0
0.0
Apr 22, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 2
barrett. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you, and thank you for giving us your time. guest: sure. host: everybody is paying attention today. we have a jury. what happens today? guest: so today we will have opening arguments and will probably get the first witness and obviously it is a big moment. never had a trial like this in american history, and it will be a test of the system, and it will be a pretty momentous thing. host: as far as the opening witness, who do we expect? guest: at this point, we expect it to be david packer. he once ran the company that publishes the national enquirer. and they are -- he is basically going to be on the stand to describe how he and trump allegedly had conversations about how to prevent stories from him -- stories about him from surfacing in the public in 2017. host: i suppose with the first witness we will get a view of how the prosecution and the defense -- i guess what they plan to use. can you give us a sense of what we might expect from both sides going forward?
barrett. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you, and thank you for giving us your time. guest: sure. host: everybody is paying attention today. we have a jury. what happens today? guest: so today we will have opening arguments and will probably get the first witness and obviously it is a big moment. never had a trial like this in american history, and it will be a test of the system, and it will be a pretty momentous thing. host: as far as the opening witness, who do we...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett: thank you. general prelogar: i should -- i should make clear that the some pending judicial challenges in those states, and so thei laws are not always enforceable or in fe right now. justice barrett: besides texas, has the federal government -- has the federal government brought suits silato the one brought in idaho and texas in anofhese other states? general prelogar: to be clear, texas wanoour -- justice barrett: right. ok. general prelogar: -- affirmative litigation. th sd us. but we have not brought affirmative litigation in othe states. d i think it's -- this case has been on a course and idaho's law was particularly severe because at the point at which we sued it seemed to cover ectopic pregnancy, and the state conceded that. now, they have modified the law to exclude that, but it was one of the most pressing concerns because of that. justice barrett: thank you. chief justicrts: justice jackson? justice jackson: gen petitionies pretty heavily principles.atement rule and i wonder wheou mig
justice barrett: thank you. general prelogar: i should -- i should make clear that the some pending judicial challenges in those states, and so thei laws are not always enforceable or in fe right now. justice barrett: besides texas, has the federal government -- has the federal government brought suits silato the one brought in idaho and texas in anofhese other states? general prelogar: to be clear, texas wanoour -- justice barrett: right. ok. general prelogar: -- affirmative litigation. th sd...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett: got it. is the federal government aware of any state, other than idaho, that has a law that does not take health into account? genel elogar: there are six other states that have severe abortionesictions without a health exception. so tnk that those are the primary category of states we're concerned about here. justice barrett: thank you. general prelogar: i should -- i should make clear that there are me pending judicial challenges in those states, and so their laws are not always enforceable or in effect right n. justice barrett: besides texas, has the federal government -- hathfederal government brought suits similar to the o brought in idaho and texas in any of these oth stes? general prelogar: to be clear, texas was not our -- jti barrett: right. ok. generaprogar: -- affirmative litigation. they sued us. but we have not brought affirmative litigation in other states. and i thini's -- this case has been on a course and idaho's law was particularly severe because t point at which we sued it
justice barrett: got it. is the federal government aware of any state, other than idaho, that has a law that does not take health into account? genel elogar: there are six other states that have severe abortionesictions without a health exception. so tnk that those are the primary category of states we're concerned about here. justice barrett: thank you. general prelogar: i should -- i should make clear that there are me pending judicial challenges in those states, and so their laws are not...
0
0.0
Apr 23, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: no. chief justice roberts: justice jackson? justice jackson: can a pgo not being addicted to drugs? to ms. corkran: so i think under common -- as we think about it in terms of modern medicine, the answer is no. but the robinson court certainly thout at was the case, right? sixty years ago, we didn't ve thsa understanding of justice jackson: so your view of robinson is that in't really matter, the permanency of the conditi's still a status? ms. corkran: right. the robinson court did not think that the permanency mattered, because it thought that addiction was a status tt could change. justice jackson: tha. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. rebuttal? ms. evangehank you. this case is worlds away from robinson. the eighndment does not answer any of the questions that we've been discussing today, and that is reason not to extend robinson. all of these questions are unanswerable. first, i'd likeo art with the united states' position. that would also bring chaos. it would be a saer if m
chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: no. chief justice roberts: justice jackson? justice jackson: can a pgo not being addicted to drugs? to ms. corkran: so i think under common -- as we think about it in terms of modern medicine, the answer is no. but the robinson court certainly thout at was the case, right? sixty years ago, we didn't ve thsa understanding of justice jackson: so your view of robinson is that in't really matter, the permanency of the conditi's still a...
0
0.0
Apr 30, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett: okay. let me just interrupt you there. y're right, it's a very, very difficult policy question. and i asked you before about whether this was just about blankets or whether it wt to having fires or urinating and defecating outdoors and that sort of thing, and justice sotomayor pointed out that this particular iunion did carve out those things and was just talking about sleep. but, you know, other cases have be ligated in the ninth circuit that have gone beyond that, and because the line is things that are involuntary, that are human needsan -- it can extend -- it's difficult to draw the line, and whatever we decide here authis case is about the line. so can you describe for me some of the things that are difficult to figure out about the line? there's sleeping. there's sleeping with blankets. what else? ms. evangelis: public ion and defecation, that is a serious problem. those are parts of biological necessities ofei human. a court in sacramento addressed that, and the ninth circuit's opini
justice barrett: okay. let me just interrupt you there. y're right, it's a very, very difficult policy question. and i asked you before about whether this was just about blankets or whether it wt to having fires or urinating and defecating outdoors and that sort of thing, and justice sotomayor pointed out that this particular iunion did carve out those things and was just talking about sleep. but, you know, other cases have be ligated in the ninth circuit that have gone beyond that, and because...
0
0.0
Apr 1, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr. stewart, i want to ask you about cert worthiness. sousce kavanaugh just pointed out that cert worthine can be considered part of assessing likelif success on the merits. i just want to be sure understand what the position of the solicitor general's offi is on that. in this posture, applicants say cert worthiness should not be a factor, that nken standard should just -- nken standard should just apply without respect to cert worthiness. wh is the solicitor general's position? mr. stewart: i think it's our view that you should consider cert worthesas -- in a sense as part of the -- the kehood of justice barrett: as justice kavanaugh framed it? mr. ewt: yes. and -- and the idea is, if -- if likelihoodf ccess means likelihood of success in this court, then that h tbe not just would the rule in their favoift took the case but what's the chance that the court wod take the case. if you think that likelihood of suess is a predictive judgment about what the heritage reporting corporation justi
chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr. stewart, i want to ask you about cert worthiness. sousce kavanaugh just pointed out that cert worthine can be considered part of assessing likelif success on the merits. i just want to be sure understand what the position of the solicitor general's offi is on that. in this posture, applicants say cert worthiness should not be a factor, that nken standard should just -- nken standard should just apply without respect to cert...
0
0.0
Apr 2, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr. martinez, i want to return to the question that justice sotomayor raised about stare decisis. so you said that overruling chevron wouldn't have an effect on the many cases that have gotten to chevron step two and then deferred to the agency. you said -- am i -- did i understand you correctly? martinez: those bottom-line so isn't it inviting a flood of litigation even if for the moment those holdings stay intact? martinez: so i would say the bottom-line holdings in those cases, i would just quibble slightly, i would -- i would describe the bottom-line holding as being that the agency's action was lawful. and so that's the bottom line. i think it's true that people could come and say, look, the interpretive methods have changed since this bottom-line holding was issued and we think that -- that, you know, a different result now should apply. and -- and that's why courts consider requests to overturn precedent. but i just think that they would apply the same standards that they would app
chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice barrett: mr. martinez, i want to return to the question that justice sotomayor raised about stare decisis. so you said that overruling chevron wouldn't have an effect on the many cases that have gotten to chevron step two and then deferred to the agency. you said -- am i -- did i understand you correctly? martinez: those bottom-line so isn't it inviting a flood of litigation even if for the moment those holdings stay intact? martinez: so i would...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i can tell you it wasn't just justice barrett. you could hear a pin drop in the room at that moment. that was a pivotal moment for the argument. it is one that caught the attention of justice amy coney barrett and i suspect the chief. given all of that, i do think that it is fair to say there is a path forward that would allow even a trial to happen but certainly andrew's solution. >> quickly before we go. i can't remember, i'm sure it happens, i haven't seen it happen. trump's lawyer, the moving party, speaks first. then the government speaks and then there is an offer of rebuttal. you are trump's lawyer, you get a chance to get up and take a part anything you just heard in the last hour and a half the other side said. to my astonishment, to my astonishment when he was offered rebuttal, trump supporters actual words were i have nothing. >> he might have had nothing. but, i think, look, i've never seen that. >> you've never seen it. okay. >> i think what was going on there was that the employer is used being a trump theatrics lawy
i can tell you it wasn't just justice barrett. you could hear a pin drop in the room at that moment. that was a pivotal moment for the argument. it is one that caught the attention of justice amy coney barrett and i suspect the chief. given all of that, i do think that it is fair to say there is a path forward that would allow even a trial to happen but certainly andrew's solution. >> quickly before we go. i can't remember, i'm sure it happens, i haven't seen it happen. trump's lawyer,...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett? justice jackson: one quick clarification -- you say the lloyd's meeting is an explicit threat, fine. what is next in terms of proof? don't they have to show something about herotation? mr. mcdowell: so, justice jason, that gets to something mr. cole was talking about. there are two aspects tohe claim, the coercion question and the first amendment home question here the first amendment rm was based on viewpoint discmination. it would have to show that she was motivated by targeting a particular vwpoint as opposed to targeting of conduct. we just think that the complaint alleges that is what her motive was because on page 223 it says -- it says and most exquity, 223, -- explicity, 223, position appendix, she was trying to g them to aid the campaign against gun groups. there was a focus on the speech aspect of the nra as opposed any conduct. justice jackson: thank you. chief justice roberts: thank yo counsel. mr. katyal? mr. katyal: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may please the urt --
justice barrett? justice jackson: one quick clarification -- you say the lloyd's meeting is an explicit threat, fine. what is next in terms of proof? don't they have to show something about herotation? mr. mcdowell: so, justice jason, that gets to something mr. cole was talking about. there are two aspects tohe claim, the coercion question and the first amendment home question here the first amendment rm was based on viewpoint discmination. it would have to show that she was motivated by...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 4
this is an exchange between justice barrett and trump's attorney, john sawyer, on this issue of private acts versus official acts. [video clip] >> you can see that private acts -- you concede that private acts do not get immunity. >> we do. >> in the special counsel's brief, he urges us, even if we were to decide or assume there was some immunity for official acts, there was sufficient private acts in the indictment for the trial to go back and i want to know if you disagree or agree about the characterization of these acts as private. he turned to a private attorney. he was willing to spread false claims of election results. private? >> we dispute the allegation but that sounds private. >> a verification signed by a petitioner that contained false statements. >> private. >> three private actors and a consultant helped implement a plan to submit private slates of presidential electors. >> i believe that is private. >> so those acts he would not dispute. those are private and you would not raise a claim they are official. >> what would -- what we would say is official is meeting with the
this is an exchange between justice barrett and trump's attorney, john sawyer, on this issue of private acts versus official acts. [video clip] >> you can see that private acts -- you concede that private acts do not get immunity. >> we do. >> in the special counsel's brief, he urges us, even if we were to decide or assume there was some immunity for official acts, there was sufficient private acts in the indictment for the trial to go back and i want to know if you disagree...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett floated this compromise. if you want to call it that at the argument where she said, well, look, what what if you just drop all of the stuff that's official or that maybe official. could you just go to trial with the acts that everybody agrees are private and that seems to be a way of potentially getting around some of the big issues here. that in turn opens up this big debate about even if they did that, could all of the official acts which provide essential context and color for the entire conspiracy that's alleged. could those be brought in as evidence? and the justice department said yes. and trump said no if the supreme court wants to think about it quickly path for this case to move forward. and one that avoids some of the really thorny questions about what acts are official and what x aren't. it could potentially remal for consideration, at least of an expedited trial focused on the private acts. although i think it would really need to give some guidance there about whether the non-private acts can st
justice barrett floated this compromise. if you want to call it that at the argument where she said, well, look, what what if you just drop all of the stuff that's official or that maybe official. could you just go to trial with the acts that everybody agrees are private and that seems to be a way of potentially getting around some of the big issues here. that in turn opens up this big debate about even if they did that, could all of the official acts which provide essential context and color...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
KNTV
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
amy coney barrett and sonia sotomayor will weighing in on health risks versus death. can a doctor in idaho treat a woman in idaho is a health risk. idaho is saying no. idaho's law says she has to be on death door in order to be treated. idaho argued that their law is sufficient, doctors can make their objectsive decisions on whether or not they want to treat a woman she doesn't have to be on death door. amy coney barrett was interesting to watch today, she asked whether or not pros durts might disagree with the doctor's decision, the lawyer for idaho said yes, they could. a stunning moment said to the lawyer from idaho, i'm stunned by some of the answers you're giving here and a bit concerned about whether or not prosecutors might put doctors in jail for doing something that was a good faith effort to save the woman and the baby. >> what do you make of the arguments we heard today. >> it's always difficult to predict, i heard some skepticism from justice barrett, maybe even from justice kavanaugh and chief justice roberts, i don't know if we'll see this traditional co
amy coney barrett and sonia sotomayor will weighing in on health risks versus death. can a doctor in idaho treat a woman in idaho is a health risk. idaho is saying no. idaho's law says she has to be on death door in order to be treated. idaho argued that their law is sufficient, doctors can make their objectsive decisions on whether or not they want to treat a woman she doesn't have to be on death door. amy coney barrett was interesting to watch today, she asked whether or not pros durts might...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that's what amy coney barrett was getting out there so often we listened to supreme court arguments and we think about everything along this liberal, conservative framework. but here it was actually the ladies of the court, all the women that three liberal justices joined by amy coney barrett, who dominated the first half. and we're really grilled the lawyer who is representing idaho, josh turner. this was his first argument before the supreme court and at times it did show he got some pretty tough questions, some hypotheticals, questions like that, but it does appear that it's possible the government might prevail here and we know that whatever is decided here could not only have implications for women who need this service, but also potentially for the election that is so interesting that point you made about all of the women asking specific questions. i mean, whether or not there are conservatives or liberals talk about representation, mattering. thanks so much for that explanation to both of you. right now at the supreme court, there are really big protests happening as all of this
that's what amy coney barrett was getting out there so often we listened to supreme court arguments and we think about everything along this liberal, conservative framework. but here it was actually the ladies of the court, all the women that three liberal justices joined by amy coney barrett, who dominated the first half. and we're really grilled the lawyer who is representing idaho, josh turner. this was his first argument before the supreme court and at times it did show he got some pretty...
0
0.0
Apr 29, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the justices did really perk up , i saw four justices, sotomayor, kagan, jackson, and barrett really reject this absolute immunity claim and the question is, where is the chief justice on this? he was playing his cards close to the vest. >> so interesting. andrew, did anything surprise you and what did you make of the tea leaves? >> i think it's important to remember that at the outset, the court had already given donald trump lewinsky he was seeking, which was the delay of the trial. going into this, this was all upside for him. i think he had to be thinking, i am making an outlandish argument, that could not be squared with the text in history . so, it's an upside if the court would actually bite on this. what is surprising is that there were justices who were actually taking this seriously, and it was frankly, shocking. going into this, the given was that private conduct was certainly not immunized from criminal liability. what we are talking about now is hey, maybe some of this is private and they can go forward but that was a given going into this. the reason people think that i
the justices did really perk up , i saw four justices, sotomayor, kagan, jackson, and barrett really reject this absolute immunity claim and the question is, where is the chief justice on this? he was playing his cards close to the vest. >> so interesting. andrew, did anything surprise you and what did you make of the tea leaves? >> i think it's important to remember that at the outset, the court had already given donald trump lewinsky he was seeking, which was the delay of the...
0
0.0
Apr 3, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i mean do think amy coney barrett and kavanaugh are they were bought in. uh, for sure. kavanaugh is for sure. i don't know enough amy coney barrett to know whether she lives a bubble of her own views and has just the bubble just happens to be exactly the kind of bubble that federalist society folks were looking for and liked and wanted get onto the court. but i know for sure that kavanaugh knew exactly what he was doing. kavanaugh did this stuff for president bush, and that's how we got to know leonard leo is organizing the outside money influence over those appointments. and if you want to know the power of this, even early on, you remember a woman named harriet miers. harriet miers, white house counsel for, president bush. she was very conservative. she was female at a time when it would done them some good to put another female judge on the court. and she was very conservative and she knew him personally as white house counsel. she's around him every day up goes her name as the nominee. and the president had to effect a humiliating withdrawal of name because of the p
i mean do think amy coney barrett and kavanaugh are they were bought in. uh, for sure. kavanaugh is for sure. i don't know enough amy coney barrett to know whether she lives a bubble of her own views and has just the bubble just happens to be exactly the kind of bubble that federalist society folks were looking for and liked and wanted get onto the court. but i know for sure that kavanaugh knew exactly what he was doing. kavanaugh did this stuff for president bush, and that's how we got to know...
0
0.0
Apr 18, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett. >> just one quick clarification. you say the lloyd's meeting is an explicit threat. let sathey stay the claim. what's next in terms approved? don't they veto show something about her motivation? >> justice jackson, that guest is something mr. cole was talk about. there are two aspes this play. there is a coercion question , and that there is a first amendment harm question. here the firsendment harm is based on viewpoint discrimination. so yes, they would have to show that she was motivated by the rging of a particular viewpoint as opposed to the targeting of conduct. we think the complaint alles that what her motive was. page 223 says it will x pleasantly. she was engangin this threat in orr to get lloyd's to aid the dfs ca against gun groups. there is a focus on the speech aspect of the nra as opposed to any conduct . >>thank you. >> thank you counsel. >> thank you, may it please the court. the kefactor in this case is the conceited illegal conduct, as justice soto mayor said, th three insurers and the nra oke the
justice barrett. >> just one quick clarification. you say the lloyd's meeting is an explicit threat. let sathey stay the claim. what's next in terms approved? don't they veto show something about her motivation? >> justice jackson, that guest is something mr. cole was talk about. there are two aspes this play. there is a coercion question , and that there is a first amendment harm question. here the firsendment harm is based on viewpoint discrimination. so yes, they would have to...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and that is what you heard in the clip just there was both justice sote mayor and justice barrett say, wait, what? you're stopping care in an emergency? that does not seem to be what we were trying to do with -- what we were trying to accomplish with limiting the number of abortions in the united states. >> you know, are we -- we've talked about this in various iterations post-dobbs but i think you brought up the most interesting point, which is that essentially what we've done is we're taking care decisions away from physicians and handing them to lawyers. i'm wondering how this works if you're a care physician, what do you do with this? do you actually have to consult with a hospital administered lawyer to say, hey, is this okay what i do? does it actually get to that type of granular level? >> we're seeing that all over the country in states like tennessee and texas. there are committees being setup now so that in an emergency a physician doesn't just lean on their medical judgment but has to call risk management or the hospital attorneys to figure out if they're allowed to provide
and that is what you heard in the clip just there was both justice sote mayor and justice barrett say, wait, what? you're stopping care in an emergency? that does not seem to be what we were trying to do with -- what we were trying to accomplish with limiting the number of abortions in the united states. >> you know, are we -- we've talked about this in various iterations post-dobbs but i think you brought up the most interesting point, which is that essentially what we've done is we're...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that lack of a clear standard is exactly what both justice sonia sotomayor and amy coney barrett tried to wrestle out of the attorney representing idaho today. listen. >> this particular patient had to deliver her baby. the baby died. she had a hysterectomy, and she can no longer have children. all right. you're telling me the doctor couldn't have done the abortion earlier? >> again, it goes back to whether a doctor can in good faith medical judgment -- >> that's a lot for the doctor to risk. >> it is very case by case. >> that's the problem. >> i'm kind of shocked, actually, because i thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and you're now saying they're not? >> no, i'm not saying that. that's just my point, your honor. >> you're hedging. justice sotomayor is asking whether this would be covered or not, and it's my understanding that the legislature's witnesses said those would be covered. >> those doctors said if they were exercising medical judgment they could in good faith determine that life saving care was necessary, and that's my point is it
that lack of a clear standard is exactly what both justice sonia sotomayor and amy coney barrett tried to wrestle out of the attorney representing idaho today. listen. >> this particular patient had to deliver her baby. the baby died. she had a hysterectomy, and she can no longer have children. all right. you're telling me the doctor couldn't have done the abortion earlier? >> again, it goes back to whether a doctor can in good faith medical judgment -- >> that's a lot for the...
0
0.0
Apr 18, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett asked you if you are breaking new ground and you said i am not, but it seems you are trying to in the way you are putting this. there is a lot about the guidance letters that you agree standing on their own would be okay. i am still not sure that if the february 18th meeting had not happened that standing alone, the guidance letter, as written , would necessarily be coercion . i am not sure the consent decrees could be viewed as selective prosecution when there is no question, i don't believe, that the carry guard had provisions. that the insurance policies had provisions that violated new york law. they reimburse for criminal activity and for criminal acts which new york insurance law literally says you cannot do. so, standing alone, these things might be coercive but i see this in light of the february 18th meeting. which is how the district court viewed it. how would you right it differently than the district court did, number one. number two, how would you right it differently? >> i would right it that bantam books holds that when government officials encourage th
justice barrett asked you if you are breaking new ground and you said i am not, but it seems you are trying to in the way you are putting this. there is a lot about the guidance letters that you agree standing on their own would be okay. i am still not sure that if the february 18th meeting had not happened that standing alone, the guidance letter, as written , would necessarily be coercion . i am not sure the consent decrees could be viewed as selective prosecution when there is no question, i...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
but from what you heard, where did you see amy coney barrett coming down? because she is an interesting swing vote here potentially. >> yes, i think so. i gotten a opportunity to listen to the oral arguments which are now available in real time on the supreme court website. and i heard skepticism from justice barrett and justice kavanaugh. they asked pointed question. so if you add those to the sotomayor, kgan and jackson, you come up with five which is sufficient to rule in favor of the united states here. and so won't things that i thought that justice barrett was particularly pointed at was really pushing the lawyer for the state of idaho about the daylight that exists between idaho law and federal law. and as you heard there, the difference really is this idea between health risk and a death risk. and that they would have to wait until a person's situation deteriorated so much that they were on death's door before an abortion could be performed. and that is just not tenable. the whole idea of federalism and the supremacy clause is that federal law can p
but from what you heard, where did you see amy coney barrett coming down? because she is an interesting swing vote here potentially. >> yes, i think so. i gotten a opportunity to listen to the oral arguments which are now available in real time on the supreme court website. and i heard skepticism from justice barrett and justice kavanaugh. they asked pointed question. so if you add those to the sotomayor, kgan and jackson, you come up with five which is sufficient to rule in favor of the...
0
0.0
Apr 17, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
hey, devlin, barrett, brian jacobs, james schulte. thank you for holding down the fort with me today and talking through all these issues. there's a lot more ahead, raul at this point out there, you're all armchair lawyers as well. >> hey ahead. remember this famous movies seem >> whereas the poison the battle of wits has begun, it ends when you decide and we both drink and find out who is right and who is dead >> well, hey, what's carry l with? up to now? well, he's got a lot of new projects going on and he's here to talk about them and test his wits. and our rapid-fire quiz. and it's coming up next every weekday morning cnn five things has what you need to get going with your day. it's the five essential stories of the morning in five minutes or less >> cnn's five things with kate bolduan streaming we exclusively on macs >> they told us to follow our dreams. ben said they were unrealistic because passions don't pay bills but what they didn't know is that dreamers make their own victory >> this is carbonic and this is how you can sel
hey, devlin, barrett, brian jacobs, james schulte. thank you for holding down the fort with me today and talking through all these issues. there's a lot more ahead, raul at this point out there, you're all armchair lawyers as well. >> hey ahead. remember this famous movies seem >> whereas the poison the battle of wits has begun, it ends when you decide and we both drink and find out who is right and who is dead >> well, hey, what's carry l with? up to now? well, he's got a lot...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
it's kind of small number on both sides of justice barrett made the point that if we say a president can't be included in a criminal law unless explicitly name, then that would par the senate from impeaching him for high crimes or misdemeanors because that means that he's not subject to the law at all, correct so i think that's what's you can't escape just sort of my are wet. >> i think that justice barrett was saying and we would agree with it. is that under my friends position after impeachment, it could be prosecuted. but under his actually tori construction approach, there being nothing to prosecute him for exactly. that's the point, which is if he's not covered by the criminal law, he can't be impeached for the root highlighting it. all right now, could we go further on this clear statement rule the situations and you mentioned it earlier in which we have looked to see if the president is covered is contextual, correct? >> correct. >> and what are the factors that generally will look at? i'm thinking specifically about whether the apa covers the president, correct and what we di
it's kind of small number on both sides of justice barrett made the point that if we say a president can't be included in a criminal law unless explicitly name, then that would par the senate from impeaching him for high crimes or misdemeanors because that means that he's not subject to the law at all, correct so i think that's what's you can't escape just sort of my are wet. >> i think that justice barrett was saying and we would agree with it. is that under my friends position after...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
particular, distant mention trump's third appointee to the supreme court, who happens to be amy coney barrett. she was pretty skeptical of some of the arguments that trump's collin was making, but at the same time, she seemed to at least be open to the idea that there should be some form of immunity that would apply, that would prevent a former president having to go all the way through trial and stand in front of a jury in a case that has to do with their official actions. at one upon the, chief justice roberts, chief justice john roberts, he is one of the more -- he is one of the court's institutionist judges talking about the stature over the supreme court, he too seemed to be a bit concerned with the ruling over the d.c. circuit below him. he read from a portion of the opinion at one point and said that is not the law. we should send this case back to d.c. circuit. i think whatever iteration you get, however you get there, it may well just be a narrower form of immunity or some other rational. when you get lower court proceedings that jeopardize if not make it down right impossible idea t
particular, distant mention trump's third appointee to the supreme court, who happens to be amy coney barrett. she was pretty skeptical of some of the arguments that trump's collin was making, but at the same time, she seemed to at least be open to the idea that there should be some form of immunity that would apply, that would prevent a former president having to go all the way through trial and stand in front of a jury in a case that has to do with their official actions. at one upon the,...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> no, i don't think so, justice barrett. i think it operates based on objective facts disclosed to counsel. counsel dunn provides the advice. in this case the department of justice, and it is an objectively valid defense, a complete defense to prosecution. >> what would be so bad? one thing that strikes me as different, or one thing that is obviously different between the public authority defense and community is the interlocking appeal and having it resolved at the outset. what would be so bad about having a question like that resolved at the threshold, having the and immunity? -- having it be an immunity? at the same time to question they could be brought up as a threshold and then it interlocking appeal would be a freedom from standing trial, but not a get out of jail free card. >> i understand that. i think if the court believe -- the court believes that with the appropriate way to craft presidential protections, it has the authority to craft procedural rules that implement its article two concerns. that said, public aut
>> no, i don't think so, justice barrett. i think it operates based on objective facts disclosed to counsel. counsel dunn provides the advice. in this case the department of justice, and it is an objectively valid defense, a complete defense to prosecution. >> what would be so bad? one thing that strikes me as different, or one thing that is obviously different between the public authority defense and community is the interlocking appeal and having it resolved at the outset. what...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
as amy coney barrett justice noted today, even this is fake paperwork that was just created for slates of electors that were not alternate. they just were fake. they were from audio a little again in 18, 76 rutherford b. hayes was elected president 20 in night, there's a long history of this in 1960, there's not a long history of multiple slates of fake electors, people who are not the legitimate electors representing the will of the voters in arizona, wisconsin pennsylvania, and michigan. well, again, what we're talking about is alternate slates of electors and you can kind characterize them as fake or not. but in cases where there are serious allegations of election fraud, this is the system that's been used throughout american history, probably most recently in the 1960 election when an alternate slate of electors from hawaii was season. let me ask you this because if you believe that there are some private acts in here and some official acts in here. what? can you ask the district court two months ago to suss that out? why wait and take it to the supreme court with this claim of to
as amy coney barrett justice noted today, even this is fake paperwork that was just created for slates of electors that were not alternate. they just were fake. they were from audio a little again in 18, 76 rutherford b. hayes was elected president 20 in night, there's a long history of this in 1960, there's not a long history of multiple slates of fake electors, people who are not the legitimate electors representing the will of the voters in arizona, wisconsin pennsylvania, and michigan....
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. that's how i interpret for his statements at least. >> well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasn't official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. he was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. but trump has argued, total immunity. he has not said, well, some of these are private x this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. >> we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. >> we've been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the district court proceeding through the circuit. now at the us supreme court, that what we're talking about is absolute immunity. yes. but absolute immunity just for a president's official acts in office. i think that's a crucial distinction that's been missed in much of the press coverage around president trump'
essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. that's how i interpret for his statements at least. >> well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasn't official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. he was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. but trump has argued, total...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that is conservative justice amy coney barrett at the supreme court. she is getting from slayer to agree that a whole bunch of things trump was indicted for, all bunch of those things could not possibly be construed to be official actions of a president. now, justice barrett emerged from the arguments today as potentially the swing vote on this overall issue, maybe, which is crazy given how right- wing she is. out of all of the conservative justices she seemed like the one trying to work out a workable answer, like she might be persuadable by either camp. i think chief justice roberts was hard to read. justice barrett gave more indication than any other conservative justice that she might be thinking about where she will come down. justice barrett really suggested to the other side's lawyer, the lawyer for special counsel jack smith, that maybe if there is a whole bunch of stuff that trump did that everybody admits was just his private acts when committing these alleged crimes, maybe trumps official actions could be kicked out of the indictment and you
that is conservative justice amy coney barrett at the supreme court. she is getting from slayer to agree that a whole bunch of things trump was indicted for, all bunch of those things could not possibly be construed to be official actions of a president. now, justice barrett emerged from the arguments today as potentially the swing vote on this overall issue, maybe, which is crazy given how right- wing she is. out of all of the conservative justices she seemed like the one trying to work out a...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that is conservative justice amy coney barrett. she is getting donald trump's lawyer to agree that a whole bunch of things that trump was indicted for in the january 6th federal case, a whole bunch of those things are things that could not possibly be construed to be the official actions of a president. now, justice barrett emerged from the arguments today as potentially the swing vote on this overall issue. maybe, which is crazy. given how right wing she is. but of all the conservative justices, she seemed like the one who was maybe trying to work out some kind of workable answer. like she might be persuadeable by either camp. justice roberts was hard to read. justice barrett gave more indication she might be really thinking about where she will come down. justice barrett later suggested to the other side's lawyer, to the lawyer for special counsel jack smith that maybe if there is a whole bunch of stuff that trump did that everybody admits was just his private acts when he was committing these alleged crimes, maybe all trump's pu
that is conservative justice amy coney barrett. she is getting donald trump's lawyer to agree that a whole bunch of things that trump was indicted for in the january 6th federal case, a whole bunch of those things are things that could not possibly be construed to be the official actions of a president. now, justice barrett emerged from the arguments today as potentially the swing vote on this overall issue. maybe, which is crazy. given how right wing she is. but of all the conservative...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
maybe barrett was in the middle from what i could hear. here was a little bit of the jack smith side punching back. take a listen. >> the reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes. what is important is that no public official has had the absolute criminal immunity that my friend thinks of. he's supposed to be faithful to the laws of the united states and the constitution of the united states and making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution. >> joyce, your thoughts about what he was dealing with on that bench, because as i mentioned, the emphasis on everything but now i found suspicious. the number of justices who want to talk about history and we're writing for the future and not deal with what he says there. you're never getting prosecuted for a good faith mistake. you have to have criminal intent. this is black letter law. here you're not fdr dealing with a war. you've got 20 days or whatever left, you have a president-elect lawfully certified and you're trying to steal t
maybe barrett was in the middle from what i could hear. here was a little bit of the jack smith side punching back. take a listen. >> the reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes. what is important is that no public official has had the absolute criminal immunity that my friend thinks of. he's supposed to be faithful to the laws of the united states and the constitution of the united states and making a mistake is not what lands you in a...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> so i think -- >> that's something you can't escape. >> what i think justice barrett was saying and we would agree under my friend's position after impeachment he could be prosecuted. under his statutory construction approach there would be nothing to prosecute him for. >> that's the point. if he isn't covered -- can we go further on this clear statement rule? the situations, you mentioned it earlier, in which we have looked to see if the president is covered is contextual, correct? what are the factors to look at? whether the apa covers the president and what we did there was analyze what powers were being given to in the lawsuit and we looked at words and structures, we looked at separation of powers issues relating to our case law that said you can't direct the president to do anything and this would have been a subterfuge for that, correct? >> all correct. >> so i don't know why two of my colleagues, how they would fashion a clear statement rule that would say when the law says any person can't accept a bribe that that permits the president to do it. >> i have agree, justice sot
>> so i think -- >> that's something you can't escape. >> what i think justice barrett was saying and we would agree under my friend's position after impeachment he could be prosecuted. under his statutory construction approach there would be nothing to prosecute him for. >> that's the point. if he isn't covered -- can we go further on this clear statement rule? the situations, you mentioned it earlier, in which we have looked to see if the president is covered is...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
what did you make of what justice barrett was getting at their? i would interpret that she believed that she sees it all as of private act not an official act. >> so to be clear we've never made the argument that president should have any sort of immunity for his private acts after he leaves office. our argument has always focused on a president's official act. that's a really important distinction under the law. what we really aircrew for here is protection for a precedent for the -- they are official acts in office after they leave office. obviously no president has been prosecuted before in the history of the united states for their own official acts in office and notably the district court and dc circuit in this case said absolutely no 1 immunity applies even to a presidents core of official act, core presidential responsibilities. that's the radical legal room -- ruling on appeal before the court. it seemed the justices were deeply sceptical of that point at least that a president should have no immunity at all even for the exercise of their
what did you make of what justice barrett was getting at their? i would interpret that she believed that she sees it all as of private act not an official act. >> so to be clear we've never made the argument that president should have any sort of immunity for his private acts after he leaves office. our argument has always focused on a president's official act. that's a really important distinction under the law. what we really aircrew for here is protection for a precedent for the --...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
what do you make of justice amy coney barrett's line of questioning. she seemed rather skeptical of that impeachment first, and conviction on impeachment, i should say, before anyone could be prosecuted for private acts, let's say, not official acts. >> great to see you, andrea. you're correct, there was an extraordinary set of oral arguments today at the supreme court, and these questions raised by justice barrett and others of criminal prosecution of a former president raised some core questions about the future role of the office of the presidency, and you could tell that a number of justices, some of whom have served previously in the executive branch have questions and concerns that the role of federal prosecution might be used as a weapon against prosecution of former political rivals or here in this case actually president biden's department of justice is prosecuting a current rival. some questions like justice barrett's are going to end up not being central to how the court decides to resolve this case. i would expect that some questions that e
what do you make of justice amy coney barrett's line of questioning. she seemed rather skeptical of that impeachment first, and conviction on impeachment, i should say, before anyone could be prosecuted for private acts, let's say, not official acts. >> great to see you, andrea. you're correct, there was an extraordinary set of oral arguments today at the supreme court, and these questions raised by justice barrett and others of criminal prosecution of a former president raised some core...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i am going to go to amy barrett who talks about private acts. she has an exchange with the trump lawyer because trump's lawyers are arguing there are some acts that are private, and there's some acts official. and justice barrett i think does a -- she is like okay come on now. i am agreeing with her. i think pigs are flying but play the sound. >> i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. petitioner in turned to a private attorney he was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results private. >> as alleged we dispute the allegation but a it sounds private. >> petitioner conspired with another private attorney who signed filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegation to. >> that sound private. >> they want to draw a distinction between official conduct tying to the president's constitutional responsibilities and so-called private conduct which is unrelated to that. to draw a distinction between
i am going to go to amy barrett who talks about private acts. she has an exchange with the trump lawyer because trump's lawyers are arguing there are some acts that are private, and there's some acts official. and justice barrett i think does a -- she is like okay come on now. i am agreeing with her. i think pigs are flying but play the sound. >> i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. petitioner in turned to a private attorney he was...
0
0.0
Apr 13, 2024
04/24
by
GBN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
pleasure hearing all the things that stephen does, barrett a does, that stephen barrett is a lawyer writer . all right. lawyer and a writer. all right. well, if you've just tuned in, this gone minutes after this has gone 20 minutes after 5:00. is gb news. i'm nana 5:00. this is gb news. i'm nana akua come . the mini akua still to come. the mini debate. discussing debate. i'll be discussing the news, crime news, scottish hate crime laws and why a pensioner was carted off by a cops into a police van for a woman. morag she's 74. but next it's time for the great british debate this hour. and i'm asking, is rishi right to focus on a cigarette ban? good afternoon. it's 24 minutes after 5:00. this is a gb news. we're live on tv, online and on digital radio. i'm nana. akua. welcome. if you've just tuned in, it's time now for the great british debate this hour. and i'm asking, is rishi right to focus a cigarette ban ? rishi focus on a cigarette ban? rishi sunak faces a significant challenge next as mps will challenge next week as mps will debate his proposal to ban smoking, which has drawn criticis
pleasure hearing all the things that stephen does, barrett a does, that stephen barrett is a lawyer writer . all right. lawyer and a writer. all right. well, if you've just tuned in, this gone minutes after this has gone 20 minutes after 5:00. is gb news. i'm nana 5:00. this is gb news. i'm nana akua come . the mini akua still to come. the mini debate. discussing debate. i'll be discussing the news, crime news, scottish hate crime laws and why a pensioner was carted off by a cops into a police...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett. >> i want to pick up with that publicutrity defense. i'm lookg that llc memo that david baron wrote tt u cited in your briefs. he describes the public authority defense setting the -- citing the model penal code with a few dfent definitions, but i will just highlight th o. justifying conduct which is required or authorized by the efining the duties or functions of a public officer, the law governing the armed services or lawful conduct of war, or any other provision of law imposing a pubc ty. that sounds a lot like dividing a line between official and private conduct. think it is narrower and i recognize it is in his den, not immunity. but whene ok at the definition of it, are you acting wiin the scope of authority conferred by l, scharging a duty conferred by law? i think inarrower than lesson game -- blasengame, nixon and fitzra, that is what it sounds like to me. do you agree or disagree >> i certainly understand the intuition that when you act outside of your lawful authority, you kind of been no -- you kind of are no longer carryin
justice barrett. >> i want to pick up with that publicutrity defense. i'm lookg that llc memo that david baron wrote tt u cited in your briefs. he describes the public authority defense setting the -- citing the model penal code with a few dfent definitions, but i will just highlight th o. justifying conduct which is required or authorized by the efining the duties or functions of a public officer, the law governing the armed services or lawful conduct of war, or any other provision of...
0
0.0
Apr 8, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
our team joins us this morning from the path, al roker, co-host of "today" is in dallas, nbc's maura barrett at the university of indiana's football stadium in bloomington, and nbc's george solis from the u.s.s. intrepid museum in new york city. al, what are you expecting today? >> well, jorge, i'm telling you, it is going to be fantastic. jose, we are looking at an unbelievable event that's going to bring together over 31 million people all across the country. i'm so excited about this. we're all going to come together. we're all going to be looking towards the sky. right here in dallas, for example, 1.5 million people are possible. able to look at this. they're expecting about 400,000 people or more to come downtown. they expect this to add almost a half a billion dollars to the economy here, and it just starts here, and then it continues up and across the midwest where we're looking for fairly decent weather, jose. we're going to be looking at st. louis. indianapolis is going to have great weather. here in dallas, probably some high clouds. right now it's a little cloudy. we're hoping for
our team joins us this morning from the path, al roker, co-host of "today" is in dallas, nbc's maura barrett at the university of indiana's football stadium in bloomington, and nbc's george solis from the u.s.s. intrepid museum in new york city. al, what are you expecting today? >> well, jorge, i'm telling you, it is going to be fantastic. jose, we are looking at an unbelievable event that's going to bring together over 31 million people all across the country. i'm so excited...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and i think you see justice barrett really pressure testing that theory of okay. well, how much of this indictment does fall outside of the official duties or outer perimeter of the presidential powers. and you saw trump's attorney can see that a lot of the conduct did fall outside as a private, but i think the chief justices hypothetical i think we'll probably one of the more consequential questions that were asked yesterday when he said can a president be tried for appointing an ambassador and receiving a bribe? because i think we all agree that a a bachelor is an official duty of the president. yeah, i think we also also agree with setting a bribe is a criminal activity that should be, should be prosecuted. >> that's the theory anyway, speaking of hypothetical there were a couple others raised by justices sotomayor and kagan, watch or listen, i should say, to what they said if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity
and i think you see justice barrett really pressure testing that theory of okay. well, how much of this indictment does fall outside of the official duties or outer perimeter of the presidential powers. and you saw trump's attorney can see that a lot of the conduct did fall outside as a private, but i think the chief justices hypothetical i think we'll probably one of the more consequential questions that were asked yesterday when he said can a president be tried for appointing an ambassador...
0
0.0
Apr 20, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
green, if justice barrett is wrong what work is c2 doing? it seee you have ju n re-articulated only the theory oc1nd you are saying you have to make it into c1 in order to have the statute apply. can you heat least understand under your theory what anal thing does c2 offer? >> let's look at the verbs of c1 which are alter, destroy, mutilates,ndonceal. let's think about the antonyms. instead of destroying would be actually to ea. one could use some sophisticated computer program. we have heard an awful lot about ai and we've heard about the possibility of deep fake photographs. i think you would violate c2 i you created a photograph tt established your alibi in some extremely sophisticated way that would get it admitted into evidence. or make it submitted for evidence i think. >> so you are sanghere are things other than particularly altering, destroying, mutilating or concealg t it has to be limited to a record. >> not necessarily. another example would be not to conceal but to disclose. if i disclosed a witness list in a large multi defenda
green, if justice barrett is wrong what work is c2 doing? it seee you have ju n re-articulated only the theory oc1nd you are saying you have to make it into c1 in order to have the statute apply. can you heat least understand under your theory what anal thing does c2 offer? >> let's look at the verbs of c1 which are alter, destroy, mutilates,ndonceal. let's think about the antonyms. instead of destroying would be actually to ea. one could use some sophisticated computer program. we have...
0
0.0
Apr 5, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> justice barrett. >> my question is on the law-abiding responsible also. i understood the use of that phrase in the prior cases to describe the would be gun owners in those cases. we are not talking about who might be able to disarm. there might be other people. but all of those people were law-abiding and responsible and there was no allegation that they were not. but it seems to me that in your brief and in parts of the argument the government is asking for that to be a test. i don't we presented it as a test. do you see a reason for us to used that as the test, law-abiding and responsible, given some of the ambiguities in that phrase? >> i would not describe it as a test. . i would describe it as a relevant category. the shorthand to get us the idea that legislatures consistent with the second amendment can take action to disarm particular types of people whose possession of weapons present these types, of concerns either they committed serious crimes or present a danger. i would use this as shorthand in the same way the court has referred to the sensit
. >> justice barrett. >> my question is on the law-abiding responsible also. i understood the use of that phrase in the prior cases to describe the would be gun owners in those cases. we are not talking about who might be able to disarm. there might be other people. but all of those people were law-abiding and responsible and there was no allegation that they were not. but it seems to me that in your brief and in parts of the argument the government is asking for that to be a test....
0
0.0
Apr 7, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett really captured the sentiment in a speech in 2022. she says hey, listen, there's going to be some controversial coming down the pike. don't read the media accounts that call us hacks. she says read the opinion. well, two days later, there was a major in a clean water act case in which hers was the decisive vote and there was no opinion to read. right. and so, you know, part of what the part of the uses the sort of the increasing reliance upon these unsigned, unexplained orders really as a foil for this broader and as an illustration of this broader disease, where a court that does not think it has to explain itself, can actually act in ways that really further erode public confidence even we like the bottom lines, right? even if as in the razor wire case, we think the court actually is getting to the bottom line right. and this is really, i think, one of the most important points about at least, i think all my work on the supreme court is it's not about whether we agree or disagree with the results. right how the supreme court does it
justice barrett really captured the sentiment in a speech in 2022. she says hey, listen, there's going to be some controversial coming down the pike. don't read the media accounts that call us hacks. she says read the opinion. well, two days later, there was a major in a clean water act case in which hers was the decisive vote and there was no opinion to read. right. and so, you know, part of what the part of the uses the sort of the increasing reliance upon these unsigned, unexplained orders...
0
0.0
Apr 8, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
maura barrett in bloomington, indiana 50%. lester holt and tom costello going to be anchoring our nbc news coverage starting at 2:00 eastern, and they'll have pretty good weather. and then the best weather, kate snow, holton, maine, zero clouds. she's going to have a spectacular view as this thing gets the heck out of here, yasmin. >> yeah. kate snow got lucky as this thing exits the country. i've got to say al roker, very impressed as you took us through the rundown of where everybody is. with al looking directly at the sun, al, because you don't have your special glasses on right now, we're about just under -- okay, put them on. 18 minutes or so from a partial eclipse beginning there. on the ground in texas. right? what's it looking like? >> yes. well, you know, i can see the sun now. the sun is full. we've got some clouds. and i'm actually looking through trees and i can see it. just before the eclipse starts we're going to move out a little bit so we can get a better view. but boom. i mean, i can see almost nothing else bu
maura barrett in bloomington, indiana 50%. lester holt and tom costello going to be anchoring our nbc news coverage starting at 2:00 eastern, and they'll have pretty good weather. and then the best weather, kate snow, holton, maine, zero clouds. she's going to have a spectacular view as this thing gets the heck out of here, yasmin. >> yeah. kate snow got lucky as this thing exits the country. i've got to say al roker, very impressed as you took us through the rundown of where everybody...