katyal: justice alito, three things. one, we are very happy to talk about the record because we don't think it supports that at all. indeed, it supports that css told us that, if this happens, this is precisely what they would do. it did happen with respect to bethany. second, that was the exact colloquy you and i had many years ago in nasa versus nelson when the petitioner said, hey, there's no evidence of drug abuse, you've got to wait for it. and your unanimous opinion for the court said, no, the government can -- it doesn't need to wait in order to act. and that's particularly so -- and this is my third point -- here because, here, the government has identified the most compelling of interests in protecting its own wards of the state. it needs to maximize the number of parents in the pool and avoid stigma to parents and to youth because the -- chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: counsel, is there any evidence that since css has not been a part of this program, that less children have been pla

alito: thank you. ho, i would like to follow waiting in this case. -- thewaiting problem senses apportionment doesn't nsusen until april 1, -- ce apportionment doesn't happen until april 1. mr. ho: the president must submit a report to congress within seven days of the been beginning of congress' term and then the house within 15 days of that send certificates to each of the states notifying them how many seats in congress each state will get. so it beginsayor: when the report is issued and so we would have to on strangle the egg? can we go back to the question myt seems to be what many of colleagues are asking about, rule that- should we simply that not counting illegal aliens because they are undocumented that that is a violation of the statute in the constitution? is that enough relief to you? mr. ho: i think it is, because the policy that we are challenging is brought enough and we are bringing a challenge to it and the policy lacks a plainly legitimate sweep for the vast majority of undocumented i

justice alito? >> i want to try to press you a little bit on some of the answers you gave to the chief justice because i find the posture of this case quite frustrating. it could be that we are dealing with a possibility that is quite important. it could be that this is much ado about very little. depends on what the census bureau and the department of commerce are able to do. fromjust take the numbers the district court and the opinion last week, they said were 10.5 million people in this country who would be counted as being here illegally, but if you look at the smaller number, of those who are held in detention facilities, it's something like 60,000. but the first number could easily change the apportionment of representatives. the second one is much more doubtful that it would change the apportionment of representative. there are only 31 days left in the year. to exclude the 10.5 million seems to me a monumental task, to do that without sampling. namese 300 million plus and determine individual

alito and thomas disagreed with that. but when it comes to the meat of the matter, whether the court would take action to block the states being sued here from casting their electoral votes on monday, all of the justices were in unanimous agreement with that. no way. 9-0 on that point unanimously. the court rejected president trump and the republicans' effort to monkey wrench the electoral college process to stop joe biden from being elected when the electoral college votes are cast on monda monday. the electoral college meets on monday. all 50 states and the district of columbia, the electors will meet in state capitols and secretary of states' offices. in some cases they'll meet in governors' offices and in each of the 50 states and in d.c., those electors will formally cast their electoral votes. and those electoral votes will be formally conveyed to congress. and now we know that the united states supreme court will not stop them, will not stop that process. and it was a unanimous call. and that marks both what ought

. >> justice alito? justice alito? >> mr. clam, and the statutory phrase we need to interpret in this phrase has been structured as fairly common. it was about storing and producing telephone numbers, followed by a modifying phrase, using a random or sequential number generator. people make statements like that all the time. and those who hear them or read them understand what they mean without looking at treatise is on grammar, syntax usage, or interpretation. the way they do that is to ask what makes sense. i think if you watch the examples, but i have very little time for questioning, they ask about all of this arcane stuff. the question that jumps out here is does it make any sense to speak about storing a list of telephone numbers, using a random or sequential number generator? the best answer i can find in the briefs on your site is that there were systems that produced lists of numbers using such a generator, and then stored them. but unless you can explain how a generator was used in the very process of storing the nu

justice roberts: justice alito. justice alito: this whole quest for watershed rules is rather strange. we keep saying there were some in the past that were discovered, but it's not clear that there are any new ones that haven't yet been discovered, but, you know, maybe, just maybe there might be a watershed rule out there that hasn't been discovered. it -- i mean, it sort of reminds me of something you see on some tv shows about the -- the quest for an animal that was thought to have become extinct, like the tasmanian tiger, which was thought to have died out in a zoo in 1936, but every once in a while, deep in the forests of tasmania, somebody sees a footprint in the mud or a howl in the night or some fleeting thing running by, and they say, a-ha, there still is one that exists. so, i mean, all of that is a wind-up to getting back to the question that justice thomas asked. why should we decide whether this teague exception applies to a habeas petition brought by a state prisoner without first deciding whether it's

the two justices, thomas and alito. live to listen to it closely, right, it's being spun that they were standing and they wanted to hear and all this. it's not true, okay. thomass and alito, who would have least allowed the lawsuit to be filed. they were not appointed by trump. they were already will on the court when they took office. and they specifically said, and i quote here, again. it is really important. they say, i would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and i express no view on any other issue. so, yeah, what they are saying is, you can file it, and then you can go home. so much for his hopes that the judges he thought as, you know, his own would save him. didn't happen. here it is. >>> i think this will end up in the supreme court. and i think it's very important that we have nine justices. >> we will be going to the u.s. supreme court. we want all voting to stop. >> we should be heard by the supreme court. something has to be able to get up there, other

we do know that there -- the noted dissents were two, justice alito and justice thomas.ow exactly how the other justices came down. so two justices dissenting, an unsigned order but effectively, you know, this ends the republicans' bid at the supreme court. the supreme court saying, texas, you can't even file this because you don't have standing. it will be interesting to see, like you said, how the president responds to this, how the nearly -- or more than 100 republicans in congress respond to this seeing as they all signed on promoting this. the supreme court here saying we're not getting involved, texas, you don't have standing to dispute how other states conduct the elections. >> was this just a one-sentence decision, order by the u.s. supreme court as was the case earlier in the week when they rejected another republican-backed attempt to undermine this election or was it -- did they go into a little more in depth? >> they went a little bit more in depth, wolf. we saw a very succinct order on tuesday that basically just said "denied." that was when the supreme cour

even justices samuel alito and clarence thomas.hey said they would allow the case to be filed, but would grant no other relief. please, explain what that means. it doesn't mean that they would want to hear it, or that they would agree with it. they just said they had the right to file it. >> that's correct. this is a case in a very, very rare category of cases, in which you can come directly to the supreme court, if you are a state, and ask the supreme court to hear a case, bypassing all the other courts. most of the justices think they still have discretion to say, as seven of them did here, we're not even going to let you file this complaint because there's not any basis to it. justice thomas and alito have long said, no, we don't agree with that. if a state files a case like this, to respect the dignity of the states and what congress has done with the jurisdiction here, we should agree to let them file the complaint, which is what they voted to do here. but then, they said, immediately, there's no relief here. we wou we would a

chief justice roberts: justice alito? justice alito: in this case we have received amicus briefs from organizations and individuals who are very concerned about what your interpretation would mean a -- mean for personal privacy. there are many government employees were given access to all sorts of personal information for use in performing their jobs, but if they use that for personal protect to make money, or carry out criminal activity, to harass people they don't like, they can do enormous damage. the same thing for people who work for private entities -- think of the person in the fraud detection section of a bank who has access to credit card numbers and uses that sell for a to personal profit. do you think none of that was of concern when congress enacted that -- this statute? mr. fisher: justice alito, with due respect, i don't think it was. what congress was concerned about is computer hacking, and that is up and down the legislative history. this new problem of hacking. the two things i would add to that -- becau

alito and thomas said this should be heard. but then they said, and it has no merit. we would let them come in, argue the case, and kick them out, because they've got nothing. that's in the words of the order. and, please, people, do not let it get twisted that alito and thomas were somehow for texas. that's not what they said. >> susan, thank you for coming on tonight. i've been commending you on your articles. what does this ruling mean for the 126 republicans who signed on to support this lawsuit, they didn't have to go along with this insanity. yet they did, susan. please explain why. >> in some ways i feel like that is potentially one of the lasting impacts of this, to reveal so clearly how much the republican party, even after donald trump's defeat, what a big percentage of it was willing to go along with this folly. 64% of the house republican caucus, 126 republicans. the minority leader. they didn't have to put their names to this. it was a choice. i think for some of them, it was probably a very cynical choice, because they knew this lawsuit had no merit. and

justice roberts: justice alito? justice alito: can i ask about the standard of review question on fair use? the jury returned a verdict on fair use and at article moved for judgment as a matter of law. why wasn't the federal circuit required to apply the rule 50 standard and ask whether the evidence presented at trial -- viewed in a light most favorable to google would have been sufficient as a matter of law to support jury's fair use verdict. mr. rosenkranz: that is what the federal circuit did. the court of appeals approved a new reasonable standard that google urges. the court said no reasonable juror five times and petitioned appendix 27 to 28, 42, 46, 51, and 52. having found that factors one in four strongly favored oracle and that google's use was superseding there was no other reasonable conclusion -- but that google's use was an unfair use. i will circle back to the first half of your question. the standard of review is -- by which i mean it reflects the jury's findings of historical fact and then allows th

. >> justice alito. >> sorry. the statutory phrase we have to interpret in this phrase has a structure that is fairly common to activities to produce telephone numbers followed by a modifying phrase do you think that number generator those who hear them or read them understand what they mean without looking at a treatise of interpretation but they do that by asking what makes sense. i give a lot of examples but i have very little time for questioning. they ask about the sense of it they get to the arcane stuff. so does it make any sense with a list of telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator? the best answer i can find in the brief is that there were systems that produced a list of numbers using such a generator and then stored them but unless you can explain how the generator was used in the process of storing the numbers, think we have a proble problem. >> justice alito, two quick things i do think readers have the advantage over listeners because they can look at the actuation and they do

alito and thomas said, this should be heard. but then, they said, and it has no matter.e would let them come in here. we'd let them argue the case. and then, we'd kick 'em right out because they've got nothing. that is what they say. that is in the words of the order and, please, people, do not let it get twisted that alito and thomas were, somehow, for trump and texas. that is not what they said. >> susan, thank you for being on, tonight. i have been commending you on your articles, lately. so, what does this ruling, susan, mean for the 126 republicans, including minority leader kevin mccarthy, who signed on to support this lawsuit? they didn't have to go along with this insanity, yet they did, susan. please, help me explain this. why? >> well, don, in some ways, i feel that is, you know, potentially, one of the lasting impacts of this. is to reveal, so clearly, how much the republican party, even after donald trump's defeat, how -- what a big percentage of it was willing to go along with this folly. 64% of the house republican caucus, that is, 126 republicans, the mino

there is no support -- >> justice alito. >> i have two questions that are important toav me. i hope that i can squeeze them both in. it would be fine for the secretary of commerce to submit numbers that exclude illegal aliens once you see that unless u are asking us to overrule what franklin said about the president's directing thewh cretary to reform, the census then i don't understand whe your argumenten is going. suppose they give the number that excluded every illal alien doie you think the presint would then b unable to direct the sectary of commerce to reform the numbers it wld have nkthe ability to dect a refoation of the census tt would be the sam question there's always the question the reformation is constitutional or not. >> and with the substance of the issue that i do want to get to once you concede that they can ask the secretary to reform the numbers that are sent to him, i don't understand why there is, why thee situation where both se of figures are submitted in a single document it isn't a meaningless fmality in the sense that this is the moment in the proce

really 9-0, alito dissenting, it was really 9—0, because thomas and alito have this quirky proceduralys they should wait until the next step, that then they would throw it out, but basically this is a blow for donald trump because he had been hoping for the supreme court to back him. is that it then for the presidentchallenges? politically is not the end of it but legally very much so, because the supreme court was the big one, and a party at the white house on panic he said that he hoped that the supreme court would back him, tonight it isa court would back him, tonight it is a christmas party in the white house, so it would be a different atmosphere —— hanukkah. iam different atmosphere —— hanukkah. i am sure he will continue to dispute the election result but is very ha rd to election result but is very hard to see where he goes from here. the courts don't want to be drawn into this battle. he seemingly cannot win in the courts what he lost at the polls. new york police say several people attending a demonstration on the streets of new york city have been injured after a vehicle pl

alito now wants a response by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. this is a challenge tied to the change in the mail and ballot process in the commonwealth of pennsylvania by the legislature back in 2019, upheld done by the state's supreme court there, but without a change to the state constitution, what supporters insist as required under pennsylvania law. president-elect joe biden is putting a key obamacare defender in charge of his health department, at least his nominating for him. how they are becerra would be the first latino to have the department of health and human services and its trillion dollar budget but despite that correspondent peter doocy tells us many of biden's fellow democrats are not that happy. >> biden allies are fully satisfied with his cabinet's diversity. >> i do believe there's many more positions and i certainly hope to see more african-americans in those positions at the highest level. >> tomorrow the president-elect meets with naacp leaders and he's been urging patients. >> i promise you it will be the single most diver

. >> can i take you back to your answs to justice alito using the only final action tt's being challenged as a third amendment, i am going to repeat this question to you becse i was not quite sure i got your answer, if that is the case and the only final action challenged here, what basis would we have to do anything more tha issue a judgment abouthe validity of the amendment. >> i don't think you have a quite right, the plaintiff's of the fh a was unconstitutional in the fifth circuit granted them at relief and there is granted that include that question. we do think it would be appropriate for this court to confirm that that aet is corrt. >> i know they asked for it but usually if you bring them a challenge you have the point to the final agency action that you think is wrong in some sense and here the third amendment was done by the acting director if you are right about that, does not raise the removal issues. so what does raise the roval issues? >> it's just likeree enterprise they're entitled to bring a prospective suit saying the ongoing regulatory power of the agency over them eve

well, word got to justice alito that that wasn't happening and he sent out that blistering order like while we still have not ruled on the merits of this. a lot of folks think the supreme court again will eventually close up that case and not get involved because there is probably not enough of a high enough number of ballots that fall into that category to actually affect the outcome. the overall outcome in pennsylvania. but it is still sitting there. the supreme court at this hour. >> bret: charlie, to your point, there are issues here that have to be resolved before the next election. this is one of them. mail-in ballots and how they are dealt with. but whether there is enough to overturn enough electoral votes before monday, boy, it's going by the wayside now. >> charles: without a doubt. the window has been closing for weeks now. obviously. it's a tall order without any doubt. but, i do think it's interesting that the supreme court declined to hear the case on standing. that doesn't address the merits, necessarily. and, the other issue that i think you just brought up with shanno

team wins a forensic examination of 22 dominion voting machines used in michigan as justice samuel alito moves deadline for pennsylvania official to response which is challenging to election results. former speaker of the house newt gingrich joining us this morning. district or of -- director of national intelligence john ratcliffe as we are learning the country is doing human testing to genetically enhance military. focus on stimulus this morning, speaker nancy pelosi says it will be done by christmas, we will hear from former nyc barrasso and mick mulvaney. marks are lower. we will start the week in the red, dow industrials down 145 points, nasdaq lower by 15 and s&p 500 weaker by 16 and 3 quarters. all three major indices up out of the last 5 weeks, last week we are up 1% on the dow and 2% on the nasdaq. mornings with maria right now. ♪ ♪ maria: european markets look like this, dax index in germany lower by 63. in asia overnight, markets finish mostly shower. we had economic data, that is the fastest pace of exports since february 2018. the growth also helping to generate a 75.4 surpl

it was really 9—0, because alito and thomas have this sort of quirky procedural view where they say then they would throw it out, but basically this is a blow for donald trump because he had been hoping for the supreme court to back him. is that it then, for the president's legal challenges? politically is not the end of it, but legally very much so, because the supreme court was the big one. at a party at the white house on hanukkah he said that he hoped that the supreme court would back him, tonight it is a christmas party in the white house, so it would be a different atmosphere. i am sure he will continue to dispute the election result, but it's very hard to see where he goes from here. the courts don't want to be drawn into this battle. he seemingly cannot win in the courts what he lost at the polls. let's get some of the day's other news protesters have clashed with police for a second night in the albanian capital, tira na, after the police allegedly killed a man for breaking a coronavirus curfew. albanian prime minister, edi rama apologised to the parents of the 25 year old,

. >> justice alito, justice alito. >> yes, my question is similar to justice breyer or at least that follows along the same lines, supposing elector is bribed between the time of popular vote in the time when the electors could vote, can the state remove the electric? >> your honor, we believe that prior to the boat is the states power is the incidental power exist, to assure the person who shows up is not engaged in a criminal activity, it's difficult to imagine how that plays out, the claims someone has been bribed is a charged, then needs to be proven so we believe it's going to be a difficulty there for the bribery, let's remember that the framers considered this problem, george mason expressly said the reason not to have electors is so they can be bribed, what we saw they were to risk, the risk of electoral bribery and the result of the risk of corruption as madison put it. >> your argument either must be that the electors cannot be removed by the state, the state says at least some removal power goes along with the appointment power. i think your argument has to be they cannot

let me start with the pennsylvania decision by justifiable alito. he turns it over to the full supreme court no noted dissents and they do not move forward. there is no injunctionive relief there. is that a big blow for the president's chances? >> it is a big blow. you know, we have talked in the past about how the president was running out of runway. and at this point to really make a difference he would have to land a jumbo jet on a postage stamp. he does not have a lot of runway left. this was considered his strongest case for the supreme court. and the court system has proven that it is independent, and reviewing these claims. many of these are trump appointees who are voting against the position of the president, not because they have animus, but because they don't see the legal case. particularly in terms of the relief of blocking certification. there is this sticker shock that kicks in for these courts, look, there are problems that you have identified. there have been illegal orders in other cases. there have been votes that have been negati

i mean justices alito and thomas were making a point about the supreme court hearing disputes among states not the merit of this case. i think we'd have been better served if the full court had said more. such as when judge stefanos bibos of the third circuit appointed by donald trump recently overturned trump efforts to overturn election results. and he wrote voters not lawyers choose the president, ballots not briefs decide elections. challenges of unfairness are serious, but calling an election unfair does not make it so. charges require specific allegations and then proof. we have neither here. or when at the u.s. district court for the middle district of pennsylvania judge matthew brond, a former federalist society member wrote this in his opinion. this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations unsupported by evidence. in the united states of america this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter let alone all the voters of its sixth most populous state. our people, laws and institutions demand more. instead we're le

the state did file a response this morning on the deadline that just alito had set.they're going to act on this i don't know. there's another case, remember, from pennsylvania that's been sitting on the supreme court's doorstep for several weeks. the legal claim that the state had no authority to extend the deadline by three days for mail-in ballots, that's just been sitting there. the supreme court hasn't done anything with that yet either. and then on the texas case, i think that would be perhaps most charitably described as a long shot. >> what should we read into samuel alito's position today, if you will, if that's the right term for it. >> yeah, that was something he did earlier. he originally had set the deadline for the state to respond to the kelly lawsuit and then he moved it up to today by 9 a.m. you know, we don't know why he did that. maybe he wasn't thinking about the fact that today is the safe harbor deadline and he wanted to make sure that it was done by then. you know, they didn't explain that. when these things happen, the justices don't give a rea

this is something, you know, they have referred directly to justice alito. this is a defeat. >> yes. you have to see what the president's reaction is going to be. you can't argue that this court stacked against him given so many of his appointees are on this supreme court. we have not heard from the president directly yet. we have heard from his attorney own statement but no official statements from the campaign. but it is the latest blow to the efforts to try to kind of thwart this or mud i didn't thidy the . they're focusing on a public relations aspect. they're not successful in court anywhere. they've seen a string of court losses. it was filed by pennsylvania republicans. he wants anyone to have courage to help him in his efforts to undermine democracy which is what he's doing by trying to change the results of this election. and so you can see the president's effort there's are not being successful in court. and so they continue to push this in this public way. it actually is affecting day to day governing that president is doing. earlier today he was

it was really 9—0, because alito and thomas have this sort of quirky procedural view where they saythey would throw it out, but basically this is a blow for donald trump because he had been hoping for the supreme court to back him. is that it then, for the president's legal challenges? politically is not the end of it, but legally very much so, because the supreme court was the big one. at a party at the white house on hanukkah he said that he hoped that the supreme court would back him, tonight it is a christmas party in the white house, so it would be a different atmosphere. i am sure he will continue to dispute the election result, but it's very hard to see where he goes from here. the courts don't want to be drawn into this battle. he seemingly cannot win in the courts what he lost at the polls. nomia iqbal in washington. both boris johnson and the president of the european commission have spoken in gloomy terms about the likelihood of a post—brexit trade deal. the two leaders have agreed to make a decision on the future of the negotiations by the end of the weekend. on friday e

maria: now, the petition was submitted to associate justice samuel alito.hear from the supreme court. there's going to be an important case for the trump team's efforts. scott, your reaction? >> i think timing is key as dagen said, whether it's the challenging of the state law or the fact, maria, that as you talked with ms. ellis, the longer this drags on, i think more uphill the battle becomes. and so for my sake, what we look at here politically, getting answers. any day we could hear something with respect to pennsylvania. getting answers sooner than later would be great. another thing too, why don't we figure out about the dominion voting systems. there's comments that come out of dominion, then they disappear, looking at past history of political involvement with other candidates as far as dominion is concerned. that would be great to subpoena some of those records. maria: and that of course is what sidney powell is working on. we're going to talk about that with jesse banal, he's dealing with the nevada lawsuit. he's getting pushback in terms of getti

but i'm really looking forward to judge alito's, the response to judge alito's demand for tomorrow.the -- stenstrom, you've got our thanks and, i'm sure, that of nearly every one of your fellow citizens. >>> up next here, arizona lawmakers -- i should say something before we go to break here. the lawsuit that we're referring to when we were talking about congressman mike kelly and sean parnell, republican congressional candidate, is their lawsuit to, their declaration that mail-in balloting in pennsylvania is absolutely unconstitutional, and that appears to be moving quickly toward the supreme court. so i just wanted to make sure that we were clear about that. >>> lawmakers taking steps to ignore election fraud in their state. former trump data chief matt braynard testifying before arizona lawmakers about electoral fraud, and he has been schooling all of us us on what has been happening as he he has been looking at some extraordinary data. he joins us right after this quick break. you don't want to miss it, please stay with us. ♪ ♪ i'm still on the road to what's next. and i'm still

if the shareholders have argued that theause removal is a structural era the house to do justice alito's injustice court should earlier question o government. if they are correct, do we have discretion against the third act? how do we get a structul air to a harmless error? what are we consider into that, which situations are we permitted to do that? >> certainly it would be the case when you're talking about conservatorship i know that's not exactly the question but were talking about an act which is the thing that they have challenged an act does not require executive power whatsoever is hard for me too see what you can get into the queson of a harmless error in a constutional violation at the threshold. >> thank you counsel, justice kagan. >> you just had the fhfa is not a very important agency and doesn't have very many powers. all the powers of the majority in the dissent referred to, it is not much that those two opinions agreed on but this seems to be one of them that the fhfa makes rules, condus enforcement actions, and has power, en the defense says the fhfa plays a crucial role

again, we read, the statement of justice alito, with whom justice thomas joins, in my view, we don't have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. they then cite a case. i would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint, but would not grant other relief, and i express no view on any other issue. what does that mean? their note is not about the merits of the case, okay. alito and thomas, this is a little in the weeds, but it matters, because you're going to be hearing this, and you should be armed with the information to rebut it. alito and thomas have a long-standing dispute back to this case that they site, arizona v california before. they have a different feeling about the supreme court's role in taking cases of interstate controversies, okay. that's about jurisdiction, not about the merits. the key part is the end of this discussion, "but we would not grant other relief, and no view on any other issue," meaning they too see no wrong to remedy, period. it's over. the statement from president-elect bi

justice kagan. >> justice kagan. >> sorry, could i take you back to your answer to justice alito. if i understood you right you said that the only final action being challenged here is the third amendment. i will repeat his question to you because i wasn't quite sure i got your answer. if that is the case that's the only final action challenged here what basis would we have two do anything more than issue a declaratory judgment about the validity of that amendment? >> i don't thank you have it quite right for the plaintiffs in this case make a declaratory judgment that the structure of the f hsa was unconstitutional and that the circuit granted them that relief and there is what was granted in that question so we do think it would be appropriate for this court to confirm that that aspect of the judgment is correct. >> i know they asked for it butt usually if you bring them a challenge you have the point to final agency action if you think it's warranted and here the third amendment was done by the acting director and you are right about that and it doesn't raise the removal issue

justice alito and gorsuch descended from that, what you make of that rule?hat the ruling says was trying to make a distinction, and i sympathize, what you saw and the other decisions we've been talking about is the fact that we are pointing out that this is a first amendment right, religious pretty there's a reason the founders made it that there are certain special protections for certain things in the country. speech, religious liberty for instance and they didn't seem to think it necessarily merited that level of protection for schools, or simply wasn't relevant because it set to expire in just a few days but i think this is the court in a way, making distinctions between different groups, not thrilled by the religious liberty because too often religious is treated at second-class citizens and they seem to be reminding people that they are in heightened protections. paul: kyle, do you think the key here is amy coney barrett, because it is interesting, alito and gorsuch and thomas have always been on behalf of the free exercise. justice roberts, i guess le

the supreme court has thrown it out with dissent by justices alito and thomas.the courtas system on in there, and all threed trump-appoinustices sided with the minority. it's written in the constitution that ste legislatures get to control their ownct ens, and texas doesn't get to tell michigan and other states whether there elections are firm or not. it was outrageous suit from the beginning. the shameful things i26 house republicans signed onto it and a bunch of attorney gen it's a party that has lost any touch with docracy. trumpianity is a strange religion, and the judicial branch has stayed true and faithful to the meaning of the cotitution. judy: as you watch this drama unfold, what do you make of it supreme court has d in?the mark: i think we are in the final chapter, judy. at lea i hope so. i don't ask if other people onag the others te with me. i do ask that you believe in the position you te, and this was example of be hypocrisy on the part of house republicans. ather 153 safe republican seats,e and they terrified, the members, of a primary. donald tru

the supreme court, justice alito has taken the case. morning will be a lot of action. >> dana: justice alito on the case. we will pay attention to it in the morning. greg, do you think it's good that hollywood is so focused on the georgia race? do you think it helps the democrats that they are trying to nationalize it so much? they even had a veep reunion to try to raise money and i think they're actually helping the republicans make the case that ossoff and warnock are too far left that state. >> greg: i hope you're right about that. i don't know. they understand how important this election is. if the democrats win the senate, they are in total control. all the seats of power. they also have an amplified propaganda arm in the media. they actually have everything. it's an interesting contrast, the exact opposite of 2016 to 2020. why did we learn so much? you said this earlier, why did we learn so much about government? in the media and the politics and how it all comes together as some sort of weird game. it's because trump was not bein

that's directed to justice alito.tice alito has the option to handle that application himself or to turn to the full court to ask for their input. sorry, few light turned off there -- okay -- automatically. anyway, can throw it to the full court. i believe with what happened before in pennsylvania with the three-day extension of the acceptance of ballots, he brought it to the full court to decide whether to grant interim relief, and they voted 4-4 and did not grant interim relief. lou: so chief justice roberts siding with the liberals on the, on the court. and, obviously, the nation is looking toward the supreme court with hope if not faith right now that our government will work in this extraordinary, extraordinary crisis. greg teufel, we thank you for being with us, and we thank you for all you're doing. you get the last word here. >> well, we look forward to hearing from the court. we think it's a very important case, and we encourage them to take it. lou: all right. thank you very much, greg. good to have you on t

dissenting opinion, justice thomas and justice alito wanted to hear the case.hey were absolutely right. this was an original jurisdiction case and when they should've taken. they should be commended for taking a stand. as we have discussed in great detail in this program, this case was built on two extraordinarily well argued, legally sound, constitutionally sound documented arguments. one, the suit detailed how article two of the constitution was violated. as stated in article two, it requires state legislatures to decide election policy. now, we have chronicled, clearly the american people see it, 83% according to a gallop for, it was violated in multiple ways, including pennsylvania. remember mail-in ballot deadline, we will just change it to whatever we want, without any lawmaker, legislative approval. again, only a state legislature, constitutionally, has the right to do that. look at georgia with that horrendous consent decree entered into because of a democratic party lawsuit with the secretary of state, and of course, they should have gone to the legisl

whoa, justice samuel alito, mr. "citizens united" himself, rejected the case? guess it makes sense. if you start taking constitutional rights away from citizens, what's next, taking constitutional rights away from corporations? another state where the president lost his fight against democracy is ariona, which certified joe biden's victory over a week ago. but last night, the arizona republican party retweeted a pro-trump account that said, "i am willing to give my life for this fight." adding in their retweet, "he is. are you?" arizonans, the g.o.p. is asking you to give your life to "stop a fraud" and a "stealing of an election," despite the fact that their own lawyer lawyers in aria court said: "we are not alleging fraud. we are not alleging anyone is stealing the election." so, don't do it. there are only two good reasons to die in arizona: grand canyon selfie and choking on a turquoise belt buckle. i don't know how it got in your mouth but i understand. elsewhere, desperate attempts to steal the election are happening deep in the heart of texas, led by tex

senator ted cruz is right and we will see what justice alito danse. >> sean: reince priebus laid out the good legal side with the president and wisconsin. >> that's exactly right. at the wisconsin case, the two most legally sound cases out there because wisconsin too, there's constitution very clearly lays out how absentee voting should be because they believe it susceptible to fraud. he needs to be highly regulated but instead you have individual saying i'm indefinitely confined because of fear at covid. i've no idea check, nothing come out thrown out the window, mass influx of mailing ballots with no i.d. check. legally sound, but one note here, sean, moving onto nevada for a second. i trained we are seeing is do not let them see the evidence. tonight when i've learned in nevada, we've appealed at the supreme court. we have a judge, justice on the supreme court who had to recuse herself or an affiliation with one of the joe biden electors. you have the attack dog leftist lawyers we don't want evidence submitted and dismiss it out of hand. we do not want to look at the evidence, be

alito would be. seen as you know. what's at hand there's a good time. why did you send him a nomination on a hot chick. so it made him such an album of numbers and given. that he's a kid because. this is before you get to. this kind of muffler. 'd of the how to get i mean the book that the model myth is that it appeared to happen to groupon pollies come to him. come from. the how did that wanted to fit difficult ones that don't want. excitement and digital small physic and then couldn't so a little bit not interested. in what did he say he did but. i want to go to development on the bus that i've been on that. the bush is the nominee he was called some of. them got to hear a lick of home want to. do it that could hug a man has to be looked at. and with whom i would just tell a child but because your father food if you will are the difference in the mode of the senate that the home again will. taste good as is what it's us. but it's a what the. skin used to say oh rob it was it was the that. and this got the money out of the. pharmacy through the would b