0 please set your dvr so you never miss an episode of hannity. let not your friday night hearts be troubled. the ingraham angle with laura ingraham up next. i hope you have a great weekend! laura: i m laura ingraham. this is the ingraham angle from washington tonight. a shockingly tepid jobs report has the biden white house wreeling and spinning. larry kudlow is here. how the democrats are looking to use january 6th to drive a stake right through the heart of our democracy. senator tom cotton explains that. raymond arroyo cleans up the january 6th hysterics. it is all ahead. the supreme court heard oral argument it s for vaccine mandates for large employers and for health care workers and providers. the osha rule states that businesses with more than 100 or more workers must either require employees to be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing and masking in the work place. opposing this mandate are 27 states and the national federation of independent business. the fact is, lon
solicitor-general, quote, what are the advancements in medicine that could justify abandoning roe v. wade. and quote, when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? while a decision has yet to be announced the court s conservative majority seems certain to uphold mississippi s prohibition on abortion, helping cement that fear the fact the supreme court decided this week to uphold the abortion ban in texas. the justices, however, ruling the law can be challenged in court. dissenting in the texas case justices sotomayor, kagen and breyer writing it s, quote, an unconstitutional scheme, in madness of the supreme court should have put to an end months ago. but by allowing the law to continue, the court, quote, betrays not only the citizens of texas but also our constitutional government. it s that language, the courage to address the stench within our own ranks has many like harvard league scholar laurence tribe
taking all of these assumptions as i m only impated to, your honor, at a minimum this court s statement saying that congress was the one that vested the federal courts with equitable jurisdiction in the first place. it suggests whatever equitable jurisdiction occurs in the curs because congress gave it to them. the court recognized the limitation. i don t understand it was under a private/public. it s whether this court or congress had to expand beyond remedies available. if nothing else is significant on this point, the one thing that the deviolates the scheme of government is that mitigation that that kind of injunction is not traditional equity. justice kagen. with respect to the ndl, is
texas solicitor general saying well, you got to refer it to congress? and then justice kagen saying well, why do you need congress when it s a right? talk me through that. so this is i think the most important exchange that we heard this morning, and it underlines the fact that this argument is not about substantive abortion rights. it s actually about the rule of law, and it goes to bedrock principles of our system which give courts the right to review laws and the argument is about whether this is a law that can be reviewed, and if so, by which court and how. justice kavanaugh is a pivotal vote as ken pointed out. from this morning s questioning, there seems to be good reason to speculate that both justices avenue gnaw and barrett known opponents of abortion, nonetheless, might take a very narrow view of the propriety of the texas statute and find because it is an intentional scheme designed to buy late this
look at this historic context of it, i mean, if it s unusual to that degree, it seems difficult that they would go with it. indeed. i agree that texas is really on its back foot, and i want to come back to justice kagen s first question, because i think it really tells you what a tenuous position texas finds itself in as we pivot to the next argument. because texas went on and on here to say that what the abortion provider did, suing the state judges and state clerks in federal courts was improper. the justice said well, then, what does that mean for the next case? she asked about if they can t get relief here, can the petitioners get relief in the next case. and the next question is well, if abortion providers can t bring a lawsuit, then what can the u.s. government do about it? they have come in and said we ll stand up for the vindication of these constitution noolal