washington journal continues. host: back with us now is edward elan and president of the ethics & pubc policy center. first explain your mission there.

host: how long were you president for? guest: w focus on the court and nstitutional law and the rule of law throughhe courts. host: plenty to chew on from the supreme cot. let's start on the kennedy case, the foball coach case. what do you say to those viewe who see this ruling yesterday as an eroding of the separation of church and sta in this country? guest: we see the vindication of individual liberty and the principles do not lose their ligious liberty because they are on the job. they distinguish between what coach kennedy did in his capacity as a coach in the things he was able to do in his

personal capacity. just as teachers can say blessings before their mea, coach kennedy and his pvate time could say a private, quiet prayer. that is all the court indicated. ho: separation of church and state is not in the constitution, where did that come from? guest: that came from single letter that thomas jefferson wrot, he spoke on the wall of separation. i think it is an unhelpful metaor because we never had a wall. i think it is impossible for that metaphor to be meaningful. we recognize that religious beliefs and convictions have fused such things as the civil rights movemt as someone noticed in the last hour,

proceedings in the supreme court and congress begin with prayer. george washington warned that we should be wary of the proposition that this american experiment can't survive without citizens who are not religious believers. people have the leisure to ridicule it cause we have benefited from the judeo-christian law and tradition. host: the conflict here is between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. coress shall make no law making an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. guest: what happened in recent dedes -- the establishment

clause on steroids. wh the court did recently was made clear that the establishment clause should be interpreted with history a tradition. when it is so it understood, the tradition disappears. i think things will be much better going forward. will not have the estaishment clause attacking the exercise clause. allowing individls of different faiths quietly kneel on a fooall field after a game , the framers would have been very puzzled by that notion. host: you will be with us until eight, republicans call in at (202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000 and independents (202) 748-8002.

let's back up to friday in the dobbs decision. in the wake of this, what is the next frontier fothe pro-life movement after roe v. wade being overturned? guest: dobbs overturned roe and it ignited a culture war in which people were fighting through the courts an issue that was in the process of being woed out democratically. the challenge for pro-lifers will be to make their case showing love and concern for pregnant women. make their case emphasizing the fundamental humanityf unbn human beings and maksure that we have legal protections for them. host: what is it just policy

consist of? there are complete bans, what is it just policy in your mind? guest: my own position is that an unborn human being has a right to life under law. are some cases like those in cases of rape or the protection of the mother. i believe very much in the basic protections from conception. i know a lot of people disaee with me. i hope to persuade them, but i will recognize that i have lost through democratic means. host: a lot of questions that arise from this patchwork, the abortionill is now the path

for abortion. can states that ban abortion candidate delivered the ban of abortion pills through theail in their states? guest: federal laws actually can the delivery of abortion pills through the males. these laws he been enforced while roe v. wade was in effect. host: what do you think this justice department will do when it comes to those laws after hearing from president biden on friday? guest: i hope the justice department will commit to impartial enforcement of these laws. the pro-abortion forces are dominant in this administration. we will have to make our

political case and criticize them for not doing their job. host: what have we learned from the roberts court this term? guest: we had the practice of calling the court by the chief justice. what we called the roberts court was the kennedy court. i am not sure we will have the roberts court now. i was disappointed with the chief roberts on dobbs. i think you failed in that opportunity. we will have a courgoing forward in which the chief justices will have to figure out is he gog to lead? will he be in the center or do something in the middl host: has roberts lost control of the supremeourt? he sought middle ground on roe

v. wade but lost. if he is not leading the court who is? guest: that might appear to be justice kavanaugh. the cot is somewhat fluid. the majority issue shift on different issues. you can see from case to case, someone may be in a different sition. as a general rule, it is not the chief who was driving the direction of the court. host: as you look at where the middle ground is, where is the middle ground? guest: there will be a big racial preferences case, that is an issue where the chief has been aeader so weill see if he leads on that. host: we are taking your phone calls as well, republicans, democrats and independents, we

will put those numbers on the screen. we will talk to nicholas from pennsylvia, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call, love your program. i'm a little nervous, but anyway. my issue is with the christians. they claim that the abortion issue is not in the bible in there is. there is numbers 5:11 where a priest has the ability to give a woman abortion. since donald trump was the president of the united states who unfortunately had the ability to put three people on the supreme court unjustly because of mitch mcconnell and denied obama the right to put a supreme court justice on and denied biden the ability to put

one on. these justices are from the supreme court faith. this country was not founded on christianity, it was founded on freedom of religion. est: it is rather odd that the folks who invoke religion most often are those who insist that the bible require lawful abortion. there are few, if any, who make religious arguments for the pro-life position. our argument is based on biology, basic science. the humanity of the unborbeing and the moral principle you should not unjustly kill someone.

they do not involve invoking some verse in the bible as the caller just did. the caller also claims that three justices were appointed unjustly, that is a longatter to go into but it is strange to hear people attacked the legitimacy of the court. host: to of those justices, susan collins said she felt misled about their opinions. guest: if you look back at what was said, and indeed what susan collins said that they were not given any promises or assurances.

they may have felt it convenient to construe it in that way. it was akin to the testimony that every justice has given. justice ginsburg has said no previews, they have made clear that he or she will not give a p2 how they would rule. host: glenn from lancaste california, a republican. caller: i would le to talk about the mcgirt ruling in the cherokee and creek nations. therefore, first and eighth amendment, almost every amendmt has been unduly done. you invoked jefferson, we have

no doubt that it is to the court, the house of reesentatives with our treaty rights. jefferson lost a supreme court ruling and forciy remove the native amerin people. we need to be a whole people in the united states. we need delegates to the congss which is in the constitution. th shall have delegates. we need to be seen as a whole people. we were forcibly removed from r lands. waingtonc, the virgin islands, puerto rico has delegates,e need delegates as well. host: thank you for bringing it up, is that something you have

thought about? guest: he is talking about the mcgirt case that talks about jurisdiction over indian lands and oklahoma. neil gorsuch has proven to be the strongest asset of native american rights. he was with the liberal justices on that case. it is a controversial case, i can't really confidently discuss it at this point. host: frank out of new york, and independent. caller: i am about to officiate a relatives wedding soon, i am not a member of the clergy. i am not religious really. i do believe that jesus was the prince of peace and i practice in my life his teachings of

being loving and compassionate. when i do this officiating, my nephew and his fiancee are not religious. i don't intend on bringing religion into the conversation, but i do intend on bringing spirituality into my speech. he is having it on the beach so i will bring in the beauty and spirit of nature that surrounds us. host: it sounds like a lovely ceremony, bring me to the relationship to the topics we are lking about. caller: i am curious to what he inks about that? problem is, i am afraid that

i may offend religious people in the audience because i am omitting religion. i am wondering whate thinks about nonreligious people officiing a marriage? host: it brings up the question about how we speak about religion in society. guest: you have the religious liberty to do what you plan to do. it does not bother me at all. go right ahead. host: religious liberty and the court'definition of that in recent years and where it could go, what are your thoughts on that? guest: what we are seeing is a recognition is that it is a ght for all. it is a curious to see that if this was a muslim coach it would've been ruled differently.

it is clear that these stices have a robusand broad understanding of religious liberty, something that extends to people of all religions and those that have nreligi. i thi we will see a contintion of the cou's recognition that religious exercise, free exercise of religion is a fundamental right and as i mentioned before, the establishment clause should not be misconstrued to trample on this right. host: the justices get to pick their own cases, are there other cases in the pipeline that will continue to further this discussion about religious liberty? anything you are looking forward to? guest: there are some cases in the pipeline, some cases that woul have that might clear

others out of the pipeline. host: there was a case that was decided that had a little less press on a main private school, the fact that religious schools could not be barred from receivintuition. guest: the court ruled that it was not constitutional to exclude sectarian schools, not just religious schools but schools that were sectarian from a general program of tuition assistance with school districts that do not have their own hig schools. maine has general programs and

you can't discriminate against regious entities and how you run them. host: what would the argument on the other side that would b concerned about state dollars going to religious schools? guest: there is a notion tha this applicationf the establishment clause. even those these decisions turn on the individual choice of parents, that somehow it is illegitimate for parents to make decisions that would lead to funds their kids would go to. host: on the line next, we have lee, a democrat. caller: everyone keeps saying,

religious freedom. th is not what the constitution says. it is freedom froreligious persecution. you can believe anything you want. or you don't have to belie in anything at all. it is this talking point that they keep putting out there. when you die, you die. even in the bible it says that no one is going anywhere until jesus comes back. if you want to believe in religion, that is fine. especially for children, to think that you are going somewhere. but when youurn 10, 12 you should be ld the truth. you should n make it something

al. that's not right. guest: he has his right to hold his own views on the matter. he misstates what the constitutionays on this. st: a caller in the las seentaidhat wh the hse gavels in the first thing that ppens is a prar from the house chaplain. is anyone concerned that is a violation of the establishment clause? guest: marge versus chamber in nebraska, threason we have these prayers is that for a long time legislators recognize that they had a solemn duty to act in

accordance with what they discern to be god's will for the common good andhey took that oblition seriously. they took oath of office and a promise to god, so this is a core reflection of our show dao christian heritage. some peoe are ready to walk away from that. i think we ought to be attentive to what of thconsequences should be if we walk ay from that. host: what would be violation of the estabshment clause? guest: a preference for one religion over other. host: can you give an example? guest:eading prayer circles on the field in which he made religious references, that was

deemed -- the school district deemed it improper. there are all sorts of things. to take an extreme case, you can't establish a national religion. you can't do anything that vors one religion over another. even though muslims e free to actice their religion, we declare this to be a christian nation. that is not permissible. we look to history and tradition and it would be helpful to have some specifics. host: what about putting up a cross in a public space? guest: there are crosses in the artwork in the u.s. supreme court. there is a picture of the 10 commandments. host: is that favoring christianity?

guest: i don't think so. it reflects the traditions of the time. i'm sure that muslims and jews review in the 10 commandments as well. the question still stands, there is nothing coercive about that. host: to royut of tucson, arizona. a republican. caller: i had a quick comment. as republicans, we need to be careful for t roe v. wade being overturned because what is going to happen is these democrats will try to lower the voting age to 10 so they can get these kids who were not aborted to vote democrat and tt is something we need to watch out

for. i thin that is what's gointo happen. host: your thoughts on the politics in a post dobbs world. does it becomes this uniting force and driving of a movement for decades to come? guest: roe v. wade removed the question of abortion and made it a question of pro-lifers to fight year after year to improve the supreme court. in the coming battle, the pro-abortion forces can win and lose legislative battles. will be of volatile issue, we

have had 50 years in which neither side has tried to persuade the middle of the merits of its position and that will be the challenge in the coming months and years. host: do you think that after achieving overturning roe v. wade that the pro-life movement loses this uniting force, there may be less passion behind the issue? they have achieved this decades long goal? guest: i think this is just the first step in a long process of working to build a culture of life. a culture that shows love and concern for women who find themselves and an unwanted pregnancy. it shows love and respect for unborn human beings. it will not be easy, we have had 50 years where roe has

corrupted our litical culture. democrats abandon pro-lifers, they moved to the republican party. we see a lot more pro-life sentiment among hispanics and african-americans then we see among the fun risers in the democratic party. caller: cheryl out of california. the father iheaven is not a republican, or a democrat. the coach that was pying, in matthew:6 it says to pray

privately. he wilreward you openly if you follow his precepts and examples. anotr thini want to say about this abortion thing. i am against abortion but i am for the women to do what they wa to. when they wantedo stone that woman, not one man came out. they only brought the woman forward, and he said he who is without sin cast the first stone. all these so-called evangelicals

that want to throw these stones, i am against that because you either do it or you don't. guest: jesus said go and sin no more. this is not a matter to be decided by citing bible verses. this is to be decided by moral principles decided by al cheryl invoked the bible verse about not praying in public. he is allowed to decide on when d how to pray. it is not constrained by one particular bible verse. lots of folks of other phase uld find no meaning at allnd that bible verse. i understanit is perfect

improper to draw from her own understanding of her religious faith, matters of public policy and how we ought to address them. lots of otr folks can decide based on the own faiths and based on reason that is acceptable to others. st: the question with coach kennedy's cas and t justices made clear is of a situation like this, this picture from the wall strt jourl today, of coach kennedy being surrounded by his players after they prayed after a 2015 game. whether at situation is part of a public school it took placen a f ootball field. was this part of the program of

that d? guest: i believe that is a photo with players from the opposing teams. t a single player from his teamas with him at this fid during the prayer. there were some episodes where therwere players from his team that surrounded him when he was advised tt should not happen, he complied with that. the extent of the ruling relates to a coach raying silently to himselft the de of a game. for which the district disciplined coach kennedy that there was anyone coerced to join him. host: natasha, an independent.

caller: i don't know how many of today's christians know this, we are in the last days. the original christ is black and all of the disciples are black. the christ ima was modeled after the illegitimate son of a pope. if you research the black madonnas of europe, this is when the church had a split beten russia and rome. as far as abortion, that was brought to fruition by margaret's anger who wanted to bring thbirthrate of blacks by

minimum. we might wanto uncover these things. host: any thoughts? guest: the has been a strong eugenicomponent to th abortion movement fr the very beginning. a very ugly component and one that hased to theeaths of unborn black babies. host: p in keyport, new jersey. a republican. caller: i have a question on the dobbs decision and how it will impact missiippi.

does the trigg law and validate the law that was declared constitutional? guest: there is a trigger law in mississippi that is aeady operating from conception. the week ban irender irrelevant. host: other constitutional options you are watching in the wake of dobbs? guest: the racial preferences cases on the docket for next term. i don't know if you're speaking specifically of abortion? you ll seen eort to ge state supreme court's to ru th there is a constitutional right under state constitution.

they have already ruled that way lying on the same sort of flimsy commie shoddy reasoning that they used in roe. it is much easier to orturn supme court rulings than is possibl in the federal system. the big legal fights inhe years ahead on sta constitutional grounds. host: to laporte, indiana, ron. caller: in the first place, did you hear about abortion in the bible, koran or talmud. jesus rist when he directed his moral proclamations to the human heart, only when people's hearts are changed, only when the core

of their being is transformed can we possibly live in a loving relationship with each other and nature. we are talking about transformation where jesus gave up everything he had so people could know god. as long as you have a court that is blind, one-sided, you will not have any justice there anyway. you have a good day. thank you. host: the court has rurned to democratic processes. it was roe v. wade that was

wildly one-sided. on the thoughts on the bible, he is entitled to his interpretation of those, i don't care to argue with him on religious grounds. i will note there is a verse in the bible, thou shall not ll. host: one question from jeff on twitter saying if the great state of washington can decide that abortion legalities on its own, why not separation of church and state? guest: the answer to that is religion clauses in the constitution, we don't have an abortion clause. the great question that constitutional law poses are which matters are taken away from the states. it is quite clear that there is

a right to free exercise, there is no ght to abortion in the constitution, there never has been. roe rested on a set of concoction. host: this is carl out of pennsylvania, republican. caller: a lot of questions point to a problem i see, there are people that want to air their positions but they are not talking about the constitution. i am very anti-gun as a republican which is an odd thing. but i realize we have a second amendment, the constitution is different than a moral position you want to air out. with this gun case that we just saw, what comes next with second

amendment cases and rights? where do we go from here? guest: i don't claim to be a second amendment expert. the court's ruling held that new york system of conferring discretion on bureaucrats to decide whether somne should get a concealed carry permit violated the constitution. i noted that there are five or six other jurisdictions that have similar provisions, there are some other jurisdictions that don't and they are fine. i am not sure what questions will come next but i doubt very much that this ruling will be dramatic and its impact. host: edward whelan is the former director of the ethics & public policy center/secretary .