amy coney barrett saying this, it's not just that conservatives say this. and look at all the 9-0 decisions on obscure questions of statutory interpretation with the railroad commission. what are you people talking about? they'll cite that chapter and verse. and then as part of that is breyer going around selling his book being like who, me retire? here's what he had to say recently, which also made me kind of lose my mind. this is breyer on not intending to die on the court. take a listen. >> i don't intend to die on the court. i don't think i'll be there forever. but i've said a few of the considerations previously. there are many factors, in fact quite a few. and the role of the court and so forth is one of them. and the situation, the institutional considerations are some. and i believe -- i can't say i'd take anything perfectly into account. but in my own mind i think about those things. >> so why didn't you retire? >> i didn't retire because i decided on balance i wouldn't retire. >> dahlia, what did you think about the i don't intend to die on the co

but amy coney barrett, as a judge on the u.s.s for the seventh circuit, had written a dissent in a gun rights case and suggested she might be more open to a ruling on gun rights. so, those are two cases that we're watching very closely where it seems like the death of justice ginsburg and the nomination and confirmation of justice barrett could really make a difference. >> hill: is it me or is it reality that a lot of the justices have been speaking lately? we're talking about barrett. we're talking about justice stephen breyer. we're talking about clarence thomas of the university of notre dame. >> certainly justice brer has a new book to promote. so, that explains a lot of his appearances, certainly. but we've heard from justice barrett and from justice thomas. and i think one possibility is that the justices may be kind of sensitive to the criticism of their ruling in the texas abortion case, their ruling in the federal eviction moratorium case. and so, they are speaking out because they are worried abo the perceptions of the

and where is justice barrett going to fit in this? justice barrett has a powerful affect on grant. you need five to win. that always creates some sort of a tension because you know, you may not have four vs. grant if you think the result will be a bad outcome. but i do think it's safe to predict that had justice barrett not john: court, i don't know that either of those cases would have gotten granted. i would have gotten very, very surprised if they were. but i think the chiefs' influence is on the merit side. what we're talking about so far is how the s the court going to compromise or are they going to try to do a grand bargain on scrutiny? are they going to try to make something another crack at the successor standard. and amy mentioned the carson case which is an area where the chief, i think, is very effective or has been in the last couple of terms in cobbling together have broad majority for narrow rules. it's what we might call trending of cases to get to one result of hardly a rule of you can't discriminate on schools based on their exercise of faith in infeudsing -- fait

john, justice barrett isn't the only one who went up against the media.to play for you what justice clarence thomas said this week. >> i think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. so they think you're antiabortion or something personally, they think that's the way you'll always come out. they think you're for this or for that, they think you have become a politician. >> there's a lot to criticize the media, jon, but as a member of the media, how do you react to his characterization? >> it's not surprised that supreme court justices would be the first to raise their hands and say i'm not prejudiced, i didn't decide this case before i even read it, but in truth, what we can see over the course of time is that in order to be appointed to the supreme court under a republican president, you have to be vetted by an organization made up of republicans to make sure you have the sort of right political leanings throughout the history of your career and you can never step off. so the idea that there isn't a

barrett spoke at length about her desire for others to see the supreme court as non partisan.nell are not dumb in they both knew what they were doing. remember amy coney barrett's nomination was so rushed that the company white house held a super spreaders ceremony announcing her selection. before justice ruth she voices concerns that she was introduced by mitch mcconnell who completely blocked barack obama from appointing -- only to push barrett's nomination through in the waning days of donald trump's first term. just bear expressed concern, people might think the court has become too partisan. imagine the. here is the justice correspondent -- senior lead opener and correspondent of sleet. they both join me now. i feel like this was designed to produce the reaction we're going to. get so i feel a little bit baited here but i also feel like i have to take the bait, dahlia. to me there's actually a deep point here. there's a reason that roger ailes chose we report you decide fair and balance for fox news, because it actually was an important part of the branding to have a be t

john, justice barrett wasn't the only one who went up against the media. i want to play for you what justice clarence thomas said, this week. >> i think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal press. preference. and they think you are antiabortion or something personally, they think that is the way you always will come at. they think you are for this or for that. they think you have become like a politician. >> there is a lot to criticize the media about, john, but i'm curious your thoughts, as a member of the media, how do you react to his characterization? if this perception or reality? >> well, i'm not surprised that supreme court justices would be the first to raise their hands and say, i am not prejudiced, i didn't decide this case before i even read it. but in truth, what we can see over the course of time is that in order to be appointed to the supreme court of the republican president, you have to be vetted by an organization made up of republican lawmakers -- the right, you know, the sort of right politi

i'm not fully confident that amy coney barrett will do what people expect her to do. i expect that she may be firmer on a theory then keeping options open. >> in the last few months of his last term may be showed, given the coalitions and cases in fulton for example, that roberts strength is pretty strong. the ability to get the court to decide more unanimously is more strong than we thought it would be after barrett's we still not know? no? >> this is why every time you get a new justice, it is a new court. >> i used that line so it is good to have a coin flip of who gets to use that line. moving on, i don't know of the want to highlight anything from cases you are watching or you took the big one at the top? >> i think amy mentioned the shadow docket and now is a good time to talk about it. this is an interestingly lopsided term. the sexy and big juicy cases are abortions, guns, and carson and the religion space. many of the other cases on the docket are important but not heavily on the news every week except for the shadow docket. there is a lot of discussion i thi

so, amy coney barrett is a part of the political process.brush as well as the other two justices who are on the court right now who went through that same type of politicized vetting process. and it's going to be something that's going to taint her the whole time she's on the court. >> you don't think comments like that help, jeffrey? what do you think? >> well, i would draw a slight distinction with what justice barrett said. i don't think they're partisan hacks. i think they are people of integrity. however, i do think that judicial philosophies match up very well with political inclinations. you can tell the difference between justices appointed by democrats and justices appointed by republicans. especially now on the supreme court. it's not a 100% alignment, but it's awfully close. and i don't criticize the justices for that. i mean, the fact is interpreting the constitution is a political act. but, to pretend that they are somehow completely divorced from politics as justice barrett appeared to be saying, i think that doesn't align with

it is not a case in which justice barrett makes a difference. with the conservatives and the four liberals on the other side. i imagine we will talk about the shadow docket later but and then to see the effect of the abortion law in all likelihood were not be ineffective justice ginsburg were still onth the court. >> if i could touch on these questions the shift between marriage but and then to over describe the effects it is less about what the outcome would be in about getting to the outcome that does anything. so if i had to guess it is not that roberts or somebody else would not vote the way you hope they would but that they come up with a single opinion with a quirky non- test test that did nothing why you grant that to do nothing rather than add to confusion? that they added nothing to master that for another 30 years. maybe it is that maybe now t they think they have a consensus on c the theory i'm fullyou confident amy coney barrett will do what people expect her to do but i expect she may be firmer on her theory to keep the options open

barrett.t kind of stress, would we have been able to? memory under stress is somewhat fallible. there is a larger question about the processes we engage in when we are deciding whether or not something is being handled well. when someone says i object to the fact the senate took up the coney barrett nomination but did not take up the merrick garland nomination, they can be viewed as hypocritical. our system says if you are unhappy with that and unhappy with the way the republicans acted, you should vote the republicans out of office. there are some accountability measures if you think the system is not behaving the way it should. it is essentially our electoral process. we put up candidates that express the alternative points of view so you have a choice in the election. the reason our system has been as resilient as it has been, if you don't like what people are doing, you have some means to hold them accountable inside the system if we are willing to exercise those means of accountability. h

novak, nessa barrett. i want to thank jose medeles and 8g band. stay safe.

>> yeah. >> between ginsburg and barrett. >> brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch, and amy coney barrett. you, ariane de vogue. we will continue to follow this as well. >>> i want to get back now to our other breaking news you see now on your small screen. now, we bring it to the big screen. let's get some of the video. i think we have some live video or live footage now that was happening in harlem. but this video you are looking at is in brooklyn. this is what new york city streets are looking at -- looking like right now. many streets in the northeast. our brian stelter is in new jersey where the governor has declared a state of emergency there. we are also, we should say, under a not only a state of emergency but a flash-flooding emergency, as well, brian. which includes new york and new jersey. >> and that's a very rare statement by the national weather service. that it is life-threatening flooding in new york, in new jersey. and now, into parts of connecticut. also, in the past few minutes, don, a tornado warning on martha's vineyard. that's because the center of ida is pushing nort

barrett once signed a letter calling for the end of the bar baric vote roe v. wade., the supreme court straight up refused to block a texas law prohibiting almost all abortions in that state. joining us now is brian fallon, cofounder and executive director of demand justice. also with us is melissa murray, law professor at nyu and an msnbc contributor. i'm really excited for this panel because i love you so, brian, i'm going to start with you. supreme court justice clarence thomas also spoke out this week to say that the court isn't political. i don't mean to laugh, but he said the justices are not ruling based on personal preferences and suggested that the nation's leaders should not allow others to manipulate our institutions when we don't like the outcome that -- we don't get the outcome that we like. brian, are they protesting just a little too much here? i mean, we were not born yesterday. >> i think they're trolling us, i think justices like alito and clarence thomas and now justice barrett know full well the havoc politically they would be wreaking by allowing

with amy cohen barrett.barrett was introduced at an event last week by senator mcconnell, the very politician who rammed her nomination through the senate before a presidential election she said this -- week well, justice, we are not convinced. we need more people. this is buried one signed a letter calling for the end of the barbaric row versus wade. and when you are after this, the supreme court with six justices nominated by republican senators, we decided to block -- joining us now is brian violin, co-executive director of -- melissa murray joins us as well. i am excited for this panel because i love you both. so, brian, i will start with you. supreme court justice clarence thomas also spoke out this week to say that the court is not political. i don't mean to laugh. he said -- brian, are they protesting just a little too much here? i, mean we were not born yesterday. >> i think they are trolling us, zerlina. i think justices like -- justice barrett to, they all know full well that have a political they

it was to subvert and undo her legacy with the amy coney barrett appointment., joy, you know, i think i can remember vividly a year ago, you know, all the mourning over her death and democrats fearing what the absence of justice ginsburg would mean for the court. remember those donations to democratic candidates were pouring in because voters were galvanizing their grief into action. the damage was already done, right? president trump did what he promised he'd do for voters which is to create a conservative super majority that could rollback many of the most progressive gains of the 20th century whether voter rights, abortion, affirmative action and other things that liberal voters hold dear. so a year later, the folks i talked to for the story on 19th news.org, we're seeing the concerns realized. voting rights are under attack and finding no safe harbor in re versus wade which is a 50-year precedent in place hangs in the balance and its fate will be tested and new and we learned with a case out of mississippi bans of abortions at 15 weeks. these are the stakes

guest: i think you are talking about justice coney barrett. under that kind of stress, would we have been able to? memory under stress is somewhat fallible. there is a larger question about the processes we engage in when we are deciding whether or not something is being handled well. when someone says i object to the fact the senate took up the coney barrett nomination but did not take up the merrick garland nomination, they can be viewed as hypocritical. our system says if you are unhappy with that and unhappy with the way the republicans acted, you should vote the republicans out of office. there are some accountability measures if you think the system is not behaving the way it should. it is essentially our electoral process. we put up candidates that express the alternative points of view so you have a >> we will leave this recorded program here and you can finish watching it on our website, www.c-span.org. we take your net to california democratic senator alex padilla who discusses infrastructure and climate change. >> over the next 30 m

mostly i want to talk about justice barrett's question.o think about what of us have been thinking about the question for a long time but generally that compelling interest is what protects any other fundamental right free exercise of the fund on —- first amendment right some exceptions to that are possible but that should be the general standard. the problem with scrutiny part for being lower on his face is that is under enforced and that scrutiny would be except from a lower base. think about i'm burning the draft card for the vietnam war that is intermediate scrutiny requiring interest in the interest they accepted in some other context. it's important to keep your draft cardyo and not burn it if you forget the address it will remind you it's not as crazy as it sounds decades before the internet. and with that compelling interest to have a majority free exercise cases and to be water down even further. it is not stricken terry and not for a long time. free exercise involves conduct and there is more good reasons to regulate conduct and

guest: i think you are talking about justice coney barrett. under that kind of stress, would we have been able to? memory under stress is somewhat fallible. there is a larger question about the processes we engage in when we are deciding whether or not something is being handled well. when someone says i object to the fact the senate took up the coney barrett nomination but did not take up the merrick garland nomination, they can be viewed as hypocritical. our system says if you are unhappy with that and unhappy with the way the republicans acted, you should vote the republicans out of office. there are some accountability measures if you think the system is not behaving the way it should.

and also could be justice barrett.r inclinations and jurisprudence. she has only been there a short time. i think it is clear that the two of them are probably more in the middle of the court as the conservatives go than the other three conservative justices. >> so the decision by this court to let this go, i mean, why shouldn't we look at it as well, we know where mississippi is headed. >> well, it didn't present a constitutional issue, it did in a way, but that's not what the court was deciding. the court was deciding procedural issues, whether or not to stop the law before it went into effect or not. the case that they're going to take up in the fall, mississippi's 15 week ban on abortion directly challenges roe v wade. that will be a case where the court is sort of directly presented with that question and we'll find out whether or not the court is willing to go along with that. >> is it likely here that this texas law then, even if roe is overturned by mississippi, this texas law still could have problems constitu

so i want to play an exchange that you had with now justice amy coney barrett during her confirmation is not a superprecedent because calls for its overruling had never ceased but that doesn't mean that roe should be overruled. it just means that it doesn't fall on the handful of cases that no one questions anymore. >> well, i am then left with looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the american people. and i think it leads us to a place that's going to have severe repercussions for them. >> senator, is the court about to overturn roe v. wade? >> i hope not, dana. but if you follow those tracks, as i mentioned at justice coney barrett's hearing, i think you know where it leads. this decision that they made with the state of texas is unbelievable. justice roberts, not exactly a liberal, a conservative justice who sided with the liberal justices in this case in dissent said that the texas law was unusually, it was unprecedented, that they're basically taking their own authority and giving it to the populous in the form of, hey, you can be a bounty hunter, $10,000 you ca

and amy coney barrett succeeded her.last night is only possible because of these new five justices. and the absence of ruth bader ginsburg. >> yeah. donald trump is no longer in office but we're still seeing the reverberations of that decision and that time that he did have. jeffrey toobin, what is your response to this dramatic move by the supreme court? >> well, i think just the moment important thing to emphasize is that texas, a state with 29 million people in it, abortion is illegal for all intents and purposes. this has never happened in an american state since 1973 when roe v. wade was decided. i mean, this is an enormous event in the lives of the american people and of course especially american women. because this has been a constitutional right that has been understood and reaffirmed over and over again by the supreme court. but donald trump said repeatedly he was going to appoint justices to the supreme court who will vote to overturn roe versus wade and that's what they have done along with samuel alito and c

just days after amy coney barrett denied that justices are, quote, a bunch of partisan hacks, thomasded the supreme court's independence. take a listen. >> i think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. so if they think you're anti-abortion or something, personally, they think that that's the way that you always will come out. they think you're for this or for that. they think you've become like a politician. >> jill, your take? >> i think that sometimes, perception is reality. and when amy coney barrett made that statement, she was standing next to mitch mcconnell, one of the most partisan of all republicans at a mcconnell foundation event. you can't say that at a partisan event and be taken seriously. the other thing is, reality has been that we've had confirmation hearings that are a joke and totally partisan. you had garland not even get a hearing, and then you had amy coney barrett rushed through after the voting had already started. you had the fbi not do a serious investigation of the allegations against now justice kava

barrett joined the court's 7-2 majority that upheld that law. some democrats have said the courts need to "heal itself" before the public demands that the court be restructured in order to reduce the influence of application. that's fancy way of saying that if the rulings don't change, they will try to pack the court. this campaign against the court and against individual justices has hurt the public. the dishonest rhetoric doesn't help the american people understand the issues. i'll continue fighting against the partisan efforts by dark money groups to attack our judicial judiciary. there is one final point i want to raise today before we hear from the witnesses. the house of representatives just passed a bill that could allow abortion on demand. it would preempt numerous pro life state laws and throe outs the protections of the religious freedom restoration act. if democrats truly believe that the court will overrule roe, they should have a hearing on that bill in this committee. the american people would see how radical that bill is. contrary

he ignores the rushed confirmation process of kavanaugh and amy coney barrett.we can take anything that justice clarence says -- you know, we have to take it all with a grain of salt. he is not to be trusted, and his comments about race, his comments about choice are all just, in many ways, despicable. >> people are going to say, oh, my gosh, they're up on cnn, you know. don lemon is allowing the justice to be called a sellout. those were words from a harvard professor that you're discussing, and you're saying you think it is fair for some folks, especially black folks, to be skeptical of clarence thomas, especially the way that he has ruled on issues of race. >> oh, absolutely, don. yes, you're going to be criticized, and i'm going to be criticized. >> but that's okay. it comes with the job. we have to speak truth to power. we would be remiss if we did not call out clarence thomas for the way he has handled himself, the comments that he makes, and the rulings he's made while sitting on the court. he is the oldest sitting judge. he's been on the court longer tha

barrett, start with the first half of that title. how do we quantify political polarization, and why is social media any worse in intensifying it than past mediums of communication? guest: academics quantify political polarization based on a thermometer that identifies the degree to which respondents to surveys condemn their opponents as opposed to how much affection they spread for those on their side of the political debate. that measure over time in the united states has increased steadily. we are now in a period of extreme political polarization, which is to say people classifying those with whom they disagree as being an amazed of democracy, inherently -- and so forth. that environment, it is difficult for government to get things done. you end up with a lot of distrust in major institutions. social media has not caused that problem in the first instance, there was political polarization long before social media existed, but it has intensified the process. it has exacerbated the problem. in answer to your question with comparing

justice barrett eventually come to that conclusion. she's already said she thinks it's wrongly cited but e.we will see and we may see sooner rather than later. [applause] >> thank you professor. maybe you'll be able to argue the case. next we will be hearing from bradley blackburn the second, certainly a professor at capital university law school, former commissioner on the election commission and former chairman of the commission and formerly of the institute for free-speech which is relevant for the case will be discussing which is the american for prosperity foundation versus harris so brad. >> thank you trevor and thanks for coming out life and tuning in on zoom. it's nice to be able to be at the podium today, to take my mascot for a fewminutes to deliver this talk . by the way i appreciate greg for coming in. i went through two drafts of that article that kept it way over the word and finally i looked at the guidelines and realized i was underestimating what i had to write and work with my 5000 words . but that that point it was e

just in the last few weeks we have heard similar sentiments from amy bony barrett, even justice bryer reaction is it's lovely to tell us, we on the supreme court are not political, how about acting like it? we can all see what's going on here. it goes back to 2000, bush v. gore when the five conservatives took this side and the five liberals took that side. we can do the math on that. we saw it again a couple weeks ago abwith the texas abortion case. the five justices, well, we can't touch it because of procedural issues, happened to be five conservative justices that most of whom are on record as being, you know, in favor of striking down roe v. wade. we can't ignore that. >> so he talked about his experience growing up in segregated georgia in the '50s and '60s. let's listen. >> there was, of course, pervasive segregation and race-based laws which were repulsive and at odds with the principles of our country. despite that, there was a deep and abiding love for our country and a firm desire to have the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship regardless how society treated us.

then the nomination of brett kavanaugh, and then to top it off -- of amy coney barrett. you may remember the infamous covid superspreader event at the white house marking her nomination just days after ruth bader ginsburg's death, before she was even buried. now, there are a lot of motivations for this, obsession the, key one the one that really mobilizes, much of what was organized was to get rid of abortion, and when you just confront them, when you say the obvious thing, i know what you believe in, they just fly. abortion rights, no, nothing to see here. >> i think the likelihood of roe v. wade being overturned is very in minimal, i don't see that happening. >> this is not a referendum on roe v. wade. >> i do not believe that brett kavanaugh will overturn. >> i would never produce how judge amy coney barrett would rule on the supreme court of the united states. >> the point is that the president also is opposed to roe v. wade, that is on the ballot as well. >> you don't know it's on the ballot? why is it on the ballot? >> because you say -- >> it's not on the ballot?

barrett's vote of course was critical. it is really interesting to see what -- what happened. and i'm old enough to remember that after garland got nominated, he was still trying to get on the bench. during the presidential ca campaign, the democrats did not bring him up a lot. whereas, president trump when he was running for president, he practically ran on the supreme court, wolf. >> he certainly did. got three supreme court justices confirmed. they clearly made a huge difference last night. maggie, nancy pelosi was to pass a law codifying roe v. wade. is that likely? you need 60 votes in the senate. >> not only do you need as many votes in the senate as you just said, but frankly, i'm not sure that every member of the house democratic caucus would go along with the type of push that pelosi is talking about. again, it will be animating for base democrats. i do think there are a lot of democrats that would like to see that right now and are pushing for something. she's doing what she can. but to your point, it is very har

. >> and i want to bring you in, devli barrett, because the fbi has fired the agent who lied. and he said in that press conference that he was not satisfied with what he heard from the fbi director christopher wray. the firing of one fbi agent does not in itself represent a systemic change within the fbi. what more is wray committed to do? committed to doing rather? >> so, wray is basically making two points. one, that what happened in nasser case was so egregious not just for what needed to change in the bureau, but for what the bureau should be doing normally, and wray believes that what happened in the nasser case should not happen at all based on the procedures and rules, and aly raisman said the same thing in her testimony. he has set out a bunch of guidelines to make this system and investigations involving child sex crimes so that this kind of thing does not happen again, and a lot of what he talked about is that you need more than one person responsible for this, and obviously in this case, the person who is fired this month is taking a lot of the blame for this, but p

nbc's marv barrett is live at a chicago elementary school where 11 of 17 classrooms, 11 of 17, currentlyquarantine. and mar, there's a parent i know, a chicago public schoolteacher. she told you she's, quote, walking in the door with trauma every day. what else are you hearing there? and how are city officials handling all of this? >> reporter: well, nearly a month ago when i was covering the first day back at school, after the chicago public schools, parents were telling me they were cautiously optimistic, but there was a flustered back to school plan. there was a change in safety precautions. the school bus drivers didn't show up for some of their routes because they quit because of a vaccine mandate. and they had folded back or rolled back the temperature checks and health screenings that parents previously had been doing to make sure their kids were feeling healthy going into school. this was all because the district said they're putting into place this testing and tracing program. now the teacher is saying contact tracing is taking as long as 10 to 12 days. we know that's not effect

they were attacks at the national stadium, a concert venue, and bars, and restaurants across barrett- paris. allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse committed in the central african republic have printed the you went to pull a peacekeeping force out of the former french colony. gabon since an investigation has been opened into what it calls exceptionally serious acts. that is not the first time that claims that essential -- sexual assault has happened. this is from the capital. >> the peacekeeping mission here is nearly 450,000 soldiers -- in the center east of the country. the same contingents had already left the central african republic following a series of scandals since their arrival in 2014. soldiers have been accused of sexual violence. 630 peacekeepers were sent back after international investigation between 2014 and 2015. they were suspected of abuse and an investigation was successful. there were difficulties on the ground, special -- suspicion of corruption and destruction of dna samples. the programs haveeen put into place -- witness grants have en put intplace. >>

that is what republican presidents including trump appointed barrett have done and that is the simpleeality. judy: you're saying they are not driven by judicial philosophies. sen. sanders: i'm sure they believe that they are, but it is not an accident that donald trump happened to appoint them and not somebody else. judy: senator bernie sanders, chairman of the senate budget committee. we thank you very much. sen. sanders: thank you. ♪ judy: the biden administration rolled out new mandates last week to expand vaccination for more than 100 million more americans. but questions remain about when one major population ineligible for the shot, kids under the age of 12, will be able to get it. william brangham looks at those concerns. william: judy, there are forty -- 48 million kids in america under the age of 12, but the timeline for a vaccine for those kids kps changing. this summer, the fda went back to manufacturers asking for expanded trials and more data. it's not clear when emergency authorization will actually happen, but with the delta variant raging almost five times as many chil

>> if i remember confirmed, you would be getting justice barrett, not justice scalia.k anybody should assume that just because justice scalia decided a decision a certain way that i would, too. but i'm not going to express a view on whether i agree or disagree with justice scalia. >> and melissa, this gets to the whole question of whether the court has become too political. and as i'm sure you well know, both justices barrett and thomas last week have spoken out about their concern about the court being viewed as political or that they are a bunch of political hacks. i mean, they are right to worry about the image of impartiality that's been chiseled away of the court, no. >> well, they certainly should be worried after what's gone on over the last couple of weeks. and i think this really reached its apex when the court allowed that texas ban, sb-8 to go into effect, basically hobbling abortion access in one of the most populous states in the union. it wasn't a coincidence that these two members of the court hit the campaign trail to argue that the court was not partis

fierce opposition to justices the brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett were swept aside.ipping away at abortion rights for decades, but a ground swell seemed to be building again. in direct response to the texas ban, another large scale protest set forth next saturday. this time it's called the rally for abortion justice. now, this new law is deplorable and should be fought tooth and nail, but we also may see it as ushering in a new wave of warriors in the front lines of this fight. joining me to disjust, jennifer who has a new book out, the author of the new book "resistance." welcome to both of you. good morning to both of you. jennifer, let's start there because your thesis of the entire book is that women saved democracy from donald trump, but we haven't really seen democracy saved from the impulses of the democracy of donald trump and of the worst impulses of republicans in this country. i say that only because there are moderate impulses in this country that have a lot of space in the dialogue of where we go right now, but mostly we're seeing the most impulses right

joining us now are nbc's maura barrett in columbus, ohio, and msnbc medical contributor dr. kavita patel. glad to have you both with us. maura, the spike in patients, what are health officials doing to get people vaccinated and slow the spread there? >> reporter: doctors here in ohio are hoping they have reached the peak of the surge around the delta variant. we're seeing cases drop here, but obviously the hoitalizations and deaths will come for months, the say, and nearly everyone in the hospital they're seeing is unvaunvaccina so this is something they're up against in ohio as only 50% of the adult population is fully vaccinated, the governor in the state putting together yet another lottery to encouge young people to win school sclor -- scholarships. what we're seeing is even though they're relatively healthy, many more are in the hospital. they're needing ventilatorsnd respiratory bypass. doctors are really emphasizing that the fir and second rounds of the vaccine, getting fully vaccinated at least as a baseline, is really important as variants continue to rise. i spoke

what was going to happen when mitch mcconnell decided to jam through the appointment of amy coney barrett three weeks before the election. three supreme court justices that mitch mcconnell was able to put on the courts because guess what -- democrats don't talk about the courts. and it's one of the most important things that we need to talk about. when we're talking about voting rights, when we're talking about lgbtq rights, when we're talking about women's rights, where does that come from? it doesn't come from congress alone, it comes from the courts. mitch mcconnell appointed over 300 federal justices, and we have now the most conservative court that we have ever seen. and so yeah, i wish that democrats would stop playing defense and start playing offense and use the power that the people gave them in the midst of a pandemic in 2020 and came out in a historic election. look, voting is extremely important. we know that. but also the conversations and whose feet we need to lay this battle at is the feet of republicans, and democrats do not do that. i hope that we see a sense of urgency t

the fact that john roberts allied with the three liberals mean -- which means amy coney barrett was theth boat which means rb she should have retired but she didn't. which means -- we saw how the pressure from the left worked with justice ginsburg. doesn't seem like he is going anywhere. i could be wrong. speak of his most latest interview seems to suggest may be. i can see outrage as completely understandable for the reasons that i said. but i tend to agree with mike that when this happens we go to the precipice but actually changing the number of the supreme court or any other essential feature, that will be a hard road -- and i'm not sure it will be a sensible idea. on the other hand, if anything will do a comment is this. i think that's justice would go that way. they are really -- they have stepped on a hornets nest. my best guess is you will not see fundamental changes to the core. >> shannon: let's not forget we have the president's commission that is potential treatments, and changes to as well. we expect that in october or november. harry and mike, thank you so much. good to se

mm hm. owed anna number barrett digital and i do live in the shops head since friday in raleigh, who can tell me i'm a i'm a year from tell you that and he got her and he might have had her on hand. keith, who were eligible to my to me when my roommate can, it's all in addition to the heel busily, bass are doing. we're here this week with a bed set and similar order. the new year. we push ya admitted emily, you definitely keith. his little room headed to aleman of admiral dumped her. have been, but tim, i'm admitted to you said that's about the deal. but the little she was asked whether they had little hand on the head to my loom had an attempt at dumped in my room. had me the better. why, how do i need it? and i had to mark and i just never any kind of what you cannot really decide about what since gave daughter could look and the budget of adding up definitely at your heart as you toward a doctor or where to and i had an in with her not all night what you know. i know that i've been really, even if it's sort of deeply, this is sue at them to get into the only true full family worth

wade. >> i would never presume how judge amy coney barrett would rule on the supreme court of the unitedtates. >> the point is that the president also is opposed to roe v. wade. that's on the ballot, as well. >> you don't know it's on the ballot. why is it in the ballot? >> because -- because you said -- >> it's not on the ballot. you don't know her view on roe v. wade. you don't know her view. >> they have been lying to us for years because they had to. the american public does not want abortion to be banned. in fact, a resounding majority of americans have wanted abortion to be legal in some or all circumstances since gallup began asking the question in 1975. and do you know why? because the american people know that banning abortions does not stop people from getting abortions. it stops them from getting safe abortions. we cannot let these so-called pro-life laws drag us back to the days of back-alley death. so, here's what we can do about it. if you truly want to see fewer abortions in this country, the answer is not banning the procedure. but advocating for conditions that will make

ruth bader ginsberg died and amy coney barrett got on the court. we knew it was coming, the states new it was coming, the republicans knew it was coming. for us to be like now, oh, maybe we need a whole of government response. you think? that should have been in place. we should have known it was coming. i live in new york. it is wet right now. if i was on top of my roof kind of looking for help, i would expect the cavalry to be coming directly, right? fema, coast guard, operation dumbo drop, somebody should be coming to get me. in fact, when it happened in katrina, the failure of the federal government to go get people was viewed as one of the biggest failures of george w. bush's presidency. similarly, we need to go and get women in texas and protect their constitutionally protected medical rights, and the way you do that is that you deputize doctors. you federalize doctors. you create through an executive order an army of federal doctors who are going to go in to texas and protect the constitution by giving -- by consulting women about their priv

i want to bring in moa barrett who is covering this for us.pect a decision? >> as you mentioned, today's hearing has been years in the making. and one of the sticking pointses that we've seen this year is around another provision in the law which criminalizes abortions if the fetus has been diagnosed with down syndrome. so if he pass forward to 2019, it was blocked again after it was brought to a federal appeals court, a panel of 3 judges, they blocked it because there was a lot of confusion about whether this was a ban or a regulation around fetuses diagnosed with down syndrome and that was brought up again today as the case was brought before the entire 8th circuit bench. and again, this question really argued here because the state is pushing that all lives regardless of ability or disability are sacred, saying that it is a form of discrimination if a fetus is aborted because of this diagnosis. and the judges continue to have a lot of questions about whether it was a ban or a regulation. also around the fact of if it is discrimination, why

. >> jimmy: yeah, you had a really -- this barrette came out.to beat that, but -- amazing. jojo siwa. come on, that's -- [ cheers and applause >> thank you >> jimmy: all right. now, it is my turn >> no. >> jimmy: let's see what i get here [ beeping [ cheers ] "someone you loved." okay, yeah >> have a blast with that one. >> jimmy: yeah wait -- but that's -- what's "someone you loved?" oh, lewis capaldi. [ mimicking song ] [ cheers and applause >> quit it ♪ ♪ i guess i kind of like the way you numbe all the pain ♪ ♪ now the day bleed into nightfall ♪ and you're not here to get me through it all ♪ ♪ i let my guard down and then you pulled the ru i was getting kind of used to being someone you loved ♪ [ cheers and applause >> oh! ♪ [ cheers and applause what in the land of -- just happened [ laughter ] >> jimmy: i'm hurting in all weird places, right now. [ laughter ] >> it's all right. it's all right >> jimmy: jojo, it is your turn, again. >> oh. >> jimmy: go for it. phew i need a water [ beeping so nice. good luck. >> drama -- i actually had a a

they put amy coney barrett there during an election. voting had actually started. accused rapist -- credibly accused rapist. they have packed the court. and we have to fix it. we have a radical supreme court beholden to very right-wing idiologs. the idea they would let this law sit there and not stop it is outrageous. the majority said it was novell and complex. it's not novell or complex. it's much like the klu klux klan act stopped catching slaves in free states after the dred scott decision. bounty hunters were allowed to go into free states and steal slaves back and bring them back to the south. and after the civil war our congress passed the klu klux klan act, which gives you a right to sue individuals who act under a color of state law to violate the rights of others. that's exactly what is happening here. it's not complex. and the supreme court has ruled twice that that is acting under color of state law if the state law gives private rights of action that help you violate other citizens' rights. so it's really an outrageous decision and it is a lie that it

republican appointee justice barrett. that sounds like a political stacked deck to many americans. >> that is one of the most amazing things, because i agree with you 100% that the process, the process of appointing a judge, me too, it seems very political. yes, but what's an astounding thing, and i've learned that over more than the 27 years is when a man or woman puts on a judicial robe. i mean, i put on that robe many years ago and one of the great mores of both the supreme court and the lower court is you absorb it over time. it's a great honor to be a federal judge. it is a great privilege. and one of the things that comes along with that privilege is that you are there not for the democrats, not for the republicans, not for the party of the president who appointed you. >> woodruff: you also write justice breyer about the danger of trying to remake the court, adding justices making other changes. the question comes up about term limits for justices. why doesn't it make sense for at least are the united states congres

. >> woodruff: different subject: newest member of the supreme court, justice amy coney barrett, in a speech yesterday in kentucky, said contrary to what some believe, the court is not driven bipartisanship. she sa we are driven by judicial philosophies. >> depending on how -- i don't consider them to be rtisan political hacks. i think there is no question but that donald trump and other republican presidents have appointed people whohey felt would toe a very, very conservative line with regard to corporate needs, with regard to being anti-choice in terms of women's rights. that's what republican presidents, including trump, who appointed ms. barrett, have done. >> woodruff: so you're saying they're not driven by their judicial philosophies? >> no, i'm not saying that at all. i'm sure they believe that they are. but it is not an accident that donald trump happened to appoint them and not somebody else. >> woodruff: senator bernie sanders, chairman of the senate budget committee. we thank you very much. >> thank you. ♪♪ >> woodruff: >> woodruff: the biden administration rolled out new