Fighting broke out between the 2 countries a month ago there is a growing anger against frances president emanuel might call with new protests in bangladesh. Iran this after my home vowed to crack down on what he calls radical islam turkeys president has accused my call of a having an untimely agenda. Is in istanbul with more on the turkish president s reaction. You frame that incident as xenophobic and islamophobia in terms of the now for became basically means because he an uncle or there is a belief that besides islam or for bia to call for what they call is on the rise and hmong to European Countries he tried to differentiate between the european people and the nationalists leaders whom he means actually french president microloan. Netherlands politicians and he actually accused them for being fascists and races u. S. President ial candidates making their final push to win over voters just a few moments ago joe biden cast his ballot in his home state of delaware the final stretch of campaigning is focusing on the key battleground states nearly 70000000 americans have already voted the chief executives of Facebook Google and twitter are being questioned by u. S. Senators about how they moderate content the Senate Committee is looking at whether to reform laws that protect Tech Companies from being held liable for users post the tech executives argue those protections are needed. More news as always on our website at aljazeera dot com ill be back with the aljazeera news hour in under 30 minutes time coming up next here inside story i hope you do stay with us thanks so much. How far to the right is the u. S. Supreme court shifting you pointed conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett has declared herself a constitutional originals but what does that mean and how could her arrival influence the decisions of americas highest court for a generation this is it. Hello welcome to the program on iran come on she defines herself as an originalist meaning that the u. S. Constitution should be interpreted as intended by its authors centuries ago her critics fit she wont be moving with the times on religious rights the Climate Crisis Health Care Abortion and to name a few the Senate Confirmation of amy coney baratz as u. S. Supreme Court Justice gives a 6 to 3 conservative majority over them more liberal colleagues and that raises concerns over how her philosophy could shape the rulings of americas highest court for decades to come a White House Correspondent kimberly help that explains will. With the swearing in of Amy Coney Barrett right here at the white house to the highest court in the United States the Supreme Court the makeup the ideological makeup of 8 that court has now shifted decidedly to the right on the political spectrum in other words conservative in potential rulings that may unfold in the area of abortion rights religious freedom and Even Health Care in fact almost immediately after the u. S. Election on november 3rd there is going to be at test to see just how conservative this new court is with the ruling thats expected on november 10th regarding the Affordable Care act and the ruling could have a major impact on health care in this country but there are other issues that this court could also have an effect on and that is in the area of environmental ism if there are regulations that are seen as burdensome this could be something that could concern environmental activists and also when it comes to Corporate America and even also over National Security that could have a big impact when it comes to immigration policies so these are all areas that are being watched very carefully now that this court has a change in its ideological perspective now there is a way that this may be countered and that has a lot to do with the outcome of the 2020 u. S. Election if joe biden wins he is getting a lot of pressure particularly from progressives or further left democrats who believe that there is a legislative mechanism in order to try and pass the court what does that mean that means expanding the number of justices for 9 potentially 1112 and then allowing a democratic president to make those appointments altering the balance the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. Lets bring in our guests in Fairfax Virginia tom gypping is a senior legal fellow at they Heritage Foundation he served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee under senator orrin hatch from the california Harry Letterman is a Legal Affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times newspaper hes also a former u. S. Attorney and previously served as a law clerk to supreme Court Justices Thurgood Marshall and Anthony Kennedy and in new york is Vincent Warren hes a civil rights attorney and executive director at the center of Constitutional Rights i welcome to each one of you lets begin in Fairfax Virginia woods home gypping 1st it seems an anathema to the rest of the world that the highest court in the us has appointees that have a political opinion a political slant. For most of the rest of the world when they think of u. S. Justice they think of u. S. Justice as being blunt but thats really not the case as it well i just really introduction to this conversation i wrote down 5 words that were said that i think are misleading going about how the courts in the United States operate those words are policy. What the framers intended the conservative idiom logical and to the right those are all political terms and i think thats the wrong way to evaluate what courts do and the decisions that judges render even the decision or the case involving the america the Affordable Care act. The decision will not be announced november 10th that will only be the oral argument and i think most people believe that the outcome of the legal issues that this report will not strike down obamacare but whats important is that. Judges approach issues similar issues sometimes as legislators are politicians do but they do so very differently and of the its neagle issues that are before the Supreme Court not policy issues and not political issues they do have consequences certainly but judging is about the process of interpretating and applying the law in each case and so so therefore with regard to Justice Barrett the approach that she has said she finds most compelling whats often referred to as original in some is an approach that seeks to minimize the extra hermel political and ideological all and all of those pressures as to the meaning of the constitution but judges dont just interpret they also apply and its the application of a constitution that doesnt change in its meaning to new uncertain new cases that that means that our constitution is just as adaptive as any other but well lets lets bring in lets bring in james and lauren any oh ok what were hearing from home shifting is effectively theres nothing to worry about yes she may have this ideology of originalism but actually thats the benefit of the constitution. I disagree i think that theres a lot to worry about i think both with judge justice now Justice Barretts approach and i think the approach of originalism look heres the challenge is that. You know my colleague was saying that theres a lot of politics that are embedded in the way that the show described judicial function ng and that judicial functioning is really about the law the problem is that the law does not has not and will never exist outside of the political realm in which those laws have to be decided or evaluated its in 789. 00 when the u. S. Constitution was passed that is true and it is still true for 2021st it is important and i think its actually quite significant to look at the question of judge just disparate barrett and the originalism because in effect the originalist approach is essentially freezing the legal analysis and perhaps the factual analysis to 789. 00 when the constitution is passed ignoring and not paying attention to how this society our values our norms yes our policies have evolved since then and the troubling effect and its almost a necessary effect is that if youre freezing your analysis in 789 the farther in 4 way that you get from 789 the more intention of the law is going to be with the way that people actually live their lives and i think thats what were going to see with Justice Barrett particularly around the Affordable Care act particularly around environmental is and you know this report out that says that 7076 percent of the time she has ruled in favor of corporations and not with respect to people and you know it one thing i wanted to add is that thats not just a concern to environmental activists thats a concern to everybody its very much like the coronavirus d situations that have. A little issue with the facts and environmentalism and Global Warming is a fact and we really should be thinking about judges that help introduce that belonged to be able to help us get to a safer place rather then pretending that it doesnt exist Harry Lippman its interesting because vince and warren brings up something is talking about the environment i was watching a film on tuesday night about the early life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was called the on the basis of sex and in that one of the characters a judge says to a class of people law should not worry about the weather of the day but it should worry about the climate of the era now were talking about a judge who is going to bring in a more conservative climate and this is something that she can do because its a lifetime appointment she is enough to worry about politics so therefore she can do and nail her colors so the most. And its not just her i mean the issue here is she is joined at least 4 other extreme conservatives and the and the 6 the chief justice is known as relatively conservative himself look theres no doubt that that over the last few years the president along with the senate has had a concerted effort to put into play justices who are at the very very extreme of the legal spectrum if you had 100 people in a room all responsible respectable intellectually you know people with integrity the problem is youve taken a slice of the people in only the right 5 percent they are out of step that means with the Legal Profession as a whole and also of course with the results for the American People when the court has been in that position before its been bad for the court and its also the case now that theyre with 5 they have a monolithic majority and they dont have to interact and reason with people on the other side as theyve done before so its not her its her joining 4 others. Who are really very much on one extreme edge of american legal culture and that is as you say portend a series of decisions in a series of areas that will be on response of not the best strongest view of the law and for decades to come all kinds of issues we cant even anticipate sitting here now having a good guess in and in new york you still think theres nothing to worry about. Well i i didnt say there was nothing to worry about but what i would take issue with 2 things number one what was described as originalism is not original its. A she describes herself as the no no barrier is original d words in her mouth she says no she defines originalism properly which is that the constitution or statutes for that matter that they need in what the authors intended them to me she seeks for original meaning the idea that it freezes anything other than what the constitution means i dont know what you call that but its not a regionalism thats why i said at the top. Went when original meaning can be applied to cases that you know involve changing facts and adapt to all kind of talking to him when you use why are constant use words like originalism when you use words like looking at the constitution the way the framers intended the language in part of the constitution of very clear lets just take one example it cools for the constitution the us calls for a 0 me and the navy it doesnt call for an air force so therefore if youre an urgent best. The f. O. C. Is unconstitutional and original and original its just not a literalist the point is when when you and i in our daily lives interpret something that someone else wrote what were trying to determine is what they meant by what they wrote so if the question is whether the the framers of the constitution who put our army and navy in the constitution meant literally only army and navy and nothing else that would be a literalist approach that senator originalist approach its a constitution its not a a set of regulations and its not even a statute if you ask the members of congress and i work in congress and the senate for 15 years you ask members of congress whether they just simply put words on a page dont mean anything or whether judges have the power to tell them what their statutes mean they would they would look at you like youre crazy because the law maker whether thats Congress Passing a statute or the process for ratifying the constitution is the same those who have authority to make a lot dont just put words on a page they determine what those words mean judges dont have authority to change the meaning of the law but its their job to apply that meaning to new and changing circumstances case by case and thats exactly what they do were rights like conservative and liberal are political terms you could describe the result of that so i say lets put that to mean something or even if the political and political servant is a liberal are the wrong terms well lets let me put that some more lets get lets get a response from been some more and i mean these are political terms you shouldnt be using them the llosa be applied equally. But there really is as i was going back there is no such thing as low without politics i do think now that they are several and i really do think that what were talking about is this distinction without a difference because every judge every lawyer when theyre looking at statutory or constitutional interpretation if interpret it precisely the way that it was just outlined and thats not what makes it dangerous what makes it dangerous is that when you take the literal meaning where the actual meaning of what the framers minutes it can end will often lead you to a different conclusion as to what that meaning means for us today can you get there from here if they didnt mean it then you dont get it and thats the challenge that we have been so you know the original thats thats not any thats not regionalism theres no journalist the any you can just you can state what they intend it was the constitution gives you no discipline that you know apply and steps than let me bring in having that many harry youre in california you write about this stuff on the on a day and i thought so i have a couple points to note go yeah i you know i have a middle ground here 1st i agree that originalism is not the same as freezing things just disparate in fact testified that the constitution states principles and the job of the court is tell ply those principles to current day affair so i think in that sense it is a Different Task and i and its not that that is problematic on the other hand on this a liberal conservative point its true that judges do Something Different from legislators on the other hand its true undeniable that republican president s and in particular President Trump and present the president s who have appointed the 5 people who now have a hammer a lock on the majority self consciously try to put i think what they would say are the my. Most conservative judicially conservative we could have a go about the terms but the fact that theyre all from a very narrow stratum that is not representative of either the American People or the Legal Profession as a whole is whats the deep problem going Going Forward tom tipping military action well im not sure where the standard comes from that a 9 member court must represent an entire country or somehow be reflected on today that its this a painful out of the United States at it should represent the people or be representative of the Legal Profession at a particular time i dont know where that idea comes from because there are a lot of jewish efferent from politicians but theyre also your for lawyers so this is this is about the process hotel on the do to settle on that because theyre not you make a very nice weekend here and i just want you to have had to undergo stalky that say youll saying why the 9 the 9 Supreme Court judges do not represent the American People and dont have to that we assign them saying that at any root of 9 people cannot represent a country of 330000000 people in any but the most general way and the and the courts the Supreme Court in particular they are not a Representative Institution got to other branches for that the courts are supposed to follow the law not the particular a political winds of the day and originalism is about limiting the you sort of. Discretion and the personal ability of judges to impose upon the law thank you for clarifying tom i know that we already have one no one to get to have is going to give everybody a fair whack some more and i see you say he had what would burn if you go to sites in response to tell him. Well i think that i mean i actually agree that it is unfair to ask 9 people to represent the entire country and it is not a representative body except for the fact of the process of judicial appointments the way that we very typically think and litigators very typically think about federal judges is by trying to figure out which president appointed them and to perhaps glean from that point meant which way they might be leaning and if you do enough of the practice you begin to see that this is not actually a black box with the facts that were in it and then the case comes out in a in a way that is unpredictable in fact its its very often predictable based upon the conservative or liberal nature of the president were quoted them but i would also say that the while the 9 people cant be held to represent an entire 330000000 1st in country there are its very rare that 9 people get to affect the lives of 300 people and at some level we have to be thinking about that question of accountability to the people rather than having people accountability accountable to the political whims of the president s that put people in place this particular president has made very clear what his political goal is in appointing Justice Barrett and i think that does a disservice frankly to the process and to Justice Barrett because it properly and rightly raises these questions that mentioned im sorry im just going to come in here because i do want to get to everybody else as well we are running out of time Harry Lippman one of the reasons judges can be independent is because they have lifetime terms however that also means that they can be belligerent and their own political position is i dont have to worry about losing their jobs is it time for reform when it comes to that particular lifetime guarantee of a job or is there more to do the more that the Supreme Court needs to be reformed. Right you know that aspect of it the independence. People think of reforming it just because these battles have become so bloody and political and i do want to clarify that when when i talk about a Representative Court its not representative in a political sense what is on representative about this court is these 5 people hold legal views that are very much in the extreme and most lawyers and judges would reject and when you have 5 of them making those final decisions you have a problem i dont think life tenure is now necessary to get rid of on the other hand this socalled Court Packing idea you know whats happened here over the last 4 years has a knack of rank hypocrisy from the republicans who prevented. President obamas choice from Going Forward saying the next president had to decide and then complete reversal of form completely on principle and rammed through just disparate that is the packing thats already occurred they artificially low word of the numbers of the court and then raised it to 9 its been such an extreme and embittering set of political raw maneuvers on their part that you will in fact have very strong sentiment on the part of the democrats should they take the senate for expanding the court just to do the same bring in to him did he said you want to hear from him. Connell sorry harry but i just want to bring in tom gypping cool packing should not be made illegal should we send cool packing packing lets clarify what Court Packing is filling vacancies come along gates today is not Court Packing thats what the president s job is thats what the senates job as we could spend another show talking about the differences between 2016. 2020 Court Packing is changing the institution of the Supreme Court by adding positions and then selling them if the solution is to increase the number of justices i guess that means the problem is the current number thats not the problem that the Supreme Court said 9 member since 869 they decide half the cases they did 25 years ago that the number of justices isnt the problem nor was there anything illegitimate about how either scully a vacancy in 2016 or the or the against her vacancy in 2020 were him going to be with you at night i realize i realize that one that i remember i dont like the result but the but the solution is not to change let me mention anything even some are harrowing out of time and i did ask you both the same question i would like to ask the same question to vincent as well packing lifetime 10 years is it time for Supreme Court reform lifetime tenure i think is fine and i think it is not the problem of a different take on the court crafted situation is that this is a situation in which that the court has been sort of inundated with a range of bush that with this presidency particularly with a range of very right wing conservative judges who i think will swing the country in the legal analysis to the right in a very destructive way for generations to come that hass we have 2 choices either we live with it or and say you know thats the way the cookie crumbles or that we have to think more proactively about a way to rebalance the way that this court adjudicates issues that affect our lives and i dont think that any reasonable person objective person would think that having a far right leaning federal judiciary just because you had a republican senator Republican Senate and a republican president that its spewed out. Federal court judges like they were handing out candy you know when to get it no one reasonably could think that that would be good for the polity and for justice moving forward over the next 50 years and there needs to be some attention i want to thank everybody for a very spirited devote their time to paying Harry Lippman an unsworn and thank you to you for watching you can see the program again any time by visiting our website which is there at dot com and for further discussion go to our Facebook Page thats facebook dot com forward slash asia inside story and you can also join the conversation on twitter our handle is at a. J. Inside story for me imran khan and the whole team here. Lucas 2 after vos a soviet era to move manufacturing. With a decades old book is being torn up and recruited by an outsider. And the fusion of western style management and socialist worker values appeared destined for a car crash. The russian. Witnessed documentary on aljazeera one of americas worst coronavirus outbreaks in a prison happened in california after infected inmates were transferred from one facility to another no ventilation when those are welded shut tell everyone is breathing the same air all of the time every day for a week straight then the knees alarms its called man down man down man down man down all day all night for kleins office who is responsible. Demick in prison some quentin outbreak on a jersey you know its the u. K. s biggest hospital with eventual capacity for 4000 covered 19 patients built inside a London Conference Center it took just 9 days to construct with the help of engine is dramatically expanding the Critical Care bed count and other similar sites on the way the actual numbers could be much higher than advertised researches say that huge gaps in Testing Capacity that the government is now trying to close extrapolate that across the country and the spread of coronavirus appears far wider than anyone thought. I am. This is a news hour on aljazeera for the bad people in doha coming up in the next 60 minutes gemini imposes a tough new lockdown to prevent a National Corner virus emergency france is expected to follow suit in just under an hour. Azerbaijan accuses armenia of killing at least 21 civilians near the disputed region of not gotten okada by also this hour more protests against the french president s comments on islam as turkeys leader threatens to sue the magazine charlie. And a tense wait for results in tanzania after an election mobbed by violence and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.