06/30/22 06/30/22 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! pres. biden: together our allies, we're going to make sure nato is ready to meet the threats of in all directions across every domain, land, air, and the sea. amy: as a major nato summit in madrid, spain, the united states

announces plans to build a permanent military base in poland while nato formally invites sweden and finland to join the military alliance. this comes four months after russia invaded ukraine. we will get the latest and then look at how the right-wing supreme court is radically reshaping the united states. >> on friday, june 24, americans decided to use the vast power bestowed upon them by our democracy and our constitution to unconsciously put at risk the life and health of millions of our fellow americans. amy: as the u.s. secretary of health and human services decries the supreme court's ruling overturning roe, we will speak to david cole of the american civil liberties union. then michigan's supremcourt throws out charges against former michigan governor rick snyder and eight other former officls for their role in fli's deadly water crisis. the poisoning of an erican city. we get response from flint

rising activists nayyirah shariff and melissa mays. how have you been affected by the poisoned water? >> all three of my sons are anemic. they have bone pain every single day. they missed a lot of school because they're constantly sick. myself, i have seizures, diverticulosis now. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. nato leaders have convened for the final day of the military alliance summit in madrid where they have declared russia a major threat and placed even -- pledged even more support for ukraine's military. this comes as the biden administration has publicly announced it will support the sale of f-16 fighter jets to turkey.

on wednesday, russian president vladimir putin warned against nato deploying troops or weapons to finland and sweden. >> there is nothing that my concern is in terms of finland and sweden becoming nato members. please go ahead. but they should clearly understand they did it facing -- we will be compelled to respond in kind. amy: this all comes as russia's war enters its 18th week in ukraine and is nato described china for the first time as a "systemic challenge to euro-atlantic security." we will have the latest on nato expansion after headlines. ukraine and russia have swapped more than 140 prisoners of war since february. the prisoners include 95 fighters who defended the besieged city of mariupol from russian assault. meanwhile, the kremlin says it is withdrawing russian forces

from snake island, crates plexi territory. russian officials have called the move a gesture of goodwill that can pave the way for ukraine to export desperately needed items. the american civil liberties union of ohio has filed suit to block the state's ban on abortions once fetal cardiac cells begin contractions, which typically occurs six weeks after an egg is fertilized and before many people even know they are pregnant. ohio's so-called heartbeat bill went into effect just hours after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade last friday. in wisconsin, attorney general josh kaul has filed suit to block enforcement of the state's 173-year-old ban on nearly all abortions. democratic governor tony evers says the 1849 legislation should be superseded by a 1985 law allowing abortions until a fetus has grown enough that it could survive outside the womb,

typically around 20 weeks of pregnancy. president biden is poised to nominate an anti-abortion republican lawyer for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge in kentucky. that is according to "the louisville courier-journal," which reports biden's planned nomination of chad meredith is strongly opposed by democratic congressmember john yarmuth of kentucky. yarmuth told the newspaper -- "it's clear that this is part of some larger deal on judicial nominations between the president and mitch mcconnell. i strongly oppose this deal and meredith being nominated for the position. the last thing we need is another extremist on the bench." chad meredith is a member of the far-right federalist society who served as legal counsel to former kentucky governor matt bevin. in 2018, he argued on behalf of kentucky before the u.s. court of appeals for the 6th circuit, defending the anti-choice law

hb2 known as "the ultrasound informed consent act." the legislation required physicians to carry out an ultrasound on patients about to receive an abortion, to explain the ultrasound imagery to the patient, and to play live audio of any fetal cardiac muscle contractions detectable by the ultrasound. >> not every patient fully understands the nature and consequences of the abortion procedure. not every patient understands the development of the fetus and the stage which the fetus is and the extent to which it has developed. amy: the words of chad meredith. the supreme court has rolled back a landmark decision on tribal sovereignty it delivered just two years ago in the historic ruling mcgirt v. oklahoma. in a 5-4 vote, justices ruled wednesday that the state of oklahoma has concurrent jurisdiction and may prosecute non-indigenous people when the -- when a crime is committed on reservation and the victim is native american.

meanwhile, ketanji brown jackson begins her tenure as the first black woman on the u.s. supreme court after justice steven breyer said wednesday would be his last day on the job. breyer, who is 83 years old, announced his intention to retire in january. the house select committee investigating the january 6 capitol insurrection has subpoenaed former white house counsel pat cipollone. on tuesday, former white house aide cassidy hutchinson testified cipollone repeatedly warned against trump's plans to incite the mob to march on the capitol january 6. >> i saw mr. cipollone right before i walked out that morning and mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol. keep in touch with me. we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that happen. amy: two more people have died after being left in a stifling trailer on the outskirts of san

antonio, texas. this brings the death toll to 53, the largest single human trafficking death toll on record in the united states. all of the victims are believed have crossed the u.s.-mexico border seeking refuge, including honduran brothers fernando josé redondo, alejandro miguel, andino, and his wife margie tamara paz. the mother of the brothers, karena caballero, spoke to reporters from honduras on wednesday. >> margie actually paid for her studies herself with some help from her family. and even though shamus had a degree in economy, she had to leave him here. why? i can mention all the companies my children applied for a job and the answer always was "you don't have work experience." doors were closed for them. if i had to demand something, please, hundreds government, fight for this country's youth. amy: chinese president xi

jinping has left mainland china for the first time since 2020. xi is in hong kong as it marks the 25th anniversary of the city's return to chinese rule after more than 150 years as a british colony. it's xi's first visit to hong kong since authorities imposed a national security law severely limiting civil liberties and press freedoms while violently suppressing large-scale protests and limiting who can run for hong kong's legislative council. in mexico, the journalist antonio de la cruz has been shot and killed in his home in the state of tamaulipas. cruz wrote for local newspaper "expreso" and is the second reporter from the paper to be killed following the murder of hector gonzalez in 2018. this is the latest in a series of deadly attacks on mexican journalists, with at least 11 murdered since the beginning of this year. in israel, outgoing far-right prime minister naftali bennett says he will not run in upcoming elections. israel is headed to its fifth election in three years after bennett's fragile coalition government fell apart amid internal divisions over jewish-only settlements in the occupied west bank.

ferdinand marcos, jr has been sworn in today in manila. he is the son of the late dictator fernand marcus who ruled the philippines from 1965 to 1986 when he was overthrown in a popular uprising. survivors of his brutal two decade regime have recounted horrific details of torture under marcos' regime. here in new york, filipino-american activists gathered in times square wednesday for a protest. >> no matter what, you will not be able to silence us. you're up against a movement [indiscernible] and dictators pass. maybe they forgot the hundreds of thousands of people -- [indiscernible] amy: the only surviving attacker from the 2015 paris attacks that

left 130 people dead has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. it is france's most severe sentence, which is rarely handed down. the former r&b star r kelly has been sentenced to 30 years in prison for his systemic sexual abuse of young adults and children. survivor jovante cunningham spoke outside a new york city courthouse just after thursday's sentence was handed down. >> i started this journey 30 years ago. i was 14 years old when i encountered robert so buster kelly. -- robert sylvester kelly. there wasn't a day of my life up to this moment that i actually believed the judicial system would come through for black and brown girls. i am proud of my judicial system and my fellow survivors and very pleased with the outcome. 30 years did he do this and 30 years is what he got. amy: speaking after wednesday's

verdict was handed down in new york against r. kelly. and in mississippi, a team searching a courthouse basement for evidence about the lynching of black teenager emmett till has found the unserved warrant charging a white woman in his 1955 kidnapping. emmett till was 14 when the woman, likely carolyn bryant donham according to evidence, accused him of making improper advances after till allegedly whistled at her, leading to his murder. members of till's family say that they want the warrant served and for donham, now in her 80's, to be arrested. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman, joined by my co-host nermeen shaikh. hi, nermeen. nermeen: hi, amy. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. amy: the nato military alliance has wrapped up a major summit in madrid. on wednesday, president biden announced plans to greatly expand the u.s. military presence in europe, including

building a permanent headquarters for the u.s. 5th army corps in poland while also deploying more troops to romania and the baltic region. biden said this is a part of a broader nato expansion, in part as a response to russia's invasion of ukraine. pres. biden: together our allies, we're going to make sure nato is ready to meet threats from all directions across every domain, land, air, and the sea. amy: on wednesday, nato formally invited finland and sweden to join the military alliance after turkey dropped its objection to the move. this comes as the biden administration has publicly announced it would support the sale of f-16 fighter jets to turkey. once finland and sweden join nato, it will more than double the border between nato countries and russia. current members of nato share a 750-mile border with russia. finland alone has an 830-mile border with russia. on wednesday, russian president vladimir putin warned against nato deploying troops or weapons

to the two countries. >> there is nothing that might concern us in terms of finland and sweden becoming nato members. if they want to, please, go ahead, but they should understand they do it icing threats. if troops and infrastructure are deployed, we will be compelled to respond in kind. amy: this all comes as nato has described china for the first time as a "systemic challenge to euro-atlantic security." nato, which stands for the north atlantic treaty organization, is increasingly focusing on china. the military alliance took the unprecedented step of inviting the leaders of japan, south korea, australia, and new zealand to attend the nato summit in madrid. for more, we turn to anatol lieven, senior fellow at the quincy institute for responsible statecraft, author "ukraine and russia." his latest piece in the nation is headlined "a peace settlement in ukraine."

thank you for joining us. if you can start off by talking about all these developments come as we are broadcasting president biden is holding a news conference in madrid, but the increase troop presence in europe, poland establishing a permanent base, finland and sweden coming in to the alliance , and inviting south korea and japan, new zealand, and australia not into nato, but to this meeting so they can start to talk more about what nato is considering a threat, china. >> well, that is a lot to cover. i suppose one thing to note is that as your reportays, i think, today russia announced it was withdrawing frosnake island in the black sea, which has been occupied since the beginning of the war.

russia said it was doing this as a gesture of conciliation but the general analysis is russia was withdrawing from snake island because it was simply suffering too many casualties and losses of ships to hold it. i think what that does indicate pretty clearly is that on top of the way russia was defeated by ukrainian forces with western rapidly -- weaponry outside of no updated email yet --kyiv, russia is not nearly the military great power that the russians -- it was also pretrade as in the west and in fact, the nato secretary-general has acknowledged this, so you see there is a certain distance

between russia's actual military strength and performance and nato's response because to be blunt, if russia takes weeks and weeks to capture one small town in the donbas, the thought of it invading poland or romania, it is not actually serious in military terms. and as far as finland and sweden is concerned, you know, one understands perfectly why they have been so alarmed by the russian invasion of ukraine, but it is also true russia has not threatened either of them look eerily since the end of the cold war. that is one thing to point to. as far as china is concerned, there are suppose to points to

raise. the first is to have set out on a focus on the chinese threat, while at the same time being dely embroiled in acute tension with russia and backing the other side in a war with russia does not look like wise strategy for nato. there should have been some attempt to ratchet down tensions with one or the other. the other obvious point to make, as you said, nato stands for the north atlantic treaty organization. the members of nato are close to the north atlantic, the united states and the two atlantic powers. to the best of mynowledge, china is not in the atlantic ocean and it does raise the

question both of whether nato should -- whether nato's charter in fact allows it to deal with china as a threat or whether you should have a quite different organization for that. but also, of course, whether china is actually a threat to the north atlantic countries or such or whether it is only a threat to american privacy and the far east, which is a very different question. nermeen: when the announcement was made by nato to include china, they said china represents -- threatened nato's "interest security and values." and together with making the statement, including china, they also the first time invited countries from east asia as well as australia and new zealand,

japan, south korea. could you explain why you think they did that now and what it implies for the long-term goals of nato? >> there are two reaso. one is that, obviously, as china becomes more and more powerful, economically stronger and stronger, it does raise understandable anxiety and at the democratic countries of the west. that, however, is not the same as a security threat to europe. and as far as values are concerned, you know, i was listening to the program -- i have to say ireallyeems to

me the obvious threat to western liberal democracy are internal. they are about all the things that we know about socioeconomic inequality, demographic change driving internal extremism, cultural anxieties. and china has nothing to do with any of this. to some degree it is actually a distraction. remember, the whole point of nato in the end is to defend western liberal democracy. if by looking militarily at china, even to a degree not by supporting ukraine, you understand, but by building up this idea of russia as a massive threat to the west, is nato really concentrating on the most important dangers to liberal

democracy i wonder? nermeen: to turn now to what the situation in ukraine is, your recent piece for the nation is headlined "a peace settlement in ukraine." if you could elaborate the argument that you make there and, in particular, the point you make regarding the status of the donbas and crimea and why that must be left for future negotiations in any peace settlement? >> well, the thing is, the first russian demand -- treaty of neutrality has in principle been accepted are president zelenskyy. it is there on the ukrainian presidential wsite. the point being, fore the russian invasion, zelenskyy went to nato countries and asked for a guarantee of nato membership within a reasonable space of time, five years, and they said,

no, you are not getting any. zelenskyy said, ok, why not a treaty of neutrality? the ukrainians have asked for some very, very firm guarantees ukrainian security as part of the treaty of neutrality. we won't go into detail but we can think of some good ways of addressing that. the territorial issues are much more complicated because they are basically incompatible positions, the ukrainian assistance on full neutrality of ukrainian territory became independent in 1991 and the russian claim sovereignty over crimea and recognition of independence of the donbas separatist republics and then -- i'm sorry, it's horribly complicated.

these issues always are. the point russia has recognize the independence of the bus republic on the whole administrative territoryf donbas but actually has not occupy that whole territory if ha of it is still in ukrainian hands. so it is going to be very hard to negotiate. however, the ukrainians have said that if russia will withdraw from al the new territory it has occupied since the invasion began, ukraine is prepared to essentially shelve the previous territorial issues for future negotiation. at least that is what ukraine said previously. there have been wildly different statements coming out of the ukraian government. it is clear there are -- firstly, there are deep divisions within the ukrainian government and elites. secondly, very, very understandably, as the war has

progressed, as the destruction by rusa has gotten worse and worse, these revelations of russian rocity so naturally, ukrainians have become more and more embittered and more and more have decided they have to fight through to total victory. but i think we also have to recognize -- i saidt is quite impossible for russia to win a total victory in ukraine, but it does also look very unlikely that ukraine will be able to win a total victory over russia. in the end, one way or the other, we are going to end up with some sort of compromise. amy: if you can comment on the g7 reaching an agreement around a price cap on russian oil exports and the backfiring of the sanctions. "the new york times" rights despite the sections, oil spill rise while consumers around the world have faced mounting pain at the gasoline pump.

>> well, two things about that, the first is western governments should have thought about this before the war, this threat, a very obvious one, and done much more to try to avert the war by seeking, for example, the treaty of neutrality which ukraine has not offered. i mean, obviously not just oil and gas, but food as well. it is perfectly obvious massive sanctions against russia would have this effect on global energy and food pric. that is the first thing. the second thing is, look, we don't know but there are already obvious splits behind the scenes between european governments -- between some european governments and america on the approach to the war in ukraine

and the peace settlement. european officials i have talked to in private have said going into the bottom autumn, if german is facing a winter of widespread contraction of german industry as a result of lack of energy, if european governments are going into a winter with energy shortages, with radically higher energy prices, if by then either serious threats of global recession or in a global recession, that i think you're likely to see much more pressure for a -- some attempt at a compromise peacer at least an agreed cease-fire in ukraine. what i try to do in my piece for the nation was to address some of the contours and my view, the

only viable contours for such a peace settlement could look like. nermeen: do you think that the signs at the moment, i mean, the fact of nato expansion, the presence now of u.s. troops increasing in europe, the ascension of sweden and nato saying yesterday that allies are prepared for the long haul on ukraine, this, together with the fact as far as if one takes russia's word for it, if this was all about nato, things are not quite as they had planned, what indication is there given both these things that that anyone -- either party would be interested in beginning

negotiations anytime in the near future? >> well, you're absolutely right. look, i am not naïve about the chances, but i think when you said that things are not exactly going to plan as far as russia is concerned, that is quite an understatement. this has beea disaster for russia and a disaster militarily. remember, russia has actually failed to achieve almost all its key military objectives in ukraine. it has failed. it has been fought to a standstill. to go on and on like this is going to cost enormous russian casualties and not necessarily gain anymore significant ground. so that in principle creates an incentive to seek an agreement. and the ukrainians are also suffering terribly. i think it is worth remembering ukraine now does have a genuine chance for the first time a

future membership of the european union. that is really the mark of ukraine joining the west much more than nato if ukraine can join the european union. but it cannot do so as long as it is in this war with the ukrainian economy being shot to pieces by the russians. there is also an incentive for the ukrainian side to try to reach an agreement. look, i am not saying this is easy. as far as stoltenberg is concerned, remember, stoltenberg group -- represents the nato bureaucracy. he is not elected. he does not have to care about energy prices, unemployment, inflation, any of these things. he actually does not even have to care about starvation in africa or the middle east as a result of food shortages because of the war. so the people are ultimately

going to make the decisions on the elected politicians who do have to care about these things. amy: we want to thank you, anatol lieven, for joining us, senior fellow at the quincy institute for responsible statecraft. we will link your piece in the nation is headlined "a peace settlement in ukraine." coming up, how the far right supreme court has radically reshaped the united states. we will speak with the aclu's david cole. stay with us. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. the supreme court is expected to issue its final two ruling of its current term today, one on climate and the other on whether president biden can end the trump-era remain in mexico program which has blocked asylum-seekers from entering the united states. on wednesday, justice stephen breyer informed president biden that he would formally retire at noon today. judge ketanji brown jackson will then be sworn in, becoming the nation's first black female justice. over the past month, the far right court has issued a series of rulings which could reshape the nation from overturning roe v. wade to vastly expanding second amendment gun rights to chipping away at the separation of church and state. to look more at the supreme court's rulings, we are joined by david cole, the national legal director of the american civil liberties union. his recent op-ed for "the l.a.

times" is headlined "the supreme court is not accountable to the people. so what can check its power?" welcome back to democracy now! can you start off by assessing what has taken place, the decisions this court has made, and then we can talk about what you feel can check its power. >> sure. this has been a radical turn to the right by the court this term. compared to the last term. last term, the court decided most all of its most controversial cases on your grounds, achieving consensus, very few decisionsecided 54 or 63, many were 8-1, unanimous, 7-2. they were looking to achieve consensus. th term, they have thrown

moderation out, thrown consensus out and virtually every controversial decision has been decided by a 6-3 or 5-4 vote. in the conservative majority has upended the religioclauses so it used to be there were strict limits on government aid to religious schools. you could not have prayer in schools. this term, the court has ruled the states are compelled to support private religious indoctrination if they also support private secular schools and the state high school was compled to allow a football coach, it's football coach to pray at the 50 yard li at the end of every game. it overturn a 50-year-old precedent in dobbs, roe v. wade decision overturned, and for the

first time, eliminated a right that is central to equal status of half of this country. and struck down over 100-year-old new york law that restricted people carrying guns in public. in earlier in the term, struck down president biden's vaccine requirement for businesses over 100 people. so this is a radical court that is intruding upon our liberties, our safety, and it is doing it all in the name of a sort of commitment to a historic vision of the constitution as it was drafted, when it was drafted and imposing that on the american people, notwithstanding the fact two centuries have intervened

and circumstances are dramatically different today. nermeen: david cole, could you elaborate on the point you make that the court appears to be much less interested in reaching consensus on these decisions and what you think explains that? and then the argument that you make in your "l.a. times" piece on how the supreme court's power can be ccked? >> what explains the sort of abandonment of consensus i think is just the five justices -- when i talk about the five, it is justice thomas, justice alito, and trump's three appointments -- kavanaugh, barrett, and gorsuch. they have just decided to flex their muscle and their no longer interested in reaching narrow resolution. the abortion case is sort of a case in point. as chief justice roberts in his separate opinion in that case,

which he did not join the other five in seeking to overturn roe, all that was required to decide that case was whether a 15 week ban on abortion was constitutional or not. that ban could be upheld consistent with upholding the notion that women have a right to make a decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy and simply saying come as chief justice roberts said, 15 weeks is a reasonable time to allow women to make that choice. i disagree with that view, but that is a view that would decide the case without offending 50 -- upending of precedent. the majority reached out and roe decided to take on roe, take on casey, and overturn 20 plus

cases the court has decided since roe that have affirmed the notion that it is a core aspect of women's liberty to be able to control their bodies, control their families, control the lives by deciding when and whether to have a child. the only reason that the court overturned roe v. wade was that five justices now have the power to do it. there is no principled basis upon which they justify that overturning, it is an exercise of raw power. they seek to justify it in the name of what they call originalism, this notion the constitution should only protect what it was understood to protect at the time it was adopted. well, if you took that approach, which is the approach they took in dobbs, not only whether her

not be a right to abortion, but there would not be a right to contraception. there would not be a right to marry someone of a different race or of the same sex. there would not be a right against forced sterilization. there would not be equal protection for women because when the equal protection clause was adopted in 1868, there was no suggestion that women were protected by it. women did not even have the right to vote. segregation would be legal again. we would have to overturn brown versus board of education and resurrect plessy berkus -- super -- plessy versus ferguson.

this is a truly radical ideology . it is held by five justices, maybe 5.5 because sometimes chief justice roberts joins it but other times he doesn't. and that is enough to have a majority today on the supreme court. but when you look over the course of the historof the court, there been about 116 justices, about six of them have been originalists, have taken his rigid view that the constitution doesn't evolve over time. the other 100 plus justices have all taken the view that, no, the constitution applies like any other law to the application of principles to new circumstances, recognizing changing conditions so that it can govern the nation for centuries, which is what it has done. if you take an originalist sort of blind historical approach to

the constitution, you would have to append virtually everything -- upend the court has decided over the last 200 years and they seem ready to do that -- at least in certain cases of this term. amy: can you talk today about what it means that justice breyer is stepping down? and most significantly, the first black woman will become a justice of the supreme court today, ketanji brown jackson? >> it is about the first time i first black woman on the court, that is for sure. i don't think it will change all that much in truth with respect to how the court rules. justice jackson i think will be a reliable and consistent voice for the vulnerable and for civil rights and civil liberties. justice breyer was as well. there will still be a 6-3

partisan divide on the court. so i think what will change the cot, if anything changes the court come is public reaction. if the public sort of sits back and says, oh, my god, there's nothing we can do, the court -- trump's justices have taken over, it is hopeless, there is no point, then they will continue on their road of remaking constitutional law in vision that rejects what virtually every other justice before them has taken. if, on the other hand, amecans stand up for the values and principles that we believe in, for values like the right of every woman to have an abortion if she doesn't choose to bring a pregnancy to term, the right of states and local governments to

protect our public safety by limiting guns, the right of all of us to keep church and state separate -- if we stand up for those rights, if we organize for those rights, if we vote on the basis of those rights, those rights will be protected and i think the court, if it sees that kind o response, might hav some hesitation about continuing on its path. the supreme court really departs very far from where the country is. -- rarely departs very far from the country is. if it does, there is a reaction that sort of pushes the court back into its proper place. the court has departed very far from where the country is on both abortion and guns in his decisions this term. the question is whether we will push back. nermeen: "the new york times"

published recent surveys carried out by harvard, stanford, and the university of texas on where precisely the public stands on all of these issues the court has already ruled on and with the exception of overturning roe v. wade, it seems as though the public is almost evenly divided, in other words, there are some cases in which 50% to 53% of the public agreed with the court's decision and others which the reverse is true. in other words, the difference is very minor. given that, what can the public do? >> thais truabout some of the cases the court decided this term that are not the ones we're talking about today. but that is not true when it comes to the right to abortion. the polls have consistently shown americans believe roe should have been upheld and not overturned. nermeen: absolutely.

and that case, yes. >> it is also not true with respect to the new york gun law. the polls consistently show people support gun control, reasonable gun control, support restrictions on the public carrying of weapo. i ink the polls show new yorkers, something like 85% of new yorkers supported the law the court struck down. these are not close calls. this is a court that has really departed from where the country stands. i think the abortion case is the central decision, the most important decision i think the worst decision the court has issued in this century thus far. and it is the first time in the history of the court that it has wholly eliminated a constitutional right enjoyed by half of the country.

it has overturn precedent in the past, but generally to expand rights not limited them altogether. this is really a watershed. this is how we respond. we have to respond by standing up and fighting back. amy: david cole, thank you for being with us, aclu national legal director. we will eat your op-ed "the supreme court is not accountable to the people. so what can check its power?" next up, michigan supreme court throughout dust throughout charges rick snyder another officials for their role in the poisoning of an american city, the flint water crisis. we will go to flint to get a response. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: "miracle" by the flint musician tunde olaniran. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. we and today show in michigan, where on tuesday the state's supreme court threw out charges against former michigan governor rick snyder, his former health director, and seven other former officials for their role in the deadly flint, michigan, water crisis. the court ruled unanimously the judge who issued the indictments did not have the authority to do so because he acted as a

"one-person grand jury" and had no power to issue indictments under rarely used state laws. concurring opinion -- -- justice richard bernstein wrote in a concurring opinion -- "the flint water crisis stands as one of this country's greatest betrayals of citizens by their government. yet the prosecution of these defendants must adhere to proper procedural requirements because of the magnitude of the harm that was done to flint residents." michigan solicitor general fadwa hammoud, who helped lead the flint prosecutions, said these "cases are not over" and vowed to prove the allegations in court. in 2014, flint's unelected emergency manager, appointed by snyder, switched the city's water supply from the detroit system, which they had been using for half a century, to the corrosive flint river as a cost-saving measure. soon after, flint residents were complaining about discolored and foul-smelling water. first, the water was infested with bacteria. to treat the bacteria, the city poured in chlorine, which created a cancerous chemical byproducts. then a deadly outbreak of legionnaires' disease, which is caused by a water-borne

bacteria, spread through flint, killing 12 people and sickening dozens. one of the largest recorded outbreaks in u.s. history. the change in the water supply also created widespread lead poisoning in residents, particularly children, in the majority-black city. in a minute, we'll get response from two flint residents to these latest developments. we spoke to them in 2016 for our documentary "thirsty for democracy: the poisoning of an american city." this is melissa mays. how have you been affected by the poisoned water? >> all three of my sons are anemic. they have bone pain. they miss a lot of school because they're constantly sick. their immune systems are compromised. myself, i have seizures. i have diverticulosis now. amy: and this is nayyirah shariff with the democracy defense league speaking to us in 2016. can you talk about what the big

challenge is today? >> many people who don't know what to use with their water, with the lead in their water and also the challenge of accurate information. that is the need of us going door-to-door handing out accurate information, lifting up everyone's stories because everyone has been impacted by this water crisis and to make sure they have their basic needs met so freshwater filters, replacement filters. you're also delivering those, too. amy: that is nayyirah shariff back in 2016 when democracy now! went to flint. she is joining us now from detroit, along with melissa mays, resident of flint and organizer with the same group flint rising. ,we welcome you both back to democracy now! nayyirah shariff, your response to the throwing out of the conviction of the governor of

michigan? and his officials? >> this is the second time for some of these officials being charged and it really feels like justice is becoming an illusion for the flint residents. nermeen: could you also respond to this and speak specifically about the role of michigan attorney general and a nettle? >> this feels like a slap in the face because she ran on a platform that she was going to bring justice to flint residents and less than six months of her taking office, the charges against folks are being dropped. it took over a year for the next set of charges to be brought up and now this is being dismissed.

it is really offensive because one of the other things i wanted to lift up is even though the supreme court says this one person grand jury is unusual, i mean, it is pretty common in poor communities within michigan. there are of cases right now, active cases that went through a one-person grand jury. so it really feels like there is one justice system for poor residents, including residents of our county, and another justice system if you are the former governor or department head for the state of michigan. amy: let's bring melissa mays into the conversation. you are in flint right now. you and nayyirah shariff were the leaders at the time at the height of the poisoning, whether we're talking about legionnaires' disease or the lead poisoning of children. melissa, lay out the scope of

the problem, what happened in flint will stop >> listening to our interviews from six years ago, not a lot has changed. basically, the state is still making all of the decisions for us, making decisions about us without us. they have not even finished replacing our service lines. with our federal lawsuit, this should have been done by 2020. here we are dragging it out because the state is doing everything they can to avoid -- right now flint rising is going to additional thousands of homes that the state never reached out to to get their pipes replaced. people still don't have health care. we still have to get people prop information. the state has spent tens of millions of dollars of our tax money to avoid justice, to drag out the civil cases, to drag out the criminal cases. three years ago almost to the

day, the attorney general throughout all of the cases from three years prior to that. many were livingorward to trial for manslaughter but she tossed them out with no good reason. political issues, i guess. this is a human rights issue. no one is being held accountable. no one is seeing justice or reparations in flint. our homes, our bodies, our lives are so damaged and destroyed and the people responsible are getting away with it because like nayyirah shariff said, that have rich white folk and government has that have a different system than the rest of us. nermeen: could you speak specifically about the lawsuit to replace all of the lead in water service lines? what is the status of that? >> so far, there are still

thousands of homes remaining that have not been dug up. basically, the galvanized steel and lead service lines have not been replaced. we settle this in 2017 and it was supposed to be done by 2020 but the current mayor put a hd on it and blamed covid even though it would be outside. now they are just dropping their hand saying, no, we are done. we have to continue to go to court to say, no, you have to take this out. remember, service lines are only one piece. our outdated laws to cover the service line which is the pipes from the house to the street. those that are rupturing and inside homes is not be replaced, the plumbing, appliances, fixtures -- l the thingshe water corrosive eight and destroyed is not being touched. in my house, of a bathroom that had to go down to the studs and my kitchen during covid because the water eight through the line and destroyed our floors,

counter pups -- countertops. continual punishment for living in flint and right now the infrastructure bill is going forward thanks to what flint residents have done to push it, but they are not doing it right in flint. if they don't do it rightere, they're going to do this piecemeal mess across the untry and we can't stand for that. nayyirah shariff and i are part of a greater coalition to fight to make sure the upper structure bill is implemented right with the right licensed plumbers and make sure people are safe so this work is not in vain and people are not left worse off by terrible job and corners being cut like what is being done in flint. amy: the michigan supreme court throughout -- i said before convictions come it is the indictments against the governor and a number of his aides for the deadly flint, michigan, water crisis. the court ruling 6-0.

the judge who issued the indictment did not have the authority to do so. that does not mean this case is thrown out, it was just done procedurally wrong. how do you move ahead? on the one hand, holding these officials accountable up to the governor, and then how you move ahead with dealing with this crisis today? i mean, talking about the lead poisoning of the children of flint, majority black city, what this means for the future and ultimately -- give call this a crisis of democracy because snyder empowered unelected town managers that he put in place in mainly black cities in michigan to run your city and others. >> when the supreme court voided those indictments, it was like a slap in the face. it felt like when are we going

to receive justice? in the eyes of many flint residents, justice as for them is not getting the lead service line replaced or -- today is actually the last day for the residence to fill out the paperwork to bpart of the civil lawsuit. it is not that. it is seeing someone convicted and going to jail for poisoning 100,000 flint residents. unfortunately, the system that created michigan's emergency management law is still on the books. they are looking to tweak it because -- amy: 15 seconds. >> it is going under financial distress. this is something that is going to be ongoing and we have to continue to fight in the streets for justice that we deserve. amy: we will continue to follow this as we did with the documentary "thirsty for democracy: the poisoning of an

american city." melissa mays and nayyirah shariff with flint rising. that does it for our show. happy birthday to isis phillips! [captioning made possible by democracy now!] ñcñcñcñc

(tnder ruming)