cnn.com the highest courts twoest highest justices, cavanaugh and barrett could replay the map for the second amendment in courts in these kind of cases. tell us why their votes are so pivotal here. because ruth ginsberg and anthony kennedy, particularly ginsberg, of course, was very clear. she was a dissenter in the heller case in 2008. she didn t think the second amendment gives individuals any rights that she thought it applied only to militias, which had been the position of the supreme court for decades. the replacement of barrett for ginsberg is enormously important in the second amendment area as it is in so many. because she at least as far as we know believes in expansive individual rights for gun holders. and for individuals and the right to bear guns and you know what is so important about this
something you said triggered this in me, that she goes our s-d the circle to find out what she should do, there are two power women in that room. shoo prom previous decades a power person in our industry of media, and ruth bader ginsburg on the supreme court. she goes to ask a man at the new york times what she should do with her interview with ginsberg. yes. it s mind boggling. so if she s the keeper, if katie couric s the keeper of women s issues, please rest that mantel from her hands. it s a great point. flansy pelosi said she s complaining the media is not helping her sell her leftest agenda but maybe she just needs to hire katie couric. tone deaf top official in the biden white house appears to think the current economic anxiety is a quote, high class problem, as americans are hit with the sticker shock at the grocery store, the pump, and just about everywhere they go
should be. i mean, i ve always liked katie couric s shows, i think she s a bubbly personality and fun fashion, but i m not looking for her to interpret the english language for me. and to protect people who she admires when she said she was protecting ruth bader ginsburg. you know this emily more than anyone. rbg had an independent streak to her, she criticized roe v. wade despite being pro choice, and here was her streak again. does she really need protecting from katie couric? i think this is absolute y nayser narcissistic of katie couric. in her book she writes about how it s male-dominated industry how she supported and defended quote women whenever she could when she wasn t tearing them down as she said in other chapters. here he she is infantilizing a sitting supreme court justice thinking it takes katie couric to edit ruth bader ginsburg? absolutely not. and it was she who made the determination or the approval of the determination based on a
video you would see that rbg absolutely understood the question. that was a coherent precise candid answer. there was no confusion about it. this is the least surprising thing i ve seen since watching the sunrise in the east this morning and it was beautiful by the way. as you guys mentioned the same katie couric who that guns right documentary 5 years agee make gun owners look stupid and she was eviscerated for it in some circums outside of conservative media. couric received no reprimand for pushing narrative she knew to be false at the time. there was eve an deaf i defamation suit filed against her and she some how beat it because the judge said nothing harmal if was done to those gun owners besides making them look stupid in a highly watched documentary. when there s no accountability, guess what happens? the characters of the world will do it again. just like she did here with ruth bader ginsburg, protect the supreme court justice from her
rowe rodeo with this. we know she tampered with editing things before. you don t take things out of, you know, the realm of the context. so maybe her past set of glitches or whatever, gaps were based on what she thought it needed to say. the news, the facts don t need interpretation unless they are words that we don t often use. like when we hear supreme court language and somebody breaks that down and says this is what that means. you don t have have to omit stuff you can actually use more language to make it make sense. after ginsberg s interview, if she wanted to on set or wherever she presented that i think it was online, yahoo, whatever, she could simply have said you know we got into a di deeper discussion about this and these are some other things she told me. but she didn t do that. no. she made it play like she was in control of what the message