the extension of justice barrett you were so close to justice ginsberg. i know that you respected her on the law and respected so much about her life. where did you end up coming down on her decision not to retire. >> well, i think that the worst that you can say is -- by that, i mean, she assumed that hillary clinton would go. so did all the rest of us. certainly the entire establishment assumed the same thing. you know, that did not happen and had she managed to hang on for another four months, the story we are talking about would have had a very different clarity. my feeling is had she retired, started telling her to retire in the beginning of president obama's second term or even towards the end of his first term, i think it was, we would have missed the entirety, just about the entirety of the notorious rpg. most of her career, she was a consensus seeker. not always a consensus builder. her belief was, speak in a modulated tone. don't go bigger than you have to. just try to bring other people along. even try to work. you can learn through him. maybe

chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: no. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. general stone. mr. stone: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. petitioners' pursuit of an injunction suffers from two fundamental problems. first, none of the individuals that petitioners sued are appropriate defendants under well-established article iii and equitable principles. second, petitioners ask for an expansion of access to the federal courts that only congress, and not this court may provide. petitioners' article iii and equitable problems begin with what they really want, an injunction against s.b. 8, the law itself. they can't receive that because federal courts don't issue injunctions against laws but against officials enforcing laws. no texas executive enforces s.b. 8 either, and so no texas executive may then be enjoined. petitioners then turned to state court judges and state court clerks and, apparently, in this court, now narrow their focus to state court clerks. but even they don't suggest that either

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

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

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

it was impossible to hear the questions and not think about justice barrett and her own biography.her 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 to give birth in mississippi than it is to have a pre-viability abortion. and those risks are disproportionately threatening the lives of women of color. >> now is our turn. >> reporter: shannon brewer is on the front line of that reality in mississippi. >> december what? guess what? when you make abortion illegal, it does not stop abortions. >> reporter: she's the director of that one remaining abortion clinic in the state. jackson women's h

i agree that barrett and chief justice roberts were looking for middle ground and that probably the court overall will impose one, but it will leave them open to even harsher charges of decision making. >> just to follow up with you on that point, that middle ground would essentially uphold the abortion ban after 15 weeks potentially, but potentially not over turn roe v. wade. >> they won't say the words, but they will say that availability doesn't matter as long as it is undue. maybe it is not so big. so what will it look like? it will look like a judicial muddle. it's not such a an undue burden. of course as pete says what about 12? ? what about nine? i think it won't look like anything too clear, but it will say for this statute itself, we're okay and the principal does not governor and it is not constitutionally driven. >> let me speaking of the speech of the court, let me play a comment that i think got so much tent attendant about what it could mean from the future of the court. >>. >> the sponsors said we're going it because we have new justices. the newest ban that mississippi put

. -- 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 co

first picking up where you just left off justice barrett on safe haven laws. the respondents in this case have emphasized parenting reasons by the lead reason women seek abortion. safe haven laws came into existence in 1999 in texas. you are correct they relieve that huge burden. i would also add as to burdens during pregnancy, i would emphasize that contraception is more accessible and affordable and available than it was at the time of roe or casey. it serves the same goal of allowing women to decide if, when and how many children to have and i would also note just frankly the lowest cost abortion is $600 for the abortion. additional costs and further fees according to my friends and respondents additional costs related to travel, time off work, accommodations. all those sorts of things. whether somebody is uninsured or not the cost of contraceptions are less than those. number two, i think justice kavanaugh you had it right when you used the term skooup laosly neutral. i think it's a good description what we're asking for here. the problem and value that ev

now in your opinion, you just answered justice barrett or -- hey all these are not rising to that level. okay. >> right. >> are there any that do rise to the level in your opinion? >> i think -- and i'm not sure that i necessarily agree with the watershed characterization, your honor -- i can't think of another that hits the radar, but i would emphasize that a problem here is we're dealing with a right that doesn't have a basis in constitutional text or again very much in conflict with those values, justice breyer. >> i'm not sure how your answer makes any sense. all of those other cases, griswold, lawrence, they all rely on substantive due process. you're saying there's no substantive due process in the constitution. so they're just as wrong, according to your theater. >> no, your honor. we're comfortable with washington versus gluxburg and analyzes substantive due process and looks at text history, history and tradition, to discipline the inquiry -- >> i mean there was no history of same-sex marriage. >> and i think the court -- the court pointed out, look, when we were facing loving

. >> justice barrett? >> i want to follow up briefly on the questions that justice kagan and justice sotomayor were asking you, about what happens to your suit if the plaintiffs and the whole women's health suit prevail. let's imagine they do prevail on a theory that the attorney general has this residual authority and that the private parties can be bound as state actors pursuant to rule 65. you told justice sotomayor that then the united states' interests would not dissipate, even in that scenario. i guess i didn't understand that. you phrased it, i think, in the past tense, that that wouldn't cure the affront to sovereignty that was already there. you know, the force of your argument for equity here is the inadequatecy. why would your suit continue to be live, or why would there be an argument in favor of it if justice sotomayor's hypothetical were in play? >> of course, justice barrett barrett. i appreciate the chance to clarify. i don't mean the equity relief appropriate. i understand justice sotomayo

. >> 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

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

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

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

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

. >> justice barrett? >> i want to follow up briefly on the questions justice kagan and justice sotomayor were asking about, what happened to your suit if the plaintiffs in the women's health suit prevails. let's imagine that they do prevail on a theory that the attorney general has this residual of authority and the private party can be bound as state acted pursuant to rule 65. you told justice sotomayor but then the united states interest would not dissipate even in that scenario and i guess i didn't understand that. you phrased it i think in the past tense that that wouldn't -- to sovereignty that was already there. the force of your argument for equity here is the inadequacy of a remedy at law because the way that texas has cut off access to the ex parte young remedy. so could you just explain to me why your suit would continue to be lies quite of the argument in favor of it if justice sotomayor ours hypothetical were in play? >> yes, of course, justice barrett and appreciate the chance to clarify. i d

. >> all right, so the newest justice trump appointee amy coney barrett, she actually questioned whether so-called safe haven laws which aimed to protect abandoned newborns have now distinguished the burden of pregnancy from the burden of parenthood. watch. >> it's also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of mother hood that flow from pregnancy. why don't the safe haifben laws take care of that problem? it seems to me it focuses the burden much more narrowly. it doesn't seem to follow that pregnancy and parenthood are all part of the same burden. so it seems to me 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. >> all right, so bringing a pregnancy to term obviously brings a great deal of risks. every year 50,000 women in the united states suffer injuries or severe complications related to childbirth. that is a critical consideration to take into account when deciding whether to move forward with a pregnancy. becau

hearron. >> i'd like to begin by picking up on the question that justice barrett was just asking. those 14 pending state court proceedings, any relief would be against only those defendants who were sued in those proceedings, the private defendants, they're not the state, and in fact, the defendants that are acting strategically, in order to preclude a broader review, they have stipulated to temporary injunctions in order to prevent an injunction that might then get appealed and get broader relief from the higher courts, and the other point about all of this, and this is another special feature of sb 8, which is that normally in texas law, texas has a declaratory judgment act that allows citizens to sue the state of texas or the state agency under the texas declaratory judgment act to get that broader relief, and in sb 8 and section 171.211, sb 8 overrides the state declaratory judgment act and reinstates sovereign immunity to prevent exactly that kind of lawsuit against the state to seek broader review in state courts. on the concern about post viability abortions, i don't think

paul: well okay but he's a persuasive fellow monk you think you could pull justice barrett and kavanaugh'si 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 at the oral argument and i think it's important to say the standard we roe and this abortion regime for 50 years. it's a momentous decision by the supreme court, what you think are the implications here for the court if it goes in this direction? is a going to be under political assault or the other way, what if it doesn't do it? will be under attack a political right? >> well justice explicitly it would be under political assault if it overruled roe v. wade. that is one of the central questions at the center of all of this, we've created certain expectations, abortion being available since that decision, justice and herself set after all, it's 50 years of water under the bridge. that raises the question whether just because they exist for a long time like this

look at the destruction in kentucky all told the storms have left 95 people dead we begin with mora barrett in minnesota. >> reporter: tonight five dead after a wrath of tornados and winter storms moved across the midwest from kansas to minnesota where overnight the small town of heartland recorded the state's first tornado in the month of december. >> i have not experienced this kind of a storm >> reporter: unprecedented storm systems in the last 24 hours slamming the region, leaving nearly half a million people without power tonight. wind gusts up to 100 miles per hour reported in some areas. others slammed with hail, dust storms and even wild fires. the national weather service announcing a record yesterday for the most hurricane force wind gusts at least 55 reports of wind speeds more than 75 miles per hour. in nebraska and iowa, wind gusts so strong, the roadways barely drivable meteorologists say powerful storms from the west and record warmth this season are to blame, together triggering violent thunderstorms and tornados like no other. >> the oceans are warming up that means they ev

justice amy coney barrett believes that doesn't matter anymore, thanks to what are called "safe haven laws" in all 50 states that allow mothers to renounce all parental responsibilities at birth: >> both roe and casey emphasize the burdens of parenting, and insofar as you and many of your amicae focus on the ways in which the forced parenting, forced motherhood would hinder women's access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it's also focused the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. why don't the safe haven laws take care of that problem? >> 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. vacc

if you're 5 centimeters too far away, if you slope off. barrett has known the race track in monaco since he was a boy. his father technical spoke, took him to his 1st formula. one race is here. after all, his father is a racing legend tooth with the fin who has been living in monaco with his german wife, sina host there for decades became formula one world champion in 1982 driving for williams. like father like son. i want to be a formula, one driver and try to become world champion. my dad was very supportive in my whole career. my mom never saw a single race of mine because she was so scared. but my father supported me all along. ah . a . at the age of 16, after cutting his racing teeth and go carts, nico house bag moved up to formula junior in 2001 and became champion at the 1st attempt. we'd like to give you a free test in a formula one car with started crying straight away. the child, the dream that comes to, i mean driving the one i just driving a racing car that out the $140.00 horsepower. and then i went to the car that had 920 was with there was hired by williams as a full time

i think there's widespread belief that justice gorsuch and barrett are not.ustice kavanaugh is not. he has written about the importance of stare decisis. that is the legal precedent, and he's also spoken about the importance of the reputation of the court, much like chief justice roberts has. so it will be important to sort of pay attention to what they say. and the other sort of important thing to keep in mind is that, yes, over these 50 years since roe was decided, there have been a lot of pro-life successes. the hyde amendment said that medicaid could not be used to sort of provide for portions. the 1989 case of webster it away with public resources. there was a case in 2007, gonzalez v. carhart which banned a late term abortion procedure and there have been endless regulations that have circumscribed roe, consent, et cetera. but always the key essential holding of roe has remained intact, and that of course is viability. the idea that abortion e needs to remain legal until the point late in the second trimester when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

it would have to be either kavanaugh or barrett and i think barrett.e quick point, i think though it would, in essence, eviscerate roe versus wade and casey because that are inextricably opposed, the court may be very interested in pretending otherwise. that is in upholding the statute and giving lip service to some continuing abortion rights, even as they allow mississippi's to go into effect. that, of course, would invite bedlam, because you would have state after state pushing the envelope, a and this court having to call balls and strikes with no line, like viability, to use for any kind of coherent judgment. >> okay, listen, just for clarity, and for the late folks, because i want people to understand what could happen. could the supreme court, harry, find abortion unconstitutional on a national level based on this case, or is it limited to the issue of whether a state can ban abortion? >> it absolutely could. as kim said, they would have a frontal assault, get rid of it, get rid of it. so they could do that. they also could uphold the statute, wh

i think amy coney barrett when it comes down it to overturn roe. 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 opinion saying, welcome i will not overturn past opinions even if wron

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

some of the justices who might be swing justices, maybe chief justice roberts, justice kavanaugh, barrett, all of them signaled very strongly an indication that they would be willing to uphold this mississippi abortion ban after 15 weeks, which of course is much more stringent than we had under roe v. wade which is the pre viability standard of 22 to 24 weeks. it is not clear whether they are willing to overturn roe v. wade, but i think they can effectively do that in this two step -- they often like to do. we will not overrule roe v. wade right now, we will just uphold this mississippi law. we are left without the standard that we had before. so essentially, it is all it's fair game now four states on abortion laws. >> we peter baker, let's talk about where this may be going with the help of some things that on this network earlier by frequent guest of ours and why you law professor melissa murray, who -- at the federal level. >> this has been a long game of the conservative legal movement for some years, we have never allowed fundamental rights to be subject to the whims, to be subject

>> of course, justice barrett. i appreciate the chance to clarify. i don't mean to suggest that the suits wouldn't interact with each other with respect to what kind of equitable relief would be appropriate. i understood justice sotomayor to be asking whether our suit is effectively contingent on the whole women's health litigation, and my response was that you have to measure the sovereign injury here at the time the statute was enact the. it was clear that texas was seeking to deprive others of having an opportunity to go to federal court for a remedy. the law was unsettled and it was apparent and has been the effect that texas succeeded in fullfying the right currently while the cases are work, their way through the courts. if this court provided guidance in whole women's health and made clear a state cannot succeed with what texas attempted to do here, we wouldn't have that same circumvention concern in the future. in all con der, the concern is that then a state might seek to legislate around the whole wilts health decision. tweak it in some way

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

he has that barrett event at the rose garden, which he is not going to cancel. this is a huge moment for him in the middle of a campaign with conservatives to trumpet the fact that he was going to -- they had nominated her for the court. so he just wasn't going to back down. again, i don't think there's much impact to this. i don't think any of it is surprising. it just shows you a mind-set and that people around him were either unwilling or in no position to push him around to do the right thing. >> alissa, you were press secretary, then cos director for mark meadow, coms director at the white house when mark meadows was there. what's he doing here? >> i'm very confused by this. my best instinct is he didn't realize what he was revealing in this back. let me say this, my frustration with much of trump world, rather than giving the best advice and counsel to the president, former president, most of the folks around him would tell him what he wants to hear. this is a 74-year-old man who is not in good health tests positive with covid, rather than say, we need to

it's on an individual by individual basis. >> yes, justice barrett. the same way in injunction among individuals be a remedy unknown to that court -- >> you answered my question. thanks. >> thank you, counsel. rebuttal? >> i would like to begin by picking up on the point where the question that justice barrett was just asking. those 14 pending state court proceedings, any relief would be against only those defendants who were sued in those proceedings but private defendants, not the state. and in fact, the defendants that are acting strategically in order to preclude they've now stipulated to injunction in order to prevent an injunction that might then get appealed and give brought relief from the higher courts. the other point about all of this, and this is another special feature of sba that's normally in texas law, the declaratory judgment act that allows citizens to sue the state of texas or state agencies under the texas declaratory judgment act, to get that brought relief and in sba and a section one to 7111 overrides the state declaratory judgm