the president again. in 30 minutes, he ll speak from the roosevelt room, explaining the white house s next steps because a lot could change with a ruling that sided with a web designer opposed to same-sex marriage. and a lot will change now that the president cannot constitutionally cancel student debt. joining me now nbc news correspondent julia ainsley who s outside of the supreme court for us, and nbc news white house correspondent mike memoli. noah pransky is here with us as well, and cnbc washington correspondent, emily wilkins. thank you very much for being here, everybody. so 6-3 ruling, two more 6-3 rulings, i should say. student debt. you re right, katy, if somebody was going to sum up this supreme court right now, the name of the book might be 6-3 because we re seeing so many opinions fall along those lines. today we saw two more, the first coming in, a case having to do with a web designer in colorado who says that she does have gay clients but didn t want to be
little bit on the john roberts note about how there has been a change from the way the court is perceived and to tell the public, listen, just because we re disagreeing with each other doesn t mean we don t like each other. you re saying that was directed to the liberal justices on the court. when i first read it, it sounded to me like it was directed to the public. please clarify that. reporter: he s talking about their opinions. he s saying that we re giving the perception to people that we re at odds over politics, and he was worried about that perception. you can see that he s calling out dissent like we saw from justice sotomayor today in her dissent over the gay rights decision where she said it was heartbreaking. she is telling the court they re going too far, this is a slippery slope, they re making the wrong decision. they re using very strong planning here, and we even saw that inside. producers who were inside the court today as they were going through these opinions or ev
race-based admissions or race as a factor in the admissions process, but we do not yet know how they will come down in a case that has been continuously a part of successive supreme court confirmation hearings, and let alone ballot initiatives in places like california. just so you know, it is in the zone of 10:00 p.m., and the rulings could come any second now. and we know two boxes that are delivered in writing there. and that means at least two decisions today, and there could be as many as four or so, because they can pack a couple into the box. but at least two, elie. and the gay rights decision in colorado is fascinating because of how the justices will choose to write about this. this has to do with whether someone has the right to refuse service because someone is gay. what are you looking for in terms of how the justices frame this, because if they say that
but i think they re all, you know, in a sense riding that wave that began with roe v. wade. this latest decision as maya pointed out also, seems to be wildly inconsistent with the gay rights decision recently from colorado in which case they specifically looked at the intent of one of the commissioners who decided the case against the plaintiff, discriminatory intent, and said there the baker doesn t have to make the cake. and in this case they refused to look at the president s clear intent to discriminate against muslims, which he proclaimed time and time again. so, maya, to your point about the rewriting of your executive order three times does not remove the original intent. it seems to have removed it for the majority of the justices. well, this is what s
wave that began with roe v. wade. this latest decision as maya pointed out also, seems to be wildly inconsistent with the gay rights decision recently from colorado in which case they specifically looked at the intent of one of the commissioners who decided the case against the plaintiff, discriminatory intent, and said there the baker doesn t have to make the cake. and in this case they refused to look at the president s clear intent to discriminate against muslims, which he proclaimed time and time again. so, maya, to your point about the rewriting of your executive order three times does not remove the original intent. it seems to have removed it for the majority of the justices. well, this is what s interesting and important about the dissent from justice fryer