fall very close to the line -- justice gorsuch: well, but mister -- mr. stewart: -- one of which is barely scandalous -- justice gorsuch: -- but mister -- justice alito: but this is -- if this mr. stewart: -- the other -- justice gorsuch: mr. stewart, though -- justice alito: go ahead. justice gorsuch: justice ginsburg's point takes us back to justice kavanaugh's, i think, which is you look at the -- the seven words at the end of the red brief and there are shocking numbers of ones granted and ones refused that -- that do look remarkably similar. how is a reasonable citizen supposed to know? what notice do they have about how the government's going to treat their mark? mr. stewart: well, i -- i think one of the -- i think the notice is in --in part the -- based on the pto decisions, but, obviously, whatever the court says, if it upheld the provision, the court can say what it wants to say about the permissible -- justice gorsuch: no, no, but let me -- we -- we can fix your problem for you, i got that. but -- but -- but the government, presumably, the pto

riggs: several points in response, justice gorsuch. the legal standard in question is severe and durable effect. all of the social science is just an evidentiary tool, not a legal tool. two categories of social science evidence were brought to bear on this question of severe and durable effect. the simulations didn't set a numerical threshold baseline because you see a range of produced plans with varying democrat/republican splits using these simulations and we're giving the legislatures breathing room. all of the simulations produce a u curve. justice gorsuch sorry to interrupt come up that breathing room from what? ms. riggs: breathing room to -- justice gorsuch: from -- how much breathing room, from what standard? and is into the answer here, breathing room from proportional representation up to maybe 7 percent? ms. riggs: no. justice gorsuch: just -- if it's not that, then what is this breathing room, and where does it exist? ms. riggs: breathing room exists in the bell curve of expected and reasonable map allocations of represent

justice kagan: i mean, going down that road would suggest that justice gorsuch's attempt to sort of say this is not so bad because the people can fix it is not so true because you're suggesting that the people really maybe can't fix it, you were wrong about the people being able to fix it, and if the people could fix it, while it's not the constitutionally prescribed way because it's never been done before, so justice gorsuch's attempts to save what's so dramatically wrong here, which is the court leaving this all to professional politicians who have an interest in districting according to their own partisan interests, seems to fail. mr. clement: well, i -- i would disagree, justice kagan. i mean, i took the import of justice gorsuch's question being that, you know, maybe we can allow the states to solve this problem for themselves. but i think then, when you get at the starting point of justice breyer's question, which is at a certain point -- the federal government through its justices and judges are going to intervene and put limits on what the state does. justice breyer: all right,

justice gorsuch: plenty of interrupting. but we don't have any evidence disaggregating the reasons why the forms are left uncompleted. what do we do with that? i mean, normally we would have a regression analysis that would disaggregate the potential cause and identify to a 95th percentile degree of certainty what the reason is that persons are not filling out this form and we could attribute it to this question. we don't have anything like that here. so what are we supposed to do about that? ms. underwood: well, i think -- i think there are a few things to say. justice gorsuch: and -- and -- and -- ms. underwood: well -- justice gorsuch: -- and let me just throw in one other question. i know your light is on but i really wanted to get it to you and i'm sorry we haven't gotten there. and, that is, what do we do also -- and it's totally different, so i'm really sorry -- what do we do with the fact that, as i understand it, some of the respondents and other people in litigation have complained when -- when folks have relied on

gorsuch is libertarian on that like many things.f the criminal defendant in terms of the fourth amend protection against search and seizures against vaguely written statues that are just applied willie nelly by prosecutors. gorsuch joined four times with the liberal bloc in criminal procedure cases to provide the deciding vote. kavanagh more for pragmatic centrist on those kinds of cases. paul: it's interesting because the new judges and the federalist society's define their jurisprudence broadly as a regionalist which means interpreting the constitution as it was originally written and it turns out there are a lot of fridays originalism in these justices are expressing those fridays in different ways. >> they are and in general regardless of how kavanagh labeled himself or commentators label him he didn't show himself to be terribly original list. he was text list in the sensor reading statutes for what they say and not trying to import some sort of ambiguity that allows the agency or judges to put in their own views but gorsuch is

justice gorsuch: well, i'm not sure that's an answer to justice breyer's question. why isn't it a government benefit and why can't the people choose to withhold the benefit on the basis that there are certain words that are profane and that we, as a matter of civility in our culture, would like to see less of rather than more of, and you can use -- you're free to use them. cohen can have his t-shirt, but we are not going to trademark them, and we've held just last year that a patent is a public benefit that can be withdrawn without a judge. why isn't this also similarly a public benefit rather than a private right? mr. sommer: well, i would respond with 44 liquormart, because the government doesn't have to grant the benefit. for example, the government doesn't have to have a fire department, but it can't go to a church and say, we're not going to protect your church unless you drop your santeria beliefs because we find that offensive, and i think that's a good analogy. justice sotomayor: that's viewpoint. why is it that the government can't say, as it does with ever

so my favorite justices these days are neil gorsuch, and kavanaugh. you should read gorsuch's opinion in gunby. i started to read it. it reads like a liberal opinion. he's basically saying there are 500,000 people, former sex offenders not a very popular group, and the question was are we going to apply this new registration requirement and leave them vulnerable to a ten-year prison term for crossing into a state where they haven't registered? a law that was passed after they had committed their crimes, and gorsuch was basically saying if congress is going to do that, bring 50 -- 500,000 people to subject them to this, they ought to say it. they wouldn't require the attorney general to say well, i've decided we're going to apply it to all those people because congress left it open. gorsuch was setting what i thought to me sounds like a reasonable principle. if congress is going to decide something big, apply a criminal law to thousands of people, we ought to have congress say it. most people thought that if you get a new conservative justice, it's goi

there are a lot of divisions on some issues, especially gorsuch, neil gorsuch and clarence thomas have, gamble versus u.s. on state sovereignty and prosecution's double jeopardy, whether states and federal government can both prosecute an individual for the same offense. they came down in the minority. they've been the minority in more cases than any of the liberals. paul: dan, what do you think? it's interesting, the cross issue is fascinating, it wasn't 5-4. some people thought it would be. justice alito's opinion managed to bring along kagan and bryor, 7-2, a pretty strong majority. >> justice's gorsuch's concurrence, he talked about something called the offended observer, the cross is that is in the middle of the road in maryland, people drive by, saying i'm offended by it, violates my sense of religious independence. gorsuch raises the question about how can you file a supreme court lawsuit simply because you're offended by something. have you to have some standing to sue. why didn't the court, he said, go all the way and simply say that explicitly. paul: that's an interesting que

gorsuch concurred in that result. but it is a fiery dissent going in the form of concurrence, attacking the court for and attacking the chief for not having the guts to overturn our deference in this case. predicting he thinks the court will ultimately overturn this type of deference. i am skeptical, i think this was the case to do it. the fact that main arguments raised didn't win the day, they're unlikely to in the future. lower courts will get the message. the big question hanging from this, what about the other kind of deference, deference to agency interpretation of statute. that goes by the name of chevron deference. that's been a subject of conservative ire. and both the chief in concurring in kagan and kavanaugh who joined the dissent, both expressly stated they didn't see this case as resolving questions having to do with chevron deference. they see deference of statutory interpretations as different. how different? unclear. does that mean different in that it is more likely problematic or different in that i

my main question, which goes back to justice gorsuch's question. been trying to lead you away from something and i'm a to le bit also confused as why your argument seems, note.ly, a little bit one you know, your brief and now your argument is just all about jurisdiction, and there are some people on this that -- t think this omega of e alpha and every constitutional kwi, but there areuestion, but others who do not. if 30 justices signed on to this rule, you will have to give me he facts that early on in the republic they decided that was not what the original understanding was even if they wrong. this is your opportunity to give me more. say, but in uld your response with an opportunity to give you more, i incorporation, incorporation, incorporation, incorporation. said that its own precedence said that it makes a big difference. elkins and murphy v. waterfront. incorporation, the federal and state government shouldn't do that which they can't do alone. >> part of the decision as well stare decisis, it is a principle in article 73. doctrine of humi

chief roberts, clarence thomas and gorsuch dissented. the court heard oral argument back in october of 2018. this oral argument is about an hour. >> we will hear arguments in gundy versus the united states. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the provision grants power to the nation's top prosecutor to expand the scope of criminal laws and to impose burdensome, sometimes lifetime registration requirements on hundreds of thousands of individuals. it combines criminal law making and executive power in precisely the way that the constitution was designed to prohibit. the delegation is unconstitutional. this delegation can be distinguished from every delegation that has previously been upheld by this court, due to a combination of its total lack of standard and the nature and power -- nature and significance of the delegated power. unlike other delegations that this court has approved, this has no standard to guide the attorney general's exercise of discretion. >> well the government says they do have standard and it's the appl

chief roberts, clarence thomas and gorsuch dissented. the court heard oral argument back in october of 2018. this oral argument is about an hour. >> we will hear arguments in gundy versus the united states. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the provision grants power to the nation's top prosecutor to expand the scope of criminal laws and to impose burdensome, sometimes lifetime registration requirements on hundreds of thousands of individuals. it combines criminal law making

you should repeat gorsuch's opinion in this case, gundy. i started to read it and thought this reads like a really liberal opinion. he's basically saying there are 500,000 people, former sex offenders, not a very popular group and their question was are we going to apply this new registration requirement and leave them vulnerable to a 10-year prison term for crossing into a state where they haven't registered? a law that was passed after they'd committed their crimes. gore such was basically saying if congress is going to do that, they ought to say it, ought to pass a law. we shouldn't allow the attorney general at the bush administration where he served to say i've decided we're going to apply it to all those people because congress sort of left it open. so gorsuch was setting to me what sounded lucky a very reasonable pralprel. if they're going to apply a law to thousands, they ought to say it. this is actually an opinion saying no, congress is supposed to write the laws. we're not supposed to leave it to the executive to make up the laws

justice gorsuch wrote the majority opinion enjoined by justice ginsburg, justice breyer, just a soda mayor and justice kagan. the newest member justice kavanaugh wrote the dissent that justice thomas and justice alito joined. john roberts joined in part of the dissent this argument runs about one hour from april. >> we argue first 18431 united states versus davis. >> thank you mister chief justice may it please the court. to be rendered unconstitutional the only plausible construction is one in which the guilt or innocence hinges on how the ordinary defendant might act but a very unusual way for criminal conduct in the context of a jury trial but section 924 c were the only or the first to present the categorical approach and categorically specific. >> what do you think congress intended in 1986? >>. >> they did not think of the question. >> i don't say had because that is rewriting their intent to. given the circumstances of 1986 that it was red in the categorical approach they adopted it through the bail reform act that for decades you have said 16 b is better than categorical? >>

justice gorsuch's attempts to save what's so dramatically wrong here, which is the court leaving this all to professional politicians who have an interest in districting according to their partisan interests, seems to fail. >> i would disagree, justice kagan. i took to the import of justice gorsuch's question being maybe we can allow the states to solve this problem for themselves. b when you get at the starting point of justice breyer's question -- >> what i'm trying to get you to focus on. i've read the briefs. this is the fourth time. the thing that i want you to focus on, if you can, if you want to, is the two-thirds majority idea. look, my party got a majority of the votes in the state, but we ended up with less than a third of the seats. you see my tone of voice meant, gee, this is really extraordinary but there is absolutely a workable standard. now the next question is all the constitutional arguments you're raising. i'm not pushing those under the rug, but for present purposes i want you to see if there's any reto reaction to the practicality of this standard. >> i think the

right offst come in the bat and having justice gorsuch confirmed. this is someone who had a huge record, was so widely respected by everyone and got into the court and time and again, showed why why that choice had been made. he was the originalist, the textual list he had been in the 10th circuit. numbers to have record of appellate judges confirmed and not just any old appellate judges, these are the cream of the crop supreme court litigators, top-tier professors, people who have incredible amounts of experience and we are seeing that group of judges now already on the bench really starting to make a mark. -- second supreme court vacancy with justice kavanaugh, that was another strong pick and we seen his first term on the bench be when where he was taking a leadership role in many cases in terms of pointing out the importance of the original understanding, the text of the law, and shore up that bench. i think a lot of people will look to that and say you know what, this is an incredible success and it is not just a temporary until someone overtur

and thank god for neil gorsuch.judge: and before you say neil gorsuch, who defended women? >> ruth bader ginsburg. [laughter] judge: somewhere scalia's happy. [laughter] >> the one thing i would warn right now as partisans, you know, be careful getting on the side of, well, the fifth amendment, we want it to apply because manafort might be, you know, with these folks, and it's like, well, we don't always have to jump. the constitution should always be the gold standard, and we're -- judge: correct. it doesn't matter who's harmed or benefited by it. [inaudible conversations] >> by that logic, they can throw out the 14th and 15th amendments. judge: well, they can -- >> states' rights. judge: they can word their way around almost anything which is, i'm sorry, sam -- justice alito -- they can word their way around almost anything. that was part of the gorsuch dissent. if the fifth amendment was written for anything, it was to prevent double prosecutions and double punishment. so we'll see where it goes, but that's the l

the interesting thing is the two dissenters were ginsburg and neil gorsuch, arguably at opposite ends spectrum from each other. on that bench. shannon: not what a lot of conservative spot would happen with neil gorsuch assigned to the supreme court. >> might be true but the dual sovereignty doctrine is not the kind of case -- if you look at neil gorsuch's opinion he was very originalist in his dissent. he felt there wasn't any support in the courts, the original understanding of the language of the fifth amendment regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine. he feels that is the court invented doctrine. in his approach it is consistent with what folks expected from him. sometimes folks try to anticipate what the decision will be based on the political outcome rather than the philosophy a judge brings. >> clearing the path for prosecutors to continue to pursue, he faces 16 charges or accounts in that indictment so let's move on to the next window. what can we expect for the census citizenship question? >> any of these cases still out there whether it is the citizenship case or the gun dele

according to the nominees, not only did the president make two great nominees and neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, but we are making an important difference for the country that will last for a very long time and my motto for this congress is leave no vacancy behind. insert the judges or district judges. >> laura: senator mitch mcconnell, thank you so much for as many

justice gorsuch wrote the majority opinion enjoined by justice ginsburg, justice breyer, just a soda mayor and justice kagan. the newest member justice kavanaugh wrote the dissent that justice thomas and justice alito joined. john roberts joined in part of the dissent this argument runs about one hour from april. >> we argue first 18431 united states versus davis. >> thank you mister chief justice may it please the court. tore

justices ginsberg and gorsuch the lone dissenters. in another case, justice clarence thomas joining ginsburg and gorsuch rejecting virginia republicans' appeal over alleged racial gerrymandering. and the justices handing a temporary victory tonight to the owners of a bakery in oregon, erasing a ruling against them for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. a lower court will not re-examine that case. >>> there's still a lot more ahead on "world news tonight" this monday. celebrating the life and legacy of gloria vanderbilt. >>> also, the extreme turbulence. the flight attendant violently thrown. the passengers injured. more on this flight in a moment. >>> also, the recall tonight involving several flavors of a popular pasta sauce. why the company is concerned. >>> and then that shooting scare in downtown toronto today. more than a million were in the middle of celebrating the raptors' championship when gunshots begin.en i nt. a lot more news ahead on a monday night. i didn't have to run for help. i didn't have to call

>> yes, it was 5-3 with one member of the court, justice co gorsuch saying i wouldn't decide this. i thought it was a whole different case. so justice breyer joins the conservatives and so they do have five votes. >> i would say one of the things, i wonder if you agree with me, tom, that's kind of surprising about this term. yes, the partisan gerrymandering cases were foif-4 dividing among the familiar ideological minds with all the justices appointed by republican presidents voting one way and the ones appointed by democratic presidents voted the other way but that has not happened very often. >> it didn't happen as much as we saw the opposite, or not the op opposite, but we had four hung together as they almost always did and one of the conservatives came over. those case may not have the significance of partisan gerrymandering. >> but the census case. >> it might well but who knows in the end what will happen with the census. it's a narrow decision. overall you would say there were a lot of surprises, particularly with the new justice, justice gorsuch relatively new being willin

in connection with the subpoena, where the president had invoked executive privilege was 1982 and gorsuch, the mother of supreme court justice neil gorsuch, that's only happened a few times, never been approved by the supreme court, this is really a matter of political dispute between the two branches. >> so half a dozen committees literally hundreds of subpoenas now, allegations that if the president doesn't comply with the subpoenas he's obstructing congress and they're even arguing obstructing justice, the president is taking them to court to litigate this issue, how can it be obstruction if he's litigating the issue on separation of powers grounds and also on whether or not the house of representatives has the original authority to demand these kinds of records from the president or for that matter from any citizen given the point you just raised, that is there needs to be some legislative purpose? >> well, i think we have to understand that words like obstruction are thrown around, they are political rhetoric rather than serious legal arguments and the only way the house of represent

court judges, 41 circuit court of appeal justices, and two supreme court justices, including neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. cheers and applause] i came to washington to try to help change the direction of the country but we needed somebody like president trump to break some eggs up here and actually get it done, guys. [cheers and applause] these are definitely promises made and promises kept. now the president's focused on immigration, trade and infrastructure. let me tell you. he's not taking a victory lap. on all his accomplishments, he's now looking forward, he's driving ahead. he calls me early in the morning, he calls late at night. i spend time with him at the white house. sometimes he's exhausting, guys. [laughter] but he works. he works. and he cares about people in america. isn't it great to have somebody in the white house who is ocused on getting results? [cheers and applause] and here's what i'm most proud of. i really am. he will never articulate it this way. we have a little different style of communicating, you might have noticed, right? but he believes this in his heart

host: why justice gorsuch first and justice cavanaugh second? hest: justice gorsuch, emerged during the consideration -- my book goes into the list and how trump settled on these justices -- as a person who writes powerfully about tearing conservatives call tearing down the administrative state. inducing the power of the bureaucracy. you saw some decisions inch up to that. they still need another vote. he was, at least from outside washington, too. don mcgahn looked favorably on him. another thing that happened durin on the night of justice scalia's death is don mcgahn got on the phone with child and said be careful at the debate, don't politicize -- got on the phone with trump and said be careful at the debate. don't politicize this too much. was a little too washington at that time for the president to talk about. it would have been a tough sell as the first pick for the president. he is a washington guy in the bush die. he came out of the bush white house. worked on the ken start investigation. even president trump saw it was a little too clo

i would return to justice gorsuch's question of, if we disengage this troubling history -- i agree i am not suggesting as justice alito said, however if we take that out of the case, we don't have any tank. >> could the attorney general have said, enough already, we are going to send one of our own people to try this case, preferably in a different county where so many people don't know so many other people? could he have done that? ag davis: the attorney general's office is allowed to take over only if requested. we were not so requested. >> you said if we take the history out of the case. we can't. ag davis: that is not what i am saying. >> 42 potential african-americans, 41 are stricken. >> that is relevant, yes, your honor. court has held, history is part of the consideration. jus. sotomayor: you agree it is not only adjudicated violations that are relevant, but the number of strikes such as justice kavanaugh listed? ag davis: i do. the strikes were unique. the strikes in this case are supported in the record. each of the jurors that were struck, either worked with a relative, we

. >> do you read significance aaleeious didn't have have allies alito, gorsuch with him. >> the onlyde should be overturned has done many in defense, this term and encouraging trick to be outspoken we should cake cases i wouldn't read mutual into it other than justice roberts just roberts is trying to form a consensus on the court, bringing justice kagan, briar gorsuch other conservatives on a variety of issues not -- to worry about polarizing the country. >> there isporization on abortion for sure if on roe, 54-right. >> i don't think there is a decision any time next few years. >> because don't want to take the case. >> all right. we have to take one more break when we come back hits and misses of the week. let me ask you something. can the past help you write the future? can you feel calm in the eye of a storm? can you do more with less? can you raise the bar while reducing your footprint? for our 100 years we've been answering the questions of today to meet the energy needs of tomorrow. southern company take prilosec otc and take control of heartburn. so you don't have to stash a

. >> do you read significance aaleeious didn't have have allies alito, gorsuch with him. >> the onlycord, for saying roe v. wade should be overturned has done many in defense, this term and encouraging trick to be outspoken we should cake cases i wouldn't read mutual into it other than justice roberts just roberts is trying to form a consensus on the court, bringing justice kagan, briar gorsuch other conservatives on a variety of issues not -- to worry about polarizing the country. >> there isporization on abortion for sure if on roe, 54-right. >> i don't think there is a decision any time next few years. >> because don't want to take the case. >> all right. we have to take one more break when we come back hits and misses of the ♪ limu emu & doug mmm, exactly! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'

i would return to justice gorsuch's question of, if we disengage this troubling history -- i agree i am not suggesting as justice alito said, however if we take that out of the case, we don't have any tank. >> could the attorney general have said, enough already, we are going to send one of our own people to try this case, preferably in a different county where so many people don't know so many other people? could he have done that? ag davis: the attorney general's office is allowed to take over only if requested. we were not so requested. >> you said if we take the history out of the case. we can't. ag davis: that is not what i am saying. >> 42 potential african-americans, 41 are stricken. >> that is relevant, yes, your honor. as this court has held, history is part of the consideration. jus. sotomayor: you agree it is not only adjudicated violations that are relevant, but the number of strikes such as justice kavanaugh listed? ag davis: i do. the strikes were unique. the strikes in this case are supported in the record. each of the jurors that were struck, either worked with a rela

neil gorsuch, bret cavanaugh. but my friends, you probably already know most cases never make it to the supreme court. the next step down is the circuit judges. the next step down is the district judges. most complex litigation doesn't get past the circuit court level. they are extremely important. there were a lot of vacancies left when president obama left office. i was the majority leader the last couple of years he was president. we didn't have a lot of time to fill all those vacancies. [ applause ] >> this is a pretty alert crowd, ralph. so we had lots of opportunities and we didn't waste them. we did 30 circuit judges the first two years. that's a record pace for any administration in the history of the country. we're now at 41. we'll soon be adding two additionally. let's put that figure in context. about 1 out of 4 of every circuit judge in the whole country has been appointed by this president and confirmed by this senate in 2 1/2 years. [ applause ] >> let's look at it a different way. let's compare the

. >> do you read significance aaleeious didn't have have allies alito, gorsuch with him. >> the onlybe overturned has done many in defense, this term and encouraging trick to be outspoken we should cake cases i wouldn't read mutual into it other than justice roberts just roberts is trying to form a consensus on the court, bringing justice kagan, briar gorsuch other conservatives on a variety of issues not -- to worry about polarizing the country. >> there isporization on abortion for sure if on roe, 54-right. >> i don't think there is a decision any time next few years. >> because don't want to take the case. >> all right. we have to take one more break when we come back hits and misses of the ♪ ♪ at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. thank you. there is reward. beyond the classroom... there is inspiration. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? that's what i say. there is the moment. (laughing) beyond despair... the

neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh sit on the court today. there's big decisions coming out tomorrow that will probably be 5-4. so huge consequences. >> the american bar association was the gold standard, the be-all and end-all when we were kids. are they even involved these days? when the president says i have a list of judges, who gave him that list? >> the federalist society and the heritage foundation. and don mcgahn. actually in the book i explain a little bit the night of the -- scalia's death trump's going to the debate, he's on the phone with don mcgahn, who is his campaign counsel, and they're worried that ted cruz is going to put trump on the defensive. his sister was a federal judge. people thought he might appoint liberal judges. and trump says what if i throw out some names. and that was really the origin of the famous list. they said they needed names to confirm -- to convince conservatives that they were going to be okay. and of course don mcgahn's first name he said was brett kavanaugh. but they didn't end up using that name t

justice gorsuch: what do we do about the referendum? i understand there are questions about how good a referendum that was, but would your test require this court to declare unconstitutional gerrymanders that have been approved by the people through referendum themselves, and could this referendum be used otherwise? mr. kimberly: i don't think so. i think the referendum was a red herring. if this had been a racial gerrymandering and had been put to a popular vote in the popular vote had approved them it would still be a racial gerrymandering. justice gorsuch: i completely i completely accept that answer, all right. so in effect, you are asking the court no matter how good the referendum might be, no matter how much the people themselves might approve these lines, this court has to tell them, it's unconstitutional. ♪ [speaking foreign language] >> on the facts of this case, yes, i think that's correct. i want to come back to the question of -- >> what do you see on the facts of this case? what makes it so here? >> for one, it was the int

. >> do you read significance aaleeious didn't have have allies alito, gorsuch with him. >> the only, for saying roe v. wade should be overturned has done many in defense, this term and encouraging trick to be outspoken we should cake cases i wouldn't read mutual into it other than justice roberts just roberts is trying to form a consensus on the court, bringing justice kagan, briar gorsuch other conservatives on a variety of issues not -- to worry about polarizing the country. >> there isporization on abortion for sure if on roe, 54-right. >> i don't think there is a decision any time next few years. >> because don't want to take the case. >> all right. we have to take one more break when we come back hits and when we come back hits and misses of the let's be honest. it's kind of unfair that safe drivers have to pay as much for insurance... as not safe drivers! ah! that was a stunt driver. that's why esurance has this drivesense® app. the safer you drive, the more you save. don't worry, i'm not using my phone and talking to a camera while driving... i'm being towed. by the way, i'm