♪ >> from pacifica, this is democracy now. >> mr. president, today's congressional budget office analysis of the trump mcconnell health care bill gives us 22 million reasons why this legislation should not see the light of day. >> as 22 million more people are projected to lose health insurance under the senate , could 28,000l more americans die a year as a result? stunningook at a

report on the lack of health insurance and rising mortality. we will speak with this study's author, and then to the supreme court. >> with respect to the supreme court decision, the president was honored by the 9-0 decision. amy: the supreme court has announced it will allow for the partial implementation of president trump's temporary ban on travel form six muslim majority countries. we will get response from vince warren at the center for constitutional rights and supreme court reporter, all of that and more coming up. now,me to democracy democracynow.org, the war and peace report. 22 million americans would lose their health insurance under the senate republicans' healthcare bill over the next decade. that's according to the

congressional budget office, which released its assessment on monday. following the report, republican senators susan collins of maine and rand paul of kentucky joined senator dean heller of nevada in pledging to vote against even debating their party's health .are bill this week senator ron johnson of wisconsin has suggested he too what oppose voting. republican leaders had been pushing for a vote as early as today, ahead of the july 4th recess. the republican bill also faces major opposition from all senate democrats, a slew of governors from both parties, the majority of the healthcare industry, hospitals, doctors, nurses, patient advocacy groups, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, and even members of the far-right koch brothers' political network, who claim the legislation is not sufficiently conservative. this is vermont senator bernie sanders speaking monday on the senate floor. mr. sanders: mr. president, today's congressional budget

office analysis of the trump mcconnell health care bill gives us 22 million reasons why this legislation should not see the light of day. truth istells us in that this bill really has nothing to do with health care. rather, it is an enormous transfer of wealth from the sick, the elderly, the children, the disabled, and the poor into the pockets of the wealthiest people in this country. amy: vermont senator bernie sanders and others have been advocating instead for a single-payer healthcare system, known as "medicare for all," although sanders has yet to formally introduce a bill. we'll have more on the congressional budget office's report, the republican health care plan, and mounting calls for a single-payer system after headlines.

the u.s. supreme court has announced to allow for the partial implementation of president trump's travel ban while the court examines the constitutionality. the executive order calls for a 90 day ban on travelers from libya, iran, somalia, sudan, and yemen, and a 120 day ban on all refugees. the court is expected to hear oral arguments in october. three justices issued a separate ruling supporting the full implementation of the travel ban. white house secretary sean spicer praised the decision. >> the president was honored by the 9-0 decision that allows him to use an important tool to protect our nation's homeland. his number one responsibility is to keep american people safe and that is exactly what this executive order does. amy: we will have more on the

supreme court ruling later in the broadcast. the supreme court also agreed to hear the story of a colorado make aho refused to wedding cake for a same-sex couple. this opens the door to set precedent on whether businesses can deny services because of their sexual orientation. a couple who sued the cake maker said -- this has always been about more than a cake. toinesses should not be able violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love. the supreme court also ruled that tax grants for playgrounds could not be denied to a church run school in missouri. in an oral dissent, justice sonia sotomayor said -- this case is about nothing less than the relationship of religious institutions and the civil government, between church and state. profoundly changes

that relationship by holding that the constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. the white house claimed monday, without offering any evidence, that the syrian government appears to be preparing for a chemical weapons attack. u.s. military officials told the new york times they were surprised by the white house statement. military experts say this type of public warning is highly unusual. the statement appears to be aimed at preparing american public opinion for a u.s. military strike against the syrian government, warning if they conduct a chemical weapons attack, he and his military will suffer a heavy price. the united states is quietly expanding its role in syria, threatening a possibility of a direct conflict between the u.s. and russia. ella terrycked iraqi says the fight for most soul

sul could ber -- mo over in a few weeks. a bombing campaign has been accused of killing hundreds of civilians. at least 25 civilians were reportedly killed when u.s. led airstrikes destroyed homes in most soul's old city. the u.s. conference of mayors has unanimously passed resolutions calling on president trump to reallocate the military spending increases to help american cities. the proposed 2018 budget calls for an unprecedented $54 billion .ncrease in military spending the resolutions call on this money to be reallocated to fund environmental health and anti-poverty programs as well as reducing the threat of nuclear war. in brazil, federal prosecutors

have charged the president with corruption, accusing him of taking millions of dollars in bribes. the prosecutor said he has citizens.zilian he is facing nationwide protests facing -- calling for his ouster. lowerirds of brazil's half of congress must approve the trial for the prosecution to move forward. in burma, the military has arrested three journalists while they were reporting. with theeporters were democratic voice of burma. the third is with the outlet air waddy. amnesty international is calling for the journalists to be freed meanwhile in mexico, the body of a journalist has been

discovered more than a month after he was kidnapped. this is the state prosecutor. >> the remains were transported to the city to hand over to investigative services which carried out the corresponding genetic analysis. after looking over the parts of the law concerning this process, the dna samples identified the remains. amy: he had worked as a journalist for more than two decades and was the director of the television station six tv at the time of his disappearance. he often covered local politics critically and is at least the seventh journalist to be killed in mexico this year. a new poll by the pew research center shows the worldview of the united states has tumbled since president trump took office. the survey was conducted in 37 company -- countries.

64% at the end .f the obama presidency it shows the world overwhelmingly disapproves of a number of trump's policies including a muslim travel ban and building a wall on that u.s.-mexico border. reality winner is scheduled to appear today in court in georgia . she has played not guilty to allegedly leaking a top-secret document claiming russian military intelligence conducted a cyber attack on at least one u.s. voting company days before the last year's election. she is being held in lincoln county, georgia. her attorney say today's hearing is a status update. in an update to one of last say's stories, advocates shaheed ali con and his family will not face deportation next

week when they report to the immigration and customs office. they came to the united states in 1997 because their two-year-old son needed an open heart surgery and now they live in the neighborhood in brooklyn of little pakistan. go to democracynow.org. mississippi, the historical marker for emmett till has been vandalized to release -- the race information about the brutal kidnapping and murder of the 14-year-old african-american boy peered in panelst week, the vinyl containing words and images about his life and death have been peeled off the historical site which is part of the mississippi freedom trail. mother held an

open casket funeral for her son in chicago, and the published images of his brutalized body galvanize the civil rights movement. those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now, democracy now.org, the war and peace report. i am amy goodman. 22 million americans would lose under therance republicans' health care bill over the next decade. medicaid would see a 772 billion dollar cut over the next decade while wealthy americans would receive $541 billion in tax cuts . this is according to the congressional budget office which released its assessment of the republican health care bill in the senate monday. following the release of the cbo republican senators susan collins of maine and rand paul of kentucky joined senator dean heller of nevada in pledging to vote against even debating their party's health care bill this week.

senator ron johnson of wisconsin suggested that he too what of those just oppose voting. republican leaders had been pushing for a vote this week, ahead of the july 4th recess. the republican bill also faces major opposition from all senate democrats, a slew of governors from both parties, the majority of the healthcare industry, hospitals, doctors, nurses, patient advocacy groups, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, and even members of the far-right koch brothers' political network, who claim the legislation is not sufficiently conservative. this is vermont senator bernie sanders speaking monday on the senate floor. mr. sanders: mr. president, today's congressional budget office analysis of the trump mcconnell health care bill gives us 22 million reasons why this legislation should not see the light of day. what cbo tells us in truth is that this bill really has

nothing to do with health care. rather, it is an enormous transfer of wealth from the sick, the elderly, the children, the disabled, and the poor into the pockets of the wealthiest people in this country. ,r. president, according to cbo and that report just came out a few hours ago, this will would throw 22 million americans off of health insurance, cut billion,by over $770 defund planned parenthood, and substantially increase premiums for older americans. mr. president, this in fact is a barbaric and immoral piece of legislation. on monday, the american

medical association came out against the senate bill. the ama wrote -- medicine has long operated under the precept of premium -- of first do no harm. the draft legislation violates that standard on many levels. a stunning new study in the annals of internal medicine is estimating some 28,600 people could die early deaths if they lose health insurance. we are joined by the author of the study. cuny hunter college, lecturer at harvard medical school, and cofounder for physicians for a national health plan. tell us what you found. the world'sed scientific literature on the relationship between health insurance and mortality, and there is really a scientific consensus that being uninsured raises the death rate. it raises your death rates by

between 3% and 29%. youmath on that is that if take health insurance away from 22 million people, about 29,000 of them will die every year annually as a result. that is what we found by reviewing the literature. there was a similar review in the new england journal of medicine. we punished a study in the annals of american medication -- medicine, the largest medical specialty society. being uninsured raises your death rate, that is established scientific consensus and many of the republicans have been trying take away health insurance from 22 million people and nothing will happen. that is simply contradicted by the scientific consensus. amy: explain how people die as a result. >> people might have an acute interest -- illness like a major

trauma. if you are uninsured and you have a major trauma your death rates are high. you might have an illness like breast cancer. if you are uninsured and have breast cancer your rates are higher. this has to do with the routine medical care to treat high blood pressure, to treat diabetes before they cause complications, and to prevent those serious complications and death. hypertension, high blood pressure is probably the largest single contributor to deaths among uninsured people. you need to be taking medicines to control high blood pressure to prevent strokes and heart attacks and death. amy: this number, 22 million people will lose their health insurance over the next 10 years and then it only goes up from there. >> according to the congressional budget office it goes up from there because the medicaid cuts in the senate bill or delayed, but then are very

deep, deeper over the long run than what was in the house bill. medicaid will be cut for poor people and people in nursing homes. most people in nursing homes eventually have to rely on medicaid to pay the bill -- medicaid to pay the bill. if you have a disabled child, you have to rely on medicaid. if you have a relative who has serious mental illness or substance abuse, they rely on medicaid. it takes money from all of these people to give the giant tax cut to 1% of taxpayers. amy: a comment made by the idaho republican congressman during a town hall meeting, he came under fire for his answer to this question from audience member. people on medicaid are dying. >> that line is so indefensible.

nobody dies because they don't have access to health care. amy: nobody dies because they don't have access to health care. >> senator ted cruz has said that, marco rubio has said that, secretary tom price, the secretary of health and human services has implied that, that you can be uninsured and nothing happens. that is simply not true. science is showing us that if you lack health insurance, you do not get the care you need to stay healthy and people die earlier as a result. the republicans recognize this is a very dangerous idea for them, that people are going to die because of their behavior, but that is what the scientific consensus is saying. amy: what has to happen now? >> right now, the betting markets are saying it is 50/50 that the senate bill will pass so when something is 50/50, now

is the time to mobilize. you can call your senator, your congressman, you can demonstrate. there are demonstrations all over the country about this will. -- this bill. now is the time to really get active on this issue. saying, let'so be move forward to single-payer that covers everyone, not backward through this repeal. even under the affordable care act, 28 million americans have no health insurance. many americans are underinsured and they have insurance they cannot afford to use because of gaps in their coverage like co-pays, deductibles, and uncovered services. we need to be fighting this republican step backwards and saying to our democratic legislators, we need to be moving forward to single-payer that will actually improve care for all americans. an advocatee never of obamacare and now, what will happen?

even if they don't vote on it, the gutting of health insurance today is moving full speed ahead. what does it look like, even if this bill does not move forward? >> there is more support for the medicare for all single-payer idea than ever in history. polls are showing 56% of american people support the idea. the majority of house democrats have endorsed the conyers bill, a medicare for all bill. more than half of democrats have endorsed that bill, about 112. senator sanders is putting a bill into the senate in july so this is a great time for people to be saying, we need to move forward from the aca to single-payer. amy: what would medicare for all look like? >> it would be expanded, improved medicare for all. you would get a medicare card

the day you were born and have it for life. all necessary medical care could be covered for a tax funded medicare for all program. it would be a lot cheaper of the long run because you say so much money on administrative costs, all that billing and insurance enrollment is extremely expensive in the united states, consuming 31% of total health spending according to our research that appeared in the new england journal of medicine. by going to a simple single-payer system you can save about $500 billion the year which you can use to get to universal health care, and to remove copayments and deductibles for people who now have them. that is what has happened in other countries. candida has a single-payer system, doesn't work perfectly but it does cover everyone. scotland has a single-payer dish much ofof the europe has a single-payer system . they live two years longer.

passif this bill were to and become law, close to 29,000 people could die. withis our mortality rate our insurance system compared to others? >> americans live does go to three years shorter than people in canada, just across the to three years shorter than people in canada, just across the border. similarly, about two years shorter than people in many western european countries. some of the studies we reviewed look at the international evidence, it is totally consistent with the idea that being uninsured is bad for your health. it can cause death. and that being fully covered for all medically necessary care as would happen under medicare for all, makes people healthier and prolongs their life. amy: i want to turn to president

trump being interviewed recently by fox and friends. >> i want to see -- and i speak from the heart -- that is what i want to see, i want to see a bill with heart. amy: your response? >> trumpcare has no heart whatsoever. the house bill was going to throw 23 million people off insurance. the senate bill will throw 22 million off in 10 years and keep throwing more off. to make health insurance worse for people with private coverage by getting rid of the rules about what has to be coverage -- covered, so private insurance will no longer have to cover maternity care. we're robbing money from the medicare trust fund, taking $117 billion out of the medicare trust fund which pays for the health insurance when people turn 65. $117 billion taken out to give tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers.

that is not part, that is the , that ispart -- heart the opposite. amy: thank you for being with us. cofounder of physicians for a national health program, and we will link to her report on the mortality that would be related to the republican health care bill becoming law. roughly 28,600 more americans could die per year. this is democracy now. when we come back, a supreme court decision. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: sweet dreams are made of

this. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the u.s. supreme court has announced it will allow for the partial implementation of president trump's temporary ban on travelers from six muslim majority countries while the court examines the constitutionality of the order. ae executive order called for 90 day ban on travelers from libya, iran, somalia, sudan, and yemen, and a 120 day ban on all refugees. in an unsigned decision the court said the ban could be reinforced -- and forced for any fidegner who lacks a bona relationship with any person or entity in the united states. the court is expected to hear or goal -- world arguments in october -- oral arguments in october. three justices issued a separate ruling supporting the full implementation of the travel ban.

the white house press secretary praised the decision. >> with respect to the supreme court decision on the executive order, the president was honored by the 9-0 decision that allows him to use an important tool to protect our nation's homeland. his number one responsibility is to keep the american people safe and that is exactly what this order does. amy: the aclu says the court decision should not be viewed as a victory for the trump administration. >> location on the ground is not as severe as it might have first appeared, because the number of people who will be affected by this narrower version of the ban is much smaller. i think it is a complete mischaracterization to say that this is in some way a victory for the administration. what they are being allowed to move forward with here is really the smallest sliver, the

faintest shadow of what they originally set out to accomplish. amy: to talk more about this ruling as well as another, and the speculation that anthony kennedy could step down at a certain point, but we will get to that, we are joined by two guests. senior editor at slate.com, our senior legal correspondent and supreme court reporter joining us from toronto. in new york, executive director for the center for constitutional rights. your response? >> i think they had it right. this is not the wind the administration says it is -- win the administration says it is. when you think about where those executive order started and what we are looking at now, which is a watered-down version of what the administration started before, it is really not that much of a win. having said that, it is deeply

troubling for the administration and the court to be able to carve off slivers off refugees and slivers of people from the six countries based off of no national security justification and say they will not be allowed into the country until the government figures out what it is doing. and violates the constitution and it is a ban on religion and is racist. amy: kenny respond to the decision -- can you respond to the decision and explain what it will do? >> what vince says is really important, this was not a decision on the merits. when the hear the attorney general or trump administration saying, we have been vindicated, the president has a broad latitude to set national security policy, there is a must nothing in the written order we saw suggesting that. there is certainly a flick in the orders saying the president has a compelling interest in reserving national security. this was a decision about a stay

, really a technical decision about the likelihood that the administration will succeed on the merits when this case is heard in october, so that is important. this is a technical ruling, not a constitutional ruling. i think vince is right that if you slice and dice who is swept in and out under this new iteration under the second iteration of the order, it does not affect nearly as many folks as i think the administration was trying to keep out, but i think that now what will happen is dhs and the state department will have to create some meaning. they will have to explain to us what it means to have a bona fide connection to an american. they will set policies and guidelines and try to enforce it , and the courts are going to push back. in a sense, this raises more questions than it answers in terms of who exactly is in and who is out, but we will find out over the summer, and the courts are going to continue, i think,

, until the no, maybe supreme court makes a final determination on the constitutional and statutory questions that underlie the litigation. amy: trump applauded the supreme court's action as "a clear victory for our national security." he wrote "as president, i cannot allow people into our country who want to do was harm. i want people who can love the united states and all of its citizens, and who will be hard-working and productive." he "very grateful for the 9-0 decision from the supreme court. we must keep america safe." >> i am getting used to the trunk accolades that makes thing -- trump accolades that makes things up out of whole cloth. it is not clear this was a 9-0 decision. let's break down what he was talking about.

everyone wants to keep people out of the country who want to do is harm. what we are arguing in these cases, though, is the government has made no show that the people they are trying to keep out of the country has -- plan to do us harm. this decision almost makes it worse, that the only criteria we have now is the people who are not going to be allowed into the country are people who do not have a familial relationship, do not have an offer from a school, and do not have a job, but that keeps people out who were groups,, school refugees who have relationships potentially with nonprofit organizations to be resettled after fleeing all sorts of conflict. these are not people trying to do us harm, they are largely fleeing harm or want to visit this country to see what we are doing, nothing to do with national security or terrorism. it is the usual trump is him we have gotten used to -- trump-ism

we have gotten used to. amy: sean spicer was asked about the court ruling. fideybody that has a bona relationship with another person or entity is still permitted. in a way, it is limited from the second executive order. curious if the administration feels what is permitted by the supreme court does indeed protect the homeland. >> i think it is a positive step forward. the department of justice in particular is reviewing this in terms of its implementation and impact so i do not want to get too far if -- the head of these brilliant legal minds, but as i noted, i think the president feels very pleased with the 9-0 decision. amy: if you could respond to that, and also the fact that three justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, and neil gorsuch

issued a separate ruling supporting the full implementation of the travel ban now. >> i think that is really crucial. if you listen to sean spicer it is sounding as if he said those three justices spoke for the entire court. if it isit sound as clear that trump is going to win on the merits, but it is important to understand, only three justices felt that way. that means there are six other justices not willing to go that far. i think when you look at the procuring the order itself, it is fairly clear to me that this is a john roberts, anthony kennedy lest the liberal justices trying to foster some kind of compromise or they say, we will give you something and take away something, but the whole thing on pause while we wait to see what happens in october. i think the other thing that is really worth flagging as there

is a poison pill built into this litigation, a 90 day punto when riod assessment -- 90 day pe when this assessment needs to happen. by the time the court hears this case in october it may very well be moot. it is worth flagging that the court in its own decision says you have to brief this issue and persuade us in october that the timeframe of this case makes the entire thing go away. i really think it is worth saying that this is changing so quickly, and that by the time the court actually hears argument on this there may not be much left to litigate. amy: the october date, when they are going to hear the whole case, this comes after trump's executive order that called on a 90 day ban on travelers from six countries. i think that runs out in the last few days of september.

the trump administration did not ask for this to be expedited, like to have the supreme court convene in july or something. by the time they are ruling on this, this will have run out. >> that is exactly correct. as i say, i think the fact that the court wants the parties to brief that, they expressly said you better figure out a way that this whole thing is still live in october, suggests to me that there are at least six justices who are sympathetic to the notion that this may be over before it even begins in the court. i think it is really, really interesting that as the new guidelines come out and as dhs and the state department tried to figure out what this nexus is between travelers and american citizens, and whether the burden of proof is on the person seeking to visit or on the government, we don't know any of that. there will be new litigation that is immediately filed over

the course of the summer and that too becomes a kind of tick-tock of how relevant these underlying issues in this travel ban really are. i think what the supreme court was doing, and it is part of why you see both sides saying it is either a really big deal or a really tiny deal, is kicking it back to trump and the courts and saying, let me give you yet another bite of this apple but you better impress us come october. amy: we will have another break and then come back to issues from the supreme court, especially the church and the playground, and the speculation around justice kennedy potentially stepping down. we are talking to the director of the center for constitutional rights and the senior legal correspondent and supreme court reporter. we will be back in a minute.

♪ [music break]

amy: we are back. here on democracy now, democracy now.org, the war and peace report. ruled fundingurt for playgrounds could not be denied to a church run school in missouri. in an oral dissent, justice soda -- sonya soda mayor said this case is less about the relationship tween civil the courtns and -- today profoundly changes that

relationship by holding for the first time that the constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. meanwhile, the supreme court also a great monday to hear the case of a colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his religious opposition. this opens the door for the court to set precedent on whether people can be denied services because of their sexual orientation. the couple has sued the cake alwaysnd said, "this is been about more than i'm at cake. his message should not be able to discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love." why don't you talk about these two cases. start with the one they ruled on an sonja soda mayor's dissent. tomajor's dissent.

>> it seems to me that the next front and american civil rights legislation will be this, people who want to end run basic civil rights statutes based on their predicate belief that my religion prohibits me from being involved. we have seen a whole raft of cases, florists who do not want to afford flowers to same-sex marriages, pharmacists who do not want to deliver birth-control. all of these dissenters come into a profound clash with basic civil rights statutes. -- cases youes have cited are how this is going to be the new frontier going forward. this is samuel alito and neil gorsuch and terrence -- clarence thomas, this is where their heart is. the decision is such an important marker for where we are in the so-called wall between church and state.

missouri has a state constitution that provides that don't take taxpayer money and give it to churches. we don't give it to any churches here this goes beyond the federal constitutional law and says the state should not be in the business of picking which traces it wants to subsidize, so no tax dollars at all go to any church. trinity lutheran operates a preschool and a school. it is an explicitly religious institution and wanted to be considered for a missouri program that uses recycled tigers -- tires to create playground materials. they were very high in standing in terms of their eligibility for the state program, and the state said we cannot give this to you. we cannot give you access to a program that uses taxpayer funds to fund a church and in a seven-to decision yesterday the supreme court said it is ok, they are eligible, and to

discriminate against churches is in violation of their rights. this really changes the baseline for what churches will be able to ask us to use with our taxpayer money. the reason this is important, i think, only two justices dissented. sonja soda mayor wrote a , and only dissent justice ginsburg agreed with her. we are looking at a whole new ballgame in terms of churches being able to say, we want what everyone else is getting, and to fail to give that to us as a form of discrimination, religious discrimination in and of itself. this is a big deal. spicert me go to sean who praised the supreme court's decision in the trinity lutheran case. >> the supreme court handed down and theon -- decision

trinity lutheran case, a 7-2 decision which is a victory for religious liberty and affirmation of rights. the government simply treating all people the same, fairly, regardless of their religion. this ruling reaffirms the government cannot -- discriminate against individuals or organizations as they or their members hold religious beliefs. the president believes america is stronger when people have faith and organizations can exercise their religion freely. .my: that was sean spicer for those who watch democracynow on television or online, we did not have his image because this is one of the days that the white house said the media was not allowed to video the press briefing, so we only got the audio. your response? >> i think it is really important to see that we have changed the standards in a deep way, and we have really said,

and this is so undergirding as i said, this new revelation of the supreme court, we have really said the real victims of discrimination in america, probably the only ones left are the churches and that we are going to level the playing field so they can have access to the same programs is anyone else. i will just say that it is very clear from the opinion itself they drop a footnote and say, this only applies to rub her resurfacing in church playgrounds. this is not about whole hog and/or sing, giving churches -- endorsing, giving churches bething they want, so it may of some limited precedential value going forward. justice breyer joined and said, this is just about rubber stuff on playgrounds. i think as a marker of the openness of this court to really allowing for funding of so,

astomajor -- as she said, why not though stained-glass windows? can you also comment on the supreme court agreeing to hear the case of the colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his religious opposition? a as i said, there have been whole bunch of similar cases the court has batted away, people saying, i am not discriminating against anyone. i have a deeply held religious conviction that precludes me from offering the services. the baker in question that says he is a cake artist, and this actually violates his free expression, to force them to produce a cake that is in tension with his religious values. he said, i do not cook with

liquor because that is against my values. i do not celebrate halloween, that is against my religious values, so he is making this core value -- argument that my religious dissent matters. we have seen pharmacists and florists make the same argument. the problem is states have antidiscrimination laws. colorado is one of those states. the appeals court said, you cannot get around our antidiscrimination laws by saying you do not feel like baking for certain people because of your religion. i really do think when the court decided the hobby lobby case, for cracked open the door religious dissenters to be able to end run around basic civil rights laws, they really opened a pandora's box that is going to end up saying, you have such felicity in this country for religious dissenters that no one is going to have to serve anyone if they feel that their

religious values are being undermined. i think this is the new frontier going forward. this is where we are going to see a lot of action, particularly with neil gorsuch on the court. amy: i wanted to ask about a case that specifically involves the center for constitutional rights. this is the recent supreme court ruling on june 19. the court reversed a federal appeals court that former high-level bush officials may be sued for their roles in the post-9/11 profiling of men. >> the second court of appeals found the former attorney mueller,and robert could be sued for rounding up hundreds of men in new york after 9/11. there was a citizen tip situation where people were phoning in tips that, this

person is an arab and has been working long hours, this is a muslim who has been renting a phone -- a po box. these men were rounded up, put in special detention facilities, and essentially disappeared. they were being held under suspicion of terrorist activities. a lot of them were deported because they were not citizens. at the end of the day, none of them had a connection to terrorism so our lawsuit which has been going on for many years , sought to hold the high level officials accountable for those activities. it is like a reverse muslim band we are seeing so rather than fighting to keep people out of the country, we are fighting to keep people that have done nothing wrong in the country and to prohibit the administration from her grounding -- from rounding them up. the supreme court said high-level officials could not be held liable in congress did not provide a provision to make that happen. what is dangerous about this

decision in an era of state-sponsored discrimination is that there does not appear to be a way to hold high-level officials accountable for these types of actions, and there is no reason to think that these types of actions won't happen again unless the court holds these men accountable. amy: now i want to go to the speculation that has been percolating. during a press briefing, a reporter asked the white house press secretary about who trump might pick as his next supreme court nominee. >> will president trump lie on the previous list of 21? -- rely on the previous list of 21 of supreme court justices? >> that proved to be a very helpful list the first time. he feels very comfortable with the list but i cannot say for certain there is no one who

cannot get added. amy: talking about the speculation that anthony kennedy might step down, where is it coming from and what do you have to say about it? >> this has been a whisper campaign going on for months. anthony kennedy is 80. ruth bader ginsburg is 84. steve brier is 78, so while it is likely that president trump will have another justice or two to replace, i think there was a feverish claim that kennedy had a foot out the door and no lesser a person then check grassley, then to just chuck grassley, then ted cruz, then president trump himself hinted there would be a vacancy effective yesterday. that did not happen. as to the question of why all the speculation was being sent around, i think it is because there is clearly a feeling in the conservative circles and the conservative legal movement that and only big win

since he took office was the neil gorsuch nomination and confirmation, that he clearly had a spectacular success and what better way to keep highlighting the fact that he could do it again been saying, he is going to do it again as early as this summer. he is going to have another slot to fill. i think it is a little bit of an effort to say to those republicans who held their noses and voted for trump even though they did not like him, as there was a supreme court vacancy, it is a way of keeping them outside and saying, we are going to do it again. margin, folks who said they voted because of the supreme court, those went for a trump. it is a strong constituency and it is good to keep promising them they will get a second effort from the president to do it again. amy: how did neil gorsuch make

his mark in the cases that he has ruled on? what is your assessment? with has been in lockstep none other than clarence thomas. for folks who thought he was going to be another scalia, he is far to the right of him. in some cases there was thought he would be a centrist. thus far, he has really staked out the most extreme conservative positions, both on the church-state case we talked about. he would have gone much farther than even the majority went, but also he dissented from a decision not to hear a major case out of arkansas about putting same-sex parents, both of their names on birth certificates, and wrote a scorching dissent suggesting sex decision did not control in this instance.

time after time we have seen him emerge as quite a bit further to the right than even we expected. amy: on even the issue of gay rights, anthony kennedy, you say there is a whispering campaign he might step down, came down forcefully in 2013 in favor of marriage equality, was the swing vote in the court's landmark decision striking down a key portion of the defense of marriage act. the significance of the rise of gorsuch, who was a law clerk of justice kennedy? >> it cannot be said often enough, in issue after issue, not just gay rights but also affirmative action, last year's major reproductive rights victory, time after time after time, even conservatives really feel that kennedy had defected and voted with the left wing of the court in a deep way. he is the supreme court of one.

it is clear to me that if trump has the opportunity to replace him, we are going to see landmark losses in areas where we have made progress, ranging from everything i have just talked about to some of these other religious freedoms, possibly the gerrymander cases coming up this fall, possibly the travel ban. kennedy is really the bulwark against an enormous amount of progressive losses going forward , and i think the fact that gorsuch, a former clerk, was picked to sit -- to fill scali'' s seat was a message to kennedy, don't worry, and gorsuch is not turning out to be of the kennedy mold at all. amy: what is your assessment of the supreme court term? >> yesterday was a bunch of bitter losses. i think with a handful of exceptions, you are going to

start to see a 5-4 block for fairly conservative outcomes, including staying the travel ban. the thing to watch is chief justice john roberts, who is very conservative, and anthony kennedy who is a moderate conservative, are starting to shift toward the middle. what we are really seeing that i think is intriguing is samuel alito, neil gorsuch, and clarence thomas attacking very .ard to the right i think the thing to look for is this battle at the center of the court to try to figure out if there still is a center of the court, and what this really hard right three some is going to hold for us going forward. amy: finally, vince warren. >> it really spells bad news for justice and folks who work in this field probably for the next couple of decades. there is really no getting around that, and our strategies

have to be designed around trying to keep some of these cases out of the supreme court if humanly possible. amy: what does that mean? >> at some level you will either take losses at the lower level rather than moving them up to the supreme court level, and it means that wins on the court of appeals level means the government or whoever you are challenging will be more inclined to appeal it to the supreme court. he have to change her strategies about litigating your cases in lower courts, probably taking less than what you might ultimately want in order to avoid it going into the higher courts and becoming a disaster for the entire country. amy: i want to thank you both for being with us. that does it for the show. a very happy birthday to john randolph.

i am amy

i'm falling for fattoush, my peasant-style bread salad. announcer: "julie taboulie's is made possible by... ♪ do your thing, man: do your thing ♪ ♪ syracuse, do your thing ♪ do your thing, do your thing ♪ ♪ syracuse, do your thing