the supreme court. >> started with the supreme court and we decided that we do have brother cores thatd to be fixed. his only nonpartisan that one that asked for greater transparency primarily in the supreme court. we believe that transparency and accountability be the few different things. so the live streaming, thera hearings, the supreme court which are currently not live streameden either the video, hopefully on cspan2 at some. anyway tenure as the supreme court, starting longer than ever so we want to believe that the last ten years, start policy change, financial disclosures of the justices to be put online and will be more open, what the duties laying their conflict of interest when there are traveling, and code of conduct. the justices the only judges in the federalists, really nationally, if you include the states don't have to follow a professional code of conduct. want to convince them to the top one. >> what led to the founding of the group. take support. >> share, workingal in dc as a political consultant like monday brother people of sutton his chair i was working on case

ultimately the case was decided by the supreme court. that's why we want to have trust in the supreme court but is ultimately deciding these fundamental questions. is a little weird that these people are judging our rights. overall when these things happen and california has all these crazy propositions it's important to have a supreme court that we can trust so when the opinion comes out we can have faith that there job is done without bias. host: on the democrat line in maryland. caller: good morning. two quick questions. clarence thomas's wife was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against the affordable care act. that money certainly made its way into her household. did notand not only recuse himself but voted the way she wanted him to vote. is that not clarence thomas being bought and paid for and shouldn't he be thrown off the court? why shouldn't he at some point in time be off the court? >> the only way to remove a justice is through impeachment and removal similar to the way a president would be removed. currently

but if even specked on to the supreme court. the supreme court may also come except in mistakes because i didn't mean it is so all those kind of things today. we are sad that the judgment has not been. done on the basis of the facts of the case but it's more it's more on the stand it's more on the using of the extraordinary powers of a letter to the city and that article bunfight to violate valet saying you're talking to us of course from on here how do you gauge the mood right now this this is a place where the atmosphere has has often been tense for many years over the future of this side and what what what's to be done with it there were a lot of security measures that will put in place by the indian authorities in anticipation of this decision by the supreme court but it does seem. the whatever violence that was feared to erupt has not has not happened i mean how do you gauge the the atmosphere there among all the quickstep but firstly i was and i would like to say that. you know there is there are shades and there are nuanc

put on the supreme court. there is hope on the part of conservatives brett kavanaugh will be a more reliable conservative vote than justice kennedy was. there is great hope on conservatives that neil gorsuch will be a solidly conservative voice and there is great fear on the part of liberals that both of those things are going to happen and that donald trump might get another nomination which justice ginsburg is back at work, she hasn't missed a beat. as activist ever during oral arguments and anything that suggests otherwise -- she is even thinner but other than that her voice is strong, she seems, three or four weeks of every day radiation this summer and 11 public events in september. when i say 11 most of those were multiple events she goes somewhere. >> not locally. >> i did one with her where i interviewed her in little rock, arkansas in the verizon center, 15,000 people and awaiting 16,000 and you see this little person in the middle and i warned them that they -- you could really -- you could have hear

supreme court across the street.i was proud to leave 172 current former members of congress on a bipartisan amicus brief in support of daca. and reject what i consider to be president trumps illegal repeal of daca. only congress can provide permanent solution for dreamers the u.s. house of representatives have responded to president trumps cruel decision to appeal daca a bypassing the dream and promise act of a strong bipartisan vote of 237 to 187.this legislation is based on the dream act i originally introduced 19 years ago. this bipartisan legislation would give dreamers a chance to earn their citizenship the bill passed the house it's here. it's now up to senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky the republican leader to call the dream and promise act for a vote in the united states senate. mr. president, i want reto make unanimous consent request in relation to that measure and ask for consent after we ftdeba like you see the request to complete my remarks. i see a senator on the floor who i believe is here to object

put on the supreme court. there is great hope on the partisan conservatives that justice kavanaugh will be more reliable conservative than justice kennedy. there is great hope and conservatives that justice gorsuch will be a solidly conservative voice like justice scalia was. and there's great fear on the part of liberals that that will happen. and great fear on the burrough s president trump might get another nomination which by the way justice ginsburg is back at work, she has not missed a beat, she's as active as ever during oral arguments and if you have anything that projects otherwise but to me it looks like then the other not her voice is strong, she seems completely -- her bodr three or four weeks of everyda everyday -- development public events in september and when i say 11 most of those were multiple event so she go somewhere and does this and this and this. like not locally. >> i interviewed her in little rock arkansas in the horizon center that was sold out with 15000 people in a waiting list of 1

supreme court because the. cost him dearly great the mosque demolition was an egregious violation of the rule of law you keep telling me the supremes court is amazing in your country do you agree with the supreme court yes or no i think the supreme court judgment. you are. asked. i don't want this list i know. you're not a mask and gore of i'm asking a simple question the court also said that the demolition of the mosque by mobs in 1902 was an egregious violation of the rule of law do you welcome that or are you cherry picking from the verdict. i believe. i did. ok. i'll. let. justice ok that's good to hear i'm glad to hear you say you welcome it because the bump that tore down the mosque in 1 december 1902 was was was at a rally just for all of us to know it was a rally organized according to a government commission by the right wing hindu nationalist group the v.h.d. leaders of the b j p spoke at that rally so people allies of yours members of your party were involved according to the supreme court verdict in

supreme court now. a lot of them have more options than immigrants rights advocates do in state court, but we do have state court avenues and we've gotten a lot of interesting results in state supreme courts on detainer policy under state constitutional law, for example. or through state legislative relief, as in california. so that's my three-part answer. >> thank you. >> great, thank you. please introduce yourself. >> thank you. i'm with the american friend service community. my question is with regards to tps and ded. so i have sort of three questions for each of you. so, for california -- california has a large population of tps holders. i'm just wondering whatever happens with the courts or inaction or action of congress, is there a plan for the road to undocumented status? because there's families involved. like you said, it's multistatus families. for you, cecilia, i don't think aclu is litigating any of the cases -- >> we are, actually. they are doing one in southern california. >> what does the

at the supreme court. among supreme court clerks. but it's also an extraordinary group of people who choose to clerk and have the remarkable opportunity to clerk at any level of the court system. the network that flows from that as i try to encourage my own law clerks now, they can't foresee the kinds of opportunities that will provide down the road. and i have no doubt that i would not be in the job that i'm in but for one of my co-clerks who had spent some time in the white house counsel's office. and when i wanted to do some teaching initially on the side as i was working at the u.s. attorney's office then continued to do that as a lecturer at various schools, the ability to call up someone who's now there as a professor who is a co-clerk, or the dean of law school after a few years in the case of columbia, and have those openings to teach what i would like and the support of the faculty in doing it. it also, even in the course of private practice, meant there was this array of experts in various fields that were happy to answer c

supreme court midterm. we will hear from paul clement, who served as solicitor general in the george w. bush administration. neil, who is the former acting solicitor general. he acted for a long time. >> still do. >> of the united states. jan crawford is the chief legal correspondent for cbs news. she does politics as well. paul clement, who was the solicitor general of the united states for four years. before that the deputy solicitor general. he was there for a long time. both of these guys are there often. they win a lot. they lose occasionally. they are very good advocates. i am going to start by talking about news. before thewo cases supreme court pending, waiting for the justices to say what if anything they want to do with them. one is from the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit ruled that when congress asks for information from president trump's accounting firm related to whether or not they want to pass ethics legislation that would require the disclosure of axes, thent's t d.c. circuit said you have t

outside the supreme court. let us pray for them. despite the challenges and fear, they are showing up. we are showing up. let us turn our prayers within so that similarly just like courageous immigrants that are taking action today that we need the moment as well. let's pray that we find our moral clarity inside of us. and ask ourselves, what are we, each of us, doing, to be part of giving birth to something new. what are we doing, to give birth to something new. in congress, in the halls of our local elected legislatures, in our communities, in the courts, to make sure any role that we hold in our communities, in any institution that we are part of in our society, that we are insuring immigrants and old people can live without fear to thrive, to be free. so let's pray that we find the moral clarity today and let's pray justices find that clarity as we go through this process. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. i am the director of the center for american progress. we will now introduce someone who has been

we believe the supreme court will as well. because the dreamers did it the right way, the obama administration did it the right way. congress is trying to do it permanently the right way. if only the senate republicans would join. if we do it the right way, these folks who are american that we call dreamers will have a chance to shine and prove their full worth. we will continue this fight until the very end whether it's through congress or through the courts, but we understand that when you do it the right way, you should not be punished. now i believe senator durbin of the senate democratic leadership will speak next. let me hand the mike over to whip durbin. senator javier becerra and you carry on with california with real leadership on this issue since you left the u.s. house. thank you for coming back home today to be with us on this historic day. look behind me. the president says you are looking at very tough and hardened criminals. take a good look at these criminals, would you? that's what the president tweeted this m

on the supreme court. the part great hope on of conservatives that justice kavanaugh will be a more reliable conservative vote then justice was. there is great hope that just as gorsuch will be a solidly conservative voice like justice scalia was. -- there's great for fear on the part of liberals that both of those things are going to happen and that president trump might get another nomination. which by the way, justin ginsberg is back at work, but she does not look like she has missed a beat. she is active as ever during oral arguments and if you have anything that suggests otherwise, but to me, it looks like she is -- >> she is thin. >> other than that, her voice is stronger, she seems completely -- her body -- this is a woman who had three or four weeks of everyday radiation the summer, and then did 11 public events in september. thoseen i say 11, most of were multiple events, so she goes somewhere. >> not locally. >> no, no. her in littleed rock, arkansas in the verizon center that was sold out with 1

supreme court hears arguments over the trumpet ministrations decision to end protection for the children of undocumented migrants who meet one woman who's very future hangs in the balance. on my own pockets great to have you along everyone there are fears of an escalation of tick for tat violence between israelis and palestinians tonight after some of the worst attacks in years along the gaza border people in southern and central israel were advised to stay inside after palestinian militants fired a series of rockets into israeli territory while they came in response to an israeli airstrike in the early morning hours that killed a militant leader in gaza. choose day morning scene at the home of islamic jihad senior commander abu atta. hours later islamic jihad fighters respond with a barrel of rocket attacks the e.q. . over the border in israel the warning sirens sound once again. israel's iron dome air defense system into seps many of them but some do get through. damaging peoples' homes and injuring some israelis. many choose to evacuate from the israel gaza border israel's response in

supreme court.e will be joined by fix the court's executive director gabe roth next on washington journal. ♪ >> our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country visiting key battleground states in the 2020 presidential race. asking voters what issues they want presidential candidates to address the campaign. want to theing i candidates to address is gun violence. i don't think there's one clear-cut answer. we need to initiate that discussion. >> my question is how are you going to combat the rising .rices >> an issue that's really important to me is focusing on fixing the criminal justice system. how can we rehabilitate our offenders and support a positive relationship between the community and law enforcement. how can we fix the mass incarceration rates. how can we help those impacted by the heroin epidemic. how can we focus on helping those in poverty. the school to prison pipeline is also really important. how can we help juveniles involving themselves in the link quincy. >> a wo

the supreme court obviously we have a relatively new justice. there is great hope and conservatives that justice kavanaugh will bill a more reliable conservative vote then justice kennedy was. there's great hope that course which will be a conservative voice. there is great fear also. trump might get anothern nomination which by the way, justice ginsburg is back at wo work. she is as active as ever during oral arguments. to me, she looks like -- but other than that, her voice is strong. she seems completely -- i mean, her. she had three or four weeks of every day radiation this summer and then 11 public events in septembe. when i heard 11, most of them were multiple event so she goes summer. >> i did one with her where i interviewed her in little rock, arkansas, it was sold out with 15000 people. you see this little person in the middle and i warned them that they had to migrate really close. you could hear a pin drop. it was an amazing phenomenon. i can't quite explain. i've known her for a very long time but i can't explain this except to say

supreme court law clerks. that's a relatively new trend. an ever larger number of the judges appointed to lower courts are former supreme court clerks. the bonus for supreme court clerks at most major law firms is now $400,000, which is several times larger than for arguably equally qualified folks who clerk on courts of appeals and it is very sadly many, many times larger than the bonus that i got as a law clerk. coming off the experience 20 years ago. so, you know, it's one year in a lawyer's career. do we attach too much significance to it? >> yes. >> no bonuses when i was there, by the way. >> you could have collected like $2 million. you could have gotten one bonus for each of your many clerkships. >> you know, i missed my chance. so, i mean, yes. do i think that supreme court clerks are untalented? no. and i think that hiring somebody who has clerked at the court gives you a certain inside, a perspective and likely somebody who is a very talented lawyer. but there is certainly a ton of people who amazing

[applause] and, of course, today we take our fight to the supreme court, we believe and we hope the supreme court will recognize that daca recipients and dreamers are just as american as anyone else. i would also like to acknowledge gabby, ambassador, former uscis director leon rodriguez, and the dream .us founder don graham also here with us this morning. [applause] >> you know this but i'm going to mention it anyway because there are some folks who don't always recognize it. dreamers are valuable contributing members of our communities, and valuable contributors to the united states economy. they are our neighbors, friends and colleagues. they strengthen our communities and our country, and it's inexcusable that president trump is forcing dreamers into legal limbo by trying to cancel the daca program. knowing that the supreme court will shortly hear this case is only cemented in my mind how cruel the administration acted in pushing deportation over keeping dreamers here in the united states. for the last two years the trump administration has attacked agreement by trying to roll back thei

on the supreme court rulings. i know i'm going to be slightly off. it was like 60% of the rulings are 9-0. 30% were 5-4, but never the same 5-4. and the rest was somewhere else. when i hear the media talk about a divided court, or when i constantly hear the media talk about conservative justice, liberal justice, and i look at those statistics, i would like your take on why the media doesn't look at the breadth of the supreme court rulings when it tries to frame how the supreme court rules. thank you for your time. guest: i don't want to-dirnl' not ordinarily in a position of defending the media, i think the fact of the matter is on high ofile cases of ideological ideas, you are likely to see a divide. i think it's fair to point those out. there are a lot of cases the supreme court takes that involve difficult, nitty-gritty issues here one's ideological preferences don't come into play at all. and those with account for many of the unanimous decisions. whatever their ideological preference is people will recognize

dissenting at the supreme court is a lecture series hosted by the supreme court historical society. next on american history tv, university of arkansas law eck issor mark killenb introduced by supreme court justice stephen pryor, then discusses dissenting opinions written between 1810 and 1927. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. serve as president of the supreme court historical society. i am pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this year's silverman series. this year, we are examining ,issents, not majority opinions different aspects thereof. you have already been warned about your cell phones and your iple watches and so forth, so will not repeat that, but you will be in the doghouse if it goes off during the period of our evening. i also want to thank this evening our host, justice stephen breyer, who against all odds agreed to come and introduced our speaker this evening on the first day of a busy term. justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends of the society. whenever we have called on him to help us out, he has shown up and done a wonderful job. i want u

and at the time there were obviously no women on the supreme court. there were hardly any women in the federal judiciary. there were, i think, maybe one or two women on the supreme courts of other states. and the idea people, law firms were touting they were progressive when they had one woman partner among a hundred. so, what ruth had started, i still had not seen the progress being made in any significant numbers just yet. but the appointment of sandra gave me hope. it opened the door to me thinking that the progress would move faster than i had imagined. didn't move quite as fast as i had hoped. and still some steps to be taken. but it was a door opener. it was an opportunity for women to begin to see the possibility of exploring all aspects of our profession. you see, the advantage of diversity, whether it's gender or race or ethnicity, or even professional work, whatever the diversity represents, it gives people who don't otherwise think there's opportunity. it aspires them to believe there might be. so, i think seeing a woman on the court inspir

today, we heard the arguments in the supreme court. it's my prayer that they'll come down our way for the good of those who stand behind me and so many others. but it's also my prayer that it comes down our way for the good of the united states of america. what's at stake here is not just their fate. what's at stake there is our values as americans. immigrants from all over the world who came to this country and said we can make this a better place and thank goodness our parents and grandparents believed that and led us to this moment. now we have to move forward. we know what we face. bob menendez, you know what our problem is in the senate. we have a good bill, an excellent bill passed by the u.s. house of representatives. it's sitting on the calendar in the united states senate. senator menendez and i will be making unanimous consent request this week to bring this measure to the floor. [applause] senator durbin: i can tell you -- i can tell you it's an uphill battle, but we want the other party to go on record. when the president s

today we heard the arguments from the supreme court. it is my prayer that they will come down for the good of those that stand behind me and so many others but it's also my prayer that it comes down our way for the good of the united states of america. what is at stake is our values as americans. immigrants from all over the world said we can make this a better place and think that our parents and grandparents believed that and lead us to les moment. now we have to move forward. you know where the problem is in the senate. we have a good bill, excellent bill passed by the house of representatives sitting on the calendar in the united states senate. we will be making unanimous consent requests to bring this measure to the floor. [applause] i can tell you it is an uphill battle but we want the other party to go on record when the president says it's legislate an issue, in agreement, we are going to call him at his word and ask him to bring the matter to the floor of the senate this week. i want to thank congresswoman for being here. we've

both were supreme court clerks. both are acclaimed across america for their opinions and their rigor and their approach to the constitution and i just can't wait to ask them how their clerkships influence their approach to judging and the constitution. that's just what i'm going to do and i'll briefly introduce them by saying that judge jeffrey sutton sits on the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. he is the author of such an important book. he came to the constitution center to discuss it and i want you all to read it. it will transform your view of the constitution, 51 imperfect solutions, states and the making of american constitutional law among many other important works. and he clerked both for justice powell and for justice scalia. and judge diane wood is chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit. she has transformed the law with her judicial opinions regarded as definitive on so many of the areas she writes and teaches in at the university of chicago law school including antit

that leads to one of the most consequential cases in supreme court history. i am sure you know a little bit about that. host: which one? elizabeth: marbury versus madison. it's so much what chief justice roberts is talking about today. you asked the question about how he approaches his job and the role of the court. it was in that case the court established its role in our constitutional democracy and we have seen it across the administrations, all the way through history into the present moment. the court has this role where it has to be independent of the independent branches, so it can serve as a check, but it can't be seen as unaccountable or unresponsive to the people. chief justice robert understands that. the way it was handled in marbury versus madison was extraordinary. he ended up on a supreme court where one of the judges, that , president adams had appointed and confirmed did not get his commission from the new administration. the judge said, if you them to give them the commission. there was a provision in the statute that allows the supreme cour

dissenting at the supreme court is a lecture series hosted by the supreme court historical society. next on "american history tv", university of arkansas law professor mark killing back is introduced to us by stephen breyer, then discusses the dissenting opinions delivered in cases between 1810 and 1927. >> good evening. chilton from atlanta. i am pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this year's series. we are examining dissents, not majority opinions, different aspects. about youren warned cell phones and apple watches so i will not repeat that but you will be in the doghouse if it goes off during the time of our evening. hosto want to thank our whoice stephen breyer against all odds agreed to come and introduce our speaker on the first day of a busy term. justice higher is one of the most -- justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends. when we have called on him, he has shown up and done a wonderful job. i want to thank him for taking time away from his busy schedule on first day of term. be too much on his time, so i will abbreviate the introduction of justice br

to the supreme court. so this is going to be the first of these cases involving all these various investigations to get to the supreme court. now, of course, it's not a guarantee the court will take the case but if it does, you know, i think the cards are sort of stacked against the president at this point given previous supreme court rulings, especially in the nixon case when he had to turn over white house tapes. >> tom, how did we get here? >> well, chris, basically, as pete laid out for you there was a grand jury subpoena process sought by the -- or garage subpoena, i should say, sought by the manhattan district attorney, this is an investigation there's been looking into these hush money payments as you said when you were introducing us. so this investigation is a look in to see whether or not anybody in the trump organization, including, because we know that the president's children are involved in that organization, up to the president somehow filed false business returns, that's something that a st

the government had created, including the supreme court it's created, including the supreme court, began functioning in 1789. nearly 200 years later, on this date in 1981, justice sandra day o'connor became the 102nd and first female supreme court justice. think about that for a moment. it took nearly two centuries to put the first woman on the united states supreme court. i was privileged to be in court that day. president reagan was there, members of the cabinet, senators, representatives, justices, and members of the prussian public the press and public watched as a commission signed by president reagan, and the oath of office was administered by the chief justice. then justice o'connor was escorted to the bench and took her seat. it was a special, emotional moment, and i feel emotion talking about it, but much too long in coming. justice o'connor served for 25 years on the supreme court with brilliant, a keen understanding of the constitution and of the american people, compassion, insight, wisdom, grace and dignity. she had spent her early years on a 108,000 acre cattle ranch in ari

court justice, argued supreme court cases.olks of unquestionable qualifications. host: our guest is ed whelan. we're talking about the trump administration judiciary appointments hitting a milestone. 202-748-8000 is the number to call for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents and others, that is 202-748-8002. and president trump will be at the white house today, an event on judicial nominations. that coming up this afternoon. we'll cover that live here on c-span at 3:00 p.m. eastern. reporting on what may be ahead, what the impact of the president's picks may be, pbs with the headline, trump's conservative picks, will impact the court for decades. they write that the house impeachment inquiry has brought most legislative work in congress to a halt except for one issue, judiciary nominations. despite the turmoil surrounding the impeachment process, senate republicans have continued making steady progress filling the federal bench, bolstering president donald trump's record on what is regarded as a key is

more about the supreme court.-- reconstructing. >> another thing i wanted to do with this book was, in a way, allude to the president. the right to vote, right to vote, terrorism, these are issues, not just just 150 years old. i am alluding to the present, i am not writing a commentary on today, but what happens to your rights when you have a conservative supreme court. what happens to these amendments really starting reconstruction with the slaughterhouse decision. going all the way into the 20th century as a warning. not self enforcing. if you have a hostile supreme court, they can do tremendous damage to the expansion of liberty. why did the supreme court do that? public opinion in the north was shifting away. the reconstruction et cetera. one of the things that surprised me is i don't think that that is really true. many of these decisions were renounced by republican leaders by the republican press. we historians have a tendency that we like people will like us you get a lot of quotes from the chicago tribune

marbury was right to bring a lawsuit and come to a supreme court -- the supreme court.e provision in the law that wanted the supreme court to enforce, the underwriting the executive branch to do something, is beyond our power as a constitution, so we can't do it. we, as the was that supreme court, are here to interpret the constitution, even if it is against legislation as an act of congress and we're the ones who say what the law is. it in a moment where he was taking away the courts own power. that is the case any chief justice looks to to say that was the principle that was not established at the time, but the foundation of the court's role in society. let's return to clips and hear what he has to say about that case. many countries that have constitutions, their political documents. if you have a dispute, it will be resolved however disputes will be resolved. any election if you are lucky. force of arms if you are not. resolved.disputes are john marshall said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets out the political stage. . it's also a

and here supreme court clears the way for a hindu temple to be built at a size disputed by muslims. alone welcome to al-jazeera live from our headquarters in doha with me and as a product also ahead. i have a desire to prove that this country can be much better when it has a government that doesn't lie as much on twitter as. a big boost to brazil's left for the president to notice and believes president after a supreme court ruling plus. a wave of anger on the streets of chin a a day off for the president announced tougher measures against violence. and 2 people killed in eastern australia as imagines he workers battled and tense bushfires. india's top court has ruled a disputed religious side should be given to him that is for construction of a temple the piece of land at i or the and the state of that but there is claimed by both hindus and muslims and it's ruling the supreme court said muslims should be given 2 hectares of land for a mosque at a different location and his government will set up a trust to manage the site and oversee the building of the hindu temple dispute over w

the losing side may well take review in the united states supreme court. the impeachment process is going on now. nancy pelosi wants it over by the end of the year. there is no way the legal battle over don mcgahn's testimony will be resolved by the end of the year. the question is will any actual testimony come forward at a time useful to the democrats for the impeachment process. >> will don mcgahn, the former white house counsel need to await legal appeals by the white house or justice department or potentially could he make a decision on his own, since he has been ordered to appear before the house of representatives by this u.s. district court judge, can he decide to obey what the judge ordered? >> he could. but my sense is having gone this far he will probably continue. there are a number of witnesses the last few weeks who defied the white house demand to testify. the state department officials, national security council officials, fiona hill and alex vindman, they testified even though the president said they shouldn't. don mcgahn could reject that

india's supreme court clears the way for a hindu temple to be built at a site also claimed by muslims and remembering the fall of the wall germany marks 80 years since support probably in wall came down. to. thank you very much for joining us medics say at least 3 people have died during clashes in baghdad this saturday this amid reports iraqi security forces are moving in to protest sites in the city just hours ago the iraqi prime minister abdullah mahdi said the country must be allowed to return to normal tens of thousands of people have been protesting for weeks now angry about a lack of basic services wising unemployment and corruption. to announce electoral reforms in the coming days let's speak to natasha going to him in baghdad for us natasha what more can you tell us about these latest us in baghdad. foly with the work week slated to begin tomorrow morning this is a strategy by security forces in baghdad to confine the protests to to harir square that has been the epicenter of the protests since october 1st however last week things became very chaotic in the capital as the pro

s corresponding public use he is standing outside the supreme court's a public very good to have you with us so the hearings will start to very shortly what is the darkest situation not resolved under the obama administration why is it now again before the supreme court. well under the ministration of course this program was introduced by executive order and president trump back in 2017 ended this program but then 3 lower courts said that basically he didn't have the right to do so on parts of this said dock a program for example new applicants are still not allowed. for a massive part of the program but basically president also is now not allowed or under the administration at the moment dr recipients at the moment are allowed to renew their applications because at the end of the day they do only last 2 years which basically gives them also has ation to live and work here in the united states without fear of deportation now president trumps administration says it actually president obama didn't even have the authority in the 1st place to introduce the docket program so here we are i

well, it is because the supreme court has been hearing this case.ase at a high court, and that was decided, that two—thirds of the site should go to hindu groups and one third should go toa hindu groups and one third should go to a muslim group. but neither side was co nte nt to a muslim group. but neither side was content with that so it ended up going all the way to the highest court in the land here, india's supreme court. so for a0 days earlier this year, all parties in this dispute came to the supreme court and delivered their case, and 110w court and delivered their case, and now we have the judgement. this weekend marks the 50th anniversary of sesame street, the american television show that set out to entertain and educate younger children. to mark the occasion, new york's empire state building was lit up in yellow and green. and there was one very special guest at the event, as the bbc‘s tim allman explains. applause. hi, everybody! it's me, big bird! they were never going to celebrate sesame street without celebrating big bird. hi, debbie.

what did the supreme court say in it? it said, to prevail in a civil case for libel, defamation, slander, a public official must show that the speaker acted with actual malice. those are key words, actual malice. and what actual malice means is that the defendant speaker knew what he was writing or saying was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement. what that reckless standard has been interpreted to mean is the speaker had high degree of probability and knew with a high degree of operability that what he was writing from of what he was saying was false. this is a subjective standard. this is what was in the mind of the speaker at the time he spoke. not what a reasonable person would know or reasonable person would understand based on available facts at the time. lower courts have said about this actual malice standard can we heard about what justice thomas said, almost impossible. other courts have characterized it as a heavy, often insurmountable burden, difficult task that extracts high pr

president after a supreme court ruling. more protests in hong kong as a group of opposition legislations are detained over a brutal and parliament. and the human cost of u.s. airstrikes targeting al shabaab rights groups a growing number of civilians are being killed in somalia. india's top court has ruled a disputed religious side to be given to him this for construction of a temple the piece of land at iowa the state of a thought for the issues claimed by both hindus and muslims and its ruling the supreme court said muslims should be given 2 hectares of land for a mosque at a different location and the government will set up a trust to manage the site and all of the see the building of the hindu temple dispute over who owns the land as being one of india's most contentious issues hindu hardliners destroyed a 16th century mosque in 1902 the court added the right to build a temple on the land will be subject to peace harmony law and order. well indian prime minister in the in the morning has tweeted his thoughts following t

this time on the supreme court. it was the first time in history that a justice and his former law clerk were able to serve together. no surprise by now that the justice and his wife offered louise and i into the court and it could not have been more gracious. as everybody who knows them knows, mary kennedy is every bit as special as her husband. [applause] >> the canadians were among the first to invite us to dinner, introduce us to their friends -- they even helped us with our house hunt. when i circulated a draft of my first opinion for the court, it was a pretty easy case. that is what they give the junior justice. it was sure to be unanimous. justice kennedy wanted to beat the rest of his colleagues to the punch. the foibles of technology thwarted him. i circulated a draft late in the day after he had gone home, so he asked one of his law firms to fax the opinion to him. for some reason, the machine would not cooperate. riskce kennedy would not getting a copy until the next morning because someone else might jo