chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: mr. stewart, is there anything that the petitioner argued that you disagree with this morning? if, to the extent there is, any daylight between your test and theirs? mr. stewart: i don't see any day light. the only thing i would emphasize that i don't think is inconsistent with the petitioner's presentation is that, in the context of on-campus speech, the courts have applied a concept of quasi-fighting words, where taking into account the relative immaturity of the school audience and the fact that student are a captive audience, the courts have allowed school authorities to crack down on a narrow range of speech that couldn't be punished outside the school but is particularly likely to cause a disturbance in the school environment. but with that small caveat, i would agree with petitioner's argument that, in general, disagreement, even strong disagreement by the rest of the students, with even on-campus speech, is not a basis for regulation. justice gorsuch: and then, if you could just a

justice gorsuch: okay. and what do we do with your de facto exemption argument, given the fact that we have a finding finding by the district court that there are none? ms. windham: the district court's error there is an error of law. the district court said that it was a generally applicable law as long as it didn't prescribe particular conduct only or primarily when religiously motivated. you can see that at petition appendix 87. and so the district court there had the wrong idea about what counts as an exception, what counts to make something not generally applicable, and it made an error of law there. justice gorsuch: if we thought that were a finding of fact and -- and we were stuck with it, then what would you argue? ms. windham: i would argue in that case, if the court did think it was a finding of fact, that under the court's decisions in hurley and bose, in a first amendment case, the court is going to make an independent review of the record. and that's particularly pertinent here, where we're tal

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: mr.axman, 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. 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. so 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 joint ventu

and here, gorsuch was with justice alito, as the only two dissenters. i'm flabbergasted to see clarence thomas on this side of the case. it is worth remembering. and i think people like me who think about the supreme court a lot, need to be reminded that these people are not robots. they do things that are surprising. i don't believe he wrote a separate opinion. we don't know why he voted the way he did. the fact that justice breyer's opinion, is very surprising to me. it's also surprising to me, that amy coney barrett is on that side. we know less about her philosophy on the supreme court. she's very new. the thomas vote, it beats the hell out of me why he was on that side. that's why we cover the news. stuff is unpredictable. when you see who is in the majority here, two off donald trump's appointees supported. gorsuch did not. the statement that comes from donald trump will be coming. let's switch gears to the other decision, and the case of a catholic foster care agency, and philadelphia. the court rules with the catholic care agency, that was refus

in 2014, neil gorsuch was the swing vote. in 2019, brett kavanaugh surprised many when he sided with the court's liberals, ruling that iphone users could produce anti-trust lawsuits against apple over its app store. kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. and last year, it was gorsuch again who joined liberal justices in a rule that protected members of the lgbt community from workplace discrimination. so joe, we know that confirmation exercises are hyperpartisan circuses in many cases, but in this case the central criticism of amy coney barrett was that she was on a mission, to use the term, to destroy the affordable care act. yesterday, she voted to uphold it. you know, there are a lot of things that are disturbing in american politics. the clown shows that these nomination battles have turned into through the years. and on both sides, we can talk about what happened with justice kavanaugh and what happened on the other side. we can go all the way back to robert bork. there's screeching and yelling and screaming on both sides

the dissent again coming from alito and gorsuch. this is what they write -- no one can fail to be impressed to which the lengths is willing to defend the aca. the united states has 18 states that bear costly burdens under the aca cannot get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest government programs in our nation's history. fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again, i must dissent. and justice alito writes, in all three episodes, meaning all three challenges of the aca, the affordable care act, facing a serious threat, the court has pulled off an improbable rescue. what do you make of that? >> i agree on improbablen how t argument went in the first challenge, i thought the law was doomed. but you know, this just shows the enormous frustration of both these two conservatives on the supreme court and conservatives generally in the country, that they cannot kill this thing. they've been trying to kill obam obamacare, through the exec

but why not -- why are you less concerned about neil gorsuch then? >> um, well, i really don't know much about him actually. [ laughter ] >> that's nicholas in phoenix, arizona. tony, santa fe, new mexico, you're next. good morning. >> good morning. are you there? >> yes, sir. >> okay. yeah. too conservative. way too far right. too unconstitutional. i believe that there are some treason and traitoring going on up there under citizens united. they usurped the constitution. these anti-constitutionalists, they basically legalized corporate suicide. but yet for the individual all their anti-abortionists. and then we got amy coney barrett who would take history back 400 years. how about another 600 years or back to martin luther for freedom of religion. and their institutional racist doctrine of discovery. that's where our root of institutional racism comes from. >> that's tony in new mexico. a few more comments from social media and our text messaging service. this is john in michigan saying that the court should look and act like the country. we are now

it's more on the conservative side than the liberal side but i see this as a -- i see gorsuch and three centrists and conservatives in eichler roberts robert that class and to liberals. breyer is considerably more conservative on things -- is somewhere in between. i see that. the area attracting the most attention one of those are recent case asking whether not you need -- in order to spread the word and it's a complicated debate that goes back to 1945. management does not allow exercising to meet the form you need on company property so long as it does not just dropped work. justice alito is very antiunion and recently the case came up as to whether not the union has the run of the place in order to try to organize narrow ground and the broad ground to decide cases like this. necessity cases are exception. labor laws as we know it has come to an end and there are people are left to believe that's going to happen. my view is management in this particular case on the simple grounds that the units violated the norms by coming into early blaring horns and all the rest of that stuff. i don'

justices alito and gorsuch who brork with the two. and justice breyer is the one who wrote that decision. what if anything, melissa, can you read into that makeup of where the justices fell in this case in. >> i think one of the things that's important to note here is the chief justice was with the majority here. when he's with the majority, he has the prerogative to sign this opinion. he did not keep this important opinion for himself. he gavet to justice breyer. that might mean a lot of things. it might mean nothing. that does mean he was comfortable with breyer to take up this particular opinion, and maybe that's a signaling how this court is coming together on some of these issues. it's worth noting, the question of standing, it's a jurisdictional standing. it's not a decision on the merits. but standing can be a way the court punts. in the earlier same-sex marriage case t court refused to hear the merits of the case, booting it out on standing ground. it's done that in the past. there have been cases where the court has avoided t

there was justice alito and gorsuch who dissented. basically they said there's nothing this court won't do to protect the affordable care act. they were sort of disparaging in saying that i felt the bias was towards the affordable care act. >> i think the court had a strong basis to do exactly what it did, and had it actually reached the merits, we would have won that, too. there was really no merit to this case. it never should have seen the light of day. even the most conservative justices on this court could see there was no merit here and threw it out, and with instructions for the lower courts to dismiss the case. so it's a strong ruling, a strong majority. that's a great day for americans, to know their health care now is protected. they know, also, if there's another legal challenge, we will be right in there to fight for health care, to protect their health care. again, tens of millions of player cans would have lost their health coverage. that's staggering. over 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions would have ha

and it was interesting because in the majority an if gorsuch made a point of pointing out some of ther you're talking about the head of the ncaa approaching 4 million, some of the conference commissioner, close to 5 million and some football coaches nearly $11 million. and justice alito said in the oral arguments in this case, the argument that they, college athletes, are recruited and used up and cast aside some without a college degree how you could defend this in the name of amateurism. i know you have talked about what the path forward is. what would it have meant to you and your brother for example to have gotten some of the compensation while you were playing? >> it would have made an extremely big difference and i think all athletes lives, as we know, like you said, 98% of division one football and basketball players are not making it to the next level. so the prime earning years are while their in college and can we speak in the majority of those are minorities who couldn't come from wealthy families as we all know. this is the one shot in reaping rewards from the college care

. >> i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you, kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind andhe price. you won't know what hit you as you go forward with these awful decisions. this is wealth. ♪ ♪ this is worth. that takes wealth. but this is worth. and that - that's actually worth more than you think. don't open that. wealth is important, and we can help you build it. but it's what you do with it, that makes life worth living. principal. for all it's worth. your heart is at the heart of everything you do. and if you have heart failure, there's a medicine specifically made for heart failure entresto. it's a heart failure medicine prescribed by most cardiologists. entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. and with a healthier heart, there's no telling where life may take you. don't take entresto if pregnant, it can cause harm, a death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace in

interesting here, the dissenters, alito and gorsuch, they didn't agree and they noted this is the thirdime that this law had been in front of the supreme court, and they said once again the court has come to the improbable rescue of the law but today a big victory for supporters of the affordable care act. >> a victory for a lot of americans who rely on the affordable care act for their health care and for, you know, protecting the preexisting conditions or if they're, you know, in their early 20s and need to be on health insurance of their parents and so forth. let's pivot to the other court ruling today, that was key, this time, though, the court ruled in favor of a catholic foster care agency that had refused to work with same sex couples. this was obviously a very contentious issue but a unanimous decision here, explain that. >> right. all of the justices here agreed that philadelphia violated the first amendment when it froze the contract of this catholic foster care agency because the agency wouldn't consider same sex couples as potential foster care parents. to walk you back to s

you did have a dissent there from alito and gorsuch saying you guys have -- you've gotten a very generous and selective view of standing at times which is also true and making the case they potentially did have standing. to me, what was most interesting was the lineup behind the chief justice. you had amy coney barrett and it wasn't so long ago, paul, we were being told by democrats that if she was confirmed to the court, obamacare would be gone. so this gets to your point about diversity of views among the justices. paul: yeah, the whole democratic crusade, bill, against amy coney barrett looks foolish now. she was supposedly hand-picked to eviscerate obamacare and instead she voted here with the majority to -- not to overturn it. but what do you make about these differences on the supreme court, on the right? i'll give you my view. i think samuel alito and clarence thomas are -- they've been on the court a long time. i think they want to make hay while the sun shines, they want to move fast on some of these things, whereas roberts is more of an institutionalist. you see this distinction

and those three were conservative, samuel alito, neal gorsuch and clarence thomas. the chief tried to write an opinion, certainly a loss for the city of philadelphia and a loss for same sex couples who wanted to be part of this. the one thing i should note, john, is that the chief did note that other social services agencies in philadelphia do screen same-sex couples for foster care so they're not being outright excluded from everything, and that was at least how he justified allowing catholic social services to go that far. >> we just talked about the supreme court in the context of the affordable care act ruling and what does it tell us about this new trump centric, conservative centric court. >> yeah, chief justice john roberts is very carefully trying to divide and conquer the trump justices because neil gorsuch went the other way here. he wanted to give much more of a religious accommodation, go stronger in terms of supreme court precedent for down the road in terms of favoring religious believers but justices amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh stuck with ch

the ruling was 7-2 with only conservative justices ruben and gorsuch in the majority. but it was done on procedural grounds. that means the states that tried to sue don't have the right to bring the case, but there was no ruling on the actual merits of the case. republicans attorney general argued that without the original mandate, which was already struck down, the entire law should go. beyond the legalese, the real life impact here is that tens of millions of americans will get to keep their health care coverage and those protections for previous conditions. democrats are hoping the third time is the charm. >> today the supreme court decision is a landmark victory for democrats to defend protections for people with preexisting conditions. we will never forget how republican leaders embraced this monstrous way to rip away america's health care in the middle of a deadly pandemic. >> the aca is here to stay. and now we're going to try to make it bigger and better. >> so for republican attorneys general who sued, it's a loss. but for many republicans in congress, it's al

once he was elected, mcconnell blew up the filibuster rule to confirm federalist judge neal gorsuch,alling that the crowning jewel of his time as majority leader. >> i do think the issue that you raise is the single-most consequential thing that i've done in my time as majority leader of the senate, i preserved the scalia vacationancy for the gorsuch appointment. >> suffering the same fate as merrick garland. confirmed to the d.c. circuit court of appeals just moments ago. despite this outright taunting, west virginia senator joe manchin insists on having a little bit of faith in senate republicans. arizona senator kyrsten sinema believes the way to fix a broken senate is not to change the rule or change the behavior. good luck with that, kyrsten. then there's dianne feinstein who told forbes, if democracy were in jeopardy, i would want to protect it. i don't see it being in jeopardy right now. that said it's not democrats who are gleefully blocking the will of the american people. it's the republican party led by senate mantle leader mitch mcconnell. for that reason he, despite ever

justice gorsuch said they could impose a no lamborghini rule the idea being that players could.at they could drive themselves to campus that somehow that would be educational. so the n c a. a. i can certainly have some role in making limited, sensible regulations, but the days of no compensation are really over. yeah, certainly seems like the tide is turning in a certain direction here on this particular issue, we have to leave it there. appreciate your insight, as always. david levine from u. c. hastings college of law in san francisco. thanks for coming on anytime. thanks, alex to you. mhm well, the battle over new development in san jose is set to come to a head tomorrow. the city council is expected to vote on rezoning plans that would impact the more than 60 year old barry s a flea market leaders are set to consider a project in that area that his own to include roughly 365,000 square feet of commercial space and 2800 residential units and will also require rezoning a 61.5 a proportion of the site. we're up to 3.4 million square feet of commercial space and up to 3450 homes

you had leonard leah, the mastermind of the court cap operation that pushed gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrettthe big expose scheme he jumped out and jumped to the elections project which is dark money funded voter suppression. which, by the way, if you do the corporate links, it's related to the judicial education project, which is related to the judicial crisis network, which paid for the ads for gorsuch, for kavanaugh and for barrett. so it's the same central command scheme operating against climate legislation, operating for dark money, and operating to pull off this voter suppression stunt. frankly, democrats have had crap for countermeasures against it for a very long time. and it's really hard to fight a group like that if you don't take them seriously and take it on. >> well, that was going to be my question is what can we do about it. right, they also have these organizations like alec, the american legislative exchange council that are also heavily involved in pushing cookie cutter legislation. there is that heritage action organization that they have a plan with alec to write voter

gorsuch, kavanaugh, coney barrett. everything he told us he would do, he did it. get out of the iran deal. said he would bring hostages home from north korea, he did. on and on it goes. what a contrast. that's why you're all here. because you want him to run again in 2024. so do i. no one has proven that he can stand up to the swamp and do what he said like president trump did. unbelievable. that's why we all want him to run in 2024 and be president again on january 20, 2025. so thank you. thank you for fighting the good fight. thank you for being involved. it is so important today that people who love this country, the constitution, the values, the principles, the institutions that make us the greatest nation ever, it is so important you stay involved. i mean, the left has lost their minds. they are crazy. the policies they are pushing. there was one week a couple of mopts ago. in one week's time, the week started off with congresswoman tlaib saying we should get rid of police. not just defund. get rid of police. crazy. and admonishing maxine waters for the ridic

justice gorsuch suggested that a no lamborghini rule would be okay. with respect educational benefits, students will be able to get more, but it is quite right that they have not yet reached the question of whether or not student athletes must be compensated, but that's coming down the line. i mean, there's no question from this opinion that we're going to see change on that side, whether it's from litigation or the threat of litigation. we're going to see that change within a couple of years, and david does this sort of opened the door. do you expect more challenges to the cia's rules in the coming years as a result of this case, i think so, julie, unless the it gets ahead of this parade and goes ahead and makes its own changes. they would be in a far stronger position now if they would go ahead and issue regulations. uh that would say that under x y z conditions, student athletes can be compensated. some of it might be for their name for their image for the likeness for posters for other kind of souvenirs. but but the question of whether student ath

the vote this time 7-2 with justices alito and neil gorsuch dissenting thomas was in the majority and so was amy coney barrett who democrats considered a grave threat to the law. obamacare originally required nearly all-americans to get health insurance, the individual mandate or pay an income tax penalty. in 2012 the supreme court upheld the law as a legitimate use of congress's taxing power. then a republican-led congress set the tax penalty at zero. so 18 red states sued saying what's left is an unconstitutional ruling. the ruling didn't weigh in on the larger question instead saying the challengers have no legal standing to sue because the law no longer requires people to do anything so they're not harmed by it in rejecting this one the court suggested similar lawsuits would also fail. >> the supreme court has slammed the door finally shut on all of the major legal challenges to obamacare. now it's just going to be nitpicking about the details of thousands of little provisions. >> reporter: president biden called the ruling, quote, a major victory for all-americans benefitting fro

. >> thank you justice gorsuch. let me be very clear. given that this is the rare product that is defined by the restriction on competition, compensation, we are not sayinget it is not appropriate for a court to examine where the product is procompetitive, but if it is there is an agreement the inquiry in step number two is a product differentiating everyone agrees the answer is yes. wants that is a given with no plausible argument the challenge rules are not reasonably related with the amateur student athletes we think every v.a. review is all that is necessary. and with the third circuit in smith and the seventh circuit and we think that was blessed and quoting that relevant language from the board of regents. >> i'm not sure i heard a direct response to my questions. >> i apologize. >> that just drill down further. what i'm trying to ask you is whether the fact the ncaa has control over the labor market does that make a difference of what would otherwise be that reasoned analysis. >> ic. it makes all the difference in the world for st

kavanaugh and the newest justice, coney barrett, o'neale gorsuch was one of the two dissenting. the other case, philadelphia versus catholic social services. they worked with the city to certify potential parents. catholic social services wouldn't certify gay couples. they also wouldn't certify unmarried heterosexual couples. gay single parents were perfectly fine with the church. the city complained, the refusal to certify gay couples was wrong. the courts unanimously ruled for the catholic social services saying it was their first amendment right and freedom of religion. i'm skipping over some complicated details. this time minutiae in the way they wrote city laws, 110 pages long. the headline is freedom of religion. >> so you're saying not to read too much into the specific case as far as what might affect others in the situation. >> exactly. this is not a land mark case where we say from this day forward, this is true. it is not like roe versus wade. >> a lot to get through. thank you. >>> the bill making juneteenth a holiday is on the president's desk. this is new video, ho

the vote this time 7-2 with justices samuel alito and neil gorsuch dissenting. clarence thomas, who voted against obamacare twice before, was in the majority this time. so was amy coney barrett, who democrats considered a grave threat to the law during her confirmation. obamacare originally required nearly all americans to get health insurance. the individual mandate. or pay an income tax penalty. in 2012 the supreme court upheld the law as a legitimate use of congress's taxing power. then a republican-led congress set the tax penalty at zero, so 18 red states led by texas sued saying what's left is just an unconstitutional mandate. but today's ruling by justice steven breyer didn't weigh in on the larger question, instead saying the challengers have no legal standing to sue because the law no longer requires people to do anything, so they're not harmed by it. and in rejecting this one the court suggested similar lawsuits would also fail. >> the supreme court has slammed the door finally shut on all of the major legal challenges to obamacare. now it's just going

nearly 300 conservatives confirmed to our federal courts at every level including justice gorsuch, justiceanaugh, and justice amy coney barrett. every day, we defended the god-given liberties enshrined in our constitution and our bill of rights for every american. of every belief. we stood without apology every single day. for the sanctity of hume in life . -- human life. [applause] with your support here in new hampshire, the support of people all across this country, and your prayers, we made history. we made a difference. we made america greater than ever before. how times have changed. the governor said he didn't come here to bash the current administration. i did. [laughter] [applause] buckle up. [laughter] 144 days and the joe biden administration has launched an avalanche. all of it designed to derail the progress we made. president biden takes to the podium and the congress of the united states and announces an explosion of runaway spending. another $6 trillion. after our administration worked in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic in a bipartisan way every bill the past the cong

host: so you're concerned about those -- why are you less concerned about neil gorsuch?aller: i do not know much about him. host: that is nicholas in phoenix, arizona. tony and santa fe, you are next. -- in santa fe, you are next. caller: too conservative, way too far right. too unconstitutional. i believe there is some treason going on under citizens united. they usurped the constitution. they basically legalized corporate suicide but for the individual they are antiabortion. then we have amy coney barrett, who would take history back 400 years. how about another 600 years dr. martin luther -- back to martin luther for freedom of religion? and their institutional racist doctrine of discovery. that is where our route of institutional racism comes from. host: a few more comments from social media and our text messaging service. this is john in michigan, saying the court should look and act like the country. we are not conservative anymore is what john says. forcing citizens to fight against right-wing beliefs and conspiracy theories wastes time. it really varies from case

brett cavanagh, amy cody barron and neil gorsuch voted to overturn the conviction of a police officer paid to run a license plate search, the search was in violation of the department policy and computer fraud and abuse act and he did not access information he wasn't entitled to. he misuses access to information. >> california set to pay $1.6 million to a church that fought back against governor gavin newsom's coronavirus restrictions, ending a run of dispute over indoor worship during the pandemic. senior pastor at united pentecostal church and attorney paul jonah join me to discuss. thanks for being here. congratulations on the win in the settlement but why do you feel churches were deemed not essential in the first place? can you hear me? >> can you hear me? todd: i can. >> okay. that is a very good question and we worked with the governor's office before he started reopening in california and we thought we would be on the list of essential businesses but we weren't. when he reopened california he put -- between ballgames -- churches are essential. we would argue the most essential

the boat was 7-2 with samuel alito and neil gorsuch dissenting. dr.ny fauci announced united states is devoting more than $3 billion to advance the limit of antiviral pills for covid-19. the pills are in development and could begin arriving by years and. the clinical trials are completed. the medications would be used to minimize symptoms after infection. applications for u.s. state on a plummet benefits rose slightly last week for the first time last. initial jobless claims increased by 37,000 to 412,00. president biden plan to sign legislation this afternoon that will make june 19 a federal holiday, celebrating the end of slavery.juneteenth will be the 12 federal holiday in the united states, which marks the day in 1865 when union soldiers brought the board of freedom to enslaved people in galveston, texas. global news 24 hours a day, on-air, and on bloomberg quicktake, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries. i'm mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. amanda: welcome to bloomberg markets. i'm amanda lang. matt: i'm matt

that's again justice neil gorsuch. so pretty phenomenal outcome here in this case., you have unanimous decision here, you know, don't see that every day. >> yeah. scre creeping along, that idea of potentially compensation the criticism from the ncaa has been so many of these athletes don't get an education, are there to work full time and most of them don't end up having professional careers as well. >>> all right. as we head to break, let's get another check on the crypto names getting crushed today. several of them lever to what, you know, we have seen with regard to chinese crackdown on miners over there. bitcoin down almost 7% ether down 9.5%. ghbat"ilbe the stree wl rit ck don't go away. ♪ ♪ ♪ digital transformation has failed to take off. because it hasn't removed the endless mundane work we all hate. ♪ ♪ ♪ automation can solve that by taking on repetitive tasks for us. unleash your potential. uipath. reboot work. keeping your oysters business growing has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get

justice neil gorsuch writing that the order will allow student athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools. the decision did not involve direct payments to athletes -- yet -- but starts to send us down that road coming up, the day for deals, or is it? amazon's prime day kicks off today. we will have the details next. this is bloomberg. ♪ matt: this is bloomberg markets. i'm matt miller. amazon's annual prime day kicks off today, but according to merchants, customers might not be seeing the deals they may have hoped for. this is due to rising shipping costs, higher advertising rates, scarce inventory. supply chains disruptions hit us, as well as the suez canal shut down and a spike in covid-19 cases that hit two of china's busiest ports. running me for a closer look at the now, today event, is daniel flax, neuberger berman analyst. i continued to say annual and two-day event, but isn't this the type of thing we are going to see twice a year? is it going to be a four-day event? jonathan: it could well be a four high -- four-day event, but

they referred to a decision that came down last term that was written by neil gorsuch saying that titlel employment law. this case is interesting because the supreme court deciding not to take this case but two the conservative cases thomas and alito, they would have taken this case. they would have wanted to hear this but the justices saying they will not here it and it will remain in place. a victory for this transgender student in virginia. poppy. >> two important decisions this term on the cheerleader case, and just on the things brought by minors. it is just interesting to watch. >> victories for them. >> thank you very much. we'll take you back to surfside, florida, right after this. because the tempur-breeze° transfers heat away from your body... ...so you feel cool, night after night. during the tempur-pedic summer of sleep, save $500 on all tempur-breeze mattresses. listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ for people who could use a lift new neutrogena® rapid firming. a triple-l

early years can we very, very hard to turn and get a sense where they are going to be i think justice gorsucha great example, i think we have to see, number of cases, to determine when justice barrett can sort of end up on the court. eric: you have a sense where have that could be especially dealing with roe v. wade, and others. controversial issues. >> certainly one that people are most closely looking for us how she will decide abortions cases going to find out coming term court stepped a case going to look at early restrictions how court decides this could be monumental look at court of appeal, judge at that level certainly suggestion that she would be, willing to at least run back, some of the protections of the thero roe folks where i having for her nomination believe she will start to roll back protections. >> david souter surprised a lot of people before he retired, we will see, and start rolling out, alex in nashville always good to see you. thank you. >> thank you. arthel: early voting drawing to a close as primary new york city mayor's race two days away, candidates i'ming to prove

then you had two of the conservative justices, gorsuch and alito, they dissented. they said once again the court has pulled off an improbable rescue of the law, and this is a win for the supporters of the affordable care act today. >> one analyst said this third decision based on standing makes it hard for a fourth challenge on the constitutional argument. do you agree with that? >> i think three strikes and the challenges are out here and we're done. it's very interesting, because they did it on the basis of a conservative doctrine saying do you have a right to be in court. congress just, as she said, after they held the last time and roberts said this is a tax, they said, fine, we'll make it zero now, no tax, and then what breyer said for the court was well it's zero so there's nothing we can do to help you, if you don't do the mandate there's no action a court can take and if there's no action a court could take, you are not allowed to be here, and so they're done. as a practical matter there's nothing really left to try and find, and this is a historic day, not

guy: alito and gorsuch dissenti ng.t is obvious to those outside the united states, such a political view of what is happening here. republican-controlled states and president trump's administration bringing this. it may be feels like it is in the rearview mirror, but it is certainly not. alix: you had quick spikes from all the main health care insurers, for example, anthem. david westin joins us on the phone, anchor of "balance of power." was your take on this? -- what is your take on this? david: it tells us about civil procedure. this is a technical ruling saying the plaintiffs did not have standing, as it's called, under the u.s. constitution. you have to have a specific harm that you suffered in order to bring the case. they said they didn't have a harm because if you recall, the whole issue is having to pay the individual mandate, and they said you don't have to pay. the government said this would be an advisory opinion. we don't issue advisory opinions. so i think this just saves it for another day. guy: in terms

court justices that are sitting on the court right now attended, including brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch, sonia shorter mayor, samuel alito. and the kind of pathway to power those go through law school. but it also go through very powerful professors to correct men students for all kind of opportunities. chief among them the clerk ships. if you get one of these clerk ships on the supreme court puts you on a big path in corporate law can involve a 400,000 dollar bonus. just to sign a deal with a law firm. six of the nine current supreme court justices clerk to on the supreme court themselves. so it might even lead you to the supreme court. this unusually small, only 200 students a year attend law school. is a pipeline to a lot of the powers that be right now. so, for two individuals who are happen to be married to each other. happen to be pretty colorful characters. to now stand accused of abusing that power by a whole new generation of students. this pointed me towards a new conflict that there were people who were coming forward and going through official processes, that were often real

it is a 7-2 decision with gorsuch in the dissent and the merits would have asked them to decide if thedate to obtain medical insurance if it's constitutional. the court stopped before it got to that substantive ruling and said the plaintiffs don't have a right to sue, they don't have standing and haven't brought a claim with a law that damages them and because they're not suffering any harm here we don't let the suit proceed so it is pretty much a slam on the case that was brought here but it does stop short of a fulmer its ruling so perhaps republicans or people against it will try to find a new way to attack the bill. >> all right.. phil, i want to play for you missouri republican senator roy blunt, the justification he has come up with on not joining the manchin compromise on voting right just we'll discuss on the other side. >> i think when stacey abrams immediately endorsed senator manchin's proposal it became the abrams substitute, not the joe manchin substitute. >> so phil, forgive me. this is like a real reason but flimsy. is the standard anything that a democrat went near is t

brett kavanaugh to vote with republicans, he also supported trump's first supreme court nominee neil gorsuch, he opposed the rest confirmation of amy coney barrett -- the rushed confirmation of amy coney barrett. he stood with president trump in a gop effort to push through the republican tax bill. those are some of his most high-profile votes. caller: with that issue, the supreme court, those people are there for life. they make their decisions. this is about the people of the country, this is a voting issue. if you cannot vote, it is crazy. i tell you something. this country cannot keep going like this. host: this is the straw that breaks the camels back for you with him? or no? caller: if he votes against this, yes. this is the straw that breaks the camels back. i love him, but i will go against him. that is how i feel. they come from a big family and this is set. -- this is sad. where you get this? this is not a democrat, independent, republican issue, this is about democracy. caller: that is frank -- host: that is frank in clarksburg, west virginia, talking about joe manchin, former gov

about a story in which william parker is housing for fugitive slaves and the slave holder edward gorsuch comes to his house to retrieve these slaves because parker has a reputation. and when his wife sees what's happening, the interaction between her husband william parker and this slave holder and it's getting tense and words are being exchanged, over my dead body type stuff, people are brandishing weapons, she says to her husband, should i sound the alarm? i think i will sound the alarm. she goes up to the attic and starts to blow this really loud horn to alert the black protection society that we are in trouble and you need to come. 80 people show up and surround william parker's house with guns, rifles, pitchforks, farm equipment. and the whole time she's blowing the horn, u.s. marshals are shooting into the addict to try to get her to stop blowing, to kill her basically. and she hides behind this walls, she's protected, but i mean that act in and of itself, all the resistance, it could have gone horribly had she not thought to sound the alarm and not risked her life to sound the ala

so, you might have a particular topic and the perspective of neil gorsuch and the perspective of soda soda -- sonya sotomayor. you're getting both sides. height specific -- specifics has a lot of good -- specifics -- liberty fund has podcasts and book reviews. there are good resources. again, the good thing is almost all of these have teacher manuals too. if that helps you as a parent. you want the best resources possible for your kid. joseph: right. stacy, we have about one a minute -- one minute left. stacy: i recommend the book "growing in prayer." if you want to have a better prayer life because being a parent, if you want to do it right, you need to be a person of prayer. how is can you do it on your own? it is such a difficult proposition being a parent in america today. clarence thomas -- "clarence thomas in the last -- and the last constitution" teaches you about how the supreme court has been wrong a lot. it is just a bunch of people making decisions. we should not revere them. we told him to account. then "america's providential history" is great for kids and adults. it is i