The Supreme Court, Brian PETE Ainsley Ainsley, thank you so much that would make it six conservatives and seven liberals. If they do pack the court lets bring in John Turley Good Morning to you good morning, Ainsley good morning. They just have the foot on the pedal right. They know they have a year and a half until midterms. They are trying to shove everything through quickly. What happened to the six month study? Well, this is about as Saultz as a b 52 run. It is astonishing, ask it dispenses with any pretense of principle to say raw muscle play like a hostile takeover of the court, and I dont really understand the political logic here. But what really concerns me is that this is really a test of principle for democratic members. I will be watching today to see what senators, what house members step forward and say this is wrong. This is raw court packing. We can talk about the size of the court. Many of us have talked about

expanding the court over the years. This is raw ununadulterated court packing always been viewted as wrong. The public has always opposed it in she. High numbers, even as you know it, Joe Biden has opposed it each some of the members of the court as well. Some of the liberal icons that these members revere, as do many of us people like Justice, Ginsburg, staunchly opposed this idea. So I never thought I would see the day when the house, judiciary, chairman, would stand up for raw court packing its really breathtaking PETE thats, Jerry Nadler. You are right, one of the co spawrnls of the bill that will be released today. You mentioned the heroes of the left introduced. These idea, you mentioned Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Quincy Goldberg here, is a reminder about court backing initial instincts, may favor important structural change or

other similar institutional change, such as forms of court packing think long and hard before they embody those changes in law. If the public sees judges, as politicians in robe expects, incompetence in court and the rule of law itself can only diminish, nine seems to be a good number, its been that way for a long time. I think that was a bad idea. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, tried to a pack, the court PETE it didnt work, then will it work now from what we understand from the legislation doctor? It would happen right away. Four more. This is immediate dump like a hostile takeover of the court. So the question, I think that really we have to look at is with the loss of control of the base of the Democratic Party. This is a crisis of leadership. Frankly, its a failure of leadership by President Biden. He was right back in nineteen eighty three. This was a terrible, terrible

idea just to take over the court, but he has been really equivocating trying to play to the far left, and this is the result. So this is the test of principle for the track party. You cant stand for constitutional values and be a party in favor of court packing Brian, so Jonathan, this is just an exercise flight. They have their press conference today at 1130 for the Senate and House and put it forward its not going to go anywhere. They dont even need Joe Manchin im more worried about the fact that you have members of Congress who are willing to participate in this endeavor. I mean what they are suggesting should horrify Americans. This is not reforming the court, its packing it its dumping, four members just to get a workable majority by the way when Breyer made those statements which were imminently reasonable, a campaign billboards to get him to retire,

threatening that his legacy is in danger. This is one of the moist consistent liberal justices in the history of the court thats the level of rage we have today in our politics, Brian right. They want him to retire, because if they lose the Senate in two years going to be tough, getting somebody confirmed, because we know President Obama had some time had a hard time doing it and never even got never got Merrick Garland out in front right, thats, right, Brian, so stay right there. By the way I supported Merrick Garland getting a vote, but these members are saying that act was itself court packing, which is bizarre as the definition of infrastructure. That was a constitutional decision, its not court packing. You can disagree with it. I disagreed with it, but to use that as a rationalization for court. Packing is perfectly bizarre. Brian just gets Everybodys temperature overheated again Jonathan dont move.

We have something tolls tap into your knowledge for Ainsley. Turning now to a Fox news alert overnight, twenty four protesters are arrested in Brooklyn Center Minnesota, as unrest continued for a fourth straight night over the death of Daunte Wright, their charges range from breaking curfew to starting a riot PETE Unrest, seen across the U dot S as well LOS Angeles officers in riot gear, confronting a large group in front of police headquarters and in Albany New York, police use, pepper spray after Reuters broke a glass door to a police station, Brian, unbelievable Kimberly, potter, arrested and charged with second degree manslaughter in the shooting death of Daunte Wright. She was released on bail hours after her arrest Jonathan. We saw this whole thing on video. There is really not much mystery. We dont know maybe what exactly led to the pullover, but having said that, she pulled out the wrong weapon. She wanted to use a stun gun and instead she used a gun and it would result in the death of this 20 year old.

Do you think, as she has gotten, she is out on bail right now? Her house is surrounded by concrete structures and fencing to protect her and her husband. Do you think she is in grave legal jeopardy? Well, this is part is the media coverage. It will not be easy to convict her even of second degree manslaughter because of the lack of intent, the language there does allow for this charge. This is not a case of overcharging, but it is not an easy task for prosecutors. It does appear to be what we often call a weapons. Confusion case this happens tragically, all too often of we have seen a couple of cases charged with manslaughter over weapons, confusion, including one in California that resulted in an involuntary manslaughter conviction, but it is pretty clear from the video that she thought she was deploying her taser. I have a column out today in U Dot Sa today, comparing this

case with the Babbitt case, which creates a lot of confusion for officers. In the Babbitt case involving a Capitol Hill police officer, you had an officer that shot an unarmed protester on Capitol Hill who will not be charged. In this case, you had an officer who shot a fleeing unarmed suspect by mistake, who will be charged and for officers. The question is where the line is drawn here between errors and mistakes and criminal prosecution Ainsley, so she was charged with second degree manslaughter, but his family, the Wright family. They are saying they want it to be murder and he comes from a line of law enforcement. Individuals. People in his family are officers and they think that murder would be a better sentence. What do you say or a better charge? I have got to tell you. We have seen cases of overcharging before every indication is that this was a weapons, confusion case that does not make for a murder case.

There is a danger in overcharging cases, because you could lose credibility with the jury and you can have a cascading failure. If the jury doesnt buy your murder charge, it may make them less likely to buy lesser charges. This does you know this is a plausible, manslaughter charge. The language of manslaughter does refer to actions that put other people at risk, but it also talks about a conscious action. It talks about making a choice but reckless disregard of someones life thats, where this is going to be a challenge for prosecutors, but I think that charging it as murder would be an overcharge and it could have had a detrimental impact on prosecuting the manslaughter case PETE. Absolutely, professor, real quick, you mention the difference between the case on Capitol Hill and this one, the politics of the environment around it. How often does that affect who gets charged and when?

Well, you know you cant, ignore the pressure on prosecutors. You can see that in the timeline right in this case you had a charge within a few days in the Babbitt case, thats gone on for month. In this case, you had the disclosure of the officers name, even ultimate- lay disclosure, unfortunately of her address in this case. In the Capitol Hill case, we still dont know the identity of the officer whats striking about the also the striking difference about the capitol case. I dont know anyone who believes that you can justifiably fire a live round at an unarmed protester, even one who is trying to get through a window like this. You can imagine if officers did, that in Portland or Minneapolis started firing live rounds, whats weird about the justice departments statement in the Babbitt case. Is it doesnt explain all this? It doesnt actually say this was a justified shooting. It just says that this would be too difficult to prosecute because it might have been inadvertent or a mistake.

Well, thats, going to be the very defense made by Kim Potter, Brian see the hand and gun and word is they thought it was secret service and they were maybe protecting MIKE Pence or Senator Schumer, but we saw other armed guards with kevlar helmets. They let her go through the window.