slavery in some way. the only indepth material about the constitution itself, appears in a display pushes the claim championed by the controversial 1619 project, racism was the driving force by the entire american political system. now we are trashing our founding fathers inside of their own homes. not sitting well a lot of people going on the tours and expecting a traditional tour where you learn about our founding fathers, the establishment of this country and the constitution. one dad who visited montpelier this week, said to the new york post i was kind of thinking we would be hearing more about the constitution but everything here is really about slavery. there no american flags at montpelier anymore. they removed those as well. will: you know i watched fox & friends last weekend, pete. i saw you talking about in reference to jefferson. this is something you and i talked about privately. we talked about on air as well. i did a whole episode this past week about the will cain
conservative majority, how they approach analyzing the law. they make it explicit throughout the opinion that the goal is to look their analysis is to look at the text of the constitution itself, and to look at historical ways that that should be interpreted. so looking at history, and analyzing it from there. not looking at what one might assess is as a matter of public policy in the current public interest, given our current environment with mass shootings. that s what this majority rejects in the court, and they re saying only historical analysis, and only the text. the former new york city mayor who has been a leader in pushing for gun control and helping fund gun control efforts run a country. he says the legacy of the robert s courts is looking darker and more dangerous by the day. he says join every town to fight back. again, like the president, bloomberg is saying stay at it.
then, that reflects directly on the court itself. that s absolutely right. so let s remember when the 150 justices who served on the united states supreme court, not one has been indigenous. not one has been asian, not one has been a black woman ever in its history. only five has been woman, period. and over 230 years. and we have an institution where right now, one last blast of segregation would live on. but what we saw on the senate was not only an attack on her, but an attack on the constitution itself, and then attack on the rule of law. the questions about what is a woman, a temperature check on what exactly is her religious commitment and affiliation, in a nation that separates church from state? and brittani is absolutely right. this way of linking black people with criminality, and any window that comes from that, what we saw was this itself, failing to uphold the rule of law, and failing to uphold the
institution that americans are question inning. and i guess by the situation, talk about the supreme court, but you can also say this about the u.s. senate and congress. this all further undermines, it s not just that they re undermining her. it s that she will most likely be confirmed to the court, and then, that reflects directly on the court itself. that s absolutely right. so let s remember when the 150 justices who served on the united states supreme court, not one has been indigenous. not one has been asian, not one has been a black woman ever in its history. only five has been woman, period. and over 230 years. and we have an institution where right now, one last blast of segregation would live on. but what we saw on the senate was not only an attack on her, but an attack on the constitution itself, and then attack on the rule of law. the questions about what is a woman, a temperature check on what exactly is her religious
justices have been circled through over the past 50 years, this entire time reaffirming the constitutional right to get an abortion. justice sotomayor also talked about the fact that there are other rights that the court has recognized that haven t been specifically mentioned in the constitution itself, equating that with the fact that abortion rights have not also been mentioned in the constitution, but the solicitor general saying that s a reason that they shouldn t be recognized. so the liberal justices speaking at length at the same time that conservatives here seem to be trying to gappal with the fact that, of course, casey and roe are precedent and should the supreme court be bound by that precedent? what factors could weigh in? how could the justices overrule that precedent? in fact, amy coney barrett talks about the fact she talked about precedent. she said should public perception or should changing public voous way into whether or not the court may overturn precedent.