. >> seven days from a presidential debate, just as for january 6th is delayed again. we got the judges that have been groomed, put into the pipeline, to do what they are now doing. >> tonight, how the far-read radical court keeps creating its own law. >> once i or the other. once under the other is going to win. then, judge a len cannon puts jack smith's case on trial amid new reporting on the federal judges who asked her to step aside. louisiana mandates religion in the classroom. >> this bill mandates the display of the 10 commandments in every classroom. >> tonight, the hollywood origins of louisiana 10 commandments. >> those who will not live by the lord shall die by the lord! >> when "all in" start right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. all eyes on the supreme court this week again. the end of its term quickly approaches and the justices dragged their feet on some of the most hotly disputed decisions. today, the court released four opinions, but still no ruling on the most pressing case of the year, the one that has a clock ticking against it. of course, donald trump's claim that he is immune from being prosecuted for any of his actions while in office. the court heard arguments in the case, trump and united states, back in february. we have been waiting want is 13 days and counting for a decision. every day that passes makes it more more likely that donald trump will not face legal accountability before the election for his attempted insurrection, but the voters will not be provided information about whether or not he is guilty of this crime. amid that backdrop, it really feels like this supreme court is acting less like a court and more like a right-wing legislature appointed for life. the conservative majority, including three justices appointed by donald trump, increasingly behaves like they have a political agenda to carry out. as we have seen, particularly with justices like clarence thomas, they're making incredible copper miser to get it all done. of course, there's key differences, constitutional differences between the court and legislator. when a new class comes to congress, for example, they have campaigned on a proactive agenda to voters that they plan to enact, and then they come into congress and understand that there's a time limit on their plans with elections happening every few years and political, and what have you. so, they try to get moving quickly on their agenda. legislators, of course, are not bound by precedent the way the court is were used to be. if the party in power does not like a piece of legislation previously passed, say, the affordable care act, they can campaign on repealing it, and they're welcome to try to repeal it as many times as they like. of course, if the legislation is as popular as the affordable care act proved to be, they may not have the votes they need to succeed, but the supreme court doesn't work the same way -- or it is not supposed to. the court is supposed to rule on very difficult matters of law and controversies as they arise out there in the world. they don't have the power like legislators to introduce a bill or a case they really want to rule on. they have to wait for an issue to come before them. but the key thing about this maga court is that everyone in the right-wing universe fully understands the basic we want to be a legislature. they do have ambitious agenda. they do feel like time is of the essence. so, the conservative institutions and groups are constantly teeing up the issues they want the court to hear. they're all kinda working together, even if they don't communicate with each other as such. we saw this in donald trump's third supreme court nominee, amy coney barrett, who was a clear vote against abortion rights was confirmed days before the election, ruth bader ginsburg had just passed away. when that happened, mississippi's attorney general's are opening, and she went back to the court, because she knew there was a 6-3 court, to exquisitely, and her filing to explicitly ask them to overturn roe v. wade she didn't do that before, but when she saw the numbers, she said, actually, let's go here, and it worked. they did exactly that two years ago this coming monday. the abortion bill -- mifepristone kate -- case -- right-wing antiabortion activists said, let's take a shot at this and try to ban mifepristone nationwide via judicial fiat. their argument was preposterous, , and the food and drug administration should not have approved mifepristone as abortion medication and officer missed out on giving birth had suffered an injury and therefore, outstanding. that was a step too far, even for this court, which unanimously dismissed the case on standing grounds last week the same circumstances surrounding the tax case the court decided today. again, conservative think tank brought this case for the united states, and a little complicated. it was a trump-era tax reprobation, but essentially to get the court to rule principally against the possibility of a wealth tax, a policy the aggressive's, including senator elizabeth warren, oppose. once again, went too far even for the maga court. they rejected the challenge, this time, 7-2. again, why not take a shot? right? we are seeing another case in the last 48 hours, teeing up in louisiana where republican governor jeff landry just signed a bill requiring the 10 commitments to be displayed in every public class, with the public schools in the state -- an undercurrent precedent, the law is obviously unconstitutional. i would say, obviously unconstitutional even if it wasn't under current precedent, but there's plenty of established precedent here. in 1980, the supreme court knocked down a very similar raw , ruling was prohibited under the first amendment. governor landry says -- and i quote -- i can't wait to be sued . of course, he can't. that makes sense, because this is all part of the transparent conservative plant to take advantage of this court behaving more like a legislature, eager to act on right-wing issues. do it now while they have this 6-3 majority before something can change. sometimes, they really do overstep. they try to say things there that are a little bit too not even for these justices. i know 7-2, but that is for now. right? not written in stone. once you throw out the notion of precedent, then, the right- wing also knows, if donald trump is reelected, he married a this may very well get your replacement on the court and get an even stronger conservative majority, and in the meantime, they might as well shoot the shot, because what the supreme court had become is really an an elected lifetime legislature, the majority of whom were elected by presidents who didn't even win the popular vote. former u.s. attorney, clerked for two previous supreme court justices, emily must all, just as correspond for the nation, joining me now. first, let me ask each of you if you probably agree. i should say, this is a four that mark justice, my wife kate shot, all the folks that just want me -- not a novel insight on my part of this. a proactive agenda acting like a legislature in terms of what cases they're reaching out and taking. does that scan for you, harry, comparing it to what it used to be like when you clerked? >> vividly. it is even stronger, chris, then you are saying. the louisiana case is a perfect case in point. if you are a court that cares about precedent and the rules of law, what you stay with for a state legislature boldly and actively flatly unconstitutional provision under the current law is forget about it, that's the law on the land, you have to follow it, change it, we will see you then. until then, please follow the supremacy clause and the law of the land. the sponsor actually said she wants all children to look up and see what god says is right and what god says is wrong. it is really, in fact, a violation. it goes to show the repercussions of this hyper conservative court because this wasn't done with in the coronation with the courts, but the groups were there, and they were emboldened and enthusiastic. ring it on. is considered knowing that they can act directly contrary to the constitution, or at least as we now understand it, and that's just another court setting an agenda. we saw this very much in dobbs as well. was an just went the state actually changed as long and asked the supreme court to do it, but other states, going forward, were violating roe and getting away with it. that is not the way the rule of law is supposed to work. however you think you are going to change it in the future. >> ellie, to argue against myself for a moment -- or play devils advocate and get your response -- in some ways, you have been looking at mifepristone 9.0 or moore 7-2, teed up by the conservative groups. they were wacky, wacky legal theories. in the end, this very conservative court ruled against them pretty happily pretty good say, look, they really are still doing law, they're not just, essentially, doing the bidding of the right- wing. what do you say to that? >> no, chris. you forgot about the guns. right? in a wacky legal theory that leads to mass shootings and mass death, guess what? the court is right back on schedule doing the nra's bidding. i want to get your question about whether or not this is due, because i think it is important for people to understand that, in the conservative's on mind, and the republican groupthink, they're on their revenge door, because from republican effective, the court has been acting like a super legislator in the '60s when it ended segregation, when we had the civil rights era and all that kind of stuff.so, they think they have made a false equivalency between treating black people and women as people with, like, my 10 commitments back into that kind of topsy-turvy thing. but they think that they are getting their revenge on the 1960's and 1970's. they're wrong, but one of the reasons why they're wrong is because this idea that the warren court sort of superseded elected majorities in the south is kind of wrong when you remember that the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act were probably popular and pass through the democratic process, not the supreme court process. that's the part of the story the republicans always seem to forget. if they could pass a law banning abortion, if they could pass a law, you know, allowing anybody and their mother to own guns, i would like to see them try. they would lose elections. but because they would lose elections, that's why they have gone to the conservative buddies in the supreme court. >> this is the thing that i find that the city issue -- something i really do come january 6th, 2020, which is the law is what a sufficient critical mass report of people law degrees say at any given level. it is what will people acculturated to legal culture accepted as an argument. in the case of 2020, the ottomans were too bad to get a critical mass of those people, whether in the white house counsel's office or in courts, but that is not fixed in stone. what you have, harry, is a situation where, in the political sphere, the limiting issue is politics. pass it, is a popular, do you get backlash? in the judicial spirit, it is precedent and legal reason. right? but if you throw out the precedent and legal reasoning and do what you want to do but you no longer have limiting condition of politics, then that is a really, really scary place to be, which is where it feels like we are headed towards . >> yeah. at least in the short term. look, there are three things going on here. the first is, just as elie says -- there's a difference, it so happens, even if held in good faith, the views of the current court really are very much out of step with what you just said , 90% of the lawyers and the legal scholars would say, for starters. second, they have jumped into the political ground. how else can you make sense of the way they have shielded trump, in this case, and helped him in the colorado case? it is sort of a problem, the agenda there, and other we helped donald trump, it is not a legal principle. third -- and this is connected with the ethical problems you said -- there's a certain contempt, not something that they're out of step with the people, on the part of several of them, we are, we don't care, we're proud of it, that's why we got here. that is what distinguishes robbers -- for example it is very conservative instincts, but that viewpoint from the court is not is and will get them in trouble. >> that brings us, as we have the gun case coming, we have got this sort of whole apparatus for the administrative state coming, elie .we also have this immunity thing. if you were to ask me what my guess is in terms of that sort of contentiousness, it is to do it on the very last day -- basically saying, we are taking the maximal time to delay for donald trump, and good night, have a nice summer, we have major he can't see trump. >> they can do with them, or they can do it on the day of the debate. they just announced the opinion day wednesday, most likely going to have one next thursday. that's the day of the debate. what better time than to give trump a gift of saying that he is immune from all prosecutor crimes other than the day right before he goes to debate to run for reelection, but the part of me that is like -- look -- i also want to see the immunity decision. i think it is important. but, needs people to realize they already won. >> right, yes. >> they already did everything they had to do to keep trump -- right? the fix is already in. we're now kind of waiting for their reasoning behind the fix, but they have already secured trump won ability to run for reelection before he is brought to justice or even a trial over january 6th again, when harry is talking about the political rulings, it is kind of obvious for everybody to see -- and i keep waiting for the political branches, for the people i vote for, to do something about these guys, to lock arms, unify and say, you know what, we're going to get rid of the filibuster, and we're going to bring the supreme court to heal. we are going to expand the court with justices who believe in precedent as opposed to these yahoos who don't. i keep waiting for the people i vote for to realize that the supreme court is a clear and present danger to their entire political agenda, to the entire separation of powers in the constitution, and to take the power back from the supreme court that they have ceded to them over these past 25 years. >> harry litman , elie mystal, appreciate you both. coming up, the endless mar- a-lago document case -- speaking of delays -- how judge cannon ignored this bombshell advice, strong urging from senior judges to step aside. the state of the trial, next. to help you feel better. six digestive symptoms. the power of nature. iberogast. why would i use kayak to compare the power of nature. hundreds of travel sites at once? i like to do things myself. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. kayak... aaaaaaaahhhh kayak. search one and done. katie! i knew i'd find you here. i know, it's wild. i'm you from the future! anyway our doctor figured it out. all that constipation with belly pain that keeps coming back, it's ibs-c. she said linzess could help you get ahead of it. whatta you say? yess! get ahead of your ibs-c with linzess. linzess is not a laxative. it's a once-daily pill that helps you get ahead of your symptoms. it's proven to help you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. and helps relieve overall abdominal symptoms - belly pain, discomfort, and bloating. do not give linzess to children less than two. it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. these aren't all the side effects. imagine... what could relief from ibs-c mean for you? talk to your doctor and say yess to linzess. learn how abbvie and ironwood could help you save. when did i call leaffilter? when i saw my gutters overflowing onto my porch. leaffilter is a permanent gutter solution, so, you never have to worry about costly damage from clogged gutters again. it's the easiest call you can make. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. i still love to surf, snowboard, it's the easiest call you can make. and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust. >> i had 20 years of experience as an hr professional and i had reached a ceiling, so i enrolled in umgc. i would not be the person that i am today had it not been for the partnership with umgc. san francisco's been through tough times. london breed led us through the pandemic, declaring an emergency before anyone else, saving thousands of lives. from growing up in the western addition housing projects to becoming mayor, london has never given up on the city that raised her. london is getting people off the streets and into care. london never gave up on me. i found a home, and my life is on the right track. london made it super easy for me to open my small business, by cutting city fees. and she's reinventing downtown to make our city vibrant again. she's building 82,000 new homes and helping first time homebuyers, just like us. and london's hiring hundreds of police officers, and arresting drug dealers. san francisco has been through difficult times, but our hard work is paying off. working together, we're building a better future for the city we all love. ad paid for by re-elect mayor london breed 2024. financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org. it has been close to two years since federal agents executed a search warrant on mar-a-lago to retrieve the top secret classified documents donald trump school. the ex-president still has not gone a trial, even as we have seen other high-profile cases like, for instance, the conviction of sam bankman- fried, ongoing trial of senator menendez, moving in a much faster pace. menendez was indicted in september, i want to say, and there's one reason for that. judge eileen cannon. the trump appointee has stymied the government's attempt to bring this case to trial, it is clear she is some combination of in the tank for the ex- president or in way over her head relative to her experience as a judge. a piece in "the new york times" quote, shortly after cannon oversaw the trump documents case, two more expert colleagues of the federal bench in florida urged her to pass it up and handed off to another jurist, but can and wanted to keep the case and refused the judge's intrigues. mary mccormick served as the acting assistant attorney general for national security and justice and is cost of the msnbc podcast muted prosecuting donald trump." she joins me now. mary, i found this really quite striking, because you and i had a discussion precisely about this, about mentorship, about trial experience, about the complexities of trial like this vs. a judge who has only done a few criminal trials. what was your reaction to this? >> i thought of that very conversation, chris, because i said, she sits in a courthouse along with no other more senior judges, and in the district where i practiced for so much of my career the department of justice, even still, there is such a wonderful group of senior judges who take a new judges under their wing and help them to understand how to manage a big, obligated case, how to understand classified information, seizures, and might have urged -- as it appears from this article -- that a chief judge down in florida might have urged her to not take this case, given th