a few weeks ago, justice amy coney barrett gave a speech that was in some ways worse than alito, alito had let his talk be promoted and recorded. coney barrett did not inform the press ahead of her appearance and did not allow any video or audio recording. there's a couple of reporters present. so we know some of what she said like quote, my goal today is to convince you, the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks, judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties and the media along with hot takes on twitter report the results of decisions, it leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong based whether she liked the results of the decision. there she is, amy coney barrett, having walled herself off from criticism and claiming misinterpretation and attacking the press while not allowing them to record the speech. and she stood there claiming the justices are not partisan hacks when she herself is on on the court because mitch mcconnell shoved through her confirmation in near record speed in the last weeks of an election, having blocked a nominat

alito said this. quote, the catchy and sinister term of the shadow docket has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal. this is the supreme court justice who i think is doing his own best to damage the idea of the court as above the fray. our friend, barbara mcquaid, who we've both spent a lot of time on television with, it is impossible to get barbara to say anything political or catchy or sinister said this. it's a good reminder why courts should speak only through their orders. just alito's public remarks attacking supreme court critics is not an effective way of showing the court is above the political fray. what do you think is going on? do you think alito's watching too much cable? >> i think alito was triggered. and triggered for reasons. the data itself makes it clear that what is essentially happened is we have had a court that for the first time in this country is a right-wing activist court. i'm just calling it what it is. that's without judgment to what y

this is "politico's" reporting of a speech by justice alito. speaks out on texas abortion case and shadow docket. justice samuel alito leaped into a political fray over the supreme court on thursday. lashing back at critics who accused the justices of increasingly issuing momentous decisions on its emergency docket. without the benefit of a full briefing or oral arguments. alito said complaints about the court's shadow docket are misplaced and intended to conjure up images of justices conspiring to advance their ideological agendas under the cover of darkness. the catchy and sinister term shadow docket has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneakiness to get its way. this portrayal leads on precedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution. one measure how direct -- athlete alito was stepping into the battle, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing to air criticism of the high court for its use of the so-called shadow docket. in high profile case

justice alito? justice sotomayor. thank you, counsel. rebuttal, mr. fagan? >> thank you, mr.ustice, the court has been generous with its time and i want to make three points. they are all focused because that's the only thing the respondent is focused on this point. one is that my friend on the other side made a statement against a statement to entrance but i don't think it would come in and under that because his own administer -- his own admission would be to pin everything on the dead man. second, as far as the ability, they have focused on this indoctrination theory. i think that is not probative of anything that is mitigating here. essentially what they would be arguing to the jury is yes, he sent this jihadist literature but what really got me into the jihadist literature was learning that what the end of the road in jihad is committing murder and moreover, i am fed up by committing murder at the finish line of the boston marathon. i don't think that is physically -- particularly helpful or particularly probative as far as mitigation goes. and that brings up the third p

the most recent from supreme court justice alito who took on critics.is monday, but the justices have been unusually outspoken. five of the nine justices have made public appearances in recent weeks, speaking out about the divisions that have been deepening behind the scenes. >> i think the court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous. >> the danger in his mind is that the media and the public portray the court as political. thomas is the senior most jus tuss on the court. he spoke to students insisting he's driven by the law, not his own opinion. >> they think you're antiabortion or something, personally they think that's the way you'll always come out. they think you become like a politician. and i think that's a problem. >> the supreme court ignited a fire storm last month when it allowed a restrictive texas abortion law, essentially banning the procedure after six weeks, to take effect. the 5-4 decision came down in the middle of a night without a hearing causing critics to slam the action. a new poll

and give me a break, alito. give me a break. >> right?what we do all the time, is like saying, you're going to light an m-80 and throw it in your dining room and it's just the same as the kids having sparklers on the back patio. i mean, this was a big deal, and he knew it. the court knew it. they were letting this law go into effect, this bizarre vigilante law that wasn't about fetal viability. it wasn't about mississippi's law at 15 weekends. weeks. it was six weeks. and by the way, there are many states that are ready to take it back to fertilization. in terms of when a woman can be regulated and i got to tell you, my favorite sign over the weekends, since they're going to have a gun case too, there were so many many good signs. my favorite sign over the weekend was, if my uterus could shoot bullets, they wouldn't regulate it. >> that's the truth. claire, i go back to that day after trump's inauguration because i think the women's marches were precursor to democrats' success in the midterms and i think it's what president joe biden's ch

alito got angry about that but the truth is, the women of texas do not need me a columnist from "theve the right to end a pregnancy. they don't need me to tell them they don't have full control over their bodies because that is what the legal situation is in texas. if that bothers alito so much, maybe he should have reconsidered the decision he and the other courts conservatives make. >> do you think part of the answer here is for democrats to be as unembarrassed about moving the court back in the pro brown v board as conservatives. you're right. they're acting very politically. they don't want to be criticized but know they want these conservative outcomes. we all know that. they wouldn't have gotten the jobs they actively campaigned to be that person. everyone knew what kavanaugh and these guys were. that's how they got in. should democrats be as unembarrassed about trying to pull the courts back the other way? is that the answer? >> i don't think it's a question of shame. i think it's a question of the fact that the republican party is much less diverse ideological than the democr

what do you make of this public positioning to defend the court and alito's response to your work? >> i mean, this is obviously a disgraceful way for a justice to behave. this is one of the most powerful people in the american government, unable to face criticism without throwing a tantrum. he's not even addressing the criticism of what's called the shadow docket, which is not that it exists but it's used to make sweeping decisions outside of public scrutiny with an obvious partisan lean. alito giving a trump-like rant, attacking the press, is an example of exactly what i was writing about, which is the justices behaving like partisan figures while demanding they be treated above public criticism and scrutiny. you can't do that. there's no question that the practical effect of the court's decision was to reward a bad faith scheme by anti-abortion activists to nullify a constitutional right. women in texas no longer have a right on when to have birth. alito and his colleagues want to hide that, but those of us in texas who have loved ones who live there don't have the reality of tha

that was justice alito's question as well. mr. feigin: just to be clear on the couple of points you raised, i don't concede the premise, i agree with the way justice kavanaugh has analyzed it and i also do believe i was discussing most in depth probably was justice alito and the chief justice with respect to the statutory requirements in 3593 c, the district court has an important gatekeeping role here. i don't think that's disputed. it's not really an anything goes regime even in the penalty phase. it's a much lower evidentiary standard everyone agrees in the eighth amendment requires but it's not anything goes in the district court reasonably exercised discretion here to keep out inherently unreliable evidence that wasn't especially probative and had a substantial risk of confusing the jurors. >> justice barrett, anything further? >> i'm wondering what the governments endgame is here. so the government has declared a moratorium on executions but you here defending its death sentences and if you win presumably that means he is re

alito wrote a 77-page concurrence, it was probably originally a majority that he lost to explaining why smith should be overruled. barrett and kavanaugh said smith was wrong but we're not sure what to replace it with and we're not eager to overrule it until we figure that out. in addition, justice breyer, 25 years ago in burny, said smith should be reconsidered. roberts has joined such opinions on occasions. five, possibly six, possibly seven votes to reconsider smith when they're finally forced to do it. there are two cases on the docket, diocese of albany, about whether catholic institutions have to cover abortion in their employee insurance plans, and dignity health, a case from california about a catholic hospital which refused to permit a transgender surgical operation. those may well be laws without exceptions, those may well be on the conference at the end of the month so the court may have to face up to this issue sooner rather than later. what i mostly want to talk about is justice barrett's question, what replaces smith. she wants to think that through further, which is of cou

alito calling that criticism very misleading.ow all of the competing comments come right before the start of what is likely to be an explosive supreme court term. in early november, the justices will hear a case involving a new york gun law and then december 1st, that's the case on the mississippi law that restricts abortion at 15 weeks, a case, of course, that is leaving people wondering, will the court ultimately overrule roe v. wade. >>> cnn obtained more body cam video footage from the altercation between gabby petito and her fiance. we'll talk about this troubling exchange and more. >> where did he hit you? don't worry, just be honest. >> grabbed me like this. he can , she'll revisit her plan with fidelity. and with a scenario that makes it a possibility, she'll enjoy her dream right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. at aetna, we take a total, connected approach to your health and wellness to help you age actively. with medicare advantage plans designed for the whole you. we offer monthly plan premiums starting

alito wrote a concurrence that was originally a majority that he lost to explain why smith should be overruled. barrett and cavanaugh said smith was wrong but were not sure what to replace it with and were not eager to overrule until we figure that out. justice prior said smith should be reconsidered. roberts has joined such opinions on occasions. five possibly six votes to reconsider smith when they are forced to do it. there are two cases on the docket about whether catholic institutions have to cover abortion in their insurance plans and dignity health about a catholic hospital that refuse to permit a transgender surgical operation. they's -- they may be on the long conference. the court may have to face up to this issue sooner rather than later. what i want to talk about is justice or its question what replaces smith. she wants to think that through further. some of us have been thinking about that for a long time. the generally compelling interests protects any other function -- fundamental right. some exceptions that are obviously possible. the problem with intermediate scrutin

alito had a letter. smith was wrong but we don't know what to replace it with until we figure that out. bernie said smith should be reconsidered. roberts has joined such opinion in a certain amount of cases, so five, possibly six, possibly seven votes to reconsider smith when they're finally forced to do it. there are two cases on the docket about whether catholic institutions have to cover abortion and their employee insurance plans, and dignity health about a catholic hospital who refused to prevent a trans-surgical operation. those may well be without exceptions. those may well be in the conference at the end of the month, so the court may have to face up to this issue sooner rather than later. what i mostly want to talk about is judge barrett's question what replaces smith. she wants to think that through order, which is perfectly understandable, some of us have been thinking about that question for a long time. generally the compelling is interest is what replaces smith. it's what protects any other

alito and the leagues want to hide that behind procedure. but those in texas, whose loved ones have to live in that reality, do not have the luxury of such. and that's the issue here. and it's really -- if the court does not want to be seen as partisan, its justices can cease pursuing it as legal agenda. >> it was wild to see him take a swing at free press. it was wild to watch him seem to articulate your point for you. michelle, i want to take a wider view of the court as its skreblt slips away. "the washington post" writing, even the 6-3 division understates the tilt. the conservatives are much further to the right than the remaining liberals to the left. this is the most conserative court since the 1930s. and uniquely, one that ideological blocks aligns with the party of the president that appointed him. republicans working to restrict voting as the nation becomes more diverse. how is all of this, michelle, part of a bigger strategy for republicans to maintain power as their base shrinks? >> i think that one reason that the court is in su

speech to the extent parents -- alito stressed implied consent is less likely in off campus context where parents themselves retain control and supervision of their children. in a solo dissent justice thomas argued that the court's student speech doctrine going all the way back to tinker is not consistent with the original understanding of the first or 14th amendment. thomas argued that the right of schools to regulate students in place of parents was an accepted doctrine at the time of the founding, and the 14th amendment was not understood to apply those limitations to the states. so where does mahoney leave us. overall it's a win for student speech. it should not go unappreciated this is the first time since tinker that the supreme court has actually invalidated a school's punishment of speech after tinker were on an 0-3 losing streak. going forward, the guidelines that the court established, the students should rarely have their speech curtailed. nonetheless, the hesitancy for the court to establish any bright line rule, not even regulating off campus, political or religious spe

why she could single handily make a decision and in judge alito's case, they had to hold a vote.ost: mr. malcolm, do you want to start? guest: all of the justices are assigned different circuits to follow and emergency petitions come to them and they have the discretion to deny the request or to refer it to the full court to consider whether to hear the case or not. it doesn't mean that ultimately the issue involved whether in new york or the one that president biden wishes to impose, whether that will make it to the supreme court. it is whether or not it was going to be done on an expedited emergency basis. i am quite sure that as these that -- as these vaccine mandates start to affect, one of these cases will make its way up to the supreme court. guest: exactly. this was about whether it was beyond the emergency docket or not but i agree that at least one if not more of the vaccine mandate cases will make its way to the supreme court. i agree with the caller's frustration that we don't know more about that and many other decisions that are made on the emergency shadow docket be

justice samuel alito was more forceful in a speech at the university of notre dame, at times blastingurt as a dangerous kabal, deciding important issues in a novel, secretive and improper way in the middle of the night. alito calling the criticism the court was acting in a way that was sneaky or dangerous very misleading. all of these competing comments come at a time when the issues are set to get more divisive. the texas abortion law was decided strictly on procedural grounds but the court will hear a case on the merits involving abortion december 1st, a mississippi law that restricts abortion after 15 weeks. of course, today the term is set to begin in just minutes. there are two relatively under-the-radar cases, one involving a water rights dispute between states and another involving a criminal case, but of course, jim and erica, this is the first time that the justices will be back inside the courtroom hearing arguments in person in just about 18 months the one justice missing will be justice brett kavanaugh, he tested positive for covid last week, participating remotely. it is

that's s alito, hn rorts isut here and condrice andhe skny one'snn coult. (chuckli) wee been he for tanghundredsf years.tory and whenou look ck you s that wer is th fe of taier. water anthe folkonangier, 're join, we're nnected. (a horn bling)) - growing up on ngier s absoluly heave as a kide had bacally free rei of the land. (a horn bling)) - almostike, i gss, ving in amusement pk as abecause ere'sally freealways sff to do. (a horn bling)) [anna] mosof the men workn the war, which arts welbefore ght of aornin', and can go all throh the eving and ght. w[carolchances e,ore gevy soft cb that you'veaten camfrom is littlplace. [james] m dependt w[carolchances e,ore onringing the bouy of the csapeake y to pufood othe table, to p annow it'shat clege d jusme chesaake bay that'shreateni to take tan. - abt two yes ago i got ant toook at climatehange site in esapeakeaters - ad i seleed ago i got ant taier as msite. becae i realed how de thsituatiowas ouhere. a w schools built stilts. ter in people's ont rds, it'up to a ot deep. yoll see fisswimmingaround . you'll s b

samuel alito gave a fiery speech complaining how some internal processes were being interpreted.used to intervene in the texas abortion law, let that take effect which stopped abortion rights in texas september 1st. and he was defending the midnight order they put out and the processes that occur on their emergency docket. in a broader picture, brianna, he was the fifth of the nine justices to complain about public expectations, media coverage, and frankly fellow justices in just recent weeks. and it really underlines this potential for a declining public confidence and legitimacy of the supreme court. they say they're worried about that, but they are also sort of taking shots at outsiders and insiders. here's the deal. we have a 6-3 court now with three trump appointees. six conservatives all appointed by republicans. three liberals all appointed by democrats. and they're at odds. there is no getting around this partisan divide, even as amy coney barrett said i want to questions you we are not partisan hacks. but she says that in the face of divisions that look very partisan. so

that's s alito, hn rorts isut here and condrice andhe skny one'snn coult. huckli) wee been he for tanghundredsf years.tory and whenou look ck you s that wer is th fe of taier. water anthe folkonangier, 're join, we're nnected. (crowd cerin ir horn owing) - growing up on ngier s absoluly heave as a kide had bacally free rei of the land. ir horn owing) - almostike, i gss, ving in amusement pk as a kcause the'sally free rways stu to do. ir horn owing) [anna] most the n work othe wate which arts welbefore ght of aornin', and itan go l throug the eving and ght. w[carolchances e,ore gevy soft crab that you'veaten camfrom is littlplace. [james] m dependt w[carolchances e,ore onringing the bouyt of the csapeake y to t food othe table, to p d now it that clege d jsame chepeake ba. that'shreateni to take taie - abt two yes ago i got ant toook at climatehange site in esapeakeaters - ad i seleed ago i got ant taier as msite. becae i realed how de thsituatiowas ouhere. a w schools builon stilt ter in people's ont rds, it'up to a ot deep. yoll see fisswimmingaround . th's sometng that ppens on a faiy regulab

i think that reading both the majority opinion and justice alito lower courts are hopefully going to be pretty deferential to speech with a political surveillance unless it is a figure leaf to get away with bullying and i think also any sort of speech where the notion is like it creates a hostile environment but is to the particularly directed at another staupbt that is pushing the line where it is arguably just generalized comments, not one of those narrow exceptions like bullying that the justice breyer's opinion said would justify it. >> i remember when you read smith in law school and it seemed eminently sensible. you kind of mentioned it. what really is wrong with that decision? it is just a matter of misinterpreting the clause? >> there's no originalism in the opinionment there's almost no text in the opinion. he says owe connor's separate opinion says you can't prohibit the free accuse of -- exercise of religious. at the prohibited it. what part do you not understand. he said the text doesn't have to be spwrpbted that way. that is the textual argument. every colonel think incl

why she could single handily make a decision and in judge alito's case, they had to hold a vote. host: mr. malcolm, do you want to start? guest: all of the justices are assigned different circuits to follow and emergency petitions come to them and they have the discretion to deny the request or to refer it to the full court to consider whether to hear the case or not. it doesn't mean that ultimately the issue involved whether in new york or the one that president biden wishes to impose, whether that will make it to the supreme court. it is whether or not it was going to be done on an expedited emergency basis. i am quite sure that as these that -- as these vaccine mandates start to affect, one of these cases will make its way up to the supreme court. guest: exactly. this was about whether it was beyond the emergency docket or not but i agree that at least one if not more of the vaccine mandate cases will make its way to the supreme court. i agree with the caller's frustration that we don't know more about that and many other decisions that are made on the emergency shadow docket

justice alito: you don't have many trials.trial for murder, you don't have a trial about murder why and murdered c. -- murder y and murder z. to what degree can adjudge say we are not going to do this? another trial within this trial about what happened would evolve. john: justice kagan suggested that the jury should have had the chance to hear it. justice kagan: this is a classic case in which the evidence understood one way is highly relevant to a mitigation defense and the evidence understood in the way use adjusted says that is crazy. it does not happen at way. but that is what a jury is supposed to do. >> there was going to be no cross-examination. the only people who have known what happened are dead. john: justice barrett asked about pres. biden's opposition to the death penalty. juice barre: if you win, that means that he is relegated to living under the threat of a death sentence the government does not plan to carry out. >> what we are asking is if the sound judgment of 12 respondents appears that he wants capital pu

of course people like alito doesn't want people to know what's going on. is sitting here behind the curtain. that's where we are right now. >> a great impression. >> i know that you are a branding expert. i mention that poll just moments ago, public perception is hurting. do you think the justices are feeling some of the pressure given the fact that you had at least, by my count, five of them doing interviews or making public statements about the perception of the court and the image of the court just within the last couple of weeks? has all this speaking out done more harm than good? >> i think it's done a little bit more harm than good. the reason why i think that is because never really do you hear much out of the supreme court justices on the media. you really don't hear much about it. the other thing of it was, do you remember when trump was running and campaigning, he would make references to the supreme court nominations. i think it would rally a lot of the conservative base that he had to make different decisions on how they were going to vote for

justice alito was forceful in a speech, blasting the media for portraying the conservative leaning courtiddle of the night, calling that criticism very misleading. >> thank so jessica schneider for that report. >>> let's get a preview on the upcoming scotus session with cnn contributor steve laddic, a professor of law at the university of texas school of law. thank you for joining us, sharing part of your weekend with us and your expertise. we've heard pretty strong public opinions from justices recently including that comment from justice aleeito, rejecting criticism the justice is a c a bal. what do you think this remarks suggest? >> it's a great question. i think first of all perhaps most surprisingly the justices are reading their criticisms. part of why i think we haven't seen this before is because we've assumed the justices paid no mind to folks like us, but also i think what it suggests they actually see the decline in approval polls and they are worried. they should. because the court's legitimacy and power really depends not on any police force, the supreme court doesn't have a

hot in the north bay, 88 in , 74 for sauce alito. sunny and warm in the east bay. 86 union city. inland we are spending much of the afternoon in the 90's. 91 is an walnut creek, 91. tuesday, widespread cooler weather. tuesday afternoon, our warmest cities will struggle to even reach 80 degrees. the next seven days it is hazy and warm tomorrow, much cooler as we head into tuesday with better air quality on wednesday. look at thursday, a lot of cloud cover, barely touching 70. that's going to feel like october. chance of showers friday into early saturday. >> abc 7 sports sponsored by river rock casino. >> october 3 has historically been a great day in san francisco giants history. 1951, the shot heard round the world. 2010, the giants won the nl west on the final day against the -- the final day of the regular season against the padres. deja vu all over again in 2021. let's go to the highlights from oracle park. what a day it was. ron wotus going to retire. the fans give him a standing ovation. logan webb, postseason form on the final day of the regular season. struck out eight in

officials with santa cruz county were sending evacuees to the core alito's community center where the red cross had set up in evacuation side. it closed about an hour ago, but people are still encouraged to reach out to the red cross for help. now this story, high speed police chase this afternoon ends with a bus slamming into a home in oakland, investigators say is still in car police were chasing caused the crash at 10th street and market. ktvu zack saw spoke with the homeowner and he was home when the crash happened, zack. yeah good evening. that bus crashing right into the homes living room. we spoke with the homeowner earlier. just thankfully. wasn't downstairs when it all happened. heard a lot of screaming and shouting. and next thing i know. the bus was kareem in into the house, darryl meshad, who relies on a lift to get around his home moments from riding down to his kitchen when this transit bus beard into his home in oakland, did not. all of the. supporting beings like two by fours, four by fours, and all of it that's in the living room. it all started around two in the afte

so, justice alito defended what the supreme court did last month by saying, look, it was just procedurale. but i think that really, as we talked about before, a slice of bologna far too thinly but now let's take justice alito at his word. roe vs. wade is the law of the land. when this case goes up to the court of appeals for the fifth circuit, court of appeals cannot overrule the supreme court. so what that means is effectively that the court of appeals is going to have to affirm the decision yesterday. they can try on technicalities and so on, but i take justice alito, what he said at his word and it makes it very difficult for the court of appeals to do anything but stop the enforcement of the texas law. what that then does is set up a supreme court decision, do they want to hear this on the shadow docket, which means no oral argument, just kind of, you know, quick decision on whether roe vs. wade is the law of the land? i don't think so. i think they will have to set this case for oral arguments and then the question you asked me will be played out in realtime, with an oral argument,

were not good with certain historians that do predicted in the bonaventure case out of arizona judge alito said today is not as it was in 1982 with the renewal of the voting rights act at that time, i'm fascinated that over the centuries we have the same excuses the set of these cases and whether the results are intentional or unintentional and had devastating effects upon minorities. >> i want to thank everybody in this discussion and i want to thank you, the authors for participating in the southern festival of books. i want to thank everybody for attending and i want to remind people, don't forget that the book purchase link for this section is posted in the chat it is good for books and it's also supporting a good cause and again, i appreciate this very informative discussion and his and as a citizen in both of these books are valuable in learning and being a better citizen than learning the history of our country. with that i will close it down and again, thank you. >> more from the southern festival of books. >> good afternoon i am lee curtis with the philbin on behalf of humanity an

justice alito the other day saying that the court wasn't a dangerous cabal, for instance. do you get the sense that they're getting further out of sync with the public sentiment on an issue like abortion and that that may lead to moderation in the future? or is that just wishful thinking on the part of liberals? >> i think no moderation in the future. this is preparing us for what's about to happen. this is a huge term that will start on monday, october 4th. it's not just the abortion case, it's gun control, it's religious rights, it's freedom of speech, it's potentially affirmative action, it's money in politics. this is a huge term coming up. and i think that they are defending themselves for what we know will very likely happen. i don't see moderation. i think that there are conservative justices who have been picked for the express purpose of making these decisions and they will make them and the country will look very different in ten months than it does now. >> wow. all right. well, we'll be following all of those cases, of course. jessica levenson, always great to g

justices gulch, thomas, and alito dissented.p next, a republican member of the committee investigating the capitol riot is retiring from congress. lawmakers investigating the riot hear from some of the defendants. we will have a live report. ♪ ever wonder how san francisco became the greenest big city in america? just ask the employee owners of recology. we built the recycling system from the ground up, helping san francisco become the first city in the country to have a universal recycling and composting program for residents and businesses. but it all starts with you. let's keep making a differene together. ♪ ♪ >> bret: illinois republican congressman adam kinzinger says he will not seek re-election next year. kinzinger is a' critic of president trump and on the panel investigating the capitol riot. came after illinois announced redistricting plans for his district. the military veteran was one of 10 house republicans who voted to impeach then president trump on a charge of inciting the insurrection. >> in congress, i have wit

justices alito, barrett, and breyer have said recently the court isn't political or partisan, but it seems to be they doth protest too much. what should we expect from the court in this term? and is there any fix for its tarnished reputation among many americans? >> yeah, the justices might say it's not political or partisan, but it is certainly idealogical. what we have seen in the last 20 years through the nomination process and the behavior of united states senators is the insistence of the majority particularly republicans on strictly idealogical justices. and so they behave that way when they're pressed with very significant court cases. look, all eyes, reverend al, are going to be on the abortion issue because this is not -- for years thrk pro-life movement tries to tweak roe v. wade, almost use it against itself, using the viability standard to try to ban early term abortions. but what we have seen out of texas and other states totally turned roe on the head, the six-woon ban throws out the viability standard. the second standard is this undue burden. that is part and parcel o

and at times alito blasted the media for portraying the court as a cabal. calling the criticism that the court was acting in a way that was sneaky or dangerous, very misleading. and these competing comments come at a time when issues are only set to get more divisive. of course that texas abortion law was actually decided on strictly procedural grounds. on december 1st, the justices will hear arguments on the merits of the mississippi abortion law that restricts most abortions after 15 weeks. it is leaving many to wonder will the court ultimately overrule roe v. wade. brianna. >> yeah. many are wondering. jessica schneider at the court, thank you. let's talk about this with cnn chief legal analyst and former federal more jeffrey toobin. this will be a wild ride. what are the three things you're watching. >> abortions for starters. donald trump, when he ran for president, said i will appoint justices who will vote to overturn roe v. wade. in the procedural ruling at the end of august, all three of his nominees did vote in effect to overturn roe v. wade by al

justice alito was in indiana yesterday giving a speech. court has been very careful here, jim. >> quite a fiery speech, in fact, at the court. thanks so much. >>> today more vaccine mandates are going into effect around the country. this is some very encouraging data showing that these mandates are working. one of the largest hospitals in rhode island said it vaccinated more than 95% of its workforce in new york, 92% of nursing home and hospital staff have received at least one dose so far. >>> across the country, vaccination rates appear to be on the rise. more than 77% of adults have had at least one dose. nearly 67% now fully vaccinated. joining us to talk through more of this, the director of the vaccination education center at children's hospital of philadelphia and a member of the vaccine advisory committee. always good to have you with us. good morning. as we look at that number of adults who had at least one shot, i think it's interesting, too, of eligible americans, those 12 and up, 75% have had at least one shot. that's incredibl

somewhat frighteningly, and in contradictions history, we have had three justices, at least, thomas, alito and a third, -- a majority has not bought into that. a majority says, yes, excessively long sentences violate the constitution. but the court determines what is an excessively long sentence. it's excessively impossible to satisfy. and these have been struck down on that test, even in a country where you have this long sentence for an 80 dollar check forging. so in hamilton forces michigan, under that, if you want to challenge under the eighth amendment, you have to show that the sentence is grossly disproportionate. for the court, that means, you have to show that the state has no reasonable basis for having a subpoena logical goal. a penal article goal means restitution, and this one is the kicker -- in capacity. so you have to incapacitate you for a long time. then the state has a basis. then you have the supreme court and lower court decision that says it is okay to get a 25 year sentence for stealing a slice of pizza, because that's how you incapacitate them. so here are some real

justice neil gorsuch joined by alito, thomas, three of the strongest conservatives on the court saidng. here's what they said. many other states adopted religious exemptions, maine charted a different course. their health care workers served on the frontlines of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being hired and their practices shut erred for adhering to constitutionally protected religious beliefs. their plight is worthy of our attention. that was only three of the conservatives in dissent there. that could really gain steam because there's reason to believe justice cavanaugh an and barrett if more challenges come may begin to agree with that line of thinking and timing is critical. not only are we seeing more mandates put into effect as this goes on, we're seeing more legal challenges. so the court, three justices sent up a flare. if you're going to have mandates, make sure there's a religious exemption. we'll see if it gathers steam in the coming weeks and months as it plays out. >> you have a busy calendar ahead. we'll let you move to the next case. thanks so much. importa

. >> perception, yes, whether it's justice alito, justice sotomayor, what's going on? >> and justice barrett. >> and justice thomas to a point. is this just -- it was inevitable, even the supreme court -- guys are going to start chattering more? or is this a bitterly divided court? >> i think it's a little of both. briar started this largely because he has a book coming out. he has a book that's out saying we're not just political hacks. we make decisions, and the reason we often divide is that we have different views of what the law is, not that we're partisan hacks. so he sort of started all this. and then i think the justices, you know, they can read the papers. they know that the public opinion polls that have recently come out have been very low numbers for the supreme court, and they also know that this is a highly contentious term when there are questions important to conservatives. so they're trying to foam the run away. >> we're just hearing this senate judiciary committee has this full report between the president and all this. one of the recommendations is t

but we know that conservatives like alito and thomas may very well find new arguments to let the lawl the eggs in the basket of this litigation. why aren't we seeing the biden administration call for an end to the filibuster to pass women's health protection act to cot phi roe? we need to see all steps taken to preserve abortion rights. otherwise we are going to continue to see laws like the texas one. >> rev, i'm not a democratic strategist. i worked on the other side. i regret it most of the days these days. but i am part of the democratic voting coalition. i cannot for the life of me figure out why an issue -- i mean, 85% of all abortions are banned. 100% of abortions for rape and incest are essentially banned. i would lead with this story every day if democrats would hold hearings. why is it -- is it just a matter of band width? why isn't this a bigger deal? >> the reason it's not a bigger deal is i think the democrats are really missing the point of how much this needs to be their lead in terms of bringing it to the public. because there would be overwhelming support for the dem