higher. the president and the former president the cnn presidential debate thursday night at nine live on cnn and streaming on max cnn good morning. >> you were alive in the cnn newsroom. i'm jim acosta and washington, we do start with breaking news at any moment, the supreme court is expected to hand down more opinions with just one week left and it's termed the court still has to release a number of decisions that could send shockwaves through american society. in addition to a bombshell presidential immunity case the justices have yet to rule on the prosecution of january 6. defendants. a key emergency abortion rights case and gun rights for domestic abusers, but less so the week before cnn's highly anticipated presidential debate, the question of whether donald trump is above the law, looms largest of all as the former president relentlessly demands total immunity out on the campaign trail do you have to have a guaranteed immunity for president otherwise, the president is not going to be able to function they're not going to move. >> harry truman would not have done harry truman would not have done hiroshima and nagasaki despite trump's baseless accusations of a two-tier justice system that seems to be working well in his favor right now, judge aileen cannon is entertaining his claim that a special counsel investigation is unlawful, and the supreme court has taken his time weighing trump's immunity claim for nearly two months, potentially delaying the january 6 case until after the election. >> let's discuss now with a yale law political science professor aqeel reed amar, he clerk for supreme court justice stephen breyer, and is the author of the words that made us america's constitutional conversation also with me, debra pearlstein, professor of constitutional law at princeton. she clerked for a supreme court justice john paulson stevens. debra, let me start with you first. thanks to both you for being on with us. the court took less than three weeks to decide us versus nixon which clarified the extent of executive privilege during the watergate scandal. obviously, this is a different case, but why is it taking so long? do you think? >> it's a great question? and there's no clear answer to that question. the court put it took the case on a slightly accelerated briefing schedule, an argument schedule what it has done, the court has done and can do and past cases is issue some sort of interim ruling saying the answer is x. there is no absolute unity here and then issue a longer opinion later to allow proceedings to go forward. often when the court takes a long time to issue an opinion, it's because there are multiple opinions being drafted. there's a descent being written. the opinions are going back and forth. all the justices have an opportunity to comment on them. if i had to guess that's what my guess would be as going on here. but given the stakes of the case and obviously the approach of the election they could have done it faster. and i think it would've been better for the court and for the country if they had yeah. >> kill i mean, do you do these kinds of practical real-world aspects of all of this? do they don on the justices? the court maybe dawns on some, but not others i mean, what do you think? did they recognize that the longer they wait, the more of a mess potentially they could make politically for the country if we don't see a january 6 case, go to trial before the november election, for example. >> in fairness to them, and it's an honor to be with you again, jim, and deborah, if i may, with you as well the they got the case pretty late and in january 6 and now election interference issues arose almost four years ago and it's taken a long time for some of these issues to percolate up and so it would have been nicer truthfully, had had these issues been teed up for their consideration a year ago? >> or eight months ago, or they only granted review a couple of months ago. it was the last oral argument end of april. >> so i agree with deborah that we should expect multiple opinions there, i think will be probably concurrences or dissents and if they're not even if it's a unanimous opinion, presumably from the chief justice, warren burger, and nixon tapes case that would still likely be the product of all sorts of complex conversation and negotiation among justices who began perhaps with slightly different perspective objectives. >> and it's not easy to herd cats not easy at all. >> and deborah, i mean, the court is already embroiled in controversy and confidence in the court is add an historic low you know, i think back to the dobbs decision, a couple of we're almost at the second anniversary of the dobbs decision. but what would a ruling favorable to trump amine for public trust in the justice system, would it can, i suppose it would continue to show a lot of polarization in the polling so i think part of me wants to say it depends what the ruling is. it's favorable to trump. it depends how the decision is written. it's almost inconceivable to imagine to me that this court would conclude the president has absolute immunity even this incredibly conservative court, there is nothing in the history three of the country or indeed any of the court's prior decisions that would support a ruling of that sort of staggering breadth so i expect we'll see a more complicated decision given the amount of time it's taken. >> in terms of the court's liberals approval rating, you're certainly write it said historic low, it began dropping. >> you even before dobbs. and it's a complicated question why that is part of it might be the unpopularity of some of its rulings, certainly dobbs itself. >> but another part of it is this sort of atmosphere surrounding the court the growing number of ethics controversies surrounding some of the justices the enormously contentious nomination and confirmation processes, the politics surrounding the confirmation processes of the justices. >> the justices own statements during those confirmation processes held up against their behavior once on the court, there's a lot going on and a lot for the public to pay attention to dobbs it's absolutely part of it, but it's not the only issue at this point yeah. >> i mean, there's other case to the courts january 6, defendants case could also impact trump's legal challenge was how significant well, that rowling be well, it's there are so many different fact patterns involving immunity for ex-president's trump talks about well, what about prosecuting harry truman for hiroshima and nagasaki after office? >> and that's different from the staging are cooperating an insurrection to overturn a valid electoral results. and that might be different still, from all sorts of other criminal cases we could imagine. that's part, these are part of the complexities. it seems to me that may explain some of the delay even if of course a president isn't it categorically immune? agree with my friend deborah that that would be a shocking ruling that there was some absolute immunity. there are going to be complicated questions about how to construe certain statutes and should they apply to the present in exactly the same way that they apply to someone else. if you were i tried to interfere with the prosecution that might be obstruction of justice. if a president did, well, he does have the pardon power and he is the head of the executive branch. and so he may have certain lawful powers. you see that you or i or deborah don't have. so those are some of the complexities that they're going to have to be wrestling with my own view is you don't need any kind of blanket immunity idea, but you will need as applied a special understanding about how various criminal laws state and federal apply or don't apply to former presidents all right, well, we're going to be watching these opinions as they're coming down. i suspect we're going to be watching them again next week and waiting for some big ones to come in, keel and deborah, thank you very much for your time. really appreciate the expertise and having you on this morning. thanks so much. >> thank you all right. >> now, in florida, trump's attorneys are back in federal court and the latest attempt to derail his classified documents case, the former president is arguing that jack smith, the special counsel, was unlawfully appointed. smith has brought charges against trump in both florida and washington, dc. see you cnn, senior justice correspondent ivan perez as joins us now, evan, what can you tell us how strong is this? argument? two, we think it's going to fly legitimate normally wouldn't even get this far in the past defendants have brought up claims like this, and judges, either have them handled over briefs and dismiss them. >> hundred biden, for instance, raised a similar objections to two different judges to judges in california and in delaware over the appointment of special counsel, david weiss. and those both were dismissed immediately. and so the fact that we're having hearing in the first place here in fort pierce is unusual, but that's what we're doing. the hearing just got underway at the federal courthouse here in fort pierce. and judge aileen cannon is giving is going further than just doing this hearing. she's also entertaining the arguments from a couple of outside groups, groups that have nothing to do with this case. including right-leaning, conservative legal group and a group on the left that is in support of jack smith's position. the argument here is that jack smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel, that that merrick garland, the attorney general, exceeded its authority because jack smith is not someone who is confirmed by the senate. now, it is something that other defendants have have brought up before the supreme court has upheld the appointments of special counsels in the past. so we'll see how hello, how far along these arguments go before a judge cannon today. it's one of three hearings. we have in the next few days, jen, including one on a gag order it has been requested by the special counsel that is on monday, as well as an effort by the former president to toss evidence that he says was unlawfully taken from mar-a-lago in the search in 2022? >> and evan, i want to ask you about this new new york times reporting a judge aileen cannon rejected suggestions from two other judges that she stepped aside from this case critics have been sank. she's in over head. >> does that put more scrutiny on all of her rulings? >> and i suppose as it raised the possibility at some point, she may be removed from this case it's very, very hard, jim, to remove a judge from the case from a case like this unless there's some kind of misconduct, unless there is some some evidence of a conflict. >> and so far, the special counsel has not even broach this idea yeah but as you pointed out, that new york times is reporting that number of judges, a couple of judges including the senior judge in the district in miami. this is district does as headquartered in miami, had pushed for her to consider removing herself from the case. she has declined to do so. and one of the things that has really drawn the attention of every everyone is the fact that this case has moved so slowly. she has not rendered decisions. there's about eight or nine important rulings that she has not made. and we'll see whether that eats up the calendar anymore than it already has gym i haven't. >> perez. thank you very much. please let us know if anything develops there where you are in florida are joining us now, cnn senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elie honig elie this is pretty unusual stuff to hear arguments to dismiss a prosecutor meanwhile, at the same time, there's this cloud over judge cannon. i mean, with these questions that have been raised, so let me explain the argument. trump's team is making. i think there'll be unsuccessful. they are arguing that when you have a special counsel, jack smith, that person is given essentially the same powers that normally a us attorney or the united states attorney general holds to investigate, to subpoena indict, try a case and the argument is while us attorney's in the eiji have to be presidentially nominated, senate confirmed. the special counsel's just pointed to by the eiji. therefore, it's invalid. this same argument was made to try to remove robert muller unsuccessfully. the same argument was made to try to remove david weiss, the special counsel, and knocked her biting case by hunter biden's lawyers unsuccessfully. judge it is giving this hearing this issue a bit more of a hearing, a lot more of a hearing than it's usually gotten. i think if she does say that jack smith is improperly appointed, she'll be reversed. i think it's clear that special counsel is lawful. >> yeah. are you a little shocked to see this new york times reporting that fellow judges, even senior judges, in her jurisdiction, have been saying, hey, you know maybe i should step aside here. >> maybe this is not where you should be right now. >> i'm surprised other couple levels. first of all, i mean, judges do talk like any other colleagues at work about what do you think of this? what should i do here? probably be smart idea for judge cannon to talk to some more experienced judges were junior judges do this all the time. hey, what do you make this issue? but for multiple more senior judges to say you may be in over your head here is really unusual, but i shouldn't say if she were to step away for that reason, she's not going to that would be completely unprecedented. i mean, i've never heard of a federal judge saying i'm removing myself not because of a conflict of interests, but because i'm not up to it, that would be a very strange result and the complicating factor in all of this is that let's say she rules in a way that jack smith doesn't like goes to the court of appeals in some doomsday scenario, the court of appeals pulls judge cannon all the case that effectively also delayed the case because judge i've coming in an area that it makes it very difficult for this classified documents case to get to trial before the election. >> yeah. i think the chances that are close to zero now important to know it's very rare to see a judge forcefully removed from a case does happen occasionally. the first thing that would typically have to happen, those jack smith, the prosecutor, would have to ask for it prosecutors are very wary of doing that one because you don't want to look like you're judge shopping. two because it's kinda dicey if you say court of appeals, i'd like you to remove judge acosta and the court of appeal says no. and then you've got to go back in front of judge acosta hypothetically. yeah. so jack smith is happening? yeah. well, you would be a different not having a law degree. i think would be a problem. >> but jack smith has not made that move yet, but i do think if judge cannon rules that he's improperly appointed, that would be a shocking ruling and might give him a basis to ask a to reverse her and bieder remover and since we're waiting these major decisions to cut it out from the supreme court just to go back to that for a moment, we were talking with our two legal scholars early clear about just how long it's taking for this immunity case to come down. yeah. i mean, you know, again, i mean, getting back to this question of trump raises out on the campaign trail that the justice system has been weaponized against them and so on. >> yes, kind of worked into his favor, right? >> yeah. he's definitely had some wins just to update people, the supreme court has issued three opinions so far, none of them are the big ones relating to abortion or guns or immunity. so we're still were wearing out the refresh button has yet to speak. and if a big one drops, i mean, it is typical to get the big rulings in june and occasionally into july. so it's not unusual in that respect. and as a professor, reid pointed out, this was the immunity case was the last one argued, but look, i think donald trump's in life. i don't think he's going to win ultimately on immunity. i don't think this supreme court's going to say your immune case dismissed. but he could well win if they say. and i think this could happen. there's a new test for presidential immunity. here's what it is. trial court now you figured out because that will have the effect of delay. >> can you imagine that this comes down on the de, the debate next week, you know, all of our heads explode. >> you asked a great question of the earlier panel. do the justices no about this? of course, they know it's habit. listen, the justices watch us, they read the papers, they're aware of the real-world very good ali. thanks so much. we'll be right back labor. >> would you be up for sunday at nine on cnn have heart failure with unresolved symptoms it may be time to see the bigger picture heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms like carpal tunnel syndrome shortness of breath an irregular heartbeat could mean something more serious, cold, attr cme a rare under-diagnosed disease that worsens over time. >> sound like you call your cardiologist and ask about 18 cm with car gurus. do as much or as little as you want online only you could do things your way all the time i don't like ball thoughts you got it with gurus hi, i'm greg. i live in bloomington, illinois. i'm not an actor. i'm just a regular person some people say why should i take provision? i don't have a problem with my memory memory loss is not something that occurs overnight i started noticing subtle lapses in memory. i want people to know that prevalent has worked for me. itself. my memory itself, my cognitive qualities give it a try. i wanted to help you just like it has helped me prevalent at stores everywhere without a prescription what if we don't get down? >> it's time to get a birthday gift for zoe. don't panic with etsy. we can find the perfect gift and center a preview right away thanks, guy don't panic. gift easy with etsy. >> i'm richard car and i love my host. my hose is lightweight my host will not kink and my hose is anti leak it ate those old hoses. >> this is my host. >> the new pocket hose, copper bullet, now infused with real kopan. >> so your water is always clean and lead free. just turn on the water and watch your hose grow and grow to a full size three quarter inch hose. it stretches had expands like a rubber band. and when you turn off the water away, it goes shrinking and squeezing that water out until it's practically bone dry. and that makes it easy to carry and put away our new inner tube uses three layers of high strength latex on the inside then it's wrapped in a new polymer filament jacket, similar to the technology used in forest fire hoses, because it's light and tough three times stronger than the other hoses it's guaranteed for ten years nearly impossible to tear or snag. and the redesign connector protector helps stop leaks at the spigot. but my favorite part of our new hose build the oversized, easy to grip fittings, easy on and off, even with gloves more than 100 patents worldwide, it's the best pocket hose in the world get the super light, 25 foot pocket, those copper bullet today for only 29, 99, but wait, call now and get our copper spray nozzle with our exclusive thumb drive free. simply use your thumb to turn off and on and with ten units week patterns, you'll have a setting for every job. it's a $30 value, yours free with every 50 foot copper bullet, but it's not available in stores. this is an exclusive release of our newest pocket hose. there is a strict limit of three per order. so don't wait order. now two what are called 1800 1803 727289, or visit copper bullet holes holes.com, so-called 1803 727289, or visit kopan bullet holes.com order. >> now its terms de but neutrogena, ultra shear sunscreen is still on the clock. vital sun protection goes six layers deep, blocking 97% of burning uv rays. it's light, but it's working hard. >> like me neutrogena ultra shear sunscreen. we handcraft every stearns and foster using the finest materials like adults jim memory foam, and ultra conforming inner springs for a beautiful mattress and indescribable comfort, sharp now and save $400 on select stearns and foster mattresses closed captioning is brought to you by tableau. watch, pause and record live tv subscription free. start watching tv for free with tableau switching to tableau has really been a money saver without a monthly subscription was amazing. >> quarter today at tableau tv.com we just six days away from the most anticipated moment of this historic election season when president biden, former president donald trump go head-to-head. and the first 2024 presidential debate, it will will all go down here as cnn's atlantic campus. in the all-important state of georgia, that was a key to joe biden's victory in 2020. it's also the state were tropos facing racketeering charges in that state's election subversion case the stakes could not be higher. the latest polling shows no clear leader and the bitter dual for the white house, little bit of an uptick, a tech for joe biden, but joining me now to talk about this and political commentator and former biden white house communications director cape edenfield and the deputy communications director for trump's 2016 campaign. bryan lanza kaitlan. me. talk to you first. i was talking to van jones yesterday about this upcoming debate and he said it's a make or break moment for the president. let's listen, talk about on the other side this, this is the entire election as far as i'm concerned the entire world will be watching. if biden goes out there and messes up it's game over ban, never disappoints okay. well, i would argue if donald trump goes out there and messes up, it's game over nearly as yes absolutely. donald trump has a case to make with swing voters. he has a lot of work to do to persuade the moderate suburban voters who are ultimately going to decide this election. and this is going to be a huge platform. there'll be a lot lot of people watching. this is going to be probably the first time in this race that people are really dialed in, that they're really looking at the hard contrast between biden and trump. so i think there's a huge amount of opportunity for joe biden on debate night to really drive at trump's vulnerabilities on abortion, on democracy and this is going. to be a big moment for both of them. no question, but i don't think the stakes are higher for toe biden than they are for donald trump. i think they're very high for both of them. yeah. well, i'm brian. i mean, after months of trumping out on the campaign trail attacking joe biden, accusing him wandering around and not having you know, all of his faculties and so on. tropos is now raising debate expectations for joe biden, let's listen to what he said about this that was never a fan of his, but i will say he beat he beat paul ryan, who still years ago, but he'd beat paul ryan pretty badly and i assume he's going to be somebody that will be a worthy debater. >> yeah, i would say i think i don't want to underestimate him brian, did somebody whisper and trump's here and say, you know, you might want to stop lowering expectations so much was i think president trump wanted to focus not to be on biden's facilities, but on his record. >> right. the economic record is a failed record that he wants to highlight the immigration records have failed record that he's going to highlight and so rather than set the bar on his mental capacity, let's set the barn analyzing his record. he's been president for three-and-a-half years. he made commitments to his coalition. he made promises. so i think the tough burden's not necessarily for president trump is for president biden. he created his coalition that one last time. that coalition is framed, not as a result of any of trump's activities, but it's a result of biden's failures economically. so i think we're going to see biden tried to defend his record is economic record, specifically inflation, as donald trump says, hey, we didn't have these same issues. you have them, you've had three-and-a-half years to address them, you have nearly 36 months, a touch inflation and you have any, you come close to hitting your own target that's what this debate is gonna be about. >> well, you say he doesn't want to set the bar on biden's capabilities, but he spends all of his time on the campaign trail either talking about his own grievances, the way he's been wronged or voted back, but he believes the joe biden guys, i hate to do this and i knew this was going to happen as soon as we got going. we do have a major supreme court decision to talk about. let's go to paula reid now yesterday, and this is one of the biggest cases they've been watching this term. it deals with gun rights and here are the supreme court has upheld a law that bars domestic violence offenders from owning firearms. no. couple years ago, the supreme court really broaden the definition of the second amendment. and now they've been fielding additional questions about exactly how far the second amendment extents, but here are they have upheld a law that bars someone at this case. it was a man who was indicted on domestic violence charges. he had a protective order against him and this case dealt with whether it was constitutional to bar him from owning a firearm. and here the supreme court has upheld that law, banning domestic domestic abusers from from owning guns. this is a major second amendment ruling from the high court. and really one of the biggest cases that we want we would watching this term yeah, paul, i mean, this is a major decision for gun control advocates, correct? absolutely. it's a big win for gun control advocates. it seemed to be leaning that way during oral arguments. if you listen to the questions, if you listen to some of the skepticism that some of the justices had, but this is a significant win for them. and again, like i said, two years ago, the supreme in court really broaden the definition of the second amendment. now the been fielding additional questions about who can and cannot usually own a firearm. so here, a big win for those seeking to restrict, in some cases, the right to own a firearm and elie honig is with the lea. i do want to ask you a very quick i mean, we shouldn't just say gun control advocates i mean, victims of domestic abuse have been watching this case very closely because i mean, the idea that people who are abusing their spouses or loved ones are, or what have you having the ability to own guns and the government not being able to stop that from taking place. i mean, this was obviously a significant case. it's a really important decision. it's a rarity. it's actually a narrow reading of this second amendment, the decision, by the way, i should say, is written by chief justice roberts. it's an eight to one decision. there's a couple of what we call concurrences, meaning justices who agree for different reasons. and there's one dissent from justice thomas, but you see an 8-to-1 decision here that says it is okay. you can federal criminal law can say that a domestic violence abuser can be denied? a firearm. you can keep guns out of the hands of people who are subject to domestic violence, restraining orders so that we didn't know which one was legitimately, you couldn't tell which way it was going to go. they've taken a narrow view of the second amendment, then they've upheld this restriction on firearms. >> that's fascinating. and deborah and aqeel or legal scholars, constitutional scholars are back with us as well aqeel, let me go to you first. i mean, was this a surprise to you based on the oral arguments, what do you think so great to be back yesterday, i foolishly, perhaps made the prediction on your show at 10:00 a.m. and i said, i thought rahimi was probably going to come down upholding the government's position, reading the second amendment more narrowly, i predicted it would be an opinion are slightly by the chief justice. >> i said that i thought my friend clarence thomas would be in dissent and that there might be daylight between thomas on the one hand and justice barrett, for example, on the other, because i was asked a question about that. and it was silly for me to make that prediction, but it turns out that's what happened today, not so, so just to remind you audience at the significance the significance of this as elie just said, this is the first major opinion in the modern era that is reading the second amendment narrowly and ruling against it. the three big cases in the modern era before this were a case called heller which justice scalia read the second amendment broadly over a dissent by justice stevens for whom debra clerked and then the second. and my judge, stephen breyer, a second case called macdonald, where her justice, alito, again, a broad reading of the second amendment and a third one, just recently, a case called bruen thomas wrote for the court and now he's in descent. this is the first three big wins for the second measurement. this is the first time just being construed more narrowly. and so now actually, it's a ballgame yeah, debra, i mean, can you pick up on what aqeel was saying there because obviously there has been a broad interpretation of the second amendment coming from the high court in recent years. >> but my goodness having a law that bans domestic abusers from owning guns, that sounds like common sense to a lot of americans out there. and if they had gone, if the supreme court had gone the other way, i just can't imagine what the outcry would have been at what that would have been, something else? >> yes. so it sounds like i'm reading the opinion here is it's coming down. we've got 103 pages to sort through but it sounds like it was roughly common sense to the justices to at least by a vote of 8-to-1. i do want to make just a couple of points about this that aqeel is, right? of course, heller first. major case by justice scalia that recognizes an individual right to bear arms is supported by the second amendment, contrary to what what it had always been read by the supreme court previously. but even heller, even justice scalia and hailar says there are, there are limits on the right to bear arms firms and interestingly here are the majority, again by a vote of 8-to-1, which is really remarkable amount of consensus on this court says, actually when when justice scalia and hailar said there are some exceptions he meant it, so that the court begins to say, look, you don't have to the standard justice time thomas had announced in bruen caused an enormous amount of confusion in the lower courts. a cat cascade of litigation across the country challenging different gun laws because it seemed to suggest that you had to have an identical law on the books at the founding era for something to be upheld today under the second amendment the court here in this decision really seems to be backing off that extraordinarily broad and almost inconceivable view saying more than just these can be regulations that are more than just those that were identical to those that existed in 17 91 here the court uses some language relevantly similar. i'm not sure this is going to cure all of the confusion and the lower courts, but it is certainly pulling back from the extreme position that justice thomas opinion in brew and he'd staked out and. paula reid i want to go back to you in case you have an update on this very important kaye, it's coming down from the high court today, a hugely important case, jim, and we're having a chance now to read through the opinion. >> and here, chief justice john roberts said that the court had no trouble arriving at this decision, at least eight of them did not. he wrote quote, our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the safety, the physical safety of others. now, during oral argument, the solicitor general argued that a woman when who lives in a house with a domestic abuser is five times more likely to be murdered. if he has an acts as access to a gun. so this again, one of the most significant cases that we have been watching for this term, the schill, a few other big ones, but it's notable that the chief justice said here, look, this wasn't too difficult for us to come to this conclusion. can we know they have other outstanding questions? the trump immunity case that big outstanding abortion case, or perhaps they maybe having a little more difficulty reaching consensus yeah. >> i mean, the chief justice saying our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others. i mean, that that is the the supreme court of the united states trying to apply some common sense to a very important issue in all of this. ensure michael singleton, you're on set with us as well. i know you are a strong, a staunch a second amendment supporter. what's your response to all this? initially, i'm a bit skeptical with what i've been reading thus far. i was attempting to read through justices thomas's disagreement here is descent, but i wasn't able to finish an ink and totality, but i think at least a bit of what i read, i think i would agree with i own a firearms company, one of the first things that come to mind as we've seen, jim, a huge increase in african-american men owning guns. i was looking at the innocence project website and every showcasing the large cent of black men who are falsely not only accused of domestic violence but often found guilty of domestic violence and years later, discovered that they were actually innocent. and so i wonder if you're in that position how in the world based upon this decision, does a court protect your constitutional right to keep embarrass arms? and that's something that i did not see. and what i've read thus far, but i mean, obviously there there is the overwhelming sounds like supreme court is saying prevailing view that the public has to be able to protect the victims of domestic abuse domestic abusers owning firearms go into the gun store and pick it out. some guns on its face out. agree with that. obviously, you want to keep individuals safe from folks who want to cause harm. but i also think you have to protect people's rights to keep and bear arms, particularly individuals who have a higher an increased propensity of being falsely accused of domestic violence have been found guilty of domestic violence. and then later on been found innocent. and you see that and higher rates with men of color specifically black men, and that concerns me with the higher number of blackmon who now on fire, you're talking about a very big issue which is just the unfairness of the system we have in this country that unfairly targets african americans. there's no question about that. paula reid, let me get back to you yeah. >> on the issue of domestic violence for michael makes a great point about the importance of making sure people have their de in court at their herd. but it's also a fact that it's very difficult to successfully prosecute domestic violence case has lot of times you have reluctant witnesses. it can divide all of into a very difficult situation for prosecutors to successfully convict people. so i think that's an important point to remember. we actually have a large portion of the thomas dissent here. i want to read some of it. again, he disagrees the majority in this case. he is saying that the question before us is not whether rahimi, the defendant at the center of this and others like him can be disarmed, consistent with the second amendment. instead, the question is whether the government can strip the second amendment right if anyone subject to a protective order, even if you've never been accused or convicted of a crime that just show michael you and i were just we're just talking about this doesn't go so far as to require a conviction, but like i said, domestic violence is a very difficult thing to successfully prosecuted, is often very difficult to get survivors two to cooperate with prosecutors, to cooperate with officials thomas here seeing the court and the government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizens second amendment right based on possible interpersonal, violent violence yet in the interests of ensuring that government can regulate one subset of society. today's decision puts at risk the second amendment rights of many more, which is why he says he respectfully dissented all right, very interesting, paul, and i want to go to k. >> benningfield. she's here with me because you worked for joe biden, the president has been trying to seek more gun safety laws in this country. this is gonna be welcome news over the white house, at least the supreme court as receptive to some regulation? >> yes, no question. this is a a good and important decision. it obviously fits it's part and parcel of a lot of the work as you note that joe biden has tried to do both on on guns, but also on domestic violence. i mean, this is an issue he was the author of the violence against women act 30 plus years ago is an issue that he has he's been an advocate for domestic violence victims his entire career at something he feels personally very strongly about. so certainly this will be welcomed news at the white house, and i would argue a good thing for the country. >> and i'll go back to keil and debra. debra, anything? else that stands out to you in this decision pretty pretty pretty close to unanimous very close to unanimous and i should mention right. >> the court is notwithstanding justice thomas's dissent the court is faced with what's called a facial challenge under the constitution. so the defendant would need to establish that there's really no set of circumstances in which this regulation would be constitutional. and there the court this is in part, i think why you've got eight justices saying no, there are some circumstances in which this would be okay so i think justice thomas is riding against a different kind of question but but no question. >> the more significant consequences the ruling is the court saying, look, the second amendment is just like any other right under the constitution. the first or any others, they're all subject to limitation if the government has a good enough reason. and here, the court concludes by an enormous majority that a domestic violence victim under a protective order is a good enough reason to prevent the abuser from retaining a gun aqeel, what do you think? i agree with my friend deborah, that the bruen decision by justice thomas caused a lot of consternation among lower court judges. i meet with them all the time and this is the first question i got asked to all sorts of judicial conferences today's decision clarifies what the best reading a bruen and of course the author are ruined, isn't dissent. bruen had a lot of originalist, like passages saying that could be read to say, oh a gun limiting law is only can only be upheld if it had a precise counterpart at the time of the found new at the time of that the reconstruction amendments today's opinion makes clear that's not an absolute necessity and highlights another big theme that was in the bruen decision and especially in a concurrence by justices kavanaugh and roberts back in bruen without those to, you didn't have a majority even in bruen they said, listen, a law in bruen is an outlier law, 43 states do it differently than new york did in bruen and actually the heller law was an outlier law, and so was the mcdonald law. this one is not an outlay lot, jim, you earlier said, use the phrase common sense. one way that judges can figure out common sense is by looking at the practices of many states, counting and this is highlighted in today's opinion that we don't just look at at the, founding and the reconstruction we might look at consensus and tradition and state practice. and those are all that can be relevant factors where the text of the constitution is not absolutely overwhelmingly decisive. luka for people to want to hear more about this. >> i do have a free weekly podcast right after the rahimi case was argued back in november, we had a whole hour-and-a-half episode playing clips from the oral argument and analyzing them and actually, frankly, i think predicting this result very interesting. sounds like a fascinating podcast will have to listen to it this weekend aqeel and deborah, everybody. thanks very much. the supreme court, once again, just to recap the breaking news, upholding the law banning domestic abusers there's from owning guns significant case we did not get the immunity decision from the supreme court. we're gonna talk about all the implications of that. on the other side of the bridge, they would the cnn presidential debate thursday night at nine, life on cnn and streaming unmet the day you get your clear choice, dental implants makes every day let's dig in day a chow down day a tick, a big bite. day a perfectly delicious de, love my new teeth day because you're clear choice day is the day everything is back on the menu a clear choice day changes every day schedule a free consultation why jews asleep numbers, smart bad. can it keep me warm when i'm cold? >> wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number. does that can i make my side softer? >> i like my side firmer squeeze number. does that can i help us sleep better and better please speak number does that 94% of smart sleepers report better sleep? >> chabra, lowest prices of the season with three have delivering on. so let's mark that's when you add adjustable makes sleep number smart. but to starting at 999 or more, it's the number.com everywhere, but the seat the seed is 11 now and they get it. you love your bike? we do too. >> that's why we're americans. number one motorcycle insurer. >> but do you have to wedge it into everything? >> i don't do that reminds me of my blank the wolf was about the size of my new motorcycle. have you seen it by the way but i ground really hello brushstrokes bottle, the line of a gas tanker problem plus one jamie you know what's brilliant think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. >> what straps gold do a rocket and hurdles and into space? >> boring. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start off because it's smart, dependable, and steady all words you want from your bank for nearly 160 years pnc bank has been brilliantly boring. so you can be happy to fill. >> which is pretty and boring if you think about it. wow trains kane's that sense. what isn't on the schedule trains they use the power of del ai and the hundreds of miles of tracks clearing the way you arrive hi exactly where you belong if you have graves disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more that gritty feeling can be brushed away even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious, may be behind those itchy eyes up to 50% of people with graves could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert, find a ted is specialist at is-it ted.com. salon pods, lidocaine, flux, but super thin, flexible patch with maximum otc strength light again, that contours to the body to relieve pain, right? word hertz. and did we mentioned it really really sticks s a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! before go to harrys.com slash shave to claim your $7 trial how, solomon in new york is cnn all right, we're still talking about the breaking news that just came down this hour. >> the supreme court upholding a law that bans domestic abusers from owning firearms. let me go back to paula reid with an update hi, jim, one of the biggest cases of the term so far, and here the court finding that the second amendment, like almost all rights, has limits. and here they're focusing on people who pose a danger to others. this eight to one decision was authored by chief justice john roberts, and he said that the court quote, had no trouble in making this finding, writing quote, our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others know, two years ago they issued an opinion expanding gun rights, which has set off some confusion in the lower courts, which he acknowledged. he said, look, some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our second amendment cases. he said these precedents were not meant to suggest a law. the second amendment trapped in amber, he points to the fact that the reach of the second amendment is of course, not limited to firearms. there were only in existence at the founding of our nation now, there was one dissenting justice here, justice clarence thomas. and in his dissent, he said, quote, the court and the government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizens second amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. here he is emphasizing the fact that the mad at the center of this case, he was subject to it protective order, but had not been convicted of domestic violence. i can tell you as a recovering lawyer, it is actually very difficult to successfully i convict someone of domestic violence. oftentimes you have difficulty with survivors wanting to testify and fully cooperate. he continues to write, though in his dissent, in the interest of ensuring that government can regulate one subset of society eddie today's decision puts at risk the second amendment rights of many more, which is why he descends still waiting though jim for a couple of other big cases the end of the term absolutely. >> alright. paula reid. thank you very much. i want to go to jennifer becker. she is the director of the national center on gun violence and relationships jennifer, your response to what the supreme court had to say today, i'm sure you and a lot of other folks who are in your line of work on the edge of your seat wondering what the supreme court was going to do here? >> yeah, we we certainly have been and it's really collective sigh of relief for those of us who work on behalf of survivors of domestic violence every day seen this law reach. >> its intended in mocked for 30 years. >> so it's critical that we can continue doing this work and having those this tool available to protect victims of domestic violence from a threat that we know is exponentially lethal. >> in domestic violence instances i was going to ask a driver, do you think this ruling from the supreme court will save lives without a doubt? >> it will save lives. it has saved lives over the 30 years that the protection has been available and so you know, i'm i'm thrilled to know that it will continue to do that in states that fully implement this law there has been a 12% reduction in intimate partner homicides over the past several decades. those are those are people alive today because of this sort of protection would you ever beggar? >> thank you so much for the work you do. it's extremely important work and there's so many victims of domestic abusers across the country who were probably thanking, you and everybody else even more so today because of this decision coming down from the supreme court, jennifer, thank you very much. i wanna go, steve vladeck, who is here in the studio with me a lot of takes we want to get on what the supreme court decided to do today. steve, what do you think? i mean, this was obviously we were saying earlier we're going to just seems like common sense that you would have laws out there that would stop domestic abusers from owning guns. but this made it all the way to the supreme court. >> it did jim and i think there are two really big takeaways that we should not lose sight of even as the immediate effects are, are so clear from talking to jennifer. so the first is here again we have a case where the supreme court came together across ideological majority to repudiate a decision by the same federal appeals court by the fifth circuit, the new orleans-based court that hears appeals and louisiana, mississippi, and texas. it's already the fifth time this term we've seen a case like this where the fifth circuit had pushed the law very, very far to the right and the supreme court justices from both sides of the aisle pushing back this case, the cfpb uk's, then if the piston case. >> but on guns more generally, i think what's really important for folks to not read too much into what the supreme court did today. >> there are five separate concurring opinions. that's unusual. and i think what it really drives home is this should have been an easy case to uphold the federal statute. there are hard cases comment, there are cases about whether congress can ban all felons from possessing firearms. their cases about whether congress can prohibit anyone convicted of a drug offense from ben from possessing firearms. that's of course, on hunter biden's case. so the supreme court didn't decide those cases today. all it said was, hey, fifth circuit, you went too far. these big questions are very much still to play for andrew, but no decision on immunity for trump. i mean, that's the big one that is just sort of looming over everything has so many massive employment occasions. >> that's the one that has the greatest chance of really sending shockwaves out as soon as it's dropped. and i think for that reason alone, the court has some incentives to hold onto that until the very last moment. now, i don't want to make predictions. i'll be quickly proven wrong, but it just seems likely that that when that case comes out, every other case that gets released on that day will be overshadowed. >> so to bring some of these other cases out into the light, i think there maybe carving a little space in terms of the release, flushing out the pipes a little bit, are there, so we've got about 15 to 17 decisions left them the supreme court. we've got five today, four of them gym or i think cases, folks were not paying a specialty close attention to if you look, what's left. i mean, andy is right about the trump immunity case we have a bunch of major cases about administrative agencies, about social media, about abortion, and the dispute coming out of idaho. so the court is not scheduled to sit again now until next wednesday the justices know that there's a presidential debate next thursday night. i don't their own clients. i do know that they read the papers you know, what what's relevant about that and anti-israeli if the court is not, they're not going to do them was because of the politics, but they're not oblivious to the timing of all this. so i think we're going to get, you know, four or five major rulings next wednesday made also next friday, but it's looking increasingly like the court's going to go into july is something that is loath to do. >> yeah. alright. gentlemen. thank you very much, really appreciate it. we'll be right back celebrate, go forth in america thursday, july 4 x 70s dirt on see it from medium rare well done so many ways to save life ruddy wallet, happy. >> that's 365 by whole foods market cities, industry-leading global payment solutions help their clients move money around the world seamlessly in over 180 countries, and help a partner like the world food programme as they provide more than food to people in need. >> together, city in the world, food programme empower families across the globe 20 seconds a weak toluse, 20% of your weight in a year with diet and exercise that's the power of glp-1s through row connect with the provider today at row.co slash 20 start your day with nature me. >> the number one pharmacist recommend get vitamin supplement brand, and the furniture business things move fast ziprecruiter helps us hire qualified candidates who kiba we needed a project manager yesterday, we post so the job and ziprecruiter and had our guy on-site and five days he was qualified and everyone zip recruiter finds the best candidates for all our jobs may help us build a dream team get it fast was that too fast for you four out of five employers who post on ziprecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. >> try for free at ziprecruiter.com slash higher was had trouble losing weight and keeping same discover the power of week-old the gobi i lost 35 pounds as some lost the war, 46 pounds we go and i'm keeping the weight off. we go be helped you lose weight and keep it off. >> i'm reducing my risk. >> we go v is the only fda approved we've managed with medicine that's proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events and adults with known heart disease and with neither obesity or overweight, we go v should be used with semaglutide for glp-1 medicines don't take, we go via fewer. your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type two or allergic to it stopped. we go we and get medical help right away. if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction, serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. >> we go we may cause low blood sugar and people with down ibts, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes, tell your provider about vision problems or changes, or if you feel your heart racing while at rest, depression or thoughts of suicide may occur call your provider hi to right away if you have any mental changes, common side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. would we go i'm losing weight keeping it off. >> and i'm lowering my cv check your cost and coverage before talking to your health care profession special about we go deliveries happened ordered that this happens. >> sox that happened. >> he get out of there, charges, have to back the pitch let's go home happened with ring, learn more at rnc.com close captioning brought to you by guilt, visit gilt.com today for up to 70% off designer brands has the designers that get your heart racing had inside a prices new every day curry, they'll be gone in a flash designer sales at up to 70% sop guilty.com today and so a full house at the international space station as boeing deals with another setback, the company's starliner spacecraft along with its crew is now getting an even longer stay at the international space station as engineers race to study a series of issues that plagued the first leg of the journey. nasa says the cruel stay up there through at least june 26, nearly two weeks longer than planned. my next guest spent nearly 60 days in orbit, including seven spacewalks former nasa astronaut, and five-time space shuttle crew member got pairs. minsky joins me now scott, let me ask you, what do you think about this delay that's happening right now in these issues that they're having up there well, spaceflight especially orbital spaceflight is difficult and it's unforgiving. and so they're doing exactly the right thing, which is to look at the data evaluate what might have gone wrong. and obviously, we want to learn from melphalan instead of occurred and make sure that they don't occur the next time the spacecraft flies. so the cruise, no danger, the crew is very, very well trained. they're grizzled veterans, good friends of mine, and they've they've trained for this for several years now, so i think they're doing exactly the right thing. gathering a little bit more data from these thrusters because once they commit to the orbiting that data has gone, there's no way to access the service module where the malfunctions have occurred. so they're gathering as much data as they can on orbit yeah scott, i mean, we did learn before the spacecraft launched that there were some some issues that they were trying to iron out before the successful launch. >> does that factor into any concerns you might have about getting back home safely? >> two degree, yes. so prior orbital flight tests, they did have some anomalies, obviously, they had a bit of a bumpy path to the launchpad, getting ready for this flight they also have a lot to be proud of flight successfully to the space station. but it appears that some of the thruster failures, the helium leaks, that we're experiencing on this particular mission have occurred on prior flights of the vehicle. so as i said spaceflight is very unforgiving. we need to look at what's happened before. tried to understand the root cause and prevent that from happening again. so i do think that the crew is very safe the nasa team has indicated that it's safe for them to use the space scrapped earn and land offensive mexico as planned so there's doesn't appear to be any, any risk to the crew are the descent of the spacecraft but obviously, there are some systemic issues that will need to be addressed. you know, why, why didn't we get to the root problem earlier yeah well, we know these are grizzled veterans as are you and they can take on anything we wish them the best. i wish we had more time, scott, but we're out of time. let's do this again. next week, we'll catch up on on these crew members and see how they're doing. scott, thanks very much for your time. we appreciate it all right. th