justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i do have several questions. judge higginbotham said in his concurring opinion: "while lethal injection may seem straightforward, the actual administration of the drugs and pronouncement of death is both delicate and fraught with difficulties, as evidenced by the responses of regulatory bodies and the experience of this court with mishaps in execution by lethal injection. "in short, the complexities attending the administration of drugs in the execution procedure and its failures expose the risks of non-medical hands on the body of a person undergoing the procedure.a why do you think judge higginbotham's wrong? kretzer: well, it's not that i think he's wrong, justice kavanaugh. these -- pastor moore is definitionally not a doctor. his hands would be on the body. so, in that sense, his -- you know, it would be non-medical hands on the body. the way judge higginbotham construed it, though, was no hands means no hands. it's a direct quote, i believe, from his opinion. and yet, we know that that would not be true und

justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i do have several questions. judge higginbotham said in his concurring opinion: "while lethal injection may seem straightforward, the actual administration of the drugs and pronouncement of death is both delicate and fraught with difficulties, as evidenced by the responses of regulatory bodies and the experience of this court with mishaps in execution by lethal injection. "in short, the complexities attending the administration of drugs in the execution procedure and its failures expose the risks of non-medical hands on the body of a person undergoing the procedure.a why do you think judge higginbotham's wrong? kretzer: well, it's not that i think he's wrong, justice kavanaugh. these -- pastor moore is definitionally not a doctor. his hands would be on the body. so, in that sense, his -- you know, it would be non-medical hands on the body. the way judge higginbotham construed it, though, was no hands means no hands. it's a direct quote, i believe, from his opinion. and yet, we know that that would not be true und

justice kavanaugh is a pivotal vote as ken pointed out.is morning's questioning, there seems to be good reason to speculate that both justices avenue gnaw and barrett known opponents of abortion, nonetheless, might take a very narrow view of the propriety of the texas statute and find because it is an intentional scheme designed to buy late this principle of judicial review, and, of course, as you point out, this expansion that this same scheme could be used, for instance, for religious rights or for gun rights that they might join the folks on the court who would block the law from staying in effect while litigation was ongoing. it's important to point out that this is not about the substance of texas ee law. it's simply about whether it will be enjoined while litigation is ongoing. >> so i think understandably much of our attention is focussed on the trump appointed justices. right? you've got justice kavanaugh and gorsuch and amy coney barrett. in the last hour they pointed this out. justices kavanaugh and barrett seemed somewhat sympat

justice kavanaugh: okay. and then, to follow up on the chief justice's question, which i think reflects, from my viewpoint, a change in your reply brief or maybe -- i don't want to say "change" -- shift in focus in the reply brief to the clerks from the judges and clerks. and if i'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that ex parte young principle should apply to both, but the adverseness issue may be more serious with judges, and, therefore, you focused on the clerks. that's how i read your reply brief because it was noticeable to me. mr. hearron: i think that that's right, your honor. that it is easier to say that we are adverse to clerks because the filing of the lawsuits, which is the point here, to create the in terrorem effect and to chill the constitutional rights is the filing of the lawsuits, and that creates a sharp adversity to the clerks, who are just performing their ministerial duty and not adjudicating anything. justice kavanaugh: okay. and then just to follow up on justice breyer's ques

neither was justice kavanaugh.re playing off them very effectively. so in the end, this is going to be a pair of decisions not about abortion as such but about whether states can evade federal rights by setting up structures in which you basically extinguish those rights before you can defend them. and i think that is the way to win the case, and i do think that the suit brought by the center for reproductive justice on behalf of whole women's health, planned parenthood, and other private providers is going to win either 6-3 or conceivably, 7-2. now, the suit brought by the united states is probably not going to win but it made a big difference. it helped. >> i mean, it's very interesting. i mean, hearing him make the point, right, that you could use this to infringe on second amendment rights or freedom of religion but it is just interesting, again, in all the commentary we have heard about how these justices were going to go, it's just not that we have seen, thus far. it's not what we appear to be seeing here. bu

hearing in which brett kavanaugh cried his way of a hearing in america.thing about which event - white vigilantism and white tears particularly male white tears. >> what do you make of that? >> joy reed, i really mean this, is a shameless race baiting buffoon. it has nothing to do with her race or gender but do you remember the dollars a kid that if you pulled the string and it can only say three things, that's joy reed. she can only say racism, sexism and white supremacy. she's like racism me elmo, like a children's doll the calls you names all the time because when she goes in and tries to tell us brett kavanaugh got off because of weight tears isn't she omitting that it was a 35-year-old charge with 0 corroborating evidence including christine ford's best friend, there were people out there consuming this, yeah, joy, the white tears, that is nothing but the legal system - the legal system works on the facts. >> he said brett cavanagh became a supreme court justice because of his weight tears meant more than christine ford's who is also white. can't com

what did you make of justice kavanaugh's responses? >> well, i think it was spot-on question.though sb 8 is abortion restriction and the most extreme abortion restriction we've ever seen, the questions today in front of the supreme court were not just about abortion. everyone, it seems like all of the justices agree that this is patently unconstitution allow. the question really is, can a state justice decide, you know, the supreme court's precedents and the bill of rights, just don't apply in our state. and a state can just nullify a right that has been recognized bit supreme court for 50 years. a fundamental right. by allowing anyone to sue anyone who exercises that right or provides care to allow someone to exercise that right. that doesn't just apply for abortion, it could apply for guns, for freedom of religion. every single constitutional right is at stake if texas' argument succeed and the federal courts can't do anything when a state tries to nullify a right like texas is dog here. >> like texas is doing here. >> the real concern for roe v. wade is not a punitive civil

the cover nostrand reminded people of something, the brett kavanaugh

what -- what justice kavanaugh asked the lawyer for texas was, well, let's say a state like new yorkral state -- says that anyone in the united states can sue a gun manufacturer or a gun dealer for a crime that was committed in new york. would that be permissible under your understanding of the structure of this law? and the texas lawyer said yes. and that clearly concerned justice kavanaugh because, you know, he -- this -- this structure is so free wheeling that it really invites states to make laws that we've never seen in this country. and that's what justices kavanaugh and barrett seem concerned about, as well as the four justices -- the three liberals, plus the chief justice who have already voted that this law should not go into effect. >> senator davis, jeff mentioned justice kagan warned that the texas abortion law could also lead to other states pass new laws on not only guns but same sex marriage, religious rights. do you think that could actually appeal to both liberals and conservatives? >> i think it can because as jeffrey pointed out, it applies equally across the board

kavanaugh, good ol' kavanaugh suggesting maybe one way they might turn against the law is they fear the law might be retro fitted to be used against guns. maybe we better hold our horses before they come for the guns with the same strategy. what did you make of the arguments today? >> yeah, we got kavanaugh, i believe, because he did not understand how the uterus works but how guns work and people made the case to him, the same thing people are using against these uteruses, that he doesn't understand they can use against the gun and made kavanaugh stand up and say wait a minute now, we can't have that. i don't want to be the spit in the punch bowl. this is generally good. i think coney barrett and kavanaugh will eventually overturn sb 8 but that's because sb 8 is bonkers. sb 8 has always been this clown side show of a crazy rule that was never going to stand the test of time because as we've expressed, you can't have a society if people can just overturn constitutional principles as they want by hiring bounty hunters. sb 8 was never the way that they were going to overturn abortion. the

brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. that essentially puts a bounty on doctors. to reproductive medical care to that of the first and second amendments. listen to this. >> free speech rights. free exercise of religion rights. free second amendment rights. the fear of the brief is that it can be favored in other state that disfavor other constitutional rights. >> mark herron was making the argument for the responses. what did you make? >> i thought it was a spot-on question. we've been saying all along. it's an abortion restriction and the most extreme that we have ever seen. the questions on the supreme court, were not just about abortion. everyone seems to agree this is an unconstitutional law. can a state decide the supreme court's precedence and the bill of rights just don't apply in our state. and the state can nullify a right that's been recognized by the supreme court for 15 years. a mondaymental right by allowing anyone to sue who exercises a right or provides care to allow someone to exercise that right. that doesn't apply just for abortion. it can apply

amy: let me ask you got amy coney barrett and justice kavanaugh, kavanaugh and elena kagan were echoinger sing this is not about abortion, this could be about gun rights and state legislatures going after gun rights in this different kind of legal strategy. close yeah, i think both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett were concerned with the texas law, the fact that it really prevented people from going into federal court to sue, delegated the states authority to any individual to enforce the law. that is just a radical notion. they were very disturbed by that. but i'm going to say this over and over, this is not about abortion. and if we care about abortion, we have to keep our eyes on the prize, which is the case in mississippi that will be argued in december. and i don't see these two justices coming out the same way in that direct challenge to roe. amy: did anything shock you in what you heard yesterday? >> well, i was pleased because, of coue, five justices had already permitted the texas law to go into effect on two occasions, so i was pleased they actually understood the draconi

the brett kavanaugh hearings. brett kavanaugh cried his way through the hearings.a there is a thing about white vine land iism and white tears, particularly male white tears. >> of course. if you watch the actual trial you probably think he was guilty. but they have to talk about the only thing they have. they have to talk about race and white privilege and all these things that have nothing to do with the case. but it gives joy read. i don't think she is disturbed about it verdict. i think she just wants attention. judge jeanine: with the oj case, a lot of people didn't think that was legitimate. but you didn't see them protesting. >> all the commentators i heard today said this will only inspire vigilantism. what i have seen is riotism. last flight in portland they destroyed buildings and breaking glabs and they tried to burn down a jail. so the vigilantism hasn't quite panned out. but the racial division of america and repeating it and echoing it. we as americans have to come together. i'm from a place in norms where black, white, brown, yellow. we are close tog

>> what was interesting was that justice kavanaugh in particular did not seem interested in abortionht to bear arms. let me explain what i mean. is that this law, as you mentioned, allows citizens anywhere, anywhere in the united states, to sue an abortion clinic in texas for conducting an abortion after about six weeks. what justice kavanaugh asked the lawyer for texas was, well, let's say a state like new york, a liberal state, says that anyone in the united states can sue a gun manufacturer or a gun dealer for a crime that was committed in new york. would that be permissible under your understanding of the structure of this law? and the texas lawyer said yes. and that clearly concerned justice kavanaugh because, you know, this structure is so freewheeling that it really invites states to make laws that we've never seen in this country, and that's what justices kavanaugh and barrett seem concerned about as well as the four justices, the three liberals plus the chief justice who have already voted that this law should not go into effect. >> senator davis, as jeff mentioned, justice

but i don't think we expected to hear it from brett kavanaugh.es in addition to the more liberal justices are hostile to this law. and so i think we could see this struck down, although as julia has said, we still have that dobbs case on the docket for december, which is probably the more likely vehicle to reconsider the continuing validity of roe v. wade. >> amy, your life's work is on the line. even if the supreme court knocks down the law, how long would it take for you to get your clinic back to normal? you've said that this law has forced you to turn away 80% of the women you serve. >> right. we are? critical condition in the state of texas. the clinics that have been open can only serve people up to six weeks of pregnancy, because this law is so extreme and it's so damaging. and so we've got to get some help as soon as possible from the supreme court. they've got to weigh in. you can't just take away the rights of 10% of this country's people of reproductive age who live in texas and not answer for it. they've got to step in. we're at day 6

three people on the committee that approved thomas also voted for kavanaugh.has been greater awareness of the problem of sexual assault harassment and all forms of gender violence over the past 30 years and, you know, that is tremendous. we shouldn't overlook that. however, when we witnessed the kavanaugh hearings you are correct it was just like nothing ever happened and i think what we can take away from that is that in fact when the process that we go into as victims and as survivors of gender violence, when the processes don't change, then the outcomes and the public reaction doesn't change and so we got to work on changing our processes. simple as that. >> yeah, i mean, if we put back up the list of peel on the judiciary committee clearance thomas was approved on the top of the list is a guy named joe biden. the senator from delaware and the chairman of the committee is now president of the united states. he of course, wrote the violence against women act and responsible for that being passed and has fought for that act. have you had and had the opportuni

of skepticism from even some of the court's conservatives including amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh who earlier voted against temporarily blocking sb-8 justice barrett said she doubted that making the challengers wait to be sued would give them a fair shot at defending their rights. >> i'm wondering if in a defensive posture in state court the constitutional defense can be fully aired. >> reporter: and some members of the court worried that other states could copy the texas model to limit a host of constitutional rights >> we would be like open for business. there's nothing the supreme court can do about it guns, same-sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don't like, go ahead. >> reporter: justice brett kavanaugh said a state could allow private lawsuits against the guns it wanted to ban. >> say everyone who sells an ar-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen. >> reporter: today's case was not about abortion itself. the court will take that up a month from today when it hears mississippi's challenge to roe v. wade. >> so, pete, in the meantime as all this plays out,

the brett kavanaugh hearing in which brett kavanaugh cried his way through the hearing. his tears turned out to be more powerful. in america there's a thing about both white vigilantism and white tears, particularly male white tears. >> laura: coming back to race once again when there is zero racial element in all of this, what kind of tag this with kavanaugh. they are really desperate to try to hold this together with bailing wire and masking tape. >> for me, the defining aspect of kyle rittenhouse is not his tears, it's his unbelievable bravery. if i run the jury, i wouldn't just acquit him, i would give the kennametal. you know why? because the prosecutor himself that it's too dangerous out there, i didn't want to go there. the cops were in retreat. think about the male population of kenosha. where were they? basically sitting at home cowering in their homes while all these people were burning things and setting things on fire and attacking people, so kyle rittenhouse was one of the few guys who had the guts to get out there when no one else did. and so think about it

law. >> thank you. >> anything further, justice kavanaugh? >> no further questions. >> justice barrett? thank you, counsel. mr. klein? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, let me start by making one thing clear. i'm not planning to ask did it happen in poland. the polish prosecutor already has information about that and doesn't need u.s. discovery on the topic. what he does need to know is what happened inside abu zubaydah's cell between december 2002 and september 2003. i want to ask simple questions like how was abu zubaydah's fed? what was his medical condition? what was his cell like? and yes, was he tortured? these topics are declassified. the government has allowed mitchell and justman to testify about them publicly twice before. they testified about abu zubaydah's treatment in general and at particular sites outside poland. they testified about another detainee's treatment at the polish site, identified by code name. they placed their testimony online. the government's briefs make no pretence that these topics are privile

law. >> thank you. >> anything further, justice kavanaugh? >> no further questions. >> justice barrett? thank you, counsel. mr. klein? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, let me start by making one thing clear. i'm not planning to ask did it happen in poland. the polish prosecutor already has information about that and doesn't need u.s. discovery on the topic. what he does need to know is what happened inside abu zubaydah's cell between december 2002 and september 2003. i want to ask simple questions like how was abu zubaydah's fed? what was his medical condition? what was his cell like? and yes, was he tortured? these topics are declassified. the government has allowed mitchell and justman to testify about them publicly twice before. they testified about abu zubaydah's treatment in general and at particular sites outside poland. they testified about another detainee's treatment at the polish site, identified by code name. they placed their testimony online. the government's briefs make no pretence that these topics are privile

all these lawyers what they did with kavanaugh, i have said this on the show it's an axis of evil between politicians the press and prosecutors. and they all do each other's dirty work. you have got the prosecutor pointing an ar-15 at the jury and they are supposed to go and deliberate after that? come on, man. >> jesse, let me tell you the constitutional republic tant continue like this. justice can't be blind to just democrats. you know, like wide open steve bannon throw bannon in jail. lois learner and eric holder contempt of congress. get to write or book or whatever. that's not actual justice. i'm starting to believe. this is not incompetence it's malice. one other thing about this prosecutor quick story here. they didn't measure the barrel. yes, this guy had a short barreled rifle therefore it was illegal. did anybody measure it? like how hard was that? go to home deep toe, get a tape measure. hey, it's not a short barreled rifle. the barrel was 16 inches. like, is this really complicated? my 9-year-old in school is doing this stuff right now. there is no way this guy is this stupid

. >> justice kavanaugh? >> general, in the prior case the plaintiffs would be the same plaintiffs who were an ordinary ex parte young situation. general stone would be representing a state dea or state executive official. we have arguments about the merits which were obvious and i did with state but it would be the same basic situation. there's an extension of ex parte young to get to the prior case we talked about that that's an important step that we have to analyze. your case by contrast though seems probably repeating others' questions, just different in a regular and unusual and we don't know where it goes. and i just if you could fill in and may be this will be repetitive but you think the u.s. has authority to bring a a suit like this against any state law that -- >> that violates this court's precedents and tries to shield that violation from any affect to judicial review in federal or state courts. and i recognize justice kavanaugh this is an annual suit. the united states does not lightly invoking

and you know, as jim kavanaugh was saying, he would have gone straight down the middle.rt of the crowd is, which is, in fact, the curb. it's not down the middle. and as we saw in the attack that occurred in nice in 2016, they used as heavy as a weapons system that they could find, which was a huge laden box truck. and then not only went down the middle, went directly and deliberately into the crowds. so as we get more reporting on this and tomorrow it will be called officially, i know you'll get multiple confirmation from your sources, the motivation of this particular individual, the mental mind-set of this individual, was the person sober, what was their state of mind? again, did they have multiple people in the vehicle. were those multiple people cheering on or motivating that individual, you know, we heard reports that it may have been from a knifing attack. you know, well, now it's multiple homicide, multiple vehicular homicide. and what was a simple escape, we see from time to time, can manifest itself into, you know, car crashes that kill people. this is an order

brett kavanaugh has been careful not to express an opinion.r him from maine she said "he believes in precedent. i believe he will not overturn roe v. wade." he allowed the texas law to go into effect, which suggests a hostility to abortion rights. he seems like the only hope for roe v. wade to survive. >> whatever happens in texas, the mississippi case is a forward challenge to roe. >> what makes today's argument a little weird it is mostly it seems about the procedural aspect of who has the right to challenge the law, not about the law ititself. the mississippi case is a 15-week abortion ban, that will be heard december 1st and that will really decide the fate of roe v. wade even if the texas case doesn't. >> where can we watch the arguments on tv? are you listening? >> nowhere. there nor cameras in the supreme court. however, there is live video, go to supremecourt.gov, it's not satisfactory to you and to me, but it's certainly better than it used to be where you couldn't listen to live audio the aul aat all. >> can i talk to him about john

that's amy coney barrett and kavanaugh. if the texas law was allowed to stand, other states could copy this model and start a whole new constitutional rights. here's how i put it. >> the firearms policy coalition says, quote, this will easily become the model of suppression of other constitutional rights with second amendment rights being the most likely targets, end quote. it could be free speech rights, it could be free exercise of religion rights, it could be second amendment rights. >> and amy coney barrett said she is concerned if texas gets its way, which texas should be allowed to challenge the law in state court and wait until they're sued, she said that may not be enough to allow constitutional rights to get a full review. you put that all together and it does look like the texas law is in trouble, that the supreme court is at least going to lelt -- let the texas lawsuits continue. what's unclear is what becomes of sba's enforcement. none of the justices seemed to have an answer to that today, whether if the court

mitt roberts, kavanaugh, finn bera.e, facing and could one of them be a swing vote in this particular case? >> we saw roberts already toying with the liberal justices, with regards to texas on the losing side. roberts has raised questions about basically what's issue here. whether you can have this -- voting rights groups, people trying to stop people from voting. [inaudible] , i've easily amy coney barrett's not been on the court for very long, she's been on the pro-life side, people see her as an antiabortion, unlikely to side, in for those who want to see this law struck down, they're basically going to have to get kavanaugh -- [inaudible] at a historic level. it's pretty incredible, gives every indication that kavanaugh would like to be chief justice himself, will have to see. >> donna my question about roe v. wade is similar to the broader conversation around the voting rights act. and bear with me here for a moment, is roe v. wade actually in danger here? how concerned should people, be in the point that i'm makin

jim kavanaugh, you've experienced these kinds of events, but they're never anything you can understand. does it seem to be, from what you know of the person who's been at least considered a person of interest here, does it seem to be that this followed on another potential crime and that he was getting away from it? what is your expert opinion? >> yes, that's right, andrea. you know, the motives for violent crime -- these are my own motives i've developed over the many years, is greed, revenge, hate, power, and escape. those are the five major motives for violent crime. had is escape. this motive is a criminal escaping justice. so the reports from nbc reporters is that maybe he was in a fight, a knife fight, an altercation or a stabbing. i've been to stabbings, and i'm telling you they're very bloody events and the perpetrators the participants often have blood all over them, even if it's coming from a victim they've stabbed or they may get cut themselves, and they often run with the bloody knife. this guy might have been in the car, bloody knife, blood all over him. you saw the police

and justice kavanaugh asked about a scenario in which a state could enact a law that allows private citizenssomeone who sells an ar-15 for a million dollars he said and if they used a -- an enforcement mechanism like the one in this law, would someone be able to go to court -- to federal court -- and challenge it and the lawyer representing texas essentially said no. >> yeah. amy, a slippery slope said one amy howe, it's so good of you. thanks for being here. >>> president biden today apologized to world leaders. apologized for his predecessor's decision to pull the united states out of the paris climate agreement. the remark made at the climate summit in glasgow where the president and other heads of state rang the alarm >> this is the challenge of our collective lifetimes the existential threat -- threat to human existence as we know it and every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. >> we all must speed up our race to net zero. we are running out of time. >> enough of treating nature like a toilet. enough of burning and drilling and mining our way deeper. we are digging our own gr

everybody from brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett to sotomayor.eally just doesn't work. what it does is allows any state to come up with a law, to thwart constitutional rights. that state just doesn't like, and especially justices like kavanaugh could see how it could be used to restrict access to services or goods or activities that the state has decided is not appropriate. that is probably the best hope that people who support the idea of abortion who want access to abortion in the state of texas have in thwarting this law. >> there was another moment that stuck out where clarence thomas asked stone about what would be considered an injury under sb-8. this is important. listen to this. >> what would that injury be in this under sb-8, if it's an injury, in fact? >> one example would be a injure suffered in the tort of outrage where an individual becomes aware of an abortion and suffers the same emotional harm that would ground an article 3 injury for purposes of texas law. >> that seemed like sort of a weak argument, did it not? how would you go

kavanaugh? >> to what extent is the privilege a constitutional privilege and to what extent do you think the privilege is a common law privilege that could be altered by congress? >> i think this court hasn't had to answer that question. reynolds, which was the first recognition of the privilege, said it was firmly rooted in the law of evidence, and the common law evidence, and it was. and in subsequent cases like nixon and egan, the court has also made clear that it has constitutional roots in the executive's article two authorities to protect the nation and safeguard confidential information so i think it's both. and as to a question as to what congress could do to change the privilege, i certainly think congress might be able to set forth mechanisms to asserting the privilege, if congress were to try to cut back on the privilege recognizing reynolds, i think that would prevent the constitutional question suggested in egan and in nixon but that this court has never actually had to resolve. >>

and we believe that clerks will follow the injunction in good faith. >> justice kavanaugh? >> a couple follow-ups to justice kagan's question, i think you also had a pending tro in the district court, with the preliminary injunction and the class certification. is that accurate? >> yes. >> and then a follow-up on the chief justice's question, which i think reflects from my viewpoint a change in your reply, maybe a shift in focus in the reply brief to the clerks from the judges and clerks. and if i'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that ex parte young principle should apply to both, but the adverseness issue may be more serious with judges, and therefore you focused on the clerks. is that -- that's how i read your reply brief. because it was noticeable to me. >> i think that's right, your honor. that it is easier to say that we are adverse to clerks, because the filing of the lawsuits, which is the point here, to chill the constitutional rights is the filing of the lawsuit and that creates sharp adversity to the clerks, were just performing their ministerial duty

union, just like he will not say that jeff cannot be in an elevator and swarmed during the covid kavanaughhearing or just as he may say, i am marilyn garland and senator schumer, you had a mob outside the supreme court and you said kavanaugh, you will pay for this. that was an intimidation of the supreme court justice. they do not believe they have to be symmetrical because they feel their moral fibers. how revealing that he could pass himself off as his long-suffering tragic liberal figure all along what he is now. >> do you want to stand up and cheer? he could just string it together like nobody can string it together. it is really impressive. can i squeeze into more? do we have time? one more? okay. we will leave it on an up note. what gives you the most hope for the future? >> well. [inaudible] >> i am prejudice. you know, that old saying what can't go on won't go on. and that is when you look at the situation we are having right now, you cannot have a nation without open borders. it just won't work. when barack obama says this is not sustainable, that is pretty indicative. you feel so

there's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here, kavanaugh said.nt rights. that is a question we've been posing here for i think since august when this was first allowed to stand. and i wonder, was it a surprise that kavanaugh sort of keyed in on that? >> i mean, i think it is. typically a conservative justice would want to be more conservative with how a president might be set going forward. and so you would expect them to be concerned. but, of course, kavanaugh is one of three people appointed by president trump shortly after he campaigned on appointing justices who would overturn roe versus wade. so i think that really was one of the main things that struck out to anyone hearing those arguments today. i also have to point out that being able to hear those arguments in itself was amazing and new and we're able to air them here to give a degree of transparency into these proceedings like we have never seen before. but on the other side of that i also wanted to mention neil gorsuch also a trump appointee pointing out that there could be another pre

. >> justice kavanaugh? >> i want to make sure i understand your main problem here with this regime, as i understand it, is the discretion that is involved with the permitting officials and your point that is not how we do constitutional rights, where we allow blanket discretion to grant or deny something for all sorts of reasons. but i understand you would not object or do not object to the regimes that are used in many of the other 42 states, the shall issue regimes. is that accurate? >> that is accurate. especially if you have something like good moral character, there's the possibility for discretionary abuse in those regimes as well. the thrust of this case is we would like what they are having. we would like what people in the other 43 states are allowed to do to exercise their rights. new york purports to have a shall issue regime. the only other caveat i wanted to add is it is the discretion combined with the atypicality requirement. if they came up with some sort of magic wand they gave him a precis

private citizens they allowed to sue abortion provideror people helping them to get an abortion brett kavanaughte other parts of the constitution by using the same enforcement mechanism. >> it could be free speech rights it could be free exercise of religion rights. it could be second amendment rights if this position is accepted here. the theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights and there is justice clarence thomas. just because those private citizens may be outraged over abortions, does not give them grounds to sue justice amy coney barrett, supreme court's reporter, amy howell is with us now. thanks so much, the conservative activist were active in question today. did they in europe estimation at all tipped their hands >> i think they did. as many of your viewers may remember, there were four votes back in september to put it on hold three liberal justices and so abortion providers, the plaintiffs in this case only needed to pick up one vote and it looks like they may have picked up two or possibly even three of

it reminded a lot of people of something, the brett kavanaugh hearings. in america, there's a thing about -- a saying about both white vigilanteism and white tears. >> hmm, white tears. you guys better shut up. while we can get more in your face than nancy pelosi's team of surgeons, step back and let's look at everything, right? manipulating i haved crow to attack covington catholic school kids, targeting of parents, the imprisoning of january 6 rioters for years, the extortion of the rittenhouse case and targeting judge and jury. and the story where the democrats attempted to lower a border cross by whipping migrants. it was nothing but hot air. where the hell did that story go, light? it's harder to find than mitch mcconnell's chin. why are we letting the mob off of the hook? republicans, grow some balls. whose side are you on anyway? and there's this hoax to undermine the election because the media not only hate the winner but the voters more. >> much of the dossier has been corroborated. >> if you look at what has become public, some of the public inf

you heard justice kavanaugh in to a certain extent, just as barrett saying is okay if we let texas dostates where they try and pass laws that clearly contravene the constitution and then outsource enforcement to private individuals? let's imagine california passes a law that says. you can't own guns and california but the only people who can sue to enforce that law are private individuals if the court today cited with texas that would mean we couldn't a federal court couldn't stop that clearly unconstitutional law. that's where i think you're getting. justice barrett justice kavanagh saying. this is a whole structural problem. it's not about abortion rights. it's about states being able to take us as federal judges out of the equation. jessica we got about a minute supreme court scheduled here another abortion case from mississippi on december 1st. we heard that in that package. what do you expect from that huge case. that's a huge case. that's the second question, right? this texas case is the first question of who went texas sets up a lot like this can sue. mississippi is a law wher

oh, the brett kavanaugh hearings.vigilantism and white tears. stuart: i think i need someone to explain this. i think i found the right guy, charles hurt. i'm not sure he can make that objection flickable or not. the power of white tears, charles, go at it, please. >> it is just full-blown racial bigotry is what it is. that is what it comes down to. what is so interesting about it, not the fact that she is hung up on the race of these two people but the fact that they're capable of tears. of course a powerful, important part of this kind of racial bigotry to dehuman eyes the people that you're trying the people you're trying to set aside, the idea of people you're trying to dehumanize would produce tears that is almost human-like. she seems absolutely astonished like this. people like joy reid and her ilk, they're losing power and influence. i think they're frightened by the fact they're losing relevancy and influence and this is what they're reduced to. and their trueselves are coming out. and as disturbing as it is,

that was brett kavanaugh's concern. then she went to amy coney barrett's concern which is people cannot effectuate their rights in texas state courts if this law is about to stand. so she just absolutely masterfully, i think -- it was a magisterial kind of palling in all of the doubts of the three justices. she really only needed two of them, but i think what you saw and heard right there was her being so attuned to the weak spot and then saying come sit by me, justice kavanaugh, come sit by me, justice barrett. i think we can break down this law. it was really a tour deforce. >> what do you make of the fact that this was heard so quickly by the justices? does that tell us anything about how they are inclined? why do you think they made the decision that they would hear this so quickly? i mean, a ten-day turnaround in terms of oral arguments, that's just unheard of. >> i have been calling the law a shadow dog law that goes into effect in september being a totally unnecessary self ownby the conservatives on the court. th

. >> kyle rittenhouse testified like a mini brett kavanaugh. >> they're making him out to be acquire boy, if a black kid did that, how would america feel about that? >> if he is freed, it's a message to others like him that prison won't be in their future. >> if he's in free, he will end up in congress. >> and he could end up in congress. >> jesse: the comment, greg, joy reed, that said that these were fake tears just like kavanaugh's tears were fake just shows an inability of humanity to recognize real emotion in another human being. >> greg: when you look at the face of his mother, all you see is the suffering that she's been going through. it's interesting to listen to the media defend what they would have done if a pedophile and a serial abuser, one of the pedophiles, one of the guys wanted to die, comes after you. what would they have wanted him to do? rittenhouse? don't shoot them. let them beat you with a skateboard. the media is priming the outcome by injecting race into it. so even though it's a white guy, white kid that killed two white goons, there's something racial about