i think the interviewee or interviewer started off by telling us amy coney barrett had recently said about abortion, and that was that. i think her words were, you know, if women can just put babies in safe haven boxes, other people can adopt them like abolish the right to abort is no big deal. i'm so curious what. you were doing in terms of writing at that time, because this book seems so timely. yeah. and my my aunt. yes, my mother. yes. so i i had finished my data collection 2020. so i started doing interviews with relinquishing back in 2010. and at that point, i had no idea, one, that i was writing a book. and to that we going to end up where we are as far abortion access nationwide at the time i finished the data collection in 2020 and a ten year follow up with a cohort of the mothers that i had interviewed and sort of didn't know what to do with all the data i had gathered and was working on a book proposal. so i felt really strongly that these stories were really important. i wanted to get them out in the world. i was drafting a pretty academic book and then the oral arguments

host: trump attorney john sauer and justice amy coney barrett back-and-forth in the oral argument for this case. by the way, if you want to watch those arguments in their entirety, you can do so at c-span's.org. we show you in our unique way that we show the supreme court oral arguments. of course there is no live television coverage of oral arguments. we do get the audio and we marry that with the pictures of those who are talking about is how you can see it displayed on your tv. if you want to watch that, again, c-span.org is where you can go. back to your calls this evening in the wake of that highly anticipated final ruling of this term of the supreme court, the one that many were waiting for the supreme court to make a decision on. we have been talking about it for days here on c-span and we want to hear you talk about it. on the phone line for democrats and republicans and independents . mike from winston-salem, good evening. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i just want to say, i am a big fan and a veteran. and what i need to understand is, what is what you call

amy coney barrett is a perfect example. she said i don't see any reason to see us from departing tried and true methods of presenting evidence to jurors regard aless of the situation. i think it's unfair of democrats to repeat r&dally say this is just -- repeatedly say this is just a corrupt maga court because it isn't what we see in the rulings. cheryl: that's what chuck schumer said. at the end of the day, the court made the decision. they knew the weight of the decision they were going to make. they knew it. the attacks on the court i find -- you've got aoc, she wants to impeach them. >> this has always been implied. that's why i'm not surprised. it was implied the president kind of has some sort of immunity there, not written directly in the constitution. now that it's official with the supreme court ruling, you have people going against the supreme court which is part of the constitution where they think they're above the law, they can go after the supreme court, they don't have to listen to the supreme court's decisio

neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. they're great people. they're courageous people. we've also achieved what the pro-life movement fought to get for 50 years. they've wanted to get this for 50 years. they've been working so hard, getting abortion out of the federal government. they wanted it out. that means everybody democrats, liberals, republicans, conservatives, they wanted it out, and they wanted to bring it back to the states for 51 years, to be exact. and that's the way everybody, all legal scholars, virtually everybody, they wanted it out of the federal government brought back to the states. and now it's up to the will of the people in each state. it's up to the voters. they're doing it. and some some states will be more conservative in what they vote for, and other states will be more liberal. i mean, ohio, we love ohio, but they voted quite a liberal law. kansas, same thing, very liberal. then you'll have a texas and you'll have other places. but it's now being voted on all over. the people will decide. and that's the way they alwa

justice amy coney barrett wrote it. if the lower judge rules against you on this question of what's official and what's not official, that trump must stand trial. i mean, do you a knowledge that there is still a chance he does have a trial here for the january 6 election interference case. >> well, first of all, i would note that justice barrett's opinion is a concurrence and it's not controlling. i think the majority opinion authored by chief justice roberts very clearly sets out the path ahead. this case is going to be removed handed back to the district court. the district court is going to have to determine which of the acts underlying the indictment or immune and which are not immune. and then we'll proceed from there. obviously, any immunity decision made by the district court we would have the ability to appeal on an interlocutory basis, again, up to the dc circuit and potentially to the supreme in court as well. in terms of your core question about the trial timeline, i think at the very least, we're looking at

cheryl: , to viewers if you are joining us we talked about this earlier about amy coney barrett. remember, that was crucified to get appointed to the court by the democrats on the hill. but she agreed with the presidential immunity issue but disagreed and wrote this, with their decision she said the constitutional does not require blinding juries to circumstances surrounding conduct for which president presidents can be held liable. >>i think the difference kind of hit on official versus unofficial you can't just do anything why left wing a month main, is rigged this thing oblivion saying you can do anything murder political opponent do all this stuff. that is not the case. >> i believe we have this queued up i want to play multitude reaction we saw yesterday, okay, about what we saw on television yesterday. and, mainstream media saying things absurd, that president could go out kill somebody he can -- >> ridiculous. >> political rival i couldn't believe listen. >> what you have here is the supreme court imposing its judgment that that principle that we must have bold precedence

amy coney barrett who joined the majority in the case disagreed with the majority on one point and thatthe excluding any kind of evidence that involves an official act of the president. she raised the question of how that would destroy bribery prosecutions. she said this, excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution to make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo. the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quote. the presidential campaign is now the campaign of a former president who abused his power as president against the current president who has not abused that power and does not want any more power. here is what president biden said tonight about the supreme court opinion. >> good evening. the presidency is the most powerful office in the world. it's an office to test your judgment, perhaps more importantly, an office that can test your character. you are not only facing moments where you need courage to exercise the full power of the presidency, you also face moments where you need the wisdom to res

that took the wind out of the sail -- >> amy coney barrett disagreed with that. >> she said i join indissent in that issue that jurors should not be blinded, and basically they are saying, the majority, you can't bring in any motive evidence, and it's not necessary, the prosecution generally doesn't have a proof motive and you are generally allowed to bring that in, and not for the president of the united states, buzz the president is clearly above the law at least according to the majority decision. >> i want to ask one more question. this is how i read it. you tell me if it's wrong because you guys are legal minds and i am just playing one on television. i read it as you can use -- they are reading the constitution as saying it implies immunity to a president so much so so broadly, that even his motivations can't be questioned if he was trying to violate the constitution, so it was circular. is that an incorrect reading of it? >> i don't think so. there are a lot of things about the decision that are simply illogical, to point out and pick up on katharine's point about amy coney bar

a port on a want to focus on that because remember three of the supreme court justices gorsuch coney barrett and o were nominated by trump who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and they were confirmed to the court by senators representing less of the country's population and who had received fewer votes than senators who actually opposed their nomination but that's not all, to other justices, roberts and alito were nominated by bush who also lost the popular vote before his first term in the white house. so think about it like this. five of the nine supreme court justices were put on the bench by presidents who lost the popular vote when they first ran for president and four of them were confirmed i senators representing less than half of this country. if trump is elected president again, the threat to american democracy will be severe but even if he isn't, the vast majority held by the unelected then and women of the court who just gave donald trump's candidacy another huge gift monday have already put our democracy into question and peril. join me to discuss this is barbara w

injustice amy coney barrett she stated quite clearly that -- and justice amy coney barrett stated quite clearly that if trump did something with collectors that would be subject to prosecution. you're not hearing it from left-wing pendants because of the handwringing of kings seems more useful to try voter retention. host: the other big story was the debate from last week and president biden performance on that debate. your thoughts on that. guest: i thought as i outlined immediately after the debate president biden's performance was quite poor. i think the real question now for the democratic party is what to do next. the interesting thing is that in addition to president biden's performance being quite poor, former president donald trump's performance was also terrible. there was a 64 second period where he told six lies, which is extraordinary rapidity and pace. i think there is real question around does biden get replaced? there are people who drive cliques are taking very black-and-white positions on this. president biden absolutely must be replaced or absolutely must not be replac

in fact, in amy coney-barrett's decision, she stated, that would be subject to constitution, of course you are not hearing this because of the fear mongering, and it appears more useful right now to drive voter retention.>> and the other big story was the debate from last week and president biden's performance on that debate, your thoughts on that? >> i thought as i outlined immediately after the debate, president biden's performance was quite poor. i think that the real question now for the democratic party is what to do next, the interesting thing is that in addition to president biden's performance being quite poor, the failed former president, donald trump's performance was also terrible, there was a 64 second period in which he told six lies which is extraordinary, and i think there is question around does biden get replaced, for example, there's people who drive clicks who are taking very black and white positions on this, president biden absolutely must be replaced or president biden must not be replaced. i think it is a much more difficult thing to determine, some early polling

justice amy coney barrett wrote it. if the lower judge rules against you on this question of what's official and what's not official, that trump must stand trial. i mean, do you $1 that there is still a chance he does have a trial here for the january 6 election interference case. >> well, first of all, i would note that justice barrett's opinion is a concurrence and it's not controlling. i think the majority opinion authored by chief justice roberts very clearly sets out the path ahead. this case is going to be remanded back to the district court. the district court is going to have to determine which of the acts underlying the indictment or immune and which are not autoimmune. and then we'll proceed from there. obviously, any immunity decision made by the district court we would have the ability to appeal on an interlocutory basis, again, up to the dc circuit and potentially to the supreme court as well in terms of your core question about the trial timeline, i think at the very least, we're looking at a long run ahea

amy coney barrett, though, was skeptical and that she disagreed with that, which was notable. >> and that's the that's the best thing. example. it's the bribery examples. so if you accuse the president of bribery, that's of course taking a bribe and returned for performing an official act you could essentially enter evidence of the acceptance of the bride because that's not official, but you can even refer to the official act. so imagine putting that case on in front of a jury and not being able to explain to them what the official act was that the president allegedly took it, gives me anxiety in a headache as a prosecutor. i mean, having that kind of stuff stripped out of your case, that's killer. >> i mean, even beyond the substance aspect the way they set this process up makes it just the torturers experienced are trying to bring cases. i'm just going to be so much extra fact-finding they didn't give very clear guidance as to how chutkan supposed to do this. it really just makes it sort of death by 1,000 cuts yeah. >> i don't really remarkable to see how she handles it. >> and if

the other thing worth mentioning is justice amy coney barrett sort of straying from the doctrine conservative and expressing concerns about the sweep of her conservative colleague's majority opinion. ultimately in the vote count, to have one conservative express reservations doesn't really matter at the end of the day. >> and now the big question is how is judge chutkan, the district court judge, going to apply these new standards? >> right. that is a very big question. and you know, how quickly is she going to be able to do that. barrett's concurring opinion here repeatedly says that there is appeals court review available for her decisions before a trial. so assuming that that's what the majority was saying here as well, it just becomes very hard to see how not only the charges, but the evidence is going to be sifted by judge chutkan and then those rulings be reviewed by the d.c. circuit court of appeals and maybe come up on emergency basis to the supreme court that that's all going to happen in the next four to five months. it just seems highly unlikely as i know you're other reporters and

i should note that amy coney barrett in her concurrence the sense on -- a defense -- has a dissent onthere was official evidence, evidence of official acts by the president that came into the state trial in new york so you can expect that is where we start hearing, the number of arguments the state that they will make including that is an argument that is waived and de minimis evidence. it opened the door to that argument in this is a crazy argument and i really don't know why the chief justice flipped on that after being so strong. >> the supreme court is sending this back to judge chutkan and ordering her to have evidentiary hearings and she will have to listen to this testimony and listen to basically the prosecution's case. here is just some and there is an awful lot that the supreme court wants her to find out what here is some of what they want her to find out about january 6, for example. whether the tweets, the speech and trump's other medications on january 6 involved official conduct may depend on the content in the context of each and knowing for instance what else was said

and so even and this is the part that amy coney barrett even says, no, no, no, wait a second. know, you have gone really far here. so even these official acts can't even be talked about are used as evidence in court for this unofficial conduct. it's a didn't even have all the t t consumer. >> they didn't, they didn't provide the guardrails you were hoping for? they didn't provide the guardrails that i wear. i think the american people would've said okay, i can trust, i can trust, i can kinda trust how this goes. i'm not sure that they put the guardrails around that now, but they did put set it back to the trial court. we have to trust the court system is going to work in such a way. okay. this is official act. this is not official act on official x, you're going to you can be charged criminally for sure. i do think it put this whole kit shake caseload biggest supreme court cases in our perhaps bush vigour. and this were both decided on pretty strict partisan splits. and i just think to the point of does the public have faith? and this institution, i think it's things like this

of testament from those individuals, of course, the court went even further, with justice amy coney barretthey can't even use evidence related to sort of core functions. that does not mean they can't have a hearing. in fact, they will have to have a hearing to decide what can be used, what can't be used, what is immune, what is arguably immune, and presumptively immune. it is a mess, but it is going to be a very detailed, evidentiary process that absolutely has to be held. >> i just want to ask a follow- up on that. for me, as i know for others watching the public hearings you conducted as a part of that select committee, letting americans get a birds eye view, not only into the live testimony provided during those hearings, even the videotaped deposition you guys did was exceptionally powerful. it was impactful. do you think it will have just as much of an impact on american voters as we get closer me assuming that these evidentiary hearings take place before that? >> it is hard to know. one thing, proceedings in district courts are not televised. so, there will be a written account. i kno

i say mostly because justice amy coney barrett had some notable dissents in her opinion, which concurred in part. still, these justices, thomas, alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch, roberts and barrett seemed to treat the allegations and the indictment that brought this ground breaking case to the supreme court as more of an academic moment than an existential one. the allegations that the former president of the united states while in office tried to use the levers of power to keep himself in office. reading the decision can seem circular, even. the president is immune because the constitution implies he is immune, even when highs trying to violate the same constitution. the dissents were so scathing, instead, plowing through the majority's reasoning. from justice jackson, quote, the majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in our court's ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong, but for all our sakes, i hope that they are right. and

steve mentioned amy coney barrett is a little more in the center than how we would have regarded johnime. john roberts in this immunity case against protections for environment for labor, for public health, he has shown himself to be much more vigorous in moving to the right and enforcing a certain kind of conservative agenda he started his career with in washington when he first worked for the reagan administration. amna: what are you looking for in the next term? steve: there is no question this terms of the most aggressive restructuring of the government since 1937 when we had a slew of supreme court decisions that helped set the stage for the modern administration state. whether that restructuring is going to be a good thing in the long term very much remains to be seen. early returns are not inspiring. looking ahead to next term they know as much as anyone there is election coming in november. how we are talking and looking at the supreme court next year will depend a heck of a lot on who wins in november and whether we have a second trump administration, read the question is how

amy coney barrett, the idea that on the ground events like this, we're actually happening? >> yes. and she couldn't get clarity as to whether physicians what physicians actually could do at one point during oral arguments said to the idaho lawyer defending the ban, it sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth that she didn't say that phrase, but she said she was shocked at how he couldn't give clarity to when could a woman in that kind of distress that you just described get any kind of help with. >> the truth is that idaho officials were saying really never unless it was to prevent outright death joan biskupic. >> thank you so much for that reporting behind the scenes, we've never get to really hear what's going on behind the scenes. thank you so much right now, president biden is in austin, texas. he's held it headed to the lbj presidential library to mark 60 years since the 1964 civil rights act. and he's going to call for a mate a number of major reforms to the u.s. supreme court we're standing by to hear that speech will be right back one to trade bitcoin plus

amy coney barrett's role in this particular case. but i also wonder what it tells you. and as you watched her, since she joined the court, how her role has shifted over time? >> it has. and she has moved more and more to the left. she is definitely not regarded as a liberal brianna, i want to make sure our audience doesn't think we suddenly have a different kind of justice in play here. but over the years, the chief justice is played a kind of a centrist role at times, brett kavanaugh has, in a few rare instances, but she not only move slightly over to the left in this case, she didn't even a few others that could suggest where she might be going to break in an independent way from her conservative brethren on the right in the future, really interesting, joan, thank you so much. wonderful. exclusive reporting really appreciate it for us now to some of the other headlines we're watching this hour, at least eight people were hospitalized for stab wounds after an attack in the uk hey, in the northern town of south for some of the victims were transported to a children's ho

if they were done in service of committing a crime, i feel like the amy coney barrett opinion in that case it's probably the closest to the mark for where i'd like to have seen things end up where she did make a few statements, for instance, i don't actually think this election interference stuff counts as an official act a little bit more clarity on what constitutes official might have been helpful, but it's clear the majority did not want to touch that from bidding the rap to bidding the heat. the new way to stay cool, that's become a fashion trend. blash, put your pens away, targets, new rule aiming to end an old tradition something is coming to look at shark week godzilla the new empire now streaming on max oh my my god. well meanwhile, on a vrbo when, other vacation rentals have surprised drop-ins, try one, you'll have all to yourself can the riva support your brain health? >> mary janet, hey eddy know razor, frank, frank bred. how are you for up to seven brain health indicators, including memory, serves on the read on amazon for the best deals of the summer i'm jonathan lawson h

amy coney barrett road partial dissent. but it really does change the idea of what the american people can expect. if you can't expect that the prosecution of a president can happen, even if they do overtly criminal things like bribery or or or kidnapping or things like this. the our faith in the sy tem really is is is attacked in a serious way. it makes this election in november, even more important for donald trump to say when boy, it is a big win for him. you know, he took the position when he was impeached for the january 6, agent. he was impeached for that and he took position. well, you shouldn't impeachment because you can always prosecute me later. and now 3 years later, he's arguing where you can't prosecute me either. so it's really a dramatic shift. yeah, interesting point because trump tweeted are 2 central der. re >> this is a big win for a democracy. do you view it as such? >> know the most democratic institution we have in our country, frankly, is the jury in a criminal case. we pick 12 citizens. we make sure

host: can you explain any -- amy coney barrett's lines she was drawing? guest: i want c-span viewers to read the decisions and the center they are written for americans and you can make up your own mind. she said the following, she doesn't agree with creating a broad new presumption of immunity for the president. she would have taken a different approach and asked two questions, does the criminal statute at issue apply to the president's actions and second if it does apply, what applying it to the president unduly imputed on executive functions and in the case we have been discussing with the drone strike, she would have concerned -- decided that the murder wouldn't be in at and they wouldn't move forward with any prosecution on that but she disagreed with the idea that conversations with executive officials could not be introduced to prove criminal offenses and she gave the example of bribery and said if the president corruptly took money in exchange for a bribe, it would certainly be appropriate to introduce conversations with other executive officials

the justices voted behind the scenes a second time after oral arguments in this case justice amy coney barrettconcern about what was happening on the ground, about women haven't been airlifted out of idaho to other states where they could have emergency surgery for pregnancy complications, her concerns got the attention of chief justice john roberts and brett kavanaugh, who thought, okay, we'll dismiss the case. but there was there was a complication here because three of the other conservatives, justice clarence thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch said, we don't need to dismiss this case. they were still in favor of idaho's ban. they thought that the biden administration' s claims here were meritless so the suddenly the liberal justices who, as you know, have very little leverage on this court, suddenly had some leverage here. and they said we will vote two of them said we will vote to dismiss this case only if you dissolve that january order that let idaho's ban going completely into effect now, there is a little twist here and i know we have a chart about how the justices all finished out. j

court justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, john roberts, brad kavanaugh, neil gorsuch, and amy coney barrett for the wisdom and the s courage they showed on this long term. andand very, very contentious issue and getting it back to the states puts the question where it belongs with a vote of the people. and it's ith a all over the country. you having the vote of the people and over time it will all work out. it's working outk out. it' at a rapid rate already. you know that it's going to many, manat it's goy states a on it now and many have already voted. and sometimedyand sometimess ags the vote will be as you like it, sometimes it won'tike. be qe as you like it. but our country can finally our come together. this issue has been killing our countrcouny for 51 years.1 r >> as soons. as i take the oath of office, i will stop the biden-harris administration's weaponize bided version of law enforcement against americans of faith and agains andt, frankly, their political opponents. all right. that donald trump continues to speak. he said at the beginningtrump c he would talk tonight about a wonde

was her war. >> what was amy coney barrett's role in all this yeah, it was it was crucial. she was the lone member of the conservative side who tried to find some middle ground, which is a place that john roberts wants upon a time was at she was the one who tried to find some middle ground. she signed all the chiefs she all but one part of the chief statement giving this broad immunity for the most part, she was with him, but then she wrote separately to sort of put a different spin on the framework, one that sort of emphasized how special counsel jack smith's case could go forward in the future, and she also broke off from the chief justice and her conservative brethren when she wrote that she did not agree with them that evidence of official acts couldn't even be he used in a separate criminal trial that had nothing to do with the jack smith prosecution. for example, the manhattan hush money trial in already that part of the opinion is reverberating up in new york. sarah, of course, i do want to ask you. >> you talked about robert's not trying to get everyone to come well

apparently justice amy coney barrett said look, she expressed frustration sending the case back down for more proceedings. she says because of trump's wholesale challenge to the indictment had failed, at least some of the case could and should go forward. that's interesting. >> yeah, these elections are crucially important and the judges and who gets to pick the judges. it matters immensely. when you take this case though, i can't see it as anything other than a home run with the bases loaded for president trump. and throwing out obstruction and conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and it's adding these two together and i'm telling you right now, dc indicate: life support. georgia rico case on life support, and the classified document is on life support as well. these cases are, i think, going to go away. ashley: you know, i'm looking at quotes coming down, guy. presidential historian said today's decision would make it "much harder for the american people to protect themselves from a corrupt president". little over the top, do you think? >> yeah, i think it's again a little h

host: be heard from justice amy coney barrett about which actions might be private versus official.il of this year, during that oral argument we heard from the justice department counselor to special counsel jack smith. here is just as brett kavanaugh, who asked about which specific presidential actions could b prosecuted. >> do you agree there are some aspects of article two, presidential powers that are exclusive that congress cannot regulate and therefore cannot criminalize? >> absolutely. >> for other official acts the president may take that ar not within that exclusive power, assume for the sake of argument this question there is not blanket immunity for ose official acts, but that to preserve the separation of powers, to provide fair notice, to make sure congress has thought about this, congress has to speak clearly to criminalize official acts of the president by a specific reference. that seems to be what the opinion suggest. i know you have a disagreement with that and what the courts cases also suggest >> i would like ttake all of those in turn because i do not think this

injustice amy coney barrett she stated quite clearly that -- and justice amy coney barrett stated quitelearly that if trump did something with collectors that would be subject to prosecution. you're not hearing it from left-wing pendants because of the handwringing of kings seems more useful to try voter retention. host: the other big story was the debate from last week and president biden performance on that debate. your thoughts on that. guest: i thought as i outlined immediately after the debate president biden's performance was quite poor. i think the real question now for the democratic party is what to do next. the interesting thing is that in addition to president biden's performance being quite poor, former president donald trump's performance was also terrible. there was a 64 second period where he told six lies, which is extraordinary rapidity and pace. i think there is real question around does biden get replaced? there are people who drive cliques are taking very black-and-white positions on this. president biden absolutely must be replaced or absolutely must not be replaced

corner posts 60 ohio versus epa 5-4 and justice coney barrett find with the liberals. sec versus je carsi 6-3. so stepping back from matt i'm not a lawyer many people working at agency for lawyers say there is that they will have to respond to this new environment so the way we look at this is to say wow there's a conservative majority in place and they are working on a project or agency power. this is something that this is how this court these agency power. if the state -- take a step back further and think about the political beyer what is congress doing in response to this? we heard from the last panel and from senator toomey there's not a lot of confidence that congress is going to take up the mantle on the legislative capacity front and take up the project in more detail instead but we heard was about different bills that have been introduced that would administrate agency authority. there has not been a coordinated democratic response on the hill as far as i am aware. if we take this a step further back looking forward to this election in november, we have donal

you actually have amy coney barrett, the most recent justice dissenting and key parts of the decisionthink the 18 year term is one that frankly is fairly bipartisan. that is something that is really trying to talk about structurally, this is something that should be changed. it does not require the constitution to be amended, but it does require it to be passed by the senate. that is something that is not likely but it is more likely. it doesn't cut one way or the other for a party. you can really understand why it is useful. it's useful you have a president who is outgoing and of a certain age, and he could really do what he thinks is right. i keep thinking of the way people behave in government, and you've got a model in joe biden or senator mccain and the way they behaved and deciding at the end of their career, they will really stand for something. compare that to mitch mcconnell who in my personal view is going out, this high road and low road. it's great the president is raising this. finally, on ethics reform, you've got to be kidding that the supreme court of the united states

oral argument, the fact is the chief justice by john roberts he was one of the two, robert in amy coney barrettthe two swing votes on the issue and they seem to be drawing towards a middle ground where they wouldn't get trumped the absolute broad sweep of immunity that blows out the indictment that seems unlikely but it seems that they were skeptical of what the d.c. circuit has done which said no immunity everything goes forward. ahead, the upshot, based on our initial reading, this is probably going to have to go back to the district court for serious adjudication as to what ask constitute official acts that would be immune from criminal prosecution and what ask constitute private acts that would in fact be subject to come to prosecution, that means it was unlikely that this would go to trial before the election but i think this makes this less likely and possible. ashley: in that context, a victory for donald trump. >> not a complete victory, he wanted a broad suite of immunity that i don't think the court was going to grant him, he wanted the court to say, what you do during the four years

today, and the only member of the conservative super majority who dissented at all was justice amy coney barrett, who did not have that experience, who said look, if you can show he accepted a bribe you have to be able to present that evidence in court, you cannot limit evidence. not only is the president basically immune from prosecution for a great many things, for those things you can prosecute him for you cannot use the evidence of his wrongdoing if it involved official acts in order to prove to a jury that he did something bad. she said that's basically where i'm getting off this boat. i don't agree with you, i agree with the dissenters. >> even with her dissenting on that point there are five justices and five votes. astonishing. i don't qualify as a legal observer, i am just a person, but the astonishment is real. it's always an honor to have you here. thank you so much. >> it's always great for my ego when you introduce me that way. thanks so much for having me. take care. >>> we have much more to come on this very big newsday. we have a lot of guests and a lot of stuff to cover. cover.

amy coney barrett said nobody is above the law not once, twice but three times and chief justice roberts said that no one is above the law under our system including the president. and that's quite the change of heart and while criticism of the ruling has rightly pointed out the absurd levels of power it gives the president but it puts into focus the excessive power in the hands of that institution, the courts itself. as we worry about america backsliding into authoritarianism under a second donald trump administration, it is important to understand the role the courts have played in other countries that have already started their backslide. in a new york times magazine piece last year, the question was raised of how much power the court should have and she named countries like poland, venezuela and turkey where they ruled in a weekend democracy and has diminished the judiciary but in this country we appear to have the opposite problem. she writes that it is conceivable the us supreme court could help bring democracy to the brink, not because it is too weak as other countries have experi

we have a reporter inside, gary grumbach, while she was reading the dissent, amy coney barrett, one of the conservatives who voted to give immunity was staring about like a statue. we have justice clarence thomas, he seemed to have a hard time keeping his eyes open. at times he was leaning so far back in the chair, he was testing the limitations of the chair's flexibility. and roberts and alito were reading along with sotomayor while she was reading the biting dissent, and justices ketanji brown jackson looking into the gallery. this was a consequential moment where the supreme court expanded the powers of the presidency. chris. >> yamiche alcindor, thank you. >>> well, former president donald trump is celebrating today's supreme court decision. nbc's vaughn hillyard is following this for us. what are we hearing from trump and his campaign? >> he has put out several social media posts since this morning's decision, one in which he says in all caps, big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american. of course, there are the short-term implications that has to do with t

amy coney barrett wrote a dissent.a venerable one that ought to be respected. >> to the point earlier you can't expect everyone to read the opinion. unfortunately it is all the worse when it is a congressperson that doesn't and twist the meaning. you are filling in for jesse watters tonight and you have an exciting interview coming up with speaker johnson. what can we expect on that? >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern time i will get the exclusive reaction of the house speaker mike johnson on the immunity decision. not only that the house judiciary committee said they are suing the biden administration to get the audio that they have that merrick garland has of her interview. kate kellogg has a story about donald trump when he answered the phone at 3:00 a.m. we will compare and contrast commanders in chief. >> i will be glued to the screen tonight at 8:00 p.m. on fox news. thank you for watching us. when you can't watch us live, don't forget to dvr the show and now here are our friends at "america reports."

court that would carry out his agenda after the appointments of cavanagh and gore stitch and amy coney barrettn praised their work and dismantling abortion rights. he took credit for that. he very well knew what would be taking shape with this. he's been in close communication with those who have drafted this, and this has been a playbook. one could say that this is a playbook that could be quite extensively used already by those who are legislating at the state level and even potentially by members of the united dates supreme court. >> you can look at a number of states and look at them and say, that is how it's going to turn out, except it is quite a turnout for all of us around the country this way. michelle goodwin is a co- faculty director of the o'neill inns to for public health law at georgetown law and author of policing the womb: invisible women in the criminalization of motherhood. of next, will turn to chapter 17 of project 2025. if you thought donald trump's attacks on the rule of law couldn't get any worse, just wait. velshi, project 2025, continue. ...without the stuff you don't.

focusing on the part of the supreme court ruling that was too radical and to sweeping for amy coney barrettd the evidentiary rule that you laid out, talking about the evidence that prosecutors use and saying that the evidence itself should not have been shown to the jury, and to the grand jury before that. for the 34 felony convictions that the jury handed to former president trump, they are gunning, they are gunning for the indictment itself. so they're trying to eliminate the case by attacking the evidence that was used to convict him and make him a convicted felon. >> let me ask you this, i don't know the answer, there with me. we had not adjudicated this issue of a presidents immunity prior to the supreme court taking this on, and the lower courts before that. given that we've now adjudicated it, unsatisfactorily to many people, is it retroactive? can the prosecutor say, when we tried this case, that decision wasn't taken? >> the thing that trumps lawyers are arguing, what they're saying over here is that they raised this argument before the trial began. they claim there was an evidenti

only member of the conservative supermajority who dissented at all was justice department amy coney barrett who did not have that experience and who said look, if you can show that -- if you can show that he accepted a bribe, you have to be able to present that evidence in court. you can't limit the evidence because this opinion besides everything else says not only is the president basically immune for prosecution for a great many things, for those things that you can prosecute him for, you can't use the evidence, the evidence of his wrongdoing if it involved official acts in order to prove to a jury that he did something bad. and she said that's basically where i'm getting off this boat. i don't agree with you.re i agree with the dissenters. >> but even with her dissenting on that point, there is still five justices. >> there is still five votes for what happened. >> still five votes. astonishing. it's a -- as you say, the g. astonishment that you saw among legal observers today -- i don't qualify as a legal observer. i'm just a person. but the astonishment is real.m nina totenberg, npr l

you have amy coney barrett saying in her concurrence in part that she considers the fake elector schemebe entirely private, that there's not much analysis for judge chutkan to do because the president of the united states doesn't play any role in the administration of federal elections, for example. so i don't think it's total exoneration. what it more looks like to me is total abdication by the supreme court, sort of foisting off onto judge chutkan determinations that they give her very little guidance about, other than that she can't consider the former president's motive or purpose in distinguishing between official and private. >> and lisa, getting back to the new york case, alvin bragg, didn't even object to a delay. given what we know about his office, how would you expect for them to respond as this case moves along? >> i think what we're going to see in their brief, ryan, is two things. the first thing that they're going to say is these aren't official acts, that the evidence that they introduced that trump is objecting to don't have anything to do with the carrying out of his d

supreme court text and all three of trump's eventual nominees, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett came from lists that leonard liao created. the majority of other nominees to the federal bench were current or former members of the federal society as well, but leonard leos influence goes beyond work in reshaping federal courts. you spent supporting project 2025, the blueprint for the next conservative administration and that is grenada by the heritage foundation which is a conservative think tank. last month in a press release announcing the formation of a task force to counter project 2025, the democratic congressman jeff -- jared huffman noted half the groups supporting the effort have received $21.5 million in funding from leonard leos dark money network. will trump recently claimed he knows nothing about project 2025, i'll have more on that in a few minutes, many past and present colleagues including leo are deeply involved in the effort. it is important to note project 2025 is not just about the draconian policies that conservatives want to impose on americans. it is also abou