justice sotomayor: exactly. you are not saying to me, i think you just disavowed earlier that they have to spend the resources to find everybody who falls into these categories and to affirmatively say i am not , going to remove you. general stone: they have to make the affirmative statement. justice sotomayor: they have to not remove them. ok. thank you. justice kagan: you might get a chance to clarify that because i completely lost the thread and i apologize. are you saying that 1226 c applies only once removal proceedings are pending? general stone: we are not. we are saying it applies until a decision regarding removal has been made. justice kagan: i don't understand how you could possibly read 1226 a and c to be about anything other than what happens pending removal, pending the removal of decision. in other words, when removal proceedings are ongoing. general stone: in our view, 1226 a is pending a removal decision, that does not begin with just giving them the notice to appear. the removal decision begins

justice sotomayor: what are you guing? are yoaring that only if theyre told they are a criminal who fits the 1226 c or 1231 conditions, that they must remove those people? genel one: our argument doesn't run to remove at all. justice sotomayor: so, why isn't the policy guidelines exactly what the government said, which is this has nothing to do with detention? it has tdoith removal? we he de a decision that certain categories of people, we are not going to spendheoney on giving them a notice of appearance or removing them. general stone: in part because the guidelines on their face, 1226 c contains an arrest record. that is the natural reading of taken into custody. the guidelines on their face refer to, who should be subject to arrest detainers and removal proceedis. justice sotomayor: it should be. but you just said to me they do not have to be. the government has the discretion to say, i do not want to remove iserson. correct? neral stone: i was referring to how this does affect detainer i agree. we are not seeking to h

justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: i take your anero me there was no judicially enforceable standards to interpret the freedom of eech, freedom of assembly, and equal protection clauses oth constitution. because they on their face would appear to be as unmanageable. or broad. yet we routinely let federal and state cour riew those acts. mr. thompson: that is not our poti at all. our position is you need to lo at the type of claims, take eql protection. that sweeping language. if it's the type of claim where you are looking to assess whether race is the edinant motive or violation of one person, one votethe are judicially discoverable and manageable standar. justice sotomayor: some were created t courts. what's different than what the courdihere in north carolina where it looked to the meaning of the english bill of rights of 1689, which apparently was the basis for thste's constitution and it said that meaning was to curb royal efforts to manipulate parliamentary electis. it then looked to other state

chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: mr. verrilli, i'm trying to organize opinion if ierto rule in your favor. anyosay some things are within bounds; some things are not. how would you write it? i an, to answer some of the questions my colleagues have raised and to knk down, okay? i guess, first, you would say take petitioners' badest view, that the legislature means state legislators, not state courts, and so there can't be any judicial review. that's ea twrite and say there obviously has to be judicial review because it's part of e gulation process. what comes after that? mr. rrli: so -- ste sotomayor: how do we deal with his distinction between procedural and substantive? hodo we deal with this question of -- mr. verrill i think the court could write a ry -- justice sotomayor: -- th ts court, why -- mr. verrilli: sorry. justice sotomayor: -whwe don't reach the question of whether this court went too far with legislating andot reviewing? mr. verrilli: i think the court could write ve straightforward opinion, and i think a

sotomayor: i think there was a difference of opinion. mrlacour: we have two undisputed communities of interest justice. sotomayor: why can't you put precen on keeping one together but not putting the other together? keepinitp by three or four. mr. lacour: i do not think courtsreosition to judge how which committee of interest should be weighed. justice. sotomayor: if the responses are better past continuity, subdivisi, why are they worse thawh the state has done? mr. lacour: they are not better. district one and two are ls compact. justice. sotomayor: there is always meant to be something that is a little less. mr. lacour: they completely restructured the north of the state, district five and four which are not a issue here. justicomayor: that is not what the district court found. putting ts aside, let's go back to my fundamental question. i thought the issue under seion two was whether or not a particular racial minority, as result c equally participate. at that is the case, it concluded that the black community, which is a community of

sotomayor: that is n what the district court found. puing this aside, let's go back to my fundamental question. i thought the iue under section two was whether or n a particular racial minority, as a resu can equally participate. at that is the case, it ncded that the black community,hi is a community of interest, was ithree or four districts. >> it shows a lot in my friend's brief. there is no finding. >> how can i not be if you are not keeping together a community of interest in the way you did like mobile and baldwin? mr. lacour: it stretches from xato virginia. we cannot keep the whole black belt together. the council plaintiffs expert explained, that is because the tennessee river runs east to west up there. e rivers in the southwest of the state, alabama and mobile run north to south. what mobile dng well, in the areas most of their is doing -- north of there is doing well. are there enough people in black belt to constitute a stct by itself? sn't necessary in their proposed district seven to reach out -- was it necessary in thei

soledad: supreme court justice sonia sotomayor, nice to chat with you.ks to all of our guests and all of you who are watching. i hope you will join me every weekend for matter of fact, where we have conversations as diverse as america. >> if you want to earth portions of the show you may have missed during the previous episodes of the listening tour, go to our website, betterof -- matteroffact.tv. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >>> happy holidays and merry christmas to those of you celebrating christmas. i'm robert honda, your host for our show

. >> you can show as a is and discredited sotomayor's opinion is t problem.and then the unreasonable la the application our judgments, probable you can use agait the excellent, he talking about is. >> that's very hopeful. quick question, a jew see an jution? what did you territory judgment ite ? >> a few points, the first i not necessary. this is this court can accept x executive decision and really i think as far as the court would need to find federal district court were to say these procedures unconstitutional, you have to provide a process version even just that would remedy the injury becausenjury is of dna testing. >> is at your he was wondering why. >> i think it was necessary. what i'd l do is perhaps move to the practical problems with benefits circuits rule . as i stated in the opening, on the circuits rule the only is first in the file for. that's t rule in every single time prisoner is really in the court and seek that testing, there is great risk of parall oceedings the criminal loans in federal court file, the requirements and responses to figur

essentially, calling for justices sotomayor and taken t step down.int muc younger justices to replac them this is given the politica landscape in the years ahead i think it is a very hones conversation that people nee to be having but i did want to get your tak on eons argument >> it is an important argument that should be taken ver seriously. given the way that the senat is stacked against democrats it is very likely that the democrats will lose the senate in 2024. they may not regain it for years. they also may lose the presidency in 24, or 28. there is a real chance tha either justice kagan or justic sotomayor, or both, could step down or retire, or god forbid, passed away during that period we know republicans will never let a democratic president appoint another justice if the are in control the senate. that is made perfectly clear we know that republica presidents are extremely eager to appoint far-right justice who will shift the court eve further to the right if you ca imagine. one of the points that he an makes in this piece, that think is s

in response to justice sotomayor's question where you say wein website y g through and it seems like careful, ms. smith was careful to say things like iully customize the look, feel, color pallets, etc. and then there the engagement story page and inspired by you and written by lori that captures and conve the storybook of your love. i want to a y hypothetical about a heterosexual caused test couplehacomes to yr client and their wedding story that they want to write under the engent story page goes like this. we are both cisgender and heterosexual but it iselant to our relationship we knew we reome mates from the moment that we met and on and on. would your client publish that site? >> yes she would publish the site because her -- assuming the marriage is between a man and a woman she would pli it and there is no message even though -- >> it's inconsistent with her biblical views about marriage. i llive you another related one. heterosexual couple comes to her and they write the story that goes like this, we met at work we were both married to other op but what began as late nights a

justice sonya sotomayor said "we are going to carve out an exemption from antidiscrimination laws forhe first time if we rule for smith." and then chief justice john roberts said "if we do not rule for smith we would be compelling speech in violation of someone's beliefs for the first time." it seems like they were sympathetic and they perhaps be inclined to draw a line between service providers like website designers and artists. and on the other hand people were part -- people who are providing services to same-sex weddings like the guy who provides the chairs or the limo driver because that is not speech. host: that term was used a bunch of time, compelled speech. what does that mean? guest: when the government forces you to say something with which you disagree. and the government would have to pass a very high bar to do that and they say it is not met here. host: in essence it boils down to mayor making a first amendment case. guest: this is the argument that compelling her to create custom wedding websites for same-sex couples when it is contrary to her religious beliefs violate

and then as i mentioned earlier, the ones with the greatest skepticism and concern are kagan sotomayornd jackson. now that sort of leaves the chief justice, and justices cavanaugh and amy coney barrett, who really didn't tip their hands either way. all 3 of them made comments that might lead you to believe that they could go either way. so we're just going to have to wait and see but i think those three justices may well hold the key to the fate of this theory, which, as the professor said, is really considered revolutionary. reporter: thank you very much. judy: a massive u.s. bill rolled out late last night, is making its way through congress. the ndaa is a 4000 page bill put together by five -- bipartisan negotiators. it sets parameters for the military. and this year it includes major policy changes. our lisa desjardins is on capitol hill with more. first of all, what is in this bill. reporter: this is a sweeping piece of legislation. i have not read all 4000 pages. overall, a 4.6% pay raise with more support for ukraine. this includes a great deal of important policy. judy: startin

. >> justice sotomayor? >> counsel, there are two questions i want to get to that were asked of you. the first was justice ali about the poor personal rating. it seems to me that petitioner claims that harvard as to scdinavia guns to asian americansbecause it isa subjective criteria that is fecting thepersonnel readings. that's how i think i read his question, correct? so, it's not that it's easy race in edmonton people, it's that it's using a corrupted rsnel rating. correct? >> well, i don't want to speak for -- i don't want to presume to spk r justice alito. i think it is fair to say that e iticism of the personal ratingrelates to the, quote, subjectivity that is involved, really, in all of the ratings. t particularly in the personalrating. >> well, the evaluations use words like not a non-leader, not caring, whatever. it applies to all races, coect? >> of course. >>all races applicants receive those ratings as well, correct? i think what the experwa saying, the fact that you have thmbers, standing alone n

the ones with the greatest skepticism and concern were kagan, sotomayor and jackson.aves the chief justice justice in kavanaugh and amy coney barrett who really did not tip their hands either way. all three of them made comments that might lead to believe they could go either way so we are going to have to wait and see. i think those three justices may hold the key to the fate of this theory which as the professor said is consided revolutionary. >> thank you very much. >> pleasure, john. >> thank yo, john -- thank you. ♪ judy: a massive u.s. defense related bill weld out late last night is making its way through congress. the annual national defense authorization act is a 4000 page bill put together by bipartisan negotiators. it sets parameters for the military and this year it includes major policy changes. lisa desjardinss on capitol hill with more. what is in this bill? >> this is a sweeping piece of legislation. i have definitely not read all 4000 pages and there is an 800 page accompanying report. overall it is an increase potentially in the strength and power an

. >> reporter: but liberals like justice sotomayor also worry it would have implications for other groups. >> how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married. >> reporter: colorado attorney general phil wiser said it's one of equal treatment. >> when you open the doors to serve the public, you have to serve all members and not discriminate based on who someone is. >> reporter: now, the court had a similar case four years ago concerning a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. he won barely. the court did not take up the bigger first amendment issues we have in this case. we expect a decision here by june. jan crawford, cbs news, the supreme court. >>> well, the cdc is urging americans to get the latest flu and covid vaccines amid the highest influenza hospitalizations at this time of year in nearly a decade. health officials say nearly every state is battling high levels of flu-like illnesses. respiratory viruses like rsv and covid are overwhelming the hospitals. the cdc is also recomm

and here is justice sonia sotomayor this morning. >> how about people who don't believe in interracialriage or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? what's -- where is the line? i can choose not to sell to those people, this website because it's my speech? >> joining our coverage, maya wiley, president of the leadership conference on civil and human rights, brian fallon is back, executive director of the progressive judicial advocacy group demand justice and claire mccaskill is still here. i want to play one more piece of sound. this is from justice ketanji brown jackson with another scenario about where this could lead. >> can you give me your thoughts on a photography business in a shopping mall during this holiday season, they want to have a sign next to the santa that says only white children. why isn't your argument that they should be able to do that and maybe it is? >> because in the photograph itself the objection is not contained in that photograph. but in addition, i think it's important to remind the -- >> don't leave. sorry. what do you mea

and sotomayor weighing in with this question, so then where would we draw the line on discrimination. i go to a wedding website, it is something that i send to my family and friends. and others send it to family and friends. you don't send it. we go to this website, you are not inviting them to the wedding. only those getting married are. so how does it become your message? >> in the same way that it is a message of a ghost writer who writes an anonymous press release or book. it is still that writer's speech. the whole point of the compelled speech doctrine is to ensure -- >> what is the limiting line of your? justice kagan asked you about another website designer. but how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage or about people who don't believe that disabled people to get married? where is the line? >> and our legal analyst has more. take us inside the argument. >> reporter: another set of very consequential arguments when more than two hours with the justices struggling on where that line would be. but i have to say when i step back from everything that i heard today

>> that is something justice sotomayor your pointed out.at the mockup of the wedding websites she wants to create and she went page by page and kept saying, this is all about the couple, it is not about your speech, it is about the couple's story. that was very much part of it. whose speech is this? the lawyer for ms. smith responded that book authors tell other people's stories, but it is still there speech. john: they also probed the question we heard the colorado attorney general talking about earlier, where is the line? if you carve out an exception for this, what else? here is justice sotomayor asking the question. >> how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage? for about people who don't believe that disabled people shou get married? where's the line? john: does this get down to how they write the decision? >> they are going to have to say if they do rule for the website designer, they are going to have to say why what she does is different from say ierracial marriages, for example.why is it different from race? both th

justice alito, juste sotomayor? >> yes, just with a, point bu we do know in numbers decrease, and schools like the university of california university michigan, in the upper tier schools andthen the oklahoma system, thatblacks have ported feeling isolated and having their voices stifled there. yes, oh the correlation that isffed breaks down if you actually look at the underlying information. just to take for example, and you see, davis because african american representation, several points lower than atuc merced, there is less reports of isolation. you can see at thu.n.c. campus, their substance under theircies today who report feelings of racial isatn, andthen native americans who of course have a small percent of representation on campus reportedfeeling less racially isolated. and so i think that could not be distant by which we join a racial kind of -- it's insufficient. >> justice kagan? >> this is little bit off the track, here between a reference earlier in your rerks about gender differences. an there's a lo

justice sonia sotomayor differed >> you're not inviting them to the wedding. lilly and mary are so how has it become your message >> reporter: but conservative justice clarence thomas noted that creative businesses are different. >> this is not a hotel. this is not a restaurant this is not a riverboat or a train i'm interested in the intersection of public accommodations law and speech >> reporter: while lorie smith's views are rooted in her christian faith, her case is about whether excluding gay weddings is free speech, not religious freedom. lester >> all right, kelly, thank you. >>> more good news tonight. in at least one part of the economy gas prices continue to drop they could average under $3 a gallon by christmas. but will it last sam brock is following this sam, what should we know >> reporter: lester, good evening it is a timely trend right now for consumers who have been rocked by inflation. if you look at the average cost of gas across the country right now, it was $3.80 a month ago. lester, $3.40 tonight. but projections of that figure going belo

and so i thi it would be a different analysis. >> justice sotomayor? >> this would t first time in the court's history coec that it would say that a business open to the public as this peoner has said it is that it'open a commercial business, open to the public serving the public, that it could refuse to rve a customer based on race, religion or sexual oention, correct? >> yes. >> king justice gorsuch. >> good morning. >> moln, is it still morning? >> just barely must not feel like it's standing where you you are. >> i'm here all day. >> it's good to see you. w've had some discussion about whether websesre speech or whether they're some service off the shelf and i i like a lot of my colags don't profess to know much about this, but i do know that there are some stipulations that you made in paragraphs 81-82-83, which say that this is customized, personalized, an expressive acvi in each and every circumstance. what do we do about that from your perspective? don't we have to take that is given? >> yes, but it doesn't change the analysis. >> why not? beus

sotomayor's questions i took it that your bse where you say why a wedding website? um y gthrough and it seems like careful miss smith was carel say things like i fully customize the look feel theme message, color palettes, etetera. and then there's the engagement story page and inspired by a page inspired by you and written by lorth captures and conveys the cherished storybook of your love. so, i wa task you a hypothetical about a heterosexualoue that comes to your client and their wedding story. you know, that they want tori under the engagement story page goes like this, we are both cis gender and heterosexual, but that is irlevant to our relationship, which transcends such categories. we knew we were soul mates from the moment that we met and on andn.ould your client publish that site? >> yes, she would publish the site because her objection assuming that the rrge is between a man and a woman, she would publish it and that there's >> en though that narrative i assume is inconsistent with her biblical views about marriage, i'll give you another related one. hetero

justiceli, justice sotomayor? >>esjust to finish that point, we do know in numbers decrease, and schools like the university of california, university michigan, in the upper tier schools in the oklahoma system, that bck have reported feeling isolated and having their voices stifled there. >> yes, althhe correlation that is offered brea dn if you actually look at the underlying information. justoake california for example, and you see, d -- african american representation, which is several poin wer than at uc merced, there is less reports of isoti. you can see at the u. n. c. campus, their bstance under their policies today who report feelings of racial isolation, and then have a small percent of course representation on camp rt feeling less racially isolated. and so i think that could not be distant by whichwe judge a race neutral -- it's inffient. >> justice kagan? >> ts a little bit off the track, here betweea ference earlier in your remarks about gender dferences. and there's a lot of statistical evidence that

you had the conservative justices, who seemed sympathetic, and justice sotomayor seemed more align with state. listen. >> what's the limiting line of yours? justice kagan asked you about another website designer, but how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage? or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? where's the line? i choose to serve whom i want if i disagree with their personal characteristics like race or disability? i can choose not to sell to those people on this website because it's my speech? >> here's the background, a colorado evangelical web designer who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds is trying to get out of colorado's antidiscrimination law, arguing she could get in trouble for turning away same-sex couples. that hasn't happened yet but she is arguing hey, it's could and that's why she is looking for a decision, the case is marking the second time in five years the supreme court is hearing from a business owner about same-sex weldings and in 2018, there was a narrow ruling by the court that made the main issue

thing that she finds offends her religious beliefs. >> reporter: but liberals like justice sonia sotomayoruld also have implications for other groups. >> how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? >> reporter: colorado attorney general phil weiser said the issue is one of equal treatment. >> when you open up your doors and serve the public, you have to be able to serve all members of the public and not discriminate based on who someone is. >> reporter: now, the court heard a similar case five years ao involving a baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. he won on narrow grounds. the justices didn't decide those bigger first amendment issues that they took up today. a decision in this case is expected by june. norah. >> and will be watched closely. jan crawford, thank you. >>> the "cbs overnight news" will be right back. who says you have to spend more on skincare to get results? i power up my skin with olay. it works. guaranteed. try niacinamide for strength, retinol 24 for smoot

. >> reporter: but liberals like justice sonia sotomayor worried, a ruling for smith would also haveher groups. >> how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage? or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? >> reporter: colorado attorney general phil weiser said the issue is one of equal treatment. >> when you open up your doors and serve the public, you have to be able to serve all members of the public, and not discriminate based on who someone is. >> reporter: now, the court heard a similar case five years ago involving a baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. he won on narrow grounds. the justices didn't decide those bigger first amendment issues that they took up today. a decision in this case is expected by june. norah. >> o'donnell: and will be watched closely. jan crawford, thank you. word tonight that there may be a serious escalation of the war in ukraine. ukrainian drones reportedly attacked military bases hundreds of miles inside russia. at least two russian planes were destroyed and several others damaged.

>> reporter: but the liberals pushed back hard, justice sonia sotomayor grilling smith's lawyer about other issues where people might have religious or ideological objections. >> you're saying, i don't want to serve a particular person, a disabled person, black and white couple, a disabled couple,a -- a gay couple. you're basing it not only the nature of the message, you're basing it on who you're serving. >> reporter: and justice ketanji brown jackson, who, like justice clarence thomas, the court's other black justice, is married to a white person, said history shows religion has been used to justify discrimination. >> historically, opposition to interracial marriages and integration in many instances was on religious grounds. >> reporter: many of the questions raised in court today were thought to have been settled long ago during the civil rights era by public accommodation laws which were passed after lunch counter against business and though laws required businesses that served the general public to serve all eq equally. this case could change that. and more. david? >> yeah, back

she put a mock website has justice sotomayor red so it's hard to say photographs are not expresses. >> gorsuch. >> .. >> treating people of faith. take a little bit about, roger, in you would the history of jack and his own battle trying to be essentially an artist with integrity while at the same time not running a foul caller out of law. >> this is the masterpiece cake shop case, bigger case. the question of how faradays it go? will it be a live and let live type of situation with same sex marriage recognized and you'll be left alone. this one is free speech and there he could not in good conscious participate in a custom cake that would celebrate a same sex manger. that was pretty clear what it was. in that case to win the scream court. it wasn't as broad of a decision as we would have liked and there's some indication of an animosity on the case of california and when you pull the natzi card, you're usually like. he pull it had out and then the question is what if they weren't so foolish on the record and even so not there and activists going after him and they required -- asked h

justice sotomayor? justo finish that point, we do know when numbers decrease in schools like t uversity of california and michigan, the upper tier schoolsn e oklahoma schoosyem, that blacks have reported feeling isolated and having their voices stifled. >> yes, although the coron offered in the briefs breaks down, if you loo t underlying information, just to take california for example, at uc davis whi h african-american representation several potsower than uc merced, there are less reports of isolation. yosee that at unc, native -- there are some studeder the policy who report feelings of racial isolation. ti americans who have a small percentage of representation on campus compared afric-aricans report feeling less racially isolated. the sugges that that can be the standard is insufficient. >> justice? >> this the track. but you made a reference earlier in your remarks about gender differens. there's a lot of statistical evidence that suggests colleges now when theapy gender-neutral criteria get many

>> the justice sonya sotomayor said what is the limiting line? >>> this sad story. kirstie alley has died after a short battle with cancer. friends and co-stars are paying tribute to her as she rose to fame in her emmy award winning role as rebecca howe. >> what's so funny? is. >> nicknames. did you ever have a nickname? >> as a matter of fact, no. >> really? nothing, huh? not sparky, lefty, bubba? >> sorry. >> alley joined "cheers" at the height of its popularity. she also starred with john travolta in three "look who's talking" movies. ♪ ♪ >> john travolta posting this on social media. kirstie was one of the most special relationships i've ever had. i love you, kirstie. i know we will see each other again. she was 71. >>> more snow on the way out west while heavy rain is on the way to the northeast. let's get to britley. plenty of white to go around. >> that is exactly what's happening. you have one system right after the next rolling from the west to the east. we've picked up two feet of snow within the last 24 hours in man mouth mountain. this is an ongoing situ

sotomayor landrieu thank you so much for coming. we look forward to your remarks. >> thank you. [applause] is great to be with you at a want to thank aei and quota for having me here. i never come to aei without paying homage to my professor, professor norm ornstein who's been with aei for long time. he was my college professor and i had the great joys of having lunch with him j and repainting desha reacquainting ourselves. one of r the the great thinn american politics an expert in congressional politics which we need one right now obviously. it's going to be with all of you. the president asked me to come up and help implement the infrastructure bill. as you said in my introduction i was a legislator for 16 years which gave me a certain perspective inai terms of advocating to the executive branch of government to do and not do things and i served on the ways and means committee, which was the committee on the house side that actually doled out the money for projects so i had a look at of insight there. i later became lieutenant governor of the the state of louisiana. in louisi

it explores the relationship between sandra day o'connor, ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor.e playing starting in february. the play, written before ketanji brown jackson became the first black woman on the supreme court, offers foresight into her rise. the director says she hopes the musical can spur conversation and bring a new perspective to how we view the country. >> how did you start the song? >> she made it. there is a correspond you. >> i am here. >> i'm not leaving. >> justice. >> she will be like, don't talk about my play anymore. >> they stole my song. >> we will keep this. get your money. >> exciting. >>. good for them. we are getting soaked. some snow falling around tahoe. the moisture just aimed at us. we have this wet weather to get through. saturday morning, some of the heaviest rain causing a flooding threat. we are waking up to upper 40's to lower 50's. taking umbrella with you. you will need it. level 1 light storm. biggest impact, slower travel thanks to the rain. mid-50's later today. cloudy skies. overnight tonight, we will keep the rain in the forecast.

she was a law killer for sonia sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the supreme courttie, everyone is waiting on this final report. how firm is next week's timetable? >> i mean, i would say next week's timetable is pretty firm. they are go to have a vote on monday. what they will be voting on is the criminal referral, a version of the report, so we should see those things sort of then unfold throughout the week. hopefully we will all be reading the report sometime mid next week. >> alyssa, any sense what the justice department is expecting to get from the committee? >> as you know, stephanie, these referrals are not the same as indictments. they don't have to adhere to the or in released, ordi evidence staac that bar, to see removed. or there may ev an t have - they're merely recommendations to the department of justice, light, we think he should look at this further. we think that there's possibly something there that could be prosecuted. the department of justice does not have to heed those recommendations. by think in this case, given the very public nature of these

expanding the number of justices to 13 a correspondent for vox wrote that both justices cawing an and sotomayortep down now to give the president a chance to replace two obama appointees for two who could sit on the bench for decades to come. we've lived with the consequences of ruth bader ginsberg's late life arrogance. she passed away during trump's term and was replaced by conservative justice amy coney barrett. >> rich: thank you. >> julie: pete buttigieg is facing bipartisan criticism how he is handling the meltdown of southwest airlines. some democrats say he could have done more to prevent the mass cancellations that left thousands of americans stranded coast to coast. let's bring in our panel kevin walling former biden campaign surrogate and the vice president of hg creative and colin reid, former spokesperson for governor chris christie and campaign manager for senator scott brown. thank you for talking to us. first off i never quite understood what level of expertise pete buttigieg brought to the table when it came to transportation. so i'm not exactly shocked or surprised at his lack

justices sotomayor, kagan and ketanji brown jackson is fantastic.owever, the conservatives on the court committed perjury. i watched every one of the hearings. they all held their hand up and swore that they would not change roe v. wade because of settled law and that is what they did when they got the majority. i have real problems with this court. i think there definitely should be maybe a 12 year term and that is it. this lifetime appointment, they are not kings. i don't appreciate what they have done. especially walker, he shouldn't be there. mitch mcconnell denied president obama his rightful pick and would not bring merrick garland up for a vote. that is cheating. he didn't do his job and i don't understand why the democrats didn't sue mitch mcconnell and take him into the court for that kind of nonsense. they pushed in amy covid barrett. host: coney barrett. caller: with only two weeks left on trump's time. i look at the court as the conservatives have taken over by cheating and lying. it's awful. it is terrible for our country. host: mark is

what if somebody who had conservative beliefs or had a red maga hat had targeted sonia sotomayor, ite been the top story for weeks with outrage at the suspect and anyone who shared similar political ideology. the biggest story, downplay of the border crisis, most egregious journalistic mal malfeesance. nearly 900 migrants dying, suicide by border patrol agents whose moral is shot and fentanyl pouring in from china through mexico killing aefrmg of 300 americans per day due to overdoses and it is silence from abc, pis, npr, times and post on biggest story of the year. >> carley: your favorite media moment of 2022, former media darling michael aft avenatti was sent to jail. >> we are back with the main player. >> to me, you are like the holy spirit, all places, all times, saving the country. >> you are doing a hell of a job. >> looking at 2020, i am taking you seriously because of your presence on cable news. >> he's a rock star, interesting to see the next chapter. >> carley: joe -- >> joe: man, wow, fun to go down memory lane. michael avenatti, when you read the celebrity birthday pag