>> from the world of politics to the world of business, this is balance of power with david westin.

david: welcome to our second hour of balance of power as we continue coverage of the supreme court overturning of the roe v. wade ruling. i want to go to the place where it all began this morning, the supreme court itself, when they handed down that decision in the case overturning roe v. wade and kc versus planned parenthood. we go to the house of -- the host of sound on and joins us from outside this up in court. i want to start with the point we were talking about before, we are hearing from people who are upset about this decision. we can overlook the people, the fact that there are people who like it. start by going back to what kevin mccarthy said earlier today. >> the voiceless finally have a

voice. this great nation can now live up to its core principle that all are created equal, not born equal, created equal. david: we listened to that together and we have to bear in mind, there are a lot about her to feel good about this decision -- a lot of voters who feel good about this decision. >> absolutely. there has been a lot of chanting and singing over the last couple hours. over the past hour, we have heard both sides of this issue presented by both ends of pennsylvania avenue. kevin mccarthy widely believed to be the next speaker of the house if republicans take the majority, delivering the lines you just played for us belle president biden called this a sad day for the court and a sad day for america. remarkable to hear president

biden call out the former president by name, saying it was three justices named by one president, donald trump, who are at the core of this decision. the president calling for calm as there have been threats of violence and vandalism, a night of rage as some activists have been calling it. the white house has been consistent that they will not tolerate violence and law enforcement in the nation's capital. they say they are prepared, there is a barrier set up around the supreme court since that first draft opinion linked -- leaked. it is still there. we have seen a wide police presence since 10:00 this morning. david: it looks like it is a fairly tame, organized group. thank you so much. now we go to our bloomberg supreme court reporter. you heard what the president is saying, this basically has never happened, the supreme court taking away a fundamental right. this you buy? >> more or less yes -- is he

right? >> more or less yes. it transformed the lives of millions of women and sparked this decades long movement to overturn it. it is a historic day. david: as a practical matter, what divisions are there on the court from this? it was not really a 6-3 decision, it was 5-1-3 -- i'm sorry, 2-3. greg: john roberts is the one who said, i would uphold this mississippi law, but i would not go so far as to overturn roe and he suggested that he might have upheld a narrower right to terminate a pregnancy earlier in pregnancy. there is an opinion by brett kavanaugh, he joined the majority opinion, but into overturn go, but said that he would not go to uphold a state

that try to restrict travel by somebody to a state where abortion is allowed. he said he would not support retroactive punishment for people who had abortions. he is probably a pivotal votes going forward. david: thank you for your coverage today which is not done yet i suspect. bloomberg supreme court reporter. 20 us now is donald ayer, former principal said deputy solicitor general and was to be attorney general in the initiation of george herbert walker bush. thank you for being with us. if you will indulge me, i want to play something that we heard from president biden where he said this is unprecedented. pres. biden: the supreme court of the united states expressly took away a right from the american people. that it had already recognized. it did not limit its, it took it away.

that has never been done to a right so important to so many americans, but they did it. it is a sad day for the court in the country. david: talk about this as a matter of supreme court history. overturning an important precedent of 50 years is a big deal. it is not the first time the supreme court has done that, they did it in brodd versus board of education, but is it the first time they did in a way that took away a right? donald: i believe it is. if you think about our bill of rights and other ways that people's rights to engage in certain kinds of behavior or conduct, this is the first instance i believe where the cortes of the said, hereafter 49 or so years, there was a constitutional right that existed and we are taking it away. david: one of the things i have been asked is how could they do this when a majority of americans according to polls do not favor taking away this right?

it is something like 65% say there should be some right of abortion. on the other hand, the supreme court is not there to reflect the will of the majority of the people. donald: that is right and i don't think anybody thinks that they should be there to purely reflect the will of the majority. one of the important things that has occurred pretty graphically in the past two days with the gun case decided yesterday and delete opinion in dobbs having come out a couple months ago, the court has now made clear that they have a vision of their own omniscience in terms of what the founders meant to do and a sense of an absolutist view of what the constitution means. they specifically said in this opinion and something similar in the opinion yesterday, but they are not going to be influenced by thinking about consequences

in the form of how people will react or in the context of the gun case yesterday, consequences in the sense of weighing what is going to happen if a certain regulation is invalidated. they appear to be ready to simply go off and follow their sense of what the founders wanted and implement it and not really pay attention to where that may take the country. david: i wonder where we are going next. we can speculate about it because there's talk about how far this decision be reached into things like contraception and same-sex marriage. we have opinions from justice thomas basically saying, those are on the list now, we are going to take a look at that. do we have any sense of how far the revocations of this opinion may go? donald: i don't think we do. i would not predict that that is going to happen, even though it is clear that justice thomas, he

would go there. what is more on this even than that is something that is not really being talked about, but this same court has a vision of certain other rights which it is ready to expand. it has expanded certain forms of first amendment speech rights, it has expanded free exercise rights under the first amendment, it has expanded the takings cause, it has expanded a bunch of rights based on its vision and sense of its founders' intention. but in a way that has a common theme and that is to impair and undermine the functioning of government. one good example of that are the cases that decided, that invalidated local government restrictions for covid safety purposes. but there's a lot more and there's a case coming up in the

next eight or two dealing with the clean air act and the court is likely to take a narrow reading of that statute which may well lead us to a narrow reading of the clean air act, impairing the function of government, which i think is going to be the dominant theme of their jurisprudence. david: you have a lot of experience in washington and the justice department. i would like to drop on your experience in the solicitor general office. he spent a lot of time in that court, you know how it works. is this going to generate a lot more litigation? we are talking about states restricting travel outside the state or restricting doctors. could we have a lot of abortion litigation after this? donald: i think it is possible. but i don't think you know to what degree the supreme court is going to participate in that. the bigger concern that i have

is that the court, this five number majority, now seems to be ready to act in what i would have to characterize as extreme ways if yesterday and today are any indication and i think that is going to invite a sea of litigation of people rubbing their hands together saying, we have a court that will take our case on x issue because they are in sync with us and i think you are going to see more of that litigation. it worries me because i don't know what the limits of this court are going to be. what has happened so far is bad enough that it is going to undermine trust by a lot of people and if they keep it up, it is going to get worse. david: thank you for being with us. that is donald ayer, a veteran of the justice department. coming up, barbara parry, professor and director a president of studies at the university of virginia miller center, is going to join us. this is a special edition of

"balance of power" on bloomberg television and radio. ♪

david: this is a special edition of "balance of power." we are focused on the supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade. i had not been paying attention to markets and they are up. equity markets are up over 2% but now, continuing that rally. let's turn back to that decision. how this decision, a historic

decision, fits into the history of the supreme court and what it does to it as an institution. we go now to barbara perry, professor and director of president studies at university of -- virginias miller center. she serves as a sipping court fellow and has worked for republican and democratic members of the senate. put this in historical context. how does it fit? barbara: i have been studying the history of the court in the constitution for over four decades in i cannot remember a case that had such impact across such a broad swath of the american people. that is the first thing to note. depending on what side the person is on, it does not matter in this sense, these are matters of life and death literally. we have to focus on that and then say, what is the impact on the court? that is when it wades into these issues of life and death, it

means that it is going to generate a lot of emotion on both sides. david: one of the things we have heard side including by the president is this has never been done before, the sipping court has taken back a fundamental right. at the same time, one of the criticisms is it's what -- is it was a 50 year president and we try to respect that when we can. we wonder, is that right? brown b board of education did not take away a right, but it overturned an older precedent. barbara: it did, it overturned one that was 55 years old, going back to 1896 in the positive ferguson case which allowed for publix education -- public segregation. we do have overturning a president on occasion, usually people think in terms of progress being made when something is overturned, it also

means that time marches on, things change in society despite the fact that this majority talk about being originalists and going back to the founders' intentions. but times to change and sometimes the court keeps up with the times and sometimes it does not. david: it strikes me that in roe v. wade in 1973, the court generated a lot of controversy in the country but for itself as well that did not die down much that i can tell over 50 years. at the same time, the court is back into controversy now. what does it do as -- what does it due to its credibility? barbara: i have been thinking along the same lines and it is a case that justice scalia on the conservative side to say, ever since roe v. wade, we have been inundated with mail and every anniversary, roe v. wade, thousands of pro-life marchers

march around the court, so wouldn't it be great if we could put this aside in some fashion? in his case, it would have been to overturn roe v. wade. we see in the picture that there are people in front of the court and it is unusual to see those kinds offenses about the courts. it shows the kind of emotion. the notion of precedent, the reason courts have tended to want to hold onto precedent is we don't want fundamental law to be changing every day or every 50 years. it puts uncertainty into the law. part and parcel of this along with the leak of this opinion a couple months ago has led to the low approval rating for the court, it is around the 40% range and might go lower because a majority of americans do support a right to access to abortion at least in the early stages of pregnancy. david: what does this decision due to the leadership of the chief justice? you talk about approval ratings, i'm not sure where his art, but he is in the middle, joining in

the judgment, not the opinion. he is an institutionalist, but is he leading this court, or is clarence thomas? barbara: i think clarence thomas and justice alito are leading the court now -- now. chief justice roberts when he came onto the bench said he would hope to engage in a number of decisions and the decisions, if not unanimous, at least 6, 7, or 8-1. he is not seeing that now. it shows you how far to the right the court has moved given that he is now viewed as a. your old boss, a great justice, was viewed as a moderate, he tended to be in the middle between conservatives and liberals. it shows you how far the court has moved to the right given that the chief justice is now viewed as being in the center, but he does not have control of

that center. david: that is nice of you to say about justice powell, i agree. i wonder also, the supreme court does not issue decisions for popularity. at the all time, -- at the same time, if it does not get the country to get behind it, does it have a problem? brown v. board of education, not many people were saying it was a mistake. i'm not sure you could say that about roe v. wade. barbara: again, maybe this will mold public opinion in a different way, but i doubt it. another example of this that it involved life or your -- life versus death, 1962 decision that banned publicly written laws that required prayer in public school and the prayer would be written by the state. that was hardly ever followed in public schools. sometimes the court has been ignored. in this sense, it has an impact

on people's lives. david: always a treat you talk to you, particularly on something as important as this decision. that is barbara perry. coming up, more coverage of the supreme court overturning that abortion ruling. this is special edition of "balance of power." ♪

david: this is "balance of power ." we are continuing our special coverage of the supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade and we are joined by tina davis. welcome back. we have heard from president biden, we interviewed senator smith, tina smith from minnesota about congressional statute.

people don't think that it's going to happen with this congress. what else could happen? what is the next shoe to drop for those trying to preserve some right to an abortion? tina: aside from federal options, this battle now moves to the states. we have seen the aclu and planned parenthood talking about lawsuits, i believe one is filed in michigan, they are talking about a lawsuit in ohio. they are challenging any laws that may ban abortion as a result of this ruling. when the supreme court issues these things, they have to also issue the judgments, that paperwork sometimes takes a while. they are trying to take advantage of the lag time between this opinion and when it gets codified into statute to basically say we want to make sure individual states still have this power. some states like new york are moving to put this in the constitution and other efforts. in michigan, we have seen an

attorney general who has been clear that she is not going to go forward with the laws on the books that would was her to make abortion illegal. david: which may lead to further division between the so-called red and blue states. tina: even more than that, you see in the louisiana which has been vocal about their trigger laws that come into effect, the disc at of new orleans has said he is not going to enforce that law in the city. it is not only a red versus blue state, it could be in terms of whether or not a law enforcement agencies are going to move forward. david: we have some possible workarounds at the state level in terms of governments, but we are getting the private sector reacting. a number of companies have said what they are going to do. tina: we have had a few companies that have responded. there have been companies when the texas law came into effect, we saw companies that were vocal, uber and citibank said we

are going to offer our employees the ability with support and money that they need to travel out of state for this health care. today, we had jp morgan saying that, we had cbs and a few other companies that are saying it is in our best interest to make sure that our employees have access to all the health care they need and they are looking to out any iniquities. david: that leaves out people who are not fortunate enough to work at j.p. morgan or i think meta, disney said something as well. tina: it is going to be the larger companies that can afford to take on this extra amount of cost. in an era like we have now ready on employment is so low and there is such a battle for the workforce, this might be another thing you could use to make yourself attractive to workers. david: thank you for your work on this today, which is not finished. coming up, we are going to talk with a professor of constitutional law at harvard law school and consider one of

the nation's leading constitutional scholars. this is a special edition of "balance of power." ♪ at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will help you create a comprehensive wealth plan for your full financial picture. with the right balance of risk and reward. so you can enjoy more of...this. this is the planning effect.

♪ david: this is a special edition of "balance of power" on bloomberg television and on radio. i am david westin. nice time to get a look at the markets. >> the s&p 500 is here session highs, up two point 4%. the tech-heavy nasdaq is up almost an equal amount. in the s&p 500 is up 6%, the best week since the end of may. the big question is what i