supreme court. how independent is the court now? think about it.ith the 14th amend allowing trump to stay on the ballot after january 6. the 14th amend it, section three wasn't written for trump, who was it written for? how could trump remain on the ballot? now we have the immunity decision. now we know clarence thomas's wife is a straight up election denier. do we know if trump is calling ginni thomas and saying i want clarence and the rest of the maga judges to rule this way? there is no independence with this supreme court. none whatsoever. they are nothing more than maga republicans. let's limit the terms and make sure this does not happen again. even if it is with democratic presidents, we need independence back. not a bunch of maga republicans. host: dave roth of the supreme court watchdog group fix the court joined us on the washington journal in august. he countered the idea that imposing term limits would take away the justices' independence. listen to what he said. [video] >> what we have here is the justices are exerting little power. th

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

i didn't see any democrats making their way over into the supreme court justice chambers. and while that seems kind of like, aha to do, i think given the stakes here, what has been happening with the court, it was necessary. >> symone, the thing is, just to hop in -- the thing to do would be to cut their budget, right? the constitution says very little about the supreme court, but one of the things that's pretty clear is that congress, not the court, controls the court's budget. if you want these men to pay attention, especially with all the reporting, with all the ethical probing that we have done, if you want these people to pay attention, you have to cut their money. the constitution says that there will be a supreme court. it doesn't say there has to be a nice, fancy office building to hold their hearings. they can have their hearings on the washington mall, for all of the constitution cares, right? so if you come at their money, that's a way to make them adhere to some basic minimal ethical standards. but congress doesn't have the will to do that. so again, now we live

that was their first trip to the supreme court, where we received a unanimous saying that the seconds had a right to challenge the cause wetland determination. but after it wasn't simple. the court said, well, for us to really know if it's a wetland, we have to do all sorts of test drills all across property. we have to bring our experts out. and the secretary's saying, but wait a minute, you told us we could because you knew it wasn't a it was a wetland. now you're saying you have to get more proof and you are ready to send us to jail for that and the finest. anyway, the lower court allowed the epa do all these test findings and. the lower court indicated excuse me, an epa found that was an area of wetland on the property. it was 100 square feet or so, a small patch, and it was subject to federal jurisdiction. this time we argued, on behalf of the seconds, that the federal government only has a power grant to it under the constitution and in this case, the clean water act under the commerce clause, and that there was no connection to any navigable waterway which would give the federa

decides, trump is going to have a lot of power over tiktok because if the supreme court decidesverse the law, then trump can say tiktok lives to see another day. if the court decides to uphold the law, the court gives trump tons of latitude to interpret it. he might interpret it in a way that never bans tiktok at all. ali: thank you so much for your insights. bobby: thanks for having me. ♪ ali: russian president vladimir putin issued a rare apology today following the deadly plane crash of an azerbaijani airliner earlier this week. putin spoke with the leaders of azerbaijan and kazakhstan to send his condolences following the crash that killed at least 38 people. but he stopped short of taking responsibility. the flight was en route to the chechen capital of grozny when it crash-landed wednesday. the kremlin said ukrainian drones were attacking the area and russian air defense systems were firing near the airport, but did not say those systems hit the plane. white house officials said this week early indications point to the possibility that russian air defense systems brought d

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 thos

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

it was actually expected that it ends up in there in front of the supreme court. just earlier in december, a federal appeals court has upheld heads up help the band or the law banning threatening to ban. take talk if they don't divest and sell it to a non chinese entity. now take talk, refuse that. but the appeals court said in early december that the government has the rights to the band tick tock for national security concerns. and they trump a constitutional issues or, or thoughts. on this, however, the supreme court decided to f as to the doctor, and that is unusual late in the game to add something like this. however, there was a social media related decision in june already by the supreme court. so this signal that at least the supreme court is taking this serious the question, if a band of take talk is constitutional or not. well, tick tock is trying to prevent the human and shut down in the us by appealing to the supreme court. as you've mentioned, how likely is it that took talk? we'll succeed there. no, that's a question i can't really answer. i don't kno

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 protect

jude save lives. >>> the supreme court has allowed a culture of misconduct to metastasize into a fullhas driven public opinion of the court to historic lows. that scathing line is the first finding of the senate judiciary committee report titled "an investigation of the ethics challenge at the supreme court." the 93-page report completes a 20-month investigation by the senate judiciary committee. the committee credits propublica for leading the way with reporting on the supreme court which provoked the committee's investigation, but the committee's report has revealed more unreported gifts to supreme court justice clarence thomas from his most reliable patron, billionaire harlan crow. the committee's report says since his confirmation to the supreme court in 1991, justice thomas has received millions of dollars of gifts from nearly all of whom met thomas after he joined the court. the number, value, and extravagance of the gifts accepted by justice thomas have no comparison in modern american history." senator sheldon whitehouse is back with us. senator, i know this report has been im

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.

we will be right back with senator sheldon whitehouse. . >>> the supreme court has allowed a culture conduct to metastasize to a full-blown crisis that has driven public opinion of the court to historic lows. that scathing line is the first finding of the senate judiciary committee report titled a investigation into the ethics challenge at the supreme court, the 93 page report completed 20 month investigation by the senate judiciary committee. it credits public for leading the way on reporting on the supreme court that provoked investigation but the report revealed more unreported gifts to supreme court justice thomas from his most reliable patron billionaire the committee's report says since his confirmation and 91 thomas has accepted millions in gifts from wealthy benefactors, several of whom had business before the court and all of whom first met thomas after he joined the court. the number value and extravagance of the gets accepted by justice thomas have no comparison in modern american history. senator sheldon whitehouse is back with us. i know this report has been important to

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

>> i think that the supreme court gets way more airtime in this country than any other court. i suspect that these numbers derive largely from plummeting faith in the united states supreme court, which is probably the one court that most americans could actually name other than maybe traffic court. and, you know, part of the problem is justices behaving badly, behaving like monarchs who can break any rules they want and act like they're not only above the law but above criticism, insulating themselves by criticism from their colleagues, as justice alito managed to do here. but part of it is that i think the republican party's key insight of this century is that it can outsource really unpopular policies to the federal judiciary. if the policy is too toxic to pass the democratic process, then you can just stack the courts with partisan hacks and kick it over to them, and they'll do the dirty work for you. and that has been mitch mcconnell's defining legacy. it has worked really well in tilting this country to the right through judicial fiat, but it comes at a cost. you know, as

this is what the supreme court does.hey 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 in the united states. 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 se

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

but the judge who was a supreme court judge who was sitting circuit in new york, did various things. when she wouldn't pay the fines, she couldn't go to appeal the court on habeas corpus. she was heartbroken. but the person who brought the case was a woman named virginia minor. that's a few years later. once again, it's completely simultaneous. in other cases, dealing with civil and political rights. anticipates and connected with reese and cruickshank. my point here is that women's rights, citizens rights, human rights are not just abstractly linked. in these legal environments, they are exposed at we link. you can't make a case for women's rights without making the larger case. very quickly, let me just say, these years were dense with consequential and constitutional developments. exactly simultaneous with bradwell. the emergence of anthony comstock. what were called the comstock laws, state and federal laws. the federal law which is the one we know about which is, the way you clean -- can use federal law, you cannot use the mail to cross state lines with any article or thing desi

every one of our states in their sovereign state capacity running their own state supreme courts have figured a way through this. so when chief justice roberts complains there are serious separation of powers concerns here or there are dangers of lower court judges having to handle the administrative function of policing the ethics of highest court judges, all that is bunk. all that has been resolved in every single other state and there are plenty of models that they could go to. they seem not to want to and when i say they seem not to want to, it seems there's a very small number of of justices who seem to not want to. at least two of the liberal judges have said let's do this. >> what could happen in order to enforce this? do you need your republican colleagues in the senate and house to get on board with a bill to require a binding code of ethics for the supreme court? even if you did pass that and the president signed it, would the supreme court accept it? >> i think there are several avenues. one would be passing by supreme court ethics bill but that's not going to happen in the

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

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

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

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

there -- they're only ending here is to go to the supreme court. what are your probabilities on that, or is it too early to tell? matthew: i think that is going to be the option. in theory they could ask for a rehearing at this appeals court this decision leaves little hope of that. i think you are right that the next move is an emergency petition to the supreme court, to say, justices, it paws on this january 19 day. this is an important first amendment case. as alexander said this is novel in american law. trying to entice the justices to at least look at it for the date comes up, the thing is it is difficult to do that. it takes five justices to vote in support of that. with this sweeping decision two of the three judges who who wrote this our republican-appointed. one is president trump-appointed. 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

but, yes, the supreme court does have a mixed record, and, you know, i think we've really seen in thedecision 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 back. everyone customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. customize and sa— (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. and you have this dream every night? yeah, every night! hmm... i see. (limu squawks) only pay for what you

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

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,

the supreme court dismissed dred scott's case on procedural grounds, holding that as a noncitizen scotte first instance. the 14th amendment sought to remedy the stain of dred scott by making it clear that regardless of their descent all persons born in the united states are citizens of the united states, and subsequent supreme court cases have affirmed this principle over the years. of note is the case of wong kim arc who was born in california in 187 #. his parents were legal immigrants but at the time anti-asian sentiment was pervasive across the country. this was the era of the chinese exclusion acts which included a provision that rendered chinese immigrants ineligible for naturalization as american citizens. the supreme court, however, wound that because wong kim arc himself was born here in the united states, he was a citizen of the united states under the 14th amendment. that's birth right citizenship. wong kim arc's case confirmed this important principle going forward and the case is a precedent that holds to this day. the text and history of birth right citizenship is absolute

court will rule, versus where the eastern courts, federal courts, and whether this goes to the supreme courtready seen the court punt on medication abortion cases. we've already seen the supreme court punt on emergency medical care. so we're 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 fo

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.

but yes, the supreme court does have a mixed record, and you know, i think we have really seen in thepoliticized 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 pushback. it is 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. deer trail of the aclu, thanks for your time. >> happy holidays. >> we will be right back. >> [ music ] >> [ music ] our ri health careductive is being stolen from us. i can't believe this is the world we live in, where we're losing the freedom to control our own bodies. we need your support now more than ever. go online, call, or scan this code, with your $19 monthly gift. and we'll send you this "ca

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

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 is

supreme court. >> when i go before the high court i am not going to be thinking about myself as the first lawyer chase strangio will make history as the first known transgender person to argue before the high court on behalf of teens like elle. >> the other side of this case, the state of tennessee, has gotten support from groups like do no harm and doctor stanley goldfarb, who believes this treatment should not be available to minors. >> we feel that children just are really unable to do this in a way that involves informed consent primarily, and that many of them are just children that are very troubled. >> we pressed him on why patients like elle claim their lives have benefited from this treatment. >> there's a huge placebo effect anytime a patient is told, you know we're going to help you with this medication, you're going to feel better. it's going to be the answer to your problems. there's often an acute response that's positive to it. >> but elle says that explanation belies her experience. supporters of this bill say it's too easy. you're saying there's nothing easy about it. >>

the supreme court has said that. it's the commission of the offense not the charge or conviction. >> patsy, democrat. you're next. >> hi. i think that president biden should pardon his son because, even though he was convicted of such minute crimes, considered that president trump did so hideous crime was indicative, he didn't go to jail. for him to not pardon his son, and here comes the presidency and all the republican houses and the supreme court. and if he calls it -- trump is going to vindicate, you know, have revenge against different people, biden's son would be one if they threw him in jail. and they didn't put trump in jail for his convictions and his convictions was greater of -- of, you know, deeds, you know, of biden's son. so i think he should have pardoned his son. because who would want his son to be convicted under the drugs and regime and they throw him in jail? i think biden should put -- since he's still got a month or so to go, he should put trump in prison because he's still president. and he has

rights and we saw this most recently in the supreme court's decision, even when it comes to truth, not constitutionally protected, the court says there has to be a heightened requirement. >> that's not categorical immunity. even republishers and republish through threat knowing it's a true threat and i have the relevant mental state then in that case i would be liable. i'm not sure -- >> if a website were to create that include unlawful content it would be held liable for it or could be held liable for it. i think that is a fundamental difference here. what section 230 recognizes is that when you create, you are going to be held accountable for the consequences of that speech, but because we would like to have a lot of user generated content online we are not going to hold the website liable because, you know, tools like algorithms are necessary for organizing billions of pieces of content and for creating a journey, a personalized journey for users so that they're finding, you know, content that might be relevant. of course, that also means that some contact will make its way through.

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

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

the supreme court is hearing arguments on gender affirming care for minors. it is a landmark case at the high court. we're going to take you there next live after the break. stay with us cnn heroes on all star tribune sunday at eight on cnn still congested? >> nope. uh oh. >> new mucinex 2 in 1. saline nasal spray. >> spray goodbye. >> new mucinex 2 in 1. saline nasal spray with a gentle mist and innovative power jet spray. goodbye to congestion. its comeback season. >> this is the carry on closet. the suitcase with a one of a kind closet system that keeps you organized anywhere. pack all you need for up to ten days and travel without ever unpacking the comfort of home on the go. unpack in seconds at solgaard co hi, i'm greg, i live in bloomington, illinois. >> i'm not an actor, i'm just a regular person after working 25 years in the automotive industry, i retired eight years ago. i just didn't feel like i was on my game. i started taking prevagen and i want people to know that prevagen has worked for me give it a try. i want it to help you just like it has he