republican senator susan collins of maine also voted to confirm both justices gorsuch and cap not tohe supreme court. she wrote this decision is inconsistent with what the does -- justices, their testimony in their meetings with me. they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedent that the country has relied upon. the top republican on the senate judiciary commission a -- committee it supports the court's decision. it empowers the people through their accountable elected representatives to make commonsense policy decisions. it takes policymaking out of the hands of unelected judges. a live look now outside the supreme court were pro-life and pro-choice protesters are gathering after the court's decision. you are watching live coverage on c-span. [indiscernible] >> this country is only for profit. we know that this ban is going to affect black people, latino people disproportionately. we know this ban will lead to unwanted pregnancies. [indiscernible] [cheering] [indiscernible] [cheering] [indiscernible] >> we are not people, where objects. over 30% of

justice samuel alito writing the majority opinion ending roe, joined by clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett. chief roberts wrote an opinion ban on abortions 15 weeks after pregnancy, but stopped the precedence of roe vs. wade together. all three liberal justices were in dissent. >> sandra: nearly half the states are already prepared to ban or severely limit abortions. this ruling comes more than a month, you'll remember, after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by justice samuel alito, indicating the court was prepared to take this very step. that leak leading to weeks of protests outside the homes of some justices and even a threat on the life of justice brett kavanaugh. >> trace: begin with shannon bream, she is life at the supreme court. >> good to see you, trace and sandra. walk through this again. what happens here, with the 5-4 opinion, at least on the issue of not only upholding the mississippi law but journey turning roe, send this back to the states. many of them already have trigger laws on one end or the other that are kicking in almost i

justice gorsuch: do you think both are relevant? let's say this court in a case saw evidence that the school district was focused solely on the endorsement test and not coercion. suppose the court thought that lemon had been buried what then should we do if we thought coercion where the appropriate test but had not been applied by the school district the court below? mr. katskee: remand for the lower courts to decide the question, and here there would be plenty of basis to show the school district's contemporaneous concerns for coercion. that would not be a basis to decide for mr. kennedy. this was on summary judgment. then there would be fact questions, presumably for trial, about what the coercion was. justice gorsuch: why is that the school district so emphasized lemon? i understand your point it is in the record otherwise, it has justice kavanaugh has pointed out, this court for decades now has resisted attempts to rely on lemon in cases like this. and it does seem like there is an awful lot of records relying on lemon. mr. kats

the ultraconservative justice neil gorsuch road. for more, we're joined in new york by lÍa fiol-matta senior counsel for latinojustice pref where her work focuses on economic justice and issues related to puerto rico. latinojustice, alongside the american civil liberties union and other civil rights groups, have joined forces in this renewed effort to overrule the insular cases. also what this is juan gonzalez, cohost of democracy now! juan when you first responded to the supreme court decision and pointed out what neil gorsuch had said in addition to sonia sotomayor, this was one of the most popular commentaries on our website. we want to ask lia for starters, what is this campaign all about? how are you organizing and why are you doing it? >> good morning. it is such a pleasure to be here. this campaign is pretty much coordinated between latinojustice, hispanic federation, the aclu, and equally american as well as other allies, but these are the main organizations. we have embarkeon a strong campaign srted before the decision was

in that majority opinion, here are some of justice neil gorsuch's words from the case. respect for religious expression, he said, is indispensable. the life in a free and diverse republic where those exceptions take place weather in a cemetery or on a field and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a head. to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, private religious experience doubly protected by the free exercise and free exercise and free-speech causes of the first amendment. the government offered for its reprisals a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out religious disturbances. the constitution he said neither mandates nor tolerates the kind of discrimination. that was the majority opinion yesterday. the response from coach kennedy and his lawyers from the first liberty institute to represent the case. that released a video after the decision was handed down yesterday. >> just got the big news from the u.s. supreme court that you one, man. you won. [laughter] >> yeah, i got nothing. >> i have known you for years. this is the first time i hav

one flag said f-u, samuel alito, gorsuch, roberts. targeting clarence thomas after he suggested the court should reconsider gay marriage and contraception. liberals are questioning the validity of the entire supreme court and calling for action. >> this court has lost legitimacy, they have burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had after their gun decision, after their voting decision, after the union decision, blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to dually elected members of the senate to secure supreme court confirmation and seats on the supreme court. i believe lying under oath is impeachable offense. >> to hell with the supreme court. >> in a a country founded on church and state, we are held hostage by a far right can court. >> the justices didn't lie, they invoked the rule. that aside, emily, this is returned to the states, if left is convinced of political argument instead of taking a blow torch to the police officers take it to the ballot box. >> emily: with everyone missing the entire point of t

his statement reads -- i trusted just as gorsuch and justice kavanaugh when they testified under oathhey believed roe v. wade was settled legal precedent and i'm alarmed they chose to reject the stability of ruling has provided for two generations of americans. republican senator collins voted for both justices and wrote -- this decision is inconsistent with what justices gorsuch and kavanaugh said in their testimony and meetings where they were insistent on supporting long-standing precedents the country has relied upon. the top republican on the senate judiciary committee chuck grassley says -- this does not ban the practice of abortion but empowers the people for their accountable wreck a lead test representatives to make -- representatives to make policy decisions. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," every day we are taking your calls live on the air and on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. this morning, our focus will be the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. joining us will be constitutional accountability president and zach sm

i ran judge gorsuch's confirmation effort from the outside.augh's confirmation effort from the senate judiciary committee and very involved in justice barrett's confirmation effort at the article 3 project and worked on the chief justice alito con fir nation in the bush white house. this is how they answer the questions. they're bound by judicial canons that say they cannot exchange a promise for a vote. >> and susan collins said she didn't ask for or nor did receive a promise from brett kavanaugh that he would do that. it's unethical and illegal to make that kind of commitment. that's not the world that we live in here. so but she is saying that she thinks this is a divisive decision and she believes it was incumbent on the court to lean to constraint. what is interesting about that, it's not too far away from what we heard in justice roberts' concurrence on this opinion. he wanted to simply support the mississippi case individually and not have it have the broader ramifications that this decision has. i think for somewhat similar reasoning.

republican senator susan collins, who supports abortion rights, now saying she was misled by justices gorsuch and kavanaugh. tonight, who those justices said about roe before being confirmed to the court. mary bruce this evening on how both parties believe this issue will be front be center in this year's midterms. >>> did dividing lines clear. mothers and daughters who disagree. deb are robert on that tonight. >>> the other major news this friday night, the first piece of federal gun reform in nearly 30 years. the bipartisan bill passing the house, the i waiting the president's signature. >>> the major hadal from ukraine tonight wrm the ukrainians are now pulling out. and the remarkable find tonight, the world's deepest ship wreck, a u.s. navy destroyer. the underwater video and where it's been found. >>> good evening, and it's great to have you with us here on a friday night, and we begin tonight with the historic and sweeping ruling from the supreme court. the conservative majority by a 6-3 vote overturning roe vs. wade. the right to choose abortion that had stood for half a century in thi

>> justice gorsuch. justice kavanaugh. >> if we took the statutory text and nothing else on your position of how to interpret the text, why would a state have jurisdiction over non-indian on non-indian crime in indian country? >> what the court held in arachne and draper was the statehood act and revealed that. it's not the protection itself doesn't reach it. it's that draper and bradley held that it had been repealed. with respect to that category so there is a symmetry in the statute as a result. non-indian up on non-indian crimes are excluded by virtue of draper and mcgrath need and in the middle where you have crimes by non-indians against indians or the other way around the very core of the relationship between indians and non-indians that congress was given exclusive responsibility for from the founding that remains exclusive federal jurisdiction at this court's decision in nagansett said it's the courts decisions that hadrendered the major crimes act jurisdiction exclusive and relied on the word e

justice gorsuch says mr. kennedy's proposal to pray quietly would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. those close at hand might have heard him, too. but learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is "part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society," and tolerant citizenry, respect for religious expressions he writes is indispensible to life in a free and diverse republic. those who say it's a win for christians, no, every religion. not just who coach kennedy was trying to do. in the dissent by justice sotomayor, enforcing states to entangle themselves with religion with all of our right hanging in the balance as much as the court protests otherwise, today's decision is no victory for religious liberty. so, no common ground here, nothing meeting in the middle for the two sides on this particular case. what it means is, and what coach kennedy i'm sure told you when you had a chance to talk with him, what he has told me is he just wants his job back. he said he would

>> no, justice gorsuch, and let is a two additional things. first of all, with regard to my purported concession, i was simply making the point with regard to public law 280 that, to the extent that some members of congress may have believed that states lacked the jurisdiction over this category of cases, that our interpretation of the statute, that the statute can be interpreted consistently with that understanding or not but that there's nothing problematic with construing the statute in the way that we suggest. we are not rendering any of the language superfluous. all we're saying is congress reinforced that states that participate in public law to 80 would have that jurisdiction, a very important thing because if congress had not done that there might've been a negative inference that states and public law to 80 would like that jurisdiction which was created a jurisdictional gap. we do not think the general crimes act is ambiguous, and i would refer to my answers to justice kagan on that score. we think this court has construed that statut

i had a very long discussion with justice gorsuch in my office.whole book on precedent. >> that aged well. we're back in our politics lead with more on the shockwave and impact from the nation's highest court striking down roe v. wade that legalized abortion nationwide. let's discuss. jonah, you have written that roe v. wade should be overturned because it was a, quote, fatally flawed constitutional ruling and overturning it would be good for the country. why? >> well, i can get into -- because it's made-up law, in terms of -- >> basically what alito said. >> look, it's what ruth bader ginsburg said. she said it would be much better if they grounded in legal protections. >> for the first time in a very long time, this question gets put back to the states. and to voters, and to legislatures. all these politicians whether they're pro-choice or pro-life, can't hind behind the supreme court making these decisions for them. they have to make the arguments themselves. they'll send this back to the places where it belongs. i'm sympathetic to justice robe

he's not actively wworking on votes and ethan joined by justice gorsuch but largely because justice gorsuch was already there when he came on the bench. and justice breyer who i know you've known for a very long time , longer than i've known him and i've known him since he became a justice. you may have even known him when he was a harvard law professor . what have you made about this decision to kwaste this year. people asked about that so much. they don't understand. >> i don't have any information. i have avoided talking to him this past year because i haven't wanted him to think that i was snooping around. i think really the rather disrespectful billboards up in washington and the sound truck driving around the supreme courtbuilding which he was not in . it really had a negative effect because i think it persuaded him that working to retire is what he wants not to be seen as as a political act. number one, number two he had a very successful term last term. within the dimensions of what th the term was he wrote some major opinions.got good assignments, had alot to say . you know, hasn't

wade defended voting for neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh putting them on the supreme court. here's what she said. >> neil gorsuch, for whom you voted, don't you think he's probably going to vote to overturn roe v. wade if given the chance. >> i don't. >> are you 100% certain? without a doubt that brett kavanaugh will not overturn roe v. wade? >> i do not believe that brett kavanaugh will overturn -- >> precedents are overturned all the time. >> they aren't overturned all the time. >> jeffrey, you know and i also talked about this, how kavanaugh, gorsuch, amy coney barret all gave assurances that they were not going to overturn this precedent and yet they did anyway. how do you think susan collins' statements i guess stand up now. but also what about the fact that we have people who are putting themselves forward for a spot on the high court of this country who were essentially misleading the country about what their true intentions might be if roe v. wade were to come to their desk? >> you know, the -- it's hard to know where to start. >> yeah. >> susan collins is nominally

. >> i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you, kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and will pay the price. [cheers and applause] you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. >> sean: i want to tell you, kavanaugh, gorsuch, you have released the whirlwind, you will pay the price, you won't know what hit you. naturally, a few weeks ago, schumer did not seem to mind at all kavanaugh's address and other supreme court justices addresses were published online and that so-called protesters showed up outside of his house. he does have young children and a family. now, schumer thought it was kind of hilarious. take a look. >> are you comfortable with the protests that we saw outside the homes of supreme court justices over the weekend? >> if protests are peaceful, yes. my house, there is protests three or four times a week outside my house. that is the american way, to peacefully protest is okay, and i have been -- that is my wife, sorry. [laughter] maybe there is a protest outside. >> sean: i doubt chuck schumer's home is having protest three or fou

now justice gorsuch said it had been reaffirmed many times.recedent on precedent. at that particular hearing, you were there. some senators say that they intentionally misled the public and the congress. what do you think? >> i never believed them. i didn't believe them. that's why i voted against them. >> i wanted to ask you about the economy. >> yeah. yeah. >> there is a lot of anxiety -- >> yeah. >> -- about the economy. people's wallets are really being hurt. right now gas prices, as you well know -- >> yeah. >> -- they're still near about $5. the president said he wanted a gas tax holiday. it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere in congress. what else is in your tool box? is there anything else you can do to help bring down the cost of gas? >> well, first of all, let's just say that this is a very real issue. and we have to do something about it. and it's one of our highest priorities as an administration. so, there is the piece that is about gas and bringing down the cost of gas, which in large part has exploded because of putin's war o

the decision came despite the fact that all three trump justices, gorsuch, kavanaugh and coney barrett, when questioned during confirmation about abortion, told the senate that they considered roe v. wade to be precedent. today, justice thomas went further, specifically writing in his opinion that he believes the court should reconsider other rights, including same-sex marriage, contraception and private consensual acts between two adults. the country will be split on abortion, becoming illegal in many states. other states will keep protections for a woman's right to choose. this morning, nancy pelosi with her immediate reaction to this unprecedented decision. >> this morning, the radical supreme court is eviscerating american rights and endangering health and safety. the republican-controlled supreme court achieved their dark, extreme goal of ripping away a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions. american women today have less freedom than their mothers. what this means to women is an insult. it's a slap in the face to women about using their own judgment to make

wade she said i had a long discussion with justice gorsuch, he pointed out he is co-author of a book on precedent. now both men voted to overturn the precedent. collins says she was reassured they would not do. a lot of scrutiny now on susan collins, whether she was mislead in that moment, naive to believe the statements in the first place, and how she's going to respond now. obviously too late to take back votes to put those gentlemen on the supreme court. but gives you a fascinating history here of what people said in their confirmation hearings and what they did. >> activists taking this lane of discussion, the point is made repeatedly that those statements were made under oath some on the extreme suggesting maybe there's something there. that's the president's podium. should hear from him in a moment of course that's not the case, but it is a shock for some that don't pay as much attention to the process as others. >> a jarring contrast from the statements at the time and what you see now out of the supreme court. of course, it is not really a case to apply perjury to or anything

ruling with samuel alito writing the opinion, amy coney barrett and john chief justice john roberts, gorsuchupheld a mississippi law that the abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. the law had been ruled unconstitutional by lower courts but justice alito in an opinion for court which now has a very solid conservative majority wrote we in this opinion where we began, abortion presents a found world question. the constitution does not prevent each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. roe and casey, the other important case the upheld roe v. wade arrogated that authority. we now overrule those and it turned authority to the people and their elected representatives. the decision was greeted with jubilation by pro-life groups who argued for almost 50 years that roe was bad law and badly decided. >> this is a dream come true for me. this is a big win for us and south texas but also for our country. we have to start respecting life. we have to start valuing life. >> everybody needs to understand matter how you feel about abortion. the supreme court in 1973 literally created a constitution

i didn't believe neil gorsuch, i knew what they were going to do. now they have done it. host: does star decisive smita anything? -- stare decisis mean anything? guest: not to conservatives. the idea that you should not overturn a previous supreme court case oblique because you didn't like it. you should overturn it because something has changed. when they overturned plessy v ferguson, brown v. board of education, there was all of this evidence that they brought forward. they argued -- i disagree -- but they argue that the white people could not have known that the black people were people. they said they overturned plessy versus ferguson because of this new information about whether or not black people are people. if you go forward to dobbs, you don't see that. there is no deep analysis and how the world has changed from 1972. all that work that is supposed to go into overturning a president, that was not there. they just said, we don't like that old decision, so we are going to overturn it. if they can do that, they can do that to anything. all of these presidents that

which is why both senators post -- voted to confirm kavanaugh and gorsuch despite their antiabortionre turning to biden to reverse the damage. more than 30 senators sent a letter to biden saturday night asking him to take bold action. among them, senator tammy duckworth, from illinois, who joins me now. senator, as mentioned, you are among the senators asking the senators to take bold action. what do you want to see the presidents do? >> there's any number of things the present can. do you already discussed and for example, allowing clinics on federal lands. we also need to make sure that we talk about the supreme court justices who lied to the senate, as a senator i did not vote for gorsuch or kavanaugh. i would hope that the senators who voted for him with at least now consider voting to suspend the filibuster so that we can reaffirm women's rights to abortion. >> let me ask you, senator. because you talk to your colleagues all the time. do you think that is an argument that would actually hold way with them. do you think you could persuade them using that argument? >> i'm gonna do

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

here's what gorsuch said. he said the constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect not suppression for religious and nonreligious views alike. the liberals on their half, dissenting again in this momentous term, and they basically said that they were very worried about students feeling coerced. they showed pictures in the record of the prayers, of the coach surrounded by the players. they said look, some of the students might have done this not because they wanted to pray, but maybe because they wanted to get in his good favor. maybe to get a good college recommendation. the dissent said the schools shouldn't be able to put those students in that kind of position. but they lost in another big religious liberty loss -- for the liberals on the court. it's the second time this term that the majority of this court has ruled in favor of religious conservatives. and in this case at hand, it means that more religious speech is going to be allowed in the public sphere. >> again in this case, 6 -3

gorsuch writing the constitution and the best of our traditions, council , mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression for religious and non religious views alike. but the three liberal justices argue the ruling undermines the separation of church and state. in dissent , justice sonia sotomayor wrote. the decision elevates the religious rights of a school official who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment in tales over those of his students. the ruling is the latest in a series of decisions expanding religious liberty rights adopted a test that, frankly, is more forgiving towards religious speech and expression, says he plans to return to his job coaching football. emerton high school in washington state supreme court rivera fox news other supreme court. decisions that have yet to be handed down include whether the biden administration can end a trump arab border policy that forces asylum seekers to remain in mexico. another case will decide the epa's authority on regulating carbon emissions. and in another case, justices could dec

louisiana abortion clinic case said to go after justices brett kavanaugh and go after justice neil gorsuch. we have fresh reaction from white house press secretary, karine jean-pierre. she said the president condemns this. the president is on his way to the los angeles for the summit of americas. we're told the national guard in washington is told to be on stand by and possibly activate other part of the national guard around the country if needed once the supreme court decision is released dealing with abortion. martha? >> martha: tense times in our country. thanks, david. former attorney general bill barr will join us in a moment. but first, we begin with mike lee of utah, a member of the judiciary committee and author "saving nine" an effort to pack the court. good to have you. >> thanks, martha. >> martha: so your reaction to this latest. according to the report, the young man said he was upset about the leak from the supreme court, about the overturns of roe v. wade and the mass shootings that we've seen across this country. >> yeah, this is very tragic result of what happens when peo

neil gorsuch one of the newer members of the court suggested that the live a laws. perhaps should be loosened echoing donald trump making it easier to sue now. you might say well that's a really good solution for someone who's concerned about disinformation, which was precisely the point that neil gorsuch is justice gorsuch made in his concurring opinion saying we should take on this issue, but i'm concerned again about government attorney and the concern if you make it too easy to sue for public officials to sue then you're going to really chill news media going after those public officials in an aggressive way like they need to do to serve as a check on those officials in our democracy. so while i think defamation is a good tool i like the compromise that the supreme court crafted back in the 1960s one, which is currently under pressure that would require this. you know, the change that that thomas and gorsters talk to would make it much easier. sue for defamation that may be benefits misinformation, but maybe chills too much speech and our erwin. this is i know s

and kennedy told the committee and also here -- sorry, gorsuch and kavanaugh told the committee, andn hear what they said in private meetings with people like senator susan collins, you could understand where they might feel mollified or reassured they wouldn't do what they ended up doing last week, but i think kamala harris was probably more realistic in saying, they're going to give me a lot of legal jumbo, the lawyers are pretty good at parsing words, and when they actually got in the court, they were going to do something different. >> dana pressed the vice president, chris, on questions that a lot of democrats, a lot of progressives are asking now of the white house, why aren't you doing more now to step in and fix this, that the supreme court has acted. why aren't you trying to create situations where there can be abortions on federal land, why won't you try to get rid of the filibuster? how much pressure do you think the white house is feeling now? >> i'm sure from the left wing of the party, they're feeling quite a lot. i thought dana did a very good interview, she always doe

justice gorsuch wrote, quote, the constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect,ression for religious and nonreligious views alike. a supreme court analyst, give us the significance of this decision. it's part of a pattern, alisyn. this court has been ruling with religious conservatives in recent years and more so now that it has a conservative super majority. it was just one week ago that the justices by the same 6-3 vote voted in a main case to say if a state is going to subsidize private schools, it has to include religious education. they have in recent years required more government funding for church schools, increased the religious exemptions to the affordable care act's contraceptive mandate, allowed christian prayers at public government meetings. so this is part of a piece, and it's part of a piece by a court that i think has suggested in its rulings that it believes that religion is under siege, and it has to be on the watch for any kind of suppression of religious believers, any kind of censorship, those are two words that neil gorsuch used in today's

in the opinion, justice gorsuch said coach kennedy could have checked his phone. he could have seen what is new on facebook. he could have responded to text messages. he chose to pray, but he had a public time that was flex he bled the end of the game before he was responsible to be in the locker room. some of the players might be showering, might be singing the school fight song. he chose to pray. in those instances, an employee of the school had some personal or private time during the school day ordering their work time that they could use for themselves. that is different from when you are teaching the curriculum that the school has designated for you to teach, and if an employee does not teach that curriculum, it is the right of the school district discipline them for not doing what they are paid to do. host: ms. markert, do you want to have any response? >> i think the example with coach kennedy, yes, there is a difference. while mr. suhr was talking, i thought, how does he get to the conclusion that he's allowed to pray on the field with everything he had j

and joining alito were justices clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett, three of them trump appointees. republican senator susan collins was critical to putting kavanaugh and gorsuch on the bench, saying this about kavanaugh at the time. >> he noted that roe had been reaffirmed 19 years later by planned parenthood vs. casey and that it was precedent on precedent. he said it should be extremely rare that it be overturned. >> reporter: now she says she was misled. in notes obtained by "the new york times," kavanaugh apparently gave collins private assurances, claiming he understood the real-world consequences and stating, i am a don't-rock-the-boat kind of judge. but with roe overturned, the impact was felt within minutes. abortion now illegal for 31 million americans in at least eight states, including louisiana, where reproductive rights advocates say they are worried. >> people will have to carry a child to term when they're already living in substandard housing, when their children are not getting the best education, when they can barely feed their fam

. >> reporter: justice neil gorsuch writing for the court today, declaring that the school district is wrong about church and state -- "the constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination," gorsuch wrote. but some parents of former players disagree. >> when the teacher or coach is standing up and leading the children, i think you cross the line into indoctrination. >> reporter: and justice sonia sotomayor, in dissent with the court's two other liberals, writing that today's decision is "misguided" and "elevates the religious rights of a school official, over those of his students." >> reporter: tonight, one of the >> let's get right to terry moran, live at the supreme court tonight for us. and obviously two sides to us. some that might say, what's wrong with the coach saying a prayer after a game with some players. others saying this puts pressure on players who may not want to pray but who do want to play, so, the inherent pressure there. and some parents thought there was a separation of church and state. >> reporter: that's right, david. well, for decades, th

>> i actually don't. >> collins says that she feels misled by kavanaugh and gorsuch.l change the way senators scrutinize nominees? >> well, for sure. you know, what happens is that if you look at the confirmation hearings of gorsuch, kavanaugh, to amy coney barrett to a lesser stent, they say, well, roe is settled law, and i don't think we need to talk too much about that. that's not the same as saying they won't overturn. in fact, they hid their intentions and at the very first opportunity, is what they said, the very first opportunity, they moved aggressively to do exactly that. and there's more on tap, just as you mentioned, from clarence thomas. so future confirmation hearings will be far more contentious. there'll be a lot more suspicion, there'll be a lot less likelihood of believing these kind of euphemistic or ambiguous statements from nominees. i mean, people will be asked to say flat-out, do you have an agenda? the last person or the last three people who said that they didn't, in fact, did. i don't think future congresses are going to be able to hold their

decision on the supreme court today and i want to tell you about that decision offered by justice gorsuch. at the eight government entity sought to punish an individual from engaging in a brief quiet personal religious observance doubly protected by the free exercise and free-speech causes of the first amendment of the constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. this was an ideological split as he would think within the court, 6-3 conservative liberal split that has been made of the term emberley has shown up in a lot of big cases here. let me read from the defense, off this by justices breyer and kagan saying this, today's decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official who voluntarily accepted public employment in the limits of public employment entails, over those of his students who are required to attend school and who discord has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection. this is taking place after high school football game, coach kennedy went and prayed by himself and student

listen. >> gorsuch, kavanaugh, you have released a whirlwind and you will pay the price. [cheering] >> you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. >> todd: tom, is it any wonder somebody like this would-be assassin would take cues from democratic leadership? >> should have called him over grand jury over comments like that designed to intimidate the court. this language continues to be echoed to this day. garland yesterday is saying, we oppose intimidation and violence. yes, but they allow intimidation that is violation of the law when you show up outside a justice's house, you are in violation of federal law. if you're out there to try to affect or -- a course of action the court is about to take. garland is in on it, biden's white house endorsed these types of campaigns and pelosi and chuck schumer are in on it, as well. pelosi has an opportunity. go ahead. >> carley: when this draft opinion was leaked, you did have pro-life centers being fire bombed, churches being vandalized and the addresses of the supreme court justices leaked online. y

former law clerk to justice gorsuch, is enough being done to protect them? >> so, i also served as the chief counsel for nominations on the senate judiciary committee and portfolio included oversight of the federal courts including security. i'm not going to go into the details what is provided for judges and justices but if people think they are going to show up to a supreme court justice's home and threaten them with a gun they will end up in prison or dead. so there is security for the justices. increasing security for justices and i hope people don't make a deadly calculation. >> sandra: mike davis, appreciate you joining us on this developing story. we hope to have you back soon and hope there is a conclusion in the house to step up the security of these justices because this only seems to be escalating. appreciate your time, sir. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> john: sandra, bring in wyoming republican senator john barrasso, your reaction to this threat against justice kavanaugh. as we started off the show, shocking, but hardly a surprise. >> tha

neil gorsuch has proven to be the strongest asset of native american rights.e was with the liberal justices on that case. it is a controversial case, i can't really confidently discuss it at this point. host: frank out of new york, and independent. caller: i am about to officiate a relatives wedding soon, i am not a member of the clergy. i am not religious really. i do believe that jesus was the prince of peace and i practice in my life his teachings of being loving and compassionate. when i do this officiating, my nephew and his fiancee are not religious. i don't intend on bringing religion into the conversation, but i do intend on bringing spirituality into my speech. he is having it on the beach so i will bring in the beauty and spirit of nature that surrounds us. host: it sounds like a lovely ceremony, bring me to the relationship to the topics we are talking about. caller: i am curious to what he thinks about that? my problem is, i am afraid that i may offend religious people in the audience because i am omitting religion. i am wondering what he thinks ab

the fact that gorsuch felt he had to lie more than a dozen times in this ruling shows in my opinion how corrupt the court is and how willing they are to subordinate basic principles of democracy, that democracy is not based on anybody's religion. it is based on the rule of law and the fact that this court is willing to blow those things up just to satisfy wealthy donor bases and a minority of voters in the united states, is very troubling. host: you talked about the federalist society and its agenda. is there an equivalent for liberals? guest: i wish there was. there is not. there are a few progressive think tanks mostly that have to do with economics. but there are no major foundations. for example, i do a radio talkshow. for years, ken vogel wrote about this in politico. for years, the heritage foundation was pumping $1 million a year into sean hannity's show got $2 million a year into rush limbaugh's show. there is no equivalent on the left. there is nothing like that. you have 1500 right-wing radio stations around the country, several hundred of them now in spanish language pumping