her family and her doctor based on her own religious faith, or a right wing supreme court and republicans in the united states senate. it all comes down to who should make decisions about your health, your life, and your future as a woman in america. right wing republican lawmakers, right wing members of the united states supreme court or you as an american woman? democrats stand with women across our country who have the right to make their own reproductive decisions. we need to pass the women's health protection act now and then we need to vote. -- vote in november. sen. smith: when i worked at planned parenthood, i saw firsthand every day capacity of women to make good decisions about their health care, including abortion. in this morning, those women and women all across this country, people all across this country woke up outraged. how dare, how dare this conservative right wing supreme court -- how could they do this? how could they take away that right? this is the first time in my living memory that the united states supreme court has actually taken away a right. and we are talking here about the most

senator from massachusetts called the supreme court's current majority, quote, stolen, illegitimate, and far right. these were justices who were confirmed by the united states senate. it's dangerous and dishonest to suggest that any of their positions are anything less than consistent with the law and the constitution. our colleague went on to say the supreme court should be expanded. that's another way of saying they should ask the court with like-minded -- pack the court with like-minded policymakers. well, what you talk about expanding the t court or packing the court the result is a saint. it's just another effort to try toic politicize this independent branch of government -- is the same -- this are the crown jewels of our system of government, and independent judiciary. well, even joe biden knows that is a bonehead idea. the reason i know that and we know that is because that's what he saidwh in 1983. he called court packing a boneheaded idea. justice ginsburg was asked about she said nine seems to be a good number. that was her gentle way of saying that if you start adding justices to the court or restructuring or packing the court, basically you are

court. -- appears to have been leaked from the united states supreme court. this has not appeared before at least that we know of. the way that these things work notice united states supreme court and i have never been a clerk, i only have a layman's understanding of these things but part of this is described in mr. gerstein's and mr. ward's article tonight and part of it we know from covering so many consequential supreme court decisions over time, is there are orth arguments that happen in -- oral arguments that happen in front of the justices, and we've all heard about them, and maybe on a class trip we have heard them in person, and we know the oral arguments, after they happen, the way the process usually work, the justices get together and they hold effectively, preliminary votes, think i'm going to go yes, i think i'm going to go no, and based on what they cobble together as what they believe is the majority in the case, and a justice is assigned to write a draft majority opinion. now, that draft majority opinion is just a draft. it will likely change.

the people on the floor, the republicans, the united states supreme court? who decides in the most personal decisions and sometimes agonizing decisions a woman will ever have to make. the question is, who decides. fifty years of freedom is what we are talking about republicans eliminating this vote. fifty years of freedom for women to decide what we need to do as it relates to our own health care and reproductive freedom. i strongly support the women of this country. i believe in them. i believe in us. i trust them, i trust us. this is about their choice, not a bunch of politicians deciding what is best for them. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i come to the floor today at a pivotal time for women's rights in this country. i want to thank senator blumenthal and murray and many others, including senator baldwin for their leadership on this issue and the woman's protection act. we learned last week, mr. president, that it is very likely that the supreme court will overrule roe v wade. the leaked opinion made it clear it means c the supreme court isn track

president we witnessed a unprecedented attack wrong the independence and integrity of the united states supreme court. a third branch of government. when some reporters got their hands on a nearly 3-month-old draft of an opinion setting off a political fire storm. they created a lot of confusion and his stairia. all of which is beside the point. the court hasn't decided anything. this was a stunning breech of confidentiality for an institution that relies on a private confidential delibbive process. free of political and other outside influence and interference.at justices are not elected and serve life terms. they didn't have term limits and you can't reduce their salary while they are in office to make sure politics and outside opinions have nothing to do with the wayob they do their job. not making it up and being a policymaker but saying what the law is. it's critical to our form of government and separated power and three branches of government the court be protected from pressure campaigns for anyone. politicians and political activist. anyone.on that's what is happening right now. many o

and what that means is that in the united states following slavery, black people still had 2nd class citizenship. that was in dated by the united states supreme court of holding state laws that denied black people full participation in government and society. and what we see if the supreme court does go ahead and dismiss until grovee wade will be a new jane pro. meaning that for women, it will be a matter of 2nd class citizenship quite literally and even quite deadly. for many women who are black and brown in the united states, because of the u. s. all ready is 50, said the world's in terms of maternal mortality and states in the us that misses to be louisiana and texas are considered the deadliest places in the entire air. quote, developed world to even be pregnant. nick, how can you go 1st is i yeah, i wanted to jump in in that i think everything is right on i just don't know, but i was surprised. i was surprised by the week i wasn't surprised by the fact that the scream court launched over term road the weight and plans to do so. i'm part of that to do with the fact that texas a pattern plays a law that the ends abortion after the 6 week m

the leak you should be outraged about, it's that for the first time in the history of the united states supreme court, the selection of supreme court justices was farmed out, handed off, to a private organization and justices were selected in some back room with zero transparency, but the selections were made and the lifts were assembled and zero transparency into the dark money that slowed into that private organization while the selections were being made. who made what? to have a seat at the federalist society judicial selection turnstile. we know from new reporting that it was the federalist's society leonard leo to quote, laid out the road map for trump on the federal court system with the goal of, and i quote, transforming the foundational understanding of rights in america. so much for balls and strikes, huh? leo came up with the list of judges that would please the republican base from among what he called-- what was called the decades of conservative lawyers in the pipeline. he became a team with don mcgann, the white house counsel, and mitch mcconnell to keep the judicial nominations

wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other, end quote. 2018, justice kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing, quote, i said that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, entitled the respect under principles of stair decisis -- stare decisis. one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade it is that it has been ereaffirmed over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. casey in 1992, end quote. that is justice kavanaugh. today it has become increasingly clear that despite these statements to the contrary, the three justices nominated by trump were hired specifically to overturn roe v. wade. and with justice alito at the helm, nominated by president george w. bush, that is precisely what it appears they are set to do. four justices, all appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. is it any wonder why americans

a remarkable development, a draft majority opinion appears to have been leaks from the united states supremesomething that has ever happened before, at least that we know of. the way that these things work in the united states supreme court, and never been a clerk, i only have a layman's understanding of these things. part of this is described, and mr. garcia and mr. wards article, and part of this we know from just covering so many consequential decisions overtime. there are oral arguments that happen in front of all of the justices, we're familiar with those, we've heard the audio of them. you may be even been lucky enough on it class trip to hear supreme court arguments in person, we know with those oral arguments are like. and shortly after the oral argument happens, the way the process usually works is that the justices get together, and they hold effectively preliminary votes, saying i think i'm gonna go yes, i think i'm gonna go no, based on whichever side is able to cobble together but they believe is going to be the majority in the case. and an individual justice will be assigned, t

bear the cost of the privilege in the state legislatures and the privilege who sit on the united states supreme court and the privileged in the united states congress who facilitate a rule that falls on them. a rule that says, your dignity, your life, your future just doesn't matter. >> roe was decided 1973 and parted that there was a patchwork of laws across the country. in some states it was illegal to obtain an abortion. you said today, that you had seen firsthand what that's like. and i wonder, i haven't, i was born after that date. a lot of people watching this probably haven't. it's been a fair amount of time. what does that mean when you say you've seen this firsthand? >> i grew up in oklahoma, i grew up at a time when abortion was unlawful. and that means there were women who bled to death from back alley abortions. it means there were women who ended their own lives rather than carry forward a pregnancy that they could not bear. yeah and that's the world that the republican extremists are trying to recreate. and make no mistake about this, this is not one on which america is closely di

wade decided in 1973 is a president of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed and relying [inaudible] considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing president have to be considered. he's a president of the united states supreme court, it's reaffirmed in kc in 1992. and in several other cases. so a good judge will consider as president of the united states supreme court with the as treatment of president like any other. >> what about griswold, which was decided a few years before roe. the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy. can you tell me your views on griswold? >> senator, it's a president that's now 50 years old? griswold involved a right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. and his 50 years old. there are light interests are obvious. it's been repeatedly reaffirmed, all very important factors, again, in analyzing president. >> okay. well, i think i'm going to stop questioning, but i kind of sum up what you and i just talked about i

the president united states supreme court it has been reaffirmed. the reliance interest considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing precedent. to be considered it is a precedent of the united states supreme court. is reaffirmed in casey in 1992. in several other cases so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other what about griswold which was decided a few years before row the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy? can you tell me your views on griswold? center it's a precedent. it's now. 50 years old griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. and it's 50 years old. the reliance interests are obvious. been repeatedly reaffirmed all very important factors again in analyzing precedent well, i think i'm going to stop questioning but i kind of sum up what you and i just talked about in regard to precedent. so everybody understands the principles

or a right wing supreme court and republicans in the united states senate? imagine what this means for a woman who learns the pregnancy she has wanted so desperately isn't viable and her own life is at risk. who should decide what happens to her? the woman supported by her family and her doctor based on her own religious faith or a white right-wing supreme court and republicans in the senate. it all comes down to who should make decisions about your health, your life and your future as a woman in america. right-wing republican lawmakers, right-wing members of the united states supreme court or you as an american woman. democrats stand with women across the country who have the rights to make their own reproductive decisions. we need to pass the women's protection act now and then we need to vote. in november. [applause] >> thank you. when i worked at planned parenthood i saw firsthand every day the capacity of women to make good decisions about their health care including abortion. and this morning those women and women across the country, people across this

. >> i would tell you that roe versus wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supremert. it has been reaffirmed so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. >> as a judge t is an important precedent of the supreme court, by it i mean roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey, and reaffirm many times casey is precedent on precedent. >> roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn't mean that roe should be overruled. >> are we down the rabbit hole? if they don't care about public opinion and they were so confident in their political standing, why not just, you know, rip off -- why not just say i don't -- i mean, why say those words, claire? >> first of all, it's going to be very hard for me today because my blood pressure is so high, and there's so many things i want to say. >> well, take your time. >> with anger and passion, and frankly a little nerdy. there is a whole lot of talk about here as a lawyer they kicked the ladder out

wade decided in 1973, as a president of the united states supreme court. dent of the united states supreme court. it was reaffirmed in casey 1992. it decided a lot of cases. >> senator, i said that it is settled as a precedent of the supreme court. and entitled under principles legally. >> roe v. wade clearly -- casey upheld at central holding. and spelled out in greater detail the test that the court uses to consider the look galaxy of abortion regulations. >> tonight's last word is precedent. the 11th but hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. hle starts now >> tonight, the fate of federal abortion rights remains uncertain, as a key vote fails in the senate. so, what is next? plus, new details on the plot to overturn the 2020 election. reporting on the push to try to re-tabulate pennsylvania's popular vote and tossed out thousands of absentee ballots. plus, our exclusive interview on the future of work. the bold new prediction from the ceo of airbnb about what is next for you, the worker, as the 11th hour gets underway on this wednesday night. >> good

wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other, end quote. 2018, justice kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing, quote, i said that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, entitled the respect under principles of stair decisis -- stare decisis. one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade it is that it has been ereaffirmed over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. casey in 1992, end quote. that is justice kavanaugh. today it has become increasingly clear that despite these statements to the contrary, the three justices nominated by trump were hired specifically to overturn roe v. wade. and with justice alito at the helm, nominated by president george w. bush, that is precisely what it appears they are set to do. four justices, all appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. is it any wonder why americans

it's never happened before in the history of the united states supreme court. d states supreme court it is outrageous. mob rule unleashed. it's also telling, neil, not a single democrat u.s. senator has condemned the leak. that tells you a lot. in fact, you got folks out there on the left who are praising person leaked. in fact they are saying this person is a hero. this is outrageous because fundamentally the trust of a supreme court has been breached it will never be the same going forward. >> neil: chuck schumer said there is a reluctance for your colleagues to state where they are on roe v. wade in overturning it. what do you think of that? if this is true, would you say that this is a good move if the supreme court goes this round. >> i think it is a good move. let's be clear around what this ruling will be if indeed it holds. and this is it transfers the power from nine justices in black robes to the american people and specifically to elected officials who will decide going forward what the laws ought to be to protect unborn babies and moms. do you realiz

but, his most enduring legacy is, now, the delivery of samuel alito to the united states supreme court. the first supreme court justice to write an opinion revoking a constitutional right. donald trump did something no one-term president has ever done before. he appointed three supreme court justices. the last president to appoint three's court justices, was ronald reagan, and it took him eight years to do it. the president least capable, in our history, of evaluating candidates for the united states supreme court, got to a 0.3 of them, and all three are voting to revoke a constitutional right. 70% of the country as opposed to what the supreme court is doing, in a democracy, this would never happen. we do not live in a democracy, because of the electoral college, and the united states senate. the only way the alito opinion can get a majority vote on the supreme court now, it's thanks to the electoral college, installing two republican presidents who came in second with the voters. al gore got more votes in georgia the bush, but george w. bush got the presidency, thanks to the electoral

important factor to remember. >> senator, casey is settled law in the sense it's a decision of the united states supremeourt. right? and you also have lawrence, those are all precedents of the united states supreme court, entitled to the weight precedent, which is quite considerable. >> during their supreme court confirmation hearings in 2017 and 2018, trump-appointees, justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh both told the senate judiciary committee they understood roe v. wade and planned parenthood v casesy were the accomplished laws of the land and carried the weight of precedent, end quote, or, quote, were precedent on precedent, end quote. according to the draft supreme court opinion published by politico last night, those cases are likely precedent on precedent for just about another month. while justice roberts confirmed the authenticity of the document today, of course it is still a draft, the language and the justices votes could still change, but for now, this is what all of those justices i just listed voted for. quote, we must hold that roe and casey must be overruled. the constitution makes no

it is a president of the united states supreme court. it was reaffirmed in casey in 1992. and then several other cases. so, a good judge will consider as president of the united states supreme court, where the extremist of precedent, like any other. >> have your views on whether rural is settled precedent, or could be overturned? and has your views changed since you are in the white house? >> senator, i said that it is settled as a precedent of the supreme court entitled to respect under the principles of this--. i will we need to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know. and, most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus casey in 1992. and as you well recall, senator, i know when that case came up, the supreme court didn't just reaffirm it in passing, the court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether overruling. and that going to pinion that justice kennedy and justice o'connor and justice souter, at great length, went to those factors

concerns for security in light of this decision which in some form is expected by the end of the united states supremerm. we're also expecting demonstrations, frankly, around the country. that's a real reflection that this decision as written suggests power will be handed down to the states to decide abortion matters. so you can expect demonstrations around the country. back to you. >> and joe, justice thomas was one of the five in the majority on this draft that would overturn roe versus wade. is he now claiming that the supreme court is being bullied? >> reporter: well, that's what he said. this was at the 11th judicial conference in atlanta. he said institutions of government should not be bullied into giving what some see as a preferred outcome. clearly a reference to what has gone on here since the leak of that draft. back to you. >> all right, joe johns, good to see you this morning. thank you so much. >>> if roe versus wade is overturned, it would be an historic change for women's reproductive rights in this country. melissa mills is with us now. she is the eldest daughter of norma mccorvey, kn

and the united states could soon end the legal right to abortion. the leg documents suggest the supreme court is planning to overturn the landmark ruling, which has guaranteed the right nationwide since 1973. ah and really mohammed walked to the program. ukrainian authorities say russian air strikes or targeting live with, with several bloss cutting power and water supply to parts of the western city. close to the polish border. several railway stations across the center and west of ukraine have also been hit. plumes of smoke rose above the vin, after several explosions were heard, lives, mayor said the strike his electrical substations. the city has so far been spared from the conflict with only a handful of strikes, hitting severely and military infrastructure. this is the start of russia's invasion. meanwhile, ukrainian fighters say russian forces have launched a renewed assault on the as of salt. feel pont in mario apple. some residents were evacuated during a brief ceasefire that thousands more are still trapped there. faith at last. after weeks, under constant attack, these people

last night, a report came out that a conservative majority on the united states supreme court is ready to overturn roe v. wade and uproot the gates of precedent affirming -- uproot decades of precedent affirming abortion. it is hard not to feel angry, troubled, and disturbed about what overturning this will do to across america. more than 20 states have laws or constitutional amendments in place that would outlaw abortion should their supreme court validate roe. over 80 million women live in those states. if the report is accurate, the decision would be a abomination. one of the worst ever in modern history. of course, republicans have looked for this outcome for years, you would think they would be celebrating such a decision but they are not. this morning, republicans are shamefully scrambling to try and distract from the main issue. republicans are spending focus on the leak, because they do not want to talk about roe v. wade, they know they are on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of american people. republicans are spending all their focus on the leak because they do