possible though i think if some of the other justices knew as well they would recognize across the board. when i have spoken with other judges, other people involved in the court, i think everyone recognizes that making sure that this person is made an example of effectively saying hey, this is not behavior where you can do this to go along unpunished. hard to imagine how that happens if their name is kept secret and they re sort of protected that way. will: i want to end with this. you heard me mention this, there is anticipation or expectation that tomorrow the supreme court could release, i guess we ll find out if the draft opinion ends up reflecting exactly what the opinion will be on roe v. wade. what is reaction to the news we could hear tomorrow? tomorrow, they will release some opinions. we don t know if that will be one of them. if it isn t tomorrow we ll be playing this game, waiting game from now until the end of june but i would say the sooner the better.
universe of people that would have access to the draft. you would think it should be relatively easy. they all work in the supreme court building. let s figure this out. it is possible the chief justice knows, simply hasn t released it yet. the biggest value of learning make sure the person s name is released. faces consequences of that action, means losing their job at the supreme court, potentially disbarred, all those things are important to make it clear this is not something that can continue to really protect the institution of the court. i think find the person quickly, please, so we know we can have closure for this. will: to your point, carrie, it is so probable you can narrow down who it is very quickly. you bring up the potentiality chief justice roberts may already know who it is and maybe not releasing it. it is the possibility we never learn who it is even though it s known within the court circles? you know, i suppose that s
constitutional argument, let s have a doctor on to actually answer that. here is dr. marty makary on justice. that s not true. we have not had 100,000 children in serious condition in u.s. hospitals. according to the cdc, omicron is more mild. we have laboratory evidence of that we have epidemiological evidence of that the statistics they cite appear to be more derived from media headlines than data. inconsistent with the tracked and key indicators new hospitalizations for covid rather than with covid. pete: maybe, rachel answered the questions. they are reading headlines that are convenient for them and regurgitating them at the supreme court. will, i was heartened and continue to be heartened by the concern justices, thanks to donald trump who are on the court, who have the potential to be bulwark.
to either stupidly or intentionally lie about the circumstances. that s what sotomayor did. and the bottom line is, whether or not she [inaudible] pete: that s right. will: the emergency must continue so repeat the lies or the misinformation. where did she get them? did she acquire them? did she acquire them as dr. marty makary said from the media? well, that s not a far stretch. watch this. this is the coverage of yesterday s hearings. the court tonight seems prepared to block what the biden administration calls a powerful tool for fighting covid. today, the supreme court s liberals said the need is urgent. with nearly 36 million adults yet to get a single dose of the vaccine, liberal justices said the dangers of the coronavirus justify the unprecedented federal mandates. and for the first time, a majority of the justices, with the exception of justice neil gorsuch wore masks. will: if that s the depth of the coverage from yesterday, can you understand how someone could
from washington with more on the requirements and impacts more than 100 million americans. alexandra, good morning. good morning. what the supreme court is considering right now is how much power the executive branch can exert in the lives of americans. listen in to some of the questions posed by justice roberts. i wonder if it s not fair for us to look at the court as a general exercise of power by the federal government. and then ask the questions of why doesn t congress have a say in this? why doesn t primary responsibility of the states. seven of the eight justices appeared in the courtroom, justice sotomayor elected to dial in from her office. they are now weighing the labor department s emergency regulation requiring employees at companies with 100 or more workers to get vaccinated. most osha regulations, all of the ones with which i m familiar affect employees when they are on the job but not when they are not on the job. and this affects employees all the time.