brett- cavanagh and amy coney barrett, the two _ cavanagh and amy coney barrett, the two of — cavanaghe nominees, to the court, you _ the two of the trompe nominees, to the court, you know, - the two of the trompe nominees, to the court, you know, during i to the court, you know, during their— to the court, you know, during their senate _ to the court, you know, during their senate confirmation - their senate confirmation hearings, _ their senate confirmation hearings, were, - their senate confirmation hearings, were, brett- their senate confirmation - hearings, were, brett cavanagh said he — hearings, were, brett cavanagh said he viewed _ hearings, were, brett cavanagh said he viewed roe _ hearings, were, brett cavanagh said he viewed roe v— hearings, were, brett cavanagh said he viewed roe v wade - hearings, were, brett cavanagh said he viewed roe v wade as. hearings, were, brett cavanagh| said he viewed roe v wade as a settled — said he viewed roe v wade as a settled law— said he viewed roe v wade as a settled law under— said he viewed roe v wade as a settled law under the _ settled

brett cavanagh and amy coney barrett, two of the _ cavanagh and amy coney barrett, two of the trump nomineestt made similar kinds of noises _ amy coney barrett made similar kinds of noises about not using her personal— of noises about not using her personal views to interpret the law. and what _ personal views to interpret the law. and what they said on wednesday was very much— and what they said on wednesday was very much about, well, brett cavanagh _ very much about, well, brett cavanagh said, why should abortion be an— cavanagh said, why should abortion be an issue — cavanagh said, why should abortion be an issue for the supreme court, indicating _ be an issue for the supreme court, indicating he thought that the states. — indicating he thought that the states, then it should be cut definite _ states, then it should be cut definite kicks back to the individual states to handle. in reality. — individual states to handle. in reality, what you have, by all indications, the conservative majority _ indications, the conservative majority will report back roe v wade. — majority will report back

what about the interests of the unborn woman in the womb and this is something i thought justice cavanagh pointed out brilliantly. there's an interest here throughout the pregnancy in the life of the child and every justice on the united states supreme court has acknowledged in past years that there is an interest in unborn life, the question is when did that interest become compelling and the answers it is compelling throughout the pregnancy because the unborn child has rights throughout the pregnancy and it is time the court recognized that and got out of the business of imposing their moral views on the rest of the country. that is not the court's place. it has badly damaged illegitimacy, time to stop that and it is time to allow the american people to reclaim the basic promise of america which is in this country every person has inalienable rights and that includes the unborn. they have inalienable rights, they are valuable, they are protected and it is time to let the people make good on that promise. >> cavanagh went to great pains to reaffirm the court would not be outlawing aborti

justice cavanagh seemed to be pressing the question of neutrality. the question that the question could be returned to the states and they could make a decision based on the sensibilities of their own constituencies. a solicitor general that advocates for the united states government said situations with fundamental rights, we never left those to be determined by the democratic process, that is the role of the court to protect them from the whims of the justice department itself. amy comey-barrett offered information suggesting she was not willing, but she continued to press unusually on safe haven laws. laws that allow individuals to surrender their children at fire stations, police stations, and they would then be turned over for adoption. and the advent of the safe heaven laws free women of the burdens of parenthood. as she understood it, it emphasized the burdens of mother hood, and it underlies what comes out of those cases. he seemed to have little patient for these about the rights of women and more particularly seemed to be more squarely in t

todd: justice cavanagh says president biden is ignoring a major issue with lawsuits filing a.n that. ♪♪ walk this way ♪♪ walk this way ♪♪ ♪♪ the only thing a disaster can't destroy is hope. ♪♪ don these are the facesorg of listerine. the face of millions of germs zapped in seconds. the face of clean. the face of whoa! some are of intensity, others joy. all are of... various: ahhh... listerine. feel the whoa! where's mom? she said she would be home in time for the show. all are of... various: ahhh... don't worry, sweetie. she promised she'd be here for it. ooh! nice shot! thanks! glad we have xfinity, with wifi speed faster than a gig! me too! woah, look! mom is on tv! she's amazing! (cheers) xfinity brought us together, after all! power your whole home this holiday with wifi speeds faster than a gig. click, call, or visit a store today. sing 2 todd: the band is gearing up, progresses gearing up for executive action after senator joe manchin, we said this would happen, progressives call to the legislative process. >> reporter: despite bombshell rejection of the spending plan th

his solicitor general gave an answer to cavanagh because there is no answer. in the framers who wrote the original constitution nor the drafters of the 14th amendment ever intended to create a constitutional right to abortion. indeed they would have found such a concept to be barbarous and evil. the left claims to care about democracy, so let's let the people decide the important questions presented by abortion and if a court with the majority of six republican appointees fails to put roe to rest, then it should expect a conservative led movement to shrink the court's power. it would also mean adios to "the federalist" society, and that is the angle. joining me now is a josh hawley of the judiciary committee. if conservatives are let down once again, what do you think? >> i think this is the moment, we have waited 50 years for this, this is the case. that became clear today, we can't wait any longer. this is the time to overrule roe, the court badly damaged its legitimacy back in 1973. if the court really cares about its legitimacy the way the justices were ta

cavanagh was writing the report for star and so it just didn't even look at the investigation didn't look at the exoneration of him but that was kind of like the democrats when they had these confirmation battles they wanted to pick their issues and that wasn't seen as an issue that was prominent enough that would be worth raising but as for debbie ramirez, what specifically was the viewer's question on her in terms of. >> what do think the democrats dithered didn't do the caused ramirez to be. >> right, that is if there's a good argument that democrats should have the democrats were really powerless. this was a democratic run committee and chairman chuck grassley of iowa was running it with a stern hand and he had mitch mcconnell behind him virtually pulling the string so it was not -- the democrats didn't have the ability to pass any of these things was such a travesty and debbie really didn't think she was going to get called as a wit -- witness but then they had a sham of an fbi investigation only in the end because there were a couple of moderates like susan collins and jeff fla

what was really fascinating is, cavanagh came out aggressively against the liberal justices saying, you need to uphold roe or we simply don't overturn cases. he read off a list of cases in which they overturn a previous holdings and that those cases were celebrated today. justice breyer who kept on raising this i don't think would blink at reversing heller on second amendment rights or citizens united and do so that was some of the more tense exchanges that occurred between the justices today. >> you talk about intense but never on civil and we got to see some disagreement. we talk about the court not being political but we know a lot about these justices. so how does that play a role, andy, just really quick? >> look. i thought it was an admirable argument as far as the stability of it was concerned and because of that i think we learned as much as you could possibly learn about the best case to be made for each side. so to that extent i think the court did a credit to itself today. but what people will remember is what happens in june, that would happen today. >> harris: there you go.

as justin cavanagh noted, the court has done repeated. >> if we think that the prior presidents are seriouslyif not, why then does in the history of this court's practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually to return to a position of neutrality and not set precedents the same way and all those cases did. >> shannon: noted that even if the course decided overrule roe and casey states would still be free to make their own decision about access to abortion. viability, the point at which a fetus could out the boom is the other key issue today. and whether it should remain the benchmark for eliminating state's ability to restrict abortions. prompting chief justice roberts to ask -- >> viability seems to me doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> shannon: and mississippi solicitor general argued that science and technology have advanced significantly since roe, including findings on fetal pain, justice sotomayor criticized the idea that pain can be experienced before viability is held b

and jtsz cavanagh is not part of this stuff. i think for both, the just reading the tea leaves here, i think he asked all three of the advocates the same question which is mississippi is saying this is contentious. why don't we just stay out of it. they have a different rule than mississippi, and the like, why is that so bad? the u.s. solicitor general, in attacking the law, i think had a great answer saying this is a fundamental right. we don't leave this up to vote by majority that is this fundamental to women. i think the challengers had a tough day. i think there are some signs for optimism, but they're pretty rare if you're one of the challenges from mississippi today i think you're not feeling too good. >> i have to tell you it has been a privilege to sit with the three of you in the supreme court. because of your thoughts and actions. what would be, to capsule some of your reactions, when you were listening to this? >> this is hard not to thereon this not just as an attorney, but as a black woman. and thinking about the r

and i recognize justice cavanagh that this is an unusual suit. the reason we have done it here is that sb 8 is so unprecedented, extraordinary, and extraordinarily dangerous for our constitutional structure, that if texas is correct that it can successfully evade the mechanism that's this court recognizes and congress recognized, then no constitutional right is safe and we think in this extraordinary circumstance the united states should protect the federal supremacy of law. >> what if our precedent all together was just uncertain. if there was an open question about something, and a state wanted to draw a line with respect to the precedent? would the u.s. have an authority there? is there something about what you think is the clarity of the violation here that triggers your authority? >> if the state structured that hypothetical law in the same way, we would have the same consider that they are seeking to take the issue away from the courts. you can imagine a circumstance where a right is more unsettled. the right to possess handguns in the home