11/11/20 11/120 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> there will smooth transition to a second trump administration. we are ready. amy: secretary of state mike pompeo is backing president trump's refusal to concede the election. is this how the coup begins or is this just the trump administration delaying the inevitable? we will speak to the slate's

dahlia lithwick about trump's attempts to overturn the election and the supreme court oral arguments on the affordable care act. the conservative court appears poised to uphold it. >> agree with you on this very straightforward case for separability under our precedents, meaning we would has the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place. amy: but first, as joe biden's lead in the popular vote surpasses 5 million, juan gonzalez analyzes the explosive growth of the latinx boat and unity's overwhelming support for biden. plus, we look at the election results in puerto rico. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the quarantine report. i'm amy goodman. president trump continues to contest the results of last

week's election after counts showed joe biden won the electoral college and the popular vote by more than five million ballots. on tuesday, the office of management and budget said it was proceeding with president trump's budget request for next fiscal year and trump's top cabinet member secretary of state mike pompeo said he was preparing for a second trump term. pompeo was questioned by reporters at the state department. . >> at what point does a delay camera smooth transition pose a risk to national security? >> there will be a smooth transition to second trump administration. we are ready. amy: an official with joe biden's transition team told cbs news the congratulatory phone calls president-elect joe biden is receiving from world leaders are happening without the help of the state department. secretary of state pompeo was asked to compare the trump administration's response to biden's victory with overseas

elections where defeated candidates cling to power. >> this department frequently sends out statements encouraging free and fair elections abroad and for the losers are those elections to accept the results. doesn't president trump's refusal concede discredit those efforts? >> that is ridiculous and you know it is ridiculous. he asked it because it is ridiculous. amy: on capitol hill, congressional reporter eva mckend asked republican senate majority leader mitch mcconnell what it says about america that heads of state from around the world have congratulated president-elect biden while republican leadership has neglected to do so. coax what it says about america is until the electoral college anyone who is running for office can exhaust concerns about counting in any court of

appropriate jurisdiction. amy: meanwhile, president-elect biden's transition team says it may sue emily murphy, a trump appointee who heads the general services administration, for refusing to sign a letter of ascertainment certifying biden's win. without the letter, biden's transition team cannot access government funds or communicate with federal agencies. on tuesday, biden addressed trump's refusal to concede. mr. biden: well, i just think it is an embarrassment, quite frankly. the only thing -- how can i say this tactfully? not help thell esident's legacy. amy: in pennsylvania, a u.s. postal worker has recanted his claims that a postmaster in erie ordered employees to back-date ballots mailed after election day. the claims were widely cited by senior republicans, including

senator lindsey graham, as evidence of widespread voter fraud. today is veterans day and in nevada, trump's reelection campaign has challenged ballots cast by more than 3000 people it claims do not live in the state. among those accused of "criminal voter fraud," are members of the military stationed around the united states or who voted by mail through overseas military post offices. "the new york times" called election officials in dozens of states, representing both political parties, who reported no evidence of voter fraud or other irregularities. meanwhile, top law enforcement officials are warning that president trump's conspiracy theories about illegal voting could lead to far-right violence. philadelphia district attorney larry krasner told huffpost -- "we're having a conversation with members of his base who believe that there is a satanic, pedophilic, sex ring running out of a pizza parlor. i have trouble figuring out whether these people are actually part of an elaborate

'saturday night live' routine, or if we should be terrified because they like ar-15's." the united states confirmed nearly 140,000 new coronavirus infections on tuesday, setting yet another world record for daily cases. the u.s. has confirmed over a million new infections in just the first 10 days of november, and u.s. coronavirus hospitalizations have topped 60,000 for the first time. in oklahoma, republican governor kevin stitt is resisting public health officials' pleas to order a statewide mask mandate after hospitals in tulsa ran out of intensive care unit beds. texas has passed a million confirmed coronavirus cases -- more than the entire nation of italy. in el paso, officials have more than doubled their supply of mobile morgues as icu beds have run out and covid-19 patients are being routed to a downtown convention center that's been

converted into a field hospital. iowa republican governor kim reynolds has ordered a limited mask mandate for the first time for indoor gatherings of 25 people or more. philadelphia's public school district has once again delayed the return of in-person classes for students, saying remote learning will continue until further notice. meanwhile newark, new jersey, has ordered a 9:00 p.m. curfew on weeknights as cases surge. and here in new york, mayor bill de blasio is warning of a second wave of coronavirus across the city as the test positivity rate now exceeds 2%. the supreme court heard oral arguments tuesday on whether to strike down the affordable care act in the middle of the worst pandemic in over a century. the trump administration backed the case, which was filed by a group of 18 republican-led states filed the case, led by

texas. the group argues the aca's individual mandate is unconstitutional and should be struck down and that the rest of obamacare should fall with it. but the response from the justices suggests a majority of the conservative court does not agree. this is justice brett kavanaugh. seem fairly clear the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place, the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and the rest. amy: we will have more on the supreme court battle over the affordable care act later in the broadcast. in north carolina, democratic senate candidate cal cunningham has conceded to incumbent senator thom tillis. the republican's victory guarantees the gop will control at least 49 senate seats, two shy of a majority. in alaska, republican senator dan sullivan has a big early lead over democratic challenger al gross, whose campaign believes he still has a chance

at an upset victory once all mail-in votes are counted. either way, the balance of power in the senate will be decided by runoff elections on january 5 for both of georgia's senate seats. the trump administration has removed the top scientist overseeing the government's research on climate change. "the new york times" reports michael kuperberg was told last friday he will no longer lead the team producing the national climate assessment produced by hundreds of scientists across 13 federal agencies. 2018 psperous report found climate change threatens human health fully to extreme weather conditions and could shrink the u.s. economy by as much as 10% by the end of the century. thet has become atlanticmed nintha

hurricane season on record. this comes as central america is still reeling from the devastation left behind by hurricane eta. in guatemala, officials have ended rescue missions in the indigenous village of queja, where dozens of people likely died last week in a massive landslide. the village is no longer habitable. one survivor said he had lost 40 of his family members. guatemala's government plans to petitionhe trump administration for temporary protected status for guatemalans living in the u.s. due to the house democrats are debating the trump administration callout plans to deport dozens of cameroonian asylum seekers. some are activist who face arrest warrants any cameron and political persecution from government forces known for conducting extradition killings. yesterday members of the congressional black caucus wrote a letter to the trump administration stating -- "allowing deportations to continue would support the false depiction by cameroon that the country poses no risks to deportees and that reports of human rights abuses are overblown."

and in mexico, 31-year-old journalist israel vázquez was shot to death in salamanca, guanajuato, monday just minutes before going live on air to report from a crime scene where human remains had been found. he is the third journalist killed in mexico in the past two weeks. journalist veronica espinoza joined a protest tuesday demaing vázquez's killers be brought to justice. clips we don't nt anymore numbers. we don't want to count our dead colleagues. we do not want this to be an unsolved case because this is a message we don't want to give. to become do not want victims. we want to keep doing our jobs. amy: mexico is one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists as violence skyrocketed since the launch of a u.s.-backed war on drugs in 2006. about 250,000 people have since been killed, including dozens of mexican journalists.

and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the quarantine report. i'm amy goodman in new york joined by my co-host juan gonzález in new brunswick, new jersey. hi, juan. juan: hi, amy. juan: welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. amy: president-elect joe biden's lead in the popular vote has jumped to over 5 million as president trump continues to refuse to concede the race. about 160 million voters cast ballots -- a new record. much of the increase turnout was powered by people of color while the total number of votes cast by white americans barely increased from the last presidential election. juan, your analysis has been absolutely critical. that's right, democracy now!'s juan gonzalez has been closely looking at how the historic

turnout in the latinx community impacted the race. juan: the cascade of stories continues claiming a surprising turn by the latino voters for donald trump. "the new york times" front page this week, "how democrats missed trump's appeal to latino voters." of the good let times," targeting taken for granted. seen in and others claiming there's no such thing as a latino block and even the intercept saying in one of their stories that nonwhite voters are not immune to right-wing populism. i said last week and i will repeated again, the key narrate of this election is not whether there was a small shift in the percentage of latinx voters in some areas of the country turning toward trump. the main story is that in an election which saw historic

turnout, people of color, especially latinos, had an unprecedented increase in voting . and they, not white voters, represented the bulk of that increase. virtually none of the reports have mentioned this that for the first time in u.s. history, latinos' turnout appears to have reached comparable levels to the rates for white and black americans. 20.6 million latinos to the polls in this election. million64% of the 32 eligible latinx voters. while in previous election cycles, the turnout have been .outinely below 50% in raw numbers, 8 million more latinos voted this year than in 2016. that is a 63% increase over the last presidential election. tweet, ave updated a truck from last week that shows

the biggest increase in both percentages and actual votes from four years ago came from tina voters. their job and a of ballots cast nearly equaled that among does the increase among white and black voters combined. the next biggest job in percentage terms came among african-american voters who increased 20% post of asian americans by 16%, while white voters increased by just under 6%. some of these numbers i should note are different from what i display last week in part because there's been little notice changes to the edison national exit poll in the past two days compared to what was released on election day by all the networks. for instance, the original version estimated whites were 65% of the electorate while the latest figures say they were 67%. the poll also increases turnout

for african-americans and asians. the edison paul has always been flawed and numerous analyses have shown its past samples were skewed to oversampling cuban-americans, under sampling black and latino inner-city polling sites, and under sampling voters whose primarily which is not english. all of which means it tends to undercount latino voters for democrats. of theic contours sampling remains the same and it is inescapable. after decades of political experts talking about the growing latino vote this year it actually happened. hispanic voters felt compelled ver before to go to t polls , because of the barbaric family separation policies or because of the threats to health care even for

some conservative to nose because of their hopes of finally turning back roe v. wade. one thing is sure, neither party will underestimate or ignore latino voters from now on. this should be cause for widespread celebration is the long-awaited democratization of the vote. but what about those who claim that trump made major unexpected inroads along the latino voters nationwide? as reflected by the 66 to 32% split of the latino vote between biden and trump? latinos could be deserting the democratic party. those of us who have been ound the block for a few times have her this narrative before. in reality, these are the general ballpark of previous presidential campaigns. i went to put up a chart of how latinos split their vote over and election.ars

the republican share of voters has varied from a low of 27% when mitt romney ran against barack obama in 2012 to a high of 44% that george bush got in his second presidential run in 2004. even john mccain when he ran against obama in 2008 got a similar percentage of the latino vote as trump did this year. the high point, the bush victory in 2004 we should note is the last time republican candidate got a majority of the popular vote. but the big difference now is the latinx vote is so much larger. when you get two thirds of a vote that has tripled in size in a few years, you begin to achieve critical mass. no wonder lindsey graham is warning that if the selections are not changed somehow, republicans will never win the white house again. like thet those places

rio grande valley of texas and south orida where trump made real inroads in largely latino districts in the actual vote? what about those pundits who claim latinos are so diverse and diffused as a population that it is erroneous to consider them a single community thet, on south africa and rio grande valley. yes, actual vote results showed that trump had significant increases in his support there. florida is not surprising given the influx of conservative refugees from nicaragua and venezuela in rent years, but the rio grande valley is. it had? county along the border which is 90% latino, trump went from 27% against hillary clinton to 40% against joe biden. in maverick county, which i95% latino, he went from 20% against clint to 45% against biden. those are significant numbers. the valley has changed rapidly,

however, during e trump era. always a socially conservative rolling area, investing enormous job growth in recent years as a result of the militarization of the border, which brought thousands of new jobs to the areaor border patrol officers, workers on private construction of the wall with mexico, for immigration detention centers. in addition, the valley has placedhe san diego sector as the epicenter of undocumented migrant crossings and a field immigration system of the united states. all of that, no doubt, help turn its residence for trump. but i did the big cities in texas were most latinos live, there's another story. antonio,ews -- san climbed from 54% to 58%, though we will need better figures of how much of that was in the latino community.

it seems clear, however, latino turnout and states like nevada, arizona, and pennsylvania helped biden when those key battleground states. then there is california and new york. latinos share of the vote that went to biden appears to be breathtaking in those states. 77% in california. 72% in new york. some argue those are reliable blue states anyway, so those hispanic voters are not really critical. really? arch those enormous latino marches every year what made those states reliably blue in the same for new jersey, connecticut, massachusetts, lately colorado? then there are the nonsensical questions as to whether a latino community actually exists. let's be clear. latinx identity in the united states is a social construct, created both by the dominant

society that needed to define and byegorize and other the marginalized group itself organically from the ground, by disparate latin american groups whwere forced to uniten der to survive in hostile society and whose children gradually intermarried to create a new social construct, the latino in america. more than 20 years ago, is that in my book "harvest of empire," a third force in erican politics. they largely vote democratic, but a significant portion is susceptible to republican that address even if you have their concerns. since then, latin americans from education and middle-class backers that migrated to this country i growing countries and a good portion have adopted typical ameran conservative views. some of those communities , though still a minority, have been drawn to right-wi populist,hauvinism, even

racist views. all of this fixaon on latinos, hover, ignores the fundamental qution of this election, which very few political observers i have seen have geared to tackle. why the heck did 58% of white americans vote r donald trump, including 55% of white women? with the united states consolidating itself as the world's most powerful imperialist nation and the economic cap in the country whining, right-wing movements have only grown at home and the defeat of trump will not halt their growth. the key to building a progressive majority is to keep mobilizing more young latinos to vote, bearing the small percentage increases and a support for right-wing candidates under an avalanche from people of color, organized labor, and their allies. thishat is my take on election. amy: juan gonzalez, amazing deep dive into the numbers. so critical to understand this

at this point because so early on, this is what shapes the narrative. on tuesday, the leading journalist maria hinojosa tweeted -- "i'm listening to the daily on what went wrong with the polls. and just wow. with the issue that more white folks voted for trump right in front of us, the first thing they do is talk abot latino voters. it sounds like we are the ones responsible for all of this! two white guys on us." she continued -- "so nate cohen says 'the polls struggled with latino voters." the polls? how aboot hiring the right latino pollsters? of course we exist. this is so typical. it's never we got it wrong. this time and four years ago-wrong. how about 'we did not do our jobs'." if you can talk about that, getting it wrong. you're not only diving deep into

the numbers, but you are deconstructing the narrative that is already coming out of this eleion. mentioned, there is one main pole, of course the ap has her own the numbers are pretty similar, but these pollsters have always had flaws as it was pointed out last time. in 2016, the same narrative that latinos had moved unexpectedly toward trump was put out. people forget that. four years ago it was the same narrative. but when latino decisions did their analysis and they had a much more extensive polling of the latino community, plus they look at the actual numbers -- they came much later. it came months later after the election. they showed it was impossible in some areas -- in several areas of the country for the latino vote for donald trump to have been as high as the exit poll,

the edison exit poll was claiming. they clearly pointed out to what were the failings of the pole. one ishat it has historically over sampled the cuban-american community and of the overall latino numbers. two, it does -- it has not really gone into overwhelmingly african-american and latino communities. it tends to do its polling on the day of election day in communities that are more racially mixed. and also that it historically under represents those people who don't speak english. as a result, the poll by its construction is skewed. so latino decisions so significant differences between the exit poll and the actual latino vote. now, we don't have the full numbers yet. there are places like new york and california where they are still coting. millions and millions of votes,

especially in the blue states, that have not yet been counted. million gap deadline has is only going to grow. it is not going to get smaller. it is going to keep growing. my estimate is he could possibly reach 8 million, the difference in the votes. so i think you're not going to get a full picture until we do of the polling and the actual vote counts precinct by precinct around the country to get a betterense of what has happened. so it will take some time. mark my words, six months from now or a year from now when we have better data, we're going to have to reassess what has happened. on what willing to go we have already. what we have already to say the smallory here is not shifts in percentages, it is raw increase in turnout. that is the key. that is the key.

once you look at the raw increase in turnout, you see latinx voters, african-americans, asian americans that are propelling the change in the electorate and of the country. amy: and we will also be looking further into the native american vote. i want to encourage people to go back to democracynow.org to see juan gonzalez's original analysis last week in part one the voters ofs of this country. next up, we're going to look at the election results in puerto rico and then we will look at the oral arguments before the supreme court on the affordable care act. is a conservative body going to t?te to preserve stay witus. ♪ [music break]

amy: "not enough beds for everyone" by gran combo of puerto rico. this is democracy now! i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez.. as we turn to puerto rico where election authorities have discovered around 126 briefcases with hundreds of uncounted ballots from last week's election. it remains unclear what impact the ballots could have on the election results. in the governor's race, pedro pierluisi of puerto rico's pro-statehood new progressive party has claimed victory after winning just a third of the vote in a tight race.

another new progressive candidate, miguel romero, has claimed victory in the close san juan's mayoral race. but in both races, election officials have been slow to certify the results. we go now to san juan to speak with the historian rafael bernabe, who was just elected to the puerto rican senate as a member of the citizens victory movement. he has co-written several books, including "puerto rico in the american century: a history since 1898" and "puerto rico: crisis and alternatives." congratulations on your victory. can you talk about the significance, rafael bernabe, of your win and also the other people in the puerto rican legislature, which looked like you're really going to be turning it around? main -- first the of all, good morning and i'm happy to be here with you. one of the main differences, one of the mn events, main aspects

of the elections in puerto rico is the fact two progressive forces did very well in the election. as you mentioned, pierluisi won with -- he barely got 33% of the votes. the independence party got around 15% of the vote. e movement i belong to got around 15% of the vote. that means the progressives left forces got around 30% of the vote, which is almost as much as the person o won the governorship god. we have a very significant increase in the electoral support for movements which are linked to the labor movement, the women's movement, the environmental mement. our case, we elected at least four legislators who represent these two senators. we are still in the fight. we think we may have another representative elected of the

porter rico -- puerto rico independence party. this is a minority but significant force in the puerto rican legislature which is going to be fighting against the austerity policies that have been suffering in puerto rico for the longest time against the anti-labor policiesnd anti-environmental policies that the puerto rican government has been imposing on us for many decades now. so it is a very encouraging result for progressive forces in puerto rico, the results of these last elections. , one of the bernabe key things come as you mentioned, the voters seem to be turning away from the monopoly of the two party systems, the statehood party in the commonwealth party. not only in terms of voting for alternative candidates but also for staying home. this was an all-time low in

turnout among puerto rican voters, barely 50% of the electorate voted where and the past it has been 80%, 85 percent. what happened in terms of all of thpee ople who decided to stay home? areecause you mention, they two dimensions. on the one hand, as you mentioned, the vote for the two historically dominant kids going down the party that won the election this time got barely 33% of the votes. the other historically dominant party got around 31% of the vote. this is a new low for these parties. of the deepsult economic crisis and people turning away from the parties that have not been able to provide any alteative to t situation whi puerto co finds self. the se timethere are ny people who are satisfied with these two parties. they're not just convinced of voting for a truindependent party or the progressive

left-wing force. but they are already unwilling to vote for the parties that they historically voted for. we have many statehood's, supporters of statehood who did not go to vote. they would normally have gone to vote forhey did not either party but they stayed home because there was so disgusted with the policies of the parties they historically have supported that they preferred not to vote. there is another element which should factor in to consideration, which is over the past decade, migration from puerto rico has been extraordinary. there are so many people that have been forced leave the island because they cannot fd work, cannot find jobs in puerto rico. now the roles are inflated. there are many people still

lied as voters whoo longer live in puerto rico, no longer vote in puerto rico. so that will also bring down the figure for the percentage of the people who turned out to vote. but as i said, there's no question that many people protested against the existing -- the two parties that historically have dominated puerto rico policy by voting for -- and others who just stayed home. regardless of the way they expressed their proce, there is no question that the old monopoly of the two political parts that have dominated puerto ric polics for decades is coming to an end. and that is a very good thing. juan: i would ask you about the other aspect of the election that was -- there was also a referendum on status, which only gave the voters a choice between the current status statehood. you are known as an independent.

i'm wondering what you would say to those in the united states, especially ithe democratic party and some so-called want toives, who really support statehood for puerto rico because they think it would help change the balance of power in the u.s. senate and in congress? what would you say to those folks who say, it is a good thing for puerto rico to become estate? >> well, as i said, i'm a supporter of independence. victoria ciudadana is not such a i ament supporting -- supporter of independence. it is an indication does let me say, the objective of the proponents and the people who approved i, the prent administration of the new progressive party, the objective

was to obtaia very strong, very clear, very forceful mandate for statehood in puerto rico. and they failed to get that. they got 52% of the vote for statehood, and it meets 48% of the people who voted voted against statehood. so it should be clear that there's not such a thing as a forceful, strong mandate or demand for statehood in puerto rico. i think the demand for progressives native united states should be self-determination for puerto rico. what puerto rico should become should be decision of the puerto rican people. progressives united states should not be pushing for statehood. they should be pushing for the puerto rican people being able to decide what they want to become. and for them to be able to do that under conditions which are fair. for example, puerto rico is going through a very deep economic crisis, much of which is the result of decisions taken

byhe u.s. congress. i think the u.s. federal to takent has responsibility for the situation in puerto rico. it has to make a significant -- some people would call it reparation for the situation we find in puerto rico, for the economic reconstruction of puerto rico. and it has to enable, it has to open the space for a process through which the puerto rican people can decide what they want to be. progressiv in e united states i tnk shod b defeing thatightf the puerto ran peoplto decid what the fure should be, not pushing r steod but rher puing forheight othe puerto ric people to decide. imake out rafael bernabe, want to turn to someone who also one as you did, the reporter can who isights feminist elected to the puerto rican senate. she spoke to us last week about her historic win.

folks i've received messages of joy from many peop, when men people from its many communities who are conscious of making a puerto rico that is more inclusive, puerto rico that represents all of us, and in the building of a more inclusive country, push for sustainable economic develoent, search for solution on our statuas a.s. colony, be a country that is not just divided on what our status should be, but a country that focuses on the inclusion to defend pple's man rights and the sic neceities for r pele that e puertoican government must respect and guarantee. we have to approach this through a lens of inusion. amy: that is ana irma rivera lesbian womanrst of african dissent, the first openly lesbian woman of african dissent to be elected to the puerto rican legislature. and thes with you independence party.

what people are calling similar to the squad. if you can talk about what this means for the people of puerto elections?rh clubs absolutely. dahlia lithwick ana irma rivera lassén she is a pioneer fighter for women's rights, for gay and lesbian rights, for the struggle against racism and you puerto rico. she is the former president of the puerto rico bar association. she is a very significant figure public sphere as a defender of human rights, a defender of democratic rights. as i said, w have a new one already but a very significant minority, which is going t be fighting for women's rights, for workers ghts, environmental protection. fighting the policies that are being imposed on us but the federally appointed, federal

said, theard and as i tremendous increase in the vote for the porter kick independence party, which went from around 3% of the vote t15% of the vote, the vote that we got, which is again around 15% of the vote, that means we represent a force which is about one third of the electorate voted for the puerto rican independent party and victoria ciudadana. this is a tremendous jump for progressive forces in puerto rico in electoral terms. amy: rafael bernabe, thank you for being with us. we know you as a professor of sociology, historian and politician, leading voice of the left in puerto rico, now as a puerto rican state senator running as a member of the citizens victory movement. we will continue to follow what you do in the legislature. next up, we look at the supreme court's world arguments on the

affordable care act. it looks like the conservative court appears poised to uphold it. ♪ [music break]

amy: "fantasy island flipped" by the shins. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the quarantine report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez.. as coronavirus cases soar across the united states, the supreme court heard arguments tuesday on whether to strike down the affordable care act in the middle of the pandemic. a group of 18 republican-led states filed the case, led by texas and backed by the trump administration. they argue the aca's individual mandate is unconstitutional and should be struck down and that the rest of obamacare should fall with it. but the response from the justices suggests a majority of the conservative-led court does not agree. the oral arguments were conducted by telephone. this is chief justice john roberts addressing texas solicitor general kyle hawkins. >> general hawkins, on the

severance question, i think it is hard for you to argue that congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. i think, frankly, they wanted the court to do that but that is not our job. amy: like chief justice roberts, justice brett kavanaugh also suggested he is not prepared to strike down the entire aca even -- obamacare. this is kavanaugh said while questioning the pro-aca lawyer donald verrilli. oni tend to agree with you this very straightforward case for separability under our precedents meeting we would excise the mandate to leave the rest of the act in place. amy: joining us to unpack all of this and discuss what is at stake is dahlia lithwick, senior legal correspondent and supreme court reporter at slate.com. and dr. steffie woolhandler,

primary care physician and co-founder of physicians for a national health program. professor at cuny-hunter college, lecturer at harvard medical school, and recently co-authored an analysis that found in trump's first three years, more than 2 million people lost health care and thousands died early. so let's begin with dahlia lithwick. re-surprised by what took place before the supreme court yesterday? >> yes and no. i think a lot of what we saw happen yesterday is this was a truly horrible case. this was a terrible third attempt to have the supreme court struck down obamacare. the first two had failed. this was even more ludicrous than the earlier cases. a lowerstonishment that court in texas ever found grounds to say that this had basis. we have seen so many

conservative legal advocates who were on board for the other attempt to repeal obama care pilaf this case. so in some sense, it was sort of a how -- juan: why was it so much of a weaker case? surprised by justice vanaugh's line of questioning? >> it was a weaker case in some sense because as a statutory matter, texas in the 18 states that joined texas were trying to say because of this tiny little provision, the individual mandate -- you will work call in the first bum care case and a 2012, john roberts famously flipped. he said the individual mandate that required americans to pay $695 in taxes every year was in fact a tax, not a penalty.

he upheld all of the aca. what happened in 2017 when congress zeroed out the mandate, they could not kill obamacare legislatively, zero did out and texas comes forward and says, now the mandate is unconstitutional -- which we can have a conversation about. it was one of the issues in the court. but because the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire 2000 page aca also falls. so this is the doctrine of severability, did congress intended entire thing like a game of jenga to collapse if one provision is unconstitutional? the answer, both in terms of was that crazy how mary -- i think it was -- presumptively we think that provisions are unlawful can be severed from the whole statute, but i think that on the question of brett kavanaugh, i think it is not all that surprising that he said, look, even if i say this provision can't stand, would i tear down

the entirety of the statute given the severability doctrine and it supreme court says you strongly presume the law stands he is not insane, i guess is my short answer. and to pull down the whole statute because of one provision truly would be i think insane. amy: i want to turn to supreme court justice samuel alito. >> at the time of their first case, there was strong reason to believe that the individual mandate was like a part in an airplane that was essential to keep the airplane flying. so if that part was taken out, the plane would crash. but now the park has been taken out and the plane has not crashed. so if we were to decide this case the way you advocate, how would we explain why the individual mandate in its

present form is essential to the operation of the act? playedhlia lithwick, we kavanaugh, chief justice roberts, samuel alito, and then if you could respond to -- this was really the first time we saw just as amy coney barrett ask questions, the direction she went in? >> i think the answer to sam alito was the answer that don verrilli, who is representing congress, gave, which was, look, that individual mandate we thought was central. it turned out when it was zeroed out, people sti realllly, really, really wanted obamacare. and he sort of said, we thought of that as a stick and it turns out we did not be the stick because there were lots of carrots and people wildly swapped to into the aca even without that penty/tax.

that was his answer. while at the time we saw it, was integral, it turns out when it was zeroed out, there was no problem. people still love it. that was his answer. in terms of justice barrett, i think she was sort of strangely disconnected from a lot of the merits of this case. she asked a whole bunch of very academic questions, whole bunch of questions that seemed maybe a little -- to the discussion. i think it is useful to remember she only sat on the seventh circuit for short time. she was a law professor first and foremost. she came off looking very law professorish and i don't think she said that much that tipped her hand about which way she would go. in dr. steffieng woolhandler. as you listen to these oral arguments, you did not support the affordable care act at the beginning because you are a staunch supporter of medicare for all.

can you talk about what happened yesterday, what we think needs to happen at the supreme court, and ultimately in this country? >> the medicaid expansion was the best aspect of the affordable care act. in to expand medicaid, you never needed the individual mandate. the individual mandate was a pretty bad idea, telling people that they had to go and turn their money over to a private insurance company if they earn too much to be eligible for medicaid. they had to give money to the private insurance industry and we are going to penalize them to the tax system if they didn't. it is a terrible idea and was put into the affordable care act because the private insurance industry wanted to get this new business of subsidized coverage. they wanted the new business but they did not want to be responsible. if there was a big influx of very sick people. when we have expand medicaid in the past, expanded medicare, there was no individual mandate will stop you offer people good health insurance and they will

be willing to take it. what has happened is now the individual mandate, the penalty has been reduced to zero, became obvious th the individual mandate was never needed. fight was what this about. in fact, that is what has changed over the last few years is we know we do not need an individual mandate. it was a bad idea from the beginning and it continues to be a very bad idea. what we really need is to provide good insurance to everyone. recall that single-payer. our medicare for all. it is a type of system that the rest of the developed world has and youada, scotland enroll in insurance the day you were born and you keep it your entire life. it is not free you pay for it through your taxes but it is a much more efficient system becse you don't have all this administration complexity and hassle that is eating up a huge

share of u.s. health care spending -- probably more than one third. so by simplifying health care, moving it away from a business to public service, you save a lot of money that allows you to cover everyone and also remove copayments and deductibles, which haveeen a mar problem in the aca, especially for people with exchange coverage. duringr. woolhandler, joe biden's run for the presidency, his counter to bernie sanders and elizabeth warren and others who are pushing for medicare for all was to expand medicare coverage to lower ages. where do you see, given the results of the election right now, the prospects for expanding medicare coverage is right now? >> well, there is another election in two years so we don't have t just focus on what can be done and it the next 24

months. we need to be focusing on what the american people neednd what is the correct system to get everybody covered for all medically nessary care with complete free choice doctor and hospital. it can only do that through single-payer and medicare for all type system. if ink it would be great the meantime we were able to lower the medicare age. certainly, older adults are not yet elderly have a lot of problems if they lose their jobs. private insurance are not happy to provide coverage for them. if they do provide coverage because they're forced to into the affordable care act, there often are copayments and anyctibles and restrictions services provided, restrictions in networks that make it very expensive for older adults to provide -- purchase private insurance. i love to see the medicare age lowered. i really prefer the medicare age be lowered to zero because that

would give us that simple administratively simple system that saves hundreds of billions of dollars that we would need in order to cover everyone. we don't need to raise the total cost of health ce, we just need to go to an efficient system that excludes private health insurance. amy: in the last few minutes, i want to go back to dahlia lithwick. you talk about president trump's refusal to concede the election, which will bear on everything from medicare for all to wear and peace to climate change. your new piece is titled " "the real threat of trump's ridiculous coup attempt." can you talk about what is happening right now? you have pompeo zinke's offer a peaceful transition to a second trump administration. you've really are calling to congratulate president-elect joe biden but republican leader

refuses to concede. talk about what is happening right now. >> it is a paradox, me, because you have to live in this world where it is either really truly terrible peter sellers movie about the republican party getting together to mollify somebody who is either a narcissist or totally devoid of a sense of reality, so they're all trying to pander to him and make him feel good. offtor chris coons reported the record, all sorts of republicans are congratulating him and saying, we just can't say it out loud because the president has not quite gotten there. so that is the kind of peter sellers scenario. and then there is the one that you just described where there is a really quite alarming level ismdenial is him -- denial these claims that these lawsuits

in michigan and pennsylvania are going to change the result of the election. that is not possible. i think we can stipulate each of those kentucky about a handful of votes. then you see this really disturbing actions, cleaning house at the pentagon, threatening to fire christopher wray and gina haspel. as you said, pompeo, either joking or not joking, about whether there is going to be a transition, refusing to turn over briefing books to the transition team that binds team needs in order to prepare for national security disaster. so we're living with this split screen. i think the entire country is trying to figure out is this just going to go away? are the credits going to roll and we get at the end? or are we really in this slow attempt to getst this been a second term? i think we toggle between those two realities every day. but i think my point was, we do

need to take seriously the reality that if anything, we have seen the gop harden behind these claims that the election was stolen and that maybe donald trump wins a second term. juan: we just have about 30 seconds, but your sense of this hail mary pass of donald trump to somehow run out the clock on the count and get the intervention of the supreme court before electors have to meet in m-decemr to actually vote in the electoral college? the lawsuitss that are trivl iaand ridiculous. i think there is no vehicle that we get to the supreme court that would overturn tens and thousands of votes in multiple states. this is not a few hundred votes from bush v gore. i do think the effort to poison the waters and muddy the questions to maybe signal to states, hey, maybe your legislature could just send some electors that are not one in the

popular election. that is still in question. i think that is -- i think the real question is, does this turn into something that is hardened into an