From new york. Today on the program, the knesset votes to take away a key power of the Supreme Court. And as Benjamin Netanyahu urges calm, the nations Political Center and left erupt in anger. Ill talk to the New York Times tom friedman and with Emily Bazelon about the legal issues. Then, the secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on the good news and the bad news from americas Southern Border. Finally, did President Putin or gain power after prigozhins failed mutiny . Ill ask russian journalist in exile mikhail zygar. But first, here is my take. The Mystery Disappearance of chinas Foreign Minister is a timely reminder that the future of u. S. China relations about be determined not just by american policy, and what is happening domestically in the United States, such as the president ial election campaign, it will also be shaped by developments in china. Which at this point are opaque but troubling. From what outsiders could tell, china is reverting to a mild era style of
1780s and then in the famous case you re talking about, mar berry versus madison, that is 1803 when the supreme court said we have the power to say what the law is, to say what the constitution means. for a long time, the united states was kind of an outlier. lots of countries did not have judicial review. but then, you know, starting in the 60s and 70s, partly relating to the fall of communism, for a lot of different reasons around the world, countries start to write constitutions in which judicial review, the power of courts, becomes very important. and so israel kind of joins with that transformation and constitutional revolution in the 1990s when the israeli supreme court declared that the basic laws were like a constitution and that it, the supreme court, had the power to interpret those laws. and what netanyahu s government is trying to do by curbing the power of the
what we are seeing from these judges beginning with wendy vitter last year and other nominees, including the deputy attorney general who was just confirmed yesterday, is a decision to refuse to endorse brown, which used to lie at the center of the cannon, within the legal profession. we should take note there s a concerted effort to move brown to the margins. to what end? are these judges that do not believe the doctrine of separate but equal is invalid? are these judges who one day might take a chance of overturning this landmark ruling? that s why you ask the question because you really want to understand what do they think. is that what they think? chief justice roberts felt comfortable talking about brown, he said, because he put brown in that category of cases like mar berry versus madison, the 1803 decision that established
something new has happened, and what we are seeing from these judges beginning with wendy vitter last year and other nominees, including the deputy attorney general who was just confirmed yesterday, is a decision to refuse to endorse brown, which used to lie at the center of the cannon, the center of the condescension within the legal profession. we should take note there s a concerted effort to move brown to the margins. to what end? are these judges that do not believe the doctrine of separate but equal is invalid? are these judges who one day might take a chance of overturning this landmark ruling? that s why you ask the question because you really want to understand what do they think. is that what they think? chief justice roberts felt comfortable talking about brown, he said, because he put brown in that category of cases like mar berry versus madison, the 1803
think. is that what they think? chief justice roberts felt comfortable talking about brown, he said, because he put brown in that category of cases like mar berry versus madison, the 1803 decision that established judicial review. he put it in that category that they were unlikely to ever return to the supreme court. so that s what chief justice roberts thought in 2005. are there now members of the legal profession who believe that brown, the question of whether state sanctioned apartheid is constitutional or not? an issue that name return to the supreme court somewhat possible reason could one have not to answer the question? it sends a signal, there s some signaling happening that everything is on the table. and it s important for people to remember that brown wasn t just about school deseg graduation. what brown symbolizes, i think, for many people, particularly on the far right is kind of an entire project that transformed our democracy. it s a project that opened the