>> neil gorsuch? >> yeah. >> oh, yeah.bsolutely. >> and leonard, you were fantastic. >> the ability of trump to have that outstanding list of nominees to choose from has everything to do with the success of the federalist society in creating a movement. >> carrie severyno works with leo. >> he's someone i absolutely work with very closely. >> she has led the public relations fight to push through conservative nominees. >> never a whisper of misconduct. it doesn't add up. confirm kavanaugh. >> what we're really seeing is the left losing that stranglehold on the court and being very frustrated that there are republican nominees who aren't as easily swayed to the middle as they were before. >> the federalist society began back in 1982 with a few chapters on law school campuses. >> the federalist society was born out of a perception by conservatives that liberal constitutional ideas had become the mainstream within american legal thinking. >> which was true. so conservatives embraced the society. >> very moneyed interests are

it has been reaffirmed many times just this neil gorsuch is one of three justices nominated by president trump and confirmed to serve on the supreme court. he began his tenure in 2017. in light of the leaked opinion on overturning the 1973 roby wade decision american history tv is looking back at what the current members of the high court had to say about abortion during their confirmation hearings. just this elena kagan began serving on the court in 2010 the former harvard law school dean was nominated by president obama. she too was asked about the issue at her confirmation hearing. um, as i law after casey. it's that after viability the state can regulate as it pleases. except for situations where the woman's life or health interests are at issue. before viability the question is whether there is an undue burden on the right woman's ability to have an abortion. is it fair for the court to consider scientific changes and when a fetus becomes viable as medical science evolves? senator graham, i do think that in every area that it is fair to consider scientific changes. we've i've talked

it has been reaffirmed many times just this neil gorsuch is one of three justices nominated by president trump and confirmed to serve on the supreme court. he began his tenure in 2017. in light of the leaked opinion on overturning the 1973 roby wade decision american history tv is looking back at what the current members of the high court had to say about abortion during their confirmation hearings. just this elena kagan began serving on the court in 2010 the former harvard law school dean was nominated by president obama. she too was asked about the issue at her confirmation hearing. um, as i law after casey. it's that after viability the state can regulate as it pleases. except for situations where the woman's life or health interests are at issue. before viability the question is whether there is an undue burden on the right woman's ability to have an abortion. is it fair for the court to consider scientific changes and when a fetus becomes viable as medical science evolves? senator graham, i do think that in every area that it is fair to consider scientific changes. we've i've talked

justice neil gorsuch was asked about the 1973 decision as well. [inaudible] considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing president have to be considered. he's a president of the united states supreme court, it's reaffirmed in kc in 1992. and in several other cases. so a good judge will consider as president of the united states supreme court with the as treatment of president like any other. >> what about griswold, which was decided a few years before roe. the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy. can you tell me your views on griswold? >> senator, it's a president that's now 50 years old? griswold involved a right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. and his 50 years old. there are light interests are obvious. it's been repeatedly reaffirmed, all very important factors, again, in analyzing president. >> okay. well, i think i'm going to stop questioning, but i kind of sum up what you and i just talked about in regards to precedent. so everybo

contributor and mike davis, president of article 3 project and former clerk to justice kneel -- neil gorsuch. mike, your react to this cocoon surrounding fetterman when we know what a day in the life of a senator at full tilt is all about. >> yeah, the 13 million people of pennsylvania need to decide that they have two home state senators. they need to decide if they want one who is going to be smart and effective and be able to work with his colleagues to get the 60 votes necessary to deliver for pennsylvania, do they want fentanyl treatment grants to go to new york and illinois or want the grants to go to pennsylvania. when these home state senators are picking federal judges, do you want a home state senator that will be independent and provide and independent check on president biden or do you want a home state senator that will be biden and schumer's puppet in this is a critical decision for pennsylvania voters to make. do you want someone that they're going to wheel in and vote and vote for biden and vote for schumer or do you want and independent-minded senator that will represent pen

neil gorsuch said it's terribly important to identify the leaker.the probe will determine the source of the leak. will we ever know who this leaker was? >> for sure find out who it was. a pretty small universe of people they are looking at. i thought the chief justice had every incentive to want to find this person. it's horrible for the court to have that out there and that person just being able to go to scot-free it. sends a message that hey, you too could leak a brief if you are a law clerk this year or a member of the court's staff. now i am less sure and it sounds like from several justices that they still don't know who the leaker is. maybe we will get a committee report on this. but we all know what that looks like. i doubt we will learn the identity. >> ainsley: do you think they know and they are just protecting the court? >> what's that? >> ainsley: do you think they know and they are just protecting the court? >> i doubt it. i think this is something that all of the justices realize how damaging it was to the court as an institution. unl

conservatives being lockstep federalist society zombies or ideologues, and they will point to neil gorsuchtitle seven of the civil rights act of 1974 protects employees against discrimination because they're gay or transgender. or they will point to amy coney barrett siding with the biden administration on student loans just a couple of days ago. what would you say to them in response to them saying these are not idealogue justices? >> i do not think their idealogue justices as they are justices who are carefully selected by very big and powerful republican donor interest to assure that they would do what those big donors wanted. and if you are not batting one hunted percent, but you're only batting 82%, that is still not calling balls and strikes. and all of the big stuff that really matters to them, getting regulators off the back of polluters, because so many of them are polluters, making sure that dark money in our political system is protected, because as you said in your statement earlier, they cannot win. america hates their stuff. they have got to use the courts and floods of dark

what is more for the courts justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaughgnaled at some point, some favorability to some form of this theory. as the brennan center points out, adopting the independent state legislative theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy in state court or in federal court to fight partisan gerrymandering. and the potential consequences of this could stretch still further. the theory with their elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put into place by valid initiatives, state constitutions and administrative regulations, including foundational state policies like the process for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. state lawmakers would be able to adopt voter suppression legislation without any checks or balances from the state courts or even a governor's veto. in other words, the theory would up and key aspects of our elections and our democracy. and the positive conservative special interests are finding the walk or dated effort to make

house counsel who ran the process that shows donald trump's first two supreme court justices, neil gorsuch, and brett kavanaugh. those two supreme court justices owe don mcgahn their jobs. they should be recusing themselves from this case too. now, most judges can overcome these apparent conflicts of interest in the application of law. that might happen in this case. there's been court might ultimately rule against lindsey graham. clarence thomas might ultimately rule against lindsey graham. that doesn't change the fact that clarence thomas has violated a perfectly reasonable law by participating in this case. the case in which his spouse quote, is known by the justice to have an interest in that could be substantially affected by the outcome. by not recusing in this case, no matter how the case turns out, clarence thomas has disgraced himself and the united states supreme court once again. remember, the issue of recusal is not about the judges actual and real inability to be fair. the issue of recusal turns on our perception, a regional bull person's perception of a judges potential confl

with that, we bring in mike davis, a former law clerk for justice neil gorsuch and the president of the i want to start by playing a sound bite from judge brown. watch this. >> you haven't demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race and take from that stereotypes and other things. they're looking at the full person with all of these characteristics. >> but our point is that all of those other characteristics are not barred by the constitution. >> give us your thoughts, mike. >> so the equal protection clause of the 14th amount outlaws racial discrimination by states including university of north carolina. the civil rights act of 1964 outlaws racial discrimination by private entities that take federal funding, including harvard university. affirmative action based upon race is racial discrimination. it's a zero sum game. if you're giving out admission slots to people based upon race including wealthy, black families based upon race that hurts asian families. that's the point of this. the supreme court will finally overrule here, i hope, terrible precedent from 2

she's going to be a thorn in neil gorsuch as side when he tries to pull his stuff, but at the end of supreme court is right now is a republican wish fulfillment machine. it is just the enforcement arm of the republican party agenda with people wearing fancy robes. and in the minority, there is only so much that justice jackson, justice kagan, and justice sotomayor can do to stop the damage and the bleeding that the six conservatives have charted out for the country. >> elie, i'm going to take a less defeatist approach. kbj is on the bench. he does oral arguments where she's hearing these positions coming, and maybe it se the 6-3 conservative supermajority, but somebody has to hold the door. somebody has to put it on the record and make these questions and assert these positions. so, do you think kbj will do that and approach it in the same way for the cases coming up? because this is a consequential term. i know people keep using that phrase, but the kind of cases set in this term are life altering for americans. >> i hope so. i think that the interplay you had with her and gorsuch w

what is more for the courts justices, clarence thomas, samuel alito, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaughity to some form of this theory. as the brennan center points out, adopting the independent state legislative theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy in state court or in federal court to fight partisan gerrymandering. and the potential consequences of this could stretch still further. the theory with their elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put into place by valid initiatives, state constitutions and administrative regulations, including foundational state policies like the process for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. state lawmakers would be able to adopt voter suppression legislation without any checks or balances from the state courts or even a governor's veto. in other words, the theory would up and key aspects of our elections and our democracy. and the positive conservative special interests are finding the walk or dated effort to make this i. s. out theory the law of th

ticle 3 prand former clerk to je neil gorsuch. mike , now you worked in the senate. your reaction to this cocoon surrounding fetterman when we know what a day in the life of w senanator was working at full tilt, what it really is alll about? of yeah. so the 13 million people of pennsylvania need to decide. they have two home state senators. they need to decide if they want one who is going tortd be smart and effective and be able to work with his colleagues to get the 60 votes necessary to necessa deliver for pennsylvania. do they want fence at all treatment grants ty wantanyl tro new york and illinois, or do they want those grants to go to. pennsylvania? whenwhen they're picking when t home state senators are picking federal judges? do you h want a home statebe senator who's going to be independent and provide anmea independent check on president biden? or do you wantte a home state senator who's going to be bidens and schumer's puppet? this this is a critical decisiona for pennsylvania, pennsylvania voters to make. do youthat want someone they're going to wheel in