Page 2 - Standing Precedent News Today

Of the country. and that is that the country has moved culturally on this issue in a big way. and the congress is seeing the m makeup of the supreme court and what they have done to longer standing precedent than same-sex marriage. ie, roe v. wade, over turning that. and also the fact that clarence thomas, when dobbs was written, actually put a con current opinion on saying that maybe same-sex marriage should be overturned as well. so that is why congress is doing it. but it is remarkable, kate,...

Interpreted in such a way that what they did, which is inconsistent with long standing precedent, what they did is somehow not violative of the -- >> yeah, im afraid weve lost the connection with former attorney general eric holder. well continue to try to get in touch with him. well try to get -- refreshing with him right now and well try to get him back. were talking about a case that was argued before -- were told cant get him back. take a short break. more news ahead. n the world are you doi...

Over turning of roe v. wade. right now the justices are hearing a case about the scope of the clean water act, how the epa could restrict development or land that is adjacent to wet lands and interestingly ketanji brown jackson has been quite vocal already in the 40 plus minutes of oral argument for the start of the term. but for rest of the term well see voting rights act and power of state legislatures versus courser courts when it comes to redistricting and then affirmative action will put ra...

For. and thats basically what they emphasize to the jury. they regard this is very straightforward. steve bannon had been subpoenaed, he was required to show up at this time. he didnt show up at this time. who is required to turn over documents. he didnt turn over documents. and that was basically their case. at one point, one of the assistant u.s. attorneys that was prosecuting the case is sort of compared steve bannon in this case to someone -- a child who had been given a punishment and was t...

Years ago and that this is about protecting the weakest in the womb and its up to the state to decide. what do you say to them? as you hear, the argument is just as intense on that side as well. >> listen, first of all, this has been standing well accepted precedent for almost 50 years. and many of the justices that now sit on the supreme court including the three appointed by president trump during his term, talked about the standing of long standing precedent. said things were settled. and fir...

>> i say it has been customary practice for many decades for candidates, nominees for the supreme court or other judicial seats to skirt around any direct question about how would you roul on a given set of facts or hypothetical. these justices in public meetings indicated that they had a great respect for the long standing precedent. and we have been reading a lot about what they said in private where there were note takers and staff present. again, i think the decision leaves a shaken america....

Anybody in light of the fact that this same court ruled administratively about a week ago that said that they were going to stop the order by the district court that was putting an injunction on the enforcement of the abortion ban in texas. and this is the same circuit court that back in september swooped in to that district court case and said we are going to enforce this law and let it stay on the books while this gets litigated. so no surprise. but keep in mind, brian, how extraordinary it is...

Online is up for debate by the u.s. supreme court as well. in a decision from the justices could affect the price you pay by checking out over the internet. correspondent garrett tenney looks at that argument before the court. >> the days of paying less for shopping online could be coming to an end. 42 states are locked in a heated battle with some of the internets biggest retailers over the ability to charge sales taxes. a lot of online retailers dont collect sales taxes, which is, in part, why...

Live with it and move on. >> its simply not true. the republicans have never use ed a filibuster to block a nomination. what happened with merrick garland is a long standing president in the last juror of a presidents term you dont get the chance to fill in a very important 30-year term for a candidate. >> where did that rule come from? >> its a long standing precedent. >> no, its not, senator. lets go by the constitution. you said about president trump and i would agree. he was elected. he gets...

Wont make the request sighting a long standing precedent. schumer for his part is not backing down. will democrats be able to frisk the trump himself escaped. more mtp daily ahead.