he talked about the important of the supreme court nominations. that's going forward to tomorrow, if kennedy does retire, that would give president trump another potential to put someone on the court in his molding, his liking. that still keeps us at the 5-4 basic split you have. although, kennedy have a swing voter. it's unclear if trump is inclined to put someone as moderate as kennedy on the court. >> we're joined by the director of the aclu. talk to me about this from the perspective of what we should be thinking about from a policy perspective about immigrants and this country. >> well, sure. i mean, i think in terms of wins and losses, it's first, a loss for the constitution. a loss for the basic principles that the supreme court has recently reaffirmed, that the government should remain neutral in matters of religion. that it should never act out of hostility to religion in general or one religion in particular. and here you have a ban that the president promised before he became president, you know, on the ground that he believes that islam

to the supreme court and shifts what the supreme court might do. ?, orin kerr, an attorney at the department of justice. arguments cases before the supreme court himself. great of you to take some time. thank you. >> happy to join you. >> shepard: if you were one of the many attorneys that were lucky enough and fortunate enough to make an argument before the united states supreme court, more often than not you were tailoring your argument not to the court but one individual, one man, what will justice kennedy think? i have to swing justice kennedy though he hates the word and has said so often. that's what lawyers have always tried to do since justice kennedy has been on the court. now all of that changes. our next guest says it's note just president trump who is under pressure here, but different groups jockey here. she says justice kennedy's retirement will put swing state democrats in the spotlight. hot so? that's next. ( ♪ ) your heart doesn't only belong to you. child: bye, grandpa! and if you have heart failure, entrusting your heart to entrest

and, in fact, there's a big case before the supreme court this year where the supreme court seems likely to really make it harder for public employee unions to raise money to spend on things like collective bargaining and other things like that. >> host: what -- do you know the name of that case? >> guest: yeah. it's called the janus case. it's a case that has a very interesting history. this issue first came to the supreme court when justice scalia was still on the bench. the court heard argument in it, went back in its private conference, decided it -- apparently, 5-4 -- to strike down the rules and limit the power of unions. but then scalia died before the decision was released, and under supreme court procedures, that vote does not count. so the final decision came out 4-4 with no precedent, a split decision. and the moment neil neil gorsucs confirmed to the supreme court, this case was brought right into the court to get it before the justices very quickly. >> host: the book is called "we the corporations: how american businesses won their civil rights." adam winkler is the author,

the subtext here is it's the retirement of a supreme court justice. the main text here is that this could signal a monumental shift in the behavior the court, as pete said, for years to come. >> certainly, if the president, trump, does what he tend to do, pick a conservative. remember, when i interviewed him in green bay in 2016 and i asked him about a woman's right to choose, he said there needs to be some form of punish men, some form of punishment were his words for a woman who chooses to have an abortion. his views are frightening, instinctive views to i a lou him to kick another supreme court justice is frightening. i used to think that row v wade was secure. i don't think it will be secure now. i don't think it will be secure at all with five hard nosed conservatives. justice kennedy is a conservative but he is a northern california conservative. pete knows that, he went to stanford. northern californians are conservative on economic and partisan issues but on social issues they are live and let live. they are tolerant. they have gay friends, the

supreme court justice anthony kennedy announcing his retirement from the supreme court. we are scrambling to get -- i think we have hans nichols standing by. anthony kennedy has been on the court since 1988. remember, it was ronald reagan who appointed him. it sounds like we have pete williams now standing by. pete williams, this is a seismic announcement. >> so i'm having a little trouble hearing you, but i'll just tell you justice kennedy of the supreme court today just handed us this letter dated today from justice kennedy. i'll read it to you. it says, my dear mr. president, this letter is a respectful and formal notification of my decision, effective july 31st of this year, to end my regular active service as associate justice of the supreme court, while continuing to serve in senior status. so that means he is stepping down at the end of next month. now this is a bit of a surprise because supreme court justices normally say when they're going to announce their retirements, that their retirement will become effective upon the nomination and confirmation of a success

decision in which the supreme court, the highest court in the land, says the president has the authority to do this under the law, and we don't buy the claim that it was enacted with religious animus. now, having said that, the lawsuit is still alive. but i think, you know, and the judge may well continue to rule that this violates -- he may not be swayed by the court's analysis here. but i think it's -- i think this challenge for all intents and purposes is a dead letter even though it's going to continue in theow courts. >> right. >> reporter: my own guessing is that's a footnote. it would be a shock if this gets back to the supreme court and they say think building this ine second time, what the heck, it's unconstitutional. now, the second thing is, the court said, look, the president, not only this president, but any president, would have the power to impose this kind of restriction. so that deals with the statutory question. and, as i said before, the other question was did he do this with religious animus, religious prejudice, religious discrimination, and is that so seri

supreme court.nd there is nothing that fires up conservatives more than that. >> he is a man who is displaying great vision, he's displayed tremendous vision and tremendous heart. >> reporter: president trump facing a historic opportunity tonight to not only fill the seat of anthony kennedy but to fundamentally reshape the direction of the high court with a firm conservative majority. >> we will begin our search for a new justice of the united states supreme court. that will begin immediately. and hopefully we're going to pick somebody who will be as outstanding. >> reporter: his retirement hands another monumental victory to the president in this midterm election year. perhaps nothing fires up conservatives more than a supreme court vacancy. justice kennedy delivered the bombshell news himself, carrying his retirement letter with him as he visited the white house only hours after the court finished its business for the term. >> i got his ideas on things including i asked him if he had certain peopl

the supreme court will be the supreme court for generations so not only is this significant but it is a multigenerational -- the president said today he is looking for someone who can serve for 40 years and you have a great group of nominees, you just had sen. lisa would be fantastic, people like judge cavanaugh and others, a whole list of potential nominees the president has on the list all of which would bode well for the country and the constitution. >> we don't have the best connection so we will you go but we know you will be counseling the president through this process, you know many of the judges on this list, thank you for your time tonight. great to have you. the president speaking in fargo, north dakota unleashing a new salvo about replacing justice kennedy. let's go to kevin cork in fargo. they were fired up. >> reporter: you better believe it, 6000 people packing the arena in fargo and another 6000 turned away, incredible to see this long line of red hats in fargo. no surprise a long and raucous address, 71 minute speech imploring them to support kevin kramer and he slamm

supreme court twice.he first time it's argued before the supreme court, the lawyer for citizens united wants to make all these really narrow arguments. no big, broad corporations have free speech rights, and the justices aren't happy with that and when they meet after the case, has been argued they get back in their conference and they decide, you know what? we should decide it on bigger grounds, on bigger issues whether corporations have rights or not. and that's five justice whose decide to do that. the five conservative most justices on the court. the angers the four liberal justices who say this was not alleged by the lawyers. we didn't brief it there's no record. that's not the way we do things 'you're supposed to have complete record before you decide some important issue of the law, and so the supreme court decides, the justices decide, okay, we'll eight again and direct the lawyers to provide us with a record, to provide us with briefing and argue. and they did this. an example of where the justic

this decision announced yesterday, the supreme court became the supreme court. that's short for corporation. there are handmaidens of corporate america. they're there to undermine workers in our country. they did so in trying to suffocate the voices by giving corporations unlimited access to dark special-interest money in the citizens united decision. yesterday, they did violence toward democracy and trying to diminish the voices of working people. amplify the voices, diminish the voices of workers. that is not the american way. there decision is violent to the first amendment, cheapening it and stretching it is a rationale for this decision. it abandons a decision. that endangers so many decisions that have already taken place in the court. what does that too? it hurts america's working family. the trade union movement has been responsible for establishing a middle-class. the middle class has a union label on it. we all agree with that. our society and economy have benefited from collective-bargaining the protections of the workplace in terms of work safety. ev

the supreme court said that was unconstitutional in an opinion by clarence thomas. over and over again, the court ruled in a conservative direction, certainly the travel ban case is an illustration of that. and the fact that neil gorsuch is on the supreme court and not merrick garland has an earth shaking significance day after day in this court and as we think about the events of the past two years or starting to be three years, the significance of barack obama being denied the chance to fill a seat in his fourth year as president, it only grows in significance. >> it is a very important point. john -- >> the trump base hates mitch mcconnell. if you travel the country, if you look at republican polling, listen to the president's own words and tweets sometimes against the republican establishment, he stokes this anger at the establishment and particularly at the senate all the time and the trump base if you ask them, barack obama, hillary clinton, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, mitch mcconnell might come out on the bottom and yet to jeffrey's point about the consequence

the judicial filibuster for supreme court nominations is dead. so what leverage does the democratic party have right now? >> well i could tell you, within the senate rules very limited leverage. but we do have the court of public opinion. the american people will get to judge whether or not donald trump's selection for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is consistent with american values or represents an extreme point of view. if they think it is extreme, they can make the feelings felt. not only by contacting congress, but by their votes in the next election. >> will you try to slow down the calendar and take as much time as possible to slow down t debate? >> you know, there is a limited opportunity for the minority to slow anything down and under the rules of the senate, i've been here for a few years and watched it play out, if i remember right. gorsuch nomination start to finish was around three months so if there is a hurry up play, we're likely to see it happen before the election. >> that is what everybody suspects. you

justice anthony kennedy announced his resignation from the supreme court. he was known and will always be known as the swing vote on that court. he took over that position from sandra day o'connor. he had been first in the 9th, the 99th as it's known on the left coast and appointed to the 9th circuit by gerald ford and went onto the supreme court. the expectation that we've heard in the last few minutes as the news has broken that the president will appoint someone very conservative in their interpretation of the constitution, as you heard, of course, from alan dershowitz. his concern is you run the risk of someone who is partisan as opposed to just legal. back with misty marris on set. i point out we're all human in the end of the day, in the best possible scenario, we're talking about the most prestigious jobs really in the world. the interpretation of the u.s. constitution in upholding everything that we stand for as americans, big responsibility. very, very big responsibility, and dershowitz's advice is to find someone true to their intellect as opposed

he will is a second chance of a supreme court nomination a chance to make his mark on the court. lots of big decisions ahead of the court. let's listen to the president. >> a man that i have great respect for, justice anthony kennedy will be retiring. he's a man that i have known for a long time and a man that i have respected for a long time. he's been a great justice of the supreme court. he is a man that is displaying great vision, tremendous vision and tremendous heart. he will be missed but he will be retiring. we will begin our search for a new justice of the united states supreme court that will begin immediately. hopefully we'll pick someone that will be as outstanding. so i just want to thank justice kennedy for the years of tremendous service. he's a very spectacular man. a very spectacular man. i know that he will be around for a long time to advise and i believe he will be teaching and doing other things. thank you to justice kennedy. >> who will you pick to replace him, sir? >> we have obviously numerous people. we have a list of 25 people that i had during my electi

with this decision that was announced yesterday, the supreme court became supreme court that is short for corporations. they are there to undermine workers in our country. they did so in trying suffocate the voices by giving corporations unlimited access to dark special interest money in the citizens united decision. and yesterday, they did violence to our democracy by trying to diminish the voices of working people. amplify the voices of corporate silence, diminish the voices of workers. that's not the american way. their decision does violence to the first amendment, cheapening it and using it and using it as a rationale. t does violence to stare decisis. and that endanger so many decisions that have already taken place in the court. and what does that do? it hurts america's working families. the trade union movement has been responsible as the distinguished leader said, for establishing our middle class. the middle class has a union label on it. we all agree with that. our entire society and our economy have benefited from organized collective bargaining, protections in the workpla

the leader talked about the vital role supreme court justices play. how about the vital role that the majority leader has played in a sense shaping of this court. because he is the one under the obama administration that held up anyone ever hearing from merrick garland. and we saw then came justice gorsuch. and now this. >> well, you know, mitch mcconnell clearly sees this as his legacy. and some of the most important things he's done for conservatives. democrats consider him the enemy because they believe that, you know, he held up mayor where i can garland for a year for no reason. and i think there is a lot of merit to that quite frankly. and now the president has a lot more leeway here. he needs 51 votes. democrats can try to slow it down, but this kind of a decision by the president really energy fwiizes his base. and if he gets the person he wants on the court, if this person is a conservative, the president can go out and campaign in the midterm elections and say look what i've done. this is one more thing that i've done for you. you know, the c

he's been a great justice of the supreme court. he's a man who is displaying great vision, displayed tremendous vision and tremendous heart. he will be missed. he will be retired. >> the president said in the oval office that nominating a person to the supreme court is one of most important things a president can do. short of sending troops to battle, it is the most important thing. the president has an opportunity to cement a 5-4 majority for years to come. clarence thomas is 70 years old. could serve ott 10, 15 years. you look at justices gorsuch and roberts, they're relatively young. they could serve for potentially a generation. the two leading candidates the president is looking at, justice cavanaugh from the d.c. circus and justice bare wrote from the seventh circuit, leading candidates for men and women, barrett is in her mid 40s and cavanaugh is 53 years hold. the president has to take the list of 25 and narrow it down to a single person. the president said that discussion began today with justice kennedy. listen here. >> w

swing vote is retiring from the supreme court. s retirement leaving trump with a decision that will alter the highest court in the land for decades an one that could alter laws in the united states of america and your lives. kennedy was the pivotal swing vote, siding with the majority in 5-4 votes over and over in his three decades on the bench. a more conservative justice in that kennedy seat,

the supreme court has okayed. in those states, in theory at least, you have a nonpartisan group that draw the lines which may be can limit the impact of gerrymandering. host: could the states argue this is purely a state's rights issue on how we divide district in our state and why should the supreme court enter into that? guest: under the constitution it is said that state legislations can draw district in each state. the states have a big say. host: i am always interested in neil gorsuch and how he responded to both of these cases, could you break that down? guest: unusually for him, because he has written a lot of opinions, he did not say anything on these cases yesterday. in theority opinion wisconsin case was written by the chief justice. it seemed like the chief justice get a strong vote without any dissent. trying to issue his narrow decision. it seems like he did that. again, (202) 748-8001. for republicans.

the supreme court majority has failed to uphold that today. it's a shame, but look, other jersey upheld separate but equal. like 9 roger tawny court in the 1850s said you can own a black person and blacks had no rights that whites have to respect. we've seen jersey highly publicized not ruling based on the best principles of our countries, but naked partisanship. they have misrepresented this country's best legacy, and they have literally tainted themselves and shown -- >> so, congressman, when the white house -- we're waiting to hear an official statement from the white house. when the white house is telling jeff zeleny, when the white house's initial word to jeff zeleny was they're saying vindication, as the first muslim-american elected to congress, what do you say to the president? >> i say a gloating braggart is not going to win at the end of the day. i say that, you know, he has his supreme court tailor made to his ugly philosophy, this par san court. gorsuch should really not be on the supreme court. in my view, he may be there, but he's

supreme court and the federal court's before that. they are crucial for justice, and as we've seen in our history, sometimes our courts have gotten it wrong. when they get it wrong, it does take generations to make it right. world war ii case comes to mind because of the recent decision of the travel ban. history, unfortunately repeats itself. history will be the best judge of what our justices on all the courts, but certainly on the supreme court do. >> i said the janis case which was the union case and what could happening in collect bargaining. that comes to my mind because it's interesting how the supreme court casually said, this precedent, it's been like 40 year, we're undoing it. decade ago. that was bad law. so, we're seeing that while calls of judicial activism usually lands on the left, that that's what they do, we're seeing that on the right in realtime right now. how big a deal is this for your state and your function as the top law enforcement officer there? >> crucial. because so many of the challenges that we face, we c

but the supreme court stuff's not sloppy.for whatever reason the trump administration has decided they're not apoingt donald trump buddies and friends and cronies and personal lawyers to the supreme court. they're going through the federalist society. and the heritage foundation. and getting quite possibly confirmable nominees. so it is interesting. the weird chaotic white house has some success -- >> that shouldn't be mistaken for savvy. right? that's just luck that anthony kennedy is 81 years old and decided to resign. most of their successes have come from their willingness to destroy things without regard for the consequences. this border policy wasn't well executed but the fact is they don't care which is why they're able to get away with it. nevertheless, we have these kind of nihilist tic people who do not care at all what becomes of the rest of us who are become to make a decision that's not going to affect just my lives, my children's lives, my grandchildren's lives if i ever have them. and i feel like because they a

the supreme court rules government workers can't be forced to pay fees to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, so-called fair share fees. the court ruled those mandatory union dues violate first amendment rights. it's a major financial blow to organized labor. >> we'll have less sources available in terms of funding, so the chapter members will have to probably chip in more to do things, which is fine. >> local members of the seiu say it's a setback but not defeat. they're putting on a brave face and saying their members are loyal. >> in general the members of our employees will stick with the rule nothing matter filed by republican bruce row never back in 2015. today's decision was a personal victory for him. >> today's supreme court ruling in the case of mark janis versus afscme is historic, freedom of speech and freedom of affiliation for public sector employees. it's always a historic victory for taxpayers. >> reaction is pouring in from both sides. scotus just came down on the wrong side of history. we will come together to fight back and work together to st

but the supreme court did uphold it 5-4. pheld it had gorsuch not been on the court but rather the supreme court justice who was nominated by president obama but kept off the supreme court, garland, i don't know how the case would have come out if he had been the swing vote rather than gorsuch. who is on the supreme court is an important question. >> eric: do you agree with the dissent of sotomayor saying this shows a reasonable person would say this was motivated by anti-muslim animus and do you agree with the critics who think it is anti-muslim? >> i don't think so. not all the countries are muslim and not all muslim countries are within the ban. look, the vast majority of terrorist activities around the world, massive terrorist activities around the world have come from countries like saudi arabia and we're now seeing syria and iran, i think the opposition is a little overwrought. as i said, i don't support the policy but i don't believe that it violates basic civil liberties or constitutional law or human rights. again, t

and this person will become a supreme court justice. m suggesting he did this because he could. >> you supported him. the senators because you saw an opportunity to maybe get an additional conservative voice on the court. and it worked. it just worked. at this point it's just history. what's your advice to democrats going forward? there will come a time when there is a democratic president and congress. would you advise them to take this same path in the future? >> i think what you will find is now that we are going to a 51-vote margin on judges and also on the supreme court. remember, it was harry reid's idea to go to 51 on the other judges. when that happened, and now it is a case where it's easier for the party in power with 51 votes to actually have a say in a more timely fashion as to who the members on the court will be. what that will do to the makeup of the supreme court and the actual bench in the united states really is yet to be determined. but i think it will change it from what it has been in the past. and i think now there

they are going to need behind them all the folks who didn't prioritize the supreme court in 2016 when there was an open seat and two octogeneralarians sitting on the court, and democrats just didn't prioritize the court. republicans did 2-1. they broke for donald trump. to the extent we can't time travel, rachel, i think what we can do now is say holy cow, our grandchildren are going to live in a world where their voting rights, labor right, environmental rights, reproductive right, lgbtq rights, all of it, including children at the borders is on the hook. and if we don't organize around the court in a way that we really failed to do in 2016, then it's not on the senate, it's on us. >> and it's not an abstract thing anymore. it's four months starting now, between now and the election. this is sort of put up or shut up time if that kind of activism is going to make a difference. dahlia lithwick for slate, really appreciate you being here, dahlia. thank you. >> thanks, rachel. >>> all right. we've got cecile richards is going to be joining us in just ooh a few minutes. and other big new

just out of the supreme court, a major ruling. joining me now, we have jessica schneider who is up there at the court. jessica, tell us what you're learning. >> reporter: this ruling that has just come out from the supreme court, it all talks about partisan gerrymandering. we're reading over the opinion now, looking to get a read on this. you'll remember this has been a big issue throughout the country. certain parties gaining control of their legislature and then redrawing congressional lines to benefit their political party. this is a case that comes out of wisconsin. it was in 2011 that republicans for first time in 40 years took control of the state legislature and they redrew the congressional lines. and after that, a a few of the elections there, challengers took issue with the way those congressional lines were drawn. saying that they just weren't fair. to give you -- to encapsulate as to why they said this wasn't fair, let me give you a quick statistic. during one of the elections during that year, democrats won a majority

the t's not just supreme courts but donega mcin the white house working with two conservative groups and changed the face of.s. law. >> they have. they have set records forum ther of appointments they have made to the u.s. court of appeals which is between trial judges and f preme court and that's where muche action is because the supreme court takes so few ces. and those people are not changing the law of the land but alson deck. he is putting them on hand to be ready for this kind ofoment and change what is happening out there. robert: what about chief justice roberts, you are o workin a book, he is the key vot >> yes. of course, it does. i think for a cple of reasons. he is theeast i had logically ridge i had of the other conservativ. pete: he does think about the court as an stitution. for example, when you talk about the roe versus wadeed prt, only clarence thomas is on rord opposing record. we don't know how the other conservatives would vote. chief justice roberts would think twice and maybe four times about whether he wants t overturn a 45--year-old precedent and the same may

supreme court and the federal court's before that. they are crucial for justice, and as we've seen in our history, sometimes our courts have gotten it wrong. when they get it wrong, it does take generations to make it right. world war ii case comes to mind because of the recent decision of the travel ban. history, unfortunately repeats itself. history will be the best judge of what our justices on all the courts, but certainly on the supreme court do. >> i said the janis case which was the union case and what could happening in collect bargaining. that comes to my mind because it's interesting how the supreme court casually said, this pre precedent, it's been like 40 year, we're undoing it. so, we're seeing that while calls of judicial activism usually lands on the left, that that's what they do, we're seeing that on the right in realtime right now. how big a deal is this for your state and your function as the top law enforcement officer there? >> crucial. because so many of the challenges that we face, we can take on at the courts.

swing vote is retiring from the supreme court. his retirement leaving trump with a decision that will alter the highest court in the land for decades an one that could alter laws in the united states of america and your lives. kennedy was the pivotal swing vote, siding with the majority in 5-4 votes over and over in his three decades on the bench. a more conservative justice in that kennedy seat, he could change what is legal and what is illegal in this country. though kennedy most often voted conservative, he also voted with the more liberal justices on issues such as same-sex marriage and the death penalty quite often and the swing vote upholding the voe versus wade decision. and your lives could very well change because of today's news. kennedy writing in a letter he hand delivered to president trump that he will leave the court july 31st and giving president trump the opportunity to name a successor and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell saying the senate will vote to name the successor this fall. setting up what could be a

there is nothing like a supreme court fight in washington. but one tha has a chance to tip the balance of the court that is something that isonental in a heated year. and look at the democrats, very helpfully focused on health care. they see this as the year of the woman and health care is the most motivating sue and with their effort to protect the affordable care act. that is why you see theed messaging by chuck schumer and the rest of the s democraying, a women's right to choose is at stake and the future of the affordable care act is at stake and that is to not only motivate their voters ogd keep the rest of the democratic caucusher but put that pressure on the two republican senators who are pro-abortion rights. >> justice kennedy said he is going to leave at the end of july. pete: what they'll say, i'll retire when my successor is nominatednd con filmed. if it seems like the senate is goingo play this out all the way up to the election, it cares about the senate, because they are apparenncy not ned by the first monday in october, we are

people think outside of, obviously, war and peace, it's the most important. >> reporter: and this supreme court nomination is even more crucial than most because few justices in american history have exercised more power than anthony kennedy. he joined the court in 1988, appointed by ronald reagan. no conservative firebrand, he frequently agonized over the big decisions, but in landmark case after case, kennedy's crucial swing vote decided major issues, defining american law and shaping american life. he co-authored the key opinion upholding roe versus wade. he upheld affirmative action for minorities in college admission. and in a remarkable series of cases over the course of almost two decades, he championed the civil rights of gay and lesbian americans. in his 2015 ruling that legalized gay marriage in america, kennedy wrote with deep feeling. "they ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law the constitution grants them that right." all of that now could be up for grabs. the supreme court, a huge issue in the 2016 campaign, and the very first question in that final, consequential debate. >

supreme court. if they would have stayed with the original one, the supreme court wouldn't have said it was constitutional. z >> that's exactly right, wolf. i think it took them three times, three times is the charm for them, to undo that damage he did for that legislative effort. justice sotomayor's reaction is the reaction of most americans, that there is clearly anti-muslim bias here, but the court focused on a couple key points. first, they emphasized neutrality of this version's language. and of course the big difference here is that they expanded the list of countries to include some non-muslim countries. also, i think in 2.0 version of the ban, they removed some language that clearly favored non-muslims over muslims in the refugee status ach. a lot of changes had been made. >> chief john roberts stressed the worldwide review, stressed the hand of the secretary of the homeland security again to say, it's not what donald trump wanted, it's what the administration wanted and it was vetted. i thi

not just at the supreme court level but at the federal court level as well. and shannon, i have spent this year saying i believe president trump is the most consequential president since ronald reagan but i am changing that tonight. i believe he will be seen as the most consequential president since abraham lincoln. this remaking the judiciary is going to shift the direction of our country dramatically. it's going to cement his legacy as a conservative, and i believe it will ensure his reelection in 2020. >> shannon: depending on which end of the spectrum, your ads you love or hate the analysis of the long-term impact is going to happen eventually through the courts as you said from the bottom up. how do you respond to those who, you cite the even debacle approval ratings, how do you respond to those who say listen, these evangelicals him like they are willing to put up with anything. vulgar talk, suggestions of going after your opponents, making fun of people, calling them names. taking friends with dictators. they are willing to do any of that to get their

so, you know, we are talking about the supreme court. it is a huge deal. but remember, most cases are in the district court, not at the supreme court. and there's a lot of judges being a pointed there. there's a lot more to it than just the supreme court. and i think it's a reminder, i felt very hopeful when i saw the aclu brought these cases to the district court and they, they said, nope, you're reuniting parents. it's one district court and who knows where that will end up. but that was a step, you know, and a check and that's what we're looking for right now, checks and balances. >> is there any other moment in time, john meacham, that matches what mimi just described, our country needing the supreme court as a check on a president who seems out of control? >> summer of 1974 when the supreme court ruled that nixon had to turnover the tapes which revealed the cover up which led to his resignation. it was a three-week drama. >> that's where we are? >> we've been there a long time. at least nixon had a sense of shame. that's potentially the difference. >>

to four decision is likely the result of mitch mcconnell and republicans in the senate stole a supreme courteat from president obama and donald trump at neil gorsuch on the court. has case in ohio only happened because the resistor one supreme court seat. it is amazing that not only are thing a supreme cour seat, but then they are also making hard for people to be able to vote. thiss a o-pronged attack on democracy. first, yy thou denwill of the people in that president obama should have been able to make this appointment because he was elected in 2012. you deny the will of the people by making a harder for them to vote in the fifirst place. amy: talk about the person on which ththis case was based. larry h harmon. he voted in 2008 and d did not vote for a few elections and showed up in 2015 to vote on a local referendum. he found out he was no longer on the ter rolls. usually are only removed if you are in eligible to vote, meaning you died or you moved o committed a crime or done to changeelse to try her status. he is not done anything. he still lived at the same place . he had voted in th

curing the presidential debates as you saw, donald trump said very clearly he intended to appoint supreme courte who would be willing to overturn the court's landmark decision of roe v. wade. most larkbly is he went so far as to say there should be some kind of punishment for a woman who chooses to have abortion. here's an interview with then candidate trump in march of 2016. >> do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle? >> the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. >> for the woman. >> yeah, there has to be some form. >> now with the retirement of anthony kennedy, president trump is set to appoint his second justice to the high court. that could have massive implications. for years opponent of abortion have been leading a campaign against the right to choose in courtrooms across the country. if you're one of those cases that reach the supreme court. marie ca cantwell and miguel johnson a planned parenthood board member and executive director confident perception institute. i want to talk to the senator first. generally, you've been confronted with sta

d.c.,day and washington, nine religious leaders were arrested on the steps of the supreme court. were handcuffed for five hours, had religious vestments ripped off them, then jailed sales with in cockroaches. they were brought into court in ankle irons. the religious leaders were among 100 people arreed and washington, d.c., as part of a national day of action for thepn protesting poverty and racism. over the past five weeks, nearly 2000 people have been arrested and what organizers describe as the most expensive wave of nonviolent direct action the century. the reverence william barber and liz theoharis are leading the protest 50 years after dr. martin luther king jr. launched the first poor people's campaign will stop monday's protest came just hours after the supreme court dealt a major setback to voting rights by upholding ohio's controversial voter purge law. was on theow! streets of washington, d.c., covering the action. >> poor people's campaign! a national call of moral revival. >> historians are telling us five weeks in, we are ready -- we already have the largest wave o

to believe that the supreme court was already contacted in this and debated it before the issue came up because these states are broke. the decision in rhode island that the federal court upheld that they could break contracts now the state police for retirement and medical benefits. there is a lot of states that are in dire straits. they cannot fulfill this, and now they are going to find a way. i have a reasonable belief that is what the supreme court did. i think they were already contacted. host: let me give jessica a chance to respond to the monetary issue. we are talking potentially billions of dollars that can be collected from consumers going into the coffers of states. guest: that is absolutely right. the money is driving this, no daddy. -- no doubt. perhaps you feel like states have a revenue problem. or perhaps you feel that states have a spending problem. it is certainly much, much easier for them to tax other businesses than to make tough political choices. they would rather tax people who cannot vote them out of office, and they would rather sell those tax coffers been c

book now at choicehotels.com >>> breaking news, president trump is hailing today's supreme court 5-4 upholding the administration's travel ban, calling it a tremendous victory. let's get the insights of our political and legal experts. jeffrey toobin, break down the majority opinion. why did the court ultimately decide to uphold this travel ban? >> because chief justice john roberts saw this case as about the powers of presidency, not this president in particular. he said, let's just look at the order itself. does it say anything about muslims? no. does it refer only to muslim countries? no. north korea and venezuela are also mentioned. so he said this was about whether presidents can control immigration policy and visa structures. this is something that is uniquely within the power of the presidency. so because there was nothing in the order itself that indicated any sort of religious discrimination, that was enough for the majority. the dissenters saw it differently. >> and they did. and sabrina, justice sotomayor in her dissent said a reasonable observer would see it is motivated b

as a testament to his independence, he rightly gained a reputation as the supreme court swing vote. sometimes he sided with the court's liberal wing. other times he sided with the conservatives. but he always sided with what he believed to be the correct interpretation of the law. what more could we ask for from a judge? throughout his public service, justice kennedy has mentioned the generation of jurists who went on to become -- he's mentored, not mentioned, he's mentored a generation of jurists who went on to become luminaries in their own right. not least among them is justice neil gorsuch, a former kennedy clerk. and now serves as his equal on the supreme court. with his one time pupil now working alongside him, with dozens of former clerks now serving in the federal bench, justice kennedy leaves behind a legal legacy that is almost without equal. although he will be stepping down next month. his influence on our judicial system will be felt for generations to come. with justice kennedy's impending retirement, the responsibility now falls on us to confirm an able replacement. in

. >> reporter: by a 4-3 vote the supreme court has upheld affirmative action. >> an opinion written by justice anthony kennedy. those of us follow the court, you knew it meant something. often you knew it was 5-4. with kennedy leaving, every one of those cases could be wiped right off the board if a trump style con seservative takes his place. >> we will begin our search for a new justice of the united states supreme court that will begin immediately. we have a very excellent list of great talented, highly educated, highly intelligent, hopefully tremendous people. it will be somebody from that list. >> from that list which is a reference, a clear message to trump's base because in kcontrat to all the unplanned moves, when you think about the travel ban, trump did not just make up his last scotus appointment. he used this list andclamoring vote that election years are no time to rush. >> we will vote to confirm justice kennedy's succesor this fall. >> this nominee will not be considered. >> mitch mcconnell broke over a century of precedent with that kind of hardball and it worked to den

time this washe the only decision the supreme court would likely come to. not too surprising it was 5-4. the decision has less to do with the merits of the travel ban as it does the role of courts. what the supreme court is doing is sending a shot across the bow of judges that they need to thelate themselves from comments. the doesn't elevate them to level of a judicial record that you could base these orders on. vonnie: it sounds like the president himself is surprised, weeding out -- tweetingut moments ago, "the court upholds travel ban. wow." >> this controversy has been created largely by the president's own hand. he became the chief witness against his own administration by continually tweeting out reckless and in some cases disturbing comments. even though many of us dislike those comments. i never viewed those as a substitute for the record. apparently, neither does the supreme court. the supreme court goes out of past presidents have elevated the discussion and clearly, that was a slap at the president. they separated themselves from that reaction b

in front of the supreme court, the court said how is race different? how are you going to choose that you're just going to protect this religious view of this baker and the answer was races different. were not quite sure why but maybe because there's so much historical discrimination, but every other group may are fair game. people with disabilities, the veteran status, gender, all the other categories that we see as protected, those individuals can now be discriminated against in the name of religion including religious protections can be discriminated now. the supreme court talked about this issue back in the civil rights era when a barbecue restaurant objected, did not believe in the intermingling of andid not want to serve african-american people in the barbecue restaurant, and the supreme court just said no, that freedom of association, freedom of speech argument isn't going to fly. we will not constitutionalize freedom to discriminate in the name of protecting your first amendment rights. i think that's the president the court should continue to

. >> a supreme court earthquake. >> justice anthony kennedy announcing his retirement. >> the supreme court's swing justice announces his retirement. tonight as democrats vow to fight. >> our republican colleagues in the senate should follow the rule they set in 2016. >> can they use mitch mcconnell's tactics against him. >> give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. >> plus, it the massive implications kennedy's retirement will have for reproductive rights and beyond. and last night she shocked the world. tonight, alexandria or casio cortes joins me live. >> can you put it into words? >> no. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. if robert mueller eventually reveals that donald trump was actively conspiring with russia to sabotage it the 2016 election, if we find out from the president's tax returns that he's been laundering money through his real estate projects if when all is said and done the rank criminality currently surrounding this president turns out to be even worse than we know, it will all have been worth it to the republican party and the conservative movement

the supreme court. reporter: before that decision today, the president spent part of his morning absolutely torching the iconic american brand of harley-davidson on twitter. the president had repeatedly hailed harley-davidson over the last year or so as a great american company, but he feels that they have since waved the white flag by saying because harley-davidson shifted production overseas for bikes to be sold in europe. here was the president a little while ago as well. >> harley-davidson is using that as an excuse, and i don't like that because i've been very good to harley-davidson, and they used it as an excuse and i think the people that ride harleys are not happy with harley-davidson, and i wouldn't be either. reporter: now the president saying today, trish, that he feels that the tariffs do not lead to uncertainty at all. and he said he feels that tariffs can be a very positive thing. however, the house speaker paul ryan weighed in today and said tariffs essentially are a tax. trish? trish: t