and i amy coney barrett made similar kinds _ amy coney barrett made similar kinds of— amy coney barretter_ kinds of noises about she would not use her personal _ kinds of noises about she would not use her personal views - kinds of noises about she would not use her personal views to l not use her personal views to interpret _ not use her personal views to interpret the _ not use her personal views to interpret the law. _ not use her personal views to interpret the law. and - not use her personal views to interpret the law. and what l interpret the law. and what they— interpret the law. and what they said _ interpret the law. and what they said on _ interpret the law. and what they said on wednesday - interpret the law. and whatl they said on wednesday was interpret the law. and what - they said on wednesday was very much _ they said on wednesday was very much about— they said on wednesday was very much about well, _ they said on wednesday was very much about well, brett _ they said on wednesday was very much about well, brett cavanaghj much about well, brett cavanagh said why— much abo

so you know, as i watched the rise of amy coney barrett, much in common. a mother of many children and phyllis schlafly's case it was maybe five. moving in a very traditional family structure, t both lawyer, both obviously with ambition far beyond the confines of the traditional household in which they had chosen to live their adult lives. all those kind of things and phyllis schlafly was quite glamorous in her way with the hair on her head and a very well-dressed. so it just occurred to me that in a way, amy coney barrett in 2020 was the0s fulfillment of wt phyllis schlafly went through so much and failed to do back in the early 1980s. so that's why i drew that comparison. >> i'm going to ask you a question about religion and i'd like you to weave in a little of your response on how much of thn back story you wanted to tell. you were focused on these 12 months but you had to develop a scaffolding for that and you talk about trinity luther as one of thel cases you go back to write about a religion case from 2017. some seeds were planted and a usual divisio

. -- 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, dean, leonard, i'm a little offended i was not your first choice for tonight. i hear that i was the fifth choice for tonight. fifth. john roberts was not available. apparently he had a prior com

wade and amy coney barrett with him. was even dead donald trump was reported to have said she was intended for justice ginsburg's seat. unfortunately, even if she had been more forthcoming or diane feinstein had asked about it, there would still be votes to confirm her. >> it's important to remind our viewers that she was confirmed while the elections were already under way. voting had already begun making this an absolutely unprecedented supreme court confirmation process. thank you so much for joining us tonight. greatly appreciate your insights. please stick around. we've got a lot more to discuss throughout the program. >>> before we go to break, the story we've been following for you throughout the evening, the tragedy unfolding in the midwest and south eastern u.s. following a series of tornados that struck. as we mentioned 30 tornados reportedly across those six states. unfortunately and tragically dozens of people feared dead at this hour. we'll continue to bring you the latest on it as it develops. >>> we're goi

brett kavanaugh and in my opinion amy coney barrett are fully on board for the project that the others are on board for. it's very hard to imagine an instance in which the rest of red states look like what is happening in texas. it's really important to point out that we are seeing this experiment in practice. we understand why the supreme court allowed it to happen in texas. six-week abortion ban is now forcing people either to remain pregnant without their will -- against their will, to leave the state only if they can afford to do so or resort to methods of self-inducing pregnancy that might leave them vulnerable to prosecution. it's happening in america because the supreme court allowed it to. it's about to spread into other states. >> the big question on this -- we will return to this topic on another day is what people can do, what the mobilization looks like. that will be where history turns if it does. thank you both. >>> tonight, just minutes before we came on air, a surprise development. something we have been monitoring, the january 6 committee met to issue their second cont

takes they comments from justice amy coney barrett just last week. >> it doesn't seem to me to followhat pregnancy and parenthood are all part of the same burden. so it seems to me that the choice more focused would be between, say, the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more and then terminate parental rights at the conclusion. >> she's basically arguing that an additional four months of forced pregnancy imposes no burden on a woman since she can simply give the baby up for adoption. hmm. i can't help but think that her faith might be a factor in how she's deciding this case and others for that matter. you know, this week during oral arguments on a case about public funding of religious schools, she provided us with another clue about her mindset. and i want to show you what she said. it was essentially a part where she's talking about the israeli-palestinian conflict but she refers to it as a jewish palestinian conflict. there's a lot going on here. and for the record, referring to it as a jewish rather than the israeli conflic

an abortion before 15 weeks, and this law will bar them from doing so. >> reporter: justice amy coney barrette idea that women are allowed in most states to give up their newborn babies as an alternative to abortion. >> justice barrett seemed to say, given the ready ability of adoption today, is it really true that requiring woman to carry a pregnancy to term necessarily impedes professional prospects? that i think was a very striking line. it was impossible to hear the questions and not think about justice barrett and her own biography. she's a mother of seven, two of her children are adopted. it did feel as though her personal experience may have figured somewhat in the sorts of questions that she posed. >> why didn't you address the safe haven laws and why don't they matter? >> i think they don't matter for a couple reasons, your honor. >> reporter: the attorney representing mississippi's only abortion clinic pointing out that pregnancy itself is not always a medically safe condition for women. >> in particular, in mississippi, those risks are alarmingly high. it's 75 times more dangerous

. >> that was the supreme court's newest justice amy coney-barrett.ning me now is susan matthews who wrote about this in "slate." what did you gather from the questions? what light did it shed on how she feels about this case? >> hi. i think there were two things that came across in her comments and the first one was that she's really trying to undermine the effect that pregnancy can have on a woman's body. we know that abortion is very safe procedure and pregnancy and going through birth is much more dangerous and the second thing that i thought is interesting to frame adoption is that she acted as if giving a child up for adoption is an easy choice and solution and i think that's just not true. we have a lot of research and information about what that was like before roe v. wade and the effect on women because they didn't have another option and it is not the easy option that amy coney-barrett is making it sound like. >> the lawyer for jackson women's health organization had obviouses ones. were you surprised the hearing took this turn? >> i was sur

his vote does not matter anymore now that amy coney barrett and replaced ginsberg. t comes down it to overturn roe. she said as much in her work as law professor. so it comes down to brett kavanaugh we know nothing about his views on abortion. >> shannon: let me read this from "newsweek." they talked about last year they questioned the sixth amendment, brett kavanaugh with an 18 page opinion and no other justice joined it, set up a framework how he may rule in abortion case in the future. brett kavanaugh said roe could be egregiously wrong and significant real-world consequences. do you read much into that one way or the other? >> i think it does put its finger on what the real issue is. it will not be about whether mississippi law which bans abortion after 15 weeks is consistent with the real framework. i don't think it is possible to harmonize the two. the only reason roe would survive to brett kavanaugh or the chief justices because they they want to respect and maintain former president even when they think it is wrong. now brett kavanaugh has published an opinio

second, he said you've got to nominate amy coney barrett. >> less than a year later, justice barrettevent at the mcconnell center at the university of louisville. that's right. the mcconnell center at the university of louisville. she told this to the ground. my goal today is to convince you this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks. now, where would anybody get an idea like that? never mind. the polls show that the majority of americans oppose overturning roe versus wade. opponents of roe have become the dogs who caught the car except in this case, they have no idea how to drive it. more like dogs playing poker at this point. if roe is struck down or gutted, other states will likely outlaw abortion. does anybody have a plan for how to enforce that? what can democrats say at this point? life's a mitch, i guess? but the harsh reality is that democrats have been outmaneuvered by mitch mcconnell. now democrats may be staring at the chess board wondering what to do. what about the filibuster? the same one that is preventing all kinds of legislation from passing in the sena

brett cavanagh and amy coney barrett, two of the _ cavanagh and amy coney barrett, two of the trump nomineestt made similar kinds of noises _ amy coney barrett made similar kinds of noises about not using her personal— of noises about not using her personal views to interpret the law. and what _ personal views to interpret the law. and what they said on wednesday was very much— and what they said on wednesday was very much about, well, brett cavanagh _ very much about, well, brett cavanagh said, why should abortion be an— cavanagh said, why should abortion be an issue — cavanagh said, why should abortion be an issue for the supreme court, indicating _ be an issue for the supreme court, indicating he thought that the states. — indicating he thought that the states, then it should be cut definite _ states, then it should be cut definite kicks back to the individual states to handle. in reality. — individual states to handle. in reality, what you have, by all indications, the conservative majority _ indications, the conservative majority will report back roe v wade. — majority will report back

in fact, amy coney barrett talks about the fact -- she talked about precedent. she said should public perception or should changing public voous way into whether or not the court may overturn precedent. a lot of talk here. what was most poignant was justice stephen brier. he implored this court not to overturn precedent saying it could look purely political to the public. here is what he said. >> the overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason, to reexamine a watershed decision, would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question. >> reporter: so youity breyer as he had in previous speeches really warning that the court's legitimacy in the public view is at stake here. of course, the justices will have to consider this abortion ban essentially from mississippi. it bans practically all abortions after 15 weeks, and the attorneys for the abortion clinic here say that is clearly in conflict with supreme court precedent roe v wade. case, these arguments are still going on. we're now hearing the conservative justices speak a lot more

opponents of abortion like amy coney barrett don't think that sounds unreasonable at all. would that sound even to them, the opponents of abortion, if we change just one word? how would it sound if it said the state requiring the girl to carry the pregnancy? or what if we picked specific cases, real cases of real tragic and horrific suffering and said the state requiring the 12-year-old girl to carry the pregnancy and then terminate her parental rights? the amy coney barrett side of the argument never uses the word "girl" to describe who needs abortion services in this country. michelle goodwin teaches constitutional law at the university of california. in a "new york times" op-ed piece she writes this. like the military draft, the state has coercively conscripted rape and incest survivors to endure one more tremendous burden. to take another devastating physical and mental hit to tie their lives to those of their rapists. this time it is state lawmakers who strong-arm their bodies into service. this draft -- the pregnancy draft -- is warfare at home and the state leaves i

he did the big even for amy coney barrett to celebrate her taking that seat.do you make of the fact that so many people are openly and actively spreading this virus potentially without caring? >> joy, good evening, great to see you. it is symptomatic of a lack of empathy across our country unfortunately. ale say with the former president, what is interesting there, for all of your viewers, what can we learn from this? we are now testing again the holidays, joy. a false -- it is rare that these tests especially with covid out of control still in most places with the new variant. it is rare any of these tests will give you a false positive. that will happen when we have covid truly under control. a false negative is more common. the first test, his doctor -- proximal to power, clearly didn't have integrity and commitment to his profession, was interested in consolidating his position. he should have said mr. president this is a test to be believed. the second test easily could have been a false negative. he didn't do that and who knows how many deds resulted. >>

take justice amy coney barrett who said, i'm paraphrasing here, i don't understand. don't the safe haven laws get to the issues you want to address? safe haven laws being you can hand your newborn into a safe space, if you terminate your parental rights. isn't that the same thing as terminating one's pregnancy? it's a fundamental misconception of what is being talked about. the idea you're going to say as long as you can terminate parental rights and put your child up for adoption, that is the same thing as being able to have the choice and agency to terminate one's pregnancy is so flawed, so is justice cavanaugh's thought here, don, where he suggests the supreme court ought to be neutral. well, i want a supreme court neutral, said no one ever. the whole role of the judicial nine is to be able to be decisive and make decisions where the lower courts particularly have conflict. and in mississippi, there has been no conflict. courts have said, the lower courts have said it's unconstitutional. by virtue of even taking this case, don, you already see the leanings. >> and

so many people got sick after that, that whole amy coney barrett press event trump was inviting peoplep tried to essentially blame one of his aides hope hicks for getting him sick when he gave his first interview after he learned for certain he was sick on october 1st, when it was likely then october 2nd it was confirmed. clearly based on the sequence of events, he was under the weather before that and there are all these other people who caught it after him. so it's shocking. it is a tremendous disregard for other people's safety. >> as you correctly point out, you had a tip he tested positive. you tried to get it confirmed but they weren't confirming it, but you knew that. michael, you say this news actually does confirm your suspicion that you contracted covid-19 from trump after you flew on air force one with him. tell us more about your contact with the then president at that time and why you grew so susp suspicious. >> right, look. i can't say for 100% certain that i got it from him, but frankly, the only -- the suspicion that i've had for a long time is that i got it when i flew

because brett kavanaugh, and in my opinion amy coney barrett, are fully on board for the project that alito, thomas, are on board for. so it is very hard to imagine an instance in which the rest of red states look like what is happening in texas right now. it is very important to point out that we are already seeing this experiment impact us and now understand why the supreme court allowed it to happen in texas where six-week abortion ban is now forcing people to remain pregnant without their will, i guess there will, to leave the state only if they can afford to do so, or resort methods of self inducing pregnancy that might leave them vulnerable to prosecution. it is happening in america because the supreme court allowed it to, and it is about the spread further into further states. >> a big question on this, and we will return to this on another day. -- that fundamentally will be where history terms again if it does -- thank you both. >> tonight just minutes before we came on air, a surprise development something we have been modern inning all day, they meant to jeffrey clark though

brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett, the two of the trump nominees to the court, you know, during their, again, amy coney barrett made similar kinds of noises about she would not use her personal views to interpret the law. and what they said on wednesday was very much about well, brett kavanaugh said "why should abortion be an issue for the supreme court?", indicating he thought that the states — it should be kicked back to the individual states to handle. in reality, what you have — by all indications, the conservative majority will roll back roe v wade. we don't know how they will explain it, how far they will go but already, you have more than 20 us states that have abortion laws on their books that would get triggered should there be any rollback or change to roe v wade and in effect, you would have abortion outlawed or severely curtailed in more than half of the united states if the us go — if the supreme court goes ahead and does this. it - this - this is an earthquake. this is huge if they go ahead with it. this is the case they've been waiting for for years and there's huge pre

is it amy coney barrett? is it brett kavanaugh, the chief justice john roberts? so we sort of know where the three most conservative justices are. we sort of know where the three most liberal justices are, but what about those justices potentially in the middle who could be a potential fifth vote, and what is their interest? so that's what we'll be listening for. >> barbara, we're going to talk more about the arguments in a second. i think what we're looking at at the moment is sort of setting the stakes for what we expect to come, right? the arguments happening today likely some kind of decision to come down when the court ends its term next year, and then depending on how this rules, there are these trigger laws that are in place all across the country in more conservative states, essentially ready to have those dominos fall if, in fact, the court does rule for mississippi in this instance. can you talk through the impact of that? >> in 12 states immediately upon a decision if this were to overrule roe versus wade, abortion would immediately become illegal in t

>> stephen: amy coney barrett doesn't think a woman has to be a mother, she just thinks she has to give birth. it's all in her new pregnancy guide: "what to expect when you're being forced to be expecting." barrett did concede that mandatory pregnancy might be inconvenient, but she doesn't see that as a problem: >> there is without question an infringement on bodily autonomy which we have in other contexts, like vaccines. >> stephen: now, i'm no doctor, but that seems like a false analogy. vaccines are mandated because covid is contagious. no one says, can you put a mask on your belly? i don't want to catch baby. of course, the three liberal justices were not buyin' any of this. especially justice sonia sotomayor, who pointed out that none of the basic issues have changed since the court's previous upholding of roe. and that mississippi's stated purpose for bringing this case now is because they wanted it in front of all of these new republican appointees. and given those facts, she asked this question: >> will this institution survive the stench? >> stephen: it's a valid quetion, thoug

now, the same day that he tested positive was the amy coney barrett announcement. seven people were infected. the president, mrs. trump, two senators, chris christie. there were seven people who were infected at that event only certainly as a consequence of meeting the president. that event did not require masks if the attendees tested negative. what they didn't know is that the host of that event, the president of the united states, was going to infect them. there were an outside event and two meet and greets, inside, which raises the risk of infection to a freighter degree. the president himself was the super breader event. he likely infected row that mcdaniel the day before on the 25th. three takes later, at the time of the debate with 77-year-old joe biden, the president of the united states has active covid. and the white house knew it. and if the story is correct, then the white house physician knew it. and the white house physician never should have allowed the president to dedebate. that is something many people would resign over rather than allow that to g

the first positive test, trump hosted a white house event, announcing his nomination of judge amy coney barrett to the supreme court. >> amy, say a few words. >> reporter: as trump was on his way to a rally in pennsylvania, his physician, dr. sean conley, notified meadows that trump had tested positive for covid. later that day, another test, this time an antigen test, came back negative. conley never acknowledged the first test in the media, even when asked directly. >> can you tell us when he had his last negative test? was it thursday, wednesday? do you remember when he had his last negative test? >> i don't want to go backwards. >> reporter: trump reportedly talked to the press without a mask on. that night he still held the rally before thousands of supporters. the following day, trump briefed the media indoors and held an indoor event for gold star military families. trump later would suggest that this event is where he contracted the virus, despite knowing he had tested positive the day before it. >> they come within an inch of my face sometimes. they want to hug me and they want to kiss

on saturday, september 26th, trump hosted the rose garden event for amy coney barrett.sks, no social distancing. at least a dozen people who attended that would later test positive. >> thater that evening he made his way to a rally in pennsylvania. as marine one is lifting off for nah event, the white house doctor calls and says to stop him because his test was positive. he was tested again and that test came back negative. they moved on as if nothing had happened. >> the next day trump attended an event with gold star families, families who lost children in combat and holds a news conference in the white house briefing room. on monday, september 28th, he staged another event, this with business leaders at the white house and held another event in the roses garden, a news conference to talk about, amazingly, his efforts to ramp up covid testing. >> on tuesday, the day of the debate, med does says trump was moving more slowly than usual, but, quote, nothing was going to stop trump from going out there. the host of that debate, fox's chris wallace says trump wasn't tested

it was also the same time he appointed amy coney barrett to the supreme court.o a super spreader. members of congress ended up testing positive for covid, the president as well ask kellyanne conway. if you test positive for covid, isolate for ten days. the cdc was also telling people in jest, bleach or take hydroxychloroquine. >> i was at that rose garden event, and we were outside which might have helped things a bit. while the reporters were in the back, we were all masked even though we were outside. but there was no social distancing, no masking. inside the white house they were mingling, hugging, kissing each other because they were happy about the supreme court nomination. the former white how else and so many people at risk because of their reckless approach to covid protocols. there was one line of mark meadows' memoir that i found interesting, that he feigned surprise that he actually contracted covid because the president was a massive germophobe. he always had sanitizer around him. that mask helped contain the spread. i think maybe there was twice he

question are the new trump appointed conservative justices, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett. this is the first case that amy coney barrett will hear arguments since taking her seat formally on the court. so, that's something we're obviously watching. whether chief justice john roberts had how he moves on the case, whether he wants to take that institutional risk of overturning an over 40-year-old decision, that will be something to watch as well. in terms of what happens if roe v. wade is overturned we'll have to head to a specific state and specific localities. i think what you'll see is a lot of conserve-leaning states really move to ban abortion in their states. you're already seeing this take place, texas, for example, where abortion is obviously limited. people looking to get abortions traveling out of state to find more viable options, for example. you know, those on the abortion rights side of the debate would argue that making abortion illegal would lead to more undercover, more dangerous abortions, that are not being done, you know, comfortably or safely. that's som

listening to justice amy coney barrett talk about adoption or safe haven as a solution to abortion ased to just a fferent outcome of pregnancy, really, i thought it was undermining, offensive, the very quality and liberty that julie rikelman was so forcefully arguing in the court that are very right to determine when and if we become pregnant, are self-determination to be seen as free and equal citizens of this country, i thought the road that justice barrett went down was quite alarming and quite shocking. nermeen: could you explain who you think would be most impacted? who are the women, the demographics of the women who most commonly receive abortions in the u.s.? professor watson mentioned 75% of them are low income. >> yes, absolutely. look, we're seeing this play out right now in texas, the impact we are saying on our patients have to flee the state in order to gain access to this constitutional right. they're going to be more likely to be low income, black, brown, indigenous communities, people who are trans and non-binary, people who may not have support at home. in the impact

amy coney barrett said the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks. a judge's solemn duty to be impartial, and there are more. and they are recent. this court is made up of people who are very aware of what is said about them and the standing in which they are held by the public. how much do you think that weighs on all of them, and not -- it's clear that it won't affect the decision, but how do you think that affects sort of the role of the court in american life? >> so, i think it only weighs on maybe one of the republican appointees, and that is john roberts, and i think yesterday showed just how little justices kavanaugh and barrett care about the political backlash and i wonder why that is the case. i want to push back a little bit on the assumption that this will necessarily turn out democrats. i think that's very much in the hands of democrats and what they do right now, because as you mentioned, brian, 2016, the candidate that you worked for, hillary clinton, made a robust case that the courts were on the line, that roe was on the line and for

we saw that same artifice in the amy coney barrett, insisting that because there are safe haven lawsore readily allowed to give your child up for adoption, it is not a problem for women to be forced to term, because they can give their babies up. so for me the artifice of we are being neutral, we are being reason, this is just a tiny tweak around the margins, nothing earthshaking happening here, not to worry about other presidents when we are gunning for roe, just throw. the pretense that this is a big nothing, and everyone has worked up. >> dahlia, do you think we are going to get an answer on the texas span, or the ruling of this short order may be months before we get the ruling on the mississippi case? >> i think so and i think again i put it again in the bucket of, it will look like a wash, right, we said that texas can't do what texas did. that is crazy, it is rachel talent he has them. so it is a wash, everyone can get something. the court is navigating a little pat, when in fact all they were worried about is that vigilante kind of enforcement mechanism that could be used to

he held a rose garden event for justice amy coney barrett which even at the time, dr. fauci called a super spreader event. he went to a rally in middletown. he played golf. he held a reception with gold star families. he met with auto workers on the white house south lawn. and he held a covid testing event at the white house. now, i should say he's denied he tested positive before the debate, but what is your take on the impact of anyone testing positive and then acting like they didn't? >> it's completely reckless. it puts other people at danger. it violates their rights. i think this is basically what happened with typhoid mary. you -- if you're a positive person, if you've exposed other people knowingly, i mean, that's something that you should be held liable for. a lot of us suspected this might have been the case based on the timeline of what was happening in the rose garden. there wasn't a proper public health investigation of those activities. the indoor and outdoor activities that occurred around amy coney barrett's announcement. and that prevented us from know

we saw that same artifice, amy coney barrett kept insisting that because there are safe haven laws that allow you to more readily give your child up for adoption, it's not a problem for women to be forced to carry to term because they can just give their babies up. so i think for me, the artifice of we're being neutral, we're being reasoned, this is just a tiny little tweak around the margins, nothing earth-shaking happening here, nothing to worry about other precedents when we're gunning for roe, it's just roe, that's the artifice that rankled for me, the pretence that this is a big nothing burger and everybody is worked up. >> dahlia, do you think we're going to get an answer on the texas ban at the same time that we get this ruling? do you think we'll get the texas ruling in short order even though it may be months before we get this ruling on the mississippi case? >> i think so. and i think, again, i put it, rachel, in the bucket of, it's going to look like a wash, right, we said that texas can't do what texas did, that's crazy, that's vigilanteism, but then we let the mississippi l

the perfect example is the event we mentioned yesterday, the celebration of the nomination of amy coney barrett 's supreme court last september. this was the moment that the pro life movement knew they had won. we did it. amy coney barrett, who they knew opposed abortion, was going to be the vote they needed to overturn the landmark abortion case roe v. wade. here they are, celebrating that victory for life, indoors, and enclosed space, in the midst of a pandemic, killing people left and right. and we now know that donald trump tested positive later that same day. lord knows how many people trump got sick. or if anyone actually died from covid transmission chains that started with that single reckless superspreader event. chris christie ended up in the icu. but this is the whole story in one picture. if you need a bigger refutation that this is all about life, look at these people. mingling indoors, celebrating without masks, with a man who as it turned out was definitely spreading the virus as thousands of people were dying every day. all that, as they celebrated their victory for life. what h

we have justice roberts, amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh who may not want everything they want right this second for fear of looking berserk. so what i'm going to look for is what happens if there is clearly six votes to overturn roe. you have six justices who were i think groomed to overturn roe. three of them really want to write the sentence roe v. wade is overruled. and three of them are kind of triangulating against a whole bunch of other interests. so looking for cracks in those three and those three is what we're looking for. >> and ruth, is there any version of this mississippi case where the court upholds the mississippi law, but doesn't overturn roe v. wade? >> well, there is certainly a version where they do not say the magic words former attorney general meese, and i think a very important op-ed for "the washington post" said he very much wanted to hear which is roe v. wade is overruled. but there are ways to effectively undo and set the stage for the further undoing of the abortion right in upholding the mississippi law, and disappointing conservatives by failing t

and okay, i know that susan collins doesn't voted no on amy coney barrett, but the republican majority senator collins made her choice known on barrett. so, her novel there was meaningless by then. it was just a gesture. a bone that was thrown to's undecided voter at the height of an undecided election bid against cigarette gideon. and it worked. she won. she is still senator susan collins. which means that yesterday, because of susan collins, just susan collins, only susan collins, we got to hear justice, let's blame the clintons kavanaugh, waver on the importance of precedent against abortion. aborti>> if you think about somf the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this court's history, there is a string of them were the cases overruled precedent. and it turns out, if the court in those cases had listened -- and they were presented with arguments in those cases -- adhered to the president -- in brown v. board, adhered to plessy, on west coast tell, adhere to atkins and adhere to lock near. and if the court had done that in those cases, the country would be in a much

on saturday, 26th, trump hosted the rose garden event for now supreme court justice amy coney barrett. few masks, no social distancing, and what is suspected to have been a super spreader event now. many who attended would later test positive. that is the day that trump first tested positive. then later that day, tested negative in a binax rapid test according to meadows in this report. the day after that, trump attended indoor events with gold star military families. two days later on tuesday, the 29th, chris wallace of fox says trump was not tested at the debate because he arrived late, and they allowed him on stage due to what wallace called the honor system. later that week on thursday, the 1st, trump did officially test positive according to his doctor. that's had they told us he tested positive and other tests and on friday the 2nd trump went to the hospital. >> joining us now, cnn anchor and chief domestic correspondent jim acosta. and, you know, this confirms, i think, what we knew about the timeline, but what we're learning here that is so i think significant is just the stun

i am going to go on with my life, the debate, the amy coney barrett thing. all of that.had the event with the gold star families. he had the debate. prep with advisers and remember chris christie was there. got sick. kelly ham was there. goes to debate biden. there was an honor system on testing. obviously, they violated it. and then, two days later, he is positive again and goes to the hospital. so, when you look at that timeline, doctor, it is clear trump was sick at the debate. he looked and sounded it. he knowingly put biden -- 77 years old at the time -- at risk. it's beyond the pail. >> right. so, i mean, this is reckless in all -- all capital letters. we knew last year that the former president had to be positive the weekend before the debate because he was really sick basically the day he turned -- he -- that he tested positive. and -- and the day supposedly that his symptoms developed. although, now, we are hearing that he was really symptomatic the weekend before. but it takes about a week of illness for people to get sick enough to need to be hospitalized so w

he was at the gold star parents function, the air quality management district amy coney barrett nominationime with this virus. i tell you something. that's an awful lot of people to potentially infect. what that means is hard to even measure because we have never heard of such a thing. >> that is interesting news. what do you think this shows, this signifies, i mean, besides he put a lot of people in jeopardy, their health at risk? >> well, you know, a lot of people wonder just what exactly is president trump about? how important was it for him to give that appearance, you know, that superman appearance at the risk, including his own family members, risking them, risking some other people along the way? i mean, is it that important? what does it say about his dedication, the whole concept of taking care of one's self when one is not healthy? and what does that say also about how his staff was so willing to put up with it even though they knew differently, including his own physician who never walked away and, as a matter of fact, at the hospital, turns out, didn't tell the truth as to how

amy coney barrett, we have just -- they are going to be dealing with of these new cases involving gun rights. the conservatives majority, what has that meant and what is it going to mean going forward? >> i think it is still a work in progress. one of the interesting things, as a little of the commentary coming out of the most recent supreme court term is that it was the fear of the left and hope of the right, neither one were realized even with a 6-3 majority was more pragmatic and more moderate to the great chagrin of the right but also samuel alito that would frequently play in his dissent and about what the conservative majority had done. the majority at large are seeing a couple of things stand out. the project is to advance the idea of the religious liberties that is for the christian conservatives. this is after all for the appellate eventually ban against muslims coming to the country or people from majority and muslim countries, butga concerned whetr religious liberties at the expense of discriminating one of the reasons the court term doesn't take into consideration the case

i think the three new justices appointed by former president trump, kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, andsuch, will be people listening today to oral arguments, which are not televised, but at 10:00 a.m., we can hear them talk for an hour or more about this. i mean, it'd be a radical departure. certainly, this has been the hope of a lot of conservatives, a lot on the right, for a long time, to bring a case like this to could potentially challenge and overturn roe v. wade. they feel better, those on the right, about this one than they have about other options. this is a much more sweeping decision than what we saw recently about the texas law. >> right. >> i do think public polling is, as much as they like to not say it matters, it is, at times, factored in. this would be a gigantic change for the nation, were this to happen. >> the question is, does this court really want to be the court that overturns the 50-year precedent that only 27% of americans support? i mean, again, while they look at the law and they follow the law, they also understand that they're in a constitutional republic.

. >> he held a white house event for amy coney barrett and later attended a rally in pennsylvania. the day after the positive test, he was up close and personal with automakers and he held a white house event to discuss covid testing. there was another campaign rally in minnesota and a private fundraiser on october 1st. >> we know he was a run away that was spraying covid like insecticide. >> but even -- keep in mind people are being forced to take tests and having their temperatures checked and everything and all around them while he's breathing covid all over these people. >> coughing and sneezing and sweating. that sweat, my lord. i was thinking of my way, it's just -- the jump suit, this is jump suit elvis material right here and he's coughing and sneezing and sweating all over everybody. plenty of people got sick. >> september 26, the president announced he got covid. he was hospitalized the next day. trump released a statement calling the story "fake news" and mark meadows who wrote the book. >> mark, we got this from you. you wrote the book. so just because trump goes hey, t

particular, or such, thomas and alito i think are there and the other two bret kavanaugh and amy coney barrett 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 together but i think it's telling nobody was interested in going there a

saturday, september 26, of 2020, trump 40e69ed the rose garden event for supreme court justice amy coney barrett. >> later that evening, he made his way to a rally in pennsylvania. as marine one is lifting off, the white house doctor calls and says to stop him because his covid test came back positive. according to meadows, he was then tested again. that test came back negative, so they moved on as though nothing had happened. on tuesday, the day of the debate, meadows says trump was moving more slowly than usual but "nothing was going to stop trump from going out there." >> of course, two days after that, trump tested positive again, alerts the world by tweet, later spend three nights in the hospital, getting treatment. treatment. >> trevor: yeah, people! donald trump got a positive covid test, then retested and got a negative test, and then just went about his life without telling anybody. which on the one hand was incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, but on the other hand, it was very relatable. i mean, that's why you get second opinions, right? if one doctor tells you that you're very ill

once amy coney barrett was on the court it became five -- four ruling for religious groups went ruth bader ginsburg was on the court and it went the other way. willing to be deferential. the other went as a new voting rights. they were pert to perfect cases action before the courts for the other was voting rights. again because of the pandemic. in all of those cases democratic groups, voting rights groups walked every time. >> right at the end. >> there always talk about where they were generally pragmatic or not that far right street on the very last day of the term, no coincidence there, six -- three take this one which essentially gutted or weekend last meaningful provision of the 1965 rights act. it would raise disclosure of contribution including campaign contributions might be a thing of the past. one is deferential to the states. and the other one, the other thing that was interesting in the case in which the republican appointee upheld arizona's republican-controlled arizona laws, restrictions on voting justice skull lido road that went to great length justifying and doing th

but that position changed once amy coney barrett was put on the united states supreme court.is asking for a complete reversal of roe and the secondary case of planned parenthood versus casey, which means obliterating a constitutional right. normally, we have these rights and the court will balance how to manage that. what they're asking is to take the right away completely. that is troubling for reasons beyond just abortion frankly. >> harry, the supreme court kim mentioned, resisted discussing this case 12 times. you say that suggests there are four votes in favor of the mississippi law. can you explain that, and which justices do you see as on the fence here? >> sure. i actually think kim, who put her finger exactly on it, the number one fact that they took it in the first place means there are four votes. that's how many it takes to grant in favor of reinstating the mississippi law. as she says it had been struck down. now we have this intriguing fact. they did it again and again and again, way more than i've ever been that are with. and i clerked there a couple of years.