before january 20, 2022 and 4 competition rules, or just having to start a visitor website at student cam .org. >> joining us this morning correspondent with an ancient magazine, here to talk about justices and course and the other justice department issues. and let's begin with the supreme court and the decisions they made it to hear the arguments in the texas abortion case rated when they actually decide and what will they be ruling on. >> and unconstitutional of women's rights to go forward until they can finally get around to making a decision on the merit in the import and they started and challenge against them on november 1st but that is just oral argument and of the law like

reverting the law back to what the constitutional requires and to be, while they wait for this argument the supreme court has allowed texas unconstitutional bounty hunting team to go forward until they hear the case. no. in november but on december 1st, the hearing a whole different challenge and coming out of mississippi and i don't know what they will do there were certainly a big chance that they will decide those cases together sometime in june in texas law will at least be legal until then and i believe that way and we can talk aboutt this later but i think that procedurally, is likely between texas and that at the same time next pretty. >> one of the deciding pretty. >> i think there are two different kinds of problems, one is the frontal attacks on a

woman's right to choose that is coming out of this directly asking the supreme court over in mississippi which i believe is 15 week abortion man more traditional in the bounty hunters that would also be. [inaudible]. and i believe the court is trying to do this i believe the reasons why the republicans have tried to stab and attack the court for the past 30 years is against the deficit to overturn this family they have to do it but i don't think they're going to say that we don't - that would make people angry rated they will simply accept the mississippi 15 week abortion man as some a kind of mumbo-jumbo reimagining the planned parenthn rights and things going on, that i do think will eventually get around stopping is this bounty hunter business and you can't

violate the constitution by private citizens to do the work for you and so even though i think they agree with with what texas is trying to do in terms of violating at the constitution, i don't think the agree with how they're trying to get around the constitution so i think that eventually, whether it is november or december or june are at some point and you know the near future, i think eventually is as good as we will get around to solving the bounty hunter system because if that can go forward, and it's hard to have a system of laws where that is the thing that we can do. >> look at the private citizen do. >> will they say they don't like the second amendment very much

so if i'm a blue say nice that you you know what, i cannot as a citizen do this regulation or whatever but anyte private citin that just wants to sue anybody who is a firearm for $10000, go right ahead any private citizen that wants to - every time there's a school shooting go-ahead, that isng the thing le you could not do that it would be a violation of law and constitutional standard and specifically to constitutional standard so if you can think about it in the second amendment and also in the for the mimic case, the state laws violated, i would just say that the bounty hunter could do it in your dog so you kind of cannot have a society that way. so deputizing the private citizens to enforce the

unconstitutional rule, i think that eventually will have to go away even if overall, it does eventually overturned it or significantly weaken it to the point where the basically non- existent in red states that wanted to get away. >> they said the kimberly short, the texas right to life and she said thatt this is a great development for the pro life movement because the law will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day and because the justices will actually discuss whether they are valid in the first place in your reaction to saving babies pretty. >> is out of there doing on their controlling women and forcing women and some of them are victims of recent and rape and incest enforcing, againstfo the will to carry a person to term and that is not saving a baby, that is barbaric if you ask me.

so i don't agree with how she is inflaming the debate here and again, we have a law on the books we have a constitutional standards on the books and were supposed to try to address this the reason why they draw this line and fetal viability is because legally, that is the only place they can draw the line. at the point where the fetus can live outside of the mother can live without her mother's generosity, okay, at that point you have a legitimate or you can argue the ever legitimate interest in health and safety and future of that fetus. but before hand, before, when the fetus is attached to the mother and cannot be anything from cannot survive without the mother nutrients and bloodstream, whatever, like that has to be an internal bodily

choice for the woman anything less, is non- sensible is a legal proposition. that start from the premise that women are people in the right to their own body has to be one of the very most fundamental people price that we have. >> one of the key cases that you're watching the term in court. sue met in june you have more rights if you on the gun any food on the wolf because the other think theth supreme courts doing is that magically pretty recalibrating unintended gun rights. and currently there's a case and versus near saint hand they're basically trying to me so that gun licensing is unconstitutional, and a one constitutional the second amendment that they kind of just made up and now protecting the

right to bear arms but also for self-defense, which is not what it says and now they're going to say that because they have the right to bear arms for self-defense, it will be gun licensing and permitting for concealed weapon like you can. outside ofou the house and thats also unconstitutional in the new move in there five or six votes on spring part to do it so that is a huge case coming down and also decided in june and cases also vegas term where if you remember, at the end of trump term, they kind of went on a killing spree, read they said they kind of were looking at the death penalty issue and the biden administration is, even though biden had allegedly anti- death penalty, is continuing the procedural posture of killing various people and in that case,

has been heard already were waiting on a decision for that. if they didn't steal a seat for nothing, they didn't rush to fill a seat after the election for nothing. there is a reason why they put these justices on the court and allowed to do that now. we are not living up at a time of competence in this term will be one of those consequences and having conservatives control the supreme court and were going to get more death and depth and mark and rights and fewer laws. >> present biden supreme court commission created this to look at possible changes to the supreme court and you say the final reports, and using this commission is designed to fail, why. >> everything adjusted by the way, in its complete waste of

time, and alright yes that's what we wanted what we voted for everything i just said, but the democrats are saying no, that is not the voted for me how to resolve this the only way to stop that is to reform the court the only way to stop everything that is just that is to engage in supreme court reform and biden instead of taking that energy and taking those ideas, and kind of rolling with it, he said that off to a commission deny and effectively kill any moment, and hope of really changing the way the supreme court works while biden is the president. the commission it was stacked with law professors and advocates which are great people. i voted for some of them, they are really smart people but they are law professors and advocates a butte entered the go in of the supreme court to argue for their clients and these are not the best person. they have to have arguments on thursday, not the guy that you want the money to be like maybe

he should not have so much power like that's not how it works so the commission had no court reformers on the invites commission had no court performers on it, and it tells you that commission was all about. and their draft report is global gunkin the designed to advocater inspire or designed to make recommendations and think about it thisit way. the supreme court isin only cout in the country that operates without the school, there is no code ethics the supreme court justices are required to follow. his low hanging fruit on the reform tree and having the ethics requirements so that i don't know, the man who are accused of sexual harassment should not be in charge or

should have recused himself when women's rights issues, front of them, that could be a reform an incentive looking at ethics reform the supreme court did even ask or study it so again this reform of the commission was designed, they should do nothing to give biden cover for doing nothing and then they've done their job very well. >> executive order in april 180 days to dispenser the legalities of the perform in front proposals but expanding the number of justices and 36 legals callers and former bipartisan just as of more than 17 hours of discussion as we stand on the report is due next month. let me get to the skull, cindy illinois republican. >> good morning, on the make a comment and then alaska question i had an abortion, in my 20s

in africa my 20s, i am 67 now and i plate entered pray every day ofd my life for the lord to forgive me for what they've done. now i want him to tell me if this is true or not. in the past in 1973, believe that my government i realized they have done is they have printed into the constitution so i've paper in hand for a cat now, tell me where is in the constitution or any papers gives a woman the right to kill an unborn human being and i will write it down i will look it up. >> so brought document that were talking about a woman having rights of the first place, look for an abortion right is the fourth minute which is the government cannot legally search your and i would cat your woman as your stuff so the government should not have opportunity to

see that musicei for their own benefit just to bear the interest of a child that is number one and i would argue on the 14th amendment said there's an equal protection clause inan it now and women hae to be treated equally to men has complete control of their reproductive systems are the whole nine month period, like at the woman have complete reproductive control over system over the entire nine months pretty so i would look at the 14th minute and in the place the right to privacy in the constitution specifically say there is a right to privacy, not the weekend and furthers right to privacy from all of the other which do not make sense without a privacy right then you have the ninth amendment which is saying that not all the amendments listed are the only authority and rights you have and specifically contemplates amendments not written rated but of all of those, are just the classic arguments, but of all of those do not work, that would offer you this 13th minute

which said very clearly, that involuntary labor cannot be forced by the government and if you want to tell me, that a person who is pregnant can be forced against her will, to do the labor, for free, i'm going to tell you that is a point-and-click violation of the 13th amendment. fourteen, nine, 1413. >> the justices pointed to the right to privacy and it came out of articulated in the right to birth control, never forget the attack on abortion rights in the past and the birth control rights are the same tax that is coming after that constitutional underpinning and the right to privacy to articulate in griswold connecticut, the contraception case printed they said because off all of these other rights, that would not make sense and there must be a

right to privacy in the constitution. and then, and this is important, then the state still has a legitimate interest and without interest it cannot attach until the fetus is viable and until we get 24 weeks and their people, it's on demand, that is not the legal landscape that we all deal with and what we have is before viability, we treat w the womans a full person. after fetal viability we allow after the fetus can survive without the mother, into how that fetus moves honor goes on and can be extracted from the mother have some kind of a chance of survival and then we have - that is when he reset and he decided. when you remove the line from

the fetal viability to anytime before that, and state of mississippi to six weeks so, you are monkey might not not have to say that you are obliterating it but you are the legal line we've drawn in this country with fetal and fetal viability then you're just getting into my morals versus your morals. we can't have a society freighted and if the law is simply a contest of whose morality winds, we can never find peace and if keep the law and scientific way, fetal viability, then we can move forward. >> indiana and indianapolis, paul, independent. >> i'm a long time follower of dorothy day so i tend to agree with the nation on a lot of social justice issues but am

afraid that i had to part company here on the abortion issue. they decided on the humanlike on the justices admitted like all medical schools in the united states have spent 40 years looking at this, admit that human life actually begins at conception and what they said was, that the fetus is not a person that the mothers did not- have rights the mother was required to observe. in other words, there's really no well if a fetus is not a person until actually separated from the mother, then there shouldn't be any limitations on abortion it and if the only thing is the state interest is in keeping enough citizens so the supreme court did not recognize the fetus as a person of the point. so i really, like i say, my sister worked in a neonatal

hospital for 30 years and all of her professors told her that human life begins at conception. the supreme court said personhood is not attached but that the decision it said that at any time chose to change that, and say that if fetus was in fact a person, and those rights are all rights would attach at conception. >> will first of all paul, i would encourage you to not have an abortiondm like don't leave then turn believe if it's not moral, don't have a than rated and number two, all right, let's talk fetal, he said that fetus s not considered person the rights to the fetus and he wants to change the law from viability to conception well okay, will think that through.

if the fetus is a person at conception, are they in citizen at conception, does everybody conceive in the united states as a citizen, or are they in this incident and they have the right to healthcare, one person rights are we giving them at conception because here is the brass tacks, the people who scream the loudest about fetal personhood and the rights at conception, the people who do not want to give rights to more like children that we have in this country and these are the same people who will call it an anchor baby. when a migrant person has a child in the united states and what it looks like an open, then we should have two-tiered three tiered citizen ship process from the same people if you believe that a fetus is a person at conception, and charlie you must believe in some kind of universal healthcare in some kind of universal and has the

best chance of starting life,ar and surely you must believe in mandatory maternal leave for all nine months pretty now the woman is doing all of the hard work of making this person that you believe and became real at conception rated as you go down that thought process, there are an entire rights that we give rated this a fetus at conception get a security guard paul, think it through and what you will find is that the people who are most willing to make this argument are the least willing to extend the rights and compassion to actual children who are live in this country. >> cspan is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more

including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with thousand community centers to create wi-fi enabled for low-income families and students get the information they need to be ready for anything and comcast support cspan as a public service along with these other television providers giving a front row seat to democracy. ... ...

challenging a part of the law that gives the public part of the ability to enforce it without federal court review. in united states versus texas, whether it justice department has the right to block the law or not. more on c-span2, live or on-demand, listen on c-span radio or on the mobile app. >> download the new mobile app, said today that the biggest events of the day from lifestream to the house and the senate floor and key congressional hearings. even where we hear your voices every day. we have you covered. download it for free today. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> how will the