at the ended of this hour because this is story will be moving into the united states senate next week when william barr testifies to the s

i want to say he did a phenomenal job in the supreme court. the nepharious agenda behind this question has been revealed through the litigation that led up to the supreme court argument today. there is little hiding the fact that wilbur ross was communicating with steve bannon in the early days of the administration to add this question and the rational allegedly that the trump justice department under jeff sessions needed the census citizenship data in order to robustly enforce the voting rights act was blatantly a ruse. every aspect of this administration has been anti-immigrant. the steve bannons and chris kobaches of the world want to change thou happens and want citizens only to be counted. in the census, it is written into the constitution. the constitution makes clear that the federal government has a constitute every 10 years to count every person in this country. not every citizen, but every single person in this country. the fact that study after study shows that the addition of the question will undermine the ak accuracy of the coun

about the inner workings of the supreme court. from the hill center atthe old naval hospital in washington, this is about an hour . >>. [applause] okay. welcome back everybody. my name is diana ingram, executive director here at hill center and i see a lot of familiar faces but i also see a lot of new faces so you has never been in the building before? would you raise your hand? sharma and her gang, go team. we have all kinds of wonderful things happening at hill center, there's a program on your seat, take a moment to look at it, sign up for our list and one message of note. on saturday, come here for our volunteer center and you'll get to meet with representatives from more than 30 nonprofits doing fantastic work in this community and isn't it wonderful to be able to talk to someone oneon one and find out how you can contribute . please take a moment to turn off your mobiledevices . and this is the eighth season of talk of the hill with bill press, our award-winning neighbor who is an author -- [applause] -- a journalist and als

supreme court case. talk, theyminute talk about the struggle of jehovah's witnesses and her r efforts to advance human and civil rights globally. >> i am privileged to introduce our keynote speaker.

upload your logo or start your design today >> shannon: the supreme court has ann >> the supreme court announced it would hear 3 cases whether federal discrimination laws affect gray and transgender people in the workforce, the social issue will be front and center during the presidential election. let's bring in steve miller heiser kristin waggoner to talk about it. great to see you both. i know that your group is involved with at least one of these cases that has to do with the funeral home in 2007. he came to them in 2013 and said he wanted to begin dressing as a woman in the workplace. they told him no. this has gone to the process and will end up in the supreme court. what's your argument against that? kristin? >> what the argument against? i missed the question. >> how this all played out with the funeral home and telling him he could not dress the way he identified. why should they be allowed to tell him or set that policy? >> federal courts can't read define what the law is according to their own policy preference, sex discrimination in federal employment law is based on the bi

the us supreme court rules a convicted murderer on death row in missouri has no right to a "painlessth". the child victims of the war in yemen, now in its 5th year — we have a special report on how the medical services is on the brink of collapsing. british members of parliament have again failed to agree on alternative proposals to the government's brexit strategy. they had voted on four motions but all were rejected. the british prime minister, theresa may, will hold a lengthy meeting of her cabinet on tuesday to find a way forward. without an agreement the uk is set to leave the eu in ten days time. it won't be easy as mps across the house and within her own conservative party remain seriously divided. caroline rigby reports. in respect of mr clark's motion c, customs union, the ayes were 273, the noes were 276, so the noes have it. another day but still the same outcome. as option after option was put to the house, each one was rejected. the noes to the left. once again mps failed to unite. ken clarke's proposal for a customs union came closest, losing byjust three votes but, tho

this man served on the supreme court for almost 20 years. he would've been involved in hundreds of decisions. ,e wrote a number of opinions and in some cases his opinions were somewhat at odds with his things,view of certain but for better or worse, he will always be remembered for this decision. -- i meanthat rarely at this point it's hard to remember anyone else who was involved in the writing of roe v. wade. i had to go back and remind myself who was on the bench at that time. who dissented from that decision and who were the majority, and again it was a decision for seven justices decided that roe v. wade was the right decision. i don't think anybody remembers who else joined in the majority. i think some people might remember that justice rehnquist, before he was chief justice, was a dissenter and so was justice white. the rest of the members were joined in the opinion, and nobody ever tags those folks as being the ones that created the right to have an abortion. it is black bank for better or worse, and -- it is black bank for better o

for a supreme court justice. it would make life easier. i would not have to worry about when i am going to retire or not. that would be easier for me. and moreover, it must be long, and the reason it must be long is because you do not want someone looking for his next job while he is a member of the court. bill: i think both of these proposals are getting to what people fear is a politicization of the supreme court. when you were confirmed, you were confirmed 87-89. justice breyer: nine people. bill: pretty lopsided. you do not see that today. the confirmation process has gotten so politicized. are you worried about that and that that might end up with people losing trust in the court because it comes political? justice breyer: i think there is a problem here but it is not necessarily, when you mentioned the confirmation process i point out to people that i was not a confirming person. i was the confirmed person. i was not the nominating person. i was the nominated person. so asking me about the process of being nominated is like asking fo

he was appointed to the supreme court by ronald reagan. with kennedy gone from the court, the key vote is expected to fall to brett kavanaugh. will he continue justice kennedy's legacy and carry on the embrace of the lgbtq community by the constitution bill of rights? that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. all in with chris hayes starts right now. >> tonight on all in -- >> any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted. >> impeachment talk continues. >> it affects the path of fact finding takes us there. we are not there yet. >> the white house openly defies house democrats. >> it's called presidential harassment. >> elijah cummings on his latest escalation with the trump administration. then -- >> is he going to accept that in 2020? >> tom perez on the republican indifference to the mueller report. plus, the lawyer who argued the census case joins me live. joe biden's big announcement about his big announcement. and is donald trump about to get another primary opponent? >> people asked me

supreme court. there is another case, brought by madalyn murry o'hair america's most notorious atheist. it was far more influential in the aclu was totally involved. claiming the bible school read it, you could not read from the bible in public schools. and it violated the establishment clause. the founder of ats of america in the magazine was the most hated woman in america and she loved that. why, it made her a victim. and she understood that americans easily seduced by victims as we all know. in fact, madalyn murray was an extreme leftist and a deceitful manipulator of public opinion. she went so far to blame christians for her founding father's heart attack. she had elderly father she was always fighting with. and after his heart attack she assaulted him over morning coffee with these words, i hope you drop dead all dunk your shriveled body in the trash and he went out to the amp and at the cannery he healed over and she blamed it on christians. intolerant christians did it. prior to launching h

for a supreme court justice. it would make life easier, you know? i wouldn't have to worry about when i'm going retire or not. and that would be easier for me. and moreover, it must be long, and the reason that it must be long is because you don't want somebody looking for his next job while he's a member of the court. bill: and i think both of these proposals are getting to what some people fear is a politicization -- i can never say that word -- of the supreme court. are you worried -- well, for example, when you were confirmed, you remember confirmed 87-9. justice breyer: nine people, how did they ever -- [laughter] bill: patriot loopside. you don't see that today. the confirmation process has gotten so politicized. are you worried about that and that that might end up in people losing trust in the court because it becomes more political? justice breyer: it's not just that. i mean, i think there is a problem here, but it isn't necessarily -- when you mention the confirmation process, i point out to people, as they do often mention it, i was not a

they worked together to deliver donald trump two supreme court justices, which is historic. mitch mcconnell really very quietly and unassumingly has reshaped the judiciary with donald trump something that he believes he will be known for very many years after donald trump leaves office. >> anna palmer, talk more about the role that senator -- senate majority leader mcconnell played behind the scenes during the kavanaugh hearings because for people who -- the viewership of those hearings was unbelievable. people watched this, and they had no idea what mitch mcconnell was doing behind the scenes. >> across the country, but certain i feel like even in washington, it was probably -- [inaudible] -- i have seen the public in general around one issue. yet you didn't see mitch mcconnell going up every single day and giving speeches, he did some, but he was the steady hand behind the scenes that just kept pressing forward because he felt that they needed to confirm judge kavanaugh, and so, you know, even when they had to kind of stop things a little bit and have the fbi investigation

the single greatest moment in supreme court history.s is a guy who has been nominated to be the number two in the justice department overseeing civil rights enforcement and much more. and i just think it is unacceptable. >> glenn, your view of this. if you have a question for bonita who has been so central at this intersection. how the attorney general deal with civil rights and the doj. >> we're used to judicial nominees dodging questions about cases that may come before them in the future. this is going to be potentially if confirmed, one of the top law enforcement officers in the country. the deputy attorney general. for him to sort of leave a little bit of daylight for the notion that plessi versus ferguson that said separate but equal. government sanctioned racial segregation is okay. maybe it is still in play. because brown versus education which we all thought put a nail in the coffin of the horrific separate but evening balance doctrine, what kind of a signal does that send to have somebody like this be involved in weighty decis

in the supreme court? no. zero. and you will say what about bush v gore question mark i will explain that to you but i need an hour. i could bring your around but i would do my best. i think no. about ideology? are you an adam smith free enterprise are? are you a maoist troublemaker? i don't think that has a role but that is harder to say. writingd myself something or deciding something and thinking, this way is good for the country in general and those -- in those ideological terms, i know i am doing the wrong thing and so does everyone else. there is yet a different thing. that is, i was raised in san francisco. my father whose watch i have here worked for the school department. franciscoin the san public schools, i went to lowell high school. they went to stanford. i have had the life i have had it and everyone in a profession after a certain time devotes -- develops of use. not specific views but general in law jurisprudential views. what is this document about? what is the country like? what is low really like?

. >> bret: what happens if supreme court rules obamacare and constitutional? >> mitch: we will have to revisit the whole matter but that's not likely to happen the next couple of years. i think people need to take a deep breath and settle down and let us work on some of these more modest fixes that i think the american people need and deserve. >> bret: you know that's not how the president talks about it. he says get rid of obamacare after the election now. >> mitch: after he and i had this discussion, he indicated he would come up with a plan and run on it during the campaign. if the republicans were able to regain the house and all of the senate, that would be the time to vote on it. >> bret: i want to ask you senator sanders talked about filibustering and filibuster reform, you executed this maneuver to speed up the confirmation of many of the president's nominees. you are on the record saying there isn't an appetite to get rid of legislative filibuster. but didn't that move cracked the door little bit more, suggesting that maybe that is going to gain some

the supreme court decided not to review the law. >> i guess you could say the supreme court decision by omission is that they upheld that law by not listening to that law. >> the claimed reason for photo i.d.'s is to ensure the integrity of elections. >> we have now for a very long time had an honor system in our election process, and that unfortunately there are people who are willing to take advantage of that. >> which is why the time has come for voter i.d., like everything else. >> but as it turns out, lelingt cases of voter fraud are almost non-existent. >> a recent study of voter fraud for about a 15-year period found less than 35 actual cases of legitimate voter fraud. >> so to require photo i.d.'s, they are really trying to prevent people from voting who otherwise would be able to vote. >> so although it is necessary to protect the integrity of our voting process, voter i.d. lawless by targeting specific grooms of people do more harm than good. ♪ >> the right to vote has been one of the most video controversial issues in american history. despite the dedmon belief that everyo

it is improper and we will see a supreme court challenge on this. >> congressman? >> andrew, there's nothing improper. read the law. read exactly what the law says. your interpretation or my interpretation, read what it says, there's only three committees that can ask for these tax returns, ways and means committees, joint committee on taxation and the senate finance committee. one of them have stepped forward. our chairman has been very specific, got legal input before he even did it, his request is very narrow, very narrow. we want to -- let's take a look at the audit. is the president being audited? by the way, audits are not a reason not to release your tax returns. that is bull. you know it. there's nothing political about this. you know who you sound like, you sound like the chairman, the former chairman of the ways and means committee who i sent a letter to on february the 1st, 2017, and i asked him, let's join together in having a narrow focus in order to look at these things, let's do it in a bipartisan way. it's too late. you guys didn't listen and now yo

they were not hopeful when they went to the supreme court, because the supreme court has, since the early 1990's, been reluctant to identify anything as an undue burden. in this case, supreme court came back and said, hb2, many sections of this are an undue burden. they are almost no -- they are all -- there are almost no physicians at this clinic who have been granted sitting privileges, because hospitals don't have to that. didn't have to give you admitting privileges. the way admitting privileges work, you have to perform a certain number of surgeries in order for them to want to give you admitting privileges. because abortions are so safe, these doctors never have any reason to go to the hospital to perform surgery. they had almost no relationship with these hospitals. understandably, these hospitals to not want to get them admitting privileges. the supreme court saw this and said, these laws don't make sense. this is not the way medicine is occurring on the ground. the thing about this case that it applied only to texas, that is why there are similar laws to hb2 on the books in other

succeed also coming up a decision that sends a chilling message about press freedom in myanmar the supreme court rejects the final appeal of to jail journalists who dared to report a damaging story about the country's military. and good to have you with us people in sri lanka are marking a national day of mourning in the aftermath of the easter sunday bombings relatives of some of the victims gathered for a mass funeral at st sebastian church in the gold one of three churches hit in sunday's attacks a gobo is a small fishing town at the heart of sri lanka's catholic community or than a thousand people gathered to pay their respects. earlier than. observed three minutes of silence at eight thirty am local time that's the moment when the first in a series of bombs detonated on sunday morning the death toll has now risen to three hundred twenty one. intelligence chiefs reportedly warned police of a possible attack by the local jihad his group national towie just mot but those reports apparently never reach prime minister run the vigorous him go and his cabinet that revelation has the country

the tax reform, the supreme court. jake: the judiciary is a big thing and we saw a reshaping of the republican party, more than any single legislative accomplishment. the party has been remade in the president's image. i don't know what that means. we can't tell you what that means for the future of the republican party. we did not set out to write a book about what this would mean 60 years from now. we wrote a book about behind the scenes, what happened, how we got from a to b and how people exercise power. we wanted to chronicle how people exercise power which is something we believe can only be done after the fact. we thought that was the best way. host: another character in this book is the freedom congress led by jim jordan and mark meadows. talk about the roles they play. leading up to the election, after the election and the first two years. anna: i think they see themselves as the keepers of trump's creed and wanting to press him to be as conservative as possible. notuse this president is care about deficit spe

senate, not of the supreme court. a lot of subpoena battles here between the administration and between congressional democrats. the latest, stephen miller, congressional democrats want him, the white house say that he won't come. >> shannon: they would love to question him on capitol hill. all of america would have some questions. all right, david spunt, thank you. >> you bet. >> shannon: hillary clinton telling congress tonight how it should proceed with its investigations into the president. she writes, "in 1998, the republican-lighthouse rush to judgment. that was a mistake then andrew be a mistake now. watergate offers a better president. then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a cover up." a former poster for president bill clinton is saying the opposite. "trump is no nixon." fox news' senior political analyst brit hume, great to have you with us. >> thank you, shannon, great to be here. >> shannon: brit, your member the coverage of watergate and president nixon. what you m

i base this on supreme court's decision in brown v. board of education, which declared that the recent segregation, that racial segregation is unconstitutional. in doing so it overturned its own 57 year old precedent in plessy v. ferguson, that held that racially segregated facilities are permissible, so long as they are equal. the court reversed plessy on the ground that experience had proven that segregated facilities are inherently unequal. accordingly, i can envision the court reversing steward machine company on issuing that the grants are indeed coercive. all that is needed to test this thesis is for a group of frustrated governors to challenge the constitutionality of a particularly aggravating category of grants such as medicaid. and if any of you have the intimate -- of governors around the country, please urge them to pay attention to what i just said. but whether or not the court or congress obliges me in this regard, we can never relax, you know, to protect the constitution. at its framers understood this. they understood t

white house officials are preparing for battle, warning they'll take the fight to the supreme court. the opening skirmish in that fight is playing out as president trump visits the border with mexico and warns would-be migrants, and i'm quoting him now, our country is full. after a week of threatening mexico, then climbing down from those threats, the president then headed to look at a section of the border barrier. he calls it a new wall, but it's more of a fence and a replacement for what already existed there. >>> i'll speak with congressman hakeem jeffries of the judiciary committee. and our correspondents and analysts, they will have full coverage of today's top stories. let's begin with our chief white house correspondent, jim acosta. jim, the p lawyers play defense back home over his tax returns. >> that's right, wolf. president trump is down at the border to promote his call for a wall, and he's using some extremely incendiary language on the issue of immigration saying today, quote, and you just said it a few moments ago, quote, our country is full. the white house is also g

the us supreme court rules a convicted murderer on death row in missouri has no right to a painless deathe child victims of the war in yemen, now in its fifth year. we have a special report on the medical services on the brink of collapse. british members of parliament have again failed to agree on any alternative proposals to the government's brexit strategy. they voted on four motions, all were rejected. the british prime minister will hold a lengthy meeting of her cabinet later on tuesday, trying to find a way forward. it won't be easy as mps across the house of commons and within her own conservative party are still seriously divided. the uk is set to leave the european union in ten days, quite possibly without any agreement. caroline rigby reports. the ayes were 273, the noes were 276, so the noes have it. another day but still the same outcome. so the noes have it. as option after option was put to the house, each one was rejected. so the noes have it. once again mps failed to unite around a single solution. we are capable of delivering responsible government... it was veteran conse

roy wilkins worked with thurgood marshall and other naacp lawyers to devise a strategy for a supreme court test. they enlisted expert witnesses who testified about the harm of segregation to black children. they argued that racial segregation violated the united states constitution. on may 17, 1954, the court handed down a momentous decision. in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. the naacp had been instrumental in winning the most significant civil rights victory since the end of slavery. >> as far as the impact of the decision, brown versus the board of education of topeka, kansas, had, it simply meant that the system under which thousands and thousands of negroes had been educated prior to that time, was dumped out the window. and there could no law be passed that my children could go to the school, and if i were white, they could go to that school. >> 1954 decision spirit of the naacp and other activist groups to challenge segregation in housing, transportation and public facilitie

has been rejected by the supreme court's in me and more of that coming down on tuesday now they heard the argument from their attorneys just a couple of weeks ago this comes three months after a lower court rejected an appeal they said the sentence would be upheld that also coming down from the supreme court on tuesday and that was their last appeal possibility now what happened since the verdict came down in september sentencing these two gentlemen to seven years behind bars and international outcry over the sentencing and also just the process particularly as myanmar marches its way toward democracy a lot of criticism for that and also just last week the investigation the two gentlemen working on one a pulitzer prize for international reporting or it is news agency their employers coming out almost immediately after this decision by the supreme court saying that they will continue to fight for their journalist behind bars and that they are part of a police set up. ok chromakey is the asia editor for reuters he says the families of the gen this will continue to fight for their freedo

supreme court what does that mean what would he do at the u.s. supreme court. you're going to have to ask the president. he has a legal strategy and if you want to know what that is then you should call the white house but support the impeachment is not a legal case it's a political case by the house of representatives the senate the constitution makes very clear it's only for the senate and the house to decide impeachment supreme court doesn't play a role but which actually in claiming the supreme court has a role to play the house starts impeachment process and the senate has to ratify guess the supreme court to weigh in all sorts of things as they like that happen where's your the supreme court in one thousand nine hundred three said impeachment is only in the senate and nowhere else nobody thinks. all sorts of things will be going to the senate are going to go on the supreme court plays no role in impeachment you know it and i know it i don't know why you're defending the president i said i guess i said the supreme court could weigh in on it how are you got