justice alito: i mean, really? i mean suppose a legislature enacted a statute that said henceforth people of a certain race may not make any public statement, and someone brings suit under that. the judge begins to enforce that just by entertaining the suit? mr. hearron: i think, in -- justice alito: even if it's certain that at the end of the case the judge is going to say no, this is an invalid -- this is an unconstitutional statute? mr. hearron: i think, in certain circumstances, that even in a situation like s.b. 8, where the point is the filing of the suit and the point is the making you appear in courts all across the state over and over again, making you a permanent defendant, that - justice breyer: who -- mr. hearron: in these circumstances i'm -- yes? justice breyer: were you finished? because i'm taking up his argument. look, you say a judge is, at least in many circumstances, an enforcer. there are 4 billion tort suits in the united states, okay? and probably in 3 billion of them, somebody thinks somethi

is he proving to be as conservative as alito? >> most of the time, he is voting with thomas, alito and morema often than not what he ds often, he doesn't sign on to their opinions in the dissent. what he's doing is he has he doesn't like to sign on to their sort ofe hard right angrym rhetoric even though he comes down in the same place he will put a soft glow, a soft machine and in the case he cited with them against but he opened his opinion to what great contributors to society and there was some immigration cases he was eloquent about what the immigrants have contributed to the country but he still came down against case at hand. he definitely is on board with expanding religious liberties even at the expense of antidiscrimination laws. to expand gun rights. >> where is the funding coming from for this movement? >> there is any number of bottomless pockets out there that are conservatives. this has been true going back where very conservative businessmen especially after the new deal have been putting their money into groups t

>> their last names were not alito or thomas. look, it seems a little too cute. i understand what he's doing and he's trying to make a point. but that law in texas and mississippi, these are lawed that have passed through the legislature's lane by the governor. i don't know that governor gavin newsom can do this unilaterally. but he's trying to make a point.

justice alito spelled the argument today. is it ever okay to just overturn a case that is egregiously wrong and he eventually got them to admit plessy versus ferguson should have been over the following year and recognize how wrong the decision was and pressed hard on that. at the end of the day he also seemed to be on the same page. the more interesting comment was brett kavanaugh who had an interesting colloquy with the planned parenthood attorney in which he said you cannot accommodate the two, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy, he didn't deny that but there's a fetal right issue and those two can't be accommodated. one has to win and one loses. who makes that decision? do we get to decide which interest prevails or should that be left to the people and he advocated what he called scrupulous neutrality by the court. the court should take no position, shouldn't be looking to strike down laws like in california that are very solicitous to abortion, shouldn't get involved in that but nor should it strike down laws like

he is most of the time voting with alito in gorsuch more often than not. what he does not do though is he does not sign on to their opinion or dissent but often the majority as well so what he is doing is he doesn't like to sign on to their hard right in alito's case angry rhetoric. he wants to take a case even though it comes down to the same place. he will put a soft glow won it, and for instance in the case he sided with them against but he offered his opinion to just what great contributors men and women are and it was some immigration cases where he had eloquence about what a tough time some of these immigrants had a what immigrants have contributed to this country but it came down against the immigrants. >> he definitely is on board with expanding religious liberties even to the extent of antidiscrimination laws and explicitly calling for the court to expand gun rights. >> morgan asked where's it coming from for this --. >> there is any number of bottomless pockets out there that are conservative and this is true going back to the 20th century where

justice alito? >> as to the potential private plaintiffs, how can they be bound under rule 65 under the federal rules of civil procedure? with what party with they acting in concert? >> they're acting in concert with the state of texas which has created the bounty that incentivizes their conduct and created the apparatus through the enforcement proceedings -- >> with the state, not with any individual who is a party? >> that's right. we believe they act in concert with the state which is the named defendant here and bound by the injunction. >> so would any private plaintiff bringing any common law tort suit be acting in concert with the state under the laws of which that claim is asserted? >> no, but there's a world of difference between an ordinary private right of action and the exercise of that kind of private enforcement and what sb 8 contemplates -- >> i understand that. why is the question whether they're acting in concert with the state any different? here they're acting in concert with texas

justice alito if there's any doubt i think dispelled at that argument today. he pressed it very hard on the question of is it ever okay to overturn a case that is egregiously wrong. he eventually got to the u.s. solicitor to admit plessy versus ferguson should have been overruled the following year had you had new justices on the court that would have recognized how wrong that decision wasn't he pressed hard on that so i think he's in. justice gorsuch played it closer to the vest but i think at the end of the day he also seemed to be on the same page. the more interesting comment i saw was justice kavanaugh, he had an interesting soliloquy with the planned parenthood attorney in which he said you cannot accommodate the trickle interests here. the woman has a right to her bodily economy, he didn't deny that but he said there's a fetal issue and those two can't be accommodated, one has to win and one loses and it comes down to who makes that decision. do we get decide which interest prevails and should that be left for the people. he added a scrupulous neutralit

alito even going as far as calling it arbitrary saying why should we not protect a child ultimately beforeate's interest in a child's right to live any different before that arbitrary line than later. i'm very hopeful based on the library of questioning from many of the justices it looks like they think that the law is junk and has been for decades and it has been. it's illogical and inhumane and time town do bad precedent. pete pete look at that decision in 1937 and question where they got that constitutional right to begin with. shannon, based on what you know, it was almost surreal to watch the coverage today impacted on counsel tri when do you know about when this would be decided and next steps? >> shannon: what happens now on friday following the arguments, they have a closed door super secret vote where the justices make their initial assessment how they will come down on the case that will likely launch weeks and months of writing opinions, of trying to bring people over, sway votes. it happens there is back and forth before we ever know. i suspect that this will come down in late

justice alito asks about what courts were doing in 1868 and 1869. i mean, if that's really a litmus test over whether you can overrule a fundamental right then there are all kinds of things we have to worry about including civil rights and racial justice because guess what? we did not have a lot of rights based in 1969. >> i want you to invite on this question of precedent, what you heard justice sotomayor whether or not they could support the stench and the politicization of the court itself and what that would mean for the american people? >> well, the court is already suffering under the public skepticism about its legitimacy. this is the reason why justice roberts has to come out a few years ago and say that there are no such things as trump justices or judges and obama judges or justices because donald trump had made very clear that through the way in which he was nominating judges, it was a very clear, political and partisan type of way of doing that. this push the hand of the chief justice to say that we don't play in that way, although the p

that is certainly how justice alito sounded.interpret questions, but some questions are more assertions about what they think the laws should be. after the question phase they do say what the law is. here is alito. >> the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change. does it? from the point before viability to the point after viability. >> emily. >> well, i think it is pretty clear that alito and justice gorsuch and thomas are ready to overturn roe. the votes in play are from chief justice roberts and maybe kavanaugh or barrett. i thought kavanaugh invoking a great hit list of overruling of precedent and how important that has been under scored his feeling you could add roe to the list and it deserved to be overturned. the same way as plessy vs. ferguson that upheld the principle of separate but equal. if you think of roe in those terms, why would you keep it. justice barrett's questions about adoption suggested as she said was separating the burdens of parenthood on women from the burdens of being pregnant. a

when justice sandra day o'connor retired given the calendar year 2006 and was replaced by justice alito, george w. bush. the court launched immediately and noticeably to the right a variety of questions including racial inequality and ruth ginsburg started becoming quite alarmed and upset and started writing increasingly. a few years later when the court cut the guts out of the act in the shelby county case, she gave this dissent saying you don't need the voting rights act anymore it's like throwing away the umbrella because it stopped raining and this kind of thing. that was the last eight or so years of her tenure, and this happened at a time when we needed her voice. something was happening at the court. something was happening in american politics into somebody was going to have to call it out. just speaking as a citizen, i would have been -- i would have felt cheated knowing i had missed that and as i say, with the changes of not too many votes and president hillary clinton wouldn't be in the state that we are in today. 2010 as the years she became the senior justice among the libe

justice alito asking, can we have another compromise or do we have to throw it all out? listen. >> i read your brief to say that the only real options we have are to reaffirm roe and casey as they stand or to overrule them in their entirety. you say that, quote, there are no half measures here. is that a correct understanding of your brief? >> that is just what mississippi is now arguing, right? we think you should throw out r roe and casey? >> they said that repeatedly in their arguments, they said that in their brief. but, john, they did leave as a possibility that the court could uphold the mississippi law and rewrite the standard here saying that mississippi does not put an undue burden on women with this 15-week mark. that would fly in the face of casey that said viability was at 23 or 24 weeks. so there is maybe a middle ground here, but five of these justices really seem to be leaning toward overturning roe completely. john? >> jessica, i appreciate your live report and i appreciate your patience. it's tough to do that outside with some democracy happening around

you indicated that we should reconsider in response to justice alito. we don't think this is the case. we think the statute is unambiguous. the court disagrees with you. what does that look like? >> even if one thinks the reading in this circuit is the realm of possibility and is a valid justification for invoking chevron, which i don't think it is, that there is a best reading of the statute and it's our reading because the consequence of reading it in a way that the government is asking you to read it is that you really do read something congress prescribed as ismandatory as a precondition fr setting and you turn it into an option that isn't the best of the statute so that it gets to where we want to go. the other way seems to me. it is suggested that the case is part of a troubling trend, but the court has emphasized repeatedly the lower court should employ the statutory interpretation as it turns out at least according to the studies only about 30% of them resolve cases in step one and this case is an example of that troubling trend. i want to give

justice gorsuch and justice alito. [applause] and i want to acknowledge even though she could not be here with us tonight, our newest justice who could not join last year, just as amy coney barrett. -- justice amy coney barrett. i was pleased when president trump nominated justice barrett and i was pleased to support her in the senate even though as some of you may recall, i was on the president shortlist for that very job. i still remember when he called me right beforehand to say, tom, they are telling me to put you on this list but you have got a great job. why would you want to go work in that boring court? i said, mr. president, you can only put me on the list if you promise not to nominate me. he said tom, only put you on the list if you promise not to serve. i guess the president thought i should stick to electoral politics given my famously warm and approachable manner. you know, it is ok i was not the president's first court -- first choice for the court. for all of our friends at the federalist society, jean,

the alternative is the gorsuch, thomas, alito way.ore, just outlaw each and every abortion. >> exactly. and that's what is so terrifying, leaving this decision up to the individual states. if we can return back to our period of reconstruction following the civil war, the whole point of the 14th anticipate was to protect the rights of people who were marginalized, enslaved back people. the fact that it protects an individual's right to bodily dignity, liberty and to leave that up to the states, the whim of a majority vote of state legis legislators, cuts directly against what we have with the fourteenth amendment and due process clause. >>. >> you identified brett kavanaugh as one of the big unknowns with amy coney barrett. john roberts indicated 15 weeks might be okay with him. brett kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, talked about the importance of precedent and really seemed to indicate that he believed in relying on precedent. he talked about roe. he talked about casey. listen to this. . >> what would you say your position

justice alito? >> if some abortions have been chilled, is there any way to determine the degree to which that is the result of the potential for s.b.-8 suits from the degree to which it is attributable to the fear of liability if roe or casey is altered? >> i don't think there's a way to disaggregate those, and undoubtedly individuals engaging in protective contact that bully the protection might be renewed for reasonably believe that there undoubtedly there's an expert shielding filter that's not a true bill to the state or anyone else to the matter. >> with the issuance of the injunction sought by the united states have any effect on liability for abortions performed after the effective date of this act? >> so it would prevent -- and would have prevention of liability that might stopping one from filing a lawsuit but, of course, the injunction prevent someone from filing a lawsuit doesn't prevent a state law from being effective and that they could file in another form or in some way not covered b

. >> justice alito? >> suppose this happens, a woman shows up at the clerk's office and says i want to file a pro se complaint against the doctor who performed my abortion because it caused me physical and/or emotional harm and i want to sue under sb 8 because i want actual damages but i also want the $10,000 in liquidated damages. and you say the clerk should say what? >> the clerk should reject the filing of that lawsuit. >> thank you. >> justice sotomayor. >> i flume any other lawsuit based on common law torts, emotional infliction of harm, breach of contract, medical malpractice, whatever else was available, would still be available to that woman. >> if there is a common law tort lawsuit that is not an sb 8 lawsuit, yes. >> contract or otherwise. common law tort or contract. >> yes. >> thank you. >> justice kagan. >> should one of your arguments prevail or another argument in support of your position prevail, it doesn't matter exactly which argument it is to me, what exact relief are you requesting?

amy: so that is new york senator -- solicitor being questioned by samuel alito. kris brown, talk about the significance of this and the nra . i mean, it has -- the issues of bankruptcy, the issue of corruption at its lowest in and still democrats and republicans alike cower just a thought they would take aim at them, which clearly does not look like they can at this point? >> that is a very good question. look, the nra built its reputation led by when lapierre -- there was a struggle for power at the nra in the 1970's. unfortunate for all americans, love pier 1. ever since that time, he is been promoting really guns everywhere view of the second amendment and justice ali's questioning is a logical following of that false notion about the second amendment. in the colonies themselves, there were many -- this torque will proceed and sit set forth in all you because briefs for the kinds of regulationshat existed with respect to storage of goods and homes and with respect to carrying guns in public places where it was assumed the state, that the government d an intere

justice alito. >> you mentioned the common law. let me ask you about history. did any state constitutional provision recognize abortion was a right, liberty or immunity in 1868 when the 14th amendment was adopted? >> no, but it had been allowed under the common law for many years. >> does any judicial decision at that time or shortly or immediately after 1868 recognize that abortion was a right, liberty or immunity? >> there were state high court decisions shortly before then talking about the ability of women to end a pregnancy. >> what is your best case? >> for the right to end a pregnancy, your honor? allowing a state to take control of a woman's body and force her to undergo the physical demands, risks and life altering consequences of pregnancy is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty. once the court recognizes it deserves protection it needs to draw a workable line and viability is the line that balances the interests at stake. >> a brief for the american historical association says abortion was not legal before quickening in 26 out of 37 states at the

some of the more conservative justices like justice alito or justice thomas hinting at wanting much morethey are proponents of completely overturning roe v. wade. the question will be which side of the conservative barrier, if you will, will win that disagreement? will they go with the more conservative, or will they go with the compromise, which is restricting a little bit abortion rights, but not overturning roe v. wade? mark: spell out for us what happens if roe v. wade is overturned. what would that mean for abortion rights within the united states? analyst: well,t would completely transform access to abortion in the united states. of course, we are tking about a misssippi law, but this will have repercussions across the country, starting th these 1 states that have so-called trigger laws. what are these trigger laws? they are laws that are already on the books in these states that are usually mostly republican-led states, and they really spell out that if the supreme court would overturn roe v. wade, these laws would automatically come into action, and automatically virtually ban al

times reports, quote, assuming the three most conservative members of the court, justices alito, thomasd gorsuch are prepared to overrule roe entirely chief justice roberts would need to i a tract two votes for narrower opinion, one upholing mississippi law but not overruling roe in so many wore to be controlling. but justices kavanaugh and coney barrett said little to incline they were inclined toward the narrowing approach. justices ryan, kagan, and society myiar, the liberal justices insisted the dangers of overturning a watershed decision like roe with society mayior asking whether the court would survive the stench of being a political institution. surviving the stench in the words of justice society my major, possibly the only question about the mississippi case is where we start today. joyce vance is here at the table. also at the table, john heilemann, nbc news and nbc national affairs analyst as well as the host of the hell and high podcast. and -- >> take me through where this ended today. >> where this ended is an interesting question. it is just the right one to start with.

different and then in 2005 when i was the washington bureau chief of the globe, we were covering the alito and roberts nominations and one day in the office i was readingo a large print encyclopedia and saw a reference who was widely believed to be the half-brother, an african-american man the son of an enslaved woman and harland's father who became a very well-known civil rights leader in his own right actually before harland and before john harland and interacted with him and have a real relationship with him. in some ways that is a key to how he managed to see things differently and that was the term of the book. >> it's fascinating because even the title of the book is a bit of a paradox. it meant his arguments didn't carry the day which meant he was a lonely voice that was against the majority so i wondered if you could say a little bit about the purpose of the dissent and how it's informed later generations. it seems like he was largely ignored or forgotten back then but what do we take from the dissent now? >> by far it is the powerful example of how the dissent becomes law over tim

washington, luminaries such as robert bork, clarence thomas, scalia, steve williams, doug ginsberg, sam alito, lieberman otis, ray randolph, lillian devere, the list goes on and on. i have to stop. but i cannot forget the thrill in your young faces when you came face-to-face with bob bork or clarence thomas or nino scalia. to this day i encounter lawyers , all over the country including members of the cabinet, public -- cabinet secretary's, prominent lawyers and public officials, who attended those summer parties as young students. they cannot wait to tell me what an inspiration that afternoon was for them. many of you are here tonight. this is just a part of barbara's legacy. this speech is called the barbara k. olson memorial lecture, although i never cared for the term lecture. it sounds too much like a colonoscopy [laughter] or any recent speech by president biden. [laughter] so, i prefer to think of this as a remembrance. so, in preparing for this evening i thought i might try to , channel barbara and what she , might think and say about the state of politics and society in america today

saying the state's greatest responsibility is to protect our most vulnerable which justices samuel alitosuch and clarence thomas dissented. the force is charging 27 airmen for refusing to get the covid vaccine, they are discharged over vaccine refusal, she says the airmen were in their first term, so they were longer in your low ranking, this legislation that would give servicemembers who were suits that interviews the vaccine an honorable discharge, none of the 27 airmen sought any type of exemption. >> maryland school but under 5 reading more days off to the calendar to give stressed-out teachers a break but with the relief for moms and dads. jennifer lynn joins me now. thanks for being here. everyone is stressed. i've done the research but i've not talked to one person who is in stress. why are teachers being given extra days off to deal with that stress? >> fantastic question. the rationale given by the board is unacceptable at this time. the given us conflicting reason saying on the one hand it is professional developed, on the other hand planning time, two very different things whi

and then in 2005 when i was the washington bureau chief for the globe, we were covering the bureau, alito and roberts and one night in the office i was reading the french encyclopedia of the supreme court and saw a reference to who was widely believed to be his half-brother, african-american man, the son of an enslaved woman and became a very well-known civil rights leader in his own right and interacted with him and had a relationship with him so it's the key to how he managed to see things differently and and that was the term of the book. >> even the title of the book the great dissenter in the paradox i think the idea that he was dissenting in his arguments didn't carry the day which meant he was a lonely voice that was against the majority, so i wondered if you could say a little bit about the purposes of the fact and how it has informed later generations. it seems like he was largely ignored or forgotten back then but what do we take from the dissent now. >> before, there were several famous the dissents. it was a strong and powerful statement in opposition. when the great john mars

. >> justice alito. >> what can you tell us about the state multidistrict litigation? when this law was enacted i believe in the middle of may, when were those suits filed? where do they stand now? are they being delayed as a result of the federal court litigation? how quickly might we expect to see a decision in that case? >> i can answer some of those questions, your honor, they were filed fairly promptly just before sb 8's effective date. there are currently 14 of them proceeding in a multidistrict litigation. there's motions for summary judgment are due ten days from now, so i assume that the judge is acting on a highly expedited schedule. as to whether they will be post motions practice or other than that, i couldn't say for you, but i have very little doubt the texas courts are going to treat this as a case to treat expeditiously. >> they were filed around the time when sb-8 took effect or around the time when it was enacted back in may? >> i believe it was around when sb took effect. >> and are they being delayed as a result of the federal court litigation? >> i

me like there were five votes, possible for overturning, three in particular, or such, thomas and alitother two bret kavanaugh and amy coney barrett suggested whether questions could be and then you have chief justice roberts clearly trying to set out a midline, why don't you explain where he's at. >> essentially he seems to be asking if there's a way we can do away with this standard and uphold the law at 15 weeks and not overturn roe v. wade or planned parenthood in the issue with that is where is the line? there will be other court challenges, 15 weeks or a state that passes the law, a ban at 14 weeks or 13 weeks and perpetual cases will be coming up to the supreme court so none of the other justices neither of the lawyers on either side are interested in taking the chief justice up on that offer. paul: well okay but he's a persuasive fellow monk you think you could pull justice barrett and kavanaugh's way? >> it's hard to know, i agree with kim, sometimes they go into these oral arguments and think they, one way and the chief justice finds his keen legal mind and another way to pull

alito? justice sotomayor? >> i just wanted to get your quick sense of how your intermediate positions would work, if basically the viability line was discarded and undue burden became the standard overall, a standard that according to you is an unclear one, what that would leave the court with going forward? you know, i'm just sort of thinking about the great variety of regulations that states could pass, so whether one is 15 weeks, one is 12 weeks, one is 9 weeks, variation across a wide variety of other dimensions, what would that look like coming to the court? how would we -- how do you think we would be able to deal with that or how would you counsel us to deal with that if the court were to go down that road? >> well, i think -- this is not to push back against it and i will answer your question, part of why we counselled to overrule full scale that's the only way to get rid of a number of problems your honor is alluding to, when you have the undue burden standard, it's a very hard standard to apply, it's

justice kavanaugh, justice alito, these are serious jurists if a particular judicial philosophy. they are not imposing their catholicity on anybody. they are bringing a deep sense of public service, that is undoubtedly informed by their sense of commitment to the common good. the second great principle of catholic social doctrine to their work. it's very difficult to predict voting patterns and congress based on religious affiliation. so, i think what we are seeing is actually a demographic reality, second, third, fourth and fifth generation catholics. grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great great -- great, great grandchildren of immigrants coming to the floor of american life, that has been pattern throughout our history. but, i don't think one can read public policy positions off of anyone's declarations of religious affiliations in our public life today. host: further, what should we take away from the fact that the public vote was almost exactly split between the two candidates? mr. weigle: i have been saying for 25, 30 years, there isn't anything such as the catholic vote.

the five first conservatives, thomas, aleet aeo -- alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. justice roberts tried to suggest that maybe there was an interim position you uphold the mississippi law but you don't specifically overturn roe versus wade and none of the other five conservatives seemed remotely interested and brett kavanaugh and other conservatives say we overturn precedents sometimes. there is nothing unusual or wrong with that and roe v wade looks next. >> listen to what some of the conservative justices said. >> but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> the fetus has an interest in having a life and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> the reason this issue is hard is that you can't accommodate both interests. you have to pick. that's the fundamental problem. >> i thought he said this was settled at his hearings. >> and susan collins based the vote for his confirmation on the idea it was settled. that was then. >> that was then. conservatives have been working for a lo

that's clarence thomas, as you pointed out earlier, neil gorsuch, and samuel alito. john roberts who is actually said he wants to support the precedent of roe v. wade, at least in some circumstances, and the two people to keep an eye on today are brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett, because they have not really talked about abortion since they have been appointed to the court and think they're the most important votes to watch today. >> and we will be watching, jeffrey toobin, appreciate it, thank you. >> okay. >>> coming up next, i'm going to speak to the nato secretary-general about growing concerns russia could mount another invasion, a full scale invasion of ukraine. his warning for vladimir putin. >>> and just moments away from the opening bell on wall street, as you can see there, three green arrows. nice to see. u.s. futures and global markets higher today following yesterday's losses. a volatile week as investors try to learn more about the new omicron variant. much like all of us. fed chief powell, treasury secretary yellen appearing before the house. the

you're going to look at alito and gorsuch to see their move. you're absolutely right.to be on roberts, kavanaugh and barrett to see if maybe they may not be ready to take that huge step to overturn roe and they may look for some kind of middle ground. that's what will be the focus today. of course, the clinics say there is no way to uphold this law without gutting roe. >> so much here. thank you so much for helping break it all down. >> thanks. >>> gop leader kevin mccarthy has a problem on his hands. his own party members, finger pointing, name calling. childish behavior. he had meetings with two of his feuding republicans, saying stop it. let's bring in daniela diaz on capitol hill. it could spell trouble for the gop in next year's midterms. these are feuding big players in congress who have all the headlines, all the oxygen, provocateurs, not policy, is what we're hearing about the republican party right now. fund-raising off of outrageous comments. i mean, what is leadership to do here? >> reporter: christine, if house minority leader kevin mccarthy can't unite his

that was a most interesting exchange between the justices, and particularly people like alito and kevin l. cavanaugh. what if we think that roe is egregiously wrong? >> harris: and stare decisis that i keep learning from my friends here on the couch, particularly anyway, is president. it's like a fancy way pressing precedents. >> emily: to discuss further into stare decisis, part of what i found interesting the exchanges that the notion, part of the process of analyzing legal precedents is actually analyzing arguments for and against that present particular evidence and those in the united states are affirming absent and material change in the situation. no, the supreme court has never overruled a watershed case or as argued a watershed case meaning that when the justices were essentially asking her what has changed now, do you think? and i thought that was really fascinating because the answer upon being pressed was that there actually wasn't precedents for that to in a vacuum overturn a case. that's been gone almost ten years of silence which is quite vocal, and he said articulate to

quite inpatient to get things done if he'd like to get them done so he kind of in a way he and justice alito the two of them control the chief justice i think and tweet him and tease him and just don't show him much respect and i think that's because they are impatient. they don't want to miss an opportunity to go as far as the could possibly know is what i think. >> do you think that justice thomas is now in some ways at the right place at the right time or do you see him as having driving the agenda among the nine conservatives? >> well, i think his influence, i never viewed him as particularly being intellectual inside the court that the court did they think is intellectual outside of the court. it's astonishing how many law clerks during the trump years have ended up on the federal courts or in other very significant opinions and recently appointed solicitor general in the state of mississippi and is taken over the litigation in the abortion case. justice thomas has a way of identifying issues and signaling to the base and it's incredibly loyal base outside the court and all kinds of iss

a few moments ago, we played justice alito saying quote, the fetus has an interest in having a life.students in michigan? and florida? and colorado? and connecticut? and on and on? what about their lives? >> absolutely, we have a right to life. we have a right to worship. we have a right to send our kids to school without fear. we have a right to go to a mall. we have a right to go to a movie and we have a right to do so without the fear that our life will be ended by a bullet. >> it should come as no surprise that trump's justices on the supreme court recently signalled they want to expand gun rights. not limit them. trump once told long time journalist bob woodward, mcconnell's strategy was simple. focus on the judges. consider the ages of trump's supreme court justices. gorsuch is 54. kavanagh is 56. amy coney barrett is 49. that one makes me feel a little old. but democrats could think about it this way. if mitch mcconnell were in their shoes, what would he do? given what we know, would we see him letting the filibuster stand? is the filibuster more important than election rights

he was joined by justice alito on that, and justice thomas had his own descent in which he did not write a lengthy dissertatio. is going to be a point when we have to have basic protections there and they can be violated just forever because he got a crisis of some kind. >> i've been following your reporting on this i think it follows a similar decision that we saw out of maine just a few months ago, a 6-3 decision, ruling on religious grounds and it is important to talk about these implications across the country, but take, for example, what we've seen with the active duty military, 1.3 million of our military, 97% of them are fully vaccinated as of today. so i think when it becomes a national security issue becomes an issue for our healthcare workers that are interacting very closely with sick patience, the elderly, sick children, then there is a mandate that should follow. obviously you have something like the catholic bishop's conference. i'm a catholic. they are supportive of the vaccine. and they stand against any of these kind of positions with regard to religious liberty. the bis

. >> reporter: justice alito seemed to want to go further. >> the fetus has an interest in having a life viability. >> reporter: u.s. solicitor attorne attorne attorne attorney general elizabeth prelogger ruled -- >> nearly half of the states already have or are expected to enact terms on abortion on all stages of pregnancy, many without exceptions for rape or incest. >> reporter: the court's 6-3 conservative jury seemed poised to uphold the mississippi law but it's unclear whether there was majority to end the federal right to abortion. the keynote justice kavanaugh appeared skeptical that pregnancies and fetuses can both be contact dated. >> the reason this is hard is that you can't accommodate both interests. you have to pick. that's the fundamental problem. >> reporter: we don't expect an opinion in this case until june or even early july when major rulings are released. the justices also recently heard arguments on a texas abortion law that prohibits most abortions on that state. don't have a decision on that case either, so we may have to wait until early summer for any answers on

>> reporter: justice alito seemed to want to go further. >> the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> reporter: u.s. solicitor general elizabeth prelogger, who argued the case on behalf of the federal government warned about the dire consequences of overturning roe. >> nearly half of the states already have or are expected to enact bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, many without exceptions for rape or incest. women who are unable to travel hundreds of miles to gain access to legal abortion will be required to continue with their pregnancies and give birth with profound affects on their bodies, their health and the course of their lives. >> reporter: the court's 6-3 conservative majority appeared poised to uphold the mississippi law, but it was less clear if there was a majority to end the federal right to abortion. a key vote, justice cavanaugh appeared skeptical that the interests of pregnant women and justices can be accommodated. >> the reason this is hard is you can't acco