auto workers are building the next generation of electric vehicles and e lick trigss who will install a nationwide network of 500,000 vehicle stations to power them throughout my country. the engineers will design new carbon capture systems, and the construction workers who will make them a reality. the farmers who will not only help fight global hunger but also use the soil to fight climate change. the communities that revitalize themselves around new industries and opportunities. and because we are taking all these actions, the united states will be able to meet ambitious target i set in the leader's summit and climate in april reducing u.s. emissions by 50 to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030. we'll demonstrate to the world the united states is not only back at the table, but hopefully leading by the power of our example. i know it hasn't been the case and that's why my administration is working overtime to show that our climate commitment is action, not words. on my first day in office, i took action returning the united states to the paris agreement. since then our administration has been hard at work on locking clean energy breakthroughs to drive down the cost of technologies that will require us to do -- to achieve net zero emissions and working with the private sector on the next generation of technologies that will power clean economy of the future. over the next several days the united states will be announcing new initiatives to demonstrate our commitment to providing innovative solutions against mutt pl sectors from agriculture to oil and gas to combatting deforestation, to tackling hard and to abate industries. we're planning for both short-term sprint in 2030 that will keep 1.5 degrees celsius in reach, and for a marathon that will take us to the finish line and transform the largest economy in the world into a thriving, innovative, equitable and just clean energy engine of net zero for a net zero world. that's why today i'm releasing the u.s. long-term strategy. it presents a vision of achieving the united states' goal of net zero emissions economy wide by no later than 2050. and reinforces a critical nature of taking bold action with -- in the decisive decade. we're also going to try to do our part when it comes to helping the rest of the world take action as well. we want to do more to help countries around the world, especially developing countries accelerate their clean energy transition, address pollution and ensure the world we all must share a cleaner, safer, healthier planet. we have an obligation to help. and the united nations, at the united nations in september, i announced my administration is working with the congress to quadruple or climate finance support for developing countries by 2024, including significant increases and support for adaptation efforts. this commitment is made possible to each of our collective goals and mobilizing $100 billion annually for climate finance. but mobilizing finance in the scale necessary to meet the incredible need is an all hands on deck effort. as other speakers today mentioned, governments in the private sector and multilateral development banks must also do the work to go from millions to billions to trillions. the necessary effect of this transition. today i'm also submitting a new adaptation communication, laying out how we'll implement the global goal of adaptation as well as announcing our first ever contribution to the adaptation fund. our commitment is about more than just financing. that's a critical piece of it. we're also going to support solutions across the board. in the leadup to the gathering, the united states joined our g-7 partners to launch a build back better world initiative. we also reconvened the major economies forum on energy and climate to launch transformative actions and to raise ambition and together with the european union, we're launching a global methane pledge to collectively reduce methane emissions, one of the most potent greenhouse gases by at least 30% by the end of the decade. more than 70 countries have already signed up to support rapid reduction in methane pollution, and i encourage every nation to sign on. it's the simple, most effective strategy we have to slow global warming in the near-term. my friends, if you were to recognize that better more hopeful future of every nation has to do its part, with ambitious targets to keep 1.5 degrees in reach, and specific plans at how to get there, especially the major economies. it's imperative that we support developing nations so they can be our partners in this effort. right now we're still falling short. there's no more time to hang back or sit in the fence or argue among ourselves. this is a challenge of our collective lifetimes. the existential threat to human existence as we know it. and every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. so let this be the moment that we answer history's call here in glasgow. let this be the start of a decade of transformative action that preserves our planet and raises the quality of life for people everywhere. we can do this. we just have to make a choice to do it. so let's get to work and thank you. those of us who are responsible for much of the deforestation and all the problems we have to far have an overwhelming obligation to the nations who, in fact, were not there, have not done it, and we have to help much more than we have thus far. god bless you all and may god save the planet. thank you. from scotland, i want to go right back to washington d.c. to the supreme court where the justices are hearing oral argument in the woman's health versus jackson case. let's listen. >> so too the fact they don't have direct authority over these private delegated -- private individuals exercising delegated power, shouldn't matter for the same reason. >> in the example you're citing, individuals would be able to bring ex parte young challenges against those individuals but not against the attorney general. the key difference is those individuals the district attorneys would be able to enforce the law by bringing the lawsuit. the reason that we're sort of the high poes i'm pushing back against here are that the -- that the attorney general simply doesn't have any control of the procession of sb-8 lawsuits in any way. he doesn't have a mechanism to take over the litigation. he can't certify that a lawsuit is not in the state's interest or something in order it dismissed. he has none of those sorts of mechanisms. because of that that can't possibly at a minimum redress the issues of petitioners unless this court were to say that private individuals who have not articulated they plan to bring suits are somehow agents acting in concert with the attorney general. the problem with that is that, again, we have no authority over them. the basic cob september of agency is there's a principle and an agent and the agent is responsible foth principal. the principal, the attorney general executes no supervisory over punitive suit bringers. and we're not acting in concert. we're not being approached. this is just a matter that can be resolved in the district court if it gets that far. we're not -- it's individual people choosing or not choosing to bring the reinforcement challenges in state court, i mean. >> could i ask you about the implications of your position for other constitutional rights. the firearms policy coalition says, quote, this will easily become the model for suppression of other constitutional rights with second amendment rights being the most likely targets, end quote. and it could be free speech rights. it could be free exercise of religion rights. it could be second amendment rights if this position is accepted here. the theory of the amee kas brief is it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights. your response? >> your honor, in several of those circumstances individuals who are concerned that a lack of immediate preenforcement federal court access would cause liability or suppress their ability to exercise the rights have turned to congress and succeeded. the protection of lawful commerce an arms act was specifically passed in response to state tort lawsuits in which there was no immediate federal review that could only at most be brought here. >> for some of those examples, i think it would be difficult to get legislation through congress. are you saying absent that, that second amendment rights, free exercise, religion rights, free speech rights could be targeted by other states in this using the ex parte young language on 163 and to really put huge penalty to the chief justice hypothetical, saying everyone who sells an ar-15 is liable to every citizen. that where the laws will have purchase. would that kind of law be exempt from preenforcement review in federal court? >> my answer is on whether or not federal court is available does not turn or not nature of the right. we can put in religious liberties? >> we can assume this will be across the board equally applicable as the firearms policy coalition says to all constitutional rights? >> yes, but i'd add one more point. >> and you've also said the amount of the penalty doesn't matter. a million dollars per sale. anyone a state passes a law, anyone who declines to provide a gooder service for use in the same sex marriage, a million dollars is sued by anyone in the state. that's exempt from preenforcement review? >> again, what we'd have to have -- >> is that a yes? >> yes, i'm sorry. >> yes, that's exempt from preenforce. >> in the sense of federal courts doctrines and congress and statutes to fighting jurisdiction in the federal courts would have to be modified by congress. >> and general stone, your answer to justice kavanaugh which is go ask congress, i mean, isn't the point of a right that you don't have to ask congress. isn't the point of a right it doesn't matter with the majority of american people think as to that right? >> respectfully, the answer to that in both parts of the question, justice -- we have to assume that other state courts judges are going to faithfully apply the constitution, its rights in this court's decisions. it will have to occur through the state course process to be sure, but that is an adequate venue -- >> within the state process maybe many years from now, and with a chilling effect that basically deprives people who want to exercise the right from the opportunity to do so in the maybe long-term interim. >> please. >> thank you. >> no doubt that's the case in many kinds of lawsuits including constitutional ones, your honor, but no one has thought litigation delays had constitutional dimension for purposes of expanding action to the federal courts before. i don't think this case should be the first one to start. >> thank you. i have just one additional question. there was a statement in one of the briefs below, not by you. it said, quote, states have every prerogative to adopt interpretations of the constitution that differ from the supreme courts. does the state of texas have a position on that? >> the state of texas's position is the courts of the state of texas will faithfully apply any decisions of this court as they understand them to apply to cases of federal law faithfully and the other officers inside the other officers within texas are bound likewise to take the interpretations from this court and federal law and to implement them. >> thank you, counsel. >> just a quick technical question. in reading ex parte young, i got the impression that the enforcement mechanism is really private or passengers who were supposed to sue the railroad. the attorney general didn't have any direct power. he just had a kind of residual power. i looked up the texas statute. it seems like the attorney general here has the same kind of residual power. hard to see it because it was a contempt place, but it's there. they say this attorney general with just the residual power, he can go sue. then all your problems in that case, but they didn't appear, and it turned out that the statute nobody enforced because it had been said to be unconstitutional in the ag's case. is there a difference i overlooked? >> even given all those provisions, even given all the facts, nonetheless, this described an injunction running in state courts and state clerks as a violation of all scheme. in this particular case, the attorney general has no connection whatsoever. not even to enforcement of the sb-8. >> justice? >> what can you tell us about the state multidistrict litigation? when were -- this law was enacted i believe in the middle of may. but when were the suits filed? where do they stand now? are they being delayed as a result of the federal court litigation? how quickly might we expect to see a decision in that case? >> i can answer some of those questions, your honor. they were filed fairly promptly. i believe just before sb-8's effective date. there are currently 14 of them in a multidistrict lit impags. there's motions for summary judgment within ten days from now. i assume the judge is acting on a highly expedited schedule as to whether there will be post notions practice or other than that, i couldn't say. i have little doubt the texas courts are going to treat this as a case to treat expeditiously. >> they were filed around the same sb 8 took effect or enacted in may? >> i believe it was one sb-8 took effect. >> and are they being delayed as a result of the federal court litigation? >> it appears that the motion for summary judgment deadline has been set for ten days from now. they're continuing the pace even given this court. >> they involve only state law claims is my understanding and the plaintiffs in those cases have not raised federal constitutional claims. is that correct? >> that's incorrect. at least one of the litigants is planned parenthood where they have raised explicitly the federal constitution underburden defense. at least in that one there's certainly explicitly raising this court's articulation of the case you ride. >> thank you. >> counsel, it was talked about ek quitable remedies involving private parties. in 1789 we had just created a new system of government. so we never had an ex parte young for any other injunketive relief between governments because we didn't have anything like this before in england or anywhere else. the system of government we have created. now, i take -- and i listen to what ex parte young said about not interfering with the work of the court and the branches, ongoing work of the cord nant branches. but one thing that we said in cooper versus aaron was equality important. and that is constitutional rights declared by this court can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislatures or state executive, or judicial officers, and these are the key words. nor indirectly through evasive schemes. given what i just said that that principle is inherent in the constitution, why am i limited? why would i be looking to a history that can't exist by its very nature? what does exist are the words we said in ex parte young. which was we are charged by congress in ensuring that federal rights are respective directly or indirectly. so could you respond and tell me why we're limited by anything in terms of with an equitable remedy would be like assuming -- and you can challenge the assumption but you'll waste your time. assuming we were to find that this was -- this scheme was intended to chill abortions that were constitutional. >> taking all of these assumptions as i'm only impated to, your honor, at a minimum this court's statement saying that congress was the one that vested the federal courts with equitable jurisdiction in the first place. it suggests whatever equitable jurisdiction occurs in the curs because congress gave it to them. the court recognized the limitation. i don't understand it was under a private/public. it's whether this court or congress had to expand beyond remedies available. if nothing else is significant on this point, the one thing that the deviolates the scheme of government is that mitigation that that kind of injunction is not traditional equity. >> justice kagen. >> with respect to the ndl, is there anything in that that prohibits parties from bringing enforcement action against texas's law for violating the constitution? >> no, your honor. in fact, again, some individuals who were raising preenforcement -- >> is there reinforcement action in this court right now? >> yes. >> there's nothing to prohibit them from bringing it? >> nothing than identifying a private claimant. >> on the chilling effect question, it's suggested the chilling effect here is different in kind because of the involvement of private persons and bounties. often constitutional rights of course can only be enforced in a defensive posture when individuals faced with potential liability, punitive damages but also, of course, civil fines and even criminal sanctions including prison time. and i guess i want to understand your argument as to why this is or is not different in kind. >> well, your honor, it's certainly not different in kind. in fact, it's much milder in degree than a variety of the constitutional rights we've discussed in the state court with potential downside risks from failing state court litigation. in new york times there was a -- quite a great deal of exposure potentially from that defamation action. individuals suffering potentially criminal sanctions for second amendment rights all the time. $10,000 liquidated damages provision and potentially a fee shifting mechanism on top of it is comparatively mild compared to incarceration for asserting a second amendment right. realistically, none of the complaints about the plaintiff favoring procedural rules in sb-8 would amount to anything even considering a procedural due process violation if this law were about making widgets. preenforcement challenge. >> thank you. >> this is -- i want to follow up about the preenforcement state court. you said the matter of finding a private plaintiff to sue. is that right? >> a private individual who holds them out that they're going to sue -- >> right. and in the state court, if i understand that answer you gave to justice gorsuch, the same problems that evade this reinforcement exist there. even if there's a plaintiff who expresses the intent to sue, injunction runs only against the one plaintiff and we would have the same problems because the attorney general can't be sued in state court, so it doesn't resolve -- it's not ex parte young style, i guess is what i'm asking. >> no more than probably there's no such ex parte remedy against individuals with multiple people acted in concert, they could be joined. i will say there is one feature of this law brought up before. if an individual who has an action brought against them pays the statutory damages amount, no further liability can be brought by anyone for that same act. that would extinguish the down the line of an infinite series of lawsuits. >> for that one abortion, but i guess what i'm getting at, and i think the answer because you're shifting, is that you cannot get kind of global relief in the same way that preenforcement challenge i -- the same way they give you relief from the prospect that the statute is enforced against you. you're saying in state court the preenforcement actions do not offer that. they're just on an individual by individual basis? >> yes, justice. the same way an injunction against all individuals known or unknown in the federal court would be a remedy unknown to that -- >> extraordinarily unusual hour. we've been listening to oral arguments before the supreme court as it takes up two cases stemming from the abortion law. i want to bring back neil and barbara and tolly, own joshua. and barbara, let me start with you. what is it that you have impleened from this hour and 15 minutes that we've had this extraordinary opportunity to listen in on this case? >> well, the thing that seems tigt to me, if not extraordinary, is the open skepticism, if not downright hostility we've seen by justices kavanaugh and barrett. and with those two votes, we could see a successful challenge to sb-8. it was justice kavanaugh who raised the hypothetical that neil previewed earlier about if a state can do this with abortion rights, can't a state do the same with gun rights and other things? the answer to that was about how we have to trust states to be faithful to the constitution. well, if texas isn't faithful to the constitution here, i don't see how we can expect that elsewhere. that was a powerful moment in the argument. >> neil, over and over again, they kept talking about ex parte young. can you give us civilians an understanding of what exactly that is? >> yeah. it's a 19 08 case. normally you can't sue a state directly. you have to sue a state official. all that comes from the 1908 case. before 1908 you couldn't even sue state officials. so federal constitutional law had to be vindicated in state courts. but what that 1908 decision said is no, you can sue a state official, because after all, sometimes state courts aren't going to be fully protective of federal constitutional rights. and so the whole debate or good chunk of the debate in the first hour and 15 minutes was what does that supreme court decision mean? and here's where i think if you're texas right now you have to be incredibly worried. justice kavanaugh said the logic of what happened in 1908 was to vindicate enforcement to federal constitutional right. sure, it was an expansion of what happened before, but that's because of a deep seeded need. and justice breyer made a similar point. taken together, those two things, and i agree, justice barrett's skepticism leads me to think right now the texas law is in deep trouble on this vigilante provision. that doesn't mean it's struck down in terms of the abortion restrictions. it just means that you can enforce the federal constitutional right in a federal court, and you can have them hear your case. so i think the court is looking right now, and obviously with a lot of caveats. it's looking right now like the supreme court is going to strike down the vigilante provision. that doesn't means that texas will -- the texas abortion law immediately goes away. it just means there's now a federal court that can hear the case. >> and it was fascinating to hear justice sotomayor bring up 1789. how unusual this law that they're seeing is, and when you look at this historic context of it, i mean, if it's unusual to that degree, it seems difficult that they would go with it. >> indeed. i agree that texas is really on its back foot, and i want to come back to justice kagen's first question, because i think it really tells you what a tenuous position texas finds itself in as we pivot to the next argument. because texas went on and on here to say that what the abortion provider did, suing the state judges and state clerks in federal courts was improper. the justice said well, then, what does that mean for the next case? she asked about if they can't get relief here, can the petitioners get relief in the next case. and the next question is well, if abortion providers can't bring a lawsuit, then what can the u.s. government do about it? they have come in and said we'll stand up for the vindication of these constitution noolal rights. it's the first time the united states has ever brought a lawsuit in an abortion case, and that's what we're about to hear next. >> and joshua, what hasn't been mentioned is roe v. wade. that's something clearly the first of december when the supreme court takes up the mississippi case is going to be a more direct link to it, but that's what this is all about. >> absolutely. you know, when you think back to roe two months before it was decided, justice blackman who wrote the majority opinion, he said it's going to be an unsettled period for a while. well, 49 years later we're obviously in more than an unsettled period. and how did we get here? it depends who who you ask. the people who are opposed to roe will say it's roe itself that has politicized the issue. and those on the other side will point out that was actually the republicans had begun to politicize abortion preroe. you had president nixon about facing on the issue in 1970. so as to perhaps siphon off votes from the democrat catholics, and what is inarguable is that roe galvanized those opposed to it. what we're seeing now with sb-8 is that this is just sort of the latest weapon in a 50 -year pro-life war on roe. there was politics and protests, technology in the sense that they used fetal photography to humanize the unborn. crisis pregnancy centers. these thousands of outposts that tried to often set up right next to abortion clinics so as to dissuade a woman from having an abortion. rebranding of late-term abortions. one method anyway as partial birth abortions, pseudo science. we saw with the 2007 case of gonzalez mentioning post abortion syndrome. the idea that a woman who has an abortion will suffer from it psychologically and now this. and you're exactly right. after 50 years, roe is in genuine peril. that's because what is right around the pike with dobs. >> thank you all for being with me this unusual hour. it was so fascinating to be able to be a fly on the wall there and kind of listen in to this extraordinary discussion at the supreme court. that wraps up the hour for me. thank you for the privilege of your time. we have more news right after the break. s right after the break. ♪ ♪ just two pills for all day pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible. and also try alevex topical pain relief. feel stuck with credit card debt? move to sofi and feel what it's like to get your money right. ♪ move your high-interest debt to a sofi personal loan. you could save with low rates and no fees. earn $10 just for viewing your rate and get your money right. ♪ mm. [ clicks tongue ] i don't know. i think they look good, man. mm, smooth. uh, they are a little tight. like, too tight? might just need to break 'em in a little bit. you don't want 'em too loose. for those who were born to ride there's progressive. with 24/7 roadside assistance. -okay. think i'm gonna wear these home. -excellent choice. every single day, we're all getting a little bit better. with 24/7 roadside assistance. we're better cooks... better neighbors... hi. i've got this until you get back. better parents... and better friends. no! no! that's why comcast works around the clock constantly improving america's largest gig-speed broadband network. and just doubled the capacity here. how do things look on your end? -perfect! because we're building a better network every single day. good morning, everybody. kicking off an abbreviated show this hour, we have been in special coverage following arguments at the supreme court and remarks from president biden overseas. what is happening is unlike anything that we have ever covered before. right now our eyes and ears, they're on the supreme court. the justices are hearing two challenges to the new texas abortion law which is virtually stopped abortions in the state, by the way. these cases deal with two distinct questions with this law. first, whether a state can hand off enforcement of a law to individuals. second, whether the federal government has the right to sue an intervene. the stakes are incredibly high. the court fast tracked these challenges which is pretty rare. a ruling likely won't come for a while meaning this law is going to stay in effect. then there is the question of if the law in texas stands, will other states follow suit? last hour the lawyer representing the texas abortion clinics called this law a potential road map for any state to get around court rulings. and now we have unprecedented access. a live audio stream of the proceedings which is very rare, by the way. we have our team listening to what's happening inside the court. so please, bear with us. we're new to juggling this just like all of you are as well. first, the president is, in fact, overseas, meeting with world leaders. he just spoke about fighting climate change, a central part of his domestic agenda. want to start with that and senior white house correspondent kelly o'donnell who is traveling with the president and joins us from scotland. we took a listen. obviously, kelly, to the president and then jumped right back into the arguments at the court so did not necessarily have an opportunity to really take a beat and wrap up what we heard from the president. but, of course, the president saying listen, this is a global effort. a moral imperative, and also citing his agenda, the build back better program that he hopes to get across the finish line in the coming days. walk us through what more we heard from the president today, kelly. >> yes. when there very much is a connection between the president's agenda back home and what he tries to bring to the conversation among world leaders here as this conversation gets underway here in scotland for two days of face time with world leaders. the conference is much longer and more detailed with experts on the issues of climate. and there are really perilous times that all of the experts here are pointing to. of course, focus on mitigation. focus on investment. in what nations can do, and there are specifics that president biden and other leaders are pointing to that they want to see achieved here. reducing carbon emissions. a focus on curtailing the rising temperature of the globe, and we've seen the weather events, the perilous impact that's making climate refugees in some corners of the world and trying to put an emphasis on what nations can do. this gives you a sense of urgency and what he's calling on other leaders to do. >> right now we're still falling short. there's no more time to hang back or sit on the fence or argue among ourselves. this is a challenge of our collective lifetimes. the existential threat to human existence as we know it. and every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. so let this be the moment that we answer history's call. >> there have been times, of course, before when the leaders have met, cop-26 means they have met 26 times before. what we're hearing from biden and other leaders is the urgency is at a different level that requires investment and investment. it requires more than mitigation for what's happening. it requires a change to ator the course of events going forward. now, can there be significant deliverable achievements here? that's what they're hoping for. and president biden said face to face conversations are a key part of this. as we know, president xi of china, putin of russia, they are not hear personally, and president biden hopes the u.s. being here will make a difference. >> all right. kelly o'donnell for us. thank you for wrapping that up. the other big story that we are following, arguments in two cases over texas ee strictive abortion law at the supreme court. ken dilanian is outside the court. want to bring in also joyce vance, an msnbc nbc legal analyst. and came, a former assistant u.s. attorney and author of how to read the constitution and why. boy, do we need a book like that. it's for sure, especially after listening to the last hour or so. ken, let's talk through what we heard in the courts earlier today. walk me through the arguments, the top lines here. >> so there were a lot of tense and technical legal arguments that we just heard in the last hour. but the bottom line here is that texas has a law that essentially bans abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. but it doesn't empower the state to enforce the law. a lot of the arguments at issue in the last hour was the question of whether the supreme court, whether the federal courts can enjoin either state judges or state clerks from hearing those lawsuits. it turns on that question. and the fact at one point the chief justice roberts noted when you talk about suing judges, you got our attention. and there was a variety of arguments both ways on that. but then the other major issue that this raises is the potential that this law holds to be replicated across the country, and there we heard an interesting question from justice brett kavanaugh who raised the question of another state banning assault weapons and imposing a million dollar fine and would that allow the federal courts to step in and so-called preenforcement relief? and that was a little bit of a hint. because let's not forget that the supreme court has already allowed this law to stand with a five justice majority including kavanaugh. what we were looking for is any sign that any of the conservative justices were wavering. i think we may have seen some of that. it's always perilous to read into their questions. >> yeah. it certainly is. joyce, i want to pick up where ken just left off. because that was a real moment for me as well. and i think a lot of folks that were watching when justice kavanaugh essentially challenged the texas solicitor general saying can this be enforced, for instance, to question second amendment rights? this type of vigilante enforcement. what did you make of that particular exchange? and also the response from the texas solicitor general saying well, you got to refer it to congress? and then justice kagen saying well, why do you need congress when it's a right? talk me through that. >> so this is i think the most important exchange that we heard this morning, and it underlines the fact that this argument is not about substantive abortion rights. it's actually about the rule of law, and it goes to bedrock principles of our system which give courts the right to review laws and the argument is about whether this is a law that can be reviewed, and if so, by which court and how. justice kavanaugh is a pivotal vote as ken pointed out. from this morning's questioning, there seems to be good reason to speculate that both justices avenue gnaw and barrett known opponents of abortion, nonetheless, might take a very narrow view of the propriety of the texas statute and find because it is an intentional scheme designed to buy late this principle of judicial review, and, of course, as you point out, this expansion that this same scheme could be used, for instance, for religious rights or for gun rights that they might join the folks on the court who would block the law from staying in effect while litigation was ongoing. it's important to point out that this is not about the substance of texas ee law. it's simply about whether it will be enjoined while litigation is ongoing. >> so i think understandably much of our attention is focussed on the trump appointed justices. right? you've got justice kavanaugh and gorsuch and amy coney barrett. in the last hour they pointed this out. justices kavanaugh and barrett seemed somewhat sympathetic to the attorney that was representing the texas abortion clinics versus being in a way more aggressive toward the texas solicitor general. what did you make of that? >> yeah. we heard justice gorsuch, for example, more aggressive toward the abortion clinics. remember justice kavanaugh taught constitutional law at harvard and other places. and he made i think a really interesting point, particularly given we hear so much swirling around originism and how the law is static if you're a conservative justice. he said listen, it used to be that you couldn't sue states. and in this old case from 1908 colded ex parte young, the supreme court decided if states are acting in an unconstitutional way, you can't sue the state itself because of sovereign immunity, but you could sue a state actor. he's saying why can't we move the bar a little bit here to adjust for -- but i think all the justices or particularly the ones that are more critical of the law are acknowledging an attempt to manipulate and end run around the rule of law, around the ability to challenge laws as unconstitutional. and we're going into now the second part of the case involving the department of justices' similar lawsuit to enjoin this law. and the argument is basically this is an attempt to violate federal law. it's about really an argument between the states and the federal government. that is are the states going to comply with the constitution itself? and i think that's where justice kavanaugh knowing him for many years and having worked with him, i think that's something he is very concerned about in terms of the legitimacy of each branch of government. i can't speak for amy coney barrett except i agree. it looks like she is not has az she said in a recent speech, going to make knee jerk decisions based on ideology and politics. >> before we spoke, you spoke to one of my producers. you talked about if fact that you think at this point sadly political ideology is what is driving the conservative justices. do you still feel that way after listening for the last 90 minutes or so? >> i do in part, because of the fact that this law was not enjoined already. maybe given that the approval ratings are dropping and the more justices on the court are feeling concerned. maybe that is shifted. but the thread throughout this entire argument is the fact that roe v. wade is black letter constitution law. we're not talking about tweaking at the edges of the second or first amendment. we're talking about a clear violation of constitutional law. it says if this is going to harm someone, women, if you're probably going to win on the merits, roe v. wade, and it's in the public interest to stop it, look at the mess in texas and all the debate and trauma around what's happened in the state of texas to the rule of law, to people's perceptions of the court, et cetera, you stop it. and justice roberts said that in his dissent in the original case where they refused to stop the law. he said listen, let's go to the status quo. so that's where i think and others have said, if this for a different constitutional right and texas or california did something cute like this and tried to -- it's the fact that it's abortion rights i think that puts us in this weird posture as to whether the constitution is the law of the land according to this six-three conservative majority right now. >> i want folks to understand what is happening right now. the supreme court justices hearing arguments in texas versus the u.s. and the u.s. solicitor general just calling this an assault on the government. on court. and on congress. we're going to continue to take a listen to what is happening inside the supreme court as things develop and bring it to you as they do. ken dilanian, thank you. joyce vance, thank you as well. and kim, great to see you. we're one day away from the first big election since biden took office. steve kornacki is here to break down the latest approval numbers and what they could mean for critical races in new jersey and virginia. we'll be right back. we'll be ri. , we believe in the power of taking steps forward. whatever the pace. and whatever the size. that's why we set out to help make it easier for everyone to move forward financially. see how we can make a difference for you at pnc bank. i didn't have to shout out for help. because you didn't have another dvt. not today. one blood clot puts you at risk of having another, so we chose xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto® is proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. almost 98% of people did not have another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, a spinal injection increases risk of blood clots, which may cause paralysis. you may bruise more easily or take longer to stop bleeding. xarelto® can cause serious and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. don't take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost, visit xarelto.com or call 1-888-xarelto welcome back. we are less than 24 hours away away from election day, and this morning our new nbc news polling is signaling some potential warning signs for democrats, especially when it comes to one of the most closely watched races this cycle, the virginia governor's race. nbc's steve kornacki is joining me from the big board to break down these numbers for us. steve great to see you my friend. walk us through what we're seeing so far. >> you set it up there well. for democrats, what they're seeing is exactly what they don't want to be seeing on the eve of this big governor's race in virginia. just to set this up, let me point out it's almost been automatic in modern history, there's only been one exception in the last 40 plus years where the white house party, the party that criminals the presidency almost always ends up losing the virginia governor's race. that's just the way it's worked out in modern times. it has been tough for the white house party to win that virginia's governor's race. what could make it tougher for democrats this year is this, joe biden, our new poll the eve of the virginia's governor's race now just a 42% approval rating for joe biden. so democrats kind of historically swimming a bit against the tide trying to hang onto the governorship here in virginia. now this is the backdrop nationally. a president whose approval rating has fallen into the low 40s, whose disapproval rating is over 50%. virginia is a state that biden carried by ten points over donald trump last year. if you break this down by party here, this is what obviously jumps out, independent voters, biden under 40% approval, over 50% disapproval. you can look at some of the issues. we asked which party would you prefer to handle, which party do you want to handle various issues. this is where the democrats have their biggest advantages over republicans on issues. you see the coronavirus is there, 12 points for democrats. this is where republicans in our poll enjoy their biggest advantages over democrats and this one, the economy jumps out by an 18 point margin. respondents in our poll saying they would prefer republicans to democrats when it comes to dealing with the economy. so, again, we set all of that up. there's that modern history where the white house party struggles in virginia elections. there's biden's low approval rating heading into it. biden carried virginia by ten points last year. right now the average of all the polls, very, very tight race, but in the average a narrow, narrow edge right now for glenn youngkin, the republican, over terry mcauliffe, the democrat. again, this is a very close election we're looking at. but why is it so close in a state that biden won by double-digits? that poll gives you a good explanation why. >> we're going to have to wait and see how this thing develops over the next 24 to 48 hours. as always, thanks for being there, bud. >> you got it. it's been a year and a half since the murder of george floyd sparked calls to defund the police. now vote, in minneapolis will finally get to weigh in on this debate tuesday. potential changes to the police department are going to be on the ballot through an initiative that would amend the city's charter, removing the city's police department and replacing it with the department of public safety. nbc's shaq brewster is outside a polling location in minneapolis for us. thanks for joining us on this. walk us through the ballot initiative here and what the changes could actually mean for minneapolis. >> good morning, well, it's the second question that voters behind me, as they're going into early voting has already been underway here in minneapolis. it's the second question that these voters will see on the ballot. you mentioned it. it's asking them whether or not they want to eliminate the minneapolis police department and replace it with a more all encompassing department of public safety. now, the department of public safety they say could include police officers if necessary. the specific definitions and what you know and what we know about the department of public safety, that is not spelled out. that will be determined in the weeks and months to come, but what we do know -- and this is a major change, a major point of contention. it would not be exclusively run by the mayor. it would also be run by the city council. i want you to listen to what the advocates and opponents, what they say about this ballot measure. >> this is finally an opportunity for people to get in right relationship with armed police officers and with so many other qualified professionals and resources that we really need. >> it would have the head person of this new department report to 14 different people, when everybody's in charge, nobody's in charge. >> this is something that is a full scale campaign here in minneapolis. people going door to door in neighborhoods all around the city, trying to get people to vote yes or no on this amendment. talk about how this initially got on the ballot. it was weeks after george floyd's murder where a veto proof majority of the city council were in a park, and they pledged to dismantle and defund the minneapolis police department. to be clear, while this amendment doesn't defund the minneapolis police department, you have opponents of it saying it leads the way for that to happen because of those changes that you'll see there. that is what folks are going in to vote on right now. it's a highly contentious debate, and we'll know the answer to it a little later tomorrow. >> we'll be watching. thank you. good to see you. that does it for me this hour, everybody. you can always watch me weekends 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. eastern, "andrea mitchell reports" starts next. to make my vision a reality my varilux progressive lenses provide seamlessly transition from near to far. with every detail in sharp focus. that's seeing no limits. varilux lenses by essilor. ♪ ♪ ♪ tonight, i'll be eating a club sandwich with fries and a side of mayonnaise. [doorbell rings] wonderful! mayonnaise? on fries? a little judgy, don't you think? ♪ that's weird. so weird. ♪ oouf. i'll also be needing, stain remover, club soda and a roll of paper towels. [doorbell rings] lifesaver! you're weird, man. to each his own. good day, everyone, this is "andrea mitchell" reports in washington, with four big stories to begin a consequential week. president biden is in scotland for the international climate summit trying to get world leaders to make bigger commitment to slow global warming as he's hoping for final approval this week of his own $550 billion investment in clean energy alternatives. >> it's simple. will we act? will we do what is necessary? will we seize the enormous opportunity before us? or will we condemn future generations to suffer? >> glasgow must be the kickoff of a decade of ambition and inno

Related Keywords

Things , Consumers , Tax Credits , Ton , Greenhouse Gas Emissions , Energy Bills , 2030 , Solar Panels , Electric Vehicles , Credits , Homes , Legacy Pollution , Air , Children , School Buses , Water , Fleets , Energy Prices , Energy , Workers , Wind Turbines , Union Jobs , Energy Markets , Manufacturing , American , Something , People , Power , None , Transmission Lines , Climate Change , Jobs , Clean , Miles , Talks , Thousands , Generation , Construction Workers , Vehicle Stations , Country , Engineers , Network , Carbon Capture Systems , Auto Workers , Lick Trigss , 500000 , Industries , Help , Communities , Reality , Soil , Hunger , Farmers , Actions , Emissions , Climate , Leader , Opportunities , Summit , Target , 50 , 2005 , 52 , Case , World , Example , Hasn T , Table , Enforcement Action , Administration , Words , Office , Climate Commitment , Cost , Technologies , Sector , Breakthroughs , Agreement , Paris , Zero , Commitment , Economy , Initiatives , Solutions , Sectors , Gas , Oil , Agriculture , Combatting Deforestation , Mutt Pl , 1 5 , Reach , Marathon , Engine , Net Zero World , Thriving , Net Zero , Finish Line , Long Term , Goal , Vision , Part , Action , Nature , Rest , 2050 , Countries , Obligation , Pollution , Safer , Cleaner , Energy Transition , Healthier Planet , United Nations , Go Ask Congress , Support , Increases , Climate Finance Support , 2024 , Need , Finance , Adaptation Efforts , Scale , Each , Climate Finance , Goals , Hands On Deck Effort , 100 Billion , 00 Billion , Work , Governments , Millions , Speakers , Trillions , Multilateral Development Banks , Effect , Contribution , Adaptation Communication , Adaptation , Transition , Build , Leadup , Board , Adaptation Fund , Piece , Gathering , 7 , World Initiative , Economies Forum On Energy And Climate , Ambition , European Union , One , Methane Pollution , Methane Emissions , Methane , Pledge , Greenhouse Gases , Reduction , 70 , 30 , Nation , Friends , Warming , Simple , Near Term , Imperative , Plans , Effort , Partners , Nations , Targets , Economies , Challenge , Lifetimes , Human Existence , Sit , Fence , Threat , Call , Inaction Increases , Glasgow , Planet , Choice , Much , Life , Everywhere , Deforestation , Quality , It , Fact , Problems , God , Who , Supreme Court , Argument , Justices , Woman , Scotland , Health , Washington D C , Versus Jackson , Individuals , Shouldn T , Reason , Authority , Texas Abortion Law , Attorney General , Difference , Ex Parte Young , Lawsuit , Challenges , Poes , District Attorneys , Litigation , Lawsuits , Way , Procession , Control , Mechanism , 8 , Federal Court , State , Issues , Interest , Mechanisms , Petitioners , Order , Sorts , Redress , Principle , Suits , Concert , Agent , Problem , Agency , Agents , Cob , Principal , Suit Bringers , Foth , State Court , Reinforcement , District Court , Second Amendment Rights All The Time , Position , Firearms Policy Coalition , Quote , End Quote , Second Amendment Rights , Model , Implications , Rights , Free Speech Rights , Religion , Exercise , Theory , Amee Kas , States , Honor , Response , Immediate Preenforcement Federal Court , Access , Several , Disfavor , Circumstances , Lack , Liability , Ability , State Tort Lawsuits , Review , Protection , Lawful Commerce An Arms Act , Some , Legislation , Examples , Chief Justice , Ex Parte , Penalty , Language , 163 , Kind , Everyone , Laws , Preenforcement Review In Federal Court , Citizen , Purchase , Ar 15 , Hypothetical , 15 , Answer , Right , Liberties , Point , Yes , Anyone , Doesn T Matter , Amount , Sale , A Million , A Million Dollars , Sex , Use , Marriage , Preenforcement Review , Gooder Service , Justice , State Courts Aren T , Sense , Statutes , Doctrines , Kavanaugh , Stone , Preenforce , Fighting Jurisdiction , Doesn T , Isn T , Majority , Parts , The Point , Constitution , Constitution Noolal Rights , Question , Decisions , State Courts Judges , Course Process , Opportunity , Venue , Ones , No Doubt , No One , Kinds , Interim , Dimension , Litigation Delays , Purposes , Statement , Briefs , Texas , Courts , Interpretations , Prerogative , Cases , Officers , Counsel , Passengers , Enforcement Mechanism , Impression , Reading , Didn T , Texas Statute , Railroad , Sue , Contempt Place , Statute , Provisions , Nobody , Unconstitutional In The Ag , Scheme , State Courts , State Clerks , Connection , Violation , Enforcement , Facts , Injunction Running , Sb 8 , May , Multidistrict Litigation , Middle , Questions , Decision , Result , Acting , Summary Judgment , Lit Impags , Judge , Schedule , Motions , 14 , Ten , Doubt , Notions , I Couldn T Say , Motion , Set , Pace , Litigants , State Law Claims , Claims , Plaintiffs , Parenthood , Articulation , Least , Federal Constitution Underburden Defense , Government , Parties , System , Remedies , Ek Quitable , 1789 , Preenforcement Relief , Anything , Injunketive , Anywhere , England , Branches , Cord Nant Branches , Thing , State Legislatures , Cooper Versus Aaron , Schemes , State Executive , History , Exist , Terms , Abortions , Remedy , Assumption , Wall , Jurisdiction , Place , Assumptions , Minimum , Public , Private , Limitation , Curs , Nothing , Injunction , Mitigation , The One , Deviolates , Respect , Equity , Kagen , Ndl , Texas Ee Law , Raising Preenforcement , Chilling Effect Question , Claimant , Course , Posture , Chilling Effect , Persons , Involvement , Bounties , Damages , Sanctions , Prison Time , Fines , Variety , Degree , Downside , Defamation Action , State Court Litigation , Deal , New York Times , Exposure , First Amendment , Provision , Fee Shifting Mechanism , Top , Incarceration , 10000 , 0000 , Plaintiff , Due Process , Rules , Complaints , Making Widgets , Preenforcement State Court , Preenforcement Challenge , Individual , Matter , Gorsuch , There , Intent , Doesn T Resolve , More , Ex Parte Remedy , Ex Parte Young Style , Feature , Abortion , Line , Act , Shifting , Series , Prospect , Basis , Arguments , Abortion Law , Own Joshua , Barbara , Tolly , Two , Impleened , Votes , Skepticism , Hostility , Abortion Rights , Gun Rights , Same , Texas Isn T Faithful , Elsewhere , Understanding , Civilians , Neil , 19 , 08 , State Official , State Officials , You Couldn T , 1908 , Debate , Chunk , Expansion , Vindicate Enforcement To Federal Constitutional Right , Logic , Texas Law , Amy Coney Barrett , Justice Breyer , Trouble , Abortion Restrictions , Vigilante Provision , Lot , Caveats , Context , Foot , Judges , Provider , Abortion Providers , Vindication , First , What Hasn T , Time , Roe V Wade , Blackman , Link , Mississippi , Majority Opinion , 49 , Nixon , Issue , Republicans , Roe , Side , Politicize Abortion Preroe , Inarguable , Democrat Catholics , 1970 , Politics , Technology , Weapon , Protests , Photography , War , Abortion Clinics , Unborn , Crisis Pregnancy Centers , Outposts , Birth Abortions , Idea , Method , Rebranding , Pseudo Science , Syndrome , Gonzalez , 2007 , Peril , Listen , Fly On The Wall , Pike , Dobs , Break , Privilege , News , Discussion , Feel , Pain Relief , Alevex Topical Pain Relief , Credit Card Debt , Pills , Aleve , Money , Move , Debt , Personal Loan , Sofi , Rates , Rate , Fees , Tongue , 0 , 10 , Oman , Mm , Don T Know , Tight , Uh , Bit , Roadside Assistance , Em , Progressive , Home , You Don T Want , 24 7 , Cooks , Neighbors , Parents , Clock , End , Broadband Network , Capacity , Everybody , Show , Eyes , President , Happening , Coverage , Remarks , Ears , Biden Overseas , Ruling , Stakes , Second , Law , Law A Potential Road Map , Lawyer , Texas Abortion Clinics , Texas Stands , Proceedings , Team Listening , Court Rulings , Audio Stream , Bear , World Leaders , Overseas , Meeting , Fighting Climate Change , Court , Kelly O Donnell , Agenda , White House , Beat , Program , Conversation , Experts , Conference , Joe Biden , Leaders , Times , Specifics , Pointing , Focus On Investment , Focus On Mitigation , Carbon Emissions , Focus , Impact , Refugees , Weather Events , Globe , Temperature , Urgency , Corners , Emphasis , Investment , Level , Met , Cop 26 , 26 , Change , Events , Achievements , Face To , President Xi , Conversations , China , Russia , Ken Dilanian , Nbc , Ee Strictive Abortion Law At The Supreme Court , Story , Vance , Following , Msnbc , Attorney , Listening , Author , Assistant , Analyst , Boy , Sure , Book , Let S Talk , Lines , Pregnancy , Chief Justice Roberts , State Judges , Attention , Potential , Raises , Ways , Dollar , State Banning Assault Weapons , Fine , A Million Dollar , Hint , Wavering , Sign , Five , Folks , Joyce , Solicitor , Instance , Exchange , Vigilante Enforcement , To Question Second Amendment Rights , Type , Texas Solicitor General , Rule Of Law , Bedrock Principles , Vote , Questioning , Morning , Opponents , View , Propriety , Avenue Gnaw , Judicial Review , Staying , Substance , Trump , Justices Kavanaugh , Being , Texas Abortion Clinics Versus , Places , Kavanaugh Taught Constitutional Law , Harvard , Static , Couldn T Sue States , Originism , Swirling , State Actor , Immunity , Colded , Attempt , Run , Bar , Amendment Doesn T Defund The Minneapolis Police Department , Is , Speech , Branch , Legitimacy , Knee Jerk Decisions , Ideology , Producers , Approval Ratings , 90 , Roe V Wade Is Black Letter Constitution Law , Thread , Edges , Tweaking , Clear Violation Of Constitutional Law , Someone , Mess , Women , Merits , Trauma , The Public Interest , Dissent , Perceptions , Others , Let S Go , Et Cetera , Status Quo , California , Law Of The Land , Conservative Majority , Supreme Court Justices Hearing Arguments , Six , Three , Solicitor General , On Court , Assault , Election , Approval Numbers , Steve Kornacki , Kim , Virginia , Races , Taking , Size , New Jersey , Ri , Risk , Stop Taking Xarelto , Dvt , Blood Clot , Another , Pnc Bank , Blood Clots , Pe , Doctor , Don T , Injection , 98 , Bleeding , Fatal Bleeding , Medicines , Bruise , Paralysis , Liver Problems , Procedures , Bruising , Kidney , Artificial Heart Valve , Don T Take Xarelto , 1 , 888 , 1 888 Xarelto , Welcome Back , 24 , Race , Governor , Democrats , Election Day , Polling , Warning Signs , Cycle , Nbc News , Friend , Numbers , Big Board , Steve Great , Up , White House Party , Eve , Presidency , Exception , Criminals , 40 , Party , Poll , Approval Rating , Tide , 42 , Points , Governorship , Disapproval Rating , Backdrop , Whose , Low 40s , Voters , Approval , Disapproval , Donald Trump , Advantages , Coronavirus , Handle , 12 , Respondents , Margin , 18 , Virginia Elections , Average , Polls , Edge , Glenn Youngkin , Terry Mcauliffe , Double Digits , Explanation , Thanks , Murder , Minneapolis , Police , Calls , Half , George Floyd , Bud , 48 , Changes , Ballot , Police Department , City , Department Of Public Safety , Initiative , Charter , Shaq Brewster , Ballot Initiative , Polling Location , Minneapolis Police Department , Voting , Police Officers , Definitions , Know , Contention , Mayor , Armed Police Officers , City Council , Ballot Measure , Relationship , Charge , Person , Resources , Head , Professionals , Nobody S In Charge , Campaign , Neighborhoods , And Defund The Minneapolis Police Department , Veto , Proof , Park , Eastern , Andrea Mitchell Reports , 5 , 00 , 3 , Lenses , Detail , Sharp Focus , Limits , Varilux Lenses , Essilor , Fries , Mayonnaise , Rings , Club Sandwich , Stain Remover , Lifesaver , Little Judgy , Roll , Don T You , Oouf , Paper Towels , Stories , Andrea Mitchell , Washington , Four , Alternatives , Climate Summit , 550 Billion , 50 Billion , Generations , Kickoff , Inno ,