It could be the only Tv Debate between harrIs and trump. TonIght, newsnIght brIngs you the InsIde track on how the presIdent Ial candIdates are preppIng and how thIs prIme tIme Face To face could change the race. Hello and welcome to newsnIght, the place for excItIng IntervIews, InsIghts and debate and tonIght, one debate Is our focus, the showdown In phIladelphIa, In just a few hours tIme, between Donald Trump and Kamala HarrIs. Both Face Realjeopardy In thIs Tv Head to head whIch could decIde whIch of them wIll be presIdent. Last tIme trump debated hIs democrat rIval, It prompted the ImplosIon Ofjoe BIden s campaIgn, faced wIth unsustaInable pressure over hIs age. How wIll bIden S Successor Fare . In the newsnIght studIo tonIght. GabrIel gatehouse, whose new serIes of the award wInnIng the comIng Storm Podcast has launched thIs week on bbc sounds. Its about ConspIracy TheorIes dIvIdIng us polItIcs and Its grIppIng nIck Is of course here as ever. And from the states, GlorIa Allred Is
await today s opinion. shannon bream is standing by outside the court. hi, shannon. this is it, dana and bill. we re down to the wire. we know the student loan cases are coming today and know the case on the colorado web designer the free speech issue is coming today as well. the question continues to be does it punted get to an issue of standing. they talked about whether these parties, the group of states, red states that brought the case and borrowers who brought a separate case that they joined together at the court, do they either one of them have the right legal posture to be the ones to have the case heard? it was a lot of doubt. not just the left leaning justices. do they get to the merits of the case? i feel like because they ve held it to the last day my gut says they should have gotten to the merits. they ve taken a long time. we would expect they do. we ll know within moments. the first case it looks like that we have is the colorado web designer. the web design
done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history. take a look at roe v. wade and the decision today and how it has ruled on a number of issues that are have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes. and that s what i meant by it. not normal. bill: you hear him he says it is not a normal court. he have is criticizing the court. he wasn t criticizing it when they recently sided with him in several decisions. this court has handed down major victories for his administration. it has not been rigidly divided. most of the cases are still unanimous, nearly unanimous. the ones that aren t have a mix that don t break along ideological lines. it is really these few cases, the cases like 303 creative where you see that strong division. but that s because of these deep seeded views. i wrote a column about the
or the other but the first amendment says we have something like the first amendment and that people are allowed to share ideas. go after your political leaders and not worry about going to jail and do things in this country. d.c. there is a protest on the streets every day. a huge one at scotus yesterday. the court is very protective of the freedom and don t want to silence anybody regardless of their position if it is on tent. threatening people is a different thing. what we re talking about here is speech that people don t agree on. different ideas. this court wants to make clear this country is a unique place and that you can have these very difficult differing opinions and there has to be space for that. dana: thank you, shannon. stand by. we re waiting for the student loan decision as soon as the dissents are read. ilya shapiro, can i ask you about how these cases come to be? i just want to know, are people who are religious, who own a business, can they sometimes be
american people watching this story, if you weren t somebody who had a student loan, millions of them and you took out a loan let s say for equipment like an excavator or backhoe. no one in the federal government was talking about helping you. yet your tax dollars were supposed to go and help these people who took out a loan, signed their name on the dotted line and i feel for them that they haven t been able to make ends meet or having a hard time making loan payments. i know that the universities deserve a lot of blame here for the amount that they are charging. but a contract is a contract. and it was the unfairness that was driving a lot of the public opinion about this. get your thoughts on that. does the court take into account you had millions of taxpayers across the country who don t have student loans and why should they pay for some of this? it actually came up in oral argument. it is relevant only in this