heart emoji. earlier, former british number one annabel croft gave her thoughts on the australian s shock announcement. i think the whole of the tennis world i think the whole of the tennis world were in complete shock. i mean, world were in complete shock. i mean. i world were in complete shock. i mean, i didn t see this coming. i don t mean, ididn t see this coming. i don t think mean, i didn t see this coming. i don t think anyone saw this coming but when don t think anyone saw this coming but when you hear what she has to say about but when you hear what she has to say about it but when you hear what she has to say about it and you hear that she really say about it and you hear that she really feels like she has nothing left to really feels like she has nothing left to give, that by winning at the australian open, it was just like the final australian open, it was just like the final fantastic achievement that she wanted to achieve and she doesn t she wanted to
breyer, scalia road show looks like? what were they arguing about? well, my understanding is they were argumenting or presenting two different viewpoints as to how the constitution should be interpreted. i would say just as an aside before talking about their positions that while i have been on the bench for nine plus years, the issue of constitutional interpretation in that sense doesn t come up very often. it comes up to the supreme court for sure. but it doesn t come up very often in the lower courts. what justice scalia and justice breyer i believe were debating was the justice scalia s notion of originalism meaning that the words of the constitution should be interpreted as they were
endless bunch which can forever absorb these costs. that is why we are unfortunately, as are all of our competitors, having to pass on some of it on to consumers. just competitors, having to pass on some of it on to consumers. of it on to consumers. just give us a rou:h of it on to consumers. just give us a rough idea of it on to consumers. just give us a rough idea of of it on to consumers. just give us a rough idea of that. of it on to consumers. just give us a rough idea of that. you - of it on to consumers. just give us a rough idea of that. you are - of it on to consumers. just give us i a rough idea of that. you are having to increase prices, give us a rough idea of by how much? it is to increase prices, give us a rough idea of by how much? idea of by how much? it is very different across idea of by how much? it is very different across the idea of by how much? it is very different across the board. - idea of by how much? it is very i different across the board. some p
0 first of two long and intense days of questioning from members of the senate judiciary committee began this morning with democrats using their questions to allow jackson to issue a rebuttal to republican accusations that she has been soft on crime and republicans pressing her on her record as a judge and public defender and bringing up a whole host of conservative hobby horses. things like critical race theory. jackson has tried to stay above the fray in her responses. early on in the hearing, she told democratic senator, dick durbin, quote, i tried to stay in my lane. along with me are claire mccaskill and msnbc political analyst with danielle holly walker, dean and professor at howard school of law and joyce vance, law professor at university of alabama as well as an msnbc legal analyst. we have a few minutes before we go back to the hearing. claire, i want to start with you. just some of the fireworks that happened earlier today. just in the last hour or so. senator ted cruz arriv
infrastructure is out of the senate, sitting and waiting for a vote. we should all get behind that on monday. we ll keep working so hard, as we have been, on the reconciliation bill. there s so many things in there that are important from climate to reinstating the state and local tax deduction, to get taxes down fror our families. it makes no sense to actually these are two separate bills. they stand on their own. it makes no sense to vote on an infrastructure bill that s got $2 million a year i know. that s a key part of the president s agenda. you say it makes no sends. you re on capitol hill. sense doesn t always drive the conversation there. i m asking you how do folks at home believe your optimism when it will require someone to cave or negotiate. where is that negotiating point? who gives? who gives what? both sides give what?