nothing if chuck schumer brings it to a vote. joyce, again, president biden warned that this draft ruling puts privacy rights at risk. we ve heard about the threat it could be the same sex marriage, what else could be impacted? well, because abortion rights rest on this rubric of due process and privacy rights, and there are other writes that the court hasn t forced, based on that same sort of the thinking is that everything on that branch of substantive process may ultimately be at risk. the primary targets, stephanie, has to be contraception. there s a supreme court case, griswold versus connecticut, that made it legal this is sort of shocking to think back to, that in our life it wasn t illegal for versus connecticut, the case that does that. in her confirmation hearing, justice amy coney barrett, declined to say that she believed graze walled was gridlocked.
population in southern africa. mother nature is telling us what is in store for us next. as long as we refuse to vaccinate the global south, she will continue to throw terrible variants of concern at us. when i saw that the u.s. government and the g7 countries were not stepping up to donate vaccines we said, we re going to do it ourselves. as of now, our modest center for vaccine development at texas children s hospital is providing more doses to the world s low and middle income countries than the u.s. government or any of the g7 countries. so it is also a call to action for the other countries to step up and stop the new variants from emerging. meanwhile, here at home the supreme court heard arguments friday as to whether president biden has the authority to require companies of 100 employees or more to have fully vaccinated staff or test once a week. the court hasn t officially ruled. some conservative justices have argued the government doesn t have the authority to impose a nati
release of any documents. the court hasn t decided whether to take the case. and overnight, of course, we know the committee issuing subpoenas for more allies of the former president, lawyers who the committee says, quote, publicly promoted unsupported claims about the 2020 election, and participated in attempts to disrupt or delay the certification of election results. aka, they lied and pushed it. i want to bring in garrett haake and politico national correspondent and msnbc contributor, betsy woodruff swann. garrett, to you. it is 3:11 eastern time, based on my clock. there is a deadline less than three hours from now for these documents to be hand over. walk us through the process here. what do we know about the documents that the committee is set to get their hands on, and when will we know they ve actually gotten them. we know almost nothing about these documents. don t feel bad. neither does the committee. this could have been the white house lunch menu from the 6th for all we
obviously, you want to make sure you fick right person and make sure that that person is ready for the fire storm that may come their way. but there are so many pit falls that can go wrong between nomination and confirmation and i think speed is your friend in smoothing those over. how much does that help in november? or do you think it might not have any difference at all? i think i veer on the side of it might not have influence. the court hasn t been a huge motivator. i think it is important to the contractic voters that biden keep his promise. it s important that he keep his promise but this is an important one. for biden, a do no harm approach. you don t want to undermine your support. i think this helps him stay firm with black voters in march but it won t resolve all the political problems that they
diminished. the big picture here is the future of a key section of the voting rights act that is meant to protect minority voters could very well as soon as next term be cut back. it is interesting on this issue of precedent. i remember watching a lot of supreme court confirmation hearings where all of the nominees said precedent rules. and here is another case doesn t appear that it did. yeah. time after time we have been seeing that pattern now. and the supreme court we know will still hear the case, the full case next fall. but given the role that elections played in the majority s decision here what is the likelihood the court then will reach a decision before the midterms? it is not high. the court hasn t said exactly when it is going to hear oral arguments. keep in mind, if the lower court opinion had been allowed to stand here, democrats in the state would have gained another seat. now, that is not going to happen in the house. and, of course, other states are drawing line