this goes to the tolerance debate between gorsuch and sotomayor. consider this -- say your operation were an emergency and this doctor was the only one available and refused to treat you because of your sex or your religion or marital status. what then? that is one reason why the court did this country a disservice not requiring the state to bring a complaint and take evidence and see what remedy the colorado civil rights commission would enter against lorie smith. i think every case is distinctive. the track whether you are a commission or judge is to figure out a way for mutually different points of view to reach some kind of accommodation. host: lorie smith. en newsmax, along with her lawyer, the day of the decision. >> the court's ruling today affirms that the government cannot force anyone to say something it does not believe. this protects lgbtq graphic designers, jewish calligrapher is, democrat speech writers. everybody should be free to create in line with what they believe. free speech is for everyone. the last seven years, i have been ce

justice gorsuch: yeah. and that is because, everyone to look at her friends in the federalist papers and everywhere else, that was considered sharin- there was no absolute separation of powers. was an exception that -- that they had to be mixed. you know your federalist 41 and 51 better than i do, i'm sure. but that that was a leive function that was given to the president and thers in article i. mr. katyal: not disagreeing with that, justice gorsuch. what i am saying is that smiley focused on two things, the word "legislature" but also the word "reg" and together they create a lawmaking system, and what smiley says is you're the ect to the constraints of that lawmaking system, one of which was judicial rie well-established at the founding, far more established than the veto. justice gorsuch: all right. now we're off on another tangent. go for it. mr. katyal: so far more established than the veto. seven different states had judicial review at the founding. if the -- the method of smiley is to say, look, the

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: no.hief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice jackso justice jackson: just finally, clear, in answer, in response to justice sotomayor, the reasonee the counsel on the other side as making a sweeping argument that doesn't really require us to employ a st to determine when a court is acting as a court is because they have conceded that this is cot acting as a court, but even still they say s cision needs to be cut out because it's based on state constitutional law and not federal constitutional law. am i understanding? general prelogar: that's exactly right. so, they have said multiple times toda they are not asking this court to delve into the ins and outs of the north carolina supreme court's sion here, that they take it at face value as an accurate understanding of north carolina law. ey're instead making far more sweeping arguments that would take off the table 233 years of history in this country, state constitutional provisions that have applied under the articles of confederatio

justice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: i'd like to ask you just a hypothetical about narrow tailoring because we're in strict scrutiny land here, and the university has to demonstrate it's narrowly tailored, race is narrowly tailored. and diversity is the rationale you've asserted before us. universities also have allin of other plus factors they use, like for legacies of alumni, for no' children, for squash players, we learned there are players, we learned there are plus factors becausee ed those too. and i guess i'm wondering, supposa iversity, a wealthy university could eliminate those preferences, which tend to favor the children of wealthy white parents and achieve diversity without race consciousness, would strict scrutiny require it to do so? mr. park: if i may, i'd like to just make a threshold point that those are not -- justice gorsuch: i understand a hypothetical is not your case and you don't like it. i got it. mr. park: ri justice gorsuch: i got it. mr. right. justice go okay? but if you could

guest: under the gorsuch opinion, possibly so.ost: but a restaurant owner is not engaging in creative speech. guest: the court back in the 1960's, when civil rights had a public accommodations provision, a number of restaurant owners said no, we need to turn away any person, person of color who would integrate our restaurant. because the word of the lord is opposed to racial integration. and if you are such a religious person that you think serving a catholic or a jew would be contrary to the teachings of christ in your heart, the gorsuch opinion theoretically would seem to lend some protection to that. the supreme court justices, most of whom are catholic, when they dared to issue an opinion? of course they wouldn't. this is one of the other things deeply wrong about the opinion. it is unprincipled. host: here is lonnie, sturgis, south dakota. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a veteran and i fought for this country. i think everybody should be able to live the way they want to live. religion should not have any

>> that may be right, justic gorsuch. but i think masterpiece couldn't veeen clearer in saying that declining to sell goods or services, even expressive goods and services for a same wedding -- for a same-sex wedding, is a rm of status based discrimination properly within the scope of public accommodations >> do we agree as well that this is this work that the planet performs is expressive in natu >> we do. >> thank you. >> so i didn't belabor this at the beginning, justice jackson. but your photograph hypothetical is exactly the sort of implication of the arguments that petitioners are advancing that are of concern to the uned states. we really do think it's very difficult if you accept her principal, is it speech and does the speaker believe the message has changed tthat someone who is doing the that would not be entitled undetheory to an exemption from the public accommodations laws. and we think that's a very sweeping accommodation that's inconsistent with the court's admonition and miece cake shop that any sort of ca

>> justice gorsuch? >> good moing, mr. olson. it must not feel like it is anywhere you are. >> i am here all day, justice. >> good see you. we have had some discussion about whether website are speech er they are some service off-the-shelf, i like a lot of my colleagues do not profess to know much about this, but i do know there ar stipulations you made in paragraphs 81, 82, 83, which say this is customized, personalized , and expressive activity in each and every circumstance. what do we do about that from your perspective? >> it does not change the analys. >> why n? i dsee something different about a cake put onisplay, it is what it is, or a websit that you can then go customize yourself. and another thing to commission and express an activity. and to ruire somebody to create an expression. those are two things analytically and in our law, so help me out. >> along with stipulations, we need to look at the scic relief that companies seek. the specific relief the companies seek is if you turn away every single same-sex customer.

article 3, project founder and president and former gorsuch supreme court clerk mike davis will weigh numbers. we see the people. marcus: detroit, it's just changed so much. you can see what it once was. and then, i think about what it can be. as an entrepreneur, it's about how i can give them the tools to empower themselves if we can just all do something small, all the small things will start to amount to something big. that's why we're here to help make it happen. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) -awww. -awww. -awww. -nope. ( ♪ ) constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall. when you automate sales tax with avalara, you don't have to worry about things like changing tax rates or filing returns. avalarahhh ahhh the first time you made a sale online with godaddy was also the first time you heard of a town named dinosaur, colorado. we just got an order from dinosaur, colorado. start an easy to build, powerful website for free with a partner that always puts you first. start for f

justice gorsuch, you asked a sef questions about risk l alternatives and i want to offer the position of the united states, jusarrett, you also asked questions about legacy, children of factynd staff and i want to be very cleaehalf of the united states t he could be shown that eliminating those kinds preferences would actually to offer the educationale ables benefitse diverse student body, we say absolutely, that d unction as a race neutral alternative. it is incuon universities consider those kinds of options as they try to path forward. to the extent that the court has any co about that or thinks thalower court in this case did not apply t kind of standard, that would be clear that strict scrutiny inade this context and that universities have to undertake for those types of alternatives in order to be able to achieve diverse involvement without taking race into account. >> your opening statement -- it seems to me want to be extended to employment. is that right? >> no. i was trying to make t observation that the experience of students in those four years of college have effects on t

we appointed three conservatives to our federal courts at every level, including justice neil gorsuch, justice brett kavanaugh and justice amy coney barrett. i am just saying. those three justices have literally transformed the court, durable conservative majority. three justices and a new majority that gave america a new beginning for the right to life. beyond our record in washington dc, you may not know as i mentioned i was governor of the state of indiana. the hoosier state is a lot like iowa. we demonstrated their you can balance budgets and cut taxes. before that, i was a conservative leader in the congress of the united states. i served for 12 years in the house of representatives. it seemed longer. i was there during republican majorities and during democratic majorities. i was the leader of the house republican conference chair the first time we retire nancy pelosi and i want to thank you for helping retire nancy pelosi once and for all. thank you, congresswoman. she is gone. i have been a congressman, governor and your vice president. in this time in the life of the nation,

[abby[ neil gorsuch was president trump's first supreme court nominee, and he was taking a supreme courtsically held open at the end of the obama administration for the next president. the justices that i'm going to appoint will be pro-life. they will have a conservative bent. donald trump was married three times. linked to porn stars. not the first logical choice for southern evangelicals. so the most important thing trump did to try to cement the allegiance of the cultural conservative vanguard of the republican party was to signal who he would pick for the supreme court. -so help me god. -congratulations. in both cases, they each got what they wanted. the conservative christian groups got the conservative supreme court. and donald trump got their votes to win the election. today, the president began interviewing possible nominees for the supreme court seat that will become open when justice anthony kennedy retires. president trump here nominates brett kavanaugh. [chris] brett kavanaugh was supposed to replace anthony kennedy. and that's a big deal because kennedy had always been the k

when neil gorsuch was confirmed in 2017, that happened with a whimper and there wasn't much of a fight by the democrats against that nomination in 2017. from that, our group was started with the goal of trying to galvanize the public to care a little bit more. five years later, i would like to take credit for it but it's really external events that have happened over the last five years. you had the kavanaugh conversation, ruth bader ginsburg's untimely passing followed by amy coney barrett's confirmation, highly charged confirmation battle that focus the public attention on this issue. in the ensuing years, you had rulings like the overturning of roe v. wade that have really thrown the public for a loop, people who took that for granted that was 50 years old. we were trying to tell people that was on the line and a lot of people didn't believe it until it actually happened. i think you are now seeing that the issues have never been more salient especially among democratic voters. they tell us in polls more than republican voters that this is a voting issue for them in a complete flip

reappointed more than 300 conservatives to our federal courts at every level including justus neil gorsuchrett kavanaugh and justice amy coney barrett. and that conservative majority gave america a new beginning and the right to life in the last six months. [applause] for me it was a privilege to have be a part of it i appreciate the fact that something else i'm trying to capture was the hailstorm of opposition that we face. from day one i tell a story in the book about i was with president trump on inauguration day 2017 we were in the oval office we started walking back to the white house down the portico, he turned and looked at me and said that's right, it's humbling. [laughter] as we walked into the residence the end of that chapter i capture the fact that back outside the oval office was a stack of newspapers. the headline in the washington post on january 20, 2017 was the campaign to impeach donald trump starts today. and they never let up 2.5 years of the russia hoax until it was no collusion or obstruction case closed impeached president for a phone call in the unrelenting attacks

appointed more than 300 conservatives to our federal courts at every level included justice neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. that conservative majority gave america a new beginning and -- in the right to life in the last six months. [applause] to me, it was a privilege to be a part of it and i also appreciate the fact when something else i have tried to capture in "so help me god" was the hailstorm of opposition we faced from day one. i tell a story in the book about how i was with president trump on inauguration day in 2017 and we were at the oval office, just the two of us were there and we started walking back to the white house down the portico. and the bright lights were on the side wall, it was well lit. president trump looked at me and said, look at this. i said, it is humbling. he turned and looked at me and said, that's right it's humbling. [laughter] but as we walked into the residence, the end of that chapter i capture the fact that outside the oval office was a stack of newspapers. the headline in the washington post on january 20, 2017 was " the campaign

90 percent and appointed more than 300 conservatives to our federal courts including justice neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy barrett and that gave america a new beginning in the right to life in the last six months. to me it was a privilege to be part of it and i appreciate the fact that something else i tried to capture in "so help me god" was the hailstorm of opposition that we faced from day one. i tell a story in the book about how i was with president trump on inauguration day 2017. we were in the oval office and just the two of us were there, we started walking and to the white house reported back and the bright green lights were onthe side of the wall. it was well lit . president trump looked at me and said look at this and i said it's humbling and he turned and looked at me and said that's right, it's humbling. but as we walked in to the resident at the end of that chapter i captured the fact that back outside the oval office was a stack of newspapers . the headline in the washington post on january 20 2017 was the campaign to impeach donald trump starts today. and they neve

in court upheld this but this is not easy it was not an ideological line it was 5 - 4 and justice gorsuchty and i quote him, the constitution addresses many issues, the type of porkchops california merchant may sell is not one of them. and that's what it means. here is the deal the big producers can afford to make this change to make it friendly for the pigs. the small producer like the one that were at right now that cost a lot of money. >> and cost 3 - $4000 prepaid, you're talking about a farmer this size could cost half a million dollars. right now producers are really struggling in the economy is not good and input good times. >> it is tough and complicated and obviously nobody wants to eat an animal that is not been treated well. i have no problem eating animals but i like them to be very friendly. look at the sky. it is not all of the pig but maybe one of his progeny and i hope he's treated well, don't bite me. >> i see both sides of the fe fence. i'm out of time i've got to go, now this. a.i. powered robot is being used to help kids learn social sk skills, the founder of the compa

you cannot talk about the trump years without acknowledging during his four ears of president when gorsuch was appointed kavanaugh was appointed the court looks the way the court does and the court is the court and those those things have consequences not only in terms of the outcome of decisions in terms of the way the court operates. this is you riding your book. the court's conservative majority is used to obscure procedural jurisprudence to the right. so two questions.s first is that what's going on appointed justices are open to the idea of this procedural trick being used and therefore this is the way it goes. or am i missing something? >> the problem is we don't have the counter side of the argument. we don't know whether the majority of democratic justices in the same circumstance like justice garland. >> two different things are true and i think it's worth suggesting both points. i do think there's something specific not about conservative judicial philosophy and conservative mythological interpretation. these particular justices that meant the braces came off as they were pointed

majority leader of the senate, had strong words to say about josh's this justice kavanaugh and justice gorsuch that, i think, in some respects led directly to the sort of protests and danger that justice kavanaugh in particular was faced with. all those things are something to be watchful of. we can have strong debate in the political process. but we do have to be mindful that those actions have consequences. and then, at the outer edges, there is behavior that just simply is not acceptable. so, i guess, to answer your question, i think there are limits. and i think those limits will be policed. but i will also say that, in the political process, there is going to be a collision with regard to those varying interests as we get to trying to set trial dates, since it seems like the bulk of these prosecutors are anxious to get these trials started and completed before the 2024 election cycle concludes. i have my strong doubts about whether or not that is possible, or that it is in the country's best interest that those cases go forward prior to the election. >> so, what do you mean by it's in the

former senate judiciary counsel mike davis clerked for supreme court justice gorsuch and will be watchingdings and will be commenting today. mic, great to see you, what's your reaction to what happened today and what went down earlier this week? >> well, president biden told his attorney general merrick garland to jump and merrick garland said how high. and he has brought this unprecedented law fare against president trump. sent attorney to join alvin bragg's office to bring unprecedented indictment against trump for the noncrime of settling a nuisance claim and garland had jack smith indict president trump for the noncrime of a former president having his presidential records, which is allowed by the presidential records act. now merrick garland has jack smith indicting trump for the noncrime of objecting to a presidential election. and it's only a crime to object to presidential elections in third world marxist hell holes. democrats objected to republican wins in 1968, 2,000, 2004, and 2016. and so this case, this current case is before an obama judge and a in d.c. with a 95% democrat d

gorsuch even staff did similar things. but he will have to put up some sort of evidence. it's unlikely that he will testify. the state has already signify that they're going to get the secretary of state, the chief investigator, and a couple of attorneys who filed lawsuits for trump to challenge elections, to testify on their behalf. >> yeah, so that hearing is happening in federal court, federal district court on monday. we also have a hearing in the d.c. case. so lots to look for on monday. amy legal planned, thank you so much for that. >> thank you, chris. take care. >> still ahead, by this time on monday we will know the start date for donald trump's d.c. trial. is it going to happen before the next election? that's next. that's next. ♪ start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ get it with gurus. cargurus. (wheezing) asthma isn't pretty. it's the moment when you realize that a good day... is about to become a bad one. but then, i remembered that the world is so much bigger than that, with trelegy.

cannot talk about the trump years acknowledging that during his years as president, he appointed gorsuch. he appointed kavanaugh, he appointed barrett. the court looks the way the court does the composition. the court is the composition of the court, because of those four years, those things have had consequences, not only in terms of the outcome of decision, but also just in terms of the way the court operates. this is you writing in the book the court's new conservative majority has used obscure procedural orders to shift american jurisprudence to the right, said flatly. so is that two parts of two questions of this question? first is, is that what's going on here? trump appointed justices were more open to the idea of this procedural trick being used and this is the way it goes, or am i missing something? so the problem is we don't the counter the counter side of, that argument. right. we don't know whether a majority of democratic appointed in the same circumstance like justice garland, for instance, would behave the same. so i think two different things are true and. i think it's wo

chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice kavanaugh? justicnaugh: i interpreted your argumenhe briefs similarly to justice kagan and justice alito, that d a broad argument which struck me as asking us to rewrite gingles in -- in a variety of ways, and th narrower argument focuse compactness, whether the new proposed here was reasonably compact. assume just for the sake of argument that we don't rewrite gingles an focus on the compactness of the proposed majority-minority district. i mean, you get to this on page 66 of urrief, and you say with respect to compactness, "the question is whether the newly drawn district as sufficiently compact or whether the minority population iso sprawling that any majority-minority dist configured." i agree completely that that is the qn. i did not find much help on the answer. and this is your opportunity to -- to -- to answer that questi why is it -- why do you think 's so sprawling, given that it does respect a community of interest in the black belt, that it can't be a new majority-minitdistrict? mr.

>> justice gorsuch? >> i understood the office of counsel's memorandum to suggest that the secretary uer the statute had authority to put student borrowers in the same condition that they we prior to the emergency and the nature of your argument is tha test is not met. do you agree witthposition and understanding of the statute and how you argue that it succeeded that authority? >> your honor, i disagree with most everything in the opinion but i agree with that part. i think it is right that that is whathehrase no worse position means. it means congress was telling the secretary that he had the auority to keep our rovers near the status quo. but what we haveeris a program that for 20 million borrowers will leave them without a single outstanding loan. th gs well beyond putting them back in the status quo ante. and for the other approximately 20illion borrowers that stand to benefit from this, their average debt is going to go from $29,000 to $13,000. again, far beyond returning to the status quo ante. >>

when neil gorsuch was confirmed in 2017, that happened with a whimper and there wasn't much of a fighty the democrats against that nomination in 2017. from that, our group was started with the goal of trying to galvanize the public to care a little bit more. five years later, i would like to take credit for it but it's really external events that have happened over the last five years. you had the kavanaugh conversation, ruth bader ginsburg's untimely passing followed by amy coney barrett's confirmation, highly charged confirmation battle that focus the public attention on this issue. in the ensuing years, you had rulings like the overturning of roe v. wade that have really thrown the public for a loop, people who took that for granted that was 50 years old. we were trying to tell people that was on the line and a lot of people didn't believe it until it actually happened. i think you are now seeing that the issues have never been more salient especially among democratic voters. they tell us in polls more than republican voters that this is a voting issue for them in a complete flip fr