executive actions are virtually the same thing. they want the court to weigh in. to a they said the issue of the third version does not render the case moot because it extends rather than eliminates the challenged conduct at issue. they want the court to lump these orders together and relived unconstitutional. bret: it did involve. there is the stipulation that if the countries meet the visa requirements of the country, they could get off the list. but what happens now question or speak of the justices are in the full term. they are hearing and arguing other cases. but these briefs are not very substantive. they are short, relative to everything else. they do act quickly in most cases. i would expect it to happen quickly. there is an lot of stakes for the administration if the justices decide to hear the cas case. having a ruling coming from the supreme court, including a supreme court that has a conservative majority would be huge blow to the trump
we went through this. matt, a lot of people said that they did or a member he was being held. that was the policy of the lesser administration, stay quiet. that didn t work. kennedy: the family is feeling that strategic patience is deadly. they were used as political bargaining chips. we see that that is not the cas case. we need and only proof of life, we need proof of health. it is very understandable, the anger in the sense of injustice. it doesn t matter what parity your in, this is an american, this is a kid. no one deserves the treatment that he has undergone, god rest his soul. i agree with senator mccain when he says that he was murdered. melissa: general jack keane saying earlier today that this is going to come to a very strong action, that the u.s. must stand very strong on this
go back in and try. whatever you need to do, go and discuss, but come back with a verdict. heather: they have only been deliberating for 4 days, does that surprise you? it s not because it is a difficult case. you have a victim who comes off very credible and there is some corroboration. there are some inconsistencies with the victim s account, that s normal on a sexual harassment or sexual abuse case because they re so much fear involved, but juries have a tough time with that sometimes. heather: would have the jury comes back a second time and says that we are still deadlocked, we can t reach a conclusion decision? the judge can then again send them back and say we are deadlocked, we have a mistrial. it depends on how long they take this time. they take another two days and say we can t come up with a verdict. he may just let that be the cas case. if there s a mistrial, then there could be a whole new trial and that might be right away or
want. what questions are appropriate? a very few a matter is pending. while we know it s pending, is it appropriate for you to tell us whether it s resourced for instance, other agents assigned to this or has been put in some at his bottom drawer? who s working on it, that sort of thing. other benchmarks in cases where the department approvals are required or the involvement of certain officials are required to see if those are taken? am not sure i follow the question. hypothetically, it s a rico investigation. if none of those have ever been invoked or implicated, that would send a signal that may be not much effort has been dedicated to it, would that be a legitimate question to ask? again, you have to know that it s a rico investigation, but assuming we know that s the cas
as an evenhanded observer, he was protecting the law? siding with the less powerful side than the powerful corporate entity? tucker: he did side with the less powerful person. the greens as you know are reviled by most people. if you were to do a poll saying are you sympathetic to hobby lobby or the federal government? i bet it would be 90/10, there s no more unfashionable person than the plaintiffs in this cas case. who has the power to fire him who? if you think the employers and ceos are the less powerful people in a comparison with the people who work for them, and i ve got news for you they are not as tucker: i don t think that.