chief justice roberts: jti kagan? justice kagan: mr.think ofhifrom congress's perspective. so i was thinking what is the next bigie of legislation on the horizon and who knows, don' i'going to guess that it's artificial intelligence. so let's imagine core enacts an artificial intelligence bill and it has all kinds o delegations, maybe icrtes an agency for the ppo or maybe it uses existing agencies and io that agey agencies about how to regulate artificial intelligence so that this nation cacaure the -- the -- the opportunities but also meet thc( challenges of that. and then, just by the nature of things and especially the nature of the s to be all kinds of places where, although there's not an explicit delegation, congress has in it has created an ambiguy. and what congress is thinking is, do we want courts to fill agency to fill that gap? when the normal techniques of gainterpretation have run out, on the matter of artificial intelligence, what does congress nt, mr. martinez? martinez: i think congress wants courts to interpret thbe in

kagan?ere's been a fair b otalk, general, about how because you don't have a formula for saying when there's a gap or ambiguity so that go to step two or bejudges may have diffentendencies, you know, icmight be temperamental as much as anything else, to find ambiguity, because of that there's going to be so variability. and it's hard to argue th i will be some variability, but could you talk about the variability in the alternative scenario? general prelogar: this is a really iornt point to focus on because, as i was trying to say rlr, in a world without chevron, it's not as though congre ialways going to speak clearly and it won't leave gaps or ambiguities in statutes, genuine ambiguities whe u apply the tools and at the end yoare left with no certainty about what congress was trng to do. and in that circumstance in a world without chevro wt we'll see is what justice alito was suggesting, the courts will have to go on and try to answer the questi. but there are 800 district court dgthk 's f

stice kagan: -- or a drug? martinez: i -- i think it would dendn -- on the -- the original understanding of the text of that statute in -- read in context. justice kagan: you -- you want the -- martezand i think that's a -- a legal question for a court. justice kagan: -- you think that the court should determine whether this new product is a dietary supplement or a drug without giving deference to the agency, where it is not clear from the text of the statute or from usingnyraditional methods of statutory terpretation whether, in fact, the new product is a dietary supplement or a drug? martinezi justice kagan: you want the courts to decide that? martinez: justice kagan, i think with respect to that question or any other of the -- a legal question, i thinwh the court would do, there -- there are going to be hard questnsbut i think the court would bring all the traditional tools of construction to bear -- justice kagan: they do tha-- martinez: -- and would -- justice kan:- under chevron. they -- you know, we have

justice kagan. justice kavanaugh. >> i think i will go to what justice kagan was asking abou the road closures and e rules. when i was discussing with your frnd, we were assuming that it wasn't also posted onthe government site, it was only posted on the personal site and then asking where does it cross the line. why does it matter that it is posted on the goveme site or not? >> i guesit would matter because that would inform, just as you look at the facts of the case, whether you are acting in your personal capacity or on officialcapacity, which metaphorical hat you are wearing. if you scrge a duty, assuming there is a dutyto inform the public, if you discharge the duty on the official site and you amplified on your personal site, odds are you do it on your personal site you are doing it in rsal capacity. if you are blocke and you don't inform the public about the road closure anyou only do it on your persalsite you are probably discharging your official duty. >>it sounds like both of you wod ve a

family, a man named fredrick kagan who works at the american enterprise institute, and it was a typical article by him. because every year basically or every couple of years he talks about some great villain of the united states and how we have to spend billions and billions of dollars to fight them because it's the greatest and he went on again and so i was going to respond and then i thought you know something's a little deeper than this, it's one failure after another, absolute disaster after another, trillions of dollars down the drain, and it's the same cast of characters and... makes you think it's not just lack of accountability, there's something obvious, it's in plain sight what's happening, in a way they're winning, they're not winning in anything that has to do with my interest or your interest judge or the interest of the american people, but they've gotten the military spending and the defense related budget up to about $1.5 trillion dollars this year, more contracts filling out everywhere, they got two wars going. on this is phenomenal, can you imagine rathion and and lock

russia in the upper reaches of the river, volga bulgaria in the middle and the khazar kaganate in theny times bolgar was destroyed to the ground by the slavs and mongols, just as many times it rose from the ashes thanks to convenience. the oldest bagpipe is over 300 years old and was not born in scotland. whoever played the bagpipes: the ancient chaldeans, assyrians, egyptians, persians, indians, greeks danced to the bagpipes, the romans marched in battle formation, only the barbarian invasions abandoned the bagpipes to the north, scotland, where she acquired. france, in italy, in romania and moldova, in belarus, in germany , in estonia, in bulgaria, in armenia, in georgia, in the chuvash, in mariella, because of the drawn-out, monotonous sound of the instrument, the word “bagpipe” was born, then eat, hesitate, stall for time, but time, of course, does not drag on, but... but flows gradually, like the serenga river flows into baikal, and old baikal has many fairy tales. one of them is about how baikal did not allow his daughter, the beautiful angara, to marry bogatura yenisei, but the

so this i something that they could look at >> justice kagan?on. i just want to ask what that mean? i mean what it mean doing exactly kisor did to auer deference, to chevron deference? wisary? would one want to go further in any respect? evron?oes it mean >> i think the courtan in this case if it has som concerns about the implementation issues cod do for critical things which i draw heavily on kisor bú look a little different in their particars. the first thing the court could do would be to emphasize the rigor of t step point analysis. this is drunk driver from kisor. as i mentioned we seem results by the are now following this court's direction with respect to that. what the court would be saying is don'taive the ambiguity flag too readily. don't give up jus because the statute is dense or hard to parse. instead therere hard questions out there thatt can be solve and reveal congress' conte if the court applies all the tools and really exhausted. that would te care of h a whole category of court could again do what it did in cars which was rei

i want to ask in the context of justice kagan's example. where's the line between something that woulde bject to arbitrary and caprious review and something that the question of law? i'm wondering if we can s the definition of dietary supplements or drugs mig be something that is a question of statutory interpretation and the context of the statute but which category might be question of policy for the agency. ishat possible? >> that would be more of an application of factual question but the core question of what is the meaning of diety sulent, those are legal -- >> whether this particular cholesterol reducing drug selling one pattern or the other depends on how does this function. what is the mechanism? >> that's right but i think it is important to retain the legal component of that question and make sure the courts have authority over that legal component. >> let me ask about your article 3 argument. justice thomas asked what the line is and courts all the time make judgments about whether things are reasonable but i don't derstand you

so that's justice kagan. i couldn't put it better than that in terms of identifying what's at stake in this seemingly wonky question, how you interpret the statute. wow, that's extraordinary extraordinary. we have some great questions from the audience. and this is a big one, neal. and that is tell us about the role of precedent on the supreme court and what does the top decision say about this court's attitude toward precedent? it says that they can overrule any precedent any time, anywhere. that is, if you can overrule roe, which is what think every justice at their confirmation hearing called a super precedent. and what justice o'connor, kennedy and souter said was a super precedent. and you can overrule anything. and let's just take, for example, the judge's discussion of chevron. i think chevron is the most cited case by the u.s. supreme court ever. and so this is woven very much into the fabric of the law. congress, when it's been passing statutes since 1984, has passed them in the shadow of chevron. so

kagan? >> to go back to justice thomas's point, a person becomes a school board member and th t up a private account so they are not using a pre-existing account. the only thing on isaccount are things related to the school board, so it has, you know, we are having a meeting, the agenda, the resoluon the meeting times, the minutes, job postings, official reports, whatever. all school business. and there is some commentary. you know, the boarwould like to know what you think this, so please come to the meeting. please give your comments to me on this page about what you think of agenda item number threein our next meeting. atis the content of the page. ste action or not. >> that his spee that they can do intheir private capacity and there is no evence, resources, or anything else that they are beg done through control. everything that you just that could happen in my client's backyard. that could happen if my clients went to urch. hey, ha a difficult issue coming up ne week. what do you think

i nt to follow up on your reon to justice kagan. the level of generality question. do you think the veof generality, yohave surety laws and a lot of hiorical evidence, ybnot the historicaltw. you are saying should overlook tt in the same way you would say the analysis also applies to the right side of e dger, the regulation side. are not looking for -- is it fowler ormusket? is that a fair understanding? s. we think it applies in both directions. understanding itself and the limitations that are built up into that right. >> we had discussion about the length of time th is in some of these orders. you emphasized that you are only arguing for a temporary dispossession. i guess i am wondering on a facial challenge do we need to get into any of that? normally we would ask is there any set of circumstances which the dispossession would be lawful. that may applied if it is a lifetime ban that would come to usand be a separate western. >> i agree that would be a separate question. i think there is good reason to reject as applied challenges because of the cagocal judgments

>> justice kagan , i do not agree with you that the law runs out, even though there is nc if i did ihat point let's give the tie to the citizen. let's not give the tie to the agency. >> i don't think is what we would do. u ll give the tie to the citizen and i to the agency. chevn about what congress want. you can call it fictional al you want, and we have lots of presumptions that operate with respect to statutory interpretation. iss just one of them. it is stsaying congress understands as well as ybody different institutional's compariv attributes and virtues. not want courts making, i mean it is law, but it is policy laden judgments. once congress cannot find direction. >> if we want to ta about what congress wants we probably should advert to thfa that we do have an amicus briefing in this case fromthe house. it does not want chevron. it hatotal control over chevron. it can reverse itomrow with respect to any titular statute d th respect tostatue generally and it hasn't. for 40 years "■nit has exceeded except for super rare cases. it has basically said this is the background rule.

important journal article by an american political scientist, very prominent, very influential, robert kagan, in which he actually said that we have. which took place recently the other day in the state of ayuma in the western part of the united states states, and this has increased the worries of the democrats, this has increased the worries of liberals and globalists, this is the first serious threat that they, that they feel. second threat. the states, in general, the globalist elite , the south, the east, look and say: the king is naked, the americans are just all the others you’re talking about, they can’t write like that, under no circumstances will we lose power, it turns out we see the delivery, where, relatively speaking, in a test tube they wave at us and say: look, guys, what we have here, you want to win on the battlefield, but here we have there is such a thing, 20 times cooler than covid-19, or maybe there is some other thing? biotechnological, or some other means by which we can make sure that your victory, well, ours, will be a feast, how should we react in these conditions,

chief justice john roberts and amy coney barrett, ketanji brown jackson, elena kagan and ayna soto mayorth the adnistration. alito, brettted in favor of texas. ♪ announcer: tuesday night, watch campaign 2024■ñcoverage oe presidential primary unfiltered and uninterrupted. we will bring a primary results as they come in, candidate speeches and take your calls and get reactions on social media. watch 8 p.m. tuesday night on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile app, or online. c-span, unfiltered view of politics. ♪ announcer: listening to programs on c-span or c-span radio app just got easier. tell your smart speaker app" and listen to washington journal daily, with important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio." c-span, powered by cable. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> oh, you

as i was saying justice kagan in the first argument, i think it'll open up the world where there i aw judges are applying the principles in the case of ambiguity. >> on that point, some of the briefs point o the experience of the state with chevron and some don't have chevron and other states■p haven't something like chevron, but eliminated it in recent years and decades, a they are experienced, they say,ashown it's workableegime. so i just want to make sure you can respond to that? >> yes, so my understanding is about half t states still have something, a kino a principle of indifference or variant that looks likehevron. but i acknowledge that some states have abolished any indifferences. i do think there is a lot less concern at the state level about the lack of uniformity or consistency. so one of the values chevron implements and recognizes for whyhe would prefer for the agency to be ae to set these rules and f the courts to respecthat is the value of ensuring there are unifm rules throughout the country. i don't think that same experience right now ests in the state level. and a

liberal justice elena kagan defended the practice, saying -- "and it's best to defer to people who do know, who have had long experience on the ground, who have seen a thousand of these kinds of situations," kagan said, adding, "and, you know, judges should know what they don't know." a ruling by the supreme court is expected in the summer. in a major anti-trust ruling, a federal judge in boston has blocked the merger of jetblue and spirit airlines saying the merger would hurt consumers. in his ruling, judge william young wrote, "the airline industry is an oligopoly that has become more concentrated due to a series of mergers." last year, the department of justice and six states sued to stop the merger. the consumer financial protection bureau has proposed a rule that could drastically lower overdraft charges at the nation's largest banks. if approved, many bank customers could see their overdraft fees drop from about $35 to as little as $3. the agency estimates the new rule could save households up to $3.5 billion annually. banking trade groups have decried the proposed rule changes.

>> justice kagan , i do not agree with you that the w nsut, even though there is an agency there. i would give u this, if i did i would say at that point les give the tie to the citizen. let's not give th tie to the agency. >> i don'thk is what we would do. you will give the tie to the citizen and i to the agency. chevron is about what congress want. you can call it fictional all you want, and we have lots of presumptions that operate with respect to statutory interptaon. this is just one of em it is just saying congress understands as well as anybody differt institutional's comparative atibutes and virtues. it does not want courts making, i an it is law, t it is pocy laden judgments. once congress cannot find direction. >> if we want to talk about what congrs nts we probably should advert to the fact that we do have an icus briefing in this case from the hoe. it does nowa chevron. >> it has total control over chevron. it can reverse it tomorrow with respect to any titular statute and with respect to statue geray and it hasn't. for 40 years it has exceeded except for super rare ca

justice kagan really put her finger right on it.ns about regulations that are passed by our administrative agencies? when we think of the equal protection, when we think of the environmental protection agency, when we think of the s.e.c., all these agencies that make regulations that really impact many of our lives, chevron doctrine simply says that the agencies are both politically accountable and the experts. what the conservative majority of the supreme court seem to want to do today is to take that power from the agencies and put it in the hands of judges, who are politically unaccountable and who, as justice kagan pointed out, are often not experts in these areas of the law. so, for example, this case is about fisheries. we know that many judges don't know much about fisheries, whereas the agency that made these decisions is the expert in those matters, and that's what chevron is really about. >> and we touched on the ethical issues in the introduction, but walk us through how justice thomas, justice gorsuch, how their impartia

the military complex, if you're part of this institute for the study of war, which is part of the kagan family enterprise, you're paid for by this, it's it's the whole business of washington, the military or defense. industry so-called, although defense is euphemism for military, spends about $150 billion a year in lobbying. according to opensecrets.org, about 72% of those lobbyists are recycled from the us government, the revolving door, so this is part of the scam, and then every day, every month we're told we must spend more, we must spend more. "the dangers are greater, we're going to have uh the ukraine war, we we have gaza, we're going to have the war in the red sea, the middle east could expand, don't, let's not forget taiwan next year, and on and on and on, and it doesn't matter whether a word of what they say makes sense, they're stealing the wheelbarrows, what they're doing is getting budgets that are busting the federal government." "we have debt that is more than 100% of our gross national product now, none of these wars is paid for, none of this military spending is paid fo

cord is not wanting to do that and maybe the court will end up listening to the comment of justice kagan who said it was just as kagan who said we are not denying -- which everybody in the chamber really appreciated. >> thank you.. brandon you were just invoked and let me give you a chance to respond and just on sort of a few were mark zuckerberg what would you be doing to respond to the concerns that you raised or that jack amplified? >> thank you. let me elaborate just a little to be clear about whatle i mean. i recently co-authored a study on youtube and exposure to french content on a platform. that's a case where people have a story about how algorithms radicalize but what we found was in 2020 the overwhelming majority of people were consuming content from problematic channels and peoples that had high levels of racial resentment. they are to subscribe to two channels of that type so it was not a problem of algorithm. people binding turbo content. if that mean youtube's innocent? a course not. why? they are providing this incredible platform to that french audience and monetizing im

but justice kagan herself has said that she is in some ways embraced textualism and originalism. i think justice jackson to her credit has embraced historically use and has been willing to debate the others on history. and so i wouldn't limit it to left, right, conservative, liberal, or republican,ne democrat. i dislike all those labels asi you imagine, i know you do. >> guest: you are never going to come up with a label that would like because a like to think evs of individuals and i think that is important. it's hard to answer that question that's why think justice thomas' is so unique in many ways is because he really in a sense captures what brutus the anti-federalist at the time of the founding was worried about, the judges wouldn't adhere to the original public meaning. he has tried his best to do so in the purest form possible. and who will crowd that mantle on the court currently? i couldn't predict but i n tell you that i may justices that respect the original meaning and respect the history. as you said, they might have different approaches to it but i still think we al

>> yes, kagan said that, ketanji brown jackson brat of the fact that it would just simply be her wordsactical and chaotic to move chevron deference. you know what the conservatives it? they laughed. i am not making -- conservative super lawyer paul clements. so, of course, we weren't going to overturn 17,000 precedents, we're just going to return this one and the conservatives on the court had a big chuckle about it. they left and i counted three times over the course of the hearing as they joked about ending the administrative state. it's funny to nominate funny to them because again, katie, they have unassailable, unaccountable power. as i wrote, the supreme court, that wasn't an oral argument that you are listening to. that was a coronation your listening to as the supreme court took the crown, placed it on their head, as said come at me, bro. >> before your interview, i told the viewers there's a reason why justice samuel alito tried to play us all for a full. he actually took the position during these oral arguments, elie, that this chevron deference doctrine is not necessary anym

kagan warned that america is headed the way of the roman republic, writing, "indicting trump for trying to overthrow the government will prove akin to indicting caesar for crossing the rubicon, and just as effective." yes, trump is just like caesar, except that history will never associate him with salad. not all... caesar salad. part of a balanced diet. there's croutons. not all republicans are on board with trump's one-day dictator idea. yesterday, mitt romney offered this homespun analogy. >> you know, when i was a kid, there was something called a gumball machine. you could put a penny in, and a gumball would come out. it was automatic. there was no filter. put in the penny, out came the gumball. donald trump is kind of a human gumball machine, which is a thought or a notion comes in, and it comes out of his mouth. >> stephen: what are you talking about? trump is not a gumball machine! gumball machines give you the same thing every time: a gumball. with trump, you put in a penny, one time it's a gumball. the next time it's a meatball. sometimes it's kevin mccarthy's balls. [cheers a

. >> chairwoman kagan thank you for inviting me to testify today. it is important to be clear that when we talk about protecting v.a. whistle lowers we're talking about v.a. ability to to fulfill one of the most mandates of the federal government to serve families and and caretakers. >> survivors of ptsd, and suicide and traumatic brain injuries, physical issues and other issues which may impact them for life. what does it mean when veterans are cut off from life saving services this is what is most at stake. v.a. whistle flowers have exposed corruption and abuse within the v.a. at large. that i'm cames and under mind health, safety and dignity of the veterans they serve it is important to protect v.a. whistleblowers, we are concerned about the entire system of care. we're all away of historic problems with oawp from stemmed from lack of npgd independents from the very beginning. it was clear we needed more resources to address the rise of whistle lower complaints, we knew without cite independants. no internal whistle lower office could adequately

war with iran uh and "and that includes all kinds of bush era, neocons and and people like robert kagan and and victoria newland as well, but francis townson, all these people, joe leberman, all of them are pressuring for a war with iran. now is this, is this bombing a a prelude to that? i don't know, we we don't know what this is, because the saudis bombed yemen for seven or eight years trying to take out all..." their weapons systems and they failed, they didn't do any, those those weapons are well hidden, deep underground, the the houties knew this would be the response, there was a high chance that something... like this would happen, this stuff is hidden and protected, us, this is, this is not an organized response, they don't know what they're doing, they don't know how to stop this, and if the huties now are including uk and us ships, anybody involved in this this coalition um to attack them, they potentially can shut down the gulf, their power is being vastly underestimated by uh by the empire, by the us, and that may well be what happens, now the potential for escalation uh, an

i want to follow up on yos wants to justice kagan. the leveof generality bastion. do you inthe level of generality -- i take your point. got a lot of historical evidence. maybe not historical twin. you are saying we should overokthat in the same way i think u would say -- i want to make sure you would say the analysis is also to the right side of the ledger. the regulation side. is it a fowler or is it a must is that if renders ending the values see the lo box yes. we think it applies in both directions, in understanding the right it'sself and in understanding the limitatis are built into . >> you had a discussion about the length of time that some of these orders last. arguing for a temporary dispossession. unofficial alnge i am wondering if we need to get into that. normally we ask officials there are any rcstances in which the dispossession would be lawful. maybe a lifetime band that cometo us, those would be separate russians. is that how you see, o? >> i think that would be a separate lesson, yes. a good reason to rect challenges as they come from the work bec

here's what justice kagan said earlier this week. >> congress can hardly see a week in the future. does congress want this court to decide those questions? policy-leading questions? >> and that's why i take exception with you in this, jonah. i think ultimately, it comes down to either the agencies are going to set the policy and under the chevron deference, the courts have to defer and say, well, if the agency says it, it's so? or if you decide that it will, that some regulation is onerous, you can go to court and fight it. who do you want deciding these issues? congress? not congress but the federal agencies, which at least have expertise in these areas, or a judge? >> i really do think that it is fundamentally about congress's abdication of its responsibility. and this is a place where conservatives make a crucial mistake. remember newt gingrich? way back in the revolution of the early 1990s, what he did was he hollowed out congress. he said we'll cut congressional staffs to the bone. we'll dismantle offices like the office of technology assessment. that actually gave congress so

maybe the court will end up listening to the comment of justice kagan who said we are not denying, whichrybody in the supreme court case really appreciate it. >> let me give you a chance to respond. if you were mark zuckerberg, what would you be redo doing to raise pond? >> thank you. let me elaborate a little to be clear about what, i mean. i co-authored a study on youtube, and exposure to the content on the platform, the case where people have a story about algorithms that supposedly are radicalized. what we found was at least in 2020, the overwhelming majority of people were assuming content for problematic channels or people who already had in high levels of racial and gender resentment the algorithm very rarely recommended that content to people that didn't already subscribe. so, it was not the first approximation of the problem of algorithm but it was people self-selecting the content. we found a few dozen examples of them in millions and millions of views in youtube in the data to kind of sequence what people otherwise normal people suddenly move the algorithmic recommendations to

justice kagan?>> there has been some talk about how because you don't have a formula for saying when there is a gaor ambiguity that u go to step 2 or because judges may have different tendencies which mabe temperamental. because ofthat there will be some variability. could you talk about the variability in the alternative scenario?>> this is an important point to focus on. in a world without chevron, 's not as though congress is going to speak clearly d it will be ambiguities and statutes. in that circstce in a world without chevn,what we will see is what justice alito wa suggesting. they will have to trto answer the eson, but there are 800 district court judges and it's fair to say they will likely have diert takes about what to do and what to give grte weight to how ultimately deal the p. and that will create problems -- >> to go back to justice alito's earlier qutions, those were part of the impetus for chevron because they were looking eogical in nature. and partisan in nature. and chevron [ ind

but justice kagan used this example of a medication, product that came out and that said it would lowerholesterol, is it a drug, supplement, who gets to regulate it. her question, wouldn't you rather have an agency like hhs, about safety and health, make decisions rather than a court that does not have medical experts on it. we'll see what the justices decide to do. their first secret closed door vote on the case on friday but it could be months before we know what they decide. a decision is expected by the end of the term in june. >> john: we will wait to see what they decide. shannon, thank you. l>> sandra: let's bring in allen walburn, a fishing charter captain in naples, florida. thank you for joining us today. >> thank you for having me. >> sandra: we care about the industry and it makes it hard to even turn a profit. why are you 100% against these trackers that are being asked to put on -- that you are being asked to put on these boats? >> first off, the tracking devices that they are -- they are putting on the boats, we were already giving the government that information via pape

justin brown jackson, sotomayor kagan. justin alito, kavanaugh and clarence thomas.major point of controversy with the local administration and the u.s. justice department. the federal government will handle how the border is managed. texas governor greg abbott says the government handles it but the administration has done a lousy job. there's separated legal fights over floating barriers and texas trying to arrest migrants for trespassing. martha? >> thanks, david. thank you, everyone, for joining us this afternoon on "the story" on this monday, january 22. one day to go until the new hampshire primary. we will see you back here tomorrow with our coverage of the primaries as i plays out. the first in the nation from beautiful bedford, new hampshire. we have had a great experience going around and talking to voters here. we'll do more as we roll into tomorrow. hope you have a great evening and we hope you all join us for our coverage as we get started on it tomorrow morning and all through tomorrow night till midnight. bret baier and i will be here to take you throug

. >> justice kagan was among those who questioned why americans wouldn't want agencies staffed by expertsmake the final call on relevant regulations rather than federal judges who may have no specific expertise in a given field. but many of the conservative justices expressed concern. it is simply giving federal agencies staffed by unelected bureaucrats so much authority, essentially undercuts the role of the judiciary. >> is the judge persuaded at the end of the day with proper deference given to co-equal branch of government or does the judge abdicate that responsibility and say automatically whatever the agency says wins? >> the justices will take their first secret vote behind closed doors on this case friday, but it could be months before we know their ultimate decision. iin the meantime, bret, they wil be bearing gathering up to hear that case you mentioned earlier whether states can kick the former president off presidential primary ballot. shannon bream outside the u.s. supreme court. thanks. stocks were down today as bond yields spiked. the dow lost 94. the s&p 500 fell 27. the n

then justice elena kagan said, "we'll consider the evidence and make a fair ruling."stice clarence thomas said, "hmm, pretty sure i already know my decision." [ laughter ] then justice ketanji brown jackson said, "this has major political impact we don't take lightly." then justice clarence thomas said, "of course every decision comes with a price and you know the wife and i love to travel #yachtlife." [ laughter and applause then -- then justice neil gorsuch said, "we will be fair and just. and finally, justice clarence thomas said, "so if you want a favorable ruling, just call me." [ laughter ] ♪ bitch better have my money ♪ "yello clarence speaking. guys, listen to this, after the colorado ruling was announced, trump's four republican rivals, nikki haley, ron desantis, chris christie and vivek ramaswamy all made statements criticizing the decision yep. all of them were like, "oh, no, we can't believe this happened [ laughter ] what a terrible, terrible, terrible news. oh, my goodness. vivek ramaswamy even pledged to withdraw from the colorado ballot in solidarity [

it'll be whether or not the supreme court goes out of their way to get those three, kagan, sotomayor,s, they'll say, it's up to congress. >> george: i don't see how they can do that. if you say he engaged in insurrection, i don't see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th amendment and say he's qualified to run for office? >> i totally agree with you, george, but i don't have a lot of faith in the supreme court as it is now unconstituted, and with bush v. gore, i won't sit up at night and start whining, but here's what i do know. brett kavanaugh and the justices do not owe trump one thing. this notion that he's somehow going to be treated unfairly. no. he should be subjected to other accountability as every other american. >> bush v. gore, as painful as that experience was for you, donna brazile, americans generally accepted that. >> thanks to al gore who helped. >> will that happen with the supreme court rulings? will americans accept the supreme court rulings as legitimate and move on or will we see the kind of unrest that we don't want to see again? >> this is where you'l

life, things from air pollution and may be eventually even artificial intelligence as justice elena kaganto health care. they say if you return these decisions to unelected federal judges, something like 800 of them around the country, it risks people's medicare and medicaid programs, very complex programs that mean a lot to people's lives. being decided one way in one state and one way and another state. that could really sow chaos for people's lives, just in their personal pocketbooks, as well as for environmental regulations and workplace protections. you just cannot have a system where the regs mean something in one state and something else halfway around the country. william: in his confirmation hearings, now justice cortege expressed -- justice gorsuch expressed a great deal of skepticism and others have shown antipathy to regulation. from your reading of the arguments today, do you think the conservative majority is going to strike it down? carrie: we heard keep skepticism from justice neil gorsuch today. he raised a lot of tough questions for the solicitor general. justice kavanau

>> according to elena kagan, we're all legal realists. >> i got to take responsibility.alked about keeping it very clear, and yet we ended up, i admit, some legal jargon. >> we kept it to a minimum. >> some day, professor, we'll have you back, and we will break down textualism and legal realism just for fun, but i think you really shined a light on this case today. we wanted to dig into it, and we're richer for it, intellectually. professor murray, thank you. >>> coming up, you're not going to believe what we have. two rock stars, one of them steve kornacki, next. stars, on steve kornkiac, next [coughing] copd isn't pretty. i'm out of breath, and often out of the picture. but this is my story. ( ♪♪ ) and with once-daily trelegy, it can still be beautiful. because with 3 medicines in 1 inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open for a full 24 hours and prevents future flare-ups. trelegy also improves lung function, so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition

this is the difference between medicine and nursing, said pollack kagan, professor emerita at depaul university. medicine is a cure. it has a small repertoire of skills. i am not demeaning it. if you need brain surgery, if you need orthopedic surgery, you need that and you want the best to do it. but then who takes care of the person? 24 seven after the surgeon goes in and does for 4 hours, physicians have a very narrow scope. they hate hearing this, but it's the truth. ask any nurse nurses are the ones who heal the patients actually help heal along with the person themselves and their family being in a mutual process with people, their and their communities. that's what nursing is. and that is one thing that sort of came forward in to a lot of nurses and resonated with my own experience is that nursing is about a relationship like nursing can't exist without a patient so it's like in that relationship tween the nurse and the patient is where the healing is and that's where the expertise of nurses is expressed is in that relation between the the patient and the nurse. and i think tha