We have often heard that the radical dems would no longer consider the china virus pandemic an issue once the election was behind us. Well, that election is now only six days behind us, and we learn that there is, indeed, a vaccine, a powerful vaccine, and that hope is restored. President trump has repeatedly said a successful vaccine candidate could be announced as early as october or perhaps just before the election. And he was roundly criticized, mocked by the. [laughter] wing the leftwing National Media, of course, the radical dems, specifically one joe biden saying a vaccine could be brought forth as early as the election, they just absolutely rejected his forecast. The president s estimation, is as so often the case, was absolutely correct. President trump also warned, however, that partisan politics could well delay any such announcement. Please take a listen now to what he had to say just one month ago. Listen carefully. Were going to have a great vaccine very,ing very short lu
Part in a virtual rally with Bernie Sanders focused on raising wages for american workers. Coverage begins thursday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. The washington journal has been focusing on battleground dates with reporters and analysts. We will examine what has changed since 2016, what issues are motivating voters this year and give us clues as to what to expecto expect in a few days. Today we will look at the commonwealth of pennsylvania. Joining us is julian routh, covering the campaign for the u. S. Postgazette. Lets start with the Supreme Court decision. What did they decide about ballots in pennsylvania . Shut to Supreme Court three day extension to mailin ballots. They failed once and they failed again last night, but Justice Alito left the door open to potentially reexamine this case when the time comes. The times said before the election, most likely the latter, now just in preparation, the pennsylvania secretary of state said they are going to invite counties to segregate a
Barrett, on the seventh circuit, you are subject to a code of ethics. Judge barrett i am. I assume youre ok with that. Judge barrett of course. I would submit you think that is a good thing. Judge barrett yes. Thell courts are subject to same code of ethics correct . Judge barrett yes. Gets different at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not subject to a code of ethics . Judge barrett the canons of judicial conduct that apply to Lower Court Judges do not apply to the Supreme Court although i do believe it is the practice of the Supreme Court to follow them. They do not apply, we agree. Going to the Supreme Court can interrupt an ethics investigation as we saw with Justice Kavanaugh who had an ongoing ethics investigation in his circuit that was interrupted by his elevation to the Supreme Court without having concluded. There is no such thing with you correct . We have no seventh circuit ethics investigation going on that would bl it interrupted by your elevation to the Supreme Cou
Coming up in one hour, pittsburgh postgazette julian rao on pennsylvania as a battleground state. More on pennsylvania with susquehanna universitys Nicholas Clark. Host good morning. Well begin this morning with testimony on capitol hill yesterday we from yesterday from the ceos of google, facebook, and twitter. They were asked to talk about their social media influence. We want to know from you this morning, do you think these companies have too much power . Republicans, 202 7488001. Democrats, 202 7488000. Ndependents, 202 7488002 you can also text us with your first name, city and state, at 202 7488003, or post your ,omments on twitter, cspanwj or facebook. Com cspan. This headline about yesterdays ted cruz slams twitter political restrictions. Google, facebook, also face liability. Heres what the senator all what the senator had to say yesterday, questioning jack dorsey, alleging that twitter is biased against conservatives. [video clip] ondid twitter block stories copies of the pr
Morning and case number 19123, fulton v. The city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. The courts below made a simple error. They failed to understand where Employment Division versus smith controls and what doesnt. Smith doesnt control when the government uses a system of individualized exemptions or when it makes other exceptions that undermined its rules or when it changes the rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three of those errors here. The city still cant identify a neutral, generally applicable attempts. Fter six it now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the courts below still applied smith. Even set Smith Wouldve be a dead letter if petitioners prevail. That. That demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has caused. Respondents, rather than defend smith, asked the court for new limited constitutional standard thats even less protective of religious exercise. That approach