maligned and changing the filibuster rules for lower court appointees and having mitch mcconnell turn it around on him and change it for supreme court appointees and neil gorsuch, greg kavanaugh and amy coney barrett are there in a 60 votes. so people kind of blamed reid retroactively for his change that allowed mitch mcconnell to change it, which i think is dumb because the universe in which mitch mcconnell does not bend to give neil gorsuch and kavanaugh on the court simply doesn t exist. reid prestruck by changing the filibuster for court appointments. and, as you say, that is why biden and as a first-year president, has appointed more lower court justices in his first year than any other president in american history other than george washington. so, there you go. linda, reid obviously had a very, very long career in washington, was really like a creature of the u.s. senate in
by mitch mcconnell and donald trump to stop the jgs. and we should also note has led to a record amount of judicial appointments in biden s first year. it has sort of done it for both sides. i wonder what you think the legacy of that decision is. sometimes you have to be concerned about the end state. i think reid gets unfairly maligned for changing the filibuster rules and have mitch mcconnell turn it around on him and change it for supreme court appointees. and remember they re all there in a filibuster-free world. if there were a filibuster there none of these people got 60 votes. so people kind of blamed reid retroactively for his change which allowed mitch hk kaunl to change it, which i think is dumb because the universe in which mitch mcconnell does not bend hell and hurgt to get neil gorsuch and kavanaugh on the
when he wanted to confirm trump s supreme court appointees. so the democrats should put it aside to protect democracy. ultimately that s where this is going. in just the last year, you have 19 states that have enacted 33 laws that will make it harder for americans to vote. marc, what s the level of concern about the ways in which these new laws will, let s be honest about it, do what they are designed to do, suppress turnout for the next election and elections to come? it s a naked, un-democratic power grab by a group of politicians who cannot win an election fair and square. so when you can t win an election fair and square, you fiddle with the rules. you create false narratives around fraud. you dig deep into the well of old methods from the 1800s and the 1960s. and you seek to thwart the right
an unknown person. police believe she may not be in danger by looking at whether she had any secret social media, it is unlike her to cut off all communications. donald trump s two supreme court appointees on opposite sides of the controversial issue. neil gorsuch siding with liberals in a decision to strikes on a federal law punishing violent crimes involving guns. the court ruling the sentencing guidelines were unconstitutionally vague as donald trump tells the holy is prepared to fill the next potential vacancy. we put forward a nominee between now and the election. a beautiful list of talented people. absolutely. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says he would allow a vote to fill a seat in an election after he failed to do so in 2016. the time 20 minutes until the top of the hour and a overseas is paying off her student loans
abortion at six weeks. you think about this and this president came in, all-time low of abortions because of the fact that planned parenthood was funded and because the obama administration supported women s health. now they cut back on planned parenthood funding, defunding it entirely at the same time that they re taking away a woman s right to choose. and by the way, in the state senate in alabama it was all men that voted for that, not one woman. yeah. you know, i ve got to ask you about this because i remember you questioned, senator, you questioned both of the president s supreme court appointees, justice kavanaugh and gorsuch. here s what they had to say. the supreme court of the united states has held in roe versus wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th amendment. and the book explains that. do you accept that?