they pushed in amy covid barrett. host: coney barrett.aller: with only two weeks left on trump's time. i look at the court as the conservatives have taken over by cheating and lying. it's awful. it is terrible for our country. host: mark is a democratic caller in new york. both sides brace for new combat and abortion wars. both sides are taking on a stricter -- taking a look at how they did in the midterm elections. they report that antiabortion groups are pulling back from ballot initiatives as a way to restrict abortion, having failed with those measures in kansas, kentucky and montana. they are pushing to reinforce abortion restrictions where they have had success and the majority in court jurisdictions and republican-controlled legislatures. it goes on to say after winning six of six ballot initiatives, abortion-rights supporters are pressing for more. especially in states such as ohio and missouri, with the legislations being gerrymandered and staunchly antiabortion. yet, ballot initiatives are not an option in every state. you can r

there is a concerted effort out there that has now reached amy coney barrett to make the conservativele things that the left has done, concern in its concentrate thed effort to undermine court. paul: bill, another big decision by the supreme court week, and that is to hear the challenge from six states to the president's student loan cancellation. the lower court judge had put an injunction on it. the biden administration went to the court and said lift that injunction. the court said, no're going to hear the case -- [laughter] and they're going to hear it on exwe dieted fashion, skipping over the lower court's on the merits pure arguments in pen. they could decides that year. this is a very big deal. does it put the president's student loan cancellation in jeopardy? >> yes, it does. look, it's a very bad policy on its own. the program. but it has raised pulse questions about spending and so forth within our process. the court saysst going to consider two issues, the standing of people to sue, you know, some of these state attorney generals have sued, and also whether the biden admini

my question is, with respect to amy coney barrett after voting had already started in the senate confirmeder, she had a party with trumbo for ginsberg was buried in they denied merrick garland to even meet with senators. the majority of the american people said they did not want her appointment or anyone appointed until after the presidential election that was ongoing. how does he respond to that? guest: i think you are correct to be concerned about the state of the confirmation process. i would direct you to article two of section two that gives the president the joint responsibility to nominate and appoint or confirm a supreme court justice. the senate has its own independent role and he gets to decide, whoever's in control of the senate, how they want to use that role. how they want to use that power. the senate is within his right to not hold hearings are not allowed boats and other senators get to push back on that. you mentioned merrick garland, they decided to not hold a hearing to become a supreme court justice. democrats could've voted on that. they could've forced republicans to

i mean do think amy coney barrett and kavanaugh are they were bought in. uh, for sure. kavanaugh is for sure. i don't know enough amy coney barrett to know whether she lives a bubble of her own views and has just the bubble just happens to be exactly the kind of bubble that federalist society folks were looking for and liked and wanted get onto the court. but i know for sure that kavanaugh knew exactly what he was doing. kavanaugh did this stuff for president bush, and that's how we got to know leonard leo is organizing the outside money influence over those appointments. and if you want to know the power of this, even early on, you remember a woman named harriet miers. harriet miers, white house counsel for, president bush. she was very conservative. she was female at a time when it would done them some good to put another female judge on the court. and she was very conservative and she knew him personally as white house counsel. she's around him every day up goes her name as the nominee. and the president had to effect a humiliating withdrawal of name because of the pr

coney barrett. >> let's listen to her, let's listen to justice amy coney barrett and some of the questions she was was gonna ask, as your formalistic test just trying to deal with the president or are you reading that in the constitution itself? because you have a problem with explaining why these procedural limitations are okay, but summertime limitations are not. >> this is the one you want, none of that made any sense. >> i'm in a translated. i'm gonna translate. it means, do we bring common sense into play, or do we just say, the constitution says it's a legislator, doesn't legislator also mean they can be checked by the other branches? that's the biggest picture view of what's going on here. why it's important. because, the constitution, it turns out, is swell. they did a really nice job. great job, guys. it was written a long time ago. and they don't cover everything, and they leave a lot of room for interpretation. but to david's point, david, if i asked you, can you show me where in the constitution it says that we have to hold elections for people to choose the president of the united sta

watch, the chief justice, amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh. sandra. >> sandra: keep us posted. john. >> john: president biden was in arizona yesterday but did not visit the border saying there were "more important things going on" as experts warn the situation at the border could get far worse when title 42 expires. set to be lifted on the 21st. our next guest is trying to stop in a from happening. arizona attorney general mark brnovich joins us, you are in d.c. today. >> thank you for having me on. >> john: so stunning yesterday when the president uttered the words on the way to the helicopter to go to phoenix, let's replay the question and answer. listen here. >> why go to a border state and not visit the border? >> because there are more important things going on. they are going to invest millions of dollars in a new enterprise. >> john: more important things going on. you are the person who has to deal with the fallout from the border. tragic incident early this morning of a border patrol agent in the rio grande valley sector driving one of the four wheels atvs have a high

as mark joseph stern -- it probably comes down to justice amy coney barrett thomas alito gorsuch and kavanaugh have all supported in the past. sonia sotomayor, kagan, and jackson, clearly have no desire to revive -- it so it serves as the ultimate test of her originalism. then that is the case in which the six conservatives appeared to be in, unison siding with a plight of an evangelical website design, or who asserts that work in the same sex couples, would violate her first amendment rights. some legal experts argue that a decision in the website of signers favor, could open the door to lgbtq discrimination across the united states, certainly limit their access to services. but the ramifications of this case were overshadowed by samuel alito, for trying to turn the oral arguments into a comedy routine. alito tempted to joke about, quote, black children and kkk or should i say ku klux klan outfits, and it insinuated that justice was familiar with a adult website. so the end of the, week it fell to congress to bring seriousness back to the court. the house judiciary committee held a

moreover, the swing vote for this was always going to be amy coney barrett. ts. he wants to give more power to judges, not take the power away. so amy coney barrett was always set out to be that fifth swing vote because she has no priors, like she has, unlike kevin, of she hasn't worked on this in the past. there is no cnn clip of her talking about this. she, as far as we, know isn't married to an insurrectionist. you know, plus one. and, again i'm not a theologian here, but it's a jesus has a firm position on independence day legislative theory. t is sort of in play. a questions that oral argument suggested that she was really sort of wrestling with the idea, pointing out some of the clear logical inconsistencies in north carolina republicans arguments, and seen the dissatisfied with the responses that she was getting back for north carolina's lawyers. you have this ammunition case, you have to be careful with barrett. she has a history of doing this. of askeaton really smart, really probitive, really thoughtful questions at oral arguments, but then when the

they pushed in amy covid barrett. host: coney barrett.aller: with only two weeks left on trump's time. i look at the court as the conservatives have taken over by cheating and lying. it's awful. it is terrible for our country. host: mark is a democratic caller in new york. both sides brace for new combat and abortion wars. both sides are taking on a stricter -- taking a look at how they did in the midterm elections. they report that antiabortion groups are pulling back from ballot initiatives as a way to restrict abortion, having failed with those measures in kansas, kentucky and montana. they are pushing to reinforce abortion restrictions where they have had success and the majority in court jurisdictions and republican-controlled legislatures. it goes on to say after winning six of six ballot initiatives, abortion-rights supporters are pressing for more. especially in states such as ohio and missouri, with the legislations being gerrymandered and staunchly antiabortion. yet, ballot initiatives are not an option in every state. you can r

now that sort of leaves the chief justice, and justices cavanaugh and amy coney barrett, who really didn'tip their hands either way. all 3 of them made comments that might lead you to believe that they could go either way. so we're just going to have to wait and see but i think those three justices may well hold the key to the fate of this theory, which, as the professor said, is really considered revolutionary. reporter: thank you very much. judy: a massive u.s. bill rolled out late last night, is making its way through congress. the ndaa is a 4000 page bill put together by five -- bipartisan negotiators. it sets parameters for the military. and this year it includes major policy changes. our lisa desjardins is on capitol hill with more. first of all, what is in this bill. reporter: this is a sweeping piece of legislation. i have not read all 4000 pages. overall, a 4.6% pay raise with more support for ukraine. this includes a great deal of important policy. judy: starting with how we change the military justice system. reporter: this is historic and something we have discussed on the show

i mean, amy coney barrett, this is a political action that was taken come by the way these are 51 vote justices. this is different than how would've ever was when i was working in the senate. where you would get like 90 votes. why? becauseit it was considered a bipartisan enterprise and it was still the filibuster. presidents out to that but the court has become incessantly because right-wing has a cultural agenda, they putda on people who come in any kerry voted, nicely, nice kids that the amy coney barrett. very smart about textualism. eight paragraphs on the word so which is one case i have to teach because she thinks that makes her more restraint. but no, i mean there are women who believe just as phyllis schlafly did, because that's the folks who fought against women having suffrage. it's always been women who fought women trying to liberate them in the united states. and that continues. it's sad t to me. they would've picked the same movement, conservatives, and actually audition for this. what people don't realize within the federal society. i speak at the federalist society qui

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

she passed away during trump's term and was replaced by conservative justice amy coney barrett. >> richou. >> julie: pete buttigieg is facing bipartisan criticism how he is handling the meltdown of southwest airlines. some democrats say he could have done more to prevent the mass cancellations that left thousands of americans stranded coast to coast. let's bring in our panel kevin walling former biden campaign surrogate and the vice president of hg creative and colin reid, former spokesperson for governor chris christie and campaign manager for senator scott brown. thank you for talking to us. first off i never quite understood what level of expertise pete buttigieg brought to the table when it came to transportation. so i'm not exactly shocked or surprised at his lack of experience is backfiring. colin, all the tends tens of travelers wanted was to get home and get reimbursed. buttigieg hasn't levied any charges against the airlines for canceling and reimburse customers. why is that? >> tough week for all involved, julie. southwest airlines will have to answer for this catastrophe, as

. >> everyone is listening closely and will be listening closely to amy coney barrett.wall street journal" is calling the panicked reaction to this case unconvincing and warning if the justices give license for state courts to overrule legislators 2024 could be a legal free for all. what's fascinating to me about this editorial, it seems like they're trying to take the concern we heard -- and as joan pointed out also from a number of conservative lawyers, the concern is it could be a free for all and flipping it on its head saying if they don't find in favor of this legal theory it's going to be mass chaos. what do you make of that? >> what's interesting is the break down of who's coming out against this in some way. a lot of conservative scholars and quite conservative ones -- jim mentioned this -- begging the supreme court of not going down this road. the idea this is a normal right/left divide and how people regard yjuris prudence is not te case. many bright people are looking at this and seeing what a disaster it could be. >> we know the potential with this. donald

and it does seem to hinge on justice amy coney barrett and what she's going -- how she's going to vote. here is one of justice barrett's questions towards the petitioner. take a listen. >> i was just going to ask is your test a way of trying to deal with our precedent or are you rooting that in constitution itself? because you do have a problem with explaining why these procedural limitations are okay but substantive limitations are not. >> first of all, translate that for us because i don't speak legal and second of all, where do you think she's leaning? >> i can't -- i'm not a tea leaf reader and i don't think there are necessarily four solidly in the camp to uphold the north carolina legislature's position. i heard three justices. i think there are others in play. but what she's getting at is there is no constitutional grounding for the theory that these folks are ed sspousing soe state was trying to -- the legislatures excuse me were trying to draw a line that said there is a difference between substantive restrictions on election rules and procedural ones and that's just a distinc

the three to watch, kavanaugh, roberts and amy coney barrett. where do you think things stand?d alito, they are actually all in on all this. what was striking, i love that you refer to former judge michael lewd dig who we all regard as quite a conservative out there, and he's saying this is so radical. to have this all aired during three hours of very tense arguments in that courtroom last week is saying something. so this court -- a majority is open to it, the three you mentioned in the middle. they're here entertaining this idea and it's known as the independent state legislature theory which is sort of hard on our audience's ears. it goes to the checks and balances as kagan state about whether state courts interpreting state constitutions will be able to ensure protections for voters in the face of legislative restrictions. i think we are going to see some ruling that pulls back on the authority of state judges in some way. i don't think that there's a majority to go as far as those on the right want to go to remove state judges from the calculation. >> that would be really

think about the confirmation hearing of amy coney barrett with senator dianne feinstein she didn't think be able to be a supreme court script because of her catholic faith. this is what the pope fought against secularism undermining religious foundation not just of the catholic church, but of the whole world. gillian: he was an important leader on the world stage. i worked at the white house in 2008 when he came to visit president george w. bush and it was amazing at the time to see the united states government embrace him as if, you know, not just as a religious leader, but as a head of state, a foreign head of state. >> leon panetta met with him one time. a conservative catholic. the pope said to him, thank you for keeping the world safe. i mean, this is a man who got it. he got the role of the united states in the world. he understood the difference between good and evil. his papacy was far too short. we know that he made some mistakes, he was only human, but he's someone that we will really miss. gillian: we're looking at a live picture outside vatican square, for our viewers at home

we are listening to amy coney barrett and to opinions from the left, including from justice kagan. say earlier today. >> reporter: so you can see here just as justice kagan points out, there's so much writing on this. what started as a fringe theory has now moved into more prominence inside conserative legal circles. it would allow those who win to be in control. even if democrats were to control a state legislature, they would then be able to draw districting maps and make rules that could benefit their party. you wouldn't have the check of a court. this is a really consequential case. that's why so many people are watching it today. >> julia ainsley, thank you so much. >>> coming up in our next hour, chris jansing will have more about the arguments before the supreme court that are still going on. we will talk with governor roy cooper. >>> the white house is focusing on fighting anti-semitism after a surge in rhetoric across the country. during a roundtable this morning, a meeting in the executive office building, administration officials said jewish leaders, second gentleman and

then you have brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett and john roberts suggesting during a very tension-filled open to some limits on some state judges. meanwhile, the remaining three liberals definitely against it. justice elena kagan saying let's step back and look at the consequences of this. and how state courts would have no check on state legislatures if they wanted to roll back voting, voter protections, if they wanted to certify elections, if they wanted to gerrymander to the extreme, all sorts of maps. so big case coming down the pike here. >> thanks very much with that report. and to our viewers, thanks very much for watching. i am wolf blitzer in "the situation room." "erin burnett outfront" starts right now. >>> "outfront" next, putin upping the ant

he an makes in this piece, that think is so important, is that honestly, brett kavanaugh an amy coney barretti the federal judiciary today. the lower courts are stacked with bomb throwing radicals wh do not care about following la or president they are desperate to impose very conservative policy ideas into the constitution from the bench. if sotomayor were replaced by conservative, that make a huge difference as bad as things ar now. they would be so much worse. in ways that are sometimes difficult to imagine from here look, i love these justices, i think they're billing women wh add so much to the supreme court. but we should all be thinkin carefully about when the nex window will open for their retirement i think they should seriousl consider asking themselves, is it worth taking the risk o holding on when i could step down now and know that m replacement will be in lin with my own values >> mark, quickly, is there one case that is really in you brain and not getting out of your brain that is gonna com up in 2023 that we need to b looking at >> absolutely, there is a case that is designed

that leaves the chief justice justice in kavanaugh and amy coney barrett who really did not tip theirither way. all three of them made comments that might lead to believe they could go either way so we are going to have to wait and see. i think those three justices may hold the key to the fate of this theory which as the professor said is consided revolutionary. >> thank you very much. >> pleasure, john. >> thank yo, john -- thank you. ♪ judy: a massive u.s. defense related bill weld out late last night is making its way through congress. the annual national defense authorization act is a 4000 page bill put together by bipartisan negotiators. it sets parameters for the military and this year it includes major policy changes. lisa desjardinss on capitol hill with more. what is in this bill? >> this is a sweeping piece of legislation. i have definitely not read all 4000 pages and there is an 800 page accompanying report. overall it is an increase potentially in the strength and power and funding of the u.s. military. a 4.6% pay raise for most members of the military. it also includes th

it comes down to john roberts as well as brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett.ring the argument, they seem to be pushing back a little bit and might try to rein in this theory, maybe let republicans have a built of a win but not as far as republicans want. >> thank you for trying to simplify it. a complicated case, all things are it seems at the supreme court. jessica, i appreciate it. >>> a restaurant in richmond, virginia, is making headlines today for telling a conservative christian organization it is not welcome there. the group has lobbied against same-sex marriage and abortion rights and was denied a table last week. a post on instagram the restaurant says we have always refused service for anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and many of our staff are women and/or members of the lgbtq community. now, this group on the other hand is comparing the restaurant's decision to a time when people were denied service because of their race. let's talk about this with civil rights lawyer charlie gerstein. thanks for being here. from a legal perspecti

joy behar made an awful accusation against supreme court justice amy coney barrett on "the view." >>person, she belongs to the people of praise group which the, this the southern poverty the law center has label ared them a hate group. i want to correct something i said on air when i stated that people of praise had been deemed a hate group. i just got them mixed up with another group. it was inaccurate. howard: at least she apologized, but how about checking the facts before trashing someone's religion? cnn laid off hundreds of staffers this week, and it includes such folks as pundit martin savage. it's been a sad week there. i was also struck by stephen colbert having this exchange with don lemon. >> the word on the street is that you guys aren't allowed to be liberal anymore. is that the case? >> i don't think we ever were liberal. >> what? >> yes. howard: where does lemon think we've been the last six years? the apology tour by the disgraced crypto king reached "good morning america" which had george stephanopoulos sit down with sam bankman-fried. he also owned alameda and ftx an

the middle, roberts, kavanaugh, amy coney barrett.seem to go all the way and embrace this extreme theory. they seem to be looking for some middle ground here. jim, it's significant this theory, as you said, goes to the heart of our democracy, even reached the supreme court this week. we will get that ruling in june or so. and the stakes are enormous on it. >> it is enormous. it merits a lot more attention than it's gotten the last several days. i think it will get more as the court weighs in on all of this. and i can't imagine. it would just be stunning if they were to adopt this theory and make it the law of the land somewhat. it would just be staggering. thank you so much. really appreciate the time as always. >> thanks, jim. >> good to see you. how a new series from prince harry and meghan may on only deepen their years-long rift with the family. that it's next. together. happy holidays from lexus. ♪ ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ if you still have symptoms of moderate to severe rheumatoid a

think that they should adopt the entire theory, but key will be chief justice john roberts, amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh. those three looked like they wanted to put some limits on a broad ruling and they really will decide sort of the contours of future elections. and of course the liberals in court were furious. they said that if this is adopted it's going to cause chaos on the ground and it's going to lead to rogue legislators. take a listen to liberal justice elena kagan. >> i think what might strike a person is that this is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances. legislators, we all know, have their own self-interest. they want to get re-elected. and so there are countless times when they have incentives to suppress votes, to dilute votes. >> progressive groups and liberals are really worried about this case because they say there's no way to really make it narrow. even if chief justice john roberts and the other two try to do so, it's going to invite more legal challenges down the road. they say that that's going to bring more of these cases to the court and

if i set up an account that a says where every one of amy coney barrett's children is live time, that's inappropriate -- howard: you would be -- >> and i should be banned immediately. howard: now, bari weiss who worked with musk on the twitter file said the old twitter was governed by people's whims and biases, and it looks like new regime has the same problem. elon hit back and said you're virtue signaling to show you are good in the eyes of the media elite. has musk given ammunition, laura, to a media establishment that can't stand him? >> absolutely. but it's not just about ammo, it's also about the business case. we talked in the haas segment about reporters covering the business value and the impact on the businesses. there are so many stories here about the fact that elon musk is driving down the value of a company that he overpaid for, and he was able to do it by borrowing other people's money that banks were happy to lend. so i think that there's -- the undercurrent here that is not being covered -- >> twitter without the journalists is not less valuable than twitter with the jo

the lives of the justices that were threatened as pro- abortion advocates posting or justice amy coney barrett and her children to school, very dangerous situation. so ken and andy doing to add jump right in. we have all been describing a situation in which sensitive investigations are being conducted in areas and involve where there's a lot of political disagreement and ferments. what are some of the steps other than repealing the face act that you think can and should be taken to highlight these problems, improve transparency and hold our leaders accountable? >> i have a couple suggestions on the statute. but i have to say i wonder whether and again john, you have experience with this, local law enforcement local prosecutors tend to stand back when they know something is a federal crime. >> that is true. >> i wonder whether all these attacks on churches, pro-life pregnancy centers where the local law enforcement is just not doing anything about it because they expect the fbi and the justice department did it so nothing's getting done. but if you're going to amend the statute one of the probl

we did hear a lot of reservations from chief justice roberts, from amy coney barrett and even from brett i am watching and waiting. but the most important thing is that they understand how dangerous it would be to have an feathered legislative control over elections. and to allow legislatures to ignore state constitutions. we have state constitutions of this country not in north carolina that require independent reader certain commissions. that it had referendums where the people -- we discerning to go. the justices understand that if they rule with the north carolina legislature, all of that will go away. they also understand if they rule for the north carolina legislature, they're gonna get a lot more election law cases of the supreme court. >> pretty sobering topic we're discussing here. in the west, i thank, you congresswoman deborah ross there in north carolina. thank you so much. coming up next, 1 am editing fact about a impacting millions of americans and the two words that may have allowed it to happen. migraine attacks. qulipta gets right to work. keeps attacks away over time. q