ovary overruling previous settle decisions. fo if you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this court s history, there s a string of them were the cases overruled precedent. if the court in those cases had listened and they were presented with arguments in those cases adhered to precedent in brown v. board, adhere to policy on west coast hotel, adhered to atkins and adhered to lock near. and if the court had done that in those cases, the country would be in a much different place. but justice swooning assaulting more your was explicit about what exactly is going on here and the consequences it could have for the institutions of the supreme court in the country. the sponsors of this bill, the house bill in mississippi, said we re doing it because we have new justices. the newest ban that mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the senate sponsor said we re doing it because we have
those cases had listened and they were presented with arguments in those cases that adhere to press department, in brown v board, adhere to plessy in the west coast hotel, adhere to atkins and adhere to lockner. if the court had done that in these cases the country would be a much different place. with me, elie the justices were in a wiesely way was trying to identify themselves as the brown versus board heroes. they are trying to wrap themselves in that because they understand that they are going against the vast majority of americans will when they subject women to the the sis attitudes of their state and
0 people actually believe that it s all political, how will we survive? how will the court survive? then, a surprise announcement from jeffrey clark, as the january 6th committee makes the move towards a second contempt for. plus, the damning implications of new reports that the former president had covid way longer than we knew. including at the debate. tonight, is an example everybody s had attests and you ve had social distancing. and why the current president has a compelling case. the economy is actually doing pretty well. when all in starts right now. good evening from new york. i m on chris hayes. today, we find ourselves in a moment in american history where air peers were about to move backwards. poised for regression on basic, fundamental rights. poised to watch a space of freedom and autonomy shut down, that heretofore been protected. no, most of the story of american history is told as one of progress and there s a case for that. the expanding of rights that protect
in each of those cases, and that s a list, and i could go on, those are some of the most consequential, important in the court s history, the court overruled the precedent, and it turns out if the court in those cases had listened and they were presented with arguments in those cases adhere to precedent in brown v board. on west coast hotel. adhere to atkins and lockner. and if the court had done that in those cases, the country would be a much different place. i m assuming you agree with most of the cases i listed there. the question on this is why if and i gree you disagree with if, but if we think that
important cases, the most consequential cases in this court s history. there s a string of them where the cases overruled precedent. brown v board. outlawed separate by equal. baker versus car which set the stage for one person, one vote. west coast hotel which recognized the state s authority to regulate business. miranda versus arizona which required police to give warnings about the right to remain silent . warrant v texas. map versus ohio held the exclusionary rule applies to state criminal prosecutions to exclude evidence obtained in vital of the 4th amendment. gideon versus waneright guaranteed the right to counsel.