Producers’ Pick | Jonathan Turley Dissects This Week’s Stunning SCOTUS Decisions

Jonathan Turley must be having a lot of vibrant and red bull because we be calling on you a lot for your legal expertise are you want. One of the people that was not surprised. The remaining Mexico always was blown up and I would not be thickly comprised I thought it could've gone either way. I this with a prototypical Roberts decision that would narrow it was accommodating it was an attempt to avoid what he viewed as a shakeup of between the two branches he went out of his way to repeatedly say this is quite narrow that he's trying to avoid undermining the president on initial foreign relations and so I don't think you have a big impact on the border. Certainly, in terms of policy, but legally it was a fairly narrow ruling says so the other the other does a lot of the growing spikes of the prison in Madrid, Spain but went out of his way to rip the Supreme Court. These the sanctity of this report that I disagree with the decision illicitly said cut to. I really think that it's a serious serious problem that the court has thrust upon United States, not just in terms of right to choose, but in terms of right to who you can marry write a whole range of issues related to your privacy and we know that that is not true.

He was nothing to do with right to marry, but this is the part which I thought.

I have a huge problem with cut for the one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior. This recording United States and overruling not only Roby way essentially challenging the right to privacy been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights and it is a mistake in my view for the Supreme Court. Do what it did. So it's a mistake in his view and he says the behavior, the Supreme Court of I'm scratching my head here. Continuation of this failure of leadership to be seen with the president.

No problem with this agreement for the opinion 20 people have disagreements with the opinion but this is a time when the president can try to at least bring a civility and the maturity to the conversation is repeating false notions about this opinion, this court more than any in any decision. I can recall repeatedly and expressly cut off the very argument that he just referenced. I've never seen an opinion like it. They just keep on coming back in thing once again we do not believe that this will opinion I have any application to same-sex marriage to contraception to these other areas, and yet it didn't hold this parade of corals, but the president has really shown her like this is the senator that is driven by polling and train rather than principal sale. For example, he long opposed changing the filibuster when he was in the Senate even opposed it.

During his presidential term, but now he flocked and flipped and the wind and said well you know I I now think that we should effectively end because you don't create an exception to a legislative filibuster for one subject that's not how it works. You know you don't have a filibuster except if it really causes you difficult so what I don't understand and I need some education on this is okay. These are but now will the decision goes to the states by the states had triggers. It said if Ruby weight is ever overturned. We now have this law taking over a lot of the law. For example, I believe in Mississippi said no more abortions. In Florida they knocked down to 15 weeks and a judge decided that that's gonna work. Where did the judges come in and what does the legislation come in with this language because he also stayed a lot of the orders when it comes to the trigger of the those trigger rules in various states correct, we expected that there be a certain period of hashing out the laws families trigger laws are quite old. Some laws actually predate Roby way. And so we expected all of them will be challenged in court will often enjoin the in the parties, so it had a chance to review and basically rule on these laws without any major changes occurring. Ultimately, the states have a right to ban abortion. They also overwrite it in places like Colorado to give basically absolute rights of abortion in Colorado. They just passed a law that said you were right to abortion to the moment of birth. That would be a nine month reform baby so you're going to hand of a in this type of spectrum of cases. Now these leaves. The judges can rule not just on the federal Constitution were to be difficult now after dog, but they can rule on the under the state constitution. So some of the state judges are saying well under our Constitution are laws there are problems here – those things out. If you take a couple years.

This is America's Fox weather updates throughout your busy day. Subscriber list MLN Fox News largess.com or wherever you did your projects.

So, the Supreme Court decision that really struck me is and there's a lot about this one particular Supreme Court ruled EPA does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by 63 margin and then the and then I'm watching the dissent in this line stands out with Mia. Linda Kagan obviously is agree with.

That's where liberal justices. She says if the current rate of omissions continues. Children born this year could live to see parts of the eastern seaboard swallowed up by the ocean.

That's an interesting way to talk. Maybe I do know over dinner tonight, but I didn't think that would end up in the dissent because it's partly settled science had similar claims that were debunked by a justice of the Mayor previously in oral argument and a you know what, I'm not saying that this claimant will be held on, but there is a great difficulty when justices start to lean towards policy discussions.

In that way, and there many people to disagree with what just as Kagan set the thing is always wise for justices not to get involved in those type of scientific like the question for justices not what's going to happen. But who makes a decision as to what to do about it. And whenever justices start to put the thumb on the scale and say well this was a really bad idea because all of these things are likely to happen. It pushes the mortar looking legislative rather than judicial, but in terms of the EPA decision. As usual we misrepresented in the media and quickly Mr. Bennett by many cultism you have Sen. Warren you have Sen. Schumer give AOC call saying that this is horrific because you know they just stopped us from being able to do anything about climate change in war and think they be able to take action. You think the funny thing about this opinion is it is it supports Congress, it says you're taking your power from Congress you're usurping the legislative branch. All of these Democratic politician core irate that the court is effectively reinforcing authority under the Constitution. So with the cells with the EPA EPA B uses a hammer. They're getting ready. Coal plants began possible through environmental environmental challenges to drill in certain areas, or fracking, other areas and will do this without no longer have any stake so if they bring some of the same issues forward under this ruling does a will will no longer curtail the drilling the fracking allotted one of the other things that may be the greens don't want to see happen so maybe you do that with a grandpa find other grounds by which to do it. This was really the Hail Mary. This was bakery thing topic because were telling you to stop it because the president of the president that he doesn't want this to occur and what the Supreme Court said that's not enough. You talking about a major question impacting millions of jobs, the economy, obviously the environment you up to go to Congress. You need to convince them that this is the right thing to do.

Now they could try to break this up a bit and tried to push some of these moratoriums on other legislative ground or or regulatory grounds. This is a very significant loss of one of the losses from what's called the administrative state mandate Supreme Court is putting a shot across the bow federal agencies. You've got to stop acting like Congress in Congress is God, stop being this silent partner in the governance of our country and sees Jonathan Turley part of it is again gaining done either 60 votes.

I don't get it. There was a way for the courts to figure it out. So AOC said this Tweet this out catastrophic filibuster carveout is not enough.

We need to refer we need the reform to do away with the whole thing.

For the sake of the planet. So do away with the Supreme Court for the planet for the good of the planet previously said she didn't really understand the value of having the Supreme Court over a year ago and this is part of their burn it down. You know the whole mantra that you're beginning to hear even usually sober voices like Sen. 15 talked about a revolution of the cream-colored dividend yield to the demand Warren so that the sprinkler should be immediately packed because it's not responding to public opinion statement are breathtaking in their ignorance of our constitutional history and purpose.

Could you imagine the system. We would hang out at the court simply followed public opinion. It's designed not to follow public opinion. It's the only institution to stand against everyone, not just the president and Congress. But the American people themselves because of their to protect minority rights.

It's there to protect constitutional right so when when AOC says what we just need to change the whole thing. She saying that I I support the system as long it yield to my demand, so the I worry most about now is the Supreme Court justices security. They have not passed the bill to give them Bob bulked up security for the Amy County Barrett's house last night.

I think the last few nights window. The ever going to feel secure in this environment.

Well, I think a very good question because the sessions are continuing to stoke the anger including the president is been remarkably silent. I yell recently. He finally came out and said I don't support violence or intimidation.

It took weeks for him to do that and you know this administration. In the meantime is reinforcing the view that this is the court that did something grossly wrong because it used the Constitution differently from the no Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a professor George Washington University. Is that correct yeah yeah he's been teaching for a number of years and we are very fortunate to have the surprise there was a push to get him out off the faculty because this just Roe V Wade decision.

I was not surprised, but I was alarmed by how much support he got how much support the campaign received in such a short time almost 5000 people signed the petition within 24 hours and I think many faculty and students supported it was an easy fight.

You know I have a blog that tracks all of these fights and universities across the country and there's hundreds of these cases. This was an easy one because he's a Supreme Court justice, and the University really would've held okay if they get they yielded to the mob.

The problem is that most professors in this country. 5% of them do not have tenure there, like, they are what are called provisional or contingent faculty a day job. They don't have a high profile position when they get targeted, they tend to get fired.

So I think what is important thing to come out of the time of controversy is that is not the outcome which most of us expected. This is an anomaly that is there faculty across the country that are being terminated for soft faculties without merit, with very little attention and result in almost a faculties are devoid Turley you're not afraid to dissent. They know that for sure.

Thanks much for joining us every week is over 100 meteorologists and the worldwide resources a fox in your box, whether podcast's personal powerful subscriber Melissa Malik Fox news digest.com or wherever you did your