justice gorsuch: okay. so it's a line-drawing between those cases and your case mr. hearron: yes. justice gorsuch: okay. and then, on the relief, am i understanding you correctly that relief against the clerks you think is sufficient for your purposes? mr. hearron: i think that it would go most of the way to getting the relief that we need in order for abortion providers to begin providing again. we do think that it is also appropriate for a declaratory judgment against the judges, but i think that the clerks -- that relief against the clerks would -- justice gorsuch: so if that -- and you agreed previously they're under obligation under state law to file everything that comes in without looking at its contents or judging its contents, right? mr. hearron: yes, although i think that there are circumstances in which, for example a judge may direct particular person may not file that a because they have filed too many frivolous lawsuits, for example. there are -- justice gorsuch: but that's pursuant to a judic

>> no, justice gorsuch. i think the aspect of ex parte young has to be read in the context of the court's recognition there, and the thrust of the opinion, that the appropriate relief would run against the enforcement agency itself. >> i understand that. and that was justice breyer's point earlier. ex parte young also said this. am i wrong? how can you say you can never enjoin a court and then saying here you can. something has to give. >> it is not uncommon to have relief that is preventative from having a suit in law from proceeding. if this court has concerns with the approach, i think that the court could rightly recognize that the remedy here could focus on the clerks, engage in ministerial task of docketing the cases and, as our injunction does, against the sb-8 plaintiffs who are exercising the court's enforcement authority. but i do think that the court's statement in ex parte young has to be read against the backdrop of this court's recognition that there would be otherwise effective release availab

>> no, justice gorsuch. i think that aspect of ex parte young has to be read in the context of the court's recognition there and the whole thrust of the opinion that the appropriate relief would run against the enforcement -- >> i understand that. that was justice breyer's point earlier. ex parte young also said this -- and i think -- am i wrong? how do you reconcile saying you can never enjoin a court to saying you can't hear. something has to give. >> i certainly think it's not uncommon in equity to have relief to remedy a suit in law pro proceeding. if this court has concerns with that approach i think the court could rightly recognize the remedy should focus on the clerks engaged in the ministerial task of scheduling the cases and the sb8 plaintiffs exercising the court's authority. i think the court's statement in ex parte young has to be read against the backdrop of this court's recognition that there would be otherwise effective relief available. what we're confronting here is a situation where it's v

justice gorsuch and justice alito. [applause] and i want to acknowledge even though she could not be here with us tonight, our newest justice who could not join last year, just as amy coney barrett. -- justice amy coney barrett. i was pleased when president trump nominated justice barrett and i was pleased to support her in the senate even though as some of you may recall, i was on the president shortlist for that very job. i still remember when he called me right beforehand to say, tom, they are telling me to put you on this list but you have got a great job. why would you want to go work in that boring court? i said, mr. president, you can only put me on the list if you promise not to nominate me. he said tom, only put you on the list if you promise not to serve. i guess the president thought i should stick to electoral politics given my famously warm and approachable manner. you know, it is ok i was not the president's first court -- first choice for the court. for all of our friends at the federalist society, jean,

gorsuch was already there when he came to the bench. justice breyer who i know you have known for a very very long time, longer than i have known him and i've known him since he became a justice. you've known him when he was a judge and you may have known him when he was a hired law professor. what do you make about his decision to wait at least a year? people ask about that so much linda. >> i don't have any information as far as talking to him in this past year because i didn't want him to think i was snooping around. i think the disrespectful breyer retire billboards in washington and driving around the supreme court building which he was not in that it really had a negative effect because it persuaded him that waiting to retire his what he so desperately didn't want to be seen as come as a political act. he had a very successful term last term within the dimensions of what the term was but he wrote some major opinions and he had a lot to say. he hasn't lost his step. he's at the top of his game so i think it's just hard to give it u

justice gorsuch? >> yeah, i just want to follow up on that. i want or the clear in my mind. we're not being called upon today to interpret maine's anti-discrimination laws, and we don't need to do that to decide this case. >> not at all your honor. maine has never said these schools will be excluded. >> and the kent school example, that was a religious school that actually applied, as i remember, just correct me if i'm wrong, to participate but was rejected even though it said it was not a sectarian school and said that it was willing to abide by the maine anti-discrimination laws. >> in the record i don't know if it specifically talks about the maine human rights act at that point. maine excluded it solely because it was religious. but if you duet on the kent school website and policies regarding admissions, it is plain as day the school does not discriminate on any oth grounds we're talking about. >> so religious schools are forbidden regardless whether or not they are going to participate. >> solely because they are religious. >> two questions about how far your argument

-- conservative justices neil gorsuch announced the opinion, but i'll have to appeal to my colleague, pete williams about what exactly that means. there's a number of disagreements on different parts and it's really hard to see how the vote shook out until we go through this some more, jose? >> thank you so much, ken clain dilanian. melissa murray is with us, our analyst. what's your reaction to this decision today? >> i think we're getting a strong sense that the court was really fractured and divided. as the analyst just said, this was a really infrastructured decision. justice gorsuch issued the opinion for the majority, but excepted himself from one part of the decision. justices sotomayor, kagan and breyer issued an opinion. so we see the hard-core conservative block of the court standing firm together, as to most of this opinion. the chief justice somewhat in the middle, drifting to his liberal colleagues, and the liberal colleagues concurring in the judgment, but making some real reservations known in their concurring opinions here. so, again, a court that continues to be very

to be persuasive of the colleagues actively working on the votes he is been joined by justice gorsuch but largely because he was already there when he came onto the bench. and justice breyer, whom i knowl you've known a long time since he became a justice and you knew him when he was a judge and maybe even when he was a harvard law professor. >> people askedut about that. this past year i think that the really rather disrespectful billboards of in washington and the building he wasn't in but aside from that really had a h negative affect because i think it persuaded him that were he to retire it would have been seen as a political act. that's number one. number two, hee had a very successful term within the dimensions of what the term was. >> the in the last year of his life that you know they said do what you want to do. >> so they are not care to characters they are human with human responses. >> that is a good take. in a thank you are rates certainly being the exception and i remember the research funding the letter that the chief justice that his health the client seriously after

. >> justice gorsuch? >> i do have a couple of questions. on chilling effect, do you agree that other laws often have chilling effects on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights that can only be challenged defensively? >> not to this extent. >> but do you agree there are laws, defamation laws, gun control laws, rules during the pandemic about the exercise of religion that discourage and chill the exercise of constitutionally protected liberties? >> yes, and -- >> and they can only be challenged after the fact? >> i'm not sure that all of those laws could only be challenged after the fact. but there may be some. >> there are certain circumstances where that's true? >> that's correct. >> so there's line-drawing between those cases and your case in your mind? >> yes. >> okay. and on the relief, am i understanding you correctly that relief against the clerks you think is sufficient for your purposes? >> i think that it is -- it would go most of the way to getting the relief that we need in order for abortion providers to be providing a

. >> justice gorsuch? >> general, are you aware of a precedent that permits an injunction against all persons in the country, and the world, the cosmos? >> no, justice gorsuch. our injunction doesn't do that either. >> you said anyone who brings suits and it did include that in my limitation. a missing something? >> just to be clear and its rfi was a clear about this before, we understand injunction only to bind those individuals who choose to file suit and that's one thing -- >> are you aware of any other example of such an injunction? >> with that specific -- i can't cite one to you. >> not in history of the united states you can't identify one for us, right? >> in history of the united states no status and what texas has done here. >> and then with respect to those individuals who be bound, could they for filing a lawsuit in defiance of it and maybe file discovery request or take some other action be held in criminal contempt? >> they couldn't be held in contempt without receiving notice and an opportun

i am confused by gorsuch's stance regarding the undue burden standard. gorsuch seems to be getting at this idea that the pre-viability line be replaced with the undue burden test. is that right? how would that work? that means that every gestational ban would have to be litigated as it came along? >> that is exactly right. it would not work. the undue burden standard incorporates the entire undue burden test, which is framed in terms of viability. the court was clear that -- [indiscernible] >> whether something is a burden before the it does not make any sense. as i tried to explain, the argument states -- states could prohibit abortion simply because the numbers are not very large. this is an argument we have heard about. -- to inhibit people for making this decision but we do not see --. >> from kaiser health news, how did mississippi arrive at that 15 week limit? what do you think the argument that scientific advances have changed the viability line? >> i consult with the second question. interestingly, mississippi has never been tested in this case b

justice neil gorsuch did not follow that. the air force discharging active duty members for refusing to get their vaccine. we'll talk to dr. scott gottlieb from the growing toll of the pandemic. you are watching "morning joe," we'll be right back. e watching we'll be right back. biden: this is the challenge of our collective lifetime. and every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. we have the ability to invest in ourselves and build an equitable, clean energy future, and in the process, create millions of good-paying jobs and opportunities around the world. there's no more time to hang back or sit on the fence or argue amongst ourselves. so let this be the moment that we answer history's call. as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ i've spent centuries evolving with the world. that's the natu

he is most of the time voting with alito in gorsuch more often than not. what he does not do though is he does not sign on to their opinion or dissent but often the majority as well so what he is doing is he doesn't like to sign on to their hard right in alito's case angry rhetoric. he wants to take a case even though it comes down to the same place. he will put a soft glow won it, and for instance in the case he sided with them against but he offered his opinion to just what great contributors men and women are and it was some immigration cases where he had eloquence about what a tough time some of these immigrants had a what immigrants have contributed to this country but it came down against the immigrants. >> he definitely is on board with expanding religious liberties even to the extent of antidiscrimination laws and explicitly calling for the court to expand gun rights. >> morgan asked where's it coming from for this --. >> there is any number of bottomless pockets out there that are conservative and this is true going back to the 20th century where

neil gorsuch agreed with this. where do you go from there? they will be in the business of incrementally deciding about ever and ever more restrictive state statutes that trim things back with no obvious stopping point for them. i agree that barrett and chief justice roberts were looking for middle ground and that probably the court overall will impose one, but it will leave them open to even harsher charges of decision making. >> just to follow up with you on that point, that middle ground would essentially uphold the abortion ban after 15 weeks potentially, but potentially not over turn roe v. wade. >> they won't say the words, but they will say that availability doesn't matter as long as it is undue. maybe it is not so big. so what will it look like? it will look like a judicial muddle. it's not such a an undue burden. of course as pete says what about 12? ? what about nine? i think it won't look like anything too clear, but it will say for this statute itself, we're okay and the principal does not governor and it is not constitutionally d

the five first conservatives, thomas, aleet aeo -- alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. justice roberts tried to suggest that maybe there was an interim position you uphold the mississippi law but you don't specifically overturn roe versus wade and none of the other five conservatives seemed remotely interested and brett kavanaugh and other conservatives say we overturn precedents sometimes. there is nothing unusual or wrong with that and roe v wade looks next. >> listen to what some of the conservative justices said. >> but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> the fetus has an interest in having a life and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> the reason this issue is hard is that you can't accommodate both interests. you have to pick. that's the fundamental problem. >> i thought he said this was settled at his hearings. >> and susan collins based the vote for his confirmation on the idea it was settled. that was then. >> that was then. conservatives have been working for a lo

the alternative is the gorsuch, thomas, alito way.ore, just outlaw each and every abortion. >> exactly. and that's what is so terrifying, leaving this decision up to the individual states. if we can return back to our period of reconstruction following the civil war, the whole point of the 14th anticipate was to protect the rights of people who were marginalized, enslaved back people. the fact that it protects an individual's right to bodily dignity, liberty and to leave that up to the states, the whim of a majority vote of state legis legislators, cuts directly against what we have with the fourteenth amendment and due process clause. >>. >> you identified brett kavanaugh as one of the big unknowns with amy coney barrett. john roberts indicated 15 weeks might be okay with him. brett kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, talked about the importance of precedent and really seemed to indicate that he believed in relying on precedent. he talked about roe. he talked about casey. listen to this. . >> what would you say your position

it was clear he wasn't going to get justice clarence thomas, justice neil gorsuch yesterday.ce brett kavanaugh in the past has looked at thin things incrementally. he does seem to suggest the issue doesn't belong in the courts, maybe it does belong in the states for the public sphere and went out of his way to say how many times the court has overturned precedent. take a listen to what he said. >> as a judge, it is an important precedent of the supreme court, by it, i mean roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey, reaffirmed many times, casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor. >> if we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn't the history of this court's practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality? >> did he contradict himself there? >> there you have him during the confirmation hearings talking about the importance of precedent, which every single nominee does, right? but that often changes. and that was clear yesterday. suddenly

legislature, but remained focused on reproductive rights and actually spoke in 2017 back when neil gorsuchas being confirmed as the first pick of donald trump at the supreme court. at the time, she warned that one justice would not make much of a difference, but or three could have a big impact. of course of donald trump going on to nominate and confirm to other justices to the supreme court, and now the supreme court has a strong conservative majority. she had warned about what would happen to abortion rights if that were to happen. anchor: paris fc and leon thrown out of the french cup on monday after the hooliganism at a match on the 17th of december. smoke bombs were thrown in the stands and fighting broke out. fans flooded the pitch afterward and the police were required to intervene. rather than try to finish the match, the federation decided to expel both teams. leon had already announced they would ban their fans from traveling to away matches. paris fc will have to play five matches behind closed doors. this the latest in a series of stadium trouble season. thank you for watching

justice sotomayor leading the liberal branch and justice gorsuch leading the conservative branch.. so the numbers are on the gorsuch conservative side. >> did today's opinion show which side the court may go on that pending mississippi abortion case? >> i don't think today's opinion adds that much new than what we heard in the dobbs arguments which are as was mentioned, i think we have at least certainly six to affirm the mississippi 15-week ban, even though there's no principle basis to do so. the question that there could be some openness to is will they outright overturn r roe. but they have four votes, maybe five, maybe even six. so it's possible the 5th circuit would sit on this case, this texas case, until -- with the idea that we'll just wait to find out what happens in dobbs. i don't know if they could sit that long but it's a possibility. and i also want to mention when we talk about a flood of patients leaving texas, that's an important thing to track. it's incredibly burdensome. i spent three days at an oklahoma city abortion clinic that has about half its patients now

but justice clarence thomas, sam aleto, neil gorsuch, amy coney barrett all okayed that today so it staysef justice is a lot of things, but one of the things he is is a very clear and direct writer. he doesn't exaggerate. he does not use hyperbole. that's what i think for a lot of people made it all the more alarming when he wrote today in dissent. again, he was on the losing side of this ruling. he was in the minority, but he described what the court did today as such. he said, quote, texas has passed a law banning abortions after roughly 6 weeks of pregnancy. this law is contrary to this court's decision in roe v. wade and planned parent hood vs. casey. it's had the effect of denying the exercise of what we have held as a right protected under the federal constitution. texas has deployed an array of stratagems. the clear purpose and actual effect of the texas abortion ban has been to nullify this court's rulings. it is, however, a basic principle that the u.s. constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary t

having mitch mcconnell turn it around on him and change it for supreme court appointees and neil gorsuchgh and amy coney barrett are there in a 60 votes. so people kind of blamed reid retroactively for his change that allowed mitch mcconnell to change it, which i think is dumb because the universe in which mitch mcconnell does not bend to give neil gorsuch and kavanaugh on the court simply doesn't exist. reid prestruck by changing the filibuster for court appointments. and, as you say, that is why biden and as a first-year president, has appointed more lower court justices in his first year than any other president in american history other than george washington. so, there you go. >> linda, reid obviously had a very, very long career in washington, was really like a creature of the u.s. senate in the way that fewer and fewer politicians are. i don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing. although one thing i have learned about covering the senate is knowing how the senate works confers a lot of power. and actually not a lot of senators do. harry reid and mitch mcconnell, for instance,

. >> justice gorsuch, anything further? >> i want to make sure i understand your response to the chief justice. if this court would reject the viability line do you see any other intelligible principle that the court could choose? >> i think that it would be critically important even if this court were to reject the viability line to reinforce and reaffirm the fundamental and profound liberty interest here. >> that wasn't my question. i understand that point fully by the end of this argument. that is deeply clear to me, i understand your position. i am just asking a question whether you think there would be another alternative line that the government would propose or not. you have emphasized if 15 weeks were approved we would have cases about 12 and 10 and 8 and 6. so my question is there a line in there the government believes it would be principled or not. >> i don't think there is any line more principled than viability. the factors the court would have to think about is what is most consistent with precedent and clear

of course neil gorsuch is there because republicans blocked president obama from filling his vacancy his last year in office. so you've got this not very democratic institution of the supreme court, which, again, has its role in american constitutional governance. but the non-democratic supreme court gives the green light to more partisan gerrymandering. then you have some states where a majority of voters have expressed a desire for fair maps. they don't want partisan gerrymandering. they've gone to the polls and voted to establish independent redistricting commissions. take it out of the hands of the legislature. but several of those commissions have just been steamrolled. in ohio, republicans who control the legislature simply ignore the state's redistricting commission, choosing to draw a highly gerrymandered map themselves. utah republicans adopted their own maps, ignoring proposals from a redistricting commission that voters approved in 2018. again, that's utah. this is not like some liberal/conservative thing. utah is a red state. voters voted for independence. they just got s

the very strong reasons to just go all the way and overrule roe and casey, your honor. >> justice gorsuch, justice kavanaugh? >> i want to be clear about what you're arguing and not arguing, and to be clear, you're not arguing that the court somehow is the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion as i understand it. you're arguing that the constitution is silent and therefore neutral on the question of abortion. in other words, that the constitutions need their pro-life nor pro-choice on the issue of abortion but leaves the issue for the people of the states, or perhaps congress to resolve in a democratic process. >> some states would be able to do that, even if you prevail under your view. is that correct? >> that's consistent with our view. it's one that allows all interests to have full voice and many of the abortions that we see in certain states, and i don't think anybody would think would be moving to change their laws in a more restrictive direction. >> justice barrett? >> i have a question that's a follow-u

you don't hear anything about that in the majority opinion written by neil gorsuch. >> i just wondere no other state would try to abridge the right in that way to own a gun, or free speech. but i guess it's interesting to leave that door open. maya, what do you make of the way that they ruled? >> well, you know, i think pete nailed it in terms of his analysis. the larger -- if we pull back, the larger issue here, and justice sotomayor says this very strongly, and chief justice roberts as well, is, we have essentially let a statute that is designed, is designed to prevent federal courts from giving people the opportunity to have a remedy when a state is actively trying to prevent the enforcement of a constitutional right. that's really by and large what's happened here. and the narrowing of the access to the courts is really very disturbing, not because i agree, it's good news there's something moving forward, but at its root, that is essentially the precedent the court has now created. and justice sotomayor, and importantly, we heard this in the mississippi argument, you know, it was

. >> okay, so we hear them speak there, justices gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. it contradict, particularly gorsuch and kavanaugh, does it contradict what they told congress during their confirmation hearings to get them on the bench? >> i mean, it was clear that they were obfuscating. they said that roe was precedent, but they did not indicate that because a case is precedent, it means that it must be upheld. and in fact, both of them, in their questioning this week, indicated their belief that it was likely wrongly decided and that the constitution actually doesn't provide the kind of protection that roe said it did and that instead, the constitution takes what they said was a neutral position and that means, let's let states decide and let's allow congress to decide this issue rather than the court. >> obama appointee sonia sotomayor talked about the stakes being very high for the court. in fact, he urged her colleagues to follow precedent, not politics. given what you heard during arguments, is that happening? >> absolutely not. this court is unbelievably pol

justice neil gorsuch in an opinion for the court courts cannot simply order all private citizens noto file those suits and so the supreme court does not have the power to strike sb8 down. but today's opinion does allow a much narrower challenge to sb-8 to proceed against a few state officials in texas. justice sonia sotomayor, in an impassioned dissent, declaring the court should have put an end to this madness months ago. and warning, the court leaves all manner of constitutional rights more vulnerable than ever before to the great detriment of our constitution and our republic. and at the white house, press secretary jen psaki called on congress to act to enshrine the right to choose abortion in federal law. >> the ruling this morning is a reminder of how much these rights are at risk. >> reporter: now that this court has ruled on this texas law, all eyes on the mississippi law the court has heard, and that case could overturn or gut roe vs. wa wade. if the court does decide to overturn it, this law could stand and many others limit organize banning boris would follow. >> thank you

and remdesivir is already approved and available in a gorsuch in a recent study showed dramatically -showed to dramatically decrease the need for hospitalization. guidelines for this will be examined by the nih guidelines committee and you will be hearing more recommendations on how to utilize these. i want to again reiterate what dr. walensky said about prevention, which is a multi-layered, comprehensive process, the hallmark of which is vaccination. one of the questions dr. walensky and i ended dr. murthy and others get asked -- dr. walensky and i and dr. murthy get asked frequently, what about individuals who are boosted to get together with family in the setting of a home? the answer is yes. an extra level of protection would be the testing dr. walensky mentioned, but i want to make sure this is not confused with going to a large gathering, and there are many of these, parties that have 40, 50 people in which you do not know the vaccination status of individuals. those are the kind of functions in the context of covid, and particularly omicron, that you do not want to go to. so, t

justice scalia, vice president cheney, judges ken starr, edith jones, doug ginsberg, and justice neil gorsuch, former attorney general s bill barr and michael mukasey, former white house counsel don mcgahn and senators tom cotton and ben sasse. quite a group. that brings us to today's lecture, which could not be more appropriate. the series has been remarkably successful for 20 years. years before that, ted and barbara held a barbecue for our student chapter presidents, which drew hundreds of prominent attorneys in addition to the students and helped encouraged presidents to build our chapters and through that build a society and encourage many more to be involved. i am sure some of those chapter presidents are probably in the audience today. then there is also ted's strong and consistent defense of free speech, including explaining to reporters doing national stories on the federal society that the federal society, unlike the american bar association, never told ted what to think. i could give you a lot of ted's bio, but i think we want to hear from ted. i simply want to say you have done a

i'm not sure what gorsuch is going to do because nobody is ever sure what gorsuch is going to do. i do think it would be a dramatic, dramatic leap, that i just don't think the roberts court is going to be willing to take. >> the concern is that this is the best opportunity they've had to overturn it. the clarence thomas wing of the court, if there was such a wing. >> right. >> but i don't think that there's any indication that roberts -- and i think you're right about kavanaugh -- would go that way. the concern i have is two-fold. one, the people that would be most impacted by it are going to seek abortions anyway, which increases dangers, particularly among disadvantaged communities and communities of color. and, secondly, those moralists that can't divide personal views, religious or whatever we may have, from how you govern andgiving people the right to choose where they want to go in life. and the people that are more life until the child is born. they're pro life until the kid is born, then they're against any kind of support for the same children. >> yesterday, and we'll be

state's greatest responsibility is to protect our most vulnerable which justices samuel alito, neil gorsuchnce thomas dissented. the force is charging 27 airmen for refusing to get the covid vaccine, they are discharged over vaccine refusal, she says the airmen were in their first term, so they were longer in your low ranking, this legislation that would give servicemembers who were suits that interviews the vaccine an honorable discharge, none of the 27 airmen sought any type of exemption. >> maryland school but under 5 reading more days off to the calendar to give stressed-out teachers a break but with the relief for moms and dads. jennifer lynn joins me now. thanks for being here. everyone is stressed. i've done the research but i've not talked to one person who is in stress. why are teachers being given extra days off to deal with that stress? >> fantastic question. the rationale given by the board is unacceptable at this time. the given us conflicting reason saying on the one hand it is professional developed, on the other hand planning time, two very different things which all we know

justice gorsuch played it closer to the vest but i think at the end of the day he also seemed to be on the same page. the more interesting comment i saw was justice kavanaugh, he had an interesting soliloquy with the planned parenthood attorney in which he said you cannot accommodate the trickle interests here. the woman has a right to her bodily economy, he didn't deny that but he said there's a fetal issue and those two can't be accommodated, one has to win and one loses and it comes down to who makes that decision. do we get decide which interest prevails and should that be left for the people. he added a scrupulous neutrality by the court. it should be strike down laws like california, nor should it strike down laws in texas and alabama that are more solicitous of fetal life, his position i think is going to be ultimately this does have to be a decision that is made by the people. justice roberts is on the record many times, he's a minimalist and wants to find the narrowest possible ground -- >> laura: i want to get to that because he really i think seem to focus on this 15 week ti

gorsuch made that clear on the bench when he was asking the biden solicitor, so, you know, i want to make this clear, it's not that abortion would be gone. we're not here to say that, you know, that the supreme court would be banning abortion. this would go back to the states, correct? >> tucker carlson: right. >> and that's right. >> tucker carlson: yeah, well no one ever says that, but it's true. you can vote on something for once. great to see you tonight. thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker carlson: joe biden has been -- already some democrats are defecting. one of them is a former aide for the mayor of washington, d.c. joins us straight p straight ahead. time, he was a very active democrat. most recently he was a spokesman for the mayor of washington, d.c. washington, d.c., recently went viral after watching the first year of the presidency he is leaving the democratic party. >> [speaking non-english language] >> tucker: of victor gimenez joins us now. thank you so much for coming on. as you but i did not clip -- you are the spokesman for the mayor of washington, the most democra

gorsuch made that clear on the bench when he was asking the biden solicitor, so, you know, i want to's not that abortion would be gone. we're not here to say that, you know, that the supreme court would be banning abortion. this would go back to the states, correct? and that's absolutely right. >> tucker carlson: right. and that's right. >> tucker carlson: yeah, well no one ever says that, but it's true. you can vote on something for once. great to see you tonight. thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker carlson: joe biden has been -- already some democrats are defecting. one of them is a former aide for the mayor of washington, d.c. joins us straight p straightucnf ahead. ly shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. try new vazalore. aspirin made amazing! do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. call coventry direct to learn more. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. our friend sold their policy to hel

for the schools, would safe the plaintiffs are standing even though the schools did not. >> justice gorsuch? >> i can't believe it would but the argument for determination against persons based on supported possibility strife interest termination for based on race or sex for another basis likeke that. >> it depends on what you mean imposing these disadvantages but they could make thee funding decisions deciding which cttivities to subsidize or not subsidize based on speculative inferences about what results might occur. that is the whole thing for the free speech cases that say government has more latitude when thinking funding decisions. >> occluding the basis of sex and other personal characteristics like that? >> if the statute here says religious parent generally or parents of a particular religion can't apply for the school subsidy that would be no good. but the state is think we don't want to subsidize cash. >> would be no good in your terms. >> if you read to say religious parent can seek subsidy even for secular school -- it would be unconstitutional but nobody is reading that, they

the lower courts are left not knowing what to do and a fundamental problem as justice gorsuch emphasizeder court is judges there is no neutral rule of law. judges have to look within themselves and that is never going to solve this issue. if the matters return to the people, the people can deal with it and work and compromise and reach different solutions. if we don't do that we'll have all this sort of damage and at some point it is appropriate for the court to say enough as it has in the great overrulings in brown and other cases where it said this is just enough. justice harlan had it right in dissent in pleasey when he recognized that all are equal and similarly the states should be able to recognize there are values on boekt sides here. we think this one slightly outweighs or this one outweighs or a balance to be drawn here. if the court doesn't do that, justice kagan, it will be continued damage and the court will continue to punch in this political issue. >> i have just a few little -- a few questions. first gets back to the issue of viability. you know, in your petition for cert

. >> sean: you have my first pick for the supreme court, neil gorsuch.hink one thing that defines her presidency as we put up that picture, one of the best legal minds in the world. i think one thing that defined your presidency that you never got credit for. you said you were going to pick from a list of people that you gave before the election, you did, you said you would end regulation and you did buried you said you would cut taxes, you did, you said you would build the wall and you found a way. you had in place the stay in mexico policy and you stop to catch and release and now it's been brought back. you said you get better trade deals that are free and fair. you get us out of long conflicts. there aren't many politicians that actually say what they mean and mean what they say and actually follow through on their campaign promises. >> well, the people know i've got a lot of credit and the things we said -- we ended up with three great new supreme court justices. when nobody talks about is almost 300 federal judges. if you look at that, that's a cha

that's clarence thomas, as you pointed out earlier, neil gorsuch, and samuel alito. john roberts who is actually said he wants to support the precedent of roe v. wade, at least in some circumstances, and the two people to keep an eye on today are brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett, because they have not really talked about abortion since they have been appointed to the court and think they're the most important votes to watch today. >> and we will be watching, jeffrey toobin, appreciate it, thank you. >> okay. >>> coming up next, i'm going to speak to the nato secretary-general about growing concerns russia could mount another invasion, a full scale invasion of ukraine. his warning for vladimir putin. >>> and just moments away from the opening bell on wall street, as you can see there, three green arrows. nice to see. u.s. futures and global markets higher today following yesterday's losses. a volatile week as investors try to learn more about the new omicron variant. much like all of us. fed chief powell, treasury secretary yellen appearing before the house. the

you're going to look at alito and gorsuch to see their move. you're absolutely right.to be on roberts, kavanaugh and barrett to see if maybe they may not be ready to take that huge step to overturn roe and they may look for some kind of middle ground. that's what will be the focus today. of course, the clinics say there is no way to uphold this law without gutting roe. >> so much here. thank you so much for helping break it all down. >> thanks. >>> gop leader kevin mccarthy has a problem on his hands. his own party members, finger pointing, name calling. childish behavior. he had meetings with two of his feuding republicans, saying stop it. let's bring in daniela diaz on capitol hill. it could spell trouble for the gop in next year's midterms. these are feuding big players in congress who have all the headlines, all the oxygen, provocateurs, not policy, is what we're hearing about the republican party right now. fund-raising off of outrageous comments. i mean, what is leadership to do here? >> reporter: christine, if house minority leader kevin mccarthy can't unite his

gorsuch is 54. kavanagh is 56. amy coney barrett is 49. that one makes me feel a little old.ould think about it this way. if mitch mcconnell were in their shoes, what would he do? given what we know, would we see him letting the filibuster stand? is the filibuster more important than election rights and women's rights? is it more important than the lives of our teenagers? safety of our schools? democrats could just ask themselves, what would mitch do? or they can just keep on thinking life's a mitch. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ move your student loan debt to sofi— you could save with low rates and no fees. earn a $1,000 bonus when you refi— and get your money right. ♪ ♪ what the he— henry? thanks! if it's “out decorating the neighbors” season, it's walgreens season. ♪ what a pain in the a— alice? if it's “let's wrap this up” season, it's walgreens season. subway's eat fresh refresh™ has so many new footlongs. refresh! here's how they line up. we got the new chicken & bacon ranch, new baja steak & jack, and the new baja chicken & bacon, aka “the smokeshow”" save big. order throug