that was overturned by the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit prompting that free speech coalition to bring the case to the supreme court. that issue whether the fifth circuit are properly applied first amendment doctrine whether online age verification imposes a burden to adult constitutionally protected speech. >> will hear argument this morning case 231122 free speech coalition versus paxton. mr. schaeffer. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may please the court. in this case the fifth circuit majority held that mere rational basis review, the most lax form of judicial scrutiny, plies her texas law that burdens constitutionally protected speech based on its content. specifically, by imposing an age verification bear before anyone can access a sexually themed website. that advert holding defies this court's consistent precedent, good ashcroft decision as judge higginbotham will expend his dissent. this court should begin by confirming a strict scrutiny apply to adult users. notably texas laws even more problema

and the court can live without that. but the author or her financial sanctions, and those are much more serious because it looks as if the us government is about to say that no bank can do business with the court or it's personnel. and that could freeze the court. now there is an answer, don't you to that's the hurricane union hasn't acted what's called the blocking statute. and it theoretically put, put in place on banking measures that would insure it or put it to give the court and it's personnel. it's gonna have to move quickly, but that i think it's the answer. everybody has seen this coming and hopefully they're bigger. they will be ready to move so that the court can continue to do what's important business with him. the other concern his that trouble this executive order talks not only about sanctioning the staff members of the i, c c, but also people who work with the i c. c in, in the investigation. how significant is that? well, i mean, i think that's a huge, broad because it's not uh, limited to of to those wh

the treaty and the establishment of the court. so the scale, the, the breath of this and, and even beyond, just as i say, see this executive decision is, is one that i think is hopefully going to be found a legal, unconstitutional. and i, i hope it will be able to be supported for the sake of the international community of, or a 125. the governments are in the court now $75.00 of them within 48 hours, came out with objections to this initiative. and i hope we can take this opportunity of in this, in this period, because the vast majority of citizens everywhere don't know about the i c, c. this is on the top priority for them. so i think this is going to be an important opportunity to educate people about the extraordinary achievement that was the international criminal court treaty in 1998. and it's rod application that in 2010 and $2.00. and this was a, one of the very last of what was now, unfortunately, we realize that go on age and the post cold war period where we had tremendous strengthening of the international legal order.

the u.s. report. e courtays the qualified immunity inquiry "will often require ation of the information possessehe surgeon officials, but it does not reintroduce into qualified immunity analysis the inquiry in official subjective intent harlow sought to minimize." reports the officer will be making judgments abo wther the subject is entering -- about to do something in bad fthr dangerous. justice kan: i assume you want uso write an opinion that does not say anything about the weight given to the officer himself creating the danger. but i am trying to think, given the facts of this case, how an opinion you would want us to write avoids that question ly? ms. ja the narrowest opinion this court would write woulde prior circumstances . they are part of the totality of circumstances. the fifth circuit did not recognize data. if the fifth circuit more meat on the bones it could say as we have had in our brief the circumstances at the moment of importance and it will be a rare n which an officer is expeng a moment o

the court should reject the theory in this case and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. justice thomas: how would you assessheifference between the fifth circuit approach as you see it and in the totality he circumstances approach as weeard this morning? mr. mccloud: i do not think there is a difference between what the fifth circuit is and what graham dire justice alito: the solicitor -- justice thomas: theitor general not so mh aham. mr. mccloud: the difference between our position and the government's opinion if they wantb include arguments that the officer escalated or created danger and we don't think that is a relevant situation under graham or the fourth amendment. it is whether there was legitimate threat to the officers. justice thomas: were they arguing that ts morning? mr. mccloud: mr. zelinsk said sergeant felix created a dangerous situation. justice thomas: i thought he said he wants to arguth later when he goes back. mr. mccloud: that was e argument they try to advance in the fifth circuit and this is the e ing i agree with jge higginbotham about. he says th

but with the courts -- if the courts help president trump tear down the civil service protections and make civil service employees the equivalent of that will political appointees. then we are looking at a new politicization, something that looks more like a patronage system of the 19th century and the jacksonian area. that's another concern that people in my area worry about that you'll lose the benefits and they are very real, of the civil service and have a more chaotic administration government. host: jim in minnesota, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for coming onto this and for your comments here. president trump's use of these executive orders -- for me it reflects project 2025 and also the powell memos, you talk about president nixon and the supreme court, their power grab, this whole thing is just for me it looks like a massive power grab to take over and basically rule by authoritarian -- authoritarianism, just look at what elon musk has done with social security when he has no business even legally to be in that place. i would like your thoughts on that. guest

a lead given to him by the supreme court. so, in some sense, the supreme court has teed up the power he's now exercising through executive orders. there are several categories there. some are more controversial than others. host: that lead you talk about, is not connected to the supreme court case or the trump case connected to executive power in the united states? guest: i've had this -- sorry -- i've had this question but i am not talking about the executive immunity decisions. i would like to highlight the cases that are in every casebook that are called removal power. -- removal power cases. people have noticed that the president is doing some arguably unusual things as far as removals. what i don't think they have quite grasped the either direct connection between what the robbins court has been -- roberts court has been doing since roberts got there in 2005 and what president trump is following up on or pushing the envelope on. those are removal cases like the free enterprise fund case or the seller law case in 2020. hos

of appeal, accessible, the most transparent in the world. courtwhich in many parts of the world just does not happen. isn't there a problem there? there are states in which the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70%. years before i retired. what's happening now is that as a reach of education, the district judiciary. when you mentioned about, you know, the role of dynasty, school doing my studies. second, i entered a court for the first third, if you look at the overall profile of the indian judiciary, most of the lawyers and judges... as well as the districtjudges who get promoted. that the district... from 2023, which is, of course, when you were still chiefjustice. you were seven years, at that point, into your stint on the supreme court. did you, as supreme court chief justice, have to deal with that growing political pressure? because they were not able to anticipate what would happen if at all, completely debunks the myth that we are moving if you look at the states in india, the states are where the regional aspirations and identities ha

sanctions on staff at the international criminal court. y nearly 80 countries including some of washington's closest allies said the measures increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes. the united nations has called on mr. trump to reverse the order. in his statement, he criticized the icy seat for issuing the arrest -- icc for issuing the arrest warrant for benjamin netanyahu along with his former defense minister who is wanted for war crimes in gaza. speaking in washington alongside mike johnson, mr. netanyahu praised president trump decision. >> the american-israeli alliance has never been stronger. the week began with an extraordinary meeting with president trump and under his leadership the critical decisions that show his commitment and the american people's israel come to the fore instantly. the sanctions on the icy sea that threatens the right of all democracies to defend themselves. >> with us is a barrister who volunteers as the lawyers for israel charitable trust. welcome to the program. >> thank you, good to be wi

so in the court it is the justice _ cases. so in the court it is the justice department. cases.he fbi. that is quite a line—up, the fbi. that is quite a line—l taken against them by being taken against them by supporters of the january to six riot or insurrection, whatever you wish to call it. it is worth noting in defence of the fbi agents that no specific wrongdoing has been alleged, it is simply that the new trump administration wants a list produced a people who have worked onjanuary a list produced a people who have worked on january the a list produced a people who have worked onjanuary the 6th cases. president trump offered sweeping clemency of people convicted of january the six—related offences, but this is going deeper, trying to secure the list of anyone in the fbi who worked on those cases. . ., , cases. so in the court it is the justice _ cases. so in the court it is the justice department i cases. so in the court it is i the justice department versus the justice department versus the fbi. that is the allegations of wrongdoing and says the incidents simply never occ

the courts can't do that. the truth is that the divorce courts, the custody courts, are an absolute mess right now and routinely children are being given to abusive fathers through the demonization of mothers. it is something happening across the entire united states. children are continuing to be abused. i don't have a whole lot of faith in the family court system right now. but with respect to legislation, it gives me hope because it is almost always bipartisan. they really are focusing on children and trying to do something meaningful. i expect that in the coming administration. >> elizabeth? >> i largely agree the legislature ought to be the place where these conversations happen in a robust way. it might be why the court including the supreme court has not definitively decided all of this for us, because it is not the best suited to do that. the only other thing i would add beyond what has already been said is i think conservatives and perhaps libertarians have abandoned many of these institutions, whether

it's not only the courts. report on the other key check on powers, how this has worked historically, the playbook that can work against trump, the republican elements in it that are actually a problem for this party, and why problem for this party, and why some (♪♪) some people just know they could save hundreds on car insurance by checking allstate first. duke versus unc. what a storied rivalry? like you know to check your outfit first before meeting your girlfriend's family. that's a tough one to recover from steve. the disappointment on their faces says it all. uh-uh. yeah, checking first is smart. yeah. so check allstate first for a quote that could save you hundreds. you're in good hands with allstate. have you always had trouble with your weight? same. discover the power of wegovy®. with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. and i'm keeping the weight off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only weight-management medicine proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events such as d

at the same time, trump is facing another court blow. this is on his order to end birthright citizenship. this is an ongoing battle, but this is now the second time this week that a federal judge has slammed trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship, which is a constitutional right. judge john connor, who is a reagan appointee, wrote, quote, it has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. the rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which i intend to follow. there's there's no ambiguity about what that judge sees happening here. again, a reagan appointed judge, because right now, the courts, frankly, are the only check on trump's power. the two last minute stays tonight are significant, but the courts are where the battle over trump's blitzkrieg breaking of all protocols is being fought, according to a list comp

and so the federal court, you know, the federal court was able to pause the administration's arbitrary activities. it then extended that pause last week and there will be more briefing. but this is an example of arbitrary behavior by this administration that is deeply, it's not only troubling from a legal perspective, it's troubling from a human perspective, because this isn't serving anyone. and you saw the white house come out scrambling after the court ruled members of congress were having to mobilize because their communities were not getting what they needed. and so i think that this was the courts have, of course, provided a really important check. but i think if this is sort of a preview of how this administration is going to operate, what we're seeing is that they're not really operating in a way that is making people's better in the day to day, but rather operating in sort of a chaotic way that's really causing a lot of uncertainty, but also harm to people who, by the way, some are still not getting the funding because of backlogs, because you can't just turn, you know, turn o

so now the problem is in the courts and with the litigation. my fairy firm belief is that the same forces that were popping up are now behind the litigation as well. let's hope that we win. another example of a bipartisan effort to combat klepto kratz is the foreign extinction prevention act. this law empowers the u.s. government to prosecute foreign officials that receive a bribe from a u.s. individual, corporation, or any person while they are on u.s. territory. before this, only an offering of a brighter -- bribe abroad by a u.s. corporation was criminalized under the foreign corrupt practices act. demanding a bribe from american companies or while on u.s. soil will have consequences. of course, there is still work to be done. we lag behind peers when it comes to requiring professionals like accountants to abide by basic anti-money laundering standards. this is a problem because it's not just banks that perform tasks like holding assets and forming or registering a company or a trust. passing legislation will help close that gap and tightene

they went to the supreme court, and the supreme court ruled in our favor against the trump administrationhether it's the birthright citizenship case or one of the other cases that we're bringing, we're going to make sure we defend our states, defend the rule of law. and if that means all the way to the supreme court, so be it. >> i mean, when you talk about the supreme court, it has changed since some of those other earlier cases you mentioned during the first trump administration. this is the same supreme court that gave president trump broad immunity when it comes to actions he takes in office. and we heard from the president vice president in an earlier segment today challenging the authority of the court. so just how confident are you that judges will look at these cases without fear or favor, especially given the reactions that are coming out now from the white house? >> the initial results that are in three cases we've brought making clear the law was violated. in three cases, judges have entered orders saying the law was violated. i remain a believer in the rule of law. i recognize

the president. >> and. >> his vp. >> blast. >> court rulings. stalling their government. >> overhaul, igniting a fresh debate over. >> judicial authority. >> and finds a new target for its ax. the consumer financial protection bureau. congresswoman rosa delauro is going to join us on efforts by democrats to stall the slash and burn. also ahead, trump's new talk of tariffs on aluminum and steel, with threats of more to come in an escalating trade war. and later, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. the grocery stores now setting buying limits amid an egg shortage. good monday morning. it's ten eastern, 7 a.m. pacific. i'm ana cabrera, reporting from new york. and this morning, president trump threatening new tariffs and targeting new agencies for the acts. the president announcing new tariffs on steel and aluminum as soon as today with more reciprocal tariffs sometime this week. this as trump's team targets a new federal agency for its slash and burn cuts. this time, it is the agency tasked with protecting the consumer you against

that's up to the courts, acting consistent with the separation of powers, and it is up to the branchesether to make sure no one branch gets too far out of line. geoff: what would happen if this president, any president, were to openly and willingly defy a court order? stephen: we have been lucky that we have had -- we have not had to face the problem. quote about andrew jackson and john marshall is a profitable. i think what would happen is a political crisis. the question at that point would be, are the courts going to use other tools at their disposal? the federal government depends upon the federal courts. almost as much as a plaintiff, as adults when it is being sued in federal policies. our courts going to fight back? is congress going -- which has been far too acquiescent and what the president has been doing, going to push back? it is a redline we have never crossed, and when we have not crossed for good reason. geoff: on this matter of the president's unilateral efforts to reshape the federal government, jim jordan who chairs the house judiciary committee, he was 1 -- he was on

outfront tonight, the breaking news rejected by the court. so trump's sweeping plans to dismantle the federal government did hit a major snag late today, two courts actually shutting trump down. for now. i'll go through it here. the first hit came after musk's massive buyout offer to federal employees, which he builds the fork in the road offer was blocked by a federal judge. now, that offer gave 2 million federal workers until midnight tonight to accept a deal to resign. that's it. they had to just cut off. and this is it. no questions asked. but that's now been pushed back until at least monday. then there's going to be another hearing to decide if the controversial so-called buyout is legal. it's the buyout, you know, came to employees with that subject line, quote, a fork in the road. no mistake that that is elon musk's fingerprint, that subject line, the exact same subject line that employees at twitter received days after he took over that company. and that email about leaving the company is strikingly similar in content to the email tha

, and that potentially could even be the supreme court. ali. >> so, melissa, we, we talk a lot and have talked a lot in recent years about things that are constitutional crisis, to the point that people may not really know what what counts as a constitutional crisis here. so we've had a few things that have happened since the beginning of the trump administration, where there have been lawsuits filed and courts have, have, have said certain things. some of them are about the constitution. so birthright citizenship is in the 14th amendment of the constitution, the congressional right to appropriate funds is in the constitution. but then there's this defiance of judges. what part of this is a constitutional crisis, or is it? what's your take on this? >> so in my. >> view. >> ali. >> all of this is a constitutional crisis. we're watching this unfold over time. >> and i. >> don't mean to be hyperbolic. >> about this or to. >> be on. 11 all of. >> the time, but. >> the idea that the president. >> can step. >> in and. >> appropriate congressional

d8 you could set up the financial system that would court staff to allow the court staff to of donaldicipated benjamin netanyahu being or having to �*to charges 7 charges for7the earl's it these charges for the earl's it would not have issued this arrest in such a public arrest warrant in such a public i mentioned a fashion. i mentioned that a public summary by the suhtie huhhhhshs sash: "' ”’ his application prosecutor of his application is unprecedented. it's an that been a pr exercise, a llii, in to gain circus in order to gain credibility for this court, as indicated 7 as indicated has been which as i indicated has been resoundingly because resound—ingtyhcriticiaedeecause its abject failure to of its abject failure to relocate itself by going after the world punching bag. in 777 b77y777a7lleging respect by alleging starhatiershhhh hh hhh hhh h h we can all respect by atteging staruatierchh—— .- -.- .-. . . we can all see respect by alleging starhatiershhhh hh hhh hhh h h we can all see with our whore we can alt seehwith our ...- eyes whore we can allh seehwith our ...- eyes on the

the united kingdom _ different| international court. ould have the _ situation. we are by the sack should have the - to | the work wwwwehewwb'wj; of w ' w the work of that court the uk are a that the uk are a signatory too, that is why asking a question of what the uk sexism st ashaflflcsr response should be government response should be terms of support �*that in terms of support for that cause.~ in terms of support for that cause. ~ a, ., ., cause.).elett§ ! sashes sees. the government, i'm not a member of present member of the present government. but i would say is that ought to express wthat that his disapproval that his actions have been imposed that is a disapproval that his actions have b�* between ;ed that is a disapproval that his actions have b�* between the that is a disapproval that his actions have b�* between the united: is a matter between the united and court. w {0&th wswhouldw court. should not beyond iurt. should not beyond �*ff 's'r not not beyond �*ff 's'r not a iot go beyond that. it's not a dispute britain and dispute

to the appellate court to the supreme court. and he gave him credit by calling it the mcconnell court. he sees a lasting legacy there for mitch mcconnell. there's no question. i mean, he he knows that he and senator mcconnell sort of view the world the same way from a legal perspective on most issues. and so this was something, of course, that he embraced because it's the outcome he preferred. we're talking about the legacy and career of senator mitch mcconnell, who has said that he will step down as the majority leader at the end of 2024. and joining us for that conversation is michael tackett, who has written a new biography of the of the senate leader the price of power how mitch mcconnell mastered the senate, changed america and lost his party. what kind of access did you have to the senator? well, much more than i would have thought. i didn't really know senator mcconnell when i broached the idea of doing the biography. and i was quite surprised that in the first meeting i laid out what i wanted to do and i said, i don't wan

practical difference for benjamin netanyahu, whom benjamin netanyahu, for whom the has issued an the courtssued an arrest warrant? there are a few elements _ warrant? there are a few elements . this. - warrant? there are a few- elements . this. obviously, elements to this. obviously, he's going to the united states is not a signatory there which is not a signatory there is no risk of arrest there, there has always been that is no risk of arrest there, there of always been that is no risk of arrest there, there of arrests been that is no risk of arrest there, there of arrests he n that is no risk of arrest there, there of arrests he goest is no risk of arrest there, there of arrests he goes to threat of arrest if he goes to e"" which is a a country which is a signatory. �* this a country which is a signatory. �*this declaration by the whether this declaration by the president of the united states �* is that is rather alffir i? elia}. i? raffifir to eleer ie eieee ie reefier to say. eleef ie eeee ie feeieef to say. what it does difficult to say. what it does do is is it on thursday mr netanyahu

that went to the supreme court and the supreme court upheld the law as the proper law, not violate not -- not in violation of the constitution. since then there has been a seachange throughout the country and in new york that had its own three strike law where we are not doing that anymore. you will find that even if it is technically on the books that you are not going to have three strikes be imposed, if somebody committed three very violent felonies, of course that would be a factor but it is not mandatory anymore, and that -- not implied in new york state anymore that simply if someone has three felony convictions, regardless of the nature of conviction, that they had to be put in jail for life. so i had to sentence walter johnson 28 years ago to life because, at that time, the three strikes law was enforced in new york and i had no choice but to do that. today we do not do that anymore, there has been a change. so one of the important things about this whole concept of giving people a second chance is to realize that in the passage of time, things do not stay static. laws change.

you say it was expected, and the icc _ court. you say it was expected, and the icc have _ court. s expected, and the icc have ended - court. you say it was expected, and the icc have ended up - three months in so are advance so you are right about anticipation, but the argument advance so you are right about anticipatit trump the argument advance so you are right about anticipatit trump is e argument advance so you are right about anticipatit trump is that ument ofdonald trump, is that the created equivalency court created moral equivalency between netanyahu and the hamas . —— hamas leader, so what lee —— hamas leader, so what did you of the did you make of the argument? it is compelling, the charges against palestinian against the palestinian leaders the israeli leaders were and the israeli leaders were at the same time, and it issued at the same time, and it should be noted that the case mently bein currently being pursued lsgcurrently being pursued only officials, against only israeli officials, equivalence, going beyond equivalence, there is no actual equivalence at the moment

the striker previously told the court she and her partner, by officers at twickenham police station. ting her and ms kerr, by changing their version of events of what happened on a taxi journey on the lives of herself and ms kerr. and not aggressive. hostility towards the officer, because of his whiteness. "it's what i did, yes." the striker previously told the court she and her partner, the west ham midfielder kristie mewis, was antagonised by officers at twickenham police station. in her evidence on thursday, ms mewis accused the officers of gaslighting her and ms kerr, by changing their version she told the court she feared for her life, she smashed a window because she felt she had to do something dramatic to save she told the court that ms kerr was a humble and loving person and not aggressive. runs is due to take place end of march, if that doesn't whatever track is in front of these and hopefully, hopefully cortina will all be finished very soon. a formula 1 grand prix and since then no woman has 1 debut in 1975, there was hopes for the beginnings of gender parity in motorsport

the court has been bracing itself for this moment. ased in the netherlands but trump's move could have serious consequences on court during his first term as president, donald trump troops in afghanistan. now he is redoubling his efforts, declaring war i'v e i've been speaking to a professor of law at the professor of lawatthe of florida, a former university of ftcm'deg'e ferrner to the icc�*s first chief clerk to the icc�*s first chief and he me his orosecutor and he gave me his , to the sanctions the executive order was completely unsurprising, given but all three including the group's military chief have been killed during the war. the court has been bracing itself for this moment. this morning it condemned trump's executive order which it said would harm its independent and impartial judicial work. the icc is based in the netherlands but trump's move could have serious consequences on court officials, its funding and even its it systems. during his first term as president, donald trump imposed sanctions on icc officials investigati

and either the us or israel, or members of the court, or recognize the i. c c's jurisdiction. and during his 1st term and office trump placed sanctions on icbc, prosecutors and officials accusing them of threatening to infringe upon us sovereignty. those sanctions were then lifted by his successor job i last year the i c. c issue to arrest warrants for is really prime minister benjamin netanyahu and former defense minister you'll have to launch accusing them of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in gaza. let's discuss this. we have so talk a hashi professor of human rights and peace studies at a sucka to the queen university. he specializes in international human rights, all joining us from a suck in japan. thank you for your time. do the sanctions impact the work of the court? is there anything that they kept that the court? it's prosecutors, it's judges pre trial judges can no longer do because of the sanctions as well. i mean, the direct impact on the institution of the i c. c will probably be pretty limited . it's not in the united states, it's in the headin

they take it up to the supreme court. but if the supreme court of the united states says you have to do this, historically, at. least united. >> states presidents. >> have complied. >> i mean. >> to that point, you can go to the appellate process. tom, you know this well, i would also wonder if the president. can mandate you saw the speaker saying, we want to codify some of these changes. tom. >> could the president mandate. >> some of his cabinet secretaries. >> to attempt to. >> do what doge is. >> doing. by finding ways, making some of those cuts within some of those agencies and not having some of this. outside ancillary group doing. >> some. >> of. those efforts. yeah. look, i mean, the president certainly can direct people in the agencies. >> to carry out his agenda. there's no problem. that's how our system works. >> but at some point, i think the. >> courts are. >> probably going to step in. i mean, we've already seen democratic attorney generals and everyone and their brother filing lawsuits, litigating. trying to

rulings of the european court of justice. are those things enough for the european union to make that commitment to rule of law tangible? in its member state capitals? >> thanks very much. next question. >> my name is alexis. i'm an undergrad at the school for business. i wanted to touch upon that you made about the democratic parties coming together over the anti-extremist right and that conflicting with recent happenings. they kind of not collaborate but accept the other. and the meaning of this for upcoming elections. how do you think is the best way to handle extremist parties? there is a problem with all of the democratic parties' candidates bonding over not being them but the having internal problems versus collaborating with them and legitimizing them. so your opinion on that. >> thanks very much. we're scheduled to go to 35. i find that a bit cruel. it allows on a 10-minute break. i think we should have a 15-minute break. i want to aim to finish at 2:30. i'm going to give each of the panel, you don't have to answer all

are legally obligated to fully cooperate with the icc including by arresting individuals sought by the courtends to their entire territory. to talk more about that, i enjoyed in the studio by our north american correspondent. he appeared to double down on that plan. of the u.s. taking control of gaza. was he clear in how he intends to do that? >> no details. it was vague. it is kind of a paradox. it is worth remembering that the plan breaks international law because it requires israel to forcibly remove people from gaza. it involves the u.s. taking over territory that it has no right to. people have already said this is a nonstarter. we are not getting on board. he is not offering anything behind the leverage. he said there is no money america will give to reconstruct gaza. the reason why he is not committing to all of that is because he promised his supporters no nationbuilding and no getting involved in foreign conflicts. anchor: of course for arab nations around the world come looking for more detail, particularly when it comes to the idea of palestinians having to leave the area. did he

may well end up in the supreme court. we would see what is the president of the united states going to do if they come down with a ruling that he doesn't like a court that, as we all know, is conservative, and he pointed multiple members? >> yeah. >> well, some. >> of this stuff is going to go to the supreme court. i guess the one hopeful thing, optimistic thing you could say about the courts is, is in trump's first term, the court did reject, you know, what the administration had wanted a bunch actually more than he was rejected by the court, more than any president since fdr. and so the court is a little different now. you know, with coney barrett having been added right at the end of the first trump term. but although she's surprised a. >> few times. right. >> so yeah, exactly. so we'll see kind of how that shakes out as far as like the political strategy is concerned. you know, look, there was a blind quote from somebody inside one of the agencies over the weekend and the person basically said, look, there they are. t

to appeal up to the court of appeals. and then you can even ask the next level, the u.s. supreme court, to take the case. so it's not as if the game is over. once the district court judge rules, there are still many other layers of protection and appeal built in there, too. >> so to what extent, ellie, do you think that the white house, the trump white house knows this and this is a concerted strategy? i ask you this because i read this renowned legal scholar over the last few days who said that the white house is engaging in what's called a make me strategy. >> so that i've heard that that scholar is a little shaky in some of his opinions. yeah. look, the strategy that donald trump has used here so far is he's going to do what he wants first, and then he's going to make plaintiffs. he's going to make state attorneys general. he's going to make private citizens go sue him in court if they want to stop him from doing what he wants, they have to make him. so that's definitely been a strategy by the president. but that's not

the court order. k at musk's post on his ex social media, he is posting examples. he talked about leases of the government is nomogram using for empty space and talks about d.e.i. initiatives, but all of this is being done in the dark. we do not know who is making these decisions, which contracts are problematic and which are not, and a lot of these agencies do not know as well. geoff: let's shift our focus to capitol hill. what is the push stand for major trump back legislation? correspondent: believe it or not, putting together what might be the most complex and large bill in history turns out is harder than you might predict, so republicans are having a hard time getting out of the starting gate with this massive trump bill. what we know right now is house republicans met at the white house last night to try and figure out their starting point, which is a budget resolution. here is speaker johnson talking to reporters. >> our message to our friends and colleagues in the senate is allow the house to

for life saving treatment abroad, present donald trump imposes sweeping sanctions on the international criminal court for his investigations. the israel's will garza, the syrian military defects had known as caesar documented atrocities for the regime. tells al jazeera, he won't speed us to remove extensions and health officials and, and go over struggling to contain rising numbers of color infections. and supposedly the pool facing new costs are united in the final of the english see come on, the slots team were full, one aggregate winners and their semi final against talk to them. the thanks for joining us, palestinian families and gaza whose homes have been reduced to rubble sleeping out and the open or worn out tents, enjoying rain freezing temperatures, and strong winds. under the ceasefire agreement between is wrong and last, $200000.00 tents were supposed to be allowed into garza 92 percent of those have arrived, sofa massachusetts, around the preventing the delivery of temporary shelters and failing to meet his obligations under the to you. meanwhile, another group of 50 medical of i q, we us

the eventual test here is going to be in the courts. the conservatives have worked for 20 years to get the court they. >> have now. >> it's an incredibly biased. it's very political. >> it's also corrupt. >> and some of the cases. >> and we're going to find. >> out if there are five justices who believe in the country more than they believe in the mission that they were put up to do by the federalist society and confirmed by the right wingers for. >> the last 20 years. >> this started 20 years ago when the court it's just it's not anything that started new. >> and now it's come. >> down to whether the court. >> will in fact. enforce the law. >> and the constitution of the united states. they already rewrote the constitution. >> last term with. >> this unitary theory of the presidency. this is all made up mumbo jumbo. >> by some right. >> wing crackpots in the legal profession. and so we're in real danger. this is really dangerous stuff. musk has clearly broken the. >> law, and now. >> we'll find out if the courts are willing to support t

i'm concerned about them disobeying the lower court's pending potential appeals to the supreme court,ay and disagree. >> and the damage could, even while you're trying to make your way through, damage could be done. yeah. i mean. >> strategically, they should not disobey a supreme court ruling because the supreme court is extremely favorable. >> for them. right? right. but by the time you get to the supreme court, so much has supreme court, so much has happened in the for more than a decade farxiga has been trusted again and again, and again. ♪far-xi-ga♪ ♪far-xi-ga♪ ask your doctor about farxiga. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need, and the flavor you love. so, here's to now... now available: boost max! i'm thinking of updating my kitchen... —yeah? —yes! ...this year, we are finally updating our kitchen... ...doing subway tile in an ivory, or eggshell... —cream?... —maybe bone?... don't get me started on quartz. a big big island... you ever heard of a waterfall counter?... f

but for a time, for a time the courts were helping destruction, the supreme court declared unconstitutional, not everything, far from that, most of you that studied judicialization, have one of the least active courts compared to the colombian, brazilians or others. and other things were blatantly unconstitutional on the militarization package and declared unconstitutional. and this made the judiciary in the second part of lopez obrador's term to be public enemy number one, the supreme court. but in the intermediate election, the intermediate election, moreno lost the constitutional majority, and changing the constitution. everybody said, oh, okay, what a relief. we'll wait until the election, the next election, 2024, june. this will be it, there's been a lot of destruction, but you know, finally we will have a new leader that, you know, with the same party, but won't have this kind of profile and things will -- but then one year before-- just one year from now, february 2024, constitution day in mexico for everybody, lopez obrador presents a package of constitutional reforms, legal and con