documents. and they said whoa we re not looking at these individual documents which will take months and months. what she said was, the question is who gets to the side? is it the current president, or former president? she very skeptical from the idea that the v of the side also suggesting that even the court shouldn t be deciding in this case. simply conferring to this case. they kept side there is no conflict in the branch of this case. to the extent of the quarters that are adjudicated governmental inter branch of conflicts. both branches agree, president congress to your point about this there s one point were trump s lawyers raise a sort of bizarre notion to me that a judge themselves to go through documents! and review then? it seems like a strange proposal for a bunch of reasons, here s williams responding to that. we can reach the question before we get to that, take a listen! i don t see anything
to your mind being pro life and yet still possibly viewing that the court shouldn t do what they were sent to do given this majority? listen, i may be pro life but i m more pro america and pro freedom. what s good for sofia nelson doesn t have to be good for another woman to make a choice for me. for me, roberts and kavanaugh are going to be the justices have you to watch. they re probably your swing votes. i think amy coney barrett has been very interesting in some of her questioning on this case and others. i m not sure where she comes down, but i think kavanaugh and roberts probably make this thing a 5-4 and roe versus wade probably survives. i don t think mississippi law is what they will eventually pin the decision of the court on. roe is a precedent of over 50 years. at the end of the day i would be
considering whether to replace the president. they are not investigating whether this goes to their favor. they re hearing don mcgahn s testimony in the heat of the campaign and their problems may not be done here. one goes back to the mueller probe, the other goes to ukraine, but they both go to the question of obstruction. the kind of circular reasoning here has been the white house saying on the impeachment case well, actually, on the mueller case, too if you don t like our stance, take it to court. and this proves why that probably wouldn t have worked if democrats had pursued that route, because guess what, you take it to court and the white house says the court shouldn t be considering this, or if the courts are going to consider it, consider it later, don t consider it during impeachment, that s not fair. it s important for the public to know whether you re a supporter of president trump s or you re not or somewhere in the middle
ridiculous, let the judiciary committee do its work. the justice department may be creating enough confusion so that judges may try to hold back. hope they don t because i think that impeachment is something the framers really wanted to protect the democracy and the court shouldn t stop that process. a serious dlib rative process from going forward. i think you made the point that i really wanted to touch on you quickly. the i think what a lot of people are afraid of and what they worry about is that the reason that william barr can make these assertions that donald trump has so stacked the courts including the supreme court with kavanaugh replacing kennedy. they that are confident that they can make what are absurd arguments that are ahistorical when it comes with the impeachment inquiry against nixon, but they re comfort if it goes all the way they ve got a vote locked down with gorsuch
after a weekend of protest this morning. only a couple of governor, protesting the first day in court. just inside as he received a warm welcome from his colleagues as they walked inside, took a seat on the far right of the bench next to elena kagan. gave a brief statement welcoming the new is justice. from there, it was all business. the two cases each dealing with the repeat offenders, so no blockbuster cases on day one. there are always interested to see how the new justices are first day on the job. what kind of questions they are. kevin i listened intently for the first 20 minutes as his colleagues ask questions before jumping in with his first which was technical in nature asking why the court shouldn t follow a previous precedent on the issue. in total, he asked five questions the first arguments all related to the specific case they were directed both sides that he didn t inject any personal opinions will reveal