justice sotomayor: mr. par this issue of when this will end , nine states have chosen to ret on race neutral -- completely race neutral, with race being not eveall factor anywhere. not all of them have been as a result of tple voting, it has been the systems themselves choosing this. isn't that the case in florida? mr. burr: that's my understanding according to their executive order. many states were its institution institution. georgia, for example. justice sot: now even your adversid he didn't see 25 years as a set deadline, it was an expectation. what we know, we have nine states who have tried it, and mentioned earlier white admissions have either remained the same or increase, and clearly some institutions, the numbers were under -- for underrepresented groups as esther burkl and that's myct? understanding. justice sotomay also know is in thosears, racial disparities have grown dramatically. segregation has grown, the disparbetween incomes has grown, and so has the effects of these thn terms of the res

justice sotomayor is tree to do what other -- free to do what other officials can't do.r publisher, penguin books. >> this is another thing to be talking about because even more is than maybe taking a trip with an old family friend, even a luxury trip which can be a form of bribery, these are the sorts of deals that have made her millions of dollars. that's extremely unprecedented, something that's absolutely worth taking a look at here. elizabeth: how do you think the media's going to handle it, chris? >> i think they're going to sweep it under the rug because she's a hero, she's on the right side of history, and people like clarence thomas despite being absolute treasures of america, people who show what can be accomplished in this country, well, they're attacked because with they're on the wrong -- wrong side of history according corporate media. elizabeth: got it. coming up, former deputy assistant attorney general tom dupree, more on the u.s. attorney, david weiss, confirming a, quote, ongoing investigation into likely -- bribery allegations against joe and hunter b

justice sonia sotomayor in the. [indistinct conversation] ing opinion wrote this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. reaction to the ruling was swift and along party lines. >> we cannot let this decision be the last word. discrimination still exists in america. today's decision does not change that. lisa: but republicans like south carolina senator and republican presidential candidate tim scott celebrated. >> this is the day where we understand that being judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, is what our constitution wants. lisa: and there was joy and hope from those who brought and won the lawsuit. >> today's victory transcends far beyond those of us sitting in this room today. lisa: buckle up. we start there. with a phenomenal panel, eugene daniels is politico's white house correspondent and co-author of politico playbook. ariane de vogue is a supreme court reporter for cnn. seung min kim the white house reporter at the associated press

justice sotomayor warned in the dissent this could lead to other kinds of discrimination and said the decision threatens to vulcanize the market and allow the exclusion of other groups from many service, a website designer could equally refuse to create a site for an interracial couple. is that how you see it? >> absolutely and the supreme court in the course of 24 hours did more to unravel and undermine basic rights than any court in our history. it's concerning to me as a civil rights lawyer, african american woman, i think of all the ways in which businesses could discriminate against other individuals who have other identity, not just who identify with the lgbtq community, african americans, latinos and others. the case, the decision by this court undermines those laws that prevent discrimination in public accommodations, so colorado and other states have said you cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, religious beliefs or their sexual identity and this case allows this web designer to do just that. it opens the door for other businesses to exclude ind

from the judiciary. >> do you plan to send inquiries to the colleges of institutions that sonia sotomayor staff asked to purchase a large sum of her books during her -- >> everything is on the table regardless of the justice involved in it. we will give them an opportunito to explain the situation. justice alito wrote his own personal call my belief in "the wall street journal" and some justices are stepping up and telling their side of the stor. i wasn't particularly impressed with justice alito side of the story. we reserve the right to continue the investigation and we are ruling outut anything. >> i want to ask you about the news about today in the senate appropriations committee senator chris van hollenat your democrac colleague from ireland plans to bring up an amendment that would withhold some supreme court funding until chief justice john roberts submits an ethics plan. you work on that committee so would you support that effortpr today? >> i saw the disclosures this morning as well. as long as the judiciary is considering the ethics of the supreme court and i think that's the la

justice sotomayor warned in the dissent that this could lead to other kinds of decision. she says the decision threatens to vulcanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups. is that how you see it? >> absolutely. i agree with ron. the supreme court in 24 hours has done more to unravel and undermine basic rights than any other court in our history. this is concerning to me as a civil rights lawyer, as an african american woman. i think all of the ways in which businesses could discriminate against other individuals who have other identities, not who just identify with the lgbtq community -- african americans, latinos, and others. the decision by this court undermines those laws that prevent discrimination in public accommodations. s colorado and other states around this country says you cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, their religious beliefs or sexual identity. and this case allows this web designer to do just that. it opens the door for other businesses to exclude individuals based on their beliefs and undermines, as i sa

in her dissent, justice sotomayor says the court for the first time in its history grants a businesspen to a public -- to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. where do you stand? >> look, i stand with justice gorsuch, dana. look, and the thing that's bad about the dissenting opinion is that it mischaracterizes the decision. this business has no right not to serve people who are a protected class, but by the same token, the government doesn't have the right to tell a business the nature of how they need to use their comprehensive abilities. and so, the fact is that this business can't deny lgbtq people, couples, from coming in and trying to, you know, access this business. that's not the case at all. it's a mitt characterization of it. and you know, dana, what concerns me the most is that for decades and decades, the democratic party cheered a supreme court that went outside the constitution, made extra constitutional decisions in my opinion, because the decisions went in a philosophical direction that they liked. now, when the court makes

sonia sotomayor said this can open the door to private businesses discriminating against, for exampleom a mixed race family. do you agree with her? >> the majority of this opinion explains that that is not the case. it is protectioning a person's ability to protect themselves. we're protecting speech that i don't agree with, and i don't agree personally with an antsy lgbtq sentiment, but we have to be protecting the speech even if we don't like or agree with that speech. that's a foundational element in our country. >> in well, in 2019 you were one of only eight house republicans who voted to outlaw lgbtq discrimination. your message to your party at the time and i'm paraphrasing slightly here, don't be an a-hole. don't be homophobic. a lot of your republican op points are making lgbtq rights a flashpoint. you saw ron desantis and lunatics and perverts in schools. what's your message to them? >> my mess age is i wish they would focus vladimir putin and not my friends in the lgbtq community and it is 2023 and we should be talking about how do we embrace our differences because here's w

justice sotomayor said public accommodation laws have been viewpoint neutral and that's how they areng good -- operating. they are not compelling speech, they are saying you just can't act in a certain way to discriminate against protected categories of people and the law does say who is protected. you had a very different view of these laws. you mentioned justie sotomayor's dissent, she said quote today the court for the first time the court rents a business a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. does this ruling fit at all with recent court precedent? marcia: mostly the reliance was on older precedents, first amendment precedents or civil rights law precedents. the tricky thing here is just as gorsuch said this opinion applies to expressive speech, expressive conduct like a web designer or a speechwriter. but he really doesn't define what is expressive conduct and that's what justice sotomayor your is the big hole that has been blown into public accommodation laws, that they will allow discrimination in many situations th in the past had not been al

justice sotomayor, justice kagan and justice jackson. the first question the court had to address is is this case moot? the makeup of the court had changed. they issued a decision rejecting the interpretation of the constitution that was at issue. the majority said no. the three dissenters rejected that view. justice thomas, justice gorsuch and justice alito. justices thomas and gorsuch went to disagree on the merit but justice alito did not join that part of the opinion. just to talk about the majority decision, the court relied on three different factors. it said judicial review was an established principle as a framing and nothing in the elections because excluded judicial review. then it looked at its prior decision. some older cases but also a recent decision upholding the amendment to the arizona constitution that gave rita stripping authority to a commission rather than the state legislature. that was the decision in which the chief justice wrote an impassioned dissent but in this case he took that as president and relied on it fo

justice sotomayor has done the same thing. but they don't attack them. because this is about politics. and i want to emphasize what senator graham just said a minute ago. if we sit by and allow the democrats to delegitimatize the supreme court, to tear down the rule of law, justice scalia told us years ago, nothing will do more to endanger the liberty of every american. this will not stand. >> one of the reasons that i am proud to be a senator is because all of us know, it's not something we speak about often, but all of us know, democrats and republicans, that there are lines we should not cross. we may huff and we may puff and we may argue passionately but we know there are lines that you do not cross. sen. kennedy: and maybe i'm naive. i want to believe that if my democratic colleagues really thought they could pass this bill, they wouldn't do it. because this bill represents a line you don't cross. it will destroy the united states supreme court as an institution. point two. let me reiterate what i just said. this bill is dead as fried chicken. it's

documents obtained by the "associated press" show aides to sotomayor pressing public institutions towrote in connection investment one case in 2017 clemson university officials offered to buy 60 signed copies of a book, but the justice's staff noted that most schools order around 400 copies. in a statement, the supreme court said it works with the justices and their staff to ensure they're complying with ethics guidance and added that the staff recommends the number of books for an organization to order based on the size of the audience. >>> "the new york times" reports more than five days after a deadly cargo ship fire in new jersey started, officials say it's now been extinguished. two firefighters, however, were killed, and at least five others injured battling the fire on an italian cargo ship docked in port newark. the ship was carrying about 1,200 vehicles. >> we can officially declare the fire is out. we are transitioning to a phase of determining the cause of the fire and related fatalities. >> there was speculation that some of the vehicles on board were electric with lithiu

travel, but also, this week, the associated press reported that the supreme court justice sonia sotomayor made more than $3 million selling her book on there's pressures on universities and to purchase her book, would that be a violation? >> could be, not going in complete form, but i tell you the rules and proposals we're talking about rules and disclosure will apply to every supreme court justice whether appointed by a democratic president or a republican president, makes no difference when it comes to ethics. >> and you expanded your investigation yesterday, you and senator whitehouse, your democratic colleague, sent letters to leonard alito, paul singer and other billionaires about the trips with the justice alito before you had sent a letter to harlan crowe, a close friend of clarence thomas for sort of that relationship and the trips he has received. harlan crowe did not respond to you. what happens if leonard leo, if paul singer does not respond to you? >> well, in fairness harlan crowe, i don't know personally, his attorney got in touch with us and we're negotiating, and there was

leigh ann: and do you plan to send inquiries to the colleges or the institutions that sonia sotomayor'staff asked to purchase a large sum of her books during her press tours? sen. durbin: everything is on the table regardless of the justice involved in it. we want to treat them all fairly, give them an opportunity to explain the situation. some of them have already done it. justice alito preempted the disclosure of charges against him with his own personal column , i believe, in the wall street journal and some justices are stepping up and telling their side of the story. i wasn't particularly impressed with justice alito's side of the story, but he can do that and each one of them can do that as well. we reserve the right to continue the investigation if more information is needed. we are not ruling anything out either. leigh ann: i want to ask you about some news that my colleagues and i broke this morning in our newsletter about today in the senate appropriations committee. senator chris van hollen, your democratic colleague from maryland, plans to bring up an amendment that would ti

in dissent with her outnumbered liberal colleagues, justice sonia sotomayor called the ruling profoundly wrong, arguing it endows certain public businesses with "a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class." and she offered her own examples of what might follow. a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child. for lorie smith, who says her religious beliefs compel her refusal to serve gay couples with their wedding websites, vindication. >> free speech is for everyone. and the court affirmed today that the government cannot force anyone to say something it doesn't believe. >> reporter: colorado's attorney general, dismayed. >> when a business opens its doors to the public, they've got to serve everybody. today, for the first time, there's now an exception to that rule. and that exception's going to do untold damage. >> whit: terry moran, back with us now. beyond just this one case, just

not justice ginsburg, not justice sotomayor, not justice thomas, not justice alito. their rulings when you read them, you will understand why they're ruling the way they are. and it has to do with the case or controversy in front of them. what they decide, the chief and justice kagan, i think have spoken about this and i would defer to them. - well, the justices may not ve done anything illegal, is the appearance of impropriety damaging to the court? - i think the constant attacks on the institution don't help. i think it's an amazing institution that is doing its job every day and no one can point to a case that was impacted in way by any of these things. - but you can see that the appearance of impropriety rts the court? - i definitely see that the appearance hurts and i think it's important that we as judges and justices be more open about what goes on inside the institution. - what do you mean by increasing the transparency about how the court works? - that we talk about it. we work really hard to try and get cases right and that's true of everyone i've experienc

as justice so to this on your sotomayor puts it, as this court refused to intervene, a black and we putte of mississippi based on the decision of a jury that was plausibly selected based on race. that is a tragedy. and that does it for us tonight, alex is gonna be back here tomorrow. i will see you this weekend on my show american voices, 6 to 8 pm eastern. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> hey, alicia. we are going to continue the discussion of the supreme court in this hour. this supreme court has entered a face unlike any that i have seen in my lifetime. we are gonna be discussing it in this hour. >> in this hour and for years to come as a suspect, lawrence the consequences innumerable. >> yes, exactly, thank you alicia. >> thank you. >> thank you. well it wasn't a classroom at a catholic high school in boston where i first heard the phrase crisis of faith. it was during religion class that a priest told us about a crisis of faith that he had had some years earlier. for priests, the crisis of faith is losing the belief in

i have to say that justice sotomayor spoke for the liberal dissenters.ere's what justice jackson said on paper. the best that can be said for the majority's perspective is that it proceeds ostrich-like -- with let them eat cake obliviousness. today the majority pulls the rip cord and announces that color blindness for all by legal fiat. you know, she just had so many biting lines toward the majority that said, we don't talk about race here. but both she and justice sotomayor in their comments on paper and from the bench said race still matters. and the constitution itself would allow these kinds of programs because the ideal of equal protection under the law necessarily requires the country to consider race. >> let them eat cake obliviousness is one that sticks in the mind. joan biskupic, as always, thank you for being such a great supreme court watcher for us. >> thank you, kaitlan. have a great evening. >>> tonight about 44 million of us are circling october 1 on our calendars because that is when the first payment for federal student loans are going t

and said sotomayor, if the business offers corporate head shots, it may not nen deny those services to women because the owner believes a woman he is place is in the home. nor sotomayor argued can a website designer refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple based on the opinion that the almighty god did not intend for the races to mix. could a stationer refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disability couple because she opposes their having a child? and what about a charge retail store that wishes to reserve family portrait services for traditional families. where would the slippery slope end? president biden weighed in calling the decision disappointing and said that he feared the exclusion of gays and other minorities by businesses. joining me are the successful plaintiff in the website ruling lorie smith and her attorney kristin wagner. she has argued thcases for the supreme court. the ceo and president of a faith-based legal organization that won 15 cases at scotus and assisted in the legal team that overturned roe v. wade. lori, thank you for being here. hyp

but justice sonia sotomayor and the liberals, they didn't see this that way at all. said it's the first time the supreme court grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse service. she says that this is discrimination. on the one hand you've got there decision, and the conservatives tried to say, you know, it's really only limited to people in a business with expression, right, so a website designer. a baker? a jewelry maker? that's the problem here. where does this end? where does the line divide it? and that's what the liberals seized on at oral argument. they said that this is a license to discriminate and a lot broader than the conservatives are trying to say it is. >> there's an interesting twist in this case. the supposed potential customer cited by smith, the web designer, tells cnn he is straight and married to a woman, and that he's baffled to be named in the court filings. what? >> so here's what's interesting -- the week that we were waiting for this decision to come up, suddenly -- it had always been that she said she had been ask

believe with sotomayor. i could be wrong about this. who you quoted saying something. you know, i've got to work with these people for the rest my life, essentially. so you know, they do try to to get along personally. but things like a leak cabal, you point out there are some strains on some of those relationships. can you talk a little bit about the you know, the need for them and the history them and what's happening currently? sure. and i think that's a great question because look at, you know, think of small groups that we're all part of and how, you know, we spend more time with some of colleagues sometimes than with our family and and they always say they are the only nine individuals who understand the of this job. you know, the last stop in terms of determining the law of the land, the outside pressure is the people guessing them. so they have of a fellow feeling that way and also the fact that they're appointed for life they know that they have to but you know as clarence thomas himself said after the dobbs leak the justices were over each other's shoulder an

according to the associated press, justice sotomayor used her taxpayer funded court staff to help sell copies of her book. in particular by pressing libraries, community colleges, and other public institutions to buy additional copies of her memoir and children's books in conjunction with her speaking engagements. let me tell you, if i or any member of the senate failed to report an all expense paid luxury getaway or if we used our government staff to help sell books we wrote, we'd be in big trouble. the same would be true for members of the house or cabinet officials and any presidential administration. that's because all of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from using taxpayer funds for personal gain. but the same, sadly, is not true for the nine justices across the street. unlike every other federal official, supreme court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. let me repeat that. unlike every other federal official, the nine supreme court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. they are the most powerful judges in the entire

here's what justice sotomayor said in her dissent, a dissent allowing for her to read to emphasize herent from the bench. she won part, quote, by issuing this let me license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment have been services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second class status. in this way, the decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm on top of any harm caused by denials of service. joining me now is illicit jared grant, start staff writer at newark republic, author of that report. miss grant, thank you so much for being here. i have a lot of questions. this reporting was incredible. let me start with the basics. how sure are you that the stuart you spoke to is in fact telling the truth? >> stuart, first of all, was very surprised to hear from me. you know, when i came across his phone number in the filing, i kind of thought, you know, we've seen us in other cases and other instances of anti-queer and anti---discrimination. if they're just promenade a

there will be those who agree with justice sotomayor who agree. you can organize meeting groups, discuss these positions, and how the justices -- but philosophical, moral, legal arguments that are personal on which they disagree. host: you have to deal with free-speech issues a lot of the time, but how do you allow the conversation to happen? guest: leadership starts at the top. it is terrific when we see college presidents, whether at baylor university, university of richmond, they have president speaker series where the president brings in speakers and moderate the conversations that may have different points of view and are challenging to the campus community. but i think it is also important to have panels with lots of different points of view and it begins in classrooms where we get to have a little historical move on some of these conversations. so we read about the constitutional debate. or we can read frederick douglass, or any number of the federalists and learn about the principles that are still informing this kind of decision today. ho

sotomayor? -- mrs. sotomayor? >> -- [inaudible] the ninth circuit holds, and ke some sense to me that the collateral should be ousted or -- not that theparty is using to reverse act decision but that definition does not with el. i thinkcould be wrong, if i could say so correctly, that mathew the eldridge dealt with it completely? >> matthew v. eldridge dealt w a specific thought pattern with individual had been receiving social security benefits were informed that they were informed that the relevant agency consider them to be no lo to stabled and thre their benefits would be terminate and the specifi complaint in matthews versus ge was my benefits were terminated before i receed a hearing. they were still entitled to g down the road and they could get retroactive if it's if their benefits were terminated en at the end be entitled, but they would be an interruption o stream of benefits, and the court said, th sufficiently collateral to the overall proceedings that you don't have to use the view mechanism that you

justice sotomayor: the chair -- justice sotomayor: the chair -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. santos, for five minutes. mr. santos: i rise today to talk about the f.a.a. re-authorization act. since before i was elected to congress my district has been afflicted by excessive aviation noise. i campaigned on addressing this issue. yesterday i gave testimony on my amendments in the rules committee. i'm following through on my commitment to offer relief to my constituents. if enacted the changes i propose would lower the permissible decibel levels from 65 to 55, re-evaluate the technology known as nextgen. and put up for questioning its impact to communities around the united states that suffer with the issue of constant flight path. since taking office, i visited with the people of new york's third district who have been beg immediate to take action on this matter, oven with tears in their eyes. most people will suppose this is an exaggeration. but most people have no idea what it's like to live right next to one of the largest airport hubs in the

sotomayor? >> mr. nadler, if the -- did not claim that thee these -- facing and separation problems y could do the tracing, could do the separation, what do you still say there was a substantial burden on interstate commerce? and why? our position does not turn on whether a product can be raised. our product turns into the fact that the conduct on the floor ould have to be changed to mply. -- >> so, any cost is a financial burden on interstate ce? >> no, i mean, under pike balancing, if there's, legitimate local public terest, that would prevail unless -- >> so, you are asking to do what justice gorsuch thinks, gi moral objection, and eight-dollar increase in production, the balance then goesagainst the law? >> well, i think there would to get there becauseif thehave burd trivial, -- wouldn't be brought, but it m not bea cognizable claim. any of our faces are pike, even in -- an you point to one were just increased coughs he created an objectionable interstateheard? >> well, the court in pike itselfdis

liberal justice sonia sotomayor wrote in the dissent the decision was heartbreaking and a "reactionary exclusion." following friday's rulings, california congressmember ro khanna and other democrats reintroduced a bill imposing an 18-year-old term limit on supreme court justices and giving presidents two appointments during a white house term. president biden last week said the current supreme court is "not a normal court" but rejected calls to expand it. we'll have more on the latest supreme court rulings later in the broadcast. it was another deadly independence day weekend as at least 15 people were killed in a spate of shootings across the u.s. in philadelphia, an ar-15-toting gunman in a bulletproof vest shot and killed five people and injured two boys in an apparently random mass shooting monday. in fort worth, texas, an armed attack following independence day festivities claimed another three lives. these came after two people were killed and at least 28 injured, including many children, by gunfire at a baltimore block party. at least five people were shot dead across chicago ov

justice sonia sotomayor who wrote a passionate dissent would have mentioned it.t once. and the lower court which is ruled for the state of colorado they did address the standing. and said that the plaintiff had standing in this case. look, i think there are good reasons to disagree with this ruling, but i think a lack of standing is not one of them. >> i think nonetheless, it's a bit of a head scratcher for people outside of the legal community, but we'll take your legal basis as is. david what does this ruling mean for private businesses with their ability to refuse customers going forward. because as you know, there have been a lot of questions what this means for other protected classes? >> yes, the majority opinion here said this is about protecting the rights of businesses that sell expressive services not to be forced to say things it finds objectionable. the courts said that it wasn't allowing businesses to refuse to work with gay couples, but in effect it is using the first amend to sanction discrimination. the court permitted this company to post a notic

but now as justice sotomayor puts it because this court refuses to intervene, a black man will be putto death in the state of mississippi based on the decision of a jury that was plausibly selected based on race. that is a tragedy. and that does it for us tonight. alex is going to be back here tomorrow. i'll see you this weekend on my show "american voices" 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. eastern. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. >>> russian fighter jets confront u.s. drones in syria. it's yet another example of the kremlin getting awfully close to american assets. we'll bring you what the pentagon is saying about it today. plus new details on what drove the department of justice to search donald trump's beach club last year for classified documents. we're getting a new look at the warrant. >>> and later on, president biden heads to south carolina, the state that saved his candidacy back in 2020. a preview of

and in terms of justice sotomayor's dissent, as the majority said, she's litigating a case that wasn't even before the court and on entirely different facts. like you said, americans should read the decision and decide for themselves. >> okay. i am in my hypothetical, counselor, i am an atheist and i am in one of these ancillary businesses and when couples get together in a non-religious environment or ceremony, i'm going to provide my services. wait a minute. this is a religious wedding? i don't want a part of that. is that okay? >> well, i am not sure what your atheist is doing. what matters is are they being asked to -- >> i am a florist. i am a photographer. i am a web designer or a baker. i am an atheist and i only provide services for fellow atheists even though i hold myself out to the public. >> it's about what the speech is that's being requested. lorie has always made distinctions based on what the message is that she is asked to give voice to and that's a critical distinction that the court reaffirmed. the test has always been whether the speaker's message is affected by wha

justice sotomayor? >> this isubantially different because the secretary authorized to cancel loans under hda, so this is not an action as a moratorium on eviction, which had never occurred previouslre or was not in the wheelhouse of the agency. at that is what the court said. i had a difference of opinion. putting that aside, this is not surprise because it is expressly permitted under the hea act and nothing in the heroes act says that the secta cannot do something that is in the normal course of its business in circumstances that just like a school closing. those are exceptnshat are permitted under hea to cancel a debt. whwod i have a view that congress did not understand that in a pror ergency, that cancellation would be right? >> i would go back to my prior answer, which is there is a differenceeten modifying an existing loan forgivens program in light of the national emergency, which is appropriat an example of that is to take the existing loaatischarge program for teachers -- and it has to be cons

sotomayor puts it, as this court refused to intervene, a black and we put to death in the state of mississippi based on the decision of a jury that was plausibly selected based on race. that is a tragedy. and that does it for us tonight, alex is gonna be back here tomorrow. i will see you this weekend on my show american voices, 6 to 8 pm eastern. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> hey, alicia. we are going to continue the discussion of the supreme court in this hour. this supreme court has entered a face unlike any that i have seen in my lifetime. we are gonna be discussing it in this hour. >> in this hour and for years to come as a suspect, lawrence, the consequences innumerable. >> yes, exactly, thank you, alicia. >> thank you. >> thank you. well it wasn't a classroom at a catholic high school in boston where i first heard the phrase crisis of faith. it was during religion class that a priest told us about a crisis of faith that he had had some years earlier. for priests, the crisis of faith is losing the belief in god. it is so common for p

sotomayor and kagan wrote separately to say we are not the justices who would get rid of these claims, we thank this one doesn't qualify. if this one gets passed a motion, it's pretty hard to fathom how far it goes but at least it's not dead. the third thing which to me is really important and interesting is that this case was not an ideal extraterritorial the case. it was regulating the conduct, the kind of inside california of selling pork and it didn't reach out to find the people raising these animals in another state and that seem to matter to the court because the gorsuch opinion went out of its way to say there was an -- this is not the law directly related -- regulating comic another state and he indicated that the restrictions don't necessarily come under the commerce laws, there are horizontal separation of powers concerned with one state regulating conduct that takes place in another state. it basically left up the idea that when you have that direct regulation would there are some laws out there that involved that, that you may have a different analysis. not good news for

. >> la jueza sonia sotomayor escribiÓ que al emitir este nuevo permiso para discriminar el efecto inmediatoÉxico tras cuatro dÍas secuestrados por un comando armado los 16 trabajadores de la secretarÍa de seguridad de chiapas fueron hallados con vida en una carretera y reunificados con sus familiares, el gobernador del estado confirmÓ la liberaciÓn, valeria leÓn tiene los detalles. >> el jÚbilo marcÓ el fin de dÍas de incertidumbre, tras la liberaciÓn de los 16 trabajadores de la secretarÍa de seguridad en chiapas, quienes fueron secuestrados por un grupo armado el martes, cuando viajaban abordo de un autobÚs sobre la carretera de tuxla. >> estÁn completos todos gracias a dios. >> los empleados secuestrados llegaron abordo de esta camioneta a las oficinas de la secretarÍa de seguridad, donde sus familiares llevaban dÍas en un plantÓn para presionar aro a las autoridades del estado. >> para encontrarnos con la hermosa noticia de que ya estaban aquÍ, sanos y salvos. >> francisco es hermano de uno de los 16, y relata el aspecto con el que recibiÓ a su familiar secuestrado. >> lo vi bastante de

it's directly on the point that justice sotomayor is saying that not just the protected class, women,immigrants, anyone could be prohibited from being served in restaurants or being allowed into particular movie theaters. and now we see that the other side of it is to say, well, anything i feel is an area that i want to preclude other people, i should be able to do it based on the supreme court decision. it opens the floodgates and goes back to what is wrong with the supreme court decisions. it doesn't have the legal rationale that the american people can follow. or businesses. and that's what the supreme court is supposed to do. it's supposed to give us a rule to follow, and right now, as it is pointed, out we can do about anything we want based on these very vague decisions by the court. >> jay? do you agree? >> i want to respectfully disagree with the professor. first, obviously, michael imperioli, thank you for your allyship and i understand he was making a lighthearted point. that being said, my general sense is, we should not be giving our enemies, our opponents, more rights tha

if you read justice sotomayor's dissent in the lgbt case, it's brilliant.hut out finally gets constitutional protections, there is always a conservative backlash. it happened in a civil rights movement. it happened in the women's rights movement. and now, it's happening in the lgbtq community. the difference now, justice sotomayor says, is that at one time, we had a brave supreme court justices who were willing to follow the constitution. but now, we have justices like alito, thomas, and neil gorsuch who want to return us to the bad old days when straight white men ran the country. >> let's talk specifically about some of these cases. in the admissions case, elie, chief justice roberts assured in the majority opinion that students could still discuss in admissions essays, for example, how race has impacted their lives. but it was news to me that college admission essays were actually on the purview of the highest court in the land. >> well, symone, they are not. and you are right to point out that it's kind of ridiculous for roberts to say that you still co