university to put it into context. was there accuracy to what president trump said about the presidents he named including thomas jefferson and relationships with media. what s true is often the media is at odds with presidents. that s when they re serving their function. they re supposed to be a watchdog and many presidents have complained about how they re treated by the press or even complained about certain parts of the press. i do think though that president trump has opened up a much more aggressive frontal assault on the media as a total institution. not just complaining about unfair treatment, but actually questioning the validity of the facts and figures that come out of the news. like with everything else, scale and scope. you can find pieces of what he s done before, but i think this is a different level in terms of how he s doing it. all right. i want to bring in mark lamont hill. i want to get his point of view.
his law firm to defend yourselves. what can the state do to stop that from happening? we will never appease in the state of california anyone who seeks to undermine our economic prosperity or the fundamental human rights of all individuals irrespective of who they are. you re right, i hired eric holder, we ll look at legal strategies to prepare for the frontal assault on our environment, people of color, immigrants, as well as our health care. the reality is this. irrespective of the threats he has made from the white house to a state like california, we ll defend ourselves because his threats are in fact illegal. they re unconstitutional. the american people need to know this. when you threaten a state like california, you threaten to undermine the economy of the united states as a whole. because we are 13% of the gdp of the united states of america. and when you threaten to withhold moneys from a state like california, what you re threatening to do is withhold monies from senior ci
also because it s making us less safe. there are terrorists online today that are using this ban to recruit lone wolf attackers to come after u.s. citizens. i ve heard my republican colleagues say they don t agree with this policy. we can short circuit the court case and pass a law in the congress right now that would repeal this ban. that s what i think we should do. that would be the clearest and easiest way to get back on firm national security footing. have you heard enough republicans say to you that they don t agree with the travel ban to go along with legislation? i mean, you ve heard, what, 15 to 20 republican senators that have objected to the ban. i sort of come back to the hesitancy i referenced before. i don t think they re willing to join us in any sort of frontal assault on the trump agenda this early because they don t want him to screw up their repeal of the affordable care act or their tax cut later on. this is making america less safe every day. it s making us a l
conservative court and the ruling still stands. it is possible. the president can t change the meaning of the constitution. the supreme court is the final say of that. but he can change the makeup of the court. and yes, the court can reverse decisions, even decisions like roe v. wade. i think that what most likely, the advocates on that side want, instead of a frontal assault on roe v. wade, is to chip away on the edges, to go for limitations of duration, conditions for clinics. it s a fight along those edges, and sort of incremental cutbacks. this is an incrementalist court. they re not very keen on reversing things in sort of radical decisions. but they do, in some cases, reverse things over time. so what i would expect is that the attacks would come from the margins and test cases from these states. but he needs really one more vote. five justices and the five are still on the court. kennedy, ginsburg, breyer,
conservative court and the ruling still stands. it is possible. the president can t change the meaning of the constitution. the supreme court is the final say of that. but he can change the makeup of the court. and yes, the court can reverse decisions, even decisions like roe v. wade. i think that what most likely, the advocates on that side want, instead of a frontal assault on roe v. wade, is to chip away on the edges, to go for limitations of duration, conditions for clinics. it s a fight along those edges, and sort of incremental cutbacks. this is an incrementalist court. they re not very keen on reversing things in sort of radical decisions. but they do, in some cases, reverse things over time. so what i would expect is that the attacks would come from the margins and test cases from these states. but he needs really one more vote. five justices and the five are still on the court. kennedy, ginsburg, breyer,