♪ 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 is

behind a verily. i would argue it is the fact that investors are digesting the fomc decision from last, this goldilocks tightening. this balance between inflation and a recession along with data, the fact that the data isn't too strong, but it is not too bad either. so i bit of a goldilocks scenario here. is it a bear market rally or the start of abounds? i will stick with the bear market rally, but i feel like this one could be pretty convincing it may, not just be a week or two, it could be longer. david: you did say that. thank you so much, abigail doolittle for that report on the markets. i want to continue on the supreme court decision that came out today. we have joe matthews, washington correspondent and host on bloomberg radio. bring us up-to-date on the demonstration or the gathering of there. what are you seeing? joe: the crowd was a little bigger after the ruling

was awe saw lines of people streaming to capitol hill and the supreme court behind me but those who remain are very vocal. there were signs i couldn't read on the air, this being a family program, there are also chants that are familiar, "no justice, no peace." we have heard music and songs being sung. there have been both pro-choice and pro-life activists who have gathered, hundreds and even thousands at various points of the day. and of course, that brings up the issue of security. capitol police are between the supreme court and the u.s. capitol. we know that the justices are being protected at their homes as well. last week the president signed into law legislation that gives justices' families the opportunity to enter the same protection if the marshal of the supreme court suggests it and that is what we have seen, since the attempts on justin cavanaugh's life in maryland.

so things have been, i will not use the word column, but certainly secure. david: a one to show you a curveball. as you were talking, we got word that the house has passed the bipartisan gun safety bill, and it is headed to the president's desk. there is so much news coming out of washington right now. not a big surprise, but it is a big development. joe: that's true. the senate got this done very quickly. the vote last night past on the bipartisan level and it is widely expected that the house would follow. this ruling is significant. this legislation is significant over the last 30 years of history. there have been a number of attempts during mass shootings in this country, but never until we have seen this following the shootings in uvalde and buffalo have we seen this come together into bipartisan support that got to the floor and passed. the republican from texas, john

cornyn, and the minority leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, signed off on these talks and they got together with democrats to pass red flag allows an expanded background checks for people under 21, the president expected to sign that. david: a whole lot of history being made in washington right now. thank you so much to joe mathieu. we want to turn back to the decision from the supreme court and bring in one of the true constitutional law experts of this generation. lawrence tribe is a leading constitutional scholar from harvard, and who has argued cases before the supreme court in his career. professor tribe, thank you for being with us. let me start with one of the more important questions. a lot of people who disagree with this decision say that it is not principled. is it unprincipled? professor tribe: it strikes me as profoundly unprincipled,

because the supreme court has long said that decisions of great durability on the basis of which people have reshaped their lives, should not be overruled in the absence of some extraordinary change, other than the near personnel of the court. nothing has happened other than essentially the trump packing of the court, the addition of three justices select better donald trump. nothing has changed since roe v. wade to justify suddenly and for the first time in the court's history, taking away a fundamental, personal rights. i say it is unprincipled, and i think i would feel that way even if i were strongly pro-choice, because this decision does not simply overturn the right to abortion, it overturns people's

control over their own bodies. in the casey decision in 1992, in the very much overlooked passage, the court said that if we tell women that we can force them to remain pregnant, then it follows that we might be able to force some women to have abortions. if, for example, for eugenic reasons, we think the babies to whom they will give birth are not going to live very long, or they will live severely crippled lives, or if we think they made an unwise decision in becoming pregnant at a very young age and their parents want them to abort, we could force abortions on them. . i wrote an article in the "atlantic" a few minutes ago saying, don't be mistaken, don't think that just because you may be pro-choice or antiabortion, that this decision is definitely

going to protect your freedom. this decision takes power away from people over their own bodies and lives and intimate choices and gives that power to government. that's the basic things it does. the principle of anti-tyrannical constitution, that principle is one being shaken by the supreme court, without any real justification. that is why i let unprincipled. david: if i could ask it this way, what went wrong? roe v. wade has been on the x now for 50 years. -- has been on the books for 50 years now. i daresay, the country came toward the decision, even if it was not there at the beginning. the country did not come toward this decision, we seem activated today as we were then. what went wrong?

prof. tribe: democrats were not as effective at the political game as the republicans were. they have played long game, half a century long, gradually putting on the courts people who work committed to a certain view on particular substantive issues -- guns, abortions, school prayer, in number of substantive issues. gradually they did it. those of us who kept telling democrats in portland party, you have to put more emphasis on -- you know one party, you have to put more emphasis on people who share your constitutional values and will not confirm justices to the supreme court who have a completely different view of the constitution, well, they did not listen. we did not work as hard as the other side did. it is a cliche. elections have consequences, but they do. it was the election of 2016 more than anything else that had this consequence. when trump was elected, he told

everybody he was going to put justices on the court who he was confident would vote to overturn the roe v. wade. he did exactly that. it was the election of donald trump that did this. we could go back and find other causes, but this is a direct little consequence. a consequence that represents the tyranny of the minority, because it is the minority of the people who elected donald trump, the justices who made this difference, the three were all confirmed by a group of senators who were elected by majority of the american people. the maldistribution of votes in the senate is a consequence of a shift, not a shift in understanding of a sick rights or anything of the sort. david: you are a scholar, but he

also spent your career as a strategy of the supreme court, planning arguments and doing oral arguments. we have the current opinion from justice thomas talking about substantive due process rights going beyond abortion, involving things like contraception and same-sex marriage. if you are planning the defense of those, despite the way that this decision came out, what would you do? prof. tribe: well, i would perhaps consider different career. [laughter] but being serious, i think we have to make vertical changes. . i don't think there is any path in the current court. i think thomas was admirably candid, more so than justice alito. justice alito pretends that the other rights like the right to contraception, the right to same-sex marriage, the right to personal intimacy and in the privacy of your own home, he pretends that they are not on the chopping block.

well, they are, and thomas made it explicit, he is basically inviting challenges. the court cannot prevent the elimination of a fundamental pillar of its jurisprudence from having followed consequences. and those followed consequences are very serious and they can be changed at the ballot box. if we get a congress and the senate that is willing, for example, to consider expanding the court by adding four seats, that is a possibility. short of that, congress could pass, if we had a different senate, congress could pass a national codification of the right of personal reproductive choice. the house has already passed such a bill. the cursor that would not even consider debating it. but if we are serious, as the president just said a few minutes ago, that roe is on the ballot this september, that is where i would put my energy.

david: finally, professor, you have a real respect for the institution of the supreme court, as did i. what does this do to the institution itself? we talked about stare decisis, not just because we want people to stay with what you have said in the past, but as i understand it, it is this power of this nonelected branch of the government. are we essentially undergoing stare decisis with this decision? prof. tribe: without any doubt. the justices talk a good game when they say "we believe in power of the president." but when push comes to shove and when the rubber hits the road, the president takes the hind most. the latest poll which showed the court's respect as an institution has fallen to 25%, the lowest in american history, i bet you after today will be dropping to 15%. that is a shame.

although the court throughout the course about history has had more power than i think is appropriate for anybody to have, and apart from the brief period of the warren court, the court has not protected voting rights of minorities in the way that the myth would have it, nonetheless, it is important to have in a situation that can stand up against tyranny in the way this court can. win that is tradition itself loses respect because it is so honestly being driven by a change in personnel, than i think the country is in danger. and that danger is compounded by the kind of danger we saw in the nearly successful coup and the insurrection of january 6. so the country is at the cliffs and with all of its institutions -- the cliff's edge, with all of its institutions. david: such a treat to have you with us, laurence tribe professor of constitutional law at harvard. coming up, douglas high, former

communications director of the rnc, will weigh in on this decision. this is a special edition of "balance of power" on bloomberg television and on radio. ♪

david: this is a special edition of "balance of power" on bloomberg television and on radio. i am david westin. we have special coverage of that supreme court decision today. it has a lot of implications for the economy, for women and for politics. we welcome doug heye.

he also served as deputy chief of staff for eric cantor alongside being the former communications director of the republican national committee. we heard earlier from kevin mccarthy, the current minority leader of the house. he seems to think this is good. what do you think? douglas: for most republicans it means developing on -- delivering on that promise that was long-held. i would not have told you when going through the process in 2005 and 2006 that that was what we would experience so many years later. this is a culmination for republicans on what they have competed on. if we do political winners and losers, after two weeks of donald trump frankly getting his head kicked in by the january 6 committee, he is now able to go to his base and say, i delivered for you.

that will be big for him if he decides whether to run or not. it has cemented his legacy. david: will it make a difference in the midterms? doug: it will, in some ways. but be aware of people saying that whatever happens in politics is great news for their side. it is wishful thinking. what we know is that this is going to be an important issue to a lot of voters. we don't know how much it ranks on the issues of what they are looking at. when we talk about moving from banning abortion in theory, to in practice, what does that mean four months from now as people are still paying crazy bills for gas, food, everything they are spending money on, and where do they rank those issues. so i would look at specific races where you could have an impact, starting in missouri with the senate primary. eric schmitt the attorney general in missouri has already put out a picture of him signing the trigger laws.

so he is basically saying, you might have gotten the endorsement, but i am getting things done, to his opponent. i would look at governors races as well, pennsylvania and georgia being a good example. in the pennsylvania senate race, john fetterman was out with a statement immediately. david: one of the consumptive like this happens is -- one of the questions i have one something this dramatic happens is, what are the chance of us overplaying it? republicans going too far and pushing away suburban women, or on the other hand, democrats going too far and in unity, say, the latino population -- and alienating, say, the latino population? doug: mitch mcconnell was so keen on getting the gun deal done. he had said, we have a problem with suburban voters. this is the way we can address it. . but clearly there will be a lot of money raised on this, a lot of voter enthusiasm that is impacted by this. what we don't know is democrats

will be more excited, republicans will be more excited, at least some, and what impact that has. as these laws are being enacted state after state, there is a real risk of political backlash, especially as we are talking about things like that obergefell decision and griswold, were issues of privacy could be further drawn into this. david: thank you so much, doug always a treat to have you with us. republican strategist and former rnc communications director. coming up, more coverage of that supreme court decision. this is a special edition of "balance of power" on bloomberg television and on radio. ♪

another crazy day? of course—you're a cio in 2022. but you're ready. because you've got the next generation in global secure networking from comcast business. with fully integrated security solutions all in one place. so you're covered. on-premise and in the cloud. you can run things the way you want —your team, ours or a mix of both. with the nation's largest ip network. from the most innovative company. bring on today with comcast business. powering possibilities.™ david: this is a special edition of "balance of power" on bloomberg television and on radio. i am david westin.

we are just wrapping up two hours of coverage of the supreme court decision this morning at 10:00 eastern time, overturning roe v. wade. we go once again to our washington correspondent of the supreme court, joe mathieu. he is the host of "sound on." tell us what is going on right now and the supreme court. joe: it is getting pretty loud again, i have to admit. we saw a bit of a know in the crowd after they had been demonstrating for the better part of a couple of hours. alexandria ocasio-cortez showed up, she was here to rally pro-choice supporters a short time ago and people really keyed off of that. as that was happening, a couple more busloads of capitol police showed up. to the side, there is a group of them, all wearing reflector vests. looks like there are almost as many police as protesters. they are staying after the side,

presumably in case any aggressive activity breaks out. there are police as well scattered throughout the crowd. we have a very large number of officers off to the side, on the lawn between the supreme court and the u.s. capitol. this could be a long day, we have no idea how long protesters will be there, reminding that hundreds were there even before the ruling was announced this morning at 10:10 a.m. david: have you seen any arrests? the pictures we are seeing right now look really peaceful. joe: it has been peaceful. it's important to note that. things get loud, there has been screaming and crying and laughing and singing, but people have responded to the police fairly well. anytime you have seen a police officer to take someone off ranch, tell them to calm down, they have been accommodating, and hopefully it stays that way. there are concerns about what happens after nightfall, and i suspect that is where police are starting to gather here.

david: we have had a lot of drama today, and you have covered it magnificently, i should say. and you have a long way to go, with a lot of follow-up in the next days or weeks or months. there is one story out there that we don't know the ended to, the investigation of the leaked. turned out the leaked opinion was right. joe: that is correct, and it is still unknown if it was from a clerk from a liberal or conservative justice. the court has been remarkably tight about this inquired about this, keeping leaks from getting to the mainstream media. david, you spent time in this organization, this is a very tightly knit group. after the leak, they circled the wagons and they are trying to take care of this with the direction of the marshall of their own. at some point the chief justice will tell us what they found. but as justices in many cases hunkered down in their homes with their families, with federal protection, there is a very important investigation happening inside that building.

david: i cannot thank you enough for your great work these last two hours. bloomberg's joe mathieu host on "sound on." you want to listen at 5:00 p.m. this afternoon. and this is special edition of "balance of power" on bloomberg television and on radio. ♪

announcer: the most crucial moments in the trading day. this is "bloomberg markets: the close." with caroline hyde, romaine bostick, and taylor riggs. taylor: it is 2 p.m. in new york, 7:00 p.m. and london. we want to get right to the top story. the u.s. supreme court overturning roe v. wade.