i was on the judiciary committee and i thought largely justice amy coney barrett was treated with respect. i feel that ms. brown jackson was treated very harshly and people sort of auditioning for a presidential campaign they were just plain rude to her but i never saw a point in the process where she wasn't capable of handling the question in fact she was brilliant. and reviews even from conservatives now show exactlyab who she is. why would senator mcconnell make a big deal about the nomination and not acknowledge the most recent one was a tremendous nominee but who is enormously qualified for the court, it's not fair to only talk about one thing. >> host: bill on the line for democrats, good morning. >> good morning. i'm different than the other callers. i think every judge that has been confirmed whether for the trial, appellate or supreme court if they've been qualified for the job. my problem particularly not so much that there is a liberal but virtually every one of these appointees have an ivy league school background that they all served in the judiciary and lower positions. they

so let's talk about the fact that amy coney barrett, you and i have visited this in the past, amy coney would not hold the student loan forgiveness because the individuals who sued the plaintiffs did not have standing. so, now the issue is, do the people before the supreme court have standing? can the supreme court make a decision, and then the white house says, gee, we won because they didn't have standing, when they know they don't win on the merits? >> harold: this is a few states, several states, and a few individuals. look, even when we have a difference of opinion outside, i never believed that this case was not a strong case. you still have to have standing to bring them out or you and i can't bring certain matters against certain people and vice versa. let me agree with you. this is not a run up to speed 26 for this reason. dobbs there was precedent for 50 years. >> jeanine: they are going to see the precedent is the hero's act. >> harold: they are wrong because the hero's act was voted on by congress. when president bush, i criticized president bush yesterday, in a favorable wa

can you talk to us about how justice amy coney barrett is questioning whether your side has standingbring your case? >> well, sure. that's actually one of the two questions that was before the court today. the first is whether or not we have standing or the right to sue, and the second is whether or not the president has the authority under the heroes act to create a $400 billion student forgiveness program. and we feel really strongly about our arguments. our plaintiffs in texas were denied their right under the administrative plead yours act through -- procedures act through notice and comment to participate in the development of this rule that the secretary of education made. they basically went into a backroom and created a rule arbitrarily and decided who was in and who was out. some people got some and some people got none, and that's not how a regulatory system works. the american people deserve to have and have a right to have their voices heard by unelected bureaucrats that are creating rules that impacts every person in the country. elizabeth: yeah. so, you know, the presid

caller: i am old enough to remember judge amy coney barrett not knowing first amendment freedoms in her confirmation hearing. i'm interested in knowing whether you think related to your book whether a constitutional convention is more likely and i want to know if you think the blue slip process will make the president less likely to consult with home state senators. finally, will you run for president in 2024? guest: the last one is the easiest, no i will not. secondly, yes, we have to get rid of these blue slips. having been in politics and in the senate for 18 years, just because there is a blue slip process or not, that's not going to change the fact that a president generally will want to consult with a senator and say we are thinking of appointing this person. generally, presidents want to be on the best side of members of the senate so they can get things through the senate. they will continue to consult i'm guessing almost about the same. i don't think the blue slip process is the real deal. we are concerned in terms of a constitutional convention even though it's a legitimate me

conservatives to our federal courts at every level included justice neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. that conservative majority gave america a new beginning and -- in the right to life in the last six months. [applause] to me, it was a privilege to be a part of it and i also appreciate the fact when something else i have tried to capture in "so help me god" was the hailstorm of opposition we faced from day one. i tell a story in the book about how i was with president trump on inauguration day in 2017 and we were at the oval office, just the two of us were there and we started walking back to the white house down the portico. and the bright lights were on the side wall, it was well lit. president trump looked at me and said, look at this. i said, it is humbling. he turned and looked at me and said, that's right it's humbling. [laughter] but as we walked into the residence, the end of that chapter i capture the fact that outside the oval office was a stack of newspapers. the headline in the washington post on january 20, 2017 was " the campaign to impeach donald trump starts today. "

zero voted for amy coney barrett and. he bullied the american people.y down 16 points from the day he was inaugurated and promised to unify the country. is he not seen as a compelling, persuasive or unifying cohesive leader. and moments like that, when you have the president of the united states and you have the state of the union, you literally have the command of the room. command of the cameras. you have the country and the world to yourself. nobody can interrupt. nobody can editorialize for those 90 minutes. you blow it when you engage and enrage the audience thusly as you just showed. and, of course he has been fact checked six ways to sunday on both social security and medicare. that's a big lie. his other lies were it's laughable for him to say we need oil and gas for the next 10 years. he is the guy who on day one killed the keystone pipelines out of spite. basically trump did it. i'll undo it. innocent people their biggest sin was having a job or promised job on the keystone pipelines. so joe biden, i mean, bottom line i'm a pollster. this is w

you have justice amy coney barrett asking questions repeatedly throughout this three-hour long oral arguments, if they go into effect or if the court decides to make the changes, how it could change for individual internet users. could i be open to a lawsuit if i hit like or a retweet on a tweet? the attorney for the gonzalez family acknowledged, yes, in his view and his interpretation of section 230, that's what could happen, internet users, individuals could face liability for sharing other content. >> yeah, there could be a lot on the line for not just the companies but those that use it. thank you both. >>> an elderly woman in florida was killed by an 11-foot gator. how did this happen? we'll tell you, ahead. hold on... you're a night manager and mom, and the bill payer, baker, and nightlight maker? that's a lot. so, adding “and stude” might feel daunting. but what if a school could be there for all of you? career, family, finces and mental health. -happy birthday! -happy birthday buddy. well, it can. national university. supporting the whole you. people remember ads with a catchy song.

when amy coney barrett got that seat, i was happy. do i wish it was a liberal woman? absolutely.an that gets elected to office is a step forward. >> martha: we have to get to a place that that is a woman, that's a good thing. that's a black person, that's a -- >> we need parody -- >> martha: you have to get to a point that you're looking at people and say are you the best person for the job? do they have the qualifications? do i vote for them because of the policies or not? end of story, period. >> 100%. nikki haley should not say my stilettos are sharp or whatever. she's playing the female card as well. i'm the best candidate to run this country. i don't care your race, your sexual preference. doesn't matter. >> martha: people get in the race -- let's see how it goes. we can't knock every person down, america. the minute that they say they're going to run. have to give them a chance and see what happens. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> great to have you here today. the push for a legal age limit for social media is picking up steam on both sides of the aisle. watch this. >

. >> is very reminiscent how they treated justice amy coney barrett during her whole confirmation a nomination minorities that do not agree with them succeeding on the other side. if you like them a more of an attachment to the conservatives in the republican party. the only one to say sexist and racist things about nikki haley, right? it is a larger problem here for sure. elizabeth: how about debating nikki haley of the policies, nikki haley of the policies, right? batya ungar-sargon, thank you so much. we will be right back, stay righi'm my dt there. i needed something to help me gain clarity. so i was in the pharmacy and i saw a display of prevagen . . it's been about two years now and it's working for me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. ♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy

so you're talking about the amy coney barrett asked about what's happening in missouri.rect correct because to the extent any entity has a chance to make the argument on standing, it seems pretty clear that missouri is the one because there is this agency that is separate from the state, but that they make an argument that somehow they might be hurt if there's loan forgiveness, and then that might possibly hurt the state of missouri. it's a pretty attenuated argument and would really open the floodgates. to a lot of other kinds of lawsuits that under normal circumstances, the supreme court doesn't want to do . they don't want to open the federal courts to just essentially anybody saying i'm bothered by a program you have to show you're gonna be injured by the by the action that you're complaining about the way the state department and the education department says they're worried about people defaulting on their loans afterwards, and that's why this is needed. 2.3 california's have applied for this program 1.4 have been approved already. do we know when this ruling could

including the chief justice of the united states, john roberts and elena kagan, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrettrst state of the union, having just recently joined the court. phil mattingly at the white house, what more can we expect from the president's state of the union address this evening? >> before we get into that, jake, i do want to note that we do have word on one of the always outstanding questions heading into these final moments before the president starts speaking, that's which member of the cabinet is the designated survivor, a white house official says the designated survivor for this state of the union address will be marty walsh, the labor secretary. those unfamiliar with kiefer sutherland or the tradition here, one cabinet official will stay outside of the chamber, given the president, the vice president, the speaker of the house, all of the senior leaders that are in the capitol building just in case if something happens there there is somebody outside that could have continuity of government. always a cabinet official. gina raimondo was the designated survivor last year. this

i think the greatest example of that is when justice amy coney barrett complained that the world thinksse? at an event hosted by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. well, you know, there's a reason that people think they're political hacks. and it's so important that the public have confidence that the judiciary is making decisions based on fact and law. now, no doubt, justices who are selected by a particular party are going to have a particular world view that may cause them to make decisions that lean conservative or lean liberal. but you still like to think that they are using good faith to decide cases. and when we have all the problems that we're seeing in the court now, it creates the impression that they're deciding cases based on factors outside of the facts and the law. and they should be doing everything in their power to disaview the public of that. the easiest thing of that is a rule of ethics. here's a really easy way to do it, like every other branch of government, be accountable for some very basic rules. we do apply them, just voluntarily, well, let's put some teeth

and justice amy coney barrett's husband opening a branch of his firm and now this the chief justice'sful people. dahlia, they don't seem to want to deal with this. this is on us. we shouldn't make lists like this, we shouldn't cover these stories. if they wanted to turn it around, what would that look like? >> everything brian just said. there is a reason that we have disclosure rules. we have disclosure rules that judges are asked to abide by because we're supposed to know, not just do they have skin in the game. not just is their spouse profiting somehow from placing somebody in a white shoe firm that will have business before the court. it's weather there's an appearance they have skin in the game. that's the standard. the standard is, does it look to us, in other words we're the material people here, not the justices. i think the category error they continue to make is they feel nobody is paying for special access to us. we know they are. that was the whole supreme court historical society. people were paying hand over fist to the historical society to get accesses to the justices

. -- >> this is during the confirmation hearings of justice kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett.all of them committed to the acceptance of the precedent of roe v. wade under oath. i asked permission to places into record. >> but that objection, so ordered. >> i thank you. i think the witnesses, professor, i want to call you professor. thank you reverend. for your courage. >> the chair will now recognize the gentlelady from georgia, the mcbath for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank the witnesses. thank you so much for patiently being here today, and for your testimony. i have to say with all moral clarity today, for each and every individual in this room let him who is without sin cast the first stone. reverend schenck you and i had the pleasure to meet almost ten years ago long before i had ever considered running for congress. my son jordan had just been murdered by a man with a gun who didn't like the loud music that he was playing in his car. when we met, most assuredly at that time, you and i did not necessarily agree on gun safety policy. you listened to a

i think the justices will pay most attention to is just as gorsuch, amy coney barrett to see, she tendschart a course is not normal. and justice kagan who takes a strong view on textual cases. elizabeth: i think justice gorsuch is a person that we will be listing two. he has a long history of textual interpretation that sticks to statutory language and he has ruled in ways that progressives like. he has also ruled in ways that conservatives like. when it comes to statutory analysis, i think also keep justice roberts wrote the major questions in the west virginia versus epa case. he used the word studded applies in extraordinary cases in that opinion. it will be interesting to see his view on whether that applies here. there are justices who will be interesting on the standing question. we will be looking to see both the conservative and more liberal justices on that particular question because that's a question you have to get through before you get to the merit. if there could be some cross ideological agreement on the standing questions, then what might be a ideological divides on the

caller: i am old enough to remember judge amy coney barrett not knowing first amendment freedoms in herrmation hearing. i'm interested in knowing whether you think related to your book whether a constitutional convention is more likely and i want to know if you think the blue slip process will make the president less likely to consult with home state senators. finally, will you run for president in 2024? guest: the last one is the easiest, no i will not. secondly, yes, we have to get rid of these blue slips. having been in politics and in the senate for 18 years, just because there is a blue slip process or not, that's not going to change the fact that a president generally will want to consult with a senator and say we are thinking of appointing this person. generally, presidents want to be on the best side of members of the senate so they can get things through the senate. they will continue to consult i'm guessing almost about the same. i don't think the blue slip process is the real deal. we are concerned in terms of a constitutional convention even though it's a legitimate mechanis