justice sotomayor: just the framework. the framework says you look at the totality of circumstances, you look at all of these things. if that is all theuiline said, would you have had a day in court today general stone: certainly in part becausofhe essence of full -- 1226 c, if congress is considering judgment -- justice sotomayor: you're not going ckn what you said to me earlier. you are saying that you leave --ou believe that this statute, 1226 and 1231 take away all discretion to decide whether to remove somebody or not? general stone: no, only discretion whether to detain them pending decision for removal. justice sotomayor: you keep going back to that. e guidelines of talking about --heuidelines are talking about the decision to remove someone, to arrest, detain or reve. if a dhs offerooks at totality of circumstances and says, th ia person we are not going to remove, can you argue about that? general stone: at that point, i think the 1226 c1, assuminthat that was the finalecision, the obligation is a resolved by 1226

justice sotomayor: you are arguing with the state is arguing. i'm asking you about the deal. -- you. you, as a udt, once the heroes act, your 10,000 dollar student. is goi tget nothing. he's not going to get 20,000. you strike it down, he gets nothg. neither does the person who wants something. is is totally illogical to me, that your coming into cot say, i want more. i nto file a suit to get more, but i know i'm gointo get nothing. mr. connolly: so, the secretary created a ssive debt forgiveness program, and he says thah's doing it one time at one time only. he said this in his ieng, his declarations, on his website. and the replbrf he said he took cost into account. so, if we miss the shot, we will never have another opportunity to get -- justice sotomayor: no, -- [crosstalk} >> i don't ow if that hurts you or helps you. it seems to hurt you to suggest that. i thought your argument was, if we strike down this program, ene know the secretary is going to try again under the a -- heandhat's the relief that we are seeking. the procedures that exis

justice sotomayor: you are arguing with the state is arguing. i'm asking you about the deal. -- you. you, as a student, once the heesct, your 10,000 dollar student. is going to get nothing. h's not going to get 20,000. you strike it down, he gets nothing. neither does the person who wants something. this is totally illogical to me, that your coming into court to say, i want more. i want to file a suit to get more, but i know i'm going to get nothing. mr. connolly: so, the secretary created a massive debt forgiveness program, and he says that he's doing it one te one time only. he said this in his briefing, his declario, on his website. and the reply brief he said he tookosinto account. so, if we miss the shot, we will never have another opportunity to get -- justice sotomayor: no, -- [crosstalk} >> i don't know if that hurts yoorelps you. it seems to hurt you to suggest that. thought your argument was, if we strike down this progm, then we know the secretary is going to try again under the age -- hea and that's the relief at we are seeking. the

justice sotomayor: tnk your bottom line answer to be, everybody suffered in the pandemic. but different people got different benefits because they qualified under different programs, correct? ms. prelogar: that's right, there's been enormous relief. justice sotomayor: theres parent on fairness in society because we're not the society of limited resources. every law has people who encompass it or people outside of it, correct? ms. prelogar: that is correct. justice sotomayor: and that's not an issue of fairness, it's an if what the law protects. ms. prelogar: yes. >> jusceagan? justice kagan: i mean, congress passed a statute that dealt with -- payment f cleges, and it didn't pass a statute that dealt with a loan repayment for loan businesses and so, congress made a choice, and that may have been the right choicer may have been the wrong choice. but that is congress's choice. and u are saying that the secretary implemented his pors under congress's choice, which ve him authority over loaning ov. definitely did not give him authority ov lns for long care. ms. prelogar: that

justice sotomayor: i think your bottom line answer to be, everybody suffered in the pandemic. but different people got different benefits because they qualified under differt programs, correct? ms. prelogar: that's right, there's been enormoureef. justice sotomayor: there is a parent on fairness in society because we're not the society of limited resources. every law has people who encompass it or people outside of it, correct? ms. prelogar: that is correct. justice sotomayo and that's not an issue of fairness, it' an issue of what the law protects. ms. prelogar: yes. >> justice kagan? justice kagan: i mean,oness passed a statute that dealt with -- payment for colleges, and it didn't pass a stu that dealt with a loan repayment for loan businesses. and so, congress me choice, and that may have been the right choice or it may have been the wrong choice but that is congress's choice. and you are saying that the secretarimemented his powers under congress's choice, which gave him authority over loaning . definitely did not give him authority over loans for long care. ms. prelogar:

stice sotomayor: and that's not an issueirness, it's protects.of what the law ms. prelogar: yes. >> justice kagan? juickagan: i mean, congress passed a statute that dealt with -- payment for colleges, and it d't pass a statute that dealt with a loan repayment for loan businesses. anso, congress made a choice, and that may have been theig choice or it may have been the wrong choice. but that is congress'choice. and you are saying that the secretary implemented his powers under congress's oice, which gave him authority over loaning . definitely did not give him authority over loans for long care. ms. prelogar: that is correct. the secretary would have no authority to act outside the student loan pgr. the heroes act is specifically designed only to empower the secretarwi respect to that portfolio. juickagan: maybe as sotomayor said, congress gave a different kind of authority to a different secretary with respect to a different set of struck.ies, when an emergency is that correct? ms. prelogar: yes. >>ustice gorsuch? juste rsuch: i just wanted to make sure i undstd yo

. >> you can show as a is and scredited sotomayor's opinion is the problem.and then the unreasonable delay, theppcation our judgments, probable you can use against e excellent, he is talngabout is. >> that's very hopeful. quick estion, a jew see an injunctio what did you territory judgment instead ? >> a few points, the first is not necessary. this is this court can accept x executive decision and al i think as far as the court would need to find responsibility or say if a deral district court were to say these procedures are unconstitutional, you have to provide a process version, even just that would remedy the injury because the injur is of dna testing. >> is at your heart, i was wondering why. >> i think it was necessary . what i'd like to do perhaps move to the practical considerations and the oblems with benefits circuits rule. as i stated in the opening, on the circuits rule the only injury to is in the file for. that's the rulvery single time prisoner is really in the court and seek that testing, there is great risk of parallel proceeng the criminal l

. >> justice sotomayor, let me get a uple of points on this concern.irst to address the status quo it's not the ce all circuits have applied to the rogers test. there are many circuits that never adopted rogers, including theourth, fifth and seventh circuit that i think address par in the correct way that we advocate which is we can take the provided nature the use into account under the likelihood of confusion standard wh is the statutory standard. the second point isld grant you there are a number that have followed rogers but many of thees involve titles as rogers involved the title. the ninth circuit has dramatically expande scope of rogers. >> that is my question. why don't we jusden parody whether it is everythin else. >> i think rogers at least by the ninth circuit is not limited to. these, so the court if you are saying that roge integral to the circumstances of te i think you would probably cally be saying it shouldn't be applied not just in cases involving parody, but others -- >> i don't know why that is dealing with titles or anything else.

. >> justice sotomayor, let me get a couple of points on this concern. firsto address the status quo it's n t case all circuits have applied to the rogers test. have never adopt rogers,that including the fourth, fifth and seventh circuit that i think addresarodies in the correct way that we advocate which is we can take the provided nature of the use into account under the likelihood of confusion standard which is the statutory standard. the second point is i would grant you there are a n that have followed rogers but many of the cases involve titles as rogers involved the title. the ninth circuit has dramaticallyded the sco of rogers. >> that is my question. why don'tust decide on parody whether it is eing else. >> i think rogers at least by the n circuit is not limited to. these, so the court if you are saying tgers is integral to the circumstanc the case i think y would probably logically be saying it shouldn't be applied not just in cases involving parody, but others -- >> i don't know why that is logical because we are not dealing with titles or any

justice sotomayor? >> this is ssttially different because the secretary is authorized to cancel loans under hda, so this is not an ti as a moratorium on eviction, which had never occurred previously before or was not in the wheelhouse of the agency. at least thaishat the court said. i had a diffen of opinion. putting that asideth is not an action that could come as a rprise because it i expressly permitted under the hea act and nothing in the heroes act says that the secretary cannot do something that is in the normal course of its business in circumstances that juifit like a school shooting -- closing or like a location. the are exceptions that are permitted under ha to cancel a debt. why would i have a view that congress did not understand at in a proper emergency, that cancellation would be right? >> i wouldo ck to my prior answer, which is there is a difference between modifying an existingoaforgiveness program in light of the national emergency, which is appropriate. an example of that is to tak th

amy: that's justice sonia sotomayor on tuesday.we're joined by our next guest, i want to play a clip from a video produced by a more perfect union about a group funding the lawsuits against student debt relief called the jobs creator's network. >> the se billioires and corporatnshat d't nt you to have gher wes, thatant bk your uon, that don't wantou to he decent and ee medil care, at want diate wh you do wi your dy, that wt more x cutso the supeich, ty're the ones that also nt you t say -- amy: for more on all of this, we are joined by eleni schirmer, who organizes with the debt collective and is a writer and postdoctoral fellow at concordia university's social justice centre in montrÉal. her new piece in "the new yorker" is headlined "how the government cancelled betty ann's debts" and follows up on her piece last summer "the aging student debtors of america: in an era of declining wages and rising debt, americans are not aging out of their student loans -- they are aging into them." welcome to democracy now! why don't you start o

. >> you can show as a is and discredited sotomayor's opinion is the proble d en the unreasonable delay, the application our judgment pbable you can use against the excellent, he is talking about is. >> that's very hopeful. quick question, a jew e an injunction? what d y territory judgment instead ? >> a few points, the first is not necessary. this is this crtan accept x executive decision and really i think as f athe court would need to find responsibility or say if a federal district were to say these procedures are unconstitutional, you have to prove process version, even just that remedy is of dna testing. the injury >> is at your heart, i was wondering why >> i think it was necessary. what i'd like to do is perhve to the practical considerations and the problems with befi circuits rule. as i stated in the opening, on the circuits rule the only injury to is first in the file for. that's the rule in every single time prisoner is really in the court and seek that testing, tres great risk of parallel proceedings the criminal loans in federal court file, the requirements and responses t

any alien party, it doesn't say anything like that. >> i agree justice sotomayor. heacorpus action was clmi his detection was illegal cae of a violation. >> now the otypical, but that n the language, it is not limited to atituation. it doesn't say any writer benefit that is ly enforceable by an undocumented alien. it says any par. any party. >> the court didn't hold that 20 to 41, that acof exercise drug addition illegal it says 31 was illegal through the use of 20which was permitted. this is separate from sergeant 12:31 ath neral heaviest at shoot. >> why would you spend a little bit time onemying before we move to individual questioning. on that, important question from me, was the one raised by justice gorsuch. how does the apa, how does the remedy slipy unnoticed from l these administrative scholars? >> it -- i can sak as to the attention of the - but i can tell you that the remedy recognized in 76, w consistent wh the practice. to put fe point on it, this ou around 1920 reviewed interstate commerce commissi orders. specifically describe the relief that w bing

jstice sotomayor? >> this is substantially different, because the secretary is authorized to cancer loans under h e ts is noanction as a moratorium on ectn. which had never occurred previously, or was not wiinhe wheelhouse of the agency, or at least thaishat the courts said. i had a difference of opinion. putting that aside, this is not a action that could come as some surprise, because it is expressly permitted uer the aca act. and nothing in the heroes act says that t secretary can't do something that is in the normal cour o his business and circumstances they justify it, like scol closing, or like a school engaged in fraud. those e exceptions that clearly are permitted under the aca to cancel a debt. and so w would i have a view that congress did not understa tt in a proper emergency, debt cancellation would be right? >> i would go back to my prior answer, which is, the a difference between modifying a existing loan forgens program and light of the national emergency, which appropriate, and an examp

justice sotomayor? >> this is substantially different becae e secretary is authorized to cancel loans under hda, sohiis not an action as a moratorium on eviction, which had never occurred previously before or was noin the wheelhouse ofhe agency. at least that is what the court said. i had a difference of opinion. putting that aside, this is not an action that could come as a surprise because it isxpssly permitted under the hea act and nothing in the heroes act says that the secretary cant something that is in the normal course of its business in circumstances that justify it like a school shoong -- cling or like a location. those are exceptions that are permitted under hea to cancel a de. why would i have a vw that congress did not understand that in a proper emergency, that caellation would be right? >> i would go back to my prior answer, which is there is a difference between modifying an existing loan forgiveness program lht of the national emergency, which is appropriate. an example of that is to ta

objects to rosa parks, objects to roberto clemente, objects to books about supreme court justice sonia sotomayor, and the book is gone for every child. that's not america. that's not democracy. that's not consistent with the first amendment, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's washington journal, everyday we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, the author and historian alex kershaw discusses the significance of the medal of honor. then the latest on the history of u.s. presidents and baseball with sports attorney and former washington senators and baltimore orioles baseball announcer. and this policy historian. and the white house historian association senior historian examines the history of u.s. presidents and baseball. watch washington journal, live at 7:00 e

. >> sandra day o'connor, ruth bader ginsburg, and sonia sotomayor. >> reporter: the first three womenpreme court. >> these three women are not just incredible icons of the legal world, but they start to tell the story of america. they had like a real wonderful relationship together. a real sisterhood. that's what we are celebrating here. >> reporter: it's a look at the challenges they faced as changemakers, balancing their own personal and private lives. >> it's fascinating, sandra and ruth, besides being incredible legal minds, both moms of multiple kids. >> reporter: with "justice" she hopes people walk away then more than just history. >> it's about these intimate moments and decisions that make us who we are. >> reporter: but to bring to life a new perspective of the sisterhood. >> this is really special because it is actually a book that sandra wrote the forward for. this is her book. she gave it to ruth. >> reporter: and how it is told from the stage. >> was also really special about it is it is just three women playing characters over 50. you never, ever see that in the america

. >> sandra day o'connor, ruth bader ginsburg, and sonia sotomayor. >> reporter: the first three women on the supreme court. >> these three women are not just incredible icons of the legal world, but they start to tell the story of america. they had like a real wonderful relationship together, a real sisterhood, and that's what we are celebrating here. >> reporter: it's a look at the challenges they face as changemakers, balancing their own personal and private lives. >> it's fascinating, sandra and ruth, decide being incredible legal minds, both moms of multiple kids. >> reporter: with justice, she hopes people walk away with more than just a lesson in history. >> what it's about is people. it's about humanity. it's about these intimate moments and decisions that make us who we are, that's what all good theaters about. >> reporter: but to bring to life a new perspective on this sisterhood. >> this is really special because it is actually a book that sandra day o'connor wrote the forward for. this is her book, and she gave it to ruth. >> reporter: and how it's told from the stage. >> w

just as -- justice sotomayor at the beginning, you wouldn't expect, i don't think anyone could, cometo this court fore they received the denial ever ring or amended opinion henry hearing before a federal urt of appeals. in much the se way. >> thank you. >>thank you, counsel. just thomas? >> did you le the petition before? >> we did, your honor. if we had committed that petition, would that have been improperly granted? >> i don't think it would've been improperly grnted, your honor. i think as a ractical matter, igoing back to the -- very, very difficult for mr. reed to make a due process challenge to the cca's authoritative construction of article 64. -- after denial of re-hearing, 's when we filed -- with this court, raising one of the things due process challenges. of cour, e court denied review. >> justice alito? >> ts case can be viewed as having been drastically narrowed, as esult of the brieng so ou have clarified that the particular you are presngs an itative construction claim. u're challenging ay the statute was interpreted by the court of criminal appeals, and ououldn't kn

and joining me for insight and analysis are mariana sotomayor of the washington post, jonathan of politicoand republican strategist brendan buck. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >>> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history this is "meet the press" with chuck todd >>> and a good sunday morning. >> it was a week, to borrow a phrase, of everything everywhere all at once. global instability and threats to democracy at home and it ended in the second largest bank collapse in u.s. history, all of it adds to the uncertainty many americans have been feeling for a few years now. around the world, iran and saudi arabia agreed to restore ties in the middle east, and a dea brokered not by the united states, but by china and it happened just as our nation's top intelligence leaders testified that china is, quote, the most consequential threat to u.s. national security on our southern border, the kidnapping of four u.s. citizens in mexico and murder of two of them just over our border raised tensions on the charged issue of border security, prompting calls fo

justice sotomayor was pointing out statutorily, mohela has the right s and be sued. if the state does not have responsibility foriality's, they have disclaimed any claim to the asss,s that correct? >> i would disrewith the last point. i don't think the state has disclaimed intes >> explained to me why. on the one hand you have in missouri statute 173.2, you have the last ntce says nothing in these sectis should be construed to require the state an governmental subdivisions of their powers over assets or authority. in the next section, 425, it says no asset of the authority should b considered to be part of the revenue of the state. so which is it? it would be hard to see how a n r the state would benefit mohela or a win for mohela would benefit the state if the assets are sera. do n g any money out of it, putting aside lewis and crk because i'm not interested in that. >> to go to the second prision you read, 45, it says no asset of the authority shall beonsidered to be part of the revenue of the state whi the meaning of a specific state constitutional provision. so i

. >> reporter: but to justice sonia sotomayor, the future without this plan looks bleak. >> there's a -- 50 million students who are -- will benefit from this, who today will struggle. they don't have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments. >> reporter: david, there is no question that the conservative supermajority on this court seems poised to strike down this program, and white house officials have been saying that they have not discussed options. there is no plan b. david? >> terry moran in washington tonight. terry, thank you. >>> we turn now to news involving iran and its nuclear capability. tonight, a top pentagon official testifying that iran could now make enough nuclear material for a bomb in just 12 days now. let's bring in our senior white house correspondent mary bruce, live at the white house. mary, that official describing the pace of iran's progress as, quote, remarkable, in the years after the u.s. pulled out of the iran nuclear deal. >> reporter: and david, tonight, iran is on the brink of having enough material to build a nuclear bomb if

objects to rosa parks, objects to roberto clemente, objects to books about supreme court justice sonia sotomayor, and the book is gone for every child. that's not america. that's not democracy. that's not consistent with the first amendment, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you "after words" from book tv, where nonfiction authors are interviewed on their latest books. angela saini explores the origins of patriarchy and how it spread around the world. she is interviewed by women's media center director soraya chemaly. watch on c-span. >> former president trump will hold his first 2024 campaign in waco, texas, on saturday. you can watch it on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. >> drooep is your -- c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're sponsored by television companies and m

this is justice sotomayor questioning the nebraska solicitor general. >> there are 50 million students will benefit from this, who today will struggle, many of them don't have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic. and what you are saying is now we are going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them. instead of the person with the expertise and the experience, the secretary of education, who has been dealing with educational issues and the problems surrounding student loans. >> the three liberal justices seemed very sympathetic to the biden administration argument that this was authorized by congress. >> absolutely, justice kagan said the act that the department used to promulgate this program is very clear. she said it could not be any clearer that congress gave the secretary the authority to waive or modify student loan requirements. she said the court often gets statutes that are not very clear, but this one she said congress has made clear its intent here. >> there was a lot of discussion about those two words, waive and modify. >> that is another

. ♪ >> trace: we could be looking at more wickeded weather from down sotomayor. more. >> right here in shreveport, we are in that bulls eye for the severe weather that is headed our way. now, what we're seeing right now is the calm before the storm. it's breezy out here. we have a wind advisory that we're under. if you take a look, you can see the flags are blowing. it's been like that all day. we can expect gusts of 45 miles per hour. also, we've had some peaks of sunshine and i've learned from our forecast team that that is not good news. i know it could make it sound like it's a good day or nice day outside, but that provides energy to these storms. so what are we looking at? the next few hours, there's potential for our first round of storms. that could be tornadoes as well as hail. once we get into the overnight hours when people are getting ready for dinner or maybe going to bed, that is when more of the most dangerous weather will come our way. we could have long track tornados, straight line winds, some hail and of course lightning coming along with those

justice sotomayor making a point that might appeal to people's empathy but this is not a legal point. listen here. >> so 50 million students who are -- will benefit from this who today will struggle, many of them don't have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic. they don't have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments. >> dana: if you will bear with me and listen to randi weingarten on the steps of the supreme court yesterday. very exercised by one issue. >> during the pandemic we understood that small businesses were hurting and helped them and it didn't go to the supreme court to challenge it. big businesses were hurting and we helped them and didn't to go to the supreme court to challenge it. all of a sudden when it is about our students, they challenge it. >> dana: well, what she is talking about before was passed by congress. wasn't that the issue there at stake at the supreme court? >> there is no comparison between the paycheck protection program that assisted our small businesses during the pandemic. remember, our businesses were shut

justice sotomayor ruled arguing against the biden administration would be changing congress' words because like what's happening. >> there's 50 million students who are, will benefit from this who today will struggle. many of them don't have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic. they don't have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments. and what you're saying is, now we're going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them. instead of the person with the expertise and the experience, the secretary of education, who has been dealing with educational issues and the problems surrounding student loans. >> and this was going on, hundreds of protesters rallied outside the high court in support of the president's program, including congresswoman ayanna pressley. >> like millions of black borrowers denied the ability to build generational wealth, i know the burden of student loan debt. i know what it is to land in default when your family is tripped up on economic hard times. and i want to talk about the shame that many borrowers carry. i'

yeah, i mean, i'm just going to read sonia sotomayor at justice on the united supreme court in court. wrote, my beloved world, an amazing book that i hope you have all read. but there is a page in beloved world that just like it just absolutely floored me. and i'd never forgotten it. and i actually started thinking about it constantly in how read the book, but also i started using it in interviews to reassure people that i wasn't there to write more kind of bullets flying hardship, drama this genre that gets referred to photography as ruin -- where you just like pile on with all the terrible things and tell these kind of you logistics stories about a place dying. and so i used just a quote as a way of sort reassuring people that i understood that i wasn't there to just tell the bad and. in her book, she's writing about her alcoholic, but i just think the sentiment is so true for what this this kind of work has to do. she she wrote in the book, you can't say this much love is worth this much misery. they're not opposites that cancel other out. they're both true at the same time. and so

the blow by imposing sweeping restrictions on future arctic drilling joining me now, mayor anna sotomayorsor to biden's 2020 campaign marianna, a congressional letter signed by two dozen democrats said and i'm quoting it here, you can stop this ill-conceived and misguided project, inconsistent with the administration's historic achievements on climate justice. what's been the reaction on the hill, especially among progressives >> you know, i've checked in with a number of progressive democrats and they're angry. they're very upset by this and it's just another issue that they are very surprised by the last couple of weeks we've seen biden and the administration make decisions on immigration that has really upset progressives, whether it's on asylum or possibly family detention, as well as biden's own back and forth on intervening in d.c. crime law. many of these progressives are talking about and they realize biden is likely on the cusp of running for re-election again. they realize this is a big democratic base. they argue that they make up a significant part of it even in that clip of i

sonia sotomayor went to princeton and yell on a scholarship. i think that's interesting.ices have tax free savings accounts for their kids. chief justice roberts has 600,000 in one of them. brett kavanaugh has 300,000. i just think that's interesting and whether or not that somehow colors their decision-making. >> but in most cases, look, in most cases the way the justices, especially at this elite level, the third branch of government, the judicial branch, they're jewish prudence, their judicial philosophy is, you know, of course they have their own personal experiences. but it's actually not inform by the personal expenses. it's informed by their approach to the law, their approach the constitution. >> i mean, that so -- i'm reading that. but sometimes i just don't know their own experiences. >> and so, i think if you look at other comments were in this case today, and this hearing today, it was about separation of powers, the role of congress, thoroughly executive branch. none of them are like, oh, well i've a lot of debt, i understand we are saying. the constitutional

about that on our round table joined by chris christie, donna brazile, maggie haberman, and mariana sotomayore calming the concerns of democrats at least in the house? you have so many in the public who don't want him to run. >> in some ways you are hearing a lot of congressional democrats actually want to support biden. i think there was a little bit of hesitation before the midterms, if they went badly for democrats, there would be much more emphasis to try and see if there were options, but right now when you talk to those congressional democrats, you say, who else could it be? the interesting thing biden said in that clip is we as democrats need to talk about selling this. these messages, things that we were able to do, and if they know that we did it, then, you know, that could be a better victory for 2024, and it's interesting only because, you know, biden's not getting a lot of credit for the legislative things that have passed and things that have become law, and i think biden is trying to make sure that democrats are there, and also because they're talking to the constituents all the

jeff mason of reuters and marianna sotomayor of the washington post are all here, uh, nia part of the reason that we are now focused on this is because a certain former president has tried to, uh, put a timeline on the table that is actually not really substantiated by any facts and so as we wait to find out what the grand jury is doing, there is an overlay of politics here in which trump has set a timeline that everyone is now expecting. maybe an indictment. maybe not. the truth is, we don't really know. we don't really know. trump didn't know he tweeted and everybody sort of followed his lead. he didn't have any information at all about that was just putting something out there all sorts of speculation in in sort of proceeded to beat up on alvin bragg in terrible ways and seemingly threatened him. and so we have in some always been living in trump's world in a trump timeline that he created out of thin air, this grand jury seems to be proceeding apace with their own timeline. another grand juries do, but donald trump had to sort of put his thumb on the scale and make us think that s

in terms of the discussions alito and sotomayor who were very much on your take being like, come on,me on, really. jack daniels. seriously and then you had gorsuch and kagan who are like you don't get involved in this more like i see, but like, can we keep this to a lower court? but you had this interesting conservative liberal matchups you again. you you could hear in their tone, not just the transcript. and so it's hard to predict how this will go. but it seemed like i don't know. generally speaking ill. i'll be surprised by scs ruling comes into effect agree that it was interesting to hear them because we got to hear some supreme court humor there. they were really yucking it up, congressman so first off one owner of a dog named baxter tells me that they received this to toys specifically and the dog hated it. i thought that that was just it's an important data point. secondly i would agree with that. see on the legal analysis. it's a lot of work to go through. you know the trademark. there's a reason why we have this trademark. law in place. there is an impact on the brand new an

i am sonia sotomayor. and that's when we did i am frida kahlo.and then all these kids that were asian were writing me saying, you've done black, you've done what you've done indian, you've done native american. where's our hero. and i hear that. i do hear that. and to me, it's vital that, you know, a friend of mine who is a guy who created morales. right. who's the new spider-man, who's half black, half latino. and he told this amazing story that when he created miles morales, all these people wrote to him. and so when they were little to finally have a black spider-man, when they were little, they used to always pretend when they're playing superheroes wanted to be spider-man, because spider-man was the only character you couldn't tell what his skin color was, right? you could see batman's jaw. you could see superman's face. see, wonder woman looks like captain america. obviously, iron man, you could see a little, you know, he has the armor, but but spider-man, you couldn't tell and that really stuck with right that idea of representation and kn