it is the same thing, according to neil gorsuch.st like the city or the county can say, hey, you can't cap outside ticketmaster just because you really want to see pearl jam, they can use that same law to take homeless people who have no place else to go and send them to jail as well stop neil gorsuch found no difference between that. it is a cruel decision. i would go so far to say it is an evil decision. there something broken was up there something broken with people who look at people have no place else to go, look at people sleeping on the streets, get people sleeping in their cars because they have no homes and say, know what? get that person in a jail cell, that is where they belong. there something broken about people who do that. unfortunately, six of those broken people control the supreme court for the rest of my natural life. amy: before we go, can you lay out what is at stake in today's highly anticipated ruling on former president donald trump's bid for immunity for trying to subvert the 2020 election and stay in power

neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. they're great people. they're courageous people. we've also achieved what the pro-life movement fought to get for 50 years. they've wanted to get this for 50 years. they've been working so hard, getting abortion out of the federal government. they wanted it out. that means everybody democrats, liberals, republicans, conservatives, they wanted it out, and they wanted to bring it back to the states for 51 years, to be exact. and that's the way everybody, all legal scholars, virtually everybody, they wanted it out of the federal government brought back to the states. and now it's up to the will of the people in each state. it's up to the voters. they're doing it. and some some states will be more conservative in what they vote for, and other states will be more liberal. i mean, ohio, we love ohio, but they voted quite a liberal law. kansas, same thing, very liberal. then you'll have a texas and you'll have other places. but it's now being voted on all over. the people will decide. and that's the way they alwa

i suggest you take that up with trump-appointed justice neil gorsuch because he wrote that definition. i'd like to include a letter from the american library association, the national education association and the consortium for those with disabilities. these three letters are in opposition to house resolution 165. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. burchett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burchett: thank you, madam speaker. and mr. burchett: thank you for your friendship and leadership. you're a cool lady. the civil rights act was to protect women from sports and can you imagine drawing the short stick allowing men to compete in sports and take trophies from young ladies and their careers away from hard-working female athletes. the most famous time when this happened is riley gaines tied with a man in her swim meet, i say "man" in very lower case letters, but sh

neil gorsuch scott bret cavanaugh and amy cody barrett.court back on the campaign trail in st. cloud, minnesota on saturday former president trump raised all the conservatives on the court on abortion for overturning roe v. wade. >> mr. trump: you have to remember that we have to get elected and i want to thank the six supreme court justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, john roberts, bret cavanaugh, neil gorsuch and amy cody barrett for the wisdom encouraged the shoulder on this long-term, very contentious issue. >> summer publicans have chuckled at the suggestion of term limits for supreme court justices is rich coming from resident biden, was spent more than 50 years in national politics here macniel? >> neil: it's a very good point, mike emanuel. thank you very much on that. onto -- hill editor-in-chief a lot to talk to you about and i do want to get to the campaign but this is actually interwoven with a campaign, isn't it? >> it is, neil, and this is definitely firing up the liberal base. and as you discussed is not going anywhere o

a decision so big and so significant, justice neil gorsuch said during arguments they would be, quote, writing a rule for the ages, as i managed up top. what will the justices decide and what will it mean for the criminal case in overturning the 2020 election results. i'm joined by msnbc legal xant lisa rubin, former fbi general counsel andrew weissmann, former u.s. attorney and senior u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg. also with us, forming acting solicitor general neal katyal. first let's go to nbc's yamiche alcindor outside the supreme court. yamiche, lay it all out for us. >> reporter: this is sure to be a consequential day at the supreme court where judges are set to decide on the trump immunity case. all of this is connected to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election with special counsel jack smith saying he broke the law when he was trying to get people to do things like, get fake electors and trying to get the justice department to take actions that would allow him to hold on to power in the 2020 election. there are big questions before the supreme court. there are four cases al

gorsuch.promises in november young people can buy a home again. role tape. >> what do you say to young people, i'm going to give up on buying a house? >> vote for trump. interest rates coming down, you will be able to buy a home again. stuart: how is he going to do that? how do you bring interest rates down? presumably you've got to bring house prices down as well. we will be in touch with our real estate guy. ♪ ♪ meet the jennifers. jen x. jen y. and jen z. each planning their future through the chase mobile app. jen x is planning a summer in portugal with some help from j.p. morgan wealth plan. let's go whiskers. jen y is working with a banker to budget for her birthday. you only turn 30 once. and jen z? her credit's golden. hello new apartment. three jens getting ahead with chase. solutions that grow with you. one bank for now. for later. for life. chase. make more of what's yours. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ jardiance! -it's a little pill with a ♪ ♪ big story to tel

neil gorsuch got to see that president obama merricksu garlad to the chief judge of the d.c. circuit court of appeals and arguably and is politically one of therg most qualified ever toe none to the supreme court but be death of justice antonin scalia in february of 2016. president obama nominated merrick garland to fill the vacancy on march 162016. senator mitch mcconnell and his wisdom said there would be no hearings or votes because nine months before the new presidential term was to close and the people should decide with only nine months to go. of course the people have decided on president obama who was selected in one of those in genuine bona fide constitutional four-year terms as president of the estates mcconnell successfully blocked any hearing into his nomination of merrick garland in any consideration of the nomination. this he remained vacant when president obama left office and then went trump got in he immediately brought in neil gorsuch a right-wing conservative and this demonstrates how and may care the right-wing has gotten about running roughshod over all p

and when president trump, in his first week or two, nominated neil gorsuch to the court, i looked into my heart and i said, look, you know, he's not the person i would recommend by any stretch. you know, he's not going vote on things that i would. but if i apply the yardstick of is this person qualified, that person was qualified to be on the supreme court much as i disagree. but trump won the election. and so that's why i supported his confirmation again. and that was, i thought, an era in which we still maybe had a hope of bipartisanship in these nominations. i was strive ing and praying that it would be that way. it hasn't obviously turned out that way. and and i think the nomination process is broken. and and it's unfortunately impacting the work of the court. we have a question from our friend lindsay chervinsky of the has to adhere to an ethics code. i wonder if he'd like to see his colleagues on the supreme court adhere to similar standards who've i'm not going to touch that high on. i will say that let me just say let me just tell you what my rule is. well, first of all, it's n

gorsuch this won't be a ruling for the ages. it will come down to particular fact patterns. i think they'll remand it back to the district court and punt and say give us more fact. one fact can change the conclusion. this ruling for the ages, i get where he is coming from, but it will be very, very fact specific. >> dana: trey gowdy, you are always a good one to seen on a monday morning. we could see you in a little bit anyway, thank you. >> thank you. yes ma'am, take care. >> dana: fox news going inside an underground hospital in northern israel as the country braces for possible war with hezbollah. how officials there are preparing. >> bret: michigan governor gretchen whitmer pouring cold water on the president's plan to win michigan. details on that, plus this. >> we'll do what we have always done, fight for our freedoms. here is the thing, we cannot fight alone. we need to get our families, our friends, co-workers, cousins, auntees uncles. get them to register to vote. >> dana: what kamala harris said that has critics pounci

gorsuch giving this outrageous notion the blessing of this faction we stand on more from the rule ofin america and this court must be held accountable. i support every effort to hold it accountable to reform this court and to restore our democracy from the reckless decision of these men to try to destroy the rule of law while claiming they didn't. let me finally say this -- these justices, each of them -- john roberts and the others -- told congress when they were facing their confirmation hearing is that no one was above the law. and yesterday, for donald trump, they were willing to set aside that fundamental principle in american law in our constitution that no president is king and basically get president trump retrospectively king like powers and perhaps prospectively. this comes as trump has been calling for the political prosecution of his enemies and for being in essence a dictator on day one and many other days should he be elected president. this could not be a more dangerous and reckless decision by this faction of the supreme court that truly is out of control. amy: i want

gorsuch is a president could a president be prosecuted for waterboarding someone and he said no man is above the law. amy coney barrett said nobody is above the law not once, twice but three times and chief justice roberts said that no one is above the law under our system including the president. and that's quite the change of heart and while criticism of the ruling has rightly pointed out the absurd levels of power it gives the president but it puts into focus the excessive power in the hands of that institution, the courts itself. as we worry about america backsliding into authoritarianism under a second donald trump administration, it is important to understand the role the courts have played in other countries that have already started their backslide. in a new york times magazine piece last year, the question was raised of how much power the court should have and she named countries like poland, venezuela and turkey where they ruled in a weekend democracy and has diminished the judiciary but in this country we appear to have the opposite problem. she writes that it is conceiva

one of the oral arguments we got from justice neil gorsuch, he said, i'm not so much concerned abouto think about future cases and draw a line. i imagine they're going to engage in some line drawing and say something like the standard is whether a president is, as you say, engaged in official acts or acting outside the acts of the presidency. whether the president is acting in his role as president or in his role as candidate. and so wherever that line gets drawn, it seems likely that the court will say it has to go back to the lower court to look at this case and see whether these allegations are on the right or wrong side of that line. and that could take at least some weeks to get through that hearing, which would cause just enough delay, i think, to put us past the election before this case could proceed to trial. >> so remarkably after all four cases that donald trump faces, the only one likely that will go to trial was that new york case where he received that guilty verdict. the other three will not. first, your quick reaction to the fisher case, is sth a win for insur recolle

. >>> in 90 seconds, justice neil gorsuch said this would be a ruling for the ages. what impact will today's decision have on america's trust in the supreme court. in the supmere court (restaurant noise) allison! (restaurant noise) ♪♪ [announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky, gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so my tech and my network ne

gorsuch pointed out, i think the right to slow down and consider these problems one-on-one and take them as they come. ashley: very good, south carolina senator lindsey graham says the media is covering up for joe biden, listen to this. >> the idea that biden had a bad night, that is not the story, he's had a bad presidency, a disastrous debate, how could we get here. how could the american people see what they saw and not be forewarned, you have a compliant media who has written off the problems of president biden they tried to soft sell this as an attack by the right wing that is compromised and there is no clean fakes here, the man is compromised in the media has been covering in the policies administration are destroying the country. ashley: is the media partly to blame for biden's failed presidency ignoring what we all know the. >> absolutely this editor is exactly right, very few people would ask about the obvious that people are seeing all these incidents, the reason the debate was so bad, not only was it 90 minutes long and reached 51 million people watched, the sustained in

leo helped trump create list of supreme court text and all three of trump's eventual nominees, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett came from lists that leonard liao created. the majority of other nominees to the federal bench were current or former members of the federal society as well, but leonard leos influence goes beyond work in reshaping federal courts. you spent supporting project 2025, the blueprint for the next conservative administration and that is grenada by the heritage foundation which is a conservative think tank. last month in a press release announcing the formation of a task force to counter project 2025, the democratic congressman jeff -- jared huffman noted half the groups supporting the effort have received $21.5 million in funding from leonard leos dark money network. will trump recently claimed he knows nothing about project 2025, i'll have more on that in a few minutes, many past and present colleagues including leo are deeply involved in the effort. it is important to note project 2025 is not just about the draconian policies that conservatives want

william: justice neil gorsuch acknowledged that in this case, they would be writing "a rule for the ages that is absolutely true. this applies decades forward and a lot more power has now been given to the president of the united states and that will be that way for decades to come. amna: meanwhile, while we have you, there were other rulings that came out of the supreme court today, notably one that dealt with state laws governing social media companies and moderating content. how did the court handle those cases out of florida and texas? marcia: these two laws were really prompted by concerns that the social media platforms were censoring conservative thought. in the supreme court today did not get to the merits of the arguments. i guess you could say they punted. they decided that the lower courts did not apply the proper first amendment analysis so they sent to the cases back to the two federal circuit courts of appeals to do just that. amna: it has been a term of enormous consequence. thank you so much for helping us marcia: always a pleasure. william: thanks. ♪ amna: in the days ot

he trump's first supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch, was very clear when he was asked about the >> whenis above the law in our constitutional system, under our system of government executive branch is subject to the law, subject to the court system amy coney barrett, here she is would you agree first? a nobody is above the law caught the present? not you, not me. is that correct? >> i agree. no one radical law 20 me now is congressman jamie raskin from the great state of maryland. >> he was the lead house impeachment manager and trump's second impeachment trial. he also served on the house january 6th committee. congressman, you heard there those reactions from when the now justice says we're being confirmed. it's pretty stunning that just this past week pretty all of that has been turned on its head when most people hear that no one is above the law, we think that means that there is complete equity across the board in the country and how the law applies to us. >> but to these neo monarchists on the supreme court no one is above the law means that well everyone in the citizens, citizen

gorsuch, who helped the team clinch the bronze medal. it was an amazing performance that happened at the last rotation of the night. japan won gold, china won silver. >> triathlon training in the san river was canceled again at the paris olympics for a second straight day, due to poor water quality. recent bouts of rain are raising concerns over water safety. organizers remain hopeful that conditions will be clear for the men's triathlon set for tuesday, and the women's event scheduled for wednesday. paris has spent more than $1 billion ahead of the games to help clean up the scene, mostly by building up infrastructure to keep wastewater from flowing in and by making improvements to wastewater treatment plants. >> telecommunications lines in france have been hit by acts of vandalism affecting fixed and mobile phone lines, as well as fiber lines. now, the scale of this impact is unclear, nor is it clear whether any olympic activities have been affected, but this vandalism comes after arson attacks hit train networks in france friday morni

all the justices on the top row back, his immunity argument three of them read calvin neil gorsuch, and amy coney bearish were appointed by trump himself. the ruling deals a huge blow to the election subversion case against trump for the alleged crimes he committed while trying to reverse the 2020 election results. the case was not thrown out, but won't be going to trial anytime soon after the immunity decision. trump's boy, is wasted no time filing a letter to challenge his conviction and the new york hush money trial. it's supposed to be sentenced next week. or meantime, trump is hailing the latest supreme called ruling as a big win for the constitution and democracy. cnn's paula reid has the story presidents have to be given total immunity. they have to be allowed to do their job. the supreme court partially signing with former president donald trump in his ongoing january we six cakes ruling that former presidents are entitled to some immunity from prosecution for official actions, but not for private conduct. in the 6-3 opinion, chief justice john roberts, writing for the majority,

gorsuch didn't want to dismiss the case. they wanted to keep it and they wanted to rule for idaho. and it's very restrictive ban that gave liberals rare leverage. the liberal because as you know, sara have only three votes on this court, usually, and usually they cannot get their way for even some sort of compromise. but this time they did working with those three conservatives at the center they they ensured not only that the case would be dismissed, but that original january order would we lifted the justices at the center had resisted lifting that january order. they wanted idaho's ban to stay in effect even as the case played out in lower courts. but the liberals made sure that part of the compromise was that the idaho ban would not be enforced in emergency rooms right now in idaho, women don't have to be airlifted out for pregnancy complications. but sara, i tell you that this case will be back not just potentially from idaho, but other states are trying to ensure that biden administration policy to protect pregnancy co

supreme court justice neil gorsuch wrote an entire opinion where he confused laughing gas with another kind of gas no, judges are not better than technical experts at federal agencies who these justices think they are. do they really know biology and science and chemistry and all the things that experts need to know no, they do not. this was a power grab for the conservative supreme court. and we're going to fix that if we flip house, hold the senate, and we keep donald trump out of the white house bending the court. >> scott. >> thank you for your constituents in your district say, what have you heard? phone calls, your office? emails, personal conversations, people in san bernardino in redlands in those communities that you represent, what did you do? they want president biden to stay on? do they want somebody else? >> thanks. thanks for name checking their hometowns. always appreciate it look, i mean, i think i think by and large what you have heard me communicate is not only as a leadership member within the caucus, but is someone from those communities, from san bernardino county

gorsuch say, no, we don't want to dismiss this case. we want to rule for idaho here and reject the biden administration that gave the liberals on the court unusual leverage, as you know, there are only three liberals. they usually have like zero leverage no yes. and they said, okay, we will join two of them, justices sotomayor and elena kagan said, we will join your decision to dismiss this case, but only if you lift that january order that let the idaho law to take full effect because at first, those justices in the middle of the conservatives, they said no, we want to keep that ban in place, but through negotiations with the liberals, they then reached this reach this compromise over objections from samuel alito on the far right, and newest justice, ketanji brown jackson, who said, we don't want to dismiss this, we should have some clarity, but the truth is, jake, if they had actually decided the merits, the biden administration would probably have lost it outright. >> yeah. and just to just to remind people at home between a perfectl

gorsuch talked about the importance of right i didn't rule for the ages. jonathan, there's also the question of whether the justices then at least tried to apply that test to the four charges against former president trump, or whether they leave that for the lower courts for judge chutkan in the first instance, john, that's going to have a lot to say about how quickly things move after today's ruling, are we going to get guidance from the supreme court about the specific application of whatever it says to the case of former president trump. or they're just going to say, here's the test. you lower courts, you go deal with it, which of course is going to take even more time de tolson to that point how directly involved you expect this court really wants to get i think it's hard to tell i do think chief justice is looking at the overall landscape in some ways because just last week, the court found in favor of a january 6 defendant. a few months ago, the court found that the state of colorado couldn't keep former president trump off the ballot in enforcement

justices clarence thomas, samuel alito, and neil gorsuch said, we want to keep this case and we want to side with idaho for once in a rare moment liberals had some leverage here you're so the liberals join with those conservative the center to say, okay, we will dismiss this case. if you lift that order from january that let this law take effect. so it was quite a quite a lot of drama behind the scenes. and when they met in they're conference, everybody was so divided the conservative bloc that had let this law take effect, had splintered that chief justice john roberts couldn't even assign the case to anyone. they had to sort of work it out for dismissal wow. >> it's so interesting. amy coney barrett's role in this particular case. but i also wonder what it tells you. and as you watched her, since she joined the court, how her role has shifted over time? >> it has. and she has moved more and more to the left. she is definitely not regarded as a liberal brianna, i want to make sure our audience doesn't think we suddenly have a different kind of justice in play here. but over the year

gorsuch said, we don't need to dismiss this case.n favor of idaho's ban. they thought that the biden administration' s claims here were meritless so the suddenly the liberal justices who, as you know, have very little leverage on this court, suddenly had some leverage here. and they said we will vote two of them said we will vote to dismiss this case only if you dissolve that january order that let idaho's ban going completely into effect now, there is a little twist here and i know we have a chart about how the justices all finished out. justice ketanji brown, jackson, our newest member of the court. she said, okay, i agree that they should get rid of get rid of this january order that suddenly let idaho enforce its ban across the board. but i don't want to vote too. dismiss this. so in the end, we just have those five key justices across ideological majority to do this. but i have to say phil, this case is coming back because this is still a major conflict out in the states between states that have enforce these very strict bans. o

gorsuch, and amy coney barrett for the wisdom and the s courage they showed on this long term. andand very, very contentious issue and getting it back to the states puts the question where it belongs with a vote of the people. and it's ith a all over the country. you having the vote of the people and over time it will all work out. it's working outk out. it' at a rapid rate already. you know that it's going to many, manat it's goy states a on it now and many have already voted. and sometimedyand sometimess ags the vote will be as you like it, sometimes it won'tike. be qe as you like it. but our country can finally our come together. this issue has been killing our countrcouny for 51 years.1 r >> as soons. as i take the oath of office, i will stop the biden-harris administration's weaponize bided version of law enforcement against americans of faith and agains andt, frankly, their political opponents. all right. that donald trump continues to speak. he said at the beginningtrump c he would talk tonight about a wonderful thing called religion. now he's talkingonderfuland targ abo

gorsuch.n that sense, holmes was at the center of the debate that continues to this day. host: what was the reaction in 1881 when the common-law was published? jeffrey: i think we could call it respectful to weldment. -- bewilderment. it was delivered as a series of lectures and everyone acknowledged that holmes gave a deep and real contribution to systematizing the common-law and from the beginning, many people found it tough reading and therefore-- host: jeff rosen, is the common-law still taught in law school? >> i had it assigned in law school. i still remember the copy i had, a brown paperback cover with a gavel on it. i must've tried to make my way through it, but i don't remember a word of it. it wasn't until you gave me the homework assignment of talking about the common-law, that i set out to read read -- reread it. i found it as arduous as many people have before. so therefore deafening took some close reading, but i think it is just an example of the fact that it is a book that is m

i suggest you take that up with trump-appointed justice neil gorsuch because he wrote that definition. i'd like to include a letter from the american library association, the national education association and the consortium for those with disabilities. these three letters are in opposition to house resolution 165. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. burchett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burchett: thank you, madam speaker. and mr. burchett: thank you for your friendship and leadership. you're a cool lady. the civil rights act was to protect women from sports and can you imagine drawing the short stick allowing men to compete in sports and take trophies from young ladies and their careers away from hard-working female athletes. the most famous time when this happened is riley gaines tied with a man in her swim meet, i say "man" in very lower case letters, but sh

epa, justice kneel gorsuch -- justice neil gorsuch showed how ill equipped the justices are.a -- the challenge in epa pollution control plan, justice gorsuch repeatedly and incorrectly referred to nitrous oxide, which is laughing gas as we know, rather than nitrogen oxide, the pollute ant that the epa is seeking to control. so the court was arguing that the agencies didn't have the power to make these decisions in detail and failed to describe properly the entity being regulated by the epa. the court's decision giving justice gorsuch the power to second-guess these experts is a body blow to our government's ability to protect the american people. in another misguided opinion, the six republican appointed justices ruled in trump v. united states that a president may be immune from criminal prosecution for abusing the power of government for personal or playful gain. this case -- personal or political gain. the court held, i quote, the nature of presidential power entitles a former power to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his inclusive and preclue

in fact, a neil gorsuch opinion, a conservative justice that found title vii's prohibition on the sexdiscrimination also prohibits employers from firing an employee "simply for being transgender." so what we are hearing from that you see is that it is taking to heart the directive from the supreme court that the plain language of title vii and its prohibition against sex discrimination covers people who are transgender. and by the way, as we know with all civil rights laws, when we protect most vulnerable, we protect everyone. the reason it is so critically important is because those protections extend to everyone. and we should remember that because it's one of the greatest lessons that we have seen and why we should absolutely refuse to allow fear mongering about 1% of the u.s. population. the transgender community in the united states is 1% of the u.s. population. so the idea that states and localities, 200 municipalities, 18 states that are already providing the protections against discrimination we are talking about, some of them for years have not seen the fear, the violence, an

gorsuch said, we're writing a rule for the ages.avanaugh said the court's decision would have implications for the future of the presidency and the future of the country. so now that we're looking at all of this now, have we answered some of those questions about what would be an official act that a president could have immunity from and what wouldn't? >> well, what i think it's definitely right that this is an opinion the court has written for the ages. it's probably the most important supreme court opinion about the power of the presidency and protections enjoyed by the president since nixon versus united states almost exactly 50 years ago. so that that was a july 1974 opinion. and the court in that case rejected richard nixon's arguments that he didn't have to cooperate and produce oval office tapes, many of his arguments echoed in lots of ways, arguments made by former president trump here. so that case was a unanimous loss for the former president. this case is not unanimous, but a very big win for former president trump, recog

justice, neil gorsuch summed it up, the significance of this is a decision not just for donald trump also for future presidencies. >> as he said, quote, we are writing a rule for the ages. >> i made her son cooper from new york. today's ruling could boiled down to whether trump's actions were official as part of his presidential duties are private, and the court's decision will determine if trump could face trial on these federal charges before the november election. it's really difficult to overstate just how consequential this ruling is going to be, not just for donald trump's immediate legal and plop possible political peril. but for all future us presidents as well, it's taken 67 days to issue this opinion on the final day of the term after us supreme court justices heard oral arguments back in april, trump's lawyers argued that presidential immunity is an essential protection against overzealous prosecutors if a president can be charged, put on trial in imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office that looming threat, we'll distort the president's

. >> i was just reading -- i didn't even realize supreme court justice neil gorsuch was in the majoritys the former administrator and gorsuch who actually made the decision that the supreme court upheld back in 1984, which is describing your point exactly, how he's changed flavors with them. i've had other people who are former fda officials saying this could be very bad because it could mean that congress basically has to sign off on every decision that they're making, could really slow things down, especially when you consider that congress can't even do its own job on time, which is coming up with a budget. are you concerned on that level, and you mentioned yourself that congress may have to rewrite some of these rules. do you see that happening? how long would that take and how difficult of a job would that be to get through congress? >> yeah, with respect to fda, i think there is a general view in washington that they go through very careful rule making. the agency issues a lot of regulations. if you look at a lot of fda statute, congress gives the agency broad grants of discretion

gorsuch said this will be a test for the ages.his case involves his claims of presidential immunity from acts arising from the attack on the capitol and his own attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 election. i think this case is by far the most important of the four, polling shows voters view this of significant and potentially impacting their vote in the upcoming november election. just impacting their vote in the upcoming november election.— november election. just to keep viewers up-to-date, _ november election. just to keep viewers up-to-date, this - november election. just to keep viewers up-to-date, this is - november election. just to keep viewers up-to-date, this is the l november election. just to keep i viewers up-to-date, this is the last viewers up—to—date, this is the last day the supreme court is sitting before they break for the summer. i think they are looking at three or four different case, i am seeing that one of the other cases has just gone through, sol that one of the other cases has just gone through,