of those people that this board of commissioners is speaking to and for, i feel sort of disenfranchised in a way. reporter: on friday the fourth circuit u.s. court of appeals ruled 10-5 against the prayers, giving the majority opinion judge j. harvey wilkinson wrote:, reporter: now, the judge writing for the dissenting opinion, said: reporter: now, with the ongoing lawsuit, the county commissioners instead have a chaplain open meeting with a prayer. the county is still deciding if it will appeal to the u.s. supreme court. now, the high court has allowed such prayers in limited
on early this next week is the report from the congressional budget office which will include how much the revised plan is expected to cost, how much is expected to save, and what its impact will be on insurance premiums that each of us pay every month. so that s something that senators could push them one way or the other. eric: we will see what those numbers are. they were 32 million. then 22 million. then 23 million. we will be asking john faso republican of up state new york who is an expert on medicaid about that in just about 6 minutes or so from now. garrett, thank you. you got it. arthel: meanwhile, the supreme court justices may have a lot on their plates this summer. soon they will review a ruling from a federal judge in hawaii that would allow more refugees into the u.s. now, this after the justice department filed a request to block that ruling. both sides must respond to the court by noon on tuesday. ellison barber has those details. the trump administration is
informal in the sense that the chief justice will be sitting in wingback chairs, in dark suits, before an audience, being televised on c-span. [laughter] it is my distinct pleasure to introduce the chief justice of the united states, the hon. john roberts jr. and the hon. j. harvey wilkinson. [applause] perfect. good morning. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for getting up so early today. i am delighted to be here. one of the great privileges of being the chief justice is that you get to be the circuit justice for the fourth circuit, a tradition going back to john marshall. the role of the circuit justice has changed dramatically since his time. circuit justice is no longer have to ride circuits, that arduous process began in the reign of king henry ii. it came over to the colonies with the english system. over here, riding the circuit was much more arduous given the greater distances. the system fell into disuse after the act of 1891, which set up the
in another, you claimed that if you look across the entire brunt of the cases that you see a fairly consistent pattern where respect for precedent goes by the wayside when it gets in the way ever a result. but they obviously have a problem with you obviously have a problem with their decisions. these to the presidency would be asked to apply. you have not been bashful in expressing your series of serious opposition. you re telling us that not withstanding that they are utterly lacking legal principle, he would have to apply the he would have to apply the principle you would have to apply that principle. senator, the reason that i perhaps said those words is that the opinion itself stated that it was only to apply in that case. i am not sure i would apply that because it instructed in its terms that is a distinction with a difference. utterly lacking in legal principle is different than it would not apply to a future case. are you saying the court had no legal prin
difference between a theoretical law professor and a and the day after day duty of enforcing contracts and disputes and ruling on rules of evidence. with regard to the death penalty, you have written some about that. let me just ask you, do you personally favorite? i would say that this would not impact my view of how you would conduct your office. i think that good judges can differ on whether they believe in the death penalty or not. the critical thing is if you will follow the law. it. . do you favor the death penalty? senator, i have not oppositions to the death penalty. i have never written anything questioning its morality or constitutionality. i would have no problem following the law as written. in talking about a report on a panel you moderated called civil rights in the roberts court era as a part every framing the dialogue on race, you made some comments about it. you talked about changes in state courts and said in the part of that movement are changes in th