he lies about it. his own son tells herschel walker to stop the lies after new allegations suggest serious hypocrisy on abortion and reveal the scam of the christian rights family values brand. trump called the three justices, he picked my justices, he asked the supreme court to intervene on his classified documents, and i have two very special guests tonight, former attorney general eric holder joins me as the supreme court hears a case with major implications for what s left of the voting rights act, and john fetterman on his race for united states senate in pennsylvania. it is getting tighter and could decide which party wins control. we begin tonight with family values. as exemplified by perhaps the most iconic family in american sitcom history. the adventures of ozzie and harriet starring the entire nelson family. here s ozzie. here s harriet. here s david. and here s ricky. here they are, america s favorite family, the nelsons. yes, that s right, ozzie and harri
many of those lies are well documented. we know that mr. santos hide about his education, both graduate and post graduate. claiming that he attended universities where he was never enrolled. claiming that he obtained degrees that he did not earn. we know that mr. santos lied about his employment when he claimed that he worked for two prestigious financial institutions, citi group and goldman sachs. we know that mr. santos lied about his religious faith, when he said he was jewish, and when called out meant to say that he was jew-ish. and we know he lied when he said four employees killed in a mass shooting in florida. mr. speaker, while troubling, those lies did not justify his removal from this body. but these and other misleading statements reflect directly on mr. santos s credibility. in may, mr. speaker. george santos said that he looked forward to seeing the ethics process play out. and that if the committee finds reason to remove them, then that is the process. today, m
Substantiative due process in the constitution, so they re just as wrong according to your theater. no, your honor. we re quite comfortable with washington versus glucksberg and how it analyzes substantiative due process and it looks at history and tradition to discipline i mean, in o bergfeld, there was no history of same-sex marriage. and i think the court the court pointed out, look, when we were facing loving versus i m not trying to argue that we should overturn those cases. i just think that you re dissimulating when you say that any ruling here wouldn t have an effect on those. respectfully, that s do you think that no state is going to think otherwise? that no people in the population aren t going to challenge those cases in court? i mean, your honor. we ll always have a diversity of views
Question is never, is it bad to overrule period. you know, surely i m asking you to think, in near terms, there were two they mentioned. and they don t want casey they don t want roe to be the third. and now in your opinion, you just answered justice barrett, hey, all of these are not rising to that level, okay. are there any that do rise to the level in your opinion? i think and i m not sure that i necessarily agree with the watershed characterization, your honor. but what i would say, i can t think of another that hits the radar, but i would emphasize that the problem here is that we re dealing with a right that doesn t have a basis in constitutional text again, very much in conflict with those values, justice breyer. i m not sure how your answer makes any sense. all of those other cases, griswald, lawrence, o bergfeld, they all relied on substantiative due process. you re saying there s no
0 say. really? yeah. they used to be more polite. i have to say, the court over the last few years has gotten a bit more sharp in their questioning. and even sometimes to each other, and making digs at each other. that s an unfortunate trend. but i think for the most part, you ll hear a respectful discussion of the issues between the advocates and the court. maybe the most important thing to think about is when the justices are asking a question, they re not necessarily wanting to hear the answer from the advocate. they re making a point to one of the other justices. and so you as the advocate have to just understand, you re guiding a conversation more than like giving a speech and saying why you re right. and that s where that listening skill is so important. can you figure out what the justice is trying to say to her or his colleagues. so it s not only the question, but also what may be behind the question, vis-a-vis another magistrate. exactly. it s 3-d chess. that s very