dissents in her opinion, which concurred in part. still, these justices, thomas, alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch, roberts and barrett seemed to treat the allegations and the indictment that brought this ground breaking case to the supreme court as more of an academic moment than an existential one. the allegations that the former president of the united states while in office tried to use the levers of power to keep himself in office. reading the decision can seem circular, even. the president is immune because the constitution implies he is immune, even when highs trying to violate the same constitution. the dissents were so scathing, instead, plowing through the majority s reasoning. from justice jackson, quote, the majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in our court s ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong, but f
that really understands what s going on and can communicate that. we ll see what happens. dana: you say that with gentleness and grace, all three of you great having you as part of our panel this week and i m sure we ll see you again, michael, nick and caroline. have a great weekend. fox news alert. crunch time at the supreme court right now we are moments away from a new set of blockbuster opinions being released. high-profile cases could affect many aspects of life in america. we ll take a trip down that road today. welcome to a new hour of america s newsroom, i m dana perino. bill is off today. great to have you here. bret: great to be here in person. i m bret baier in for bill hemmer. this morning major cases. among the cases on the docket presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, january 6th obstruction, restrictions on homeless camps and a case brought by fishermen on the power of federal agencies. that s a big one. dana: that s one of my favorites. team
The Supreme Court could overrule a 40-year-old decision that some warn would curtain the ability of federal agencies to regulate areas like the environment, health care and the workplace.
The Supreme Court could overrule a 40-year-old decision that some warn would curtain the ability of federal agencies to regulate areas like the environment, health care and the workplace.