allowing strangers to sue anyone suspected of helping a woman get an abortion. the new york times describes the court s decision like this. quote, the majority opinion was unsigned and consisted of a single long paragraph. it said the abortion providers who had challenged the law in an emergency application to the court had not made their case in novel and procedural question. the majority stressed it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the texas law. it did not need to limit proper challenges to it. justice sonia sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent. the court s order stunning, a flagrantly unconstitutional law designed to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny? a majority of justices opted to bury their heads in the sand. sotomayor also describes the texas law like this. quote, in effect the texas legislature has deputized the state s citizens as bounty hunters. offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their ne
it seems just like yesterday. one of our 100 day challenges is asking the american people to mask up for the first hundred days, the next 99 days. the mask is become a partisan issue unfortunately but it is a patriotic act, the fact is it is the single best thing we can do, more important than the vaccine, give it time to work. laura: being goal knew that the hundred days appeal was just a shtick. the mask became a political symbol for too many left, they didn t want to give it up so soon. this emergency will never pass. remember, it was 15 days to slow the spread, 100 days to mask up. they keep changing the rules of the game because that is what they do. just as with 100 days of mask wearing there s always a catch, the good news always comes with the big fat but whatever marginal benefit we get from what cloth masks, they became a security blanket for democrats who wanted to get rid of trump and all the old traditions of america, bad actors inside and outside government
voting rights was designed to move the needle in terms of public opinion on the urgent need for voting rights legislation. that s according to one senior white house official who told me the topic doesn t show up in most polls of americans concerns yet. here is a part of the case the president made to the american people. the 21st century jim crow assault is real. it s unrelenting. we re going to challenge it vigorously. it s no longer just about who gets to vote or making it easier for eligible voters to vote. it s about who gets to count the vote. who gets to count whether or not your vote counted at all. now notably texas democrats who were smack dab in the middle of the fight aren t calling for a sweeping and potentially polarizing piece of legislation. on this program in this hour yesterday, texas representative jasmine crockett said she would take anything that shielded voters from restrictions. what most people don t realize is that if we got just an inch, that
administration. on top of all of his efforts to hold his domestic agenda together, to hold his own party to go for that matter, this is the eve of a major speech the president will deliver tomorrow in philadelphia. he will go there to talk about voting rights at a time when republicans are doggedly passing voter suppression measures from coast to coast. we don t accept the notion, and he s an optimist by nature, otherwise he wouldn t be sitting in the oval office right now, that it is dead. we don t accept that. we believe there needs to be a path forward. the president sees his role as somebody who can speak from the bully pulpit to elevate and advocate for the need to move forward on voting rights legislation. the president s speech comes as most of the democrats in the texas house of representatives have fled texas and flown to washington, leaving texas, leaving their legislative chamber without a quorum was the last-best thing they thought they could do to preserve vo
experiment started by j.b., my man. any way you slice it, this is not a good night for donald trump. and i ll tell you why. we now have the unsealed charges in this charging document known as an indictment, right? they are against the trump organization and its main money man. and they tell quite a story. most troubling for the former president isn t what s in these pages. it s that this story reads like it s just one chapter and there could be more to come. in fact, the new york attorney general basically told us as much today. so here s what we know now. the trump organization effectively is donald trump, okay? it is charged with ten felonies, a scheme starting back in 2005 to defraud federal, state and city tax collectors, okay? 15 years worth, equating to 15 felony counts against the trump organization cfo, allen weisselberg, both for what he allowed himself to receive, allegedly wrongly, and what he paid out to others. the question is, did weisselberg sign the checks? t