if he was a supreme court justice, if he passed, he would still be a supreme court justice.t is hard for people at a certain age to make good decisions in my opinion. it is just ludicrous for anyone to have a lifetime appointment. i don't know who came up with that were thinking about. host: if you say a supreme court justice gets 18 years, are you really addressing the age issue if they do become a justice until, you know, mid 50's or 60's? caller: like i said, no one should have a lifetime appointment. someone could have a block about things. there is nothing you can do. they will always have it. host: here is the argument against term limits for supreme court justices. in the wall street journal, in the opinion pages, a lawyer who has a supreme court practice rights supreme court limits are a waste of wisdom. this is what he writes in his piece. one genius of the constitution is the recognition of varying terms for federal officeholders. articles one and two prescribe -- article three specifies all officials exercising the federal judicial power of the supreme and inferio

she loved the supreme court building. though she was a person of faith, her biographer, evan thomas, aptly described it as her marble temple. on this bright, cold and blustery day, she was carried up the steps for her lying in repose, and she approached the equal justice under law engraved on the west pediment of the court. her clerks, almost a hundred of us, lined the steps, and just as she reached the top, an enormous gust of wind swept over all of us and was later remarked on by almost every person standing there. it felt somehow fitting because justice to justice o'connor had momentum -- justice o'connor had momentum. she never looked back. she wasn't bitter about december advantages in the past -- disadvantages in the past. she didn't dwell on any can disappointments. she did not extend disagreements from one case to the next. she was always moving forward, and she carried other people along with her. of course, she was a pioneer, but she was not a loner. she was generous and collaborative. she gave other people both

we a case just last term or the term before at the supreme court in estherville the supreme court where george sheets was told to pay $32,000. is there a $24,000 to put on ten acres of land, a manufactured home of 1800 square feet and the fee was for transportation in the county. it was way out of whack with any demand that he caused. but in california, their fees are between 20 to $156000, perhaps a unit. i mean, these are extraordinarily costly are put on the people that have yet moved into a community and were who don't vote taxes. so if you put a stop on that kind of thing and the supreme court's opinion the george sheetz case will go a long way toward that because we won the court said you can't do that. that will require city to look at itself. do we really need to have these infrastructure improvements? and if we do, taxpayers across the board should pay for it and then the politicians who rethink these are good projects will be accountable the taxpayers don't think we need this. they won't have the tax break for it. it won't happen. but simply putting the cost on a certain segme

supreme court's decision to punt reproductive freedom decisions to the states, state supreme courts haveimportant. and it's in part why these races are so hotly contested. but we -- it was a bright spot for progressives across the country this year, our work to explain why it matters to have people who are interested in defending people's rights and freedoms, rather than chipping away at them on our state supreme court benches. >> propublica wrote this about the efforts by griffin to challenge these results, noting that republican jefferson griffin narrowly lost his race for a seat on the state supreme court. now he's asking that 60,000 ballots be thrown out based on the theory that a election denier said amounted to voter suppression. this year was too extreme for even self-described election deniers. what exactly is happening here? as michael and i were talking in the break, it seems as though folks can't win outright, so then they claim fraud and try to steal an election via the courts. that's what it looks like from where we're sitting, but you're on the ground. >> that's why we're h

so tiktok appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court looked at the appeals court decision andthis needs review. the supreme court sent an emergency hearing on a lightning fast deadline. so in a matter of weeks, the department of justice and lawyers for tiktok will be meeting in the supreme court to decide the fate of this app. ali: president-elect trump is getting involved with this letter. what is he asking for? bobby: it was a really stunning letter that surprised lots of legal observers across the political spectrum. basically, trump wrote a letter to the court, saying, hey supreme court, maybe you should hold off on your ruling and give me some time as president-elect to broker a deal that could result in the selling of tiktok. it is a pretty extraordinary request given that trump right now is president-elect, but he's filing this motion as a private citizen. he does not have any kind of legal authority to make this request, but he made it nonetheless. inside tiktok, they are thrilled. it was always a dice roll in terms of what would happen at the supreme court, but now we

supreme court. for most of that time those courts applied the chevron framework named for an 1984 case that first articulated it. chevron involved a two-step test requiring courts to ask first if a statute was ambiguous, and second if an agency's rule interpreting that statute was reasonable. if the answer to both questions was yes, the court was to defer to the regulatory interpretation of the statute. in the 40 years since chevron was decided, it became the most cited supreme court decision. earlier this year on june 28th the supreme court issued its decision on loper reversing chevron is inconsist with the administrative procedure act, or pa. in particular the court held apa's charge that courts decide all relevant questions of law when reviewing agency action conflicts. as a result courts will no longer defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute and instead must decide the best meaning of that statute. the supreme court did not overrule individual cases applying chevron, and tho

thank you. out in the supreme court. thank ou. ., ~' out in the supreme court.court. thank ou. ., ~' , ., , . here in the us we're just weeks away from the second donald trump administration but before that mexico combat government is protecting —— attempting strategy to protect migrants in the us. mexico's foreign ministerjuan ramon de la fuente announced the launch of a mobile phone panic button which can be activated from anyone facing imminent arrest ljy anyone facing imminent arrest by us immigration authorities. he said the mobile app will elect to a 24—hour call centres for mexicans in the us backed ljy for mexicans in the us backed by a team of more than 300 u.s.—based lawyers. translation: in case you find yourself in a situation - where detention is imminent, you push the alert button. that sends a signal to the nearest consulate and to the relatives whose contact details you saved on the app. donald trump promising some drastic changes to immigration policy when he enters the white house but now some of his high—profile supporters are bickering online

s. supreme court agreeing to hear take talks, challenge to law. they could finally been, it's use in the united states. it's a case that will no doubt have far reaching consequences since it descended on america in 2018. it's been a pop culture drug and not young users engage it for everything from news to entertainment, to sharing information. but us lawmakers say it's a security risk.

i mean look, the supreme _ ambitions? i mean look, the supreme leader _ ambitions? ambitions? i mean look, the supreme leader it is - ambitions? i mean look, the supreme leader it is his - ambitions? i mean look, the supreme leader it is his call| supreme leader it is his call on the decision of the leadership in the revolutionary guard. the supreme leader has beenin guard. the supreme leader has been in power since 1989, 35 years. he has essentially stay the course, he has tried to pull the lever and pushing the us out of the middle east, and bring about the end of israel. these have been consistently part of the agenda. will he make a u—turn? it's unlikely. could he make some adjustments for example making compromises with other regional powers, even western powers, will they rollback some of its influence in the region for the sake of keeping the islamic republic safe. because sure, the worst thing that could happen to the islamic republic which is what the israeli prime minister is promising, this war will continue all the way to today ran in the fall of islamic

no piece of that exists at the supreme court. court in all 50 states in the district has that model, and you can actually get a result from a complaint if there is, in fact, an ethics violation. and with the supreme court they just pretend nothing happened, they don't find real facts, don't make real states. everything about is a botch from the point of view of a rule of law. >> senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >>> and coming up, today 37 federal death row inmates found out that they would spend the rest of their lives in prison. that's after president biden commuted their death sentences to life without parole. that's next. death sentences to life without parole that's next. have you always had trouble with your weight? same. discover the power of wegovy®. with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. and i'm keeping the weight off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only weight-management medicine proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events such as

what to take talk to do it, went to the supreme court. now the supreme court has passed with checking if indeed, the a band of tick tock would be unconstitutional or against the 1st amendment, which guarantees, as you know, the freedom of religion, speech, press and petition. in this case, the freedom of speech is what take talk is aiming for that this is harming it's freedom of speech. and so what are the chances that the supreme court really ruled and to talk free will this a chance is actually a 5050. maybe i don't know, nobody knows really that is up to the judges. now, what is absolutely unusual is that they put this on deducted. so later on in the game, they will decide on the 10th of january, they will hear arguments from all parties involved. they have for gone the mess subsidy normally with those cases to provide written statements, arguments before the court before they actually go into a hearing and in, in, in, in, in, in a session where they hear a pro or con. oh, of the case by the involved parties. now, that is interesting.

no piece of that exists at the supreme court.e court in all 50 states and the district has that model and you can actually get a result from a complaint if there is, in fact, an ethics violation and with the supreme court they just pretend that nothing happened. they don't find real facts. they don't make real statements. everything about it is a botch from a point of view of rule of law. >> senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >>> coming up, today 37 federal death row inmates found out that they would spend the rest of their lives in prison. that's after president biden commuted their death sentences to life without parole. >>> that's next. ces nerve disct in as little as seven days. now i can help again feel the difference with nervive. my moderate to severe crohn's symptoms kept me out of the picture. now i have skyrizi. ♪ i've got places to go and i'm feeling free. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me.♪ and now i'm back in the pictur

no piece of that exists at the supreme court. other supreme court in all 50 states and the district has that model and you can actually get a result from a complaint if there is in fact the ethics violation and with the supreme court they pretend nothing happened they do not find will fax or make real statements. everything about it is a botch from a point of view of the rule of law. >> senator sheldon whitehouse thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >>> coming up, today, 37 federal death row inmates found out they will spend the rest of their lives in prison after president biden commuted their death sentences to life without parole. that is next. . my moderate to severe crohn's symptoms kept me out of the picture. now i have skyrizi. ♪ i've got places to go and i'm feeling free. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me.♪ and now i'm back in the picture. feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi help

it made it all the way to the supreme court. that case in state court instead of removing it to federal court where they may get preferential treatment. they being big oil. do you share the optimism me, elias, and others have, that you can take this lawsuit you brought against glock, which has a 65% market share in handguns, by the way, and actually be able to hold them to account? >> yes, i do. even more than that, there's a lot of public safety civil action we can take. this will never replace police and prosecutors like yourself who have prosecuted people in criminal court, but things like the kia yundai that were easily stolen, and this was supercharged by people watching how to steal these cars on tiktok and on youtube, and the kia boys, for example. not only that, the opioid cases. we know that, you know, purdue and many other companies made these highly addictive drugs available through lying and misrepresentation. these things cause public safety dangers, as well. so through actions like nuisance and good consumer protec

they are seeing the supreme court issue terrible and unpopular decisions. they are realizing the supreme court does not even bother to try to remain anywhere in close in line to public opinion. and i also think they see the way this court was constituted, right? republicans holding open scalia's seat for neil gorsuch, pushing through brett kavanaugh despite allegations of sexual assault, then pushing through amy coney barrett through weeks before an election after saying you can't confirm a justice in an election year. it looks dirty and looks wrong. and a few years ago justice sotomayor was warning of the stench that would come from the court if it suddenly began overturning precedents after a that spate of trump appointees was pushed on. i think that stench has wafted down to the public and it has become impossible to ignore. >> yeah, i will say when american confidence in the courts is on the same level of that of the confidence in myanmar, and i'm have burmese so i know something of what's going on in that country, that is not a good sign of a robust de

she listed us among some pro-liberty potential supreme court justices.ly love about this paper is that it is such a fantastic illustration of the multifaceted reinforcing relationship between free-speech and other human rights including women's rights. even to the point that you say that these are really interesting wish of all. it's artificial to separate them out. this paper is an important corrective to a very pervasive assumption that we have to choose between women's equality on the one hand, women's dignity, women's safety which is certainly very important goals. i doubt that anybody would disagree with that. but we have to choose between women centered goals on the one hand. the other right on the other hand. not only free-speech but also due process. this was a major debate during the heyday of the two move when it had reached its crescendo a few years ago. the president and ceo of the national constitution center as well as a law professor at gw law school interviewed ruth bader ginsburg at that point, shortly before her death. he said, people a

you know, this is what the supreme court does. they give us these pronouncements and they may give us some guidance about how they apply in the facts of the cases before them, and then they leave it to all these judges around the country to say, well, how does that impact my case? what's official and non-official on the facts that i have to decide? so that's what judge juan merchan had to do. that's what every judge would have to do in these circumstances. admittedly, we don't have a lot of i was going to say circumstances like it is. >> it is worth keeping in mind. there are not a lot of criminal prosecutions against presidents the united states, but there were there used to be four. now. now there's sort of one and a half. i guess the georgia case is technically still alive, but i don't know if the supreme court will want to wade into this again. but it also is important, you know, for historical purposes, what this case decides is whether the president of the united states is a convicted felon. there's not going to be a prison

especially the supreme court.that were voted in 20 or 30 years ago are not the same people now and neither is the united states. i believe that the supreme court definitely needs term limits, or at least so many years i need to be recertified and be voted in. also congress only has a term of two years and they spend that two years raising money to vote to run again. i think term limits should be also imposed on congress. congress should be extended a little bit may be to three or four years so they are not doing anything but running and working for the united states. that's my comments for today. thank you for taking my call. host: what would supreme court recertification, are you talking but another confirmation hearing? caller: correct. because the people who were voted in 30 years ago are not the same people they were back then. and our country is and. everything changes in the supreme court i believe should also change. host: would that make the supreme court justices -- subject to the politics of the time of

plus, what will the supreme court decide on gender affirming care for minors. what did the justices signal today during oral arguments? today during oral arguments? [♪♪] did you know, serums are concentrated with powerful ingredients to visibly improve your skin? try olay super serum. for five powerful ingredients in one, it hydrates, improves texture and evenness, while also firming and smoothing. try olay super serum. want a next level clean? swish with the whoa of listerine. it kills 99.9% of bad breath germs for five times more cleaning power than brushing and flossing alone. get a next level clean... ahhhhh with listerine. feel the whoa! craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to an incredible 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to

they're not reviewable, some of the executive powers, not even by the supreme court. biden officials are molding what could be a comprehensive plan to stop much of trump's doj and fbi revenge plot, which i just showed you. this is a plan that could legally completely thwart the vows to abuse federal law enforcement and prosecution, to trump proof any potential misuse of authority. and if it is done broadly, i can tell you as a lawyer and legal reporter, it could checkmate and stop future federal probes in their tracks in the next trump term for real. here's how it would work. president biden would point to this ample evidence that trump has already expressing a desire, an intent to abuse power to illicitly prosecute people who have not broken any law. naming ical targets, demanding jail without the pretense of naming a crime or expecting any investigation. that would be an argument that he's already targeting democracy, free speech and vowing what could be illegal selective prosecution. and, two, president biden could say this new threat admitted by the president-elec

the supreme court has said that several times. it's the commission of the offense, not the charge of the conviction. host: st. louis, missouri, you are, patsy. caller: i think that president biden should pardon his son, because even though he was convicted of my new crimes, given that trump did such hideous crimes, for him to not pardon his son and here comes the presidency, the republican party, all the houses against him and the supreme court, trump is going to vindicate or you know, have revenge against different people, biden would certainly be one of they threw him in jail. or if they put trump in jail for his convictions, there are greater deeds than biden's son. i think he should pardon his son. who would want there to son to be convicted under a regime where they put him in jail? i think that biden, since he still has a month or so to go, he should put trump in prison, he still president and he has been convicted. i sure wouldn't want to leave my son in there. i think he did the right thing. host: all right, patsy. guest:

and tiktok's fight headed to the supreme court. the clock is ticking toward a total ban in the united states. good evening. this is nbc bay area news tonight i'm raj mathai. the bird flu concerns. and who's going to lose out with those budget cuts in oakland? we're going to get to those big stories in just a few minutes. we want to start, though, with an update to our breaking news. and it's a nightmare commute in the east bay. this is a live look in fremont. this is at auto mall parkway. these are cars trying to get onto northbound 680. the on ramps, the off ramps, the surface streets, and the freeway itself is jammed. usually it is pretty crowded around this time, but even more so tonight. what's the problem here? a large pothole, it's about a ten mile backup right now on northbound 680, a ten mile backup. our sky ranger is overhead. just a short while ago, that pothole we were talking about was first reported around 1130 this morning. this is near san gabriel and mission boulevard in fremont. crews are repairing the road, but th

so the supreme court needs to make its findings on a constitutional basis.he president's got a right to express his opinion, and i hope the supreme court makes its findings based on the law that was passed in the constitution. >> amidst all of this, congresswoman, parts of president trump's maga base are now fighting bitterly with each other over this h-1b visa issue. for foreign workers wanting to stay here in the united states. do you see this divide as a sign, potentially, of future conflicts? >> i think it's most definitively a sign of future conflicts within the republican party. they're finding immigration reform is a very difficult issue. and while elon musk is concerned about silicon valley and and technology, we have a lot of farmers. we have a lot of small businesses that also are looking at these kinds of issues. we need to make sure we're investing in the american worker. we're doing the kind of training, investing in the training that we need to be doing. we need engineers in this country. we need those skilled trades. but there's also a need fo

this supreme court tends to agree with those judges. i think there is a real possibility the supreme court looks at this and says, the d.c. court got it right. you may not even need to take this up. there is a chance they had pause in the supreme court has to rule on it. but there is a better chance the supreme court says, no, they got it right, this case is over. caroline: what then legally speaking does tiktok do? what does bytedance do? matthew: the question then is, will it do a divestiture? law gives it a path around an effective ban by selling the service to someone who is not located in china. the problem is that china has said it will not approve a sale of the algorithm. so tiktok is in a bit of a tough spot in that sense. the other big question is, what will president trump do with this? will he enforce this law? the enforcement mechanism is the department of justice and trump could direct his department of justice to say, worry about enforcing that one. that would be highly unusual and the companies that host tiktok would be t

essentially what he says is, hey, supreme court, hang on.on't have to make this precipitous ruling. give me a chance when i take office to try to work out a deal. now, in the non-legal world, in the business world, perfectly reasonable, logical thing to ask for. but the problem is, that's just not what the supreme court does. they don't step out of their role as judges and justices to enable parties to try to work out business deals on the side. so if i had to guess, i think the supreme court will decline donald trump's request to put this thing on hold. i think the supreme court will hear oral argument as scheduled next week, and then will issue a ruling. >> and it's interesting, too, because he's arguing, look, you know, i'm about to take office as president. let me handle this as president. right. don't do anything before that. and as you pointed out, their oral arguments over this case, walk us through how that might go. >> yeah. so the fundamental arguments here made by the challengers, made by tiktok itself, is that this law violates t

>> first of all, i'll just remind you that hardly any cases go to the supreme court.l legal cases that are heard across our judiciary system go to the supreme court. so many, many cases are decided in lower courts. but, yes, the supreme court does have a mixed record, and, you know, i think we've really seen in the aftermath of the dobbs decision a real disappointment with how politicized the court has been with the general public. however, we see courts as an important piece of protecting democracy. we still argue in front of the supreme court, and we still expect a fair hearing. >> well, listen, all i know is we are going to be looking towards you for a lot of information. i think there are a lot of americans that are looking for push back. it's great to hear how you guys are thinking about the road ahead, and we will be in touch in the coming weeks and months. thank you for spending a bit of the holiday season. i hope you get some rest before january 20th. thanks for your time again. happy holidays. we will be right back. your timn happy holidays we will be right b

and scott, this is going all the way to the supreme court. yeah. audrey, it was interesting as this went through various courts, the threat was there. we may actually have an app, a social media company in front of the supreme court. and that seems to be, at least for the time being, given that the deadline is january 19th, the last chance for tiktok. and they are scheduled to have their lawyers give the arguments in front of the high court on january 10th, nine days before the deadline to sell. yeah, scott. meanwhile, president tiktok ceo. we don't know what they discussed. so could all of this not even maybe need to go to the supreme court? i think it will need to go to the supreme court for a few reasons. for one thing, president elect trump doesn't take office until january 20th, the day after the sale has to take place, and so there's nothing he can really do until one day after the deadline. also, as you said, we don't really know what went on in that meeting. tiktok is not talking. presidentnt trump's people are not talking. so we don't know

we still argue in front of the supreme court. a fair hearing. >> well, listen, all i know is we are going to be looking towards you for a lot of information. i think there are a lot of americans that are looking for pushback. it's great to hear how you guys are thinking about the road ahead. and we will be in touch in the coming weeks and months. thank you for spending a little of the holiday season. i hope you get some rest before january 20th. deirdre of the aclu, thanks so much. we will be right back. much we will be right back. z's bakery is looking to add a pizza oven, arissa's hair salon wants to expand their space, and steve's t-shirt shop wants to bring on more help. with the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee, they can think more about possibilities for their business and not the cost of their internet. it's five years of gig-speeds and advanced security. all from the company with 99.9% network reliability. get the 5-year price lock guarantee, now back for a limited time. powering five years of savings. powerin

the incoming administration wants to take birth right citizenship to the united states supreme courtng stock of just how radical this idea is, and to do that we need to understand what birth right citizenship is, why it exists in the first place and why efforts to undermine it are inherently rooted in the history of white supremacy. the 14th amendment is one of the tree reconstruction era amendments that congress added to the united states constitution after the united states civil war. it was passed with the purpose of unequivocally granting citizenship to the formerly enslaved and their descendents. moreover, the 14th amendment was meant to be a corrective to the supreme court's 1858 decision in dred scott versus stanford, the decision that many legal scholars consider to be, quote, the worst ever rendered by the supreme court. and there were a lot to choose from. in that case dred scott an enslaved man who traveled with his enslaver to freed territories sued for his freedom after his enslaver died, but the majority of the justices on the supreme court concluded that slaves were no

now if the supreme court upholds the verdict, then he would have to step down. now there is one small way around the supreme court and not to if the 1st quote, basically rules that his verdict, his current, his conviction is carried with disgrace. then the mess up is ready parliament house of the rights to hold to vote him out of power essentially without waiting for the supreme court to make its decision for the commission. that would mean the majority for that's this point, that's very, very unlikely. this is the 1st time that the sitting prime minister in israel has stood trial. power is really, is reacting emily almost as radius and respects you will tell you that they are very unhappy about this trial. it will go on for, for weeks, really, for months it would be a public spectacle missing. now we'll have to appear in court a 3 times a week. and that while on the one hand to face of an international arrest warrant. but also while israel is still involved in the war and gaza, so it comes out, this is really the was timing for his role. and it also depends to

we've already seen the supreme court punt on emergency medical care.going into a supreme court term where we're going to see a lot of action on abortion. and that's not a great thing for abortion rights advocates, given the makeup of this court. >> you know, minnie, i had a gentleman from virginia on a couple of segments ago. we talked about how address is local. i want you to explain to our viewers quickly the idea that some states, like florida, which is like to texas, hold my beer, when it comes to draconian laws, when it comes to abortion. you have to have a supermajority to get stuff, like on your state constitution, enshrining access to abortion. so that's already a huge hurdle to begin with, right? then you have to get these petitions signed. for example, to get them on the ballot, to get voters out to vote for them. then you've got to get over that 60% hurdle at the ballot box. talk about why it's so important for people to, yes, be concerned about a conservative supreme court, but focus on what's happening in your backyards, local and state le

we know that from clinton versus jones, the supreme court case from 1996.een that president's have participated in civil lawsuits. bill clinton, for example, donald trump, at least during part of his time as president was involved in a suit involving trump university. it is entirely possible for the president to participate as a litigant in a civil suit without undue burden. does that mean donald trump as a litigant would try and come up the works? that is what litigation is. that is the strategy, run out of the clock. we see there have been very assertive officials, letitia james, the civil fraud case, that have kept those things recent. the presidency will make it more challenging for things to move in an orderly fashion but it will not be an absolute impediment. there may actually be an avenue for some kind of accountability from the civil lawsuits, it just may take longer than we have seen in circumstances where donald trump was not president while also a litigant. >> it's not over. in short, it ain't over by a long shot. joyce vance, kristi greenberg,

in music and kane, the supreme courtai general freed expressed to the supreme court that wt saved that law in that case was foreign propaganda was described by congress and entirely content neutral terms so the government didn't make the gunt in misk against ka or lamont the government is making here, that a forgn speaker or foreign governmt can be suppressed from oership or speaking or curation or any of tse other first amendment activities based on their viewpoint. remember, the reason i'm standing at the podium here is this isn't a case about a foreign speaker. if this were a case like lant just about foreign speakers and americs wanted to hear that, i think you'd already have a victory for the american listeners under lamont and certainl no supreme court case is ever held to the contrary and no history or tradition of baing u.s. speakers from hearing from foreign governments even if they're hostile to our country simply to express their ideas. that's not even this ce. this case is american speakers like the creators and like base politicshoant to speak to other americans on an amer

they are seeing the supreme court issue terrible unpopular decisions and the supreme court does not tryain close to in line with republican opinion. and they see the way this court was councilmember constituted. pushing amy coney barrett through weeks before the election after saying you can't confirm a justice in an election year. it looks dirty and wrong. justice sotomeyer worried about the stench of the court if it started overturning a bunch of precedents. i think that has very much wafted down to the public and become impossible to ignore. >> when american confidence in the courts is on the same level of that of confidence in myanmar and i am half burmese so i know something from what is going on in that country. that is not a good sign of a robust democracy. in fact, it is a sign of a failing system when the courts are so at odds with public opinion and the people no longer believe they are issuing opinions in the best interest. of the people themselves. mark joseph stern with slate. it is always good to get a little perspective from you my friend. thank you for your time tonight.

supreme court today. in terms of when we could see a decision in this case, the associated press is saying the supreme court almost always issues its decisions by early summer, by june. this one could be one of the last cases decided, which is typical of highly contentious issues. those presenting arguments this morning included u.s. solicitor general elizabeth pribogar, chase strangio who argued on behalf of the tennessee families and is the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the nation's high court. matt rice, tennessee's state solicitor general, defended the ban before the court. >> i've been asked many times this week why does this case matter to you. and while people don't realize is that this case isn't just about today, it's about the future, it is beyond the now. the ruling we receive will impact generations to come, whether they're trans or not, because all of us in one way or another received gender affirming care. and i care about this case because i am proof that gender ing care

we know that from clinton versus jones, a supreme court case from 1996.ents have actually participated in civil lawsuits pillar bill clinton and donald trump during some of his time as president was involved in a suit involving trump university. it is entirely possible for the president to participate as a litigant in a civil suit without unduly burdening. does that mean donald trump won't try to come up? that's what litigation is. that's the whole strategy to run out the clock. we have seen there have been some very assertive officials like the civil fraud case that of kept things moving. the presidency will make it more challenging for things to move in an orderly fashion but it will not be an absolute impediment. there may be an avenue for some kind of accountability from those civil lawsuits. it just may take slightly longer than you've seen in circumstances where donald trump was not president while also a litigant. >> it ain't over by a long shot. thank you so much for spending a little bit of your holiday season with us. melissa murray, i will ask

supreme court. the high court is hearing a challenge to tennessee's ban on gender treatment for minor children. it is the first time the high court will consider restrictions on puberty blockers or other hormone therapy. tennessee senate majority leader. >> i think we're looking for the court to hopefully affirm the right of states to be able to regulate these types of medical procedures especially on children. we know the science is unsettled. long-term harmful side effects of these surgeries and use of these medications. hopefully the supreme court will affirm what the circuit said and say states have a right to protect children. >> harris: the whole country will watch this. tennessee is one of 25 states which have restrictions on transgender treatment for children on the books. this exploded and became part of an election issue just a few weeks ago what voters were telling us. a new piece points out that other liberal-leaning countries are starting to take action on the treatments as well. here i

in that case the supreme court was asked to interpret a federal statute. case they're asked to apply a constitutional provision. the results of this case are profound. around half the states have applied bans for minors and donald trump and the republicans have promised to enact a federal ban in terms of medicare and medicaid coverage. the appeals court which upheld the law in tennessee found it did not discriminate on the basis of sex and was a reasonable response to conflicting medical evidence. the evidence is conflicting. the medical consensus in europe has been more skeptical than treatments in the u.s. in europe they restrict the treatments, but don't ban them. the solicitor general was arguing a ban is draconian. take a listen. >> rather than impose measured guardrails, it ban it is care outright no matter how critical it is for an individual patient. that approach is a stark departure from the state's regulation of pediatric care in all other contexts. >> reporter: now, the ban would really ly impact a lot of people. some of the plaintiffs in this

but that was until march when the supreme court ruled unanimously against them. it was just one in a series of consequential rulings that ultimately benefited trumpeted chief among them, the high court's july decision on presidential immunity. that decision which determined that presidents are immune from prosecution for any official acts, that decision effectively delayed the start of trump's federal criminal trials until after the election, and ensured that trump would not face legal consequences for trying to overturn the 2020 election until voters headed to the polls in this election. in 2024. and oh, what an election it was. the sitting president dropped out of the race 107 days before election day, then he endorsed his vice president as the democratic nominee. meanwhile, the republican nominee survived one assassination attempt in pennsylvania, and then he survived another near assassination attempt in florida. and then after all of that, americans in each of the seven swing states chose to return the 45th president to the white house. >> i want to thank th

you don't have to say you don't know the answer because the supreme court hasn't told us so yet. we have a first amendment, we have a nation with a rich history and tradition, we don't need the nine justices to announce the rule and until we are stumbling around in the fog. we have the tools of interpretation ourselves but they are supposedly using -- long historical tradition of protecting children. the idea that we have to wait around until the disambiguousuate the doctrine is not correct. but the other thing is i want to come back to a point that chris was making because i think i was trying to be charitable to these platforms and say sometimes their algorithms actually are engaged in expressive activities of the platforms themselves and sometimes not, so i'm not someone saying just because it's code that means it's not speech. if someone writes into a program, we want to keep conservative speech off of our platform, we want to keep speech that doesn't support anthony fauci off of our platform and the geniuses go into their room and come up with that code and apply it on their

but also how revealing it was to see how the democrat elite responded to the supreme court's actions. as much as they criticize donald trump and the quote-unquote maga republicans for not having a respect for the rule of law in that ruling they said how dare the supreme court not oppose its constitutional responsibility to protect democracy? i can't even explain the lack of logic in that statement because there is none. there is none. and then they say well, because the supreme court failed to fulfill their responsibility, now we have to leave the fate of democracy and freedom in this country to the american people. as the last resort. it's funny but it's so deeply disturbing because they really believe this. they really believe that they and they alone are the ones who can save us from ourselves, that they will destroy our democracy in order to save it, that they will take away our freedom to see what information we want, to be able to say our opinions, our views as we choose because they need to protect us from hurting and harming ourselves, or getting information that they may not

the first transgender attorney arguing before the supreme court.hat you make of the argument that she just laid out that's being made right now, that there are kids such as boys with a condition called klinefelter's, where they don't make testosterone in puberty like their bodies you know, are supposed to. they get testosterone treatment, but girls who want to transition can't get that same treatment. in 26 states, including tennessee which is at the center of this. how compelling is that argument? >> well, so that's exactly what the solicitor general who just wrapped up her argument was arguing against this tennessee law, against this ban. the argument is this is sex based discrimination. if a boy can get a certain treatment, but a girl can't. that is sex based discrimination. that's the argument. i think the bad news for the solicitor general and for the biden administration is that chief justice roberts does not seem to be on board and that's really important here, because not only is he the chief justice, but he was a swing vote in the most rec

guest: the supreme court in the trump versus u.s. decision wasn't really concerning unprecedented decision in terms of the way it looked at presidential power. but it did say that the president is not immune for unofficial acts, but for official acts, there will be a debate about what line various acts follow on, and that is deeply concerning because in our country, americans of all stripes when you look at polling across the board do not believe that any individual should be above the law, including the president of the united states. but one thing that is really important is that supreme court decision did not apply to people who may work for the president or others in the government. it is strictly focused on that executive office. and i think that is going to be a really important thing to bear in mind, and for us to be making sure that we are holding people accountable across the government in the executive branch or otherwise for ignoring the law to the detriment of people in communities. host: mike is in alaska, independent li