all three liberal justices, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor, and kagan said they dissented. the decision is baffling. as noted, the court's decision that the department of homeland security committed some legal violation when it rescinded the policy. but the ruling does not make clear what that violation is. immigration advocates are fighting back. the aclu says the policy punishes penal for seeking asylum by trapping them in miserable, dangerous conditions. february 19th says the group tracked more than 1,500 reports of murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, and assault. more than 300 kidnappings of children. on one of my trips last year, i spoke to a woman with her two sons left in limbo for two months. >> with me now, paula ramos, msnbc contributor and the author of "finding latinx: in search for the voices redefining latino identity." also melissa murray, nyu law professor and msnbc lisle analyst and former law clerk to justice sonia sotomayor. all right, we're going to talk a lot about the legal piece of this. but i also want to talk about the fact that we're talking about

also with me, a former law clerk to justice sonia sotomayor. i want to talk about the fact that we're talking about a policy that is wrong, that is morally reprehensible. what does what the supreme court just decided mean for asylum seekers? >> it's a death trap. it is a death sentence. it's that plain and simple. i wish i was exaggerating but that is exactly what it is. to give you a picture of what is happening along the u.s./mexico border, in the last six months more than 6,000 migrants have been attacked. more than 100 migrants have died attempting to cross into arizona. most of them have died because of heat exhaustion. i mean, there are countless and countless and countless of migrants that are still there and that are still trying to desperately come into this country because their legal right to seek asylum has been completely abolished. these aren't just numbers. i'm talking about people like emma, fathers, mothers, elders, these are real people. this is a good moment to be talking about it because as you mentioned, this is a moment wh

. >> and then you want in 2187 / two ruling ginsburg and sotomayor were dissented of course but that was an amazing occasion but what was that like when you one quick. >> that was just as emotional i was even more surprised because it was three weeks before the end of the session i was confident they would make the announcement until the last day. and then to say we have masterpiece. >> seven / two so what just happened? then the phone starts ringing and people are driving by and honking and waving it was just incredible. host: it is like to david and goliath. >> so what was one of the keys to winning the case according to the supreme court? why did they ruled in your favor? >> one of the key factors was the commissioner comparing my case to the holocaust i forget how they phrased it but in permissible hostility. permissible hostility. . . what does that mean again? >> that congress shall pass no law that establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. so in essence they were saying you can have your religion and do whatever you want to you just can't exercise, you ca

host: june 4th 2018 you want at the supreme court with ginsburg and sotomayor or. that was an amazing occasion what was that like? >> it was just as emotional the day they granted certiorari it was three weeks before the end of the session i was pretty sure they would not grant that but i had to watch the scotus blog and they said we have masterpiece it looks like un seven / two i'm sitting at my computer what just happened? people are driving by my shop and honking and screaming and it was incredible. host: like david and goliath story. it is amazing. then you mention, it is interesting what is one of the keys to winning the case according to the supreme court? why do they will innior your favor? >> one of the key factors was the hostility that commissioner comparing c my case to the holocaust to be in permissible hostility in any other component was the inequity that they would come after me for my case and then leave the other three back on —- bakeries their denials on their conscience so that was the key to that whole decision. host: you mention the commissio

. >> host: june 4th, 2018, you won at the supreme court, a 7-numtwo ruling, ginsburg and sotomayor, that was an amazing location. >> just as emotional a day, more surprise, until the last day. looks like they win. what has happened. it is an incredible day. >> host: it is a david and goliath story. it is amazing. this is interesting. what's the key to winning the case according to the supreme court, why did they rule in their favor? >> of the factors we talked before the commissioner conferring my case to the holocaust, how they phrase it, the other component, was the inequity the commission, the other 3 bakeries of the nile are creating cakes, those two things to that whole decision. >> host: you mentioned the commission's actions violated the free exercise clause. what does that mean again? the free exercise clause? >> congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. innocence they were saying you can have your religion, you can do whatever you want, you just can't exercise it in your cake shop, you can only do it in the church. not establish

since 2005 and only put out for special occasions and here is jennifer with the associate justice sotomayor or when she came to the house to pay a visit. and in partnership with the john marshall center civics and then to support the conservation effort. many of whose names are listed on the slide in and very capable hands of the textile conservation working on priceless artifacts from around the world from the chinese to the very own kermit the frog. so that was fascinating i encourage you for a webinar that we recorded a couple of weeks ago. but here is the basics of what he did. want to spend 300 hours on the conservation project with a condition of the road with the many campaigns of previous restoration work you can see the different types of patches that were there. so those that are in line with best practices of conservation and those that they were intended to do and in some cases they can remove those completely and with those unstable textiles. and to carry out the extensive surface cleaning that i learned throughout the process they could keep what they vacuum off is a very sens

here is john showing the robe to associate justice sonya sotomayor. in 2019 re-start in partnership with the john marshall center with constitutional civics to save the robe campaign to support the conservation of this object. thanks to the daughters of this project in the works by howard sutcliffe this robe can be safely and responsibly share. it's my honor to pass it on to jen who will now introduce howard. >> thank you leo. there are a lot of things in there that i don't think i have ever seen so that is excellent. thank you so much. now it's my pleasure to introduce howard sutcliffe. howard is the conservator and director of river region conservation and has a private practice in alabama. howard has previously worked as the head conservator at the detroit institute of arts in the textile conservation studios at the philadelphia museum of art and the american textile history museum in u.s. senate national ecm's in his native uk is in professionals as a member of the american institute for conservation of historic and act as works and is the current

justices kagan and sotomayor have pretty explicitly said they think not only was heller wrongly decided but given the opportunity they will overturn it. do you think that it is still in flux? i guess all constitutional law is. do you see it as something that will be enduring or might quickly and unusually go by the wayside? >> you know, it's very hard to say what's going to happen in the short term. i'm -- i don't think it will be overturned. you never know what happens with the judicial appointments. there was a subsequent decision in 2010 that said the second amendment applied equally to the state and local governments. heller only dealt with the federal government and the district of columbia. that case was 5-4. any kind of judicial appoint might change that. i'm -- i don't think the democrats really have a big -- a lot to gain to push for nominees hostile to the right to bear arms especially because the decisions were 5-4, republicans in the senate and the gun right supporters on the democratic side are going to bun likely to support nominees that could change that vote from 5-4. i

grounds that it amounts to discrimination and the court decided not to hear that appeal and justice sotomayor issued a statement agreeing with that decision and it was signed also by justice kavanagh and justice -- and the statement cited the court's long-standing mission of deferring to congress on matters of defense and national security and the specific question of draft registration is being actively considered by congress. but peter who is asking this question says as a veteran i'm surprised that four justices could not support this case and wonder what both of you think about the court hunting to congress to address what is this constitutional issue. >> well they are bury conservative courts we've been talking about one of the things that most of the conservatives support or they say they are textualists so they go by the text of any law justice alito isn't quite there but generally they aren't deferential to congress and they rarely stick to the letter of the law when the evidences evidence is in the legislative record that would allow for some flexibility and that said even as they sa

justice breyer, joint by justice sotomayor and kagan, wrote in their dissent, the public interest is not favored by the spread of a disease or the court's second-guessing of the cdc's judgment. congresswoman cori bush, who led a protest earlier this month, sleeping on the capitol steps, tweeted, we were outside the capitol for five days. rain, heat, cold. if they think this partisan ruling is going to stop us from fighting to keep people housed, they're wrong. congress needs to act immediately for every unhoused or soon to be unhoused person in our districts. joining us now are democratic congressman mondaire jones of new york, deputy whip of the deputy progressive caucus. and tara ragovir, founder of a tenants rights organization in kansas city, missouri. thank you both very much for being here. congressman jones, why isn't the rental assistance funding getting to the tenants who need it most? what are you hearing from your constituents who are most affected by this ruling? >> i'm hearing from my constituents what the new governor of new york has said, which is that the status quo i

guest: they are steve jobs, aaron sorkin, camille paglia, jeffrey sachs, al sharpton, and sonia sotomayor. it is a good spread. host: interesting you didn't pick anybody from your own field of journalism. guest: there were so many people i had to leave out. i would love to have somebody from dental is him or from finance which, is of course a big part as the dominant field. there were a lot of stories i did not get a chance to tell but i did not want to make the books too long. host: perhaps there are some boomers too, and your future. i want to spend some time at these peoples so viewers have an understanding of how you approach it and what you mean. let us start with aaron sorkin. who is he? guest: aaron sorkin? he got his start as the young sensation who wrote a few good men. if you can picture jack nicholson saying you can't handle the truth, that is aaron sorkin. when he moved to hollywood where he had been in theater, he started a show called the west wing. that is what he is most known for. he did a few tv shows after that and he is now directing features including funnily enough,

justices breyer, kagan, and sotomayor dissented. the capitol police officer who shot and killed ashley babbitt on january 6th identified himself in an interview with nbc news today. lieutenant michael byrd, who has and cleared of any wrongdoing following an investigation, defended his actions that day, detailing the moment that led up to the shooting. >> with the subject was sideways and i could not see her full motion of her hands or anything. so i guess her movement, you know, caused discharge to fall where it did. >> what did you think this individual was doing? >> she was posing a threat to the united states house of representatives. >> shannon: family attorney maintains there was no legal justification for the shooting. tropical storm idaho has formed in the caribbean tonight, the ninth named storm of the season is forecasted to slam into the gulf coast this weekend as potentially a major hurricane. sunday march the 16th anniversary of hurricane katrina's landfall. the chaotic u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan is drawing increas

the correct order, steve jobs, aaron sorkin, camille paglia, jeffrey sachs, al sharpton, and sonia sotomayor. so you see, it is a pretty good spread. somebody from tech, somebody from hollywood, somebody from academia, which is hugely important to the boomer story, and a supreme court justice. susan: it is interesting that you did not choose anyone from your own field of journalism. helen: there were so many people i had to leave out. i would have loved to have had somebody from journalism or somebody from finance, which is a huge -- the rise of economics is the dominant field. so there are a lot of stories i that i did not get a chance to tell, but i did not want to make the book too long. susan: perhaps there is a "boomers 2" in your future. [laughs] so i wanted to spend a little bit of time with a couple of these people, so that viewers have an understanding of how you approached it. let's start with aaron sorkin. who is aaron sorkin? helen: aaron sorkin got his start as the young sensation who wrote "a few good men." if you can picture jack nicholson saying, "you can handle the truth," t

former law clerk to justice sonia sotomayor, now an nyu law professor and msnbc legal analyst. as someone who has been in the room, melissa, help us understand how this went down and why how it went down matters. >> so this is a decision from what's known as the shadow docket and these are the emergency appeals the court takes up on an expedited basis and, again, without full briefing or even oral argument. this is a case where we didn't have full ventilation of both sides because it's happening in a very expedited, rushed fashion because of the emergency nature of this. so that's one of the things we've been talking about a lot over the last couple of years. the supreme court has been more and more active deciding on the shadow docket. a lot less opportunity to see the work of the court when they make decisions that will be decided. >> first i want to ask you a question about the specific ruling because the order stated it is indisputable the public has a strong interest in combatting the spread of the covid-19 delta variant but not to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirab