. >> justice gorsuch. just as gorsuch: what do we do -- what do we doh: with the fact that the department cannot offer any exemptions? ms. windham: i think that is a very important fact. if we are going to take the city at its word, means we have stepped out of the contracting context and are firmly in the regulating context. what the city is saying is that it is illegal for css to do this work in the city according to your religious exercise whether you contract with the government were not. justice gorsuch: how does philadelphia, in its written documents with catholic social services, treat it? an employee, agent? ms. windham: the city is quite clear. css is an independent contractor. it shall not be deemed to be an employee or agent of the city. justice gorsuch: how long have they been engaged in this activity? ms. windham: two centuries now. justice gorsuch: what do we do with your de facto exemption argument given the fact that we have a finding by the district that there are none? mr. biden: -- -- ms

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: no questions. chief justice roberts: justice justice kavanaugh: good morning. i want to follow-up on my understanding of how this plays out in your view. if the process was good and perfect, my understanding is that you can't raise a different eighth amendment argument that the individual sentence was still disproportionate. the answer is that the process is what leads to the proportionality at least as an ight amendment matter. in the analysis of greg versus georgia context, we have set proportionality is required but achieved in two ways. one, you rule out death penalty or life without parole for certain classes of offenders. secondly, we require the sentencer consider the relevant mitigating and relevant circumstances. the locket principal. here, i want to make sure your answer, if the process considers ll of the relevant circumstances, is there a separate argument as an eighth amendment matter someone could make that they applied all the relevant factors but i think it is disproportionate? mr.

hawkins: two things, just as gorsuch -- just as gorsuch. the court insisted an injunction would not be necessary and it would treat the declaration as an injunction and we took them at their word. second, if that is not good is stillcount five pending in district court. that is our request for injunctive relief. that is still a live issue before the district court and we can pursue that remedy if necessary. >> justice kavanaugh. justice kavanaugh: good morning, general hawkins. assume there is standing. just assume that. on the merits of the mandate before we get to severability i want to follow up on justice breyer's question. my understanding might be a little different from his about the existence of other laws. i think when i asked general mongan, he agreed there are no examples in the u.s. code that he is aware of where congress has enacted a true mandate to do something to purchase a good or service, a true mandate with no penalties. is that right? mr. hawkins: i think it is, justice kavanaugh. it would make sense if that were correct

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. uptice gorsuch: let me pick where justice kagan left off. the united states could still bring a civil action to enforce the mandate under 26 usc 7402a is that your understanding as well? is not myngan: understanding. i think this court made clear of only legal consequence not purchasing insurance is the requirement to pay a tax and congress has appealed or zeroed out the tax. there are no remaining legal consequences. suppose gorsuch: let's for the moment you are mistaken and 702a would allow enforcement action. wed that change your view about -- would that change your view about the individual standing? general mongan: potentially, although i think what this court has looked to is not only the possibility of an enforcement action but whether there is a real threat of enforcement. i do not see how they have established that because the federal government has indicated there is no further requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance. at least at the highest levels of the executive branch. that is the signal that is sent out to the

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch, --gorsuch? picking up on your -- justice gorsuch: picking up on your parade of levels, could you link to the constitutional -- mr. fisher: thank you appeared i think there are two constitutional problems in one is a first amendment problem with certain applications of the government's rule described in the amicus brief. --ondly there is the amicus rule that obtaining information you are not entitled on the circumstances to contain violates the statute. vagueness impossible problem because either one of two things has to be correct. either under the circumstances means literally every possible circumstance you could imagine, right down to someone orally telling you not to do that -- imagine a parent telling her teenager don't use instagram tonight until your homework is done, or don't use facebook to talk to your friends. the opportunity for prosecutorial discretion are probably broader than any has seenhe government if this government is right in literal terms. the only alternative is under the

justice gorsuch: ok. if i were to disagree with you and every 10 years appears to be a regular periodic report, and appears on a list, then what then? general wall: there would have to be supplement the briefings. justice gorsuch: all right. and q. chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: good morning. you forcefully argue there is too much uncertainty, that the dispute will become a concrete article three controversy when we asked for the president to transmit the statement. i want to button up some things on that to make sure we are on the same page, follow up on what justice kagan was asking you. sayingf all, you are not as a judicial review, not now, not ever, you are just saying not now, as i understand it. but as justice breyer indicated, the posture this will change after the president transmits the statement and there is question about injunctive relief against the president. so i think you are saying that we can't assume, as the court has before, that the president what comply

dan: well, i certainly would recommend justice gorsuch opinion to all of our viewers.t is worth the price of admission. the first amendment making it a holiday during the pandemic, it does not go on sabbatical leave. what you saw here between justice gorsuch and roberts is a difference between justice roberts tendency toward pragmatism, bowing toward the needs of governors, and justice gorsuch asserting that there are first principles. none more so than the first amendment exercise of religion that you cannot simply set aside such fundamental rights and principles in the constitution in the interest of pragmatism. which justice roberts had been doing in recent years so i suspect we will see more of this in the future. paul: kim, do you agree with that but this is foretelling of things to come on the core constitutional rights like gun rights and other freedoms? kim: let's hope so because with john roberts as the swing vote, it often meant the court docked those decisions. they didn't have the votes to sign up for that. hopefully there will be clarity and thankfully so

and others responded to gorsuch and breyer and soto wrote. neil gorsuch, president trump's first appointee. he wants a challenge from religious groups to california restrictions, you know? here, of course, we had new york limits that were invalidated but the chief justice back in may had written an opinion that explained why the court with then justice ginsburg casting an important vote, would defer to local officials on these kinds of covid-related restrictions, occupancy limits. justice gorsuch and the chief went after each other on this. although the chief, even as he took some shots at neil gorsuch, you know, essentially said can we just lower the temperature here and play nice? the response from the hard right, no, not right now. >> not right now. among the group there on the hard right is amy coney barrett. kim, what kind of influence did she play in all of this? >> as joan indicated, this issue came up twice before, both from nevada and from california. the issue being states are trying to -- the pandemic. they are doing their best by

so neil gorsuch was right.re is no world in the constitution in which that is permissible and, yet, these liberal justices who you would think would be the first people who would say we have to treat people equally. >> tammy: exactly. >> ignore the constitution completely. they say this is going to exacerbate human suffering in america. where is the science for that if people in church wear masks and social distance the same way they do atheam offices and facts at supermarkets and pharmacies and book stores and hair salons, then logically, the risk is identical. so, it was a silly and obtuse argument by the liberal justices. >> tammy: and you also notice, rachel, already we have some concern about legitimacy oflr government. and one of the reasons trump was elected was for law and order and fairness that everyone would see the same kind of justice. and yet you would kind of see -- you have to think that maybe liquor store owners or casinos have or mr. money the politicians don't want to hurt them. the people in

the verbal brick bats thrown back and forth between gorsuch and roberts.ep the court out of these controversies and gorsuch with the help of amy coney barrett's fifth vote managed to get 5 votes and weighed into that controversy with a lot of verbal fireworks and so on. that may be a taste what have is to come now that the court has a new line-up. >> mike: and pastors in new york are relieved. listen to this. >> i remember the mayor of new york went to a huge rally after telling everybody to use social distancing. please, no hypocrisy, no double standard. if i want to go to church, we can do social distancing and wear masks and it will be safe. >> mike: your thoughts on that and on the amy coney barrett factor in the new court? >> absolutely. this is a victory not just for freedom of religious but the 14th amendment equal protection. it's one thing if you shut everything down. it's harsh but it's fair. people are told you can't go to church but you can go to a strip club or go to a casino and gamble. people think it's unfair you can't worship god but you c

gorsuch, but he was appointed, mr. harrison supported the filibuster. supported democratic nominees because they were qualified. mr. harrison has opposed kavanaugh and gorsuch and won't say how he would have voted on barrett. if they followed my lead, the world would be better off. i'm not going to support democratic nominees and watch people like judge kavanaugh have their life destroyed. mr. harrison said the reason he ran against me was how i behaved in kavanaugh. i still up for a friend. for sohe courage to vote meyer and kagan and the determination to stand up for a conservative judge barrett how would you vote on judge barrett? please tell us. mr. harrison: wasn't merrick garland qualify? you voted for him before, why not again? you talked about the president having the power to nominate and it is up to the senate to pass them through and you failed to do it. that is the problem. you have a job that the people of south carolina pay you for and you only do it when you feel it is in your power, the right to do it instead of doing it when you are sup

>> i was struck by the conflict between conservatives on the court, between neil gorsuch, chief justiceold a line to keep the court out of these controversies when it is not necessary to weigh in. neil gorsuch with the help of amy coney barrett managed to get five votes and wade into that controversy, with verbal fireworks, that may presage or be a case of what is to come now that the court has a new lineup. mike: pastors in new york are quite relieved. take a listen to this. >> the mayor of new york went to a huge rally after telling everybody to social distance, no hypocrisy, double standard, induce social distancing and wear masks and it will be safe. mike: your thoughts on that and the amy coney barrett factor in the new course. >> a victory not just for freedom of religion but for fourteenth amendment equal protection. everybody stay home, it is a harsh and unpleasant but fair, you can't go to church but go to a strip club or a casino and gamble and do the roulette wheel and that sort of thing, whether you are religious or not it is unfair you can't sit in church and worship god bu

supreme court justice neil gorsuch said how come -- and he is quite right about this.and a liquor store and a bike shop are essential businesses but a church is not an essential business? have you been in a liquor store lately, mark? when you are in a liquor store people have their masks hanging off buying begi buying buying g. i have been in bike shops because i'm a cyclist and mountain biker. i will tell what you i'm doing during this pandemic i'm fixing my own tire. for some people liquor might be their religion. maybe alcohol is somebody's religion. but, it's not the same thing. and i think that essential businesses are churches and synagogues. by the way to go beyond supreme court justice gorsuch here do you know insurance brokers are considered essential business? we may look as a secular soulist future where only insurers are only around. i want to say this, we're in the middle of a pandemic. it may even be a biblical plague, mark. it may even b mark, it may be a biblical plague. what can we do in the face of this? we can get together and we can pray. >> mark: o

. >> justice gorsuch? >> what do we do with the fact that the city seems to be representing to us that the fair practice ordinances as a binding of its own force and the department cannot offer any ?xemptions >> the city is saying it is illegal for you to do this work in the city of philadelphia, whether you contract with the government or not. philadelphia, in its written documents with the catholic social services, treated? it is -- is it unemployed, and agent -- an employee, agent? >> css is an independent contractor. >> how long has catholic services been engaged in this activity? >> for two centuries now. your dedo we do with facto exemption argument? we have a finding by the district court that there are none. >> the district court's error is an error of law. it was a generally applicable law as long as it did not prescribe conduct. the district court had the wrong idea about what counts as an exception, what counts to make something not generally applicable. it made an error of law. >> if we thought

and chief justice robertsn h the opinion discussing gorsuch's language in which he said they were not cuing loose the constitution or ignoring the religious liberty, they were seriouslexamining and analyzing the issues in good faith. i'll say this for chief justice oreerts, he's done this bef when another justice has other justices on the court. finally, i would say the fact that justice -- the newest justice, justice barrett, had joined the majority, and the chief justice is in dssent, he was on the liberal side t, the cond i think that also shows that the conservative on the court really d n't neem. the role he played last term in which he was basically the center, the median justice on the court who could calibrate or moderate the shift of the court eiher to the left or te right, his role has been dimished. the five other conservative justices have that magic five votes if they need it. so we're going to have to wait and see, i think, where justice barrett goes from her she did noite separately, so we d't know what her thoughts were other than shiagreedh the majority. but it would

. >> justice gorsuch. >> i would like to pick up more or less where you left off with justice kagan. that assume for the moment we might view miller as procedural requirement and a modest one and montgomery as significantly expanding and may be a new substantive right in the process of reportedly doing the teague analysis. what do we do with that? if it created a new right and work with me on that assumption, wouldn't we need a subsequent decision deciding whether that new right should be retroactively applied under the teague plurality analysis? >> as to whether it should be retroactively applied, i want to first stress, just as gorsuch, that this case is under direct review. is different than the case that was arm collateral -- >> i understand that and i have questions for your collie coming up next on that but if you can stick with my question for the moment. >>. yes, your honor it's not unheard of for the court to construe and interpret precedent in a subsequent case i'm sorry,ases -- including cases even on collateral review. take the whole case which was on collateral review, i

one thing that struck me, in particular, was the concurring opinion, in the majority, by justice gorsuch, in which he really sort accused the court of cutting loose the constitution during a pandemic, not really caring so much about the religious liberty that was at stake here. and chief justice roberts in his dissenting opinion spent most of the opinion discussing gorsuch's language in which he said they were not cutting loose the constitution or ignoring the religious liberty, they were seriously examining and analyzing the issues in good faith. ll say this for chief justice roberts, he's done this before when another justice has questioned the motivation of other justices on the court. finally, i would say the fac that justice -- the newest justice, justi barrett, had joined the majority, and the chief justice was in dissent, he was on the liberal side of the cot, and i think that aso shows that the conservative on the court really don't need him. the role he played last term in which he was basically the center, the median justice on w the cou could calibrate or moderate the shift of

>> justice gorsuch, i think foretfor two reasons. the section applies to referrals from dhs that's not the certification process it's the matching process and-- >> i'm sorry to interrupt i accept the legal point that there are different stages in the process formally speaking legally. why shouldn't we take cognizance of it when we're doing the smith analysis. >> okay, let me answer this way then. smith did not say the mere availability in the air in the individualized treatment is not enough to make it an i-- applicable law itself. you have to have disparate reasons or-- that's what the justice said that it's not okay to let people wear beards for medical reasons, but not for religious reasons. it's not just in the air there's possibility of exceptions or differential treatment, it's whether you've actually had such treatment. otherwise you don't have a workable system of law. >> thank you. justice kavanaugh. >> good morning, mr. fisher, and welcome. thank you for your -- and i want to thank all the parties for their excellent briefs

the verbal brickbats being thrown back and forth between neil gorsuch and chief justice roberts. trying to hold the line to keep the court out of these controversies when it's not absolutely necessary to weighhe in. and neil gorsuch with amy coney barrett's fifth vote there managed to get five votes and weighed in to the controversy with a lot of verbal fireworks and so on. that made press and be a taste of what is to come now that the court has the lineup. >> mike: clearly, pastors and new york are quite relieved. let's take a listen to this. >> a member of the mayor of new york went to a huge rally after telling everybody to social distance. please, no hypocrisy, no double standard. if i want to go to church my want my people to come to mass. we can do social distancing and wear masks, and they will be safe. >> mike: deroy murdock, your thoughts on that and amy coney barrett on the court. >> absolutely not just for freedom of religion but 14th amendment equal protection. it would be one thing to say a pandemic and we have to shut everything down and you can go to the grocery st

it's not going to fly. >> you mentioned judge neil gorsuch, we have a quote from him.id we may not shelter in place when the constitution is under attack. things never go well when we do. and he butted heads with the justice john roberts as well. the two of them went at it. >> yeah. we may be seeing a sort of a break here, rick. a prelude to some knocking of heads if you will because looks, weapons night. wednesday afternoon, wednesday night churches and sin goings in new jersey filed the same kind of motion. that will go to justice leith who ialito.we saw some churchesf california do the same thing, file emergency petitions that will go to justice kagan. that t. will be interesting to see how these cases come out. >> rick: guy, at the beginning we talked about the millions of americans who traveled over this holiday weekend even though a lot of officials didn't want them to. i'm curious, your last words on how you think america is handling all of these new guidelines and whether or not you think there is going to be more and more push back. >> well, i think there will

the majority in this case, alito, thomas, gorsuch and kavanaugh said this is something that could changely. covid is getting worse again. the governors could come along and reinforce. so, we're going to go ahead and say the restrictions can't about applied to churches and sin nothings. justice brett kavanaugh actually said in his opinion if they're enforced it doesn't really matter if they say we can't enforce them. >> this was an opinion by the court unsigned. we think we know who wrote it, right? who do you think wrote it? >> it's a fine guessing game that we've all been playing since late wednesday night, thursday morning. some of us believe it is justice barrett. her first opinion on the supreme court. >> right. >> the majority opinion is a very measured opinion. it just kind of sets things out. it doesn't really read like a thomas or alito opinion. but we may not know, we may never know who will wrote it. >> final question, big picture, what you can -- read these tea leaves because you pay such close attention. what do you take away from this case that tells us about how the court w

church, synagogue or mosque can be problematic compared to going to say a liquor store as justice gorsuch alluded to. >> it is crazy. this is not about religious freedom or civil liberties, this is about all hands on deck to save lives the next few months until we get everybody vaccinated. i am not a constitutional scholar, i am a physician scientist, but i can say with firm n firmness that human life is not chief. that supreme court ruling devalues human lives, makes it really tough for our health care providers to provide the best care possible to lower mortality rates. this is not a time to resort to ideologies. this is time for american pragmatism to focus on saving lives. over a very defined period of time. we're not talking about perpetuity. let's do this the next few months in order to keep everybody, get everyone to the other side. >> to that point, practically there's a difference between sitting in the same area huddled with a group of, large group of people over a large amount of time versus walking into space restricted for a short amount of time and walking out. >> i mean, to

points about religion in this time of covid and justice gorsuch was especially tough saying it's as if the constitution has taken a holiday. chief justice john roberts was in dissent. a rare position for him. he said we don't have to do this, governor cuomo is still working out restrictions, the restrictions appealed to us aren't in effect right now. there's no need for us to intervene in this way. and justice sotomayor wrote, you're denying the input of mental health officials here. very important information. >> joan, this is really completely the opposite of the decision -- the decisions the high court made earlier this year about churches in california and nevada. the only difference then -- or one of the key differences was the late justice ginsburg was sitting on the bench now it's you justice barrett. >> this is the result of amy coney barrett seceding justice ginsburg because she's in the majority saying we can not let these restrictions stand. a very important development here, not only for the bottom line but in terms of relations among the nine justices. the remaining lib

certainly hope not and when we look at some of the opinions that have been written, justice alito gorsuchad a wonderful concurrence where he said essentially what they've done is they're taking a pandemic and using that pandemic to change the rules and he said i understand it is challenging in middle of a pandemic to vote but there are ways to do this and we don't need to rush to change voting laws at the last minute because it will end up disenfranchising people. he's exactly right they took global pandemic, they made it into an electoral epidemic. they took what they said a natural disaster was their rational turned this into a national election disaster. i think we have principle jurist alito gorsuch amy coney barrett ultimately they'll sign on side of truth and justice and vet that he has claims it is thankful to president trump for putting in place principle jurist who want to make sure there's no fraud in our election and care about election integrity. >> i would just say this to the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, your pass on pennsylvania was incomprehensible. ar

gorsuch, but he was appointed, mr. harrison supported the filibuster.ed democratic nominees because they were qualified. mr. harrison has opposed kavanaugh and gorsuch and won't say how he would have voted on barrett. if they followed my lead, the world would be better off. i'm not going to support democratic nominees and watch people like judge kavanaugh have their life destroyed. mr. harrison said the reason he ran against me was how i behaved in kavanaugh. i still up for a friend. for sohe courage to vote meyer and kagan and the determination to stand up for a conservative judge barrett how would you vote on judge barrett? please tell us. mr. harrison: wasn't merrick garland qualify? you voted for him before, why not again? you talked about the president having the power to nominate and it is up to the senate to pass them through and you failed to do it. that is the problem. you have a job that the people of south carolina pay you for and you only do it when you feel it is in your power, the right to do it instead of doing it when you are supposed to

state legislature in another attempt to count late dollars -- ballots after the election, justice gorsuch wrote nothing in our founding documents counter events what took place here nor is there a precedent for it in 230 years of the decision. "no one doubtsay conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges, but none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people's representative have adopted." they have taken a global pandemic and turned it into a nationwide electoral epidemic. they have taken, based on what they call a natural disaster, they used to and turned it into a national disaster. with that, i will turn it over to matt morgan, general counsel for the campaign. thank you. as stated, the election is not over. tabulation and candidacy continues across the united states and today in the united states district court for the middle district of pennsylvania, donald j. trump for president and representative voters following suit against the secretary of state and select counties alleging two things. number

within months, conservativeri fa neil gorsuch joined the cot. >> ...confirmed as justice gorsuch... >narrator: then, a year later, another opportunity. >> ...monumental moment... >> narrator: veteran justice thony kennedy unexpected resigned. >> kennedy really was the middle ofourt. so it's, it's a really serious momentthe most serious moment in the balance of the court, really, since even before bork. >> narrator: mitch mcconnell understood the stakes. kennedy's replacement could shift the court further to the right. >> president trump's pick is in for the next supreme court nominee... >> brett kavanaugh to replacere thring... >> narrator: mcconnell and trump ain swung into action. the president nominated judge brett kavanaugh. >> kavanaugh is e perfect mcconnell nominee. he's very consvative on economic issues, on executive power issues. he's the perfect blending of establishment and sort of red-state-based politics. (gavel banging) >> narrator: at the confirmation arings, the democrats immediately put up a fight. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to be recognized to ask a question.ma >> mr

think that the difference here is that -- succeeded by -- i can't remember now if it's kavanaugh or gorsuchbut the point is, the supreme court is more conservative now. and i think it's generally correct that affirmative action is now on life support in this more conservative court. i think it's only a matter of time now it seems before the supreme court puts a stop to this. >> and that's despite the justice who's been vocal about affirmative action from the other side of the things. reading the tea leaves, it does seem to you based on your observation of the court that this is something more broader moving forward, that could be problematic for them. >> no question about it. the supreme court over the years has kind of narrowed down the use of affirmative action in government contracting, in school admissions, and this whole notion that you can do it to achieve student body diversitywell really divided the supreme court. and i think now with a more conservative court, there's going to be less tolerance for that. so, if this case doesn't prod the supreme court to take that step, there will

justice neil gorsuch wrote, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the world tolerates color-coded edicts that re-open bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques. >>> president trump's decision to pardon former national security adviser michael flynn. sources say we can expect more pardons soon. this all comes as the president continues to falsely claim that he was cheated out of winning the election. abc's elizabeth schulze has the latest. >> reporter: this morning, democrats speaking out against president trump's decision to pardon former national security adviser michael flynn. >> it makes a mockery of our democracy to those watching from around the world. >> reporter: trump tweeting, it is my great honor to announce that general michael t. flynn has been granted a full pardon. fling pleaded guilty back in 2017 to lying to the fbi about his contacts with russia. but he's tried to take back the confession ever since. house speaker nancy pelosi slammed trump's decision calling it an act of grave corruption and a brazen abuse of power. b

it an amazing group ofudges principled m and women and that includes justice neil gorsuch, justicebredanaugh and justice a coney barrett. and none of that would have been possible without the support of senato perdue and senator loeffler, in fact, let me just say, i want to spefically thank senator loeffler she was the first senator in the united states to call for the confirmation vote of justice amy coney barrett andhey both stoodtrong with this amazing jurist. you know these appointments to our courts have nev been more importt. because the courts areur last line of defense. the last vanguard of our liberties enshrined in the constitution and in our founding document. when we came io office you all remember that we've seen a steady assault on our liberti and our cherish values. the conscience writes of doctors and nses have been compromised, through bureaucratic fiat in last administration. a group of nuns known as little sisters of the poor haule into federal court by the last ministration. forced them to compromise their faith to live under the mandates of obamacare. and you all r

that includes justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh , and that includes the supreme court's newestbrilliant, justice amyoman, coney barrett. [cheers and applause] [chanting "acb"] isn't she great? and not just because she's from indiana. how much did you love it when one of the senators asked her, show me what you've got written down on that piece of paper. nothing. she's so impressive and she's going to stand strong for all the liberties we cherish. when joe biden was vice president, we saw a steady assault on our first freedom, the freedom of religion. the last administration used the power of the federal government to erode the conscience rights of doctors and nurses and charities. they even hauled a group of nuns into federal court to force them to compromise their faith to live under the obamacare. it is true. same religious intolerance happened when amy coney barrett was nominated to the court of appeals two years ago. do you remember? she was in front of the senate judiciary committee and the leading democrat on that committee said she was concerned about amy coney barrett's

[applause] 220 judges including justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh, and justice amy coneytt. great?he mean, in her confirmation hearing how much did you love it when they said, what have you got written on that paper in front of you? nothing. an amazing person, i've got to tell you the senators were there every step of the way as the president of the united states fulfilled his duty to fill that seat, in fact, let me take this opportunity to thank senator loeffler, she was the first member of the senate to call for a confirmation vote of justice amy coney barrett. thank you, senator. [applause] in a strong judiciary, vanguard and the senate has never been more important. you all remember in the last administration, the steady assault of our most cherished liberties including the freedom religion. the last administration actually compromised to the conscious rights of doctors and nurses and religious charities. they actually hauled the little sisters of the poor into federal court to force them to compromise their faith to live under the mandate of obama care. you all might

[applause] 220 judges including justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh, and justice amy coneytt. great?he mean, in her confirmation hearing how much did you love it when they said, what have you got written on that paper in front of you? nothing. an amazing person, i've got to tell you the senators were there every step of the way as the president of the united states fulfilled his duty to fill that seat, in fact, let me take this opportunity to thank senator loeffler, she was the first member of the senate to call for a confirmation vote of justice amy coney barrett. thank you, senator. [applause] in a strong judiciary, vanguard and the senate has never been more important. you all remember in the last administration, the steady assault of our most cherished liberties including the freedom religion. the last administration actually compromised to the conscious rights of doctors and nurses and religious charities. they actually hauled the little sisters of the poor into federal court to force them to compromise their faith to live under the mandate of obama care. you all might

and that includes justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh and justice amy coney barrett.and applause] [indiscernible] i don't say that just because she's from indiana. it really has been about appointing men and women who will -- [indiscernible] -- stand for the values that make pennsylvania and america great. i have to tell you, as i stand here today, i couldn't be more proud to serve alongside a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of uman life. [cheers and applause] now, joe biden and kamala harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth. president trump is the most pro-life president in american history. [cheers and applause] you know, i truly do believe and i think you know standing out here and shivering in the cold, the choice in this election has never been clearer. the stakes have never been higher. the men and women, we make a choice in this election. i think it's not going to be so much whether america's more republican or more democrat. more liberty or more conservative. more red or more blue. i think the cho

. >> justice gorsuch. >> the morning, counsel. what we do with the fact of the city seems to be representing to us here and now that the fair practice ordinance is binding on its own force and the department cat offer any exemptions? spirit justice gorsuch, i believe that's an important fact here because if we will take the city at his word and they are what it means is we stepped out of the contracting context now and we are firmly in the regulating context. with the city is saying to catholic social services is that it is illegal for you to do this work in the city of philadelphia according to your religious exercise whether you contract with the government or not. >> and how does philadelphia and its written documents with the catholic social services tread? is it an employee or agent? >> the city is qui clear ja 634 and css as an independent contractor and shall not be deemed or intended to be an employee or agent of the cities. >> how long has calyx over services been engaged inin this activity? >> they been doing it for two

look back to last term, there was a case last term where justice gorsuch and justice thomas joined three democratic appointees to apply the doctrine and new circumstance, so that lives on through other people. also there are other areas of law like the right to confrontation, the requirement criminal laws be written with sufficient specificity so the populace can understand what they mean and it be on fair notice as to what violates them. in all these areas, in a sense the majority of that justice stevens forged from different perspectives on the criminal law lives on today and all these other areas and i think in ways that his legacy -- i think he was proud even when he stepped off the bench and he would have been proud at the end of the last term as well. fascinating, ok kathleen can you tell us a little bit about your views of justice stevens? >> thank you for the opportunity to be here and i am enjoying my colleagues friends and stories recollections, some of my thoughts dovetail with what you remember because i think we all have the honor of clerking for him to draw these life lesso

but the decision in the case, if you look at what justice gorsuch wrote he said we have a pandemic, it requires emergency measures but you can't throw out the constitution. you can't -- >> we seem -- >> and at the same time leave liquor stores and other places open. >> we lost you for a second and we pointed out we have one of the bits of the opinion that justice gorsuch wrote. it is his concurring opinion, a supplement to the actual supreme court opinion. i wanted to just read it to you. we may not shelter in place, he writes, when the constitution is under attack things never go well when we do. the majority finds new york governor cuomo's opinion unconstitutional. i want the read a couple more elements from that supreme court decision. we apparently have lost our link to byron york but i want to read a couple more opinions from that supreme court decision. you see the governor had said designated certain zones in new york city orange zones or red zones. red zones are where the virus was truly raging or is truly raging. he says in a red zone while a synagogue or church may not admit

that includes justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh, and that includes the supreme court's newest brilliant, principled woman, justice amy coney barrett. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "acb"] [laughter] isn't she great? and not just because she's from indiana. how much did you love it when one of the senators asked her, show me what you've got written down on that paper. nothing. [laughter] impressive, i'll tell you. and she's going to stand strong for all the liberties we cherish. when joe biden was vice president, we saw a steady assault on our first freedom, the freedom of religion. the last administration used the power of the federal government to erode the conscience rights of doctors and nurses and religious charities. they even hauled a group of nuns into federal court to force them to compromise their faith to live under the obamacare. it is true. [booing] and the same religious intolerance happened when amy coney barrett was nominated to the court of appeals two years ago. you remember? she was in front of the senate judiciary committee and the leading democrat on

conservatives appointed to our federal courts at every level. 220 judges, and that includes justice neil gorsucht kavanaugh, and justice amy coney barrett! [applause] isn't she something? and i don't say that just because she is from indiana. but you know, it has been about appointing men and women who will uphold all of our liberties. that stand for the values that make pennsylvania and america great. i have to tell you as i stand here today, i could not be more proud to serve alongside a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. [cheers and applause] joe biden and kamala harris support taxpayer funding for abortion all the way up to the moment of birth. [crowd booing] joe biden and president trump -- president trump is the most pro-life president in american history. [applause] , and i thinklieve you know, standing out here shivering in the cold, that the choice in this election has never been clearer, the stakes have never been higher. we face a choice in this election. i think it will not be so much whether america is more republican or more democrat. more liberal

. >> jonathan, i would love to read something from justice gorsuch concurrence.will put this up on the screen: jonathan, i understand the supreme court cases are tailored to the issue before them but this is a stunning rebuke to the power grab of governors across the country. >> it's curious to see the governor lashing out at the court and suggesting this was all some form of activism. he seems focussed on the fact they ruled as opposed to the fact that 5 justices indicated he violated the religious protections of new yorkers. it's not just 5-4. chief justice roberts was not ruling on the merits. he thought it was premature to rule. it could be 6-3. you would think that would be a greater concern for the governor. what really troubles me is this attack on the court. i don't have anything to answer for here. the court said you can have restrictions on churches but they can't be arbitrary. you have to recognize that the free exercise of religion is protected under the first amendment. you can't just restrict it in ways without creating a substantive foundation. tha

[cheers and applause] 220 judges, and more, and that includes justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaughstice amy coney barrett. [cheers and applause] isn't she great? how much did you love it when she held up that piece of paper? all these senator scott stacks of papers in front of him, but did you bring? of them, what did you bring? nothing. i would tell you, she will be an incredible justice on the supreme court. all thoselematic of that we have been able to appoint to our courts. it is a legacy that really strengthening the foundations under our liberties, it is true. president trump was aware that he gave the people of north carolina strict constitutional list and will not legislate from the bench. so, right after you reelect president donald trump for four more years, we need north carolina to send senator thom tillis back to the united states senate asked more years. [cheers and applause] because, this is really about protecting our liberties. vanguardcourts are the of our liberties, upholding all that is enshrined in the founding documents in the heart of the american people. bec

with justice barrett playing a key role in the ruling, this from justice neil gorsuch, it is time, paste claim while the pandemic poses many grave challenges there is no world in which the constitution toler rates color coded executive edigits that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques. what else your reaction to what the supreme court did and the action to put down what what governor cuomo trying to do? >> it was a fascinating case. you had the five justices that ruled against new york in this case. it might have been six because chief justice roberts said that he was not saying that the restrictions imposed by governor cuomo were constitutional. he just didn't feel that there was a need at this time for the court to step in. but, that was really swatted back by justice kavanaugh who said look the second circuit can rule on this but we want to make sure that these churches and synagogues know that they can continue in these houses of worship. it's a major case. because we have seen across the country these challenges. not just with religious o