tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News October 2, 2021 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
♪ ♪ paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report," i'm gigot -- paul gigot. a multitrillion dollar reconciliation bill would mark a historic expansion of the into entitlement state, and as democrats continue to hash out details of that package if, republicans are looking ahead to the midterms, tying vulnerable democrats to the president's spending and the tax hikes to come even as democratic leaders insist that the cost will be zero. >> it's the not about a dollar
amount. the dollar amount, as the president said, is zero. this bill will be paid for. it's about what are the values that we share and how we ioritize them. paul: let's bring in our panel, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editorial page editor dan henninger, columnist kim strassel and editorial board member kyle peterson. dan, first address this argument that we're hearing time and time again from the democrats which is that the cost of this bill is zero. i mean, it seems ridiculous on its face, but why do they keep repeating it? is what are they trying to get at in. >> well, they keep repeating it -- incidentally, it is arguably the most ludicrous statement in the history of american politics. [laughter] if you can think of anything more ridiculous, let me know. they're saying it because they are sensitive to the fact, paul, that people are focusing on the top line number, as we say, and i think they understand that a
lot of voters are taken aback by that figure. so they're trying to argue that it's paid for by taxes, the taxes that they haven't quite itinged on yet -- settled on yet. again, effectively, the argument is if you raise enough taxes to pay for something, the cost is zero. and i guess the big question is whether voters are going to not so much buy the zero, that's lewd cows, but buy the -- ludicrous, but they're worried about it being $5 trillion. paul: no matter, kim, what the top line number happens to be in the end, what really matters is what's in it; that is, the programs that are started, the entitlements that are started. why don't you explain why that is so significant and these issues of childcare entitlement, paid family leave and so on. >> because they're never going to go away, paul. whatever as well ends up being
the supposed end date of these programs, in reality what democrats know is that if you get them into the bill, you have started a new program that you can hook people on, and you can expand it, and then it'll never go away. and is so we are essentially having a discussion about putting the federal government in charge of vast new areas of american life from education to health care and so on and hooking them to a cradle-to-grave government as it were. and that's fundamentally a massive change to the fabric of the nation and one that's permanent most likely. paul: so in other words, even if they start small, you know, just get a few people at first, you're arguing that they'll inevitably expand and grow, and you'll be unable to repeal it. even if republicans take everything in 2025, because
they'll be then accused of being against family leave or against childcare. is that the point? >> yeah, absolutely. and whether or not they even begin, for instance, if there's a work requirement, the democratic push over the years will be to exexpand them to the middle class, ultimately to the upper middle class so that everybody is dependent on government, thereby making it even harder to get rid of them ever. >> kyle, why are democrats having such a hard time? there's a lot of disagreement, right, progressives versus moderates, why are they having such a tough time passing this if, as they claim, it's so popular? >> i think it has to do with the with the incentives of people who are in safe seats, and in-fighting in the old republican party is an old story. john boehner versus the freedom caucus and now a similar thing going on in the democratic party with nancy pelosi. alexandria ocasio-cortez, for example, raises 890% of her --
80% of her money from small donors. so her incentive is to say i'm never going to compromise, we're going to get $3.5 trillion or bust, and then go on twitter and put up that clip and the money rolls in, and so it's a real incentive problem. but the question for progressives is if you want the democratic party to remain in control of congress next year, you need guys like joe manchin. paul: let's run, we have a clip of an ad that's running in some republican districts by the republican party. let's take a look. >> sometimes even politicians tell the truth. >> guess what? if you're like me, your taxes are going to be raised, not cut. >> prices are going cup, paychecks are going down. pelosi is going to make things worse with the biggest tack hike in decades. paul: the big problem is the democrats are trying to pass a
bernie sanders budget with a joe manchin mandate. and they're trying to pass this gargantuan program. but that seems, that ad we showed seems to be the big vulnerability here for these swing district democrats. what do you think? >> they know it as well, paul. in the last election, many freshman democrats lost to republicans in swing states like florida, new mexico, texas. they lost these republicans this new york and california as well. those house democrats are well aware of their vulnerability, and and they do not want to take another fight for nancy pelosi and the progressives. that's why they're having these problems. paul: okay. when we come back, president biden's botched afghanistan withdrawal the focus of a pair of hearings on capitol hill this week with america's top generals contradicting their commander in chief. general jack keane is here with reaction next. ♪♪
my retirement plan with voya keeps me moving forward. they guide me with achievable steps that give me confidence. this is my granddaughter...she's cute like her grandpa. voya doesn't just help me get to retirement... ...they're with me all the way through it. voya. be confident to and through retirement. check it out. serena... scary movie... serena... scary movie... serena williams ready to serve. ahh! quiet, please. get your tv together with the best of live and on demand. introducing directv stream, with no annual contract. what makes new salonpas arthritis gel so good for arthritis pain? salonpas contains the most prescribed topical pain relief ingredient. it's clinically proven, reduces inflammation and comes in original prescription strength.
salonpas. it's good medicine. subway® has so much new, it didn't fit in their last ad. like the new steak and cheese. they start with new freshly baked artisan italian bread. and then they pile on new thicker cut tender marinated steak. and top it off with melted cheese. welp, guess they need another ad. the eat fresh refresh™ at subway®. it's too much new to fit in one commerc- i'm jacob emrani. subway® has so much new, it didn't fit in their last ad. so, they bought time in mine. their new artisan italian bread is the best! just ask my satisfied client. jacob got me the footlong i deserve. call jacob!
♪ ♪ >> my assessment was back in the fall of '20 and remained consistent throughout that we should keep a steady state of 2500. >> my view is that 2500 was an appropriate number to remain and that if we went below that, in fact, we would probably witness a collapse of the afghan government and the afghan military. paul: a pair of hearings shedding new light on president biden's botched withdrawal from afghanistan. the nation's top generals confirming9 that the president acted against the advice of the military when he declined to keep a residual u.s. force in the country. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley and general kenneth mckenzie both making it clear that they recommended about a 2500 u.s. troops stay in afghanistan to stop a taliban takeover. let's bring in retires four-star
general jack keane, fox news senior strategic analyst. welcome, general. let's start with that 2500-figure recommendation. that's been consistent with what you've been saying ail along the military advised the president. what does that add, in your view, to the president's decision? >> yeah. well, even though it was wildly reported, paul, that the military clearly did not agree with the president about a unconditional withdrawal of a all of our troops and, obviously, they a wanted to keep them a modest force of 2500, it was still remarkable and stunning to listen to the testimony of our top military leaders contradict the president's public statements on same issue. i don't have a personal frame of reference to something like that ever occurring before. that's because the president said in an interview that there was no real disagreement from the military leaders and himself over this issue which turns out
to be, obviously, a misstatement and false. the second thing that i was really looking for and they made this point is that the message of the rejection and oppositions in the president's proposal to conduct an unconditional withdrawal was registered personally by all three of these leaders to the president to include the u.s. nato commander general scott miller who's, who was on the ground in afghanistan. and i think that is significant because then the president herald their voices, felt their -- heard their voices, felt their passion, resolve and commitment and, obviously, their years of experience, you know, associated with all of that. and the other thing that was notable to me is that it was emphasized to the president consequences and the risks, that there was a likelihood if we conducted this unconditional withdrawal that, indeed, it could promote a collapse of the afghan government and security forces and a taliban takeover. so he knew full well what his most experienced leaders were
telling him, that there was great risk here based on this decision. paul: and the risk extends the, as the generals made clear, to counterterror operations now going forward. i was surprised that they were as forth right as they were in suggests with having as much skepticism as they did about the ability of u.s. to control terror bases or new terror groups in afghanistan. did that surprise you? >> yeah. well, it did in terms of, yeah, you're right, the directness of it all. and i think there's been so much speculation around this testimony that somehow, some way they would not be forthright, but i know these people, i knew they would be. you know, it does -- it started, i believe, with general milley when he labeled the operation a strategic failure. and the reason, we have a terrorist organization running afghanistan, something nobody wanted. and he mentioned it damaged our relationship and and credibility
around the world. where we are now is taliban running afghanistan, it's an economic basket case. it's heading toward a failed state, a likely civil war because of the poverty that's going to take place here and the frustration among the population, the finish they'll put on their tribal leaders and regional warlords will likely lead to some kind of armed conflict which actually exacerbates the security situation for the united states because it can become an epicenter with so much ungoverned space for terrorist organizations to expand what they already have there, that's al-qaeda and certainly that's psyches, but also -- isis, but also bring other fighters in to join them and other organizations themselves. so, yes, we haved ad risk that the -- added risk that the director said there would be significant risk if the taliban took over to u.s. security as a result of this decision.
paul: turn to general milley's defense of his conversations as reported in the bob woodward book about with his chinese counterpart about instability and potential instability in the u.s. government both before the election -- during the campaign and then after the election. what did you make of his explanation for why he did what he did? >> yeah, i got two major points to deal with that. first of all, i think he should have provided feedback on the questions that were being asked by the media much sooner than now because this story could have been taken off the front pages. what was appropriate, in my judgment, are the calls to the chinese themselves because general milley has provided the intelligence that was catalyst for those calls, and it was in the presidential daily brief, other people had seen it, the secretary of defense had reached out himself before general milley, want general milley to do it, 8-11 people were on
calls, and a summary went to all the principals involved in national security whether they read it or not is another matter. and the second call, that was actually initiateed by the chinese because they called in to general milley's office sometime around the end of december that call was set on the 8th of january -- i mean, setting that call prior to the riot at the capitol. so i think general milley essentially is doing the right thing when it's appropriate to calm the waters, to deescalate a situation. he knew full well that president trump had no intention to conduct any attack the whatsoever. what i do think is profoundly inappropriate is for general milley to sit down with the authors of this book and other people who are writing books like this as a serving government official and talk about actions policies and his participation in those policy development and and if execution of these decisions -- paul: right. >> -- while he's still serving
in an administration. that should be off limits. and i -- we've got to get this thing solved once and for all, and people who run our country should make that a policy. and if people violate it, they should be terminated. paul: well, good luck with that, general. i'm afraid i've looked through a lot of these administrations where that's happened. all right, thank you for being here. when we come back, the 2020 murder spike. with police under political attack, mayhem surged in american cities. we'll bring you the latest fbi numbers next. ♪♪ nah, a stormy day. ♪ ♪ we see a close up of the grille ...an overhead shot. she drives hands free along the coast. make it palm springs. cadillac is going electric. if you want to be bold, you have to go off - script. experience the all-electric cadillac lyric.
it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, if you want to be bold, you have to go off - script. jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours? ...delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today. ♪ ♪ paul: murders in the u.s. rising by nearly 30 if % in 2020 the, the largest single-year jump since the fbi began recording
that data. finish nearly 5,000 murder or victims in 2020 than in 2019. aggravateed assault offenses increased by more than 12% and overall violent crime rose by 5.6% to nearly 1.3 million incidents. is so what's behind the surge? we're back with dan henninger and wall mini. as you look at the startling today a that, what's causing them? -- data? >> well, 2020, of course, was an irregular year in a lot of respects. you had covid lockdowns across the country and a general disorder, and so it's not entirely surprising that you're going to see some chaos on the streets. and yet there definitely was a big role of policy choices in escalating the chaos that we saw. you do see in major cities across the country which is where the crime wave is concentrated a really high rate of criminals being left on the streets. a lot of prosecutors have declined to prosecute certain
offenses as a lot of jails have decreased their populations, and those prison populations haven't returned to their normal baseline as of this year. and you've also seen a lot of police departments sort of hesitating to go into high crime neighborhoods particularly after the anti-police protests of last year, and we know that there is a strong link between the number of police officers who are available in dangerous neighborhoods and the crime wave. and so policy choices are are playing a huge role in the crime wave. paul: dan, one of the really fascinating things about this in the numbers are they're happening in the cities with where a lot of the protests took place, minneapolis, new york, some of the other big cities. of course, those are are also places where they tried to reduce police presence, where they -- where we had a lot of police retirements and where we've had policies like bail reform with people who commit nonviolent offenses out in the street very easily. anything else i'm missing here in.
>> well, that about covers it. but the one thing perhaps missing is the political element. i mean, yes, all of those demonstrations did occur in the wake of george floyd's killing this minneapolis. they were extraordinary demonstrations. but what happened in the middle of them as has been happening before that because of the move towards progressive-minded prosecutors who didn't want to arrest people is that the police themselves were the ones who got called to impound. and what that means is that if a policeman got involved in a disputed arrest or activity or action against these protesters, they are the ones who could be put on administrative leave, they are the ones who could be fired and say after working for 15 or 20 years run the risk of losing their pensions. all of this combined to create an enormous disincentive for the police to do their jobs. in addition to which they understood in cities like new
york and chicago and seattle and portland that the elected officials would not have their backs, would not support them. so when you create that level of risk for the police, they pulled back. they taliban to retire, they quit -- they began to retire, they quit, and no surprise that those crime statistics occurred in 2020. paul: the other news recently was the collapse of the the police reform negotiations on capitol hill with democrats, i guess, walking away from negotiations with tim scott, the republican from south carolina. what happened? why the breakdown? >> well, it really was an unexpected breakdown, i mean, for more than a year tim scott has been at the negotiating table with the democrats trying to see if they could pass a package of national reforms that basically would improve the collection of data on police use of force and also disincentivize certain dangerous practices,
make sure that things like chokeholds are only being used in arrests in highly dangerous situations. and yet in the end, the democrats weren't willing to basically insure that the funding levels for police departments were going to be able to maintain the same or increase. they wanted to penalize the departments for many of these practices that they're scrutinizing. tim scott said if we're going to do that, we need to make sure we're beefing up the funding for the police departments in general. when they were unwilling to do that, ended up in the breakdown of negotiations. paul: briefly, mene, is it dead now? is it coming back? >> i mean, it's been about a week since they walked away from the negotiating table, and both sides are trying to kind of get their points out there about what happened with the negotiation. it doesn't seem as if the democrats are going to return to legislation. it's much likelier that they're going to use the administrative state to try to restrict policing practices unilaterally, and the justice department has already started doing that.
paul: all right, thanks to you both. as the debate rages over vaccine mandates, we'll talk to former fda commissioner scott gottlieb and what federal health agencies got right and wrong in the battle against covid. ♪♪ >> leo 2.0, i want to wish fox news happy 25th anniversary, and is i'm so glad to be part of the team. ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals,
♪ paul: president biden getting his covid-19 booster this week after the cdc officially endorsed a third pfizer shot for older adults and a broad range of at-risk americans. this as the debate over vaccine mandates heats up with states across the country leading to enforce the requirement for health care workers and private companies preparing to terminate employees who have not received the shot. let's bring in former fda commissioner dr. scott gottlieb, he's fellow at the american enterprise institute and serves on the board of pfizer. he's also author of the new book "uncontrolled spread: why covid-19 crushed us and how we can defeat the next pandemic." scott, nice to see you again. thanks for coming in. let me ask, you know, you've got the -- you said the virus
crushed us. okay. the implication is we made a lot of mistakes. what are the one or two things, decisions that had we to do it over again early in the pandemic, we would have made that would have made a difference? >> i think early on we didn't recognize that we didn't have an organization capable of mounting the type of logistical response to respond appropriately. we 'twas trusted the -- we trusted the cdc, and it just wasn't within the capacity of the ethos of that organization, the retrospective organization doing very high science work, has a backward-looking mindset. it can't surface information and do analytical work in the setting of a rye sis and try to get the -- crisis to make realtime decisions and couldn't mount the kind of logistical response. they couldn't develop and deploy a diagnostic test at scale, and that was the root of a lot of
our problems early on. we didn't know where the virus was and budget, and when we ultimately reached population-wide mitigation, we ended up shutting down parts of the country where the virus hadn't arrived yet, and so we didn't preserve those options when the virus finally arrived in other parts of the country. paul: you know, scott, this is mind blowing to me. this is what the cdc, at least i thought, was intended to do. it was the set up to counter infectious diseases. an epidemic, a pandemic. it was supposed to be able to counter that. it has, what, 20 the ,000, 21,000 employees? was this a mistake of design or basically bureaucratic inertia? you mentioned logistics but, come on, i mean, this is what with our bureaucracy is supposed to be good at. what failed here? >> well, i think there was that perception that cdc was an organization that could respond to epidemics and if it could respond on the small scale, not
something of this magnitude. there wasn't a recognition amongst policymakers that the cdc didn't have the capacity to take on this mission, and cdc didn't exactly raise their hands and say, hey, guys, we don't have this. over time the prevention aspects have grown to focus on smoking cessation, heart disease prevention, and the disease control aspect of the organization and the more national security-focused aspects of what they do have been subordinated. i think we need to right-size the organization and look at public health preparedness through a lens of national security and make sure we have the tools and capacity in place to respond to a crisis of this magnitude. a lot of the preparedness we engaged in was oriented around influenza, and the flu manifests itself in different ways than the coronavirus did. the incubation period for flu is very short, and you're not contagious until you manifest symptoms. so having a diagnostic test
isn't as important in the setting of a flu pandemic as it is with the coronavirus. we should have been prepping plans that were focused and flexible and not planning just around a single pathogen which is what we did. paul: so what do we do next time? do we have to blow up the cdc? i hate the idea perhaps of starting a whole new organization, you know, that just becomes another bureaucracy. what do we do to fix this? >> you know, you exactly right, we can't create a new agency. i think it's going to require a different kind of mindset, different kind of culture, different kind of capabilities, one with a more national security focus. for example, cdc's very uncomfortable surfacing information that's partially predictive. that's why the guidance they issued all had the same level of certainty associated with them even if the underlying science sometimes is far more speculative because it's not an
organization that's accustomed to issuing pronouncements that are uncertain like the national security agency. the cia will issue an assessment, and we assign a moderate degree of vulnerability, that's not how cdc functionings. but you're going to need to build that function into cdc. it's also going to have to develop the capacity to take information from a lot of different streams to try to do its analytical work. historically, they've been accustomed to looking at their own data feeds and analyzing that data. early on they were measuring hospitalizations, so in april they were reporting there might be 3,000 hospitalizations a day for covid. they didn't actually have a point estimate. what they were doing was sampling 1,000 of the 6,000 hospitals in this country and driving a modeled estimate on exactly how many people were being hospitalized on a daily basis which proved to be insufficient when it took time to shift drugs to hospitals to try to get them to patients actually hospitalized.
dr. birx memorably said is i can't send drugs to hypothetical patients derived off of a model estimate. paul: just briefly, scott, looking forward do you think we'll be out of this in about a year or so? i think dr. fauci said that recently. is that about right? >> i think we're evolving from the pandemic to a more endemic phase of this virus. on the back end of this, prevalence levels will be sufficiently lower, we'll have better tools, a tamiflu-like drug for this, and this will become a much more manageable threat. i do think this is the last major surge of infection. paul all right. dr. scott gottlieb, congratulations on the book. still ahead, the race for virginia governor heats up as the candidates square off in their final debate. is the race a taste of what's to come in next year's midterm elections? ♪ ♪
or 3-on-3s... 2-on-2s... and 1-on-1s. we see how these moments make us smile so, we make it easy to share your smile with safe and convenient care — all in one place, with evening and weekend hours. right now, new patients get a complete exam and x-rays — free without insurance. plus, everyone saves 20% on their treatment plan. celebrate life's happiest moments. call 1-800-aspendental or book online today.
♪ paul: with just over a month to go until the election, the campaign for virginia governor is heating up. a contest that some see as a bell with weather for next year's midterm election. a brand new fox news poll showing democrat terry mcauliffe leading the republican opponenting by 48-44. education and parental choice taking center stage in the final debate between the candidates this week with mcauliffe responding this way when his opponent raised the issue of parents complaining about books with sexually explicit content in fairfax county school libraries. >> i'm not going to let parents come in the schools and actually take books out and make their own decision. [applause] so, yeah, that's a bill i don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. paul: we're back with kim and mene. kim, republicans haven't won statewide in virginia, well, in
over a decade. do they have a better chance this year, and what are they running on? >> yeah, i think they do and for two reasons. one of the reasons that they really struggled particularly in last year's is that trump really did not play well in virginia especially in a lot of those suburbs and especially among women. and that really allowed democrats to consolidate some control. he is obviously somewhat out of politics now -- [laughter] but moreover, they've got a good candidate in gwen junkin -- glenn junkin. he's running on the cost of jobs and education and crime. and he's been pretty disciplined. so -- and and there's a loot of people that are very worried about joe biden's agenda, so that is combining to give republicans a real chance. paul: mene, this issue of school choice that came up in the debate, junkin immediately after
the debate in response to that mcauliffe clip put an ad up suggesting they think there's a vulnerability there politically for mcauliffe. is that the way that junkin hopes to win back some of the suburban vote, by focusing on education curriculum and school choice? >> yes, i think that's exactly the campaign's plan. he's focusing on these sorts of kitchen table issues, and over the past year schools and school choice have become a bigger issue than they've ever been. of course, we saw schools stay closed during lockdowns against the wishes of many parents, but it also has to do with the curriculum. so one of his proposals was to pilot ten new charter schools in virginia which doesn't have a big, existing network of charters. and i think that's part of what's driving the enthusiasm for him, a love to of parents
want to make sure they have more control, not less over what their kids are seeing in schools. paul: kim, one of the things that strikes me about this race when you pay attention is the degree to which mcauliffe is sometimes running less against youngkin than he is against donald trump. [laughter] every other statement is about donald trump. what is the strategy there, and is it working? >> well, he knows that trump was not popular in virginia, and so he wants to keep trump front and center and suggest that youngkin is simply a trump acolyte. in fact, he sometimes called him trumpkin when he's at a fundraising. e the problem for him is that youngkin is not trump. he has a very different demeanor, obviously. he's not running on issues of cultural issues that mcauliffe really wants to tag him with.
mcauliffe really wants to suggest, talk about election integrity and suggest that youngkin bought into the big lie in the last election. youngkin has made very clear his positions op these things, and he has been very disciplined about keeping focus on the things that polls show really are at the top of everyone's mind in virginia. so, you know, could this hurt him especially if he trips up on some of these issues? maybe. but so far and especially from the polls it does not look as though that is necessarily allowing mcauliffe to build up some huge lead. paul: how is youngkin navigating that issue of the 20 election? is he saying that it was -- is he agreeing with trump or not? >> no, he did not. he said, look, joe biden is president of the united states. and, you know, at the same time he has also said, look, i think virginia should look at ways that it can reevaluate its own election laws to make sure we have easy access to the polls
and also integrity in the vote. and he's got some decent proposals for doing that. so if you look at it, he sort of tried to come out that way. his problem, he's got northern virginia voters and southern virginia voters, those are two different groups of people, and he's got to kind of balance a little bit between them and try to bring everyone together. paul: mene, briefly, biden's falling approval rating could hurt mcauliffe, right? >> it certainly could. i think you saw mcauliffe when he announced his candidacy, he came out with joe biden. he isn't mentioning him quite as much anywhere as the president's popularity is collapsing. so that creates an opening for the youngkin campaign, for sure. paul: okay. when we come back, the supreme court set to return to the bench on monday in what is shaping up to be a blockbuster term. our panel will preview the cases to watch. ♪ ♪
it wasn't long after i had joined golo before i had to start buying new pants. golo changes your whole lifestyle and it changes the way that you think. you don't have to deprive yourself of anything. (announcer) go to golo.com to lose weight and get healthier. age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein.
♪ paul: the supreme court set to given its fall term next week even as justice brett kavanaugh tests positive for covid-19. on the docket, a host of high profile cases including abortion access, gun rights and religious liberty, issues that are sure to further the fuel the left's assault on the court and its credibility. our panel is back with a preview of the cases to watch. before we get to the cases, kyle, this is going to be the full first term with amy coney barrett on the court, so a new 6-3 majority. we have some intimation this is of what that might look like last year, but what will you be looking at in particular with this new court? >> well, it's a more conservative court than we've had in a long time, but there have been some interesting splits, breakdowns, not the usual one you'd think of in the
last term including sort of 3-3-3 breakdowns. so there's been some pundits, commentators arguing that we really have have conservatives that are split on whether they're institutional is or whether they're more originalists, and it will be interesting to watch that play out in these big cases that we're talking about including abortion, school choice and the send amendment. paul: a lot of talk that, kim, that chief justice roberts is no longer the swing vote on the court and a controlling vote on the court with other conservatives, that might be justice kavanaugh or justice barrett. how do you see that playing out in cases -- and what cases are you watching where you want to see where that plays out in. >> well, a couple of them, obviously. i mean, one of the ones that i'm looking for is the case to do with the second amendment coming out of new york. and whether or not concealed carry laws there is constitutional.
now, we haven't had a major supreme court ruling on the second amendment for more than a decade when heller established an individual right to own firearms. that case, nonetheless, has the mitigating factor suggesting maybe concealed carry permits or rules against certain types of firearms might be allowed. we're now going to find out especially because the justice that required that in heller was justice anthony kennedy who is, of course, retired, replaced by brett kavanaugh who's bun much more solid -- been much more solid on second amendment. and so that's one i'm going to watch. paul: do you expect that the court will expand and elaborate on gun rights? >> i really do because of the solid majority last time which has now been enhanced by kavanaugh and also the addition of amy coney barrett. paul: dan, let's talk about the abortion case, because of course
it's the only thing the media pays attention to. mississippi has in its brief to the court asked the court to overturn roe v. wade and casey v. planned parenthood, the two major abortion precedents. but the court doesn't really have to do that, and it could say short of that that mississippi's law banning abortions after 15 weeks is simply not an undue burden on the right to abortion. what are you going to be looking for in that case? >> well, i will be looking forward to exactly the sort of analysis you just suggested which is interesting, i mean, you gave a fairly nuanced interpretation of how that might go. but as you say, all the press focuses on is, quote-unquote, abortion, the idea that the justices, the conservative justices apparently are going to be totally against abortion or totally for gun rights. in other words, they see no nuance whatsoever in the people who have been appointed to the court, and there's been a lot of
criticism in the press and in commentary recently along these lines. if and what's notable about it, paul, is that the criticism is overwhelmingly directed at the conservative justices. nothing in the direction of the liberal justices other than perhaps stephen breyer who they want to retire and get out of the way -- [laughter] so joe biden can appoint another liberal justice. but the supreme court is obviously much more complex than it's being made out to be right now, and the hope is that the new justices -- kavanaugh and barrett -- will not be intimidate by the pressure that is being brought to bear on them to rule the way the left wants them to in those cases. paul: kyle, about a minute left. what are a couple cases you're looking at? >> well, one is that school choice case out of maine, it's called carson, and essentially about half maine school districts don't run their own high schools. parents can choose to send their kids to an area high school and
the school district picks up the tab, but in maine those parents are not allowed to use that for religious or sectarian schools, and parents are saying, hey, have you heard of the first amendment? so i expect the roberts court which has been very strongly in favor will have liberty to rule in favor. another thing to keep an eye on is justice clarence thomas. he's been quite during the court's free-for-all oral arguments, in the past year they did these zoom conference call arguments, and he was speaking up in them, and we'll have to see whether he gets, maybes his baritone voice heard now that they're back in person. paul: we could also see cases on government regulation and covid policy of statements and federal government. all right, we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ aloha! isn't this a cozy little room? sorry your vacation request took so long to get approved, so you missed out on the suite special. but lucky for you, they had this. when employees are forced to wait for vacation request approvals,it can really cramp their style. i'm gonna leave you to it. um, just— with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in a single, easy-to-use software. visit paycom.com and schedule a demo today. parent, what your expectations are for your kid growing up, the milestones-- going to school, graduating, and getting married, having kids. and cancer was never one of those milestones in my head.
kim hit to all democrat voting to confront tracy manning of the land management politics was involved person moreover spiking trade in a forest to set down september barbara potentially. she has said they are benign but nobody ever should be running an agency with 350 million acres. paul: b'nai. >> i will give new jersey governor murphy for announcing today not to raise, it's a little bit like when your grandma says she's going to give up her smoking habit, going to support her but i his first time voters should be skeptical to
stick to the plan saying number increases. paul: folk over and spirits. kyle to the only guy from this, florida congressman a home runs out of the park baseball game. democrat ford annual summer came in 1909 this is the first ball to reach the stand since 2008 when the game was moved to national park. a real bonus i major league home run republicans took it home winning 13 to 12. paul: and mr. joe biden or whoever the heck it was nominated to be comptroller of the currency. cornell law professor and graduate of moscow state university and she said whatever the shortcoming from the soviet union leads to equity and gender
pay because the pay gap was set by the state. wait a minute, that's communism. withdraw the nomination. paul: thanks, that's it for this week's show. thanks to all of you for watching. i am paul gigot, hope to see you here next week. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> present biden promising to fight tooth and nail for domestic agenda. democrats failed to reach a deal on infrastructure social spending bill. standoff between moderate and far left progressive's forcing house speaker nancy pelosi but for now, plans for about this week. welcome to another hour of fox news live, i am eric shawn. arthel: