gigot. joe biden and donald trump squared off thursday night in atlanta in a high stakes debate with both candidates hoping that the showdown would reshape the political narrative and per if suede undecided voters as polls show them in a tight race for the white house. president biden attacked donald trump's character in the wake of his felony conviction in new york and tried to link him to the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. but the 81-year-old's own performance exacerbated concerns about his age and ability to serve a second term as he stumbled through his responses and often appeared confused. >> making sure that we continue to strengthen our health care system, making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what i've been able to do with the, with the covid -- excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with -- look, if we finally beat medicare -- >> well, he's right, he did beat medicare. he beat it to death. paul: let's bring in democratic pollster and former clinton adviser doug schoen. so is welcome, doug. good to see you. >> thank you. paul: so, obviously, you talked to your fellow democrats -- >> i do. pa. paul: there's panic in the ranks here. after the president's performance, do you think that panic is justified? >> oh, i definitely think it's justified. i was getting texts from rank and file democrats, local leaders raising the question after the first half hour of whether the president knew what was going on, was capable to govern, and there was a clear sense that i was getting long before the commentators weighed in that this was a candidacy in peril. when i believe it remains in peril after the thursday debate, and i think party elders are asking themselves some pretty tough questions now. paul: well, i guess the first question is can the president recover? he's saying he's not about to drop out, and the white house is in full spin mode saying he had a cold and, you know, everybody has a bad night. i guess, can he recover and how does he do it? >> well, i think the answer to the first question is maybe, and how he does it is very difficult. he's got to be vigorous, he's got to be engaged. but everything we've seen so far in the campaign and certainly thursday's debate suggests to me that he's getting weaker rather than stronger, less coherent and less many command. i -- in command. i worry, paul, that we're heading to a moment like we were in august '74 when the republican leadership went to then-president nixon and said you have got to give up the ghost. i worry that the democratic leaders whether it be former presidents clinton and obama, senator schumer, hakeem jeffries and nancy pelosi raise a similar set of questions with president obama. not saying it's going to happen. it could well be in the offing. paul: well, before that, we get to that -- >> sure. paul: -- i want to elaborate on that a little bit. i want to ask you, you've worked in white houses. >> i have. paul: how could the advisers who have been working closely with with him, i mean, they prepped him for a week in detail. i mean, they clearly knew his capacities, okay? they know that enough because they always lay him out with a teleprompter. they don't give him a lot of impromptu possibilities. they write scripts for him. how could they let this happen? >> paul, i don't know, and that is the great unanswered question. look, the people in the white house not only know his capabilities, they deal with him day in and day out. they never should have agreed to this debate. it was completely unnecessary. and they had to know about his limitations. and, bluntly, a week out, ten days out if they sensed this, there was ample opportunity for an international crisis or crises to lead to a cancellation. every decision the white house staff a made including the briefing for thursday night failed, but the fundamental judgment on this debate and participation was the wrong one. paul: so you raise the possibility of a delegation going to the president and saying, sir, we really think it may be time for you to step down. obviously, the president has the delegates, the votes to keep the nomination. it's entirely up to him at this stage. he'd have to withdraw. but what are the other options here to get him to withdraw if he's obstinate, they can't do anything? i guess you have to go to his family and see if you can persuade 'em? how -- is that it? >> i think it's the family, but i think there's another variable which is the polls. if the polls show trump opening nationally, say, more than a 5-point lead and in the 7 swing states clear and virtually impression national leads, maybe 7, 8 points in those 7 states, then and only then they have an argument that will be compelling potentially to biden, potentially to his family. and, certainly, to every democrat. and i'd make the argument if that happens -- and it's a big if, we don't know that that's going to happen. but if it happens, then i think president biden and his family will have to take those kind of concerns very, very seriously. paul: all right. and then it's really an open nomination process, right? i mean, the president could endorse his vice president, but that wouldn't be a foregone conclusion, would it? if you'd have an open convention, i'd assume, but would that be your expectations? >> it would be my expectations and recommendation because if they were to go to kamala harris whose approval rating today is lore than joe biden's -- lower than joe biden's at 36, i think it would be another certain disaster that the party would be courting. so i would argue that the best way to proceed if would be an open convention, let whoever wants to run run, compete for the nomination and let the best man or woman emerge. i think it would create enormous interest in the party and potentially overcome the ma a laze that has set in -- malaise that has set in since thursday night. paul: all right, doug schoen, helpful as always. appreciate your coming in. >> thanks so much, paul. paul: much more on this week's presidential debate after the break as a joe biden and donald trump trade blows over inflation, abortion and the border. so who made the best policy case in thursday's showdown, and will it move the polls in battleground states? we'll ask our panel next. ♪ ♪ if. >> -- what i was left when i became president, what mr. trump left me. we had an economy that was in freefall. the pandemic was so badly handled, many people were dying. the economy collapsed. there were no jobs. unemployment rate rose to 15%. it was terrible. and is so what we had to do was try to put things back9 together again. >> the only jobs he created are for illegal immigrants and bounceback jobs that bounced back from the covid. he has not done a good job, he's done a poor job and inflation's killing our country. paul: president biden blaming donald trump's handling of covid for the rise in inflation during his administration as the former president took a shot at biden's border policies. both candidates attacking each other's record thursday night and warning that giving a second term to his opponent would have grave consequences for the country. let's bring in our panel, "wall street journal" columnist dan dan henninger kim strassel and editorial board member kyle peterson. so, dan, you heard doug schoen talk about joe biden's performance, but what marks do you give donald trump? >> well, i would give trump, i mean, biden's was basically an f, and the democrats are admitting that that the. i would say trump got a c. he started out strong. he did well. he recognized that biden was in trouble, and there was a point in this debate where trump should have seen that he was winning and began, begin to appeal to the american people and make his case for his own presidency. instead, he she guyed into attacking -- session guyed into attacking bide when he was past the point of being attack, really. is so i think democrats, interestingly, while many are saying that joe biden needs to withdraw because he's not able to run as a strong candidate, they also feel that donald trump is, in fact, beatable but beaten not by joe biden, he'd be beaten by another candidate. i think that's a fair issue. but the question is whether the democratic party is going to step forward and put up another candidate against donald trump. paul: kim, the president, trump squaring off on inflation. obviously, one of the big themes that donald trump had was attacking biden on inflation. who won that exchange? >> oh, hands down donald trump did win that education change mostly because what biden argued happened was simply not related to history. his suggestion that the handling of the covid itself was what caused the inflation and his administration, inflation was well under control when donald trump left office a, and as every economist know and we know what caused this was the massive, unnecessary spending boom that accompanied joe biden going into office and then the fed needing to finally have to move to correct that and is pushing interest rates as well too which has, obviously, played into housing, etc. so donald trump, he was good on this in general. he refused to allow himself to be goaded or baited into the areas that joe biden wanted to talk about, and on on the areas of economy when it came to inflawption nation, taxes, etc., donald trump had his facts, and he had the better argument. paul: kyle, one of the things that struck me about the debate was how many issues donald trump really ducked. i mean, he tried not to talk about it whether it be childcare or even january 6th, you know? he gave a cursory answer. but the striking thing was joe biden couldn't take advantage of it at all. he couldn't come back and hit him. i mean, that was, that was shocking really. >> yeah, i agree with that totally. i think there remain a lot of questions about where both of these candidates would try to take the country in the next four years. donald trump was asked are you really going to cut some kind of deal on ukraine with vladimir putin? if what would that look like? he didn't answer that question. he was asked are you really going to try to deport 10-15 million people in the united states illegally? what if they have u.s. citizen spouse or children? he didn't really answer that question either. i would add also on tariffs, on social security. we have a 21% mandatory cut many social security benefits coming within a decade. does donald trump have a plan to deal with that? it's a good debating tactic if you don't want to answer that question to focus on the other guy's record which was what donald trump did so effectively, and it just let biden show his age. i think that was the takeaway. he didn't have to answer those questions because people were so busy being stunned at joe biden's performance. paul: dan, one of the things that's so striking is the degree to which so many democrats are now saying, well, biden should withdraw. a lot of the pundits are out -- elected democrats aren't saying that, but the democratic press, they're saying that. and i guess my question to them is, where were you when this could have been much easier and much more possible? i mean, the only democrat who spoke up really and challenged him was dean phillips. most other democrats derided the congressman from minnesota. maybe they owe dean phillips an apology. >> they do, and i think they owe democrats out there in the country an apology because biden's approval rating has just not been that strong. i guess a lot of what the democrats, professional democrats are driven by is not so much joe biden, but their long antipathy for donald trump. and they had somehow convinced themselves that that joe biden, because he's president, because he's incumbent, was going to pull off a defeat of donald trumpment but trump and biden -- trump. but trump and bind, the head to heads have always been within the margin of error. joe biden has not gained ground, and joe biden's cognitive problems were manifest, paul, and they should have been, as you were suggesting, during the debate prep of past week. so the democrats bear a lot of responsibility not just for what's happened to their own party, but what they have done to the country. they have allowed the country to be led by a president who's clearly impaired, and now we're faced with the really difficult decision of when this president should be asked to ten aside and let another -- step aside and let another candidate step in for the good of their own party and, i would say, for the good of the country as well. paul: all right. when we come back, the presidential candidates trade blows over their tax plans as key provisions of the trump tax cuts get set to expire next year in what is shaping up to be a defining policy issue in the 2024 campaign. ♪r ch♪ it's okay to for them to show off. show off their clearer skin and noticeably less itch with dupixent. because children 6 months and older with eczema have plenty of reasons to show off their skin. with dupixent, the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists and allergists, they can stay ahead of their eczema. it helps block a key source of inflammation inside the body that can cause eczema to help heal your child's skin from within. serious allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems such as eye pain or vision changes including blurred vision, joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines without talking to your doctor. show off to the world. ask your child's eczema specialist about dupixent. diabetes can serve up a lot of questions. like what is your glucose and can you have more carbs? before you decide with the freestyle libre 3 system know your glucose and where it's heading no fingersticks needed. now the world's smallest and thinnest sensor sends your glucose levels directly to your smartphone. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. the #1 cgm prescribed in the u.s. try it for free at freestylelibre.us dave's company just scored the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. high five! high five... -i'm on a call. it's 5 years of reliable, gig speed internet... five years of advanced security... five years of a great rate that won't change. yep, dave's feeling it. yes. but it's only for a limited time. five years? -five years. introducing the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. powering 5 years of savings. powering possibilities. ♪ >> he's the only one i know, he wants to raise your taxes by four times. he wants to raise everybody's taxes by four times. he wants the trump tax cuts to expire. >> look, the fact of the matter is that he's dead wrong about -- he's increased the tariff -- he's increased, he will increase the taxes on middle class people. i said i'd never raise tax on anybody making less than $400,000. i didn't. paul: that was joe biden and donald trump thursday weighing in on the future of the 2017 tax cuts. it's shaping up to the one of the defining policy issues of the 2024 campaign with president biden promising to let key provisions of the trump era law expire next year. we're back with our panel. so, kim, can you make some sense out of that a tax exchange? there was a lot of disinformation if on both sides -- [laughter] but, i mean, are they -- who got the best of it, and what are they try -- what are the parties going to do on taxes? >> well, look, donald trump was at a his strongest when he was making the case for his 2017 tax cuts, which he did. he made the case that it brought a lot of capital back to this country. it made us more competitive, gave everybody a tax cut in all range and brackets. i think the real interesting question here, this is a huge moment coming up because you have two very, very different road maps here. you have donald trump who's proposing yet further reduction ares, talking about changes in the corporate rate, for instance, versus joe biden, and that came through very, very clear in the debate. biden is looking to seriously raise taxes, in particular if on the wealthier americans. his raft of proposals of what he's going to use that money for was almost sort of laughable in the end because this isn't enough money in the world to pay for all the proposals he's got from shoring up social security to new practice, to cutting the deficit. the math doesn't work. but i think what voters need to take away from this exchange is two very different road maps, one in which taxes go way up ultimately for everybody under a joe biden type plan because that's the only way to get the revenue or further tabs reductions and broadening of the base hopefully, although with some unknown on tariffs. paul: all right. kyle, let's talk about foreign policy for a second. if i mean, there was an exchange on ukraine and russia. but i never heard trump say what he would do about russia. and yet trump seemed to score when he linked the putin invasion of ukraine to the withdrawal from afghanistan a of biden, saying that putin responds to weakness. what did you make of that exchange? >> yeah, i think trump absolutely scored some points there. i think many people remember the debacle of that biden withdrawal from afghanistan a, and they remember less the deal that president trump cut when he was leaving office that left biden in a unenviable position also, which is not to defend his ultimate choice to withdraw in the way that he did, but it's another place where i think president trump did a good job is of attacking biden's record saying that the united states has signaled weakness under this president. the joe biden that voters saw last night is the same joe biden that adversaries in china, iran and russia see when they are watching the debate for their own purposes. but again, i think there's less, less substance being provided on what trump actually would do. he preeted again that he would solve the ukraine war in a deal with putin before he was even inaugust a rated into office without -- inaugust a rated without explaining how exactly that's supposed to work. paul: dan, i want to ask you an uncomfortable question, but i think it's a relevant one given the president's performance, and that is the when we still have six months left, more than six months of this president city -- presidency, do you think that foreign adversaries looking at the president's performance might try to take some advantage of that in the next half year? >> i think they might well, paul, at least at the margin. i think, you know, i've said before i think biden's foreign policy team, jake sullivan and antony blinken, have been doing a credible job. not a great job. they've been leading from behind, there's no question behind it. you cannot just simply let a secretary of state run foreign policy. you need a functioning president. dean catchson needed harry truman if -- dean acheson. henry kissinger needed richard nixon. at the moment we don't really have a president who's able to lead at that a level. it's difficult to suggest that the chinese would actually invade taiwan, but they're acting very aggressively against the philippines, they're -- russian, putin is not stepping back at all. and i would not be surprised, paul, if they tried to at least push forward, gain as much ground as a they can in the next six months before either a successor, democratic successor to joe biden takes office or donald trump. paul: kim, what do you think the democrats are going to do here? are they going to to essentially get behind joe biden, or do you think they really do -- there will be some kind of a mobilization get him to withdraw? what's your, what's your guess? >> well, a lot's going to depend in the next week or so in how successfully the white house can manage to the quell this. i think that's going to be really hard, paul, because, you know, we have seen glimpses of this joe biden out on the rare appearances on the campaign trail. it's been disturbing. they've made all kinds of excuses, cheap fakes, whatever it was. that was a very long 900-minute -- 90 plaintiff minute cheap fake. democrats are going to have to not just decide if they push him out, how they go about doing that, with but the question a successor is also a mess and it's one reason they haven't moved up until now. you have to figure out what you do with the problem of kamala harris because she's a weaker candidate than biden. paul: okay, thanks, kim. still ahead, a busy and significant week at the supreme court though not yet the final day of the term as the justices get set to release their highly anticipated opinion on presidential immunity on monday. we'll take a look at what to expect when that decision comes down as well as the other big opinions that were released this week. ♪ ♪ citi's industry leading global payments 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, citi and the world food programme empower families across the globe. ♪ for moderate to severe crohn's disease, skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. control of crohn's means everything to me. ask your gastroenterologist about skyrizi. ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. subject 1: i love you. [music playing] i love you. beckett: i love you too. subject 2: beckett's amazing. he's a miracle child. in the mornings, he'll wake up, and he'll roll the shades up. and da da, it's time to get up. it's a bright, beautiful day. beckett: right. subject 1: you look great. the first of the year, he started going, i have to sit down. i'm dizzy, mommy. he couldn't walk straight. his head was starting to be cocked. make a wish. a month after his third birthday, he got diagnosed with atrt brain cancer. all you can think of is, my kid's not going to live. [cristina perri, "a thousand years"] i have died every day waiting for you darling don't be afraid i have loved you for a thousand years i'll love you for a thousand more you are really tough. subject 3: families never receive a bill from saint jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. subject 1: the fact that saint jude doesn't bill is a godsend. and the fact that we don't have to ask for help here makes things a lot easier to go through what we have to go through with beckett. beckett: i wish my cancer was gone. subject 3: for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the lifesaving research and treatment these kids need. (singing) i have died every day waiting for you. subject 1: the fact that they are researching and they are saving these children, it's so important. we wouldn't be where we are without saint jude. and in turn, we wouldn't be where we are without those people that have donated. they're the reason why my son's still alive. subject 3: you can help saint jude save the lives of children like beckett. [music playing] this is remington. ...he's a member of the family, for sure. we always fed them kibble— it just seemed like the thing to do. but ...he was getting picky we heard about the farmer's dog... and it was a complete transformation. his coat was so soft, he had amazing energy. he was a completely different dog. it's a no-brainer that (remi) should have the most nutritious and delicious food possible. i'm investing in my dog's health and happiness. ♪ paul paul the supreme court is set to wrap up a blockbuster term next week with the justices expected to weigh in monday on the question of presidential immunity and what is the most anticipated decision of the term. but opinions in some other significant cases came friday as the justices made it more difficult to charge january 6th rioters with obstruction in a ruling that could upend hundreds of cases. the justices also overturned a 40-year precedent known as chevron deference that gave vast authority to regulatory agencies in a decision with far-reaching implications for the power of the federal government. joining me now is ilya shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the manhattan institute. welcome, ilya. so, first, is the delay in the immunity decision telling us anything about how that might go? >> i think it's just telling us that they're really trying to cross their ts and dot their is and get it right. presumably drawing the line of what is official conduct for which presidents will be immune versus acting as private citizens which they will not be. paul: okay. yeah, that's what i expect as well. so let's turn to this fisher case which is about the obstruction for the january 6th rioters. could have significant results for a lot of these cases. how do you read it? >> well, this is a technical statutory interpretation about a catch-all provision of sarbanes-oxley. remember that? about the financial irregularities? and this reminds me of case from about ten years ago where a fisherman was throwing out undersized fish so as not to be caught by the fishing regulators and was also tripped up by sarbanes of coursely. the court ruled that meant financial records, it didn't incur collude fish if. paul: right. >> similarly here, when the main section was about destroying or mutilating documents, that was specifically about that. so the otherwise provision of that issue in the fisher case was not about otherwise do disrupting in all sorts of ways, but specifically relating to documents. and, mind you, he was charged with having six other federal crimes. so it's not that he or any other january 6th protester are now scot-free, it's just this particular criminal statute is narrow -- paul: well, it's a real shot against the justice department, isn't it? you can't stretch these statutes simply because you don't like the rioters. >> absolutely right, and i don't know why they would even attempt to use this provision when, as i said, there's all these things about demonstrating in the capitol, disorderly conduct, trespassing, all of these federal laws that already they, he and they are being charged with. paul: any implications here for donald trump's january 6th trial? >> if,we even get there. i mean, who knows at this point. paul: right. >> it's been a while since i reviewed his indictment in the federal cases but it just means that if the justice department is stretching other provisions as they apply to donald trump, that might not in the end fly. but, again, there's so many different charges that you have to look at a them one by one. paul: all right. the other case is the so-called chevron deference case. this is technical too. but the bottom line is the court overturned a 40-year precedent that had said the courts should defer to regulatory agencies in their interpretation of a new regulation if the statute is ambiguous. this is pretty big. >> this is really the biggest case of the term. i mean, not the most politically significant, obviously, that'll come monday. not the culture war case, but this affects the functioning of the entire administrative state, all of the bureaucracy, all of those executive agencies whether you're talking about the epa or the labor department or the consumer product safety commission. because for 40 years judges have simply been deferring to agency legal interpretations of the laws that give them authority, and here the court said, look, agencies can be expert on lots of things, biology, economics, etc., but they're not experts on the law. that's what courts are experts on, and and so we're throwing out this failed experiment, returning power back to congress for congress to legislate precisely what kind of powers it wants agencies to get. paul: what about justice kagan's dissent where she says this is going to give judges everywhere the opportunity to overturn regulations willy-nilly, and we're going to have more judge-made law? if. >> well, not willy-nilly. judges are paid to interpret the law. and they simply won't have the out, the judicial buck passing or chevron deference as it's technically called to say, well, you know, there are several plausible interpretations of the law, a, b, c, d, as long as the agency doesn't peck something crazy like x, y, dis, we'll let it go without figuring out the best result. that's just not good enough. judges are paid to make those tough legal calls. they're not going to be making policy decisions about how many parts per billion of arsenic is okay in drinking water. but i think it's right to park that with the courts. paul: related to that was the case about right to a fair trial for somebody who was charged with fraud by the sec. this looks like another rebuke to the administrative state. we've got about 45 seconds. >> this came out on thursday and, yes. the sec, like many agency, creates its own law, investigates, prosecutes, acts as the judge and and ultimately levies a significant monetary and other punishments. and that's not proper. if you're going to charge someone and imperil them with significant punishments, that has to be reviewed by a federal court. i think that's the right decision. paul: right to a fair trial, fundamental to american liberty. ilya shapiro, thanks for coming in, as always. still ahead, much more on a big week at the supreme court including a decision that could be seen as a license for social media censorship and another that could change the way cities deal with their homeless populations. ♪ nd energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪) we handcraft every stearns & foster® using the finest materials, like indulgent memory foam, and ultra-conforming inner-springs, for a beautiful mattress, and indescribable comfort. shop now, and save $400 on select stearns & foster mattresses. the cockroach. resilient creatures. true miracles of evolution. where there is one, others aren't far behind. always scavenging for food, the cockroach... well that's horrifying. ortho home defense max indoor insect barrier. one application kills and prevents bugs for 365 days. not in my house you don't. nature is wild. your home doesn't have to be. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® 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 include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. ♪ paul: as we await the supreme court's pivotal decision on presidential immunity on monday, a closer look at some of the other big opinions released this week including one that could open the door to social media censorship and another that could change the way cities deal with homelessness. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and kyle peterson. so, kim, i know you're raring to get into this issue of the administrative state and the chevron deference case. [laughter] your ship has finally come in. weigh in. >> a 40-year fight if. it's a magnificent day, paul, the chevron opinion. look, what we have seen in particular if with this new conservative court is a growing interest in dealing with this massive administrative estate which has become the fourth branch of government. we've seen it with its major questions doctrine, the jarkasey decision that came out this week, ohio v. epa, west virginia v. epa a, but this chevron is the ultimate brushback. it basically says you, the regulators, no longer get to decide what the law says and willy-nilly run mack trucks through it. if congress doesn't specifically say you get to do this, then it's going to be on us, the court, to decide just how far you get to go. we are going to see dramatic change in the range and the power and the reach of that unaccountable for bureaucratic sate -- state and it's really a very, very strong opinion. paul: kyle, there's a case, a social media case, where the supreme court essentially ducked a decision on the merits is and said the states that had suited -- sued over social media censorship, pressure if on the social media companies to censor didn't have standing. were you surprised that they ducked that one? >> i was a little bit surprised. i mean, the trouble with this case, in my view, was that it swept many such a huge range of conduct. these social sites were doing content moderation, as they call it, on their own about covid stuff long before the government was sending them notes asking them to step it up. finish they were getting requests, they were sending requests to groups like the cdc asking hem if they could fact check claims that they were seeing on their sites including some wild stuff like covid vaccines could cause magnetism or change your blood color, and that that the looked pretty innocuous. what the majority did here was said they can't find a traceable injury that courts can address there, but i was surprised because there was some stuff in the record that was much stronger than that. white house officials browbeating these social sites, swearing at them saying we expect better from them. then the social sites coming back and saying, like, please, appreciation please, please don't go hard on us. and so justice samuel alito had a pretty goodies sent on that portion of it and, frankly, i expected something like that in the majority, a statement by the court that at least some of this stuff was over the line. paul: well, we've got to hope that maybe some other plaintiffs might have standing if they've been injured, some of the people directly censored, let's hope. because justice alito's warning is significant that governments may decide this is a license to pressure these sites more. dan, i want to turn to this decision over the homeless. and and whether or not -- and the court basically saying enforcing vagrancy laws is not a violation of the eighth amendment's cruel and unusual punishment standard. >> yeah, that's exactly right. and what justice gorsuch in his opinion talking about the homeless said it is a complex problem, without a doubt. many of these people are addict canned to drugs -- addicted to drugs hopelessly, but they're living on the streets. the images like the ones we're showing here that have come out of cities like portland and seattle are absolutely shocking. and what the court is saying here, it is not necessary or it is not right for cities to allow their streets to descend into a condition of anarchy. there is a basic level of civil disorder, and governments are responsible for establishing and restoring that order. and they need the means to be able to do that including anti-vagrancy laws. and so a balance, i think, was bug struck here to try to address a problem that a has been growing -- that has been growing in cities across the country because some of these towns like the one in oregon felt that they were constrained by lawsuits by the aclu and so forth. now, i think we'll maybe see some progress on addressing both some of these underlying problems like mental illness but also the fact that people have to be able to live in orderly communities. paul: kim, let's step back a bit looking at the term so far. the supreme court term. do you have any conclusions you can draw about this conservative court now with so many trump appointees on it? >> well, i made the one about the administrative state. i think that is actually really important because we've had a huge growth in ad morive law, and some of -- administrative law, and some of the latest justices grew up looking at that problem. we're now seeing the broad effects of that. but my other broad takeaway is go back and look at these opinions over the past term and look at the intellectual diversity and the splits that have come out. some of the majorities and minorities have been really interesting. a lot of very serious intellectual debate between the conservatives themselves showing that this is not a court has out there imposing a partisan or a political agenda. this is a court that's very thoughtfully thinking through a lot of complex issues. it's also being more bold these days and taking up some issues that they had ducked for years. still ducking a few, but a little bit more aggressive than it has been in the past about solving major controversies. paul: but the justices are not a monolith. they do have different interpretations of original aism. all right, when we come back, democrat jamaal bowman becomes the first member of the house squad to lose his seat as a democratic primary voters send a message to the far left in congress. ♪ ♪ macular degeneration, can irreversibly damage your vision. it can progress faster than you think. when ga threatens your eyes, take a stand. slow ga with syfovre. syfovre is an eye injection that was proven to slow damaging lesion growth over 2 years with increasing effect over time. it's the only fda-approved treatment to slow ga in as few as 6 doses per year. don't take syfovre if you have an infection, or active swelling in or around your eye that may include pain and redness. syfovre can cause serious side effects, such as eye infection and retinal detachments, severe inflammation of vessels in the retina which may result in severe vision loss, wet amd, eye inflammation, and an increase in eye pressure. most common side effects are eye discomfort, wet amd, small specks floating in vision, and blood in the white of the eye. tell your doctor right away if you have any side effects. every moment counts—act now to slow ga with syfovre. ask your retina specialist about syfovre. ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. ♪we can secure our world.♪ ♪watch out for offers too good to be true.♪ that's phishing! ♪someone's trying to take advantage of you.♪ learn more at cisa.gov/secureourworld ♪that's how we can secure our world!♪ ♪we can secure our world.♪ ♪don't just use a password alone.♪ ♪mfa sends a call, a text or a code to your phone.♪ learn more at cisa.gov/secureourworld ♪that's how we can secure our world!♪ ♪ paul: democrat jamaal bowman on tuesday became the first member of the progressive squad to lose a seat in congress in what was the most expensive house primary on record. bowman, a vocal critic of israel and its war against hamas, suffered a double-digit loss to former westchester county executive george latimer who ran as a centrist alternative in the suburban new york district. pro-israel groups spent heavily for latimer leading bowman and his a allies to accuse them of trying to buy the election. so, kyle, what lessons do you draw from the bowman defeat? the it really wasn't close, it was a route. >> yeah -- rout. >> yeah, one is you described latimer as a centrist, and maybe that only work given how far to the left jamaal bowman was. george latimer is not hostile to israel, but he wants to codify abortion protections naturally, he says he wants to spend money to transition the to green energy and off of fossil fuels, so it's a from pretty progressive agenda. but i think many voters in this district were just fed up of being embarrassed by their congressman, jamaal bowman if most famous, of course, for pulling a fire alarm in a house office building and pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. but he was at a rally over the weekend swearing up a storm, dropping f-bombings. even other democratic congressmen from new york said it was unbecoming of a congressman, somebody who is supposed to represent the people in office. he -- there was a reporter who dug up jamal blowman's blog he had -- bowman's blog he had when he was a high school principal. so the question, i think, is whether this is going to prompt more such challenges to other members of the squad. paul: well, and one of those, dan, could be cori bush, st. louis congressman in missouri. she's getting a strong challenge from somebody. what about the role of aipac, the american israel political action committee? they poured a lot of money in here. is this a sign that the israel acquisitions in the party are turning towards maybe pro-israel? >> well, i think to a great extend, yeah. polls show most democrats do supporters reel, and i think aipac was entirely entitled to get into this race given jamaal bowman's antipathy towards israel. but here's one of the interesting things about people bike jamaal bowman, cori bush is and, indeed, alexandria ocasio-cortez, members of the squad. we always see them, as we saw bowman, seemingly standing with a microphone in their hand yelling and shouting denunciations of their opponents. these people are the definition of polarization. and now we have somewhat of a moderate, george latimer, defeating bowman just as in an open election on long island recently the democrat won in the same way towards move -- by moving towards the center. i think it raises a national question, indeed, for the democratic party whether the polarization, the far-left politics, the aggression that we have seen is not working with many voters including centrist democrats and whether, indeed, whether we're going to consider a successor to joe biden, this party has to think seriously about moving its candidacies more towards the center. because on the evidence, paul, it looks like they are beginning to win with that approach. >> that's tom suozzi, by the way, for that george santos seat. [laughter] kim, i wonder if something is happening in new york. we've seen polls where kathy hochul, the governor, her polls are underwater, same with the mayor of new york. and in some of the presidential polls, donald trump is actually within single digits, you know, 7, 8 points of joe biden which is unheard of. is progressivism maybe finally catching one9 -- up with the democrats even, even in new york? [laughter] >> well, welcome to progressive myrrh van that, and nobody's very happy about it -- anywhere van that. we're seeing the same thing in california as a well too, paul. people obviously moving with hair feet and changes in polls and, you know, people throwing out school boards and referendums. look, we are having a situation where we've had progressive governors in some of these big states with their supermajorities in legislatures have been free to completely impose their progressive agenda, and now people are living with it. they see the crime, they see the taxes and they see the mayhem and the homelessness, and they're not particularly thrilled at what's coming along. the green energy mandates. and so suddenly they're looking around and they're thinking maybe there is a different and better way. so, yeah, i mean, i would argue that latimer, he's certainly -- he's more of a progressive, but what's also going on here too, paul, is i just think people are getting sick of the bomb throwers in their party, the exhibitionists. this was an act of political hygiene. it was essentially turning to another progressive but one that maybe actually could talk sensibly at times and not ena gauge in criminal behavior. paul: well, and make the democratic party more competitive over time. all right, we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ ♪ let's take a little test together: which looks better — this? or this? this... ...or this? seems clear to me. saving cash wins every time. which is why you'll love the wise buys sales event, going on right now at america's best. get two pairs of single-vision glasses for just $69.95, or two pairs of progressives for just $129.95. both offers include a comprehensive eye exam. that's not just a better deal, it's america's best. book an exam online today. we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. no living being should ever eat processed food for every single meal of their life. it's amazing to me how many people write in about their dogs changing for the better. the farmer's dog is just our way to help people take care of them. ♪ there's news, and there's good news. like thousands of patients receiving free life changing surgeries, from volunteer doctors and nurses on hospital ships. all made possible by donations. we love good news. paul: time now for hits and misses of the week. kim, you're first. >> a miss to the belated and forced apology from the if irs to billionaire ken griffin and other wealthy american taxpayers after their data was stolen by an irs contractor and leaked to the outlets like pro pub ifly ca which used it for a campaign for higher taxes. apologies are great, but this came only after mr. griffin sued the irs, and it was the part of the settlement. the irs has a long way to go to try to restore its credibility to the people and suggest it's got its security in control. paul: all right. kyle. >> i'll give a miss to those in the press for lionizing wikileaks founder julian as a sang after his guilty plea and release from president. prosecutors accuse as sang of publishing thousands of classified military files including the names of undercover sources working with the american military. he allegedly gave preferred targets to a hacking group after he released e-mails embarrassing the hillary clinton, senate investigators said those files were stolen by russian intelligence. he's not a journalist or a whistleblower. paul: dan. >> paul, my miss is going to go to new york city prosecutor alvin bragg whose office said this past week they would not press charges against 31 of the 46 people who invaded hamilton hall during the anti-israel protests at a columbia university. said there wasn't enough video and they had their faces covered with masks. meanwhile, prosecutors in austin, texas, said they were dropping charges against 76 people pretty much for the same reason. it's sad to say we saw this non-prosecution coming, but this is the reason so many of these increasingly viability protesters -- violent protesters keep running into the streets. they know the legal system is going to set them scot-free. paul all right. thank you all. that's it for this weak's show. thanks to my panel -- this week's show. thanks to my panel and to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you right here next week. eric: president biden, well, he vows to keep fighting, defying calls from some to bow out of the pres