cava naugh and rightjustices like cavanaugh and getting a return on their investment.urt. this is not something that the american people are against, 80% of americans support banning pump stocks and the supreme court is going against that. this stocks and the supreme court is going against that.— going against that. this puts it back to — going against that. this puts it back to the _ going against that. this puts it back to the state - going against that. this puts it back to the state to - going against that. this puts it back to the state to make | it back to the state to make decisions. we know in many states they have already banned pump stocks in the six years since the incident at your own high school there has been some progress, especially in your own state of florida, hasn't there? . , , own state of florida, hasn't there? ., , , ,., there? there has been some progress- — there? there has been some progress. after _ there? there has been some progress. after parkland - there? there has been some i progress. after parkland many people said our republican state

we will get more, though, as i thank both you, jim cavanaugh and marissa parra. we'll have more.we'll bring more in the police presser coming in 15 minutes from now. and we'll be right back. l be ri. . it's tough to breathe and tough to keep wondering if this is as good as it gets. but trelegy has shown me that there's still beauty and breath to be had. because with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open and prevents future flare-ups. and with one dose a day, trelegy improves lung function so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful. you know w

that is a direct shot across the bow at cavanaugh and the rest of them for this ridiculous ruling. >> to be clear, the statute in question criminalizes a bribe or reward. uses the term reward. ketanji brown jackson writing, as a general matter, everyone knows what a reward is, it is a $20 bill pulled from a lost wallet. a surprised ice cream outing after a report card of straight a's. the bar tab picked up by a supervisor. a reward says thank you for a good job rather than please, right? >> or $13,000. everybody knows what is going on here. and so we have kind of come again to the crux of the issue. what is congress going to do? that was a bill that democrats ran on in the past they couldn't get it passed, thank you joe manchin and kristin cinema. still haven't heard a great reason why they are against public eruption. but if democrats are not pushing a universal ethics bill, that applies to not only the situation that cavanaugh did with snyder, but actually also the supreme court and anybody who might be holding gold bars under. so until congress passes an ethics rule that applies to

joining us now, nbc's yamiche alcindor, and retired atf special agent in charge jim cavanaugh and civilts attorney and former prosecutor charles coleman. what is the latest reaction we're getting to this ruling? >> well, what we're really hearing from is both sides of the political aisles here. republicans largely saying that they're going to respect or celebrate this decision and democrats saying this is a decision that really needs to be rectified by congress. so with that in mind, let's take a listen to what we've been hearing from capitol hill and the lawmakers there. >> it's a fantastic ruling, not surprising. i would expect it to be done. that's an indication of where we'll be on the pistol brace ban as well. i think it was a foolish mistake under both administrations. >> the supreme court has been on a rampage with respect to the ability of states and localities to pass reasonable gun safety measures. >> so there you have it, republicans and that republican lawmaker saying essentially i'm in favor of this ruling and then you have someone like jamie raskin, a high profile democrat

they have to. >> jim cavanaugh, thank you very much.e to see you. >>> up next, we got reaction to the bump stock decision from both the biden and trump campaigns. plus, our other breaking story as the world leaders at the g7 wrap up their events today, russian leader vladimir putin announces he's ready to peace talk with ukraine. but there are conditions. talking about that next. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. kayak. no way. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? kayak. i like to do things myself. i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done. ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what y

cavanaugh. want to tell you gorsuch, i want to tell you cavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you, senator schumer said forward with these awful quote. what we're seeing today with this legislation, in my opinion, but most senators agree with me is part of the promised whirlwind, and i do not believe that we should try to undermine the integrity of the institution of the supreme court of the united states boughts we're un happy -- because we're unhappy with one of its opinions. i will withhold my allow my friend senator lee, to speak. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object. the united states of america has benefited for nearly two and a half centuries from hav one of the world's best most objective judicial systems in the entire world. while no system run by fallible mortal human beings can be described as perfect, ours is as

this legal doctrine was summed up by justice cavanaugh using a doctrine articulated byjustice scalialaintiffs had no argument to make against that. basically the merits of the case weren't even looked at. having said that, anti—abortion activists are very likely to regroup and find another way to bring the case to the supreme court. it's important to know that this ruling doesn't change anything. these abortion pills are still illegal in the 14 states that have near total abortion bands. that's whether there is a ban through procedure on dues or pills. we know abortion is a potent issue going into the presidential election. we've seen the position that democrats have taken is pretty much in line with the public opinion two years old, since roe v wade was overturned. there's a poll to suggest that most americans do believe in abortion rights. they do believe in medicated abortion rights. broadly speaking for republicans they probably dodged a slightly toxic issue if the ruling had gone another way. and given that we're headed towards a tight presidential race. donald trump returned to

justice cavanaugh is reading it from the bunch. on the campaign itself getting a little attention. axios yesterday. people on the outside, democratic strategists and inner circle saying unclear to many of us watching from the outside whether the president and his core team realize how dire the situation is right now and whether they even have a plan to fix it. that is scary. now this whole idea how dire the situation is goes to the campaign, may go to his health, may go to some of the polling we're seeing. however, what we see in our polling is a dead heat five months out. >> this debate is huge for president trump because we see in our fox poll biden leads among independents by nine. if i'm trump i want to stay off defense. there will be hesitation to be on defense. moderators and cnn will try to put me on defense but be on offense. for biden not only do you have to show the mental acuity. he may jump over that hurdle. you need to find the way to seize on the only thing you have, democracy, which is number one in the fox news poll and lean into january 6th among others and also ab

. >> that was msnbc terrorism analyst jim cavanaugh you often see on air in the aftermath of a mass shootingbump stocks. even the machine guns are banned in the u.s. justice clarence thomas wrote that a firearm with a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine gun under federal law. >> mark i will just cut to the quick. folks really don't care about the life and life of people when your court says you can take this piece of equipment and latches onto your gun and just pull the trigger and have 800 rounds, 800 rounds in one minute be dispensed from that weapon. no human finger can fire 800 rounds in one minute clarence thomas, but this bump stocks can. >> clarence thomas thinks differently and he decides because he rules us. he claims that bump stocks do the work of a human with a lightning fast trigger finger and i think that's outrageous. they increase the rate of fire from 180 rounds to 800 rounds as you said. they decreased accuracy and their only use is to slaughter as many humans as possible in a short time as possible. what justin thomas did was completely butcher the statuto

. >> you know what, we had three republican politicians, cavanaugh, barrett, and roberts, who i think need to be understood as they would rather wait for the trump justice department to resolve this than blow up this issue -- >> they see what's happened to the country in the process, in the wake of dobbs. >> yeah, they saw 2022, and then you have the true believers, gorsuch, alito, and thomas who wanted to burn the whole thing down. within that you have ketanji brown jackson saying don't bother with this fake joifgsz of the procedure to say, oh, well we shouldn't have taken it so we shouldn't decide if we'll wait because she knows there's a lot of other states. >> that's the thing. there's a case in texas that's the mirror image of this almost certainly going to go to the court. >> she's saying this. don't make these other women in other states wait. we saw the same thing happen with the mifepristone case. great for now access is preserved but what about all these other cases that are coming? are they just punting it because they know how bad -- and by them i mean the republican appoi

fdny commissioner laura cavanaugh is ripping some of her firefighters in text to new york attorney generalatisha james. she texted james in march to apoll guys one day after firefighters -- apologize one day after firefighters booed her during a ceremony. she said i'm trying to find a way to say i'm sorry that doesn't involve me apologizing for men that don't deserve such grace. i'm sorry we didn't stop them and i can't fix them. imagine her being your boss. the tsa is expecting a busy travel season as we approach the 4th of july. the agency estimates they will screen 28 million people through july 8th. they say travelers are looking to extend the holiday weekend since it falls on a thursday which is what pete was talking about this year. the tsa is bracing for july 7th to be the busiest travel day of the year. and massachusetts transportation officials are hoping to put a smile on the faces of boston commuters. they added googly eyes to five of the trains after riders asked for them in a public campaign. transportation officials call it a creative solution to improve the rider experience.

are also going to find out from this decision not for scalia and clarence thomas stan but where cavanaughett, course each. i think those are interesting questions about how they feel about the future of this democracy and the future of the executive office. and the presidency. >> both sides are going to win and lose at the same time on immunity. i'm looking forward to july 11th, the sentencing date for donald trump, which a lot of folks appear to be thinking that yesterday was the big show, and this happens a lot. people think about guilty verdicts as the main event in the trial but for more important, at least to citizens and maybe far more important to the constitution, is what happens if donald trump is actually incarcerated? i don't think there is a high possibility of that. i think it is far more likely that he gets probation but what if he doesn't? oranges is color but what if he does not? what if judge merchan decides to make a point and send them to jail even for a dale to process ? if it is a probation only sentence, it is really the same effect on his body. he showed up to court

cavanaugh, it's settled as a precedent of the supreme court.rett, roe is not a super precedent because it calls for overturns have never ceased but does not mean that roe should be overturned. they lied to the united states senate to get on the court because they were closet extremists. the ones that you served with are now cos playing as if they are extreme as marjorie taylor greene. so people are lying about who they are. >> they're definitely lying who they are. josh hawley is definitely lying about who he is. his wife was in front of the supreme court trying to make sure that mifepristone is illegal across the country. his wife is one who brought the lawsuit in texas where the judge -- where they found the one judge and the one circuit in the federal court they knew would rule their way. that's his wife. so the idea that he thinks things that america supports are never going to be overturned, that's just -- by the way, if he believed that, why didn't he vote for it today? why did he vote no? what's wrong with voting for a bill that protects

justices roberts and cavanaugh did not write at all.e court also blocked an epa regulation meant to protect states downwind from polluting neighbors. tell us about that ruling. john: this is a plan the epa calls good neighbors. they wanted to work with the states to limit air pollution that drifts across state lines. it was challenged by the state of ohio and corporate interests. today in a 5-4 decision, justice gorsuch wrote that the challenges were likely to prevail in the end because the epa had not fully justified what they were doing. geoff: epa has lost a handful of cases before the court in recent years. is there a theme that connect these cases? john: absolutely. the conservative majority in this court has been consistent in trying to rein in what they call the administrative state. they have said in case after case not only environmental law but other regulatory agency, saying the regulators cannot do anything unless they are specifically authorized to do it by law. here is carol davenport covers environmental policy for the ne

it seems like others, like justices gore's itch and cavanaugh and alito were kind of interested in someons. as just discourse itch said, we are deciding for the ages. and so i think the biggest issue is, where do they draw@o that political line? i think the worst outcome we should expect is not a complete dismissal of the case, but a line drawing exercise that requires the case to be remanded back at the court for more fact-finding. >> so the court has come under scrutiny for the time that it is taking to deliver this ruling. you got some analyst comparing this to the case that kept trump on the ballot in colorado. look at the speed with which that one was done. is it fair to say the court has already helped trump politically, even if inadvertently? >> yes, absolutely. i don't know whether it is deliberate. certainly what we could have expected, more urgency in this decision. they seem to act with kind of all due caution and being careful and thoughtful. you know, when they want to move quickly, they can. we know that in the watergate case involving the nixon ■çtape the court heard the

some of these justices like souter, even cavanaugh, they only have a few hundred dollars worth of gifts. they are trying, to some degree, so play by the rules. and the point i want to make is that it is possible to serve as an ethical justice. it is possible to say these are the guidelines that both congress and the judiciary have said and i'm going to work with in them. clarence thomas has decided he is above those rules. and quite literally, above the law. and that alito set him apart. i think even from someone like sam alito who comes in second, distant second, having accepted many gifts from billionaires. but it is still not on the scale of thomas. what this shows that thomas is in a league of his own. >> yeah, i would say. claris thompson and sam alito, mutual leagues of their own in different ways. different justices, same court. mark joseph stern, thank you again for your time. and incandescent rage about what is a broken, broken court. thank you, my friend, for joining me tonight. >>> we'll be right back with my colleague, joy reed, coming up next. and the chance at clear or alm

we had three republican politicians, cavanaugh, barrett, and roberts, who i think need to be understoods they would rather wait for the trump justice department to resolve this then blow up this issue. >> let's see what happened to the country in the process. >> yeah, they saw 2022. and then, you know, you have the true believers, alito and thomas, just wanted to burn the whole thing down. within the real liberals, you have ketanji brown jackson saying don't bother with this fake justification of the procedure to say, oh, we shouldn't have taken it, so we don't have to decide it, we will wait, she knows there are a lot of other states -- >> there is a case in texas that is the mirror image of this that is almost certainly going to go to the court. >> and she is saying that, what about texas where there is another case waiting? we saw the same thing happen with the mifepristone case. great for now, access is preserved, but what about all these other cases that are coming? are they just punting it because they know how bad -- because it would rather this issue not blow up in their face? w

also going to find out from this decision not where scalia and clarence thomas stand, but where cavanaughut the future of democracy in the future of the office. in the presidency. >> both sides are going to win and lose at the same time on immunity. >> what is yours? >> well, i am looking forward to july 11th, the sentencing date for donald trump. which a lot of folks appear to be thinking that yesterday was the big show, but, and this happens a lot. people think about guilty verdicts as the main event in a trial, but far more important, at least to citizens, and maybe far more important to the constitution is what happens if donald trump is actually incarcerated? i don't think there is a high possibility of that. i think it is far more likely that he gets probation. but what if he doesn't? what if he does not? oranges is color, but what if he does not? what if justice merchan decides to make a point and send him to jail, even for a day, to process donald trump to the system? that is something that will truly be a first. if it is a promotion only sentence, it is the same affect on his bod

i've been here for four coastal report nominations and i'm very proud of my support for goure such, cavanaughem balls and strikes anything that biden is trying to politicize the court and trying to win some boats over it. i think it will backfire on him. >> neil: they try to zero and on justice alito can't apply thing, of course, clarence thomas and gifts and other arrests and saying okay -- this is what you get when you put conservatives on the bench and the treatment that it's only conservatives who draw this type of contr controversy, i am simply not the case. but what do you make of that? >> you know, everybody needs to realize that this whole politicize station of the courts, really started with schumer back in the early 2000 when he devised a strategy for denying w. bush nominations. before that keep in mind clarence thomas did not have the filibuster used against him but chuck schumer decided that they needed to politicize things which ultimately led to the nuclear option for the judicial -- is called the executive calendar but largely for judicial nominations. he's just trying to poli

we have jackie cavanaugh with us.a and that rollover was marked by a day with the reversal and a new high and heavy lows are continuing. are you concerned with gains in pre-market? are you concerned about the weakness of the leadership in the market. >> listen, you talked about this topic a lot in terms of the difference with the equal weight and s&p. we are concerned. we are big deliversblifr believ a.i. it say seis a secular growth st. it is the same with storage and cpus and cloud. hyper scalers spend a lot and it falls off. we think trees don't grow to the sky. there is an under lining cyclical ty and there are really good pros expects for broadening in the market. that's what we are looking for. >> we need participation of the sectors that have not necessarily come along. we got a report yesterday from bloomberg that bank capital requirements my be onerous. you used to have the analyst team. how impactful will this be going from the increased in capital of proposed 16% to as little as 5% for the banks? >> that wa

i want to bring in msnbc contributor and retired atf special agent in charge, jim cavanaugh. jim, these are the types of weapons law enforcement is facing frm what does this mean for atf agents? does this put them in danger? >> it puts all our law enforcement officers in danger, and it puts all our social securities in danger, ana. it's nonsensical the majority decision here. if you look at the graphic on your screen, you can see that stock, the bump stock, and you can see the space there. and the 1934 law that defined machine guns, the national firearms act. it said a machine gun is a weapon that by a single function of the trigger fires more than two rounds, and what it really meant was that, you know, in a semiautomatic gun, the shooter holds the firearm and pulls with their finger each shot. that's a semiautomatic firearm. but what a machine gun or a sub -- these are really sub machine guns, classified as sub machine guns because they can be carried by a human, you pull the trigger and hold it and the gun empties the magazine, could be 30 rounds, 100 rounds, 500 rounds. i

some who may be leaning a little left can draw a line between folks like cavanaugh who seemed to be tryingnto the administrative questions of the places. question is, how do you feel about the i am asking that you may want to see it go but do you have a read on the justices? and also the immigration case where dhs keeps not doing with the court says. do you think they will rule the same way. guest: i don't think i have been dismissive of the news reports. i've tried to put them in what i think is pon the case i haveon the legal issues but he raises another interesting case being decided this term involving the so-called chevron deference, should judges continue to defer to agency interpretations of federal law so long as those interpretations pass a minimum threshold ofreasonableness. i have been supportive of chevron than other conservatives and it is difficult to come up with just the right test should be but i think there are some conceptual problems with chevron and i think the court may at the very leasta bit. i am not familiar with the dhs case as familiar as i should be. host: ray o

some who may be leaning a little left can draw a line between folks like cavanaugh who seemed to be tryingto get into the administrative questions of the places. my question is, how do you feel about the chevron deference? i am asking that you may want to see it go but do you have a read on the justices? and also the immigration case where dhs keeps not doing with the court says. do you think they will rule the same way. guest: i don't think i have been dismissive of the news reports. i've tried to put them in what i think is proper context. on the case i have a good read on the legal issues but he raises another interesting case being decided this term involving the so-called chevron deference, should judges continue to defer to agency interpretations of federal law so long as those interpretations pass a minimum threshold of reasonableness. i have been supportive of chevron than other conservatives and it is difficult to come up with just the right test should be but i think there are some conceptual problems with chevron and i think the court may at the very least cut back on it quite a

case on the issue noting that congress is considering this question. '8justices sotomayor, breyer, cavanaughurt last consider the question in 1981. roles and have passed demanding tests to become rangers, seals, and green berets. the senate armed services committh up and approved a provision to expand selective servicto women. it did so in their basic text. it is time that weco same. by refng the selective service to be gender-neutral we our entire nation time of the national emergency. as the inspired to serve male-only registration since a message to women thatotnly are they not vital to the defense of the country but they are not expected to p in defending it. that is a quote. it sends a message demand that they for some reason are uniquely and perhaps unfairly depended upon. this needs to will do that. i seek support for the bipartisan amendment to make this change to the selective service. host:'an in yorkville, illinois on the oppose line. good morning, brian. caller: good morning. i am very much opposed. first of all,en versus mendense biologically are very different in terms of their

justices sotomayor, breyer, cavanaugh representing different ideological views noted that the role ofe in distn rangers, seals, and green berets. the senate armed serce year hasy taken up and approved a provision to expand selective service to women. it did so in their basic text. is time that we in congress step up to do the sorming the se service to be draw on our entire nation time of the national emergency. as the highlighted the current male-only registration since a message to women that not only are they not vital to the defense of the country but they are not expected to participate in defending it. that is a quote. it sends a message demand that they for some reason are uniquely and perhaps unfairly depe u change. this a minute will do that. i seek support for the bipartisan amendment to make this change to the selrom briann yorkville, illgood morning, bri. caller: goodi am very much oppo. i think it is on a common sense level. first of women versus men biologically are very different in terms of their structure, not reproductive roles. in terms of their structure. men are bi

just like they on judge thomas, just like they did on cavanaugh, just like they did on estrada, theyo out and try to destroy. in local courts -- this decision with the trump thing is going to be overturned in the upcoming court. so democrats out there, you all enjoy your little laugh now because it is not going to last. if the appellate court don't get it, then the u.s. supreme court is going to start a mudhole. you have a corrupt da, a bot off judge. letitia james is nothing but a racist. alvin bragg is a racist toward hispanic people and white people. look what he did to that poor hispanic man that was defending his life. he killed a black man that was trying to beat him to death and bragg took that poor hispanic man and put him in rikers prison for six days before fox news, the only ones that tell the truth, fox and newsmax they raised so much heck about it to get the poor man free. he was defending his life and bragg threw him in the pen for six days. he would still be there if it had not been for the great fox news and newsmax. you just got corrupt da's in these local courts lik

. >> justice cavanaugh? >> this has huge indications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency and the future of the country in my view. you have referred to the department a few times as having supported the position. who in the department, is it the president or attorney general? >> the president of the united states, part of the way in which the special counsel functions is as a component of the department of justice. ge they envision we reach out and consult. and on a question of this magnitude that involves equities that are far beyond this prosecution as questions of the court. >> okay. second, i'm not focus on the here and now of this case. i'm very concerned about the future. one of the court's biggest mistakes was results. i think that's a terrible decision for the presidency, for the country. and not because there were bad people who were independent councils, but president reagan's administration, president bush's i administration, president clinton's restoration were really hampered in