investment, and a debt that is worth it. half of the americans have 20,000 or less worth of debt, and few percentage points they are paying on the bills and for most people it is worth it, but for the outliers who have $100,000 or more in student loan debt, it is crushing on october 1st. that i have had three years of not having to pay that debt, and they have been using it for other things in the household budget, and very rude awakening for millions of american families. >> and christine, from top republicans, john thune putting out a statement saying that i am seeing the way he is talking about it is very similar to the other republican reaction coming from capitol hill is that the plan that biden had put forward was unserious scheme to force 87% of the americans who do not have student loan debt to bear the cost of 13% of americans who do so, and anybody frustrated by the decision should direct their

complaint to the white house where they knew this executive order would be struck down by the courts and did nothing to absorb the exorbitant costs in higher education. and exorbitant costs in higher education is something that we have talked about so many times, because when it is coming up, and the way i often describe it is any of the efforts is a band-aid over a gaping wound which is the cost of higher education is too high. >> yeah, and the term is moral hazard. and four-year private college is $58,000 a year, and public in-state is $30,000 a year, and there is nowhere in the economy where you have seen inflation for something that is so necessary for people to enter the middle-class, and the inflation is just run away inflation in terms of the cost of college. so, that is definitely an

underlying problem, but it is interesting that some of the other responses from republicans and democrats who agree, but they just kind of don't understand the fairness of, i sent my kid to a state school, because that what we could afford, and so why as taxpayer, why am i subsidizing somebody else who got a major that was expensive in an industry that does not have a lot of jobs, and how should the taxpayers subsidize the choices people are making, and i have covered it for year, it is the only debt that we allow people to take on without judging whether they are going to have the ability to pay it back. you can just get as much of the debt as you want, and we have to do a better job on the front end of it, but understanding the cost of college, and how much it is going to cost to pay for it. >> christine romans, thank you very much, and now, joining us is mark gold wynn, and the senior policy director for the committee of a responsible

federal budget. look, there was a cost to the government for this plan that president biden had proposed. what is your reaction to the supreme court ruling today? >> well, i think they what the supreme court told us today is that the president cannot spend $400 billion of the taxpayer money on his own without congress. that is a good thing, and he should not be able to. >> what do you say to the borrowers out there who have been anticipating relief and/or need some assistance here based on the economic situation. >> look, i feel for them, and the president made an empty promise that he could not keep using authority that he didn't have, and it left a lot of the folks behind. what i hope we do is to work on a bipartisan basis, the president and the congress to come up with a plan that truly fixes the income-driven repayment, and gets college cost under control, and focusing on quality and accountability,

because it is missing from the debt cancellation scheme. >> marc, when it comes to how this landed, part of the legal argument came down to how big this package was. and this is 400-plus billion program that president biden was working towards here. is that the issue for you. that is sheer side of -- the sheer size of it or is that the wrong way of approaching this problem? >> we need targeted forgiveness as part of the income driven repayment, but it is adding cost for 87% of american, and it is progressive where it goes to the top income earners of american ps, and if the president can cut taxes without congress, where does it end? >> and when the happened like

when i was in school, and other folks in school, and had student loans, and covid showed up and created havoc, and part of this was trying to help people deal with the emergency, and do you feel that there was ever any emergency that this president should have the power to say, i have to help the people who are suffering very much from something that we just could not see happen? >> well, i think that the president had and used the authority to pause student debt payments early in the covid emergency and that made since in early 2020, but by time this came, unemployment rate was 2% among college graduates, and right now, the student debt has fallen 2% relative to income, and the idea that students are worse off as a result of the pandemic is not true in account

of the 1.6 trillion we have given them through other means. >> thank you, marc goldwein. >> and let's just remind others about the other two majors decisions that we have received this morning. with a web designer, the court has ruled that she does not have to provide webs sites for same sex married couples. you do not have to engage in expressive activity. and the supreme court just flat out threw out the biden student lone forgiveness program. we go back to jessica schneider. >> and john, what these two cases show in particular in writing and on the bench is the

stark division in this court. the 6-3 court that is in these two decisions in particular starkly conservative versus liberals. we have heard from the justices today on the bench and notably for the second day in a row, we are hearing a liberal justice read a dissent from the bench, and that is something that does not often happen, but it has in the past two days and yesterday with affirmative action, and today with the two decisions. so two major decisions indeed, the court blocking, rejecting president biden's student loan forgiveness program, and saying that a wedding site designer in colorado does not have to service same sex couples. what do these decisions mean? that the biden administration cannot put into effect their student loan forgiveness program, and it is blocked by lower courts and continues to be blocked. so 40 million-plus americans will not be getting that student

loan forgiveness in current plan in place. and the court says this is and opinion written by chief justice john roberts, while the heroes act does allow for some acts to be taken in times of emergency, the statute does not allow the administration to go this far and cancel for what amounts to $400 billion plus in debt. that is the crux of the case. as for the same sex wedding site case, that was written by judge gorsuch and that coming down again, 6-#, and says that basically the colorado law that says that you cannot discriminate against the same sex couples violated the web designer's free speech, because it compelled her to speak by way of servicing the particular clients, and i wanted to read to you just part of the dissents here. justice kagan wrote a dissent in

the student loan case, and justice sotomayor case. i will read you in justice kagan's plan, she says in every respect, the court has exceeded the proper role in governance, and the first overreach is deciding it at all, and disputing the standing, and she says that the court is acting as if it is a arbiter of political and policy disputes rather than of cases and controversies, and hitting hard at the conservative majority here. and then we heard again from justice sotomayor of the second day in a row reading dissent, and she said at the end, i dissent rather than the typical i respectfully dissent. and there a notice that says some services may be denied to same sex couples, and goes on the warn that it is going to potentially leading to business owners and creative types to

refusing to serve international couples or others. and this was pushed back by judge gorsuch and that straight couples only conjured out of thin air, but you can see again both on the bench and in paper, the real divisions this court, and the tensions of this court finally bubbling over. this has been a term where a lot of the cases so far that we have seen have had members of the liberal side maybe working with the conservative side, but these last two days, we have seen this stark divide when it is coming to affirmative action and now same sex rights, gay rights and when it is coming to the administration's power to forgive student loans. guys? >> yes, this is no doubt showing the tension inside of the courts, and what these days and this week shows is the tension of the impact inside of the

courtroom showing the discomfort there, and the impact around the entire country, and what we have now seen by 6-3 margins is the judicial ideology of this court firmly stated. one law professor told me last night we are now in a yolo supreme court. you only live once supreme court moment which for conservatives they are rejoicing, and obviously for liberals, they are not, but it is a moment for conservatives to get what they want on major, major issues starting from dobbs to affirmative action and now today. >> and this an important moment to stop and reflect where we are with the supreme court. this is the end the term by the way, and the last of the full decision, and emergency decisions, and this term gave aus couple of really surprising cross ideological opinions particularly in area of voting rights where we had chief justice roberts along with justices kavanaugh and barrett,

and those two minus barrett coming over to join the liberals to uphold the key provision of the voting rights act, and then later to reject this radical independent laegislature theory and then we had a predictable ideological line, and we had the 6-3 affirmative action and the two today and a series of cases involving religious freedom and first amendment rights pitted against the anti-discrimination laws that are almost uniformly going in favor of the first amendment and religious rights. another thing to reflect on is how much power we give the supreme court justices. these justices outlast presidency after presidency. justice clarence thomas was confirmed in 1991, and he has now served during six different presidencies. bush, clinton, bush, obama, trump, biden. so it is important when these

vacancies come up, the supreme court justices possess more power than any person in our government, and we are reminded of that now. >> these justices will be around for potentially 50 years. >> and they are making them younger and younger, and it is a requirement looking at justice jackson and the three trump nominees were low 50s and younger and that is why. >> we go to steve, we go over to you, because yours is one of the twitter accounts that i watch on the supreme court day, and we will start with today, and also what you are thinking of and reflect on and where we end on this huge term today. >> well, i have to think that power is the right way to think about this, and the amount of power that the court is claiming to insert itself into basically every kind of decision in american life. taking two cases from today, the decision in the colorado website

case now means that any business owner anywhere in the country can at least try to defend exclusionary behavior on the ground that what they do is express zi. that -- expressive, and that going to open up the misbehavior of business and a ton of litigation. but don't sleep on the student loan case, because by allowing missouri to challenge it, and the major doctrine to strike it down, and what the supreme court is really doing is to transferring power from the political branchs to the courts. and now, any federal district judge in the country can look at any federal policy and say, this is a program of vast political significant and what isn't, and i don't think that congress has acted specifically enough to authorize it. guys, it is open season for

federal programs and not just new and controversial ones like the student loan programs, but other ones like medicare, and that is a juncture for this court to be taking all of this power not just for itself, but for the federal judiciary writ charge. >> steve, that is an interesting point of how far reaching the implications of from the student loan case, and not just in this one area, and stick with us for a second, steve. >> laura coates, i want to get to you have to take a moment to pause to think about what this means overarchingly for the country as the court has really changed some thing, and some things that have been in place for years like affirmative action, and making big changes that will trickle down and affect many of us if not all of us. what is your take on what this court's decision means over the last few days?

>> taken collectively, and precedent is a long-standing tradition in which we can order all of our lives is really now gone. the idea that you can expect to have when a supreme court rules on a case that it will have a foundational and transformational impact that is long lasting is really no more. as steve alluded to the open season on the certain aspects tof law, it means that perhaps many things that we took for granted as sacrosanct to put order in our lives is maybe not, and this is very concerning for those who legislate with supreme court opinions, and how people conduct admissions operation, and how people can at the state level enact and implement laws that they believe to be in line with prior supreme court precedent, and all of the things

are being transformed and after many years of talking about the wild, wild west, and unchartered territory, we would not think it is with the supreme court, but yet, here we are. and thinking about this collectively, and how often have we heard from the supreme court to have a line included in the opinion that says, nothing that we have said here should be construed to be the opposite of what we are saying here, to be evoking the society and life. that caveat is saying that we are aware that it might be construed or will be construed in the long run to subvert some principle. so here we are in a novel territory wondering what precedent is really going to mean, and what is the next to be on the chopping block. the supreme court has done

itself no favors in the grand scheme of things to trying to ensure completely amittpolitica and yet, we have the supreme court of the united states enroped as they are to be above politic, and often times above the type of reproach or accountability of the article iii experience. so we have a way of reckoning of the terms of how the political body views court, the litigants view the court, and society views court, and how the lower courts are going to structure their opinions in line with this. >> no question that the public view of the supreme court is much different than it has really ever been, and in some cases, lower, but it has always been the role of the supreme court to make decisions that have as we said yesterday a generational impact on our society. when they weigh in on something, it changes things for a long

time. they are big things by definition. and steve, vladic, i am not throwing you a curveball, but because you watch it so closely, but given on what the court has ruled on in the last 14 months, if you are a conservative, and in the federalist society, what is left on the wish list here, because you are getting a loft what you want so far. >> yeah, it is not a curveball, but it is a scenario that i don't want to play out in my head. but i think that we are already seeing aggressive moves by a number of the red states to interfere with the rights of the transgendered official, and transgendered affirming medical care especially to children, and that is going to be something to get litigated up to the supreme court in coming months, but the

real problem with how active the court has been is not a wish list, but everything is unstable. laura is so right how the destabilizing of the effect of these rulings is perhaps the most important theme, because now it is going to enable, and incentivize folks to bring lawsuits that they may not have brought 5 or 10 years ago, and folks with legal theories to have a shot of succeeding five or ten years ago, because it is not the bottom lines of the cases. and i hate to be the nerdy law professor here, but the court is reaching out the get to the bottom lines to where there are serious objections to who is the parties here, and that is the wedding web designer case, and the court is saying to the activists that we will stretch our procedural rules to reach substantive outcomes that you might want us to reach, and

therefore, you have nothing to lose in going into your nearest friendly district court and trying new things out. the worst thing that happens is that you will lose in the supreme court, and if the last couple of things have taught us, yeah, they will lose some, and win some. that is the real issue here, is how much this is going to be put back on the table, and for so long we have taken as a given and structure society. >> i am so stuck on what you are saying about what the court is saying with the decisions with regard to the presidential power, and the power from the political branches to put them in the courts is something that we need to continue to examine. is joan ready now, guys? i wanted to bring in, if we can joan biskupic who is back with us, and just like yesterday, you were in the court again today as the final major decisions were coming down, and take us inside

of the court and tell us what you saw. >> yeah. i didn't mean to sound so breathless, and i did zip over here. again, this time, it went for more than an hour, and what is interesting, and i will start with the ruling in the religious rights versus lgbtq interests, because two very different portraits of the facts of the case and rights in america were drawn by two justices sitting right next to each other. they are all arrayed up there on the mahogany bench, and you had justice neil gorsuch begin by talk about the religious rights at issue here for a woman who said that her free speech was impinged because she felt that she would be forced to create a wedding website for same sex couples. what she stressed, she would not

discriminate based on the status, but she wanted to foreclose that option based on the fact that she did not want to articulate speech. so everything that justice gorsuch drew out as he presented his side of the case, the winning side of the case had to do with free speech. he talked about instances when the court had said that, no, students could not be forced to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag, and no, government could not stop the nazis from marching in skokie, because it is part of their free speech right, and everything he referred to here including the veterans parade that wanted to keep out banners and marchers who were going to out the gay rights, and that is context that he drew here, and in part to get ahead of the dissenter sitting right next to him was about to say, and he reminded the

audience in the courtroom about the bostack ruling that he wrote in 2020, and that is a case where he was with the majority to expand lgbtq rights in the workplace. so, he wanted to carefully distinguish what was being precluded here. then when it was time for justice sotomayor to speak on the part of the dissenters, and the three liberal justices as you laid out, and she said, this case is not about speech, but it is conduct and status. it is about allowing a website designer to put out a sign that says same sex couples need not come here. she drew a contrast to all that judge gorsuch had laid out over several minutes as he had opened the proceedings with detailing what the justices had done in this case by saying look at how it fits into the history, and

she referred to the most recent history, and she said look at how much has changed in just five years when the justices of the this court long gone now, justice kennedy she referred to said that retailers an businesses cannot exclude individuals just because of their status. again, she was removing this case from free speech realm in which gorsuch was casting it, and if this court blocks this free speech from the type of colorado, it could lead to other discrimination, and the cases she invoked had to do with serious discrimination including one from way back when before the civil rights era in which i think it is ollie's barbeque, and think it was a barbeque stand wouldn't serve black customer at tables and only allow them to come to the window of the establishment, and she said, it is as if this laurie

smith in this case who runs this 303 creative enterprise will only sell at the side counter. so a very dramatic rendering and very disparate rendering of what was the facts of the case were and the law at issue, and the whole time that justice sotomayor was reading the excerpts of her dissent, neil gorsuch instead of tilting his head toward her as often happens, he looked straight at her, and not flinching at all. i am sure he was quite firm in what he believed and quite firm in the majority that he was able to get for this case to side with this woman who i should remind everyone has not in any way been sanctioned by the state of colorado, has not been found in any way to be not abiding by the state's public accommodations law, but she had brought this case in what is

known as preenforcement challenge. so in so many ways, this case was kind of created out of the facts that don't quite fully exist yet, and that is another thing that justice soao otomayo pointed up. and should i go to the next case when the chief started the talk. >> you were the one there. >> and i have to say for the last day, you saw all of the tensions on so many issues. this is a culture war issue that i played out on, you know, same sex couples versus the christian owner of the establishment who just feels like she has a right, she has a free speech right not to adopt the message of a same sex couple, and it is all part of the culture wars, and a quick ps on that, and when sotomayor was talking about why the court was so profoundly wrong, she

referred to the kind of discrimination that gays and lesbians face right now, and the kinds of, you know, movements that we have seen in the states and referred to state laws that are right now being created across the country that could allow discrimination against gay rights, and she said at this kind of time what does the supreme court do? it shrinks back from duty to protect people, and instead, signals that these people's rights are not in need of protection, and to just close out the drama of that, and then to sort of point up wide expansion of how this court is affecting life, chief roberts is going to detail exactly why the secretary of education was wrong to try to provide loan forgiveness to millions of

borrowers in the wake of covid, and in that case, first of all, whether there was a real issue if the six republican states to challenge this had the right to do it. he brushed back concerns there whether missouri even could do it. he has a brisk voice and tone that it was in contrast certainly to justices gorsuch and sotomayor and he cut to the chase, and he said there was an injury here, and legal standing on the part of the state of missouri to bring this case, and when he got to the nub of the whole thing, he said something that will have reverberations in so many areas of regulation and protection for people that government wants to protect in environment, student loans, health and welfare, and the secretary of education went beyond what congress would have wanted to do at all in this matter as i am sure spelled out by other legal analysts here.

the secretary of education working under emergency provisions of this law said that these student loans could be forgiven up to $20,000. justice kagan then in her dissent said, look at what this court is doing it. it is not quite reading statute correctly, the chief has picked out parts of the statute that suit the majority's interests, and not reading it as a whole, and talked about the other reverberations of government protection, and hers with or the fi -- hers were the words of the opinion of a different court today, and then shortly after 11:00 a.m., chief roberts said, that is it for this term, and to paraphrase what the dissents said last year, majority is not

done with the work going forward beginning in the fall. >> all right. joan biskupic witness to history today, and you will have a busy day, because everybody is going to want to hear from you to find out what you saw and felt like to be there in this momentous day. and now, over to manu raja over on capitol hill. >> yes, they are wanting to hear about what the biden administration is wanting do in hearing that the supreme court is striking down the student loan forgiveness program. and still, chuck schumer said that biden administration has remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation. and schumer is one of the foremost proponents to act on an administrative basis here.

but so is elizabeth warren, and she says that the president has more tools to cancel student debt, and he must use them. the had ministration must do everything that it can to deliver on the commitment that president biden has promised to the voters. you are seeing the increased pressure on the white house to move on other remedies. so we will see what they decide for the folks on the left. and then on the right, the republicans are recognizing this is an issue of student loans and the cost of education, and trying to move on their own ledgesation saying they are moving on issues regarding the education and tuition and the debt, and that is one of the big issues they will also be fighting the cost of student debt. and also, you are hearing republican after republican hailing the supreme court's decision on student loan, and

more republicans are talking about the move of the supreme court to strike down that colorado law that a lot of them believe it was unfair, and allowed, and supported essentially what the supreme court did, but not as much from the republicans given the potency of issues of gay rights, and perhaps staying quiet on this issue, but student loans is something that they can rally all behind. so everyone from kevin mccarthy on down hailing the supreme court decisions on student loan, and less reaction from the gop on the gay rights issue, and a interesting difference of approach there, and nonetheless, on the issue of student loans, expect pressure of president biden on the aftermath of the ruling that went against them. >> thank you, manu raja, for that reporting. over to david chalian now, and looking at the overarching look

at what has happened in the past two days, and long-standing precedents being overturned, and the lgbtq community losing out there, what has happened in the political landscape, what kind of impact is this going to have on the 2024 presidential election? >> well, the real answer to the question is unknown, but the two things to look for here, sara, you were talking to our extraordinarily talented and brilliant colleague joan biskupic of what happened in the courtroom, and talking about the bemoaning of the liberals on the court, and bemoaning the conservative direction that the court has moved in. that is precisely the point for the republicans. right?

if you are looking back at donald trump's unlikely fit with conservatives, what did he do? he took list of people and then published it that he would appoint to the supreme court to get the conservative movement on board with him. here took the federal society list, the conservative group that has been in this space for decades, and he said, i'm going to appoint their preapproved folks. and that got a lot of the conservative angel cevangelical board with donald trump. because now, with donald trump seeking is presidency, is going to have a proof point, that my three appointments got us to the 6-3 points here, and that is all by part of the design.

but now the question to the flipside of this, does the totality of the decision of affirmative action, gay rights, student loans, combine in some way to energize the left here back into the mode of like we saw perhaps in the aftermath of the dobbs decision of how much elections matter, and motivate them to realize the success of their political opponents when it comes to supreme court, and how they have to make sure that is central to the work going forward? i don't think that all three of issues, affirmative action, student loans and gay rights are necessarily cutting exactly the way that decades of the abortion movement cut politically, but you can imagine the combination of it being clearly an argument that biden and the allies will be taking to the country that it

is, a motivating factor for people to focus on in this year and the election year next year. >> david, stick with us for a second. i want to bring in van jones who popped up. van, thank you for joining. i wanted to get your, kind of what david is talking about, totality, and reflecting on the totality of what we have seen in the past two days, and the impact, the historic impact that these opinions will have on american life. >> well, look, this is a tragedy, if you care about inclusion and equal opportunity and care about folks who don't have much, and trying to make it today, it is a tragedy. it is a tragedy that is a result of a strategy, and this is what we forget. it is a deliberate effort on the part of conservatives to hijack the court, and the federalist society was organizing on the campuses, getting the law students together in the '80s and the '90s and mitch mcconnell

focused like a laser to focus on the courts, and you have three trump appointees remaking america as they will. all of the things that i taught in law school, they are out of the door. you used to have standing, and i wanted the supreme court to tell me what is right, but that is what happened with the lgbtq rights. literally this woman had not been sued by anybody, and she had no reason to be in court at all, and standing used to be important, and that is out of the window. precedent, and earlier decisions used to matter, and it is out of the window, and the supreme court used to narrowly decide, what is the most narrow approach to decide an issue, and nope. we will entertain any theory to go after issues. this is a legitimacy crisis

brought on by a movement that was losing movement to a more inclusive generation. and now they are using supreme court to slam closed the door of inclusivity. if you are a young gay or lesbian person, you should not see your opponent, but a referee to call it fair or unfair, because it is now a first amendment being used as a shield as bigotry, and the first amendment is being used a shield for discrimination. there were people in my father's day, and mother's day that said that the bible separated the races, and after noah, we were

separated. it was ordained by god say they are back? that a man of religious faith, i can no longer serve the view of diversity? this is all nuts. it is a result of strategy, and we have the wake up, and realize it is a serious political fight. >> we have to wake up, and those were your words, and it is a political tenet that the supreme court was an mated issue for the conservatives, and the republican can, and maybe that is the strategy, van. but the question is for democrats, can it be an animating issue, and what evidence have you seen that the democrats will rally to this at the polls? >> the midterm elections. the fact that after the supreme

court struck down "roe v. wade" you saw a huge part of the constituency to stand up, and moderates saying, wait a second, it is settled law of 50 years, and you are going to change it, because you have new people on the bench? i think that you going to be seeing a lot of people standing up, because when you have a legitimacy crisis for the court, you have a legitimacy crisis for the country. because now you have a generation of younger people who are with the court, and you have made affirmative action not helpful to me, and it is harder for me to get one, and now if i can et gget one, it is harder ty off my student loan, and if i go into a store, i may not be

served. and so now, looking at the presidential elections, the progressives wins it by millions of votes. but the electoral college is not on my side. and montana has as many senators as california. and california has neighborhoods bigger than minnesota. is this country stacked against me? you didn't want that. you want a system that is responsive and fair so that they feel that america is their country. it is on their side, and so their values are rubbed in dog pooh over and over again. if you think they are not watching, it is not true. so it is a very, very bad moment for the country. obviously, if you reason a asian

parent, you might breathe a sigh of relief, because there is a sense that they have to had to work harder than others, but to pit black and brown kids against other kids, but to believe you may be there because your parents were there. and the level of strategy and scheming, and stopping obama from appointing his own justices is bad looking forward. so this a moment where, yo yes, you will see a political reaction, because suddenly people are realizing that when we elect folks and pass laws, there is a supreme court willing to strike it down, and strike down precedent and standing and all of the things that have made the supreme court to be very

suspect legally. >> and so, now, the issues, you name it, abortion or whatever faction, and conservatives say, this is what we have been feeling like, and now we have been able to get our justices on the court. >> that is their argument, and why they focused so much on the courts, but don't forget it is one thing when you win it fair and square. it is one thing when you are stopped to get your appointees, and then rush yours on. it is when obama got an appointee on, and then trump rushed one of his on. so using hook and crook to get

there, and then once you get there, it is going to be using hook and crook to get the decisions that you want. and standing, to have an and you can't say that the supreme court passed a law, and it might hurt me, and so i will throw standing in the garbage can. usually when you are going to move in a certain direction, you do it step by step by step. you don't have judicial revolution every year overthrowing 50 years' precedent. so the problem that you have is that of course, the people have felt and at least the democrats were putting the people on court by the rules. the rules have been changed to

stack this court, and the court is acting in a way that is contrary to not just black votes and liberal, but it is going against 200 years of supreme court precedent in termsf how it conducts its own business. so if you are a true patriot, and conservative, you would want the supreme court even if it is moving in your own way, that rmt is owned with core principles, and this is not conservative, but it is anti-revolution that flies in the face of conservative values. >> van jones, thank you. as ellie honig says, standing i there until they decide it is not going to be there. >> there is political impact, and legal impact and, we will have much more on this breaking news. our continuing coverage on cnn "news central" continues right

after this. this is the all-new tempur-pedic breeze mattress, and it's designed to help you feel cool. ...no kicking off th covers... ..r blasting the air conditioning. because only the tempur-pedic breeze is made with our one-of-a-kind cooling technology- that pulls heat away from your body. so, the mattress feels up to 10° cooler all night long. for a limited time, save $500 on all-new tempur-breeze mattresses... ...and get your coolest sleep this summer. learn more at tempurpedic.com. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ )

-awww. -awww. -awww. -nope. ( ♪ ) constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall. [music playing] subject 1: cancer is a long journey. it's overwhelming, but you just have to put your mind to it and fight. subject 2: it doesn't feel good because you can't play outside with other children. subject 3: as a parent, it is your job to protect your family. but here is something that i cannot do. i cannot fix this. i don't know if my daughter is going to be able to walk. i don't know if she's going to make it till tomorrow. [music playing] interviewer: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus

on helping their child live. subject 4: childhood cancer, there's no escaping it. but st. jude is doing the work, continually researching towards cures, giving more than just my child a chance at life. interviewer: please, call or go online right now and become a st. jude partner in hope for only $19 a month. subject 5: those donations really matter because we're not going to give up. and when you see other people not giving up on your child, it makes all the difference in the world. interviewer: when you call or go online with your credit or debit card right now, we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. you can wear to show your support to help st. jude save the lives of these children. subject 6: st. jude is hope. even today after losing a child, it's still about the hope of tomorrow, because.

childhood cancer has to end. interviewer: please, call or go online right now. [music playing]

and this just in. we're getting new reporting and reaction after this momentous day of decisions coming in from the supreme court. this just in from our colleague arlette saenz at the white house, that president biden had been meeting with his senior staff at the white house, and these meetings began shortly

after the decision came down from the supreme court to block his student debt relief plan. we also are hearing that we could be hearing next steps, what they're going to try to do or can do now after this very -- this big decision from the court on student loans. we'll be hearing more today. we're also getting more reaction in from all angles of the political spectrum on all of these decisions. our hill team points out something interesting as they've been gathering statements from republicans and democrats alike. when it comes to republicans, they've come out strongly to react to the student loan decision, but remarkably silent on the other very big decision coming down from the supreme court today on lgbtq rights. let's go over to manu raju on the hill with the latest on this. this is really interesting what -- what you're picking up in terms of the statements that really have flooded your inboxes since these decisions today. what does it mean, manu? >> reporter: yeah, look at

speaker mccarthy, for instance. he has been tweeting and re-tweeting statements attacking joe biden's student loan program, hailing the decision to say that the student loan forgiveness program needs to be struck down, something republicans battled against, something that had largely united their party. much different when it comes to the issue of gay rights and limiting lgbtq protections as a result of the supreme court striking down that colorado law. mccarthy so far silent on that issue. we have reached out to his office for comments. nothing yet. also we have not heard yet from the top senate republicans including senator mcconnell as well as senator john thune, the number-two republican. thune issuing a statement also hailing the supreme court decision on student loans. nothing yet on the issue of gay rights. they had known these cases were coming down. and it underscores the fact that gay rights in particular has been an issue in which republicans have state department away from. it used to be an issue that used to animate their base. as gay rights in particular, gay

marriage has become more popular among the american public you heard fewer republicans embrace this as part of issues involving cultural war issues. it's not been a predominant focus among republicans on capitol hill which is why you're seeing this division about how they're responding to these cases. we'll see if they decide to respond, but as you know, congress is on recess. members, they can choose to weigh in they want. at the moment, kevin mccarthy is responding to the student loan issue but not the issue of lgbtq rights. >> interesting. thanks for putting it together. great reporting from you and the hill team. much more to come. cnn's david chaleon. if we're looking at the three issues in the last days, affirmative action -- i'm going to put it as gay rights but it's gay rights free speech, and finally student loans, and a fourth because i think it's relevant to the political discussion here when you're talking about roe versus wade, abortion rights. public opinion's in a different place on each of these issues,

and it sort of may be instructive about where they're going. can you walk us through that map? >> yeah. i mean, the abortion issue, john, as you know, polling and public opinion has been consistent across the board, and the dobbs decision was just firmly and squarely in the minority opinion. and so democrats were able to not only rally democrats but also critical independent voters around abortion rights that we saw time and again in kansas, in upstate new york, in the recent wisconsin judicial race, and of course broadly in the 2022 midterms. on the affirmative action issue, we discussed yesterday the polling on that is a little bit more mixed. it's not as broadly popular program the way roe versus wade was a broadly popular precedent in american jurisprudence. and while manu is absolutely right to note -- i don't think there's a public policy issue we've seen move more quickly in

terms of public opinion than we saw on gay marriage over a period of a decade, a decade and a half, where it has substantial majority support. now this issue, this case today wasn't on gay marriage itself obviously, but you understand why republicans may not want to delve into that. the student loan piece -- and i think this is so interesting, guys -- that is something we saw joe biden himself struggle with within his own party. i think that's also why you see republicans jumping on this. a, it's a joe biden policy, and so they can go directly at the president on this. that's not necessarily the case in colorado. but b, we see the left pressuring the white house to do something here so republicans want to keep up that internal democratic divide on the issue, as well. >> mr. chaleon, always good to see you. it has been a really, really interesting and tumultuous, if you will, decision week for the

supreme court. elie, give us a sense of what this all means. we have seen everything from religious rights to first amendment rights to voting rights in this particular case -- in these cases that they've decided. what does this mean to americans who are watching this and seeing a lot of these changes because precedents has been up-ended more than once. >> this is a reminder of the power of the supreme court which sometimes i think we can take for granted. this week has been a reminder of that. we've seen opinions over the last month or so that will touch every single person in this country. it's not an exaggeration. we saw crucial voting rights decisions come down against the conservative side, by the way. in the laugh couple days we've seen really what people have come to expect, a series of 6-3 rulings. i think what we've learned is the supreme court does seem to be expanding what it does here. and van talked about this in a way that i think was compelling. there's an important question about where does law end and policy begin? where is that line between what

needs to be done in congress, what needs to be done on the supreme court. i think the decision we saw on student loans exactly exemplifies that because technically, if you look at the ruling, it's all about law. what is it okay for the executive branch to do, what does congress have to do. but if you actually go back and listen to the oral argument, it was all about policy -- is this fair, is this good policy, is it fair to relieve certain student debts but not others? if you look at the opinion they took that out of here. where does the supreme court step in, how aggressively do they step in? one thing that's inarguable whether you love or hate what the supreme court has done is they've been more aggressive in the cases they're getting, reaching farther into american life. i think the decisions even the last two days will impact hundreds of millions of people in concrete ways. >> wow. thank you so much. >> when you see a 6-3 margin, you have every reason to expect that this will continue one way or another because the overall ideological make-up of the

court, it won't change any time soon with one vacancy. >> that's exactly right. huge day. thanks for sticking with us throughout all of this. thank you all for sticking with us. it's been a momentous three hours here on "cnn news central." much more to come on these big decisions from the supreme court at the very end of their term. this is "cnn news central," "inside politics" is up next. an all-in-one cleaning tool that gives you a mop and bucket clean in halalf the time. our new cleaning pad has hundreds of scrubbining strips- that absorb and lock dirt away, ( ♪ ) and it has a 360-degree swivel head- that goes places a regular mop just can't. so, you can clean your home faster than ever. don't mop harder, mop smarter, with the new swiffer powermop.