biden appointing ketanji brown jackson joins the conservative majority with trump appointee amy coney barrett in dissent with the court's other two liberals. of the more than 1400 people being prosecuted for the capitol ride, more than three and 50 faced obstruction charge. 27 are still serving their sentences for it. for trump, it is the basis for two of the four charges against him. but the decision does not rule out a certain prosecutions for those defendants who interfered with evidence. for examples, certificates for state electors that congress was counting. >> today's decision is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for donald trump. the charges against trump i think will have two be reevaluated but that's not to say that the prosecution under this law can't continue. >> reporter: also today the court decided to other major cases, both in a 6-revote. another opinion by roberts, the court overturned a 40-year-old decision, long criticized by conservatives, they gave federal administrative agencies sweeping power to regulate wide swaths of american life. in a decision by justice neil gorsuch,

justice amy coney barrett, who joined the liberal justices in dissent, pushed back -- acknowledging that the law was written in the business-crime context, but writing, "admittedly, events like january 6th were not its target. who could blame congress for that failure of imagination? but statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them." trump heralded the decision on social media, calling it "big news" for the january 6th defendants he celebrated on the debate stage and whom he's vowed to pardon as president. >> those people have been treated so badly. so we're asking, based on the decision, they should immediately be released, immediately, the january 6th hostages. >> reporter: tonight, the justice department says today's decision will not affect the "vast majority" of january 6th defendants' cases, and it will take "appropriate steps to comply with the ruling." of the more than 1,400 january 6th defendants, 52 have been convicted on this charge. 27 are currently serving time. no one, including fischer, was only charged with obstruction. two of the four charges in the elec

i think that there is an answer for alito and thomas that may be different than any -- amy coney barrettce roberts and the reason i single out amy coney barrett is she's issued some interesting decisions in the last couple weeks. we are going to talk about the obstruction decision and she actually writes the descent and so, you do get the sense of a mind that is thinking and that is not just a knee-jerk reaction to side automatically with what you know justice alito is going to think but i think for justice alito, he is leading a charge that is very much what i would call a maga justice. it seems so unthoughtful and so untethered to the facts and a complete disrespect for decades of other jurors as if the other people who served on the supreme court were a bunch of bumpkins. there is just the whole idea of what's called stare decisis where you're supposed to say, i may disagree with the prior decision but it cannot be that just because the composition of the court changes that you are suddenly going to overturn a decision from last week or last year and there's supposed to be a sense of

and the question that was asked by justice sotomayor and followed by amy coney barrett about what will prosecutors do. that's a critically important question. because prosecutors who lean into what the investigative cone happens to be means they may continue to threaten doctor or may continue to try to air lift patients and say i'm not sure what could do hear. there are those that say doctors could as act as they did during the civil rights movement and be more bold and contest these matters in the state and advocate for their patients more robustly, but there are doctors who really do worry about losing marry medical license to practice and the potential for criminal punishment and civil litigation. >> so as the justice said, it's a lot to ask of a doctor. the other question i have, this is not a decision or a full-blown opinion. we don't know whether this is a draft. we don't know what this is yet. it was posted mistakenly by the court. the full decision coming in due time. if it does signal something, is there a threat to other emergency care? if the supreme court let's this get lit

how conservative justice amy coney barrett. what is the trouble in paradise there? der themselves to be originalists but amy coney barrett is a sicklier for rules. she wants rules that can be workable. where clarence thomas acts like a king who makes these grand pronunciations and decrees and says he can step in and fix it later. and justice barrett is showing some real impatience for what i would call justice thomas' sloppy work. his sloppy use of history. his reckless use of originalism or bad originalism to try to decide cases in a way that is very difficult for lower courts to follow. one of the block busters left on the docket is whether domestic abusers have the right to bear arms. whether or not the government can disarm people who abuse their spouses and that's going to pit thomas against barrett i think because for barrett, the answer seems obvious based on all arguments she said of course the government can take away their guns but thomas was so obsessed with history, he may not be okay with disarming domestic abusers. it is creating a rift. it could have r

where does amy coney barrett sit in all of this?or likened her to a disney princess. she sort of manufactured right out of central kaftding to sit among them. sometimes she tries to call on their better angels. but more often, she's absolutely silent in these decisionses. so think about dobbs versus jackson women's health organization which withdrew the right to abortion from millions of american women. she is silent in that case. she goes along with the boys. in many of these cases, she may speak out in oral argument, she may challenge some of those dubious arguments in the moment, but she doesn't actually register her own thoughts or her own perspectives on the page. she does so only sparingly. when she does, it is noteworthy, but i don't think we know quite enough about where she sitting among these conservatives to actually make a decision. she's the with unto watch in the next couple of years. >> all right. all eyes on amy. melissa murray and mary mccord, thanks so much for being with us. >>> coming up, vladimir putin and kim j

occasionally you see the rifts between them and we have detected a rift between amy coney barrett, whohe youngest justice on the court but also the most recent of the trump appointees, and some of the older conservatives on the court, justices like clarence thomas and samuel alito. as you know, it's primarily over what has become a mainstay of the supreme court's decision making in the last few years, which is to act like historians and go back and look at what they call history and tradition and then make decisions like the dobbs decision that you mentioned at the outset of the segment, and they delve into history from the 1700s and going back to the 1300s, believe it or not, to make the judgments. justice barrett, while she went along with it two years ago signaled a little discomfort with some of the work that the court has been doing in this area of history and tradition. >> josh, i appreciate your insights. thank you very much for joining us. >>> now back to one of our top stories today. just ahead, we will talk to julian assange's brother, and his own conversation with julian ass

surprising between how clarence justice thomas is deciding cases and how conservative justice amy coney barretts. what is the trouble in paradise there? >> they both consider themselves to be originalists, but amy coney barrett is a stickler for rules whereas clarence thomas very much acts like a king who makes these grand pronunciations and decrees and sort of assumes if it doesn't work out below like the court assumes he can fix it later. and justice barrett is showing real impatience for what i would call justice thomas' sloppy work, his sloppy use of history and reckless use of batterism trying to decide cases in a way that's difficult for courts to follow. one of the cases left on the docket is whether or not the government can disarm people who abuse their spouses, and that's going to pit thomas against barrett i think, because for barrett the answer seems obviously based on oral arguments he seems to say of course the government can take away their guns. but thomas is so obsessed with history and his misreading of history he might not be okay with disarming domestic abusers. that's creat

needed at all so the real fulcrum of the court turns around those from justices, particularly amy coney barrett kavanaugh, who are often in the center. it's not to say they are not moderate or centrist, but the court has moved so far to the right because of this shift in personnel and addition of a sixth justice that the chief justice is really out in the wind, out in the wilderness. we are seeing that in not only big decisions where the chief justice tried to steer a middle course and didn't have the votes to do it. the five conservatives were like, no, we don't care what you say. they basically said that in the opinion so he's kind of out in the wilderness and has really lost the thread of this court. it was interesting last week when justice alito responded to senator durbin. he was responding to a letter sent to the chief justice and he responded before the chief justice. sort of an indication we don't listen to this guy and you shouldn't either. >> so what can be done about this? you and i had this conversation and you are so brilliant but i would like a remarkably satisfying answer on thi

there is another clip of amy coney barrett, where she said, if you are a justice and you agree with everyecision you make, you're doing it wrong. my uncle was a judge, and there were many times i had spoken with him, and i was in law school, getting my paralegal certificates, that you do not make the agreements. you do not make your vision -- decisions on how you feel. you have to do it on the law. that will clear the situation that sometimes you walk off that bench and you're not happy about what you have done at all, but that is what the law says. your job as a judge is to decide on the lobby of that is what it is so scary to me when you hear people talking about stacking the court. the show last week was talking about making 20 justices. you have to ask yourself, who is going to pick these justices? the reason the founding fathers gave them lifetime tenure is so they are free from corruption. they cannot be bought, like sotomayor said. presidents last 4 or 8 years, they last a lifetime. if we lose respect to the supreme court, we have lost the country. there's nothing left at that poin

there is another clip of amy coney barrett, where she said, if you are a justice and you agree with everyecision you make, you're doing it wrong. my uncle was a judge, and there were many times i had spoken with him, and i was in law school, getting my paralegal certificates, that you do not make the agreements. you do not make your vision -- decisions on how you feel. you have to do it on the law. that will clear the situation that sometimes you walk off that bench and you're not happy about what you have done at all, but that is what the law says. your job as a judge is to decide on the lobby of that is what it is so scary to me when you hear people talking about stacking the court. the show last week was talking about making 20 justices. you have to ask yourself, who is going to pick these justices? the reason the founding fathers gave them lifetime tenure is so they are free from corruption. they cannot be bought, like sotomayor said. presidents last 4 or 8 years, they last a lifetime. if we lose respect to the supreme court, we have lost the country. there's nothing left at that poin

ballot in the court. >> i don't think so. >> donald trump went on to say that he didn't know how amy coney barrettng to rule on a roe v. wade. ultimately she did help overturn dobbs and this is for donald trump, he said i support having exceptions in states, but ultimately that's where you see democrats say at this point in time you don't get to control this. every ban in every state regardless of how far it goes, you, donald trump own it. when you're talking about donald trump he's struggled to answer other questions like his position on abortion medication and us in the press, we don't get many opportunities to actually get questions to donald trump. back in april -- >> pretty close to zero. >> pretty close to zero. back in april he told us he would be releasing in one week a position on abortion medication. that was in april. he hasn't answered that. he hasn't said that his department of justice would potentially allow them to prosecute individuals for having abortion medication mailed to them. so those are questions that joe biden could potentially bring that donald trump has not had to answer

we had amy coney barrett talking about the contours of originalism.or and jackson being der ris sieve about the idea that we should look back to 1787 to determine which gun laws should be allowed to be in use today. a lot of tensions here. this case just announced, snyder is an important one and not one i think many court watchers will be talking about but i think it's worthwhile for your listeners to hear about it. this case narrows an anti-corruption statute and it's part of a larger pattern of this court narrowing the statutes that can call government officials to account for corruption and, again, part of a larger pattern that began with a case mcdonald involving the governor of virginia. kelly versus united states which involves chris christie's bridge gate. the court narrows it and makes it okay to be corrupt if you are in government again. another major trend from this court. >> ryan reilly, lisa rubin, neal katyal, so grateful to have your expert minds and legal analysis. two more still in the hopper this week, thursday and friday. i look forw

own praises as usual three great supreme court justices, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett this of course, as we mark the two-year anniversary of the fall of roe, plus how climate protesters disrupted the final round of the pga tour's travelers championship this weekend the final episode of violent earth, they're deadly. >> my lynch and unleash massive blockchain, hurricane impacts are worsening, is it too late to undo decades? >> climate change violet occurred with we have schreiber sunday at nine on cnn. >> ms bath row. so musty new fast acting drop-in tab a traps and traps excess moisture, eliminating musty odor suffering from arthritis, muscle and joint pain, get relief. finally, with magna life or annika pain relief gel with eucalyptus, an email boyle ease, stiffness, inflammation and soreness naturally available at your local retailer telling me what you want from this, want to be a star going to be normal, liked? this is the way to control who knows where it i promise you, i will not let you down. if i were, you know, i've stopped a heart attack. >> do they have life

just as amy coney barrett said, this was basically the court getting involved in politicking, and thatto say that congress had written this, broadly enough, to cover what occurred on january 6th. and that the specific language of the statute itself says otherwise, and then otherwise destroying or concealing government records or who obstructed, influenced or impeded any official proceeding of the government, which he said should apply, and she was joined by liberals on the court. >> michelle, while we have you, i also want to ask about another major decision today involving people experiencing homelessness on the west coast. can you explain this ruling, and what happens now? >> yes, well, this is a ruling where the supreme court has overturned lower court decisions coming out of the ninth circuit which essentially has said these anti-camping laws, which were about getting rid of homeless individuals from the streets, the ninth circuit had said that those were laws that violated the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment when local municipalities had no provided homes or

justice amy coney barrett, a conservative appointed by donald trump, she writes this striking part of her concurring opinion, she says the second amendment is not absolute. that's really important. she's saying there should be and can be limits to the second amendment. i want to in some ways talk about the dissenting opinion here by justice clarence thomas. he writes at one point that the second amendment is being violated by domestic violence abusers, people who have been convicted or who have restraining orders against them, that that's going against the second amendment. he writes it's not giving them due process. i want to read part of his dissent. he writes in part, this law violates the second amendment. first, it targets convict possessing firearms. the government failed to produce any evidence that this law is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, to the contrary the founding generation addressed the same societal problem and it's not materially different means and they did not want to have those laws. i think it's interesting to see that you

justices gorsuch, kavanaugh amy coney barrett, and justice jackson all wrote separately to put in their $0.02 about how to weigh gun regulations coming up from other kinds of cases that would be unlike just this one that's specifically targeted individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders this was easy, wealth, but going forward, they will not be easy cases. >> it was almost unanimous. elie honig, not completely because justice clarence thomas dissented. what do you make of his descent? >> justice thomas is all alone on an island here. he takes such a broad view of the second moment, almost an absolutist view of the second amendment to illustrate that justice alito, chief justice roberts, justice kavanaugh, justice amy coney barrett, all disagreed with him. they even said this restriction on the second amendment is reasonable given the danger, given but threat that this poses to the public important to understand how this arose. there is a criminal statute and federal law, section 922, j, if anyone wants to look it up, that list categories of prohibited persons wh

i think there's an answer for alito and thomas that may be different than amy coney barrett and chiefason i sort of single out amy coney barrett is she has issued some fairly interesting decisions in the last couple weeks. indeed we're going to talk about the obstruction decision. and she actually writes the dissent. and so, you know, you do get the sense of a mind that is thinking and that is not just a kneejerk reaction to side automatically with what you know justice alito is going to think. but i think for justice alito, he is leading a charge that is very much a sort of what i would call a maga justice. just seems so unthoughtful and so untethered to the facts, and a complete disrespect for decades of other jurists. as if the other people who served on the supreme court were a bunch of bumpkins. i mean, there's just the whole idea of what's called stare decisis where you're supposed to say i may disagree with a prior decision, but it cannot be that just because the composition of the court changes that you're suddenly going to overturn a decision from last week or last year, and

three conservative justices, the chief justice john roberts, justices brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett, sided with the court's three liberals in today's unusual ruling, but and it's a very important, but they did not settle the big legal question at issue whether federal guarantees i've emergency medical care supersede idaho's effort to impose an almost total abortion ban. instead, today's decision dismiss the case on procedural grounds. the newest member of the court's liberal faction, justice ketanji brown jackson, warning this is far from over writing. this. today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in idaho. it his delay while this court donalds and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position. the ruling comes just hours before president biden and the former president donald trump debate right here at cnn's world headquarters in atlanta, where we know abortion access will certainly be an issue. let's get to the policy first on the big decision i want to bring in cnn's joan biskupic. can carolina kitchene

i want to thank the six supreme thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett for this long term, contentious issue. this has been a long time it has been fought. getting it back to the states puts the question where it belongs with the vote people and over time it will all work out. it is working out right now. it will all work out and it is what everybodyars. it has taken -- they say 49 but it has probably been 51 years it has taken to get this done. in the republican pa we will always support families and babies and life, very important to the rublican party. host: the former president had to say about this being a state issue? so, we want to hear from you. if not, we also want to hear from you. there are the lines on your screen. getting your thoughts on the two year in a bursary of the dobbs decision overturni wade. ralph reed, the e f the faith and freedom coalition is quoted in a cnn piece saying he president and does not believe his position is at odds with the faith voters. "the president's position reflects the short-term political reality for both si

we saw this and black-and-white after trump and third supreme court nominee amy coney barrett who was a clear vote against abortion rights was confirmed. days before the election. while ruth bader ginsburg had just passed away. when that happened, mississippi's attorney general saw her opening and she went back to the court because she knew there was a court to explicitly amend her filing to explicitly ask them to overturn roe v. wade. she didn't do it before but when she saw the numbers, she said let's go whole hog and it worked. they did exactly that two years ago this coming monday. the abortion pill, mifepristone, the court heard this and it was the same situation. right-wing antiabortion activist look at the court and say let's take a shot at this. let's try to ban mifepristone nationwide via judicial field. it was preposterous claiming the food and drug administration should not have approved it as abortion medication and doctors who missed out on giving birth had suffered injury and had standing . that was a step too far even for this court which unanimously dismiss the case on

the supreme court reversed those lower courts just as amy coney barrett, writing a decision that bristled with impatience for these lower courts for some of these conservative judges that are letting their partisan stripes shows saying the plaintiffs in this case never had any standing to bring a case. this was a major litigation. it lasted for several years. a bunch of high-ranking officials were dragged into federal court to testify about it and now you have barrett joined by cavanagh and robert saying this never should've been in federal court in the first place. it is a major defeat especially for those lower courts that are trying to push the law against biden as far as it can go. barrett is still a very conservative justice but when she sees nonsense like this she will absolutely call it out. >> george, we are seeing more and more judges in the judicial system current and retired callout the supreme court. they are not happy with them. what does that tell you about the status of things? >> these are very fraught times, these are very difficult times in the judiciary because people h

in this ruling the majority of the opinion written by amy coney barrett does not talk about the merits of the case. it is about standing. they argue that the plaintiffs which included two states and a handful of residents did not have the standing to be bringing the case because they could not demonstrate that they were directly injured by the defendants which in this case is the biden administration. this is similar to the mifepristone ruling where they did not actually decide definitively on access to the abortion pill, just the individuals and people who brought the case did not have standing which is why they ruled in favor. it leaves the door open for this question to still be raised in the future technically by plaintiffs who might have a more firm ground to stand on. ed: there is an interesting case on what happens next. the administration could go out and engage with the company is and talk to them freely which is the top line of the story. whether they do or not remains to be seen because in october there was a temporary halt per the court's and it is an election year. what do

she attended the same college as supreme court justice amy coney barrett.e full conversation by scanning the qr code you see on your screen with your phone or by searching why is this happening, wherever you get your podcasts. start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. some days, you can feel like a spectator in your own life with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they start. and treatment is 4 times a year. in a survey, 91% of users wish they'd started sooner. so why wait? talk to your doctor. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your m

justice ruth bader ginsburg had died and three days after trump had announced his nomination of amy coney barrett to fill the vacancy on the core. everyone knew they would rush ahead but around the court despite the fact they did the opposite, mitch mcconnell in 2016 -- and at the time, been worn that her confirmation would put roe v. wade at risk. >> the president also was opposed to roe v. wade. that's on the ballot as well in the court. that is also at stake right now. the election is all -- >> you don't know what's on the ballot. why is it on the ballot? >> it's on the ballot in the court. >> there's nothing happening there. you don't know her view on roe v. wade. >> [ laughter ] you don't know her view. that was conservative slope that when. you don't know her view on roe v. wade. everyone knew her view of roe v. wade. of course. she was in the conservative majority to end roe v. wade. something four years later trump is happy to get credit for. >> for 54 years they were trying to get roe v. wade terminated and i did it. i'm proud to have done it. they want to get it back. there would be no

ketanji brown jackson was in the majority and amy coney barrett wrote the dissent. she said the majority did textual backflips to reach their decision. amna: there are 1300 other january 6 defendants. >> the effect appears to be quite limited. >> only 300 46 of the more than 1400 defendants charged for the attack on the u.s. capitol were even charged with that offense. of those the vast majority are charged with another felony. whether they went to trial or pleaded guilty, they could be resentenced to a similar term of incarceration based on that other fennel -- felony. there are very few people who were not convicted, were found guilty of another felony or it was only a misdemeanor and they might get a resentencing. geoff: it is also one of the charges against donald trump. there suggesting that might not have to be dropped because that case does involve documents. amna: the conservative majority upheld an ordinance in a small oregon city that criminalizes behaviors associated with homelessness like sleeping in public parks. what were the key factors? >> the challe

former public defender and it attended the same college as amy coney barrett. you can listen to the full conversation by scanning the qr code you see on your screen with your phone or searching why is this happening ever you get your podcast. it was a fun one. one. i know you love your dadda. of course he loves you. he just doesn't show it on his face... or with his body language. ♪ she's got a smile ♪ ♪ that seems to me ♪ come on. oh, junior! no no no no no no. haha! good job junior. way to go. [ minion language ] >>> have you heard of that ancient urban legend that's come along for every rich guy? the rich guy's car breaks down into good samaritan helps to fix it in the next day the samaritan finds his mortgage has been paid off by the rich guy. a version of this made-up story about henry ford and they told it about bill gates and donald trump. the difference is trump depended on stories like that. spot terrific. >> been waiting a very long time. >> this sounds like trouble. >> i want to know if the story was true. you were traveling to atlantic city and your

justice amy coney barrett's concurrence introduce a new and somewhat alarming theory. quite >> what we see between mifepristone case and as well as the -- case have been concerns about people who have religious views and these religious views that may end up allowing them to circumvent what the pip -- would be the protections. one thing i want to make sure that we cover before we go,■ç t point was to protect individuals who are poor or in emergency situations were not at home and need health care. the same theory we needed it during the civil rights movement, when african americans literally died on the steps of hospitals, not being cared for her. what it does, it protects not only pregnant women, it protects anybody who needs emergency health care. we have seen what it looks like in this country when people of color have been turned away, went for people have been turned away, when people who have immigrant status have been turned away. and that part of the danger in this, all americans should be deeply concerned with the supreme court which -- those protections, prot

. >> so, renaldo, amy coney barrett saying something interesting in a speech last year at catholic university have to be very, very careful in the way we use history adding that deploying historical evidence to advance a legal conclusion can be like looking over a crowd and picking out your friends. quote/unquote. we saw a little of amy coney breaking from the ranks in her opinion. thoughts whether a "lack of historical precedence or a historical analognalog" somethiy coney barrett will look to, deciding immunity. wah it doesn't exist in prior historical contents definitely not give to do somebody like donald trump in the present? >> justice turned out in the mid-far. how far right the court has moved but i don't expect the court to find a very expansive presidential immunity, and i agree with the professor that ultimately they're not going to side with trump's argument that he had absolute immunity and this is a get out of jail free card for him, which it does, of course, beg the question why they took up broader more weighty issues. the fact they did i think is cause for the delay here. but

justice amy coney barrett wrote a concurrent saying we aren't really sure how much these laws clash.ite clear. it said if there is a conflict between city and federal law, federal law requires stabilizing care. sometimes an abortion means stabilizing care. that is how you protect a person's life. ■ç in doing so it leaves millions of women in limbo and leaves doctors in limbo. in texas about who is accused of violating the abortion ban faces 99 years in prison. the supreme court gives no guidance there. i guess i want to tie this back to the conversation about chevron, because this is a federal legislation and conservative justices continue to advance this skepticism towards experts implementing this federal law that congress enacted to protect people's lives. conservative justices keep second guessing decisions by congress and by experts here to say that women should not be killed because of a medical condition that can be treated. so this is important as it is once again supplanting the will of the people and ■çdecisions o the democratic ranches, doing so in a highly cynical way tha

. >> your point was taken up by justice amy coney barrett who broke with the conservatives this week,ing fisher's alleged conduct, which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation can law enforcement was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results. given the premises, the case that fischer can be tried for impeding a processing seems open and shut. why does the court hold otherwise? ankush, why does the court hold otherwise? >> because they are -- [ laughter ] >> they're contextualists. i agree with marc, this should not have been a close call legally speaking. it is worth noting justice jackson joined the majority. we shouldn't be totally one sided about it. but i do think the correct way to read this law was for it to apply to all of the people that it's been applied to. however, i will just say that on a note of optimism, i think the practical impact of the ruling is likely to be much narrower than i think people currently think. the most obvious application seems to be people with only charges under that statute and are yet to be s

another couple of months while the case now goes back to the merits and in the actual opinion, amy coney barrett lays out exactly what idaho has to do in order to get her to flip on the other side and rule against the medical care. they are just going to rule after the elections, you tell me why. you tell me why because i want to make a major decision just before the november election. >> they took the case and they did what is called digging in, which is denied as improvidently granted, which is a great acronym. you know what? we are bad, we shouldn't take this. you guys go back, their stuff happening to the lower court, the law actually changed. come back to us maybe after the 2024 election. we will take another run at it. >> that is exactly it. ha >> thank you very much. >>> coming up, as mentioned, on what republicans really have plan for abortion rights in america. but first, with less than 24 hours into the first presidential debate, the top advice trump is getting from his buddies, try not to be a raging a whole. that is next. choose advil liqui-gels for faster, stronger and longer-lastin

and we saw in 2022, when amy coney barrett was confirmed and that really cemented the republican majority at 6-3 on the court. the republicans didn't do so well in those midterms because barrett was confirmed right before these midtermed. i've heard some republican strategists say that a little bit of an impact on voter enthusiasm. one said to me at the time that social conservatives, religious conservatives, after the barrett confirmation, felt quote fat, happy, and lazy. so, without roe v. wade, the court isn't as much of a factor for republicans. now, as for the issue of abortion, it's a little bit more complicated than people are making it out to be. in states like michigan and wisconsin where it's in play as a political issue, i think democrats will be energized by it. but in other states like michigan where it's taken off the table, i think it's less of a motivating factor. >> thank you so much. appreciate it. >>> coming up, the surgeon general sounding the alarm on social media and america's children. plus, trump courts black voters in michigan trying to make inroads with a key bid

to find out from this decision not for scalia and clarence thomas stan but where cavanaugh, amy coney barrett think those are interesting questions about how they feel about the future of this democracy and the future of the executive office. and the presidency. >> both sides are going to win and lose at the same time on immunity. i'm looking forward to july 11th, the sentencing date for donald trump, which a lot of folks appear to be thinking that yesterday was the big show, and this happens a lot. people think about guilty verdicts as the main event in the trial but for more important, at least to citizens and maybe far more important to the constitution, is what happens if donald trump is actually incarcerated? i don't think there is a high possibility of that. i think it is far more likely that he gets probation but what if he doesn't? oranges is color but what if he does not? what if judge merchan decides to make a point and send them to jail even for a dale to process ? if it is a probation only sentence, it is really the same effect on his body. he showed up to court. he listened to a

developed on the death of ruth bader ginsburg, the senate decided to rush the delegation of amy coney barrett months off. it somehow lost its force for them in 2020 when the nomination was theirs to make and the seat was theirs to fill. how corrosive was that specific breach iniv ethics? >> in my view, this is the kind of step taken just to win, to push through that result because you can push through that result that added together on all the other actions of that kind that are taken really does have a long-term undermining effect not just on the way the process should operate but on the public's confidence in the process. the public loses faith that politics is an honorable calling, and that at some point in seeking their favor, seeking their vote inhe the campaign, there is a limit -- there's a limit to what responsible political w actors will do, in e same way that they have to hope in trying to enact public policies, there's a e limit to what people in government will do to win a policy debate. there haspo to be those limits. i'm convinced, by the way, that victory is possible while adhe

in 2020, following trump's appointment of amy coney barrett to the supreme court, here is how the topic played out before roe v. wade was struck down. biden: the president also is opposed to roe v. wade. that is on the ballot as well and in the courts so that is also at stake right now. so the election -- trump: why is that on the ballot? it's not on the ballot. there's nothing happening there. you don't know her view on roe v. wade. i don't know her view. biden: the fact is that everything he is saying so far is a lie. everyone knows he is a liar. i'm not here to call out his lies. but i want to make sure -- trump you were last in your class. biden: [laughter] the american people should speak. go out and vote. let your senators know -- trump: [interrupting] [crosstalk] the radical left -- biden: will you shut up, man? >> we are going to move on to the second segment. biden: that was a really productive segment, wasn't it? [laughter] >> from september 2020, the two candidates then talking about abortion, an issue that could come up tonight. we are asking you what issue you want them to

the supreme court reversed those, amy coney barrett said the plaintiffs in this case never had any standinge case, this was a major litigation, this lasted for several years. a bunch of high-ranking officials were dragged into federal court and now, you have barrett, joined by kavanagh, roberts and three liberal saying they should not have been in federal court in first plate -- place. barrett is policing that line, she's still very conservative but when she sees nonsense like this, she will absolutely call it out. >> george, we are also seeing more and more judges current and retired, call out the supreme court. they are not happy with them. what does that tell you about the status of things? >> these are difficult times in the judiciary because people have been attacking the judiciary because of the instability -- >> and sometimes for good reason. >> absolutely, some of these ethics issues are significant but i think, a decision like the one that mark was just talking about it shows you that there is a corrective capacity in the supreme court. i think the fifth circuit is becoming the con

brett kavanaugh is not a botanist and amy coney barrett is not a member of the federal reserve. but that is what this ruling implies, that the justices are experts in fields outside of the law and that they know better than the people who get paid to make these decisions in the federal government. justice kagen said it best. quote, a rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. joining me now is analyst and host of the amicus law podcast and an author of the best selling lady justice, women, the law and the battle to save america, dahlia ludwick. there have been a huge number of cases out of scotus in the last weeks but this hits all americans hard. not americans who are facing criminal charges. i'm talking all americans. chev ron has been on the books for 40 years. it has been precedent. but this court decided that precedent means something different than what we learned in law school. take us through a short description of what this decision means for americans. >> hi, katie. i think the easiest way to describe it is i think about how government works. we

from justice jackson because in some ways she's calling out another new member of the court, amy coney barrett, who describes herself as having changed her made having taken the case. big picture what's at stake here is that for the longest time on planet right-wing fantasy there is no emergency abortion that is justified, and if there is we're not going to call it an abortion. that is the planet they've been living on. two years ago that was put into practice. the reality had to intercede that in fact there's plenty of reasons why somebody might have to go to an emergency room and need abortion care. their answer in the beginning was, oh, no, someone's misinterpreting the law. now we've gotten to the stage their lawyers are in court saying not that, maybe that, that doesn't really happen that way or if it does, it's the doctor's fault trying to make us look bad. they've been mostly forced to say they are in fact waiting for someone's organs to fail, waiting for someone to die and that they don't care if they suffer serious impairment, which is the federal standard. right, so that's the backdr

in a separate controversy, rolling stone is reporting that justice amy coney barrett's husband is representingsuit. and while the case is not before the high court, it does raise ethics questions that a justice's spouse is being paid by a large media corporation. to me now isyour source on a per box. i am so grateful to have your voice. i will read two lines from justice alito's letter. he sent to durbin in sheldon whitehouse and that he also sent to members of congress to. o i invite you to say that seven times. my wife is solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our vacation home and has blown a wide variety of flies over the years. she makes her own decisions. i honor her right to do so. she is a private citizen. she possesses that same first amendment rights as every other citizen. let us be clear. his wife can make decisions about flags but women cannot make decisions about their body. explained the hypocrisy, please? >> the standard here is not that my wife did it so it is okay. alito is supposed to recuse if his impartiality reasonably could be questioned. so if you look at som

in the opinion, amy coney barrett lays out exactly what idaho has to do in order to get her to flip on the other side and drool against the medical care. they are just going to rule after the election. you tell me why the supreme court doesn't want to make a major abortion decision just before the november election. >> they took the case and did what is called digging it. it is like, we should not have taken this. you guys go back. stuff happened in the lower court. laws actually changed. come back to us maybe after the 2024 election. we will take another run at it. elie mystal, thank you very much. coming up, as elie mentioned, nancy pelosi on what republicans have planned for abortion rights in america. the first with less than 24 hours until the first debate, the top advice trump is getting from his buddies. that is next. next. nt story. i couldn't slow down. we were starting a business from the ground up. people were showing up left and right. and so did our business needs. the chase ink card made it easy. when you go for something big like this, your kids see that. and they believ

six supreme court justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett for the wisdom and courage they showed on this long-term, very contentious issue. this has been a long time it's been fought. >> today's focus on abortion is just aa part of a major strategic push by team biden. his campaign organizing more than a thousand events leading up to the debate, including 300 watch parties on debate night, 1600 events in battleground states. i want to bring in nbc's aaron gilchrist in college part, maryland, "new york times" staff editor. symone sanders-townsend co-host of "the weekend" here on msnbc. with me here in sfud i don't, republican strategist and msnbc political analyst susan del percio. great to have all of you. aaron, this debate night may be the first time a lot of voters are tuning into this race. how is the biden campaign trying to take advantage of that huge audience? >> reporter: i think the campaign is very aware of that reality, chris. what we're seeing over the course of the week is this campaign trying to put this particular issue of rep

liberals have to sign on to some kind of compromise, maybe with justice roberts and justice amy coney barrett trump loses in november, of course, a big if, otherwise, fortunately, justice jackson's fears will come true and the message the court will have sent to trump is that in your second term, don't worry about committing crimes because we've got your back . >> i, alicia jokes about me being a tiktok star but literally i was in my car doing a tiktok yesterday about this very thing. it is like the supreme court, either they have decided that donald trump is the king and presidents are kings, united states presidents are kings or donald trump or any other president should be able to do that. what are you able to tell us? >> i could not agree more. i think the problem here is that the supreme court's conservatives are, if not corrupt, then wrapped up in this fantasy of a presidency that has safeguards, that has guard rails against abuse and corruption and they don't think what donald trump did come at the end of the day, was all that bad. this came out loud and clear on the conservatives' dec

here he is in the rose garden in 2020, a few rows behind where amy coney barrett's family and the firstto sit and eras trump visiting morris's church that summer, giving his personal assessment. >> i want to thank pastors robert morris. they are great people. great people with a great reputation, i have to say. great reputation. gateway church, the team has been incredible in hosting us and now i would like to ask pastor morris and bishop jackson to lead us in prayer. >> robert morris just resigned from his church following allegations that he sexually abused the child. in a statement to an evangelical new site, morris said he was involved in an inappropriate sexual behavior with a young lady. those are his words. he didn't mention that the young lady in question was a 12- year-old girl. in his statement trump's one time spiritual advisor admitted he continued to molest the child on several occasions over the next few years. mike is a senior investigative reporter for nbc news who has been all over this story. he writes about morris in his book they came for the schools, one towns fight

. >> i want to thank the six supreme court justices, thomas, alito, amy coney barrett for the couragen this long time contentious issue. it's been a long time. getting it back to the states puts the question where it belongs with vote of the people and over time it will work out. it's working out right now. >> delaware congress woman is back with us. >> as if the shout outs from the stage were not proof enough, i want you to listen to a spirited exchange simone had yesterday with kevin roberts, one of the architects of project 2025. >> we believe imminently in women's rights and particularly women's rights in the womb. the real question you should be asking. >> if i may. i do ask the questions. >> supporting that abortion can happen until three days after the person is born. >> that is absurd. as a person with a womb, that does not happen. dr. roberts, does heritage and project 2025 believe a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says she needs one? yes or no. >> abortion is not healthcare. >> so that is no? >> abortion is murder of a human. >> i don't know what it me