usa, usa. that was his response, of course, when the supreme court ruled in favor of the christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings. let s bring back j michaelson jason osborne, also joining us evan osnos of the new yorker and constitutional law professor gloria brown marshall. she is the author of the book she took justice, the black woman law and power. great to have all of. you professor, i want to start with you. i assume the imperioli s rule is an informal ball in terms of who can watch his shows. but it s his point valid in that it s sort of what sotomayor was saying about the balkanization of providers being able to decide who they want to serve and not serve. i think it is. it s directly on the point that justice sotomayor is saying that not just the protected class, women, people of color, immigrants, anyone could be prohibited from being served in
let s bring back j michaelson, jason osborne, also joining us, evan osnos of the new yorker and constitutional law professor gloria brown marsh. she is the author of the book she took justice, the black woman, law, and power. great to have all of you. professor, i want to start with you. i assume the imperioli s rule is an informal ball in terms of who can watch his shows. but it s his point valid in that it s sort of what sotomayor was saying about the balkanization of providers being able to decide who they want to serve and not serve. i think it is. it s directly on the point that justice sotomayor is saying that not just the protected class, women, people of color, immigrants, anyone could be prohibited from being served in restaurants or being allowed
these discussions all day long on cable news about obstruction and how he is building an obstruction case. point valid. but why? the why is still the much more important question of why was it worth it to tell all of these lies? and now we re seeing that the collusion piece of this, piece by piece starting to be built out. and every week it seems there is a new member of the team who knew something about the discussions that were going on with the russian. clint, let s go to the law enforcement part of this, clint. here is the question. it seems to me he is going to war with the people that are the national police. they re the investigators. they get the facts to robert mueller. why would he go to people who have an incentive already to go after him because he may have broken the law, but now may have an incentive institutionally forced every day by his attacks on the fbi? this is more trump first, america second. i was worried a years about russia tearing down democratic instituti
proliferation in the middle east. multiple arab countries on a nuclear trigger. that could be a disaster for u.s. national security and security of the world. jenna: mark isn t it distraction though? ambassador bolton on air, he said this is all sideshow. we should be focused on iran. is his point valid, that the republicans even attempting this strategy is taking the eye off the ball, the bigger goal which is not a nuclear iran? jenna. that is a good question. is a netanyahu speech a distraction? is the letter a distraction? it may be or may be provoking a very public debate about the iran deal and may be educating americans what is in this deal and what about the threats that america faces. so i think, what you re see something a frustration on the hill, not only by republicans but shared by democrats. they are being cut out by the administration. that they have no role to play here. i think the letter the speech the number of these issues are a manifestation of that
once government takes over, bad is acceptable and doesn t get better until you re dead. without the engine of competition, all roads to hell of paved for the common good. i can forgive the writer, she claims she had a terrible public education, her ridiculous article is gold plated proof of results of a bad public school. i wonder how many enrolled their kids in private after reading it. juan, is the point valid. there s something to be said. she says if everybody had to go to public school, wasn t able to opt out to private, then public schools would be forced to improve. does that make any sense? some sense to me. the argument could be made well, you know what, if everybody is in there, upper class parents, people with more education, more money, will demand better results, more political power, so you re going to get better schools. but hey, you know what, that doesn t mean your kids get good results. my kid is in school 12 years.