violation of her oath as a judge, to treat everyone the same. i found that so shocking. i will leave it to neal and to brad, all sorts of other things but. now we turn something positive, which you mentioned, which, is because she is also, frankly, i think, a chicken, she could be doing all this review herself if she is decided to have a special master. that is a big plus for the department here, because raymond dearie is a step up, a completely different league than this judge. and so by her subcontracting out her own duties and actually, and i think she is thinking, let him be the fall guy, let him have the say that donald trump is wrong, because then her hands are somewhat clean. i think that is what is going on. here it s really disgraceful, but that is the way she is approaching her job. but from the department of justice s point of view i think that there is a lot of hope that they should have, given judge dearie s track records and common sense and integrity. neil castillo, go
that they should have, given judge dearie s track records and common sense and integrity. neil castillo, go. so, lawrence, you ve heard of oliver winder homes, ruth bader ginsburg. this is like the polar opposite of them and we used to say the splitter sir generals office that some appeals right themselves. this is. one it is a terrible, terrible abuse of her legal system for reasons andrew just mentioned. it was also entirely unnecessary. the justice department gave this judge an opportunity to walk back her not-so-early opinion. instead she chose to dig her heels in. bill barr called this hala request for a special master a crock of s-word, and while i thought that was kind of mean to crocs, this opinion is like a crock of crock of as words. the justice department gave her a lifeline and she just blew it off. i can tell, you this decision
have any authority over classified material and could never, ever or,, under any circumstances, take a classified document out of the pile, and hand it back to donald trump. this is the story of a trump appointed judge, doing everything she possibly can to help donald trump to, advance her judicial career in the republican world. and, as she was told by the justice department today, by doing that, she has done everything she possibly can, in this case, to harm the united states of america. leading off our discussion tonight, andrew weizmann, fbi former counsel, and chief of the criminal division in the eastern district of new york. a professor of practice at nyu law school. also, neil castillo, former
target of the conservatives. if they can overrule this case, roe v. wade. which is a most super precedent case ever, it s the case that three republican justices in 1992, kennedy, o connor and souter said, that s the case that social expectations have crystallized around roe v. wade, so even if you re wrong you can t overrule, it because it would damage the courts legitimacy, they did it here. so, if we can do it, here unfortunately they can do it anywhere, and that is the threat tonight. neil kept, yale social reassures, and all the alerts like. thank you very much for starting us off in this conversation, continue with this conversation, we really appreciate it. and joining us now is kelly robinson, she s the executive director of planned parenthood action, fund and the width of america. what does it mean out there in the country, as soon as it becomes law, which could be june.
supreme court is breathtaking. i understand all of this wondered about other things about the court voting rights and so on but on this day i think which we should focus on is roe v. wade because this is monumental in a way that nothing like this has happened in our lifetime. neil, just a quick follow-up, this is a draft opinion. one of the kinds of changes than normally occur between a draft opinion, this one was drafted in february, a opinion that might come out as latest june. what kind of changes happen? so, changes can happen of all sorts, lawrence, big and small. one of the justice can say, hey, justice alito you can drop that footnote, read a paragraph that says this or delayed a whole section. possibly you can even have a justice switch opinions, and say i voted initially after oral arguments to totally uphold the mississippi law, and join justice alito. now, i think that s not true.