the state dime the supreme court asking the supreme court to weigh in the supreme court -- told supreme court in its petition for review, you don't have to rule on reo and casey and whether or not they should be overruled. you just need to weigh in on the constitutionality of this law this supreme court agreed to take it up after relisting the case something like 15 times and will now hear argument in all likelihood in december. meanwhile as you are no doubt aware if you've been watching the news at all in the last month or so. the supreme court i guess it was about two weeks ago now. it all goes by so quickly, agreed on the so-called shadow dockett. the supreme court refused to step in and block the texas abortion bill which bans virtually all arborses after six weeks in pregnancy from going into effect. and this was a -- an order that came out about a paragraph 1/2. the justices in the majority in that case made clear that there were -- they said there were serious questions about whether or not the law was constitutional. but they were nonetheless were not going to step in and block

supreme court. i fear that view is being eroded. i was thinking, listening to represented of howard, tell me a little bit more. as a former prosecutor involved with abortion, people go after it in nonmedical situations and people died. a lot of other things went on. then i see everyday citizens, cash bounties of at least $10,000 would bring suit even if they are frivolous against medical practitioners. these are the private enforcement mechanisms. >> yes. as i said, it has a chilling effect on the services being provided at this time. people working in the clinics have to hire security guards to protect them. there is a sense of pitting neighbor against neighbor and i must say it is a different issue. this is at the same time that texas passed, this carry without a license to require the rectifier -- carry a firearm. we saw people coming up to abortion provider clinics whereafter this law went into effect and bringing their guns and displaying them. it is absolutely creating much anxiety and fear am

have 81 supreme court justices. when the congress chose to have nine supreme court justices in 1869, there were only 74 senators. if we had increased the size of the supreme court in proportion to the united states senate, we would now have 12 supreme court justices. so the reasonable number of supreme court justices in 2021 as opposed to 18 of 9 is somewhere between 12 and 81 but we still have nine. the political pressure on those nine very precious seats has intensified every day since 1869, and they are lifetime appointments. and so the most important laws in the united states are written and rewritten depending on when elderly people on the supreme court die. the death of a supreme court justice has become even more politically significant and momentous than the death of a president. when franklin delano roosevelt died, his vice president carried on and won world war ii on the same schedule that fdr would have won the war. when president john f. kennedy was assassinated in 1963, vice president lyndon johnson car

i think we saw a few days ago where the supreme court is heading and certainly if that supreme court upholds the mississippi law, we will have effectively overturned roe v. wade for the entire country. i should also make a point that has not been mentioned. this law in texas affects everyone. rich or poor. it will fall most heavily on those women without the financial means to go to new york, california, or another nearby state. it will fall heavily on black women, latinos, lgbtq women, indigenous women. this law is going to punish women at the margin without the finances to be able to get on a plane, drive a car, to get an abortion. it is that evil. host: the law is called the texas fetal heartbeat law. it went into effect on wednesday. it will ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. there are no exceptions in the -- exemptions in the cases of rate and incensed --incest. we welcome your questions for nan aron and charles donovan. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. charles donovan, a previous

supreme court opinions. and she goes on among other things to talk about the courts abortion jurisprudence, and i would just like to ask both of you, do you believe that when life begins, judge and ms. sung, is a religious question? is it a legal question? is it a scientific question? is it a philosophical question? or is it a political question or some other category that i haven't mentioned? judge? >> thank you, senator cornyn. i think those are important questions and i will say as a sitting judge and as a nominee for the second circuit, it would be appropriate for me in this setting to offer an opinion as to the framework for evaluating that question. what i can't speed is i'm not asking in the context of deciding a a case. i'm asking you what is your personal opinion is about when life begins, whether it's a religious, legal, scientific, else obligor political question. >> no, i do stand that, senator cornyn. my concern is that if faced with a case that involved a cellist restriction i would be obligate

because supreme court gave,. >> the supreme court basically set not right now, it's not our place. >> the thing that people forget about the supreme court, they don't stick to any problem that rolls through the door the second and rolls through that door. that's not their job and not with their jurisdiction has improved and it would be a terrible idea to take the first case that pops up just because somebody asked. they are not on demand substance that doesn't mean they're never going to take it, it just means there waiting to see if the problem shuts itself out because the resources of the supreme court are valuable and limited although less limited these days apparently. [laughter] 's they shouldn't be the ones making these calls. we are always concerned but the minute they say no to a circuit district court, it's like oh my goodness. they always seem tote percolate and maybe this was that john j specifically to. anybody on the panel could answer. part this term or wait for the issue to percolate to the circuit? >> i think the odds are not in favor so it's several cases out there.

the supreme court's term begins october 4th. welcome back for the final panel today where we will be sitting and talking about what is coming in the future term. it will perform on the dc circuit and clarence thomas on the supreme court. and to my immediate left is the partner client high-stakes appeals of the u.s. supreme court and federal and state appellate courts across the country. she's argued twice before the supreme court prevailing in both cases and presenting many arguments and federal courts and state courts of appeals and clerked for clarence thomas, the dc circuit, received her undergraduate degree from princeton, magna cum laude from harvard and phd from the s university of cambridge. if i wasn't here speaking with you i would be a philosophy professor right now.ro please welcome the panel. [applause] >> we are going to start off with amy to give an opening view of what she wrote in her article in the cases that she covered which are blockbusters. >> thank you so much for having me and inviting me to write the arti

that supreme court precedent? >> without reservation. >> i will return to the letter that senator durbin referenced about the nomination ofou justice kavanaugh and you said in your answer that you only signed it. you did not write it but you don't draw a distinction do you believe you are responsible for the contents? >> i take responsibility for signing the letter. >> and the stages of the ninth circuit you sign on to what you are responsible. >> yes, senators. >> also from which i agree so let's just explore that rhetoric you said then judge kavanaugh was a threat to the most vulnerable and you also thought he waste "and intellectually and minute morally bankrupt ideologue. can you explain why you got brett kavanaugh was a morally bankrupt man quick. >> thank you for the question, senator as i explained come i recognize those statements were overheated rhetoric but rhetorical advocacy. and if by signing the letter, i created the impression that i would fail to respect justice kavanaugh authority is a supreme cou

sometimes you get the clerk on the supreme court -- you get to clerk on the supreme court for another justice. what was that like? justice breyer: terrific. he had loads of energy. jack kennedy said he was the smartest man he ever met. david: you clerked for him and went to teach at harvard law school. when you went to harvard law school, did you say this is going to be my life, i'm going to be a professor? you can teach great law students and so forth. or did you say one day i will be on the supreme court? justice breyer: i did not think maybe someday. anybody who thinks maybe someday i will be on the supreme court, i don't want to say there is something wrong with it, but there is. david: after teaching at harvard law school you got a good reputation. senator kennedy invited you to work on his staff. i think you worked on regulatory reform. justice breyer: yes. david: that is right first encountered you when i was working on capitol hill. then something happened that was a surprise to people. president carter nominated you to be a judge on the first circuit. that's not a surprise gi

the role of the supreme court is debated and it will continue to be. we respect the supreme court. you'll note... you'll note that ever since 1973, beginning in the �*80s, �*90s, even the 2000s, the supreme court has limited, has scaled back roe vs wade, because technology has taught us so much more about the development of the little baby. and technology tells us that babies can live earlier in the process. and so the supreme court has been chipping away at roe versus wade. we believe roe versus wade was wrongly decided. we follow the law, we respect the law, and we work through the legal process to get the law correct. that's what we're trying to do. all right. now, you've just nodded to the essence of the bill. i think many people call it the heartbeat bill, because at the centre of it is this idea that an abortion in texas becomes unlawful, or at least anybody involved in it becomes prone to civil legal action, after the so—called heartbeat moment, which you define is at around, i think, six weeks when a heartbeat can be detected. now, the implication, it seems to me, of

there is no one method for the supreme court by which the supreme court can change its mind and the law can change. but if you look at the history of the dissent, almost all these methods combined. so let's look at the antitrust cases being declared unconstitutional. there's the case that controls 98% of the sugar production in the country. the supreme court found a way to say they were not a monopoly. he was a soul defender and of course railed against a giant combination pretty much within five years the same justices the that ruled the other way would begin. i don't know that it was harlan persuading, but there are examples of the same people literally changing their mind. all of our wendell holmes changed his mind on the amendment. they greatly relaxed the rules and allowed for more antitrust actions. they got into that position they were allowing antitrust. in the income tax case which was a 5-for decision and they overruled the president. for the senate to accept. he would read the dissent on the floor of the house as a way of showing how wrongheaded the original decision was and

this is another edition of the cato supreme court review. you have to wear your mask at all times, even when asking the question. bathrooms are up the spiral staircase. there is one next to the elevator, that is just a single elevator. lunch will be served at noon. if we survive rain, the reception -- you can answer questions on twitter. the reception will be after the lecture. moving to our first panel, i would like to introduce professor douglas a cox at the university of virginia school of law. the best -- rest of the bios are in your packet. >> i apologize. i thought i was here in plenty of time. i am describing fulton versus philadelphia, which is more relevant in the way of holding, more than you might guess. it's about omens and 4/10 and the employment busy. smith was a 1990 case in which scalia cut back on the free exercise clause. one has gotten a lot of attention. smith said if the law is neutral, it raises no free exercise issue as applied to religion. it doesn't matter how severe the burden is. smith involved a ritual worship ser

they came to the supreme court to weigh in. the supreme court petition for review. you don't have to rule on row or -- roe or kc. we just have to rule on the constitutionality of this law. they agreed to taking it up after relisting it 15 times and we will now hear arguments in december. meanwhile, as you are no doubt aware. if you have watched the news at all in the last month or so. the supreme court, two weeks ago, agreed on the shadow docket. they refused to step in and block the texas abortion bill which virtually bans all abortions after six weeks from going into effect. this was an order that came out about a paragraph and a half. justices in the majority in that case made clear that there were serious questions whether it was constitutional but they were nonetheless going to step in and go into effect. chief justice john roberts and the three liberal justices dissented from that order. on the one hand, the court said they would not weigh in on the constitutionality of it. on the other hand, right now in texas, until that law is settled, there is no right for

record at the supreme court. it's the s >>up or any other circuit and the batting average over the last fewup years has not been great. for out of five cases s from the circuit have been reversed in recent years by the supreme court. it has gotten somewhat better after the last administration but still it's not that great if the supreme court issues a ruling we would apply that supreme court precedent. >> without reservation senator. >> i want to turn to the letter that the senator referenced about the nomination of justice cavanagh in the summer of 2018 and you said in your answer, senator durbin you only signed it.yo you didn't write it to write the distinction between written by someone else do believe you are responsible for the contents of the letter quick. >> i take responsibility for signing the letter. >> is that the case of a panel of george on —- judges you are responsible? >> yes senator. >>or you say that of which i agree let's just explore some of that rhetoric you said that then judge cavanagh was

mexican supreme court. ok, so no protest says here mexico known as being fairly conservative country can we expect and he pushed back to this decision even though this decision by the supreme court is final, there is an expectation that push back is going to be inevitable. as you mentioned, adrian, mexico's one of the most catholic countries in the world. and we should know that at least that 4 states here in mexico, including mexico city, had already decriminalized abortion. but this new decision by the supreme court may not be a very welcome decision by many of the more conservative regions in the country. specifically, states like web log when i want to hi lease school, just the name of you. we should also mentioned that the archbishop of the catholic church here in mexico, we've been before the vote that took place in the supreme court today had pleaded with the court asking them to reconsider this ruling that was made related to abortion rights. but having that said the wheels are already in motion, me

the supreme court has effectively taken the judiciary outou of business. the court is how to give greater scrutiny for proportionality including the death penalty cases so the failure to do in a non- capital context even though less relevant is really one of the worst examples it is not enforcing constitutional guarantee. there arer so many other areas i can talk about that these in particular show acr direct line between how you get increased admissions or longer sentences if you want to talk about mipolice misconduct and various other things that these are the directs and areas i think are interesting for another reason which is they should have been areas that would have appealed both to the morece liberal justices who have otherwise shown interest important communities and communities of color who have borne the brunt of the excess and that the area should also had appealed for those that tend to be more conservative they are firmly grounded in all of the originalist arguments so this result is odd only if you tend to think of the court on those conser

have 81 supreme court justices. when the congress chose to have nine supreme court justices in 1869, there were only 74 senators. if we had increased the size of the supreme court in proportion to the united states senate, we would now have 12 supreme court justices. so the reasonable number of supreme justices in 2021, as opposed to 1860, nine is somewhere between 12 and 81, but we still have nine. and the political pressure on those nine, very precious seats has intensified every day since 1869. and they are lifetime appointments, and so the most important laws in the united states are written and re-written depending on when elderly people in the supreme court died. the death of a supreme court justice has become an even more political significant and momentous than the death of a president, when president franklin roosevelt died in office, in 1945, his vice president harry truman carried on and won world war ii, on the same schedule that fdr would've won the war. president john f. kennedy was assassinated 1963,

and in particular, our supreme court. obviously, one way you control an agency or a court is to control the appointments. and we know very well the federalist society turnstile that was run in the trump administration that put three of these justices on the court. we know very well of the judicial crisis network and its dark money funding that spent tens of millions of dollars related to supreme court appointments on advertising, campaigns. what we don't know is who was behind all of this. who provided what "the washington post" described as $250 million in money to make all this happen. $250 million is a lot of money. and people don't spend that kind of money unless they want results, and we have no idea because of secrecy who was behind this scheme. the next thing once you capture an agency, what you want to do is tell it what to do. and sure enough, we see national right-ring litigation groups -- right-wing litigation groups that bring cases to the court. there's kind of an expedited fast lane for them to bring cases t

this comes days after the supreme court refused to block the law. brazilian president jair bolsonaro is set to meet with truckers who blocked highways in he continueso defy the nation's supreme court, raising questions about the future of democracy in the country. ♪ >> hello, everyone. thanks for joining us. we begin with day two of the trial into the 2015 paris attacks. for another day, proceedings were interrupted several times by outbursts from the only surviving defendant. the 31-year-old admitted being soldier for the islamic state group. he is one of 20 defendants accused of carrying out the massacres across the capital that claimed the lives of 130 people. france 24's clare gives us a rundown. clare: salah abdeslam had another outburst throughout the day. he was aggressive and uncomfortable yesterday when he claimed to be a fighter for the islamic state. today, without being invited to speak, he got up to the microphone and said that even though he didn't believe in this justice system, that the men who were his codefendants were innocent u

the supreme court didn't have a home of its own force until 1935 . marshall in the federalist judiciary faced an implacable enemy in president jefferson. jefferson had personal as well as political reasons for hating marshall. jefferson was marshall's cousin and their families had feuded bitterly for two generations over the inheritance that jefferson's father had appropriated from marshall's grandmother. perhaps marshall got even with jefferson by marrying holly ambler who bore a striking resemblance to her mother who just happened to be a woman who broke jefferson's heart when she rejected his marriage proposal. they were in likable enemies. it felt felt to john marshall to defend the independence of the judiciary against the jeffersonian to control both houses of congress. the one thing that most people know about marshall is that he invented judicial review. now, marshall invented a lot of law but he did not invent judicial review. some state courts have already asserted the power to strike down unconstitutional law even before the constitution w

led to three supreme court appointments. is this just a taste of what is to come during this battle for a fight for women's right to choose? >> well, this story really epitomizes what the republican party is today, rev. it's a party of hypocrisy. on the one hand they say our body, our choice, no masks. on the other, well, women, we want to tell you what to do with your body. will be make up half of the country. what legislators have told us is freedom isn't free for everyone. what i feel today is disappointment because i'm not surprised. i knew this, i knew when senator collins said what she said, i knew that in the back of her head she knew better. if had ruth bader ginsburg today no doubt would the supreme court are had a different decision. don't lose faith, anyone listening. please don't. democracy demands that we get out there now and educate and we advocate for those who cannot do for themselves. i'm a lover of freedom. i may be pro-life myself, but i am pro-choice for other women. that i believe is the view of not man

court and whether the supreme court just signaled i we did it again. verizon has been named america's most reliable network by rootmetrics. and our customers rated us #1 for network quality in america according to j.d. power. number one in reliability, 16 times in a row. most awarded for network quality, 27 times in a row. proving once again that nobody builds networks like verizon. that's why we're building 5g right, that's why there's only one best network. we were alone when my husband had the heart attack. he's the most important thing in my life. i'm so lucky to get him back. your heart isn't just yours. protect it with bayer aspirin. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. ♪ music ♪ ♪ dream, dream when you're feeling blue ♪ ♪ dream, dream that's the thing to do ♪ ♪ music ♪ when you see value in all directions, you add value in all directions. accenture. let there be change. in 2016, i was working at the amazon warehouse when my brother passed away. and a couple of years later, my mother passed away. aft

supreme court took the case up for review. by a vote of 8-1 the supreme court confirmed the third circuit's judgment that brandy's punishment was unconstitutional but did not affirm a categorical rule. instead an opinion by justice stephen breyer the court offered to provide only general guidelines to approach off campus bees -- speech cases the future for. the court declined the off-campus speech in every instance holding the reasons justifying do not quote always disappear with school speech that takes place off campus. without limiting himself some circumstances potentially calling for regulation of off-campus speech might include bullying classmates cheating or breaking the rules and breaches of school security devices. in o the crux of the opinion accorded in a fight three features of off-campus speech that in the courts were diminished strength of the unique educational characteristics that might call for a special way to regulate speech speech speech. the first of series three features is quote off campus speech woman o

they all get struck down by the courts. the supreme court decision roe v. wade restricts states from banning abortion in most circumstances. that's been controlling precedent in the supreme court since 1973. and at first glance, this new texas abortion ban looks like one of the many bans that republican state legislators have passed, which have then all been disallowed by the federal courts because of the protections that we have thanks to roe v. wade. for what it's worth, the texas ban says it's illegal for a woman to get an abortion in texas if her pregnancy is more than roughly six weeks along. six weeks is well before many women have any idea that they're pregnant at all. it's estimated that 85% to 90% of all abortions in texas -- 85% to 90% of all abortions everywhere in america happen after six weeks. texas' ban would render all of those illegal. now, as i mentioned, republican-controlled state legislatures and republican governors pass abortion bans all the time now even though they know they'll get struck down. so of it is like just a hobby. they ju

so look, i think the courts, the supreme court will take this up. they haven't made the final determination on it. legislatures have rights to pass bills. governors have a right to sign them into law or not. the court gets to make the ultimate decision. >> i understand, but do you think there should be something, if it's by the states, should it reflect the will of the people or the will of the elected officials? >> well, you know, the way our system works is we elect officials and they make decisions for us. the people get to decide whether they want to keep them in office or not. in our state, the voters made this determination long before i became governor. my legislature is 70%, more than 70% democratic, and i chose not to try to over turn the will of the legislature or the voters. >> governor andy beshear, democrat from kentucky. larry hogan, republican from maryland. again, appreciate you both coming on. believe it or not, this used to be a very common practice here on "meet the press." it's hopefully something we can keep going. thank you bot

the supreme court says it doesn't really matter. you still have to narrowly tailor thanks even if you be might have used it in some cases. the court then suggested lower courts need to look skeptically at that asserted state interest. california said away might need it to investigate charities. the court said you have to be careful about that. you can't just do that in this broad fashion. the idea that it is making it more convenient for you isn't enough. strauf veins won't do it. so, with that you put real teeth into the exacting scrutiny standard and says now that it is really none of the government's business who you give money to, what organizations you support or belong to. it memoranda become the state's business if they have a legitimate investigation going on that requires them to actually get that information. but they can't generally say they need it or want it. i will crows by getting to the point mentioned earlier. this goes to that greater relationship between people and the state. the state's position is like we are ju

the supreme court precedents. that precedent prohibits states from banning abortion before 2023 weeks. you don't need a law degree to see that, you don't have to be some fancy pedigree the supreme court clerk to see that. the standard thing for the court to do when a law is unconstitutional is to prohibited from being enforced pending appeals and arguments. for instance, just a thought experiment here, if say the state of new york passed a law saying no one can carry of weapon of any kind inside their home, and other people can sue you if you do, the supreme court would enjoy that before it ever went into practice, believe you me. but in this case, with the radical texas abortion law, they have not. it went into effect in midnight, in the dead of night, it has been nearly 20 hours and so far, silence from the court. we don't know where they're thinking, what they're doing, that's all we got. and believe you me, this signal something ominous about abortion rights, women's rights in this country. that landmark cases

wade was first decided by the supreme court in january, 1973. it's not like we know now roe was a big deal but at the time they didn't recognize it. no. at the time they knew it was a huge deal. abortion was a really controversial thing then as it is now. in 1973 abortion was illegal in most states in the country. but the roe decision came down like a lightning bolt and roe mental of a sudden overnight legal abortion everywhere for all american women. it was a huge deal. they knew it was a huge deal when it happened. i was expecting one thing when i went back and looked in the archives as to what nbc "nightly news" was like that night. i was wrong. given what a big deal it was and how big they knew it was at the time, i will tell you, i was shocked to learn that that supreme court decision, january, 1973, did not come up in that night's network news broadcast until 11 minutes in. 11 minutes in to their 30-minute broadcast. then even when they tried to bring it up it got pushed down by further breaking news. now, what was going on is that this wa

they now have the supreme court majority. this is also, while they don't want to talk about it, this is what republicans want, even if it's not this exact law. it is the idea that abortion will be curtailed in a real, real way. and democrats, they feel as though this seems like the thing that could galvanize people in the midterms when they badly need to maintain the midterms and maintain seats. >> terry mcauliffe and gavin newsom grabbed onto this immediately. in the virginia virginia race, glenn eun kin was like, can we talk about something else. >> this is a republican party that lost women in the last election by 15 points, lost independents by nine, ten points. they can't afford -- this only helps them in places they're already winning big. i do agree with what congresswoman comstock was saying. i don't think the court has signaled they're going to overturn roe v. wade. the jort of the court says there's a procedural issue, we'll wait until there's a case in front of us. i'll be shocked if this stands up. >> that said, o

what does the supreme court have to do this? before i get to that, i need to start with the constitution. it is constitution day. you might be thinking that the problem is that the framers did not anticipate that the government might be excessively punitive. maybe they did not anticipate that they would abuse coarser powers and the constitution does not speak to this. if this were the case it would not be the supreme court's faults that happen under their watch. the problem would like with the constitution itself. as it turns out, the constitution is not silent on governmental overreach on criminal cases. they did not let state power in criminal cases slip between the constitutional cracks rate is the exact opposite. they were well aware at how the state could abuse the coercive powers. they knew about the bloody codes in england. they would fear that the majority would oppress the minority through criminal law and punishment. how the police state would deprive people of their liberty. far from being silent, the constitution i w

supreme court. they ruled that the premise of that law that it would protect women's health by denying them access to abortion, the supreme court ruled that premise was basically a sham. justice stephen breyer said in part, in that opinion, "we have found nothing in texas's record of evidence that shows that the new law advanced texas' legitimate interests in protecting women's health." justice ruth bader ginsburg wrote a short concurrence of her own in which she said, quote, laws like hb2, the law in texas at the time, laws like this that do little or nothing for health, that they'd rather stru impediments to abortion, cannot survive judicial inspection. thanks to that united states supreme court ruling in 2016, a bunch of texas abortion clin ukz were able to stay open or reopen after having been shut h i can tell you that the whole women's health clinic in mcallen, texas, did reopen and it is open and offering services right now today. but even on that day in 2016 when we talked to miss miller, yo

that is standing supreme court precedent from 1982, that decision. that professor who took it to the united states and won named lawrence tribe has sort of set off a flare warning that the texas abortion ban that the u.s. supreme court let pass into law last week, he said that's basically the grendel's den case all over again. he said, as with the massachusetts liquor law, the texas abortion law delegates quintessentially governmental power to private parties. but this time it's a state delegating authority to, as he puts it, quote, literally anyone on earth with an objection to abortion, giving that individual or organization the unilateral and unfettered power to inflict punishment on whoever assists a woman in terminating a pregnancy. lawrence tribe said that supreme court precedent he pursued and won in 1982, the way he won that case for that bar in cambridge can be the undoing of the texas abortion ban as well. now, how exactly it has to go for that strategy to work, who has to bring the lawsuit and when and against whom, that itself is obviousl

no waiting from the supreme court. -- no word from the supreme court. emmanuel macron --, he will come out in many numbers. a broad message on stopping crime, raising jobs, and building infrastructure. a promise to invest billions. pedro and camila giorgi -- not be crews united for their movie, parallel parents. the latest on this. we see the start begins in italy. this is live from paris. ♪ mark: a texas law banning most abortion in the state took effect on wednesday with your supreme court silent on an emergency appeal to put the law on hold. the texas law signed by greg abbott in may, prohibits abortions was a heartbeat can be detected. this is usually for six weeks, before a woman may know she is pregnant. >> and bill signed in may banning abortions of past six weeks have gone into effect. -- has gone into effect. >> this is a bill that i might the sign that ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion. >> texas' heartbeat bills is one of the most effective, making no exceptions for cas

court especially the supreme court decision not to strike ♪ ♪ ♪ especially the supreme court decision not to strike ♪ ♪ ♪ monitor, check and lock down you money with security from chase. control feels good. chase. make more of what's yours. in 2016, i was working at the amazon warehouse when my brother passed away. and a couple of years later, my mother passed away. after taking care of them, i knew that i really wanted to become a nurse. amazon helped me with training and tuition. today, i'm a medical assistant and i'm studying to become a registered nurse. in filipino: you'll always be in my heart. it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it helps keep you effortlessly comfortable by sensing your movements and automatically responding to both of you. and, it's temperature balancing to help you stay comfortable all night. it even tracks your circadian rhythm, so you know when you're at your best. in other words, it's the most energy-building, wellness-boosting, parent-powering, proven quality night's sleep we've ever made. save 50% on t

are we going to see the supreme court donald trump's majority on the supreme court finally strike down roe v. wade do you think? >> will look this isn't about roe v. wade. it's just a way around roe v. wade and their other cases that will come before the supreme court and this is an attack by the right end for the first time you are seeing some creative legal weapons being utilized by the right instead of them always playing defense to the left and the eroding social marmots and taboos. i think it's a good sign that there is a renewed vigor to aggressively use the law to renew conservative positions but also joe biden places double game where he's catholic and being in abortion enthusiasts he pretends he's not really a catholic president he's just a catholic who happens to be president but in this case he has weighed in actively against it. in that case -- and the other case it's reinvigorated the left. gerry: again and we don't know there's another case before the court this year if the court does strike down roe v. wade does that fundamentally change the politics of this issue or as

they now have the supreme court majority. this is also, while they don't want to talk about it, this is what republicans want, even if it's not this exact law. it is the idea that abortion will be curtailed in a real, real way. and democrats, they feel as though this seems like the thing that could galvanize people in the midterms when they badly need to maintain the midterms and maintain seats. >> terry mcauliffe and gavin newsom grabbed onto this immediately. in the virginia race, glenn youngkin was like, can we talk about something else. >> this is a republican party that lost women in the last election by 15 points, lost independents by nine, ten points. they can't afford -- this only helps them in places they're already winning big. i will say, though, i do agree with what congresswoman comstock was saying. i don't think the court has signaled they're going to overturn roe v. wade. the majority of the court says there's a procedural issue, we'll wait until there's a case in front of us. i would be shocked if this stood u

they all get struck down by the courts. the supreme court court decision, roe v. wade, restricts states from banning abortion in most circumstances. that's been controlling precedent in the supreme court since 1973. and at first glance, this new texas abortion ban looks like one of the many bans that republican state legislators have passed, which have then all been disallowed by the federal courts because of the protections that we have thanks to roe v. wade. for what it's worth, the texas ban says it's illegal for a woman to get an abortion in texas if her pregnancy is more than roughly six weeks along. six weeks is well before many women have any idea that they're pregnant at all. it's estimated that 85% to 90% of all abortions in texas -- 85% to 90% of all abortions everywhere in america happen after six weeks. texas' ban would render all of those illegal. now, as i mentioned, republican-controlled state legislatures and republican governors pass abortion bans all the time now even though they know they'll get struck down. some of it a hobby. they just want to

so money just want us through the vote today in the supreme court. and what exactly was decided the right barbara will set the seed for a little bit. were outside mexico, supreme court, mexico city rain coming down, already disperse that small crowd of conservative rights activists that had gathered here unhappy with the decision by the supreme court today. but what exactly was decided this ruling, this vote today by the supreme court is specific to a section of the criminal code of the mexican state of while wheeler, which criminalizes abortion that's now been deemed unconstitutional. and what this does is that it sets in motion a precedent that would be criminalized abortion in the rest of the country as well . now this was a unanimous vote by mexico's supreme court and in broader terms. what that means is that mexico becomes the 4th country in latin america to seek the criminalization of, of abortion, following origin, tita uruguay and cuba. my apologies there. now this announcement also arrived ahead of planned marches and demonstrations by women

i cannot imagine too much more coercive than this so that tease that pretty well for the supreme court to recognize how this is going and yes in a five / four decision the court refused to say that was unconstitutional the court said "defendants advised by competent counsel are presumptively capable of intelligent choice of the prosecutorial persuasion and unlikely under self-condemnation. i want to attack that. the first is the idea that competent counsel does anything to help with the coercive aspect and my favorite quote is from the professor who said the presence of counsel has little relevance to a guilty plea entered at gunpoint and is no less voluntary because an attorney is present to explain how a gun works. so next the court told us this dynamic is prosecutorial persuasion. the threat is a mandatory life sentence. that is persuasive. but in the same way as a robber saying to you your money or your life. i am persuaded to give you my money still coercive but not persuasion as we think of it. then finally the court says without any evidence it's unlikely to lead to false self-c

the case went to the supreme court. in 1948 came the decision, a 7-1 decision upholding the government's contentions. it was read by justice douglas and in it he said, almost as a digression, we have no doubt that moving pictures, like newspapers and radio, are included in the press whose freedom is guaranteed by the first amendment. a casual dictum not affecting the 1915 ruling, yet it suggested the court might repudiate the old doctrine. mr. london would so urge and would meanwhile press another argument. >> one, that the state, in the miracle case, is making a decision about a religious matter and interfering in a religious question. the state was violating a traditional separation of church and state, a separation guaranteed by another provision of the first amendment. now we have a number of other decisions that should be of help to us. cantwell against connecticut. >> cantwell versus connecticut, a case far removed from the crowds of broadway. but like "the miracle," it involved a religious issue and a licensing r