that phonograph record, too, caused controversy, two disputes each of which went to the united states supreme court, and there these cases of the film and the phonograph record became a chapter in history of the united states constitution. each an interpretation affecting many people, a crucial decision. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> in 1921, new york state adopted a system of film censorship. henceforth, before a film could be shown in a state for anything of amusement charging admission, it would have to have the state's approval. during the next 36 years, the state's reviewers in new york city examined almost 50,000 films. most were promptly approved. in some cases, the board asked for cuts. a few films were banned outright. for such cases the law provided an appeal procedure to the state board of regents. if a film was not obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilgious or attempting to corrupt morals or cause crime, it was given acceptance. in 1950 the board reviewed a film entitled "the miracle." submitted as part of a trilogy called "ways of love." so a license was issued signed by the director of the motion pi

the united states supreme court struck it down. it took three years, but those restrictions were ultimately blocked by the highest court in the land. amy miller has talked to us many times about the heartbreak of having to turn people away. today at the united states supreme court, she definitively won her case. ms miller, congratulations on this ruling today. >> thank you so much, rachael. i have been looking forward to the day i get to talk to you about this for a few years. >> tell me what this means for your organization, clinics, what does the future look like? >> this is fantastic. i mean, on so many levels it's a win. it shows that when you stand up to bully politicians, you can win. that you can stand up to a government as powerful as the state of texas. and we illustrated the harm and burden this law put forward for women all throughout the state of texas. and we got relief not only for women in texas but for many states across the country. >> that was june 2016. three years after that draconian texas law had gone into effe

state of 30 million people. they passed that law in 2013. three years later the supreme court struck down most of that law. a 5-3 decision in the united states supreme court. the premise of that law that it would protect women's health by denying them access to abortion, the supreme court ruled that premise was basically a sham. justice stephen breyer said in part, in that opinion, "we have found nothing in texas's record of evidence that shows that the new law advanced texas' legitimate interests in protecting women's health." she wrote a concurrence of her own saying laws like hb 2, the law in texas at the time, laws like this that do little or nothing for health that they rather strewn impediments to abortion that cannot survive judicial inspection. thanks to that united states supreme court ruling in 2016, a bunch of texas abortion clin ukz were able to stay open or reopen after having been shut h i can tell you that the whole women's health clinic in mcallen, texas, did reopen and it is open and offering services right now today. but even on that day in 2016 when we talked to miss miller, you could hear the elation with that win

two disputes, each of which went to the united states supreme court and these cases were film that the record became a chapter in the history of the united states constitution. -- each interpretation affecting many people, a crucial decision. ♪ ♪ ♪ in 1921, new york state adopted a system of film censorship henceforth, before a film can be shown in the state at any place of amusement charging admission, it would have to have the states approval. during the next 30 years, the states reviewers at the center street, new york city, examined almost 50,000 films. most were promptly approved. in some cases, the board asked for cuts, a few films were banned outright, but for such cases the law provided an appeal procedure to the state border regions. if a film was not obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious or attending to corrupt morals or incite to crime, the law directed that it be given a license. on november 30th 1950 the board reviewed a film entitled the miracle. submitted as part of a trilogy called ways of love. so license was issued signed by the director of the motion pict

this is moments ago of the fencing indeed going up around the united states supreme court.ing now as we speak. sign of the times. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again here

this is moments ago of the fencing indeed going up around the united states supreme court.eported earlier that was going to happen. it's happening now as we speak. sign of the times. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again here tomorrow. "way too early" is up next. >>> a new deal between the united states and australia over nuclear powered submarines is drawing swift backlash from china. president biden said it was meant to reinforce alliances, but the question is why is france so angry? >>> new reporting that president biden failed to sway senator joe manchin to agree to the democrats $3.5 trillion spending plan. the question is, what will it take to get manchin on board? >>> law enforcement is on high alert ahead of justice rally tomorrow. the question is, how concerned do we need to be? it's way too early for this.

supreme court justices in 1869, there were only 74 senators. if we had increased the size of the supreme court in proportion to the united states senate, we would now have 12 supreme court justices. so the reasonable number of supreme justices in 2021, as opposed to 1860, nine is somewhere between 12 and 81, but we still have nine. and the political pressure on those nine, very precious seats has intensified every day since 1869. and they are lifetime appointments, and so the most important laws in the united states are written and re-written depending on when elderly people in the supreme court died. the death of a supreme court justice has become an even more political significant and momentous than the death of a president, when president franklin roosevelt died in office, in 1945, his vice president harry truman carried on and won world war ii, on the same schedule that fdr would've won the war. president john f. kennedy was assassinated 1963, vice president lyndon johnson carried on the kennedy administration's agenda, and it's legislative agenda was possibly even more successful, because of the emotional outpouring in the aftermath of the

to argue that case, all the way up through the court system, all the way up to the supreme court of the united states. and in 1982, in fact, in an 8 to 1 decision, authored by the chief justice, the united states supreme court cited with the bar. they sided with grand isle's dan. nothing against the church of course. but the supreme court ruled that massachusetts, had crossed unconstitutional territory, when it, quote delegated to private non-government entities power ordinarily vested in agencies of government. the court said by doing that, the law substituted the church's own views, whatever they may, be regardless of what they're based on. this state substituted their own motivations to act, quote, for the reason decision-making of a public legislative body. and guided by standards. on issues with significant economic and political implications. in other words, nobody has got a right to have a liquor license that was not what was it issue here. what was that issue is that the government, the state can't let some random entity a church, school, some other private entity make that decision, it's a g

this law is a travesty on its face and the supreme court of the united states has decided to do nothing about it. the supreme court could have ordered that the law not be enforced while appeals are being considered, but the supreme court has refused to do that, disgraing itself yet again. the hope for the supreme court, not the design, but the hope was that it would be a body of legal scholars above politics. the design flaw from the start is that politicians appoint justices and so the supreme court has always been a political institution because it has always been the product of politics. but the public image that the supreme court has strived for, especially in the second half of the 20th century, is a scholarly group of men residing above politics. and i say men because we didn't have a woman on the supreme court until 1981. harvard law school and yale law school have done much to create the aura of scholarly wisdom at the supreme court by flooding the property with clerks from harvard and yale law school every year and eventually mounting a virtual takeover of the bench itself. onl

the united states supreme court has disdain the validity of the statutes against assertion that they violate the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution. the court has held that freedom of speech is not an absolute right above and beyond the control of congress. it is said that certain kinds of speech are so undesirable as to one criminal sanction. whether a particular statement falls within the co-op scope of the statute depends upon careful of valuation of the facts and circumstances of the case. the statutes just cited our applicable to everyone, civilian and military, but other laws are applicable only to military personnel on active duty. for example, article 1:17 of the code of military justice, makes punishable by hard labor for up to three monthly use of provoking words or gestures which tend to induce breaches of the peach speech of another person subject to the code. solicitation of desertion or mutiny, in violation of article 82, may result in punishment if the offense solicited was attempted or completed. disrespect toward a superior com

the united states supreme court has sustained the validity of these statutes against assertion that theyht to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution. the court has held that freedom of speech is not an absolute right above and beyond the control of congress. it has said that certain kinds of speech are so undesirable as to warrant criminal sanction, whether a particular statement falls within the scope of the criminal statute would depend upon careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the specific case. although federal criminal statutes just cited are applicable to everyone, civilian as well as military, there are other laws in this field that are applicable only to military personnel on active duty. for example, article 117 of the uniform code of military justice makes punishable by confinement and hard labor and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for up to three months the use of provoking words or gestures which tend to induce breaches of the peace towards another person subject to the code. solicitation of desertion, mutiny, sedition or misb

ultimately this case is going to go to the united states supreme court and the supreme court already has pending before it a case for mississippi with abortion restrictions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. both cases have the ability of overturning roe v. wade on the merits. the supreme court will have to decide it. so i think was wise in putting together a complaint that i think in the trial court and in the court of appeals is flatly unconstitutional. when it gets to the supreme court, however, all bets are off. >> neal, i want to ask you, because i don't want to get too far away from the people paying the price today while all the legal moves are important and we're cover them, there may be women who don't have access to make a decision. they don't have agency over their own body. is there anything in this category that can happen quickly? >> yes, the federal government can come in -- they haven't said they are -- and seek an emergency injunction. i hope that they will. to stop this law right now from going into effect. we heard signs of that in the attorney general's statement. he sa

this is on a collision course to the united states supreme court and i believe that what joe biden just ruled to be unconstitutional. it will take a while to get there but i think 5-4, maybe 6-3 it will be determined to be unconstitutional. >> jesse: the problem is people in california, larry, they love it. they don't care if it's legal, they just want to jam this stuff down people's throats come into their arms. they don't care about whether it's right or wrong. they just go along with whatever the government tells them. >> i'm not so sure how much longer this will last. a whole lot of people are ticked off. that is why 2 million people signed a petition. a good third of them at the very people, independents and democrats voted for them two years earlier. my opponent, gavin newsom mandated that if you are a state worker and you have not been vaccinated you will be tested once a week and required to wear a face mask at work. firefighters and cops are mad about it. there's going to be a lawsuit in this is going to be on a collision course up to the united states supreme court and ultimat

the same ones who are going to get to decide this issue when it finally does get to the united states supreme court, if it does. so everybody can do something. there is going to be a national protest day on october 2nd on this law. everybody needs to go to the streets, everybody needs to support speaker nancy pelosi in her desire and work to pass the women's health care protection act. there is quite a bit that we can all do. we're glad that uber and lyft decided they're going to pay the legal fees if their drivers are sued for taking women to abortions. a lot of other big companies and corporations stepping up to the plate, and they're going to help to provide funds also to transport some of their employees to other states to get an abortion. why should any woman have to leave home and her own state in order to go elsewhere to get an abortion? why do we have to have an underground abortion for these poor women, women who are raped, women of color? most women of affluence will have the money to go elsewhere, but that's not every woman. we cannot expect them to carry that baby and deliver when we kn

is unconstitutional because of the strange structure of the law, so far, including the united states supreme courtp their hands and said, well, there's not really a challenge here, it's premature, and they haven't ruled on the constitutionality and this law is now depriving women of the rights that they are guaranteed into its third week. these lawsuits should finally get the question of whether the law is constitutional before a judge. >> nancy, what would that mean? a judge would then rule on the constitutionality of it and would there then be a stay on the law? >> well, yeah. w we are fighting hard to get an injunction against this law in texas as is the department of justice that filed suit recently as well against the state of texas. it has just been way too long, as jeffrey pointed out, it's been three weeks since this law has been a law. the law has obviously been a law for 48 years. congress needs to step in as well and the house is taking a vote on the women's health protection act this week. >> jeff, does it surprise you the courts aren't acting more quickly? you and i discussed this las

lyndon johnson, the tragic death and the hopes for peace in vietnam, is the decision of the united states supreme court that handed down an historic decision about abortion. the court said in a 7-2 decision that in the first three months of pregnancy, only the woman and her physician may decide whether she may have an abortion. in the second three months, all the state may do is regulate abortion procedures. and only in the final three months of pregnancy can the state forbid abortion. the court ruled in cases from texas and georgia, but all 50 states are affected, whatever their laws. >> today's decision came as a shock to both anti- and pro-abortionist forces. >> well, it means that january 22nd, 1973, will stand out as one of the great days for freedom and free choice. this allows a woman free choice as to whether to remain pregnant. this is extraordinary. >> for some women this law will mean the difference between having an abortion or not. for many others, the law will mean simply having the abortion in their own state instead of traveling to another state like new york. this new york clinic, for

. >> 1973 is when the united states supreme court guaranteed abortion rights nationwide, that was the -- that law flocked states, any state in the country from banning abortion, it said american women have a right, under the united states constitution to get an abortion if they want one. and that right can't be infringed even if politicians and individual states feel different. after that ruling in 1973, the very first abortion clinic to open its doors in the great state of texas was a clinic in the city of mcallen. mcallen is a small city on the very southern tip of texas, right on the border with mexico. the first abortion clinic in texas opened there in 1973, and it served women in the valley, in that part of texas for decades. even as anti abortion republicans started to cement their control of the government in texas, and year after year they devised ever more creative and draconian ways to make abortion as hard and that's dangerous to get as possible in texas, that clinic in mcallen kept going. and republicans really did keep passing more and more restrictive laws making it more

from the death of lyndon johnson, the hopes for peace in vietnam, is the decision of the united states supreme court. it handed down a supreme court decision about abortion that is historic. in the first three months of pregnancy, only the woman and her physician may decide whether she may have an abortion. in the second three months, all the state may do is regulate abortion procedures. and only the final three months of pregnancy can the state forbidden portion. the court ruled in cases from texas to georgia that all 50 states are affected whatever their laws. >> today's decision came as a shock to both anti and pro abortion forces. >> 1973 will stand down as one of the days for freedom and free choice. this allows a woman free choice as well as to not remain pregnant. >> for someone women this will mean the difference between not having an abortion or not. for others it will mean not having to travel to another state. this new york clinic, for example, reports that 48% of the patients are from out of the state. from the beginning, pro abortionist forces have seen this as a matter of choice. the f

states, mandated partial birth abortion. what am i talking about? let's just be explicit. this is from the supreme court of the united states, their opinion in the gonzalez case 2007 gonzales vs carhart and i quote, "dr. haskell went in with the forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth then he delivered the baby's body and the arms everything but the head. then the doctor stuck the scissors into the back of his head and the baby's arms out. the doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out, end quote. that that is what the house of representatives just voted to codify as the law of the land. a procedure that is favored by almost no americans, a procedure that bipartisan majorities banned in 2003 in this body. and now the house democrats and apparently all the democrats in the senate want to bring it back and mandate it nationwide, reflecting the moral sensibility of the brutalist regime in north korea. this is the ethics of north korea on display, killing a child as she is already out of the womb, for heaven's sake. sh

i am very concerned about so many aspects of money in our election system, the united states supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to give the right of people to spend as much as they want with regard to election campaigns and independent expenditures, and it is true of individuals. it is true of corporations. unless the supreme court were to change that, they are not going to, there is not much we can do with money in recall elections. kristen: all right. you were talking about ways to make the recall process more constitutional, if you will. i think governor gray davis, the ousted governor, talked about perhaps framing adjust as a question, write, like who shall serve out the remainder of the term, including the current office that would be allowed, and what do you think about that, because i know this time, you could not even write in governor newsom's name. prof. chemerisky: i think it is great, and if therea s illcare, existing governors, they would be there, and so would all of the challengers. whoever gets the most votes xtmeco ibes th sained, change in a simple way. if

this is moments ago of the fencing indeed going up around the united states supreme court. we had reported earlier that was going to happen. it's happening now as we speak. sign of the times. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again here tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. i have on the desk tonight the book "peril." it seems like every other week, there is a new book of great import. this is by my count bob woodward's 14th book on the presidency and his first book co-authored with robert costa. we're going to be discussing it tonight because of the revelations that are now being focused on in some media reports about paul ryan as speaker of the house consulting psychiatry papers about narcissistic personality disorder to try to figure out how to deal with donald trump. >> yeah. >> so mary trump, who has made a lifetime study both professionally and otherwise of donald trump in this problem, is going to take us through what she -- what would be her perspective on what paul ryan must

meanwhile, right now, we're having the fans off the united states supreme court and the u.s. capitol again. as the former president beats his chest today and screams about the rigged elections and how we need solidarity with all the brave patriots who violently tried to overthrow the u.s. government and keep him in power, on january six. there is plenty a political ambition. intrigue and, suspense on one side of the aisle tonight. but the other side of the aisle, really isn't politics anymore. it is something else. it is getting worse not better. stay with us we got a lot to get to tonight. y. this is the uh registration card for the draft for world war two. and this is his signature which blew me away. being able to... make my grandfather real... not just a memory... is priceless. his legacy...lives on. ♪ ♪ is priceless. ♪ ♪ just two pills for all day pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible. ♪ ♪ ♪ hey google. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ got a couple of bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they n

decided, we are going to throw that out and they basically have an accomplice with the united states supreme courtey want the state rep in the room and then they want the neighbor on the phone telling them about the uber driver. senator hirono, it is nice to get to talk to you. this hearing is important. >> same here. >> thank you for spending time with us. matt is sticking around. >>> a warning of catastrophic consequences if lawmakers fail to act. one of the many things on their plate this week. we will talk about what's at stake next. now, we all know progressive offers 24/7 protection, but we also bundle outdoor vehicles with home and auto to help people save more! [ laughs ] ♪♪ [ humming ] [ door creaks ] oh. [ soft music playing ] what are you all doing in my daydream? it's better than that presentation. a lot better. you know, whether it's a fraction or a decimal, it's still fun, you know? my retirement plan with voya keeps me moving forward... you know, whether it's a fraction even after paying for this. love you, sweetheart they guide me with achievable steps that give me confidence. this

as to the shadow docket, like any court in the united states, state or federal or municipal, yes, the supreme court of the united states where i served as a law clerk has a motions docket. no court could exist without it. you wouldn't want one without it. and yes, in some circumstances, that motions docket involves emergency motions. to call that a shadow docket as if to suggest there's something shady about it or nefarious going on is an illegitimate attempt to belittle the court, to des page it -- disparage it, to intimidate it and to threaten it. this is sometimes what happens in advance of certain people feeling and fearing that members of the supreme court of the united states might actually rule in a way that doesn't benefit them even if it's a ruling in favor of the constitution. it's not appropriate. it's beneath the dignity of this community -- of this committee and of the united states senate. we should not harass, threaten, or intimidate. finally, with regard to the ruling in this particular case that apparently prompted this hearing, there was no defendant properly before the cour

one more very, and i wrote a dissent and that's the way it works. >> supreme court justice stephen breyer defending the united stateslaims that it has been politicized after the court's highly controversial decision not to block texas's near complete ban on abortion. brand-new reporting in "the new york times" examines how this law was, in fact, a highly political and focused crusade on the part of one man years in the making. from that new times reporting, quote, jonathan f. mitchell grew increasingly dismayed as he read the supreme court's decision in june 2016 striking down a major portion of a texas anti-abortion bill he helped write. not only had the court gutted the legislation, which mitchell had quietly worked on, but it also had called out his attempt to structure the law in a way that would prevent judicial action to block it, essentially saying, nice try. quote, we reject texas's invitation to pave take way for legislatures to immunize their statues from a general review. in the majority's opinion the decision was a stinging rebuke and mitchell vowed that if he ever had a chance to write another law he wo

obviously i'm acutely wear of my complicity in the current state of the united states supreme court. i have voted straight party line democratic ticket since 2016. my only hope, my only wish is that they freaking win, that they win elections. and what i don't understand is the republicans have revealed themselves over and over and over and over and over again, and if you want to know how radical today's gop is, it is so radical that the man picked by my old boss, chief justice john roberts, sided with the liberals on the court in the texas abortion ban. what joyce just described -- i don't know the legal term, but it sounds a whole lot like collusion between republican-dominated right-wing centric legislators and the far right members of the united states supreme court, whether it is a crime and whether it is real, maybe mueller will look into it. but tell me where we go from here. >> huh, where do we go from here? well, i don't know if it is collusion in the sense that, you know, the -- i think the states -- the state legislators are listening to -- you know, this is public, right?

the united states' supreme court has formally refused to block a law in texas which bans almost all abortionsven know they are pregnant. the only exemption is if there is a danger to the woman's health. the supreme court did not rule on the constitutionality of the law — but cited "complex and novel procedural issues". to cricket, and england are on top after the first morning of the fourth test against india at the oval. after putting the tourists into bat, england reduced india to sa for three. adam wild reports. ringing in the morning, this now the sound of test cricket at the oval. full all the attempts to modernise cricket, remains a game of tradition. the hiddenjerusalem tradition. the hidden jerusalem before tradition. the hiddenjerusalem before players won. jimmy anderson opening the bowling for england is undoubtedly another. but for all that familiarity this is a series now wildly unpredictable. india, like england, as brilliant as they are beatable. fluctuating no more so than for chris woakes.— are beatable. fluctuating no more so than for chris woakes. welcome back chris woakes.

. >>> next on "gps," justice stephen breyer of the united states supreme court.. it beautiful. state of the art technology makes it brilliant. the lexus nx. experience the crossover in its most visionary form. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. air wick essential mist transforms fragrance infused with natural essential oils into a mist. with an extra boost of fragrance you can see... smell... and feel. it's air care redefined. air wick essential mist, connect to nature. today let's paint with new behr dynasty™... so that you can be proud of your walls. where's your furniture? oh we thought it distracted from the new behr dynasty paint color. let me take your coats. because behr dynasty only takes... one. coat. behr dynasty. go ahead, throw your wine on it. what? stain repellent. it's also scuff resistant. you're paying for that! introducing behr dynasty™, the best of behr. exclusively at the home depot. to run a growing business, is to be on a journey. and along the ride, you'll find many challenges. your dell technologies advisor is here to help. so you ca

. >>> next on "gps," justice stephen breyer of the united states supreme court.urt is too political. he says their wrong. his argument when we come back. . a corner to build a legacy. a vision for tomorrow. a fresh start. a blank canvas. a second act. a renewed company culture. a temple for ideas. and a place to make your mark. loopnet. the most popular place to find a space. (judith) in this market, you'll find fisher investments is different than other money managers. (other money manager) different how? don't you just ride the wave? (judith) no - we actively manage client portfolios based on our forward-looking views of the market. (other money manager) but you still sell investments that generate high commissions, right? (judith) no, we don't sell commission products. we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our client's best interest. (other money manager) so when do you make more money? only when your clients make more money? (judith) yep, we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments we're clearly different. well, would ya look at that! it w

and it sounds like collusion between centric legislatures and far right members of the united states supreme courtme or real. they look into it. jillian: may be mueller will look into it? still looking into things. it is american now and forever. go to lauraingraham.com. in honor of great first responders on the anniversary of september 11th. >> in america it has come to this. it is sad. todd: it is wednesday september 8th, americans make their opinions known about leaving citizens behind in afghanistan. jillian: meantime in kabul the taliban breaking of a protest with gunfire as the extremist

a law that the united states supreme court refused to stop. states say they're looking to replicate the texas law. if you don't think women's rights are under assault, you're not looking. california, keep gavin newsom and send a message to the nation. women are to be respected. and the rights protected. third, by voting no, you will be protecting california from another trump climate denier, who said global warming is, quote, a crock and a myth. look, it is hard to believe there is any climate deniers left in america. let me tell you something. there are. the last place you want someone like that is in a governor's office in california. you all see what's happening. why are fires burning two million acres in california this yearin alone? five million acres have burned, 5.9 in the region. that's bigger than the entire state of new jersey, and it is a big state. the governor and i were just in sacramento for a briefing on the calder fire. last week i saw the destruction and the death caused by hurricane ida in new york, new jersey andin louisian

that's when the united states supreme court guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. rse, is the landmark roe versus wade decision. that law blocked states, any state in the country, from banning abortion. it said american women have a right under the united states constitution to get an abortion if they want one. and that right can't be infringed even if politicians in individual states feel differently. after that ruling in 1973, the very first abortion clinic to open its doors in the great state of texas was a clinic in

the challenge to theit restriction i would be obligated to follow the president of the united states supreme courtght make today as to how the question shouldak be evaluated. the circuit you will be sitting on would be b the court of last resort as you know they only hear roughly 80 cases a year and so you will be sitting on the supreme court for all practical purposes for a number of cases and so i think it is a fair question let me ask under the supreme court's jurisprudence when it begins is that relevant about the abortion rights? >> senator, as i read the current case law, the viability is the touchstone of the framework that the court has built. i don't understand it to weigh into questions of when life begins from that perspective. >> so the question of viability is an important question under the jurisprudence do you agree with that? >> where does the supreme court look to determine where life begins? >> thank you for the question, senator. as i recall from the current jurisprudence on the issue with a look to scientific evidence to determine when a fetus is viable. >> would that be the st

between republican dominant right wing centric legislature in the far right members of the united states supreme courtt. >> laura: maybe mueller will look into it? okay. didn't know he was still looking into things. thank you for watching. remember it's america now and forever. go to lauraingraham.com. all of that great freedom matters gear. tunnel to towers is a charity this month, all in honor of our great first responders and the anniversary of september 11th. thank you for watching. up next, it is greg gutfeld. ♪ ♪ >> greg: happy tuesday, everyone. hope you had a lovely labor day. i know kat did. she is the real hero. you know what it's time

president of the united states alexander hamilton, who was the first secretary of the treasury of the new republic and by john jay who was the first chief justice of the united states supreme court the purpose of the papers was to persuade the citizenry of the young nation of the need to adopt a new form of government and to leave behind the very loosely farm government, which the citizens had seen under under the articles of confederation. in authoring the federalist papers, hamilton madison and jade exhibited if you will the very best qualities of leadership that we see in lawyers madison was not a lawyer but he was learned in the law hamilton and jay were a course lawyers and they use their lawyering power as their abilities as leaders in the capacity as lawyers and drafters of the federalist papers to successfully usher the constitution to its ratification in 1789. we believe that the discussion today between tallmadge boston and secretary baker will further illuminate the fact that lawyers are given the power. is there the opportunity to give him the license by the state to exercise very potent leadership qualities in both the public and the private square and with that. i

you will be sitting on will be the court of last resort for many cases, as you know the supreme court of united states only hears roughly 80 cases a year. and so you will be in effect sitting on the supreme court for all practical purposes for a number of cases. and so i think it's a fair question. let me ask you under the supreme court's jurisprudence, and asking you now for a legal interpretation, does question of when life begins, is that relevant to a legal discussion about abortion rights? >> senator, as i read the courts current case law, viability is the touchstone of the legal framework that the court is built. i don't understand it to weigh in the questions of when life begins from that perspective. >> and answer the question of viability or when life begins is an important legal question under the supreme court's jurisprudence. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> okay. >> and i guess, you know where the court, ms. sung, you'll be sitting on the ninth circuit court of appeals. where does the supreme court look to determine the question of when life begins? >> thank you for the question, senato

justice department action which will create that test case and bring it ultimately to the united states supreme courty hearing a case on december 1st for mississippi that restricts abortion after 15 weeks. roe versus wade restricted it after about the 24th. so the mississippi law is also very much a flat violation of roe and the upshot is the supreme court is being asked to overrule roe versus wade first on the mississippi case then on the texas case. >> and neil, i feel like all three of us make the appropriate effort to acknowledge that there are women suffering and hurt by this today. how quickly will any of these sort of avenues be pursued? >> well, the justice department has gone in to the judge and asked for an emergency hearing which is going to take place in a couple of weeks and so that judge could stop the texas law from going into effect just in a matter of a couple of weeks. that could get immediately reviewed by the fifth circuit, the court of appeals and possibly by the united states supreme court on an expedited basis. that so-called shadow docket that people are talking about every so

states planning to follow texas is. lee coming. up >> the act is clearly unconstitutional. under long-standing supreme court precedent. this kind of scheme, to nullify the constitution of the unitedtates, is one that all americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. should fear should fear settle for silver #1 for diabetic dry skin* #1 for psoriasis symptom relief* and #1 for eczema symptom relief* gold bond champion your skin every day, coventry helps people get cash for their life insurance policies they no longer need. i'm an anesthesiologist and a pain physician by specialty. i was trying to figure out what i could do with this term life insurance policy. i'm sorta stuck because i can't just go out and buy more insurance, because of my diagnosis. i called coventry direct and everything clicked. there actually were a lot more options that i thought there ever would be. coventry helped michael like we've helped thousands of people sell all or part of their life insurance policies for cash. even a term policy. there probably are a lot of people that are in a similar situation who don't know they have an option. i would definitely recommend talking to coventry about i