those cases had listened and they were presented with arguments in those cases that adhere to press department, in brown v board, adhere to plessy in the west coast hotel, adhere to atkins and adhere to lockner. if the court had done that in these cases the country would be a much different place. with me, elie the justices were in a wiesely way was trying to identify themselves as the brown versus board heroes. they are trying to wrap themselves in that because they understand that they are going against the vast majority of americans will when they subject women to the the sis attitudes of their state and
constitutes an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy which is an element that you need to prove a conspiracy. maybe the one smart and legal thing jeff lee clark could do would be invoke his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. it looks like he is on his way to being referred for indictment. then, joy, there is an easy way to deal with jeffrey clark s fifth amendment right against self-incrimination once he s referred for prosecution. it is called a guilty plea with cooperation. that s something that i think the prosecutors at the d.c. u.s. attorney s office will have to seriously consider for jeffrey clark given the importance of the information he could bring to the table about donald trump s culpability. interesting. make them a deal, especially if he has information on other members of congress.
taken away by state legislators on an ad hoc basis. i don t want the state to tell me whether i can walk or breathe or marry or have control over my body. that s not the division of a right. the third thing kavanaugh is going it goes to his old personal from where i sit. he s trying to shift responsibility away from the supreme court towards the states. the supreme court we saw all summer the summer is sensitive about losing its legitimacy if it does something most people don t want it to do. kavanaugh is doing work of saying no, no, no it s not the supreme court taking a way borgs arights. it is texas, mississippi, it is always somebody else with him. it s never his job, his institution to stop it. that s why kavanaugh is making this argument and in many other mainstream sources picked up that argument, because they are always willing to blame someone
that s fully vaccinated, joy. i am so glad you brought that up, thank you. for all of your viewers out there, and i hope the cdc might be watching as you and i are talking, they have to update the definition of fully vaccinated to account for the three-dose regimen. not the two. we cannot be saying, out of both sides of our mouth, number one two dose is fully vaccinated and then on the other side, pie the way, you should get a booster shot. it doesn t make sense. it s confusing. the definition has to be updated especially in light of this variant. i think the news out of san francisco is radio assuring. an individual who is otherwise young without major medical conditions, who had two toasts of the vaccine had mild symptoms. we are going to see a lot more of that in two weeks s time when pfizer and moderna come out with data about their vaccine effectiveness in the sight of in new variant. people will be testing positive but ultimately have thou or mild
else for that this conservative court is doing, taking away. legitimacy between bush v gore, gutting the voting rights act, allowing the muslim vote to stand. i don t think joining us, conwoman iona presley of massachusetts. i have to ask you this as a fellow black women, as a sister. listening today for me, congresswoman, to two men, clarence thomas and brett kavanaugh, who were credibly accused of violating the sanctity of woman, both got away with it and got on court. but having them stand up and soberly argue whether or not women are owned by the state. it made me feel some kind of way. i wonder if it did you. i will stick with you and be in alignment with the verbiage you used already in this segment, join.