Judy: It has been a remarkable
and busy week here in
Washington.
The supreme court caps off a
consequential term even as the
fallout continues to the
decision to overturn roe V.
Wade.
There was a surprise hearing of
the January 6 congressional
committee to present testimony
from president trump spinner
circle.
That exists to this.
Jonathan Capehart is away.
Welcome to both of you.
Let's hope it was civilized.
Let's talk about the supreme
work term.
Whether you liked it or loved it
or hated what they did, it has
been historic.
>> Certainly epic.
Let's focus on the regulatory
stuff.
A series of decisions.
The supreme court took power
away from agencies.
And said congress can regulate
this.
I have a lot of sympathy in
theory for the idea that as much
as possible it should be decided
in legislatures and not by on
elected representatives.
The problem right now as we have
a broken congress.
That is especially true for
climate change.
Our political dysfunction
undermines that.
Judy: So pushing at a time when
agencies are not so.
>> People do not want power.
They don't want responsibility
for anything.
They are not being permitted to
do that.
>> This term was a blockbuster.
That is not a strong enough
word.
I would love to talk about
administrative law until the
cows come home.
But it is so much bigger than
that.
It underscored a big difference.
Six conservative justices can do
whatever they want.
They have a justice to spare and
still keep the majority.
That's what they did this term.
They further dismantled the wall
of separation between church and
state.
They really did change the
regulatory landscape.
Congress cannot now delegate and
say you are the experts, fix
this problem.
Now they are required to
congress.
Judy: What about this notion
that it was a blockbuster?
That a change things and away we
have not seen in decades?
>> Absolutely.
I saw a graph today of how many
decisions were made over the
decades.
It is a little like this.
There clearly was the
culmination of a fifty-year
development of the that arose
society.
They now control the court.
The one thing that has peeved me
a little, I have heard some
argument that we had all these
decades of liberal decisions and
suddenly we get conservative
decisions.
That is not true.
There were liberal decisions for
a while.
But now there are very strong
conservative decisions.
>> They are reached in ways that
I would argue are deeply
unconservative, without due
regard to the importance of
keeping precedent.
Cherry picking history.
Justice Kagan in the regulatory
decision said we are all textual
lists -- textualists now.
I have problems not just with
the outcomes but with the way
they did it.
This term was the culmination of
this battle for conservative
control.
Next term also looks to be
shaping up to be a blockbuster.
I think we will see the end of
affirmative action.
Religious liberty will be
prioritized over gay-rights we
will see further shredding of
the voting rights act.
Buckle up.
Judy: There is a big decision
coming on redistricting.
You said setting aside a portion
for a moment.
It is the big one out there.
Other than that, the
repercussions are coming by the
day.
We talked about it at the
beginning of a program.
States are trying to figure out
what in the world they are going
to do.
What about the political
reproductions -- repercussions
of this?
>> I don't know.
That is what is interesting to
me.
Opinion on abortion has been
stable for decades now will be
-- Period of intense flux people
watch a woman get arrested for
crossing state lines.
People are on the middle in
abortion.
That in all of the legal things
we will be facing food have the
possibility of shaping what has
been a very stagnant public
opinion.
In narrow political terms, it
has clearly helped the
Democrats.
It has motivated voters.
It clearly has had some
mobilizing effect.
>> Some mobilizing effect.
I'm a little bit of a skeptic on
how much.
For years, it has been clear
that Republicans have done a
better job of mobilizing their
voters on single issues.
We are in new territory.
The first woman who is
prosecuted.
Women who die because they
cannot get appropriate care.
If you are a Democrat talking
about abortion on the ballot,
that is a lot better than
talking about gas prices.
Will that be enough for
Democrats to change the tide of
what has historically been?
I am doubtful.
Judy: You are not sure it is
going to stay the issue it is
right now?
>> It may stay but it might not
be that.
There are still motivations on
the others.
We have lost ourselves
geographically.
Judy: I am asking you to predict
how much staying power it has >>
I agree that it is limited.
>> I want to be wrong.
Just to be clear.
>> The election will be about
the economy.
That is an unprecedented number.
I think it will be a dominant
issue.
One thing that will happen
because of this is the further
bifurcation of Americans into
two different countries.
The other supreme court
decisions have other decisions.
We will have a couple of
different types of cultural
values.
And sets of governing policies.
Judy: It really does divide
further.
>> To the question of staying
power among Democrats, they are
understandably frustrated.
Judy: Let's talk about something
else equally divisive.
The January 6 committee.
Last time you run the program,
you said it was ill pointed.
That it should have been focused
on preventing another one.
>> The point I was try to make
is we need a committee to focus
on the future.
What happened this week is we
are talking about the indictment
of a former president.
>> When it happens, it will be
the lead.
>> This was something I did not
think we would see.
There really could be a case
made against Donald Trump.
Her crucial comment was take out
the metal detectors.
There are people capable of
violence.
If other people testify that he
said that, that is pretty
damming.
>> Very damming.
I think it has always been
critical that we look both
forward to prevent another
January 6 and backward to find
out what precisely went on.
The testimony about that date
was riveting.
Judy: Let me stay with you.
Is what the committee is finding
going to have a material effect
on the former president and his
political standing?
David is saying he may be in
legal jeopardy.
But he may also be running for
>> The political jeopardy, minds
are pretty well made up.
There are a core of people who
are trump supporters.
True believers who will not be
shaken by anything anybody has
to say.
There is a group of Republicans
who are rational.
They are going to be shaken by
this.
They are going to think, we
really need to stick with this
get -- guy?
They are being presented with
more options.
There is a group of people like
me who watched the hearings who
have extraordinarily squeamish
about the notion of indicting a
former president area but look
at this testimony and say how
can we close our eyes this?
>> I think there will be a lot
of Republicans say thank you for
your service.
Let's go to the next chapter.
There was a poll in new
Hampshire that Ron Desantis was
leading Donald Trump.
I do think it weakens his grip
on the party.
Judy: It raises questions about
the number of Republicans who
are still defending him.
Who think the election was not
legitimate.
Judy: She is one of a number of
others who could come forward
but have not.
We are still waiting to hear
from pat Cipollone.
The former legal counsel and
others.
>> One of the things that this
testimony underscored was the
degree to which we need to hear
testimony from others.
From mark meadows, from pat
Cipollone, from other members of
congress, from people who were
at that hotel plotting the
insurrection in the days leading
up to it.
You are compelled by the
committee.
Judy: We are waiting to hear
from the committee.
We will see what they do when
they come back.
Thank you.