the supreme court has rewritten the law of class actions for the supreme court as ineffective new rationales to protect corporate speech under the first amendment. the supreme court has made more difficult under the first amendment for public sector unions to operate. the supreme court has enforced agreements to not go to court but rather to arbitrate disputes . these are big decisions. these are often issues where the chamber of commerce has been struggling politically to get its agenda enacted, for example in the form of class actions or punitive damage reforms and they've often been unsuccessful politically and getting the reform agenda and republican justices on the court have come along and given them what they sought by reinterpreting federal rules are reinterpreting statutes or creating new interpretations of the first amendment. that's true at the corporate agenda and more broadly with the republican agenda. on all of these big issues, the republican party gets what it wants from today's republican justices. i don't think that's because the justices are bought, i think it's because t

they found a powerful ally in the supreme court. which slowly whittled away the meaning of the reconstruction amendments when the brilliant myra colby bradwell applied for the illinois bar. she was ejected because women could not be lawyers. bradwell appealed appealed to the supreme court citing the 14th amendment as establishing equal rights in 1873 the supreme court dismissed her suit and the basis of nature and divine ordinance nature had made women timid and delicate and thus unfit for civil life to quote. the decision. god had made women to have one job and one job only motherhood for these were reasons quote a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband and could not hold property or enter into contracts and therefore cannot practice law. all human laws even the constitution the supreme court declared must bend to the law of the creator making any notion of equality between men and women, silly and downright dangerous. two years later virginia minor appeared before the court using the 14th amendment to insist on her

for the supreme court. i think there is a lot of possible routes to this. i do think that it's clear that joe biden is signaling with this tranche of judges today that he is very, very serious about having women and minorities represented on the courts after four years of donald trump judges who were overwhelmingly white men. i think his point is he wants the lower courts to look like america. that is, in and of itself, the goal. whatever happens next in the supreme court, yes, it turns out justice breyer, but he is turning out a signal that this is what he values. >> and the republicans in the senate will want to make these confirmations as difficult as possible and try to slow them down as long as possible, especially when they see potential candidates for the united states supreme court in this group. >> yes, absolutely, they will. and this is definitely a signal that the current president wants to take the courts in a different direction, but it's not just in terms of diversity of these judges' characte

the brazilian supreme court yes that is very aware of. there is. there is an attempt to distinguish what happened from what happened the others although all the lawyers of all the other condemned will be tried in their luck and trying to do their best to release their or there are clients from brazil and jed's and that's a risk gustavo obviously this should come a bad time for the president. do you think that this is something that could potentially undermine his chances to win reelection definitely i think until 2 weeks ago both in other words the head and shoulders favorite to win reelection because now other forces had emerged to challenge him the spite of what we're seeing with the situation of the pens amec despite economic and saudis being on there are on the rise and other has not yet been challenged by a worthy opponent and now he has someone who just as he did can command the media agenda can command the political agenda and that the fact that lula in his 1st speech which i mean it's in everything that stump speech but name. he m

roula speech on wednesday was the 1st since a supreme court judge overturned the corruption convictions which put him behind bars for 18 months and stripped him of his political rights than from the $28000.00 elections the leader of brazil's left wing workers' party is now seen as a political threat to president. he says it's too soon to talk about next year's presidential race he spoke like a candid it rule is already very popular leader presents himself as a moderate leader that this time and i think that the 1st speech that he gave those one as they was an attempt to shoulder himself is a moderate it can move we had to put together different groups different sectors of the blues in society and so i think that he has a problem a real problem for also not one for bills when i was at them to be reelected blasted both are not all for downplaying the coven 1000 pandemic which has already claimed the lives of almost 270000 brazilians the 2nd largest death toll after the united states. we have a president who says cover 19 is a small flu who says that only cowards fear the virus and that he

the decision to throw out the corruption charges was based on a technicality the supreme court judge said brazil's former president had been tried by a court in the southern city of could each eba that had no jurisdiction over his case he may still be retried in the capital brasilia there are many legal twists and turns in this case the supreme court still has to decide whether the judge who convicted in the law was impartial or had his own political agenda and colluded with the prosecution meanwhile law has started negotiating in alliance with other left wing parties and even conservative politicians who are not happy with president jalal son out of. al-jazeera rio de janeiro. the former president commonly known just as lula has been one of the most popular political figures in latin america he was elected brazil's president in 2002 becoming the 1st leftist leader in almost half a century he served for 8 years but his bid to run for presidency again in 2018 was blocked because of corruption charges lula has been credited with presiding over brazil's longest period of economic growth

-- supreme court that exists today? >> right question. i think there is low hanging fruit divine -- biden as address. there are two ways that president biden could go further than his democratic predecessors. i think in this moment of crisis combs on of action is demanded. reproductive justice groups are watching closely to see biden well, number one, repeal the long-standing restrictions on medication abortion access that are widely interpreted to require patients to go in person to health center to get a pill -- which is the first step and into medication abortion. and they can take the rest of the medication home with them. those long-standing federal requirements areut on hold temporarily and are now back in place thanks to the supreme court to the pandemic. biden and his food and drug administration could suspend those rules and overhaul them so that medication abortion can be picked up at a pharmacy person to a patient from online pharmacies by mail, just like any other drug with that kind of safety record. the ot

for the supreme court. i think there is a lot of possible routes to this. i do think that it's clear that joe biden is signaling with this tranche of judges today that he is very, very serious about having women and minorities represented on the courts after four years of donald trump judges who were overwhelmingly white men. i think his point is he wants the lower courts to look like america. that is, in and of itself, the goal. whatever happens next in the supreme court, yes, it turns on justice breyer, but he is sending out a signal that this is what he values. >> and the republicans in the senate will want to make these confirmations as difficult as possible and try to slow them down as long as possible, especially when they see potential candidates for the united states supreme court in this group. >> yes, absolutely, they will. and this is definitely a signal that the current president wants to take the courts in a different direction, but it's not just in terms of diversity of these judges' character

fast forward to the 2020 supreme court decision in ramos. in his majority opinion, justice neil gorsuch wrote "though it's hard to say why these laws persist, their orins are clear." louisiana's practice was rooted in "the trappings of the jim crow era." and oregon's "can similarly be traced to the rise of the ku klux klan." but even though history has reached an inflection point, the non-unanimous jury story isn't over quite yet. the convictions of those who haven't yet exhausted the appeals process are vacated, and they're entitled to be retried. but what about those with final convictions, imprisoned following 10-2 or 11-1 votes? the supreme court hasn't ruled yet whether ramos applies retroactively to them, though it's expected to later this year in a case called "edwards v. vannoy." in the meantime, kaplan and the criminal justice reform clinic, along with legal colleagues working for free, are challenging dozens of those convictions in oregon state court. but it's not always easy figuring out which cases to challenge. >> unfortunately,

a supreme court judge in brazil announce the criminal convictions against former president lula da silva clearing the way for him to run the next year's presidential elections. in jordan this is al jazeera. also coming up unrest continues in senegal as opposition leader calls for large scale protests following his release on bail. people defy me in moscow into running against police were surrounding the hundreds of protesters in the district. after a year of pandemic hardships women mark their international day with protest celebrations to. begin with brazil then former president luis inacio lula da silva is set for what's been described as a sensational political comeback his conviction on corruption charges has been an old by a supreme court judge a decision restores his rights to contest next year's presidential election as one of the most popular figures on the left if he decides to run he will face off with the far right populist also. joins us live now from rio de janeiro. a little that was cleared because of a technicality what more can you tell us about this court ruling. well ex

the brazilian supreme court yes that is very aware of. there is. there is an attempt to distinguish what happened from what happened the others although all the lawyers of all the other will be tried in their luck and trying to do their best to release their or there are clients from brazil and jed's and that's a risk gustavo obviously this should come a bad time for the president. do you think that this is something that could potentially undermine his chances to win reelection definitely i think until 2 weeks ago both in other words the head and shoulders favorite to win reelection because now other forces had emerged to challenge him the spite of what we're seeing with the situation of the pens amec despite economic and saudis being on there are on the rise and other has not yet been challenged by a worthy opponent and now he has someone who just as he did us can command the media agenda can command the political agenda and the fact that lula in his 1st speech which i mean it's in everything it's stump speech but name. he made nods to

accuse the supreme court judge of acting on behalf of the workers' party. brazil's political divisions deepening in the midst of a deadly pandemic a planned news conference with the has just been postponed from all its go to monica to find out why some want to what's happening. well yes there was cancer at the last minute because. mullo wants to wait the result of a clearing and to the conduct of judges have a moral and moral was the is the man that he accuses of launching a political dead against him and most of us says that it was moral who brought upon him the charges of corruption and wrongly convicted him and now what what's being decided in brasilia by the supreme court is whether the fashion model acted with a political agenda of his own or not and will is waiting before he comes out the public to then say what. are on the results of 2 of 2 judicial decisions in these past hours one that are not old to his convictions and the one on on moral now whatever the outcome this does not mean that a lot has been found innocent the charges of corruption still

court in the u.k. facing to be sued sued by thousands more drivers so obviously you decided that this was a compromise a viable way to go it seems to be a costly way though can still the kind of money did. well doesn't make a lot of money at the moment it's not really profitable and it hasn't said what the anticipated cost of this will be what i can tell you is that the u.k. market stands for 6.4 percent of the right share of bookings overall that's numbers from the last quarter of 2020 but monica you know being profitable profitable is only one name of a company in particular with companies like what counts much more is to be the big one in the market and now of course with accepting this compromise is also forcing its competitors to act companies like bold or bold or ola and for them the cost will likely be much more of a problem by the way here in this topic there are a few questions still open who wants to apply the new rules only to drivers who actually have a passenger in the car who are actually

your opening statement, madam chair, was correct that the supreme court has upheld disclosure. but it was incorrect to suggest, as has been suggested here and by others on this panel, that any particular proposals in this act have supreme court support. to the contrary, numerous supreme court decisions have limited past attempts to expand disclosure in the sort of ways included in this bill. specifically, s1 would unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague, subjective, and dangerously broad standard. this would in effect put the media and greater -- in greater control of public discourse and messaging. but the focus of the bill on identifying who is speaking is also bad for democracy. we should be focusing on issues rather than on individuals and contributors to organizations so that those people can be doxxed and personally attacked, exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse in our country. there's a lot more bad in this bill. i could go on for some length

if a thing called writing circuit with supreme court justice. that certain states in north carolina. so he was off to raleigh the capitol of north carolina with 700 people. can you imagine the capitol of the state with seven other people? at what he got to a certain number of cases. each 90 go to the same pub and know the same people. it was a big drink of the temperamental think i've ever tasted i don't know what it is. it's a fortified wine. there is a club in richmond he started this club, i don't know people remember. you're a little kid they had a poll is not a horseshoe but a circular thing with the hole in the middle. that was his big thing. he was also, he recorded his wife she was a young teenager he met her, i know this is appalling, but it's true. he isn't law school with the great george lewis and william mary and his law notes he has little things little inscriptions like kids in our era were doing junior high. he would say polly and john or something like this. he was a whimsical guy. and i feel he had at top part. but he really wa

in 1920, the supreme court held in dillon vs. gloss that there was no doubt that congress can set a date for ratifying an amendment. the deadline to ratify the e.r.a. has long since passed, and the amendment fell short of the required number of states. when proposing a constitutional amendment, the deadline for ratification is just as important as the substance. the district court for district of columbia, less than two weeks ago, denied an effort by virginia, nevada, and illinois to force the adoption of the e.r.a., despite the 1979 deadline. in denying the effort of those states, the court said the deadline for ratification still receives the assent of 2/3 of both houses of congress and putting it in the resolving clause does not evade article 5 procedural requirements in any way. because setting a deadline takes a 2/3 vote of congress, it would be absurd to say that changing that deadline requires anything less. if a simple majority of congress could alter a proposed amendment, after it has been sent to the states, the 2/3 req

wertheimer, the supreme court is the only federal court in our nation that's not required to follow a code of ethics. and yet they are deciding the most important decisions of our day. and this comes up a lot in supreme court hearings in judiciary. but i'm not sure all the senators understand this, that the federal courts, district courts, circuit court, they have ethics rules that they have to follow and report things. could you talk about how the code of ethics that's contained in this bill would help to improve public trust in the fairness of supreme court decisions? >> well, it's just common sense that the supreme court and federal judges should have a code of ethics. the important part about this provision is that it leaves it to the judicial conference to determine what that code of ethics is. so it maintains an independence for the judiciary. the chief justice is the chair of the judicial conference. and it's made up of judges. so they will create their own code of conduct. >> which presumably could be like the circuit court, ones they have right now. >> absolutely. i'd like to

the decision to throw out the corruption charges was based on a technicality the supreme court judge said brazil's former president had been tried by a court in the southern city of could he chiba that had no jurisdiction over his case he may still be retried in the capital brasilia there are many legal twists and turns in this case the supreme court still has to decide whether the judge who convicted the law was impartial or had his own political agenda and colluded with the prosecution meanwhile moolah has started negotiating in alliance with other left wing parties and even conservative politicians who are not happy with president jalal santa monica of al-jazeera rio de janeiro. the former president commonly known just as lula has been one of the most popular political figures in latin america he was elected brazil's president in 2002 becoming the 1st leftist leader in almost half a century he served for 8 years but his bid to run for presidency again in 2018 was blocked because of corruption charges lula has been credited with presiding over brazil's longest period of economic gr

to the supreme court and the state indicated intent to. but there are many other laws that have been challenged over past years. bands and other restrictions and they are already working their way through the court system up to the supreme court as well. >> this one is robinson v marshall. you had more on the trump administration's ban, so there are cases that can be won. how feofful should people be? that if one of these cases, one of the several test cases that they want the supreme court to hear, how fearful should they be that this could overturn the protections afforded by roe v wade? >> i think we know that former president trump vowed to appoint justices to the supreme court that would overturn roe v. wade. i think it is important to know that they remain good law right now. as you noted earlier as well, they support roe v. wade and support for abortion, and we will continue to fight, but i think it is also important for people that care about this to not hang all of their hopes on the supreme course and to push their elected offici

kind of supreme court we have. this will give the supreme court chance to clean up the mess it created in shelby versus holder. we'll see what kind of supreme court we have in the country. >> one of the people voted on that is georgia native is clearance thomas who i don't think supported the voting rights act the last time i checked. tyler perry got this 230 acre magnificent facility for making movies. he's now spoken out. he said i'm resting my hope in the doj taking hard look at this unconstitutional voter suppression law that harkens to the jim crow era and some consider boycotting. please remember that we did turn georgia blue and there's a gubernatorial race on the horizon. that's the beauty of a democracy. noted he's been down this road before with the anti-lgbt laws and anti-abortion bills. boycott, what do you make of that as somebody in a leadership position in georgia? do you think state or the companies should be boycotted? >>. >> on thursday at 12:00 in front of coa-cola we'll announce the beginning of

he did not say take it to the supreme court. senator lee believes, and i'm interpreting from that -- must believe our representative government is as responsible for enforcing the united states constitution as the courts. maybe in some ways more so. it is good to hear that. one of the big problems is we tended to outsource constitutionalism to the supreme court. it does not belong just to the supreme court. it belongs to the senate and the house of representatives into we the people. thank you very much for a very engaging discussion, senator lee. thank all of you for joining us today. i hope you will tune back in on april 15 for a discussion with hoover fellow a carolin -- thank you for your attendance and attention. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> we will take you to pittsburgh for president biden's announcement of his economic plan based on infrastructure projects

court is most things change and they're changing every minute there's close to meet the 5 supreme court justices and decide whether whether sergey morrow acted in partially or partially or he had a political agenda let's remember that session malto is the judge that unveiled of the whole car wash scandal involving most important business men construction companies to oil company politicians presidents former presidents from other countries as well and that resulted in the impeachment of former president also from the workers' party and the imprisonment of. it's always said that sasha morrow acted in a political agenda and when searching will accept it to become the. justice minister of. the natural the right wing candidate that won the 2018 elections that been loyal said will here's proof that he would speak was not impartial and one of the reasons i show you both a not a one was because lola had been banned from running in the 2018 election although be a low being a front runner in the election polls so but that wasn't enough. what happened after that was that there was that hard wash

court, the supreme court saying we are not taking up these elections cases dealing with some that happened four months ago. guys. >> last gasp, thank you, very much. >>> okay, let's turn now to the trial of ex-police officer derek chauvin, accused of second-degree murder and manslaughter of george floyd. >> the trial now underway. jury selection has been begun in minneapolis. chauvin is facing, we'll remind you, second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in floyd's death. video of chauvin kneeling on floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes sparked protests around this country, around the world even. omar jimenez is in minneapolis. the city is taking precautions for more demonstrations today but we have news now about steps moving forward on jury selection. >> reporter: that's right jim and poppy. there is some debate in the beginning of this jury selection process as to whether they could move forward with jury selection until the matter of a third-degree murder charge being reinstated was settled. well judge peter cahill ruled that they can proceed with jury selection and that process wo

there were — supreme court that said there were no— supreme court that said there were no rights— supreme court that said there were no rights that _ supreme court that said there were no rights that a - supreme court that said there were no rights that a black- were no rights that a black person _ were no rights that a black person had _ were no rights that a black person had that _ were no rights that a black person had that a - were no rights that a black person had that a white i were no rights that a black- person had that a white person was bound _ person had that a white person was bound to _ person had that a white person was bound to respect - person had that a white person was bound to respect was - person had that a white person was bound to respect was not. person had that a white person . was bound to respect was not we overcame — was bound to respect was not we overcamejim_ was bound to respect was not we overcame jim crow. _ was bound to respect was not we overcame jim crow. we - was bound to respect was not we i overcame jim crow. we overcame jim crow's— overcame jim c

the court was divided as brazil is divided the supreme court has 5 judges to have said that that is a mortal who has not been in partial one of those 2 has said that this is the biggest judicial scandal in brazil's history to others say that he has been partial and the 5th judge says he's very new as the supreme court judge in need needs more time to read through the documents and vote but this does not change the fact that moola can now run for the presidency next year if he wants it's true that he can be retried since this vote has not eliminated all the charges against him all the evidence so he will be able to be a candidate next year who may be replied this is something that will take time and some statute of limitations meet expire meanwhile so yes it is a comeback and more than that i think it will sort of vindicated because he has been saying all along that he has been a he has been he is a victim of persecution and now things are not that clear cut as they seem to be catalonia is former president and 2 of his former ministers have been stripped of immunity from prosecution ca

the supreme court ruling stated. quote we find merit in humphries claim the common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional. he was absolutely thrilled. san francisco public defender mano raj you spoke with humphrey thursday and praised the courts to see vision. the reality is no person should lose their right to liberty simply because that person can't afford to post bail and that was a firm today by the california supreme court. roger says the ruling will change the way judges statewide decide on bail amounts. they have to make a real individualized consideration about whether that person can afford it. the ruling also had support from bail agents such as dale miller, a santa rosa attorney. there was lots of times when families had to make a decision between bailing out the breadwinner or paying the rent. but miller notes the ruling could cause delays in the system. there has to be an individual assessment of wealth. or lack of ability to pay and that will b

and the supreme court, when you had texas and 18 states, the supreme court said they don't have standing. the supreme court didn't want to hear it. >> laura: a lot of republicans on that court. >> mr. trump: they didn't have the courage to do what they had to do. >> laura: well, moving forward, i have to ask you about this embarrassing meeting between biden officials and the chinese delegation. we all remember your first meeting with the chinese officials, including president xi, but china ends up delivering this major rebuke to the united states, to our faces, essentially saying that we have no standing to lecture them because of our own issues of racism that have been perpetually parroted by democrats. did the chinese ever lecture you or your people about america's racism problem? >> mr. trump: we never had anything like that happen. that was an embarrassment. that was an absolute embarrassment to our country. i could not believe it. i couldn't believe -- the meeting, even the location, so many different elements of what took place, when they started, and they went on and on and on, th

accuse the supreme court judge of acting on behalf of the workers' party and. brazil's political divisions deepening in the midst of a deadly pandemic monica nike of al-jazeera rio de janeiro's. set to make a statement in the coming hours but a lawyer who helped clear him is adamant he'll easily win reelection as president a short time ago we spoke with geoffrey robertson the founder and co head of delta street chambers here's what he said. this decision which sounds a bit technical or is in fact quite fundamental we simply try it in the wrong place in the place to run by he that i mean we were out to put him in prison and not in the proper course so that leak at the moment of course the government is appealing it but the judge respected being detained. and is in the news will pave the way. probably when he makes the select good because he has the. support of the heart. and really the people who love him because of his worthless grazed in years ago when he dragged some 20000000 of them out of the direst property so he does have that great love and support and h

the supreme court is giving guidance to lower courts. section two of the voting rights act is sort of the last tool standing. the supreme court could make it easier to challenge laws that are potentially discriminatory. it could make it harder, or somewhere in between. it was hard to tell today. john: legislatures are working on election laws that could be challenged in court. >> at this point, we can look at any state in the nation and find examples either in the courtroom or the state house where election reforms and policies are being taken into consideration. john: attorney carvin answered judge coney barrett's question about what is at stake. >> what is the interest of the arizona rnc in keeping out of precinct voter disqualification rules on the books? >> it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.politics john: decision is expected by summer. i am john yang. ♪ judy: the u.s. senate is considering a one point $9 trillion package for covid and economic related relief. one section provides assistance to families wi children by expand

now, surfacing in the supreme court. it is so obvious that republicans are trying to grab power because they are not winning at the ballot box. listen closely. they are not willing -- they have to twist and change the rules and now the big lie about voter fraud now has a twin. a new big lie about who was behind the capitol attack. the republicans want you to ignore what you saw with your own eyes. what you saw, there it is. a blood thirsty mob of trump supporters beating police and hunting lawmakers. they want you to believe that was antifa and black lives matter, fake trump supporters. look at all the black people in there. and anybody other than exactly who we all saw. that's who they want you to believe. that lie was knocked down today by the fbi director himself. christopher wray in his testimony to the senate is today. and let's remember. he was hand picked by the former president. >> do you have any evidence that the capitol attack was organized by quote fake trump protesters? >> we have not seen evidence of that a

accuse the supreme court judge of acting on behalf of the workers' party and. brazil's political divisions deepening in the midst of a deadly pandemic monica and i give all jazeera rio de janeiro. sen john paul president says the labor party minorities are in the brazilian senate he says this is great news. we are very happy that i have to justice was belief that must was done. in fact it's not exactly a technicality only it's a. set of mega technicalities but above all you know has been evidence clear evidence indicating clues are between prosecutors and magistrates on the carwash operation. meaning that if any government when you want to look prosecute and punish the. wrong growth spurt or forms of government you have the real channel through do with injustice you know in brazil and this was not done what was done was not at a time of a certain time of the investigation all of the investigation become to be. contaminated by wallet by political discussion by pulling people dispute and this was what made the process now to be an old. senator lisa position leade

we did a series on landmark supreme court cases, and of course this act made its way to the supreme court. let's show you a bit of an interview we did on the chinese exclusion act. >> they were very, very much the subject of discriminatory activities. i'm kind of reminded of the case of people, which is 1854, very early california supreme court case in which the several chinese witnesses saw murder, they testified honestly what they saw. he was convicted, his clever defense attorney appealed the case to the california supreme court, and he argued there's a law in california that's indians and blacks could not testify against a white man and that there's only three classes of people in the world, whites, blacks, and mongolian. indians included chinese, and chinese were mongolians, indians were mongolians and the california supreme court bought that argument. and if we let them testify against a white man, why, the next thing you know, they'd be sitting on a jury box. they'd run for the legislature. they'd vote. they might even become judges. what a terrible thing that would be, and a very

we'll see how the supreme court rules. but as you and i have said to each other again in another context, the supreme court, even this supreme court may be -- maybe especially this supreme court is full of surprises. so let's wait and see what they come up with. but whatever the supreme court says, i think we can be assured at least for the short-term that many in the republican party, and particularly the republican party leadership are going to keep proposing ways to suppress the vote. as i say, this is so sad. you know, it has to do with fear, fear of losing power. >> um-hum. >> that many people in the white community if we can call it that oro are simply afraid of losing power. and they want to hold on to power. in this last election, don -- and you reported it many times, we had a remarkable, fair and complete election in 2020 in which record numbers of people turned out to vote on both sides of the political divide. this was something we should be celebrating and building on. >> um-hum. >> bun instead of that you hav

tell the story for the supreme court for example i scoreless had earlier there was a request from the local police from the court to give them a copy of the lawyers who are representing alleged communists lawyers have said this is like a kill list comparable to the drug list that was the basis of the policeman in their blood me and i drug and of course it's bad that the past to happen to anyone but that it's happening to lawyers is even worse than i thought comments from a prominent lawyer also here that they are demanding the supreme court to face something and publicly denounce that policeman to resorting to these kinds of acts and of course supreme courts or arts all over the world are passive institutions that are not active they will not be the one to speak out they will not be the one to speak out 1st but lawyers are just saying that this these are now lawyers under that before the exactly within your jurisdiction and to know that the former chief justice merely your lawyer decide and the did this during her time he publicly stored for the judges who were saying who were include

court to get one as you said, the first time he was in the supreme court, it was because he refused to make a custom cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. he won that case at the supreme court but they ruled narrowly the colorado civil rights commission, which brought the case had been to bigoted in relation to his beliefs so that was thrown out and they left unaddressed the key constitutional question, can you compel speech? in this case, can you compel an artist to create something an expression he doesn't agree with? with the message and the other side argues you are discriminating against the person and he's saying no, i'll sell anyone any kind of case cake but i won't make a custom cake with that message and i won't make it for anyone regardless of who they are so that was in colorado court, there's no decision get. paul: this is not state civil rights commission, this is a private civil lawsuit and is the plaintiff, is she trying to make a public statement? presumably she can get another cake from someone else and she wants to. >> this, you hit on that, she's an activist, prob

and of course supreme courts or arts all over the world are passive institutions that are not active they will not be the ones to speak out they will not be the one to speak out 1st but lawyers are just saying that this these are now lawyers under that baseball is exceptionally within your jurisdiction and to know that the former chief justice merely your lawyer decide i know did this during her he publicly stored for the judges who were saying were included in president that there is this mark a list and she said you have to protect these judges from we have to give them due process and what happened the chief justice said i know she was ousted she is no longer in position and when it comes to the department of justice which is the executive agency their efforts their programs were the ones mainly cited by the human rights council for issuing that soft richelieu shouldn't technical assistance and with money started all these projects and i'm just going to state the do. the drug war review panel was created in june when it when when i say yes when they already knew that people are wo

how a supreme court case could how a supreme court case could impact future elections. captioning funded by cbs >>> good morning. good to be with you. i'm anne-marie green. we're going to begin this morning with breaking news overseas. at least ten rockets targeted an airbase in western iraq this morning. the base hosts american and coalition troops. it happened at the airbase in anbar province. the iraqi military said the attack did not cause significant losses, and it comes just two days before pope francis is scheduled to visit iraq. today's attack is the first since the u.s. targeted iranian-backed facilities in syria last week. >>> now to encouraging news in the push to get americans vaccinated against the coronavirus. that is two months earlier than previous expected. right now the white house is working to ramp up production of johnson & johnson's single-dose vaccine. debra alfarone is in washington. debra, this comes amid concerns that some states are already rolling back restrictions. and many think that could be happening too soon. >> reporter: absolutely, ann

it has become the death grip of democracy. >> i said let's not do the supreme court. we should have 60 votes which we do because we get bipartisan support. >> we hope our bipartisan colleagues if not, we will put our heads together and figure out how to go and everything is on the table. >> we still have 60 votes in place with the supreme court and mitch mcconnell changed that. i would prefer to bring it back. we are where we are and i do not think anybody is going to want to hamstring themselves. >> i favor getting rid of the alabaster. there's too much we have to do for this country. >> sean: amazing what a couple of years can do when you're in charge. here's what you need to know about the democratic party. it's filled with the most radical, far left individuals of any major political party in modern political history. their only real principle is power over everything. over the constitution. over the bill of rights. over the rule of law. over basic fairness and justice. they want one party rule, they won in perpetuity forever and ever. their plan to achieve this g

accuse the supreme court judge of acting on behalf of the workers' party and. brazil's political divisions deepening in the midst of a deadly pandemic monica and i give all jazeera rio de janeiro. senegalese opposition leader is calling for peaceful demonstrations following his release on monday at least 10 people died during the process against his arrest for alleged rape charges president's maki solace also appealing for calm nicholas hock reports from dhaka. a night of celebration after days of protests. there he is released on bail to spend some go addresses the nation in this press conference by his side are leading figures of senegalese opposition. the people are sending us politicians a message no matter convictions or beliefs we have a dysfunctionality to unite the show and bring back politics to its noble cause you presenting the people. several people died in scores were injured after he was arrested over rape charges his supporters believe the case is politically motivated . the presence of the military did not deter demonstrators nor did the tear ga

we'll see how the supreme court rules. as you and i have said to each other again this another context, the supreme court, even this supreme court, maybe especially this supreme court, is full of surprises. so let's wait and see what they come up with. but whatever the supreme court says, i think we can be assured at least in the short term that many in the republican party, and particularly republican party leadership, are going to keep proposing ways to suppress the vote. and as i say, this is so sad. you know, it has to do with fear, fear of losing power. >> mm-hmm. >> that many people in the white community, if we can call it that, are simply afraid of losing power, and they want to hold on to power. you know, in this last election, don -- and you've reported it many times -- we had a remarkable, fair, and complete election in 2020, in which record numbers of people turned out to vote on both sides of the political divide. this is something we should be celebrating and building on. >> mm-hmm. >> but instead of that, yo

the supreme court for example you mentioned voter i.d. which is a big change in the law, the law requires voter i.d. for the first time then signatures for mail in ballots. the law allows for widescale absentee no excuse ballots. the constitution doesn't prohibit voter i.d. and in fact the supreme court upheld by 6-3 in the case from indiana, about 12 or 13 years ago, that indiana could require voter i.d. to vote. many states require i.d. and my home state of california requires voter i.d. of driver's license, social security, last time i checked california was not the center of jim crow and racism in the country. i think instead, what you are seeing is the effort to use exaggerated unfortunately exaggerated language to attack what our sensible mutual requirements which the supreme court already upheld is consistent with the constitution. >> shannon: in moments, we see again and again people cross ideological lines from different backgrounds. at the vast majority support some type of order i.d. and have no problem with it being for voting

whose number of opinions adopted by the supreme court itself. whose testimony on the matters that mattered most of that is the law and his role as a charge was impeccable. the effort was made to undo him by this last-minute allegation by a woman who could not tell even what year he was alleged to have assaulted her. where exactly it happened, how far it was from her home or the club where she said the house was near. nothing came along to substantiate or back of the allegations. when all said and done, it was not clear of the two people had even met. it was utterly, utterly unsubstantiated. that is why he ultimately succeeded and is now on the courts. and for the white house to be saying this stuff now is a desperate rearguard action to reinvigorate the case. i don't think it's going anywhere. and i think the fbi looked into the background check, they would find they contacted, guess what, a background check. >> tucker: everything you said seems absolutely right. that is kind of the purpose of the question. why do you think if you can speculate

the constitution doesn't prohibit voter id and the supreme court upheld by 6-3 in a case from indiana just about 12, 13 years ago that indiana could require voter id to vote. california requires voter id of drivers license or social security to register to vote. last time i checked california was not the center of jim crow. instead what you are seeing is an effort to use exaggerated language to attack what are sensible requirements that the supreme court has already upheld as consistent with the constitution. shannon: in most public polling we see people across ideological lines and different backgrounds the vast majority support some type of voter id and have no problem with it being used for voting. from the brennan center, a look at states that have some kind of what would be considered voter integrity laws, got to have id, limits on early voting and other restrictions in place, not like there are no states out there who are doing this. i don't know but that is a look at a big section of the country that has some kind of law. georgia, there's pressure on georgia with this lobbying