settled law, and i don t think we need to talk too much about that. that s not the same as saying they won t overturn. in fact, they hid their intentions and at the very first opportunity, is what they said, the very first opportunity, they moved aggressively to do exactly that. and there s more on tap, just as you mentioned, from clarence thomas. so future confirmation hearings will be far more contentious. there ll be a lot more suspicion, there ll be a lot less likelihood of believing these kind of euphemistic or ambiguous statements from nominees. i mean, people will be asked to say flat-out, do you have an agenda? the last person or the last three people who said that they didn t, in fact, did. i don t think future congresses are going to be able to hold their tongues. i think they re going to have to really press nominees the minute they get there. a legal can of worms opened up by the supreme court with this decision. errol louis, always appreciate your perspective, sir. thank
but not always yeuphemistic. what does this country do it s a really, really tough question, because we don t have, you know, legal instruments in this country to restrain radical speech in that way, and i m not saying that we should. i don t think the government should be, you know, sort of knocking on tucker carlson s door at 2:00 in the morning because of the stuff he says on the show, but it s a cultural problem when our political leaders and the leaders of big institutions in this country have decided that they are either going to look the other way when mainstream political figures use that kind of rhetoric, or even indulge them and engage in it themselves. it s one of the to me, it s one of the most disturbing things that has happened since i have been a political reporter is this cultural shift, where this stuff is not just sort of spouted on, you know, minor talk radio stations, by fringe, state
some really nice people. they wouldn t let me say pro-life in one of my scripts, they made me change it to antiabortion rights activists. okay. that s part of it. it s all the euphemistic .language into making it all sem like it s something it s not or more pernicious when it s not. countering violent extremism instead of fighting terror. it s all of peace. i want to get your response to this news today that many of tht illegalsan arrested in those ras that got a lot of weepy coveragt those process plants are now accused of using, shocker, stolen identities. the left has defended them as innocent victims.do we expect te their stories? that s kind of an old story the left keeps trying to hide. the irs not long ago reported
but it s indisputable what he says is true and it is universally regarded as the truth among the entire diplomatic court. right. you re speaking about the way diplomacy works. if you re not allowed to have some space to privately say, oh, well, the emperor has no clothes because the daily mail then tells everyone you said the emperor is naked, then cables probably get less true and more euphemistic, right? you re talking about the purpose of that. but what does it mean for foreign relations here, for the president to know that at the highest levels of this allied government which has given him the big salute, they think he s basically, i use this term loosely, but a hot mess? by the way, his reaction completely confirmed everything that the british ambassador said. it was intemperate, it was chaotic. it was refuting a member of the diplomatic core. i think it confirmed everything the ambassador said. so, representative gonzalez, take that to what you saw at the facilities and whe
guard against or by these roving mobs of leftists that control the media and the narrative. they use fear, intimidation, extortion, blacklisting, boycotts and so many other manipulative ways as hammers against anybody whose speech they disapprove of. it is a form of totalitarianism, and if we don t watch out we will end up like europe where free speech is essentially out the window. laura: monica, it always ends up boiling over. they tried to do this even with the issue of abortion. the supreme court comes in and finds a right in the constitution that s not there, roe vs. wade. 45 years later we are still debating roe vs. wade, with hundreds of thousands of people. people are trying to say it s a choice but then others say your euphemistic language doesn t work with me. you can t take issues off the table, the supreme court couldn t do with role, and folks