view the freedom of speech. the relationship of anti-discrimination law on private actors, private businesses, and individuals. but again, this is a speech case. this is not even a religion case. certainly not a mere regulation of commercial activity. >> dana: we had one of those yesterday as well on religion. if you could stand by. shannon bream is live for us. >> what we saw yesterday, the majority and dissent opinions going back and forth. we have a lot of that here today between gorsuch and sotomayor. gorsuch said this. it is difficult to read the case and conclude we are looking at the same case. he says they get into all kinds of different hype that calls what is going on and says the dissent gets turned around on itself firing on its own position. while stressing that a colorado company cannot refuse the full and equal enjoyment on his services the dissent says a
down and do their summers. they respect each other as colleagues. we see that out front and behind the scenes as well. they need a break in the summer. big decisions come, everybody needs a break. >> bill: you mentioned your coverage of the case with the westboro baptist church. they stand outside soldiers funerals and say thank god for dead soldiers. >> they have the protections of the first amendment. >> it was an 8-1 decision. just as dana was saying we have a 6-3 decision on not that similar of a case but another free speech case. what are the parallels with cases? two of them that have established the first amendment rights. >> yeah, this court is very protective of the first amendment. we've seen that in a lot of things. the westboro case is a perfect illustration of that. as gorsuch says we don't need the first amendment for the speech we like and agree on. it's the really difficult, ugly difficult places where there are serious disagreements or offensive viewpoints to one side
things. and what is being done here is telling a website designer you have to say things through your website designs that you believe are wrong. and gorsuch is saying that's not allowed under the first amendment. >> bill: go ahead and stand by. send it to shannon bream at the supreme court. i understand you have got the dissenting opinion here. go ahead. >> read a little bit from justice sotomayor, kagan and -- this is >> the supreme court declares a particular kind of business open to the public has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class, the court does so for the first time in its history. again, the plaintiff in this case wanted to say she has served customers of all different backgrounds and sexualities and genders and she says essentially i'm happy to serve anybody and worked with all kinds of clients. i don't want to do custom
that eliminating ideas is the very purpose. the name of this commissiony and the underlying law. the court was very blunt and said yeah, you have the wrong ideas. so they've got to go. well, gorsuch today said the first amendment is a different purpose. it is to make sure that you don't have to give up those views in order to function in society, including as a business person. this was an important decision for gorsuch the same way yesterday was an important decision for roberts. roberts has been working for years toward that decision on affirmative action in education. this was really gorsuch's case from the beginning. he was born in colorado, he served on the 10th circuit, he is perhaps the most libertarian of the court. highly principled. this was really in his wheel house. it will be one of his most lasting opinions when we look back at his still-unfolding legacy.
roberts, alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett files them. kagan files the dissenting official. sotomayor and jackson. this is the conclusion what the court said. it has become a disturbing feature to criticize decisions for which they disagree going beyond the proper role. judiciary. today we have concluded that missouri is a proper case to this. gone through the traditional tools of decision making analysis. reasonable minds can disagree and it's important the public not be misled by some of what they're hearing about the court. there has been so much said about the court. it says the heroes act provides no authorization for the secretary of education plan, even when examined using statutory interpretation and clear congressional authority for such a program. the first look says it
you heard shannon read that justice gorsuch writes the dissent fired on its own position here. what does he mean by that? >> well, i think that part of the problem with what you can see in justice sotomayor's dissent is it sweeps so broadly and treats this case as a virtual denial of public accommodation. the subject i talked about with dana. it doesn't do that. what this case is about is expressive acts, creative acts that can apply to photographers and bakers and website creators. those are people who are creating something for specific celebration that they find morally or politically or socially wrong. some reason to oppose it. this is about free speech, not -- this is not a religion clause case. so the dissent really sweeps quite broadly in saying this
having a lawsuit filed against her. i want to say one more thing to the broader conversation about what's going on at the court. until yesterday, the general discussion was how surprising the court was, how ecumenical and all over the place. justice gorsuch, alito in thomas were in dissent. those statistics are still very much in play. the three cases yesterday, two today are not going to change that overall trend line of the court really grappling with the law and having a lot of alignments. so-called vibe after yesterday and today will be again about the conservatives win and biden talking about it not being a normal court. senators and others saying it is extreme. the statistics be lie that narrative that a lot of the media pushes that this court is somehow out there and the six republican appointed justices are taking it in the direction
with it. it is finally reached a point of clarity with gorsuch and he was the perfect one to write this opinion. i'm biased. i testified for his confirmation. i told democratic senators they were wrong about him and he will vote with the left of the court and his principles take him to a historic moment in this opinion. >> dana: let's get back to the supreme court live there on the supreme court grounds. shannon bream. we have another decision on student loans? >> okay. we have two. we're trying to parse through it. the first case dealt with the individual borrowers. what the court decided unanimously they don't have standing. so the case for the individual borrowers don't have standing meaning they don't go anywhere on the merits of the case. we now get into the second case written, i believe, by the chief justice john roberts saying the group of states who sued appears
getting the student loan case. she has a right to do that. we hear from justices when they're passionate about dissent or majority opinion. i want to read you more of the majority opinion from gorsuch. speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. he said by approving a government's effort to eliminate disfavored ideas, today's dissent is emblematic of a tendency by some to defend first amendment values only when they find the speaker's message sympathetic. this was a free speech case and justice gorsuch is very pointedly saying to the dissent are you okay with monitoring speech when it disagrees with certain viewpoints? it's not a constitutional ideal. one of the worst cases i covered was the westboro baptist church that had hideous signs and
she will serve anyone and has had lgbtq plus customers but doesn't want to do custom artistic designs to do something against her religious belief. in this case same-sex marriage. sarah, thank you very much. let me just check the run down on this. authored by gorsuch joined by roberts, thomas, alito, kavanaugh and barrett. the first one that we were waiting on let me flip through here as justice gorsuch who wrote other cases that have to deal with religious liberty issues. this is a free speech issue. here is what he says at the end of his decision. tolerance, no coercion is our nation's answer. the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish. not as the government demands. colorado seeks to deny that process the judgment is reversed. 6-3 in favor of the web designer as we wait to see will they read