held in new york different from the dominion trial, which was held in delaware, new york tends to move a little bit slower in terms of their legal system, so that could be part of the holdup. but this is going to be a huge case for fox and a lot of us were watching the outcome of the dominion case because it has big implications for how fox is going to litigate the smartmatic case. but another thing to note that that s not the only lawsuit that they face you ll recall they face a lawsuit from one of their former producers. she is suing the company alleging that fox tried to sort of medal with her testimony. pretrial and then in addition to fox, you have a slew of other companies that dominion is actually suing so dominions lawyer yesterday who appeared on cnn, justin nelson said that it s not just fox. they have lost it out against newsmax one american news, rudy giuliani, sidney powell. there s a whole slew of them. and so for the next year or two, we re going to be seeing a
did absolutely nothing wrong. wrong place. wrong time trigger happy and serious consequences. and so this is the thread that were you know, dealing with this week. last week it was mass shootings next week. it might be school shootings. i mean, i feel like every week every few months we re dealing with how do we mentally wrap our heads around what we re witnessing, and i think that access we do this summary at the end of every year of the new cycle, you have to look at it from a hey. week month year tenure perspective all the time to understand how these trends work, because for today we re talking about the trigger happy innocent kids tomorrow we might be talking about domestic disputes, love to see the data and talk like on the show about the data of what does this look like? over the course of two years. do we find that these types of trigger happy shootings are happening more and more. it could be the case and if that s the case conversation needs to shift to more about racial tens
have a fundamental right to control decisions over our bodies, that now it was going to hear this case was the first signal that it was a politicized court. because if it was truly following precedent, it would have said, we have settled this. we settled this in 1973. we settled this in 1992. we have been here, done that, and we re not going to go have a case conversation when the precedent is clear and set. so the very fact that they took it was when the stench began. and, you know, ruth, you mentioned a moment ago that you wrote a column about stench. but before that, online, but in the paper today is your opinion essay, monster piece, but every word is important, where the headline is, the rule of six, a newly radicalized supreme court, is poised to reshape the nation,