we are talking to the supreme court -- about the supreme court. caller: the supreme court done what they need to do. they do the right thing by the constitution, as far as honesty is concerned, this summit and the supreme court has no problem -- gentleman and the supreme court has no problem. host: we saw history made with supreme court overturning roe v. wade but when it comes to matters of abortion, to see any other cases on that front? guest: there is an uphill the the biden administration has failed which the court will probably take up having to do with mifepristone, the abortion pill. that came up to the supreme court on emergency basis a few months ago and the court said that pill remain fully available, while litigation goes forward. legal fight is basically and abortion advocates arguing that the fda gave short scientific evidence of dangerousness when it approved the drug and when expanded access. at this point the fight is about the expanded access. the fifth circuit said the fda, it blocked the rules that allowed the pill to be mailed s

how does the supreme court help ex-people's deputy sheppelev avoid punishment? lied. but why does the united states demand that all supreme court justices be vetted? this is all an indicator of the huge problems that exist in the supreme court. congratulations, judicial control is on the air. since 2014, ukraine has quite successfully, although not quickly, passed a difficult exam on compliance with european standards, the renewal of the supreme court, the creation of a public integrity council, the launch of the anti-corruption court and the introduction of transparent tenders can be considered successful initiatives, but this was not enough to solve the chronic problems of ukrainian justice. rebooting the system now requires... radical measures, especially against the background of high-profile corruption scandals, which regularly involve themis officials at all levels. after the largest bribe in the history of ukraine received by the judges of the supreme court, the united states government requires us to review this body. our european ones directly depend on

demand to check all judges of the supreme court. this is all an indicator of the huge problems that exist in the supreme court. congratulations. judicial control is on the air. since 2014, ukraine has quite successfully, although not quickly, passed the difficult exam for compliance with european standards. renovation of the supreme court, establishment of a public integrity council, launch of an anti-corruption court and introduction of transparent tenders. can be considered successful initiatives, however , it was not enough to solve the chronic problems of ukrainian justice. rebooting the system now needs radical measures. especially against the background of high-profile corruption scandals, which regularly involve the servants of themis at all levels. after the largest bribe in the history of ukraine received by the judges of the supreme court, the united states government will demand an inspection of this body from us. from her. our european prospects directly depend on the results, and judges of the highest instance continue t

cases involving the former heads the supreme court and the grand chamber of the supreme court and electeme court judges to fill vacancies through a transparent process involving independent experts and civil society. and while the supreme court is waiting for another reform, its judges make dubious and even absurd decisions concerning, in particular, the national security of ukraine. board of judges of the first court chamber, the criminal court of cassation. the team consists of vyacheslav marynych, volodymyr korol and alla makarovets decided to help the odious ex-regional leader and treason suspect oleksandr shepelev, who was involved in high-profile crimes, avoid responsibility. former people's deputy oleksandr shepelev is accused of involvement in four contract killings and the organization of an attempted murder, and is also suspected of embezzling over uah 200 million from a family bank and treason. he is not an entirely simple character, and is connected to a number of other criminal processes, which... were investigated, he is wanted murder, there is a businessman there, this is

deuel: and the supreme court recognized that, even in the milligan decision. justice kavanaugh and chief justice roberts, of all people, very vigorously defended the constitutionality of the voting rights act and said that the use of race to remedy racial discrimination is constitutional. even in the affirmative action decision, as disappointing and horrible as that was, the supreme court, every justice on the supreme court agreed that using race to remedy violations of civil rights acts was absolutely necessary. and so this idea that alabama can prioritize a white ethnic group of mobile over remedying the voting rights violations of african-americans in alabama who have lacked representation in more than one congressional district since reconstruction is absolutely abhorrent. terri: and an insult to all of us who are from the state of alabama. [applause] deuel: i mean, we have, you know, a number of people, including my clients, ms. jackson and mr. milligan, and i also know of legislators who stood up and pushed back against this. and said, you know, the blac

so now, as required by the us, all supreme court justices. it should be checked for compliance with integrity requirements. review the integrity of current supreme court judges in connection with high-profile corruption cases involving the former chief justice and the grand chamber of the supreme court and elect new supreme court judges to fill vacancies through a transparent process involving independent experts and civil society. and while the supreme court is waiting for another reform, its judges make dubious and even absurd decisions concerning, in particular, the national security of ukraine. the panel of judges of the first judicial chamber, the criminal court of cassation of the supreme court, consisting of vyacheslav marynych, volodymyr korol and alla makarovets, decided to help the odious ex-regional and treason suspect oleksandr shepelev, involved in high-profile criminal crimes, avoid responsibility. when... former people's deputy oleksandr shepelev is accused of involvement in four contract murders and the organization of an attem

that will be interesting to watch what happens with the supreme court. i'm hopeful that the 11th circuit ruling will acknowledge these replications implicate first amendment rights of these platforms as private entities, and i'm hopeful the supreme court will recognize that we are not talking about commercial speech. there's no commercial transaction. when you are looking at these notice requirements and these disclosure decisions, every time a social media platforms set it to take and message were taken on a post, and had to provide an individualized explanation of why they were doing that. i'm not sure how much they would be able to do. >> the first case in which the justices grapple with the new standard concerning --. then violence is no laughing matter at the lower court opinion kind of entertaining. one of the incidents that led to the indictment was involving firing shots into the air at a whataburger after his friend's debit card was declined. >> i've got the real tri-cornered hat feet today. this is the fourth major second amendment case that has

first of all, they got out ahead of the supreme court because the supreme court has merely flirting with reviving that delegation doctrine. but the administrative says that his prosecution was violated to nondelegation doctrine, congress allowed the fcc the choice to prosecute on administrative proceedings or the court. and they said that violated nondelegation doctrine and didn't give, oh, what is the phras -- what is the phrase that you have to say-- oh, yes, an intelligible principle. you have to provide an intelligible principle for how to choose between those two, and they didn't even meet that. secondly, they concluded that it violated the 7th amendment right for jury trial to bring enforcement administratively when fraud was a familiar common-law concept and third, that it separated the powers to have administrative law judges in the scc subject to two levels of removal restrictions not only was alj subject to restriction on removability, but the chair to remove them would remove the restrictions and starts at two tiers of removal restrictions, violated the take care of the laws,

out and out defiance of the supreme court and the constitution which makes decisions of the supreme courtthe supreme law of the land. they are defiant. we look at january 6 you look at this as a totality of the situation we have a battle in this country right now which is between democracy and autocracy. we better understand the 24 election is not a test of personality. it ain't about age. wake up. state awoke, it being awoken be aware of the work we have to do next year. [applause] >> i want to come to you. the supreme court case in the last session and first i just want to say thank you. because the lawyers need the people on the ground who are doing the work to stand up and say i'm going to put my name on this. i want to bring suit we are going to sue and then there's the victor. the numbers in alabama i know we did the session before you all have been in the states alabama's black populace is 27% of the 14% of the representation. the black residents not just alabama we can say louisiana, windsor florida, leaving for georgia, we could say minnesota. black people in nebraska come on i d

a partner where he has a the supreme court practice in ten cases before the supreme court and appeared before nearly every court in the country. he writes the popular watch and i hope you'll bring back this holiday season. a fellow at the national review institute. a recovering litigator and politics, law and facebook appeared in a variety of outlets. dan is a long-suffering fan so perhaps we can ask for your world series productions. last but not least, an attorney and vice president of litigation the foundation for litigation rights and expression. before joining, more than ten years litigating the constitutional l cases with the institute for justice. she has her wedding reception of the national constitution center. i like to start with the big news of the day, the supreme court is going to hear two cases in the upcoming term. >> both of these places the stakes are very high. i would argue the most important cases on the internet since about two decades ago when these laws closer one in texas and one in florida that regulate the major social media platforms. facebook, youtube, twit

well, look, the supreme court, probably all ukrainians understand the importance of the supreme court 2004, when yanukovych was not elected, but according to the results of the second round of elections, yanukovych should have become the president, and here in the court the supreme court, actually such a court of courts, appointed the so-called third round, and even then, did not allow a state traitor to seize power in the country in an illegal way, and citizens should understand that this court currently has a large chamber, and this large chamber is very important, this is real, it is a court within a court, this is the pinnacle of our judicial system, and when , for example, we tried to remove from office the judges of the maidanites who tried the maidanites then, in fact, the grand chamber put a decisive point in many issues, that is, the grand chamber, it can end the career of a non-virtuous judge, and this is very important, and of course, if we are talking about the protection of coastal strips, the natural resource fund, forests, so here they themselves put the final point, bu

cases involving the former president of the supreme court and the grand chamber of the supreme courtw judges of the supreme court to fill vacancies through a transparent process involving independent experts and civil society. and while the supreme court is waiting for the next reform, its judges are making dubious and even absurd decisions that concern, in particular, the national security of ukraine. the panel of judges of the first court chamber, the criminal court of cassation of the supreme court. in the composition of vyacheslav marynych, volodymyr korol and alla makarovets decided to help avoid responsibility to the odious ex-regional and suspect in state treason to oleksandr shepelev, involved in high-profile criminal offenses. former people's deputy oleksandr shepelev is accused of involvement in four contract killings and the organization of an attempted murder, and is also suspected of embezzling over 200 hryvnias from a genealogical bank and treason. he is not an entirely simple character, and is connected to a number of other criminal processes that have been investigate

john elwood is a partner where he heads up the appellate and supreme court practice before the supreme court and also every appeals court in the country. john also writes the popular watch i hope you will bring back the released carols the holiday season. the dan mcglaughlin is a senior writer at the national review online and fill up with thein national review institute. a recovering litigator, his writing on politics, law and baseball appeared in a variety leof outlets. perhaps during q-and-a we can ask for your predictions. last butwo not least, attorney d vice president of litigation for the foundation forn individual rights and expression. before joining, more than ten years litigating the constitutional cases with the institute c for justice. such a lover of the constitution's he had her wedding reception at the national constitution center. with that i'd likef to start wh the big news of the day the supreme court is going to hear two cases in the upcoming term including regulating social media companies. that's right. both of the cases involve the future of internet freedom and

, the supreme court of ukraine, but there is an interesting background, the background of this . and now i will briefly explain it to you, so the judge of the supreme court, even recently retired, former head of the council of judges valentina simonenko, turns out to be a citizen of the russian federation . this was learned by journalists from the scheme program. so, how did it happen that a person who has citizenship of the russian federation, obtained in occupied sevastopol in the 15th year. in which my sister works there in the bodies of the occupation authorities, which disrupted the first stage of judicial reform in the 15th year, has a russian passport, so the question is that all these data, many others, in addition to citizenship, were established by the public integrity council back in the 17th year , when simonenko went to the supreme court, but it did not make a proper impression on anyone, there was a question about her removal , she was not removed, actually volodymyr zelenskyi, people who care about him are turning to him, so to speak... it was from the legal field

the supreme court is the judicial branch of the federal government here. the law itself is on trial. it is judged according to whether it violates our constitutional rights. the court is composed of nine justices who hold office for life members are nominated by the president, but their appointments must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea of how the constitution sets up the three main branches of our government. the legislature which is congress. the executive branch which is the president. and the judiciary which is the supreme court. the legislature is charged with making policies. that is it passes the laws. the executive is responsible for carrying out policies. and the judiciary is charged with reviewing and judging policies. but while each of these branches of government has its own clearly defined duties they all work together as a team through a system of checks and balances. here are some examples of what i mean. the president appoints justices to the supreme court executive balances judicial. congress determines the size o

fostering racially diverse campuses in the supreme court ruling in the harvard cases. as a supreme court in 1978 and the decision that established they could pursue academic freedom and one of the many factors for the candidates. it is one of many factors and emissions is vital, it is important we put the conversation an important context. 4200 institutions in the united states, less than 100 selective schools consider race as a factor in only 10 consider race an important factor. never making up for and a half% of the freshman class. following implementations as is classroom diversity. narrowly tailored race emissions practices actually leveled the playing field and counterbalanced factors that otherwise in place, standardized test and legacy emissions. for example, the district court in the harvard case illustrated how athletes come out legacy applicants, families who have a history of donating the faculty make up a large percentage of each class. what these applicants make up 5% of applicants every year. they constitute 30% of the applicants admitted each year. 70% o

court in many cases, this is all an indicator of the huge problems that there are in the supreme court, moreover, after , as far as we understood, how difficult and wild the situation is there, we called the judges of the criminal court of cassation to ask why they decided to nullify one of the terms awarded to oleksandr shepelev, it is indisputable that the prosecution noted, and all the participants in the process did not deny, that this person was detained on the territory of the russian federation precisely to fulfill the request of ukraine in this criminal proceedings and the prosecutor personally confirmed this, therefore, in order not to violate the rights of individuals, which are then established by the european court, and so that the state does not reimburse funds, we followed the law, however, the decision of the panel of judges states that the mandate of the ukrainian side it concerned the extradition of shebelev. to ukraine, and it did not take place, as we will remind, due to the refusal of the russian side to extradite the suspect, so this is very similar to the ma

up to the supreme court for living within his face. they called his beliefs despicable and thought they were analogous to nazis. thankfully, the u.s. supreme court recognized the impermissible religious hostility of the state of colorado towards jack and people like him. they recognize this violated the guarantee of freedom of religion and rolled in his favor with a resounding win. unfortunately, attacks on him have not stopped. before he even won his first supreme court case, an attorney asked for a custom cake. he specified he wanted it blew on the outside and pink on the inside. he explained that was to celebrate the attorney's gender transition from male to female. jack respectfully inclined that request because he could not, in good conscience, create the artwork celebrating that message. the attorney took legal action against him not once but twice. this was a targeted attack. the latest lawsuit he is currently facing six monetary damages and attorneys fees from jack. if successful, it would bring about financial ruin for jack and

review the integrity of current supreme court judges in connection with high-profile corruption casesing the former chief justice and grand chamber of the supreme court, and select new supreme court judges to fill vacancies through a transparent process involving independent experts and civil society. and while the supreme court is waiting for another reform, its judges make dubious and even absurd decisions concerning, in particular, nations

up to the supreme court for living within his face. they called his beliefs despicable and thought they were analogous to nazis. thankfully, the u.s. supreme court recognized the impermissible religious hostility of the state of colorado towards jack and people like him. they recognize this violated the guarantee of freedom of religion and rolled in his favor with a resounding win. unfortunately, attacks on him have not stopped. before he even won his first supreme court case, an attorney asked for a custom cake. he specified he wanted it blew on the outside and pink on the inside. he explained that was to celebrate the attorney's gender transition from male to female. jack respectfully inclined that request because he could not, in good conscience, create the artwork celebrating that message. the attorney took legal action against him not once but twice. this was a targeted attack. the latest lawsuit he is currently facing six monetary damages and attorneys fees from jack. if successful, it would bring about financial ruin for jack and

congress funds the supreme court. congress historically has made changes to the court structure and composition. congress historically has made changes to the courts appellate jurisdiction. there is a provision in the constitution that says something like the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction under regulations that congress provides. i am missing the exact words. definitely talks about congress having a role in our jurisdiction. talks about congress regulating the jurisdiction of the supreme court. and generally, this is not surprising. our whole cyst them is one of check and balance is. usually, when the court talks about that, we are talking about other actors, the way they check and balance each other or the way we check and balance them. if you just can't see that the court is the only institution somehow not subject to checks and balances from anybody else he looked at us we are not imperial. we, too, are part of a checking and balancing system in various ways. can congress do various things to regul

the president appoints justices to the supreme court. the executive balances judicial. ress determines the size of the supreme court. i.e., legislative balances judicial. the president has veto power over the bills sent to him by congress. i.e., legislative balances executive. the president can propose laws that he thinks needs to be passed. executive balances legislative. the supreme court has power to declare unconstitutional any law passed by congress. judicial checks's latest. congress must approve money of the appointment is made by the president. legislative checks executive. congress appropriates money for the executive department. the legislative balances executive. that is the way the constitution balances all three branches, to keep them working together as a team. it's an important principle of the government. >> by the time i got this far in my story, they guys begin to see how important teamwork is in every american citizen. and to realize how far ahead the founding fathers were looking. and guaranteeing that nobody in our federal government would ever get t

the requirement unnecessary. the court noted that over 10,000 people have officially changed their genders since the rules first came into effect. however, the supreme court also ordered a high court to reexamine the original petition, saying another requirement was not given enough consideration. it stipulates a person must have genitals matching those of their desired gender. a lawyer representing the peti petitioner read out a statement on her behalf. >> translator: it is very regrettable that the grand bench of the supreme court stopped short of a decision on whether or not i can change my registered gender, but i hope this ruling can lead to a good end result. >> one group which advocates for the surgery requirement, spoke ahead of the supreme court's decision. it said it was necessary to avoid causing women concern and said it could cause legal exper will make it easier for people to live as the gender of their choice. >> translator: it is necessary to ease the way for those who want to change their gender so they can be allowed to live as they wish. >> one international lgbtq organization says at least 18 countries including japan have a gend

i'm sure every justice on the supreme court does. the question was only, you know, how is it that we allow those forms of creativity and really all new knowledge to flourish? and i think that the opinions did reflect a difference in how much leeway to give to new creators to use old things on the view that newness is not complete newness. everything that we think of as original in fact has its roots in something else. and what was really fascinating about this case, and i'll stop here, is people said a lot to me, like, how did you find all those examples? because there are a ton of examples in this and for extra credit you can tell me afterwards, you can figure out which one the chief asked me to use. ok? [laughter] so that's extra credit. but all those examples, now i've lost my place, those examples are everywhere is what i want to say. it's like, once you started looking for them, i left a thousand on the cutting room floor just because it was late enough already, we've made the point. [laughter] >> speaking of dissents, can you te

is going _ able to —— the supreme court is going to — able to —— the supreme court is going too take trump off the ballot in many— to take trump off the ballot in many states across the country. josh, — many states across the country. josh, sarah, great have your insights tonight. thank you so much. on capitol hill here in washington, republican house speaker kevin mccarthy is facing a rebuke from within his own party, as republican representative matt gaetz of florida has filed a motion to vacate him from his leadership role. here's the moment that it happened. the gentleman will state the form of his resolutions to declaring the office of the speaker of the house of representatives be vacant. declaring that the office of the speaker of the house of representatives is hereby declared to be vacant. speaker mccarthy then posted on x, formerly known as twitter, saying simply, "bring it on." the move tees up a showdown in the house, as representatives will now need to decide whether to oust mccarthy over the next two days. but it's currently not clear if gaetz has the crucial 218

well, in january of this year, the colorado court of appeals ruled against jack and said that was tom art work is not presented speech but the colorado supreme court just this past week has geed to hear his case and this case ought to be ready dealt with in light of the supreme court's recent decision and fabulous win in 303 creative so we will see, but i also just want you to be aware, there are numerous creative professional cases yet pending that still need to be resolved. did you know that you could be kicked out of a farmers market for what you believe? random, right? that's exactly what happened to steve tennis pictured here on the slide. steve owns a popular family business called country mill farms. he and his wife are devout catholics, military veterans and for years they brought their produce 22 miless away to the east lansing michigan farmersil market where they are a rather popular vender. the family was asked via facebook whether or not they would use country mill farms f which is their personal family farm to host same-sex wedding and the family respectfully responding, look, we will serve everyone, we welcome everyone to our f

the case. and i think as i have been a judge both on the court of appeals and the supreme court. st see how important it is on multi-member of the court to be able to work toward consensus. so i have that in my mind as something that has really influenced me. >> i think this will be the final question we have asked. take you very much, students, these have been terrific questions that you wrote. in your opinion, how can the legal profession become a more inclusive place for people from historically underrepresented communities? justice barrett: i think law school should be doing everything that they can to make first-generation students feel welcome and give them the help that they need, and the legal profession as well. that should not end in law school with mentoring on that kind of advice. the legal profession, and i encourage all of you who are law students, once you get into the bar, to give your time to mentoring young lawyers and young lawyers who are new to the profession who may not come from families who have lawyers in them or from historically underrepresented communit

congress funds the supreme court. congress, historically, has made changes to the court's structure and composition. congress, historically, has made changes to the court's jurisdiction, and indeed, there is a provision in the constitution that says something like the supreme court shouldn't have appellate jurisdiction under regulations that congress provides. you know, or i'm missing the exact words, but it actually talks about congress having a rule for our jurisdiction, talks about congress regulating the jurisdiction of the supreme court. and i think, more generally, this is not surprising. our whole system is one of checks and balances. usually, when the court talks about that, we're talking about other actors, the way they check and balance each other or how we check and balance them. it just can't be that the court is the only institution that somehow was not subject to any checks and balances from anybody else. we're not imperial. we, too, are a part of a checking and balancing system in various ways. so, can c

we are talking to the supreme court -- about the supreme court. : the supreme court done what they need to do. they do the right thing by the constitution, as far as honesty is concerned, this summit and the supreme court has no problem -- gentleman and the supreme court has no problem. host: we saw history made with supreme court overturning roe v. wade but when it comes to matters of abortion, to see any other cases on that front? guest: there is an uphill the the biden administration has failed which the court will probably take up having to do with mifepristone, the abortion pill. that came up to the supreme court on emergency basis a few months ago and the court said that pill remain fully available, while litigation goes forward. legal fight is basically and abortion advocates arguing that the fda gave short scientific evidence of dangerousness when it approved the drug and when expanded access. at this point the fight is about the expanded access. the fifth circuit said the fda, it blocked the rules that allowed the pill to be mailed so peop

the court system, really? but that's what we have here when billionaires are entertaining supreme court justices on their privateou know, at these expensive resorts on these exotic fishing expeditions. they have so much at stake with the questions before the supreme court, when it comes to taxation and when it comes to their livelihood. there's a clear conflict of interest that needs to be spelled out for supreme court justices. rules for when they need to recuse themselves and explain to the public why they need to recuse themselves and so much more. so again, not a trick. this is not a treat. this is serious. >> we appreciate the halloween reference. happy halloween to you, too. senator alex padilla, thank you. >>> coming up next on "the reidout," next week's elections in ohio and virginia are shaping up as bellwethers on the fate of abortion rights. that's next. with cirkul, your water is deliciously flavored at the turn of a dial, with zero sugar and zero calories. and cirkul has over 40 flavors, so your water can be as unique as you are. try cirkul. your water, your way. now with even more flavors. availabl

>> he served on the supreme court from 1902 to 1932. s supreme court service jibed with what he wrote in the kamala -- the common law. because the common law was complicated his jurisprudence was complicated. you can't reduce the influence to a bumper sticker. however, he did, in opinions at the end of his life, invoke -- invoke the fact that the common law group -- refused to impose liability. it allowed liability in the central pieces of the book. in the two central influences of the common law that they really identify our first feeding the skepticism and the humility that holmes had that led him not to want to impose his own views on the court. always an attempt to the pragmatic consequences of decisions. not necessarily to impose that as a judge, but to be alert about whether or not those practical consequences might lead legislators reasonably to embrace the results. so, that is the connection between his -- two different subjects. one is, how did judges make laws in ancient times in the second is how should judges interpret the co