american institutions. here's reaction from students today. >> i would hope that students have especially black students, especially intersectionally marginalized communities, will have a seat at the table in redesigning admissions. >> consideration is important because maybe one person is more qualified but that's only because they have been given resources and opportunities. i think it's important to keep that in mind. >> i hope this is an opportunity for harfered to step up in recruitment and other efforts but it would be wrong of me to say i'm not scared. >> the court spoke today. the students, the next generation, they may have the last word on this. thanks superspending time with us. "the reidout" starts right now. tonight on "the reidout" -- find it just so out of sorts with the basic value system of the american people.

and i think that across the board, the vast majority of the american people don't agree with a lot of the decisions the courts are making. >> president biden in an exclusive interview with my colleague, nicolle wallace, responding to today's very predictable supreme court decision on affirmative action. and that is where we begin tonight, with the united states supreme court once again turning the arc of justice away from equality and back to the early 20th century. striking down the use of affirmative action in college admissions. the roberts court, which wouldn't even look like the court it is today without affirmative action, decided that race conscious admissions programs at harvard university and the university of north carolina violate equal protection under the constitution. it is fitting then that it would be the court's first black woman justice, ketanji brown jackson, who clearly articulated the cost of this latest regression. writing in her dissent, with let

them eat cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulled the rip cord and announces color blindness for all by legal fiat, but deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. the best that can be said of the majority's perspective that it proceeds ostrich like that hoping the prevention of race will end racism. they say after a generation of two, after hundreds of years of rank discrimination on the basis of race, we have done enough. we're all equal. everything is fine. despite vast and persistent inequalities in wealth literally created on the backs of black americans and kept in place for generations even after this country stopped enslaving black people on the basis of race in 1865. for the better part of the next century, america embraced the

concept of separate but equal. black students were told, yeah, you can have a school, but it's going to be a sck with old useless text books which is only open when it isn't planting season and that didn't end officially until brown v. board of education in 1954. then in the 1960s, white segregationist mobs rioted when the black students had the temerity to try to attend schools like the university of mississippi. and who could porget governor george wallace physically blocking the doors to the university of alabama? apparently, at least six members of the court have forgotten, the current court, anyway. it's only really been since the 1960s that we have had any real promise of racial equality and education or any promise of fairness in society. and that was thanks to chief justice earl warren's supreme court in the 1950s and '60s, which revolutionized america, dramatically expanding civil rights and civil liberties for all americans.

the warren court ended racial segregation in public schools, expanded voting rights, upheld free speech, legalized interrational marriage and paved the way for legalizing abortion. all landmark changes moving us forward. but this supreme court, the roberts court, or perhaps i should call it the alito court, will definitely go down in history as the opposite, yanking back american progress in direct repudiation of the warren court and the 20th century. justice sonia sotomayor acknowledged as much, writing this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. the devastating impact of this decision can nat be overstated. the majority's vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is

ignored. as for the conservative majority, six of them chose to side with the petitioner, in both of today's cases. students for fair admissions, which contrary to its name is not actually students. but rather a group led by a man named edward bluhm, a conservative legal strategist who for many years has been bent on killing consideration of race in college admissions. well, he finally got a court majority that would give him his way. but according to chief justice john roberts' majority opinion, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it from discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. i mean, so long as apiring students write about the way race impacted them in their college essays exactly the way john roberts tells them to. and with today's death blow to affirmative action, one justice in particular seemed to revel in pulling up the ladder behind

himself. justice clarence thomas who has acknowledged he has benefitted from affirmative action. in a frankly gleeful concurrence, he wrote, even in the segregated south where i grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. while i am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, i hold out enduring hope this country will live up to its principles. aw, adorable. today, in court chambers, thomas said the policies at unc and harvard fly in the face of our color-blind constitution, the constiegzitution that at one point deemed him to be three-fifths of a human angry.

m as this case was being argued. would you characterize the sort of interactions, i mean, i know in the harvard law case, judge ketanji brown jackson recused because she has a moral center and a moral core, unlike the person i'm also talking about, clarence thomas, who takes lots of gifts. what were the debates and arguments like? >> of course, this is a very difficult issue. whether or not you can consider race, how you're considering race, and given the incredible histories we have here of racial exclusion and racial violence,

it seems fitting that we continue to have this because we had a lot -- we had a couple centuries of that violence and that history compared to just a few decades of being free of that, even at the university of north carolina, they had that university was created in 1789 to serve the children of slave owners at the time, and they fought for 200 years to continue to exclude black students. so we knew going in to the argument that it was going to be a tough sell for this court, this sitting court. prior courts with republican appointed and democratic appointed justices had put aside those differences of politicized opinions, but this court through some of its questions you could kind of start reading through. we did feel very strongly that the law, the facts, and the constitution were on our side. and we had strong evidence from our own students discussing how

and why it's important for them to lift up their own lived experiences and when those are affected by their race. and so we knew it was going to be tough. but we also felt that we had done what we needed to do. if this court was going to try and pull down on affirmative action or pull down on the progress that we made, it should have been very tough for them to have done that. >> sounds like it was pretty easy for them, and ironically, you're the one who had students with you. elie, eager to hear your thoughts. >> the supreme court got it wrong in terms of the law, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was not passed to help white sons like jared kushner and brett kavanaugh get into school. the first time we had affirmative action in this country was not the 1960s. it was the 1860s. we had affirmative action during

reconstruction. we know that affirmative action during reconstruction was constitutional because they ratified the 14th amendment so that they could pass legislation that would help to revoke the racism of the past and those policies included affirmative action. so as ketanji brown jackson pointed out in her dissent and in oral arguments, the supreme court was flatly wrong on the law. now, we can all know why the supreme court decided to get this particular law so wrong, and it wasn't to help the aapi students who were trying to get into harvard and yale. it was trying to help mediocre white students who feel outcompeted and blame black students for quote/unquote taking their spots. it was a terrible decision on the law, but we all know the real reason why people like john roberts did it. >> and i mean, just to sort of make that point and sort of enhance that point, joyce vance,

they left in place the other ways in which elite schools like harvard and the ivies and all of the other schools decide who can get in. they said you can still let legacies in. they didn't touch that kind of affirmative action which is for the wealthy scions of mainly white families. they left in place if you're an athlete, that's fine, and they left in the place people who are related to somebody who works at the school. what they're saying is the only thing a school can't consider is if you're not white. >> the argument that the court accepts today is that there's an equal protection violation if you attempt to address the failures of our history by considering someone's race, not solely making a decision based on their race, but considering it as one of a package of factors that go into that decision making process. and like elie says, what is so

frustrating about this decision, i almost find it hard to put into words. you know, lawyers, we agree with decisions that courts make all the time. it doesn't mean that those decisions are wrong. it means that there are two sides and we were on the losing side. but this decision is in a different category. a category reserved for very few cases. it's a case where the decision is wrong on its face. it's wrong because it's made in ignorance of the law, deliberate ignorance, and it's wrong because factually, it's so inaccurate, it echoes from the shelby county case which chief justice roberts also wrote, and in shelby county, the voting rights case, he said we don't need to enforce these old criteria under the voting rights act anymore. there's no reason to believe that black people are still being discriminated against when they register, when they have low turnout numbers. and he was dead set wrong on that. here he is now saying, we no longer need to protect black

people in admissions decisions. the time for that is passed, is what he in essence says. i think history again will prove him wrong. inquestion is how many young valuable lives, they wouldn't realize the heights they can reach. >> i think that's such a key point because, you know, we had a country in which the planter class became extravagantly wealthy off the free labor of black people. and then 88 years after we technically were made citizens, people were still, you know, blocking the school house door for people to get in, even after brown v. board. but this court is essentially saying, yeah, but you had 60 good years. you don't need anything more, and we essentially are all even. when that is so untrue. can you talk about some of the larger ramifications of this? it's not just college

admissions. if we have fewer black doctors, we have fewer people who understand that black women cannot accept more pain, you know what i mean? there's so many ways in which this reverberates. >> this clearly puts a dagger in the backs of blacks, but it also has ramifications for women and others. and it can be used in other areas of american life. because when you say it is unconstitutional now to consider race, well, would we be saying that in the private sector about jobs and contracts and board seats? many groups like mine fight for. i mean, they have in many ways said that you cannot consider race in america. and some will say, oh, they're just limiting it to academia. anyone can then say, wait a minute, if it's unconstitutional, i can't do it in my business, i can't do it across the board. and how do you argue that when they have misconstrued the 14th

amendment, which was there for the opposite reason? the fact of the matter is that we are in a political court, put there a third of which was put there by donald trump, who said make america great again. this is the trump court that is trying to go back pre-board of education 1954, and that's where this ruling came down today. and the insult, to add insult to injury, to say, well, you can write about your black, but you can't decide that i'm going to help you because you're black. that's just something i can sit in my comfortable chair and read about the misery you suffer, but i cannot say because of the misery that was done, oh, we must remember, joy, we were discriminated not by habit, not even by culture, by law. rosa parks was arrested, she wasn't sent to therapy. she broke the law. and they're saying by law, you no longer have to consider this,

and in fact, it is unconstitutional to even consider it when blacks are still 10% of white wealth in this country, when we across the board, the metrics speak for themselves. that happened because the law made us less than equal citizens in this country. >> david, i mean, the implications are broad, and it is beyond just african americans. latinos are also underrepresented in colleges, even in places like california where latinos are the largest racial group. this is going to impact everyone except the scions of rich white families. >> it will if we let it. because this decision, as incredibly distressing, as incredibly tragic as it is to what we know as the rule of law, which everybody likes to say, but they don't like to put it in practice, as distressing as everything is, this case actually is just about harvard

and unc's admissions program. and there are other avenues of support that can be pushed forward. i say that because we're not resting on this. this is going to be our launch pad. we're going to be reinvigorated by this and united across racial ethnicities including the asian american community. >> who they always try to use against of us. >> and they're not going to stand for this because they know what the potential ramifications are, as reverend sharpton talked about, the contrariness in this opinions. the fact is students, and they need to know this, they need to know that they can fully express themselves in their applications, all of their talents, all of their experiences, all of those incredible gifts that they bring to that university, they cannot leave those on the table. they need to bring those in their applications, and universities should not be trying to censor that,eter. if they do, we'll end up going

after the universities because, again, this is a terrible decision, but we need to try to see some of the silver linings. >> you are the ones who have students with you, unlike the people who sued. thank you. up next, we'll be talking with a professor and students impacted by today's decision, including a former unc student who was granted legal standing to argue in defense of affirmative action before the supreme court. "the reidout" continues after this. imagine you're doing something you love. rsv could cut it short. ♪ rsv is a contagious virus that usually causes mild symptoms but can cause more severe infections that may lead to hospitalizations... ...in adults 60 and older... ...and adults with certain underlying conditions, like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. talk to your doctor and visit cutshortrsv.com.

(woman) what would the ideal weight loss program look like? like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. no hunger, no cravings, no isolation, more energy, lasting results, and easy. is that possible? it is with golo. these people changed their lives with golo without starvation dieting. whether you have 100 pounds to lose or want to shed those final 20, try golo for 60 days and never diet again. (uplifting music)

tired muscles and joints were keeping me from my family. now i can be myself again. blue-emu supports healthy muscles and joints. blue-emu, it works fast, and you won't stink. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity.

as we continue to swallow this bitter fruit that the majority conservative justices have forced down our throats today, i want to read you one tweet that spoke to me from historian writer and friend of the show, michael harriet. he wrote, the supreme court did not strike down affirmative action. admission preferences for legacies, donor, employee families and spec remations are all still allowed. the court struck down affirmative action for everyone except white people.

to his point, prior to today, harvard had described race as a potential tip or plus factor along with whether one of the student's parents graduated from the undergraduate college, whether a student comes from a low-income family and whether a student has special athletic talent. after today, it only tips that remain are legacy, low income, and special athletic talent. joining me are andrew brennan, a 2019 graduate of north carolina who was a party of the case involving the university. angie gabo, and michael eric dyson, professor of african american and diaspory studies and co-author of unequal. i want to start with you, angie. we were having the harvard house conversation, when i was at harvard, there were a lot of legacies. a lot of people who didn't get in because they had good grades. they had mommy and grand daddy's

name on a building. they can still get in. their affirmative action seems quite in place. what do you make of that. >> i totally agree. that's still true today. there's also, you know, we have seen it in other cases like the back door, the side door, other ways to get into harvard. but they just struck it down just for black students and brown students on campus. to be able to have specific access due to, like, disadvantages in specific circumstances. >> when i was there, one of the other experiences i had is the so-called affirmative action kids were some of the most brilliant i ever met. ketanji brown jackson was there when i was here. this is a brilliant human being, and they were hard working. the affluent kids didn't have to work as hard. i wonder what you make of the fact this court seems to think choosing students like you is an affront to the constitution? >> no, it's really crazy. at least in my experience, i really found that my race is my

identity. all the stories i have told harvard, which is the reason i got in, were directly correlated with my race because i live as a black woman every single day. and a lot of my peers and counterparts that are also black, like i get to hear their amazing stories and what they get to do every day that you just need in a school like harvard. so yeah. >> andrew, you testified i think in one of the lower court cases. i would love to know what you make of the decision and how you think it will change the university from which you graduated if people cannot freely, the university cannot freely choose students like you? >> thanks, joy. yeah, i think it's important to remember the context at unc in which this decision has been made. when i was a student at unc, there school was 11% black in a state that was 22% black. you know, joy, i have grown up my entire life in the south. but it wasn't until my time at

unc did i see my first and second confederate rallies on campus. and so it's within that context that this lawsuit was brought. and i think it speaks to how absurd it is that this is not a compelling interest to insure diversity on our college campuses. >> we share that. i saw my first confederate flag at harvard as well. someone unfurled it very large so those of us who were black had to walk beneath it as we went to the library. fun times. michael eric dyson, you have taught at many pwis, many prominent majority white universities. how do you think these universities in your experience and the way they try to recruit students will react to this decision? >> well, joy, i taught at chapel hill for three years. you know, i think that, look, the left has to have a long game and strategy like the right does. they have been laying in wait for 50 years to try to figure out roe v. wade. and they worked on it. we got to understand and

underscore before i directly answer your question, why voting matters. because donald trump not in office means that three supreme court justices that he appointed would not have been appointed, and hillary clinton instead would have appointed them. so voting continues to matter. i think that schools have the wide latitude in the ability to count race as merit. right? so when we have a notion of merit, merit is not an abstract good. if you're in a boxing ring, it's meritorious to strike out and hurt somebody. if you're in your home, it's called domestic violence, the same act. or when they said you can consider race, i mean, race was considered in terms of harming black people, but not to heal them. well, the same intrusion that a bullet makes in the body a surgeon makes to remove it. so it can't be that race is the problem in terms of removing the hurt and bringing healing about, as it was in terms of intending harm.

this kind of malfeasance by these supreme court justices is utterly ridiculous. white folk get the hook up, black folk get the hook. we have to understand we have to continue to strategize like we did before there was affirmative action so we can have a long plan. schools can still consider race among many other factors. you can't stop a school from saying diversity is incredibly important and name that diversity in ways that obscure the race for strategic purposes. >> let me ask you what you make of clarence thomas' concurrence. >> that is a shameful manifestation of a lethal and malignant black self hatred that continues to express itself in the durition he holds black people. this is an unfortunate and remarkable situation where a black man who used affirmative action because his mead ocerousy is not a secret. his inarticulate vowels continue

to manifest an intelligence that is quite markedly inferior, and yet he has the ability and the power to kill black people metaphorically by lifting up the very letter he used to get up on affirmative action. this is so foul and nefarious in so many ways. >> andrew, what did you make of the fact the second black supreme court justice gleefully saw the end of affirmative action, which he has been trying to do for a long time? >> i think it's a real shame. and as justice sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, because of today's decision, the police can consider my race when assessing suspicion of a crime, but a college admissions officer can't consider my race when assessing the potential contributions that i could make to a college campus. i think it's that sort of tortured logic that makes no sense, and it's not just black people that are harmed by this,

joy. >> absolutely. >> having diverse college campuses benefit black and white students of all races. >> amen. indeed, and i'm going to give you the last word. what advice would you give the next you who is applying to harvard in this environment? >> i would say hold out hope. i was outside the supreme court today, and there's a lot of people who are rallying. and also take action. i think a lot of people will, you know, say that they feel uncomfortable or they feel disappointed by this decision, but that also has to come with action. that also has to come with community building, community organizer. >> i would give one piece of advice to everybody who is unhappy with the supreme court, vote. and vote all the way down the ballot. it's inunited states senate who confirmed supreme court justices and it's who you pick for president who is going to decide who gets nominated. don't leave it to people who like donald trump. andrew brennan, angie gabo, michael eric dyson, thank you.

>> up next, three members of congress weigh in on the ruling. we'll be right back. - i don't see the difference, do you? - well, that one's purple. - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carrier. starting at $20. consumer cellular. as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk

...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com

(upbeat music) - [narrator] what if there was a hearing aid that could keep up with you? (notification dings) this is jabra enhance select. it's a smart hearing solution that makes hearing aids more convenient and less expensive. it connects with your phone so you can stream calls and music. with jabra enhance select's premium package, better hearing doesn't have to start in a doctor's office. it starts with a free online hearing test you could take almost anywhere, so you can get your hearing aids custom programed for you and delivered in days. from there, you can fine tune your settings with your remote audiology team seven days a week, so your hearing aids work when it matters most. (notification dings) in fact, more than 95% of enhance select premium customers

report hearing better with their friends, family, and colleagues. with jabra enhance select, you can get the same advanced hearing aid technology and professional care you expect from a clinic at a fraction of the cost. try at risk free for 100 days. visit jabraenhance.com.

today's affirmative action decision is a cultural earthquake that will reverberate throughout society, as justice sotomayor wrote, race conscious college admissions for critical for providing equitive and effective public services in health care, education, the

legal system, and politics. she noted today's decision further entrenches racial inequality. the court ignores the dangerous consequences of an america where its leadership does not reflect the diversity of the people. the congressional black, asian, and pacific american and hispanic caucuses released a joint statement writing, quote, today's decision deals a needless blow to america's promise of equal and fair opportunity. and joining me now is congressman judy chu of california, chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, steve horseford of america, and congressman theresa fernandez of new mexico. thank you all for being here. i want to get all of your reactions to the ruling, but representative chu, i want to start with you. i feel like one of the things john roberts did in his decision and that the other conservatives who are excited about the

decision do, is they point at asian americans and say, they are the reason we need to get rid of affirmative action, even though every asian american i know is for affirmative action. but they try to divide all of us and carve out asian americans into a separate category. what do you make of that and what do you make of the decision? >> well, conservatives on the right have been trying to use asian americans as a wedge in their desire to get rid of affirmative action. but in reality, this supreme court decision today is no net positive for aapis. actually, there was a study done on what benefit there would be if affirmative action ends, and for places like harvard, there would be virtually no increase, but what we really are distressed about is that for those who are pacific islander or southeast asian, there

clearly will be a detriment to their ability to enter these higher education institutions. so it's based on flawed reasoning, and in fact, they didn't even produce harmed people as they did in the case of baki and these other folks. they actually had an organization that filed the case. and that tells you something. they could not find the evidence that would show that aapis were harmed by affirmative action. >> yeah, and representative horseford, the sort of reasoning by the conservative majority here was that the constitution is color blind, and they sort of made this sort of typical argument that you hear on the right a lot, that there's nothing in the constitution that says anything about race, and therefore, our country is color blind, and therefore, why are all of you mainly blacks trying to get things that, you know, white people should have.

what do you make of that? >> well, thank you, joy, for having us on. it's great to be on with judy and theresa. look, i would have much rather had the dissenting opinion from justice ketanji brown jackson and sewnio sotomayor be the majority opinion. and what this reminds us is that elections have consequences. look, one of the justices that's part of this 6-3 majority got there without the benefit of actually having the support of the majority of the american people. that was a justice that should have been appointed by president obama. it was mitch mcconnell and conservatives in the senate that stacked the supreme court. they caused this decision today. but i do want to send a very clear message. affirmative action sadly does still stand. it stands for legacy programs.

it stands for the privileged. it just no longer applies to race-based conscious policy that includes african americans, latinos, and asian american pacific islanders. that's why the congressional black caucus will be working to call for the elimination of legacy programs across these institutions. >> right, and representative fernandez, we know how they feel about very rich people because they take them on trips. i think they're supposed to get extra benefits, according to this court majority. but i note this is happening at a time when in multiple states including texas, latinos are now the largest ethnic group in multiple states, and as the country is moving toward an era when we will not have a white majority, when this panel will represent the majority of americans, and donald trump, who appointed three of these members, was a candidate who was acting out against that.

and in rage about that. it feels to me like this court represents that same rage. they hate these changes, these modernizations and the latino community is at the center of a lot of that anger. what do you make of this decision? >> exactly. i think what the supreme court was trying to do today was to take us back, and to deny the fact that racial discrimination has existed, has existed since the beginning of our country, and that racial discrimination against native americans, against enslaved blacks, against those who then came later, latinos, aapi, and so many more, that that took a lot of work to create. and that's why affirmative action was important. we needed to be able to create that opportunity so that we could undo the discrimination, so we could undo the inequality. i agee with justice sotomayor's

dissent when she said what the court did today was actually undermine the essence of the 14th amendment itself. because in the 14th amendment, the goal was to create equal opportunity, and right now, what they're doing is creating -- re-creating the injustice that so many of us have lived through. >> because of course, they have to protect the real victims of discrimination, which is rich white folks who go to like choate and andover and exter. because they might grow up to give them fancy gifts. my opinion, not yours. thank you very much. up next, how the white house is reacting to today's big events. we'll be back after this. ck accg . thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals

to provide the free surgeries these children need. join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you. give today. hi, i'm tony hawk, and like many of you, i take a statin to reduce cholesterol, but statins can also deplete coq10 levels. that's why my doctor recommended qunol coq10. qunol has the number one cardiologist recommended form of coq10. qunol. the brand i trust.

we're traveling all across america talking to people about their hearts. ooh, take this exit. how's the heart? i feel like it's good. you feel like it's good? how do you know when it's time to check in on your heart? how do you know? let me show you something. it looks like a credit card, but it is the kardiamobile card. that is a medical-grade ekg. want to see how it works? yeah. put both thumbs on there. that is your heart coming from the kardiamobile card. wow! with kardiamobile card you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds from anywhere. kardiamobile card is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia.

how much do you think that costs? probably $500. $99! oh really? you could carry that in your wallet! of course you can carry it in your wallet, right? yes, yes. checking your heart anytime, anywhere has never been easier. don't wait. get kardiamobile card for just $99 at kardia.com or amazon.

you say this court is not normal. what did you mean? >> what i meant is it's done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history. and that's what i meant by not normal. it's gone out of its way to -- for example, take a look at overruling roe v. wade, take a look at that decision today. take a look at how it's ruled on a number of issues that have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes. >> president biden today sat down for an exclusive interview

with my friend and colleague, nicolle wallace, to talk everything from the supreme court's decision to end affirm ative action who what has become of the republican party. joining me now is kurt bardella and juanita tolliver, political strategist, and despite the supreme court, you guys are both allowed to be here, so welcome. >> thank you. >> they don't know, i know clarence thomas really don't love it, but we'll let you stay. let's talk about this. so president biden, right off the top, of course, nicolle asked him about this decision and asked whether he thought the court was abnormal. he did say he thought it was an abnormal court. what do you make of the fact he then sort of pivoted to, i don't think we should do anything to expand it necessarily, i mean, he did go institutionalist on that. >> it's fully grating me. you know president biden was choosing his words carefully. he was not going to go too far into this is an undemocratic court or anything like that, but

he named the explicit damage and target and harm this court is doing. but doesn't want to take any action. and that is what rubbed me wrong, because as a black woman in this country, as an individual who is under direct attack from multiple precedent breaking decisions over the past few years from this court, i don't have the patience. so i'm looking at biden like, you need to use every tool available to you, beyald a study, beyond a report, and consider your options because you can't say this court is taking the country in the wrong direction in one breath and then do nothing about it. >> we had this conversation with the great rachel maddow and nicolle afterwards, that there is this sort of disconnect between biden's institutionalism. he is an og politician. he's been around doing this since he was 29. and he really does believe in the institutions. he's not faking that. he's like barack obama that way. and the kind of panic that people are feeling, women, lgbtq folks, minorities of all kinds, immigrants, migrants. it's a panic moment, but he is steady eddy no matter what.

>> i think for him, that's what he perceives to be his strength. that's his biggest selling point, the contrast is, do you want competency or chaos from the republicans? and especially after what we saw on january 6th, after what we saw even just during covid and the hysteria that has overrun the entire republican party, i think president biden has made the calculation this country with all of the unsettling that has happened and all of the unsettling that is a product of these extreme decisions made by the supreme court, that steadying the ship before you can fix anything, you need to make sure everything is stable. that's the argumenti do think ta danger here that for the activist community for the community that is under fire, and disenfranchised by the extremism of the republican party, whether you are a woman, a person of color, someone who is asian american who has been called a virus for the last couple of years, you want that urgency, that recognition that it is scary. >> and seen violence as a

result of it. i think that is a point. it is such a pivotal moment. it is republicans who are doing it. he did talk about republicans as well, let's see what he says. >> there's still a lot of really good republicans. >> in the country? >> and in the senate. there's a lot of them. others have come to me since i've been elected. now it is six republican senators. two came at one time, and the other for a loan to tell me joe i agree with you. but if i am seen doing it i will lose the primary. you know, i am an optimist. i think there is a moment where they will be able to break. >> i will start to say that is so biden. that is so biden. but is biden. he still wants to separate the maga from the republicans and say there are still good ones. they are not too courageous,

but they are there. >> and there are only six. >> to make it clear, not mitt romney. i think it is frustrating because this constant statement of, there is still good republicans, show me them. walk out with them, and every city you are going to, when you are talking about the economy, walk out with them at the white house when you are putting out a new executive order. show me them, because it is a fallacy and my mind. it doesn't exist. it is a figment of my imagination. because when all of this time is being done and their silence is only coming to biden in private, i don't even want to hear that there's six of them, because the reality is that they are still on board with causing the harm. they are still on board on not stopping any ofxtremism >> you know that you will find them on all of the groundbreaking's. we want to take credit for it. the republicans are excited about affirmative action falling. they feel very good about that. because it is interesting, trump's whole purpose was payback in white america for

barack obama existing and not being essentially, a hand puppet as president, and being quiet, and waving, and saying thank you white people for letting me be president. his retribution is this court, and they are getting it for him. >> you go back to the original slogan, make america great again, going backwards. their portrait of what a great america is the time before women had rights, before there were any marches for a quality, before people of color could have a fighting chance to compete in higher education, and now they're big accomplishment is that they haven't ruled all of the progress we made in this country. that it is mind-blowing to me that the child born right now will have less rights than we did when we were born. how is that possible that we got to the point where we are seeing progress completely rolled back, and it goes back to the early conversation. institutionalism is in going to work. the institution wasn't designed for the wrecking ball that is the modern republican party being swung at it every single day. we need to do more. >> it wasn't designed for any

of us. >> period. i think that is what graded me most about what justice clarence thomas wrote, and the fact that oh, i want our country to make good on the values presented in the constitution and the declaration, and all of these documents that weren't written for him, me, or anybody else. when i read his words, it is giving south loving, and self hatred to a level that came through. i think about him trying to come at ketanji brown jackson, justice jackson, and i appreciate her calling out his obsession with this race consciousness. because he hates himself for it. >> he hates the fact that the thing that is so wild about clarence thomas, he never would've been considered by yale. this is someone who spoke this language until six years old. he is somebody yale would have never considered but for affirmative action. and he seems to load everything about the opportunities he has been given, and want to delete them for every other black person forever. >> that is so counterintuitive,

and insulting to everyone else who is not going to be denied the same opportunities. >> he would have denied ketanji brown jackson because he would have said -- >> i mean, you look at this table right here, this is the nightmare scenario for the republican party. smart, independent, outspoken, divers foes voices, telling the truth about what is happening in our country. that is what the attack is on. that is what they are trying to silence from happening. >> not only that, but an alliance. fully in agreement and fully understanding and hearing it. >> and voting. kurt bardella and juanita tolliver we will be right back. e right back your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways!

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

hi, my name's steve. oi lost 138 pounds on golo. and i kept it off. golo's changed my life in so many ways. before, i was over 300 pounds. now, i literally have the ability to take a shirt off and go out in the sun where i would have never done that before. try golo. it works. i need it cool at night. you trying to ice me out of the bed? baby, only on game nights. you know you are retired right? am i? ya! the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now only at sleep number.

we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view.

do you need mulch? >> following today's supreme what, we have a ton of mulch.

court ruling on affirmative action, there are still two potentially momentous supreme court decisions expected tomorrow. one, whether president biden has the authority to erase more than 400 billion dollars and student loan debt. the other involves a colorado designer who objects providing services for same-sex marriages. she is challenging the states public on accommodations law, open to everyone from discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation. of course, we will break it all down for you tomorrow on the readout. that is tonight's read out. all in with chris say starts now. with chris say starts now. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tonight on all in -- >> so out of -- the basic value system of american people. this is not your father's republican party. >> a supreme court and affirmative action in college