justice barrett? stice barrett: just quickly, mr. verrilli. you got some questions about the remedy. and, you know, the justice was asking about special masters drawing the map, andyoknow, here we had experts come in. we've beetaing primarily about the liability question. you did geso questions about remedy. i ju wted to give you a chance to say something about our jurisdiction, whether we have jurisdiction to review -- mr. verrilli: you know, we -- justice barrett: -- the portion -- mr. verrilli: -weon't think there's a final judgment here yet. the question of the proper remedy is before the three-judge court rand. and e gument being -- that's at play there is should the court accept the legislature's meal plan or the alternative remedial plan drawn by the court? and the answer to that could matter to the way the ur analyzes the issue. now, i will say the argument of my fridsn the other side to be that the two issues of whether you could have a redi process at all and whether you can have judicial review at all are so intimately unup that you

katyal: so it is the amendment process, which, as justice barrett -- jusce barrett said, i think, boomerangs on them when yotr to exempt state statutes because amendment processes are often easier. judge sutton's book talks abo that. and you have the congressional check. and my last point to you, justice alito, is,h's the check on the other side? all he's giving you is federal constitutional review, whi i you know, only a few clausesf the constitution, as rucho says, many of themonsticiable. so the states have regulated this for 233 years in particular way. the blast radius fm s theory can extend to state statutes. i undersnde's disclaiming them, but the next petitioner won't, the theory's going to appl and may even reach delegations to state officials, which would a dramatic change, as the ben ginsberg amicus brief explains. chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counselor, could you deal with the examples, the historical examples your colleague spoke about as supporting his position, virginia's 3/5 rule, maryland'nineteenth amendment rule? i think your brief does an a

barrett blairt barrett justice barrett: i want to talk about in the concurrence in bush v. core. we are talking about a state constitution but i take it if we were talking about an interpretation of the statute you would agree with chief justice rehnquist. mr. thompson: yes, we do agree. justice barrett: and the state court would not be acting as a court but as a legislature? mr. thompson: yes, your honor. if the court were to rule in our case it would not necessarily have to rule in favor of bush v. gore. they can be rewritten by the state legislature. a statutory, an impermissible distortion of a statute can be remedied by the state legislature. we think the concurrence was correct but i just wanted to make the point it does not necessarily follow if the court rules in our favor in this case that case would -- in bush v. gore. justice barrett: if we're asking about novelty, between substance and procedure, those are all notoriously difficult lines to draw. in your colloquy with justice sotomayor, you were talking about lack of standards for free and fair elections. why do you t

barrett won't be there for the wedding. barrett won't be his best man. that breaks my heart. but the driver has four previous dui convictions and now faces second-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter charges. yet, neither his past nor any other evidence has made it into a courtroom yet. the trial was delayed, at last count, 20 times. >> we want the person who did this to pay price , but then it just keeps going on and on and on. >> it is completely unacceptable for that to happen, for that family to be treated that way. >> district attorney jeff rosen says not enough people are taking this crisis seriously. >> does not accountability in our court system because cases are not moving and we need to break through this kind of thinking and have it all hands on deck. the same sense of urgency that we had around covid, we need around this judicial emergency. >> coming around here, and getting anxiety. >> reporter: is not just the victims of the crime . >> you spent two point five years up there. >> right here . >> serena board literally became trapped in the backlog. >> i felt

justic barrett? justice ba want to return to the questions about could pewter simulators -- about computer simulators. you said they nherently subjective because it depends what factors you put in. it seems to me re no genera -- there ismit on howmaps the computer simulator could generate, surely that gives them the option to weigh in all kinds of dit ways. and it seems to me that under alabama's view of the statute, the pla satisfies gingles one by cominith one that was drawn without takin race into account. why, if there is no limit to the number of maps you can generate the different factors you weigh so long as race is not unreasonable burden for a plaintiff to shoulder? ms. khan: for several reasons. it is important to recognize there are a handful of college professors to even have the expertise to run these simulations in the first place. if you are going to infuse what was suppos tbe an objective test out the outset with this ghly specific and highly technical requirement, that would be deleg

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

can barrett wants _ canberra want of this? can barrett wants to _ canberra want of this? ce”!restore his trade with china it's better terms than the last few years. the reality is a string in exports to china accounts for 40% of us total exports and trade supplies to china back on for almost 90%. and that is substantial. 0n the other hand australia's relationship with the us is a core and cornerstone to its security. and the national policies, department policies. so to maintain such a balance between its ally and its trade partner was ok during the good terms between us and china. but it is getting increasingly china when the us and china are engaged in strategic competition and confrontation. so how to mesh maintain such a balance is a real test to the government and to the foreign affairs minister.— to the foreign affairs minister. a ., minister. as you point out. this is a — minister. as you point out. this is a really _ minister. as you point out. this is a really delicate - minister. as you point out. this is a really delicate byl this is a really delicate by the end, is

that's what justice barrett is doing, so the religious test doesn't have my force whatsoever.dermine these conservative justices, paul. we had the instance of justice thomas' wife talking to the white house about election. that was turned into an issue. you had chuck schumer standing in front of the supreme court saying that justice gorsuch would reap the whirlwind if he went the wrong way on the a abortion decision. there is a concerted effort out there that has now reached amy coney barrett to make the conservative justices noncredible. and it is one of the least admirable things that the left has done, concern in its concentrate thed effort to undermine court. paul: bill, another big decision by the supreme court week, and that is to hear the challenge from six states to the president's student loan cancellation. the lower court judge had put an injunction on it. the biden administration went to the court and said lift that injunction. the court said, no're going to hear the case -- [laughter] and they're going to hear it on exwe dieted fashion, skipping over the lower cour

i think justice coney barrett had a problem with that.ely possible you have some version of the theory but not necessarily the strong version of the theory that is arguably preferred by the more conservative justices. amy: i want to thank you for joining us and explaining this i they for most people it sounds like a legal gobbledygook. such a critical effect on voting in the united states and we will continue to follow it. professor tolson teaches law at the university of southern california gould school of law. that does it for our show. on juan gonzalez will be friday, speaking at cuny school of labor & urban studies at 3:00 p.m. and monday at 6:30, an the cuny graduate center, talking about the history of latinos in america. visit democracynow.org for details. i look forward to seeing folks there as we all listen to juan. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] óróxór[r (soft chiming music) - [narrator] this is what the future of hyper intelligence looks like. most people no longer own cars. instead, artificial intelligence operat

justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barret if we interpret gingles step one is you ppod , is the result is the result of say estate mustaxize? mr. ross: not at all. this court has recognized maximizations t necessary d just because you can an additional district does not me you can satisfy any of th other racial polarization or tolity of the ccutances and that is why this court added in proportionality as a part of the totality so it prevented maximization from being a goal of section two. justice barrett: thank you. justice robert justice jackson? justice jackson: i would take it that is why this whole gingles scheme haseebrought up as self liquidating,ecause it only triggers in situations in which you have compactness, presumably due to the racial polarization of this kind of district andeoe are continuing to vote in racll blocked ways. if that stopped happening, which uld be people to spread out and live among one anoth a vote based on thr n views as opposed to along racial lines, we would not have a seiotwo

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

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

i was first elected to the house in 1986 and attended a bible study led by a guy named tom barrett. i want to tell you a story that most people don't want to hear, but one day tom barrett a member of congress from kansas invited me to the members group at the bible study. keep in mind this was 1986. they said to me, we think that we have been with you now for over a year since you got in and we think you never really accepted jesus. well i got mad. this was a young guy and he was telling me about jesus. i said all right, -- they said all right, when did you ask? i said every day. they asked how long have you and your wife been married? at that time we were newlyweds. we were celebrating our 29th wedding anniversary. they said did you propose to her every day? i said no. they replied why? i said because we are already married. well, bingo. i thought and i said i was a little cautious because these guys were younger and i wasn't sure i do them that well. i said, just in case they were right and the members dining room at 230 in the afternoon on september 22, 1988i re-accepted, re-acce

to return a historic feeder into desperately needed housing. >>> the supreme court keeps a trump barrettration policy in place indefinitely. i am skyler henry with more on the future of title 42 and what it means for migrants. >>> the new year will bring a new wave of change on capitol hill. speaker nancy pelosi will end her service as congressional leader. republicans will take control of the house and 55 lawmakers will leave their positions after deciding not to run for reelection. among those given up their seats are jackie spear, 44 years ago she was left for dead on an airstrip in south america after an ambush. scott mcfarland spoke to her about that experience and how it would ultimately shape her future in congress. >> reporter: decades before coming to congress, jackie was lying on a deserted airstrip in a small south american nation of guyana with five bullet wounds. >> i was there for 22 hours without medical attention. >> reporter: congressman leo ryan of california's dead, shot along with four other americans. >> reporter: she was a 28-year-old congressional staffer on a fact

here is one of justice barrett's questions towards the petitioner. take a listen. >> i was just going to ask is your test a way of trying to deal with our precedent or are you rooting that in constitution itself? because you do have a problem with explaining why these procedural limitations are okay but substantive limitations are not. >> first of all, translate that for us because i don't speak legal and second of all, where do you think she's leaning? >> i can't -- i'm not a tea leaf reader and i don't think there are necessarily four solidly in the camp to uphold the north carolina legislature's position. i heard three justices. i think there are others in play. but what she's getting at is there is no constitutional grounding for the theory that these folks are ed sspousing soe state was trying to -- the legislatures excuse me were trying to draw a line that said there is a difference between substantive restrictions on election rules and procedural ones and that's just a distinction without any difference. >> and so you think that probably alito

which is what amy coney barrett is getting at right there.d a little bit of both here, and not just what's in these actual -- >> that's interesting, you heard her swinging -- >> very careful with how i answer that, next question. >> i think anyone who can use the word swell as cool as you did just now, deserve the last word. but i give it to you, elie. >> you can see mistakes here. if it's the case that state legislators can just do whatever they can, that changes everything about how we choose our electors. >> that's where the north carolina republicans are hoping for. >> -- gentlemen, thank you. now to this, five women coming forward this week and filing a lawsuit against bill cosby, accusing him of sexual assault and abuse from decades ago. we're gonna speak to their lawyer about how this can work, what evidence they have, and how this brand new new york state law factors and all of this. researchers believe the first person to live to 150 has already been born. it could be you! wow. really? of course, you'll have to eat your greens, watch

. >> justice barrett. justice jackson >> can i say i'm trying to think about what you just said in your exchange with justice kanaugh. by wondering whether or not it has something to do with the message being implicitly provided in a situation in which what aually being stated is the same. justice jackson: what would you think of a holding that says the first amendment protects this designer's right to provide products that explicitly express her beliefs about marriage. so she absolutely has the right to say, one man, one woman in evy website. and she has the right to refuse to stay gay marriage is great in any website. but what she's really asking f in this case, i thinkishe right to say the sam thing, here's the wedding, it's at this place, etc., etc. but she's afraid that if she says it for gay people that that will be sort of like an implicit endorsement their wedding. so she wants to be able to protect against implicitl endorsing in aay that we have never rognized before in the same way. when it isn't

you have this ammunition case, you have to be careful with barrett.ns at oral arguments, but then when the votes come in, siding with the most extreme, brain dead version of republican conservative logic possible. we saw that in dobbs, we've seen that in other cases this term. but she seemed to be legitimately in play. if she and brett kavanaugh are both in play, that could be the bulwark that stops this particular brand of republican ridiculousness from infecting the rest of america. >> you know, ali, your explanation and analysis is the perfect setup for my next question. based on the questions, and this has been spectacular because we as americans get insight into the supreme court these days they're been able to listen to the oral arguments versus just reading a cold opinion later on down the road once it's been drafted and approved. based upon this hot bench with the questions that you heard, it seems that this nightmare scenario of a full-throated endorsement of the independent state legislative theory, thankfully, may not look like it'll happen

jus barrett? >> one question.one difference between your brief, your position and the university of north carolina, isthe students perspective, and you got at this e of your earlier on, about thetomayor confederate statue white supremacist groups, is from the student perspective, student groups, the educational be in the form of counteracting feelings of isolation, stiin out, not being supported. in light of that, i am wond if you have anything to say about affinity groups an affinity housing? i think one thing, at least in so far was aware of the time, grutter was decided, certainly bakke, that phenomenowhe you have groups say, whack students and allies can live, or black student groups, same for hispanic groups, et cetera, was not a phenomenon that was around then. i think one of the benefits is that it allows minority studenttoand together, to reduce somee gs of isolation that you have been talking abo your clients have a position on at, and what that would be? wh we say, however broadly we wrotehis opinion, th

then the three in the middle, roberts, kavanaugh and barrett.emed to be looking for a middle position, a way to say, if a state supreme court does something really crazy, there should be a way for the u.s. supreme court to step in, but not to turn every state election case into a federal case which is what would happen if the north carolina legislators prevail here. >> we all know the saying, don't make a federal case out of it. one of the perhaps complicating effects here would be to take a bunch of stuff and clog the federal docket. our beat team here was pulling some of the skeptical parts of the argument. i want to play a little bit of barrett, kavanaugh and roberts. >> you're leaning pretty hard on the lack of judicially manageable standards for things like free and fair elections. >> where are you getting that out of chief justice rehnquist's concurrence, or are you saying that was wrong. >> vesting the power to veto the actions of the legislature significantly undermining the argument that it can do whatever it wants. >> what do you say i

>> may i go back to justice barrett question? you said not race in a bochking way, but then the justice barrett said race in an exriential way, and you said yes to that. u said, well of coue u've always been subject discrimination. certainly being subject to discrimination is one part of what it means to have race affect your experiences generally. what areouaying a college can look at and what they cannot look at when they are reading an essay about the experiences that >> the reason race may have had contextual relevance is like a story about being subjected to racial discrimination demonstrates that the applicant has overcome some hardship. >> being sje to discrete -- discrimination, are you saying there are other parts of an appliti that the universities need to look at or this is just complaints about racial discrimination? >> for example, an asian erican student who took an active interest in traveling back to their granr's country of origin or someone who was involved in particular outdoor activities with the interest of s

well, the barrister, stephen barrett has an excellent piece in the spectator this week deaung in thek dealing with this very topic , dealing with this very topic, and i'm delighted to be joined by stephen himself now to . let's by stephen himself now to. let's just does firstly speak on this latest case in a series of long cases. latest case in a series of long cases . what was the good law cases. what was the good law project trying to do so effectively ? they wanted to stop effectively? they wanted to stop ministers from using whatsapp and there was a complain that a prime minister had also used a private email address to email back and forth copies of a speech that they wanted to give . what we might think of as perfectly normal use of the internet and the idea was to get the court to say that that was somehow scandalous and wrong . it somehow scandalous and wrong. it does seem that the law project tries to go for the sort of media headline government has broken law in one way or another when often is very technical and perhaps not consequential . yes. perhaps not consequential. y

and as justice barrett mentioned, there is evidence of that.andere's evidence on the othe side, dot need to have a clear picture of this in order to overcome stare decisis? i mean, we have the historians brief that says even ithe history was unclear and it not, overcoming stare decisis requires sometng more than ambiguous historical evidence. do you age at? >> i do a great guy, i think petitioner bears a heavy buen in this case, because when a situation er stare decisis considerations apply. i think would be destabilizing for the urto turn its back on precedent here. and i thk at can undoubtedly be sd out history, although there are some complications in the record, what is undoubtedly true is that petitioner has not en able to point any clea history to support the notion th racial classifications were automatically and invariably untutional. >> finally, is there some connection betwee race is being used and ncerns that some of my colleagues have about the of time? so, what i am tryi tget at or thinabt is whether blocky for exam bakke was a set

barrett. >> i was going to ask, is your test just a way of trying to deal with our precedent or areou rooting that in the constitution itself? because you do have a problem with explaining why these procedure limitations okay but substantiative limitations are not. >> none of that made any sense. >> do we bring any common sense into play? doesn't legislature say they can be checked by the other branches? >> the constitution is swell. they did a really nice job. a great job, guys. >> tell that to donald trump, but go on. >> that was written a long time ago. and they don't cover everything and leave a lot of room for interpretation. to david's point, david, if i asked you where it says we have to hold elections for people to choose the president of the united states, it doesn't. there is nowhere that guarantee it is right of human beings in the united states to vote for president. it is not in the constitution. we have come to accept presidential elections as part of it. maybe, you need a little bit of both here. >> you heard his swinginess. >> you can see the stakes here. if it is th

so just based on what you're saying, good barrett of it would appear to have the correct argument of the beard. keeping children safe by installing cecily become rose in the government schools. zach wrote us, i would like to give it a kind of a curve yet. here because what's important is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. that is, that you cannot gun and put cameras inside restrooms or in certain areas that we consider to be really private. and here this has to align with the purpose for which the data is be connected, as well as the processes in place to prevent the misuse of data. and this varies from schools to scorn. i go back to my point about standardization of practices. while some schools have put in place robust mechanisms where deed are gonna be misused. some schools haven't. there hasn't been that since at dia, zation, when it comes to how do you handle that data? for how long do you handle that data, right? who has access to it for how long is it stored? all these questions are very important when it comes to, especially children, when the best data has to

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

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

that's coming up next with my colleague barrett energy. thanks for watching. the breeze. ah, we have body and soul. the houses that dental leaders can construct for more than just building.

erin: i really loved justice barrett's hypotheticals. because her hypotheticals made clear that people of faith or people of conscience could have objections to messages and not treat the people who are asking them to speak. so it really differentiated. she talked about maybe a couple that had met and put their love story together, they divorced their former spouses and were ready to get married and that's something that lorie probably wouldn't create because that's also against her religious beliefs that are core to who she is. i love that she really encapsulated that this is about the message that lorie wants to create, not about who's requesting it. sarah: thanks everyone who joined us in person today and our online audience. let's give our panel an aplawls. -- an applause. [applause] [captioning performed by thenat, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the u.s. capitol police, the washington

. >> justice barrett? >>re not that 25 year point yet, gh if it has its own self destruct mechanism, where it says grutter sa we have to call it quits because it's not working, are we obd to give more time? >> harvard has certainly never indicated th ifive years it will stop using race. hartford, over the 20-year span, has not decreased its use of rates at all. i think the only legal standard is court has recognized was in brown, with all the liberals but you. to the 25 year mark, we don't support it from the get-go. but we do think there is a predicrom justice o'connor that is not borne o and so, grutter on its own terms, i think 20 years is enough to call it. >> thank, you counsel. mr. w m? >> mr. iejustice, made please the court, the evidence and findings in this case confirm athis court has long recognized that university student body comprising a multipci of backgrounds, experiences and interests vitally benefits our nation. stereotypes are broken down, prejudice is reduced and critical thinking and p

supreme court has ordered that the biden administration must continue to enforce the trump barrett immigration policy that limit immigration because of the covid pandemic. the order, from chief justice john roberts, keeps title 42 in place for now. the court will arguments in february and issue a ruling at a later date pick the white house argued that it was a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement measure. >> in the meantime we will have to enforce it. i think it is overdue. >> reporter: 15 republican governors suit to keep it in place , saying the number of migrants at the border would go up if the program ended. more than 2 million immigrants have a been expelled since it was instituted. five of the six conservative justices sided with republican-led states that suit to keep the program in place. justice neil gorsuch was the only conservative against the order . he said that the current border crisis is not a covid crisis. more migrants are coming to the southern border every day . they expect that immigration will increase when the program ends. >>> a plan has been put in pl

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

there were als for sitting supreme cour justices who attended that convention, including amy cohe barrettdemonstrators that were outsid our home exercising the firs amendment right to assemble an to free speech does this combination of thing intimate, if not outrigh declare that conservativ justices, including some federal appeals court justices are comfortable to say, i have a cozy connection with scotu and i'm darn right proud of it >> i think that is absolutel right. bill pryor himself appeared on donald trump's shortlist for the supreme court. he did not get the nod but he is a very powerfu judge. he clearly is aligned with the supreme court's current ultr conservative majority. what we've been seeing a lot o over the past few years is conservative judges like prior really helping to shape th supreme court's docket b elevating certain issues and certain bases involving guns abortion, religion, public square, a ministry of agencies and shocking pop this. it forces the supreme court to take up these cases and shif the law to the right i do think it is important t view the entire federa

. >> justice barrett? >> just one question.if we interpret gingles step one, as you proposed, is the result of the test to say that stat must xize so long as it cano and really compact districts? >> not at, all your. hor is coat has recognized or yrs that maximization isot necessary. just because you can draw additional district does it mean that you would tiy any of the other traditional, excuse, me y the other racial polarization, toli of the circumstances. and that's why this ur added in proportnaty as part of the totality. so iprented maximization fr being a goal of seion two. >> thank you, >> justice jackson? >> i tak that is why th whole jingles he has been thought up as self liiding in a way. it is because it only triggers in siatns in which you have this compactness. presumably d tthe racial polarization, the stratification of this kind of district and people are contui to vote in racial, racially blocked ways if that opappening, if that's what wellwant people to spread, out live among one another and vote bedn their, y

they are relabeling this or repackaging speech as a conduct. >> thank you. >> justice barrett? >> i think the question justice taken as you are oyo strongest ground when you are talking about her sitting down and designing and coming up with the graphics, customizes em for the couple. let me just clarify exactly what your position is on things tha are already created in thpa. what if it is plug-and-play. i don' know that much about website design so i don't know hoit could be plug-and-play 'm sure he can be. she does the programming, e coding, she has a pictesnd she sells that as the product and the customers, mike and henry or lily and lukeilit in themselves is that protected? >> it is not protected in the same way if you sold bible commentary you wouldn't be able to decide whether the commentary will be burned or used in the ur service the stream of commerce is the stream of commerce. >> so why is it different? justice kagan said mae u do create customized websites and yocrted one for lily and look and then mike and henry see it and say you created that already we love it, we

guest: justice barrett was a civil procedures professor. the distinction is trying to say when it comes to procedural the supreme court supplies the constitution when it comes to substance, stick with the legislature. she said it's very complicated in other areas of the law and i'm praise it -- paraphrasing the idea you are blowing up a bunch of work and we will be in court over and over to try to define with that distinction is. i think she is one of the justices that might not be willing to just go down this path which is just a lot of new ambiguity for the constitution host: some of the other justices that might follow her or she is following them. guest: will, thomas and justice alito and justice gorsuch have already shown support for that radical idea that it stops at the legislators court. state constitutions cannot overwrite a legislature. like kavanaugh, the chief justice roberts as well as they look like they are in the middle of squarely -- want to stick with tradition which has been going on for 22 to 30 years. host: critics even