chief justice roberts, who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v. gore case. do you think that's a coincidence? >>> 20 days out from november 3rd, why amy coney barrett may be president trump's best hope. the early explosion of voting in texas. the president's son contracted coronavirus. and new reporting the trump administration is messing with the vaccine process again. and as biden expands his lead with older voters can the president's strategy of openly mocking senior citizens win them back? an "all in" starts right now. >>> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we are less than three weeks from election day and already more than 14 million people have voted, that is over 10% of the total vote count from 2016. three weeks out. unsurprisingly the president is desperate and for all the worries about him pulling some authoritarian move and refusing to step down the much more likely risk is a perfect storm not dissimilar to 2016 where polls are off in a certain direction and then that combined with the electoral system together puts trump close en

chief justice roberts, who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v. gore case. do you think that's a coincidence? >> senator klobuchar, if you're asking me whether i was nominated for this seat because i worked on bush versus gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate, that doesn't make sense to me. >> i know. you said you wouldn't recuse. >> that isn't what i said. >> you're right. you said you wouldn't announce your decision on recusal and you wouldn't commit to recusing. but, again, the public has a right to know three of these justices have worked on the republican side on a major issue related to a presidential election. >> is it a coincidence? i don't think it's a coincidence. participating in bush v. gore, working to get the candidate who did not get the popular vote was the crowning achievement for an entire generation of young lawyers who then grew up to have plum assignments. this is a long-standing tradition that's only intensified. this current generation of movement activists are working hard to suppress the vote, to undermine t

would expect if there were any disputes the bush v. gore president would be such that bush v. gore and the federal courts would rule her with the state courts go back to being the leading decision-maker in these elections? >> a think first of all its rear where you can get to a situation like bush versus gore were in outcome determinative state has such a margin. most of the activity you will see postelection will be conducted under state law and after all the way the system works is that the gens in precincts that build up in counties in go to the state level. each state has its own set of laws and national election laws governing the time and place of elections. >> bop do agree with that? >> i do and i would add the decision was clearly it controversial one and personal issues for the court. i think the court will be reluctant particularly in the case were suspect the candidates will have a substantial popular vote margin and invite this controversy that was encountered the last time.at >> yes jim baker had been a lawyer for al gore would al gore have become president in the

we assume because we went through bush v. gore not that long ago although for my students many of them were not even born yet, that it would fall on a bush v. gore, that the u.s. supreme court would get involved, that it would be very judicial lysed process. that is possible that we will have litigation the end up in the supreme court be actively involved of course with the death of justice ginsburg it becomes more complicated depending on if you have split. there are also other paths which then take advantage of other aspects of the constitution machinery such as the state legislators stepping into a point electors. there is a considerable dispute i would say over whether state legislatures can't ignore the will of the voters if the voters express their preferences on election day and it is clear who they voted for but under a scenario in which as the kennedy to argue about fraud and they tried to say there's a cloud over the results, it is possible you could see different slate of electors coming from the state legislature and t

in 2000, she worked for george w bush's legal team on the bush v gore case that stopped the recountingots in florida and secured the presidency for george w. bush. if confirmed, barrett will be the third sitting justice to have worked on bush's team in 2000. justices brett kavanaugh and john roberts also worked on behalf of the bush campaign during the florida recount. stopping it. for more, we are joined by ari berman, senior reporter for mother jones. his latest piece is headlined "trump wants a repeat of bush v. gore. amy coney barrett might make it happen." tell us about this case, ari. >> amy coney bararrett was one f potentially three conservative justices along with brett kavanaugh and john roberts who worked in floririda during the 2020 recount.. she hahad clerked for justice scalia. she was 28 8 years old. she e was woining for a lalaw fm that worked with george w. bush's main law firm run by james baker, the big washington powerbroker. she worked on a case related to bush v gore. two cases, actually, in which the issue was mail ballots. what happened in florida wasas that the

david: last time in the year 2000, the famous bush v gore decision and case, it usually had been that state courts would resolve election issues. in that situation, the federal courts got involved. would you expect if there were any disputes the bush versus gore precedent would be such that bush versus gore and federal courts would really rule or do you think the state courts go back to being the leading decision-maker in this? benjamin: first of all, i think it is rare that you get to a situation like bush versus gore, where an outcome determinate state has such a no margin. so most of the activity you are likely to see post-election will be conducted under state law and state proceedings. after all, the way the system works, it begins in precincts and builds up to counties and goes to the state level. each state has its own set of loss. there is no national election laws governing the time, place id manner of elections, so think it goes to the states and their courts except in the most extreme conditions. david: do you agree with that? bob: i would add that in the bush versus gore d

and chief justice roberts who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v gore case. do you think that's a coincidence? >>> senator klobuchar if you're asking me whether i was nominated for this seat because i worked on bush versus gore for a short period of time as an associate that doesn't make sense to me. >> i think it's such a coincidence do me. i actually didn't know it until yesterday. will having justices with this background, two of whom are appointed by the current president decide any cases relating to the upcoming election, do you think that will undermine the legitimacy of the court? >>> asking whether something would undermine the legitimacy of the court or not seems to be trying to elicit whether it would be appropriate to sit on the case whether than recuse and i went down that path. >> you said you wouldn't recuse. >>> i that isn't what i said. >> you're right, you said you would announce your decision on recusal and you wouldn't commit to recusing. i think the public has a right to know that now three of these justices have worked on the republ

implying i should say, implying that judge barrett got nominated because of her role in working for bush v gore as a young lawyer in the challenge to the 2000 election results. watch this exchange. >> any argue that bush v gore hurt the court's legitimacy. if you are confirmed, the supreme court will have not one, not to, but three justices who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v gore case. >> you're asking me whether i was nominated for this seat because i worked on bush versus gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate. that doesn't make sense to me. >> laura: robert, senator klobuchar is a former prosecutor. but back to jonathan's point, these were for the most part lane questions. i might think durbin was as great as jonathan did. maybe a little bit at her but it's not exactly an all-star lineup to compare yourself t to. >> the question make sense given how much love from pants for bush, for bush's brother. we know the two of them are thick as thieves. that line of questioning was spot on. one of the interesting exchanges to me was with k

say do you think it's a coincidence that you've been picked for this case because you worked on bush v gore 20 years ago? judge barrett didn't take the bait. >> i have shannon, i don't have the sound, i'm going to read what she -- amy coney barrett responded to klobuchar on the bush v gore question. if you are asking me if i was nominated on bush v gore as a young associate that doesn't make sense. i thought that was a decent answer. juan i want to ask you about this idea that the senators come back to, yes, she clerked to scalia, he was amen or, she keeps reminding them she has her own mind. if we have time do you want to play slot 13? we don't have that one. basically she says i've already said i hope you aren't suggesting i have my own mind or i couldn't think independently or i will just say what scalia said in the past. i think that that is something that she's been quietly frustrated with during this last two days >>> senator coons said when they had a private conversation before these hearings she said she could not think of one instance where she disagreed with justice scalia and he

. >> it is not hard to imagine another bush v gore scenario. the really shocking thing about brett kavanaugh's opinions in the wisconsin case, which was so sloppy and so inaccurate, was that he actually cited bush v gore in his opinion in the supreme court supposedly said don't cite this as a precedent. he not only did that, it had only been coted once in 20 years by chris thomas. and kavanaugh sites bush v gore as a proceeded for potentially throwing out democratic votes in the future. they have been open about this plan here. the republican party wantso rerun bush v gore. they want to litigate this election in every way ssible and they want to throw out votes cast by democrats and they want the supreme court to once again declare a republican president the winner of the election. i think that would lead to the vegas legitimacy crisis in american politics in our history -- at least in our modern history. everyone needs to be aware of what the supreme court is trying to do and they need to vote in record numbers and do so early so they can't cha

i know justice o'connor in her later years regretted the bush "v" gore decision but that was something she had to live with afterwards and they like to think of themselves, the public likes to think of them as an ivory tower. they are not. they are very aware of political winds and we've seen so much social change and it has been made possible really, it preceded the supreme court but the legalization and that decision by justice kennedy on gay marriage, that really is one of the most beautifully written decisions and i've heard it read at heterosexual weddings because it so glorifies what love means and what marriage means. >> garrett haake, that is something about public opinion if you talk to some of the senators. to me i know judges are supposed to say they don't but the fact is if they don't they could actually end up hurting the country if they issue an opinion that may seem to make, oh, sense in an ideological belief system, but prague mat kali it wouldn't. we've certainly heard her say there is some precedence if you don't agree, you stick to this idea that there could be harm

chief justice roberts, who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v. gore case. do you think that that's a coincidence? >> umm, senator klobuchar, if you're asking me whether i was nominated for this seat because i worked on bush versus gore for a very brief period of time as a young associate, that doesn't make sense to me. >> i just think it's such a coincidence to me, i actually didn't know it until yesterday. will having justices with this background, two of whom are appointed by the current president, decide any cases related to the upcoming election, do you think that will undermine the legislate malegit court? >> asking whether something would undermine the legitimacy of the court or not seems to be eliciting an opinion about whether justices should sit on a case or recuse. we went down that road yesterday. >> i know, you said you wouldn't recuse. >> that isn't what i said. >> you're right, you said you would announce your decision on recusal and wouldn't commit to recusing. again, i think the public has a right to know that now three of these justic

clarify insofar as the center is suggesting, i think the work some of the justices may have done on bush v gore is reason to recuse but it is not what i meant. i meant that in every case, judges have an obligation to consider the issues and may conclude no. saying was not to take a position and i want to make that clear. >> thank you for taking the time. over the past number of weeks since you were nominated, certainly since the hearing began, there has been a lot of discussion about the legacy of was bader ginsburg, who really a trailblazer. democrats claim that you would not be an adequate replacement for justice in spirit because you do not march in lockstep with her judicial philosophy. the way i see it, how -- you are both trailblazers and both accomplished professors. respected and revered and with strong endorsements from the left in the right and you are both amazing and both served in private practice. ofe you, she was a woman strong religious faith. you both have a very impressive track record on the judicial bench. asking women to march in lockstep with one philosophy is exactly the

election during a time when donald trump was still a reality tv start, bush v. goreing headlines in a race that was ultimately decided by the u.s. supreme court. are there lessons to be learned? what types of similarities are we seeing 20 years later? into new documentary dives the events that shaped american politics two decades ago. joining us from miami, the director of the film, billy corbin. thank you for joining us. i am old enough to remember the trauma of 2000 and you want people who were younger than me to get it. you live in florida, you know how critical the state is. every election year, it is a question. what is the sentiment there now and do you have any concern that we could see some sort of a repeat? billy: thanks for having me, emily. certainly. i think the question is, this year, how many riots will we see across the country? how many floridas circa 2000 might there be across the country? close elections can be stolen. florida is one of those states where elections always seems to be decided somewhere in the margins. there's definitely that concern.

having three justices who worked on the republican side, bush v gore, you're one of those justices if you should be confirmed, creates an appearance of conflict involving a president who nominated you? and i would like a yes or no answer. >> answered that question before and said any question of whether there is an appearance of impartiality problem would be one for our justices involved to be considered under this statute. >> you think there might be a conflict and you would have to go through ms. barrett: -- anytime -- you're asking me to make a decision about whether i think myself and two people who are not yet my colleagues should recuse in that situation. an appearance was of conflict. i believe the fact that you would even bring forth a refusal >> thank you for being in front of us. welcome to day three. it has been quite a day. because we have so many members that have been busy talking over you and interacting

. >>> tonight on "all in," getting the gang back together for bush v gore, the 20th addition. >> if youare confirmed the supreme court will have not one, not two, but three justices, you, justice kavanaugh and chief justice roberts who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v gore case. do you think that that's a coincidence? >> 20 days out from november 3 be president trump's best hope. then the historic explosion of early voting in texas, with the harris county judge leading the way. the president's son contracted coronavirus. and new reporting the trump administration is messing with the vaccine process again. and as biden expands his lead with older voters can the president's strategy of openly mocking senior citizens win them back? an "all in" starts right now. >>> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we are less than three weeks from election day and already more than 14 million people have voted, that is over 10% of the total vote count from 2016. three weeks out. unsurprisingly the president is

bush in that fight bush v. gore in 2000 that the supreme court decided, the 2000 election bush won. worked with an associate at that law firm that represented george w. bush. do you have think democrats will jump all over this one? >> of course they wilhelm and haw. let you in on a secret, emac, kavanaugh also weighed in on the florida fight in 2000 if it was okay for them to sit on the court, it is just fine for judge barrett. elizabeth: the point about democrats trying to stonewall her from being seated to not be able to decide on obamacare in november. what does that do in the end? she will get seated anyway, what is the point here? >> she can get seated in but make sure she can't weigh in on a case already happened. that is stare decisis and the law. they believe if she is seated afterwards they might bully john roberts who was a failure on obamacare last time. elizabeth: okay. we get it. thank you, ford. thank you so much for joining us. we really appreciate it. >> thank you, emac. elizabeth: coming up, we're going to dig in more what happened with james comey and his testimony

obviously when we saw the supreme court render a verdict in bush v. gore, that was divisive. the country has a whole new level of polarization now. if this election does get adjudicated by the court system, it could impose even more severe strains on america's social and political fab lick. >> two weeks to go until that election. it is certainly a generational one. thomas giff, live from oxford, thanks for your expertise and analysis. >>> women's rights activists mobilizing all over the u.s. saturday's women's march drew thousands of protesters in washington and other cities nationwide, voicing opposition to president trump's supreme court pick and also encouraging women to vote. suzanne malveaux has more. >> reporter: the pink hats are back as thousands of women gather on the national mall for the women's march. i covered it in 2017 when there were 5 million people who participated throughout the country, 200,000 in d.c. it is markedly different and smaller because of covid-19. that is the way they want it. but they got the several thousand women that had the energy and the

court's decision to arbitrarily cut off voting and hand the white house to a republican in 2000's "bush v. gore is the worst thing to come out of 2000! and a lot of bad things happened that year. we still never got to the bottom of who let the dogs out. re-open the cold case! apparently, justice kavanaugh has graduated-- did you like that joke over there? did you like that one? i did, too. i did, too. apparently, justice kavanaugh has graduated from local microbrews to huffing paint thinner, because in "bush v. gore," that court specifically said "our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," which means this ruling could not function as a precedent. well, i guess it's too much to expect brett kavanaugh to listen to someone saying "stop, don't do this." in his opinion, kavanaugh wrote that states who try to count ballots that arrive after election day could be hit with "chaos and suspicions of impropriety." hey, brett, have you looked out the window? "chaos and impropriety" is the 2020 prom theme. three weeks ago, some pretend militia yahoos plotted to kidnap the governor of michi

but i think you know people have tremors from bush v gore still. >> i can't imagine why, counselor.the kavanaugh's concurrence was a hot mess. vermont secretary of state had to get him to change a fundamental statement of misinformation, and notably, you know, the justices sort of left the door open to further challenges and there is this hangover from the bush v gore despite at the time they tried to say this has no impact on precedent. they have been upholding lower courts. shouldn't we agree you want every eligible vote counted. why is that controversial. if the supreme's get involved in this election after deciding 2000 in effect, that's going to be a real problem not only for their credibility but our broader country. >> and they of course now have a new justice that they did not have before. >> 100%. >> nice to see you. >> take care guys. >>> court filings reveal processing times for first class mail are declining in michigan, pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, north carolina, georgia, and florida. all battleground states. in three of those states, ballots need to be received by e

and in deciding bush v. goreving the 2000 election, the supreme court really weighed heavily the interest of finalizing the election and making sure that that safe harbor deadline was complied with. >> professor, that's like five weeks after election day. what if the results are not all yet -- could this election or -- be decided somehow and reach the u.s. supreme court? >> it could definitely reach the supreme court. certainly many issues having to do with the election have already reached the supreme court. i can imagine scenarios whereby the court would again be asked to weigh in, as in bush v. gore. another scenario would be that for some reason the slate of electors would be contested. and so then congress would have to weigh in under article ii. congress also -- the president of congress -- of the senate, who is the vice president, is supposed to count the votes of the electors in the presence of congress. and so congress might have to weigh in about the election at that unlikely event. >> okay. this is unp

and folks look back at the 2000 bush v. gorelection, and what they missed in that process was a miscalculation of the democrats, which triggered the supreme court access. the thing to keep in mind that a lot of people don't know about how we elect the president is in that interregnum there is a constitutional process, there is a clock that automatically kicks on. the president, the challenger to the president, the congress, they can't stop the clock unless there is affirmative congressional action to do so, and that's just not likely to happen whereby at a certain date electors have to meet, at a certain date the congress has to confirm the decision of the electors. so there's a process. the when you go back and look at that election, what you realize is that the fundamental question that the gore team had before them, they took door number two instead of door number one. the question was door number one, do we do a statewide recount? four door number two, do we do a local recount of those counties we haven't question? the choic

obviously, when we saw the supreme court render a verdict in bush v. gore, that was divisive. but the country is at a whole new level of polarization, now. so if this election does get adjudicate the by the court system, it could impose even more severe strains on america's social and political fabric. >> yeah. i think you are so right there. so, with that in mind as you talk about where this election is to be adjudicated, let's go down to the states. where do you think the key battleground moments are going to be? i mean, many seem to be in play like texas or even here in georgia. but where do you think this is going to wind up, in terms of being a swing moment, a swing location? >> well, the general consensus is that trump's path to victory is narrower than biden's. trump's best chance in 2020 is essentially to duplicate the success he had in 2016 where he was able to narrowly edge out clinton in just about every battleground state. you name it. the problem is that some of these states are looking, if not out of reach for trump, definitely uphill battles for him this year. c

now, michael mentioned the bush v gore in 2000. one of the things that hardly anyone remembers about that is that on the same day that the supreme court handed down its decision which was december 12th, the florida legislature, the florida house had already voted and the senate was about to vote to appoint republican electors, even though the litigation was underway. they were going to send to the electoral college a slate of electors committed to bush, using their legislative power under the constitution to make sure that bush got those votes. and it's not the supreme court's decision that ended that election. it is what happened the day after, which is on december 13th, when gore came out and conceded because gore could have continued to fight in the electoral college and if he had done so, the forum of decision would have been a joint session of congress overseen by the president of the senate, who was al gore. and if that happened this year, the president of the senate will be mike pence. and that's one of the reasons for conce

do you think that having three justices who have worked on the republican side, on bush v gore you're one of those justices should you be confirmed, creates an appearance of conflict with an election case involving a president who nominated you comes before the court? i'm basically out of time so i would like a yes or no answer? >>> well senator hirono i answered that question before. and said any question of whether there was an appearance of par shalt problem would be one for all justices involved to consider you should the recusal statute. >> so you think there might be a conflict and therefore you would have to go through that? >>> senator i think any time someone makes a motion to recuse and indeed even one is not made a judge always has to consider that issue. you're asking me to make a decision about whether i think myself and two people who are not even yet my colleagues should recuse in that situation. i'm just saying that i on -- >> actually my question was whether it imposes an appearance of conflict. i believe that you would bring forth the fact of the recusal process says

. >>> tonight on "all in" getting the gang back together for bush v. gorecourt will have not one, not two but three justices, you, justice kavanaugh and chief justice roberts, who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v. gore case. do you think that's a coincidence? >>> 20 days out from november 3rd, why

i mean, gore v. bush went 36 days. two days before the electoral college convened to vote december 12th. supreme court rule. but i want to get to the institutional guidelines. i mean, how -- looking back over the last several years, quickly, how well do you think the executive branch under this president has been constrained? how well has the media, congress, the courts, public opinion done in constraining, and how -- bart argues there are no adjudicators. there's really no one or no thing that we can rely on in this interregnum period that's going to help save us. but are there institutional guidelines that could actually function during this period? congress, the counts, guidance from the constitution from beating up public opinion? have we nothing to fall back on in the event of bart's all-too-real and very grim scenarios play out? let me begin with you since you -- at institutional guardrails a lot. >> sure. i mean, this is a glass half empty/glass half full kind of question. and i must saw it depends on how i wake

like, you win -- if you win, you win, and if bush v. gore, 537 votes in florida proved one thing, it's like there shouldn't be any understanding that democrats have to somehow pad the lead to actually legitimately take office. >> no, chris, absolutely not. of course you're right and of course vice president biden has a team of some of the best lawyers in the country ready to go to court, if needed, to establish that a win if he achieves it is a legitimate win and to make sure the courts don't set it aside. we're prepared to fight this campaign in the courts if it comes to that. my only point is that it shouldn't come to that. >> right. >> and it shouldn't come to that not because democrats have some special burden to win by more votes but because donald trump is a horrible president and democrats and everyone else, independents and democrats should show up the polls and make a clear statement that the era of trump is over and it's time to get this country back on track. that's a political conclusion, not a legal conclusion. i'm telling you i

that they can pack the court with pro-trump votes so that in any dispute, you get a replay of bush v. gore. >> yeah, that's exactly why i asked that question, of course, becse many people, including president trump, believe the election will end up at the supreme court or could end up in the courts, given all the questions about paper ballots, mail-in ballots, and the counting of the mail-in ballots. so, there are some of your colleagues on the senate judiciary committee who say that they will not meet with her at all. the traditional courtesy call, where senators have a chance to ask questions of the nominee. are you planning to meet with amy coney barrett? and will you talk to her? >> actually i'm still thinking about it. i think th the decision not to meet with her is, i think, consistent with a sense of the illegitimacy of this mad rush to try to get her into office, "a," before the election so she can vote on election disputes and, "b," before the november 10th argument on the affordable care act sohat she can help knock down the affordable care act, which is something that she h loud

the supreme court -- this is litigated the supreme court is going to decide there's going to be a bush v gorehere's going to be a decision and is going to be enforced. there's not a single chance that they're not can be troops in the street and opposition to donald trump losing the election leaving the white house basement go-ahead karen, go ahead. snack i think the question of packing the courts is a little hysterical too. if biden takes office comets packing the court would be such an extreme measure that would take such a huge, huge legislative and legal lift pretty think it's one of those issues that is out there perhaps in the fevered thoughts of the left is just not likely to happen. and so i actually think that the biden campaign is wise not to address it. >> in order to add judges to the court not only would a, would joe biden have to win the presidency but the democrats have to take over the senate. and that's just politics, the electoral peace of it. and then let's say that were to happen. the politics is karen says of getting that done is a huge lif lift. mercury very kind to point

chief , justice roberts who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the bush v. gore case. do you think that is a coincidence? judge barrett: senator klobuchar, if you're asking you whether i was nominated for this seat because i worked on bush versus gore for a very brief time as an associate, that doesn't make sense to me? sen. klobuchar: i just think it is such a coincidence to me, and i actually didn't know it until yesterday. having justices with this background, two of whom were appointed by the current president, decide any case related to the upcoming election, do you think that will undermine the legitimacy of the courts? judge barrett: asking whether something would undermine the legitimacy of the court or not seems to be trying to elicit a question about whether it would be appropriate for justices who participated in that litigation to sit on the case rather than recuse and i went down that road yesterday. sen. klobuchar: you said you wouldn't recuse. judge barrett: that isn't what i said. sen. klobuchar: you said you wouldn't announce your decision on rec

there's going to be a bush v gore decision and it's going to be enforced. there's not a single chance, there won't be troops in the streets and violent opposition to donald trump leaving the white house if he loses. >> i think the question of packing the courts is a little hysterical, tomac. if joe biden takes office -- packing the court is it would be such an extreme measure that would take such a huge, huge legislative and legal left. i think it's one of those out there perhaps to the left but it's not likely to happen. so i actually think that, you know, the biden campaign is wise not to address it. >> in order to add judges to the court, not only would joe biden have to win the presidency, but the democrats would have to take over the senate and that's just the politics of the electoral piece of it. then let's say that were to happen, the politics as karen said of getting that done would be a huge left. mark, you were very kind to point out a low note for senator harris. could i get you to articulate a high point. what did she do well last night? >> she

citing bush v gore and bush v gore was as in the words of the judges of the majority at the time was f ruling. it was supposed to be no precedent resulting from bush v gore but it's now recurring. it's turning up in opinions and being cited. we should never forget and i know you haven't, but the grounds on which the supreme court stops the counting in florida in 2000 was the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. the one that put african-americans on an equal footing with whites. pretty extraordinary and torturous form of reasoning. originalist reasoning, to end that election and you are seeing similar kinds of torturous originalist thinking occurring in these recent spate of cases that have -- election cases that have come before the supreme court. so i'm not confident that this can't happen again in some unexpected way. sadly i'm not confident. >> right. and if we go back to bush v gore you had nine justices, all voting for the party who put them on the supreme court and you could make the argument that all nine justices, the five conservatives and the four liberals voted ag

unlikely because it would really require a situation like we saw in 2000 in the united states in bush v gore or the election came down to very small margins in both the electoral college and the popular 7 vote and turned entirely on one state if polls are at all to be believed in the 2020 election that isn't likely to be true so while the supreme court has been doing a lot to essentially limit state efforts to extend the vote past election day or to have accommodations during the pandemic the court is obviously hostile to those kinds of become additions and will probably become more so with amy county barrett on the court it seems less likely that the court will actually be the one deciding the election. or writes mary ziegler professor of law at florida state university professor we appreciate your time in your insights tonight thank you thanks for having me. our next story is about a young woman with a brilliant mind and a big heart. has been awarded the german africa prize for her work in somali dedicated to reclaiming a generation that was almost lost to. using the ocean and yoga to heal

unlikely because it would really require a situation like we saw in 2000 in the united states in bush v gore or the election came down to very small margins in both the electoral college and the popular vote and turned entirely on one state if polls are at all to be believed in the 2020 election that isn't likely to be true so while the supreme court has been doing a lot to essentially limit state efforts to extend the vote past election day or to have accommodations during the pandemic the court is obviously hostile to those kinds of accommodations and will probably become more so with any county barrett on the court it seems less likely that the court will actually be the one deciding the election. or writes mary ziegler professor of law at florida state university professor we appreciate your time in your insights tonight thank you thanks for having me. our next story is about a young woman with a brilliant mind and a big heart ilwad elman has been awarded the german africa prize for her work in somali dedicated to reclaiming a generation that was almost lost to woo hoo. using the ocean a

the sprinklers going to side, this would be bush v. gore, a decision and it's going to be enforced. does that a single chance -- president, troops industry and a violent opposition to donald trump if he loses the election. >> go ahead. >> i think the question of packing the court is a little hysterical, too. if biden takes office. packing the court would be such extreme measure that would take such a huge, huge legislative and legal lift. i think it's one of those issues that is out there perhaps, but it's not just likely to happen. i actually think that the biden campaign is wise not to address it. >> in order to add judge to the court not only with joe biden have to win the presidency of the democrats would have to take over the senate, and that's just, the politics, the electoral piece of it then let's say that were to happen, the politics of getting that done would be a a huge lift. marc, you are very kind to point out a low note or senator harris. i get you to articulate a high point? what did she do well last night? >> i thought, look, she prosecuted the case on covid very eff

court to cast a crucial vote, if cases arising out of a disputed election reach the court, like bush v. gore did after the 2000 presidential election. in donald trump, we have a president who has vowed to appoint to the supreme court a justice who would vote to overturn roe v. wade and take away a woman's reproductive rights and freedom, even before he was elected in 2016, he pledged, quote, i will appoint judges that will be pro-life, yes. in donald trump, we have a president who has expressly promised that he would only nominate a justice who would vote to get rid of the affordable care act, obamacare, and coverage for preexisting conditions. president trump made that another bright-line litmus test for this nomination. in donald trump, we have a president who has told us that he needs judge barrett on the bench to rule in the affordable care act case, the supreme court is scheduled to hear on november 10, one week after the election, a case that will decide the fate of that law and the availability of health insurance for millions of americans suffering during a pandemic and well afterwar

michael mentions bush v gore in 2001 of the thing that the anyone remembers is that on the same day that the supreme court handed out his decision, december 12, the florida legislature, the house had voted in the senate was about to go to appoint republican electors even though litigation was under way they would send to the electoral college a slate of electors committed too bush using their legislative power constitution to make sure bush got the votes. it's not the supreme court decision and into the election it is what happened the day after on december 13 when grover conceded because he can't have continue to fight and if he had done so that a form of decision would've been a joint session of congress overseen by the president of the senate who was al gore. if that happens the issue the president of the senators michael pentz that is one of the reasons for consent. >> i understand anddson i on - i agree but is it to on federal far from reality that kids as they currently exist now as the elite and then to say that it will no longer support you. that's the behavior of the last four y