justice jackson: i did. part of what i did in speech and debate in high school, original oratory was my main activity, which is writing your own speeches and delivering them, memorizing and delivering them. i also did some other speaking events which was dramatic interpretation and humorous interpretation. if you've ever seen the one-woman show where she plays all the characters, it's kind of like that. i enjoyed it and i was good at it and i thought i will do theater in college. when i applied to college, i said to the admissions committee i really need to go to harvard because it will help me fulfill my dream of being the first african-american supreme court justice to appear on a broadway stage. [laughter] >> you've done it, right? [laughter] so now it's patrick's turn. justice jackson: i alluded a little bit ago to patrick's background. my husband now has, friends on campus i think we call him a boston brahman. he's from a family that is been in the area since before the mayflower, seventh generation har

kagan and jackson joined it. justice jackson filed a dissenting opinion but a lot of condition cureenss. it looks like this is a win and putting a limit on the nationwide injunctions. we'll see how far the limits go as we dig through it. >> bill: thank you. jonathan. sounds like this is what you were mentioning earlier. 6-three decision granting a partial stay on these nationwide injunctions unless there is a broader impact. kind of decipher that for us. >> i've only start evidence to read the opinion. what i've seen looks like a victory for the trump administration. justice barrett is saying the only way for justices to exercise this type of universal injunction in some of these cases is equitable relief. she doesn't find evidence that it was granted to these judges. they indicate the administration is likely to prevail on this issue. good news for this administration. they have been really hit with these small attacks. all these individual district judges effectively freezing federal policy and programs across

vann, miss jackson and dr. darden.graduated from historically black colleges and universities. [applause] hampton university. west virginia state college. and wilberforce university. and all four were initiated into the alpha kappa alpha sorority incorporated. aka's are having quite the year. [laughter] for seven decades, they went on to build legendary careers and helped to shape the exceptionalism of american aeronautics. when john glenn was preparing to become the first man to orbit the earth, he asked miss johnson if the flight calculations were correct because he trusted her above all others to get it right. she later became a crucial member of the teams that landed americans on the moon and ensured the success of the space shuttle program. ms. vaughan led the segregated west area computing department , breaking barriers as nasa's first african-american manager. she subsequently led colleagues of every race and advocated on their behalf for promotions, pay raises, and better work conditions. ms. vaughan began her

from jackson lyles architecture. so that's my back of experience. you know hello, i'm going to do a little adjustment here. >> it must be an inch taller than lauren. thank you so much for for your time and we're so excited about this project and i'm excited to tell you a little bit more about how the clubhouse and the additions have evolved since the last time we were before you or to give you an introduction if you haven't seen it before. >> as lauren mentioned, the original clubhouse was built in a different location on the park. this will be its third h for the next hundred years and we're moving and rehabilitating the clubhouse seismically upgrading and giving it some much needed love and improvements. and one of the other we're also satisfying one of the other community requests which is for more interior recreation space as lauren mentioned, this park and the clubhouse as well has experienced a lot of use and is really ready to be reset when it was moved the went the first time it was moved from the middle of m

justice jackson saying this could very well essentially be the death of democracy.is the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided. >> it is and if it sounds familiar to our viewers it means they are clued into what is being said on other channels. we can have supreme court justices sound like partisan pendants. and when it comes to that i really am just struck by amy barrett going after brown jackson and it seems like these nationwide injunctions just to back up a minute, these were low level activist judges, one person trying to have a nationwide stop on the power of our executive, in this case, the presidency of the united states. what do you make of the dissent? what was their objection? why would they want one judge to hold up a president's authority? >> it was particularly notable to see the justice with the dissent because during the obama administration, she described these national universal injunctions as essentially ridiculous. she said you can't have a government like this but she somehow found her comfort zone in the trump administration. and sh

meanwhile, ketanji brown jackson was also on the losing side of mamout versus taylor. in another 6 to 3 decision, the court ruled that parents do, in fact have the final say on their children's education, and they can opt out of lgbt curriculum. take a look. >> sir. >> on the transgender. >> ruling. >> the supreme court ruling that parents. >> with religious objections. >> can pull. >> their kids out. >> of public school lessons. >> that use. >> lgbtq materials. >> pam brought it up. >> your reaction to that. >> ruling today, sir? >> i think the ruling was a great ruling, and i think it's a great ruling for parents. it's really a ruling for parents. they lost control of the schools. they lost control of their child. and this is a tremendous victory for parents. and i'm not surprised by it, but i am surprised that it went this far. it took us to bring life back to normal. so it's a wonderful it's parental. and i kept saying, we will give you back your parental rights. they were taken away. and this is a tremendous victory for parents. >> for anyone against unchecked gov

who would win in a fight, james bond or jackson lamb? >> jack: jackson lamb. >> stephen: why?y. >> stephen: could he take james bond and a drinking contest? >> gary: i think he could do that. >> jack: he could take moby dick in a drinking contest. >> stephen: before we go, i just want to say you are all accomplished and brilliant actors, who among you is the best actor? >> kristin: me. >> jack: probably. >> stephen: is that an agreement? jonathan? >> jonathan: yes. shucks. >> stephen: and since we know that acting is lying, are you lying right now? >> gary: yes. no, i am a huge fan of jonathan's for years. i've seen him do a ton of things on the stage. >> kristin: it's amazing when you look in your seo career like yours or yours, or these careers that go back a long time, let's be frank, and even right at the beginning, the things that you are doing were so important. it's quite impressive. >> jack: it's also quite sad, i feel this recently, because my generation, these three are actors who have played a multitude of parts, and some of the hardest parts in classical text on st

chiejuice roberts: justice jackson.tice jackson: was there an administrative appeal process in the talevski scenario? mr. bursch: there was an ability for someontoegister a complaint with the federal government. justice jackson: there was a process there. yet we still held that there was rights creating language. mr. bursch: sure. because had you a separate bill of rights that mentioned t word rights two dozen times. justice jackson: it's not about whether or not there is actually an appeal process. it's about, again, your mic words. you have to say rights. mr. bursch: i don't want to offend any justice. we are fine with magic words test if you want to do that because it would be clear. justice jackson: i'm trying to evaluate the import of the separate appeal process. are you saying in a situation in which congress has used the rd right doesn't matter. mr. bursch: it's just one of many factors. in tevi you had a separate provision, bill of rights, you had the word right. most importantly there was the nnted tissue where

he also influenced prince michael jackson on the black eyed peas. well that's it for me and the stones, you take next. it's witness. i'll see you often. the the last 2 or 3 minutes once i go 3 bags i apprehended april 19th, 1980 cdm, chattanooga, tennessee. 3 clansman drove out east night street. and they chose shot goods at ford, elderly black women standing on a street corner and a pair of black warm in the few blocks away, viola ellison lila evans, opal jackson and katherine johnson more shot fanny clumsy was injured from fine glass house or by the attack but the battle had just begun to eric is to ensure the criminal justice system was so fair of them. then let the class move on to the even though these fire black courageous women were denied just as a new criminal court, they took it upon themselves, were bare liquid trying to break a silver ash in the state. that won't be the end of the store. the okay, very well. see what we got. so these are the case files. i haven't seen these while 682 is in my hand writing. this is a support dated april 1

>>ustice jackson? >> i guess my concern with you text, the remote in time outsid jurisdiction it seems to me to be on board from the purposes o nepa which you have i think articulated correctly is to informing the agency with respect to its own decision-making process. so i'm trying to figure out how to best articatthe concern but your focus is on identifying whisegal responsible if this were to go wrong, as if nepa is about solely mitigation measures. i thought nepa was about the agency whoadome over an aspect of this project, determing whether or not to approve . and it's got to take into account not only the environmental consequeesf th actual buildg of its piece but whev approving its piece going to have happened in the environment broader than that. now i understand that's hard to do and it's far fid and we can fight about the extent of that but your argument looking only at the 88 miles i think might narrow too closely for a purpose of informing the agency about its approval of this ec of the pro

justice jackson said this court's. complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain. >> for lower courts. >> their rulings. >> and the law. >> will surely. >> hasten the downfall of our. >> governing institutions, because what the republican. >> justices are. >> allowing the trump administration to do. >> is. >> again, implement illegal policies, potentially in places where. >> they haven't. >> been challenged. as to individuals who have not been able to find a lawyer to represent them, to. >> challenge the policy. >> on their basis. well, i'm even thinking back to a quote that really stood out to me in the arguments which we brought live to our viewers when they happened back in may. and she said, this argument seems to turn our justice system into a catch me if you can kind of regime where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit for the government to stop violating people's rights. and you had justice kagan point out that all the lower courts and even the appeals courts, essentially, that have taken up th

thank you member jackson anything else? >> member haddix yeah. um so as someone who is an executive director at a nonprofit that does not operate in san francisco, you know i know how challenging it can be to staff up and then have to staff down you know, quickly if there's a big budget change. >> so i would love to hear kind of what the you know, the plan would be to be able to to ramp up this quickly not just only internal staff but obviously the the staff that would need to be contracted with service providers. >> yeah i'm not sure that i'm the best person to speak to that and i think it might be a topic worth but you know there has been a lot of thought put into that by both our h.r. staff as we and our program staff as they think about how to staff up their programs kind of what the strategies are there and then also that our partners and maybe that's what that's worth coming back to when we have the kind of the all of the parties in the room because i'm probably not the best person to speak to it although it's certainly something that i thi

thank you member jackson anything else? >> member haddix yeah. um so as someone who is an executive director at a nonprofit that does not operate in san francisco, you know i know how challenging it can be to staff up and then have to staff down you know, quickly if there's a big budget change. >> so i would love to hear kind of what the you know, the plan would be to be able to to ramp up this quickly not just only internal staff but obviously the the staff that would need to be contracted with service providers. >> yeah i'm not sure that i'm the best person to speak to that and i think it might be a topic worth but you know there has been a lot of thought put into that by both our h.r. staff as we and our program staff as they think about how to staff up their programs kind of what the strategies are there and then also that our partners and maybe that's what that's worth coming back to when we have the kind of the all of the parties in the room because i'm probably not the best person to speak to it although it's certainly something that i thi

so jackson's criticism there was entirely appropriate. and for justice barrett to act so wounded and respond so personally is really out of bounds, disrespectful and arrogant. >> yeah. >> the supreme. >> court justice jackson. >> in. >> her dissents. >> all dissents. >> are written for. >> history. >> but certainly. >> hers surely are. >> mark joseph stern. >> michelle goodwin, thank you both. >> very much for coming. >> to the weekend. >> still to. >> come. >> birthright battle. >> new jersey attorney general. >> matt platkin. >> joins us. >> next on how he's. helping lead the fight against the trump. >> administration's unconstitutional birthright. >> citizenship power grab. >> you are. watching the weekend. >> baby back ribs. >> where does. >> it go? nobody knows. >> okay. how did you do that, honey? >> it's magic. >> has anyone seen a perfectly sauced rib? sauced rib? >> just go so, we really need to see your ldl-c come down more to lower your risk of another heart attack. i was afraid we had to do more. like what? i already exercise,

jackson describes it as this whole, a plane coming out, and that's what you saw. and literally they can't. this is how close they were when they was shot, all those nice martian base frames. and they have been for years. she said they just came out from drinking and had them a good time and they were just standing there and they stay and our couches was flying down the street and i don't know or she her one of the over latest thing get down. and that's when a store here in the shops the classmates shut the ladies down. there drove up the music. clumsy was bent over tending to her garden right in this area. and the class when came through stopped and emptied the shot guns again. at the end of the 2 grand jude was sitting on the steps below the wyndham clan. my com in ship, netscape me to dance. i thought the jet match and i thought they had shot mean i feel she protect me everywhere and where i went. but um, when this happened, i guess, reality city because she was bent over glass, hit her in the face, so the bullets never hit her. but if you look on the wall, the

basically amy coney barrett says its andre jackson you are a huge.i jotted these things, part of kentaji brown jackson's argument was that it required too much boring legal lease to analyse the law, and it was a mind-numbing lay technical query. i practiced the law for a few years. that is what being a lawyer is! albright? so if you are a judge and you were upset because there is too much legalese, and too much query, maybe find another job because supreme court justices law of the land is invested that every single day. frankly i have never seen an analysis of a descendant like this. because she specifically, amy coney barrett riding for the majority, pulled out... and respected their analysis even if he disagreed with it which is what usually happens in these cases. just utterly eviscerated kentaji brown jackson, basically asking how would the world did you ever pass the bar? that was the tender with with this opinion was made. >> jesse: like a boxer saying you know what? i don't like hitting people or getting hit. you are a boxer, that is what you

what is the significance of this smackdown for justice jackson? >> it's unprecedented, and it's particularly unprecedented because these judges have lifetime tenure, and they're not that old in the grand scheme of things. so they may have to work together for the next 30 years. and basically amy coney barrett said, ketanji brown jackson, you are a huge moron. and by the way, she's right because i jotted these things down. part of ketanji brown jackson's argument was that it required too much boring legalese to analyze the law, and it was a mind numbingly technical query. let me tell you something, jesse. i practiced law for a few years. that's what being a lawyer is. all right, so if you're a judge and you're upset because there's too much legalese and there's too much mind numbingly technical query, maybe find another job because the supreme court justices law of the land is enmeshed in that every single day. and frankly, i have never seen a, a, a analysis of a dissent like this, because she specifically amy coney barrett, writing for the majorit

is she names justice jackson. she says justice jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. no one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. she would do well to heed her own admonition. everyone from the president on down is bound by the law. that goes for judges, too. and you too. you know, you could feel that in the rhetoric between the two of them. and this has been a very common theme for this term so far. >> jake and shannon, how much harder will this ruling make it for people to bring challenges against trump policies in an effective way? do they just automatically need it to go up to an appellate court because a district court just doesn't have the juice anymore? >> well, the district. >> court can still make. individualized decisions. so if someone's trying to do like a preliminary injunction or they can still do that, what's really changed is you might say, the efficiency of it,

from jackson lyles architecture. so that's my back of experience. you know hello, i'm going to do a little adjustment here. >> it must be an inch taller than lauren. thank you so much for for your time and we're so excited about this project and i'm excited to tell you a little bit more about how the clubhouse and the additions have evolved since the last time we were before you or to give you an introduction if you haven't seen it before. >> as lauren mentioned the original clubhouse was built in a different location on the park. this will be its third home. hopefully we're resetting it for the next hundred years and we're moving and rehabilitating the clubhouse seismically upgrading and giving it some much needed love and improvements. and one of the other we're also satisfying one of the other community requests which is for more interior recreation space as lauren mentioned, this park and the clubhouse as well has experienced a lot of use and is really ready to be reset when it was moveded from the middle of mari

not agree with what justice jackson said. the six so-called conservative judges disagreeing with her in a very clear and aggressive way, you also had the liberals refusing to sign on to that dissent. basically, if you read justice brown jackson's dissent, essentially what it is is that the courts get to do whatever they think is according to their view of the law, not recognizing the president of the united states and all people who work for the president of the united states also swear an oath to uphold the constitution. and if there's a dispute about what the constitutional text means or some is other issues, that's up for the courts to resolve is it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the courts are always right. justice brown jackson's dissent is a class classic example of liberal activism which is if it advances the progressive cause, it's good. if it doesn't, it's bad, and you rule accordingly. that's not how the supreme court does it, and, again, another thanks to president trump for making that happen with his appointm

. >> jackson. >> she said, quote, we will not dwell on justice jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent. we won't even talk about what. this case. >> is at. >> odds with. the ruling is, but not to mention the constitution itself. we observe only this. justice jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. really? >> i mean, i think there is a lot of bad blood between justice barrett and justice jackson. i think that justice barrett treated justice jackson with extraordinary contempt and arrogance, that she did not deserve disrespect. disrespect because because barrett didn't have a good answer to justice jackson's criticism, which is that, you know, this court sees this case as an emergency. why not? because millions of babies might be stripped of their constitutional right to citizenship, but because district courts dared to enforce the plain meaning of the 14th amendment and this critical guarantee, and ensure that trump did not unilaterally take it away to the six conservative justices. that's the real outrage h

member jackson absent member preston absent member shiffrin yes. remember martinez absent member walton yes. chair williams yes. thank you. the motion passes. thank you. we'll now move to general public comment members of the public who wish to provide public comment in person please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to provide public comment over the phone please call (415) 655-0001 enter access code 26604164075 then press lb and then pound again dial star three to line up to speak please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments . each person will have two minutes to speak. we will begin with in-person public comment followed by public comment over the phone. i also like to invite our translators to give a brief translation of just when because we hear the public okay they say in proportion article that good morning. thank you. my name is laurie clapp and i moved into home rise at 6x6 ellis in january after winning through one of the lotteries and i within three days had my car t

ice jackson? justice jackson: i guess i thought this case primarily for religious purposes and not about the other part the exemption, which relates to the operational control o church, and so that is why i look at the committee report, which was very clear, sugg that the orphanage separately incorporated would not be cons to be primarily for religious purposes. it doesot say it would not be ered to be operated and controlled by a church, which was your answer, but setting that aside, can focus you for a second, i have a couple quick points on the statute and yoreview. use say that we should read the statute as purpose being religious motivation. and as far as i can tell, rpose does not always mean that. so, i mean, purpose can mean many things. it is not necessarily mean certainly not unambiy so. accomplished. the end to be it could be for filling a particular need, you know, my pen serves a pur it allows me to write notes, and that has nothingdo with motivation. i guess i'm wondering whether the

argument and at odds of precedence going for them and we observe only this and justice jackson appliestive judiciary. >> kevin, it's close tore a pile driver and it's something that we don't ordinarily see from this court but it's been ratcheting up recently and what's interesting about this complete take down by barrett or justice jackson that a majority of them signed off on barrett's opinion. i think there's a growing exasperation with history and coming from the left and really justice jackson fuelling democracy around this dying type of montra out there and suggesting that the institutions are going to collapse. all of this is about parties in the cases and imposing a national injunction with a class action and justice jackson suggests that the entire edifice of government may soon collapse. kevin: i'll leave it there but i really enjoyed your column. if you haven't had a chance, check it out. professor jonathan turley, have a great weekend. appreciate your time. taxpayer dollars funding riots and one republican says never again and explodes his push going to pull the plug on my a

justice jackson? >> we will do hypothetical to understand point. so, suppose we have this federal exptn from the unemployment. i'm readi text. in the emply this is you do not have to play-- pay the tax if you're in the employ of a religious organization religious purposes or princip supported by the church. that is the text of atute. suppose that wisconsin legislator said we really do not want tonto the business of religiousersus theory versus whatever. we think that is problematic from our perspective. so what we want to do, this is the legislature, is defined in the employ of an organization operated primarily for religious rposes we're going to say an organization that is operating for primarily religious purposes is a collegeed to preparing students for the ministry, aovitiate, a house of study, straining candidate -- training candidates to become members of religious orders. that is what we mean when the statute says, for religious purposes. kitchens, no of that.soup whether you proselytize or no

. >> alan jackson we got to hear on court tv.e ever seen. >> i sat down with alan jackson and he told me how he got involved. >> the murder of a boston police officer. karen had supplemented the email with some autopsy photos. i was in the process of perusing those, and i said this guy didn't get hit by a car. >> at a pretrial hearing, the defense puts those autopsy photos front and center. >> when john o'keefe was found he had this set of wounds on his right arm. i mean, that's a common-sense question, does this look like a road rash or does it look more like claw marks or bite marks from an animal? >> karen's defense team is laying out a stunning new theory about what they say happened. they're now alleging that after karen read dropped john off at that fellow officer brian albert's home he entered the home and somehow became involved in a fight. >> we know that he was beaten. we've got evidence that john o'keefe was beaten as he lay there unconscious and during that alleged fight they argue that the albert's dog, a german shep

. >> justice amy coney barrett with jackson's weak arguments against the saint justice jackson with precedent is at odds with the u.s. constitution that justice jackson skips over the judiciary act of 1780 anti- federal law that limits the judicial branch the judges have to swear an oath to follow law. judge barrett said judge jackson skipped over that part because of boring legalese. she pointed out her hypocrisy judge jackson is attacking trumps imperial presidency but she quote once in imperial judiciary. >> i think she's absolutely right i am surprised the personal tone that both of these justices took against each other. i was a law clerk on the supreme court a long time ago those days couldn't justices were completely deferential toward each other. called themselves the honorable this, honorable that. they took their gloves off this time and they reflected real anger i think justice barrett gets the benefit and winds this argument. justice jackson was citing a ppolicy she was not citing the law. she said it's better for my point of view if it happens this way and i'm not going to inches

i dissent in light of this ruling, jackson jackson sharply criticized her own colleagues on the benchiting this quote, the very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness with deep disillusionment. i dissent a blistering series of dissents from the liberal justices on the united states supreme court, as the court deals a devastating blow to a key guardrail in our country against the trump administration's lawlessness is where we start today, our friend and former top official at the department of justice, andrew weissman, is back with us. also joining us, nyu law professor melissa murray is here. she clerked for justice sonia sotomayor while serving at the us court of appeals. also joining us, slate senior editor and legal correspondent, host of the amicus podcast. dahlia lithwick is here as well. lucky for us, all three are msnbc legal analysts. i don't get to see all three of you very often, and it is in some ways sinking in, as i introduce all three of

ronny jackson explains and peter schweizer notes the consequences. here on a white house scandal, a failed presidency and a media who went along for the ride. plus, financial independence begins at infancy. brad gerstner on the abcs of saving and investing for long term along with a.i.'s impact on your job. it's all right here, right now on "sunday morning futures." ♪ ♪ maria: and we begin this sunday morning with mass deportations across america and the trump administration's grip on securing u.s. borders while confronting and deporting dangerous individuals illegally in america who are committing crimes. on friday the supreme court siding with the white house and temporarily halted a lower court decision that blocked president trump from terminating the temporary protective status for roughly half a million migrants from cuba, nicaragua and and venezuela that began under former president biden. as new data that the from u.s. customs and border patrol shows daily border patrol apprehensions at the southern border have declined by 93% in the month of

here we have justice jackson.sent is longer than the cases opinion or it is pretty close but if you're going to read anything you should read this. this is a perfect opinion of what a radical out-of-control justice of the supreme court wants to happen. this is it. this is crazy stuff. and it is so if you want to see where the left is on this, read it. weiss is so important jackson who is the most radical? kagan improves yourself to be a hypocrite and sotomayor is the leader of the team because woodrow wilson told us the power of progressivism is the in the unelected judiciary. those at lower courts were doing exactly what the democrat party wanted them to do. they're doing exactly what sotomayor and kagan and jackson want them to do. if they get two more justices on the supreme court they will rip up this decision and they will do exactly what i said. they rely on the unelected judges. they rely on the unelected bureaucrats. they built this massive bureaucracy of the help of republicans but it was their idea. it w

so sixth and jackson, right over my shoulder here.here, and traffic is going to be traffic is going to be traffic is going to be light on a friday. but it's not so hard to come down here and find a good restaurant. there's also the mochi shop, which i really liked. i've never tasted mochi like that, you know, you can buy it, i guess frozen or in boxes at the supermarket. but really, if you want to come down and have the authentic food, andre and garcia, you can come to japantown and have the real deal. you can really taste the difference in the food here. >> all right, sal, well, speaking about walking through history, that's what you can also do here at the japanese american museum of san jose. that's where we spent the morning. one of the great things about this place is that they have walk through exhibits, so brings history to life. and one of them we showed you earlier was a replica of the types of barracks that japanese americans had to live in, were forced to live in during world war two. but in a separate part of the museum, t

the blazer happened to belong to ed and linda jackson. they had lent it to george when he moved in with them. was he saying somebody else hit the car? linda jackson: yes. the truck. he swore he didn't do it. he claimed it was stolen. andrea canning: a seemingly minor offense, and green bay police never ended up charging burch with the crime. but during their investigation of the car crash, they did obtain a treasure trove of evidence that would become critical for the detectives involved in the homicide case. they had gotten consent from mr. burch to download his cell phone. was that a stroke of luck that you had all this information at your fingertips? luck is one way to put it. yeah, i would say definitely some luck was shining on us that day. andrea canning: and when sheriff's detectives slinger and loppnow began poring over that data, they couldn't believe what they stumbled upon. and there was some phone internet searches that we found very interesting, about he was looking up the homicide, looking up the case, looking up things on l

only two, justice sotomayor and justice jackson, were ever on the district court.he others were federal appellate judges. and in this particular opinion, there was so much antipathy for the work of district court judges. district court judges. i clerked for one. they work and labor really hard. they try to do the right thing, and they recognize that they are the front lines. they are closest to the litigants. they often see the litigants in a way that appellate judges like the supreme court do not. and the antipathy for district court judges was absolutely striking. in this opinion. justice kavanaugh and his concurrence essentially said, the buck stops with us. we are the ones that get to make these decisions. you know, if there is an imperial judiciary. and that was a point of contention between justices barrett and jackson, at least for justice kavanaugh, the most imperial judiciary is these nine members of the supreme court. >> george, a lot of commentators today and in fact, justice ketanji brown jackson in her dissent, are saying that this leaves everyday peop

you can tell it from justice jackson's dissent. she is mad as a bag of cats and that's probably a good thing for the american people. >> harris: we are expecting to hear from the president moments from now at 11:30 a.m. eastern. he has put on truth social it is a victory. he says that the united states supreme court, even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard. it had to do with the babies of slaves, same year, not the scamming of our immigration process. congratulations to attorney general pam bondi, and the solicitor general and entire doj. news conference at 11:30 eastern at the white house. what are you expecting and what would you like to hear from the president? >> number one, the supreme court did not rule on birthright citizenship. the supreme court ruled on universal injunctions. they turned universal injunctions into fish food. they should have. we have three equal branches of government. one of those is the judicial system. they are equal, not superior. they don't get to rewrite congressional action

is that for justice jackson and her fellow liberals, this is not business as usual. it should not be business as usual. and i think, audie, we're going to we've seen that play out in other cases. she has been especially vocal. you'll remember she came on in 2022, succeeding stephen breyer. >> has not been a shy freshman. >> no, not at all. and she's some of her justice elena kagan and justice sonia sotomayor have actually separated themselves from her at times. but sonia sotomayor and elena kagan joined all of it yesterday. and i think what we're going to see with these remaining cases that you've mentioned is where where will they find compromise, if at all? and will these liberals dig in more essentially motivated by justice jackson saying, let's call it out. you know, we've we've tried to compromise. there is no middle really anymore. let's call it out. >> what's one case everybody's going to be talking about and what what's one case, you know, is the expert is going to be interesting to to hear. >> everybody's interested in the showdown with donald trump over his

host: next door in jackson, mississippi, medgar evers. mr.oseph: he is one of the most important activists of the 1960's. same age as malcolm x, born in 1925, a mississippi native, former football player. he is the field secretary of the naacp. one of the civil rights activists who publicized the lynching of emmett till in 1955. lly really -- really handsome, eloquent, well spoken, militant, nerves of steel. he is really one of the most upstanding figures. being around medgar evers give you courage, that is who medgar evers was. in some of the worst parts of mississippi. he lives in jackson but goes and drives to the mississippi delta, many times by himself, only with a shotgun in the trunk of the car in case something happens. military veteran, served in world war ii in korea. he is an extraordinary figure who becomes the leading civil rights activist in jackson, mississippi by 1963. host: you write in your book "freedom season" that in may, medgar evers delivers a speech that is the most important, yet least cited in the annals of the civil