the broef that said these opinions are afterall just opinions was written by two conservative lawyers. john is the architect of texas sb 8 and the private enforcement regime that essentially insulated this law from being enjaned, stopped from going into effect. she s making the point that these two have effectively allowed the court s decisions and the constitutional lights that the court has long protected to be nullified. that s exactly what happened in the antebellum period leading up to the civil law where states said we are not going to follow the federal law, the missouri compromise, we are going to do what we want with regard to slavery. she s making the point that this was an existential crisis for the supreme court. what s the point the supreme court saying what the law is if states are free to do what they want? here the court has allowed the states to continue doing exactly what it wants. we talked last time you were
sure that bill cosby could not hide behind the fifth amendment. and so that s really the point the supreme court was trying to make. is that bill cosby might have been advised differently in the civil case to not talk so much and just use the fifth amendment to protect himself. he did not do that, and they are saying that that is what is unfair about this case and denied him due process. but at its essence is the very bad precedent that future prosecutors can be bound by a press release of a previous prosecutor that frankly didn t comply with the immunity statutes of pennsylvania. did that make sense? i hope so. i tried to keep it simple. no, it s it s complicated, but i think one of the emotional reactions was articulated by e. jean carroll. i want to ask you about this,