roberts and justice sonja society myer penned spread dissented saying what this means for the women of texas and for the fabric of this country. roberts wrote the clear purpose and effect of sb 8 has been to nullify this court s rulings warning his fellow justices that quote the nature of the federal right infringe does not matter. it is the role of the supreme court in our constitution that is at stake. society myer wrote n this court s finest moments this court ensured that constitutional rights can neither be nullified openly or directly by state legislator, today s fractured court errs gravely this choice to
court out of this sort of spiral into the basis of right-wing politics. do you see it differently? no. i see it exactly the same way. i think, actually there is very particular parallelism between what justice sotomayor wrote in her dissent actually from the bench in her arguments from the mississippi state. she said the stench quote was about the politicize algs of the court and the notion that if the court becomes seen as a political actor that s the stench. the only reason this case was before the court, the mississippi law was passed because new justices were added, trump justices, it was presumed that composition of the court would change and allow the overturning of roe v wade. she says that s the stench that attaches to the court when it becomes a political body undermines legitimacy. she says the same thing in this prior quote but says the notion, the argument that the court is
resolution. so it s in effect. and the way that this law was sfrured, it s kinds of a head fake. it s to say they can have vigilantes going after them but they are never going to do that because they don t need to because all the doctors are so worried. scared, right. when the court when gorsuch says one traditional way of litigating the legitimacy of the law is to be sued and then to make a constitutional claim, that s everybody understands that s bogus because no one is going to be sued and it is just going to remain there as an overhanging threat. it had its affect. to be continued. after the break for us a pair of stark warnings on the state of the free world. one from another country, and the other from a dear friend, somebody you will recognize. next. dear friend, somebody you will recognize.
jurisdictional questions, whether these lawsuits should be in court. the court said it was dismissing it. that s off the table. then it turned to the suit brought by if abortion providers against various state court officials, uj js, clerk, as well as licensing officials in the state and the leader of a texas right to life group. the court held that the state court judges and clerks were in proper defend ants and allowed the suit to proceed against the licensing officials. here s the rub. that s not really a victory. by allowing the suit to go forward against the licensing officials the court has cabined the kind of reefly that the providers can seek. the providers want the law to be enjoined, to stop it from going into effect in texas. that can really only happen if the defendants against whom suit is brought are those state court judge asks the state court
need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the committee s inquiry into an attack on the legislative branch and the peaceful transfer of power. pete williams says it is prosisely the point made by the court that the january 6th serves a valid and important purpose. mark meadows is attempting to toss out the subpoenas from the committee. the point made by trump and meadows could very well mark a dangerous turn in republican thinking, though, around the insurrection, one that could lead to obstruction of any and all recommendation has the committee might ultimately make in order to prevent the next coup. from the washington post s greg sergeant, let s consider the idea that met owes claim advanced. after all that happened protecting the process of concluding our elections from corruption and beefing up