let's go live to the supreme court right now. we are doing everything in our power to sort out the sound right now. hopefully we will sort that for you. ina in a second now we are going to get the sound back for you. iam going i am going to apologise again. a p pa re ntly apparently this is a problem within the supreme court although this is no consolation to you. apparently it is related to the rain, would you believe?! i think potentially unless you are inside the supreme court at the moment no one is able to hear what the baroness is saying. 15th of august, nikki da costa, director of legislative affairs at number 10 downing street sent a memorandum to the downing street copied seven people, civil servants and special advisers. recommending that his parliamentary private secretary approached the palace with a request for prorogation to begin within ninth — 12th a request for prorogation to begin within ninth —12th september and for a queen's speech on the 14th of 0ctober. for a queen's speech on the 14th of october. the pr

supreme court aside it but never opined on it. sometimes constitutional rights do end up collecting dust. in part as a result of a concerted effort, if you like a social movement, advocates and scholars and judges, politicians, the popular interpretation and understanding of the second amendment changed. we don't have polling on this going back to far but by the time heller was decided in 2008, the court of the holding, the individual right to keep and bear arms was quite popular. 75% of americans said in 2008 they agreed with it. i suspect if you'd asked the same question earlier, even a few decades earlier you would've gotten a different answer. here we have more anecdotes than politics i can't say this for certain that there are voices left, right, and center when the people often referred to as warren burger, robert bork, other people not known as left-wing judges saying that the second amendment did not protect an individual right. today it does and that is in part as as a result of this movement outside the court. but he cam

speaker, it wasn't the supreme court verdict, it was the judgments of the supreme court. perhaps the prime minister might start to show some respect for the judiciary. we are here today because the prime minister was absolutely humiliated by the supreme court. by a count of 11 Ãzero. [inaudible] that we might have had some humility. that we might have been able to acknowledge that what we had is the unlawful shutting down of parliament. mr. speaker, who Ãb the former prime minister à tierney begins. mr. speaker, will it pains me to say it, the prime minister is still standing here today, he in fact does believe he's above the law. mr. speaker, he is not. and thank heavens for the action that was brought forth in scotland and england that i want to pay tribute to my honorable fred à [applause] [loud shouting] >> thank goodness the courts have done their job and made sure the parliament is getting it back to where they should be in this house and in the government court. the ruling of the supreme court has been absolutely crystal clear. the actions of this government, t

judges up to the supreme court. the supreme court has made new law, let's be absolutely clear. from now on, the prerogative power of her majesty, advised by the prime minister, can now be the justiciable subject of the court was my control. that was a judgment on the supreme court was perfectly entitled to make. what the implications are for the future of our constitutional arrangements will have to be reflected upon in the coming months and years. but it is never wise to reflect upon a court case and its implications in its immediate aftermath, it will have to be done carefully and deliberately, and at this house will have to decide ultimately decide without these matters and powers are for this house to regulate and control, or whether they are for the judiciary? for the moment, the supreme court has spoken and that is the law. the attorney general's a cce pta nce the law. the attorney general's acceptance of the point that the government got it wrong in this case isa government got it wrong in this case is a very

the supreme court has just announced its decision. the labour leader's conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. and it shows that the prime minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament. it demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him, andi democracy and an abuse of power by him, and i invite borisjohnson in the historic words to consider his position. johnson out, they chanted. 0ne position. johnson out, they chanted. one member of the government told the bbc the prime minister should quit, but that is far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats on the green benches themselves. there are still quite a few tourists in the chamber, i'm just talking to colleagues and trying to find out what we are doing but we need to go back to holding the government to account.|j but we need to go back to holding the government to account. i am in a taxi going back to parliament, which should never have been suspende

supreme court. he was a prosecutor during the nuremberg trials. when he was serving in the supreme court. under franklin roosevelt in 1942, japanese internment took place. executive order 9066. the executive court case worked its way through the case. robert jackson was one of the justices that dissented into the case that was unconstitutional to be imprisoning american citizens without some due process. he really was the voice and conscious of the supreme court. at his work during the norm for trials. it really set the standard for what we think of as crimes against humanity. it was the first trial, the first international hearing which war crimes were prosecuted and prosecuted successfully. please welcome william casto, and he will be talking about his book on robert jackson. mr. casto: i am not really much on giving speeches or reading papers, i like to chat with people. so i am going to chat with you all like i chat with my students. ok? i want us to have some fun this afternoon talking about ro

and deliberately miss that the queen the supreme court in scotland said exactly that the supreme court of the united kingdom said that didn't need to go into the because the judgment stood in italy ok i don't think he did it on purpose but that's a moot point the fundamental issue for me is that there's almost no way out for bars to escape the promise he made that we would leave on the 31st of october he has to try to do that and if you play's clever here i think you could line him self up with what is definitely a junk bond risky strategy for a general election but a strategy that could actually propel him into majority and that's because this only works against boris johnson if the country is against him my feeling is this is causing the rage amongst the blacks it community which is far more motivating then the comfortable smugness of the remaining people but when you've been a member was a fierce critic of potus johnson but unusually you've always believed that he actually wants to do a deal would dispute the impetus if you can't get an election let's see that the only thing left is

our guest tonight is a judge on the highest court in the land, the supreme court justice sonia sotomayor is joining us, everybody! ( cheers and applause ) and please, please -- she's not doing parking tickets today, people. please. ( laughter ) also on tonight's show, the price of gas is going up, new accusations are coming out against brett kavanaugh, and mike pence fights a horse. so let's catch uh on today's headlines. ♪ let's kick it off with an update on that college cheating scandal and the celebrity mom who's getting locked up. >> we are back now with intense reaction to felicity huffman's sentencing. the actress must report to prison in the next six weeks to serve 14 days for her role in the college admissions scandal. >> she paid $15,000 to inflate her daughter's s.a.t. score as part of a massive college cheating scandal. in the courtroom an emotional huffman told the judge, i was frightened, i was stupid and i was so wrong. >> trevor: okay. she said she committed the crime because she was frightened and stupid? i get the stupid part. what were you frightened of? was the princ

unlawful byn ruled the supreme court. not managed to stop a lob passing that prevents a no deal brexit. this mustersonally, be a b blow to his credibility. all eyes on whwhat boris johnson could do next. perhaps he could sit tightht and stay in new york. he is do to o have his first engagement very soon. we will see if he has any reaction on this ruling. he also said he is s not plannig to fly home early. we w will see if that is maintained. he has meetings with donald trump, is you to give a speech at the u.n. general assembly. it is a clearly unprececedented situation back home with calls for him to resign multiplying. >> he vowed the u.k. would leave at the end of october with or without a deal. where does this decision leave brexit? >> parliament could be reconvened as early as wednesday, 11:30 a.m. in the u.k., 12:30 a.m. in paris. that has to be confirmed by john bercow. parliamenttime, when comes back, what does it do? does it hold a vote of no-confidence and what will that mean for brexit? will we get a general el

supreme court. let's listen to the government's representative here. supreme court. let's listen to the government's representative herelj paraphrase of course from the opinion of hodge in the case of her goal. mark reference has been made to constitutional principle. constitutional principle may embrace legal rules but it may also embrace the convention. convention that is not amenable to enforcement in a court of law. and an example of that was seen in miller one in reference to the convention which was expressed in statutory form but nevertheless remained a convention. in orderto nevertheless remained a convention. in order to proceed under the heading of constitutional principle, there has to be an element of legal content and if you take the example that was cited by mr fordham of the unison case, there one could clearly identify the legal right of access tojustice and identify the legal right of access to justice and therefore rely upon that in order to determine the declaration of a rights an

the supreme court is there to come toa the supreme court is there to come to a definitive answer, which does indicate some remit we have heard that the supreme court might give different answers for different jurisdictions, that suggests we could possibly downplay the possibility of a different answer for each jurisdiction. if they did find, if they found against the prime minister, what would they say? the suspension of argument was null and void and he now has to recall parliament? would that be the implication? this territory is extremely legally complex. the declaration it is unlawful, does it mean the advice was unlawful? what pannick has also said, it means the order of council and the procedure inside parliament to prorogue parliament, it is all made void. if thatis parliament, it is all made void. if that is the case, it is extremely difficult because proceedings in parliament cannot be considered or questioned or impeached in court. if there is such a legal chain then there is such a legal chain then there are serious questions. if the initial decision is wrong, questions as to

level and the appeals court for the supreme court. and by encouraging other people's. >> andnd those opinions we saw generated below. many people thought we would be writing as they are doing but there is a lot of attention getting in the lower courts designed to play from the federalist society. i went to new and that is a very strong challenge of the entire law. i was aware there but just the circuit and now i see a local that is a big deal but the supreme court is interpreting the law of the land that were most cases stop. >> one area i completely agree with is the increase of the a number of attention-getting opinions. so it's easy to focus on the number of judges and he has gotten quite a few confirmed that every administration received the immediate impact i thank you have a president that is aligned with the senate is not how many judges them but with this administration in my observation there has been much larger situation so what you see it's often flight or fight. others you have more older conservative judges that will be

let's go to ben brown who is at the supreme court. demonstrators from both sides of the brexit divide are here outside the supreme court, the highest court in the land. the decision made by the ii judges here could have profound implications legally, constitutionally and politically. this morning the court heard claims that borisjohnson sees parliament as an obstacle and potential threat, and he suspended it in order to silence it. richard lister reports. the suspension of parliament by a new government is usually a routine affair, but not last week. as conservatives filed out to shouts of shame on you, the opposition stayed in their seats, convinced parliament was being denied its voice on the eve of brexit. thousands of pages of legal arguments were brought to the supreme court so the justices could consider whether the proroguing of parliament was done lawfully. the businesswoman gina miller believes it was not but she was asked, is it right for the courts to intervene? if it is an overarching power yes. she is appealing the ruling

and then you have the power of the courts, ultimately resting here, at the supreme court. and what we're seeing this week is that balance of power being tested. the geography of westminster reveals the triangle of power at the heart of the state. lord pannick focused on the relationship between parliament and government, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of downing street's suspending, or proroguing, parliament. the prime minister's motive was to silence parliament for that period, because he sees parliament as an obstacle. lord pannick quoted from this bbc interview, to suggest borisjohnson‘s real purpose was not a queen's speech but achieving brexit by halloween. the best way to do that is if our friends and partners over the channel don't think that brexit can be somehow blocked by parliament. i went to bed in a democracy, and i woke up in a dictatorship. you were pointing at parliament rather accusingly there. get rid of it! shut it down. move it to birmingham, out the way, lovely. this afterno

bosses follow supreme court justice. david, i hope you are taking notes. through this lineage today supreme court reflects the reagan legacy. it was no secret what president reagan wanted the legacy to be. america's courts, he said, "should interpret the law not make it. the role of the supreme court in his view was to "make sure the principles of law are based on constitution". justice gorsuch book is new book is practically a user manual for the faithful interpretation of our constitution. it's also a wake-up call about what we might risk if we stray too far from our constitutional principles. the title of justice gorsuch's book is a republic, if you can keep it. that phrase is how benjamin franklin is to have answered citizens questions about what type of government the founders had created have the constitutional convention. with his response, franklin was trying to convey just how fragile our constitutional liberties are and how vigilant our citizens must be to preserve them. it's the same caution the president reag

absolutely delighted that the united kingdom supreme court has agreed with scotland supreme courts that the prorogue ation was unlawful and therefore it is invalid and void this is a huge victory for the rule of law and for tomorrow to see and it's very much in keeping with the scottish constitutional position that neither the government nor indeed the monarch are appalled the law as regards mr boris johnson the highest court in the united kingdom has united mostly 5 and that his advice to rule this parliament is advice given to her majesty the queen was unlawful his position is untenable and he should have the guts for wants to do the decent thing and recite. where. we. really are as soon as possible many of us are here already the taking of this on democratic minority tory government to archives must take precedence above all else that is why we were elected to parliament to do that and the supreme court city has emphasized that the principle that the government and the crap in it are a cunt able to parliament is fundamental to the british constitution. the courts have decided to it's

we respect the judgment of the supreme court. so that news just into us from the attorney general‘s office. our legal correspondent, clive coleman, is at the supreme court. talk us through, if you want, how significant this ruling is, and why it matters. just a note on what you have just mentioned from the attorney general‘s office because, in fairness to the attorney general, i don't think anyone quite saw this coming. in terms of significance, it doesn't get bigger. this was a unanimous ruling from the highest court in the land that a prime minister of the united kingdom had unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend what is parliament, the sovereign body in oui’ parliament, the sovereign body in our constitution, with the effect that the government could not be scrutinised. it just that the government could not be scrutinised. itjust doesn't get any bigger. this was what is known as a judicial review. we've had them for a long time. they've grown exponentially from the early 1980s, and they allow a citizen, s

supreme court. this morning, the court does not propose to make any ancillary orders, pending that resolution, and it will therefore reserve all incidental or related matters until the determination by that court. it will, however, hear parties on the question of permission to appeal. the snp mp, joanna cherry, is one of the politicians who brought the case and spoke to reporters outside court. iam i am absolutely delighted, i'm not surprised, because the feeling in court last week was very strong that we we re court last week was very strong that we were going to win this case. obviously, thejudges we were going to win this case. obviously, the judges have we were going to win this case. obviously, thejudges have not issued their reasons yet, but i think it was definitely a wealth of bad faith on behalf of borisjohnson and the government. this is a unanimous decision by scotland's highest court that the prorogation of parliament by borisjohnson was unlawful. as tommy sheppard, one of my co—petiti

the supreme court. —— who will be watching it all as it unfolds at the supreme court. let's go to westminster now to speak to our assistant political editor norman smith about the political implications of this decision. we might get the judgment early next week when the prime minister is at the un in new york? it would be an astonishing rebirth for boris johnsonjust as he is astonishing rebirth for boris johnson just as he is trying to talk to eu leaders in the margins of the un summit to hear he would have to backtrack and recall parliament, i think that would fuel a sense among eu leaders that borisjohnson cannot get any deal through parliament given the clear opposition he faces. that said, talking to ministers privately, they are very confident that thejudges will privately, they are very confident that the judges will strike down the edinburgh court, in other wyatt's they will not order parliament to be called back and i think that is because they have taken the view that this would be such a massive step for the supreme court to intervene in that way in what min

the supreme court has just announced its decision. cheering the labour leader's conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. and it shows that the prime minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament. it demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him. and i invite borisjohnson, in the historic words, to consider his position. johnson out, johnson out... "johnson out," they chanted. one member of the government told the bbc the prime minister should quit, but that's far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats on the green benches themselves. there are still quite a few tourists in the chamber. i'm just talking to colleagues and trying to find out what exactly we are going to be doing, but we need to go back to holding the government to account. i'm just in a taxi going back to parliament, which should never have been suspended, it was not suspended, and therefore we should be back in there doing ourjobs, hol

court april 102017 please welcome associate justice neil gore's itch of the supreme court of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. >> it is wonderful to have you back just after you were seated we are glad to have you back with us. >> it's a wonderful place i encourage our younger people to come visit it's not that far. and if you're really lucky kids can spend the night camping out with the constitution. how cool is that? i have a lot of friends whose kids have done that. >> take us back september 2016 to colorado. what happened. >> my life more left change in every conceivable way overnight. i was living a very happy life outside of boulder colorado where i had been a judge for a decade on the tenth circuit then all of a sudden everything changed. to give you one story that is emblematic, we had to sneak out of our home in boulder and sneak into the white house. [laughter] they were very committed to be surprised if we wanted to honor his wishes. how do you get into the white house unnoticed? it's pretty tricky. you have to go through the kitchen we went to the kitchen of the wh

hello, we will be live at the supreme court for the historic ruling in boris johnson supreme court for the historic ruling in borisjohnson ‘s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks in the run—up to brexit, was it legal or illegal, find out at 10:30amjoin us legal or illegal, find out at 10:30am join us live from 10am. i think a lot of us are trying to dodge the showers today, let's find out more with carol. good morning. good morning. quite right, showers and heavy, thundery downpours, this band moving north eastwards across england and wales into southern scotland, another pushing north across scotland and another one coming in across wales and south—west england. quite blustery winds across those showers, but the areas to the south of those showers, and rain, will see some sunshine, the lion's share of which will be across north—west scotland and northern ireland, temperatures ranging from 13 and 20 degrees. through this evening and overnight a band of rain in northern england moving out of northern england into scotland, we also see rain pushing across southern counti

most governments get defeated and what to be the lords, now the supreme court. the beauty of our constitution is you have a majority when the law of the lords or supreme court say that as a legal and the government of the day goes know it is not. hmrc used to do all the time when they were found certain things were not fair or legal. parliament would just pass annexing it is legal. courts don't have to accept it. what this really was about is the effect on the 2017 election had consequences. the government does not have a majority so government does not have a majority so it cannot act with the arbitrary powers that our system gives to a majority government and in many ways we are seeing the unraveling of the confidence trick theresa may pull to stay in office when she said to the mps don't worry it is not that bad. she didn't commit so much but she did commence them of that and what we see today is the last event ability to pretend they can act as they won the 2017 election. interesting viewpoint. let's turn to the guardian. the independent was a very stark fro

the first case in the supreme court. and ultimately the case the court first said it was a violation of the 14th amendment. i do not understand this. the 14th amendment was enacted to cover slaves and african-americans, and it does not say anything about women. i called you up at you gave me an hour-long lecture. [laughter] ms. totenberg: i am going to ask you for a 62nd version. 60-second version. justice ginsburg: you said, i thought you said the 14th amendment was about race. i said, it is, but the 14th amendment means no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the law. [cheers and applause] justice ginsburg: the first time the supreme court heard such an argument was in the 1870's. a woman wanted to vote, and she said she read the constitution and it said no state shall deny any person equal protection of the law. the court's response to her was, you are indeed a person, and you are a citizen of the united states. but so too our children, and no one would suggest that children should have the right to

kennedy of the supreme court of the united states. from 1995 to 2005, he was in private practice in from the 2005 to 2006 the associate general attorney general at the department of justice. he was appointed to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit in 2006. he served on the standing committee on rules and practice and procedure of the u.s. judicial conference in the chamber and advisory committee on rules of the appellate procedure. he taught at the university colorado law school and president donald trump nominated him as the associate justice of the supreme court, and took his seat april 10, 2017. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the honorable neil gorsuch, associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. [applause] it's wonderful to have you back. we are here just after you were seated in may of 2017 to swear in the national counterintelligence executive staff in the rotunda comes with nice to have you back with us. >> it's always nice to be here. it's a wonderful place and i am rich all young peo

and it basically says thatis supreme court. and it basically says that is not lawful for a supreme court. and it basically says that is not lawfulfor a prime minister to do something which has the affect of excluding parliamentary accountability, due to the effect of the five—week propagation being in effect closing down the parliamentary scrutiny since in no reason at been given for by the prime minister yet they put before the courts and they concluded that it did as shared news clip so the head of the supreme court set as a result, a prorogation is not in void. it is a stunning example of the courts being willing to move an extremist to protect parliamentary democracy. and that the event of the bully, do you think borisjohnson should resign? -- in the event of the ruling. that is a matterfor the politicians to decide. it is devastating for the prime minister for any prime minister to have been held and have done something to the effect of which is to undermine the fundamental of our constitution. i wonder whether or not pe

it was about the supreme court and it will be about the supreme court in to20, as well. that's the most important thing the president does and appointments that affect our country for a long time. it was a poor investigation. it was done wrong because they wanted to get kavanaugh on the bench. trump wants wins at any cost. and so they wanted to curtail the administration. i don't think the investigator went back to the house where dr. ford was allegedly assaulted and did much of an investigation there or tried to. he didn't try to confirm the witnesses of this lady at yale. that was unfortunate. i believe both dr. ford and the lady at yale. i believe it happened. i believed he lied to the senate. proving it and getting senators to vote to impeach a supreme court justice who is a trump favorite will not happen. >> possibly an exercise in futility. thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us. joining me now, we have some more guests to talk about this very important topic who has investigated sexual assault cases in the past. also with me daily beast columnist jonath

after the supreme court ruled that suspending parliament was unlawful. so, mps are coming back to this place. now what? well, things are pretty changeable but you can expect, as the commons chamber reopens for business, that there will be efforts to lob some difficult questions of at this government and put boris johnson under intense pressure. however, it appears the opposition may refrain from trying to bring down the government and trigger an election right away but mps who felt silenced are ready to make some noise. parliament has to exert, now, its authority, it has to be brave and bold and the prime minister has to reach out because there isn't any other way, across the aisle to seek a compromise. borisjohnson, have you embarrassed the queen? borisjohnson is resisting calls to resign but returning to westminster today, he will have to face the music. jessica parker, bbc news. so, what might happen next? well, as we've just heard, parliament will resume this morning, in just a few hours' time. the queen is then due to set out the government's future

supreme court dr greg thanks very much thank you good night good night. all right the day is almost done the conversation continues online you'll find us on twitter either at u.w. news or you can follow me at brant goth t.v. don't forget to use the hash tag the day and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see you then everybody. wants to accommodation. number of applicants from 5 often enough english to manage up to 100 euros pushed miami. the last one to may so much more than a 100 years to. secure and affordable housing becoming a scarce commodity. made in germany. farm land has been called ethiopia's green gold the country has an abundant supply and leases it to international labor for giants the government is after high export revenues and the corporations high profit margin. but not everyone benefits from coming business from the selling out of a country dead donkey no one knows in 45 minutes on d w. y subscribe to d.w. books you meet your favorite writer write. to but i write is too short to find beautiful. bo

level, the appeals court level for the supreme court. by putting out lists of names and encouraging people to buy for these positions, the opinions we are seeing generated below. many of these people would probably be ruling and writing as they are doing, but there is a lot of attention getting opinions in the lower courts that are almost designed to play two people from the federalist society that would be looking for folks to move up in sequence. i went to new orleans for the new affordable care act challenge. that is a very strong challenge to the entire law heard by the fifth circuit. i was aware of just how strongly conservative -- that is a circuit that is very much unlike the ninth. it has been traditionally conservative. it is getting more so now. i am seeing it in lower court rulings where it is a big deal. it is making a difference. to the victor goes the spoils. the supreme court is interpreting the law of the land, but it is the appeals court where most of the cases stop. >> i completely agree with jens point about the seemin

supreme court dr greg thank you very much thank you good night good night. all right the day is almost done the conversation continues online you'll find us on twitter either at u.w. news or you can follow me of brant goth t.v. don't forget to use the hash tag the day and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see you then everybody. the boy scout with the world economic forum 2019 on sustainable development from new york how do we create a market people want our answer to that question would be to involve people in the climate christmas market pinball the young people take our 8 years as crazy as they might be t.w. presents a. high profile panel discussion hosted by seroquel a. limited double. gemini with demi at any time any place. in the n.f.l. as you have to look like a little scrap. to sing along to see this to come from super funds. for. interactive exercises and. everything is online. and interactive benjamin for free 50 w. . to play a meal and i'm game for the brand new w from the bottom it's called it's personal

the supreme court said yes, we'll take it. and then the solicitor general at the time who had been dean of the law school i first attended, he asked to have a meeting with the top military people and said this case has lost potential for the government. you should waive catherine instructs discharge and then change the rules prospectively so that nancy is no longer an automatic discharge. [applause] and the air force did and immediately the government moved to have the case returned to the court of appeals and the determination was moved, no longer a alive, she remained an air force officer. so i called captain struck and said is there anything you're missing so that we can claim this case is stillmialive . she said i have all my pay and allowances so nothing there, but there is one thing . and this conversation is going on now in 1972. she said all my life, i've dreamed of becoming apilot . but the air force doesn't give flight training to women. and then we laughed because we knew in 1972 it was much too early . it was still

speaker, it wasn't the supreme court verdict, it was the judgment of the supreme court. and perhaps the prime minister might start to show some respect for the judiciary. you know, we're here today because the prime minister was utterly humiliated by the supreme court, by a count of 11-0. and you might have thought that diatribe that we had, that we might have had some humility, that we might have been able to acknowledge that what we've had is the unlawful shutting down of parliament. mr. speaker, this is the hardest word for the prime minister. it was said by a former prime minister, when low ends, tirrany begins. he does in fact believe he is above the law. well, mr. speaker, he is not and thank heavens for the action that was brought in the courts in scotland and england and i want to pay tribute to my honorable friend. and thank goodness the courts have done their job and made sure that parliament is back where it should be, in this house. the ruling of the supreme court has made it absolutely crystal clear, the actions of this government, this prime minister led to

the supreme court hears 70 cases a year. that's it. that's where the lower courts disagreed strongly. there are 9 presidents in the last 40 years. and we are unanimous most of of the time. people say what about the 5-4 decisions. we have about a third our documents 5-4 decisions. people say i think i know what a 5-4 decision looks like. i say don't be so sure. we had 10 combinations of the 5-4 decisions last year. i am anything but cynical about it. shannon: a rare behind the seens look at the supreme court. that is amazing. you wanna see something amazing? go to hilton instead of a travel site and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. these'll work. the utter delight of free wi-fi... . oh man this is the best part. isn't that you? yeah. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. shannon: the

to the supreme court library. [laughter] in 93 and 94 to serve as a clerk as kennedy as reagan's third and final appointment to the high court. thirty years later would be the first clerk to serve alongside his former boss as a fellow supreme court justice. it is no secret what they wanted that legacy to be. it should interpret the law do not make it. that the principles of law are based on the constitution. it is a users manual for the interpretation of our constitution and if they stray too far from the constitutional principles. the title of his book is a republic if you can keep it. that phrase is how franklin was said to answer questions of how it was created at the constitutional convention he was trying to convey just how fragile our liberties are and how vigilant the citizens must be to preserve them. is never more than one generation away from extinction. and then to preserve the constitutional freedom for the next generation please welcome justice gorsuch. [applause] >> justice we are honored to have you

supreme court dr greg thank you very much thank you good night good night. all right the day is almost done the conversation continues online you'll find us on twitter either at u.w. news or you can follow me at brant goth t.v. don't forget to use the hash tag the day and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see you then everybody. has. a choice to go with the world economic forum 2019 on sustainable development from new york trust how do we create a market people want our answer to that question would be to involve people in the planning for those markets involve the young people take our 8 years as crazy as they might be t.w. presents a high profile panel discussion hosted by sarah kelly. coco to the euro max you tube channel. close to a gold mine of storage. with exclusive. the must see concerning culture. to be curious minds. do it yourself networkers. subscribing don't miss a. world unto itself. the finest musical compositions. don't do me that's you with the don't tell me that those he never wrote. and the jointe

parliament, the issue will now go to the supreme court next week. we did everything we could to prevent the prorogation of parliament, that is actually shutting down parliament, which is what the prime minister has done, in order to prevent questioning and debate right through to the middle of october. let's speak now with our political correspondent chris mason, who's in westminster i dare say number ten is glad it is friday tomorrow! where are we up to today? isn't it thursday tomorrow? you are right! just shows how long i have been on this brexit story, it is starting to take its toll.|j have been on this brexit story, it is starting to take its toll. i know it hasn't regard for their reporters to fact check presenters within the first five seconds but i was momentarily confused. it has been quite something for british politics. here we are with the courts involved. there have been many consequences of brexit for british politics, not least the expansion of our vocabulary. only la st expansion of our vocabulary. only last week did we learn the pr

court to ta ke team are asking the supreme court to take a team are asking the supreme court to takea a team are asking the supreme court to take a a few steps and the great leap. step one, this is thejustice point, whether the court being the supreme court, a court of law can go into a political territory, a political minefield as we just heard from lord keane, whether there's enough matter of law for the supreme court to be involved. if they say yes step two. step two is whether or not there is a legal orjudicial standard against which we can assess this advice, can we look into the past for principles or for cases that can guide us through whether or not this is lawful or unlawful? the principles that everyone reached out to were foundational principles, the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, the idea that, i think this was of neo— public point, that the government is subordinate to law and a nswera ble to government is subordinate to law and answerable to parliament, accountable to parliament. the other very important principle is the rule of law. no man, no government, no prime

supreme court dr greg thank you very much thank you good night good night. all right the day is almost done the conversation continues online to find us on twitter either at u.w. news or you can follow me at brant goth t.v. don't forget to use the hash tag the day and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see you then everybody. a choice telling the world economic forum 2019 on sustainable development from new york try this how do we create a market for people who want our answer to that question would be to involve people in the classrooms for involved the young people take our ages as crazy as they might be d.w. presents a high profile panel discussion hosted by sarah kelly next to. her small acts can inspire the change of. people making it possible eco africa. fantastic right trying that as they set out to safety environment. and learn from one another. and work together for a better future. in 60 minutes. 2 it's. the finest musical compositions. to do me that she was going to do don't do me that there's. so. you kno

uk's supreme court in london. it will give a definitive ruling on whether the prime minister acted unlawfully. not sure what we'd do today without the bbc‘s legal correspondent, clive coleman. here he is. it's incredible, isn't it? you could scarcely have two more contradictoryjudgements. the scottish one finding that the prime minister acted unlawfully, because his purpose improper purpose was to stymie parliament. the judgement from the high court in london finding that, look, advice given by the prime minister to the queen isn't a legal matter at all. it's a political matter. you cannot judge it in a court of law. now those two contraryjudgements are now hurtling towards this place, the uk supreme court, the highest court in the land, and in a hearing beginning next tuesday, the contradiction between the two of them, will be resolved. and we will get a definitive ruling as to whether the prime minister was acting unlawfully, or not. and that will determine whether mps and parliament sit in the lead up to the

court, the supreme court justices, all 11 here at the supreme court, the supreme courtjustices, all 11 of them, have ruled the prime minister acted unlawfully when he suspended parliament. parliament, we have heard from the speaker, will resume sitting tomorrow morning. from 11:30am, uk time. i think we can show you the scene there and parliament now. the speaker said the decision from the judges, the justices had been unambiguous. and from tomorrow morning at 1130 mp5 can get back to business. parliament will reopen. you have been watching special cold fridge, goodbye to viewers on bbc one. —— coverage. many issues to consider. not least what happens to the prime minister, what happens to the prime minister, what is his reaction. we can go to new york and join james what is his reaction. we can go to new york and joinjames landale, diplomatic correspondent. james, i suppose mrjohnson, i understand it was 5:30am your time. we are in the city of borisjohnson's both, he finds himself with his team closeted together, working out what reaction together, working out what reaction to get