john roberts says judge us by our rulings, this brought the people to the streets. >> and judge us by our rulings, six republicans, you know, against abortion rights, three democrats. the cross voting in major cases is disappearing at the supreme court just as it is in the rest of american political life. >> joan, can you talk more, i want you to dig into something, you talked about justice roberts. does today crystallize the fact today this court is no longer the roberts court? is that what he wanted to happen? >> let me give you a caveat, don. when you talk about racial remedies and voting rights and campaign finance and guns, john roberts is smack in the middle of the court and driving the agenda. he's getting plenty of what he wants but there is no doubt on abortion rights the biggest decision he was not part of that. he tried to stop it for now. he doesn't control in this area and it's a really important area and an area that will define the court that's dubbed the roberts court. i can't think of any other decision that will first of all in his 17 terms that rises to this level a

it does seem like john roberts, somebody said earlier, this is not injohn roberts court anymore.e wanted to allow mississippi to ban abortions at 15 weeks. and that was, i guess, going to be some sort of middle ground on this but not overturn roe v. wade, and the other justices said nope. >> no, two things. first of all, it is still john roberts' court on racial remedies. on religion, and on guns. this is one area where he wanted a compromise. he said not yet. he was ready to uphold the 15-week ban on abortions for mississippi. but he reminded everyone, when they took this case, they said they were only going to be looking at that. they weren't going to be looking at overturning roe v. wade. but mississippi officials seeing amy coney barrett taking her seat, they pushed for more. he said we should wait. he is certainly sympathetic with where the majority is, but he didn't want it to go now. he had a really interesting rine that i think reflects kind of overt humility that we haven't seen from him, where he said both sides, the majority and dissent, seem to be free of doubt. i don

john roberts says judge us by our rulings, this brought the people to the streets. >> and judge us by our rulings, six republicans, you know, against abortion rights, three demo democrats. the cross voting in major cases is disappearing at the supreme court just as it is in the rest of american political life. >> joan, can you talk more, i want you to dig into something, you talked about justice roberts. does today crystallize the fact today this court is no longer the roberts court? is that what he wanted to happen? >> let me give you a cavcaveat, don. when you talk about racial remedies and voting rights and campaign finance and guns, skprjohn roberts is smack in the middle of the court and driving the agenda. he's getting plenty of what he wants but there is no doubt on abortion rights the biggest decision he was not part of that. h e he tried to stop it for now. he doesn't control in this area and it's a really important area and an area that will define the court that's dubbed the roberts court. i can't think of any other decision that will first of all in his 17 terms that rises

and john robert brookey?w, it was on thursday, june 9, my friend andy took part in the fighting in the kharkov region in ukraine and apparently he was surrounded and your son john robert and andy tyne were veterans of the military service. tell me, did john robert tell you why did he want to go to ukraine and fight? yes, we talked with him about this about a month before his departure. i must help the ukrainian military in studying the weapons that america sends to ukraine now they are really faced with the face of inevitability and truth. here is what she looks like. well, now we are in touch with the same american journalist john voroli, who wrote here is this article john hello a. tell me, please, that us mercenaries are not hostages of fakes about the non-combat capability of the russian army. good morning. thank you for inviting me. me self beginning when started in february. in fact , there was a lot of hysteria, and well, in fact , it continues now, but in fact, the media is aimed at causing strong emo

is this john roberts' court anymore? hope for moving incrementally seems to be out the window. >> well, it's interesting. what i've tried to say in this moment about john roberts is that he lost the defining case of his generation. that's the abortion rights case. you know, he dissented from the part that overturned roe v. wade, although he would have upheld -- and he did -- voted to uphold the 15-week abortion ban. but just think of how john roberts plays a role that's more than just abortion rights. we saw it again on religion. he is with the conservative super majority against voting rights, against affirmative action, lowering the separation between church and state when he wrote the opinion on public funding for religious schools and they will allow more school prayer. where he has lost his court is exactly on the phrase you just used, incrementalism. he will move slower. he wants to get where the others are, but he would move slower, and that is a pattern that is now gone. >> jake, finally to you. even bigger in te

this decision was 5-1-3 with the one being chief justice john roberts concurring, in part, to say he would have upheld with the majority, the mississippi ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. he would have not taken this leap to over turn roe v wade. this is significant because chief justice john roberts has never favored abortion rights but he has wanted to protect the institution of the supreme court and reenforce the adherence to precedent. the regard for presence dent which is the corner stone of the supreme court's work. what he said is yes to uphold mississippi but this is such a big change for america and this is the roberts court. >> it is. as he said just three years, four years ago, roberts court sometimes get in trouble when they sweep more broadly than necessary. jeffrey, to you. let's talk about the impact state to state. trigger laws. laws already in states now that will immediately take effect. >> will immediately take effect. if you think this is going to lead to some sort of the neat solution where one set of states it's legal and another set of states abortion i

one in which chief justice john roberts seemed to allude to as well., we do not need to take the step of eliminating abortion altogether, but the chief justice not getting his way on that point. five justices, conservative justices joining the majority opinion written by samuel alito, and very, very similar to the opinion that was leaked some weeks ago. a final thought from kate shaw, our legal scholar and our supreme court contributor, kate. just for folks watching and digesting it here this morning, the bottom line. the level of impact on lives across this country, of course, in particular on women's lives in this country, what do you make of it? >> enormous and immediate impact, david. it will affect people's access in very tangible ways to a medical procedure that they have become accustomed to having access for nearly half a century. in many, many states, and how the disseptent, many haven't pad exceptions for rape or incest, and in those states, girls or women could be forced to cons concarry to term, their racrapist's children, and that is unfav

but let me just ask you this again, john roberts said that roe v. wade is the settled law of the land. do you believe it is the settled law of the land? >> roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 1973, so it's been on the books for a long time. it has been challenged on a number of occasions and i discussed those yesterday and it is my -- and the supreme court has reaffirmed the decision. sometimes on the merits, sometimes, in kc, based on stare decisis. i think, that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons. first of all, more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. second, i think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath, and are scholars and are conscientious. and when they examined a question and they reach a conclusion, i think that is entitled to considerable respect. of course, the more times that happens

that's been the trademark of john roberts. i would take a more measured course, i agree with the court the viability of line under roe and casey should be discarded so we're going to have a conversation throughout the program about this. but is it fair to say more than anyone else this is mitch mcconnell's day because if merrick garland was on the supreme court. if mitch mccomdid not block merrick garland you would not have 5-3. >> mitch mcconnell blocked garland and sped up amy coney barrett. that is what's so consequential here. and chief justice roberts for so long has been at the height of his power controlling things, he just doesn't have it. and the five justices on the far left who control this three of them are in their 50s. john roberts in that concurrence, he concured used that word measured. and he's so concerned about this court lurching to the right. the court informy bears his name but this is a whole new court and it really is not the john roberts court precisely for that reason. clarence thomas, i want to reinf

well, the court did, and chief justice john roberts said the court should not have gone that far. that he agreed the viability standard didn't make any sense, so the court vie a vote of 6-3 upheld the mississippi law, but it's only 5-4 on whether to overturn roe, but of course, 5 is enough. >> could you put this in some historical context for us in terms of overturning an earlier decision that declared a constitutional right >> so it's not the first time the supreme court has done that. it did it more than a century ago on the issue of whether there is a constitutional right to enter into contracts. the supreme court granted that and then took it away. but this is the first time the court has ever granted a broadly recognized, widely accepted constitutional right and then taken it away. so in that sense, it is historic >> pete williams at the supreme court. demonstrators are still gathering outside the court tonight. hundreds of people there protesting against the landmark decision to overturn roe v. wade most of the pro-life demonstrators who were certainly there in the beginning

. >> you have written about this extensively, the chief justice of the united states john roberts hasher and i put that word in quotation marks, to steer this court in a way to keep them in some ways noncontroversial. he has failed at that. what are the implications of the chief justice losing control of the supreme court? >> john, i don't know how he gets that back. the five to his right are all younger than him, the three new trump appointees are just in their 50s, john roberts is 67, i envision that he could stay easily 20 more years. but how does he get back for the national perspective, you know, people to believe in this court and believe it's not political for better or for worse, and also how does he inspire confidence among his colleagues? i've written that he lost his defining case of his generation but the thing i also want to mention is that john roberts still is smack in the center of other things that this court is doing. you know, against racial remedies, against expansive protection of voting rights, in favor of lifting campaign finance restrictions, in favor of kind o

so john roberts, chief justice john roberts, i think, has a kind of savvy pr approach to how he chooses to do this. he usually likes to do at least two cases before he guts a major precedent so then he can say, look, we did this before. he'll take a half step with the voting rights act. he'll occasionally show his independence from the republican party, particularly when the trump administration got really sloppy on certain issues. and that allowed people to still think that and decisions like over gaffell, kennedy joining liberals. some abortion rights opinions that weren't as bad as they could have been. for a while there was a sort of treading water. i think you're right to place it at bush v. gore. clarence thomas when he joined the supreme court, he was the minority ideologically. i think bush v. gore put them on a path for clarence thomas to be the intellectual vanguard leading the way. justice kavanaugh is the medium. when justice ginsberg disseptembered in bush v. gore, a lot was made of her saying i dissent instead of i respectfully dissent. listen to the colleagues now. congra

this was a 6-3 decision written by the chief justice john roberts. it hampers the epa's ability to enact regulations when it comes to power plants. the supreme court saying here that the epa does not have that broad authority that the lower court said it did to regulate the power plant industry and emissions in general. this is actually reversing the lower court. this is sending it back to the lower court, but this will have broad implications for the epa's powers moving forward. so i want to just take you through some of the procedure here. basically the lower court had said here that an obama rule which regulated carbon emissions from power plants and more broadly regulated power plants and how they should be shifting to renewable resources instead of just coal, they said that rule was okay, that a subsequent trump rule was not okay. but the supreme court now reversing that and saying that, no, the epa did not have this broad authority that the obama administration said it did. in addition, they invoked the major questions doctrine. this is a doctr

the chief justice, the court's liberals, john roberts, brett kavanaugh and the court's three liberalsesident biden a victory. the biden administration wanted to end the so-called remain in mexico policy. let's go outside the court. this is a case where chief justice roberts and brett kavanaugh before the days on the supreme court have been proponents of presidential power. the executive gets to make the decision. is that what we have here? >> that's right. they're saying the biden administration does have the power to rescind this rule that was enacted by the trump administration. it's remain in mexico. it's been on the books since 2019 and sent migrants, nonmexican migrants who came to the u.s. back to mexico to await their immigration proceedings. critics called it inhumane because the conditions were poor where they were sent to in mexico. the biden administration tried to roll it back in two different memos. but lower courts said not only did you not roll it back right, but you also don't have the authority to end this policy. so the supreme court today saying yes, president biden

what chief justice john roberts said is that's an arbitrary line. he thought that a 15-week ban should still be upheld, that that was deep enough into pregnancy that most women would already know they were pregnant and that mississippi should have been allowed to make that choice. well, now everyone will be allowed to make whatever choice they want based on the majority ruling to go all the way. the reason he did not want to reverse roe right now has many dimensions. first i should say that the chief generally has been against abortion rights and maybe in time would have wanted to go all the way and reverse roe. not now. not in this case. this case came to the court, michael, only on the specific question of the validity of the mississippi ban on 15 weeks. it was not initially appealed to the court as something that would overturn roe, but once justice barrett was seated in october of 2020, mississippi state officials became more emboldened and said, let's just go for the whole thing. obviously so did five justices on this court. and the chief said,

john roberts has served on the court since 2005 the george w bush nominee had this to say when asked about the 1973 roby wade decision. well senator the importance of settled expectations in the application of starry decisis is a very important consideration that was emphasized in the casey opinion, but also in other opinions outside that area of the law the principles of starry decisis. look at a number of factors settled expectations one of them and as you mentioned whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side whether the doctrinal basis of a decision have been eroded by subsequent developments, for example, if you have a case in which they're three precedents that lead and support that result and in the intervening period two of them have been overruled that may be a basis for reconsidering the the prior president. there's no there's no doc. doctrinal basis erosion and grow is there. well, right. i feel the need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases. i'm happy to discuss the principles of starry decisis a

quite simply, this is evidence that this is no longer john roberts' court.ut that, this decision puts the final nail in that coffin. roberts had been outspoken during oral argument about this. there were leaks from the court suggesting he had been trying to persuade one or more of his colleagues to join him in what he passed off as a middle ground. that he had no takers. if he has no takers now in roe, which is of course the best known supreme court opinion, this is when the lights are shining the brightest, when concerns about the court's legitimacy are the most acute. his colleagues just aren't interested in that. you can question going forward to what extent he'll have any kind of leadership role in shaping the direction of the court. >> mary ziegler, kasie hunt, thanks. >> right across the street from the supreme court, this was also a big day at the u.s. capitol. congress passed a bipartisan gun safety bill, the first in decades. what does this legislation actually do? that's next. ch of a good thing. ♪ and power... ...is a vevery good thing. ♪ think he

chief justice john roberts, writing for the majority, at first acknowledged that "capping carbon dioxide emissions may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day." but roberts declared that sw sweeping regulations like the one at issue in this case, aimed at reducing power plants' carbon output nationwide, go beyond the lawful authority of the epa, and must be approved by congress first. "a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with congress itself," roberts wrote. the case was brought by west virginia's attorney general, representing a group of republican-led states and coal and mining companies. >> lot of people are going to try to make this into an issue about climate change. this is about ensuring that congress, not unelected bureaucrats, get to make the major decisions of the day. >> reporter: justice elena kagan, in a scathing dissent joined by the court's two other liberals, insisted that the clean air act, passed by congress more than 50 years ago, gives the epa flexibility to address climate change, and she blasted her conservative colleagues for taking it away.

and it's interesting that the chief justice, john roberts, ruled with the majority, but said essentiallyte as far, and yet he did byjoining the majority. it's a bit of a confusing position, isn't it, by the chiefjustice? i mean, hejoined the judgment of the court. even in oral arguments, he sort of had made it clear that he was ok with striking down this specific law at issue. but he had real questions about about how the court was going to resolve this case. and he often talks about the court as as taking minimalist steps, doing as little as it needs to do to resolve a given case. and obviously, here, the court went a lot further than it needed to go in resolving this case. all that was at issue here was a is—week ban, which obviously went a lot further and then other bans in the past, but it didn't go as far as some other bans in other states like texas�* sb8, the six—week ban that they had passed. and so his attempt was to say, why did the court do more than it needed to do here? but at the same time, because of the current makeup of the court, they didn't need his vote. there were fi

stay right here on fox news for sandra smith and john roberts next. >> john: emily, thank you.t moments away from the start of the sixth public hearing. it will be focused on the events of that day, 18 months ago. i'm john roberts in washington. hi again, sandra. >> sandra: sandra smith in new york. the hearing was unexpectedly announced yesterday, the committee recently obtained new evidence. today's hearing, just one witness. cassidy hutchinson, a former aid to mark meadows, former chief

chief justice john roberts said, if the court -- if epa is going to do something this significant, it to have clear authority from congress. it cannot overly read its statute. laina kagan said these agencies are supposed to take care of this, because they have the expertise here, and she said, i can't think of many things more frightening than the court taking control here. broader, the court has diminished the power of regulators across the board for environment, public safety saying no longer as past courts did offer more deference to agency authority, saying it's in the hands of congress. the dissenters say congress isn't going to do anything. this will leave so many spots of public safety health open for no regulation essentially. >> and alarm bells going off for a lot of people. the supreme court has agreed to heart a redirecting case. explain. >> a north carolina redirecting case that puts on the table that theory called the independent state legislature theory that donald trump and his people were pushing to get state legislators to throw out electoral counts, and have their ow

during oral arguments and then during the conferencece is, in the sequence that chief justice john roberts had set up. many of us were wondering if you would speak from the bench. what did you think about him jumping in right from the start? [inaudible] okay, good. so let's turn to the book, which i recommend to people although i understand people should still at least get on waiting lists. >> yes. i guess it sold out or they are having a trucking crisis. i have several questions for the justice and then we have several questions that have come in from the audienceth tonight and also people on zoom. some of the substantive ones about the questions related to the court culture because as i said it's always good to get a little peek inside. going to start with the more serious ones and that goes to public confidence in the court. since that has been an important theme that you had from the start i think because i look back at some of the interviews related to 2010 making the democracy work and had long been stressing public confidence in the court and i just wondered if you thought it was ha

he's a real partner to john roberts. but this will be a whole new dynamic.unfolds in the next 28 years. >> we like to have that front row seat. thank you very much for that excellent analysis. >>> coming up, a federal judge just manned down a very lengthy sentence to singer r. kelly, convicted of sex trafficking charges. we have details. we'll share them with you after the break. >>> singer r. kelly has been sentenced to 30 years in prison knowledge his conviction of racketeering and sex trafficking charges. he was found guilty of nine counts. he used his celebrity status to target girls, boys and young women. his attorney says hess devastated by the sentence but is prepared to appeal the conviction. >>> grim new details tonight of what's being called the worst human smuggling event in history. the san antonio police chief saying the floor of a tractor-trailer abandoned in the blazing sun was quote completely covered in bodies. omar is working the story. i understand at least 53 people are now confirmed dead. are you there at the scene. what is the latest? >

judy: chief justice john roberts does sign on to the majority opinion but does write a separate, concurringaying the court erred, in his words, by completely overruling roe and casey. he says if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of the case, then it is necessary not to decide more. surely, we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint where the broader path the court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right, we have not only previously recognized but also expressly reaffirmed applying to doctrine of starter sizes -- sta ri decisis. >> he felt that he was concerned about the court's legitimacy in making this ruling at this time, and he agreed with that part of the majority opinion that did get rid of the viability line, but he would not, as you said, go so far as to overrule the entire decisions. judy: as we know, there was a strongly worded dissent by the three liberal justices. here is part of what they wrote in today's opinion. that as a matter of constitutional substance, the majority's opinion has all the flaws its method would suggest because laws i

john robert has ordered a full investigation. today roberts did not join the five conservative justices or three liberals. he said in his own opinion he would have stopped short of ending the right to abortion. cbs news, washington. >> so here is a closer look at how of justices ruled. five who signed the majority opinion include clarence thomas, samuel alito, brett kavanaugh, neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett. and then dissenting is sonia sotomayor andel anna kagan and john reports did not join the majority. he wrote a concurring opinion that he would not have over turned roe but would have upheld r 15 weekss law bng ol reacting to today as ruling. london breed said, quote, the ramificas on public health and poverty and so many downstream consequences have yet to be seen but right now women are scared about what this means for them, for their daughters and for all of us. >> senator dianne feinstein said today it is a dark day. the conservative majority on the supreme court has declared that women no longer have the right to con

i'm wondering, how much of a concern this may cause not just john roberts but other institutionalists who always keep at least one eye focused on the court and its support with the american people. >> well, it certainly is a blow to chief justice roberts. what he was looking for was a middle ground and he said so in his concurrence just to be clear, the court was 5-4 on overturning roe. 6-3 on upholding the mismiss law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks and the chief justice said we should only decide what is before us, whether to ban abortion before the age of viability and he said the answer to that should be no, that viability was a arbitrary cut-off time for a state's interest so he didn't think the court should overturn roe and he wanted to have the middle ground, the incremental step. and oral argument before the supreme court, while it seems like a matter of justices asking questions or the lawyers, it is the first time the justices have discussed them together and it is discussion by way of asking questions of the lawyers and it was obvious then he was looking for takers f

i'm john roberts in washington and this is "america reports." details are still coming in.

chief justice john roberts writing while cap carbon emissions so much that the nation goes from coal,ision of such magnitude and consequence rests with congress itself. the decision also signaling that actions by other agencies could be struck down if they're not specifically authorized by congress. biden saying in a statement the ruling is another devastating decision from the court that aims to take our country backwards. but biden did get a win from the court. five justices led by the chief ruling that the president can end the trump administration's controversial remain in mexico policy, which forced some migrants to wait in mexico while their immigration cases were pending. this term the justices also issued major rulings, rolling back a strict gun law in new york that will have the effect of loosening gun restrictions nationwide and siding with a high school football coach who was suspended for leading prayers on the 50 yard line. and justice jackson is joining a court that will take on even more consequential cases in the coming term. the court is set to hear cases that involve

but the supreme court, john roberts, i have respects to john roberts to slow to bring the angle considerationsnder. and that all political bodies, there should be certain ethical guidelines that are required for justices to follow. they are the only folks don't who don't have a way checking balance on them and their own check and balance on that, that's just wrong. it's kind of like this whole thing we're looking at on january six, trump be tried or not. responsible for his actions. nobody should be without oversight and a third-party check and balance in our system. should trump be responsible? trump is the most open in a tory's political criminal in the history of this country. he makes richard nixon look like a third grade student who stole some shock. >> congressman steve cohen, i always know that when i asked distance in time with you, you are going to deliver, thank you so much for being with us this morning, we appreciate it. >> you're welcome, nice to be with you. >> listen, we also want to know what do you think. do you think supreme court justice clarence thomas should resign followi

major abortion rights case that rolled back a half century of reproductive rights chief justice john robertsn the right wing block. but in this case, and in other religious liberty cases, chief justice john roberts is with this conservative group driving the agenda. he wrote the decision last week in the main case, and here he signed on fully with justice neil gorsuch. in dissent were the three remaining liberals on this bench, alisyn, justice sonia sotomayor wrote for those dissenters joined by stephen breyer and kagan, was playing privately on the 50 yard line, he was surrounded by other adults and student and that there was a great fear here that he was actually coercing students, even though he said he wasn't, but the dissenters said effectively pressuring students to join, and also showing that the school appeared to be endorsing religion. and that was the school district's argument. that's why it suspended coach kennedy saying he shouldn't have done that as an official of the school. alisyn? >> really interesting context. thank you. >>> a surprise announcement from the january 6th comm

chief justice john roberts did not join his conservative colleagues in overturning roe saying there was no need to do that in order to uphold a 15 week mississippi abortion ban that was the subject of the case. at the white house, president biden quickly condemned the decision and urged congress to act. >> the court has done what it has never done before, expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many americans that had already been recognized. the court's decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose, and the balance that existed, is for congress to restore the protections of roe v wade as federal law. >> in a statement, former president trump called this "the biggest win for life in a generation" he went on to take credit for it, saying it was "only made possible because i delivered everything as promised." house speaker nancy pelosi weighed in at her weekly news conference. >> american women today have less freedom than their mothers. for 50 years, it was a constitutional right for women

. >> very busy friday, i'm trace gallagher in for john roberts. this is "america reports." justice samuel alito writing the majority opinion ending roe, joined by clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy coney barrett. chief roberts wrote an opinion ban on abortions 15 weeks after pregnancy, but stopped the precedence of roe vs. wade together. all three liberal justices were in dissent. >> sandra: nearly half the states are already prepared to ban or severely limit abortions. this ruling comes more than a month, you'll remember, after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by justice samuel alito, indicating the court was prepared to take this very step. that leak leading to weeks of protests outside the homes of some justices and even a threat on the life of justice brett kavanaugh. >> trace: begin with shannon bream, she is life at the supreme court. >> good to see you, trace and sandra. walk through this again. what happens here, with the 5-4 opinion, at least on the issue of not only upholding the mississippi law but journey turning roe, send this back to t

what we see in this opinion written by justice john roberts and justice kavanaugh, they both it -- theyally say there are still allowances for states to put in place to have an effect on gun ownership. they specifically mention red flag laws and some other things being discussed by president biden and congress. >> all right. tina, thank you very much. tina davis covering the latest of elements. we will continue to track what is happening based on the news supreme court forwarding of the new york limits. obviously in the markets today, we started with this half-hour. we have been monitoring the continued reaction to more commentary from jay powell. right now you have at least in the equity market, basically, a mixed to negative session. in toronto we are seeing weakness for some commodity stocks that had previously been big winners this year. for taylor riggs, i'm jon erlichman. millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, w

she'll take two oaths, the constitutional oath to be administered by chief justice john roberts and theial oath to be administered by her mentor, stephen breyer. she clerked for him. she will bring a world of diversity not just as a black woman but as a public defender. someone down in the trenches of the legal system. they don't have that up there right now and she'll mark four women justices on the supreme court for the first time. gio. >> of course, we'll have that here on abc. all right, terry, thank you so much. whit? >>> we're also following the latest in the battle over abortion rights. confusion at one kansas city health care system that briefly stopped providing plan b emergency contraceptives following missouri's abortion ban there. congressional correspondent rachel scott has more. >> reporter: a leading hospital system in missouri sparking panic and confusion. >> now we have doctors who are turning to legal departments and ethicists to get guidance rather than relying on their own medical judgment. >> reporter: st. luke's health system says the state's abortion ban was so un

john roberts, judicial restraint, peggy.urious of what happened to small conservativism in judicial restraints. >> in a way, i understand what susan collins said, but another way to view this is a long 50 year struggle that observed all processes and appeal to the public and tried to get support and play the long game and did its very best has suddenly, it seems, but after 50 years, succeeded in the court and the end result of that is that a big huge dramatic question will not be settled by the court as it were, as it had been 49 years ago, but will actually go back to the people of the country who, state by state, will decide through their legislators and representatives what their local abortion law will be. i do not see this big decision as a settlement of this question. >> right. >> but i do think it has put forward a legitimate and desirable democratic settlement and it will be turbulent for the next few years. it just will. >> kimberly, what was interesting, she talked about the long 50 year campaign on the right to ge

john roberts supported upholding the mississippi law but not overturning roe.e states have already banned abortion since friday, 17 more are promising to do so soon. in his majority opinion, justice samuel alito wrote -- it is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives . in their dissent, the courts liberal justices wrote, "with sorrow for this court, but more for the many millions of american women who've today have lost a fundamental constitutional protection, we dissent." clarence thomas sided with the majority but argued in a concurring opinion that other key landmark rulings establishing gay rights, the right to contraception, should also be overturned. protests broke out nationwide in response to the ruling and continued over the weekend as thousands marched nationwide with some facing arrest and police brutality in los angeles and south carolina. >> the court thinks that they could put a lot in the slide that the majority of this country does not support, that was stripper way the basic human ri

john roberts is the king of public relations.ngs, he just doesn't want to anybody to notice. he wants to minimize what he thinks is going on, which is why he came up with this ridiculous compromise for keeping this mississippi law in place. it does harm to people. this court is doing harm to people. they are not ever going to stop. again, this is like the zenith of their right-wing project, to overturn roe v. wade. who knows what's next beyond a contraception and same-sex relation ships. they can go after brown next. -- it really does raise some questions about which supreme court presidents are truly safe. in my view, none of them are. that's what this conservative, legal movement has been about, since the reagan years. this is a very scary time. if there are people sitting at home thinking, well, i'm good, i can't get pregnant so this is fine. think again. this is a problem. >> following up on that, mark, a leader's opinion claim that the right to constitutional same-sex marriage aren't at risk at all. thomas points out, they m

retiring justice stephen breyer administered one, chief justice john roberts, the other. the kofrt court's 6-3 conservative majority unchanged. justices sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and amy coney barrett now, for the first time in history, four women will serve together justice jackson has worked as a federal judge since 2013 the 51-year-old is taking the place of the supreme court justice for whom she unsonce clerked. stephen breyer officially retired today. he announced his plan to step down back in january the 83-year-old has served on the rye tort for nearly lee decade. >>> arrests today outside the supreme court during a pig protest of the roe v. wade overturn crowds shut down traffic, sitting in -- sitting and blocking an intersection police say they arrested more than 180 of them president biden spoke on roe during his final news conference at the nato summit today he said he will do everything in his power fight the supreme court ruling including changing the filibuster rules in the senate so that they can create legislation. >> i believe we have to codify roe v.

because this supreme court majority, john roberts has spent his entire career trying to stop black people from voting, trying to destroy the voting rights act, allowing black people to vote. so we need to work as hard as we can to overcome the voter suppression that is taking over states where people are really, really at risk, losing their health and their lives because of this -- because of the overturning of roe v. wade. >> maya. >> well, let's just say that what this will cost us as a nation is nothing short of freedom and liberty. the thing that's supposed to be so central to our democracy. and so i think terry is right in this. and it's in its most basic form. the ability for us to make decisions over our own bodies and our open futures. that implication is both a reality for so many americans today, so many women, so many girls, so many people who are transgender. but let's be really explicit about this. this means that for the 17-year-old who finds out that she is pregnant, and this happened to a young woman in texas, instead of being able to get the abortion she wanted so she cou