none of his fellow conservatives did. >> this is in bret cavanaugh's hands.is court. some ways, he truly has replaced anthony kennedy as far as being the swing justice here. >> could be. and also could be justice barrett. we don't know yet enough about her inclinations and jurisprudence. she has only been there a short time. i think it is clear that the two of them are probably more in the middle of the court as the conservatives go than the other three conservative justices. >> so the decision by this court to let this go, i mean, why shouldn't we look at it as well, we know where mississippi is headed. >> well, it didn't present a constitutional issue, it did in a way, but that's not what the court was deciding. the court was deciding procedural issues, whether or not to stop the law before it went into effect or not. the case that they're going to take up in the fall, mississippi's 15 week ban on abortion directly challenges roe v wade. that will be a case where the court is sort of directly presented with that question and we'll find out whether or not th

>> lucy cavanaugh, appreciate it. let's get perspective from carla marinucci and john king.hor of >> why should they care what happens in california? >> a long leist of reasons. race itself, a democratic governor in the nation's most popular state at the forefront of the pandemic trying to keep his job in this recall election with coronavirus on the ballot as well as the other issues he listed. dr the drama and the quirkiness much the recall law. then there are national implications. governor newsome is trying to make this a referendum on him and democratic governance, on mask mandates, vaccine mandates. those will be the issues in 2022 as well. we will learn about voter motivation, exhaustion. 2-1 democratic voting advantage. governor newsome should not lows. if it's close, that's a message for democrats. >> tied the republican frontrunner larry elder to donald trump. what's the governor's perspective on this recall one week out? >> i mean, this has been a nerve-racking number of months for gavin newsom, anderson, and democrats are in a panic a couple of weeks ago when poll

joining me, dick cavanaugh, katy tubman, tyler, and susan de del persio. jim, let's start with you. what do you think was behind what we saw today? >> any anti-government movement has always been fractured for the last 40 or 50 years. they've always struggled to have big rallies. most of their rallies fizzle just like this one did. but they've had some seminal moments where violence occurred, the rally in the '30s was the big one. trump saw that, latched onto it, embraced it, supported them and then he drummed up the bigger january 6 mob for his benefit. so he wasn't there. he wasn't there now. he's not president anymore. he still wants to be boss baby, but he can't now, so he can't get the crowd he once did. >> and yet, jim, law enforcement not messing around today. talk to us about what you read into the security presence we saw. >> a-plus for law enforcement, the capitol police, the federal police, all the agencies that helped. this is what they had to do. this was their preparation today for january 6. january 6 was the preparation for today. now that we've gone through this exe

. >> do you believe justice cavanaugh is bankrupt?d want every supreme court justice to know including justiceco cavanaugh tt respecting their authority as a supreme court justice and i would not follow without reservation. >> you are an experienced lawyer and know when someone isn't answering a question. do you believe justice is, quote, intellectually and morally bankrupt? >> thank you for the question, senator. as i stated i recognize -- it was very recently you sign your name to the statement and i'm askingng simply today do you believe the justice is, quote, intellectually and morally bankrupt. >> thank you for the question, senator. as i stated that was rhetorical advocacy only that i find in my personal capacity as a private citizen addressing and throughout my legal career as a litigator and at adjudicator i have followed all of the court's precedents. >> and you refuse to answer the question. it's a simple yes or no and you have refused to answer. >> i would ask all the nominees who come before any of the committees the follo

and justices gorsuch, cavanaugh and barrett were appointed by trump. they along with justice thomas seem ready to gut voting rights, lgbtq rights, abortion rights, and more. is there any way to stop this or are we stuck in this anti-democratic court for another generation? >> you know what, reverent sharpton, elections have consequences. nobody really liked to talk about judges over the last decades and how important they are. but every american is impacted by the decisions that the courts make, including the very important highest court, the supreme court. and the president has the start to do just what the presidents who appointed this bench have done. and they have been confirmed by the senate. so we are stuck with them. they are lifetime appointments. this is why, one of the many reasons why we have to encourage people to turn out and vote. you mentioned voting rights. it is absolutely under attack. we have got to get congress to pass laws that will protect, they will put back in place what was gutted when the case was decided by the supreme court

. >> want to bring in jim cavanaugh to talk more about this. let's talk about some of the details that we learned from this press conference. so from our understanding, there is no connection between the shooter and the family as of yet. we're also learning that the shooter -- or the suspect i should say is an afghan and iraqi vet. he was a sharpshooter honorably discharged. and his girlfriend who has been interviewed said that he has ptsd. and said just a week ago that he said that he was talking to god. and i just want to reiterate here, this is an in-credit bring tragic event. one of the victims as young as three months of age. an infant shot in the arms of their mother. what is going on here, jim? >> well, obviously this man was suffering from some tremendous mental distress. i mean, he is claiming god is speaking directly to him, he is going up to strangers telling them that their daughters will commit suicide when people don't even have daughters. what the sheriff has reported, they have no known connection with the family that has been m

jim cavanaugh was on earlier talking about some of them. they were one-offs. there are large militia groups planning for violence. others are looking to protest at state and local municipal buildings. when i look at the white supremacist forums, there's a lot of talk about afghan refugees and relocation into the united states. i'm deeply worry about this current of domestic extremism and that plays into with a dean was talking about. it's race-based and religious-based and it's about white nationalism and trying to push that forward for political change. that is absolutely domestic terrorism. >> i want to remind everyone, you can read dean obeidallah's op-ed on republicans and the insurrectionists at msnbc.com. there's also a lot of great stuff we didn't get to get to that i hope you'll go and read. dean, clint, thank you so much. >>> president biden's push to vaccinate america with mind-boggling backlash from the gop. we're going to ask a doctor. >>> speaking of science, climate change waits for no one. we'll talk to congressman ritchie torres pushing to get

barrett and cavanaugh said smith was wrong but were not sure what to replace it with and were not eager to overrule until we figure that out. justice prior said smith should be reconsidered. roberts has joined such opinions on occasions. five possibly six votes to reconsider smith when they are forced to do it. there are two cases on the docket about whether catholic institutions have to cover abortion in their insurance plans and dignity health about a catholic hospital that refuse to permit a transgender surgical operation. they's -- they may be on the long conference. the court may have to face up to this issue sooner rather than later. what i want to talk about is justice or its question what replaces smith. she wants to think that through further. some of us have been thinking about that for a long time. the generally compelling interests protects any other function -- fundamental right. some exceptions that are obviously possible. the problem with intermediate scrutiny apart from being lower on its face is it's been under enforced. intermediate scrutiny would be equally under enfo

cavanaugh said smith was wrong but we're not sure what to replace it with and we're not here to overrule it until we figure that out. in addition justice breyer 25 years ago in ernie that it should be reconsidered. roberts joined such opinions on occasion and so five, possibly six or seven votes to reconsider this and they're finally forced to do it. there are two cases in the docket, only about whether catholic institutions have to cover abortion in their employee cinsurance plans and dignity help occasion of california about a catholic hospital that refuse to permit a transgender surgical operation. those may well be lost without exceptions. those may well be on the long conference at the end of the month so the court may have to face up to this issue sooner rather than later. what i mostly want to talk about is justice barrett's question. she wants to think that through further which is perfectly understandable. some of ushave been thinking about that question a long time . generally the compelling interest that you should be what replaces and that protects any other fundamental right

barrett and cavanaugh said smith was wrong but were not sure what to replace it with and were not eager to overrule until we figure that out. justice prior said smith should be reconsidered. roberts has joined such opinions on occasions. five possibly six votes to reconsider smith when they are forced to do it. there are two cases on the docket about whether catholic institutions have to cover abortion in their insurance plans and dignity health about a catholic hospital that refuse to permit a transgender surgical operation. they's -- they may be on the long conference. the court may have to face up to this issue sooner rather than later. what i want to talk about is justice or its question what replaces smith. she wants to think that through further. some of us have been thinking about that for a long time. the generally compelling interests protects any other function -- fundamental right. some exceptions that are obviously possible. the problem with intermediate scrutiny apart from being lower on its face is it's been under enforced. intermediate scrutiny would be equally under enfo

speaking about the nominees, i want to address the protests by left wing activists outside justice cavanaugh'some last night, a partisan group announced that justice kavanaugh was going to hear from us, quote, unquote, hear from us because he's been protected from any backlash for his votes on the supreme court. this protest looks like another blatant attempt to intimidate the judiciary and anyone who disagrees with the radical agenda voiced bipartisan advocates. after all, a leader from this group recently pleaded no contest to criminal trespass and was ordered by a court to stay away from senator hawley's wife. partisan shots aimed at the independence of our judiciary ought to be concerning to everybody. dark money groups like demand justice, run dishonest attacks to try to under mine the people's trust in the federal judiciary. these groups do it for partisan purposes. they want to bully judges into ruling in line with with their liberal agenda no matter what the law says and if that doesn't work, they want to pack the court. i believe the american people would object to the extreme agenda

. >> susan page, as joyce said, all three justic supported judge cavanaugh and amy coney barrett voted some ways expect fareed this court. but what do you see coming down the road because of it? >> well, this was what donald trump promised, evangelical christian voters. it's one reason he consolidated their support in such a significant way. you've mentioned he had three appointments to the high court. two of them replacing justices who had supported abortion rights. now, as joyce said, this isn't the end of the road, it's the beginning of the road, clearly, a friendlier atmosphere for those who want to restrict abortion in the most significant ways. this is a medical issue. it's a moral issue. it's a political issue as well in a big way. this is going to have repercussions. it could energize those conservative republican voters behind republican candidates. it could also generate some new intensity among democrats and those who support abortion rights as we see this law already now in effect in the big central state of texas. >> jonathan le mere, this will become a part of the convers