the supreme court disposed of 21,300 bail applications. it's in the us, it's australia or india, there'segal process which is to be followed. as to whether a court correctly decided a particular case or didn't correctly decide a particular case. kashmir. now that had been put in place at the very inception to abrogate article 370. because they felt that you had failed to uphold or critiquing theirjudgments. caveat, which is this — that article 370 of the constitution, when it was introduced was part of a chapter which is titled transitional arrangements. 0r transitional provisions. the assumption was this — that what was transitional would have to fade away and have to merge with a transitional provision. if i may interrupt? it's notjust about the abrogation. it's also about the wider decision you took, status should be restored. look at it dispassionately. we said that what was intended to intended to be accountable to the people, an elected government, what was essentially a transitional provision, that's fine. second, and that's very critical, the can ijust have a moment to answer thi

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

the court from political pressure? thank you. when you said, as you left the supreme court last year. what is your own answer to that question? which i would deliver, because a chiefjustice is first and foremost a judge. and then second, you're also the administrative head of the indian judiciary. realise the full transformative potential of i mean, you've alluded in that answer to the enormous responsibility you had. i mean, i can't think of a job in the world that has more absolutely. and also in terms just of the diversity of cases that we handle. we are also the final court of appeal. it is interesting to me that you took the decision just does not happen. but i just wonder whether that's something of a gimmick. of india before you. it's dynastic. well, no, it isn't. now, what happens is this — if you look at the lowest into our states are women. there are states in which the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70%. now, what happens really is this — now, ijoined the bench in 2000, so i'd spent 25 years before i retired. you find an increasing amount of women coming into it doesn

the board -- court, obviously don't have the same respect for the post-watergate precedents with respect to the fbi and the doj, as do the people in the trump administration and possibly on the supreme court as well. host: in kentucky, a republican line, this is george. caller: good morning. at what point would they say that a president has crossed the line? what would that line be and what exactly could they do to stop him? as a disabled veteran i would like to know. guest: if this is about the possible interference with the payment systems i don't think there is enough details on why mr. mosk has asked for this permission to scrutinize what's called the bureau of fiscal service in the department of the treasury. i think we are at early days as far as whether that represents even something that president trump is interested in. but, in terms of the doj fbi angle, i think there's just a desire for more direct control and this is often been thought to be sort of a limiting case that no one would really be in favor of presidents directly controlling who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. but that may be challenged. another way for me to engage with the question is is it really true that

and the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia. mitch mcconnell had become majority leader by then and declared this about the vacancy. mr. president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country. so, of course, of course, the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice, and it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent as chairman. grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally under president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule. so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. michael tackett you hear mitch mcconne

court ruling because the supreme court is 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?... for everyone who talks about doing that thing, and, over there. but never does that thing... a sweet little breakfast nook. chase has financial guidance. let's see how you can start saving to make this happen. —really? —really? really. at home or in-person. you could also check out a ch

court ruling because the supreme court isight. but by the time you get to the supreme court, so much has happened in the interim. don't go anywhere. anthony and ankush will be back with me after a break. >> we're standing up for our. >> right to be lazy. >> not literally, of course. >> we work hard. we deserve to scroll hard. >> it's the la-z-boy. >> presidents day sale. find the. >> lazy. >> spot you've been. >> missing. >> plus 0% interest for. >> 48 months. >> we've earned. >> our lazy time. >> what? she said. >> hurry in presidents. >> day sale. >> going on now la-z-boy. long live the lazy. my eyes. >> they're dry. >> uncomfortable. looking for. >> extra hydration. >> now there's. >> blink neutra tears. >> it works differently than drops. blink neutra tears. >> is a once daily supplement clinically proven. >> to. >> hydrate from within, helping. >> your eyes produce more of their. own tears. to promote lasting, continuous relief. you'll feel day after day. try. blink neutra tears a different blink neutra tears a different

he explains the power of the supreme court. eaking down the idea that the supreme court has ever not been politicized. as the nominees are put forth by political actors, and then they decided political questions. if you are frustrated about the supreme court come and you should be. there's a lot of reasons to be frustrated about how it works, how it conducts its business, how nontransparent it is, then the only branch of government that can actually change it, whether it is the number of open supreme court hearings, the number of justices on the supreme court, is congress. so you will need political actors to get into the politics -- involved in the politics of the supreme court. even if you like to think of it as a neutral arbiter, it never has been. host: who is matt fuller, and why does he think the myth that the media wants to polarize us? guest: matt fuller is the washington editor for not notice, where he is the long-time capitol hill beat reporter. he has an interesting connection with a lot of tea party members. members

was elizabeth or marcy pointed out that 2025 is the 100th anniversary year, centennial of the famous supreme court course, pierce versus society of sisters, one of the earlier cases, the supreme court proclaimed the broad right of parents to control to the extent the education of their children and a famous line where the court says the child is not the mere creature of the state, these who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. my guess is that in a conversation like the ones we're having today, practically everybody could agree with that statement with a high level of generality. as we get to particulars with life within the family and broader life of a political community it becomes much, much harder to pin down exactly what that means to practice. and i'm grateful to be joined today by four experts who will have a wide range of thoughts on the broad question of the rights of parents, the rights of children and the power of the state, the responsibilities of parents and the state. let me introduce the speakers ver

and if that means all the way to the supreme court, so be it. >> i mean, when you talk about the supremeher 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 that in politics, people can say whatever they want and they can intimidate others. but in a court of law, evidence is considered under oath. legal standards are evaluated rigorously, and judges are ruling on the merits. so it's critical we preserve that foundation of our democratic republic. and as colorado'

certainly below the level of the supreme court it's really the federal courts are still quite intact.many states supreme courts will become very important. we are not that far, thankfully, but one worries that model of the charismatic populist which assist toward major mexican institution, whether one, it becomes the law. >> please. >> jerry lee from georgetown law. i'd like out professor schaefer begin the discussion with a quote from russia who also considers the idea of the state of exception. this weight of autocratization is different from wraps the purest way of use of populist narrative, and had to respond to one of the narrative which is that their attack on the rule of law was not an attack on the rule of law but a valid exercise of peoples sovereign to overcome this date of emergency, state of exception? is it any -- narrative or how can we respond to that? thank you. >> right. i think, this is the ultimate playbook is the state of exception with respect to declaring emergencies and usurping power because it's an emergency. it's a huge risk. as tom said we still have, the qu

i think you mentioned earlier, you know, when when the supreme court told richard nixon in 1974 to turn over the white house tapes, he didn't want to do it, but he did it because the supreme court told him to. the trump administration is appealing this order, which is certainly they have every right to do. but if the order stands and they defy it, we're in an area that we have literally never been in before. >> is there an enforcement mechanism in that case? >> you know, i'm going to give you a ringing answer of, i don't know, because, yes, in theory, the answer is, you know, there is a contempt power that is enforceable by the united states marshals, where the united states marshals could go out and their usual job is to enforce contempt, whether it means making someone show up to court. that's how it usually runs. >> the u.s. marshals. >> the department of justice. you think pam bondi is going to tell the marshals service to enforce an order against donald trump? and how does a court tell the president of the united states to, you know, to honor a, a, a judicial decision? i don't know

and the supreme court has over the last 25 years or so done. it's in my book on the supreme court, a whole lot of things that make it much, much harder for unions to exist, much less, you know, recruit people so, you know, widespread, high rate on obscene wealth and a reasonable tax rate on all the rest of the wealth, you know, social net programs, strengthening social security and medicare, you know, bottom line, you know, we want to live we don't want to live in a poor country. and and sadly, we've more and more of us have become have been poor as a result of these policies that that once again, i think it's real important to point this out. we're born in large part out of good intentions, and it has just blown up in our faces and, you know, fortunately over last three and a half years, joe biden has been the first president to repudiate these and say, no, we're going to go back to what fdr. so thank you very much for having me here.

one, which of these cases gets to the supreme court first? the executive branch going to react if it loses in the supreme court? even the supreme court which gave president trump a huge weight last july. i think it will not be inclined to completely restructure the separation of power the way president trump wants to. if he loses in this court, will he abide by those rulings? third, what is it going to take to get at least some republicans in congress even a handful in the house, a handful in the senate, to actually think that congress's institutional prerogatives are worth asserting? what is going to be the redline? that's the big question looming over all of this litigation activity. geoff: stephen vladeck, thanks as always for your insights. stephen: thank you. geoff: we are now seeing the first polling about how the american public views president trump's second term so far. for that and the other political headlines, we turn to our politics monday duo. that's amy walter of the cook political report with amy walter. and tamara keith of npr

executive branch, when it is just for them to do so in defense of the constitution, may defy the courts, 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 congr

and the supreme court has over the last 25 years or so done. it's in my book on the supreme court, a whole lot of things that make it much, much harder for unions to exist, much less, you know, recruit people so, you know, widespread, high rate on obscene wealth and a reasonable tax rate on all the rest of the wealth, you know, social net programs, strengthening social security and medicare, you know, bottom line, you know, we want to live we don't want to live in a poor country. and and sadly, we've more and more of use

if you want a big policy questions decided, let the supreme court do it. but in the interim, the executive has to be allowed to govern. >> how do we get to the supreme court? can somebody tell me? >> and that's fine. but you can't tie them up and. >> tell the supreme. >> court you can't tie them. >> up and get to the supreme court by the judge's ruling, things going to appeal, and then it goes up. >> meantime, what happens? trump can't act. >> trump can't act. in the meantime, you're supposed to comply with the court's rulings. am i wrong about that? >> well, you're supposed to comply, but scott's absolutely right in that the court cannot say you have to spend these dollars today. so as a governor, i dealt with this. we got things challenged in state court and federal court. it's all judge shopped, by the way, judges don't randomly get these cases. there's a reason that these cases are filed in boston. the boston court or eastern district, rhode island, because they know they're going to get a judge that is politically. >> bipartisan practice as well. >> ye

he is appointed in his first term of the current nine term three of the current nine members the supreme courtumber of his proposals previously. he does not have the authority to do he is seeking to do and what he is seeking to do and the only way to do this is the only way te de thieis: "seems”. a 7 7 5701 think7this is amendment. so i think this is good politics for him and riles his base to i don't think he up his base to i don't think he is to be able to get away with 5. so what are the obstacles _ with 5. so what are the obstacles that - with s. so what are the obstacles that lie - with s. so what are the | obstacles that lie ahead with s. so what are the i obstacles that lie ahead of him? , ., , m 77have already put a stop on he hae a'ead edt e "a? see ~ ~ ~ ,,, 7 ~ ~ so his administration and team oi legal team department of justice will appeal that i justice will appeal that and i think an appellate court don't think an appellate court allow the to go don't think an appellate court allo so he to go don't think an appellate court allo so the to go don't think an appellate court allo so

and not going to defy this and saying i want my chance to persuade the supreme court to changeheir mind and if they keep, say the act is constitutional,ive live with it but have the right to get the supreme court to review the practices of the president for 200 years. larry: i'm quite certain he will. your logic is very, very interesting to me. come back to the other matter and our fox legal analyst kelly urbahn who served in the justice department and she's arguing a great point and i quoted her and her points are elon musk and the doge group are government employees and they are government employees and then she make as second point and you've got all the people saying they're unconstitutional and that's just nonsense and the second point is you can't have a situation where career bureaucrat can see information and payment systems i'm thinking of, john, where they start, where they go and how they get there. political appointees can't, aye the face of it. >> i agree. it's nonsense, larra rhode island it's unconstitutional on the part of congress to try and pre-venn the presid

all day in my area of expertise my last book as mentioned, supreme disorder, was about the politics of judicial nominations in the supreme court. i was commenting in the media and that night coming back to my hotel room, not a best practice, by the way. here's your and he lawyers. here's your seely component do not doom scroll twitter late at night when you're on the road getting more and more upset as in my case i was about president biden deciding to restrict his candidate pool for breyer's successor by race and sex. you know, i argued that the chief judge of the d.c. circuit, sri srinivasan, who happens to be an indian-american immigrant, was the best choice, meaning by basic operation of logic, everyone else was less qualified. and so if biden kept his promise, he would pick what given twitter's character limit? i in our fully characterized as a lesser black woman now, i deleted that tweet, but still think that biden should have considered all possible candidates as. 76% of the american people agreed, at least according to that right wing rag abc. so anyway, that was three, three years ago, three years ago today. i don't w

think that the point really is that it has been pushed into the forefront and they want these interactions with the courts. they want the supreme court to weigh in on a number of the things they want to see happen. it strikes me that we are $36 trillion in debt and the only recourse that the people of the country have to fix that is the election. >> that's right. >> martha: the only way that people can say this is crazy so they elected trump based on this promise to cut through some of this waste and fraud and abuse. that is what needs to allow it to happen. the five former treasury secretary's, they posted this morning, five former treasury secretary's. our democracy is under seizure. the national payment system has historically been operated by a small group of nonpartisan career civil servants. in recent days that norm has been upended. and the rules that these nonpartisan officials have been compromised by political actors. >> you reminds me of the 51 former cia officials and intel officials that wrote the letter about hunters laptop. >> "the wall street journal" editorial page which is not a fan of donald trump, saying ham

aid before the court challenges happen. even if the supreme court came back and said, well, that was illegal, u.s. aid has gone away, and there's very little chance that a republican congress will reconstitute it. so there's a double pronged political and legal strategy going on here. >> let's take a look at some new polling about trump's first days in office. new cbs poll finds the president 53% approval rating. that, we should note, is among the highest he's ever had. going back to his first term. however, when those same people were asked, the question, is trump spending enough time on lowering prices? two thirds said, effectively, no. and i wonder, matt, given how central inflation and high prices were in this election, uh, is that dangerous for this president? >> i mean, not yet. clearly not, because that's i mean, that's the highest approval rating he's ever had that i can remember 53% in 2017. he would kill for that. um, look, i mean, you know, inflation in the economy is certainly a big part of why he was elected. it wasn't the only pa

a lead given to him by the supreme court. 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. host: c

a lead given to him by the supreme court. 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. host: c

ai may take over the whole thing and we won't need family court judges. >> the ohio supreme court once said famously that a termination of parental rights is to civil law what the death penalty is. >> correct, but you get cases like mine that are totally written by the attorney and not by the judges. to be a clerk of a judge, you don't even have to have a lot degree. these are the issues going on. emily: thank you, i'm going to go to a question right here. >> since we have a panel of attorneys, i'm wondering if you have thought through and had any ideas on what standard of proof or review you might propose for these parental rights issues and what it did for versus overriding parents will on a medical issue for moving the child? you have lots of different standards in the law and beyond a reasonable doubt, any thoughts on what standard based on the legislation or in gone in case law? >> i'm so loud you asked this. i do want to distinguish the churl -- what we are talking about. it is much more complicated to figure out what the standards are when we talk about legislation. when we talk

power and how strong the president is versus the courts versus congress do make strange bedfellows in the courts. and i think at our peril, we start trying to game out how the supreme court is going to rule on these issues. the mere fact that it's mostly republican appointees on these very complex questions of constitutional law, i do think, are a jump ball and a toss up. and i don't think any of us, even donald trump or anyone in the white house, can really predict how this court is going to rule on some of these questions. >> tim, you think that's a fair assessment? >> oh, absolutely. i think elliott's absolutely right. you know, it can go either way. and it's this is one of the risks of litigation is you bring a lawsuit and you don't know what way the court's going to rule. but whatever the way they rule, that's going to control how every decision and every action going forward is governed. >> elliott williams, tim parlatore, thanks, guys. appreciate it. well, outside of the courts, president trump says he wants to impose a new set of tariffs. but it's not like what we saw last week against canada, mexico and china. but the question is, is any of it good for the

and if so, do you have a sense of where the supreme court might fall on separation of powers? es it feels like a million years ago. but if you. >> remember. >> the initial trump. >> efforts in. >> the first trump era were. hopscotched to the supreme court really quickly, right? >> because everything. >> became an emergency. >> and donald trump's. >> justice department. >> if they got. >> an adverse. >> ruling saying the travel ban case and the citizens. >> census case, they. >> would race. >> to the. >> supreme court. so i. expect that what we're going to see. >> and we're. >> already seeing. >> a. >> host of. >> lawsuits being filed by groups across the. boards that are challenging. >> kind. >> of. every component of everything. david just talked about. those cases. >> are going to. >> result in nationwide injunctions. >> we already have an injunction in the birthright citizenship case. i think we're going to. >> see in a whole bunch of these. cases about how doj's was. >> constituted, about the. >> freeze. >> the impoundment question. >> we've already. >> seen a lot of judges

we need to go back to the supreme court. we have new supreme court justice now, to people i supported heavily. we need to go back to the supreme court. it's very different in that it was 30 or 40 years ago under mount laurel. we need rulings that change what the requirements are with respect to afford a housing. they when i will sit down with the democratic leadership because you know the sinister going to be democratic. that's going to be priority number one or two that were going to sit down and make sure we don't overdeveloped the suburban areas. >> the next governor and help us meet with the support of republican primary voters gets to appoint the next supreme court chief justice. that's a big deal. just lost another mount laurel case two weeks ago before superior court judge. we need republican legislators. as for the better mousetrap i'd like to see us come back with rca's. regional contribution agreements. they worked before they could work again. >> i can't believe it but i agree with that point. but here's the proble

the u.s. supreme court. but you raise a really important point, which is in the meantime, and this will take time. all these federal employees remain in limbo. i'll tell you, i've had people ask me, should i take this buyout or not? now, i'm not dispensing free legal advice, but frankly, i don't know what to tell them because there's so much uncertainty here and there's so much chaos. and so hopefully the courts will recognize the urgency of this. they have so far and act as quickly as possible. >> so, laura, you heard ellie say there that it's probably going to end up before the u.s. supreme court. i am not a legal expert like either of you, but i know enough to to know that this u.s. supreme court is a pretty conservative. be has an expansive view of the powers of the presidency, and my guess would be my uninformed guess would be they think he can do this. >> and yet you've got this consequential, consequential power of the purse. the appropriations could be the very linchpin that allows this supreme court

one, which of these cases gets to the supreme court first? cutive branch going to react if it loses in the supreme court? i mean, even this supreme court, which obviously, you know, gave president trump a huge win last july in the immunity case, i think is not going to be inclined to, you know, completely restructure the separation of powers the way that president trump wants to. if he loses in this court, is he going to abide by those rulings? and then third, jeff, what is it going to take to get at least some republicans in congress, even a handful in the house, a handful in the senate, to actually think that congress's institutional prerogatives are worth asserting? what's going to be the red line pass, which we -- past which we see those folks really begin to push back? i think that's the big question looming over all of this litigation activity. geoff: stephen vladeck, thanks as always, for your insights. >> thank you. ♪ geoff: we are now seeing some of the first polling about how the american public views president trump's second term so

i think it's way too early to speculate about the supreme court. the supreme court has underscored the fact that the president has is overall responsible for the executive branch. but there are all sorts of restrictions on what the president can do and all sorts of protections that people get. so i think we're too early to be thinking about what the supreme court would do about any of this. and we have to we have to kind of see what the what the actual issues are and what the specific laws are that are being challenged. in some cases, there are actual things that can't be done without congress, and some things the president might have some authority. >> all right. richard briffault, columbia law school professor, thank you so much for joining us. now with us, democratic senator patty murray, who represents the state of washington. senator, thank you very much. you called this a break glass moment. you're pulling the fire alarm. tell me why you are so concerned. >> i am concerned. for every single person. who works for us in the federal government, d

, not defying the supreme court, he is trying to say i want my chance to persuade the supreme courto change their mind, if they keep -- they say that is is constitutional i will live with it i have the right to try. to get this supreme court to recognize the views and practices of presidents for over 200 years. >> hope he does. i am quite certainly will. your logic is very interesting to me, come back to other matter, our fox legal analyst who was served in justice department, she is arguing a 4 freight great -- a great point, elon musk and doge group are government employees. and then she makes a second point, you have the people saying they are unconstitutional that is nonsense, th the second point, you can't have a situation where let's say a career employee, can see information, payment systems i'm thinking, you know where they start, and go and how they get there. but political appointees can. on the face of it that is nonsense. >> i agree, not just nonsense, i think it is ununconstitutional on part of congress to try to prevent president from running the government effectively

the supreme court has spoken on this and has said it's constitutional or unconstitutional to take away these birthright citizenship. what do you see happening going forward? because there are more lawsuits on the way? >> yeah. so birthright citizenship is actually forget about i mean, the supreme court weighed in, but let's start with the. >> constitution itself. >> the 14th amendment essentially says that any person who is born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is automatically a citizen of the united states. and that was 1868. 30 some years later, the supreme court said, yes, it means what it says, which is if you're born here, even to immigrant parents, you're automatically a citizen. now, donald trump, first day in office, issued an executive order trying to withdraw that. and immediately there was a spate of lawsuits. and there's at least five out there now. so far, every federal judge who has looked at donald trump's action has rejected it. and there was one judge. and there's a hearing again today, federal judge in washington that reall

there's no question accessibility is tremendous and the where they come from. >> the supreme court of the u.s. and i sent it to the group your. i am a member of parents united workers across the country. there's a great new bill in texas where it you do wrong, you get the time back and that is what we are pushing across the country. we should look at the two people from new york 2024 the family services that was an extreme report. it is about process. it is a winner and a loser and decide who's going to win and lose and publishes the one and on top of that, it's very political. i have a judge who says one, they should never go house and you will a political affiliation with that's take it. the parental rights but we are forgetting about the rights of the children. what you're talking about is rainy versus rainy. my kids have never had a right when i was not representative. there's no question about it. people often say what's going on him part a completely different than what's happening in part in the process by which they are processed. the make it as difficult as possible in the fa

in 1898, that was the precedent set by the supreme court. we talk about the late 19th century.ve illegal immigration, did not have illegal criminals committing murder. if it weren't for the fact that the president follow through on his promise to deport illegal criminals, lincoln riley and many other girls like her could potentially still be alive, because they were killed by murderers who were ones in jail, in a criminal system, in our custody, and we let them back out on the street. that's an example of why we are in a very different place than we were back in 1898. >> am going to sign you up for oral arguments when it hits the supreme court. >> there you go! [laughter] >> president trump is standing by elon musk and doge. that story, next. lord, you know what's on our hearts. you know where we struggle. you know where we need to be pushed. help us give it all to you. the good, the bad. help us turn to you in everything. amen. you should join me in more prayer on hallow. stay prayed up. have you always had trouble with your weight? same. discover the power of wegovy®. with we

. >> birthright citizenship is likely headed to the supreme court again. back in the 1890s when that case was first decided. what do you expect to happen this time? >> well, this is deafly going to go to the u.s. supreme court the 14th amendment was passed in the 1860s it was intended to convert citizenship to emancipated slaves. it is not intended to confer citizenship to the children of diplomats or the children of people who are not here lawfully the 14th amendment requires two prongs that should be born or naturalized. and subject to the jurisdiction of the united states the drafters of that amendment wrote it, they did not intend for someone to come here illegally, whether they be isis or illegal alien or member of ms 13 or any other type of violent organization. they did not intend for those individuals who drop a kid here be able to remain here illegally after that. i think the supreme court will look at the 14th amendment in light of tradition, context and history like they have so many other laws and i'm hopeful they will change the interpretation