arguments in this case given that if the regulation is no longer on the books? . yeah. thanks for having me on. it is an unusual setup. they agreed to hear the case. the law was on the books, regulation, it was repealed after the court agreed to hear the case, then replaced by state law so it couldn t be repassed. i think most observers thought they would dismiss it at moot. so far the justices haven t done that. they directed the parties to argue it. they could still dismiss the case. so far they haven t done it. on that note, this has attracted so much interest. 50 court briefs have been filed in conjunction with this case. help us understand the importance of it, what this could mean, the fact that the court is dealing with the issues after a decades time. fundamentally we ll get to you in a second. . maybe i should defer to the expert because i m not a gun rights expert. but the issue is there s so many
from topic to topic. but this was not the example of a press conference of a president who was on message and focused, it was a festivus press conference. he says the very things that will get cited in court briefs against his position every time. richard haas, the sing songing his sing-song description of how this was going to move through the court system was a little disturbing to say the least. disturbing is one word for it. it was also memorable, joe. and it was i don t know about you but when i would write for presidents or work with them, thinking out loud in an
the decisions using transcripts of the arguments and court briefs. roberts didn t make reference to the audio recordings made of supreme court proceedings. here s what it brought to my mind. earlier this week, kevin spacey was arraigned in nantucket and we all watched. why? because there were cameras in the courtroom. the ginsberg situation is a great example as to why there should be cameras in the supreme court of the united states. you have a right, assuming you stand in line and get in to go sit and watch the proceedings of the supreme court. why shouldn t we all be able to watch without having to go there. why shouldn t justice ginsberg will able to watch the arguments given her own absence. you know who would agree we me? justice ginsberg, herself. this exchange with senator orrin hatch in july of 1993. are you for or against tv coverage of the court? i don t see any problem with
unfolds. and the evolving reason why his credential was pulled is a big question of what that means in the grand scheme of things. this new brief, there is no mention of that claim that he had placed his hands on a white house intern. the white house is not making that claim anymore. it is only saying that acosta wouldn t give up the microphone. lots of reporters try to ask follow up questions. and also happening today, a bunch of media organizations are coming to cnn s defense. 13 different news outlets have issued a joint statement saying they are joining friend of the court briefs. our news organization support the fundamental constitutional right to question the president or any president. thus we are filing friend of the court briefs to support cnn and jim acosta s lawsuit based on these principles. this is nbc, the new york times, the washington post.