Kind of a preview of how shell run her court and this case. And in deciding whether to grant Special Counsel jack smiths request for protective order limiting what the disgraced expresident can and cannot say publicly about the case, judge chutkan cuts through Talking Points like a hot knife through butter. On the First Amendment protections, they are so fond of citing, mr. Trump, like every american, has a First Amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute. Adding that without a protective order, the disclosure of discovery materials could lead to witnesses being harassed or otherwise interfering with a fair trial. What about the fact that trump is running for president. And chutkan did not mince words on that eithe saying, this is a criminal trial and i will not take into consideration the impact will have for have for a political came on either side. He will have all of the rights hesen tieptled to. The existence is not going to have any bearing on my decision. I i
seated on your soil, don t be surprised that you will harvest sharia law. there have been muslims in the world. can you keep them out of north america or western europe? i think we have to. that was far right politician wilders speaking at donald trump s nominating convention in 2016. now, wilders has won major victory in the netherlands. another troubling sign of the rise of far right extremists getting elected around the world. also tonight, an extended reprieve from the fighting in gaza. as more hostages are released in exchange for palestinians imprisoned in israel. plus, the shocking events over the weekend in vermont. as three college students of palestinian descent are shot by a lone assailant. the latest on the investigation into this apparent hate crime. and we begin tonight with a dark moon rising around the globe. just before we all broke for the thanksgiving holiday, we received disturbing news from the netherlands. the dutch people handed anti-islamic
And the ohio measure this past week. when you look at special elections where the issue of a woman s choice is put up in front of voters, voters continue to reject the republican position and i think what is interesting, sean hannity quoted bill clinton, he could quote a republican. when bush 43 was asked about this in 2000, he said, listen, i think the way to approach this is by changing hearts and minds, and i suppose that could be true for either side of this debate. what george bush 43 recognized is politically, many of the hardened positions of the republican party are out of step with where general election voters are. this is a deeply passionate issue for so many people. all you have to do is dispassionately look at the data and it tells you the american people prefer a roe framework over a dobbs framework, and republicans keep falling on their faces trying to go the other direction. rev, just last week when i interviewed julia chavez
Viability line and if that was the right place, if that s the right line to draw. let s take it out of the question of stare decisis and imagine that there is a state constitution that is identical to the 14th assembly due process clause. and a state supreme court has to decide as a matter of state constitutional law what the scope of an abortion right is. and the second trimester ends at 27 weeks. so that state supreme court says we think that the right exists in an absolute sense the state cannot take away the right up to 27 weeks and after that adopts and undue burden standard. as a matter of first principle is that line acceptable as a matter of constitutional law? your honor, it may be but i think the question in this case is whether a line is more principled or workable than viability because of the stare decisis content. that s the roe framework.
Obviously more principled or more workable than viability because of the con why? that s the roe framework. the trimester. why wouldn t that be workable if you pick a line and say 27 weeks, third trimester state s interests increase. i don t understand why 27 weeks is less workable than 24? i m not trying to suggest it is. what i was trying to suggest is the viability line is a principled and workable line. to change it, there would have to be a new line that s more workable and principled and the line that the court has drawn actually but i m asking as a matter of first principals. it is a matter of first principle, the viability line makes sense. as a matter of prudential judgment. it s not required. we could decide to be more protective and say 27 weeks under the second trimester? you could, but the viability line makes sense given the protection for liberty, because it comes from the woman s