elizabeth also mentioned ruth bader ginsburg. justice ginsburg and many other liberal law professors and legal commentators who may have preferred abortion as a policy preference, recognized that roe v. wade was a very problematic decision from a constitutional standpoint because the court essentially enacted its own policy preferences without routing this new right to abortion in any constitutional provision. guest: this is been a talking point from those who oppose abortion, and it is absently wrong. she is not here to defend herself. the point about roe is that it needed to be expansively rooted in the constitution. when i say the word abortion is in the con for duchenne, i am not saying abortion is not protected by the constitution. it absolutely is. similarly, justice ginsburg absolutely thought that abortion was protected by the constitution. she rooted it in ideas of privacy where roe v. wade rooted that right, she also rooted in the idea of equality under equal protection as well as the idea of equal citizenship in the cl

i have no doubt that if it had been justice ginsburg or justice kagan, i feel like they would've thought this needed to be addressed. it is discouraged that the basic adderall law was not enforced as to these justices in a case where the president has a strong opinion on himself. he is entitled to that. but enforcing the law is a real concern and the states virginia, maryland have similar laws and they are starting to be enforced more. there also seems to be spotty enforcement especially where justice robertson justice kavanaugh live. the mayor says he is so upset about the decision that he will not support the law to protect the judges. none of our justices should have to be concerned that the way they vote and a case is going to affect their personal safety. that is something i would except from cuba or venezuela where a judge would think is something bad going to happen to me if i rule one way or another. that is not the rule of law. that is the rule of violence and i think we should get away with it. host: let me quickly invite the viewers to join the conversation. one more question

you know, it's an interesting point, because in her confirmation hearings, justice ruth bader ginsburgke about a client that she represented. it was captain kathy struck. this was before roe v. wade. and captain struck was in the military and she was pregnant. she actually wanted to carry her egnancto term. the military required at the time that if you were in the military and a woman and pregnant, you must have an abortion or leave the military. captain ruck wanted to stay pregnant. ruth bader ginsburg thought that this would be a great case to challenge the laws that criminalized abortion, as in states, stay off, government, stay out of reproductive healthcare, let women decide on their own. instead, it was the case that was roe v. wade as wenderstanit that the supreme crt then ruled on 7 to 2 in 1973. but if you think about what justice ruth bader ginsburg was trying to do at that time and what captain kathy struck wanted, it was that on military bases, abortions were already accessible, available, and, in fact, if you wer anmployee of the military, you had to have an abortio rather

ruth bader ginsburg, she said she questioned roe v wade. she did what she questioned the basis of it. it was compared to inequality that men and women have the same controls of their own body and should end by the way for the record, it may be true that ruth bader ginsburg played cards with and went to the opera with antonin scalia but got up in the morning and voted against them in every single case involving the rights of women to have choice and she upheld roe v wade during the entirety of her time in the court. is that not correct? >> that is absolutely correct. >> so, do men have restrictions? here are some limitations on what control you have over your own body, any of them? i can't recall. >> i don't know of any. >> so, let's just for the sake of argument say that there are none. it is a pretty fundamental restriction on their bodies and what they can doth with them. is that correct? >> for sure. >> we've heard a lot of interesting talk about the states rights and when life begins and so forth and so on. is it possible now that we ar

similarly, justice ginsburg almost always ask the first question on the court. we decided that now it would be justice thomas. so he typically leads off except when he doesn't want to. and then at a certain point everybody starts interrupting and asking their own questions and we can do the typical building on each other, responding to each other. at the end of the argument, the chief justice will look at each of us and ask if we have anything further that we wish to ask. so if we couldn't get a question in in the free-for-all, we have another opportunity just when it was me alone or any particular justice alone. and that helped a lot in the free-for-all because we did not feel this kind of constant pressure to get our question in. once the pressure was relieved, the free-for-all -- it had the benefit of being able to follow up but it didn't have that sense of all of us tripping over each other to get a word in. and we could use our last part to follow up on anything we thought remains on the table. and honestly, all of us thought that that was a better system t

the name ruth is so ironic because justice ruth bader ginsburg was herself a critic of roe v. wade, for the reason she said it was a heavy-handed judicial intervention that was unnecessary and short-circuited the democratic process. in addition, she and justice scalia were famously good friends. there is a great picture of them riding an elephant together. they demonstrate for us that is possible to disagree and yet be civil. >> i think that's a great example, i think i've seen pictures of them playing cards together many times. so, i appreciate you being, here appreciate all or witnesses being here. madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank you and representative color for holding this important hearing. as one of thinker distinguished panel of witnesses for your willingness to appear in person and also for willing to testify remotely and help the committee with its work. as a lawmaker, i'd like to turn to explore the wider legal framework ramifications that th

similarly, justice ginsburg almost always asked the first question on the court. so we just decided now it would be justice thomas. so he typically leads off, except when he doesn't want to and then we sort of have -- at a certain point everybody just starts interrupting and asking their own questions, and we could do the typical building on each other and responding to each other. but then we know that at the end of the argument the chief justice is going to look at each of us and ask us whether we have anything further that we wish to ask. so if we couldn't get a question in and there free-for-all, we'd have another opportunity just when it was me alone or any particular justice alone. and that actually helped a lot, even in the free-for-all section because we didn't feel this constant pressure to get our question in. and so once that pressure was relieved, there free-for-all was actually less of a free-for-all, it has the benefits of being able to follow up the judges questions, but it did not have that sense of all of us tripping over each other to get a word

feelings, except perhaps if you listen closely, you can hear a catch in his throat when ruth bader ginsburg'se court. his life from wyoming to stanford to washington and then nbc news has captured so much history. today, we celebrate him as a truly great american story. a beloved colleague and friend. >> it was a long journey for a justice who came to the court as a law and order conservative. the biggest period of turnover on the supreme court in more than a decade. at least half a century. >> i love and adore all my colleagues. pete though has brought a special something to this network for so long. >> what does it do to morale when some of the toughest criticism comes from the president himself? >> what can i say? pete williams is absolutely the gold standard. we all look up to him. when pete is covering a story, we all hang on his every word. >> historic ruling here, for the first time the supreme court says there is a constitutional right -- excuse me, to same-sex marriage. you can hear the cheer in the crowd. a dramatic moment here. >> he has been handed some of the most difficult assig

listen to what the coauthor of the report and republican election lawyer ben ginsburg, told the january committee. >> the 2020 election was not close. the most narrow margin was 10,000 something in arizona. and you just do not make up those sorts of numbers, in recounts. that put the trump campaign, on a process, of bringing cases without the actual evidence, that you have, the simple fact, is that the trump campaign, did not make its case. >> for more on all of this, we are joined now by another coauthor of this new report, dave hoppy. dave was the former chief of staff, to then house speaker, paul ryan. dave, it's a pleasure to have you here this morning. i'm grateful that you are taking the time, to spend with us. this report called lost, not stolen, it's a doozy. it runs about 69 pages, with 280 footnotes. you any other coauthors prepared, it to be quote, digestible, and easily understood. tell us who, was the intended audience for your report? >> well katie, the intended audience, are conservatives, who have looked at, this and, they have, in some cases, not taken it at the deep di

justice ginsburg 96-3. that does not happen now. are we in a better place because of that change and i do not think we are. i think it is telling and not in a good way that justice jackson was not confirmed 100-0. i think it is telling that justice barrett was not concerned -- confirmed 100-0. they should be on the supreme court. that is obviously not where we are now. i wish we were. i would like to return to regular order on judicial nominations and to not politicize them. much of the confirmation process is grandstanding for senators who have their own agendas. i think it is unfortunate and i think it has cost the supreme court a great deal. >> judge griffith, one more question for you. the court has agreed to hear a case that could change american democracy. this north carolina supreme court case holding that the state constitution precludes gerrymandering. the state court should not have any role in overturning federal election rules put into this place by state legislatures. what do you make of this independent state legislatu

justice scalia was confirmed to think 98-0 and justice ginsburg 96-3 and that doesn't happen now. the question is are we in a better place because of that change and i don't think we are. i think it's telling in a good way that justice jackson was a voted 100-0 and justice barrett is at highly qualified judge ina deep patriot who should be on the supreme court because the president nominated him. it's very limited in most circumstances. i would like to return to regular order on judicial nominations and depoliticize them. right now unfortunately too much of the senate confirmation process is grandstanding for senators who have their own agendas and i think it's unfortunate and i think it has cost the supreme court a great deal. >> judge griffith one more question for you because we are looking ahead to the next term of the court. the court has agreed to hear case that could fundamentally change american democracy and that's not to put in too big a terms with the north carolina supreme court with -- there's the argument that the petitioners make and that this state court should hav

continue to talk about supreme court decision i do make someone like me for instance, & ruth gator ginsburgecided 49 years ago. but people woke up feeling left free. women did this country for the first time certainly in my lifetime. that is something that makes people look around and say i am not sure this is really a great environment to be raising my kids in private six month daughter. it's a completely different landscape for her than when i was born. >> okay charlie went to look at these stats when you look at these comments, does it make you think we are going through a temporary sour national mood or something worse? >> are the funnest games to place if the founders were to be dropped into the middle of america what would they think? i think they would be deeply troubled by a lot of dependence upon enter government with welfare. they be dependence on drugs for a lot of our citizens in that inability of a lot of our citizens to not to care of themselves and to govern themselves. i think in terms of politics they would recognize all of this. they would be a-ok with it because this is k

when anthony kennedy retired, succeeded by brett kavanaugh, more so with the death of ruth bader ginsburg. succeeded by amy coney barrett. with neil gorsuch, three new justices appointed by donald trump. justice sonia sotomayor calls the conservative majority restless, all three liberals said the court overturned roe at practically the first moment possible. conservatives welcome the change. >> it is a court that is very much committed not to conservative political outcomes but certainly to conservative approach to reading the constitution and the law. >> reporter: as ketanji brown jackson takes her place, the court faces more contentious questions next term. should it end affirmative action in college admissions do businesses have religious freedom to refuse to serve same sex weddings should legislatures, not courts, get the last word in election disputes the court may be moving faster than chief justice john roberts would prefer, but he and brett kavanaugh are at center in the majority in 95% of the decisions. tom? >> pete williams for us tonight, thank you. >>> when we come back, a bro

remember justice scalia was confirmed justice ginsburg 96-three. that doesn't happen now. and the question we have to ask is are we at a better place because of that change? i don't think we are. i think it's telling and not in a good way that justice jackson wasn't confirmed 100-0. these are highly qualified people of the highest character, deep patriots who'd -- who should be on the supreme court. i think it's a very limited role . but that's not where we are now. i wish we were, i would like to return to the consensus to regular order to these nominations. right now, unfortunately, the hearing process is grandstanding for senators who have their own agendas. i think that is unfortunate and i think it has cost the supreme court a great deal. >> i went to have one more question for you. the court has agreed to hear a case that could change american democracy, not to put it into big of terms but we are looking at north carolina supreme court case that the constitution but there is a argument that as a proportion have any role -- role i would like to know what you make of t

justice ginsburg was 96 to three. that doesn't happen now.he question we have to ask is are we in a better place because of that change? i do not think we are. i think it is telling and not in a good way that they were not confirmed 100 and nothing, and it is not a good thing that justice was not confirmed 100 to nothing. these are qualified people at the highest character and deep patriots. they should be on the supreme court, and the president nominated them. the role of the senate is a limited one. under the circumstances, they are not where they are now. i would like to return to the senate for regular order. to be politicized, it is too much of the confirmation hearing. grandstanding for senators who have their own agendas, and it is unfortunate, and i think it is cost, a great deal. >> i want to squeeze in one more question. we are looking at the next term of the court, and it could fundamentally change american democracy, not to put it to bake in terms, but we are looking at a state constitution, and gerrymandering, and there is an arg

and i think in her opinion on roe v wade the nature than younger justice ruth bater ginsburg made it very clear that we have this inter linkage between the equality and inequality problem and this specific right for women to choose. and it's it's obvious that it will hurt certain um part of the population more than others because of the lack of education. and the same goes for any kind of reproductive rights being taken back by the supreme court. it will always disproportionately hit those who are less educated, who have less access to health to the health system, who cannot travel to get an abortion in a different state. so yeah, it makes a difference. i don't want to defend this decision. i think it's a horrible decision as well. i just want to say it was done legally. it was done in a country based on the rule of law and and the pendulum will hopefully swing this is not an argument. what is legal is not just you know, slavery was legal. the holocaust the shoah was legal. you know. so i think we can't just base um issues of, you know, of highest moral and i mean i don't want to use

i have read that justice ginsburg waited on the failures of roe v. wade. noting, and i will quote from her. she said "it seemed to entirely remove the ball from the legislators court. justice alito had quoted dr. john hart ely's characterization that roe was "not constitutional law." if you look at this, how do you explain the flawed reasoning of roe and how dobbs corrected the flock? >> that's correct. legal scholars on the right and left have criticized roe v. wade's reasoning. justice ginsburg, a proponent of abortion as a policy matter, recognized that its reasoning was fundamentally flawed and predicted it would like to be overturned. if i can connect this to the discussion about the year 1868, the reason that is a touch point is because abortion advocates have insisted that the right to abortion somehow emanates out of the penumbras of nonexistent words in the due process clause of the 14th amendment. they sometimes say it may be in the fourth, fifth, ninth, or other amendments. it is not there. 1860 is a touch point because the due process argument

i use the pictures of it when ruth bader ginsburg died front page banner across the fold headline on the new york on the washington post pioneer devoted to equality when anthony scalia died front page banner above the fold headline same paper, washington post supreme court conservative dismayed liberals. why isn't it the same? why isn't the headline that ruth bader ginsburg was a liberal who dismayed conservatives or why wasn't it that antonin scalia was devoted to equality. but they lionized one and buried the other same thing with the brett kavanaugh's hearings when brett kavanaugh ducked questions didn't answer them because no nominee anymore answers questions about cases that are pending before the court the headline on the new york times was he ducks questions when elena kagan before her nomination hearing in the senate did the same thing and didn't answer questions the headline in the new york times was she follows precedent. time and time again want the media is easy on the democrats and relentless on the republicans. and that's where i blow my whistle and i'll give you one fi

and i think in her opinion unroll the weight that they just are than younger justice ruth bader ginsburg, made it very clear that we have this inter leakage between the quality inequality problem and this specific right for women to choose. and it's, it's obvious that it will hurt certain parts of the population more than others because of the lack of education and the same goes for any kind of reproductive rights being taken back by the supreme court, it will always disproportionately hit those who are less educated who have less access to how to the health system, who cannot travel to get an abortion in a different state. so yeah, it makes a difference. i don't wanted to send this decision. i think it's a horrible decision as well. i just want to say it was done legally. it was done in a country based on this rule of law. and the pendulum will hopefully swing. yeah, this is not an argument. what is legal is not just, you know, slavery was legal. the holocaust with this is to i was legal, you know, so i think we can just based on issues that i'm, you know, of highest and moral. and i me

w i have read that justice ginsburg had weighed in on the failures of a row.nd noting, i'm going to quote from her she said it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators court". justice had quoted professor elise characterization that roe was and i'm quoting, his statement, not constitutional law. so, as you look at this, how do you explain thewe flawed reasong of a row and how dobbs collected the flaw? >> that is correct.t. legal scholars on the right and the left have roundly criticized rose reasoning, justice ginsburg was a proponent of abortion as a policy matter, recognize its reasoning was fundamentally flawed chef should predicted it would very likely be overturned. if i can connect us to the discussion about the year 1868, the reason that is a touch point is becausert abortion advocates have insisted the right to abortion somehow emanates of the nonexistent words of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. where theydm also sometimes sayt may be in the fourth, the fifth, the ninth, or other amendments. it is not there in the text for

bader ginsburg.our cochairs of the legal defense network which we founded last year to address the urgent need to give election officials support through legal advice and legal representation were necessary because they were not finding it. we will talk about that a little more. two over is pam. she was an election reporter before there was election reporters. one of the very first report as i talked to. she was one of the first of many to really want to get into the weeds of wanting to understand how elections are run and learning from people who know it best. we have relied upon her work for many years. on the far end as linda from reuters. she has done the definitive investigative journalism on issues relating to threats and harassment of election officials. i rely on her reporting all the time, consistently. i am incredibly grateful to her. i will start with bob and ben. i want to ask you will -- both about your work and how your work led to this moment. particularly, your work cochairing the com

when justice ruth bader ginsburg died, front page, "washington post," pioneer dedicated to equality., headline was how he was scourge of the left. they cover the same event from a totally different lens depending on if it's the team they want to win or lose. that's not objective. and not journalism. >> jesse: mainstream media does not often cover child rape. i covered child rape for my entire career. we covered crimes committed by illegal immigrants. the media never touches that. but the one time a girl crosses state lines to have an abortion because she was raped by an illegal immigrant, they cover it. they don't mention that he's an illegal immigrant. what is the agenda there? >> the agenda to allow people to come into america without having to come here legally. if you start pointing things out like this, it makes it a moral question. that's why the press doesn't want to face up to the fact that it's a moral issue. people should not be allowed in america unless they come here legally. if you commit a crime and you're a illegal imprint, everybody should know it. he shouldn't have b

or triumph that this god-awful constitutional law so is a great professor of law and ruth bader ginsburg her doubts about the way they did it constitutionally which is why the argument coming up in the mississippi case to be decided next june at the midterm election will be momentous. >> of course of the focus right now is on the texas law which has a private right of action to explore this and take it to the court. >> i do know that there are some conservatives that are impatient with making progress against roe v wade and not recognizing that patience is required for constitutional government and the rule of law. and for them to say we will just empower citizens to sue people that conservatives say just wait until california says we hate speech and we will give $10000 to drag people. >> i am for private enterprise but not for crowd sourcing this type of law. >> period you welcome the court hearings? >> absolutely. aviability will change. but we have to confront the fact pro-choice say one person is involved, a woman but there are two individuals involved and we have to argue that again

i have no doubt that if it had been justice ginsburg or justice kagan, i feel like they would've thoughthis needed to be addressed. it is discouraged that the basic adderall law was not enforced as to these justices in a case where the president has a strong opinion on himself. he is entitled to that. but enforcing the law is a real concern and the states virginia, maryland have similar laws and they are starting to be enforced more. there also seems to be spotty enforcement especially where justice robertson justice kavanaugh live. the mayor says he is so upset about the decision that he will not support the law to protect the judges. none of our justices should have to be concerned that the way they vote and a case is going to affect their personal safety. that is something i would except from cuba or venezuela where a judge would think is something bad going to happen to me if i rule one way or another. that is not the rule of law. that is the rule of violence and i think we should get away with it. host: let me quickly invite the viewers to join the conversation. one more question on

and former counsel to the republican national -- and congressional committee, ben ginsburg.nk you both for joining us. i think this is a very important report in segment. i'm so glad that you're both here. good evening. ben, i'm gonna start with you. the report found no signs of fraud, not a single shred just, period. -- so important to issue this report? >> we heard what donald trump said in the election, those are extremely serious charges that our elections don't work. if, in fact, there was any evidence behind that, the system needs to be fixed, but if there is no evidence behind it, that needs to be said because of the corrosive effect that the allegations he was making is having on the democracy. that's why we undertook the thorough report. >> michael, you looked at more than 60 cases, 20 were dismissed before hearing, 30 were dropped by trump's supporters, 30 had a hearing and lost. republicans still continue to push his lie, why, what is going on? >> i can only think that most people have not taken the time or the trouble to actually look behind the allegations. so,