i think it is called scalia -- ginsberg, -- scalia/ginsberg. i have not seen that opera. justice barrett: i have not either. >> apparently, he was imprisoned for excessive dissenting in the opera. [laughter] and she rescues him by coming through a glass ceiling, which she breaks. they have a wonderful relationship, the two of them. when you joined the court in 2020, i wanted to ask you if there were some justices that reached out and work more welcoming than others? you mentioned justice kavanaugh, getting this together for you. how was it when you join? justice barrett: i joined during covid, the pandemic was still raging and people had not fully come back to work. when i was sworn in, i would not say that anyone of my colleagues was more welcoming than another, they were all equally welcoming and wonderful. and when i was sworn in by the chief justice, justice breyer was filling in in boston, it was a problem for him until he could travel without greater exposure. those in washington came to swearing and weight and not sit in a big conference room and everybody had mask

he served as a law clerk to justice antonin scalia. ithen judge antonin scalia on the united states court of appeals fothe district of columbia. then later as a law clerk for justice scalia on the supreme court. john mcginnis is a professor at northwestern university pritzker school of law or professor plus -- where professor lawson previously taught. professor mcginnis is a gduate of harvard college and learned -- earn his jd from harvard law school wheree was an editor of the harvard ball revi. he also has a masters of arts degree from bail college in philosophy and theology. professor mcginnis served as a law clerk to judge can start on the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. from 1987 to 1991, he served as the deputy assistant attorney general in the deputy office of counsel at the department of justice. he is the author of accelerating democracy, transforming government through to knology and originalism and the good constitution with mi rappaport. he is a past winner of the paul bapour award given

and that was the message that father scalia. worry about jesus, worry about your family and that battle has been won. don't get caught up. doug: frankly a battle and message that could be in other states as well. barbara: i think the church gets back to that, then government can do -- government would benefit from that because we would be helping our neighbors and doing the things that father scalia and all of our churches would be helped by doing that. doug: that is an interesting time to end on this. thank you all for joining us. those virtually, thanks for joining us. and thank you for the center for american progress. look at americanprogress o.r.g. and the mccain institute. if you are interested in the poll that barbara and i talked about go to the web site usamfc dorgan find out that work and that poll. thank you for joining us today. stay tuned for more along these lines. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] mr. nickel: dick -- captioning performed by the national captioning insti

you know, as i said, justice scalia, 98 to 0. justice ginsburg something close to that, maybe 96 to 3, something like that. and that was always the philosophy i brought to when i thought about confirmation and so on. elena kagan i was her deputy solicitor general when she was nominated. i was aghast at senate republicans who said she wasn't qualified. i mean, first woman solicitor general, first woman d.a. and of harvard law school, brilliant scholar, just, you know, just phenomenal on every level to say she wasn't qualified. it hurt me. so to hear that and then i saw the games played justice scalia's unfortunate passing with the merrick garland nomination. and that, you know, broke my heart. 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 th

and the plain meaning of the language is justice scalia. you look at the dictionary. and you look at the contemporary dictionaries and the plain meaning of the word. i don't know how you say somebody who foments and encourages people to overthrow the peaceful transition of power hasn't engaged in insurrection. i just don't see how you could get there. >> we have a preview of what might happening in the supreme court discussions if they take this case. but the question, was mary webster around? how old is this dictionary? do we know? that is rhetorical, i'm kidding. i don't know. >> i take you very seriously laura. i take you so seriously. >> anyway. >> don't go there. >> thank you so much. appreciate both of you. >> always fun. >>> so, what is the supreme court likely to do? let's continue our talk now with derek muller. an election law scholar who is a professor of law at the university of notre dame. derek, thank you so much for joining us, we are talking about the supreme court and what they have ahead of them. they have a conservative majority. we know that. what

they dropped the hammer on the scalia trick. they put a dead finish, end to it. and later when i got the judicial conference to look at the billionaire-funded flotillas of amicus briefs that they send in through phony front groups to tell the justices what it is that they want them to do in cases and the phony front groups were not disclosing their true funders or their true intersections or their -- interconnections or their true commonalities, again, this array of very distinguished chief justices didn't look and say, well, here's a senator on an improper rampage. we can't have any of this. no, they announced that they were revisiting the amicus brief disclosure rule because it needed fixing. and they're in the process of finalizing that right now. so two for two. when questions about this have been taken up by the judicial conference, they've actually been handled perfectly consistent with the thrust and tenure of -- tenor of our investigation. the third rebulletal that -- the third rebuttal that you'll have to trust me on is that i have heard from federal jud

, right, you are a big history buff and scalia being a district constructionist, scalia said if it ain't there, it doesn't say it. so why? i think that is an argument, meaning why didn't it say the president, it says federal office holders, but i think at the end of the day, this colorado decision clearly says that any federal office. >> counselor, that's right. it says any office. but i want to play you because i think it is important, we live in times where people assume that partisanship means the fix is in. i don't think that that is the intention of most of -- you know, certainly judges or justices or legal scholars. i want to play you a sound from the respected jurist michael ludic who has been a critic of donald trump but solidly legal scholar from a conservative perspective. that listen. >> their opinion is unsalable. under the objective law of the federal constitution in section three of the 14th amendment, the supreme court of the united states ought to affirm this decision today. >> what do you make of that? >> so, you know, i do think it is a very well reasoned decision. to s

as the interpretation of the word insurrection is concerned, at the proper approach is what justice scalia have done, which is to look at the dictionary, don't look at some other statute that may be written in a different context or different purpose, and instead of looking at how people understood insurrection in the dictionary. this was just plain language. the fact of the matter is, the dissent and a case in the decision last night, with people who are objecting, judges objecting to the decision of colorado, they did not even go there. they did not even challenge the definition. >> one date. one certainly did, there was the one descent. they did go into an analysis of the statute. look, the fact that congress put this into the u.s. could, words have meaning, and as lawyers, we can't sit here and say, well, just because there is an instruction statute, the federal crime for instruction, we don't have to really pay attention to that, we just had these the dictionary definition instead. no, there are crimes, there are elements. these are things that congress is empowered to put into the u.

it's worth noting that justice thomas, justice scalia did not come from money. they were not independently wealthy like several of the other justices. thomas had worked in government his whole career. and in the private sector, you know, lawyers can make much more money. and this sort of specter was hanging over washington a lot at the time. justice pay, federal judge pay had stagnated for years. people had pointed out this is a hot button concern for a long time, really since '89. so this was front of mind to a lot of folks worried about resignations. >> take a thirsty man, match him with your rich friends, and voila. you get the court you want. brett murphy, great reporting. congratulations. very important stuff. thank you very much. >>> still ahead, rudy giuliani has been ordered to pay $148 million to ruby freeman and shaye moss, and now their attorneys are doing everything in their power to make sure that happens. we'll be right back. i figured it out why i never actually made the football team. yeah, because you're 5'8”. wait robbie, go look at the sprinte

and in 1996, justice scalia said, who is going to forge those bonds now that you have left? and now, 17 years later, i don't believe that we have answered question. >> and just thinking back to some of the female justices, and what they have said about sandra day o'connor and ruth bader ginsburg once said that she was like a big sister. think of the two women of the sisterhood of the supreme court, and what was necessary and needed. it is pretty amazing to think of those two women now kicking it up in heaven together i have to say. >> yeah, i think that the other piece of this is not just that justice o'connor created this opportunity for justice ginsburg and kagan and sotomayor and justice barrett, but she came from a political background. she was the last justice on the supreme court who had ever run for statewide office, and who had been a politician before she was a judge. that shaped her professional experience and job as a supreme court justice, and it gave her more respect for the democratic process deference to state governments and elected legislatures and ever sinc

chris has argued before the court several times and also clerked for justices thomas and scalia.explain this for us. >> all right. well, it's good to be here, laura. the special counsel filed two motions today. one was an extraordinary motion to have the supreme court decide this important immunity issue before the court of appeals. i mean, the district court. we have three levels in our system, district court, court of appeals, supreme court. the normal path is for the case to go to the court of appeals. jack smith wants the supreme court to basically take that case before the court of appeals has even decided it why? , the mask is coming off, laura. this is about election interference as you just said this is all about the timetable that they want to get trump convicted before the 2024 election. >> so you have to speed it up. this is highly quliewcial. >> you have to speed it up. they brought incredibly unprecedented case never before in american history has anything like this come up through the legal system obviously trump has legal defenses like i was president then and ther

at the court's private conference when justice antonin scalia started railing against affirmative actiony, nino, how do you think i got my job?" but when one of her law clerks wrote a zinger into her opinion to hit back at scalia in public, she just crossed it out. in 24 years on the supreme court justice o'connor was the decisive swing vote in 330 cases. >> she was in the majority in the last term on all but eight decisions. >> reporter: in virtually every 5-4 decision of note o'connor's was the fifth, the deciding vote. >> that is a lot of power. and she was not afraid to wield it. upholding abortion rights and affirmative action and the election of president george w. bush, although she later regretted the court had involved itself in that case. she also knew how to share power and credit. she was originally assigned to write the court's opinion in united states versus virginia which ruled that state schools could not exclude women. but instead o'connor turned to justice ruth bader ginsburg, who at that time had only been on the court for a couple of years, and said this should be rut

. >> that harkens back to scalia's dissent. we were talking about this this morning in the case phil brings up in the arizona case from 2012. here is what justice scalia wrote, not in the majority then is this majority now. must arizona's ability yield to the reality that congress has provided inaud kwaut funding for federal enforcement or even worse the executives unwise targeting of that funding. >> and the answer to that troubling question is yes, yes, you must yield. i would -- you mentioned the short term. let's talk about the medium to long term prop 187 back in california. this was in the 1990s. and it basically put an end to republican politics in that state. i mean, they tried to exclude all services, including schooling, from people who were undocumented. and the backlash -- you can feel to this day. you can't get to first base as a republican statewide in california anymore. they blew off all of their latino voters. they cost the party the state and going forward they'll have a hard time getting a toe hold again. and

after the legal times reported the measure has been dubbed keep scalia on the court bill, scalia respondedhonoraria ban makes more difference to me and denied he would ever leave the court for financial reasons. the man was never lifted. mcconnell did not respond to to requests for comment. how transparently corrupt it would be if paul singer, the hedge fund guy who had a bunch of cases before the court, could pay clarence thomas million dollars to come give a speech in his conference? obviously you can't have. that >> this was banned from members of congress and judges after precisely what you're saying happened in the 80s when members of congress, they had tax writer in congress got $100,000 in speaking fees. so this never happened, but what did happen, and we still don't sort of know all the circumstances, but as you were describing, all of these extraordinarily wealthy businessmen stepped in and started paying for various aspects of justice thomas's life. >> what's so fascinating, what other things, if you are a law firm, you could take care of your, monika but you can private school,

my argument was, you want hillary to replace scalia or do you want trump to do it? he has a list any said he would pick from it. that cause a lot of conservatives to go out and vote when they maybe weren't as hot on doing it. i think the court in this election will be huge. i think it goes to the right to make sure the federal constitution is enforced and it will have so many more implications on down the line. i will get those appointments right for you. you will not have to worry about me putting some the on then disappoints us like we've seen throughout history. we are out of time and i want to thank everyone for coming. i know many of you have signed up to support us and i thank you for that. [applause] >> if you haven't, i hope you will commit to the caucus before you leave today. i hope everybody is willing to go work your friends, family emma neighbors and coworkers to bring out more support for us on january 15. you decide who the next president going to be. the media does not get to decide. the pundits don't get to decide. you here in iowa get to decide and

my argument was, you want hillary to replace scalia or do you want trump to do it? he has a list any said he would pick from it. that cause a lot of conservatives to go out and vote when they maybe weren't as hot on doing it. i think the court in this election will be huge. i think it goes to the right to make sure the federal constitution is enforced and it will have so many more implications on down the line. i will get those appointments right for you. you will not have to worry about me putting some the on then disappoints us like we've seen throughout history. we are out of time and i want to thank everyone for coming. i know many of you have signed up to support us and i thank you for that. [applause] >> if you haven't, i hope you will commit to the caucus before you leave today. i hope everybody is willing to go work your friends, family emma neighbors and coworkers to bring out more support for us on january 15. you decide who the next president going to be. the media does not get to decide. the pundits don't get to decide. you here in iowa get to decide and

they gave rise to the great scalia-ginsberg opera and much more. and justice ginsburg did have that great movie made after her, so maybe we are continuing in that great tradition. peter: let's hear from jack from davenport, iowa. go ahead with your question. >> what would holmes think about the internet, where people are looking for rooms full of people so they can get them all stirred up, and then they yell fire to stir up a lot of anger? beck's great question, so important, the question gets to the heart of homes incitement test. in the abrams decision he not only said that speech had to be strongly protected, but he endorsed a version and it was articulated that speech could only be restricted if it's intended to and likely to cause imminent violence. so it's not enough to say something thatomne may be, possibly in the future might react badly to, it has to be intended to create imminent violence in the violence has to be imminent and serious. the supreme court embraced that in the brandenburg case in 1969, decades after holmes articulated it. b

it was scalia who said when there was criticism, get over it. that was not her position. -- after initially raising some questions about abortion in her confirmation hearing, she was a key vote on keeping the abortion right alive. of course, that's one of the things about her legacy that this current court has walked away from. she also wrote the decision -- you will see it on the screen, the grutter case. she famously said in the decision, maybe we only need to do this for 25 more years. some of the conservatives who struck down affirmative action in the last term noted that. they said, the clock had always been ticking. maybe it was time to end it. andrea, you can't get over the fact that she was raised on a ranch. she said in one of her books that when she got up in the morning, she said there were things on the ranch that could bite you or sting you. when she got up in the morning, she would shake out her shoes to make sure there were no scorpions on anything in them. i said, i bet you still do that. she said, yes, i do. i said, the supreme court was once described as

my argument was, you want hillary to replace scalia or do you want trump to do it?s a list any said he would pick from it. that cause a lot of conservatives to go out and vote when they maybe weren't as hot on doing it. i think the court in this election will be huge. i think it goes to the right to make sure the federal constitution is enforced and it will have so many more implications on down the line. i will get those appointments right for you. you will not have to worry about me putting some the on then disappoints us like we've seen throughout history. we are out of time and i want to thank everyone for coming. i know many of you have signed up to support us and i thank you for that. [applause] >> if you haven't, i hope you will commit to the caucus before you leave today. i hope everybody is willing to go work your friends, family emma neighbors and coworkers to bring out more support for us on january 15. you decide who the next president going to be. the media does not get to decide. the pundits don't get to decide. you here in iowa get to decide and with

they gave rise to the great scalia-ginsberg opera and much more. justice ginsburg did have that great movie made after her, so maybe we are continuing in that great tradition. peter: let's hear from jack from davenport, iowa. go ahead with your question. >> what would holmes think about the internet, where people are looking for rooms full of people so they can get them all stirred up, and then they yell fire to stir up a lot of anger? beck's great question, so important, the question gets to the heart of homes incitement test. in the abrams decision he not only said that speech had to be strongly protected, but he endorsed a veron and it was articulated that speech could only be restricted if it's innded to and likely to cause imminent violence. so it's not enough to say something that someone m b possibly in the future might react badly to, it has to be intended to create imminent violence in the violence has to be imminent and serious. the supreme court embraced that in the brandenburg case in 1969, decades after holmes articulated it. but he re

after the legal times reported the measure has been dubbed keep scalia on the court bill, scalia respondedn makes more difference to me and denied he would ever leave the court for financial reasons. the man was never lifted. mcconnell did not respond to to requests for comment. how transparently corrupt it would be if paul singer, the hedge fund guy who had a bunch of cases before the court, could pay clarence thomas million dollars to come give a speech in his conference? obviously you can't have. that >> this was banned from members of congress and judges after precisely what you're saying happened in the 80s when members of congress, they had tax writer in congress got $100,000 in speaking fees. so this never happened, but what did happen, and we still don't sort of know all the circumstances, but as you were describing, all of these extraordinarily wealthy businessmen stepped in and started paying for various aspects of justice thomas's life. >> what's so fascinating, what other things, if you are a law firm, you could take care of your, monika but you can private school, you could ta

my argument was, you want hillary to replace scalia or do you want trump to do it?e has a list any said he would pick from it. that cause a lot of conservatives to go out and vote when they maybe weren't as hot on doing it. i think the court in this election will be huge. i think it goes to the right to make sure the federal constitution is enforced and it will have so many more implications on down the line. i will get those appointments right for you. you will not have to worry about me putting some the on then disappoints us like we've seen throughout history. we are out of time and i want to thank everyone for coming. i know many of you have signed up to support us and i thank you for that. [applause] >> if you haven't, i hope you will commit to the caucus before you leave today. i hope everybody is willing to go work your friends, family emma neighbors and coworkers to bring out more support for us on january 15. you decide who the next president going to be. the media does not get to decide. the pundits don't get to decide. you here in iowa get to decide and w

ruling, striking down a similar law in arizona, the lead dissent in the case, the late justice antonin scalia, wrote arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty. if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state. that dissent could find a friendlier reception among today's court if the legal battle in texas reaches the justices, they're poisoning the blood of our country. >> that's what they've done. >> meanwhile, new reaction to former president trump's remarks, claiming immigrants are poisoning the blood of america. language similar to what adolf hitler wrote. i don't know what this means with the blood stuff. >> i know people are trying to draw historical lesions. i don't know if that's what he meant. and nikki haley's campaign saying, we don't need chaotic rhetoric that fails to get the job done. >> bipartisan talks in washington aimed at improving security on the border have now stalled, meaning no deal until at least next month. and by then, we do expect to get a better sense of the legal challenges facing

a, 90 -- 1986 i believe, antonin scalia, 90 votes. what has happened to the process? prof. yoo: it seems like so long ago, 30 years ago. my argument has been that they saw this power gravitate to the supreme court for the most important questions to society as president and congress is did not want to decide it as president -- as president and congresses did not want to decide it. as judges became more powerful, it is no surprise the political system would try to start influencing who was picked. if you are going to say don't you care deeply about abortion? until dobbs, the only way you could affect abortion policy in the country was by those appointed to the supreme court. there were 50 years between roe v. wade and dobbs. all of the politics would have been devoted to pass legislation about abortion focused on who will be on the supreme court, so it was only inevitable i think that as the supreme court became more powerful, the appointments process became more politically important, and then you saw all the instruments campaigning.

we talked with justice scalia that members of the judiciary continue to wear robes. what would your robe look like? >> they were very robes available. i didn't know anybody who made robes for women justices. and i think most that was available was something like a choir robe or an academic robe often used for academic proceedingses and graduations from universities. i think that was all that was available. and i just got what was available, put it on. harder a choice for a judicial collar. when i first sat on the court i had a plain plaque robe that i used in arizona and i brought that robe with me and it was very simple and i did not have a judicial collar in those days. i put it on whatever i was wearing. and i was given a note that had been written by someone sitting in the audience one day in the courtroom and it said, dear justice o'connor, i have been in the audience watching the court today and i noticed that you did not have a judicial collar. now, all your colleagues were wearing white shirt collars and they showed under the robe and you looked like a washed

we talked with justice scalia that members of the judiciary continue to wear robes. what would your robe look like? >> they were very robes available. i didn't know anybody who made robes for women justices. and i think most that was available was something like a choir robe or an academic robe often used for academic proceedingses and graduations from universities. i think that was all that was available. and i just got what was available, put it on. harder a choice for a judicial collar. when i first sat on the court i had a plain plaque robe that i used in arizona and i brought that robe with me and it was very simple and i did not have a judicial collar in those days. i put it on whatever i was wearing. and i was given a note that had been written by someone sitting in the audience one day in the courtroom and it said, dear justice o'connor, i have been in the audience watching the court today and i noticed that you did not have a judicial collar. now, all your colleagues were wearing white shirt collars and they showed under the robe and you looked like a washed

we talked with justice scalia that members of the judiciary continue to wear robes. what would your robe look like? >> they were very robes available. i didn't know anybody who made robes for women justices. and i think most that was available was something like a choir robe or an academic robe often used for academic proceedingses and graduations from universities. i think that was all that was available. and i just got what was available, put it on. harder a choice for a judicial collar. when i first sat on the court i had a plain plaque robe that i used in arizona and i brought that robe with me and it was very simple and i did not have a judicial collar in those days. i put it on whatever i was wearing. and i was given a note that had been written by someone sitting in the audience one day in the courtroom and it said, dear justice o'connor, i have been in the audience watching the court today and i noticed that you did not have a judicial collar. now, all your colleagues were wearing white shirt collars and they showed under the robe and you looked like a washed

he worked in the reagan white house and served as a law clerk to the late justice antonin scalia. they are co-chairs of the american bar association task for for american democracy. and democracy is at the core of this. thank you for being here. judge luttig, in the sumpimples terms, what does this really mean? >> good morning, poppy and phil. thank you for having the secretary and i on this morning. as our country's preeminent constitutional scholar, professor laurence tribe, and i said in our article in august in "the atlantic," this decision will test whether america is committed to america's democracy, to its constitution and to the rule of law. yesterday's momentous and historic decision was a model of judicial decision-making. it is unassailable in every respect. it was a masterful interpretation of section 14 -- 14th amendment, section 3 of the constitution, and the disqualification of the former president for his insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states. >> mr. secretary, to that point, it's been striking the kind of divide within conservativ

joining me now is our guest chris landau former law clerk for clarence thomas and antonin scalia. former ambassador to mexico under president trump, chris, given your extensive experience at the court also as a advocate at the court what do you expect the court to do here and your reaction to this -- the first time ever section 3 of article iii of the 1st amendment, section 3 has been used to bar a president from the ballot? >> laura, i hope everybody's irony meters are just going off the charts tonight. because this is one of the most anti-democratic decisions we have seen in american history that four unelected judges on a state supreme court have taken it upon themselves to disqualify someone who otherwise meets all the qualifications the constitution imposes from the ballot of the united states of america. i think the u.s. supreme court will take one look at this and say well, this cannot stand so in a sense i think that's the silver lining here that it won't stand it is terrifying to me as an american that this kind of lawfare is being waged that courts are so president trump

the lake justice antonin scalia wrote the dissent in the arizona case with two justices still on theo and thomas, who backed his dissent. he said this, quote, arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty, not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. the laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of arizona, we should seize referring to it as a sovereign state by descent. you see some similarities there. there are law enforcement voices in texas that are expressing support for this law. kevin lawrence, the head of the largest texas police association, told cnn, quote, sb 4 at least to some measure would give local law enforcement better tools to work with. all of this only heightening the importance, of course, of these border talks on capitol hill that we are following. that is where we start this hour with our manu raju. manu, how are negotiations going? >> reporter: they are moving along, that

joining me is chris landeau, former law clerk for clarence thomas and scalia. given your extensive experience at the court and an advocate at the court, what do you expect the court to do here and your reaction for first time ever section three of article three of the 14th amendment, section three, has been used to bar a president from the ballot. >> i hope everybody's irony meters are going off the charts tonight. this is one of the most antidemocratic decisions we have seen in american history, four unelected judges on state supreme court have taken it upon themselves to disqualify who meets all qualifications for president of the united states of america. the u.s. supreme court will take one look at this and say, this cannot stand. i think that is the silver lining here, it won't stand, but it is terrifying to me as an american this kind of law-fare is being waged, that courts are so presumptious they think it is up to them to decide who can be on the ballot to let democracy work. they are free to dislike donald trump, especially people who do not like donal

justice gain of function research and article iii project and jamie landau for justices thomas and scalia and former ambassador to mexico for president trump. chris, your comments last night made a big stir. got a lot of attention. but how damaging is this for president biden to publicly endorse this move by the colorado supreme court which in effect he did by saying there is no doubt that the president is an insurrectionist? no doubt he said. laura i think it's a i very sad day for our country. ruling out of colorado to see the president of the united states endorsing that frankly just rub salt in the wound. especially since nobody has charged president trump with insurrection, which is a federal crime at 18 usc 2383 there is a specific crime of insurrection. jack smith didn't bring that charge against trump. much less convict him of insurrection. so, again, the idea that it's so obvious as the president says that he insurrectionist. if it was that obvious, why didn't you bring that charge to a jury then? because they don't want to defend that charge. so, conveniently, courts applying th

. >> that's why justice scalia thought all of this was basically unconstitutional. >> whole special counsel >> laura: accountable to no one. >> this such a charade. it's not us. it's this special counsel who is doing it. >> laura: politico just reported moments ago that smith has extracted data from the cell phone trump used while in the white house and plans to present evidence of his findings to the d.c. jury to demonstrate how trump used the phone in the weeks during which he attempted to subvert -- i mean, this is what it is now in a presidential election year. you are going to take the cell phone of the guy who has beaten the other guy by how many points? >> laura, again. >> laura: come on. >> there is no question that january 6th, if trump is the nominee, will be a major issue. buff the democrats don't want to fight this in the political. they want to say oh, no. this is a criminal case. this is -- this is the mighty halls of justice. this is, again, this motion to the supreme court can only be explained by their dyer desire on timing. there is no imperative public need to have this t

justice scalia i know the great american is a testament to that principle. in a time of sharp divisions in our country. we need more that ginsburg's and as americans use her forever stamp. let us hope forever remember what binds us together as a nation. i am often asked about the selectio process. be on a stamp. i'll just say a few words that we're older than the united states. we were established in 1775 by the second continental congress. benjamin franklin was our first postmaster general. he had more here than, postmaster general dejoy. but he was just as efficient. and in 1787, he was the only federal agency mentioned by name in the constitution. but it was only until 1847, 75 yes later, that the congress authorized the issuance of. and that year, george washington and benjamin franklin were so honored. well, stamps were initially introduced to provide revenue to pay for service. over the years, it has become really a history of our nation in visualorm. today, a person has to be deceased three years before he or she is considered for a stamp in our natio

and scalia wrote in his dissent in that opinion this, quote, must arizona's ability to protect its borders to the reality that congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement or worse to the executives unwise targeting of that funding. this is a court with new trump justices on it. are you sure that this court would view it the same? >> i'm confident. i'll tell you why. you look at the 2012 court to now, you had justice reports join with the liberals back then. you take the three liberals now, that's four. you have justice barrett, justice kavanaugh is new. you have justice gorsuch is new since then. i'm confident -- look, they're conservatives but don't always go with whatever republicans do. they have all crossed over at various points. i'm confident the law and the constitution is clear enough here it will be struck down if it goes to the supreme court. >> thank you very much. >>> stick around. we have more for you coming. >> israeli government will transition to the next phase of the war and allow displaced palestinians to return home. the late fres the region. >>> new

justice gain of function research and article iii project and jamie landau for justices thomas and scalia former ambassador to mexico for president trump. chris, your comments last night made a big stir. got a lot of attention. but how damaging is this for president biden to publicly endorse this move by the colorado supreme court which in effect he did by saying there is no doubt that the president is an insurrectionist? no doubt he said. laura i think it's a very sad day for our country. ruling out of colorado to see the president of the united states endorsing that frankly just rub salt in the wound. especially since nobody has charged president trump with insurrection, which is a federal crime at 18 usc 2383 there is a specific crime of insurrection. jack smith didn't bring that charge against trump. much less convict him of insurrection. so, again, the idea that it's so obvious as the president says that he insurrectionist. if it was that obvious, why didn't you bring that charge to a jury then? because they don't want to defend that charge. so, conveniently, courts applying this cla

kagan, michael court, famously cited one fish, red fish, blue fish, in a supreme court that justice scalia joined. but i want to just amplify what glenn said and say it's really going to matter what the doj decides to do in its supply brief. they filed the brief, sent to the supreme court, saying, grab this. enough donald trump, next wednesday, will file a brief, presumably, saying, oh, what's at the big rush, guys? and then, the doj will come back in. maybe they say, we'll let it go now, let the d. c. circuit go and it's normal time. maybe they say, no, the ticket anyway, time is of the essence here, go forward. one thing seems pretty sure to me. because a judge chuck consent chutkan not just the trial but the discovery is on hold, we now are sort of day for day delayed. i think at the trial date itself is going to give a month or so in any of that. the question is it will not get more than that. >> regardless, though, glenn, donald trump and his team continued to bring up this immunity, situation, so jacks jack smith has done what jack smith had to do. what is his best and worst case all