so trump nominated gorsuch and then brett kavanaugh. and while they promised to respect the esteem of roe v. wade, something way too many politicians were assured by and we'll have more on that later, everyone should have seen them and amy barrett comey coming. she referred to abortion as always immoral and said in 2013 life begins at conception. here we are with the rights of women in texas snatched away overnight and the looming threat of roe v. wade being overturned next year by the very same justices. what is even scarier than that is the blueprint the court gave to any other state that wants to do the exact same thing. the majority opinion written by five justices says that the abortion providers didn't have the correct argument. quote, their application presents complex and novel proceeding questions on which they have not carried their burden. so if you write a law that follows certain technicalities you can overreturn roe. on cue florida said, hold my beer, announcing that they will consider a bill like the one in texas and they

he was the only -- the reason every law student knows john marshall harlan -- justice gorsuch, before he was before the senate judiciary committee was asked who's your favorite supreme court justice? john marshall harlan. interestingly enough, marshall's father named him john marshall after the most significant chief justice in american history in the hopes that his young son might end up on supreme court, and by golly, he did. and so the whole dissent in plessy v. ferguson was this: segregation on rail cars was constitutionally impermissible under the newly-passed amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. sole dissent. it reads like the majority unanimousci decision in brown v. board of education 58 years later. that's why john marshall harlan's photograph is on my wall, and i was thrilled a few months ago to see that this new book had come out about his life and times, and it's a marvelous read, extremely well written. i highly recommend it to your viewers. >> host: when do you find time to read? do you have to actually schedule it? >> guest: it takes me an u whio finish a boo

done, he cleared the way for gorsuch who clear the seat that should've been garlands. then the nomination of brett kavanaugh, and then to top it off -- of amy coney barrett. you may remember the infamous covid superspreader event at the white house marking her nomination just days after ruth bader ginsburg's death, before she was even buried. now, there are a lot of motivations for this, obsession the, key one the one that really mobilizes, much of what was organized was to get rid of abortion, and when you just confront them, when you say the obvious thing, i know what you believe in, they just fly. abortion rights, no, nothing to see here. >> i think the likelihood of roe v. wade being overturned is very in minimal, i don't see that happening. >> this is not a referendum on roe v. wade. >> i do not believe that brett kavanaugh will overturn. >> i would never produce how judge amy coney barrett would rule on the supreme court of the united states. >> the point is that the president also is opposed to roe v. wade, that is on the ballot as well. >> you don't know it's o

he appointed gorsuch and amy coney barrett and kavanaugh. now, we'll see if that promise will come true the court probably in december will hear oral argument in dobbs vs. jackson women's health chas challenge to the constitutionality of a mississippi law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. so under planned parenthood vs. casey and roe vs. wade, a woman has the constitutional right to abortion up until the fetus becomes viable up until 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit struck down the law said it was unconstitutional under r o e and casey. the state dime the supreme court asking the supreme court to weigh in the supreme court -- told supreme court in its petition for review, you don't have to rule on reo and casey and whether or not they should be overruled. you just need to weigh in on the constitutionality of this law this supreme court agreed to take it up after relisting the case something like 15 times and will now hear argument in all likelihood in december. meanwhi

president trump appointed amy coney barrett to replace the late justice after previously appointing neil gorsuchaugh to the high court. on monday october 4, the juices will ben their next term-- in person for the first time since the covid-19 pandemic required them to hear cases remotely. for more on how the court has changed and what's ahead, i spoke with amy howe, co-founder of scotusblog, a website covering the u.s. supreme court. amy, thank you so much for joining us. please give us an idea of how much this court has changed since the passing of ruth bader ginsburg just a year ago. >> theost immediate impact that we've seen of the death of justice ginsburg and the replacement by justice barrett has been on what's known as the shadow docket that request the emergency requests for the court to step in and block an execution to put a lower court ruling on hold. recently, one of the most recent examples has been the request by abortion providers in texas to put the texas law barring almost all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy on hold. and so, in that case, you had the chief justice, john r

the republicans stole a seechlt gorsuch is sitting there from obama. they put amy coney barrett there during an election. voting had actually started. kavanaugh, an accused rapist, credibly accused rapist, they have packed the court, and we have to fix it. we have a radical supreme court beholding to very right wing ideologues, and the idea that they would let this law sit there and not stop it is outrageous. the majority said it was novel and complex. it's not novel or complex. le it's much like the ku klux klan. bounty hunters were allow god into states and steal slaves and bring them back to the south and after the civil war, our congress passed the ku klux klan act that gives you the right to violate the rights of others. that's exactly what is happening here. it's not complex. and the supreme court has ruled twice that that is acting under color of state law if the state law gives private rights of action that help you violate other citizens' rights. so it's really an outrageous decision and it's alive. it's kind of novel that they're using it for

what do you say dad gorsuch? what do you say?t's interesting about the mandate is part of the reason biden wants it is to help the economy, you know, he wants people to get vaccinated so they can go back and work. so you think the republicans would agree with this. they're the ones saying people have to go back to work, so we've got to gelt rid of the unemployment benefits! biden says, yeah! also, they have to get the vaccines. what? no, no, no! no, we only want to do it in a way that screws poor people! now, look, if these republican governors had their way, instead of the mandate the foft would just keep trying to educate and get people to take the vaccine on their own. what makes that difficult and what everyone has to acknowledge is there's one reason to get a vaccine, there's only one reason to get the vaccine and that's to not get covid and got to the hospital. but people who don't want the vaccine, they have, like, 5,000 reasons that they don't want to take it. you know? some people say there's not enough research on it ye

mitch mcconnell has played politics with the selection of justice gorsuch, refusing to even meet with choice of merrick garland. >> yeah. it's easy to say the kinds of things we heard justice thomas say when you're part of a 6-3 majority. then you're perfectly happy with how things are now. people may not know the number nine justices, that's not set in stone. that can be changed by congress. the question is are democrats going to have the political will to do that? democrats control the house, the senate, the white house right now. if they were willing to change the filibuster rules, they could do something about it. but thus far the political will is just not there from the president and others. >> elie, areva, thank you both. i'll see you soon. appreciate it. >>> trump's big lie alive and well with republicans in pennsylvania. state lawmakers trying to launch a review into the 2020 election, and they're subpoenaing voters' personal information to do it. that's next. >>> but first, all next week on cnn, our special champions for change series will spotlight everyday people who don't

justice breyer, neil gorsuch, justice gorsuch said it was an endless reservoir of knock-knock book jokes that i wish i knew two weeks ago because i did the interview then but nobody told me about the knock-knock jokes. look. it's a great interview but no knock-knock jokes. i'm just telling you upfront. >> you know, we don't get to hear from the justices very often, and we would like to learn a little bit more about them as time goes on, especially if you got no plans to leave. >> john: sandra, i got to tell you i'm jealous of chris because i was walking through our newly renovated newsroom and i came across this, a bottle of "fox news sunday" water with his picture on bottles of water. >> sandra: you've made it. >> that's from the 25th anniversary in april and that gives you an inclination how they recycle products here. >> john: i have down like i'm to add this to my famous water bottles collection. >> sandra: i have the fox news sunday mug in my office and i display it proudly. >> john: it we will make sure we get you some water with this fabulous picture. >> great to see you. >> sandr

and he paved wait for trump and gorsuch to take the seats. and then on the allegation of sexual misconduct, mcconnell ran through the last year election confirmation of amy coney barrett. you may remember the infamous superspreader at the white house marking her days to take over judith ginsburg before she was even buried. much of what this was around was abortion rights. when you just confronted the right wing about that, when you said the object i didn't say thing, they would just lie. huh, abortion rights, no, nothing to see here. >> i think the likelihood of roe v. wade being overturned is very minimal. i don't see that happening. >> this is not a referendum on roe v. wade. >> i do not believe brett kavanaugh will overturn roe v. wade. >> the president also is opposed to roe v. wade. that's on the ballot as well. >> you don't know what's on the ballot? that's not on the ballot. you don't know her view on roe v. wade. >> i don't know. >> donald trump a stupid man in many ways but with good political instincts, understanding he doesn't want

neil gorsuch didn't.l continue do his court-breaking political maneuvers, and until the democrats grow some kind of -- i don't want to say backbone because it sounds like i'm pulling things out of the air. there are concrete things democrats could do to depoliticize the court. one would be to expand the number of justices on the supreme court so each individual confirmation bat sri lanka not a life-or-death decision. if one goes down, that's a huge political ideal. if there were 19 justices, 29 justices as there are on the ninth circuit court, they could do it in a bipartisan position, you get five, i get five. they won't do that, so mitch mcconnell is going to keep winning the street brawl as long as we let him. >> this is certainly going to continue to be a battleground. elie mystal, thanks for being with us. >> thanks for having me on. >>> we're going to go to capitol hill. lawmakers waking up this morning and bracing for a week of hell. ♪ we are the next. the next generation of visionaries. rule break

mitch mcconnell played politics with the selection of gorsuch, refusing to even meet with president obama'sice of merrick garland. >> yeah, it's easy to say the kind of things we heard justice thomas say when you are part of a 6-3 majority. you a perfectly happy with thousand things are. the number nine justices is not stock exchange set in stone. that be changed by congress. the question is are democrats going to have the political will to do that. the senate, the white house, if they are willing to change the filibuster rules they could do something about it. thus far the political will is not there from the president and others. >> elie, areva, thank you both. see you soon. >>> trump's big lie alive and well with republicans in pennsylvania. state lawmakers trying to launch a review into the 2020 election and they are subpoenaing voters' personal information to do it. that's next. first, all next week on cnn our special champions for change series spotlighting everyday people who don't make headlines but still smash barriers and inspire others to do the same. here is a quick preview. >>

and with cavanagh or justice gorsuch to say do it if you want and then we are out. that is intellectually o appealing? it seems like a big step in a short period of time. but the supreme court in both instances have loosely upheld the fundamental right they did not want to clarify what that is. and then to say you have to run a half marathon before you rent have an abortion but just for the health of the mother but then to say you have to have a complex test to get a gun we know what that is for. now for thehe guns case rewriting the question presented of anyone follow the question they rewrote that to talk about licensing so new york state licensing system violates a second amendment. >> so i followed that case and the broader view is it is probably a morecc accurate reflection with a concealed carry license they only deal with concealed carry the loss bands open carry and one can imagines differences that the view from the practitioners is you can stick one or the other but not both. there may be good reasons not to terrify the public by carrying a gun openly on t

and justices gorsuch, cavanaugh and barrett were appointed by trump. they along with justice thomas seem ready to gut voting rights, lgbtq rights, abortion rights, and more. is there any way to stop this or are we stuck in this anti-democratic court for another generation? >> you know what, reverent sharpton, elections have consequences. nobody really liked to talk about judges over the last decades and how important they are. but every american is impacted by the decisions that the courts make, including the very important highest court, the supreme court. and the president has the start to do just what the presidents who appointed this bench have done. and they have been confirmed by the senate. so we are stuck with them. they are lifetime appointments. this is why, one of the many reasons why we have to encourage people to turn out and vote. you mentioned voting rights. it is absolutely under attack. we have got to get congress to pass laws that will protect, they will put back in place what was gutted when the case was decided by the supreme court

bush in his first term, and justices gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett were appointed by trump.y along with justice thomas seem ready to gut abortion rights, lgbtq rights, and more. is there any way to stop this, or are we stuck in this anti-democratic court until another election? >> elections have consequences. nobody has liked to talk about judges and how important they are. every american is impacted by the decisions that the court makes, including the highest court, the supreme court, and the president has the authority do what they've done. we're stuck with them in their lifetime appointments. this is one of the many reasons why we have to encourage people to turn out and vote. you mentioned votes righting. it is absolutely under attack. we've got to get congress to pass laws that will put back in place what was gutted when the case was decided by the supreme court that got rid of such a thing. we have to put it back and make sure states today pushing back, they're disenfranchiing people of color and young people. we need guardrails at the federal level to keep that from h

when you combine the three trump justices, gorsuch, kavanagh, and barrett with samuel alito and clarenceverturned, that looks like what's going to happen. the other big case that's coming is a challenge on gun control. you know, in 2008, the supreme court said there is a constitutional right to own a handgun in your home. but they haven't really expanded that right. they haven't really said what about a gun outside the home, what about a concealed weapon, what about a bigger than a handgun? that's what's before the court, and it really looks like they may be limiting gun safety laws in a very big way. i think those are the two cases and they're both very big kis cases that most people will be paying attention to. >> thanks, jeffrey. >> all right. >>> up next for us, the ceo of you nighted airlines joins me to share why he thinks his company's vaccine mandate is access and the lessons other companies can and should learn from their experience. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ cases that most people will be advanced non-small cell lung cancer can change everythi

after trump's election, elected, the seat was filled by conservative neil gorsuch.ive line was it was appropriate for the seat to be filled by conservative. we won ginsburg died weeks before the election, the same reasoning up applied. i know you are. shocked trump said that he would nominate supreme court judges who opposed the abortion bills. with amy cohen barrett. last justice barrett was introduced at an event last week by senator mcconnell, the very politician who rammed her nomination through the senate before a presidential election she said this -- week well, justice, we are not convinced. we need more people. this is buried one signed a letter calling for the end of the barbaric row versus wade. and when you are after this, the supreme court with six justices nominated by republican senators, we decided to block -- joining us now is brian violin, co-executive director of -- melissa murray joins us as well. i am excited for this panel because i love you both. so, brian, i will start with you. supreme court justice clarence thomas also spoke out this week to

justice gorsuch supplied at least one surprise since he has been on the court about the rights of gaythat was one that didn't turn out the way it was sort of thought that it might. sometimes the liberals join the conservatives in religious case that you would think that there would be a divide on. but it is, you know, splits are real. >> supreme court reporter for "the washington post," always an important column i read when you write about the court. thanks very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> up next, we have a live report from philadelphia where water rescues have been happening all day after this historic downpour and flooding. another severe weather update from the gulf coast. hundreds of thousands of louisiana residents are waiting for lights to be turned back on. guess what, they may have to wait a month. at, they may have o wait a month a forge of progress. a unicorn in training. a corner to build a legacy. a vision for tomorrow. a fresh start. a blank canvas. a second act. a renewed company culture. a temple for ideas. and a place to make your mark. loopnet. the most p

after trump was elected, the supreme court seat was filled by conservative neil gorsuch, and the conservativefor conservative antonin scalia's seat to be filled with a conservative. and when ruth bader ginsburg died literally weeks before the election, none of that reasoning applied. i know you're shocked. president trump who promised to name two supreme court justices who would oppose abortion rights, he literally said that on the campaign trail, he nominated amy coney barrett, who was confirmed just one week before the 2020 election. again, remind you that donald trump lost. she was introduced at an event last week by senator mcconnell, the very politician who rammed her nomination through the senate before a presidential election. she said this, my goal today is to convince you that this court is not composed of a bunch of partisan hacks. well, justice, we're not convinced. you need more people. mrs. barrett once signed a letter calling for the end of the bar baric vote roe v. wade. and one year after the death of rbg, the supreme court straight up refused to block a texas law prohibiting

. >> brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch, and amy coney barrett. thank you, ariane de vogue.ll continue to follow this as well. >>> i want to get back now to our other breaking news you see now on your small screen. now, we bring it to the big screen. let's get some of the video. i think we have some live video or live footage now that was happening in harlem. but this video you are looking at is in brooklyn. this is what new york city streets are looking at -- looking like right now. many streets in the northeast. our brian stelter is in new jersey where the governor has declared a state of emergency there. we are also, we should say, under a not only a state of emergency but a flash-flooding emergency, as well, brian. which includes new york and new jersey. >> and that's a very rare statement by the national weather service. that it is life-threatening flooding in new york, in new jersey. and now, into parts of connecticut. also, in the past few minutes, don, a tornado warning on martha's vineyard. that's because the center of ida is pushing north toward massachusetts and c

candidate, like merrick garland -- if they see the senate rules changed so that republican nominee neil gorsuche confirmed, then a partisan vote confirmed less than a week before a presidential election -- confirm justice barrett -- that sounds like a political stacked deck too many americans. judge breyer: that is one of those amazing things, because i agree with you 100%. the process -- the process of appointing a judge, me too, it seems very political, yes. but what is an astounding thing -- and i have learned that over more than the 27 years -- is when a man or a woman puts on a judicial robe -- i put on that rope many years ago. and one of the great mores of both the supreme court and the lower court, and you absorb it over time -- it is a great honor to be a federal judge. it is a great privilege. and one of the things that comes along with that privilege is that if you are there not for the democrats, not for the republicans, not for the party of the president who appointed you -- judy: you talked about the danger of trying to remake the court, adding justices, making other changes. the

we've heard from gorsuch.udges have already made it pretty clear that they believe roe v wade is unconstitutional and that it was a wrong decision and that it should be overturned. so, knowing what we already know, having heard from these judges before, i don't -- i don't expect roe to have an easy time in the court system. and in fact, we may be looking at 50 years of protection for women's rights being overturned in this next court season because, rosemary, we should note that it's not just this texas law. there is a case before the supreme court involving a mississippi abortion law that involves 15 weeks ban on abortions at 15 weeks. so, we have to watch this space very closely. but not very promising for those who are, you know, fighting for women's rights. >> yeah. cnn legal analyst, areva martin. many thanks for joining us. appreciate it. >>> with that, we will take a short break. our coverage here of the states of emergency which have been declared for new york and new jersey and in new york city, in ef

with justice gorsuch, amy coney barrett and justice kavanaugh.terior nowthere are now fi solid votes on the supreme court to overturn abortion rights and clarence thomas is leading the charge and he's going to be the one assigning the opinion when the mississippi case comes up later this year. >> the fact that the majority of the court conceded in their opinion that abortion providers raise, quote unquote, serious constitutional questions about the law and those same justices said their order was not based on whether the law is constitutional, does it give you any reason to think their minds are not already made up if and when they have to rule on the merits? >> you know, the only question to me is whether they give roe a decent burial and overturn it or they create some are fiction where they uphold the texas law, which they are clearly committed to doing, but somehow say that roe is still good law. i don't see how that's possible. i mean, a six-week law is a -- is a ban on abortion rights. you know, lawyers are lawyers. they can make up distinc

appoint justices who will point -- who will overturn roe and that's what he has done with justice gorsuchtt, and justice kavanaugh. so there are now five solid votes on the supreme court to overturn abortion rights. and clarence thomas is leading the charge, and he is going to be the one assigning the opinion when the mississippi case comes up later-this year. >> the fact that the majority of the court conceded in their opinion that abortion providers raise, quote/unquote, serious constitutional questions about the law. and those same justices said their order was not based on whether the law's constitutional. does it give you any reason to think their minds are not already made up if and when they have to rule on the merits? >> you know, the -- the only question to me is whether they give roe a decent burial and overturn it. or they create some fiction where they uphold the texas law which they are clearly committed to doing. but somehow, say that roe is -- is still good law. i don't see how that's possible. i mean, a -- a six-week law isn't -- is -- is a -- is a ban on abortion rights.

gorsuch got his seat, and trump replace anthony kennedy. then in the final months of trump's presidency, he replaced another one of those five justices, filling the seat of the late ruth bader ginsburg, the one who had written that laws like the one in texas cannot survive judicial inspection. and i don't want trump receded to fill the supreme court with extremely conservative anti-abortion justices, after he had explicitly promise that he would only appoint justices who would overturn roe v. wade, abortion providers and activists and even just concerned observers could see what was happening, people who are raising the alarm that roe v. wade was in eminent danger. the right to legal abortion in this country was coming under threat, some people didn't believe it or said that they didn't believe it. republican senators like susan collins and lisa murkowski said that they were short, they were convinced, that all these trump nominees to the supreme court certainly recognized roe v. wade a, settled precedent, they would never mess with that, l

an unsigned opinion, it was justices alito, thomas and the three new donald trump appointees, neil gorsuchanaugh and amy coney barrett said they do not see the injury right now to women or to health clinics that brought the case in letting this law take effect. that right now there are too many complicated legal issues. in some ways conveniently threw up their hands to say this is something we can't handle this time. justice sonya sotomayor said they're hiding their hands in the sand. chief justice john roberts appointed by george w. bush signed on with the decenters saying this is unprecedented, such an unusual law. it appears to be written to evade judicial review and that's exactly what happened here. again, i just can't stress this moment. one last little postscript, it was one year ago this month that ruth bader ginsburg suddenly died. and amy coney barrett succeeded her. this case last night is only possible because of these new five justices. and the absence of ruth bader ginsburg. >> yeah. donald trump is no longer in office but we're still seeing the reverberations of that decisio

your betrayal of women because of your blind faith in justice kavanaugh and justice gorsuch makes you, susan, tonights absolute worst. "all in with chris hayes" starts now. ♪♪ >>> tonight on "all in," the fix is in. a texas law deliberately engineered so conservatives on the supreme court would end a woman's right to choose. >> clever. very, very -- >> tonight, the new blueprint for red states to ban abortion and what democrats need to do right now to stop it. >>> then -- >> these extreme storms and the climate crisis are here. >> from powerful hurricanes in the south to historic flooding in the northeast to fires out of control in the west, the desperate need to climate-proof american infrastructure. >>> plus, the schools risk it all in florida to try to protect kids from covid but "all in" starts right now. ♪♪ >>> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. the dead of night they did it in the dead of night, five republican supreme court justices including three appointed by donald trump, a man who lost the popular vote in 2016 by nearly 3 million votes, they destroyed a woman's ri

supreme court justice alito joined by justice gorsuch stretched -- just public schools only have thelate student speech if parents have consented to that regulation by the role of their children put alito i stressed such implied dissent isfo much less likely fr off-campus context where parents themselves retain control and supervision of their children. in a dissent justice thomas argued the courts in the speech doctrine going back to tanker is not consistent with the original understanding of the 14th amendment. thomas argued the right of schools regulate students in loko prentice was an accepted doctrine of the time of the founding with few limitations and the first amendment was not under any such limitations and in that doctrine in the 14th amendment was not interested in applying those limitations to this day. so where does that leave us? overall it's a win for student speech.ul it should not go unappreciated this is the first time the supreme court has validated punishment of student speech after tanker students were on a losing streak. going forward guidelines of the supreme c

during the gorsuch confirms the democrats said how do you explain these five justices voting togethernd these are deeply difficult constitutional questions. people can disagree with them. it's a matter of jurisprudence. this law can still be challenged. what the court is saying that this is not the basis for an injunction because of the parties involved. >> sandra: that didn't stop president biden from issuing a statement hours after this came out. he said the court's ruling is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights by allowing a law to go into effect that allows family members to sue a family or a friend who drives her to a hospital or a clinic. he said: ekg >> so is this it unleashing unconstitutional chaos? >> no. what is chaos is when you don't get the result you want and people call for you to just change the court to add a majority of liberal justices to dictate the results. that's chaos. chaos is when a president won't state his view on court packing even though he previous said it was a boneheaded idea. this is called process. you might not agree but the m

last year, chuck schumer went to the steps of the supreme court and directly threatened justices gorsuch and kavanaugh by name. he called their names out and said you won't know what's hit you if you don't change direction. basically, if you don't rule the way that we want you to rule of course, then he later came out in favor of court packing. members of this committee senator, white house filed a , brief on the court in which he explicitly threatened the court with restructuring, i believe was the term of choice unless the court ruled the way he wanted them to rule. that's what this hearing is about. this hearing is about threatening an institution of our government to rule the way the extreme left of the democrat party wants it to rule. and i say extreme left advisedly, deliberately. let's talk for a second about the bill that the house of representatives, the united states house of representatives just passed last friday. this remarkable piece of legislation would mandate partial birth abortion across our country. all 50 states, mandated partial birth abortion. what am i talking abou

this isn't a huge surprise, if you look at the three justices appointed by president trump, justice gorsuchmorning, what i read into the decision is the intensification of the culture wars. you have to read this decision alongside the attack on quote/unquote crt, the january 6th insurrection. the overall sense that the country is at each other's throats. so i think this is an intensification of the culture wars and will define the political battles in the midterms and the upcoming presidential election in 2024. so i think that's very clear. but i also have this kind of historical analogy and it's going to sound strange, but the fugitive slave law of 1850, what it did was said that every private citizen had an obligation to return a fugitive slave to their owner. what it did, it forced a choice onto the nation, are you going to be individually complicit with the institution of slavery, you see. so now this private, citizen bounty, in so many ways intensifies the choices being made by everyday, ordinary people. it's a novel way that texas has, in some ways evaded the issue, but it's also inte