anthony kennedy was an extremist. mist for the first amendment and his extreme views on the first amendment meant that he would decide who would win. sometimes he would side with ate rights like in citizens united. do independent or do we call him an extremist conservative on certain issues? similarly for the breyer. liberal, you could call him, but real independent type when it rights rights and against labor so is he a liberal justice or centrist?n determining who thesee are is a real challenge and that'sy i think pigeonhole these people into partisan boxes but to flood the zone with more of these people and narrower. to limit the power what they are allowed to support in the first place. shouldn't it be a final arbiter that's a possibility. the supreme courtl overturn but you can write the law and to review such a law. thereions democratic options to cut the h supreme court and i think those are more likelynta on the republican line, go >> it seems he believes democracy only when the outcome rules in his favor. he

but anthony kennedy was not independent.ony he was just an extremist for the first amenme views on the first amendment but sometimes he would side with corporate rights like in citizens united. do we call anthony kennedy independent or do we call him an extremist certain issues? similarly for democrats, you have stephen breyer.liberal, you could callndependent type when it came to corporate rights and very economic -- so this account as a liberal justice or a more centrist judge? g who these people are is a real challenge. and that is why i think that the betterorm is not to try to pigeonhole these people into boxes, but flood the zone with more of these people because if you have more people, think about it this way. trying to get more people to agree on one thing make that one thing narrower and narrower and narrower. if you have more people on the supreme court the kinds of things they can get people to sign onto are much smaller than what they could sign onto now. and the other way is simply limit the power of what the s

still, no decision, a former ■ç clerk for just justice anthony kennedy writes in the new york times thatthe quote -- court could follow a path well charted and will narrow lee, the justices need not resolve everything related to presidential immunity, see suggest that there is something rotten about the whole process, there could be reason to believe politics are at play. this court has lost the benefit of the doubt for a myriad of reasons including its willingness to act quickly in cases that benefit republican interest. joining me now to discuss this is kimberly atkins, for the boston globe, cohost of the sister-in-law podcast. and msnbc political analyst. we also have alex aronson, cofounder and executive director, david henderson, civil rights attorney and■ç former prosecutor. thank you for joining me on sunday evening, i want to start with you, david by asking for your response to that argument, do you agree the court has lost the benefit of the doubt with the way they have delayed this decision on the trump immunity claim? the other thing, is there any valid reason them to have dra

right now, you don't have people like that, like anthony kennedy and stephen breyer who can work with elana kagan and the chief to build that consensus. you have nine justices on their own island. the decision that came out about that federal ban on handguns for people under domestic violence orders was a perfect example of that. you have a majority opinion, but you also had five other opinions of each justices that did not have any interplay with each other. there were each single justices or a pair of justices, given their view on the world that is how this court is operating. they are not playing well together. that is why all of the consequential decisions, all of the remaining decisions on the docket are big decisions, highly consequential, and are taking so long for the court to get out . >> i appreciate your analysis, both of you, this morning. thank you for being with me. leah litman, cost of "strict scrutiny podcast." and kimberly adkins, senior columnist at ""the boston globe" opinion" and an msnbc political analyst. >>> coming up, ayana presley of massachusetts joins me to

bring fell into this conversation fill, as you know, a clerk to former supreme court justice anthony kennedy, i'm talking about leah lipman writes this in a new op-ed and let me put it up on the screen and read the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore. >> this court has lost the benefit of the doubt for myriad reasons, including its willingness to act quickly in cases that benefit republican interests and quote, how is this delay likely to impact the court? i was that likely to impact the respect of the court and all of that? >> i think the court has very much particularly in the wake of the dobbs decision that struck down roe versus wade tract with where the entire country has seen its politics over the course of the last several years. where does now a very split issue, its popularity level has been kind of hovering around 40, 35 at its lowest point. it doesn't seem like it's going going up anytime soon. people on partisan basis have very clear views. the opinion piece that you're citing there is both comprehensive and it's compelling in the sense that

a former clerk to supreme court justice anthony kennedy. welcome, i am so glad to talk with you about all of this. let's begin with the gun decision. how significant was this ruling? >> it is a significant decision in that they supreme court finally found a gun regulation it was willing toppled. but i think the reality is the supreme court opened up this avenue for courts to strike down commonsense gun regulations when, two years ago, they announced their decision in berlin that said a gun regulation is constitutional only if it falls within the nation's tradition of firearm regulation. and, importantly, the author of that decision was justice thomas. he dissented from the ruling yesterday, and the majority which upheld the law did not disavow that test, the brewing test. so, lower courts are still going to be left to sort out exactly how similar does a gun regulation have to be to previous forms of gun regulation for them to uphold it? >> let's take this into this one dissenting opinion a little further. because justice thomas upheld his v

. >> well, i was going to read a portion of the real anthony by robert kennedy's 2 thousand footnotesit is amazing. about faa she and the graveyard is still there. in fact, when he talk about covid and how many died? no idea how many died from covid none i don't know if i remember the scarf lady faa she were up there day to day and somebody died with covid 19 we count that as, you know, the dark from covid died from covid do you realize what she just said? >> if someone died with covid we count it as if they died from covid and know this is true the p r r tests determines where or not they have covid 90 percent of the time the pcr test this indeed have covid but three out of one hundred don't have covid. i think i mean it is confusing isn't it? (bell ringing) >> it is really confusing everything we've been told has been a lie. everything one o 100 percent, 100 percent has been a lie. and you're not saying anything about that you're going along with the lies. satin is a liar opposed to the lord jesus christ (bell ringing) thank you, mark your comments and next speaker. >> good afternoo

. >> well, i was going to read a portion of the real anthony by robert kennedy's 2 thousand footnotesit is amazing. about faa she and the graveyard is still there. in fact, when he talk about covid and how many died? no idea how many died from covid none i don't know if i remember the scarf lady faa she were up there day to day and somebody died with covid 19 we count that as, you know, the dark from covid died from covid do you realize what she just said? >> if someone died with covid we count it as if they died from covid and know this is true the p r r tests determines where or not they have covid 90 percent of the time the pcr test this indeed have covid but three out of one hundred don't have covid. i think i mean it is confusing isn't it? (bell ringing) >> it is really confusing everything we've been told has been a lie. everything one o 100 percent, 100 percent has been a lie. and you're not saying anything about that you're going along with the lies. satin is a liar opposed to the lord jesus christ (bell ringing) thank you, mark your comments and next speaker. >> good afternoo

johnson in 1987, she told me jackie kennedy, three days after johnny anthony been assassinated, federer over to tea at the white house on november 26. mrs. johnson was still living at the elms, and she, mrs. johnson, thought it was just going to be about how startled then about how white house ran. but no, instead, mrs. kennedy had a passion and mrs. johnson said she was so together and looked so for someone who had suffered such incredible tragedy. and she asked mrs. johnson something that really never has been done before, or which is if she would carry, on her white house restoration initiative and make it she wanted a permanent for the white house and she wanted the her committee to be formalized and she then said she would give mrs. johnson a seven page handwritten letter, which is a on yellow legal pad and effect the johnson that detailed her plans in march of 1964. president made a committee for a preservation of the white house, a permanent and a permanent white house curator. so mrs. johnson told me she was sent her first initiative was help jackie kennedy and she wanted to do