guidance on all of this. there s no excuse for justic thomas did not have known, i not cause at all that he didn go for this. michael, let s talk about this, the ethics and governmen act. it was passing the aftermath o a lot of these scandals with 70, 80 what were the requirements o that love for judges, and guess, even bigger question, 4 years later, are they enough they re not enough. as we ve seen, you r independent on the fact that supreme court justices, woul be honorable enough to repor big financial transactions clarence thomas wasn t a government salary. his real estate deal i $133,000 plus. he s taken millions of dollars and trips, and other favor from crow for over two decades these are not small amounts of money. for him to claim that he did not think this was important
one of the things that makes the argument a little bit hard mark pomerantz wrote a unauthorized book, meaning tha he did not get clearance fro alvin bragg. he has spoken in writing obviously, in his book but als the shows like msnbc, it shows he s actually provided a lot o information in all sorts o kora it s very hard to say, gee he s spoken on all of thes different forms, why should he not have to give testimony under oath to congress i think that this is going t have to be a little bit of a jump ball for the court. and speaking of pomerantz he writes in a brief of his own, basically asking the judge wha to do. if i refused to provid information to the committee, risk being held in contempt of congress, and referred to th department of justice fo possible criminal prosecution. if, on the other hand, i def the district attorney instructions and answe questions, i face possible legal or ethical consequences, including criminal prosecution how unusual is this to ask for
should be seven. we don t think you should be able to get it in the mail, we don t think you should be able to get it in pharmacies. that is what happens but, do they have the standing that s what we call it, to mak one of those claims. and it was justice scali himself, not exactly a radical who would one case said that the mere fact that there may b a chance of someone bein harmed is not enough to even get standing that it makes a mockery of our prior cases, that at least someone has to have actual harm, or the potential for harm. look who is really going to be harmed here, alicia? the women of this country. it is a drug use and over half of the abortions, the wome that have to take a bus from texas to minnesota, or fro florida with their six-wee ban. florida to new york. that is what s going to happen unless this court does the right thing. and i am sure you have th
same observation reading thi ruling, which is - it s trying to make this pivot to fetal personhood, right the real concern is not th life of the woman carrying tha pregnancy, their concern i purely beginning to push thi argument that fetuses should have legal rights. i ve got to ask you, you ve go legal experts who think this ruling is so flawed, it unlikely the supreme court even going to back it i wonder how you see it playing out? i think it goes back to wha i just talked about on thi front, of the standing front because you literally can have this one, or now thre judges, be making a decision for women across the country we know we have another case out of washington state whic covers my state of minnesota 17 states which allow abortion they have said, this judge sai no the fda was given this right the fda was given the right by congress to make these kinds o decisions. you even have pharmaceutical
Transcripts for MSNBC The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell 20240604 05:27:15 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.