Skip to main content

tv   Outnumbered  FOX News  December 1, 2021 9:00am-10:00am PST

9:00 am
thank you for explaining that because i think it's important for people to know. i want to hit one more, we have shannon bream in the courtroom standing by. before we go i want to hit one more with you particularly jonathan, specifically what today was about. you heard andy talking about the narrow scope of the issue before the court and trying to keep everyone on that one issue. the 15 weeks, the 24 weeks in roe vs. wade, what's happening in mississippi, stay on mississippi. but certainly there is this idea that is it possible today was about overturning legal abortion in this country? and the way i understand it and certainly the way it was laid out in court today, that wasn't the issue. it really was all about mississippi but if you watch this were there telltale signs of what is to come? >> i think it's very important to keep in mind that if roe were
9:01 am
overturned, whatever likelihood that might have been, this is likely a return to the states. including justice kavanaugh, why should we just made me neutral again? these are questions that we are still debating 50 years later, shouldn't this be decided by political people because it's a mix of moral and political and social issues, and to leave it at that. what was really fascinating is, cavanagh came out aggressively against the liberal justices saying, you need to uphold roe or we simply don't overturn cases. he read off a list of cases in which they overturn a previous holdings and that those cases were celebrated today. justice breyer who kept on raising this i don't think would blink at reversing heller on second amendment rights or citizens united and do so that was some of the more tense exchanges that occurred between the justices today.
9:02 am
>> you talk about intense but never on civil and we got to see some disagreement. we talk about the court not being political but we know a lot about these justices. so how does that play a role, andy, just really quick? >> look. i thought it was an admirable argument as far as the stability of it was concerned and because of that i think we learned as much as you could possibly learn about the best case to be made for each side. so to that extent i think the court did a credit to itself today. but what people will remember is what happens in june, that would happen today. >> harris: there you go. gentlemen, please stand by. andy mccarthy and jonathan turley, we have shannon bream, chief legal correspondent and anchor a fox news at night. shannon, you were inside the supreme court for the arguments and we could hear every word and that was so interesting and edifying today, you are our eyes inside the courtroom.
9:03 am
>> it was a very serious atmosphere clearly. it's a pretty noisy atmosphere, these advocates are very focused and justice sotomayor were i spent a lot of time and she doesn't want this court to be seen as something political. at the core of this case which justice barrett said and many others did as well, she said the core of the case is, are we going to be willing to overturn roe or casey? in some ways it actually did kind of take a sledgehammer and that the trimester framework that is set up so now the question is what do you do about casey? we've been looking at justice kavanaugh because he doesn't have a lot of jurisprudence or writings out there and today again and again, you heard him come up these cases that the court eventually
9:04 am
had were wrongfully decided and then making it right and overturning the decision. he goes back to the issue at neutrality and said the constitution doesn't say anything about the issue of abortion. so shouldn't the court be neutral and it leave it to the state and leave it to the people to decide this and it came back to the idea of the court being an arbiter of neutrality. and because he argues that the constitution doesn't actually say anything, they leave it to the state. it definitely sounds like the majority of the conservative justices are willing to look at upholding the mississippi law several of them make it sound like they're willing to go further. so very serious atmosphere, so pretty quiet and no disturbances there as i got to this arguments. but everyone is very focused for sure. >> harris: it we have now gotten into the "outnumbered" and i'm joined by mike cohosts emily compagno and kayleigh mcenany. we all have questions and
9:05 am
shannon bream, you said you could kind of here are some of the cacophony outside the court which is an interesting bit of color to note, but all seriousness. >> emily: shannon, it's emily. i'm part of what i found so fascinating today in these oral arguments in addition to the caliber, and the austere highest court of our land it was the notion of viability and whether it's a principal workable theory. can you speak to the defense of the argument between the united states, and the solicitor general who is arguing essentially, it's principled and it's workable and therefore we should not leave it to the states in the absence of a more clear alignment, this is what works. she said it's an objective viable standard that could be medically determined if we were to take it away and leave it to the states, it could erode women's interest in liberty and economy of and in response the
9:06 am
petitioner argued it's not workable in principle. it's the line of work and viability much sooner and are therefore we should leave it to the people. we think it was an interesting dichotomy between one side having extreme at utmost faith in the people to determine their will and on the other side sort of a lack of faith in the people in the absence of fear that the will of the people might actually wrote individual liberties that might be protected by the court. robots will not shannon? >> that's a good breakdown of where these two sides are. they are in favor of upholding the law and they said this is something that should be left to the people.
9:07 am
and that was decided on very quickly took away the conversation on the state so they couldn't work it out with the individual democracy is to figure this out. the whole argument for mississippi was that we should've left us to the people in the states can individually decide in his acknowledgment on both sides that listen, alabama will decide differently than new york. and there's a question and of course the ultimate decision is, they would overturn and the root states have rights and the people, the ones closest to them, the representatives would be decided on a case-by-case basis. and to overturn roe or casey, they would be disastrous for when. they say that it would take them
9:08 am
backwards and to take away a lot of their options and would be equal under law. >> kayleigh: shannon, kayleigh mcenany here. the solicitor general, i thought he did an absolutely outstanding job. the american people who should decide this and, this mississippi abortion law, it's hearkened back for more liberal jurists, and justice ruth bader ginsburg. her words to put it exactly called heavy-handed judicial intervention, and ruth bader ginsburg went on to say this so interestingly. ro halted moved and uninformed direction and thereby prolong divisiveness and deferred stable
9:09 am
sediment of the issue. so, and going back to the political process. >> kayleigh: that something he said over and over again, it's not something that should have been worked out, not something decided by nine people sitting here but by the people closest to them a representative c clost to them to make these decisions. if you've heard any arguments about what you've learned in the 50 years since a row andly the 30 years since kc there was a conversation about science, fetal develop meant. it was something that justice sotomayor or wanted to shut down. it's -- the issue of viability compared something that's only embraced by french doctors or a few people out there but there's actually a lot of briefing in that there are a number of medical experts who they do do birds on this but there are those that believe earlier on you can see that a fetus will recoil from stimulus in the womb so there was an argument about
9:10 am
whether science has brought up more information than the last 50 years or 30 years and should impact how the justices make those decisions. but again most of the argument today focused on whether or not there's enough grounds to overturn a president and how rare that should be and also whether the court will risk looking political if it does something like overrule roe or casey. >> harris: that came up more than once. whether or not they have become noticeably cool political. i believe the word american was used and they said that was not part of the american value for the court. i'm paraphrasing but i believe in pretty close. shannon, really quickly, next monday, what happens? >> what happens now from here as they will go into a boat to make an initial vote on the case and then they will spend probably months working back and forth. we know votes can change, there
9:11 am
can be negotiating as we write opinions behind the scenes on my guess is this will be one of the last cases that we get when it comes out in late june or early july. so i think we have a weight on her hands. >> harris: i know june is the basis for all of this, and that's why i asked about it. shannon bream, so interesting to have your eyes inside the courtroom with their voices today. we are getting more of a complete story out of the u.s. supreme court and it's edifying for the public to see this rollout, such an important day in american history coming together. shannon bream, thank you so much. i want to invite jonathan turley and andy mccarthy back into the conversation. jonathan, if you had to sort of sum this up for the american people about how this could move next, what informs you most? is it knowing -- we listen to the questions by justice thomas.
9:12 am
we listen to each of them. what informs you, the actual justices and their questions? they were very, very sensitive about the idea of not looking for the popular choice, on that was set more than once. >> first of all you often come out of these arguments with the caveat emptor type of moment or buyer beware. but this was marked by a number of questions that were more arguments than questions. the justices seemed to be speaking to each other through counsel. but what i thought was the most important aspect is that even roberts who tends to get sticker shocked and is an increment inct on the court was even slamming this line of the viability line,
9:13 am
and you have to keep in mind, and what roberts was really hitting hard on, and with that line more importantly, and at least the court would allow states to go earlier in terms of that viability line. i wrote a column about this it may turn out that the value ability standard is no longer viable. and even if they preserve roe, they may just get rid of that line. >> he was delivering a number of
9:14 am
haymaker's during this period when people talk about not reversing roe is one of the justices who clearly has the intestinal fortitude to do that. people decided that's not enough to overturn it in terms of stare decisis. that was a most interesting exchange between the justices, and particularly people like alito and kevin l. cavanaugh. what if we think that roe is egregiously wrong? >> harris: and stare decisis that i keep learning from my friends here on the couch, particularly anyway, is president. it's like a fancy way pressing precedents. >> emily: to discuss further into stare decisis, part of what i found interesting the exchanges that the notion, part of the process of analyzing legal precedents is actually
9:15 am
analyzing arguments for and against that present particular evidence and those in the united states are affirming absent and material change in the situation. no, the supreme court has never overruled a watershed case or as argued a watershed case meaning that when the justices were essentially asking her what has changed now, do you think? and i thought that was really fascinating because the answer upon being pressed was that there actually wasn't precedents for that to in a vacuum overturn a case. that's been gone almost ten years of silence which is quite vocal, and he said articulate to me that he writes that are discussing. and that was a discussion, and
9:16 am
your thoughts and analysis. and that's this particular issue but the dog it doesn't bark. we have this legal precedent that has towered over the united states for half a century and not the premise by which this off-loads, was directly decided, and it's so egregiously that it's incorrect on its face, and we have to wait until the lessons of history teaches us that it's incorrectly decided but no one will step up to the plate, that this is good constitutional law despite the great impact that it had all kinds of aspects on american life and i think that's
9:17 am
remarkable. we've now gotten to the place half a century down the road where they are doing politics in plain sight, the court is. while disavowing politics. eventually we start with the precedent that no one will defend on the point that we got to today, the more that the egregiously wrong the precedent is the lesson we can we afford to reverse it because of legitimacy of our institution. so i think we are at a very far place from doing law because law is a rigorously logical exercise where you ask if something is right or something is wrong and if you are doing something else you are doing politics. >> emily: it were talking about that earlier about clarence thomas, justice thomas' questions regarding the criminality. he posted a hypothetical in which the government essentially, if confined, the woman loses her right to make that decision based on if she
9:18 am
was using as he put it, illicit substances, during those prior weeks. he talked about the competing interests and i saw a deflection frankly in the eyes of the government when she responded and said, well that's not the issue at hand. but that plays into your argument, the politicization of that at those decisions and when those competing interests become larger that the states are interested in. so can you speak to that that when if everything is meat from table, and that can be modeled when other interests take root like the criminal system et cetera. >> i think that what the st was doing, and i thought she and a very kind of deft away sidestepped justice thomas' questions on this by saying that the government was not denying that the states had an interest in fetal life, but saying in the abortion context, the liberty
9:19 am
interest of a woman is more profound or more consequential. so the waiting is different. if you take a step back from all that what you are essentially pushing for, and policy indiscretion. and it's not you are not doing law, and what are the accommodations that get made between the competing sides, that's legislative work. and that's why i think justice kavanaugh had the best of this by saying, the constitution doesn't have anything to say about abortion one way or the other end if the is a have to be accommodated, and if it's different in new york or alabama then so be it.
9:20 am
to hear from justice breyer, if we are perceived as a political arm he said a "that will kill us." but to andy mccarthy's point this all routed out of a decision that was so badly decided, criticized by justice justice ginsburg it, but when scott stewart was asked about this very point, his quote was so interesting on stare decisis. he said are legitimacy of a court derives from the willingness to stand strong and firm in the face of whatever's going on and stand for constitutional principle and overrule where appropriate. it's a fascinating response at a very strong one from the mississippi solicitor general. and that was a long colloquy,
9:21 am
and people are like what we do, people will be so upset regardless of what we do. they are looking outward, a concern in the interpretation of the constitution. that's not what the constitution demands from them. and if they believe and not constitutional law, i think they have an obligation to vote that way. senator shaheen said there's going to be a revolution if you don't support roe, and a majority leader schumer talked about justices being held accountable. if you have various democratic leaders saying we will pack the court if you don't support roe. that's what the framers wanted to resist when they get this justices life tenure. you're not supposed to rule by plebiscite, they are supposed to be ruling by principal.
9:22 am
if you believe it was rightly decided, you took oath to uphold the constitution. >> harris: jonathan turley and andy mccarthy, having you help us break it all down in such a pleasure and necessary on such a big day like today so thank you both for your time and your expertise, all of it. we'll come out to the couch now with emily and kayleigh. you know kayleigh, from the moment that you set down and i was still on faulkner focus, we were getting ready to wrap up what they were processing today. you talked about the solicitor general and he talked about how important today is. >> kayleigh: and today was very important. today when he first got on here come up with civil discord. it was interesting to hear these thoughtful arguments in a civil matter and it's a very
9:23 am
consequential day. one of the interesting points i picked up on was scott stewart was very adeptly able to put cases in a different bucket and what i mean by that is alberta v hodges, and he put this in this bucket and said those are clear bright line rules. notice there is no confusion in the lower courts on these two cases. he said separate from that, look at roe v. wade and casey. judges are deciding from a place of their own conscience, not from a place from rule of law. it was interesting to hear him so adeptly be able to separate those types of cases. >> harris: we saw politics within the politics, they don't want to talk about politics but that kind of do. so how do you think that what you see now is reflective in the what trump was trying to do? >> it's interesting because you put a supreme court justice on the court and you don't know how
9:24 am
they will turn out. in fact i was at amy coney barrett's confirmation, and we thought we were nominating a conservative justice which was based on the original list, and we know where one justice on that court stands. and we don't know what judge course which will do. >> i think we might have an inkling what justice sotomayor might do because we were talking about earlier how stunning it was that she was weighing in herself into that viability argument and she said, "what if anything about the viability argument is not religious" it was really interesting to see her pressing and expanding on the reliance of the notion that the federal argument was arguing that women have been relying on it individually and also in it society, and she argued that
9:25 am
decisions that individuals make with their partners and their careers, with their families and also how society, waves upon them. that also dovetails in with justin cavanaugh's point about neutrality. he said do we expected the justices to be absolutely neutral or do we in fact expect them to extend a modicum of humanity. i would say that we've been surprised in the past and our arguments are not necessarily an indication of the way the court will rule. we hold our breath but just a reminder that the court can't rule in favor of mississippi or not and have a roe v. wade unaffected it. so there's some devil in the details that we need to remember. >> harris: if people are looking to see, is this the chipping away of roe vs. wade a one way or the other, we will have to see. more on "the five" in just a "outnumbered" in just amoment.
9:26 am
stay close
9:27 am
9:28 am
9:29 am
i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health. [ kimberly ] before clearchoice, my dental health was so bad i would be in a lot of pain. i was unable to eat. it was very hard. kimberly came to clearchoice with a bunch of missing teeth, struggling with pain, with dental disease. clearchoice dental implants solved her dental issues. [ kimberly ] i feel so much better. i feel energized to go outside and play with my daughter. i can ate anything. like, i don't have to worry. clearchoice changed my life.
9:30 am
>> harris: it we come in now to "outnumbered" with breaking news. a fourth person has died in yesterday's michigan school shooting. the latest victim's 17-year-old justin schilling. they also say they are planning to give a formal update to the media and the nation at about 3:00 p.m. eastern today. we will bring you any updates from this tragedy. at the news of another death comes as a 15-year-old sophomore at oxford high school in michigan, allegedly posed as a sheriff, and then allegedly killed three people yesterday and many others who were hurt. >> emily: cnn facing intense pressure to fire cnn anchor chris cuomo -- dig up information on his brother for sexual harassment.
9:31 am
the network suspended chris cuomo indefinitely but some of the governments accusers and even liberal media are demanding cnn sent them packing. the atlantic, chris cuomo must to go. new revelations of the cnn anchor betrayed his viewers. it's late. it's time for cnn to ken chris cuomo for be completely full of. in a "washington post" op-ed, cnn's chris cuomo scandal is jeff zuckerberg scandal, two. too. tommy, what do you make of this? >> i think that we can all think about the situation that the cuomo's were in and you usually put family above all else, even sometimes about your job and that's understandable personally. however when we look at the duty to his viewers he made a decision. he decided to go with his brother over his viewers and over his journalistic integrity and that comes with the price. you can see this indefinite
9:32 am
suspension and we have to look at cnn now to see, do their viewers care? do they want to see him packing indefinitely? and i think that's what cnn will have to make a decision. i think they have to do the right thing and fire him because it's not just the hearsay, it's not just that they think he was doing this, he chose his family over his job and they have to choose the consequences for that. >> spectrums of mediums are calling for chris cuomo's firing, and rolling stone says of any other journalist had done this they would be prior to "the new york post" editorial board who writes cnn's decision tuesday to suspend chris was a good first step. at there's nothing wrong with trying to help one's siblings but chris cuomo's duty as a tv journalist without the least to disclose what he was doing, if not to take a leave of absence.
9:33 am
instead he duped viewers and traded on his journalistic and tilted his coverage. at cnn can't just wave this way. >> i would say first set an obvious guttural level, does this surprise anybody? this is how so much unfortunately of our news is brought to us, by people who really are activists or are related to the people they are reporting on or have worked for former administrations. et cetera, et cetera. it comes as the sort of insider game and the idea that chris cuomo is a journalist, he was posing as a journalist and don lemon will always tell you that he's a journalist. most of you guys that i'm proud to be sitting here with today, you tell your opinions that it's very obvious that you are saying, this is what i think about this. here is some analysis. these guys will tell you that
9:34 am
they are generalists while they very obviously are democrat activists. so none of these leaks seems surprising to me. as this rolls out and it had the info in front of me it's like of course this is exactly what chris cuomo was doing. this is the same guy at who at height of covid, he was making the jokes for big q-tips. nobody is really watching anyway so they should make a change to see what happens. that's chris cuomo's liability here, and frankly the allegations from the spectrum. and he apologized and responded to his executive producer who talked about reference of physical grabbing that he made of her at a party and it was literally the exact same thing that his brother was prosecuted for under his own laws here in new york state which is a
9:35 am
misdemeanor, a forcible touching. there's also a wider lens focusing on chris cuomo's behavior and his potential liability beyond the four corners of the television screen. >> this is the same guy who at the height of covid again pretended that he was quarantined in his basement and they had to sort of uw east style show him of him coming out of the basement all sweaty saying he'd been down there and then it turned out that actually a day or two before that he had gotten into a fight with a bicyclist in a hamptons. it sort of theater what they are doing. cnn should look at the numbers and go, okay, is this guy delivering us numbers? the answer is no. so if you are running a business, i don't expect cnn to be giving us journalism but if you're just running a business where you want to put on a program, where they put advertising on it so you make some money, you should probably hire someone's from fox. i don't know if any of you guys are looking for a job but maybe
9:36 am
they will take you over there. >> i'm really happy here but you. viewership of his show this year's update is absolutely light right. and yet it was the highest rated show on cnn which was abysmally low. i cannot understand what happened last night, were you have anderson cooper with jeffrey toobin beside him reading the suspension statement from cnn. jeffrey toobin who, harris actually described as tube was indefinitely suspended at cnn. so go on vacation and enjoy some time off and we will have you in just a few months. how awkward was that? >> you just tied so much together. i looked at that moment's comic moment last night and i thought
9:37 am
two times two. and i guess early in the day i didn't see that. but there he is and he is talking about a coworker who possibly could be accused of witness intimidation and we will get into that. but at the very least jeffrey toobin who couldn't keep his zoom up. i'm being kind and gentle. is there crime here? >> i agree with you that it was gas on top of gas and cnn has a tremendous amount to answer for. i know they could make me be illustrated dedication to ethics and moral behavior, but certainly putting jeffrey toobin, that was not bad. coming up, president biden weighing some of the strictest covid testing at for travelers to the u.s., even for americans who are already vaccinated.
9:38 am
stay with us. acute manic, and mixed episodes of bipolar i in adults. full-spectrum relief for all bipolar i symptoms. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles or confusion which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be permanent. high cholesterol and weight gain, and high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, may occur. side effects may not appear for several weeks. common side effects include sleepiness and stomach issues. movement dysfunction and restlessness are also common. you are greater than your bipolar i. ask about vraylar.
9:39 am
veteran homeowners, you are greater than your bipolar i. newday's rates have dropped again. it's time to refinance. newday's low rate refi offers their lowest rate in history. two and a quarter percent. just 2.48 apr. save thousands every year and there are no upfront costs. not one dollar. the newday low rate refi. take advantage of these record low rates so you and your family can save.
9:40 am
9:41 am
9:42 am
>> reuters is reporting that the cdc has already ordered airlines to turn over names of all passengers who have been in eight southern african countries subject to travel restrictions. this is a biden administration is expected to enact a new stringent covert related travel restrictions despite debate over the severity of the omicron variance. including requiring all air travelers to the u.s. regardless of vaccination status to be tested within a day of their departure. then they get another text after they return. also possibly on the table, it would be weighing a measure which would force travelers to quarantine for seven days after arriving back in the united states. that's within the previous
9:43 am
24 hours. that may be subject to fines and penalties which would be a a first for the united states. all of this comes after the bio cofounder came out and said we are unsure of the severity of the belt unvaccinated and he said don't freak out. this seems like freaking out. >> its absently freaking out but that's all these people are going to do and guess what guys, they are going to keep doing it as long as we let them do it. this all has a very little to do. and not making most of us be able to make same decisions. they will keep having lockdowns, they are prepping us for more of that and you cannot leave canada right now if you don't have a vaccine. you can't get on an airplane and you can't get on a training. this is absolutely crazy stuff.
9:44 am
if you think about it this way, two weeks to two weeks. has no one from the nih been fired? obviously if you we are to believe that this is as bad as we are telling less than obvious that we've made some mistakes because even if their mistakes are just messaging mistakes, so we the people decided to just do whatever we want, it still falls on them. why is no one fired and why is this ripping across the world? it has nothing to do across the world. and they will be a new one after that and more lockdowns after that. >> emily: i have a few names that i could say she could no longer be at the nih but we will go there. i thought this was the best that has been said that he wrote this. these are stricter measures with
9:45 am
three vaccines then we had a year ago with no vaccines and that's why shut down the virus is a joe biden's read my lips moment and he has failed, it's just that simple. >> we need to understand that this is no longer about health and safety, this is about government, compliance and control. we are talking about the omicron variance and the symptoms seem to be mild. so we will have more infringements on more mandates on something they are describing is mild? at this point, i'm not saying we have to take it seriously but i'm also wondering why we are taking the safety precautions that are wide up open off the southern border? why are we not making sure that those people that are coming into our country look largely untested and unmasked in unvaccinated, we don't have any concern about what they are bring into our country and his administration will not answer for that. they are perfectly fine
9:46 am
hampering down on the rights of americans. >> it's very true. harris, if you don't want to quarantine for seven days you just go across the southern border and it's amazing. >> harris: i do want to just pick up on what tomi lahren was saying because it's critically important. you know this from film allusion and at some of other reporters at the border. they are not testing hours, they don't have the resources to do that. they are trying to keep people from illegally dropping kids over the wall. it's been a horrendous 11 months of this. but at the same time i find it interesting that president biden is more focused on the country that did what china didn't do. south africa found a variant and it could be whatever it is, fast or faster spreading but they immediately told the world, china surreptitiously got a bunch of people killed, like
9:47 am
millions of them. pop of the countries really quickly. we will take ten seconds to do this. look at where it is. it's all over the place but he wants to focus on eight nations in africa. two years of this. dave rubin has a point. do we need to replace some folks? what do we need it? we certainly need some new ideas. >> we certainly do. i could name someone over at the nih. coming up, new york city mayor bill de blasio with an unusual allusion on preventing drug overdoses. more on that, next. ms. gomez goal
9:48 am
even walking was tough. i had to do something. i started cosentyx®. cosentyx can help you move, look, and feel better... by treating the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting...get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections some serious... and the lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms... develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. watch me. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. [uplifting music playing]
9:49 am
♪ i had a dream that someday ♪ ♪ i would just fly, fly away ♪ this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.
9:50 am
9:51 am
>> president biden expected in the next few minutes to outline his plans to alleviate the supply chain crisis. we have senator tom cotton of arkansas on that. also the white house briefing in just a few minutes, dr. anthony fauci will give us the latest on elma crom, academic omicron, and how it will combat omicron. that is potential new travel restrictions and testing guidelines are looming for even americans returning from overseas. we have you covered. on sandra smith and i will see
9:52 am
what the top of the hour for "america reports." >> emily: mary de blasio joins first criticism yet again. with just four weeks left in office, he's open to the country's first legal supervised drug and injection site also known as shooting galleries. the democrat patting himself on the back for the move. >> this is an approach and we call it overdosed prevention centers because that's literally what it is, it's an effort to save lives of folks we are losing right now. >> supervised injection sites happens proposed all across country and none have opened yet thus far which is why this is the first. some have been held up for fear of prosecution on the federal level and others argue it has worked in canada and australia to reduce drug addiction and drug overdose rates. but here in new york city when someone dies of an overdose
9:53 am
every five hours, the worry is that this will be an experiment which will go horribly wrong. >> i have a general rule on these things which is of a progressive politician says something than the opposite is true and that's pretty much what's going on here. we can have an honest discussion about what drugs may be should be legalized and what people should be able to do medicinally and all the stuff about the right to privacy, but build a bl de blasio almost single-handedly destroyed new york city. i know a couple of you guys are there right now and new york city is a shell of what it once was. that's because he is a big government progressive who it sort of sounds right, okay, let's give people drugs to get them off the street. while there's plenty of drugs on the streets of new york city right now, it smells like weed on every single corner and i was there about two weeks ago. i know you guys at midtown know exactly what i'm talking about.
9:54 am
and it will not -- would he want his daughter in one of these places? we know this won't get anyone off of drugs, it will get them into some big government program which will extend them on drugs. we can have an honest discussion about what we should do about the situation but it just simply will not work and we all know it. >> emily: right. in a city were homicides and gun violence and everything has absolutely skyrocketed why in the outgoing few weeks as the mayor focusing on something like this? >> i can't speak to what the mayor is doing but i can tell you there's a culture of lawlessness that sweeping across the country. especially in democrat run cities and states like new york, new york city and california. similar to this where they have the needle exchanges and the sites where people can exchange their needles, it's essentially placating to those that are using and abusing drugs. i agree with dave, we need to
9:55 am
have an honest conversation in this country about addiction and mental health and how we can help these people. it won't do to give them a safe space to shoot up and i won't do to put them behind bars, we need to have a discussion on that. but we legalize this lawlessness and create an area and communities that is clearly unsafe and in a place for degenerates, that won't solve the problem, it will only make it worse. this is just a band-aid and a horrible one. >> emily: it that's exactly right. >> kayleigh: this reminds me of governor newsom in california wants to pay drug addicts. >> don't trust anything out of a progressive elected officials mouth. that's par for the course and unfortunately it's at the expense of taxpayer dollars and american lives. more "outnumbered" in just a moment. ut up to $60,000 or more.
9:56 am
veteran homeowners- have you been spending more time at home? imagining the possibilities? like a bigger kitchen, a swimming pool for the grandkids, or a backyard deck. your va home loan benefit and the newday 100 va loan make it possible. by borrowing up to 100% of your home's value you can take out up to $60,000 or more. with home values at all time highs, now's the time to call. >> man: what's my safelite story? my my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
9:57 am
it's the season of smiling. and at aspen dental, we make it easy to gift yourself the smile you deserve. new patients, start today with a full exam and x-rays, with no obligation. if you don't have insurance, it's free.
9:58 am
plus everyone saves 20% on their treatment plan with flexible payment solutions for every budget. we're here making smiles shine bright so you can start the new year feelin' alright. call 1-800-aspendental or book today at
9:59 am
>> i consider it a blessing to be on outnumbered any time, but certainly when their huge news
10:00 am
events that are important to american history. tomi lahren and dave rubin, a pleasure to share the screen with you today. as always, blessed to be amongst my coworkers here. thank you. "america reports" now. >> john: thank you. we started today with the fox news alert peer to oral arguments in a landmark abortion case wrapping up at the spring court after two hours. the hearing with a 6-3 conservative majority and it could change abortion laws across the country peer hello, i'm john robertson washington and santa come happy december to you. where did it go? >> sandra: day one of a new month. i'm sandra smith in new york at the heart of the dispute is a mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 minutes of pregnancy. if you have a major impact on the landmark ruling of it roe v. wade. in just a moment, fox news contributor jonathan turley


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on