community centers to create wi-fi enabled spaces so low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for everything. >> comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." a leaked opinion from the supreme court indicates the justices may be ready to overturn the roe v. wade decision that allows abortions nationwide. this decision, which will not be filed until the summer, is dominating the news talk and causing protests both here in washington and around the nation. the supreme court has been the flashpoint on many decisions, bush v gore, obamacare, marriage rights, but this feels different

to some people. now and you know right now our question this morning is, what is your level of confidence in the supreme court? if you are very confident in the nation's highest court, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you are somewhat confident in the supreme court, your number is (202)-748-8001. if you are not confident at all in our nine justices, your number is (202)-748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)-748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, on twitter @cspanwj and on instagram @ cspanwj. this will not be final until the

supreme court releases it at the end of its term. it has been dominating talk but the question we have this morning, how confident are you in the institution of the supreme court? does this leaked opinion change your opinion about the supreme court? these questions have been dominating the news around the united states and bringing up the question we asked. here is an opinion from the national review who talks about confidence in the supreme court. in our government, the role of the supreme court is to determine whether a given law violates the u.s. constitution. we as citizens are going to see supreme court decisions we agree with and decisions we disagree with, sometimes strongly. but we all agree to abide by those decisions. a person's perspective on supremacy, the notion they get the final say and cannot be altered without a constitutional

amendment or subsequent decision overruling them, often depends on how they feel about the court's decisions. but our acceptance of the court's authority is not supposed to flip on and off like a light switch based on how we feel about the justices or the president who appointed them. that was the opinion from the national review's jim geraghty. let's go to another. she wrote, who ever cared to leak the opinion cared about the political implications of the impending decision. it is one of the most brazenly political acts to ever come out of the court. it is perhaps the most emphatic confirmation there are simply no rules left at an institution that is supposed to be the one making the rules. instead, unprecedented public scrutiny toward its absence of

binding rules the same supreme court the blames journalists for syncing polling numbers and refuses to be bound by ethics rules, wants you to know it does not answer the politics, but surely produces politics. that is from slight's dahlia lithwick. we want to know, are you confident in the supreme court? there is a poll that came out from gallup that actually talks directly about how americans feel about the supreme court. the question that is asked is, do you approve or disapprove of the way the supreme court is handling its job? here is that poll. 53% of americans disapprove of the way the supreme court is handling its job and 40% of americans approve of the way the

supreme court was handling its job. that is from the gallup poll. i want to bring one more poll to you and that is the morning consult tracking poll on the supreme court and bring to you what it says. it says 14% of americans have a lot of confidence in the supreme court. 44% of americans strongly or somewhat favor expanding the supreme court by adding justices. 67% of americans strongly or somewhat favor term limits, saying justices can only stay on the supreme court for a limited amount of time. and 74%, almost three out of four americans, say they support the supreme court having a mandatory code of ethics instead of deciding for themselves what ethics they have. 63% said they favor age limits, you have to leave the supreme

court after reaching a certain age. and finally, 59% favor having an equal number of democrats, independents, and republicans on the court. that is from the morning consult tracking poll on the supreme court. we want to know from you, what is your level of confidence in the supreme court? let's start with ray calling from ithaca, new york. good morning. caller: good morning and i have 100% confidence in the supreme court. that does not mean i agree with every decision they make, but their job is not to be popular, it is not to do well in polls, it is to interpret the constitution. i am one who believes in the original intent of the law. if we want to, as a country, do a constitutional amendment, that is the direction we need to go. i think they are following everything the way they should and i completely support this

decision and respect every decision the court makes. host: if they make a decision you do not like, for example, what if they decide to reverse this decision and go the opposite way and say roe should stay? would you say the same thing? caller: yes i would. i think we have to respect whatever decision they make. i think we are quick to make the judgment this is going to be the decision. i think they are going to uphold the mississippi law and roe will be upheld to 20 weeks. that is my educated guess, but i will support them no matter what decision they make. i trust them to do the best they can. we cannot be changing the court, adding members, doing term limits, we cannot change the rules. there are going to be decisions that i don't like and decisions that i do like. host: let's go to john calling

from oakland, california. good morning. caller: hey, how is it going? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i have no confidence in the court. since i was born the republicans have only won the popular vote once and they are appointing all the justices. they stole gorsuch from obama and packed it with two extreme right conservative justices and that is why roe is being overturned. host: would you say the same thing if they decided not to overturn roe? would you say the same thing, that you don't have any confidence in them if they, for example, vote the way you think they should? caller: absolutely not. that does not change the fact they stole gorsuch and appointed two extreme right -- who lied to

senator murkowski and i cannot think of the other senator -- but said they would not overturn roe v. wade and they would uphold stare decisis. host: let's go to doug. caller: they are not to be swayed by public politics. their job is to look at the law and interpret it based on the original intent of the constitution. their job is not to create law and roe created the law that is very weak and flimsy. if congress wants to pass a law that makes abortion a national

right, so be it, pass the law. otherwise, the court's job is to interpret existing law and that is it. host: let's go to ray calling from new hampshire. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i am pretty confident in the supreme court but i am worried the democrats are going to expand it because they do not get their way. it is strange the only day you cannot have 567 riots for a year is january 6. the only day you cannot riot and protested doing whatever you want, i mean, whenever they don't get their way they want to change the rules or attack somebody. they are putting fear in everyone's heart. why should mississippi follow the same laws massachusetts or new hampshire has? it is absolutely ridiculous.

be fair to both sides. they did not like it 40 years ago but they did not start attacking the police and telling them they are bad. suddenly nobody cares about the police or our institutions or the norms. thank you. host: as the caller said there are movements in congress to actually change the law. majority leader chuck schumer said next week there will be a vote in the senate that could codify roe v. wade. here is what majority leader schumer had to say. [video clip] >> all week republicans have tried to duck, dodge and dip from the responsibility of bringing roe to total repeal. this is about to change. next week, the u.s. senate is going to vote on legislation to codify a woman's right to seek an abortion into federal law. i intend to file closure on this legislation monday which would

set up a vote for wednesday. republicans will have two choices, they can own the destruction of women's rights or they can reverse course and work to prevent the damage. count me as skeptical they will do the latter. republicans have been on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of america. a poll released today from data for progress showed voters want roe to stay the law of the land by a two to to one margin. 35% of republicans believe we should keep that in place. next week's vote will be one of the most important we take natalie this session, but in this century -- not only this session, but in this century. host: you can watch that vote on c-span2 where the u.s. senate will be voting on a bill to codify a woman's right to have an abortion and to federal law.

chuck schumer will file closure on monday on the women's health protection act setting up wednesday's vote. 60 votes will be needed to advance the bill. you can see live coverage of that senate vote wednesday on c-span2. let's look at what other lawmakers are saying about the leaked supreme court decision that would overturn roe v. wade. senator michael bennett tweeted, if you asked me when i was in law school whether the supreme court would overturn roe v. wade, i would've said it was impossible. now it can happen because of this radical court. we have to fight to codify the right to choose in our national and state laws. ralph norton wrote, supreme court justices should be able to work without fear of backlash for their decisions. senator james lankford said, we do not know who leaked the scotus documents or why. the court affirmed the leaked

document is authentic but not final. the person responsible should be held accountable for their actions that will devastate trust in the court for decades to come. senator mike lee wrote, those threatening to hijack the court are the people who cannot stand the thought of a court that does not bow to political pressure to make law rather than interpret. as a former law professor you know the importance of independent judiciary. please do not threaten that. another wrote, the problem is not that the draft opinion was leaked, the problem is a right wing extremist court seeking to force women to give birth against their will. we cannot allow extremists to control the bodies of women. senator sheldon whitehouse wrote, we need two things, codify roe and control of the court. our question this morning is,

what is your level of confidence in the supreme court? let's go to ronald calling from monroe township, new jersey. caller: good morning. i feel we are losing our democracy because the senate and the courts no longer represent the majority of people. originally, this was set up to protect the minority but it was not set up to have minority rule. right now, the way things are without the two parties working together, we have basically minority rule in the country and i think this is very detrimental to our democracy. i hope we can do something about it. host: all right. let's go to bob calling from

california. good morning. caller: morning. i have every confidence that the supreme court will get rid of roe v. wade. abortion is murder. in addition, i think the u.s. should arm ukraine with rockets capable of hitting moscow and let them blow up the kremlin. gift pool nate taste of his own medicine. host: are you advocating the united states goes to war with russia? caller: i am saying we should help ukraine giving them rockets able to hit moscow. i am not saying the u.s. should launch the rockets. host: don't you think russia will know where ukraine got the rockets from? caller: of course they are going to get it from the u.s. we are not going to fire the rockets. just like we are not going to

fire the tank busters, ukraine is firing it. host: you think that will be ok with the russians, the fact the united states is giving rockets that could reach the kremlin to ukraine? they will not consider that to be an active war? caller: we are not firing the rockets so they cannot claim we are starting world war iii. on the other hand, we cannot sit by and watch young babies, we cannot watch women get slaughtered by their rockets. it is time that we stood up and did everything we can to hasten the end of the war. this will hasten the end of the war if russia realizes they are vulnerable to getting pounded as they are pounding the ukrainians. host: once again, our question this morning is about your level of confidence in the supreme court. if you are very confident in

with the supreme court is doing right now, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you are somewhat confident it what the supreme court is doing, your number is (202)-748-8001. if you are not confident at all in the supreme court and what they are doing, expressly now that you know what this leaked decision had to say, your number is (202)-748-8002. let's go to derek calling from chicago, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. i absolutely have no confidence in the supreme court. first of all, it is just too political. not only did mitch mcconnell keep obama's pick, neil gorsuch, from having a hearing he then held over 100 federal positions, court positions, from getting a

hearing also. that is why when donald trump came into office he put in so many federal judiciaries. it is just totally too political. thank you. host: let's go to john calling from hamlet, north carolina. good morning. caller: morning. i have a lot of confidence in the supreme court. i got a lot of confidence in the supreme court. i don't understand why everybody is trying to pressure the court. radical people screaming white supremacy and everything, that don't make no sense really. it is crazy. that is all they are doing, trying to lessen the courts. host: ok. texas senator john cornyn came out to the senate floor and talked about getting additional

protection for supreme court justices because of the protests in the arguments going on around this leaked decision. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the supreme court is the branch meant to operate free from public or political pressure. as chief justice roberts said at the time, justice is no criticism comes with the territory. it is a free country, people can express themselves within limits. but threatening statements, he said, from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous, he said. chief justice roberts is right. subsequent events have shown threats against the justices are not going away and are becoming even more intense. we need to take steps to improve the protection of the justices

and their family against potential violence. and it cannot wait until something bad happens. some political activists have already announced their intentions to go to the private homes of the justices. this is an appalling violation of their privacy and puts them and their families at risk. we currently have two justices with school age children. one is judge jackson -- once judge jackson joins the court, that will be three. the chief justices asked congress to take appropriate action and increase protection for the physical safety of the justices and their families, and we need to act and act with urgency. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether they have confidence in the supreme court. here is one tweet that says, if

they misrepresent themselves with roe v. wade, which they did, scotus has already lost my confidence. it proves to me that i was right in 2000 when they elected w. bush. next they will say we cannot love who we choose to. another tweet says, this is an activist court. we need more judges that follow the constitution and precedent. another says, they stop the election. what supreme court is that? another says, some of the judges need to be impeached. imagine if they were going after the second amendment. let's not talk about judges being attacked after what republicans did january 6 and to many other democrats. we want to know what is your level of confidence in the supreme court now that you have seen this leaked decision coming out later this year?

william is calling from memphis, tennessee. good morning. caller: i have confidence in the court somewhat i guess. but i am personally pro-choice. but this law has been in existence all these years and i don't think a few -- i am baptist -- but i don't think a few catholics are sitting around complaining and gloating against that. look at how that court is backed up? i have confidence in their smartness, they are very smart people, but i think a lady should have a choice to decide what she wants to do with her body. and i just do not think all these things are right. host: william, are you basing your opinion solely on this one

leaked decision? the supreme court has a lot of cases it has to deal with. are you confident in their decision-making on other cases as well? caller: i will be honest, i am not. host: why not? caller: the court is stacked. there ought to be a mix of, whatever you call them, radical and unradical and all that. and then they take all these split decisions in one-page things. why not put the opinions on paper? that is what i am frightened about, the future of this court. and i think they are bending toward republican and i am republican but i think it should be balanced. i do not think the court is balanced. look at this abortion stuff. that law has been around a long time.

i think a woman should do what she needs to do based upon her social circumstances. i think if a woman is raped, they ought to get after the rapist and not kurt tale the female's right to abort the baby. i am pro-choice. host: dave is calling from greenville, tennessee. caller: good morning to you. i am torn between what the supreme court has done in the past several years. i mean, they passed obamacare and then they came out with gay marriage without ruling of law. they say it was law but it was never passed in congress. they would not look at election fraud last time. they had no standing which is

preposterous in my eyes. america was founded because they wanted government without a king and religion without a pope. we now have a supreme court that is predominantly catholic, congress is predominantly catholic, the president is catholic. and if a pregnant woman dies, there are two deaths recorded. but abortion says the unborn are not alive. i think there is a real mix of messages here. i think we are missing the boat on a lot of situations. host: what should be done? should we sit back and let the court make these rulings and accept them? what should and what could be done? caller: well, our court -- our court has some issues. i think one modification that would make a big change is the fact that we need age and wisdom

on the court, we need that, but we don't need people who don't really get it anymore. we have got to have the ability to tweak an state cognitively aware -- and stay cognitively aware of what is going on. you say if a pregnant woman dies there are two deaths, and you turn around and say that unborn child is not alive, that does not hold water. that does not work. host: let's go to scott calling from mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning. i do have confidence in the supreme court. host: do you think there needs to be any changes in the way the

supreme court does its business or the way it is made up? caller: no. it was set to protect our constitution and i think they do a fine job. host: do you agree with the decision, this leaked decision that came out from the supreme court? caller: i do not agree with the leak. they are going to find out that was a different move to take attention off of everything else going on. host: you think one of the justices that was appointed by a democratic president leaked the decision? caller: no, i think they had it done by one of their clerks. host: for what reason? caller: to take attention off other political things we need to be concerned with. host: like what? caller: like the upcoming election. they are doing everything they can to pull votes.

host: when you say "pull votes" what do you mean? caller: pull votes to the democratic side. there are people on both sides that disagree and agree with abortion. abortion is murder. host: if they leaked it for that reason, wouldn't it have had the same effect when they released the decision in july? caller: possibly yes, but we should leave that up to the voters. host: ok. harold calling from mount pleasant, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. do you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: basically, i pretty much agree with the supreme court. i agree with some of your

callers which states it is not a popularity contest. they have to make decisions sometimes that are unpopular. one of the most unpopular decisions they made was during the jackson administration when they went against the removal act. jackson had to remove the native americans west of the mississippi which violated treaties and yet, they still remove them and told the supreme court if they are going to make that law, they better be able to enforce it. which was a tragedy for hundreds of thousands of native people who died on the trail of tears. popularity is not an issue with the supreme court. i think making the right decisions and doing the right things as far as looking at these cases, they look at evidence we do not see. they look at things in depth. they look at the continuity over the past in respect of the

constitution and that is the job. host: but one of the things we have seen, especially looking at the leaked decision, is that the supreme court changes its mind. sometimes they go back and say, you know that thing we said 50 years ago? it is completely wrong. caller: yes, you are absolutely right. the supreme court is made of human beings and human beings do have decisions which they bring into the court and which cause them to change their mind. i am totally against the leaked decision. i am not sure -- i am not sure if that was a stronghold before they heard the case? i am not sure. host: definitely not a straw vote. they vote on the cases almost immediately after they hear them. the final vote has already been taken. caller: ok. like i said, they hear points of

law and they hear lots of testimony we are not privy to. nobody sits down and listens to the whole thing the supreme court -- a good thing might be to have pbs or something tell them some of these things on these critical issues so the public is aware of what they are deciding what information they are looking at. host: you can actually get a transcript of what the arguments were in front of the supreme court and get audiotapes where you can actually hear the arguments in front of the supreme court. some of those you can find on our website, c-span.org. if you are looking for what the arguments were, you can find those there. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky came out to the senate floor to talk about the supreme court leak and

how it affects the institution of the supreme court. here is what mitch mcconnell had to say. [video clip] >> for years the radical left has attacked the institution of the supreme court. last night, it appears their campaign hit a new low. the justices, clerks and staff have protected the court's confidentiality. justices must be able to discuss and deliberate in an environment of total trust and privacy. americans cannot receive a fair trial if politicians, pundits, bullies and mobs are going to stay in court. judicial independence is vital. but the far left has spent years shamelessly attacking it. democrats in congress have endorsed plans for partisan

court packing, they sent the justices threatening legal briefs, and scheduled sham hearings to smear judges. in 2020, the senate democratic leader marched across the street to the court and shouted threats, threats, at multiple justices by name if they did not rule how he wanted. in 2018, activists literally chased senators around the capitol. and last night a shocking, shocking new breach. somebody, likely somebody inside the court itself, leaked a confidential internal draft to the press, almost certainly in an effort to stir up an

inappropriate pressure campaign to sway the outcome. the radical left immediately rallied around the toxic stunt, the cheerleaders for partisan court packing applauded and what they said was, "a brave clerk." making a last-ditch, hail mary attempt to cause the court to reconsider. liberals want to rip the blindfold off lady justice. they want to override impartiality with intimidation. they want to elevate mob rule over the rule of law. host: once again, we want to know what your level of confidence is in the supreme court knowing what you know today. are you very confident? somewhat confident? are you not confident?

if you are very confident in the work of the nation's highest court, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you are somewhat confident in the work of the supreme court, your number is (202)-748-8001. if you are not confident in the supreme court, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8002. keep in mind, you can text is your opinion at (202)-748-8003. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to bill calling from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. not confident at all in what the court has been doing and not just with the latest abortion supposedly ruling stunt. it goes to voter rights, it goes to corporations with dark money, it goes to a host of problems. this court is out of step.

for john cornyn, the good senator from texas to talk about the invasion of personal privacy and be in favor of invading a woman's personal privacy, is absolutely -- it is unreal with these guys do. and for mitch mcconnell to be talking about how democrats want to pack the court while he has been packing the court, all of these so-called conservative justices and there is nothing conservative about these guys. all came from the same place. they have all been hand selected by an organization that should not be involved in this, really should not be involved. it is awful. host: would you still have your degree of not confidence in the supreme court if this roe v. wade decision changes before they come out and they decide not to overturn roe v. wade? would your opinion stay the same? caller: probably not. it would not change.

there are just too many other things this court is meddling in. completely out of step with voter rights, completely out of step with corporations, dark money, where this is going, completely out of step. it has already been packed, that is what people don't understand, it is already packed and that is a problem. host: let's go to joe calling from bedford, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, people don't talk about the fact times have changed and so has technology. you know, so many forms of birth control are available that are able to get at gas stations, stores, club, bar. they say my body, my choice, well, use protection. i don't want my car to get stolen so i put an alarm in a kill switch on it.

murder is murder. there is no excuse for all of this. it is all about big business, big money. these abortion clinics get rich off other people's stupidity and kids should not be killed when their only crime is having parents that were too lazy or too stupid to use readily available birth controls available. this is long overdue. i am a decrepit old man and i identify as a cute little schoolgirl. i am not fooling anybody. kids should not know about stuff at that age but thanks to the crooked, corrupt democrats pushing their garbage on everybody little boys think they are little girls, little girls think they are little boys and some don't know what they are. host: would you have the same amount of confidence in the supreme court if you find out the leak was completely wrong and the court is deciding to

uphold roe v. wade? caller: yes, either way i would go. i am against murdering innocent children because of apparent's laziness or stupidity -- because of a parent's laziness or stupidity. there are many forms of birth control available so there is no excuse for all of this. host: andrew is calling from houston, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: i am calling on the somewhat confident line because with regards to other cases separate from this roe v. wade issue, i do have somewhat confidence in the court to look at the facts, look at the law. however, my confidence has been shaken because now we know they are willing to disregard supreme

court precedent. i want to move away from the social things folks have brought up about abortion recently, your callers recently. when you have supreme court justices who are looking at new cases in relation to cases that have happened in the past and who are able to say, well, even though this has precedent we feel at this time we are going to change our mind and we are going to disregard the work of previous courts. this is what justice john roberts has really fought for during his career. he considers the supreme court to be almost hallowed ground with regards to this. so, seeing they are so willing to toss something out so quickly

simply because they have super majority that cannot be challenged, i do agree with a lot of the people who are saying, where is this going to stop? could they throw out other rights? could they say, we are going to leave it up to the states to decide if black-and-white and asian and hispanic children should go to school together. that should be a state's right. i am an american first, texan second. i believe in this great country of ours we should be governed by laws and people should have equal protection under the law at a federal level, not simply at a state level. for those out there watching -- and i know some people are upset this got released. some people have called the person brave, others have called this person a coward. i think this was timely.

i think the supreme court justice is no they deserve this -- know they deserve this. they have a shadow docket, they work in secret, they don't work in public and this could affect a lot of people. host: president joe biden actually came out on tuesday and talked about the leak from the supreme court and what this decision would mean if the decision is final. here is what president joe biden had to say. [video clip] >> it concerns me a great deal that we are going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not have the right to choose. number one. but equally profound is the rationale used. it would mean that every other decision made in the notion of privacy could be affected. i know this goes back a long way

but griswold versus connecticut. connecticut said a husband and wife could choose not to use contraceptive. it was violation of the law. if the rationale of the decision were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. the idea we are letting the states make those decisions would be a fundamental shift. it goes far beyond, in my view, if it becomes law and what is written is what remains, goes far beyond the concern of whether or not there is a right to choose. it goes to other basic rights. the right to marriage, the right to determine a whole range of things. host: "the wall street journal" had an editorial that talked about what some of the

discussion has been around this leaked decision on whether the current supreme court justices lied to congress during her confirmation hearing. i want to read part of this editorial to you where they talk about what the supreme court justices actually said in their confirmation hearings. by the way, i will start with them saying you can find these hearings in the c-span archives. the truth is available to anyone willing to call up the c-span archives. justice gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing that it was reaffirmed in casey in 1992 and several other cases. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the u.s. supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. justice gorsuch said he would've

walked out the door of president trump asked him to commit to overturning roe. that is not what judges do. justice kavanaugh noted roe had been reaffirmed many times. he also declined to prejudge cases. you have an open mind. you can get the briefs and arguments and some are better than others. precedent is critical. it is the foundation of our system, but you will listen to all arguments. justice barrett's hearings of academic concept of super precedent, whether a matter is so settled no one challenges it. i am answering a lot of questions about roe which indicates it does not fall into that category. she declined to pre-commit to ruling one way or another on abortion but she did stay in deciding whether to overrule precedent she would apply legal framework of stare decisis to let things stand.

this is what justice alito's draft opinion does. he explains why stare decisis is essential but the court recognized it is not in an extra verbal command it is the weakest when we interpret the constitution. that from "the wall street journal" editorial board discussing whether the supreme court nominees lied to congress. you can find all of those confirmation hearings in the c-span archives. you can look at them at c-span.org. let's go back to our phones and find out what your level of confidence is in the supreme court. we start with herbert calling from high point, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: thank you. i do not think anything like the supreme court -- you know, milch

mcconnell left the thing open for a year -- mitch mcconnell left the thing open for a year. it is really the republicans that are creating chaos. the abortion thing is all about men not creating the condition for women to thrive. they are picking on them and that is the way i feel about it. thank you. host: let's go to robin calling from old forge, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: i just want to say i am going a different direction. the leaker should be ashamed of themselves and chuck schumer is the biggest troublemaker of all. he threatened the supreme court before. he is out there running his

mouth threatening them again. have elizabeth warren yelling and screaming. i have no faith in our leaders and they should be removed from the senate and the house. they are a disgrace. if anything happens to these judges, i would go after schumer and them because they are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. thank you. host: tom calling from maple heights, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, tom. caller: hi. i am against anybody going against the court. they made their decision now lay down and take it. host: what if this decision goes the other way? keep in mind, this is only a draft. if it goes the other way, will you have the same opinion? caller: yeah, the court makes up their mind.

that is the law. if you cannot take it, move on over to canada. host: let's go to david calling from crab orchard, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. my fear is that the leaker or leakers thought this would be covered for the next 90 days until the end of july or so and the plan is to bring the influence away from the white house and the democratic congress and affected the election. the supreme court, if they really want to be confident, they need to fast-track this decision, whether it goes either way, so the protests will be over. if they do it next week, the protests will be over, no

influence on the election. do not give the leaker or leakers exactly what they wanted. host: david, wouldn't you say it would have an effect on the election even if they released it in june? caller: no. host: you don't think it would have any effect on the november election if the supreme court releases this in june? caller: you would not be giving the leaker or leakers, which might be another justice or their staff, what they want. host: i guess i don't understand how the fact you think people would not have the same reaction in june that they did in may. caller: it would not. that is my opinion. host: ok. let's go to randall calling from

washington, d.c. good morning. caller: hi. i think the court was compromised when they began to talk about this particular need. then they turn out to be mostly catholic with the exception of sotomayor. my point is the democrats need to be picked -- they are more diverse. mitch mcconnell, he stacked the courts and he gets out there and argues about the court being stacked, which he did. he is very unethical in how he did the selection and held up the selections and accelerated the selections. and then the supreme court would then give -- i mean,

corporations because of dark money and all these things that has swayed them. i think it has been compromised for a while. and i think roberts actually tried to not compromise it further but he himself had been chasing down reversing voting rights. all of them seem to have the compromised people, people who have been selected through a compromised system and organizations with particular goals. i do not think that has been the case with the democrats, even if you go back to thurgood marshall being added to the court. if you go back, those people even if they were republican, they ruled on the side of

inclusivity and the pursuit of happiness. host: let's go to wilhelm calling from missouri. caller: good morning. they should leave it the way it is. if they overturned that, black peoples is going to get upset and you are going to have a whole bunch of chaos. just look at donald j. trump. he discriminated against black people and he discriminate against everybody. he is rapist. donald j. trump is rapist. host: david is calling from lee, massachusetts. caller: how are we doing? host: doing fine.

go ahead. caller: so many people are talking about stare decisis. i remember 70 years ago there was an equal change when they overturned plessy v ferguson. wonder whether opinion of that was? hello? host: go ahead, david. caller: i wonder these people demanding the sanctity of sending stare decisis would say about overturning plessy v ferguson. host: elliott calling from eden prairie, minnesota. good morning. caller: hey. i have a certain confidence in the supreme court.

i want to bring up a point. they are seven out of nine catholic. i know it is politically incorrect to mention religion and i don't know why anybody else seems to call in to mention that but i think that is a huge thing. they are smart, they are lawyers, they are trained, but catholicism has a particular inculcation from very young. i think that is a big influence here. host: are you saying that you think the justices are allowing the religion to get in the way of deciding what the law is in the united states? caller: yes. i think they cannot help it because it is a matter of values.

they certainly consider the law but there are values behind it and these are judgments. they are judgments. judgments on difficult cases. host: let's go to anthony calling from edison, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. it took a long time for them to do something that was wrong. now it is taking a long time to correct it. that is how the court works. but we are going to be a nation that runs around saying, god bless america. [indiscernible] the foundation of this nation was by god, not man. man has to get as close as he can to god's law and 63 million abortions -- there was a lot of blood spilled on this land. the murder of children and all

those who are pro-abortion should remember abortion should be the last thing on your mind. you should be pro contraception, teach kids how to use birth control and school them. they run around saying god bless america, god bless america. god will not bless the butchering of children. the courts are about to get it right. host: would your opinion of the court stay the same if this leaked decision is wrong in the court comes out in a different way? caller: well, eventually they are going to have to do what is right. the people that are in charge of the law of the land are supposed to get their inspiration by god. we are a judeo-christian founding nation. you cannot be a blessed nation if you are killing babies. we should teach abstinence, no abortion or contraception. host: let's go to linwood

calling from maryland. caller: how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. i am somewhat confident in the court. i believe in the concept of the united states supreme court as well as ends institution -- as well as its institution. they have a justice who should never have been confirmed, namely judge kavanaugh. an extreme ultraconservative nut job. i think there are comforts of interest with him, the way he testified. eileen moderately republican myself. how it -- i lean moderately republican myself. as far as can locations and how kavanaugh conducted himself, i think that needs to be revisited. host: we would like to thank all of our callers and social media

followers and viewers for that first segment. coming up next, law professors danielle holley-walker and josh blackman will join us for a conversational on the constitutional and legal question at the heart of roe v. wade. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks. both chambers are in session with the senate planning to vote wednesday on whether to begin debate on a bill codifying in a federal law a woman's right to have an abortion. this is in response to the leaked supreme court draft decision suggesting roe v. wade may be overturned. treasury secretary janet yellen will testify before the senate banking committee on an annual report about the stability of the u.s. financial markets. live on c-span three at two: 30

p.m. eastern, the senate foreign relations committee hold the confirmation hearing for several executive nominees including the next u.s. ambassador to ukraine. wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span.org, dr. anthony fauci and others will appear before a house appropriations subcommittee. at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three, the fence secretary lloyd austin and general mark milley testifies on the defense department budget. live this week on the c-span networks or c-span now. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or in demand. -- live or on-demand anytime. c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press

briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today, or visit c-span.org/connect. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is launching on c-span, powered by cable -- w watching n c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with danielle holley-walker and josh blackman.

two law professors here to tell us -- help us understand this draft opinion and what the entire issue is around the constitutional issues on roe v. wade and this decision. danielle and josh, good morning. danielle i will start with you. remind us what was at issue in the dobbs v jackson women's health case and the upshot of this draft opinion. danielle: what we are looking at in the dobbs case is an abortion band at 15 weeks, no exceptions for rape or in zest. -- incest. in the draft opinion, you see justice alito right that -- write that roe and casey are

explicitly overturned. roe was decided almost 50 years ago and casey was decided 30 years ago and both hold their limitations on how the government can regulate -- there are limitations on how government can regulate abortion. the draft opinion says abortion rights are not protected unlike constitution, so therefore states do not have to justify regulating a woman's right to get an abortion. states like mississippi, texas, louisiana, other states seeking to regulate abortions would not have to justify why they are doing that under the constitution. host: josh, can you explain to us what justice alito's legal justifications were in his draft opinion that would overturn roe v. wade? josh: there are two primary

aspects of the leaked draft opinion which may or may not be final but the version we have, the first part brings of history and alito explains that under the constitution as was understood in 1868, there was no notion of a right to abortion. many states banned abortion at various points in time. some band at earlier or later -- banned it earlier or later. the second part of the opinion brings up this notion of precedent. here, alito says that roe v. wade and other cases were egregiously wrong and have not settled controversy and have remained contested and have been difficult to apply and all the

criteria for considering keeping a precedent or getting rid of it. the issue of abortion will return to the state. california can allow abortion to the moment of birth and texas can ban it at conception. host: i will throw this one out for both of you. we've heard a lot of talk about -- one of our callers in the earlier segment said plessy v ferguson was a decision that was overturned by the supreme court. how often does the supreme court go back and say this earlier decision was wrong? is this unusual? danielle: yes it is. justice alito in the draft opinion tries to establish that precedent has been overturned before.

the-based example -- the biggest example was plessy versus ferguson which allows for racial discrimination in the united states by the states under jim crow. that was allowed for almost 100 years. brown v. board of education overturned it. that is why we call it precedent, this notion that the supreme court is supposed to -- and the lower courts are supposed to follow the supreme court. the supreme court follows its own precedent. they do that for a number of reasons, including to make sure that people understand what their rights are. it is a serious undertaking when the supreme court takes a right that has been established by the supreme court itself for over -- almost half a century, like abortion rights, and then extinguishes those rights. the difference is that in plessy, they limited the rights of black americans and then they

expanded those rights. the differences here that the supreme court said you do have a right to privacy which leads to a right to decide your medical care with your doctor. remember when we talk about abortion rights, this is really about women being able to have a private conversation and decision with their doctor about whether to have an abortion. after understanding that we have that right for 50 years, now the supreme court is trying to extinguish a right. they are not giving more rights, but taking a right away, and that is a very particular way of thinking about precedent and why 70 people are disturbed by the draft of -- why so many people are disturbed by the draft opinion. josh: there is the right of the individual in the right of people to govern themselves. justice alito made the most basic right we have is to govern ourselves. in a way, it asked which is one

right of the people to have a right to abortion but it also restores the right of people to govern themselves and choose which laws to adopt. the court has reversed precedent that has taken away rights. most famously, the right of contract. the court under stored -- understood the 14th a moment as a protection of people under contract. that was the law of the land for four or five decades. during the new deal, they said you don't have this right, we are taking it away. it is rare for the court to rule on a 50-year-old precedent. justice alito has a very long footnote about overall precedents but it doesn't quite rise to the level of roe. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation.

we will open up special lines. if you support the roe v. wade decision, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8000. if you oppose the roe v. wade decision and think the supreme court is right in possibly overturning it, your number is (202)-748-8001. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202)-748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter and on facebook. now josh, i will start with you for this one. can you explain to our viewers what planned parenthood v. casey is all about and its role in this decision? josh: there are two decisions for the supreme court on abortion. the first was roe v. wade, which says the interest in regulating

abortion changes is the nine months progress. in the first three months, there are very few regulations. in the second trimester, there are increasingly more regulations that are permissible. in the final trimester, there are pretty broad abilities to prohibit abortion altogether. that was the rule for 20 years. 1992, with casey, casey was a weird decision. there was no single majority opinion. there was a controlling opinion that garnered three votes. justices o'connor, kennedy and souter. they said they will keep the right of abortion, but get rid of the trimester framework. instead they will draw the line at point of viability. prior to the point of viability, the state cannot impose substantial burdens or obstacles on the right to an abortion.

usually people ask what is liability, what is that line? it varies based on science and whatever the available technology is. in a big city with access to a large hospital, viability is here. in a poorer more rural area, viability is there. the alito opinion overrules roe and kc altogether and says the right to abortion doesn't exist, so we don't need to draw the line and the state can now draw the line for when they are permissible or not. host: danielle, is justice alito making a choice to overrule both roe and kc or if one falls the other should fall as well, or is he making a choice in going after both at the same time? danielle: in the draft opinion, it especially says the court is overruling roe and casey. the only thing i would add to what josh said is that kc of

course was the three opinions that saved roe. they were up -- they were republican appointed justices. even at the time of casey, those justices recognized the right to privacy, which again gives rise to the right to abortion, is something that at that point was so established that they did not want to overturn it. this is not the first time the supreme court has been asked to overturn roe, and they made a very different decision in casey. while it absolutely shifted the trimester philosophy into viability, they still kept the basic idea that there is a right to privacy in the constitution that gives rise to the right to abortion. host: i should have asked this earlier, but i will ask now. how confident are the two of you, that this leaked opinion is

where the court stands right now? josh: i have no idea. if you read the political story -- the politico story carefully, it cites an unnamed source. i wrote a book on the obama era litigations. the chief justice changed his vote. a lot of things can happen. i don't know. anyone who says they know are lying. host: do you agree danielle? danielle: all we know based on the chief justice statement is that this was an authentic draft. we know there is linda greenhouse and others who have reported there was a lot of cutting and pasting in this draft that comes directly from briefs that were filed before the court.

it is unclear how far along this draft was. that is the only thing i would caution. for all we know, this was the first draft that was circulated after the justices conference. they make an initial vote. the case opinion is assigned to someone, in this case justice alito. hero a draft and we have no idea if this is the first or the most recent, the day before it was leaked. that is the caution i would give. this may be a draft that was rewritten 5, 6, 7 times. we should not attempt to say how far along they are in the writing of this draft. host: i'm glad we got that question out before i start reading passages from the draft opinion. now we all know where we stand. i want to point this passage out and ask a question. a paragraph from the draft opinion that would overturn roe v. wade reads, we hold that roe

and casey must be overruled. the decision -- the constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. including the one on which the defenders of roe and casey now chiefly relied, the due process clause of the 14th amendment. that provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution but any such right must be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. josh, what is the due process clause of the constitution and what does it have to do with this case? josh: the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 following the civil war. there are a couple big provisions in the 14th amendment. it guarantees equal citizenship for all people born in the united states.

it also protects what is called the right of equal protection. this was the basis of the brown rule, saying that jack -- the government cannot treat you differently based on race or other factors. a provision called the due process clause says the government cannot deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process of law. the roe decision looks toward liberty in the due process law and says what is liberty? is there some liberty that is so important that it cannot be taken away from you that no amount of procedure justifies the deprivation of this liberty. the roe court was not sure whether due process protects it, but there was a right of privacy. what alito is saying is that the court framework to decide what liberty is under this framework, you don't get to abortion, there

is no right of abortion under this framework, and therefore the roe decision was wrong to say the due process clause protects abortion as a liberty. host: danielle, was this to correct -- was this the correct application of the due process clause of the 14th amendment? danielle: i think what we are seeing is that -- this is not the only right -- two part to just read. number one, i think the idea that it is not exquisitely found in the text of the constitution, there are lots of rights that are recognized under our laws, recognized by the supreme court that are not explicitly in the text of the constitution. for example, a right to marry is not exquisitely in the constitution. under alito's theory, arguably a state could say no one in our state can get married, and if

somebody challenged that, he would simply say the right to marry is not found anywhere in the constitution and he would probably say there is a second part which is isn't deeply rooted in american history. he would say marriage is but there are lots of marriages that were not recognized in 1868, including men and women of different races marrying, including same-sex marriage. that is what people are really focusing on is this notion that if we begin to overturn supreme court precedent on the basis that the right is not explicitly in the constitution and was not deeply rooted in american history, meaning at the point that it was adopted into the constitution, and this case 1868 for the 14th amendment, that would collapse a lot of rights that are currently recognized by supreme court precedent, including things like same-sex marriage, interracial marriage,

and that is why that portion of the opinion is so deeply troubling to many people. host: josh, do you agree with alito's reasoning that since abortion isn't deeply rooted in the nation's history, it is not a protected right? josh: we have two different strides of case law on the supreme court. we have some cases from justice kennedy who said history is important but it is not the end-all be-all and he uses that reasoning in cases involving gay marriage and lawrence v texas and a number of other cases. you have the second strand of supreme court cases which say we need to have rights that are clearly defined in american history. for example, washington versus blocks board when the court said there is no right to assisted suicide.

now that justice kennedy is gone , the court says ok that's nice, going to go back to the washington test, the deeply rooted test and alito goes out of his way to say we are not discussing gay marriage here or interracial marriage and this is all about abortion and i'm sure a lot of people don't believe him. the bigger issue is that there is no national movement to bring back interracial managed -- interracial marriage bans or bans or birth-control. abortion stands alone but every year there are marches in washington on this unique singular issue. interracial marriage has a 90% something support rate. if we skate down this slope of the decision, could we reach a

place where interracial marriages are banned? yes but i think it is very unlikely but that is a constitutional matter and the alito opinion does under -- undermined the basis of these landmark decisions. . host: let's get some of the reviewers into this conversation. let's start with liz calling from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning to all of your guests. i am learning a lot and i appreciate their knowledge. my question is, just as this case became -- came before the supreme court based on mississippi law, can this come back again? i'm thinking alito has talked about decisions being egregious. they will not be egregious when people start being charged with homicide because one state has already kind of decided that and they are moving in that direction, that you can go to

jail, you could be convicted of murder. once people start shooting people in your state, perhaps, because they have the right now to be vigilantes, can this case come back in some other form? host: i will let you jump in first, josh. josh: thank you, caller. that brings up two separate issues. cut the court revisit dobbs? would say a couple years, the democrats packed the court with 15 new justices. to the supreme court reversed dobbs or bring back roe? that is true that it could go back and forth like a ping-pong but i think that is unlikely. the next part of your question concerns whether a state will treat abortion as a felony and prosecute pregnant women who seek to obtain an abortion. historically, even before roe,

most of the rules were imposed against doctors. it was rare that the pregnant woman was charged with a crime. that is the general consensus among pro-life communities. i can't speak with absolute certainty but the consensus is you punch those who facilitate and provide abortions, not the pregnant woman. of course things can always change. one other thing to keep in mind. i understand it is sort of a free-for-all where all of these states are enacting restrictive measures. there is no guarantee these will be sustainable. politics shift and people might realize they overreacted. maybe not right away but at some point there may be some sort of retreat and the political process can be restored. the supreme court has basically

taken over this issue for half a century and when this issue goes back to the political process, i think there will be more give and take and maybe i am wrong. host: danielle, what do you think? danielle: i think the caller is right. when this goes back to the states, there will be many states that don't enact lots of restrictive laws on abortion but what we will see is some very extreme laws that will be adopted. the one the caller was referring to was the louisiana law that has been proposed and came out of committee this week that would criminalize women and charge them with murder for getting an abortion and i think we have also seen the texas abortion law that creates a bounty hunter situation where people can report women, private citizens can report women for having abortions. i disagree that there won't be a

strong turn in some states, and i think that is the other troubling part of this is the idea that women's rights will be different in california than they are in louisiana or mississippi or texas, but i think we can expect just like in shelby versus holder when the supreme court predicted that voting rights, we were told by chief justice roberts that eventually southern states were no longer interested in enacting these restrictive voting rights that would impact people on the basis of race. less than a week after shelby was decided, we saw many states begin to enact very restrictive voting laws and i think that is exactly what we will see in the aftermath of dobbs if this turns out to be the decision, is there will be many states around the country who will enact your coney laws that prevent women from getting healthy and safe abortions, and will hurt women's health tremendously. host: danielle, you are not only

a law professor, you are dean of the law school at howard university. this leaked opinion -- does this opinion change in any way how we teach law or think about law? danielle: absolutely. the supreme court -- especially the portion of the draft opinion you read, that is the most troubling part of the opinion in the sense that it essentially overturns a half century of precedent in one sentence. roe and kc were agreed justly wrongly decided. to do that opens the door to overturning lots of precedent, so that is why many across the political spectrum were troubled by the draft opinion because one thing the supreme court is supposed to do is create addict ability in our laws -- predictability in our laws. they establish what people's rights are and then we can rely on them.

if this is overturned. for example, they have two affirmative action cases being heard and those rights have been long-established that there is the ability of universities to use race in a limited way when admitting students higher ed and i expect them to maybe overturn those precedents too. once you open the door to a supreme court that is activist in the way that this draft opinion demonstrates activism, judicial activism, what we may see is the overturning of other precedents, and that will be troubling to many americans. host: josh, same question for you. you are a professor at the south texas college of law houston, and also founder of the harlem institute. if true, does this draft opinion change how we teach law and how we look at the supreme court?

josh: i think the supreme court -- there have been conservative courts and progressive courts. many decisions that we have were established by the court in the 1970's. when roe was decided, fortysomething states band abortions altogether. -- banned abortions altogether. a movement was born over the course of 40 years saying these decisions were wrong. i don't see this as entirely surprising. i think this is a consequence of republicans appointing more justices to the supreme court.

i agree with danielle that the current court is seeking to correct long-standing decisions they think were wrong, which those decisions themselves changed long-standing precedent in the world. will it change how we teach the course? not significantly, it is just another lesson. you can start at the beginning, go through the middle to the end and then into the 21st century. what i do think this affects and i am far more worried about the leak, how this will affect the court ability to do their job. now the draft dependence can be leaked out and people can start pressuring justices based on what is a rough draft, i think it becomes harder for the court to do their job and the court can become compromised and i am far more concerned about the

ability of the court to decide their cases. host: how important is the leak, danielle? danielle: i would say i think the real challenge to the supreme court's institutional ability to do its work is the substance of the draft opinion itself and not the leak. while agree that courts i clicked on, i do think that the ability of judges to do their work in a way that is private in their process so that we don't have to speculate about things like draft opinions, i think that is an important principle but more important than that is we currently have a number of justices on the court who during the confirmation hearings said they had respect for precedent and especially what are known as the super precedents that have been around for a long time and are relied upon by the american people, like roe. a number of justices said they respected, understood what roe

meant and they respected precedent and they are now explicitly going against that only several years after the confirmation hearing. that is what really erodes confidence in the supreme court and i think what we have seen in terms of the nomination process, the way that merrick garland was not given a hearing but amy coney barrett was given a hearing along the same timing. those of the things that are eroding public confidence in the supreme court and have made the court now seem like another branch of the political institutions, more so than what we expect from the court. the history of the court goes back and forth and over time, people have respect for the court. when it is a conservative court, liberals are outraged and when it is a liberal court, conservatives are outraged. what we are seeing that is not normal is that we have a such -- we have such a politicized asian

-- politicization of the confirmation process and now we have people saying one thing and doing another. host: let's go to linda who is calling from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. please have a little patience with me. i'm only making comments. first of all, i believe in abortion when it's needed up to a certain point, because after a certain point, that baby is alive. i believe it is alive at first time but if you need an abortion, you have to stop at a certain time. you can't rip off the arms and legs and all that stuff. that is murder. second of all, i also believe that what is going on now is

horrendous because they are showing -- they are shouting it's my life and i can do what i want. then don't get pregnant. i know sometimes it happens but these people are not thinking about the life they are carrying inside their body. they are showing a total discussed to a lot of people of the church and that is religious belief and that's it and they shouldn't be doing that and i've seen them even blow up clinics of abortion and stuff. that is very wrong. there just has to be certain restrictions but there has to be a certain amount of time when

you can't have an abortion. go through it, give it up and have it for adoption but this is way out of hand and ridiculous and i'm tired of hearing about -- it's a black issue -- it is not a black issue. it is everybody's issue. i'm so tired of hearing that. this is everybody's issue and i thank you for listening to me. host: who wants to jump in on that comment? danielle: one thing i will say to the caller. we just heard the caller essentially parrot what is the law. what you talked about, in terms of making sure that abortion is regulated after viability or in the roe system after the first trimester, that is essentially the law so the caller actually

supports what is the current supreme court precedent for roe and kc. -- casey. roe and casey don't really tell women how to regulate their bodies, should they use contraception, should they use abortion? the important thing is that we think about women having children, this is the most private and sacred decision a woman can make, so roe and casey don't attempt to say women, please go out and have abortions. what they say, the same as when people didn't want the government to tell them to wear a mask or get vaccinated. here we are asking, stte -- k&a state government direct a woman when she is allowed to get a medical procedure such as an abortion, and also have to remember that many women get abortions not because they want

to but because their health really dictates it. we think about laws like the one in dobbs, this one does not have an exception for incest or rape. if a woman is raped and wants to get an abortion, what the mississippi law does is takes that ability away from her. so this isn't about individual women's choices in the sense of what is best for them, but can the government, can a state government tell a woman direct a woman how her health needs to be addressed when she is pregnant? and finally the racial comments, it is very important to realize that of course the right to abortion in the right to privacy affects all of us, but there can be outsized effects on some groups. what will happen is if abortion is outlawed in many states, women who have wealth, women who have opportunity to go across state lines will do that, women

who are poor or women who do not have that access will be the ones who are denied the ability to control their own health and that is why people bring up things like race and class when we talk about abortions. it is not just about one group of women but we do have to pay attention to the questions of how certain groups of women may be more impacted by this decision if the draft does become the final decision. host: josh, i want you to tackle the part that danielle said that we heard earlier over the last two years, the whole my body my choice when it comes to vaccines. is there any link between the government being able to mandate vaccines and the governments being able to regulate abortion? josh: the issues are somewhat related. there is a long-standing line of

precedent that the government cannot put stuff into your body. they cannot conduct experiments on you. they can't do those things without adequate justification. the government can forcibly sterilize you. it is not a very clean line of precedent. at least in the modern era, you have people saying don't put the needle in my arm but in the same breath, some say they will prevent you from having an abortion and keep the child in the woman's body until birth. i do want to get to the point of viability. under modern science, it is somewhere in the 26 week range. mississippi banned abortions at 15 weeks.

under roe and casey, mississippi cannot draw that line at four months because it is before the point of viability. i think studies show 90% of abortions are before the 15 week mark. the overwhelming majority of abortions would fall before that line but if the alito opinion holds, it could be 15 weeks, six weeks, there are many possibilities. host: i want to play for you, from the december 1 argument, that very topic where justice alito is questioning julie michelman of the center for reproductive rights about the issue of fetal viability in the debate over abortion access. here is that exchange. [video clip] >> if a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy,

that interest does not disappear, the moment the viability line is crossed. isn't that right? >> no, your honor. first i think the state of use viability as arbitrary because a complete discount the woman's interest. >> but does a woman -- upon reaching the point of viability, does not the woman have the same interest that she had before viability in being free of this pregnancy? that she no longer wants to continue? >> viability is a principled line because in order -- >> i'm trying to see if it is or not. do you agree with me on that point that a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed? >> yes, but the court balanced the interests. >> look at this on the other side. the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't

change from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> in some people's view it doesn't but what the court said is those philosophical differences couldn't be resolved. >> that is what i'm getting at. what is the philosophical argument? the secular philosophical argument for saying this is the appropriate line? there are those who say that the rights of personhood should be considered to have taken hold at a point when the fetus acquires certain independent characteristics, but viability is dependent on medical technology and practice. it has changed and may continue to change. host: josh, jump in and tell us a little about what we heard, and then danielle i want you to address the conversation too. josh: the viability point never made a lot of sense. it might make sense more as flex

-- as more flexible than the trimester framework but alito says why would the woman's interest in keeping the pregnancy change viability or not. -- viability is not a particularly useful line. there is no good line. if you are a court and you are making something up, the trimester framework gave a sense of clarity. you knew when three months or six months was up at the viability line fluctuates based on -- but the viability line fluctuates based on where you live or many variable situations. it is not really clear and the courts are not in the business of making these difficult line drawing projects.

lower courts have gone every which way to having a standard. host: danielle? danielle: i think first, you hear justice alito using the language of the pro-life movement where -- very strongly in that clip, particularly this idea of fetal viability and i think the idea is that many believe the pro-life movement is moving in the direction of trying to determine or state that viability happens at the moment of conception, which is of course a religious view and is one that we saw enshrined in the louisiana proposed law this week which would essentially mean that states could if we kept the viability structure, outlaw abortion at the moment of conception, and we know that there are lots of things that could be impacted, like ivf or iud treatment.

anyone who thinks this is the end, just overturning roe and casey, what we could see in states is the adoption of fetal viability laws. the other thing to a pay attention to is that viability -- to pay attention to is that viability, like many of the standards employed by the supreme court, it is not easy to apply. these are difficult tests to apply. viability is a difficult test to apply because of technology, etc.. just because a rule may not be clean-cut or quote, workable according to the draft, i'm not sure why that leads to the overturning of roe and casey. maybe it leads to the overturning of casey and going back to the trimester system under roe, but noting that the test is difficult to apply does not justify to me extinguishing a right completely and leaving

it to the states to decide. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to -- who was calling from new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. actually one of the questions that i had has been discussed briefly, regarding -- the last three supreme court people who were put on, and the question is they had agreed that they would not touch long-standing laws. so that part. then i had a statement to make. for people who claim to be religious and whatnot, and want to follow the commandments. one of the first ones is that our shall not kill. why did we go into other countries and tell them what to do and kill them with drones and kill innocent babies and children over there, and we

preach about not killing babies here? the commandments say do not kill and when it says do not kill, that means do not kill anyone. someone has done something wrong, we should punish them but not kill them. at times we want to electrocute people. if you want to follow god's rules and regulations, i think it would be a better thing to do. we love our guns, guns kill. that is i guess all i have to say. thank you for letting me speak. host: i would like you both to take on the question she said. i want to hear you both. do you think when they were nominees, that justice kavanaugh, justice gorsuch and justice coney barrett told the truth to the senate about where they stood? i will start with you, daniel. -- danielle. danielle: when you look at the

language, these justices are very smart and very well prepared. there is nothing as explicit as we agree to never overturn roe versus wade. i think the discussion in the confirmation hearings is more about precedent. do you respect precedent? do you respect almost a half century of precedent in roe, knowing there is a very small list of cases that are as important as roe that have been overturned? that is more the question and that is where at least in my view, listening to the confirmation hearings, especially of justice kavanaugh and justice amy coney barrett and justice gorsuch, it was clear they said we recognize that roe is the law and that roe has been in place for almost half a century, and that is where i take issue of whether they are really respecting precedent.

if you don't respect precedent in that way, not saying it can't ever be overturned but if it is simply a couple lines, you disagree, you believe the original decision was egregiously wrong, if that is the basis for overturning precedent, we are about to see an extreme activist court in this current supreme court configuration. host: josh? josh: let me read you what cavanaugh said in 2018 -- the me read you what susan collins said to cavanaugh in 2018. she said someone who believes that the importance of precedent rooted in the shoot -- and the constitution would follow along with president except in those special circumstances where it is deeply inconsistent with the law. cavanaugh told collins there is an exception for precedent when a decision is egregiously wrong. it is no accident that justice alito uses that precise phrase in his opinion.

cavanaugh, gorsuch and barrett are not idiots. they knew what they were doing. they said what they needed to to get confirmed. i don't think they said anything inconsistent with what they are doing now. they definitely didn't give any hints about roe. let me just pull a step back. if you go back to the planned parenthood versus casey decision, justice blackmun wrote a concurrence and he said something to the effect of because of this contentious issue, my replacement will be scrutinized over his or her view on abortion and what he said was every confirmation from here on out will be about abortion.

that was true. it was true of roberts, alito, gorsuch, cavanaugh, barrett. perhaps one of the consequences of this decision if it holds is that confirmation hearings will be less about abortion. in theory it could be reversed again and we could make a different court, but i think if nothing else, this decision will make future confirmation hearings less about abortion and more about other things that are more insightful. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to mike, calling from indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i am pro-life, but i think the guy should be punished just as much as any woman. they need to take and sterilize

some of these guys, along with the women. in rape, they should just do away with the guy. that is just not right. host: all right. mike is advocating some very harsh laws. what anything mike said to be constitutional? i will start with you, danielle. danielle: why do you have to start with me first? to bring it back to a brilliant young scholar who asked the question of if we begin to go to a system where some states declare that a fetus is viable at conception, there may be other repercussions occluding the question of, does child-support need to be paid? right at the moment of conception? will we begin to see custody

issues arrive right at conception? the most important thing to emphasize about this argument is the question of government control over women's bodies. because again, people can make decisions within their families, men and women together, women by themselves, depending on the situation about how they want to handle their own health care. when i go to my doctor, i want to talk to my doctor privately about lots of things and may need to have certain procedures performed according to medical advice. what i would hope is that the government would not get in between those conversations, between me and my doctor. of course, pregnancy is different because there is a point in which a child could be delivered from a woman and be able to survive on their own.

there are two sets of interests, but a woman's interest to be able to control their own health care, we have seen countries that are much more conservative than us on issues of religion, places throughout south america and ireland that have recognized that women do have a right to be able to make these important health care decisions outside of the round of the government, because one person's religion they not be another person's religion. when we begin to talk about what god wants us to do, i am a very strong christian but when we begin to talk about what god wants us to do, that is theocracy, not democracy. it is important that we remember that we have women of all different backgrounds, many women who do not have any religious beliefs, and the government should not be able to dictate how women control their health based on individual legislators' beliefs about their own religion and what

their god may require of them. host: josh? josh: i think i will pass on responding to the caller. danielle: i can't believe you're going to pass after making the answer. -- making me answer. josh: there are a lot of follow-up questions that will flow from this ruling. maybe one issue just to tee up is what is the state power to regular abortions beyond their borders? after this law, southern states, texas, they have very restrictive laws on abortion. california, new york, states in the northeast and the west will have no meaningful change. these states will become beacons for women to travel across state lines to procure abortions. what if texas makes it a crime to facilitate getting an

abortion in other states? there are difficult questions of reach, how law can't -- how far can a state law reach into another state? that is going to be the next front. i think the courts will still be involved in abortion as a peripheral secondary sense. to what extent can one state restrict another state's resident access to abortion. there will be litigation to be sure, but it won't be about the underlying right to abortion in the first place. host: if a crime occurs across a state line, isn't that federal jurisdiction? josh: yes and in theory, congress might be able to enact legislation that protects people from traveling across state

lines to procure an abortion but the likelihood for that legislation does not look good, so there might be a vacuum in which the states could try and regulate -- imagine somebody in texas says here is $100 to go buy a bus ticket to colorado to get an abortion. that might be an act that takes place in texas which texas can criminalize. host: danielle? danielle: i agree. that is clearly what we will see after dobbs is issued. there will be some states that believe they have not gone far enough in trying to restrict a woman's right to an abortion in their own state, and they will try to criminalize -- and i have to emphasize that these laws used to be mostly about punishing abortion providers and i think one thing that we will see is there will be moves to punish women who are seeking health care, and additional punishment to other people who attempt to help women who are seeking health care across state

lines. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to lori who was calling from pennsylvania -- who is calling from pennsylvania. caller: i believe the justices are good judges separately but right as the republicans moved and getting them in there and the fact that i believe kennedy retired as soon as trump went into office, it just makes me a little suspicious and it seems as though the right wing has a process set up because they had these judges picked out already from the federalist society. never thing i worry about is that what if a child has a medical issue and the quality of that child's life is at stake. if she is going to lay in bed the rest of her life and those parents cannot take care of her? i think they have tests now where they can determine that, and it is legal for them to get

rid of the child for that reason. i also think that the constitution, the people who set up the constitution put in that we had a right to religion, but religion was not to be a -- the church was not to be a federal place, because the british had a problem when they completely omitted religion. this is really dangerous. it is going to create a lot of problems because a lot of the states that have strict abortion laws are based on their religion, and not on the law. i don't think there is any equality laws for women. i think it has been ratified in 38 states but this is not leaving us with many options. host: final thoughts, josh on

her comments or anything else? josh on her comments or anything else? josh: i think it will be painful. people will have partisan clashes in state legislatures. i would much rather those clashes host: final thoughts, danielle? danielle: i think it's important for the supreme court to protect our fundamental rights, like the right to privacy, which, of course, includes a right to abortion or limitations on states from regulating abortion, and if we begin to erode those rights, we will see many of the rights that many americans hold most dear will be in jeopardy. this will be, i agree with josh, this is going to be a crucible moment in american history, and we are going to see a tremendous amount of societal upheaval if the supreme court overturns roe

and casey. host: i would like to thank danielle holley-walker, dean and professor of law at howard university school of law, and josh blackman, professor of law at south texas college of law houston for being with us this morning and for this great conversation. thank you so much. we're going to go back to our original question for the rest of the show. we want to know what your level of confidence is in the supreme court knowing what you now know. are you very confident? are you somewhat confident? are you not confident? you see the numbers there on screen. we'll be back in just a moment with your comments and thoughts. stick with us. >> weekend bring you book tv. from the energy conference, debates and discussions on

climate change with the author of "fossil future," why global human flourishing requires more oil, coal and natural gas, not less. the book "introduction to modern climate change," and the author of "false alarm: how climate change panic cost us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet." and dr. deborah birx provides her response with her book "silence invasion." she's interviewed by the director of the institute for national and global health law. watch book tv and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at booktv.org.

>> bioing and committee assignments, also contact information for state governs and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-spanshop.org or scan the code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

host: we're back, and we want to know your level of the supreme court now that the leaked opinion that would possibly overturn roe v. wade has been made public. are you very confident in the supreme, are you somewhat confident, or are you not confident in what the supreme court is doing at their location there in washington, d.c.? now, since this leaked opinion has been made public, there have been protests at the supreme court and around the nation. justice clarence thomas came out on friday in a speech and said no matter how much people protest, the supreme court won't be bullied. here's the story from reuters that talks about justice clarence thomas and his reaction to the protests around the nation.

following protests sparked by the leak of a draft u.s. supreme court discussion indicating justices are overturn the right to abortion, justice clarence thomas said on friday that the court cannot be bullied. thomas, one of the most conservative justices on the nine-member court, made only a few passing references to the protests over the leaked draft opinion as he spoke at a judicial conference in atlanta. as a society, we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like, thomas said. we can't be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. the events from earlier this week are a symptom of that. once again, that's coming from supreme court justice clarence thomas about the protests that have been happening at the supreme court and around the nation over the draft supreme court opinion that would end the constitutional right to abortion.

our question to you is, what's your level of confidence in the supreme court? let's start with henry, who's calling from chicago, illinois. henry, good morning. caller: good morning. i just have two things to say. i'm not confident at all, balls the supreme court is unbalanced, and the second thing is that this court said abortion should not be posed to a male judge. if he can't take a baby, carry a baby to term, he got no right to mandate a woman doing it. it's completely out of line. host: ok. let's go to paul, who's calling from newark, ohio. paul, good morning. >> good morning. caller: i'm very happy with the supreme court because men and women of integrity, it has no-trade with race, color,

creed, religion or anything else. they have taken an oath to defend the constitution and rule by constitutional rules that it is either covered by the rule or not. we have men and women now out on the streets stalking, actually stalking, and there's laws against stalking, these individuals at their homes, their places of worship. that is not permissible in this country. we are going down the road of sullenness. people need to wake up and understand what they're doing to their own country. defend these men and women. they have a right to do their job. we have the three branches of government, and we have the legislative branch that seems to be trying to influence and control now the judicial branch and the executive branch. people, wake up. don't let this country be taken over. start voting, that's your weapon. host: let's go to jason in liberty, south carolina.

caller: good morning. first of all, i'm just wondering why the open phone calls don't exist anymore. for the past week, it seems like you're dictating the topic. but anyway, as far as the supreme court, i'm somewhat confident on they really disappointed me with the last election by not taking that up, but as far as the abortion goes, i find it incredibly funny that the democratser who so pro equality fight 10 times harder for the right to kill black babies. now, if there was 30 million black babies aborted since roe vs. wade, that would have definitely turned into probably 50 to 60 million through reproduction, which would have put more black people on the courts, more black doctors, more black politicians, more black millionaires, so that's where

your equality is. when you kill black babies, you're never going to have eke waggity. this country is more worried about flooding our minority communities with illegal immigrants that push black people further and further into the minority. you will never have equality. and as far as republicans, fight to protect black -- republicans fight to give school choice to black people. democrats fight against it. so tell me who's the racist. host: jason, where are you getting your statistics on abortion in the african-american community from? caller: well, it's -- i'm glad you brought that up, because it was jen psaki that just said the other day that 70% of planned parenthood -- host: oh, i think we lost him.

let's go to jim, who's calling from westchester, ohio. jim, good morning. caller: good morning. hello? can you hear me? host: yes, but not named chuck. caller: oh, sorry. host: ok, go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. i'm confident in the supreme court that they're going to act as they've always acted, they're individuals, and we know who they are, because they've been through a trial. and we know what to expect from them, and that's why they're basically conservatives folks given such a hard time by the liberals in congress. going back to previous episode where the gal who was a law professor, she said what gives the government the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. that's what we voted for, give

government more power. the government can do anything it wants. if you look through history, our founding fathers tried to present this, but that's long past gone. the government can tell you when you can do it, how you can do it, and it's getting worse. and we fought against this my entire life, i fought against giving government more power. so reap what you sow. host: so jim, if this draft opinion that is incorrect that was sent out and the supreme court votes in a different way and upholds roe v. wade, would you still be confident in the supreme court? caller: look, when you say confident in the supreme court, you know, that's a tough question. you got to define terms here. i'm confident, here's my bottom line. i'm confident that the people who are on the supreme court will do as god almighty, creator of heaven and earth, has decreed for them to do. when people call themselves christians, i don't know what they're talking about, because they're certainly not christians

according to the bible, the holy word of god. people call themselves christians, i think it's ok to kill babies. well, god does not say it's ok to kill babies f. you call yourself a christian, you're not christian as defined by the bible. and it doesn't matter to me who's president, who's senator, who's governor, who's in the supreme court, god almighty will have the final word. we're going to reap what we sow. host: well, after the draft opinion was leaked on tuesday, vice president kamala harris spoke about what she saw as the result if the decision that was leaked is released officially by the supreme court. here's what vice president harris had to say. vice president harris: those who attack roe have been clear. they want to ban abortion in every state. they want to bully anyone who

seeks or provides reproductive healthcare. and they want to criminalize and punish women for making these decisions. at its core, roe recognizes the fundamental right to privacy. think about that for a moment. when the right to privacy attacked, anyone in our country may face a future where the government can interfere with their personal decisions, not just women, anyone. and it has never been more clear which party wants to expand our

rights and which party wants to restrict them. it has never been more clear. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about their level of confidence in the supreme court. here's one tweet that says no more federal society justices. they only represent the tiniest amount of people. here's another tweet that says, knowing what i know now, all i can say is i knew it all along. the three trump justices have lied in their job interviews about roe v. wade to be settled law. all i can hope is if chief justice robert votes it to a tie and end this betrayal by the newest court members. here's another tweet that says the five members of the court who are overturning roe and trying to take a right away from more than half the nation our judicial activists. and one final tweet that says

one certainty you can kind on if alito gets his way is overzealous republican-led states will screw it up to the point of scotus having to reconsider the decision eventually. the serious flaws in alito's argument will ensure that happens. we want to know what your level of confidence is in the supreme court, knowing what you know now. if you are very confident in the supreme court, your number is going to be 202-748-000. if you are somewhat confident in the supreme court, you can call 202-748-8001. if you're not confident in the supreme court at all, you can call 202-748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at 202-748-8003, and we're always reading on social media on twitter, @cspanwj. and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. let's go to mike, calling from gettysburg, pennsylvania. mike, good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to call in and say

what a subject to be brought up on mother's day, ok? c-span, i call in all the time. c-span should be ashamed of themselves. but somewhat confident in the supreme court meaning this. based on what party has the power in the supreme court is the way that most most votes are going to go. so with that, 50 years ago, tip o'neill stood on front of the capitol and said i don't care what people of the united states want, the democrats have the power, and we are going to support this. and they did. they got roe vs. wade in. and so with that, they did not put it to the people of the united states, they put it to the supreme court, who they had in at the time on their side. so with that, what i'm saying is you have to face everything on

who has control of the supreme court at the time. host: all right, let's go to delores, who's calling from alexandria, virginia. delores, good morning. caller: good morning. i have no confident in the supreme court now, none whatsoever. we've watched them strike down voting rights. we've watched them protect the right of the rich to give unlimited amounts of funds to candidates they prefer, thereby ensuring they have an outside impact on election, and put another way, another way to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. and this particular decision is incredible to me, because basically they said the government cannot protect public health by requiring people to get vaccinations and wear masks, they can't do that, but it's ok to tell a woman she doesn't have the right to make a personal

decision about what's going to happen with her body. i just have zero confidence and respect for this supreme court. they seem to be making decisions based on ideology and not any consistent laws that we can look to. that's my position. host: let's go to tara, who's calling from brooklyn, new york. tara, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you. oh, my gosh, i'm shaking right now. i guess i would say that i am confident in the supreme court, but in their indoctrination of their own personal religious beliefs. it has nothing to do with upholding the law, and the argument that they won't be bullied, well, i'm sorry, sir, but you are there to uphold the majority of the united states, the majority supports this.

the timing of the leak in response to another caller, you don't think that that was an accident, do you, that we'd be talking about this today. amy coney barrett saying about the supplies of domestic infants. this is a supply chain issue, which is disgusting. they're going to make it a felony for women to get abortions, which is going to affect their voting rights. and then if you really care about the infants, what about healthcare? what about having healthcare for everyone? what about maternity leave? what about having this push to privatize education? they don't care about the children. you have the my body, my choice, but that's not about masks, that's about women and their right to bodily autonomy. in my own personal experience, i have had an abortion. i was pregnant with a man that i was very much in love with, and he beat the ever loving crap out of me, and i did abort that baby, and he continued to stalk me across multiple countries.

i'm so grateful i don't have any connection to him, because it would be not safe for me. i fight for the right to everyone to practice their own religion, but i will not subjected to their ideals. i am not a christian, and i cannot be subjected to that. what i think you're going to see is women and women like me will do what is right and provide a safe space for women that still want to be these procedures done, and very much an underground railroad situation. i am sick of this. host: let's go to david, who's calling from cherokee, north carolina. david, good morning. caller: how you doing? host: go ahead, david. caller: hey, this is david. can you hear me? host: we can, go ahead, david. caller: all righty. my position is on they will wing is i believe that i am somewhat confident in who we elected or who they put in there, and i

think it comes down to us being americans. i'm 50 years old. to be an american, i mean, the freedom of choice that everybody uses religion and everybody is using, you know, the right wing, left wing, it's all of the same bird, and i don't get the democrat-republican thing whenever it comes down to being just human beings. i mean, for us not to sit down and be open-hearted and minded to issues, not only with women, but just the country in itself. growing up, i can remember, man, we had choices, we had things we could do. but you go back to history and you look at what we had to endure as being native americans in this country. there was no question, or there was no vote of, there was no let's come to the white house or come anywhere to sit down and talk about these things.

it was just it happened. so now for us to be americans and to be in that way, we need to be strong-hearted, minded with issues of being human beings. i'm tired of all the democrat, republican, the liberal, it's all about being a human being, and if you're going to use religion, then use it in the right way. everybody needs to stop with oh, it ain't about that, it's about being a human being and part of this country, and for us to be good and getting stronger and doing what's right for everybody. host: the supreme court draft opinion that is out now will likely not be released until the end of the supreme court term, which is usually around june or july. but legislation is already popping up around the nation and

in congress in response to that draft opinion t. here's a story from the hill newspaper with senate minority leader mitch mcconnell talking about a possible national abortion ban, and i'll read a few paragraphs from that story from the hill newspaper. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said in an interview with "usa today," a national abortion ban is possible if roe v. wade gets overturned this summer. if the leaked opinion becomes the final opinion, legislative bodies, not only at the state level, but at the federal level, could certainly legislate in that area. mcconnell told "usa today" when asked if a national abortion ban is worthy of debate. and if this were the final decision, that was the point where it could be resolved one way or the other in the legislative process. so, yeah, it's possible, he concluded. again, that's from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, who says it's possible a national abortion ban could be passed if the supreme court

leaked opinion becomes the actual opinion of the court later on this year. now, keep in mind that next week the senate will be voting owe an abortion bill next week. on wednesday, the senate will vote on whether to begin debate on a bill to codify a woman's right to have abortion into federal law. majority leader chuck schumer will file cloture on monday on the women's health protection act, setting up a wednesday vote. in the senate, 60 votes will be needed to advance the bill, and once again, this bill is coming up because of the draft supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade. live coverage of the senate vote on abortion can be seen right here on c-span on wednesday on c-span2. so if you want to see the debate and discussion over that vote, that's coming up on wednesday on c-span2.

let's go back to our phone lines and talk to les, who's calling from north carolina. les, good morning. caller: good morning, sir, thank you for c-span. thank you for the opportunities you give our citizens. i have zero confidence that our court is going to do anything that is good for this country. but i just wanted to call and say that when i listen to c-span and i was retired and a former union guy and i've been been in hundreds of congregation offices on the hill, i have been a proponent of i.q. voting requirement versus age voting requirement for over a decade, probably two decades now. i listen to the comments that come in, and i think i'd rather have a 16-year-old with 120i.q.

and a 50-year-old with a 90 i.q. voting. that's just my personal feelings. thank you, guys, for keeping this topic in the news. it's going to be a while before it goes away, i think. and as senator mcconnell said, yes, there is a chance, but there's also a chance that i'm going to win both of these lottery tickets siding on my side and get hit in the head with an astroid as soon as i step out to claim the ticket. host: let's go to cindy calling from north carolina. cindy, good morning. caller: good morning, yes, i know this is a very controversial subject, and they throw in the word christian around a lot, and i think that they ought to call abortion what it is, it is called murder. when they use soft words like it's women's health and stuff like that, they're really

covering up what is really going on. what they should do is show pictures of aborted fetuses, aborted babies, human lives with their little arms and legs ripped off, they're burned to death, they feel pain at this time, and the bible does say thou shalt not kill. the minute you become pregnant, that is a human life in your body t. and one day you will stand accountable. i know many people don't believe in god. we have one god, the creator of the universe, and you will stand accountable to him. the bible says there is an appointed time and then the judge, and then every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that jesus christ is lord. these are not our words fighting to end this, these are the words of a holy god. host: let's go to d.c., who's calling from washington, d.c.

d.c., good morning. caller: thank you. first of all, i just want to say that the government is divided into parts. judge clarence thomas said do not bully the supreme court. my question to everybody out there that do not support this move that we're supposed to become women, but died through abortions. they have no rights as females to live? the babies you are killing today, do they have no right to live? you're talking about female rights. so it is my question.

so we should think before we do. you're talking about population, what are you doing today? do you want to still go out and get people to become refugees before you develop your country? that's my question. thank you so much, i appreciate it. host: let's go top wanda calling from millington, caller: good morning. i want to say i think mitch mcconnell is despicable and he's single-handedly raped the supreme court. we had people who lied during their confirmation saying they'd uphold the present law and haven't and as far as bullying the court, clarence thomas and brett kavanaugh were both bullies before they got on the court. ask anita hill, she'll tell you.

mitch mcconnell raped the supreme court. we have to fight, we have to vote. the women in this country are coming out in force to take the republican party down. they do not care about women. they are anti-women. and i just hope that this doesn't go through. thank you. host: let's go to chris calling from maryland. chris, good morning. caller: good morning. the question is rather broad, i guess, your level of confidence. my level of confidence is high in justices thomas, alito, and gorsuch. i think the court is out on the others as far as i'm concerned they don't follow the constitution. there's no right to abortion in the constitution. that's clear. that's a fact. as justice scalia said many times in lectures, if you want a right to abortion, then vote for

a right to abortion. that's the democratic process. it's not democratic for the court on its own, nine unelected judges, to take away rights, democratic rights of the people, to vote on these issues and that's what was done in roe. if you ask any law student what they think of roe v. wade, people who read the decision, most of the callers have not read the decision, it's an abomination and was made out of hole cloth and there's no right to abortion in the constitution. there's no right to privacy in the constitution. this is a penumbra of other rights in the constitution. read the decision. host: you said you don't have confidence in cavanaugh and amy coney barrett, why? caller: i think they're too new and don't know they'll adhere to the original view of things.

we'll see over time. justice roberts was a conservative and he's not adhered to his views on anything. he's a liberal as far as i'm concerned. his interest is in the institution of the court and not having it fall in either direction. if something is wrong, plessy versus ferguson -- ferguson was wrong. it doesn't matter how many years it was in effect and you need to overturn it and give the rights back to the people. we don't have a federal right on death penalties, do we? we have states that have different laws on death penalties. why can't we have different state rights on abortion? host: what that's neil gorse itch didn't from brett kavanaugh or amy coney barrett, all three of them are new.

caller: gorsuch has been there enough and i have seen him line up with alito and thomas to say he's one of the three clear originalist thinkers on the court. host: so you judge your supreme courts by whether they vote originalist or not originalist? caller: i do. that's the proper principled way to interpret the institution and federal laws. there's no such thing as a living constitution. it's clear, if you want to change laws or the constitution, there's an avenue to do that. these callers who are so perturbed go and use the democratic process and either get an amendment to the constitution for an abortion or pass state laws or federal laws if that's possible. i'm not sure that is. and do it through the democratic process. there's nothing stopping them from doing that. host: all right. let's go to roger who is calling

from leesburg, florida. roger, good morning. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i'm a first time caller and really quite nervous. i really don't have much confidence in the court, and for many of the reasons the lady that preceded me gave and that's mr. mcconnell sort of changed the rules and perverted the whole process. the fact we have simple majority now to get a justice on the court seems like all you have to do is have the presidency and the senate and you can put in whoever you want. so it looks like it's either/or. it doesn't look like there's much opportunity that way for someone in the center to get through. it's going to be kind of extreme. that's my view about that. and i've heard that susan collins and lisa murkowski have lamented their votes because they thought they had been, well, betrayed, i think, because they understood that there was not going to be a reversal of roe v. wade.

and i watched the hearings and i kind of concur. but i think what they need to do if they really want to rectify this is take the place of what i consider to be two bad apples in the barrel in the democrat senate and what they should do is simply vote to remove the filibuster temporarily. and pass these laws about abortion. nationally. host: let's go to mary calling from high land, california. mary, good morning. caller: hey, good morning and thank you. i just wanted to comment that none of this has to do with opinion or feelings. the supreme court has given us reason to be confident because they're considering the constitution. that's what it's all about, the constitution, not about what people think. and also, i have to comment that it's a bit disappointing the gentleman who was speaking about statistics and was asked where he got them from, he was just

beginning to say that jen psaki stated that 70% of planned parenthood places are in the black community and his call was cut off just as he was saying that, so i think c-span needs t- host: actually, let me stop you there. we didn't cut him off. caller: the call was cut off, i'm not saying you cut him off. the call was cut off and was kind of coincidental right when he was going to make a comment. anyway, i don't know how it happened but it was just -- it doesn't happen very often and wanted to point that out. c-span provides a great service and i appreciate that. i've been watching for many, many years. and the call screener asked me if i'd called before and i have and it's been about 30 years so i have been a viewer for a long time. so c-span does provide a good service but again, the supreme court makes decisions based on constitution and not on opinions and feelings. and we have to be clear-minded

about that. thank you for letting me speak. host: earlier this week, senator lisa murkowski, a alaska republican said that the supreme court leak should be condemned in the highest possible terms and called shocking and unprecedented. here's what lisa murkowski had to say. [video] lisa: i really find it odd this would happen. i understand it's unprecedented. second point is roe is still the law of the land. we don't know the direction that this decision may ultimately take but if, if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, i would just tell you that it's -- it rocks my

confidence in the court right now. host: let's look at what some of our social media followers are saying about their level of confidence in the supreme court. here are the tweets that says an abortion ban would be as unconstitutional as roe v. wade. here is a tweet that says within days of alito's draft leak, states are talking about jailing women, banning everything from the pill to i.u.d.'s, it's never been about abortion but control of women. another tweet says if the court wasn't political, congress wouldn't be so excited to have the right to select when in power. the republicans made that abundantly clear over merrick garland. a tweet says i have no confidence in the supreme court, they are the same people who invest in the stock market and then decide corporations are people. think about it. one last tweet, there was a time

when sterilization was the law in many states. there is the possibility that if roe is booted the states could reinstate those policies. our question is what is the level of confidence in the supreme court. let's go to sherry calling from new richmond, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling from cal bash, actually, this is my first time. i'm pro-choice, i'm 63 years old and i've been pro-choice all since 1973, very proud. and i was just have no confidence in the supreme court anymore. i've grown up with the supreme court and very proud, my son's a lawyer and i said you should be on the supreme court. but now i have no confidence at all. host: all right. let's go to kathy calling from florida. kathy, good morning. caller: yeah. hello? hi. i wanted to say i'm very confident in the supreme court. they are not going to let these

activists sick on them from the democratic party to change their views on anything. as far as the roe v. wade, it's distracted people from the ultimate question of when life begins. the question is who begins life? and when they go down that path of ignoring god, we end up killing millions of babies. so there's my stand on it. and stand strong. supreme court justices. don't take it. host: all right. let's go to shawn calling from mainville, ohio. shawn, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: go ahead, shawn. caller: i want to say for the people who believe in pro-life, i respect your opinion but just ask you to ask yourself, especially if you're a woman, if you were raped or pregnant through incest, would you want to keep that baby?

i want to bring that to your attention. i think women should have the right to make the decision what's right for them and i also want to bring up something you notated on your face book page, somebody brought up the fact that until you realize as americans and the people who are low income or not the wealthiest, we realize that corporations are running our country and making decisions, it's situations like this in ukraine and protests, those are all distractions and we need to focus on getting our country back and do that by coming together and that's the only thing i wanted to say. host: speaking of ukraine, i want to point out the breaking news this morning we have tweeted from the associated press first lady jill biden made an unannounced visit to ukraine and i'll read the tweet, jill biden makes unannounced visit to ukraine, meets nation's first lady at school and village near border with slovakia and they

have actually a photo of jill biden meeting ukraine personally in ukraine and was the first public appearance since the war began and according to the tweet, jill biden was in ukraine for about two hours. that's the breaking news from the associated press this morning that the united states first lady jill biden has gone to ukraine in an unannounced visit to meet with ukraine's first lady. once again, the conversation this morning is about the level of confidence in the supreme court, knowing what you know right now with the leaked draft opinion from the supreme court that would overturn roe v. wade. let's talk to tristan who is calling from kentucky. tristan, good morning. caller: thank for you taking my call this morning. i've got a couple points i want to make while i've got you. in the course of 50 years, the

evangelicals and the religious rights have been waiting for this day and i just want to say that this is what america looks like when the line between church and state is crossed. it explicitly says there will be a line between church and state. well, that line's gone. it's been gone for a long time. and as far as the supreme court goes, i have no confidence in them whatsoever. this goes back to the warren days. we choose to look at what they do and say with a jaded opinion. i've called in twice in my lifetime. the first time was about clarence thomas and his wife. that came and went like a balloon busted, you know. i've got a couple kids. there has always been some price to pay when people lie to you. i don't know if you've got any or not.

we get lied to so much anymore as citizens, it's just the norm. and that's a problem. really a problem. thanks for your time. host: let's talk to bob who is calling from golita, california. bob, good morning. can you hear me, bob? caller: yeah. host: go ahead, bob. caller: yeah. well, i'm somewhat confident in the supreme court. let's face it, they're just human beings. i have as about as much confidence i do in them as any other human beings, people of pretty near anything. but the reason i called specifically, i keep hearing all this talk about a woman's right to choose, well, hell, they've still got the right to choose, they've always have had it and always will. anybody takes that right away from them, well, the gal's daddy or big brother should just go

over there and perform a sex change operation on the fella that mistreats them. but they've got the right to choose, they've always had the right to choose. they don't have to go out and act like a female dog in a barnyard on the night of the full moon and keep their legs together and they won't get pregnant and no need to murder a little baby. those are little human beings, over 60 million of them have been murdered. many years ago as a young man i bought myself a hard back copy of the federalist papers, read and studied it from one end to the other. it also included our declaration of independence, a copy of our original constitution, the articles of confederation and the constitution that came out of the philadelphia convection with -- convention with the bill of rights and all subsequent amendments to the constitution. there's no damn right to murder babies in there anywhere.

a woman's right to choose rests entirely with her. everybody above about third grade knows how you get pregnant. if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sexual intercourse. it's that damn simple. host: let's go to walter calling from st. petersburg, florida. walter, good morning. caller: good morning. thank for you having me today. first and foremost, we are a republic, and i agree with the supreme court getting the -- giving the states the decision to do what they want to do and how they want to handle this abortion issue. i have the utmost confidence in the supreme court. it seems that they always step up to the plate and do the right thing. god bless america. thank you. #. host: earlier in the hour i played for you the reaction of

vice president kamala harris to the leaked opinion from the supreme court that would overturn roe v. wade. well, former vice president mike pence had a response. to what he heard vice president harris say, and i'll read to you from the hill newspaper what his response was to vice president harris. former vice president mike pence blasted vice president hair his a speech thursday over her support of abortion rights as the supreme court appears poised to overturn roe v. wade. on tuesday at a emily's list conference, harris practices cheesed republicans who aimed to restrict abortions. those republican leaders trying to weaponnize the use of the law against women, how dare they tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. how dare they try to stop her from determining her own future? how dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms.

pence at a gala for the carolina pregnancy center responded to harris' comments by saying 62 million unborn boys and girls in abortion since roe v. wade was decided. since 1973 generations of mothers enduring heartbreak and loss can last a lifetime. madam vice president, how dare you? once again, that's from former vice president mike pence responding to current vice president kamala harris over the leaked supreme court decision, the leaked supreme court draft that would eliminate roe v. wade. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to roy calling from greenville, north carolina. roy, good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i'd like to say regarding my stance on the supreme court, i would say i have dramatically decreased confidence in the

supreme court because it seems to me that over the past several years the supreme court has become completely contaminated by the toxic political climate in this country with politicians, like they tried to basically conspire to try to fill with their own appointees with who they share the same political views with, starting off with mitch mcconnell i think it was in 2014 or 2015 by refusing to allow the obama administration to fill its own and waiting for the trump party to fill it with the more mcconnell option. and the point of the problem is that it just shows the recent leak regarding the supreme court's recent draft opinion on abortion, it goes to show how absurdly politicized the court has become and it's just become another partisan chess piece on

a partisan checkerboard, if you mind. so to me, i'm a 19-year-old college student who just voted two years ago, voted for the first time two years ago, it's incredibly disheartening to see how polarized the country has become and to me it seems like the u.s. is slowly but surely backsliding democratically and what i worry about because if roe v. wade is declared unconstitutional, i live in north carolina, while the states south of increase, the deep south will heavily restrict if not ban abortion and they'll put a severe political strain on my state because my state still has rather lax abortion laws compared to other states, so there will be a great political pressure upon my state's government to either restrict abortion if not ban it completely or liberalize

abortion laws. so it's going to turn the north carolina state government into a political battleground of which the state has already been politically polarized for at least the past decade. i'm pretty sure you've heard about the back and forth battles over gerrymandering in this state. but the point i'm trying to make here is that it seems like the supreme court leak goes to show how utterly politicized the supreme court has become and how it's just become another part of a partisan chess board. host: let's go to brian calling from michigan. brian, good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead, brian. caller: ok. caller: somewhat confident. the young lady got a few things turned around. you want to talk about politicization and it started

with attorney general sessions when you had many people hanging out at his door. it continued with the attorney general barr and now we get to the supreme court and from my understanding, they're protesting outside of the supreme court members homes and things of that nature. that's beyond political. there's no separation of church and state, the establishment clause is clear that we do not support any one cingular religion. basically we support them all or support none of them. so that point is mute on that. i'm thankful that the supreme court is taking on politicization and a conservative viewpoint would not have leaked this out so obviously whoever is within the eternal bowels within the supreme court is to me is political. now this would be the liberal side of the aisle that wants

more. let me end on this, it's pretty ironic in math, and it does connect itself. now, we've allowed all these abortions over all these years, most of them, come on, guys, it's not because of rape or incest, whatever, the women need to tighten up and not get pregnant until they wish to. they have many choices now but did not have to. that's what all needs to be tightened up. you have illegal immigration and open borders. you have over 20 million people here but yet we're aborting basically our own so doesn't make any sense in math. host: let's go to tom calling from knoxville, tennessee. tom, good morning. caller: hello. yes, i have three things i'd like to say in terms of what i perceive the problem, the core problem with what's happening. one is there is a lack of historical understanding and

knowledge in america and teaching real history is something that doesn't happen. and i would think that's one of the problems that if we fix that, people then would go to the second problem which is things come along periodically and people don't understand why it's happening or they have an inaccurate undergo of the history of why things are happening. teaching real history would fix that. third, congress is not able to pass things because our system is controlled with money and people wanting to stay in pow per. video history to teach that is a core issue long-standing in the country. thank you for my comments and for letting me make them. host: let's go to cindy calling from ingle wood, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad for this leak and lets

us know how conservative this court is. this wasn't supposed to be brought up. they said it wouldn't be brought up but it has. you can't make a baby without a man. this to me seems that they want patrol of women's rights. what about the men? here we are persecuting the women for doing things that might be necessary for their health. what about the men and their responsibilities as far as being involved in this? all i can say is women continue to protest and stand up for what is right. thank you, jesse, have a wonderful day and happy mother's day to those out there. host: let's read texts coming in on the question what is your level of confidence in the supreme court. here's one text that says let's start passing laws that restrict a man making choices about his

body, that will guarantee me my body, my choice is law. here's another text that says i guarantee you there are plenty of women who believe children have a right to live on mother's day and every day of these convoluted years. >> here's another test where i think there are consequences for terminating a unborn life but not past the 12th week. when i was younger before i had kids i thought differently and anyone who does it doesn't know what it means to love their children more than anything on earth. one final text that says the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. arguing that the constitution does not mention abortion means the right does not exist is not what the ninth amendment says. again, we want to know what is your level of confidence in the supreme court. let's talk to van calling from

maricopa, arizona. good morning, van. caller: good morning. good morning. host: go ahead, van. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: first i want to make the statement that god is pro-choice. he's given us a free will. he also says do not resist evil. do not fail to turn the other cheek. the question is he permitted his only son to be crucified. he permits evil because this life is transitory. it's not going to end well for people who do not become disciples of the truth and learn the way to eternal life. thank you. host: let's go to patricia who is calling from daytona beach, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, how are

you today? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: i'm from florida and i'm a woman, of course, and just think we should respect women's rights and the men shouldn't be telling us what we should be doing with our bodies. and when you have a judge that has his wife call on the insurrection and all these other things, it's not right. it's not right. and god bless to the women and happy mother's day. host: let's talk to char calling from kokomo, indiana. good morning. caller: hi. what i'm calling about is it seems with the conservative view of the supreme court right now, they're totally ignoring the responsibility of the fathers creating these babies by forcing the mothers to carry them to term. and they're also ignoring the fact that once these mothers carry them to term and there's no father around, the taxpayers are now going to be responsible for the whole family for their health and financial well-being

the next few decades. if the supreme court decides to change the ruling which they're allowed to do, they need to include in that ruling they need to do mandatory d.n.a. tests and go after the theirs to make them responsible and if not, put them in jail and that will stop the baby making factory and if the women continue to do it, it should be mandatory like planned parenting so they can regulate how obvious they have the kids and again, put the taxpayers on the shortened of this. host: let's talk to larry calling from arrington, virginia. larry q good morning. caller: good morning. my big question is, it seems like we're drifting more and more to the church state, especially the separation of state and church by the shirts is getting more involved in politics and all these states passing the abortion laws, what do their social services look like? are they under water, can they

adopt all these new babies? and i have one more thing that slipped my mind. y'all have a good afternoon. thanks. host: we'd like to thank all of our guests, all thank all of our guests, callers, and social media followers and viewers for today's show. i would like to say quickly happy mother's day to my mom, wife, mother-in-law, ancestor, and all of you out there have a great sunday. we will see you again tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. for another "washington journal." have a great day, everyone. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> next, the hearing on debit

and credit card swipe fees, then republican governor larry hogan talks about the future of the republican party. after that, west virginia democratic senator joe manchin joins a discussion on the opioid crisis. the house will take up a bill next week allowing staff to form unions, the measurement also set the minimum salary for housestaff at $45,000. the maximum seller at close to $204,000. the senate will vote wednesday on whether to begin debate on a bill to codify a woman's right to have an abortion into federal law. 60 votes are needed to advance the bill. this comes after a draft supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade was leaked to the press. live coverage of the house on c-span, and the senate on c-span two. >> now available in the c-span shop, c-span 2022 congressional

directory. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral-bound book as your guide to federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments. also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration. order your copy today at c-spanshop.org or skin the code with their smart phone. every c-span shop purchase supports the nonprofit. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with events with the livestreamed proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and scheduling information for c-span networks and radio, plus

a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. download for free today. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment, that is why charter invented billions building infrastructure, upgrade and technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> next, major credit card executives testify on excessive fees for card transactions