justice sotomayor: i am. -- are you interested? justice sotomayor: i am. melissa: then there's this next one. ah. so this is your book. justice sotomayor: this will be my book. melissa: tell me about this book. justice sotomayor: it is a picture book. for children between the ages of 3 and 8. it's probably sophisticated enough so most parents will have to read it with chair children, rather than a child reading it themselves. it's the story of my life, but through what i consider the greatest influence on my life, which was reading. i learned about the world through reading. given where i grew up, which many people know was an economically challenged neighborhood, i spoke frequently about the fact that my mom would have readers digest in our home and i would read about all these new books coming out and i would go to the local library and try to check out the book and my library never had them. i didn't realize that a local library in sort of the poor neighborhood of the bronx wasn't going to have recent books. but reading is what exposed me to the world.

justice sotomayor: yes, i am. justice sotomayor: but i made an uninformed decision. you know, i was -- i came from a very poor background. i not a whole lot of debt compared to what you guys have today. but debt. and i thought i had to get out there and work. and i was wrong. by clerking i would have advanced my career by five 10 years. and i tell every minority and every person who has -- who's in law school, the best choice you can make for yourself. and take it as a year that will promote your career and advance you five to 10 years. so it's worth the sacrifice. and don't forget that most law furms give you -- firms give you a bonus at the end of the year. [laughter] >> when i clerked for you, it was the most challenging year of my life. will my life. i came to work on weekends for a long time. but it was about being part of a family. i became really good friends with my co-clerks. we still see each other. and i think those are the benefits of clerking that people don't really appreciate. that it is part of being part of a bigger family, not just with your judge b

justice sotomayor: i know. [laughter] justice sotomayor: but i often thought of all the mistakes i made as a lawyer and how much better i would have been if i understood, really understood what judges were looking at. now that i hadul those experiences as a justice. >> that is how i feel about being a law professor. i wish i could go back to locke school -- law school because i would kill it. [laughter] i would be great at it. justice sotomayor: you are settling in. you are into the groove, welcomed new colleagues. court, youme to the are alone on the court from two she describedand that. from the time justice o'connor retired and you appeared. justice sotomayor: quintessential. joined andtice kagan now there are three women on the court. justice sotomayor: the dynamic changed a little bit -- >> the dynamics changed a little bit. a study was just released of these years ago -- released a few years ago. they found that women justices are disproportionately interrupted at high rates than their male colleagues by

justice sotomayor: oftentimes. if employees come to the union -- come to the state and want greater training, employment issue, correct? mr. messenger: generally, yes. justice sotomayor: so why does it transform into some entitlement to first amendment protection merely because a collective body of employees are coming to the table at once? what's the transformative nature now of making these substantive questions matters of public policy? mr. messenger: as this court recognized in harris, it's the scale. so here you have afscme bargaining over issues that affect hundreds of millions of dollars and affect thousands of employees across the board. the scale of that is what makes it a political justice sotomayor: it's not going to change whether the union asks for it or the employees come -- what you're now saying is if the employees came into an auditorium at a business site of the state and every one of them got up and said, i want higher wages, the scale of that demand makes it protected by the first amendment? it'

justice sotomayor: all right. if one -- if there was a belief, not yours -- stop fighting the belief, accept the hypothetical -- that this person was improperly biased, what happens then? i think that's what justice kennedy is asking you. mr. yarger: if there is one person that's improperly biased? justice sotomayor: one of the commissioners is improperly biased. mr. yarger: i think you're going to have to ask whether the complaint filed with the division, which was filed by a customer who was referred to a bakery to receive a product, and the alj and the commission in the appeal were all biased in the sense that this was a proceeding meant to single out a religious person for his views. and that is not the fact here. justice roberts: we've had this case before -- justice gorsuch: but you agree that would be a problem -- justice roberts: in the context -- the context of courts, i think it's not just where you have a three-judge panel and it turns out one judge was -- should have been disqualified, whether -- for w

i am sonia sotomayor. you are a car t character. >> i haven't seen that one yet. >> this is how my son got literate, reading these books. [laughing] you go on all kinds of capers. it's like a comic book. >> i like that. >> he likes this one a lot. then there's another one. it's like, it seems very respectable. this one is in the school library. >> that when i've not seen either. >> there are a number of them you haven't seen. this is only a fraction of the ones i could find. there are a ton of them. the next slide -- >> would you like to my mothers story? someone told her you should know how many hits on the internet that are for your daughter. my mother, who didn't ever touched a computer, decided to go to the local library and asked the librarian what hit was on the internet. [laughing] >> they could go in many directions. >> the librarian put my name in an up popped countless hits. and my mother told me that night and said, i stayed for about two hours and i fell asleep after reading them. [laughing] an

justice sotomayor, 17%. so between the two of them, 71% of the time, one of them was asking the first question. that turns out to be pretty consistent going back. 52% term, the two of them, of the time, they had the first question. the term before, 61% of the time. the two terms before that, it was in the same range. i hadn't noticed that. is that an obvious phenomenon you have seen that i just wasn't aware of? is there some reason why they feel the need to be the first one out-of-the-box so often? >> i got the impression justice ginsburg always comes to the argument. if there are a couple of things about the case she wants to get clear right away, she always asks. she always has something she is unclear about. it is not a part of the arguments, she is basically saying, before we get into this, does this mean? she wants something to be -- clarified right at the start. >> especially if it is something to do with procedure. she is the court's civil procedure maven. if there is a potential flaw that might keep

justice sotomayor, 17%. between the two of them 71% of the time one of them was asking the first question. that turns out to be pretty consistent going back. last term, 52% of the time first question. the term before, 61% of the time. two terms of for that in the same range. i had noticed watching that. is that an obvious phenomenon you have seen that i just wasn't aware of? is there some reason why they feel the need to be the first one out-of-the-box so often? >> i got the impression justice ginsburg,-- justice there are a couple of things she wants to get clear right away. she always has something she is unclear about. it is not a part of the argument. she is saying before we get into this, does this mean -- she wants something to be clarified. >> especially if it is something to do with procedure. she is the court's civil procedure maven. if there is a flaw that makita corp. from getting to the merit, she is the one that will identify at first. >> there was a study that -- it's a little controversial, bu

sotomayor cited that in her dissent. that led rogers to denounce her for citing that case, saying it was totally irrelevant to the ban ruling today. but then he said from here on out korematsu isially overturned as of today. it is widely viewed as a dead letter because it's been so widely repudiated by the court record, but now it is gone, which is great. just because the internment camps are based on race other than the migrants on the border, that one line by chief justice roberts mighmake that one line a little harder, so yay. check this out from sonia sotomayor today. in case you have not always seen what she said today, and she said it out loud, she read it from the bench, you should know this is what she said. quote, the united states of america is a nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. our founders honored that core promise by em bedding the principle of religious neutrality in the first amendment. the court's decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. it leaves undisturbed a poli

la jueza sonia sotomayor criticÓ esta decisión duramente.era dama es una figura en desuso y una tradiciÓn desgastada, dice la esposa del candidato favorito para ganar la presidencia de mÉxico andrés manuel lÓpez obrador. argentina resucita en el mundial con un gol agÓnico a cuatro minutos del final. venciÓ dos-uno nigeria pasÓ a la segunda ronda para enfrentar a francia. comenzamos. ♪ locutor: este es un noticiero univisiÓn con jorge ramos a ilia calderÓn. ♪ jorge: buenas noches, dije un poco mÁs adelante comenzamos con buenas noticias para una familia emigrante en estados unidos. una de salvadoreÑa separada de su hijo hace mÁs de un mes por fin se pudo reencontrar con el. --el. no fue fÁcil, habÍa que comprar un boleto de aviÓn para el niÑo de 11 aÑos y una trabajadora social desde california texas. al final, la historia de horror tuvo un final feliz. pedro utrera as la ha seguido de principio a fin. >> llevo 15 dÍas en tenerlo. pero: sin poder contener el llanto esta madre salvadoreÑa dice que siente vivir un infierno desde que su hijo mar

sonia sotomayor: mr. liu, help me. i'm simple-minded. notice to appear seems to ask me when, where, and why. those are the three material elements of, to my simplistic way of thinking, of the words notice to appear, when am i appearing and for what? those seem the two most critical components of those words. frederick liu: well, i don't -- i don't think congress had that view. a notice to appear is shorthand for a notice to appear for removal proceedings. so what makes it a notice to appear is that it tells the alien he must appear for those removal proceedings -- sonia sotomayor: but not when? frederick liu: -- and why. but not when. and we have very good evidence that congress thought the when and the where wasn't part of the essential function. neil gorsuch: well, ok. but if that's true, then surely we don't need to worry about the charges or the law or the facts either. it just could say we're going to come after you at some point, some indefinite point about something having to do with immigration. that would be a notice to appear u

which justice sotomayor pointed out in her disent. donald trump made anti-muslim statements month in and out through the campaign and into the beginning of his presidency. he wanted a muslim ban. and then he asked rudy giuliani to figure out a way to do it eely. -- legally. it's not enough to just read the text. the supreme court looked at was there an improper anti-religious motive in the text? >> they said with all out of is there enough to show what he did on the face was legitimate. they found yes. justice sotomayor had a scathing dissent. she read from the bench. she said they supported the conclusion that the proclamation was to exclude muslim from the country >> they are trying to apply a new hire standard to president trump because they don't like his policies. you have to apply the same standards. they give the president discretion and authority when it comes to national security issues. in the constitution and in the statutes. it's at its peak. in this case. in the 3rd version, you have a lot of analysis went into choosing w

in fact, justices breyer and sotomayor read theirs from the bench this morning, disagreeing with the justice opinion. in fact, justice sotomayor issued a very scathing dissent where this ruling -- >> hold on, jessica, the president was meeting with republican lawmakers and committees talking about border walls, amo other issues. let's listen in. >> -- the fact that today's supreme court ruling just coming out a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the american people, and for our constitution. this is a great victory for our constitution. we have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. we know who is coming in. we know where they're coming from. we just have to know who is coming here. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong and they've turned out to be very wrong. and what we're looking for as republicans, i can tell you, is strong borders, no crime. what the democrats are looking at is open borders, which will bring treme

i think that justice sotomayor's dissent makes clear constitution and our country deserved a d.fferent outco >> on the issue of undocumented immigrants, president trump has said there should not be due ocess for peopl who enter the u.s. illegally. what do you make of that statement? >> i mea that is just antithetical to ahat we ares a country and to the values we have invibscribed in our constitution. being a country that believes in the rule of law means constitution applies to everyone who is here. we don't pick and choose. itism.s no fav the rule of law is there to protect the human rights of everyone who has a foot in this country. >> there's a lot of focus on migrant famil aies separatedt the border. how is one justice involved in this broader network of groups seeking to help them and other immigrants? >> we're part of a national coalition of lawyers and law firms andil rights and immigration fwrups tryi immigration groups trying to make sure the families are reunited. the court order out of san francisco makes it clear they have to d it in fairly sh order. the question is

justices brier as well as sotomayor. reading from the bench is an extraordinary move that shows just how much they disagreed with the majority opinion. justice sonia sotomayor compared to the 1944 decision that allowed the imprisonment and internment of yap niece-americans during world war ii, going so far so say the majority here completely sets aside the president's charged statements about muslims as irrelevant. she went how not irrelevant the president's statement before he became president and since are. so the supreme court this morning issues a ruling that's been closely watched and highly anticipa anticipated. the supreme court saying that the president does in fact have the authority to enact this travel this being the third version that restricts travel from seven different countries, but definitely a win for the trump administration. >> jeff, over to the white house, what is the white house saying? >> reporter: there's no question, kate, we saw in the president's short but powerful message there in all capital

i don't know if justice sotomayor's prediction will come to pass. the chief justice was obviously concerned enough about it that he chose to address it in the majority opinion. it's a relatively narrow opinion. as shannon pointed out, this is an opinion on a preliminary injunction meaning tell us what the law is while we try the case. so now it goes back to the trial court for people to say, okay, it's constitutional. here's why it doesn't apply to me. so whoever wants to come in the country to the u.s. in one of these countries, whether it's here in brooklyn or in honolulu, get the chance to get a trial now. they can't challenge the constitutionality. they have an opportunity to demonstrate to a trial court judge a federal district court judge, why this ban doesn't a play to them. as shannon predicted, this is going to go on and on and on and will come back to the supreme court. the president's executive order remains in play and is fully inforcible during the pendency of these trials. >> neil: amazing. i kind of understand it. >> you're smarter th

. >> justice sotomayor wrote in a dissent that based on the evident of the case, a reasonable observer would conclude it was motivated byani. she said her colleagues who voted for the travel ban arrived at the result by ignoring the facts misconstruing the legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering it inflicts upon countless families. this is interesting. neil, the issue the court seems to have addressed in the majority ruling is that the pain and suffering of the victims is not at issue here. it's whether or not the president has broad statutory authority to limit the entry in its words of aliens into the united states which the majority deemed that the president does have. >> right. i think justice sotomayor was right to say when you're thinking about is there a first amendment establishment clause problem, you're to think about the pain and suffering. i think there was something interesting particularly in the context of the child separation policies. he said that that kind of separation of two family members is a concrete injury, particularized, and so he is,

we do know that justice sotomayor dissented.id the proclamation was motivated by anti-muslim animus and said others ignored the facts, misconstruing the legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering it inflicts up indivials. >> this is a harsh and stinging dissent and it summarizes the view of the trial and appellate court judges in hawaii and california who have up to this point invalidated the president's travel ban. but as eric pointed out in his question to me and as i attempted to reply in my answer, the court will not look at anything that is outside the four corners of the pages of the order. they don't care about whether this policy is wise. they don't care about why the president said he is doing this. they only care about what the president did and whether it is constitutional. and because it is a, foreign policy, and b, relies on a statute that specifically authorizes him to do it, it is constitutional. not necessarily wise, not necessarily prudent, not even necessarily fair, but constitutional. an

i wanto go back to sonia sotomayor where she referenced this.he said " "by blindly a acceptg ththe governmement's misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored grououp, all in the naname of a superficial claim of national sesecurity, the coururt redeplos the same dangerous logic underlying korematsu and merely replaces one 'gravely wrong' decision with another." >> absolutely. we're going to look back and be ashamed to live in 2018 and to allow this to happen on our watch. even right now, this administration i is doing one of the biggest investments in building basically children prison camps on military bases in the united states. i don't know what else has to happen. what else does this administration have to do for people to really wake up and understand we're literally living under fascism? we have in a administration who believes there above the law. that in fact, they have pushed policy after policy outside the bounds of the constitution. i don't know -- i mean, i am worried that someth

kennedy with the majority, sotomayor with the minority. quote, the majority here completely sets aside the president's charged statements about muslims as irrelevant. that holding erodes the fundamental principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has otherwise protected. a strong dissent, jeffrey, from sonia sotomayor. >> absolutely. and, you know, we cannot overstate the importance of what mitch mcconnell did. i know you all mentioned that earlier. but, you know, this term we have seen so many 5-4 decisions with anthony kennedy, and neil gorsuch in the majority, in a conservative direction. there is another opinion today about abortion rights, in terms of whether california can inform women who are going to these pro-life health clinics, that they have the right to an abortion. the supreme court said that was unconstitutional in an opinion by clarence thomas. over and over again, the court ruled in a conservative direction, certainly the travel ban case is an illustration of that. and the fact that neil gorsuch is on the su

as justice sotomayor sa, the were parallels between the japanese interment and what has happened knewcertainly und all three iterations of the travel ban. it is a kind of hollow overruling because we overruled korematsu on one hand but reinstated the logi in other ways. >> your feelings on that, josh? >> obvious everybody hates korematsu and nice to see it overrud. the chief justice made the opinion for the court that there are significant differences beeen this cas and core maut is sue. koritatsu dealt with cens of the united states and here you are talking about people who are not citizens and not in the united states and the president has greatn discretio in that area. >> you clerked for justice kennedy. if we were to look bacnd look at his legacy, he has been progressive on some issues such as gay marriage yet conservative on others including gun rights.y how wouou describe his approach to the law? >> that's a good question. he doesn't fo neatly int the boxes most of the other justices often find themselves in. i would say has some libertarian instincts. examples you just gave are

it's a scathing, scathing opinion justice sonia sotomayor, but it's only for four justices. >> to your point about really the presidential power versus individual and you see this whole situation where we've been in the last week and a half with the southern border is it possible with the presidential power he could add a country? >> he could. i mean he could more immigration from mexico. but, you know, we have thousands of people who cross the border from mexico every day. you know, you can -- as a legal matter, i think it's clear he could do that. but as a practical matter, anyone who has ever been on the border and seen these enormous traffic jams every day and the complers that goes back and forth, it would be impractical. >> i'm not saying stop immigration, but have a check. >> but also the way tt this proclamation, this one specifically drafted, it does go towards countries that there are questions about what information they're providing about their citizens and their nationals and the u.s. is saying they're not giving us enough information. mexico has not been put in that categ

sotomayor is saying history is repeating itself.e are getting the very law that was as to prevent this kind of thing from happening. and you go talk about the role of neil gorsucuch. >> every fighter foror decisions -- every five to four decision is likely the result of mitch mcconnell and republicans in the senate stole a supreme court seat from president obama and donald trump at neil gorsuch on the court. has case in ohio only happened because the resistor one supreme court seat. it is amazing that not only are thing a supreme cour seat, but then they are also making hard for people to be able to vote. thiss a o-pronged attack on democracy. first, yy thou denwill of the people in that president obama should have been able to make this appointment because he was elected in 2012. you deny the will of the people by making a harder for them to vote in the fifirst place. amy: talk about the person on which ththis case was based. larry h harmon. he voted in 2008 and d did not vote for a few elections and showed up in 2015 to vote on a

sonia sotomayor is saying, you need to take the president literally here. she said also in one of her statements she said, let the gravity of those statements sink in. most of these words were written or spoken by the current president of the united states. so she is saying, you need to take him literally and that is -- and that is how you need to understand even the third iteration of this ban. and justice roberts is saying just the opposite. he said look, you got to take seriously what the president is saying, but you've got to consider the presidency itself. >> what about also, gloria, so it's the words piece, the kneel gorsuch piece, president trump got his conservative justice and that happened because speaker mcconnell was successful in the obama era of keeping merrick garland at bay, do you think this is every much a win for speaker mcconnell as for president trump? >> i do. i actually do. you know, the president and mitch mcconnell have an on again/off again relationship. i don't think they're particularly personally close, but i do think that mccon

justice sonia sotomayor, her voice filled with fury in court today, declaring, "this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact, the words of the president and his advisers create the strong perception that the ban is contaminated by impermissible bias against islam and its followers." but sew sotomayor was outnumber today, and president trump was handed his first major supreme court victory, which he clearly enjoyed. >> yeah, that's the final word. that's the supreme court. >> terry moran live from the supreme court tonight. and terry, after the decision today, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell tweeting out this picture, shaking hands with president trump's pick for the court, justice gorsuch. the balance on the court was a big issue last election. and terry, we saw the impact of that today with this travel ban ruling, a shift on the court, and really, in a ruling on another major issue, as well. >> reporter: absolutely, david. another 5-4 decision, this one on abortion. justice gorsuch joining the conservatives in holding that those crisis pregnancy centers, which try

majority, john roberts is he the ban is squarely within the scope of presidential authority but sotomayor wrote the majority here completely sets aside the president's charged statements about muslims as irrelevant. that holding erodes the principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has protected and tells members of the minority religions in our country that they are outsiders and not full members of the political community. that was in reference to mr. trump's original call for a ban on all muslims entering the u.s. from the campaign. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total andomplete shut down of muslims enteri united states u our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. >> reporter: taking a victory lap, mitch mcconnell who blocks barack obama's pick of merit garland for the high court tweeted out a photo of justice neal gorsuch and the president's one word reaction in a tweet. wow. >> all of the attacks from the media and democrat politicians were wrong. i want to thank majority leader mitch mcconnell for his years of work to make this day

the dissenting opinion, the one by justice sotomayor was who is kidding whom here. this is the direct descendant of what donald trump said during the campaign. the only reasons these countries are on here are because they are muslim or a fig leaf to cover the muslim nation nature of the travel ban and that was the -- that was the disagreement between the five and four votes. >> anna navarro, let's play the sound of president trump declaring he wanted all muslims banned from entering the u.s. this is december of 2015. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shut down of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. >> now while this case was working through the supreme court, the trump campaign removed the shut down language from the trump campaign website. >> i think -- when i was watching your introduction where you talked about it being a long fought vindication for trump and that is -- >> his words. >> what he's saying and his opponents say it is racist and discriminatory. i think i

justice sotomayor: do you have any proof? you have one person who says that this process delayed him five hours. any process you institute there's going to be an aberration. your adversary says that most of the time this goes by very quickly. most of the time the election judge or whomever tells the wearer, please cover up your button or take it off, and people do that. so do we rule for the aberration or do we rule for the norm? mr. breemer: i think you have to look at the evidence in the record, your honor. and this is the evidence we have on enforcement. we have two people that were told they either had to remove their clothing or have their name and address taken down for potential prosecution in order to vote. we also have a number of other people after the 2010 election that didn't even try to wear apparel because they were afraid of enforcement. that's at the joint appendix at page 117. justice sotomayor: i'm sorry. let's not forget who these people were and what they were wearing. please id me, which for some people w

one featured a nasty back and forth between justices alito and sotomayor. both of these cases are cases where you see the conservative majority pulling back on voting rights. the ohio cases are technical involving how to read a certain provision of the national voter registration act, the motor voter law but the message seems to be give states their breathing room to pass laws that might make it harder to register and vote. and in the texas redistricting case which i didn't expect was going to be a big deal, half of the opinions were spent on whether or not there was an issue before the court because no injunction had been issued by the court. when the court got to the merits that i shut down a path that the supreme court in the 14el8by county five years ago, exactly five years ago from the day the opinion came out, said if there's a bad actor, bad actors like texas could be back under federal supervision for up to 10 years. this is section three of the voting rights act. you have to show intentional racial discrimination. and what justice alito's opinion d

. >> in a dissent justice sotomayor says it point points in one direction. it was motivated bye-bye as. joining us live from the supreme court with reaction to this big ruling. blayne. >> reporter: and jim, doreen, there certainly has been strong reaction to bot sides. this has been a deeply divisive issue since the very beginning and now president trump is taking this a a huge victory. this is something that was one of his very first actions upon taking office. the legalities around it have spanned almostnt hise presidency and today the supreme court is having the final say. it is a decision raising protts from the shadow of the supreme court to the home of congress. >> this is a dark day for anybody in our country that cares about checks and balances. >> reporter: but at the white house. >> it's a tremendous victory foa the ame people and for our constitution. >> repor trump. for president the supreme court upholding his travel ban restricting travel from a handful of majority muslim countries along with venezuela and north korea. >> we have to be safe and

sotomayor who was extraordinarily vocal to this compared it to the 1944 decision, a presidential order requiring the interment of japanese-americans. gregjapanese-americans.gregg. gregg: she is wrong, those were americans. these are people outside our country, many of whom may be potential terrorists. the president has an affirmative duty. his primary duty is to protect americans citizens from forces outside our borders. and that's what he is doing by this. the decision she cited had to do with interment of americans who were here. charles: we were treating japanese on okinawa we were fighting a war with. gregg: sotomayor is somebody who was relying a lot on the rhetoric of the campaign trail, the word uttered by president then candidate trump, now president trump. scotus has always been reluctant to use campaign rhetoric as a basis for making a decision. for the most of part it's neither relevant or dispositive. it's just rhetoric. charles: people are wondering what president trump can use them for and can he apply executive orders to cure this problems with the border situation. >> t

justice sotomayor said even though this is the third version, she's not buying it. this new window dressing can not conceal the facts that the proclamation is against islam and its follows. so she said if you would look at everything together, you would reach her conclusion that this was driven by religious animous. so the supreme court has told the lower court, toss the injunction. based on all of if guidance from the supreme court today, administration feels well they will do well if it goes back to the lower courts. it's not over yet. i wouldn't be surprised if it winds up here. >> key to the president's victory, the initial travel ban as announced and the chaos resulted rescinded and a different order targeted countries like north korea and venezuela, not muslim countries, that that was the key to the president's win today? >> yeah. essentially the chief justice wrote there's been a lot of talk about the animus behind it. the text does not mention religion. five of seven of the countries are muslim majority. but it's not effective if it's a muslim ban. it affect

sotomayor and ginsburg, seem to be about issuing creed in favor of vision of quality or what have youand it is an interesting divide, it's not entirely homoagain -- homogeneous. paul: she goes with chief justice to form majority as long as narrow decision. the baker got the right not to bake the wedding cake for -- >> or the administrative law case which she wrote 6-3 ruling with three liberals on the other side. paul: that's correct. in both cases you had narrow ruling, not a landmark ruling on the fundamental constitutional principle, do you agree with that? >> yes, master piece cake shop was kennedy ruling, reached middle ground result because he was balancing two values, gay rights on the one hand and freedom of conscious on the other. paul: any big take away, james, from you, any other take away? >> i think the biggest thing these two cases that came out this week, janus case on union agency fees and the case on crisis pregnancy centers. you cannot require people to say things that they don't believe and that was an important to be said. paul: dan, is the chief justice going to e

in the dissent that she summarized in court, justice sonia sotomayor said that history will not look court's misguided decision today, nor should it. the health and human services secretary says that his department cannot reunite separated children with migrant parents who are being detained. he told the senate finance committee that current federal law only allows parents a 20 day riod to keep children with them before turning them over to hhs care and he refuses to say how long some 2000 separated children will remain in shelters. the un's -- un's special envoy for yemen says that he's visiting aden

justice sotomayor is one of the two that read her dissent. she said it was a silver lining today. there was this explicit reputation of the decision. the case isn't over yet. what happens now is it goes back to the lower courts to be decided on the merits but with plenty of supreme court guidance, shep. >> shepard: that issue, more in a minute. the justices ruled on crisis pregnancy centers in california today. can you explain that issue? >> the state of california passed a law that is for pro life pregnancy centers. people would show up to a clinic and would have to be provided information where they could go to find low costs or abortions. the clinics fought back saying that violates free speech. our mission is to not women to seek out pregnancies and carry to term. the court found 5-4 they'd the crisis centers have a chance to succeed on the merits. they sent it back to california to hammer it out. tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m., is the final day of the supreme court term. we're waiting on a decision for public sector employees. that could impact millions. a gentleman out of il

just sotomayor said it's mas ka raiding behind a facade of national security concerns. they said we express no view on the soundness of the policy. what does the ruling mean. the president's allies are cheering the ruling because it affirms the president to act in the name of protecting the country but critics is panning the decision because it affirms the president's power to act in name of protecting the country. >> who's going to be next? is the president going to issue an executive order against mexicans? is it going to issue executive order for people coming from hond honduras, guatemala. >> everyone thought the time the japanese internment happened, everyone thought it was okay. we cannot let ourselves go down that road. >> we're going to speak with senator mazie in just a few moments. this afternoon the president cheered the court's decision and used it as call for more action at the border. >> today's supreme court ruling just coming out. a tremendous success. a tremendous victory for the american people and our constitution. i'll always be defending the soverei

la jueza sonia sotomayor criticÓ esta decisión duramente.

on the other side, the defenders of the chief justice john , sonja, stephen breyer sotomayor and alayna keegan. a mixture of those thought to be conservative and more liberal justices here. forward, who do you think the winners were? the big winners were in this decision, and who were the losers? guest: the big winners are going to be state and local tax authorities, so politicians who would like to grow their tax coffers. anyone who is aligned for those public funds is a winner here. you will see more and more dates pass these laws -- more more states pass these laws. it would be shocking if you can see almost all the 45 states with sales taxes doing the same thing. i think amazon is a big winner, and i think yesterday's stock price of amazon reflected that. they are already collecting in the 45 states with the sales tax. they don't collect on the market price, but they haven't a legion of accountants to get that done -- but they serving have an legion of accountants to get that done. losers in this of the small businesses, not the big guys who can comply. we are talking about 10,000 t

live coverage continues now a supreme court justice sonia sotomayor is sitting down for an interview with the american constitution society fort lawn policy conference. this is just getting underway. >> how are you doing? i'm doing okay. what is this? >> it's going to be around for a little while. >> what happened? >> in the middle of night i went to get a bottle of water from my living room kitchen area. it was dark and i tripped over a piece of furniture. broke it in for spots, my shoulder. had to have it replaced and so i am now partly bionic woman. [laughing] [applause] i need an id go through airports. >> i don't think you need to an idea to go through airports. i think you're good. >> i do travel abroad occasionally. >> are you taking care of yourself? >> yes. you sound dubious. >> are we worried about her? we are worried about you. >> i'm feeling exceedingly well. both my doctor my therapist are delighted. the only negative consequence of this is not been able to sleep well. i'm sleeping and a rented recliner because laying down causes pain as it does with most people who have

tenemos que aÑadir que la jueza sotomayor reaccionÓ comparando esta decisiÓn de la corte suprema a lancentraciÓn. tambiÉn reconoce como candidato con el grupo habÍa propuesto retar el ingreso de los musulmanes al paÍs, algo discriminatorio. y que todo lo que habÍan dicho los abogados del gobierno sexos eran las palabras del presidente. por su parte dijo lo esto: donald trump: [habla en inglÉs] borja bueno, pues ahÍ hemos visto cÓmo ha ratificado ese veto migratorio por parte de la corte suprema. pero al regresar, te contam que comparece en una corte de brooklyn joaquÍn "rel chapo" osmar, tenemos todos los detalles. caroline el fabricante de motocicletas harley davison dice que perderÍa cientos de millones de dÓlares al aÑo por los aranceles de la uniÓn europea. contamos cÓmafecta a ti y a los amantes de las motocicletas. o ♪ puedes hacer más por tu familia. nuestros consejos de salud pueden ayudarte a levantar más peso, para quitarles un peso de encima. con nuestras herramientas financieras puedes aprender a manejar tus cuentas... y así tener para lo que de verdad cuenta. y preparas n

be secure but in what was described as a furious dissent from the bench of liberal justice sonia sotomayor referred to cannes that trumps comparison of the travel ban to the decision that mandated the detention of japanese americans during world war two sort of my all said taking all the relevant evidence together a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was driven primarily by anti muslim animus rather than by the government's asserted national security justifications politicians and activists are now expressing concern that the supreme court has affirmed doldrums own opinion that he and he alone is in control of the country's national security and that he can act without oversight in deciding who comes into this country with this. we are concerned that donald trump . the five muslim majority countries that are in the current version can not only target more country but retention we even go after u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents i say who's going to be in. is a prison going to issue an executive order yes mexican's is going to give orders against people comin

supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talking about life on the court. after that, newsmakers as president trump was leaving the white house to attend the g-7 summit in canada he talked to reporters about a number of topics including trade issues, north korea, and his presidential pardoning power. this is about 20 minutes. reporter: mr. president. mr. president. mr. president. is the comey report going to be your birthday present? president trump: well, it seems it's coming out on my birthday. maybe that's appropriate. look, he's a very dishonest man. i have been saying it for a long time. i think i did our country a great favor when i fired him. we'll see what happens. we'll see what the report says. but i guess it just got announced, it's coming out on june 14. so that will be maybe a nice birthday present. who knows. reporter: are you glad they caught a leaker? president trump: we will deal with the unfair trade practices. if you look at what canada and mexico, the european union, all of them have been doing to us for many, many decades, we have to ch

again, justice ginsburg and sotomayor said otherwise, but i think it really opens the door to what would come next from the next case. i would just add one other thing, justice kennedy noted that in 2012, when this had happened, colorado was not allowing gay marriage. and he seemed to talk a lot about that historical context in that moment that now will be so different going forward. >> and that's fascinating and important because, paul i'm left to wonder here, this baker wins this case, does another baker win a future case? >> yes. i think that another baker may lose a future case. the reason i say that is because this is kind of typical of the that took place in the lower ss courts, in this case in the commission. a lot of times, for instance, in a criminal case, anellate court isn't deciding necessarily that somebody is innocent or guilty of a trial. a jury has already done that. what they're trying to decide is was it a fai trial? and here the that two liberals, kagan and breyer, joined in the majority decision, it suggests that they thought the commission treated the baker unfairly.

can you take us through -- justice sotomayor talks about the national case that was made. can you talk about the reality on the national security front and what message this ruling sends around the world? >> you don't make peace by alienating the nations you're trying to work with. if you're trying to turn nations around, if you're trying to stem fundamentalist extremism and violence, one way to do that is to pretend that you're closed to them and it will all go away, kind of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand mentality. but that's been proven not to work, particularly when it comes to mitigating radicalization. with this move, we may well see an increase in radicalization and an increase in terror threats. the other thing is that today we became a little bit less of that shining city on the hill that we've always been and wanted to be and a little bit more of a country that's essentially closed to people not like us and closed to thoughts not like ours. i think america needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. democracy is still an experiment. experimen