there's one possibility the supreme court may never hear the case. hat this is a temporary travel ban. it expires on its own terms after 90 or 120 days. by the time the case comes to the supreme court, unless the president renews it or makes it permanent, we may see reports simply say the case is mute and it can't be further litigated in the supreme court. we just don't know. >> armstrong: how much do you think when you see what has happened with cnn and they are terminating three of their reporters on a bogus russian story and some of the stories coming out of new york times where they also have to make retractions. how much does this damage the credibility of what could be in some ways legitimate concerns to make people think that this is a witch hunt and the media will do anything to get headlines, and they retract and eventually the reporters that cover the stories. >>> if there's any new source, it helps them. the fact that they were prepared to retract. the president doesn't often retract and he has made mistakes, too. i think we're seeing gener

be here at the downtown association and i'm always happy to talk about my favorite subject, the supreme court of the united states but it's particularly fitting and proper to talk about the supreme court and the shadow of the grave of alexander hamilton who was one of the authors of the constitution. the book, and people get to it a little leader is about the politicization of the judiciary. as i have gone around the country talking about the book i find that lawyers and law and lawyers alike are keenly interested in the supreme court. what's going to happen to our constitutional freedoms in the era of trump. questions like has the rule of law then undermined con is the independence of the judiciary undermined or how can it be that a court can tell the president he can't do something in the interest of national security, or why can't the president to ban muslims from the united states, muslims are responsible for terrorism, so they can be banned from the united states if the president isn't going to do it, who is going to do it. and i try to answer these questions in the context of the decide

the supreme court attune the lower courts are suppose to follow the music so to speak. : article applies to the supreme court. >> right. paul: you saying there are plenty of supreme court precedents that says on matters of national security courts must defer to the political branches in particular when those political branches the congress and the president are united behind a povment you are saying that the lower branches here the 40 and ninth circuit, the lower courts really just ran roughshod over this in part because they don't like this president. >> they don't like this president and they have done it in a way that was most disingenuous. as i said they paid no attention to the supreme court precedent. it's just not a matter of deference. what's important here is this, this transcends immigration. the same logic could be applied to the decision to use drones, decision to impose economic sanctions, frankly decisions to use economic force. once it's bonafide reason why doing something, this is it. the judiciary takes it on board. there is no balancing type of analysis

the judiciary. he introduced a bill and sent it which his opponents referred to as the court-packing bill. his supporters called it the court reorganization bill where he said too many justices of the supreme court over the age of 70 and remember they all had lifetime tenure and he said for every justice over the age of 70 and congress can do this, he would have the right to appoint up to six justices and for every justice over the age of 77 civically there could be of quarter of 16 justices. remember we started with six justices not even an odd number that was increased to nine. the court-packing bill was dead on arrival answered my the better view was it was a terrible attack on the independence of the judiciary. what happened was one justice owen roberts who had always voted with the conservative switch sides and in an important hotel case voted with the liberals. it was called the switch in time to save nine so it's no longer necessary to pack the court and a number of them eventually retired because age caught up with them and got to appoint nine justices so the problem disappeared in new deal legislation started to be approved in the supreme court. they come down to the next issue wh

the u.s. supreme court. u.s. strict judge derek watson said thursday that the supreme court is the proper venue to deal with the issue. he denied request without prejudice to its refiling but the supreme court. hawaiitely attorneys for appealed that to the 9th circuit in already ruled that federal appeals court panel late friday declined to absolve itself in the latest dispute over president trump's travel ban, any grandparents and other extended relatives of people in united states cannot the exempted from the president's executive order. what do you expect to happen next while we wait for the supreme or to take of the merits of the case in october? guest: i think the fact the 9th circuit said you can take this back to the district court's and judge watson certainly puts pressure on the district court to take it up. it is within his authority to provide some interpretation and clarification of that. that is not unusual for unprecedented. i think it was surprising for some people to see the judge did not want to c

the u.s. supreme court and is the primary author of 150 cases before the supreme court. let's jump right in. redistrictingcant cases. why don't you tell us a little bit about those cases. the supreme court heard two major redistricting cases. i will not get into the weeds, mostly to keep you from falling asleep and me from messing up. theoth cases, it was intersection between traditional principles. perspective of the state, they have a variety of objectives. lines, political issues which we will talk about later, and the state must consider race because of section 2 of the voting rights acts requires the state to ensure minority representation. in the mid-1990's, the supreme court explained to states that if you use race to much it becomes a dominant factor in come you violate the equal protection clause. what is going on is the states feel, and i think with good reason, they are caught in between. if they use race to little, they have a potential section 2 violation. too much, and equal protection violation. these cases are both about drawing that line. north carolina and virginia argued am

the u.s. supreme court. the chief judge of the d.c. circuit for 20 years. never once been overruled in his 20 years of the supreme court. i mean, he was extraordinary. it was unforgivable. and a really sad thing for our system. >> what so do you think has brought us to this point? is it the election of donald trump or other things going on that combine with that to create a real danger to the rule of law? >> well, do i think that there is a kind of up for grabs nature about truth and law right now. that maybe it's been jerneded by social media -- gendered by social media, something that you mentioned jeff. but there is no law anymore. there's just politics. at least our old-fashioned people, it was a more conservative idea when i was in law school. there's a law out there and there's a text and there are intentions and those things mean something and it contains judicial decisions. it's broken down far more on the conservative side. you have the supreme court time and again striking down things that president obama did on grounds that are, you know, as far a

that's what the supreme court ruled. at the trump administration did with that ruling is they came up with what we consider to be a rather nutty categorical exceptions that took out grandparents, aunts and uncles and said those people aren't close family which is not only illogica illogical it's also hurtful. a lot of the people who are refugees or coming from these different countries actually come from families where the grandparents or someone who is two degrees removed is actually their close family member. and the supreme court didn't take that definition to heart and so we are asking, we have asked the court to make sure the supreme court ruling is followed. >> the supreme court is not likely to act until this fall, october. what happens in the meantime? this could lead to confusion as the attorney general suggested, couldn't it? >> well, what you have right now is you do have a court order on a nationwide injunction that the supreme court said applies to people who have a bona fide connection to the united states e

the high court. allison barber has the latest on this from washington. >> the supreme court is given the state of hawaii till noon tuesday to respond to a petition filed on friday. doj filed the petition asking the supreme court to step in, block the ruling of a hawaii judge, and clarify the decision memade by the supreme court last month. the supreme court handed the administration a partial when in june ruling that it was reasonable for the government to read enforce travel restriction from six muslim majority countries if they did not have a quote credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person already in the u.s. credible claim a bona fide relationship is what it's issue. hawaii says the government is not properly many the courts ruling in their definition of those terms is too narrow. on thursday, judge watch watson expanded the definition of familial relationship if there from one of the countries listed in the executive order. he ordered the government to allow refugees and if they are formally working with the resettlement agency in the states. the department of justice says the court o

the u.s. supreme court. the second reason why the appointment of justices is more consequential than ever is that the science of predicting judicial opinions and judicial philosophies has grown better than it ever was in the past. both abraham lincoln and franklin delano roosevelt tried to pack the u.s. supreme court. in lincoln's case, he was trying to pack the court to uphold his controversial executive orders during the civil war and roosevelt, of course, was trying to pack the court to uphold the new deal. dut both of them faile ultimately because they appointed justices who were very independent and ve -- and different directions. richard nixon the same thing. but it has been a long time since a president has nominated a justice who did not live up to his expectations for that justice. in fact, the most recent such appointee david souter is not even on the court anymore. and that is not to say that the philosophicaln lockstep. there are lots of unanimous decisions. they are independent thinkers and they

the school systems and into the court systems and into the government itself and say. [inaudible]ely right. >> you're absolutely right. it's not like, if you want to pray in the school, the only thing the supreme court has quite properly said is that government can't get into the business of telling your child went to pray and how to pray, but if a child wants to pray before eating milk and cookies, that is certainly permissible. there's all sorts of religious clubs just like there are activity clubs. there is plenty of religion in schools. unless anybody thanks this is just a benefit for the government, think of this. do you really want, would you want the government to start telling your child how to pray, what to pray about. these are the kinds of things that protect the integrity of religion just as much as they protect the integrity of a neutral government. >> what is the blame amendment. >> they came out when he was in congress and they wanted to have a federal constitutional amendment that would bar thehe distribution of funds to religion and ministers. it was very broad. thirty-eight states decided whatever happened in congress it would make up their own mind. when they do that they pr

he is a member of the edward kalk appellate court and he is the codirector of the supreme court at the scalia law school and he's been in for several years running as a rising star in appellate law by law 360. next to will is kyle duncan, kyle is a founding partner in shared duncan and has argued over 30 cases including the united states supreme court. he is a graduate of lsu law school and he clerked for judge on the fifth circuit. before starting his own firm he was louisiana's first solicitor general and he served as general counsel for religious liberty. to the far left is joe palmore. he is the cochair of the practice group. he got his undergraduate degree and his graduate degree from the university of virginia. he clerked on the eastern district of new york, and justice ruth bader ginsberg. he served as deputy general counsel for three years and for five years he served as an assistant poster general at the department of justice. he has argued ten cases before the u.s. supreme court and was the primary author of briefs and over 150 cases in the high court. will, the court heard t

he's argued cases before several courts of appeals and also before the u.s. supreme court. he's a member of the edward coke appellate court and a co-director of the supreme court appellate. next to will is kyle duncan. he's argued several federal cases. he's a graduate of lsu law school and got an lml in law school. before starting his own firm kyle was louisiana's first solicitor-general and also served as council at the becket fund and recognized public interest law firm. joe got his under graduate degree from harvard and jd and masters degree from the university of virginia. he also served as deputy general council at the federal chukzs commission for three years. and for five years he served as an assistant solicitor general at the department of justice. he's argued ten cases for the u.s. supreme court and primary author of briefs in over 150 other cases of the high court. so let's jump right into this. so, will, the court heard two pretty significant redistricting cases. why don't you tell us a little bit about those cases. >> i'd be happy to. and thank you for having m

next a look at how the supreme court is handling issues between church and state. the exr for the separation of church and state. remind our viewers about the dispute over a playground that ended up in the supreme court. guest: it was a dispute over a playground that was owned and controlled and called a ministry and mission of a lutheran church. this was integrally related to the church itself. the question was, the scrap tire program that was used allegedly to replace dangerous pebbled craig lowndes -- playgrounds with rubberized tires, whether a religious group could be required to be admitted to a program to receive compensation for this redo of their playground. although it was called the playground case, for many of us, it is a lot more significant than that because it raises the question, can the united states thatme court order states want to protect the conscience of its people and protected zone treasury against distributing funding to churches, can they be ordered to be included in a program that is available to other people? the supreme court majority sa

the morning live at 7:10 a.m. eastern on c-span two. supreme court justice sonia so to my art talks to law students about her professional and personal life and the importance of education. this runs one hour and 15 minutes. ms. soto mayor: you touched my heart. thank you. i am excited to be here. it is a lovely place. and a wonderful university area you guys did a good job getting here. mebefore we get started let go over the show, i will be in conversation with the justice for 20 minutes and then the justice will go into the audience and take some questions of students and staff. in the interest of time we still -- we have selected a few for the justice to answer and she will make her way into the audience for celfin comeback on stage for a few minutes at the end. i will call on students and the justice will take their questions. seesotomayor: you will men and women here with little things and their heirs. they do not like going into the -- may going into the audience but i do not give the much choice. we have reached a wonderful cover my switch if

the world. and you open yourself to greater opportunity. kids always ask me, did i dream of being a supreme court justice? my answer is always, you can't dream about what you didn't know about. [laughter] in the south bronx, it they did not know about supreme court justices. in my neighborhood, there were no lawyers, so whoever stressed -- whoever dreamt about the law? i learned about it mostly through television. about what lawyering was. not a very perfect way to learn. [laughter] and certainly skewed in the wrong directions, ok? but, i understood that, by educating myself, i would be exposing myself to more knowledge about the opportunities in the world. that leads me to what i would do differently today in college. not so differently, because i fell into it in part intuitively, but it has been reaffirmed to me that it was very valuable in helping me succeed in life. i went into college, and my first week, before i signed up for classes, i had a bunch of classes in mind, i saw the titles of the classes and i felt overwhelmed. i didn't think i was smart enough to be at princeton. as a reflect g

you know, a lot of what a judge does on trial court, on the appellate court, outside of the supreme court is a little bit more routine. it's directly controlled by precedent. you have easier answers because you're just extrapolating them what was or has been. when you're on the supreme court we only take cases when there's a circuit split. that means there's 13 circuits in the united states take the states are divided among them, and they are disagreeing on the answer to a legal question. and it's usually a disagreement that steeper than one, to one, because we let it perk up a little while to see what the courts are saying. and, in fact, as some of those perks the issues starte start t, what really is important in this legal question. but because there is a split, you already know that reasonable judges across the country have found it hard to answer the question. they are not agreeing. and so this is the hardest judging job there is, because every single case we get is hard. you can read in our opinions, and we are very good lawyers, and when we write our opinions you wonder why that st

the iphone. >> warren burger was u.s. supreme court chief justice. up next, new york university law professor john sexton talks about his legacy. he served as nyu's president and law school dean. the event was hosted in the supreme court chamber. gregory: good evening. welcome to our 42nd annual lecture. before we do anything else, i will ask everyone to take out their phones and turn them off. even on silent mode, they will interfere with the sound system here in the court. i am greg joseph, president of the society. welcome. we are delighted to have you here today. -- we are honored to have resident emeritus of nyu john sexton, whose topic tonight is warren burger, the founder of our society and of immense importance to us. there is no one more qualified than president sexton to deliver this lecture. he was a warren burger clerk, but he had a long history before that. president sexton earned his ba in history and ma and phd and religion, and taught religion in brooklyn before he went to harvard law school. he went to harvard law school, graduating 1

up next, the new york city law professor john sexton talks about being a law court to the justice and why he was a law school dean. the supreme court historical society hosted this 50-minute event in the supreme court chamber. >>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. on behalf of the officers and trustees of the supreme court historical society, welcome to our 42nd annual lecture. before we do anything else, i'll ask everyone to take out their phones and turn them off. even on silent mode, they will interfere with the sound system here in the court. i'm greg joseph, president of the society. welcome, we're delighted to have you here today. we're honored to have you as our lecturer, john sexton of nyu, whose topic tonight is warren burger. and the warren burger, of course, is the founder of our society and is of immense importance to us. there's no one more qualified than president sexton to deliver this lecture. he was a warren burger clerk, but he had a long history before that. and it's worth a moment, president sexton earned his bchl a. in history and m.a. in ph.d. and religion from ford ham and taught and shared the reli

the world to see a full argument. won it in the court of appeals last week, or two weeks ago. then yesterday we had a supreme court decision on this and the details, it's a complicated decision, they have set the case for argument in the fall, so we'll argue in the first or second week of october. but they did cut back a little bit on the injunction that the district court had issued in our case. the district court had said, no travel ban, that is the sixth countries, people from the six countries who are blocked from coming in, they said all of them could come in, plus the refugee ban. the block on refugees for 120 days, that was also something the president couldn't do, because as sally was saying, this is motivated by religion, and that's basically what the president campaigned on. i'm calling for a complete and total shutdown of all this immigration, even when he signs the first executive order, he reads the title. looks up at the camera and says we all know what that means. and there were a whole bunch of other things that the president has done while president to re-enforce the idea that this is rule a

one of the top supreme court advocates. and really, the father of the modern supreme court bar. his influence from him in this club? >> without question! as i was burnt up we talked about things that federalism and separation of powers around the dinner table. figures before god is not every family does that. i think they should. they certainly make for interesting dinner conversation in our home. my databases say you know, there are these two structural protections in the constitution that are as important as any other feature of it. and that one is vertical. recall that federalism. the others horizontal" separation of powers. when you put those together they prevent any one person or group of people from getting too much currently abusing those are subject to the document. >> maybe for the audience is going a little bit about what federalism need and what separation of powers means and how they are different. >> share! federalism distributes power within our system of government. it organizes the balance of power with federal government in the state or the people on the other h

and changes its constitutional view because of a circuit court judge who has the temerity to say the supreme court either hasn't spoken to the issue or perhaps has spoken decades ago at a time when that interpretation of the constitutional law had relevance and correctness but not now. to do our job, reviewing judicial nominees for presidents, we need to know how mr. bush plans to do his job, and his refusal to answer causes me extraordinary concern, particularly because in light of his previous comments, i have a pretty good idea how he intends to continue to apply what he believes to be the original philosophy. one thing to say forthrightly and honestly, that's my philosophy originally. it's another to completely dodge the question. i'm pleased to be on the floor today with one of my really great colleagues, senator franken, who will speak after me, and to have followed two other extraordinarily distinguished members of this body, senators murray and hirono, to focus these concerns regarding mr. bush's approach to the question of women's health care and constitutionally guaranteed reproduc

because the clerk's office would get copies of the papers filed if the district court in the afternoon, it would twaenl make it to the supreme court in the evening. it was a lot of these cases, we were up there in the middle of night most of the days. we were talking to the judge and said we didn't imagine it would be the many cays like this. and he said oh, don't worry about it, it'll come to an end pretty soon. and i looked at him, he said yes, you know there's an election in november. after the election you see a lot fewer of these cays. these are da's running for election. and it was powerful obviously and he was right. but there were cases after that but the volume went way down. and he cared enormously about each of these cases. in fact, these papers wouldn't get logged in until late at night and it was a protocol about it. the justice and sissy, his spectacular wife would disconnect their phone in the evening. but wen this was a death penalty case coming we'd have to call sissy in the afternoon to tell her that we'd be calling late at night. and then she'd liu the phone connected. so, there was a fax machine, i think

it's going to be require a tax. >> rory, the supreme court allowed the travel ban to take effect for now. but gave exceptions for people from the six muslim-majority nations for bona fide relationships. >> the supreme court opinion actually said anyone with a credible claim to a bona fide relationship. now the state department said, certain relationships are bona fide, but grandparents don't count. fiancees don't count. i don't think that's consistent with the supreme court's order. i think you're going to see lawsuits very quickly. and a lot of litigation over the next few months. >> like if you say i'm twee's grandparent can the state department say sorry, you can't come in? are they saying that's illegal? >> i think it could be illegal. because the supreme court opinion certainly doesn't say no grandparents, it doesn't say no fiancees, so the state department has some discretion. but it's got to be consistent with this order. which was agreed to, now the aslu is looking for plaintiffs, i think you're going to see a lot of litigation. >> what does it mean for silicon valley. where t

talked about the issue of brain development and said rather than incrementally walking back mandatory length of juvenile entences, the court should recognize logical conclusion of the supreme court juvenile entencing decision is to provide for mandatory reassessment of juveniles at the neurologicale when brain development and identity formation are likely to be ufficiently advanced at more accurate assessment of culpability in character can be made. relevant scientific evidence identifies approximate age of in time when nt neurological brain development be identity formation may sufficiently advanced. talk about that a little scombit the issue of to cases.lity in criminal guest: well, i think what the air punishment project is addressing and i think where the to simply one, do a better job with science, we issues like of mental health, for example, you 100 years ears ago, ago, mental health or illness as not something courts considered at all. we see this in terms of disability, so people who had ntellectual disability, right now that is something else we consider, so for example, we people with e mental disabilities. that to see -- simply veryone needs to be sentenced ind

the supreme court majority said, yes, no problem with that. justice sotomayor are wrote a thisclear dissent saying is way more significant than just about playgrounds, it is about whether churches, for the first time in american history, can actually get tax dollars from the general public. this was cited in favor of the church, a 7-2 decision that was not close. why don't you think groups like yourselves were able to convince the justices, even the ones more in the middle? guest: i think there was some confusion. i watched the oral argument. i think there was some confusion about how this should be treated. should this be treated as a nonreligious thing? after all, it is scrap tires. i think several people in the middle were convinced this is an equal justice matter. othercan give it to secular institutions, why not the churches? the difference should be clear and a think justice sotomayor understood this. if you don't like affecting fact your tax dollars are being used for donald trump's tweets, too bad. if you do like a war we are in, that i

the biography of hugo black by roger newman, the supreme court that gave us a lot of the modern law. started out as the ku klux klan and capable of the liberal justices of the supreme court showing that people can grow and he was an incredible justice of the supreme court. this writer, william thrilling, this is the second about the road of the union, the civil war, vietnam, american civil war. extraordinary writing and very complex. there was a lot more complexity and nuance to the south before the breakout of the war but one might have suspected. he draws the distinction between the border states and the northern part of the southern states into the deep south but shows the attitude toward slavery and what was happening in the institution. it was buying out in a lot of the border states and the northern part of my states like virginia. great history documented loss of data. the new biography for the character who influenced the last czar of russia is an incredible biography. the rest of history takes a little getting used to because the names are daunting and long. it kind of debunk

more than if the supreme court started tellvising arguments. i don't think it is up to me as a member of the article one branch to tell the article three branch how to manage the court. in the same sense, i don't think it would be appropriate to pass legislation that would require cameras in the courtroom. that said, if they allowed cameras in there i would be thrilled. >> you would be thrilled but don't you think it would be right for the american people to see this? i understand respecting constitutional boundaries. they give advice all the time and the courts are not shy about giving you votes. would you be willing to give the supreme court advice in that regard? >> i think it would be a net benefit for the public. one of the reasons i say that is because i think members of the public saw the way arguments are actually handled at the supreme court. i think they would be encouraged. they may not agree with the outcome of the court's deliberations in every instance. even though the court frustrates me at times, i would hold it up against any co

from here are the supreme court back to you. mist. thank you. what you make these figures? they are little bit slower i expected but it isa are little bit slower i expected but it is a healthy slowdown in the sense that we have now got the brexit devaluation and that has cooled down consumption and is pushing up exports which are 10% up on volume since the referendum. and so on volume since the referendum. and so that is really what the devaluation is supposed to do, to push demand in exports and into profits and put money into industry and take it away from consumers, so it is pretty much playing according to the post brexit plan really. you we re to the post brexit plan really. you were a big supporter of brexit. those who oppose brexit might well say this sort of sluggish performance is as a result of the referendum decision. in a way they are right because we had a huge devaluation of 15% and what every student of economy knows, is that when you get that there is a diversion of demand away from consumers through a reduction i

i think the supreme court will get involved in this, and i think at least that part of the ban, if nott, will be held unconstitutional. >> but the supreme court would be involved in this only if hawaii or other states would decide to take this challenge to the supreme court. >> they will. >> do you see them doing that? you do think that. avery? >> oh, sure. >> okay. richard? >> fred, the timing is everything right now. you know, august is coming, they take breaks. by the time the supreme court would even look at these papers it's probably october. so ultimately -- >> it's a [ inaudible ]. >> they're not going to get an emergency stay now. the supreme court has spoken on this issue, and again, the bigger picture here, fred, the bigger picture, the administration said they needed -- they need this ban to protect the citizens of our country because they need to examine the vetting process. that's why they need this ban. they need 90 days to look at this process, which, by the way, under president obama took two years. that was the vetting process. >> so that argument is still yet to be re

onlyhan j wright, the black member of a state supreme court in south carolina. a portrait of jonathan j wright was not put up in the state supreme court holding until 1999. they had a portrait of every single other person who had served on the supreme court of south carolina from the revolution until the present, one after another of them, but no portrait of jonathan j wright, because he was black. this is the erasure. you're talking about taking down jefferson davis as the erasure of history, but reconstruction has been erased from the public in the south. thank you all very much for coming. [applause] join us on c-span3 sunday for american history tv live special, the 19th to seven detroit riots 50th anniversary. pulls her prize-winning historian heather thompson and detroit free press editorial editor stephen henderson. at 1:15, former detroit police chief and former detroit free press journalist. an american history tv special, the 1967 detroit riot 50th anniversary, live sunday at noon eastern on c-span3. 50 years ago, the 1967 detroit riots began, ignited b

a lifelong enthusiast of the supreme court's, watching supreme court arguments at the age of 10. i would love nothing more the supreme court decided to start televising arguments. i don't think it is up to me as a member of the article i branch to tell the article tree branch the supreme court how to manageo in the sense that i don't think it would be appropriate for us to pass legislation requiring them to have cameras in the courtroom. that said, if they allowed c-span in their or their cameras, i'd be thrilled. post what you would be thrilled but my question is don't yoube think it would be right for the american people to be able to see this? i understand respecting constitutional boundaries and you will not pass legislation, that they give each other advice all the time. would you be willing to give the supreme court some advice in that regard? >> guest: would be a good idea. it would be a net benefit for the public. members of the public saw the way arguments are handled at the supreme court. they may not agree with the outcome of the courts to liberations in every instance.

the supreme court only rolled on the conjunction. they have yet to will on the actual merits of the case. doubled up happen until fall. we will find out how the supreme court decides. -- way the the wave homeland security department will implement it. family members could be affected by this. all the current law calls for, which the supreme court was supporting and trump was trying to go by when he implemented these executive orders, all it says is they can suspend immigration for any class of people in the interest of national security. we will have to wait for the courts to hash this out and for them to decide what a bona fide relationship is. does it only included nuclear family members or include the extended family? host: mike from florida on the independent line. you are on with chris chmielenski. caller: hi, everybody. i really enjoy your show. chris, this is mostly for mr. walden previously. i am independent. the democrats can work with moderate republicans. you can see in the republican party the moderates are kind of against

court and it reached the supreme court and the supreme court -- marshal rescued himself. eight judges were voting, the vote was 5 to 3 that ali was convicted and he was going to go away after joe frazier fight. judge was given job to write opinion that muhammad ali was going to go away and he, of course, assigned his -- his interns, law clerks to write the opinion and the law clerks really were -- they were part of the young people who had, you know, changed the mind about muhammad ali and they figured a way to convince john holland that muhammad ali should have got a deferment as conscientious objector in the beginning when the justice department had turned over what lawrence, the judge had ruled. so john to his credit kind of believed the clerks and went back to the supreme court and he said, i changed my vote. now it's 4 to 4 and it's a tie and muhammad ali still would go to jail with a tie but one of the other justices stewart said, what kind of decision is that, people in america will look at this famous guy, famous c

crisis intensifies as the military clash with hundreds of protesters trying to march towards the supreme court in caracas. london's great ormond street hospital says staff have received death threats and online abuse in relation to the charlie gard case. and victims of heroin: we'll hear from the people fighting an addiction, leaving them sleeping under bridges and off the tracks in philadelphia. hello and welcome to bbc news. president trump has insisted he has complete power to pardon people. it comes amid reports that he's been looking at ways of pardoning himself and his family should investigators conclude there was collusion with russia during the us election campaign. next week, his eldest son and his son—in—law are due to testify before congress. but there was no mention of the controversy when the president spoke at a naval ceremony in virginia. from washington, laura bicker reports. donald trump hoped this week would be a celebration of all that is made in america, including this new state—of—the—art aircraft carrier. instead he finds himself gearing up for what could be one of his b

very close to the supreme court, just across the way. as you all know, there had been certain justices who insist the way to think about constitutional amendments is by ascertaining the original intent of the people who wrote them, or the original meaning of the words of the time, not what it means today, but what it meant back then. as an historian, i don't think any historian actually thinks that any important document has one, single original intent. numerous,ll open to plausible interpretations. there is no single -- the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment, they were drafted, they were debated, they were ratified, they were discussed and there were all sorts of interpretations and intents there. there were also unintended consequences, like prison labor which no one anticipated in any , significant way. but anyway, my point is the 13th , 14th, and 15th amendment were not enacted at one time. they were enacted over five years in response to a rapidly changing political situation in which people's political views changed as time went on

baroness hail is appointed president of the supreme court, baroness hale is appointed president of theupreme court, meaning for the first time the uk has a female head of state, prime minister and head of the country's highest court. the state rooms of buckingham palace open to display more than 200 gifts presented to the queen. plus a special exhibition of rarely—seen personal items belonging to diana princess of wales. good afternoon and welcome to bbc news. two people have been killed and more than 100 others injured, after a powerful earthquake struck near the greek island of kos. the 6.7 magnitude quake hit in the early hours of the morning under the aegean sea, between greece and turkey. holiday—makers on kos woke this morning to find parts of the island turned to rubble, and there was also flooding in the turkish resort of bodrum. richard galpin reports. panicked shouts. it's just after 1:30am in the morning, local time. and holiday—makers who have been enjoying a night out are now running for their lives. security cameras captured the moment the powerful earthquake shook the tu

reached the supreme court and the supreme court decided, judge thurgood marshall recused himself because he had been part of the justice department prosecuting ali way back when all this started before he became supreme court justice so it was eight judges were voting and the vote was 523 that ali was convicted and he was going to go away, he was going to go away for five years after the joe frazier fight and then judge john harland was given the job of writing up his majority opinion that mohammed ali was going to go away and he of course assigned his interns, his law clerks to take the opinion and the law clerks really were, they were part of the young people who were, changed their mind about mohammed ali and they figured out a way to convince don harmon that muhammad ali really should have got a deferment as a conscientious objector way back there in the beginning when the justice department had turned over what large ground and the judge had ruled. and john harland to his credit kind of believe the clerks and went back to the supreme court and said i changed my vote. so now it's 4 t

that is the supreme court? policy, the constitution gives a directive to the state to protect the cow. but in other parts of the constitution, which are binding, there is the right to the freedom of occupation. and selling beef is suddenly an occupation. so, what is to be protected ? suddenly an occupation. so, what is to be protected? the directive principle all the fundamental right? that is where the supreme court comes in. and that is where the big debate is right now. apart from the constitution, you also have the political side of the status of the cow. the prime minister is trying to balance various factions inside and outside of his party? yes, there are three areas where this battle is being fought. the first is the elections. parties must decide how india is going to formulate its nation. the second arena is the legal arena, in the supreme court. different groups are discussing it. the civil society. narendra modi must decide which way to look. the moderate liberal wing is... the prime minister has be