justice gorsuch: aht. but outside the core areas of executive power, if there is a clear statemen congress that somethinglawful and it applies to the president, i'm struggling to see why in that case perhaps the evidence could come in. mr. sauer: the strongest possible case in our view is what you've descrs kind of the core executive powers, the unrestrictable powers within the meaning of seila law. but, again, the holding of, for example, brewster and hnn that we've relied on doesn't turn on how cent is of a legislativ it just says, if it's an official act, which, here, we would say is -- applies basically the outer riter test of fitzgerald against nixon. that doesn't come in. justice gorsuch: what would happenf esidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in offi, ether it's -- whether they've engaged in drone strik -all the hypotheticals. i'm not going to go through them. it seems to e one of the incentives that might be created is fsidents to try to pard

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

. >> justice gorsuch? >> just returning to the chief justice's hypothetical about the ambassador sale and briby. congress has a statute that specifically names the pnt and says he can be criminally prosecuted for bribery presumably after he leaves fice. outside the reas that justice kavanaugh was talking about, when congresss clearly, couldn't a statute like that, congress provide a statute like that that would allow all manner of evidence to come in to provease? >> our position is that would have to be an unofficial act, purely private conduct, for the precion to go forward. >> all right, t tside the core areas of ecive power, if there is a clear statement from congress that something is unlawful and it applies to the pridt, i'm struggling to see why in that case perhaps the evidence could come in. >> the strongest possible cases in ourieis what you described describe as the core executive powers. unrestrictable powers. the g in brewster and johnston doesn't turn on how central an legislative act is. it's

. >> justice gorsuch? >> i wanted to c i thought i heard that you thought that the blasingame framework was the appropriate one. >> largely, yes. ee with the idea of the distinction between officeholder and office seeker. we also agree that is objectively rele to view the activities as those of officeholder, then the fitzgemmunity kicks in. i think we would look more at the content of the actual ction in order to make that determination than blasingame suggested o facts of the case might be appropriate. >> can you give me an example of what you have in mind might be appropri i'm trying to understand the nuance. >> blasingame, generally very fae, pro-government not here, because we don't think fitzgerald applies. >> i understanthat, but putting that aside, the distinction between official act and private office seeker, their for government work?od eno >> on this oe department hasn'ken a next step since the blasingame decision, but let me offer a few thoughts that might clarify it. the blasingame decision fo

juice gorsuch: intentions. can you frame a motivasn intention and intention as a moti a you well know every day of theee let's put that aside, too. michael: i understand. putting that aside, that really to me falls in a very different categorynd it is also possible - justice gorsuch: there ae motives and intents that are comingizable ands are not. we look back to the injunction in marbury in other cases, you can't enjoin a presbut hold him in contempt. may i try one more time to. clarif justiceorsuch: try this one more time. it doesn't matter what the president's motives are. we're not looking beh it. the same in nixous fitzgerald, that's something courts shouldn't geted in because presidents have all matter of motives. i'm not concerned about about future uses of therned criminal law to targ political opponents based on accusations about thtives, whether it's re-election or who knows what corrupt means in 1512. weon know what that means. maybe we'll find t metime soon. the daersness ofccusing your political ap

this is a rule for the ages, as justice gorsuch said. justice roberts, the chief justice writing his opinion today, it doesn't matter who's in the oval office, with their politics or policies are. this is the blanket finding we are making. but they do talk a little bit about the various things charged in the indictment against president trump and say, we can't make a finding on those about whether those fit into this official act or an official act, because this case was expedited. we didn't have full fact-finding, full briefing, all of those things. to those of you pushing for us to get this done quickly, here's your decision, but because we don't have that full record, it goes back to the lower court, and that means a delay. so if you are a supporter of president trump, it's a win in that respect, but ultimately the court will probably get to a trial on these specific facts. so the long term decision still yet to be seen. the dissent, very upset, saying it empowers people to take office and do whatever they want. the majority respondin

this is in a sense, as gorsuch said, a decision for the ages.he immediate impact of this is clearly to slow down jack smith not that that was their intent. but the effect is that. and the idea that prosecutors who may have another agenda want to go and indict a president or ex-president for actions while he was president, this court is basically saying there is presumptive immunity. they mention absolute immunity but right now within this case there is presumptive immunity. so it will go back to the district court as to whether or not the official act, what it is specifically, and it will slow the whole thing down but i think alina habba is right. there are a lot of issues even before we get to that. if you recognize the supreme court decision it downgraded some of the obstruction charges regarding the rioters. and so i think that impacts some of the charges against the president as well. there is confirmation there is absolute immunity when there is an official act of the president. >> bret: looking at this further there is some talk of january

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

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

when gorsuch celrked -- clerked on the court he was a clerk for candidate. this is a terrible opinion and i cannot make sense of it. he was a incident april case, and justice white's view was that we did our worst work in the march, april cases, and i think that is probably right that if you have an important case argued in april it is just hard for everyone to do quality work in that period of time, try as we do, and i think we all try. and then the other reason why we end up deciding a lot of stuff late is even when you have the big cases that are argued in the vault that involves a lot of writing. maybe multiple separate writings whether there are concurrences or dissenting opinions, and as we do that the time it takes is longer and longer. the example of that this year was rahimi. the justices wrote an opinion and the chief justice is always timely in his opinion draft, and a people ended up joining that opinion. justice thomas dissented, but a people joined the majority opinion. there were six opinions plus five opinions. there was a majority, a dissent

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

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

supreme court justice gorsuch wrote a opinion where he confused laughing gas with another type of gas. no, experts are not better at federal agencies. who do the justices think they are? do they know biology and science and chemistry and all the things experts need to know. no, they do not. this is a power grab for the conservative supreme court and we're going to fix that if we flip the house and hold the senate and we keep donald trump out of the white house. reporter: withstanding the court? reporter: what do constituents in your district say? what have you heard in phone calls to your office, emails, personal conversations, people in san bernardino and residents in those communities you represent. what have you heard? do they want president bide ton stay on the ticket or do they want someone else? mr. aguilar: thank you for fact checking the hometowns. what you heard me communicate is not only as a leadership member within the caucus but someone from those communities from san bernardino county. we also have the benefit, the vice chair and i, of being from california, california i

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

gorsuch, by the way, does indian law better than a lot of people who practice indian. he gets he really gets it right and he cites volume one of our federal indian boarding school multiple times in his concurring opinion and the effect is that it remains true that tribes have the power to protect our children from predatory foster care and, adoption practices and sure that our continued existence as indian people is secured for another and another part of our work protecting tribal sovereignty, in protecting, you know, establish legal precedents. we see in some of these cases coming out of oklahoma, trying to diminish where people are trying to diminish tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction, whether that's the murphey case or. mcgirt or castor, where a we are working hard to show the federal judiciary upholding the canons of construction are not only legally sound but proper policy required to revitalize indian country from centuries of territory. bill loss at the hands, the federal government and states. in the fourth way that i mentioned that we're working to out and r

but even there, for example, justice gorsuch often goes against some of those even the moderates in theeading protections for sexual orientationation in imemployment law or indian law cases. thomas dissents alone, he dissents alone african-americans on various kind of cases. and even in kind of sometimes political cases, the case that was decided about the january 6th indictments, that was a 6-3 with jackson in the majority saying you can't use that law to prosecute people and barrett in dissent. so, you know, it's overly simplistic even if you talk about the 3-3-3 court or the republican appointees versus the democratic ones. it's overly simplistic just to run it by the politics. paul: ilya shapiro, thank you very much for coming in. court is fascinating. >>> still ahead, much more on the political and legal fallout from the supreme court's immunity decision as democrats step up their attacks on the conservative justices and judge juan merchan postpones donald trump's new york sentencing in the wake of monday's ruling. ♪ and i saved hundreds. with all the money i saved i thought i'd bu

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

only justices alito and gorsuch dissented in this case.having read the briefs in this case, the government did a pretty good job of finding historical traditions for all of the various as aspects of the way the appropriations power worked here, and the kids -- case really came down to, all right, if you have three different ways of limiting the power of congress or hamstringing it that have all a been -- for a long time, is there a particular problem if you combine all three of them in one agency to maximize its insulation. and as i say, 7-22, the court said -- can 7-32, the court said that was constitutionally permissible. it was a nice win for the government but really no other agency has this kind of appropriations facility, which is in a sense part of what the challengers were saying, this is so anomalous and so unprecedented. it's not a case that's going to have a lot of consequences across the administrative state. the other case that's sort of the sleeper of this series of cases that will have substantial implications across the adm

remember gorsuch said we are writing for the ages.s is critical torthe cases former president trump is facing. this sets precedence. they know the weight of this moment, during arguments it was he should be immune from everything or nothing. you got to think the court will find some level for immunity for acts while in office. >> lawrence: shannon, my question is, a lot of times we on the couch, they think the court is divided. they are 9-0 on a lot of decisions. does the court feel they should check the parties in don't get too political and go after political opponents. do they think that way or thinking in traditional way of the constitution. >> you bring up a great point. justice samuel alito said i worry where an incumbent president loses and they go after him politically. justice jackson said, i worry about coming up with a decision that says there is broad swath of immunity and we let somebody take the most powerful office in the world knowing there won't be liability for them on any ground. >> katie: there has been talk about

administration wants major changes to the supreme court, we will speak to a trump surrogate who clerked for neil 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 te

and you know justice gorsuch said it best, saying this case is not really about president trump but a case for the ages, what kind of republic does your constitution set out in how is separation of powers going to operate in future. larry? today supreme court drew a firm line, under the idea. the endless cycle of recrippand prosecution, they slam that door shut. the grant of immunity is broad and keep we need too shut this start of thing down before it destroys the institution of the presidency. >> gregg, not just about the president. former presidential ways said not about me, first me then you. then the fisher case, that was decided friday, mr. fisher a former cop who was there in january 6 he was charged with obstruction in kind of a bank shot legal play that the supreme court knocked down on friday. i am wondering, that is first, this is not just good for mr. fisher but good for a lot of other people charged with that, including president, two of changes that jack smith had could be affected by that. >> yes. the ruling in fisher on friday essentially guts half of the case that jac

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

and you know justice gorsuch said it best, saying this case is not really about president trump but a case for the ages, what kind of republic does your constitution set out in how is separation of powers going to operate in future. la? today supreme court drew a firm line, under the idea. the endless cycle of reand prosecution, they slam that door shut. the grant of immunity is broad and keep we need too shut this start of thing down before it destroys the institution of the presidency. >> gregg, not just about the president. former presidential ways said not about me, first me then you. then the fisher case, that was decided friday, mr. fisher a former cop who was there in january 6 he was charged with obstruction in kind of a bank shot legal play that the supreme court knocked down on friday. i am wondering, that is first, this is not just good for mr. fisher but good for a lot of other people charged with that, including president, two of changes that jack smith had could be affected by that. >> yes. the ruling in fisher on friday essentially guts half of the case that jack smith

popular will is a port on a want to focus on that because remember three of the supreme court justices gorsuch coney barrett and o were nominated by trump who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and they were confirmed to the court by senators representing less of the country's population and who had received fewer votes than senators who actually opposed their nomination but that's not all, to other justices, roberts and alito were nominated by bush who also lost the popular vote before his first term in the white house. so think about it like this. five of the nine supreme court justices were put on the bench by presidents who lost the popular vote when they first ran for president and four of them were confirmed i senators representing less than half of this country. if trump is elected president again, the threat to american democracy will be severe but even if he isn't, the vast majority held by the unelected then and women of the court who just gave donald trump's candidacy another huge gift monday have already put our democracy into question and peril. join me to discuss thi

it was no surprise the six justice gorsuch. majority voted together.loom finally succeeded with a new strategy. rather than casting a white plaintiff is the face of the aggrieved student who failed to get into the college of their choice, bloom created a group called students for fair admissions and recruited asian americans. it worked. but, not without a lot of apprehension in the asian- american community about being thrust into the center of this contentious debate. the behind the scenes story of this landmark supreme court case is now being told in a rdvealing new documentary called admissions granted, which premieres right here on msnbc tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern. i'm joined now by the codirectors of that film, miao wang and hao wu. you've got some it looks like incredibly amazing access to all the people involved in this historic court case. how did you get into the story, how were you able to get into these characters? how did you get them to agree to talk to you about this in such a deeply personal way? >> we started this project in late 2019

you clerked the justice gorsuch, i believe.y kind of reform, any kind at all is needed at the supreme court? >> so let's get this straight, the president of the united states who's been in public office for like 50 years is calling for term limits on a supreme court -- on the supreme court and the president of the united states who has his own vast corruption problems is pretending like the supreme court is corrupt because supreme court justice's wife is flying patriotic flags? i think president biden and vice president kamala harris should get their own house in order. remember, this is the same vice president who's been lying to the american people about president biden's mental fitness; right. so i think they should look within instead of at the supreme court. stuart: mike davis, we'll leave it there. trump surrogate, thank you for joining us, mike. see you again soon. thank you, sir. >> thank you. stuart: administration just announced a new plan for student loan bailout. ashley, is this yet another student loan bailout? ano

promise you they won't say you can assassinate your political rivals but with all due respect to neil 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 kamal

joining us now is mike davis, article iii project president and former gorsuch clerk.ur latest perspective on what in the world is going on right now? >> i think the democrats have a big legal, political, and financial problem on their hands. they can't get rid of joe biden even though he is not capable of doing the job. they are out there saying that he shouldn't be the nominee because he is not mentally fit. but he is going to be the president for the next, what, five or six months? politically they can't get rid of him because the next in line is kamala harris. are they going to skip over the first black and first female vice presidents because they know that kamala harris will get destroyed by president trump on november 5th, 2024? they can't just take the $200 million that president biden has in his campaign and give it to -- kamala harris and past the filing deadlines in many states. >> jason: mike, i wish i had more time. always appreciate your perspective. i really do appreciate it. all right. stay with us. because, coming up, donald trump is going on the offen

outrageous arguments and now with john roberts, with samuel alito, clarence thomas, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuchng this outrageous notion the blessing of this faction we stand on more from the rule of law in 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 rec

kavanaugh said it's almost unthinkable and stated in the hearing that no one is above the law and when neil 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 judiciar

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

president trump had a good day and i think the presidency did in the republic did to which is what justice gorsuch'sd this is the ruling for the ages. in other words this needed to be defined in i think the supreme court did a good job doing that we would have emily onset she is a question for you. >> congressman do you think that the white house is green lighting over the top attacks on the court or is this another example of the squad and aoc controlling the narrative on capitol hill for the democrats? >> i think very seldom does a member of the house or the senate not at least think to acknowledge what is the white house going to think about this, what is the presidential response going to be if they say something over the top, i'm not sure what's going on internally within the discussion between the white house and some of the members, you would think there would be a concerted effort. what we seen for the last three years is not only is therepter d for word, the biden campaign is pushing back on calls for pter word for word, the biden campaign is pushing back on calls for president biden to dro

. >>> 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

although, when we heard the oral arguments from the supreme court, as gorsuch said, we're going to decidehis for the ages. so it's not really just about donald trump. it's about every president after him greg gregg you are absolutely right, steve. just look at the way the court reframed the question. they reframed it broadly. not just to deal with donald trump. they see a trend here. it's called lawfare. the weapons of the law r. you don't that interfering in the heart or quick decisions a president has to make. you don't want to create a situation in which every critical decision has to be run through a team of lawyers who are governing our country instead of a single chief executive. that was the broad worry. you know, kavanaugh said i'm not concerned about the here and now, means the trump case. i'm concerned about the future i think the decision will reflect that, steve. >> lawrence: brian? >> brian: hey, gregg, is there a scenario that you can see where this would actually -- where this case -- the january 6th case would go to trial before november's election? and what is the cut off

i'll put a supreme court justice here and it mobilized republicans to get to the polls and you got gorsuchnd trump for four years. now you can say sotomayor is not healthy. people are worried about her. you have justice clarence thomas, somebody else not getting any younger. i'm sure he might take an opportunity if trump wins to step aside. just outline the stakes the old-fashioned way and debate on it. you don't have to take everything apart in our country. >> harris: you do if your legacy is at stake. she is basically monster stomped him with the party. she didn't have to win any votes to replace biden. so kamala harris is in the cat bird seat now and he is trying to get legacy points and give people something to run on. in case she doesn't work out down ballot. outrage at a stunt in the paris olympics. i know you are covering this. during the opening ceremony, it went global. organizers put on a drag queen show making fun of jesus christ's last supper. and the people behind it did apologize sort of. they said they did not mean to mock christianity. organizeer say it was about illusion a

remember how the answer will not only affect donald trump but all presidents down the road as neil 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

you know, justice gorsuch perhaps said it best at oral argument. he said the case is not really about president trump. it is a case for the ages. what kind of republic does our constitution set out? how does the separation of powers going to operate in the future? and today the supreme court drew a very firm line under the idea that these sorts of political prosecutions, the enless cycle of recrimination and prosecution, that jack smith's efforts here and joe biden's efforts here may have opened, the supreme court slammed that door shut and said that with respect to former presidents, immunity protects them from prosecution for their official conduct, that the grant of immunity is broad and deep and that we need to shut this sort of thing down before it destroys, absolutely destroys the institution of the presidency. larry: gregg, it is not just about the president. the former president is always saying it is not just about me. first it is me, then it is going to be you. the fisher case which was decided on friday, the case of mr. fisher, a former

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