it s legal as long as the justice says it is. so the supreme court justices aren t bound by the same rules that even other federal judges are bound by. they would be forced to recuse themselves and these cases with the supreme court isn t i think he might face some pressure from the chief justice who reportedly is an institutionalists. this case is exposing the court to the stench of corruption and self-dealing. thomas would be deciding cases that his wife has a personal stake in but joy, the only legal constitutional remedy to get change on this is impeachment. here we go again. the stench is already there. up next, josh hawley s attacks on ketanji brown jackson s sentencing record let to scrutiny on his record and
there were stories about minors seeking parental consent. explain to us from a legal vantage point why those stories are necessary to make a compelling and cogent argument. well, it s actually very unusual in this doj brief. typically in a tro or preliminary injunction you want to establish if you haves movent that you are likely to prevail on the merits and there will be irreparable harm if the tro isn t granted. so i think those stories go to the irreparable harm on the ground to the women in texas who will be foreclosed from getting the care that they need. to have this being made by the department of justice, usually these kind of claims are made by providers. it is unusual to have the force of the united states speaking on behalf of pregnant persons in texas who are trying to exercise their constitutional rights. supreme court justice amy coney barrett made headlines for saying the supreme court justices aren t, quote, partisan