was constitutional, but he lost that case because anthony kennedy was still on the court, and he voted with the liberals in that 5-4 decision. louisiana passes a law that's almost identical to the texas law, and here roberts switched places because, he says, the rule of precedent requires that we honor the decision of a couple of years ago even though i disagreed with it at the time. what that suggests is that "roe v. wade" may need one more justice from president trump in order to win because if john roberts feels this precedent needs to honored, "roe v. wade" is an even more well-established precedent, so, i mean, this is an extremely important decision to the lives of women in louisiana most importantly because it means that louisiana will not effectively have abortion ban, but it also is a message to other states that

it used to be anthony kennedy.hony kennedy was more liberal than chief justice roberts, but chief justice is more moderate than the four other conservatives. he's very much the center of gravity on the court. frankly i was surprised particularly by his vote on the case that now bars discrimination against gay people and transgender people in employment, but he is calling the shots here. he is not an automatic vote for the trump administration. he's certainly not a liberal, but he is now the center of the court, and he's the one deciding the big cases in the way anthony kennedy did for so many years before he retired. >> all right. jeffrey toobin, that you so much. luis cortes romero, congratulations again for your supreme court victory. the supreme court m's just the latest blow not the only thing on his mind. the new ref layings inside john bolton's pending book. that's next. stay with us. how about poor fred wilson? what a shame. so soon after retiring. i hear his wife needed help with the funeral expenses. that'

appointed in spite of allegations made against him of sexual assault and he replaced a liberal judge anthony kennedy who was a very prominent voice for gay rights and also the author of a ruling that allowed same sex marriage in the united states and now because of these changes you're made the supreme court became more and more conservative and in spite of that rule today in favor of the unity here so essentially taking sides with the liberals on this matter and the ruling was even written by one of trump's appointees justice neil gorse and that is certainly not reflecting the policy line off the administration which very recently also removed transgender health insurance protections that came from the obama era and so today today's ruling quite in contrast to what one would have expected and what's been the reaction to the ruling. well because of the conservative leaning judges at the supreme court many members of the community did not expect this outcome so today for them certainly is a day to celebrate also the position has been clear that the supreme court essentially reaffirmed something that

followed fuselier avoiding him being appointed to the supreme court and he replaced a liberal judge anthony kennedy who was a very prominent voice for gay rides on all 4 also of the ruling that allowed same sex marriage for the 1st time in the united states so one would assume that the supreme court now is by far more conservative than it used to be and in spite of that this conservative court now ruled in favor of the community taking sides also with the liberals with the democrats even and that ruling that ruling was even written by one of the trump appointees just as gore such so that is certainly not the policy line of the trump administration we're seeing here today and that ruling which very recently removed transgender health insurance protection of the obama era so it's fair to say that the outcome here the ruling today comes as quite a surprise to me and what's the reaction been there. well because of the conservative leaning judges in the supreme court the l g b t community did not expect this outcome here today so we can consider it as a landmark ruling don't forget until today it was po

"john roberts is the new anthony kennedy, bravo george w. bush."this decision should be among the woman, the doctor, and her creator." joining us from capitol heights, maryland. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think the mainstream media is being sponsored bulb by not addressing this in proper context. it doesn't have anything to do with anybody's rights. it has something to do with people being responsible and irresponsible. thinkamazing to me how we allowing all of these margaret singer disciples to continue to eugenics -- i said that because for everyone that for every one planned parenthood neighborhood they put in a european neighborhood, they put six in an aboriginal neighborhood. to continue to practice eugenics and disguise it by being somebody's rights i think is irresponsible. i think all of these margaret singer disciples need to be called to account for practicing eugenics and for the general public for being responsible adults consider being responsible. host: looking live at the supreme court. we are expect further

mention, there were two new conservative justices appointed to this court, replacing one of them, anthony kennedyof those landmark gay rights decisions, so there was concern among the lgbt q decisions, so there was concern among the lgbt 0 community that this would be a chance for the courts to pare back some of this rights, particularly looking at gorsuch coming on. and clearly, the people within the lgbt q coming on. and clearly, the people within the lgbt 0 community, this is the outcome they were hoping for but has there been a lot of heat around this, is there another side to the argument, whether people trying to stop this from happening and what reasons could they give for trying to stop it? i think because this was essentially argument over reading of a 19 law, the protections in this 1964 law that prohibits discrimination based on race, reeds and sex, and their argument was that these members of congress who passed this law looked and said they were considering gay rights, they weren't considering gay rights, they weren't considering transgender rights when they said you couldn't discrim

not even anthony kennedy. my third point is the balance of political forces systematically favors the presidency when it comes to constitutional disputes and use that authority and the agenda that is to bedrock a popular support if we favor and they diver funds you will find yourself defending the president's actions without regard to what we think in our heart of hearts. if this is especially true when the action is in service of a partisan agenda. in congress which is supposed to check the president not only divided bipartisanship but also bicameral and that tends where congress finds itself trying to stop a unitary executive by party your personalities into chambers so i say the presidency is like a fighter jet and it's like an aircraft carrier it in that situation the presidency will bid in the final point is nothing is sacrosanct if the presidency over time can acquire the power to wage war they can acquire legislative authority from expressed delegations also through the chevron doctrine and also to crea

anthony kennedy who often sided with liberals.roberts has been willing to break from the most conservative justices. >> is a conservative but if you leave the law leads to a certain result, he will go there even if it's not likely conservative. it says in a time or society with some deeply polarized ideology we have an institution that at least sometimes can transcend that. >>> a new poll finds that joe biden sleet over president donald trump is continuing to grow, biden now of by 12 points with 50% support to 38%, 63% of biden supporters say that they fear president donald trump reelection is motivation for their choice. 31% say it is due to enthusiasm for biden. the numbers are reversed for supporters of the president, 62% enthusiastic about him, 33% say they support him because they are worried about joe biden becoming president.>>> police body worn cameras can be a vital tool in improving accountability and transparency but departments have varying policies and not all agencies in california are equipped with cameras. two rece

in that case though it was anthony kennedy, the now retired justice who sided with the liberals to strike down that texas law. the chief justice john roberts in that case actually vigorously dissented, but here he said that because of that precedent he had to side with the liberals. he said that the burden on access to abortion was just as severe as the texas law in 2016 that this court struck down. you know, however, the chief justice, he did side with the majority here, but he also wrote a concurring opinion, and in that opinion he really left a little bit of an opening here for other states that might try to pass similar laws. he did say that this louisiana law was just much too similar to the texas law, but there is the possibility that other states in different circumstances might come up with a law that is different enough to impose some of these restrictions. this louisiana law actually had doctors. they had to have admitting privileges to hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic where they performed these abortions. really challengers here said that that would have effectiv

but i can't emphasize enough what a stunner this is that -- you know, if anthony kennedy had still been on the court, then perhaps we would have expected this decision, but he's gone, replaced by a justice who's much more conservative, brett kavanaugh. of course, antonin scalia died of a heart problem, and he was replaced by neil gorsuch. so, you know, can you imagine antonin scalia writing this decision? i don't know about that, but here comes neil gorsuch. now, i will say this -- those people who were, what they call textualist, who believe that you decide cases based on what the law says, did put their hopes in neil gorsuch. because while it is true, indisputably -- both sides here agreed that when congress was debating the civil rights act in 1964, nobody on that, in the congress, was thinking about transgender status or sexual orientation. that's a for sure. okay -- >> do you think it reflects in some ways -- >> i'm told now -- i just realized now that it's -- the two decisions are combined together. so, now we know that, for sure, it is 6-3 on both cases. but the hope was that nei

and the supreme court struck it down in 2016, with just anthony kennedy casting the deciding vote andlly saying, no, you can't have this law and still have roe v. wade, effectively, ruling the country. this time around, though, justice kennedy is gone, and justice brett kavanaugh is in his place, so conservatives figured they could count to five. they could just essentially rerun the texas case, swap in louisiana, now we've got our guys in there and we can get a more favorable result. and yet somewhat remarkably, chief justice john roberts, who thought the texas decision was, in his words, wrongly decided back when he was on the court when it was decided, just cast the deciding vote against the louisiana law. his reasons for siding with the liberals against his fellow conservatives on the court was basically, look, we decided this case a few years ago, we can't just turn around and undo it. quoting from his opinion, the louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion, just as severe as that imposed by the texas law, for the same reasons. therefore, louisiana's law cannot stand un

one longtime court follower said he was becoming anthony kennedy on steroids. he is a critical swing vote and today he said i've got to stick with the precedent that we decided in 2016. then he was a dissenter to that opinion. a lot of conservatives today are saying why didn't you step up and dissent in this opinion and that would've turned it into majority 5-4 opinion to uphold the law. >> bret: almost lost in the shuffle today, and other big decision, this one dealing with a key federal agency and the president's power over it. >> the consumer financial protection bureau was created out of the obama administration. this was back in response 2008 financial crisis. critics claimed there's too much unchecked power. the supreme court upheld a framework of the agency but recognized the president's power to fire the director. "the structure of it violates the separation of powers, adding the agency may continue to operate but it's director must be removable by the president at will." we are awaiting a number of high-profile decisions including those cases involving

he is very much taking the anthony kennedy role at the swing vote.hat is so damaging about this decision is that, in effect, what roberts and the majority said is that you can end daca, but you did such a lousy job of doing it, you have to present a legitimate reason. you can't just say, "we want to end it because we want to end it." they basically said that affirmative homeland security and the trump administration didn't give a basis, a reasonable basis, to say they have the right to do it. so, that is kind of a shot at the administration, saying, "gosh, be serious about this." you and it's also a punt, right? you don't come down on the actual issue of dr. comey say the process of how you put your paper again and trying to make your argument did not suffice. one of the people part of the argument is no longer there, the former acting secretary of dhs, kirstjen nielsen. she's not there. why not give the administration another go at it? >> they can, that's when you said they sent it back to dhs, that affirmative homeland security. they can come now a

but the makeup is different this time with brett kavanaugh and anthony kennedy.crats led by california's attorney general are accusing republicans now of having really bad timing, trying to radically alter the health care system during a public health emergency and also today accusing the trump administration of having bad timing, dreamers. people brought here illegally as kids as trump says they won't be protected from deportation forever so now they are trying to energize dreamers against trump which means that even though over the last couple weeks so much attention has been on covid and police reform, by election day the big issue may be things that have been issues in elections of years past, health care and immigration. dana? >> dana: here we go again. it's good to see you, you are still outside come out of your apartment. >> good to be out. yeah. thanks. >> dana: i want to bring in former senior advisor to president obama valerie jarrett, also the author of the book "finding my voice." thank you so much for coming on the show today. i do really appreciate

today's decision is also the first big lgbt civil rights case since justice anthony kennedy volunteered to leave the bench, apparently to make room for his former law clerk, brett kavanaugh. there had been a bunch of hollow, facile, wishful thinking that justice kennedy being pro-gay rights meant he wouldn't give up his seat for kavanaugh unless kavanaugh was secretly pro-gay rights too. justice kavanaugh voted in the minority today. but kavanaugh was outvoted today in the minority. he lost. and importantly so did president trump. the trump administration had sided in today's fight with the employers who had fired the plaintiffs here. the trump administration had sided with the funeral home that had fired aimee stephens because she was trans. they had sided with the sky driving company that fired donald zarda because he advised a client she shouldn't be nervous to be strapped to him for a tandem jump because he was 100% gay. the trump administration also sided with the county agency in clayton county, arizona, that fired gerald bostock from his job as a social worker when they found he

i think many people thought this might be where the court would go if anthony kennedy was still a member, who had written all the court's significant issues in this area. but he's gone, replaced by the more conservative brett kavanaugh. now, in fact, you know, what you have here is kavanaugh joining the dissenters today. but neil gorsuch, who replaced antonin scalia, writing the majority opinion. i can't imagine scalia would have written the opinion today, but gorsuch did. then you have the six-vote majority. it is not just a 5-4 squeaker decision. it is a 6-3 ruling. as i'm sure you've been discussing, the core of the decision is this, and the core of the question was this, in 1964, when congress passed the civil rights act, the most important civil rights legislation in american history, it's indisputably true that it was not on the minds of anybody in congress to think about same-sex discrimination or transgender discrimination. but what neil gorsuch wrote today is, that doesn't matter. it's not what was in the minds of congress that counts. it's the words of the law that count. he sa

. >> no longer has anthony kennedy among the justices. the man who wrote the gay rights before. but today the supreme court has ruled title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to fire pleas on the basis of sex also covers sexual orientation. the trump administration ciside against this ruling saying when congress passed it in 1964, nobody was thinking about sexual orientati orientation. it was simply against men or women. today the supreme court says, no, that's not the case, sexual orientation is part of the 1964 civil rights act. this is a victory for a man who was fired for being on a gay soft ball team. he sued and was told it's not covered. today the supreme court said it's wrong. it's an issue that divided the lower courts. on the same day this case was argued the supreme court heard a separate case whether it's also illegal under the same civil rights law to fire someone for transgender status. we don't have that decision. the supreme court as you know in this time of the pandemic is not actually in the courtroom. all of this is happeni

and replacing anthony kennedy writing up a rulings or rights and neil gorsuch replainsed antonin scalia one of the court's strongest opponents of a ruling of this kind. >> and reinforces what you have always taught us, pete. don't expect anything to be absolutely predictable from the high court. people change, and people listen to their colleagues during conference. one. other things i heard you say earlier on the breaking news special report was that in terms of the activist community, this was more important than gay marriage fundamentally, because not all gay people decide or choose to get married or want to get married, but all people need a job, and need job protections. >> reporter: that's right. the saying in the gay community was under the previous law you could legally get married on sunday and's legally get fired on monday, but after today, that's no longer true, andrea. >> also strikes me that the film, the fictional film made about ruth bader ginsburg was caught on the basis of sex. the key phrase from the, you know, earlier law. the 1964 law. thank you so much. >> reporter:

anthony kennedy required, scalia passed away, and they were replaced by trump appointees.ustice scalia was never receptive to it, but justice kennedy was often onboard with liberals. >> to your point, there was already a decision in the texas case. what are the chances the louisiana case impacts the texas ruling? >> that's the whole question. if the court rules this louisiana law should stand, it is a de facto perhaps even an explicit overruling of whole women's health v. hellerson, and you saw this in oral arguments with roberts and kavanaugh both asking the lawyer representing the abortion clinics whether or not whole women's health could ever lead to an outcome where an admitting privileges law like the one challenged here could be beneficial to the women that the state said that they were hoping to protect. in the texas case, the court concluded that the admitting privileges requirement was medically pointless and really didn't offer any benefits to any women and therefore wasn't more than just and undue burden on the right to abortion. >> what are some of the other pe

today:" legislatio it was the supreme court's firsh gay decision not written by retired justice anthony kennedy, who stepped down in gorsuch, a trump appointee, clerked for kennedy, as did the etird dissenting justice, kavanaugh, whom president trump kavanaugh wrote that the court effectively amended the civil rights law, a power that" ...belongs to congress and the president in the legislative process, not to thisourt." >> gorsuch he can't telegraph where he was going during the oral arguments back in october. about the text of title 7, the words that employers shall not discriminate bcause ofsex. this is perhaps his most in depth application of tect allism and how he rds >> yang: the justices ruled in three cases, two involving men who sued after they said they were fired for being gay. sky-diving instructor don zarda was fired in 2010 afteing r female clillent o was about to rapped to him for a jump, that he was gay.di after zard in a 2014 accident, his case was pressed and by melissa zarda, hisoore, younger sister.wa >> ia double standard if he would have, you know, casually mention his wif

now, the big change, of course, between two years ago and now is that anthony kennedy, who was generally one of the court's supporters of a woman's right to choose, has left the supreme court, replaced by brett kavanaugh and brett kavanaugh today voted basically against the -- he was one of the dissenters today. the chief justice, what he says is i didn't think this was right when we decided it, two years ago, but that is what we decided. and under this long-standing view of the supreme court, that once you decide a case, you don't simply switch and go the other way, what lawyers call stare decisis, meaning the law should stay the way it is, he agrees to join the majority today. so it would have been -- what was -- there were really sort two of critical things about this case. number one is how receptive was the supreme court going to be to new restrictions on abortion, given that the next line of cases that are on their way here are cases in which states have passed very strict laws intending to basically outlaw abortion? how open would the supreme court be to that? so that's one signal

not even anthony kennedy had as much influence as a president can possibly wield. my third point is that the balance of political forces systematically favors the presidency when it comes to constitutional disputes or statutory disputes, for that matter. as prime prime prime presidentsr authority to advance their agenda, agendas often favored by co-partisans, they can rely upon a bedrock of popular support by their allies in the public, americans like you and me. if the president -- if we favor a law and the president, you know,ty eventers funds to build that wall, we are going to find ourselves defending the president's actions and their legality would want regard to whether those actions are legal. this is especially true when the action is in service of a partisan agenda that the president's co-partisans share. and congress, you know, which is supposed to check the president, is not only divided by partisanship of the sort i just mentioned, but it's also divided bicamerally, right? and that tends to enervate congress because congress finds itself trying to stop

americans in this country about whether or not this court would still stand by gay rights after anthony kennedynd today it has dramatically changed that landscape. until today, terry, it was still legal across the country under federal law to fire an employment because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual. this dramatically changes that, and because of neil gorsuch, a conservative justice on this court, simply extraordinary. >> and out of colorado, when justice kennedy who had written so many opinions vindicating the rights of lgbt americans, left the court of california, people were wondering if the court would hold to this course. they do. i want to read one passage from that 1964 law. this was at issue. that law in 1964, the civil rights act prohibits discrimination against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, privileges or employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. kate shaw, the argument of the conservatives was, well, those people could not have imagined that when putting the word sex in there, they might have meant women, but th

the difference, justice anthony kennedy has left the court, and neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh haveoined the court. in this case just as the texas case, the supreme court found that because district courts holding trials, hearing evidence found that this kind of restriction on abortion, limiting abortions to providers who have admitting privileges within hospitals within 30 miles does not help women's health. it actually doesn't partly because abortion are very safe procedures. very rarely are there complications requiring hospitalizations and most of them require afterwards, so women would go to the hospitals nearest them. this law would restrict abortion providers in louisiana to one in new orleans for the nearly 10,000 women every year who seek abortion services, and that, the court decided, places an undue burden on women seeking abortion on the right that women have under roe v. wade, and planned parenthood v. casey to seek abortion, and because it is an undue burden, it is unconstitutional. states can restrict in some ways, waiting periods and other matters like that, but not

from some recent rulings you've seen john roberts, the chief justice assumed the role almost of anthony kennedy in the swing vote oftentimes siding with the liberal side of the court. that has some conservative court watchers scratching their heads, if it goes to also judge a core search and judge kavanaugh with some boats and rulings with the liberal side side of the court. so there is some analysis of where this court is as far as its head ideologically. the biggest thing coming out in just a few minutes is the decision on the president's taxes and whether there will be this effort to release them prior to the election. >> sandra: i was looking back at senator john kennedy and his response to the ruling yesterday talking about justice roberts saying he flip-flopped like a banked catfish was his analogy there. you are getting a lot of criticism on the conservative side of the bench, and they will be looking at this very closely to see how the court responds to big issues. >> this all factors into an election that was just months away which still was the thought that, the president touts his ju

he led clerkships for judge brett kavanaugh and anthony kennedy 57bd then back home to the universityf louisville law school. he quickly became a star faculty member producing distinguished scholarship on a wide range of legal issues and once he took his current seat on the bench for the western district of kentucky, he wasted no time to build an equally strong reputation for the fairness and open-mindedness that americans deserve from their judges. in one letter from colleagues on the judiciary committee, 100 practicing lawyers from across kentucky said, quote, if judge walker is confirmed, we could give our clients an assessment for him for which any judge he's tried. he is sharp, fair, and will follow the law. in another letter, 16 different state attorneys general told us, as someone outside the beltway with a commitment to the rule of law, we know judge walker will listen to the advocates appearing before him, that he will weigh the facts against the law as it is written and not as he wish it's to be and that he will fairly decide these cases based upon controlling precedent. the

. >> kennedy: we are going to patch it up during the break. coming up next, dr. anthonyns we could be hitting a startling number of cases per day if we don't turn this virus bus around. that is next. ♪ i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. and my side super soft? yes, with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. come on pup, time to go. can it help me fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. so you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, during the lowest prices of the season, the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is only $1,299, save $400. only for a limited time. to learn more, go to sleepnumber.com. [ engine rumbling ] [ beeping ] [ engine revs ] uh, you know there's a 30-minute limit, right? tell that

kennedy smith was 92. that really is the end of an era, tony. >> yeah. sure is, anthony. >>> all right.unites us as americans is far greater than what divides us. this morning, how art is creating new connections. los angeles-based graphic designer mural artist and university instructor eric yunker finds ways through the black lives matter movement. he's teamed up with a young artist who's black. they've created a new mural with a powerful message. jamie yuccas saw firsthand how the art is building bridges. >> reporter: at the entrance to a downtown los angeles bar, eric yunker is starting a new mural. as an artist, he felt compelled to create conversation by reflecting the pain and unrest set off by the police killings of george floyd, breonna taylor, and countless others. it seems that white people are waking up to the fact that they play a role in this. >> yeah. it's a -- a 400-year-old problem. i hope that the attention span is there to keep the momentum going as it gets more and more uncomfortable. >> reporter: is that part of what this mural is? >> yeah. the marchers are super imp

mentioned, they were two new conservative justices appointed to the court, replacing one of them, anthony kennedyhose landmark gay rights decisions so there was a lot of concern among the lgbtq folks that this would be a chance for the court to start to pare back this expansive reading, particularly looking atjustice gorsuch as you mentioned, justice kava naugh coming into the court. this ended up not being the case, although kavanaugh did vote with the three justices who voted against this reading. and clearly for people within the lgbtq community, this is the outcome they were hoping for, but has there been a lot of heat around this, is a another side to the argument where there are some people who tried to stop this from happening and what reasons could they give for trying to stop it? well, i think because this is essentially argument over a reading of a 1964 law, the protections in this 19 624 law that prohibited employment discrimination based on religion, based on race, based on creeds and based on sex. what they were saying, their argument was that these members of congress who passed thi