justice gorsuch: no apology needed. what i'm trying to ask, is whether the fact that the ncaa has control over the labor market, it is a sole purchaser of labor. does that make a difference, in what would otherwise be a forgiving rule of reason analysis? mr. waxman: i see. it makes all the difference in the world for purposes of step one of the rule of reason, which is that as this case comes to this court, there is no dispute that the no pay for play will imposes a significant restraint on a relevant antitrust market, absolutely. just as this case comes to this court, there is no dispute that those restraints have a substantial procompetitive benefit. the question of what level of inquiry is appropriate and applied the rule of reason rests in this case on step three. justice gorsuch: thank you. mr. waxman: i hope that answer your question. justice gorsuch: thank you very much, my time has expired. chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i would like to identify some issues of concern as i look at t

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: mr. waxman, it seems to me you start in a place that i can readily sign up to, which is that joint ventures often need to have agreements that would otherwise look anticompetitive, whether they're territorial allocations or price agreements, in order to create a product that wouldn't otherwise exist. and we usually give that a pretty quick look, maybe even a twinkling of the eye. that all makes sense to me, and we certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days of reviewing any joint venture agreement that restricts competition through per se analysis, or something that looks like a strict scrutiny analysis, which i understand you condemn the ninth circuit for doing. i understand all of that. i think the trick comes for me at least, sort of where justice kagan was alluding to, which is, here, the agreement that's really at the center of the case is an agreement among , competitors to fix price with the labor market, where you have monopsony control, and that's unusual. the normal join

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: good morning. if the first amendment protects the right to associate in private, why do we need to consider harassment? ms. feinberg: justice gorsuch, this court has said repeatedly, including in its foundational cases, that the first amendment protects associational rights and those rights may be implicated by disclosure and reporting requirements, but they don't do so invariably. so the -- justice gorsuch: well, we certainly said that proof of harassment can be very significant evidence that the first amendment right to associate has been infringed. but we've also said that -- that the first amendment right to associate includes the right to do so privately. right? ms. feinberg: the court has recognized that privacy is a concern where the disclosure of associational information would lead to deterrence of associations because of the reactions that the information would prompt in others. justice gorsuch: so could the government on that account require private associations to reveal any manner of i

justice gorsuch: terrorizing?oes it make a difference that this case involves an extracurricular activity? >> yes, with respect to the application of tinker. you can offend and destroy the program without affecting the school at large. this student was not in any way -- there was disciplinary action taken and she was suspended from the cheer team. on the other view, she could not be asked to write an apology or suspended for one game and she could do this every night. she could berate her coaches all day long and that's very different, if students want to use swear words, even on the internet, that is fine and they can do it with respect to teachers. it has to rise to the level of harassment. 0 -- chief justics roberts: justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: i want to focus on the facts and my reaction to it. as a team and a coach, not the school more generally, but as a judge and maybe as a coach and parent, it seems like may be a bit of overreaction by the coach. she is competitive, she cares, she blew off steam

president from appointed justices gorsuch, cavanaugh and barrett and -- kavanaugh and barrett and these judges are going to follow the law instead every right the law. , kratz don't like this. they lost their grip on the supreme white. it is the final stop. it is the final backstop to stop democrats from total control of our country. they have the white house, they have the senate, they have the house. one thing keeping them in check is an independent supreme court and judges sherry, and they don't like that, so they want to change the rules. pedro: you are probably aware of this legislative effort by senator ed markey and others to expand the court. they appeared in front of the court to make their case. i want you to listen to a little bit of what they had to say and then get your response to it. senator markey: republicans stole two seats on the supreme court and it is now up to us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy today because the supreme court's sit standing -- court's standing is sorely damage. the way we repair it is straightforward, we undo the damage republic

but like -- i don't think neil gorsuch is personally antigay he wrote -- so like -- neil gorsuch every time in his life that he's been mad at court is because he wanted them to do more. why didn't you strike down obamacare? >> he wanted to strike down on regulation. >> yeah. and so if you're a young conservative -- and you know, gorsuch is not but i'll call him young by this metric. your whole life you can say do more courts because like you've never been disappointed when courts have done sthang you didn't like you didn't live through roe v. wade and times of decisions. so i think there's this generational divide where now and, i mean, it is only going to get worse. because now there's no one that a republican president could nominate who has a healthy fear of judicial power because everyone in the federal society now who is young enough to be a judicial amount grew up in an age when they wanted courts to do more and they wanted them to do it now. >> that i think that after amy coney barrett if you have someone with a relatively open resumÉ with a warrior if that person can get confir

, neil gorsuch has never been bad because Ãà because he thought that the courts did too much. has only been modern with the possible exception of the marriage equality system but i think i don't think neil gorsuch is personally anti-gay, he wrote the ÃÃevery time in his life he's been mad at the courts it's because he wanted them to do more. why didn't you strike down obamacare. >> irin: he wanted them to strike the regulations. >> ian: right. if you are a young conservative, neil gorsuch is in his 50s but i will call him tiyoung by this metrics. your whole life you could say do more courts because you've never been disappointed with the courts if that something à Ãyou didn't live through roe v wade.you didn't live through those kinds of decisions. i think there is this generational divide where now à Ãit's only going to get worse because now there is no one better republic and president could nominate who has a healthy fear of judicial power because everyone in society now is young enough to be a judicial nominee grew up in an age when they wanted the courts to do more and wa

justice gorsuch: what if the state announced that? general mongan: if it was done by regulation, that would be a per se taking. the question is if it is an intermittent regulation that only applies for limited times in the year and there is substantial protection to minimize the burden. justice gorsuch: what if the same promise to remove the easement was on the condition that the residential property owner agree to have a develop into a commercial one? general mongan: i am not sure how that would be analyzed. i think it would build that still be continuous in nature and -- i think it would still be continuous in nature and for to -- and possibly permanent. it is likely to be a taking under either penn central or per se. it might not be permanent, depending on how you structure the hypothetical. >> so all of these are per se takings on your view. i understand that the k difference that's the key difference is how many days -- i understand the key difference is how many days, but daylight is enough. >> the reason we have acknowledged th

i want to pick up from justice kagan and justice gorsuch and identify issues of concern to me as i look at this. i start from the idea the antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of student athletes. that is a concern of overarching concern here. i see your rhetoric and tradition and history argument being similar to the arguments that were made for exempting basic law from the antitrust laws with the federal base fallen and that exemption has not been replicated in other sports and other cases. and then in regions as justice kagan said, there really was from a different era and it was not sure it was fully considered dicta. and in any event from a different era. then we get to regular antitrust law rule of reason and i just want to drill down on your asserted procompetitive justification. how you say product is differentiated. it does seem as though justice kagan and justice gorsuch guested, justice alito that schools are conspiring with competitors to pay no salaries to the workers making the schools billions of dollars. on the theory that consumers want the schools to p

is that a failure of originalism verse of the misapplication of originalism via justice gorsuch? >> this is an interpretation of the civil rights law to protect on grounds of sexual and gender identity and sexual orientation and it certainly was i thought a creative interpretation of the statute in terms of what congress understood in 1964. the word to mean. so i profoundly disagreed with it but at the same time i'd say be not dismayed. you can be disappointed but not this made it to justice gorsuch time and time again has been a great champion of religious freedom and even in what i believe was was a mistaken interpretation of the federal law of the constitution of the united states he has a very soothing paragraph about religious liberty. so did justice kennedy which was recognized in the constitution this human dignity right to decide who you are and make that marriage decision based on your sense of who you are and who your partner is pretty than their a built-in rail guard rhetorical rail guard to say religious liberties should be protected so i would say don't give up all h

>> no, there would not, justice gorsuch. the property question, the takings question does not turn on the speech that is being advocated that we're right to work advocates for members of the public that were given access and dispute property interest to my clients, that would merit per se treatment under this court's doctrine. >> thank you very much, counsel. >> justice kavanaugh. >> i'm mystiied by some of the comments, but you're asking us to reinvent the wheel. we decided unanimously in 1956 how to balance property rights against union organizing rights in the babcock case and then, of course, then we reiterated that in justice thomas' opinion for the court there. the babcock briefs, we can go back into those, those are all about property rights against union organizing rights and then babcock considers that, and sets forth a rule. now, i think you probably prevail under that rule, but i'm curious why your argument is not as simple as justice clark's california supreme court justice clark's argument and his dissent in the

i respectfully agree with justice gorsuch that that does put the cart before the horse. the court in doe v. reed started by analyzing the state's interest and whether it was weighty enough. here california falls down and it doesn't have, as it has in election -- in the election context, disclosure as an established least restrictive alternative. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. announcer: attorney general merrick garland announced an investigation -- this follows the march 2020 shooting death of breonna taylor by louisville police. she was unarmed and in her own home when officers executed what is known as a no knock search warrant that led to her death. the ag's announcement runs slightly less than 10 minutes. ag garland: good afternoon. i'm joined today by a recently confirmed deputy attorney general lisa monaco and recently confirmed associate attorney general vanita gupta. they are leaders of great ability and integrity and i am very happy that they have returned to serve again at the justice department. the department is stronger for

kavanaugh, gorsuch, barrett. that's the way it was for 150 years. biden would potentially get four just is and could do what he wants. he would have the different type of authority the way i understand it. to further that judicial appointments by the president. donald trump 245 judges. under barack obama, george w. bush across two terms each of them over 300. but donald trump did more in four years than either of them. talk to me about where we are judicially in the united states and how a grab like this could touch that part of our court system. >> what happened was harry reid did away with the filibuster for judicial appointments. as a result of that, it happened at the end of the obama administration. the result of that was it gave mitch mcconnell and president trump more authority and flexibility to move judges and justices. and what we've seen is more and more judges getting confirmed more quickly as a result of that move by harry reid. now that the filibuster is gone for judges and justices they want to pack the supreme court. they want four j

age -- gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh, and just as amy coney barrett.] we defended religious liberty. we ended the assault on the little sisters of the poor, and every single day, this president , this vice president, and our administration stood without apology for the sanctity of human life. [applause] it was perhaps my highest honor when as the president of the senate i was able to cast the tie-breaking vote to defund planned parenthood and states across america -- in states across america. and groups like palmetto family council made that progress possible and i couldn't be more grateful. the support for life was literally started on day one. we were in our first month in office in 2017, and the anniversary of the roe v. wade decision came up, and a barge where life was scheduled to take place on the national mall article day. the prime minister of the united kingdom was in town and the president was not going to be able to address the crowd. i remember standing next to the resolute desk as he was lamenting the fact he would not be able to engage th

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: thank you, chief. i have no questions at this time. chief justice roberts: justice kavanaugh. justice kavanaugh, thank you, chief justice. ms. saharia, good morning, good afternoon. ms. saharia: good afternoon. justice kavanaugh: and i think the questions my colleagues have pointed out and judge hardiman's opinion in the third circuit point out that you have an uphill climb textually speaking. and i guess, more broadly, i guess that raises the question for me of we need to be careful about tinkering with the immigration statutes as written, particularly when congress has so, such a primary role here. congress, as i understand it, passed a recent bill. the house, i should say, passed a recent bill on this issue. it obviously has not passed the senate yet. but, but just kind of big picture, why should we jump in here when congress is very focused on immigration and when you're relying, putting forth a good argument but relying on chains of inferences rather than specific language as i see it at least? ms

i respectfully agree withit justice gorsuch. here california falls down disclosure is the least restrictive alternative. >> that case is submitted

other members of the commission opposed kavanaugh, gorsuch and barrett.viduals are rather outspoken about, about the current members of the court. even though, by the way, they were wrong. many of the democratic senators, many of these advocates said things about those three justices which are fundamentally wrong. i mean, they suggested barrett would gut the aca, the obamacare. she didn't. they suggested kavanaugh would be a raving lunatic on the court. he's not. and, in fact, gorsuch and kavanaugh have voted with the left of the court in very significant cases when they felt it was warranted. jon: republican and democrat congressman michael mccaul and david cicilline were on "fox news sunday" today sharing their opposing views about this. listen. >> i think the president should listen to the former senator joe biden who was against this. you know, fdr tried to pack the court. his own democrat-run judiciary committee in the '30s said it was a dangerous precedent, it was blatantly unconstitutional. >> i have to chuckle a little about packing the court. the

attorney: yes, justice gorsuch. anything short of facial relief would be a victory for charities and donors that are counting upon this court's precedent and principles to protect them. the reason is that if you have to go to court and bring the as applied challenge and go through the hurdles california and the ninth circuit would interpose, even these petitioners will have been litigating for seven years, with the benefit of experts and witnesses and their officers and horrific experiences that were recounted in court, we are still struggling to establish our first amendment rights. if every charity that is in this position has concerns about exposure of their donors has to go through that same winding path, the first amendment will have lost before the next as applied challenge begins. in terms of precedent, it is clear in the first amendment context that if we convince you there are a substantial number of instances where the law is unconstitutional, that warrants facial validation. here we think it is unconstitu

president trump's nominees, except for justice gorsuch, justice gorsuch, i think, was 49 when he waswas in his -- is in his mid 50s now and was in his mid 50s when he was appointed. so, you know, these nominees, if you want them long time and presidents increasingly do want them to serve a long time, there was a time when, for example, when you're talking about the supreme court, people would serve for a few years and sometimes leave to run for governor, for example. that doesn't happen nowadays. >> well, you wrote a piece that focuses right now on how much opportunity biden has to change the courts after the blitz from trump and mcconnell's conservative judges. how do you see the next four years playing out for the federal courts now that the democrats have the majority? >> well, they have the majority for two years or pretty close to two years, anyway, when you're talking about judicial nominations. >> right. >> then you don't know what's going to happen two years from now. will republicans take control of the senate? there is certainly that serious possibility. and we know from hi

first, mcconnell held a supreme court seat open for over a year just to fill it with neil gorsuch, a man with very strong ties to conservative dark money groups and those same groups spent millions of dollars to have him confirmed. then, mitch mcconnell bent over backwards to confirm brettt kavanaugh, i don't think we need to relive all of the ways in which that man is hideously unqualified to serve on the bench and then mitch mcconnell confirmed amy coney barrett, the woman who refused to say whether or not climate change is real, eight days before the november election and after tens of millions of people had already voted. these are hardly the actions of a man or a political party who now claims to revere and a political court system. mitch mcconnell and donald trump have pushed our democracy to the cliffs edge and the conservatives on the supreme court are ready to finish the job and push it right on over that cliff. so we have to address this issue before it's too late. indivisible is proud and supports the judiciary act of 2021 and i know we can get this done, thank you so much

the american people spoke and now we have justice gorsuch.t: from riverside, california, david, on the republican line. caller: alaska said that there conservatives are a 6-3 super majority but john roberts is not consistently voting conservative and gorsuch changed the 1964 civil rights act to include homosexuality in the workplace which was way off for 1964. but they would have never thought of that in 1964. the only dependable ideologues are liberals. if democrats can do that, why won't republicans do that? this is a constitutional crisis because we keep messing with everything like the filibuster and routing the great traditions of our country. what are we if we change everything that we are? democrats say we love the constitution, let's change it, not through amendments, but through liberal members on the court. roosevelt did this in 1930, as your guest mentioned, no one liked it. he inspired a constitutional amendment's and you can only have two terms as president because he had four. host: that david, in california. go ahead. guest: th

gorsuch, kavanaugh were the deciding vote on major cases. so many of these senators were wrong about people like justice gorsuch and kavanaugh. but it doesn't change the narrative. it is detached from reality. >> dana: one last question. you follow the court. you might even know some of these people. what about breyer? he is in his 80s, maybe he wants to retire. now at this point do you think that he is more likely or less likely to retire during this president's first two years in office? >> first of all justice breyer remains really quite sharp. so was justice ginsberg. while they were older and had physical issues mentally they were as sharp as they ever have been. they write really profound opinions. you can disagree with them. i would think this would -- if anything, encourage him to stay on the court. for him to knuckle under to this type of pressure would be viewed as sort of yielding to the mob and that's what's so baffling about this campaign. >> dana: very interesting. thank you so much. we appreciate your time. >> trace: chicago o

president trump appointed gorsuch, cavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett.rats do not like this. it is the final backstop to stop democrats from total control in our country. at they have the white house, the senate, the house. at the one thing keeping them in check is an independent supreme court and federal judiciary and they do not like that so they want to change the rules. host: you are probably aware of this legislative effort by representative ed markey -- i am sorry, senator ed markey and others. to expand the court. they make their case. i want you to listen to a little bit of what they have to say and get a response. >> republican stole two seats on the supreme court, and now it is up to us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy today because the supreme court standing is sorely damaged, and that way we repair it is straightforward. we undo the damage that the republicans have done by restoring balance. we do it by adding watch proceeds to the court to create a 13 member supreme court. these four new seats to be filled by president bid

amy coney barrett, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch, clarence thomas and john roberts.hree liberals from elena kagan and stephen breyer but the bench hasn't always had a total of nine. nowhere in the constitution doesn't say how many it should have. the first judiciary act of 1789 set the number at six but it's fluctuated five to as many as ten the last time the president changed it, 1937. when fdr introduced judicial reform bill that became known as his court packing plan seeking to add more justices to obtain favorable rulings regarding the new deal. the senate rejected it overwhelmingly. 1983, then senator joe biden, member of the judiciary committee had this to say about fdr's court packing plan. >> it was a boneheaded idea, a terrible mistake to make. >> during the campaign, he opposed it. >> i would not get into court packing. we have three justices, next time we lose control, they have three justices, you lose credibility the court has little. >> two of the most liberal justices of the modern court share the opposition. the late ruth bader ginsburg and stephen br

currently the nine, six conservatives, brett cavanagh, neil gorsuch, thomas, chief justice roberts andals, sotomayor, alana kagan and breyer, the change of heart a significant, as a senator on the judiciary committee he had this to say about the idea. >> it was a bonehead idea. it was a terrible terrible mistake to make. >> reporter: as recent as the campaign trail, october of last year he wasn't one to embrace it. >> you will know my opinion on court packing when the election is over. there has never been a court appointed once an election has begun. >> reporter: doesn't sit well with former and current justices, ruth bader ginsburg, liberal icon famously said 9 seems to be a good number and last week justice stephen breyer shut it down, saying politics would erode trust in the institution. last night republican congressman jim jordan blasted it. watch. >> the left controls everything because they don't have control of the supreme court, they will add more people to the court, they control everything, this is a radical takeover of our country and we better stop it. >> reporter: how li

especially the last minute fancy dance when the execution comes into view, take a look at justice gorsuch's opinion for the court. for reasons he should not have been executed and at the very last minute, which is typical, came up with another. as justice alito once said, and was a guerrilla war being conducted. those who are opposed to the death penalty know they are not going to get what they want by putting it to a popular vote since abolition has never been accomplished by popular vote of the people. the only way to avoid executions is by the guerrilla war. i think that is all wrong. i think we should debate it openly, like we are doing today, and decide on the american tradition that is approved by the supreme court and approved by the majority of the people. >> next question is regarding the international scope that the professor. the first question is what do you make of the fact that the country are mostly not democracies and what role do other international practices have american consideration of our policy regarding the death penalty? >> and african nations. and truth be known. a

they opposed barrett, gorsuch and kavanaugh saying they would be robots. they have voted on critical cases with the left more than the justices on the left have broken away with the right. >> martha: very true. >> this court is not so robotic as people suggest. >> martha: yeah. all of these people are chosen because of their background in the law, their ability to look at the constitution and to judge based on the case before them in many cases, they disappointed conservatives behind their nomination and some of the things that they have done. jonathan, thanks very much. great to have you with us today. i want to bring in a special report anchor bret baier. he has a new series on fox nation called "the unauthorized history of taxes" from the boston tea party forward. good to see you. i want to pick up something that jonathan just talked about. i listened to jerry nadler earlier. he was saying this is about choice. it's about a woman's right to choose. this is about climate change. just sort of nakedly laying out the fact that we have issues that we care ab

in a decision authored by conservative justice neil gorsuch, the court ruled the justice department had violated the law by not properly notifyg immigrants about their deportation proceedings. the food and drug administration is moving to ban the sale and manufacturing of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. the fda claims the move could potentially save 633,000 lives by 2050, with the benefits being most felt in the african-american community. for decades, tobacco companies have heavily marketed menthol cigarettes to communities of color. the aclu, however, is warning this could lead to greater policing in areas where underground menthol markets pop up. the aclu cited the case of eric garner, who was killed by police in new york after being stopped for selling untaxed cigarettes. in boone, north carolina, a gunman killed two sheriff's deputies as well as his mother and stepfather on thursday, leading to a 13-hour standoff that ended with the gunman killing himself. the deputies were killed while conducting a wellness check after co-workers of the gunman said he didn't show up to wor

that is how you get the nominations of people like neil gorsuch. he was known for his expertise in administrative law. brett kavanaugh certainly was more focused on ministrant of law than -- on administrative law than any other area of law. so the priorities of the conservative movement have changed. as far as the second part of your question, will, i guess harmonizing is maybe what you're asking, what i'm calling congregated originals and with traditionalist originals him. so, look, i will try to make this quick. there are three strands of broadly speaking originalist thoughts in the modern conservative legal movement. there is quote unquote conservative original is him -- originalism. kind of a positivist approach. that there is one right answer. you have to get it. that has been conservative originalism. there is more libertarian originalism. randy calls it the quote resumption of liberty. randy gets also as of libertarian conclusions aced on his assumptions that i find preposterous to be honest with you. then there is quote unquote progressive

currently, there are six conservatives; amy coney barrett, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch, samuel alitoclarence thomas and john roberts. there are three liberals, sonia sotomayor, elena kagan and stephen breyer. but nowhere in the constitution does it say how many it should or must have. the first judiciary act set the number at six, but it's good luck candidated from 5 to 10. the last time a president attempted to change it, 1937, when fdr introduced a judicial reform bill that became known as his court-packing plan, seeking to ad more justices -- add more justices. the senate rejected it overwhelmingly. in 1983 then-senator joe biden, a member of the judiciary committee, had this to say about fdr's court-packing plan. >> it was a bonehead idea. it was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. >> reporter: and during the campaign, he opposed it. >> i would not get into court packing. we add three justices, next time we lose control, they add three justices. >> reporter: two of the most liberal justices share that opposition. the late ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer, who has been on

justice sotomayor and gorsuch agreed the inability to listen to each other as americans is a national policy analyst at independent women's forum inez stepman. this notion that this has become a problem, that it is the ripping the fabric of our country apart. >> that's right. the divisions are on basis of policy which we always had. they come down to very fundamental concepts what it is to be an american. things we took for granted like free speech. particularly those justices are thinking about the fact that while free speech protections have been protected and expanded in the court system we have this cultural divide over free speech where 65% of americans are afraid to share their political opinion with friends and at work. this is the kind of divide that is happening in our country. and yes, it is pulling us apart because we no longer, we no longer have agreement about some of these fundamental principles that used to be sort of agreed on by both political sides like free speech. charles: yesterday the former polish minister said america had a heart attack. i thought it was an int

keep thomas, alito, gorsuch and kavanaugh, connie barrett but we are going to get rid of roberts and sotomayor and kagan and breyer. can you imagine what they would say? that's exactly what they're going to try to do starting tomorrow when they introduce the bill on top of all that you just said, it's frightening where they want to take the country. i keep saying this is why we've all got to speak out. we've all got to keep doing this. it's a dangerous, dangerous direction where they are going with immigration policy, the court policy. they want to control everything and it's scary. >> sean: republicans need to, especially mark meadows, in the senate, they need to hold the line. kamala harris. they need a quorum. the democrats. if they want to end like the legislative filibuster, any of the things they want to do, they need a quorum. it's not a tiebreak vote that kamala harris can cast. all 50 republicans, that would include mitt romney and ben sasse and lisa murkowski, that means they would have to go along with mitch mcconnell and make sure that they don't give them the quorum when

. >> sandra: i had the honor of sitting down with justice gorsuch for a one-on-one interview.nk that could be the last photo of nine of them. the next one might be 13. >> sandra: point taken. critics say meanwhile some major league baseball teams are covering all the wrong basis. that is because of surveys like this one. teams asking fans about political affiliations. say that again? >> yeah, sandra, in keeping with the baseball plans, there are plenty of people who are saying this is yet another swing in a bye major league baseball. the leaks as this question is not really about politics. it is about covid. it is a voluntary questionnaire sent to fans after they attend again and ask about their experience and how they view the safety rules put in place because of the pandemic. and then it asks if the person is a republican, democrat, third party or independent. they can also choose to not say. the leak says and asked the same question during the world series last year, telling us today "the research has shown that a person self identified political affiliation often impact th

justice neil gorsuch offering a 6-3 decision that the federal government had to provide comprehensive residents who want the attend public events like concerts. >> bill: stay taoupd on that. 23-year-old man has fined $12 million for his role in setting a minneapolis police station on fire during the george floyd protest last may. >> dana: more on these and other stories download the fox news app. scan the qr code on your screen. president biden sticking with wearing a mask outside despite new cdc guidelines. is this akin where president trump not wear masks and what does it say about the administration's faith in vaccine? dr. giroir. yesterday there was an event in georgia that president biden went to. i said on the night of the speech if you are indoors and you are with other vaccinated people as i understand it the guidelines say you don't have to wear a max. yesterday down in georgia, i think we can take a look at this. can't find his mask after his speech but he is outside, does he really need it? they had the big car rally yesterday, too. instead of being -- have people being out

and justice gorsuch is an originalist as well. and they think that the constitution should be interpreted in light of its text and original meaning regardless of whether that's good for the court's legitimacy or will lead citizens to perceive things in a partisan way and they will overturn decisions they think are inconsistent with origin understanding even if the heavens fall, as the expression goes. and then justice suitor, the former justice suitor, was a traditionalist that thought precedent was extremely important. on the liberal side we have incrementalists like justice ginsburg who criticized roe v. wade for moving too broadly and deciding a hotly contested question in the most sweeping terms rather than merely deciding the case at hand and allowing the political process to take its place with pragmatist like justices kagan and breyer. they believe that the function of the court is to function as a court and reach practical solutions that both sides can converge around in a madison sense. and then justice sotomayor who is a

the current makeup of the court, justices barrett, brett cavanagh, neil gorsuch, chief justice roberts a terrible terrible mistake to make. >> there has never been a court appointment once the election is done. >> it didn't sit well with the most liberal members of the court, liberal icon ruth bader ginsburg and stephen right. >> think long and hard before putting those changes into law. >> a bad idea when president roosevelt tried to pack the court. >> reporter: this is causing a twitter feud between one of the democrats sponsoring this legislation and conservative republican jim jordan tweeting at jones saying does this count as infrastructure? jones saying you bet it does. is this going to happen? the senate is split 50/50, it will take 60 votes but special-interest groups are not sitting idle. in the last few minutes the conservative judicial crisis network intends and add by of $1 billion to fight the court packing. pete: i would think democrats have a problem with it. democrats, house and senate will be there. is there a swearing-in ceremony for the squad members? not sure but ci