Now it's time for the last word with the great Lawrence. Oh, Donald. Good evening, Lawrence.

Rachel, it's not just what you think. It's what I think, too, above blue sky, which is why I followed you to blue sky.

Rachel, so this was one of those nights when I'm walking through the hallways to get here.

And the silent TV monitors that I'm walking by

show you with some pretty important breaking news about birthright citizenship. And I can't hear a

word of it. All I know is there's this thing at the bottom of the screen that says, you know,

this really important thing has happened. But I've taken a quick look at the breaking news report on it, and it's a Trump-appointed judge

is saying, no, you know, this case can be handled for the standard procedures of the,

and it's not an emergency.

We don't have to go into an emergency mode to deal with your attempt to like hand rewrite the Constitution.

Yeah. And it's actually, it's very well written. It's written like in non-legalese.

Judges are charged to reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference.

When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy,

hours after we finish reading the final brief,

we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise.

In recent times, nearly all judges and lawyers have attended seminar after seminar,

discussing ways to increase public trust in the legal system.

Moving beyond wringing our hands and wishing things were different,

one concrete thing we can do is to decline to decide or pre-decide cases on an emergency basis

when there is no emergency, warranting a deviation from our normal, deliberate practice.

Because they are going to appeal this on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court.

And here's this appeals court judge in the Ninth Circuit being like, this is a lot of things.

...