citizens united was decided 5-4. by a narrow 5-4 majority, the supreme court concluded the first amendment did not allow the federal government to punish you for making a movie critical of a politician. and likewise, that the federal government couldn't ban books. four justices dissent. four justices were willing to say the federal government can ban books and -- can ban movies and presumably could ban books as well. when hillary clinton was running for president, she explicitly promised every justice she nominated to the court would pledge to overturn citizens united. by the way, hillary clinton said she would demand of her nominee something you have rightly said that this administration is not demanded of you which is a commitment on any case as to how you will rule. democrats have shown no compunction in expecting their nominees to make a promise, here's how i'm going to vote on a pending case, judicial ethics be damned. or how about the second amendment? we've heard some reference to the heller decision. the sena

they had four votes in citizen united.f they get one more hour free speech rights are in real danger. >> and of course if they pack them and stack the court, that's exactly what'll do. let's pick another area. the second amendment. what was this heller case all about and how could that be overturned? all of this is in ted cruz vote one vote away how a single supreme court seat can change history. were barely touching the tip of the iceberg. tell us about heller. >> dick anthony heller is a federal police officer living in d.c. who actually carried a gun at work but under the d.c. gun law it was illegal for him to have a gun at home. he cannot have an operative firearm. he can have a pistol, they were banned on a long gun either a shotgun or rifle under the d.c. law had to be disassembled or an operative at all times no matter what with zero exception so literally if he had a disassembled shotgun in his closet and someone broke into his house and was about to assault his family, if he assembled the shotgun he would have com

citizens united says what? judge barrett: citizens united extends the first amendment to corporations involved in political speech. sen. graham: if someone challenged that congress went too far, how would the process work? judge barrett: it will be the same process i have been describing. someone would have to challenge that law in a case. it would wind its way up, judges would decide it after briefs, consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. sen. graham: same-sex marriage, what is the case that established same-sex marriage as the law of the land? if there was a state that tried to outlaw same-sex marriage, there is litigation. would it follow the same process yucca -- same process? judge barrett: yes. not only would someone have to challenge that statute -- if they outlawed same-sex marriage there would have to be case challenging it. for the supreme court to take it up, you would have to have lower courts going along. the most likely result would be the lower courts bound by it down an

but not only that, what was citizens united about. most people have heard about it, know it makes democrats upset, but they don't know what the case is about. citizens united concerned whether or not it was legal to make a movie criticizing a politician, specifically citizens united is a small nonprofit organization based in d.c. that made a movie critical of hillary clinton. and the obama justice department took the position that it could fine, it could punish citizens united for daring to make a movie critical of a politician. the case went all the way to the u.s. supreme court. at the oral argument, there was a moment that was truly chilling. justice sam alito asked the obama justice department is it your position under your theory of the case that the federal government can ban books. and the obama justice department responded yes. yes. it is our position that if the books criticize a political candidate, a politician, the federal government can ban books. as far as i'm concerned, that's a terrifying view of the first amendment. c

citizens united says what? judge barrett: citizens united extends the protection of the first amendment to corporations in gated -- engage in political speech. to. graham: congress wanted challenge that, what would you do? how would the process work? judge barrett: it would be the same process. someone would have to challenge the law, someone who wanted to spend the money in a political campaign, resume of late. judges -- presumably. judges would have to decide it. sen. graham: same-sex marriage. what is the case that established same-sex marriage as the law of the land? judge barrett: poker felt --obgerfell. sen. graham: would it follow the same process if there's a challenge? it would.ett: not only would someone have to , if they that statute outlawed same-sex marriage, there would have to be a case. for the supreme court to take it off, you would have to have lower courts going along and say the case. flout if it made its way to the supreme court it would be the same process i described. sen. graham: let's t

hudson, they want to touch on this, the two most important opinions from the roberts course are citizens united, decided in 2010, justice kennedy and the town of gilbert decided in 2015, content -based for the analysis base, the two important opinion has been united. in terms of the liberal wing during her entire tenure on the court, justice kagan has had one majority opinion and justice breyer is in the 23%. from the gross which points when it comes to campaign financing cases and union free speech cases by the major, but robert is doing is recognizing first amendment and they take exception to the fact that cases decided by the roberts course had been campaigned finance cases. in terms of this, there's a lot of talk about prudence particularly given the contributions to that by justice scalia and we are all originalists in one way or another today. that may be true in that text but it's certainly not true in the roberts court. for all his discussions. in no free speech case has justice scalia ever go into extended discussions over the doors prudence. once in the case, he did talk about that.

opinions from the roberts course are citizens united . . . . from the liberal vantage point and when iwhen it comes to campn financing cases and free speech cases by their measure it is weaponize in the first amendment and they take exception to the fact. there's been a lot of talk given the enormous contributions given to that by justice scalia. we are all originalists in one odway or another today. that may be true but certainly not when it comes to the roberts court and it's free speech jurisprudence. in no free speech case has justice scalia ever gone into any discussion of the jurisprudence. he did talk about thehe petition clause and in terms of justice apart from the student speech case and brown v entertainment merchants and a discussion about intentional threats he hasn't written very much in this area. he did have a certain case we may have a lot of originalists on the court but in terms of the free speech jurisprudence, there is an absence of any extended discussions. i want to mention a couple of things before i hand over to david.

and perhaps most famously they did that in citizens united but there's a whole line or stream of cases enunciating this principle that limits on political spending are limits on political speech. and the other principal that comes through absolutely clearly in the decision is that the government may not impose limits on speech in order to level nthe playing field between the speech of rich and poor speakers. and again, these are the principles the roberts court seems most interested in. i have very little to do with the media but luckily there's other cases that do establish residence really do benefit both old and new media. so one of those principles at the roberts court has upheld is broad protection for unpopular speakers. and so they've given broad receipt protections to funeral protesters about an unpopular speaker as you can possibly imagine and then they've given broad protection to people who lie about receiving a constitutional medal of honor . so it really is speech that doesn't you know, call out to us that it strikes us as having much value but the court has said that thos

when you look at citizens united, a decision that undercut laws against the money power, the power of money and politics. and then the decision that undercut the voting rights act. it was empowering very wealthy people and disempowering average americans import people. it's an astonishing use of power. that was done by conservatives overturning years of precedents. >> guest: you're absolutely right. both of those cases where such divergence from precedent. in shelby county it was a shocking amount of creativity that is a generous word, on justice roberts apart. and actually the preceding case of citizens united, when i started writing about corruption because you can see the writing on the wall. it was when justice roberts it's really roberts court. it's a very corporate court. roberts acted impatient with the idea that corruption could be anything but an explicit quid pro quo. he said in a 2007 opinion, enough is enough why are we even talking about corruption? when he did that, ask aaliyah has done and some really consequential decisions and antitrust law he was engaged in terrible

perhaps most famously in citizens united.a whole line or stream ofat cases with the principal that limits on political speech. the other principal comes the absolutely clear in the decision is that the government may not impose limits on speech in order to level the playing field between the speech of rich import speakers. again these are the principles the roberts court seems most interested and prayed that very little to do with theas media. luckily they are from other cases that do establish precedents that do benefit old and new one of the principles the robert course has upheld as protection for unpopular speakers. free speech protection to funeral protesters about it on popular speakers you could possibly imagine. then they're giving broad protection to people who lie about receiving a constitutional medal of honor. so it really is speech that does not call out to us that it strikes us of having much value. the court has said those type of unpopular speakers in speech deserve broad protection. that suggests that calls w

judge barrett: when it comes to citizens united, i think there will be some effort after the selection to maybe revisit that case. the thing that i'm trying to establish here is that heller, citizens united, roe, casey, are all actively being litigated because legislative bodies are playing in that arena, is that a fair statement? judge barrett: that is a fair statement. sen. graham: your point to us is that when it is likely that controversies around the holding of a particular case are going to come to the court, there's only so much you can tell us about what you may or may not do. judge barrett: absolutely. wadegraham: roe v. compared to brown v. board of education is not super precedent. judge barrett: not super precedent as i was using that term in the article that of them referred to. sen. graham: let me tell you from a commonsense point of the white is not super precedent. i have legislation, 14 states have passed a law that i'm trying to get past that here that in the fifth month of the, 20 weeks, an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. i'm making the argument there is a c

in somebody's challenge dinner under citizens united that congress went through for what would you dohow would the process work well be the same process i've been describing 1st somebody would have to challenge that law in a case somebody presumably who wanted to spend the money and a political campaign it would wind its way up and you know judges but decided after briefs and oral argument in consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. same sex marriage was the case it established same sex marriage is the law of the land oberg ok if there was a state who tried to outlaw same sex marriage and there's litigation would it follow the same process well it would and one thing i have neglected to say before that's occurring to me now is that not only would someone have to challenge that statute and you know somebody so if they if they outlaw at the outlawed same sex marriage there'd have to be a case challenging it and for the supreme court to take it up you'd have to have lower courts going along and saying we're going to flout oberg of and the most likely result would

citizens united says what? >> citizens united extends the protection of the first amendment to corporations who are engaged in political speech. >> so if congress wanted to revisit that and somebody challenged it under citizens united that congress went too far, what would you do? how would the process work? >> well, it would be the same process i've been describing, first somebody would have to challenge that law in a case, somebody presumably who wanted to send the money in a political campaign, it would wind its way up and, you know, judges would decide it after briefs and oral argument and consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. >> same-sex marriage. what's the case that established same-sex marriage as the law of the land? >> obergathol. >> if there was a state that tried to outlaw same-sex marriage and there is litigation, would it follow the same process? >> it would and one thing i have neglected to say before that's occurring to me now is not only would someone have to challeng

graham: when it comes to citizens united, maybe revisit that case. the thing that i'm trying to establish here is that heller, citizens united, roe, casey are all actively being litigated because legislative bodies are playing in that arena, is that a fair statement? judge barrett: that is a fair statement. sen. graham: your point to us is when it is likely that case and controversies around the holding of a particular case are going to come to the court, there is only so much you can tell us about what you may or may not do. judge barrett: absolutely. so that roe v. wade compared to brown versus the board of education is not super precedent. judge barrett: not as i was using that term in the article. sen. graham: from a commonsense point of view, why is it not super precedent? i have legislation in 14 states that passed a law that i'm trying to get passed up here. that in the fifth month of pregnancy, 20 weeks, an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. there is only seven nations on the entire planet that allow abortion on demand in the fifth mont

citizens united says what? >> citizens united expands the protection of the first amendment to corporations who engage in political speech. >> if congress wanted to revisit that and somebody challenged it under citizens united that congress went too far, what would you do? how would the process work? >> well, it would be the same process that i've been describing. somebody would have to challenge the law in a case. somebody who wanted to spend the money in a political campaign. it would wind its way up and judges would decide it after briefs and oral argument and consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. >> same-sex marriage. what is the case that established same-sex marriage as the law of the land. >> if there is a state trying to outlaw marriage would it follow the same process? >> it would. not only would someone have to challenge that statute and somebody -- if they outlawed same-sex marriage there would have to be a case challenging it. for the supreme court to take it up you would

citizens united says what? >> citizens unewted extends the protections to corporations engaged in political speech. >> if congress wanted to revisit that and somebody challenged it under citizens united that congress went too far, what would you do? how would the process work? >> it would be the same process i've been describing. first, somebody would have to challenge that law in a case. somebody presumably who wanted to spend the money in a political campaign. it would wind its way up and judges would decide it after briefs and oral argument and consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. >> same-sex marriage. what's the case that established same-sex marriage as the law of the land? if there was a state who tried to outlaw same-sex marriage, there's litigation. would it follow the same process? >> it would. one thing i've neglected to say before that's occurring to me now is not only would someone have to challenge that statute and somebody -- if they outlaw -- if they outlawed same-sex

let's go to citizens united. senator whitehouse, me and you are going to come closer and closer about regulating money. i don't know what's going on out there, but i can tell you there's a lot of money being raised in this campaign. i would like to know where that's coming from but that's not your problem. citize citizens united says what? >> it extends the protection of the first amendment to corporations engaged in political speech. >> if congress wanted to revisit that and somebody challenged it under citizens united that congress went too far, what would you do? how would the process work? >> well, it would be the same process i have been describing. first, somebody would have to challenge that law in a case. somebody presumably who wanted to spend the money in a political campaign. it would wind its way up and, you know, judges would decide it after briefs and oral argument and consultation with colleagues and the process of opinion writing. >>okay. same-sex marriage, what's the case that established same-se

end citizens united is responsible for the content of this ad.itizens united every time you touch a surface, bacteria is left behind. now, consider how many times your family touches the surfaces in your home in 24 hours. try microban 24. spray on hard surfaces to kill 99.9% of viruses and bacteria initially. once dry, it forms a bacteria shield that keeps killing bacteria for 24 hours, even after multiple touches. try microban 24. available in multi-purpose, sanitizing, and bathroom sprays. this has been medifacts for microban 24. >>> i want to let you know about some news that has broken late tonight. it was first reported by bloomberg news. it is about hope hicks, one of the president's closest aids and longest serving advisers. she has today tested positive for the coronavirus. hope hicks is a very high profile white house staffer. she left the white house for a while to go work for fox, but she came back to the white house in february this year. the white house has not made a comment about her contracting covid, but it has been matched by nb

end citizens united is responsible for the content of this ad. end citizens united honey honey?l severe honey is maximum strength cold and flu medicine with soothing honey-licious taste. nyquil honey. the nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever best sleep with a cold medicine. i had this hundred thousand dollar student debt. two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in debt. ah, sofi literally changed my life. it was the easiest application process. sofi made it so there's no tradeoff between my dreams and paying student loans. student loans don't have to take over for the rest of your life. thank you for allowing me to get my money right. ♪ thank you for allowing me to get my money right. skip to cold relief fast. alka-seltzer plus power max gels. with 25% more concentrated power. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! yourthey customizeres your car insurance. so you only pay for what you need. wow. that will save me lots of money. this game's boring. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ that selling carsarvana, 100% onl

end citizens united is responsible for the content of this ad. do i use a toothpaste that or one that's good for my teeth? now i don't have to choose. crest 3d white. it removes up to 95% of surface stains. and strengthens enamel. from the number one toothpaste brand in america. crest. taking california for a ride. companies like uber, lyft, doordash. breaking state employment laws for years. now these multi-billion-dollar companies wrote deceptive prop 22 to buy themselves a new law. to deny drivers the rights they deserve. no sick leave. no workers' comp. no unemployment benefits. vote no on the deceptive uber, lyft, doordash prop 22. one ride california doesn't want to take. >>> michelle obama is using the power of her pop layerly to port joe biden's campaign and to slam donald trump and his handling of the covid pandemic. >> it's painful to think that months into this crisis, this is still where we are. with no clear plan, no peace of mind. and the worst part is, it didn't have to be like this. look around the world. so many other countries a

this class as american citizens united want to talk that's fine. and. i would vote for a republican i would vote for anyone not you and ask. if you get. my 2nd wife. she can handle it. she and i divorce because our trouble is elected president and i floated for him and she can stand for. the most important election. in our history. list of the months to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the us now. what are the highest priority problems only they vote which they do next. just some of the questions we feel to feel really america. a fragile truce takes effect in the disputed caucuses region of nagorno-karabakh reports of shelling come from both sides. a correspondent in the heart of the conflict zone reporting on the devastation and how locals view the standoff. this. is a story site i can see it has been razed to the. ground but it has been battered by so many bombs of so many calibers sizes and types. and corona virus cases rise sharply in northern england with hospitals preparing for even worse well government guidelines

citizens united says what?hee barrett: it protects position of corporate -- >> if someone challenges that, how with the process work? judge barrett: somebody would have to challenge that law in the case, somebody would want to spend the money, and it would wind its way up, and judges would decide it after oral arguments were made. host: what did you hear there from senator graham and from the nominee? guest: this is the exact phoniness of what we have heard all week. over and over again, the republican senators said the court should not be over turning the will of the people, the court should apply to the law. but what they did at citizens united is overturned the will of the people, and it is no fault of yours but there is a misconception out there that mccain-feingold was overturned. that is something not true. that case was not about mccain feingold. there was an act called the tillman act, saying that money could not be given to political campaigns by corporations. ,he united states supreme court joined by

a fact that never seems to be acknowledged. , what was citizens united about?t people at home have heard about citizens united, they know it makes democrats very upset. but they don't know what the case is about. concernednited whether or not it was legal to make a movie criticizing a politician, specifically, citizens united is a small nonprofit organization based in d.c. that made a movie that was critical of clinton. the justice department took a position that it could fine a department for during to make a movie critical of a politician. the case went to the supreme court. at the oral argument, there was a moment that was truly chilling. the justiceasked department, is it your position that the federal government can ban books? and the obama justice department responded, yes, yes it is our position that if the books criticize a political candidate, a politician, the federal government can ban books. i'm concerned, that is a terrifying view of the first amendment. decided 5-4.ed was by a narrow majority, the supreme court concluded the first amendment did no

end citizens united is responsible for the content of this ad. end citizens united you try to stay ahead of the but scrubbing still takes time. now there's powerwash dish spray it's the faster way to clean as you go just spray, wipe and rinse it cleans grease five times faster dawn powerwash. spray, wipe, rinse. each febreze car vent clip gives you up to 30 days of fresh air. so, you can have open window freshness... even with all the windows up. enjoy fresh, any time, with febreze. more dangerous and corrupt president than trump. he's harming our basic values, giving rise to hate, and he's selling out america to big corporations. i'm working to protect immigrants, women, communities of color, and lgbtq people. and i'm making corporations like pg&e and insurance companies play by our rules. we need experienced leadership to wipe away trump's stain on america for good. >>> hey, good evening. thanks for joining us. the day after the debate debacle and the question is now what? 73 million people witnessed last night's so-called debate and it's prett

citizens united says what? >> citizens united extends the protection of the first amendment to corporations engaged in political speech. >> congress wanted to revisit itt and somebody challenged under citizens united that congress went too far. what would you do? how would the process work? >> same process i have been describing. somebody would have to challenge that law. somebody who wanted to spend the money in a political campaign. it would wind its way up and judges would decide it after briefs and oral arguments in consultation with colleagues. >> ok. same-sex marriage, what is the case that established same-sex marriage? [indiscernible] >> if there was a state that outlawed same-sex marriage, would follow the same process? >> it wooden one thing i have neglected to say before -- it would and one thing i neglected to say before his somebody would not only have to challenge -- there would have to be a case challenging it and for the supreme court to take it up, you would have to have lower courts going alon

. >> citizens united, after this effort to make revisit that case. so the thing i'm trying to establish here is that heller, citizens united, roe/casey actively litigated by legislative bodies are playing in that arena. is that a fair statement? >> that's a fair statement. >> so your point to us is, when it's likely that case and controversy around what comes to the supreme court, limited what you can say or do? >> absolutely. >> so roe v. wade is not super precedent? >> no the as i used the articles referred to. >> a common sense point of view why it's not super precedent. i have legislation. 14 states pass add law i'm trying to get passed up here that in the fifth month of pregnancy, 20 weeks, an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. i'm making the argument there's an inpempelling interest to prot that child from a painful called abortion. in the fifth month. that's a political exercise we're going through. 14 states pass add version of what i've just described, that would be coming to the court i imagine in the future. all i ask is that will yo

end citizens united is responsible for the content of this ad. citizens united so false, a judge ordered them bistruck from the voter guide. prop 15 are using scare tactics but the following facts are not in dispute. prop 15 closes big corporate tax loopholes, protects homeowners, and cuts small business taxes. but that's not all, by closing the loopholes, communities can invest in local schools, ppe for nurses, and our firefighters. don't be deceived by big corporate scare tactics. vote yes on 15.

citizens united is the famous one but it's continued d sense with mccutcheon. we've got one coming up now. next, knock the civil jury down. whittle it down to a nub. the civil jury was in the constitution, in the bill of rights, in our darn declaration of independence. but it's annoying to big corporate powers because you can swagger your way as a big corporate power through congress, you can gogo and tell the president you put money into to elect what to do. he'll put your stoogeges at the epa. it is all great until you get to the civil juryry because they he an o obligation, as you know, judge babarrett. they have anblbligation ununder the e law toto be fair tboboth parties irrespective of their size. you can't bribe them. you're not allowed to. it is a crime to tamper with the jury. it's standard practice to tamper with congress. third, first was unlimited dark money, second was demean and dimininish the civil jury, thihd is weaken regulatory agencies. a lot of t this money, i'm convinced, is polluter money. the koch industries is a polluter. the fossil fuel

the other thing about that exchange with durbin was his beginning to talk about citizens united. i hope other senators do this. >> lindsey graham joked about it. >> brazen -- citizens united was brazen unilateral optimism. our founding fathers didn't even trust corporations, they didn't even have corporations except ones owned by the state. so for the court to unleash unlimited corporate money, undisclosed, in our elections, is really a big deal. and it was activism. and i hope other senators get to it. >> i'm going to pause you guys here for a second. joining me now is the second ranking democrat in the senate and a member of the judiciary committee and whose ears must have been burning just now because we were talking about his exchanges, senator dick durbin of illinois. senator durbin, thanks for joining us here during your lunch break, i hope you get something to eat. look, you asked some interesting questions to her. you just heard claire mccaskill's disappointment with some of the answers there. what's a followup you wish you had -- that you want to ask going forward and wh

citizens united opened the door for that. in shelby county, conservative justices gutting the voting rights act to unleash a wave of voter suppression across the country going back to the george floyd moment, unfortunately a lot of it is for racial purposes. this is an example, two or three examples i've given here, of activist judges rewriting the law, abolishing the law. people have to get real. as i said in our phone conversation, i don't think you put the facts here and the law here and nine justices come to the same conclusion. cases are 5-4, 6-3, 7-2. people see things differently based on their backgrounds, their values, their experience. i think it's simplistic to think this is a robotic performance once we put a judge on the bench. i think you acknowledged that. >> yes, law is hard and complicated and people who approach it from different juris prudential perspectives will sometimes reach different results. i think that's hard to deny because, as you said, every vote from the supreme court isn't unanimous. sometimes

citizens united says what?> citizens united extends the protection of the first amendment to corporations engaged in political speech. -- if congress wanted to revisit that and somebody challenged it under citizens united that congress went too far, what would you do? how would the process work? >> same process i have been describing. somebody would have to challenge that law. somebody who wanted to spend the money in a political campaign. it would wind its way up and judges would decide it after briefs and oral arguments in consultation with colleagues. >> ok. same-sex marriage, what is the case that established same-sex marriage? >> [indiscernible] >> if there was a state that tried to outlaw same-sex marriage, would it follow the same process? >> it would and one thing i neglected to say before is not only would someone have to challenge that statute -- if they outlaw same-sex marriage, there would have to be a case challenging it. for the supreme court to take it up, you would have to have lower courts goin

>> citizens united, which is not originalist and broke precedent. so it's not, you know, traditional stare decisis. so it broke traditional conservative judicial principles, but it did allow special interest to spend unlimited amounts of money in politics, which is obviously a great thing for them. and i wouldn't be surprised if some othose special interests are part of the people who are funding the operation to influence t courts. >> tell me something. look, isn't the idea of having a lifetime appointment that justices are then above politics? >> absolutely. >> and why is it, then, that it would be in the interest of a justice with a lifetime appointment to serve quotidian political special interests? >> that's a terrific question. i don't have an answer to it. all i can do is observe what i consider the norm breaking and observe the pattern and observe the massive flows of dark money. and when you put those things together, it's just not normal. we've never seen anything like this before around the court. it's very, very peculiar. >> well, it cou

end citizens united is responsible for the content of this ad. end citizens united let's make hand washing andren important one.ssons. safeguard is donating ten million dollars in hand soaps and sanitizers to families in need. safeguard your family. wash away germs. >>> so we have more breaking news tonight. kellyanne conway, kellyanne conway is top aide to the president, until recently. tweeting she has tested positive for coronavirus. she attended that packed, rose garden event last weekend, where the president nominated amy coney barrett to the supreme court. she was also part of the president's debate-prep team. i want to discuss, now, with cnn's chief political analyst, gloria borger. and david axelrod, the former senior adviser to president barack obama. good evening. and here we go. my goodness. never a dull moment. gloria, let's talk about kellyane. adding to the list of people who went from downplaying the virus, to testing positive. it is an escalating crisis, by the minute. >> yeah. it really is sad to say. it's almost as if what we se

because it will send a chill down your spine over what citizens united has done to this country. to me, that's at the top of the list of we must fix for ruth bader ginsburg if in fact we win these elections in november. >> chuck rosenberg, i know you've been listening with this with various ears. i'm curious if you think we're better educated on what an originalist is, are you more understanding of what an originalist is or do you think she's tied herself up in loops trying to explain what it means? >> i think she has done a reasonably good job. i mean, i'm a little bit predisposed to understand it, believe it or not. i made it through law school, though my grades may not indicate of great degree of success. i understand where she's coming from. i think she did a good job of explaining it. what is interesting to me because i'm not a scholar of originalism the way she is, there are originalists who we would think as conservatives and originalists who we would think of as liberals, as she explained there are some originalists who just apply a greater degree of generality to the tex

clerk for he says i just want to interpret the way the law was written but his argument during citizens united someone brought up like you know what when the constitution was written corporations were just governed by their charter right they had really had very limited rights and some cities going to revoke the charter if they wanted to exactly and scalia says well that was back in 1770 whatever so that doesn't apply now corporations have changed so he's having it both ways this whole this whole scholarship of originalism is really having it both ways and siding with power which is what amy kone barrett has done whether it's siding with bosses or homophobes or whatever she's done the right timing with power and i think i've tried to say this and some of the web videos i've done that you don't get to that point where you're even being nominated for the supreme court if you haven't proven that you side with power right you have to be siding with power to even get to that chance yes and that's really the role of the federalist society which mentioned in the last segment but they're after. eisenh

is wrong with us as american citizens united laptop that's why. we're in a tough time we have a fast to die and i don't think. i would vote for a republican or trump i would vote for anyone who cannot and has half a brain defeat don't try. this if you get. your 2nd wife. she can handle. she and i divorce because our trouble is what the president and i floated for her and she can stand. there when the most important election. you know history is mr the most to go before the next presidential election is the atmosphere in the us now. what are the highest priority problems only brave and true they do next. just some of the questions we put to the american. nuclear power become a battleground in the us in vermont people are demanding the shutdown of a local plant from my yankee is right now my focus because it's a very dangerous oh no care power plant the owner is attempting to run the reactor beyond its operational limit this case just sort of puts a magnifying glass on where's the power in this country where's it going is it moving more towards corp

to small class as american citizens united want to talk let's try. to find the other. guy and i think. i would vote for a republican over trump i would vote for anyone who is not you and has half a brain defeat john john. please if you get. a 2nd wife. she can handle it. she and i divorce because our trouble is elected president and i floated for her and she can't stand for. the most important election. in our history list of the months to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the us now. what are the highest priority programs how will they vote which they do next. just some of the questions we put to really america. in the weekly from r t f fragile the truce takes effect in the disputed region of the goal no karabakh conflicting reports of shelling are coming from both sides our correspondent in the heart of the conflict zone reporting on the devastation and how locals view the situation. the city of kurds is a story sight i can see it has been razed to the ground but it has been battered by show many many calibers sizes and types. the inte

be prepared to talk about chief justice roberts in citizens united. there wasn't one very interesting exploitation of an existing opinion between dick durbin who did a fine job and stayed away from catholicism. and judge barrett on her gun control case and what it means to have a civic right versus an individual right. was substantive and fascinating but the democrats were poorly prepared. they decided they would make this into an aca rally. that case will not knock over the aca. when it happens, they will not have much credibility left. they would have been much better prepared to give her a hard time. as it is, she is a great judge. she will be a great justice in the supreme court will become very boring. they will go back to being judges and not legislators. i, for one, am happy with that. jonathan: ruth? ruth: i am praying for boring. i am completely praying for boring but that is not going to be a boring supreme court. i think it's going to be conservative leaning and potentially quite energetically so. think the democrats did a little bit of a b

class as american citizens united blast off. for an attack find we have a fast guy and. i would vote for a republican over trump i would vote for anyone not you and has half a brain defeat. to feel that. my 2nd wife. she can handle. she and i divorce because our trouble is elected president and i floated for him and she cannot stand for. that when the most important election. in our history is mr the months to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the us now. what are the highest priority programs how will they vote should they do next. just some of the questions we feel to be americans. nothing but an excuse for sanctions russia reacts to news that the global chemical weapons watchdog has confirmed germany's findings the prominent critic alexina valmy was poisoned with. it's purpose is obvious denigrate russia with unsubstantiated accusations and thereby create a far fetched reason for introducing another tranche of sanctions against our country. meanwhile the former chief is barred from speaking at the un security council about a controversi

that's citizens united. it doesn't facilitate speech in the town square. it suppresses speech in the town square. it drowns out speech in the town square. it's as if our founders had said, we want everyone to have a chance to stand up and take their position, make it known in the town square before the election is held for the mayor, but thought it would be okay if a corporation bought the town square and prevented anyone else from speaking. that's citizens united. that's the grotesque violation of free speech in america done by five jurists in red robes for the superelite. so it's at pretty good deal for the fossil fuel megapolluters. our entire planet is at risk. they want to eliminate all the restrictions, regulations to free them to pollute, even though they know that people of this country really value clean air and clean water. so control the courts so they can strike down those rules to protect our air and our water. there are 0 many challenges involved in the revenue to support our country, and i men

gut the protections ie voting rights in the shelby case and to get the campaig campaigne law, citizens united case. he made it hard for the workers discriminated against by their employers to seek justice in court and stacked the deck against the corporations of the working class individuals. by nominating judge barrett, president trump is attempting to bring justice scalia's judicial philosophy back to the mainstream in the nation's highest court. placing judge barrett puts at risk so many of the rights and protections americans have fought for so let's look at how it could change if judge barrett is confirmed. that's the second reason to oppose the nomination. her judicial philosophy in addition to the process. you cannot always predict how a supreme court justice will act after her confirmation. but judge barrett has given us clear views on her philosophy. so many of the american rights are on the line but let me start by talking about the affordable care act. judge barrett made her views quite clear. 2017 the law review article she concludedaw that the aca is unconstitutional and wrote to

this class as american citizens united blast off. for an attack on the other asked to die and. i would vote for a republican over trump i would vote for anyone who would not and has half a brain defeat don't try. to feed. my 2nd wife. she can handle. she and i divorce because our trouble is elected president and i floated for her and she can't stand for. that when the most important election. in our history is mr the months to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the us now. want of the highest priority programs how will they vote which they do next. just some of the questions we put to the america. join me every thursday on the alex simon show and i'll be speaking to us from the world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then. a dog industry comes to life in los angeles every night. dozens of women sells their bodies on the streets many of them under age. los angeles police reveal a taste of their daily challenge if you're going to exploit for a child here in los angeles there we're going to come out you see officers going und

doesn't care about us you know i got you know money you know if it's a shame we can't overturn citizens united and get big money out of politics because that's the problem that we have in this country and it's big money going to job bad it's big money going to donald trump we need to we need to next because that's a problem that we have in america but you know i can tell you i still believe that the you know i believe joe biden is going to help us be able to get our repudiation back across the globe you know we know that donald trump is absolutely embarrassed us and i know that people in other countries are looking to a slight now and going are you desperate real you know i think that joe biden will once again allow us to feel like we can you know. fix the friendships that we've had with countries like your country with germany and places like that the donald trump has spoken down to i'm looking forward to some just some sense of normalcy for a change but we know focused on how has the nothing but 3 and a half years of of chaos are from wiki leaks how bernie sanders campaign was sabotage for b

please follow us as american citizens united want to talk that's why. we're in a tough time we have asked to die and i think. i would vote for a republican over trump i would vote for anyone not you and ask how to bring the defeat dumptruck. the future yeah. yeah my 2nd wife. she can handle it. she and i divorce because our trouble is elected president and i floated for him and she crashed and. we are now in the most important election. in our history list of the months to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the us now. what are the highest priority problems only they vote should they do next. just some of the questions we put to the americans. on. their. part. donna while the 2 worlds apart it's been almost 3 decades there's the collapse of the soviet union and the aftershocks of that geopolitical earthquake keep jolting the post soviet space present progress in dallas followed by the alleged poisoning of an opposition politician in russia and now the renewed war between azerbaijan and armenia and while the 1st you have su

please promise us as american citizens united is going to talk that's why. we're in a tough time we have a fast guy and i think. i would vote for a republican or trump i would vote for anyone not you and ask how to bring the defeat don't try. to feel that. second wife. she can handle. she and i divorce because our trouble is elected president and i floated for her and she didn't feel. that when the most important election. in our history listed a month to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the u.s. now i. want to the highest priority problems now live and they do next. just some of the questions we flip to the american. seemed wrong why don't we all just don't hold. any belief yet to shape out these days to come to educate and engage because the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground. greetings and salyut us from dodging the hard questions to doubling down on american foreign policy exceptionalism to the surprise appearance of jeff goldblum sitting comfortably in white princes had t