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

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

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

it, which i think is dumb because the universe in which mitch mcconnell does not bend to give neil gorsuch on the court simply doesn't exist. reid prestruck by changing the filibuster for court appointments. and, as you say, that is why biden and as a first-year president, has appointed more lower court justices in his first year than any other president in american history other than george washington. so, there you go. >> linda, reid obviously had a very, very long career in washington, was really like a creature of the u.s. senate in the way that fewer and fewer politicians are. i don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing. although one thing i have learned about covering the senate is knowing how the senate works confers a lot of power. and actually not a lot of senators do. harry reid and mitch mcconnell, for instance, are two people that really understand how the senate works at a deep and granular level. that really does give you an edge. >> my favorite harry reid quote was something to the effect of, someone asked him how it is he had such great success. and he said, well, i didn

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

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

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

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

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

from neil gorsuch to isis being on the run to the regulation and a booming economy, you just simply can't compare these two presidencies and not see one as being very positive and one as being honestly in a tailspin downward and the victims of the biden presidency are the american people. >> harris: kayleigh, let's stay with you for just a second. the president yesterday for a of times gave credit and thank the prior administration and then president trump came out with his statement and he talked directly to our reporters at fox news and said that tone is important. when you are telling people what they need to do in terms of staying safe. and i'm paraphrasing him a bit. he thanked president biden for recognizing his contribution. i guess we should be grateful that it only took 12 months but, my goodness gracious, the numbers of people who have died now from covid, why didn't he think of this before? he might have needed president trump help. this before he did think of this before but i think biden made a choice to put politics above all and put on the mic at donald trump about somethin

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

adds a result of that, that seat went to neil gorsuch. if he ends up voting to uphold the mississippi rule or overturn roe v. wade that's a startling different result you would have with merrick garland who was president obama's choice for the seat. 6-3 case, may not make that big of a difference, but a culmination of a half century of work on the path of conservatives so overturn or at least, you know, take a out of a lot of the fundamental tenets of roe v. wade. >> sam stein, because so many of these nine justices are at times so nakedly political, i feel less gross asking a nakedly political question, and that is this. we heard the phrase over and over today, a lot on social media, elections have consequences. will the democrats be able to convert this? >> that's a great question. the conventional wisdom would say yes, the country, if you look at the opinion polls still by and large supports a right to choos about whether you want to have an abortion. but you can't just judge things in that type of vacuum. what we have seen time and ag

hear a case over an abortion ban so early in pregnancy until all three trump appointees, justices neil gorsuch who sits in the seat stolen by republicans after the death of ruth baiter ginsburg, brett catch and amy coney barrett. at one point quoting directly from the casey decision justice breyer seemed to be speaking directly to his colleagues. >> will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts? >> to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question. >> just breyer started with stare decisis, an important principle in any case the prevent people from thinking that this court is political institution. >> far more disturbing and frankly offensive was the mississippi slitter general arguing that the court should overturn roe v wade, which protects women's rights, because the court had previously overturned plessy versus ferguson, which restricted the rights of african-americans to part

answer your first question are the new trump appointed conservative justices, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett. this is the first case that amy coney barrett will hear arguments since taking her seat formally on the court. so, that's something we're obviously watching. whether chief justice john roberts had how he moves on the case, whether he wants to take that institutional risk of overturning an over 40-year-old decision, that will be something to watch as well. in terms of what happens if roe v. wade is overturned we'll have to head to a specific state and specific localities. i think what you'll see is a lot of conserve-leaning states really move to ban abortion in their states. you're already seeing this take place, texas, for example, where abortion is obviously limited. people looking to get abortions traveling out of state to find more viable options, for example. you know, those on the abortion rights side of the debate would argue that making abortion illegal would lead to more undercover, more dangerous abortions, that are not being done, you know, comfortably

it was neil gorsuch, president trump's first appointee. chief justice john roberts split off for part of this ruling with the liberals. as i've said, chief justice john roberts has always been an opponent of abortion rights. he is not someone you think of as trying to save the day for reproductive rights in america. but this just showings how far this court has turned to the right, that he is now aligning with the more liberal justices. and i think that it shows our new era of reproductive rights and who will actually be in control. >> let me ask you this, then, jeffrey. now the providers have standing to challenge some state officials. you expect them to challenge. and the lower court has telegraphed perhaps how they might stand on this. but then i assume l that would then be appealed to the supreme court. so do we expect another supreme court decision on this particular texas law beyond what it has to do with the mississippi case? >> well, i think the order in which this is likely to proceed is this will go back to the district court in

neil gorsuch, president donald trump's first appointee was the one who wrote this opinion. could happen nationwide for the mississippi case now under consideration. in texas it means that since september 1st of this year, women who are beyond six weeks into pregnancy have no right to obtain an abortion when the court has ruled since 1973 that women in the early stages of their pregnancies, up to about week 23, have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, you know, whether you like that or not. that has been the loft land for half a century and was reaffirmed by the justices in 1992, and in texas right now that's all out the window and chief justice john roberts said in today's ruling texas has essentially nullified supreme court precedent, so it -- it shows us this very severe breakdown on the court and who is in control and likely who is controlling right now behind the scenes in the mississippi case. the one caveat i would say is there are many months between now and june when we will see how the justices rule on the nationwide right to abortion, and things could

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

but justice neil gorsuch filed 14-page dissent that was joined by justice samuel alito.have blocked the vaccine requirement. he gave no reasons. yesterday's decision mirrored an october ruling for maine health care workers over the dissent of the same three justices. >>> since the start of the pandemic, the united states has lost at least 800,000 people and at least 50 million cases have been confirmed nationwide. the infection rate is showing no signs of slowing with the average of at least 1,000 death as day. new reports show people 65 and older make up about three-quarters of the nation's coronavirus death total. >>> joining us now, founder and ceo of advancing health equity, dr. uchÉ blackstock. she's an msnbc contributor. with eeer glad to see her this morning. >>> doctor, the pandemic has killed over 800,000 people. the new variant omicron has reached the u.s. we should caution it's still early, but some research suggests it's much more transmissible as delta but perhaps not quite as deadly. give us the latest you've seen on that variant and also the long-term game

we get neil gorsuch. and then shockingly in 2020, after voting has begun in an election.with those two new justices on it along with brett kavanaugh, the third of the trump appointees is looking at over turning 48 years of precedent that guaranteed women rights. something women have relied on. the question sotomayor raises is, will this destroy, will this decimate our legitimacy with the public that comes to us to decide their most serious concerns. >> because they will start to think it's political. the irony is we ran some video yesterday of all of these justices, conservative justices, during their hearings in which they said exactly what you said about starry decises. roe and casey v. planned parenthood being established law. they didn't give hints that they would vote to overturn it. so why the change? what's happened? >> i'm not sure it's a change. the former president, of course, was very clear that he wouldn't put anyone on the supreme court who was not committed to reversing roe. so that, too, adds to this notion there is a political litmus test. the court decide

perpetually disappointed with the extremists in her own party voted yes to confirm the nomination of neil gorsuchuld actually be in that seat, but that's another story. -- the president is the anchor of the law. if you think susan collins was defenses about that vote. as for 2018 and extremely controversial confirmation hearings of one brett kavanaugh. collins gave a 45 minute floor speech -- 45 minutes. you can roast that you can in that time. explaining her support of the nominee who is facing multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. and yes, she talked about kavanaugh's views on legal precedent. in other words, tell me talking about roe v. wade without telling me you're talking about roe v. wade. >> to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in article three of our constitution itself. in short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by self that which one has committed not to do over. >> it was agonizing. americans waited and waited and waited some more. to s

called for roe to be overturned and former president trump predicted his three picks justices neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett, would overturn abortion precedent. all three describe roe as settled law during their confirmation hearings. >> it is historic the supreme court is taking up abortion again at this particular time with the current composition of the court. i think that there is a very good chance with who is on the court now they will finally acknowledge the science that human life doesn't begin at birth, it begins before birth, these are human beings like you or me. >> reporter: if the court were to overturn roe v. wade, would have immediate repercussions. there are a dozen states that have post roe trigger laws on the books. that means they would ban abortions the second that roe is overturned. if this court rules in favor of mississippi, this could change the landscape across the country. brianna, it is not likely a decision will come quickly. the court will hear arguments at 10:00 this morning. but likely won't issue a decision until this spring, probably in

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

the opinion was written by neil gorsuch. president trump's first appointee. trump appointees and two other far right conservatives said there's only a limited ability for the clinics to go back and sue and try to get some relief. the chief said, this texas law has essentially nullified abortion rights precedent in america and he dissented vigorously as did the liberals. >> and for the time being at least continuing until there's nor judicial rulings, abortion after six weeks in texas is going to be ruled out. >> right. the clinics aren't entirely happy at all with what they got today. because this law, that bans abortion before most people even know they're pregnant is still in effect. that means women are still scrambling over state lines trying to get the abortion. and it means these people that are sometimes referred to as bounty hunters than bring these lawsuits against anyone they think may be helping or aiding someone get an abortion. that all going to continue. the court did allow, as joan said, some limited challenges, but the clinics wanted to be abl

in his majority opinion, justice neil gorsuch wrote arguments that the lower court by providers quotealso presents some opportunities. but in a partial dissent, three liberal justices blasted the court for not going further. justice sonia sotomayor writing for the group , the court should have put an end to this madness months ago before sp a went into effect, but as the supreme court steps away from the debate in texas, it's weighing a separate abortion case in mississippi. dobbs versus jackson women's health organization involving a challenge to mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, and the question for dobbs is not simply whether roe will be reversed, but whether the court is going to dramatically change and reduce the reach of road. in this goes to that pre viability questions . so this is just a reiteration of how much reinforcement i should say of how important it is to codify row. a decision on the mississippi case is expected this summer at the supreme court . alexandria hoff, ktvu, fox two news. the ceos of target best buy, and other major retailers are askin

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

think is dumb because the universe in which mitch mcconnell does not bend hell and hurgt to get neil gorsuch and kavanaugh on the court does not exist. as you say that is why biden as a first-year president has appointed more lower court justices in his fir year than any other president in american history besides, you know, george washington. so there you go. >> linda, reid obviously had a very, very long career in washington, was really like a creature of the u.s. senate in the way that fewer and fewer politicians are. i don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing, frankly. although one thing i've learned covering the senate harry reid and mitch mcconnell for instance are two people who really understand how the senate works at a deep and granular level. and that really does give you an edge. >> absolutely. in fact, my favorite harry reid quote was someone asked him how he had such great success, and he said, well, i didn't have success because of my good looks or my genius. i had success because i worked harder than anybody else, and i think that's absolutely true. and you're absolutely

but justice neil gorsuch filed add 14-page decent joined by justice samuel alito. justice gorsuch says these applicants are not antivaxers. the applicant explains they could not receive the vaccine because of their religion. >> oh, good lord. >> please, how stupid does he think we are. >> letecia james does not contain fetal cells. hek-293 cells are grown in the laboratory and thousands of generations removed from cells collected from a fetus in 1973 were used in the testing during the research and development phase of the pfizer and moderna vaccines. she added the use of fetal cell lines for testing is common including for rubella vaccines, wait, there is more, dr. patel, let's backup a little bit because this is pretty deep. if you first could explain the reasoning behind judge gorsuch's dissent. >> well, it's hard to giver you some of the medical reasons without firstover laying the justice himself accused the governor of new york and citing god wants people to get vaccinated, something that the popes and bishops and number of leaders around world have echoed say

in his majority opinion, justice neil gorsuch wrote arguments at the lower court by providers quote.al dissent, three liberal justices blasted the court for not going further. justice sonia sotomayor writing for the group, the court should have put an end to this madness months ago before sp a went into effect, but as the supreme court steps away from the debate in texas, it's weighing a separate abortion case in mississippi. dobbs versus jackson women's health organization involving a challenge to mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, and the question for dobbs is not simply whether roe will be reversed, but whether the court is going to dramatically change and reduce the reach of rome. in this goes to that pre viability questions . so this is just a reiteration of how much a reinforcement i should say of how important it is to codify row. a decision on the mississippi case is expected this summer at the supreme court . alexandria hoff, ktvu, fox two news. transgender people say they are being denied jobs with uber according to s. f k uber is blocking job applicatio

is neil gorsuch going to be like justice thomas and justice scalia? i think that is the most significant influence they've had. >> something about these issues, i want to go back to the pressing question for you. his limitation on where the president doesn't doesn't go in is demonstrably wrong. i hear echoes of chevron. what if the historical record is ambiguous or there is conflicting evidence? what do you do then? that is the more interesting thing of dealing with the precedent that you are not going to put your foot down and say it's really wrong. maybe there is a palpable argument one way or the other. and what he tried to do is steer it back as best he could to something closer to what the right answer was, even if it wasn't the definitive absolute answer. that was equally good methodology for dealing with those spaces in between. get back to the logic in the sense of the overall structure even if you can't say for sure. >> the alternative is the supreme court's current doctrine which is a multifactor test where all of the factors are precedent.