Summary
Judge Aileen Cannon rejected a swift timetable Judge Dearie had set to resolve the review of the documents. Ginni Thomas tells the January 6 Committee she still believes the election was stolen. The Swamp author Michael Grunwald joins hays to talk about rebuilding Florida in the era of climate catastrophe. From Labor Day through this Tuesday, Fox`s primetime host went after Fetterman 120 times, more mentions than the other six marquee Senate races combined. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reflecting on her historic appointment to the Supreme Court after her formal investiture ceremony.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: She was denigrating White History by playing a flute but not a single soul on the right knew existed. They didn`t know that flute existed, even when between beaten his slaves, James Madison was playing it himself. They didn`t even know.
MELISSA MURRAY, PROFESSOR, NYU: Can I change my answer. Can I change my answer, Joy?
REID: Yes, you can.
MURRAY: I want to overrule myself like the court did.
REID: Amen.
MURRAY: Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress won the week.
REID: Halleluiah. Play that flute anytime you want.
(CROSSTALK)
ERRIN HAINES, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: (INAUDIBLE) Black woman is running the Library of Congress as well, I mean --
REID: Chris -- we all in Chris Hayes` show, so we`re going to stop now. I got to stop -- we`re not going to stop. Errin Haines, as well. This is where we love you guys both. Have a great weekend. That`s tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS: Why did anyone want to -- why did you approve a special master that sign one of the FISA warrants? That was surprising.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, the lawyers had a lot of -- I didn`t know any of the people involved.
HAYES: As Trump`s judge steps in for Trump`s defense, tonight, Congressman Jamie Raskin on the corruption of justice in the wake of Mar-a-Lago and what his committee learned from Ginny Thomas. Then --
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It`s not just a crisis for Florida. This is an American crisis. We`re all in this together.
HAYES: What the shared responsibility for rebuilding mean for the governor and people of Florida. Plus, my interview with John Fetterman, and why he turned the latest Dr. Oz attack into a campaign slogan.
MEHMET OZ (R-PA), SENATE CANDIDATE: When he dresses like that, it`s not an accident. He`s kicking authority in the balls.
HAYES: And Lady Justice author Dahlia Lithwick on a new day for the Supreme Court with Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson, when ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Weeks after the FBI executed that now infamous search warrant at Donald Trump`s home in Florida seeking classified documents he removed from the White House, the ex- President filed his first legal response in court. And if you recall, it`s basically an attempt to stall the FBI investigation. He asked the court to appoint a special master to sort through his baseless claims of executive privilege over the documents the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago.
Now, part of what was striking about that move is that Trump and his lawyers went out of their way to bring the matter before a new judge, not the federal magistrate judge that was already handling the case. No, they filed a motion as a new legal action that was assigned to a different federal judge who, as luck would have it, turned out to be someone that he, Trump, appointed. That`s Judge Aileen Cannon. Trump announced his intent to nominate Cannon in April of 2020. She was confirmed by the Senate in the lame duck session that year. That`s after Trump lost the election while he was trying to contest it and ultimately overthrow American democracy.
Now, federal judges are randomly assigned to cases, but we know that Trump has tried to get before Judge Cannon previously. In fact, earlier this year when he sued Hillary Clinton and former FBI officials over the Russia investigation which was subsequently thrown out, he filed the suit in South Florida where Mar-a-Lago is. But as the Daily Beast reports, when his attorneys formerly filed the paperwork, they selected a tiny courthouse in the sprawling Federal Court district`s furthest northeast corner, a satellite location that`s 70 miles from Mar-a-Lago. They ignore the West Palm Beach federal courthouse that`s a 12-minute drive away.
Now, the scheme failed. Trump`s case was assigned to a Clinton-era judge who called him out for basically forum shopping and a footnote, "I note the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Fort Pierce division of this district where only one federal judge sits, Judge Aileen Cannon, who plaintiff appointed in 2020."
Of course, we should be clear, there are plenty of judges throughout the federal judiciary who were appointed by Donald Trump who, when faced with cases that he had an interest, have done the right thing, refused to do his bidding and follow the law. That`s largely what happened in the aftermath of the election when several Trump-appointed judges shot down his bogus challenges. But I got to say Judge Aileen Cannon has really distinguished herself as a chilling example of what it looks like when the judiciary is just completely in the tank for a politician.
On Labor Day, she issued this order granting Donald Trump`s request for a special master, an order that was roundly, nearly unanimously criticized by legal expert experts, including some of Trump`s most staunch defenders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The opinion I think was wrong and I think the government should appeal it. It`s deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don`t think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don`t see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other words, I don`t think it changes the ballgame so much as maybe we`ll have a rain-delayed for a couple of innings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, Bill Barr`s prediction came true just a few days later. Last weekend, an appeals court did strike down key parts of Judge Canon`s ruling. The three-judge panel, two of whom were appointed by Donald Trump, unanimously ruled she was wrong to prevent federal prosecutors from using the classified documents in their investigation while the special master reviewed them.
[20:05:06]
They said the ex-President "Has not even attempted to show he is in need to know the information contained in the classified documents. And then there`s a special master himself who Trump`s lawyers suggested and that Judge Cannon shows. He has not been quite what I think the Trump folks were likely hoping for. Judge Raymond Dearie, a long-serving federal judge with a very, very good reputation has taken a no-nonsense approach to the case.
In a filing last week, he essentially called Trump`s bluff. Just as he did after the election, the ex-president has been running around making outlandish claims in public, this time alleging the FBI planted evidence during their search at Mar-a-Lago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The problem that you have is they go into rooms, they won`t let anybody near that -- they wouldn`t even let them in the same building. Did they drop anything into those piles or did they do it later? There`s no chain of custody here with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Just asking questions. Did they plant evidence. Now, you know, evidence being planted has happened, we should be clear, by law enforcement officials all over the place, OK. But if you`re going to make that accusation, you need to present evidence. So, Judge Dearie ordered Trump and his lawyers to state whether they believe anything on the official inventory list of items the FBI seized is wrong, basically challenging Trump to show him where the planted evidence is in a court filing which would be subject to sanctions that they were lying.
Yesterday, guess what? Judge Aileen Cannon jumped back in to protect Trump and his lawyers from the embarrassing proposition of having to state the plain truth that no, of course, nothing was planted. Judge Cannon also blocked the swift timetable Judge Dearie had set to resolve the review of the documents, slowing the matter down.
With each action she takes, it is harder and harder to conclude anything other than that Judge Cannon is fully biased in favor of the man that got her job, Donald Trump. It`s an important reminder that, in the end, the judiciary, and more grandly, the law, is ultimately just what a bunch of judges say it is, particularly what five justices on the Supreme Court say it is. And this week, we`re once again reminded of the fact that those justices are just human beings, like all of us, with a complex set of beliefs and influences.
As we`ve talked about before, one of those Supreme Court Justices happens to be married to a person who believes wild, dangerously false things. I speak of course of Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, who believes the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, a false belief. She actually works to further Donald Trump`s attempted coup. And yesterday, she testified about her actions before the January 6 Committee. She answered the committee`s questions for four hours and told them she still believes those false claims about the election, which just don`t make me feel great about Ginni Thomas` general level of processing of the world.
Now, I want to be super clear here, OK. People are not responsible for their spouse`s opinions. Lord knows, I don`t want Kate held responsible for like 98 percent of my own hot takes. But in the case of Ginni Thomas, who her spouse`s is undeniably relevant. One of the things that committee has wanted to ask her about is her email conversations with, for instance, John Eastman, that is the infamous author of the so-called coup memo, the legal mind who is plotting the coup. Ginni Thomas knows John Eastman, likely had his email address because he`s a former clerk for husband Clarence Thomas.
The Committee likely also asked Jeanne Thomas about her text messages to Donald Trump`s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, in which he shared conspiracy theories and implored Him to help Trump overturn the election. Now, any other random conservative activist in Northern Virginia likely would not have the personal phone number of the president`s chief of staff. Ginni Thomas did, because she`s conservative royalty, because to a certain extent, of who her husband is.
And just think about what it would look like if someone like John Eastman, or Ginni Thomas were on the Judiciary. Remember, the rule of law is not some abstraction. It`s not the force of gravity. It is a human institution occupied by humans. So far, by and large, it has held even as Donald Trump has tested it. There`s no guarantee of that. And right now, Judge Aileen Cannon is demonstrating what it looks like when the rule of law doesn`t hold.
HAYES: Congressman Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, sits on the January 6 Committee. He also served as the lead impeachment manager in the second trial of Donald Trump. And he joins me now. Congressman, from an institutional perspective, I wonder how much you think about the human nature of the institutions that ultimately are the guardrail that whole things in place.
[20:10:03]
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): The rule of law is an edifice that is populated by real human beings. And so, the character of our judges and the character of the people who get involved in every level of government, local, county, state, federal, is of essential importance. That`s why elections are so critically important in a democratic society. And, you know, it`s a remarkable thing that anybody out there believes that Donald Trump won an election that he lost by more than seven million votes in which Joe Biden beat him 306 to 232 in the Electoral College in.
It is amazing that you have someone who`s married to a Supreme Court justice, who is -- you know, continues to promote the big lie. But of course, that is her absolute first amendment right to do so. And anybody can go out and, you know, make an idiot out of themselves by claiming that, you know, the, the Easter Bunny is real, that Santa Claus is real, and Donald Trump is the real president.
HAYES: Yesterday, Ginni Thomas answer questions before the Committee. Chairman Thompson said she reiterated -- I mean, look, it`s one thing if people thought the day after the election or three weeks after, the election was stolen. There was no evidence it was it was easy to see that was not true then. It was easy to see that was not true on January 6. But speaking in September of 2022 before the committee to continue to hold to that belief is a striking thing and a revealing thing, I would say.
RASKIN: Look, people have a right to challenge the results of elections. And the way they do it is they go to court. And Donald Trump and his team did that. And in more than 60 cases, federal and state judges, including eight judges that were nominated at the bench by Donald Trump himself rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption. So, when people are out there saying that well, I don`t know exactly how, I don`t know where, but there was fraud, that just flies in the face of everything that we understand about how to make a democratic society work.
And again, I mean, there certainly have been periods in our history when the courts have been owned lock, stock, and barrel by particular corrupt forces in the country. But nobody can assert that here and nobody has even tried to assert it about any of these courts or any of these judges. And you read these opinions, and they`re just blistering, denouncing the nonsense that is being put forward without any evidence at all.
And never forget what Giuliani said, which is we have a lot of theories, we just don`t have any evidence, which is really the motto for their whole legal operation.
HAYES: I saw a number of conservatives yesterday either being mad or pretending to be mad, sometimes it`s hard to tell the difference, about Ginni Thomas having to testify and basically accusing the committee of only doing it because -- as a means of humiliating her and her husband, Clarence Thomas, and I`d like you to respond to that.
RASKIN: Well, first of all, she testified as she repeatedly has emphasized voluntarily, so it was her decision to come. It wasn`t under a subpoena. So, if they`re condemning someone, they`re condemning her for participating, but she did the right thing in the way that more than 1000 American citizens have done and coming forward to talk about exactly what they know. It`s a relative handful of people like Steve Bannon or Roger Stone, who either just blew us off or come in and cite the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which is there every right to do so.
But the vast majority of people are trying to advance the search for the truth. This was our democracy. This was our government that was under attack. Donald Trump tried to overthrow the election of the people. Abraham Lincoln said that an insurrection is an attack on the rights of the people because it`s the people that are involved in the process of choosing the president, and they decided just to short circuit that and overthrow it and install Donald Trump as the president.
HAYES: One of the great near misses, I think, of January 6 as we learned from your committee, and as we review footage, and as many of these cases work their way through the federal courts in DC, is the fact that many of these people were gun owners, a few of them had guns and weapons as we`ve learned, but the vast majority did not. And largely that was because of the very, very restrictive gun laws in Washington DC. And I think it`s fair to say that the lack of guns that day by the -- by the mob, by and large, saved many, many lives and saved us from something almost unfathomably much worse.
You have an op-ed that you just wrote about the Second Amendment and guns and insurrection. What`s the argument you`re making there?
RASKIN: Yes, and let me just underscore your first point there, Chris, which is absolutely right. There were thousands of firearms that were brought to Washington. Most of them were left in Virginia or in the trunks of people`s cars because of the relatively strict laws the District of Columbia has against carrying weapons, firearms, semi-automatic weapons in public and so on.
But my op-ed in the New York Times is an effort to take issue with something that I`ve heard repeatedly from GOP colleagues, and increasingly since January 6, which is that the purpose of the Second Amendment they say is to allow the people to rebel against the government or to have an insurrection against the government if they perceive the government to be acting in a tyrannical way.
The problem with this is that it`s completely at odds with the text, the structure, the meaning of the Constitution. It`s not rooted in anything in the Second Amendment, and it`s just an urban myth. It`s just a dogma that`s out there. But the Constitution repeatedly opposes insurrection. Article One, section eight, clause 15 says Congress has the power to call forth the militias from the states in order to suppress insurrections. The republican Guarantee Clause says Congress must guarantee to the people of the states a republican form of government and must put down domestic violence.
It is treason, of course, to levy arms against the United States. And section three of the 14th Amendment says that if you have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and you breach it by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, you can never hold office again. And so, they say, well, the Second Amendment actually gives you a right to engage in an insurrection, but there`s nothing in the text. The language of the Second Amendment is just (AUDIO GAP). They have no history for it. And so, it`s just nonsense.
HAYES: It is nonsense. I agree with you. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you so much for your time tonight.
RASKIN: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Coming up, Hurricane Ian makes landfall again this time in South Carolina. The devastation it left behind. The need to rethink how and what we rebuilt next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It`s not just a crisis for Florida. This is an American crisis. We`re all in this together. And I`ve spoken to Governor DeSantis on multiple occasions, as well as this morning as well as mayors and county officials, both Republican and Democrat from the places most affected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: President Biden today reaffirm the central principle that we`re all in this together, that a disaster in any part of our country is a disaster for all of us. We come together, we help out. It was, of course, quite a contrast to the previous occupant of the Oval Office who was constantly brainstorming ways to like screw over places like California, maybe blame devastating wildfires there in the state not properly raking the forest floors.
Also, a contrast to House Republicans nearly a decade ago who quite notably voted against relief for New York and New Jersey after it was battered by superstorm Sandy. Like, for instance, current Florida Governor Ron DeSantis who was one of the people to vote, now embracing the aid he tried to deny other Americans as they tried to recover from a storm.
Of course, everyone being in this together also means we are all assessing together what climate risk looks like and how best to mitigate those risks. Florida is a place where that concept is at its most acute, and a place where a lot of private actors have made a lot of money, basically pushing the financial risk of extreme weather unto others, whether that be individuals or insurers or the federal government while they capture the profits. The question now in the aftermath of the latest hurricane supercharged by warming climate is will we let that cycle continue.
Michael Grunwald is the author of The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. He`s written extensively about Florida and climate change, and how in some ways, much of the real estate model functions on externalizing that risk. And he joins me now. Michael, it`s great to have you because I think more than anyone, you`ve made me sort of think of this that when you sell property in a place like Cape Coral, you are kind of trying to externalize the risk of the extreme weather event onto some other shoulders and sell people this dream of a waterfront home, which is totally understandable dream. I know why people want that. Then the question becomes, well, what do you do when disaster strikes? And that`s the question now.
MICHAEL GRUNWALD, AUTHOR, THE SWAMP: Yes, it`s hard. I mean, we live in an unsustainable paradise here. And, you know, Cape Coral is a perfect example where as you know, five years ago, I was sort of banging my spoon on my highchair about how this place really never should have been built. It`s a peninsula jutting off the peninsula. It was, you know, low lying flat, mangrove swamps that they just built 400 miles of drainage ditches that are really kind of, you know, masquerading as real estate amenities, and they call it a new Venice. But really, it`s just obviously in harm`s way and it`s going to be really hard to rebuild it in a way that`s a lot safer.
The big question I think for place like that, and again, like I want to be real clear here. Like, It`s horrible to have your -- like, I don`t blame anyone who lives there. I don`t blame the people fit but the root of their lives there. It`s a beautiful place with beautiful weather. They were sold waterfront property. Like they know that there`s some risk, sure, and no one`s to blame for a hurricane hitting them.
The question becomes like, how to deal with the financialization at risk. And Cape Coral is such an interesting place where the new FEMA maps basically had a huge part of it in these areas that required mandatory National Flood Insurance of the places that got evacuated. This time, just 18.5 percent of homes have coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program. So, there`s a real question of who`s going to pick up the cost of the risk here?
GRUNWALD: Right. And, you know, look, I mean, Florida has always had an ethic of, you know, now, mine, more, right? It`s kind of our state motto. And it`s definitely not a place where, you know, we`ve thought really carefully about the future. That has not been our stick. And you look at a place like Cape Coral where, right, you mentioned that Governor DeSantis, who voted against, you know, let`s -- he didn`t want to bail out in New York and New Jersey after Sandy, but that`s really kind of normal.
This idea that, you know, we`re the Free State of Florida, you know, we don`t want the bureaucrats telling us what to do, whether it`s about masks and vaccines, or you know, where to build our houses and whether we can water our lawn. But of course, when the waters rise, you know, we do expect Uncle Sam to bail us out. And I think it`s pretty fair to expect that they`re going to do it.
HAYES: Yes. And I think that`s right. I mean, I don`t think -- I can`t imagine there`s going to be votes against the package. And I would vote for it in a heartbeat if I were in Congress. And I hope to see that people get restitution and they get their lives back together. But it also seems like, again, what is the insurance premium people are going to be paying for places that are more and more subject? Like at a certain point, there becomes a kind of price level at which you wonder if the risk -- the risk gets properly priced such that it changes the equation.
GRUNWALD: I think, you know, it`s a good point. I remember when I was living in a flood zone. I paid flood insurance every year that was, you know, federally subsidized and it was bizarrely cheap. And now, I had-- my private home insurer actually went bankrupt a month ago. It`s one of 10 Florida insurers that went bankrupt in the last year. And of course, the state took over my policy.
I`m sure there have been 1000s of people in that position in, you know, in the Cape Coral and in southwest Florida right now. And, you know, that`s why Governor DeSantis is going to be looking to -- looking to Uncle Sam because there`s going to be a very big bill to pick up.
HAYES: That`s a really fascinating point. It`s a little like banking, right? Too big to fail in the end and the state is there to hold it up. Michael Grunwald who`s writing on Florida has been fantastic throughout a Floridian through and through. Thank you, Michael.
GRUNWALD: Thanks for having me, Chris.
HAYES: Still ahead, he`s the unconventional Senate candidate running on a platform of popular ideas. Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman on what he needs to do to beat Dr. Oz and the story behind his campaign`s new slogan, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
HAYES: We`re a little over a month away from the November midterm elections. Basically, all of the marquee races especially for Senate are narrowing. They`re tight.
For example, in Pennsylvania, where the state`s Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman is running against Republican T.V. doctor from New Jersey Mehmet Oz to replace retiring Republican Senator Pat Toomey.
According to the polling averages, Fetterman was leading by about double digits about two weeks ago. That lead has narrowed to about six points today, it will likely get even closer throughout the next 39 days. I think this will probably be a one or two or three-point raise.
Now, this is mostly due to the natural structure of the underlying politics. The Pennsylvania race could determine control of the Senate itself next year and so, Republicans are somewhat reluctantly circling the wagons around Mehmet Oz.
It`s also true the Oz campaign and its allies and right-wing media are getting more desperate. Fox News in particular is just mono maniacally obsessed. They have ramped up the attacks on Fetterman to an almost ludicrous degree.
From Labor Day through this Tuesday, Fox`s primetime host went after Fetterman 120 times, more mentions than the other six marquee Senate races combined.
And they are going after him for anything they can including his recent stroke, just gross. Fetterman`s campaign says Fetterman is well on his way to recovery, more than fit to govern.
But it`s also not just Fox News. You got former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who keeps chiming up just like tossing stuff out. He tweeted, why would Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman have a tattoo saying I will make you hurt?
Now, it`s true Fetterman used to have a tattoo reading I will make you hurt, he had it over years ago. Of course, Generation X kids like myself anyone vaguely familiar with 1990s pop culture will remember those lyrics from the classic Nine Inch Nails song Hurt.
If you had a tattoo from Closer, that would also be weird, but that song Hurt famously covered by the late country star Johnny Cash it was like a very, very big hit.
So, not exactly the veiled threat Gingrich was trying to make it out to be. But if that was not ridiculous enough, Republicans took their taxes step further trying to link Fetterman to of all things gang activity.
Oz recently tweeting out a Breitbart article titled "P.A. Democrat John Fetterman embraced spelling of Braddock that showed fidelity to notorious Crip gang."
Now, it goes without saying John Fetterman does not show fidelity to the Crips, obviously, any gang for that matter.
[20:35:01]
But again, this demonstrates like they`re just trying to find whatever is going to work. And they`re very focused. Republicans are bringing down the Democratic nominee with probably the single best chance to flip a Republican-held Senate seat.
The man who is on the other end of all these stacks, John Fetterman himself joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Even as the race for Pennsylvania Senate tightens, Republican millionaire and T.V. Dr. Mehmet Oz has consistently trailed Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman in the polls, and his attacks have turned into fodder for Fetterman`s very, very good social media campaign.
[20:40:10]
Take the infamous crudite video for example, Oz tried to hit Democrats on inflation at the grocery store, but he bungled the name of the well-known store he was shopping at calling it Wagners when no such store exists.
So, in response, Fetterman started selling these Wagners stickers, or how about the time Oz tried to call veteran radical by tying him to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders with this rather hastily designed picture, only for Fetterman to respond with this meme, mocking Oz`s campaign`s Photoshop skills. "Graphic design is my passion."
There`s also this particularly great moment when Oz released a simple campaign video filmed in front of some nice-looking shelves, which as Fetterman`s folks quickly pointed out, was not filmed in Pennsylvania but rather in Oz`s mansion in New Jersey where he actually lives.
Then, there`s Oz`s latest attack where he tried to go after Fetterman`s clothing choices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEHMET OZ (R) SENATORIAL CANDIDATE OF PENNSYLVANIA: When he dresses like that, it`s not an accident, he`s kicking authority in the balls.
He`s saying, hey, I`m the man, I`m going to -- I`ll show those guys whose boss. I`m going to not allow any traditional path to succeed. Because by breaking some parts of it down, I can represent, I can break it all down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Fetterman took that attack in stride as well releasing this jokey logo caption: Fetterman kicking authority in the balls.
And John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate nominee and current Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania joins me now.
Lieutenant Governor, it`s great to have you. I have not gotten the opportunity to speak to you on air since your stroke and since your primary victory. First, I just wanted to check in and see how you`re feeling and how you`re doing?
JOHN FETTERMAN (D) SENATORIAL CANDIDATE OF PENNSYLVANIA: I`m doing -- I`m doing fantastic and it`s not about kicking balls in the authority or anything. But I always like to say that if Dr. Oz says something and I can sell it on t-shirts and raise money for our campaign, then it`s a good day for is.
Whether it`s kicking balls or crudites, we actually made half a million dollars off cruditAc, so, you know, thank you, Dr. Oz.
HAYES: More seriously, this is obviously going to be a close race. It`s a very evenly divided state. And I want to ask you about some of the attacks they`ve been sort of launching your way.
But before I do that, I want to ask what you view as the main dividing line, the main choice in this election?
FETTERMAN: Yes, definitely. And in terms of it is going to be a close race, because Pennsylvania is very purple state. I mean, that`s the truth.
And really, what`s also the truth is, is that they have unloaded $50 million of McConnell`s money on us, on our campaign. And now we are the top target on Fox News, you know, all the other candidates combined all of us.
And still, we`ve held the line, and just how sad of his campaign is, is that we still maintain a lead. And it`s taken everything that they`ve gotten, and it`s all based on lies about our record. And the campaign is so sad that you need people like Tucker or Hannity. That`s a shepherd him around because they even used to make fun of him.
There`s clips of them laughing at them, you know, Tuck used to say, he`s a bad candidate. I mean, he`s getting beaten by a stroke victim. And yes, that`s the truth.
HAYES: They have been attacking you. You`re right about the Fox News. We just had this graphic up that shows that you have become their number one target.
I mean, you see it down there at the bottom, it is the focus, the focal point race for them.
And clearly, they have focused a lot on the issue of crime, particularly violence. It is clear that homicides shootings, for instance, are up quite a bit in Pennsylvania, particularly in Philadelphia, which has had a very, very difficult time.
And I don`t quite know what the -- what the case is, but you`re responsible or you don`t know anything about this issue, or you don`t know how to stop it, I suppose is the argument. What do you say about that?
FETTERMAN: Well, let me tell you, that`s all Dr. Oz can do is lie about my record on crime. I`m actually a Democrat that I`m running on a crime of record, because I actually did that.
In fact, I`ve been a mayor for four terms here. And that had a community that had a significant gun violence issue. And for the first and only time ever that`s occurred ever in this community. We stopped the murders, we stopped the violence in my community. We`re five and a half years. No one died for any reason whatsoever. And that`s never happened before.
I`m running on my record. What has Dr. Oz ever done? Living in New Jersey, other than living in just some gated mansion, and a house that used to be owned by King George. He`s actually proud of that fact.
[20:45:04]
You know, if you really want somebody that actually fight crime, a guy that actually fought against crime, not some dude in a $5,000 Zegna suit.
HAYES: There`s also a big issue about abortion obviously, it`s front of mind for a lot of voters, particularly Pennsylvania in the gubernatorial race, where, you know, the fate of abortion rights in your state is on the ballot in that race between Josh Shapiro and Doug Mastriano.
But it`s very unclear what Dr. Oz would do in the Senate on abortion. Obviously, there`s a proposal for a nationwide abortion ban. He was asked once again about that today and refused to answer. He said his lines, which is, you know, I`m pro-life, etcetera. This is what he said back in May, right before the primary.
He said I do believe life starts at conception. I`ve said multiple times. If life starts at conception, as added, why do you care what age the heart starts beating at? Its you know, it`s still murder. If you were to terminate a child, whether their heart`s beating or not.
Do you know what Dr. Oz`s position is on a nationwide abortion ban and what is your position?
FETTERMAN: Well, you know, what`s also true is that Pennsylvania has a new power couple of MAGA of extremists. They`re Mastriano, they were -- they were married together by the Pennsylvania GOP. And they run together, Doug Mastriano and Dr. Oz.
Mastriano, that`s new power couple. And they both believe that abortion rights, they rests in them -- they rests in them, not with women in Pennsylvania and abortion is on the ballot. That`s the truth.
You know, Dr. Oz is a joke, but it`s not very funny, because right now, you know, whether it`s in the governor`s race, and in the Senate race that Dr. Oz folks believes that Roe v. Wade had to fall down. And he believes that every abortion is a murder. And that means that any woman that chose abortion must be a murderer themselves.
And Dr. Oz used to make fun of, you know, as having a stroke that I might miss a word every now and then. Dr. Oz keep missing words. And those words are yes and no on the national abortion ban.
They refuse to give the answer, not even today at a press conference that they had. They got to give people the answer and they refuse that they can`t and they won`t.
HAYES: All right, John Fetterman who`s Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania who is the Democratic Senate nominee in that state. Thank you so much for making some time with us tonight.
FETTERMAN: Oh, thank you. Thanks so much for having me.
HAYES: Still to come as the Supreme Court welcomes its first black female Justice, Dahlia Lithwick joins me in studio on the courts winning credibility and the ongoing threat it poses to democracy, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:52:20]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: People from all walks of life approached me with what I can only describe as a profound sense of pride and what feels to me like renewed ownership. I can see it in their eyes. I can hear it in their voices. They stare at me, as if to say look at what we`ve done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That was Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reflecting on her historic appointment to the Supreme Court after her formal investiture ceremony earlier today.
The ritual attended by the president and vice president as well as other dignitaries was a pure formality, because Justice Jackson was sworn into the court back in July.
But after the ceremony, the full Supreme Court posed together for the first time, that`s what they look like, just three days before the new term begins Monday.
This term in the court will hear cases involving voting rights and elections as well as more Second Amendment. They could have momentous, even calamitous consequences for our democracy. At a time when polls show public approval of the court is at historic lows.
Joining me now is Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor for Slate, where she has written her column Supreme Court Dispatches since 1998. And I`ve been reading them the whole time.
She is author of the new book, Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, which is getting rave reviews everywhere I look. Congratulations to the book, it`s great to have you here.
DAHLIA LITHWICK, SENIOR EDITOR, SLATE: Thank you.
HAYES: Everything is sort of before and after dots. It feels like. I mean, obviously there`s things, you know, Dobbs was not at a rapid disjuncture, the result, the seeds were there.
This is the first -- Monday will be the first Monday post Dobbs. How are you thinking about this court convening on Monday for the first time after Dobbs?
LITHWICK: My instinct says if you thought last term was bad, buckle in. That everything --
HAYES: Well, that`s bleak.
LITHWICK: I mean, I`m here to be bleak. You know, I`m not -- I`m not hopeful. I think that a lot of the issues that didn`t make it onto the docket last year, as he said, are going to be on the docket this year. There`s two seminal voting rights cases. There`s an Indian Child Welfare Act case. Last term, we had the Clean Air Act, this tip term, we have the Clean Water Act.
You know, there`s not an affirmative action, I think, is on the chopping block among other things.
So, I think that, you know, there`s two stories to tell. One story is that a lot of you know, conservative legal movement, folks are saying, oh, last year was an aberration everything. Temperatures down, everything`s cool, cool, cool. Nothing to see here.
[20:55:04]
I think that what you`re actually seeing is that a lot of the stuff particularly involving race, and I think voting that we didn`t see last term is coming.
HAYES: The broad context here is the court has seen its polling numbers plummet, which, you know, does that matter or not, they`re not elected, but I think it does matter, I think they know when that happens.
And then, some interesting words sort of exchanged from some of the justices about the court and its legitimacy. I want to play John Roberts sort of defending them. And then a few days later, Justice Kagan talking in not that veiled terms about perception of the court, take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society, irrespective of the law. That`s when there`s a problem and that`s when there ought to be a problem.
JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE: I don`t understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the court. If the court doesn`t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I`m not sure who would.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: And then on top of that you have Alito in the wake of Justice Kagan`s comments saying were saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.
LITHWICK: Yes, I mean, it`s so problematic when you have, you know, Mitch McConnell holding the seat open. Scalia seat for almost 10 months.
HAYES: Right.
LITHWICK: And then, bragging about it. Seating Brett Kavanaugh amid, certainly, I think material claims that needed to be investigated that we`re not.
And then, seating Amy Coney Barrett, after voting had already started in the 2020 election, in violation of the pretextual reason that they weren`t going to seat Merrick Garland.
And then they overturned Dobbs. And then Justice Alito flies to Rome and spikes the football and cracks wise about it.
And then, we have the Chief Justice saying, I don`t understand why people think there`s legitimacy problems.
So, I sort of think this is classic gas lighting, where they`re doing the thing they`re doing, they`re actually kind of proud of it. And then they`re very upset and alarmed when Elena Kagan says a version of what she wrote in the Dobbs dissent, which is look at our polling numbers, people think that we`re very bad.
HAYES: This point, I think, is so important, because I do think like the gas lighting and it`s always driven me crazy right about the way that conservatives have talked about the court, the balls and strikes umpire metaphor of John Roberts.
The notion that like, well, how dare you say, you know how Amy Coney Barrett is going to rule on abortion. It`s like, I know how he (INAUDIBLE) the rule on abortion. Like, I`m not an idiot. Neither are you. We all know what`s going on here.
I do think there`s some promise in that declining public perception. But I wonder whether you think that as well, like, people seeing what`s up?
LITHWICK: I think there`s promise. And you know, it`s worth saying, I mean, that`s a 20 point drop in two years in public view of the legitimacy. That`s catastrophic. And it`s also worth just saying the court has no army, it has no budget, right? Congress could turn off the lights tomorrow.
The only power the court has to enforce its opinions is legitimacy. So, it`s not like other branches. It really does. If the public just shrugs and says nah, the court has no way to enforce it. That is a hard earned piece of capital that has been earned over centuries.
The thing that worries me is you`re right, it`s good. Now, the blinders are off, the public sees what you and I have known for years.
What worries me is it`s really going to deal a death blow to the rule of law, that if you don`t have a court that`s legitimate. And that court is going to be deciding the 2024 election.
HAYES: That`s exactly the problem.
LITHWICK: We`re going to fight this out in the streets. And that scares me.
HAYES: That is -- you have put your finger on precisely the sort of conundrum here, right? Which is that you do want your legal bodies in a liberal democracy to have legitimacy. You want the Supreme Court to have legitimacy, because ultimately, the arbiters of these unbelievably contested matters. And when John Roberts says, well, we don`t -- I don`t know who does, it`s not a crazy thing for him to say that is precisely the problem. This particular court has forfeited a lot of it.
LITHWICK: Yes. And I think it`s probably also worth saying so much of this is self-inflicted, right? If your wife is involved in January 6, maybe recuse yourself from the January 6 case, Clarence Thomas, maybe Amy Coney Barrett shouldn`t fly to the Mitch McConnell Center and give a speech there.
And so, I think so much of this, including the Dobbs` leak, which has just been so devastating for the court, not just the appearance of it, but internally how they relate to each other.
So much of this is just follow your own ethics rules, follow the appearance of impropriety. If you refuse to do that, please, please don`t tell us John Roberts, that we`re not seeing what we`re seeing.
HAYES: That is such a great, great point. Dahlia Lithwick. The new book is called Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America. You should go pick it up right now. Thank you so much.
[21:00:16]
LITHWICK: Thanks for having me.
HAYES: That is ALL IN for the week. "ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT" starts right now. Good evening, Alex.