it has not overruled roe vs. wade. but it was very clear, that the women's rights movement thought that there was a risk, that the court wouldn't address the issue -- when it addressed the issue would overturn roe vs. wade but they also had very much in mind the fact that 1992 was a presidential election year and they were determined to turn this supreme court case and a lawsuit into a political campaign issue. to try primarily to help bill clinton win the white house. and in fact there is some evidence from the political world that this case and the outcome of this case did help. but, there was another aspect of katherine colbert's argument which enticed me into writing about it. the hardest thing that a lawyer appearing before the supreme court has to do is to keep control of the argument they want to make because there are nine justices, 8 usually because justice thomas doesn't very often participate in 0 oral argument but there are at least nine very smart people who have already don't thinking about this case and a

. >> there is no question that she will uphold roe vs. wade. >> they pntoied to barack obama's nomination as evidence. >> it is laughable because that's all they've got to go on. >> she was alone pro-choice activists at today's protest. >> i'm not at all sure where they get this. if you look at her record, she does not have one on abortion. >> if confirmed, she will become the first hispanic and the third woman to sit on the supreme court. the protesters say they will be back tomorrow. >> congressional leaders say it is unlikely they will meet president obama's august deadline for health care reform legislation. democrats and republicans said the plan to overhaul the system is moving forward, but they caution they will not rush into a spending plan. the secretary of health and human services remains optimistic that congress will send the white house legislation by the end of the year. we are learning more about what alaska's governor -- alaska gov. sarah palin plans to do after she leaves office. she has told the quality washington times" that

narmada mccorvey, jane roe of roe vs. wade should have been an anita hill like figure and theyt went because the media said oh t no, she's a moderately bit thatb jamaica washington post were compiling how many blinks she gave. during certain answers. it seems like the coverage got a little vacuous at times ; the washington post lead. one day it said the sotomayor sought to reframe critics or trail of her as ani judge swayed by her gender and ethnicity. please, she completelyexpl contradicted herself and shea tried to explain away her wise latino remark by saying she o didn't really mean it. r and instead of sort of holding our feet to the fire, the post disorder generally said she sought to reframe the accusations of heren critics. i think republicans did a prette good job of getting theiran arguments in there. it was predicted she would bepl untouchable because you can't resize latina, you lose the voters. he put more intelligent than that. you can make legitimate arguments member when they had alito in there, they called him

. >> [inaudible] in roe vs. wade there was a certain assumption that people have a right to decide to do what they wanted to do in that example. but in the example of a kilo it is the opposite where they choose to give deference to the power of the state and yet this contradiction has occurred it now for 50 years for many different chords, then a different leadership in the court and i don't see anything that makes it makes sense. >> well, that is actually very good observation and doesn't make sense. there isn't a coherent philosophy being expressed an all too often the will of a particular justice and particular passion about one issue or who has the opportunity to write one decision that is modified by others needed to join the dissent -- decision, but bob can talk about roe vs. wade and we do have after that address is why we did not put it in there as one of "the dirty dozen" but you can't fully recognize. which you can see is the agenda that is pretty unrelenting and uninterrupted over the last 50 years which w

roe v. wade changed american societ >> row vs -- >> roe vs. wade look at the constituti and decided that the constituon as applied to a right applied. >> is there ything in the constitution that says that a state legislator or the congress cannot regulate ortion or the definitn of life in the first trmester? >> t holdingf the court as -- >> i'm aing the cotitution. does the constitution, as wrten, prohibit a legislative at bo at the state or feder level from defining life or relating therights of the unborn -- or protecting the rights of the uorn in the first trimester? >> the constitution inhe 14th amendnt has a -- is there anythi in the document, written, aut abortion? >> the word "abortn" isot used in t constitutionbut the costitution does hav a broad provision concerning a liberty provisi under the due process -- >> and that gets us to the speeches. th bro provision of the constitution has taken us fom no written prohibition protecting t unborn, no wtten statementthat you can't voluntarily pray in school,nd on, and on and on,and n, and that

roe v. wade changed american society? >> roe vs. wade looked at the constitution and decided that the constitution is applied to a claims right applied. >> anything in the constitution that says a state legislator of a congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester? >> the holding of the court as -- >> i'm asking the constitution. does the constitution as written prohibit a legislative body, at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution in the 14th amendment has a -- >> is there anything in the document written about abortion? >> the word abortion is not used in the constitution, but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process. >> and that gets us to the speech speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily p

roe v. wade changed american society? >> row vs. -- >> roe vs. wade looked at the constitution and decided that the constitution as applied to a right applied. >> is there anything in the constitution that says that a state legislator or the congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester? >> the holding of the court as -- >> i'm asking the constitution. does the constitution, as written, prohibit a legislative at body at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn -- or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution in the 14th amendment has a -- >> is there anything in the document, written, about abortion? >> the word "abortion" is not used in the constitution but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process -- >> and that gets us to the speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't

roe v. wade changed american society? >> roe vs. wade looked at the constitution and decided that the constitution is applied to a claims right applied. >> anything in the constitution that says a state legislator of a congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester? >> the holding of the court as -- >> i'm asking the constitution. does the constitution as written prohibit a legislative body, at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution in the 14th amendment has a -- >> is there anything in the document written about abortion? >> the word abortion is not used in the constitution, but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process. >> and that gets us to the speech speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily p

their mission, to overturn roe vs. wadegalized abortion. >>> the crime sent shock waves throughout the country an shed a negative light on d.c. child and family services. today, bone eat ajacks will stand trial to the deaths of her four daughters. marshals found the girl while serving an eviction notice. police say jacks lived with the dead bodies for at least seven months. >>> two mother-daughter murderses in largo earlier this year and both of those cases have investigators at a dead end. an fbi profiler says they're not connected. police found karen lofton and her daughter carissa shot to death in hair home in january. two months later, a similar case in the same neighborhood. the bodies of delakeshore he is dewitt and her daughter ebony were found in a burning car. detectives say the similarities were just that, weird coincidences. >>> we'll have the latest on an explosion in iraq. >>> beware of what you write on your twitter or facebook pages. what you type kind welcome mat for criminals. you are watching fox 5 morning

you aded that if baker was precent you would uphold it sed upon stare decisis, consistent wi roe vs. wade, and grisld and many others that y mention this week. baker inlved an appl from the minnesota spreme court which held that a minnesota law prohibiti same-sex marriage did not violate the first, the eighth, theinth or the 14th amendment to the constitutin. the supreme courtn a very short rulin concluded on its merits that "the appeal is dismissed for want of substantial federalquestion". basic remains the books as precedent. ll you respect the court's decision inaker based upon tare decisis and if not, why not? >> as i indicad yesterday, i didn't remember bakernd if i had stued it it would have been in law school. you raised the queson and i did goack to look at baker. in fact, i don't thk i ever read i even in law school. baker wasecided at the time where jurisdiction over federal questions was mandory before the preme court. and the diosition by the supreme court i belve was with -- at you related, nator, which is a dismissal of the appeal raised on the minnesota statute. what i have

the original plaintiff in the roe vs. wade abortion case.ntiabortion protesters have said they plan to demonstrate throughout the judge's confirmation. >>> president obama has named his nominee for another key post. that of the u.s. surgeon general. his pick is dr. regina beveragemint. she runs -- benjamin. she runs a small shrimping company along the gulf coast. the president said she spent her career doing all she can for her patient. mr.obama believes dr. benjamin will be an advocate for all americans who need medical care. >>> the homeland security secretary watched traps in virginia demonstrate maritime counterterrorism. janet napolitano observed the response team practice handling a threat offshore. the department is examining its port security grant program to make sure moneys are going where they're most neated. >>> authorities in part of britain are dealing with home- grown terrorism this morning. that story is coming up. >>> plus, the dismissal of minority children from a philadelphia pool appears headed to court. >>> and a little

. >> judge, the court's ruling about the right to privacy in griswald laid the foundation for roe vs. wadeand. in our opinion, is it settled law? >> the court's decision in planned parenthood vs. casey reaffirm of the court's holding of roe vs. wade. that is the president of the corn and settled in terms of a holding of the court. >> do you agree with justice souter, o'connor and kennedy in their opinion in casey which reaffirm a core holding in a row? >> as i said, he syria from upholding in a row. that is the supreme court's settled interpretation of what the court's holding is an israel affirmance of it. >> alright. let's talk a little bit about cameras in the court. you sit on a court of appeals which does allow cameras into court to and from all indications your experience with it has not been negative. in fact, i am standing it's been some positive so how would you feel about allowing cameras in the supreme court weren't the country would have a chance to view discussions and arguments about the most of foreign issues that the supreme court the size with respect to our constitution,

murder are still under the same country and the same laws that have been a loss since 1973 under roe vs. wade- megyn: but they are not arguing about whether it is legal, it is about paying for an elective procedure that they are not saying that you cannot get it, but they are saying that they do not want to pay for it. >> well, again, i know you do not want me going back to this, but it is not necessarily -- let's separate one thing. public and private health insurers would have to pay for basic care. they need to make a decision about whether it is public health care that will receive funding and if you are under a public funded health care, or would it apply to private insurers? i understand that the other side would be very concerned about what would happen with that particular issue. i am not saying that we -- and the two sides cannot understand where the other is coming from, but in some cases in this country what we are talking about with taxpayer money -- megyn: you are going back over brown we have tread. the question that people have it is now that we are going to government funded i

the coming days and weeks are the most important, i believe, for the pro-life movement since roe vs. wade. as our congress, this body takes up comprehensive health care reform, i believe we the pro-life group in this body must mobilize and ensure that our voices are heard so that our nation's voices are heard. because if we don't act, every american will be forced to pay for these services, whether through their premiums, or taxes. abortion rates have fallen over the last 30 years. but if we fail to act, i whole heartedly believe we will see abortion rates skyrocket. health care, you know, dr. fleming, and you know this all too well, you took that oath, is about saving lives. it's about saving lives. it's about providing our help, our love, our compassion, our prayers to the young women who need it. health care should be -- health care reform should be about finding ways to do that better, not mandating coverage that we all agree will not do that. we should be doing things to make abortion rare. after all, everyone, including that unborn child, deserves the right to life. dr. fleming, tha

vs. wade. -- that is roe vs. wade. it has been in the news now for three or six years. -- 36 years. also, brown verseus the board of education. people were free to decide in the case said they could think of. were free to cite any case, really basically all the understanding was around roe v. wade. host: and what do people think about cameras in the courtroom? caller: i should say, strong support for cameras in the courtroom. host: did you find out why? >> we learn that there's some high school civics aspect of the court that these justices sit essentially for life. we knew that. we sense a real hunger about what's going on in the court. we have the interest in the sotomayor nomination. what's driving the support for more televised coverage is -- the best way i can describe that is telling you the considerable interest in her nomination. host: tell us about the methodology. >> we conducted a survey on line on tuesday this week. this is a cross sample of american voters. host: tell us about your firm. >> we are a well-known research based consulting firm. in particular in the united

twitter addiction, tom writes and you are right, and jeff mw writes, my question is do you believe roe vs. wadecontrol? there will be a lot of controversial questions and i'm a patriot, asks her, how would you feel if a white man said he can more often than not do better than a hispanic women and dc 25, sotomayor, you think it is possible to rule a case objectively, if so why do partisan presidents elect judges and they are interesting questions, i love to tweet. >> and sonya sotomayor, take the -- takes the hot seat tomorrow on capitol hill in the bid to become the supreme court's first latina justice and her confirmation hearing, before the senate judiciary committee, promised to explore a wide number of issues. and personal fact and views to racial conflict as we heard from the tweets and in the end, at the end of the day, we may get in sight on how she will or won't fit in, with other members of the bench and patricia malette joins us to discuss what we might hear from the hearings and you are a supreme court legal expert and this former assistant to the u.s. solicitor general. and tell me

on the abortion example they say that in 34 cases where roe vs. wadeas mentioned, the nominee refused to state a specific opinion. does that concern you in general? guest: it raises the broader question that deserves to serious consideration. what does the senate expect from the nominee? people on both sides of the aisle have complained about this. i think there are some tougher issues people need to think through about the obligation on the part of the nominee to be candid, spell out his or her current thinking on the issue by making clear that he or she is open to thinking further. it is a difficult question. there are people who have a reasonable views on both sides. but clearly the practice has been one that has the nominee saying very little. host: greenbelt, md., a caller on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. to the gentleman who called about the abortion issue, that is a very divisive issue. there are people for and against it. to judge her on her stand on abortion is ridiculous. you're talking about an activist court, let's talk abou

in planned parenthood versus k.c., the court reaffirmed the holding of roe vs. wade, a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances. in k.c., the court announced that in reviewing state regulations that may apply to that right, that the court considers whether that regulation has an undue burden on the woman's constitutional rights. that's my understanding of what the law is. >> let me give you a couple of cases. let's say, i'm 38 weeks pregnant and we cover a small spina bifida sack on the lower sacrum, the lower part after the back on my baby, and i feel like i can't handle that. would it be legal to terminate that child's life? >> i can't answer that question in the abstract because i would have to look at what the state of the state's law was on that question and what the state said with respect to that issue. i can say that the question of the number of weeks that a woman is pregnant has been approached to looking at a woman's -- that approach to looking at a woman's access was changed by k.c. that is, is the state regulat

>> roe vs. wade looked at the constitution and decided that the constitution is applied to a claims right applied. >> is there anything in the constitution that says a state legislator of the congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester? >> the holding of the court as -- >> i'm asking the constitution. does the constitution as written prohibit a legislative body at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution in the 14th amendment has a -- >> is there anything in the document written about abortion? >> the word abortion is not used in the constitution but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process. >> and that gets us to the speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily pra

referring to a woman's right to choose, and it roe vs. wade he said this quote, justice o'connor's said that opponents of the rule of judicial restraint requires us to avoid reconsidering it to not to be taken seriously. do you think it possible that if confirmed you will be eight litigator in that conference room? to take on the ideological battles which pop out from time to time, what we read in their opinions? >> i don't judge on the basis of ideology. i judge on the basis of the law and my reasoning, that's how i have comport myself in circuit court. when my colleagues and i in many cases have initially come to disagreeing positions we discussed them and either persuaded each other, change each other's mind, and it worked from the starting point of arguing, discuss saint, exchanging perspectives on what the law demands. >> perhaps you will be tempted to be a tough litigator of the courts. time will tell if you are confirmed if you have some of those iraq of statements. let me move on to a case which you have decided you have been reluctant

vs. casey, the court reaffirmed the core holding of roe v. wade, that a woman as a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances. incase see the court announced that in the reviewing state regulations that may apply to that right that the court considers whether that regulation as an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right. that is my understanding of what the law is. >> let me give you a couple of cases. let's say i am 38 weeks pregnant and we discovered a small spina bifida sack on the lower sacrum, lower part of the back on my baby and i feel like i just can't handle a child with that. would it be legal in this country to terminate that child's life? >> i can't answer that question in the abstract because i would have to look at with the state of the state's law was on that question and went to the state said with respect to that issue. i can say that the question of the number of weeks that a woman is pregnant, that approach to looking at a women's activist change in that casey, the question is the state reg

virginia estate of her habit persons from airing based on race and before the court ruled on roe vs. wade women had no constitutional applied right to privacy. these are difficult questions that have come before the court and the framers could not have anticipated. new challenges will continue to rise with the basic free-market protections remained. i want to compliment president obama and forwarding to that u.s. senate in nominee judge sonia sotomayor u.s. well qualified for consideration, her well-rounded background including extensive experience as a prosecutor, a trial judge appellate judge prove a valuable addition to our core. as a relatively new member of the senate judiciary committee as i prepared for this week i considered it a few key standards that apply to all judicial nominations. first i believe nominees must have an appreciation of the constitution of protections it provides to each and every american. she or he must embrace traditional philosophy that reflects mainstream american values, not a narrow ideological interests. they should have a strong passion to continue t

she said the roe vs. waded law and supports the second amendment right to bear arms. >>> the battle over michael jackson's children may not get settled easily. the lawyer for debby row says she is not sure what she is going to do. she has agreed to take $4 million in exchange for not battling jackson's mother for custody. it wouldn't be surprising if money enters the equation. >> because of the absence of a real relationship between her and those two children, she probably -- or she might not get custody, but it would be in the jackson family's interest to give her some money to go away, which is a big profit potential for her. >> well, a child custody hearing had been set for this week, but a court official says it's been pushed back until next monday. >>> news right now, comments from the director of that day camp, which was asked to leave a private swim club. most of the kids at the camp are minorities, and the camp may sue, claiming discrimination. but the club director's wife says they don't have the mone

roe v. wade changed american society? >> roe vs. looked at the constitution and decided that the constitution is applied to a claims right applied. >> anything in the constitution that says a state legislator of a congress cannot regulate aborti . holding of the court as -- >> i'm asking the constitution. does the constitution as written prohibit a legislative body, at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution in the 14th amendment has a -- >> is there anything in the document written about abortion? >> the word abortion is not used in the constitution, but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process. >> and that gets us to the speech speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily pray in school and on and on and on. and that's what drives us

the history of the entire funding of abortion since roe vs. wade has been if there is not a specific exemption in the bill, if there is not a specific exemption passed by congress, then government will fund abortions. that's how it has been since 1973. so this bill when there was -- when it was offered in committee to prohibit any of this money from going to abortions, that amendment was shot down on almost exactly a party-line vote. so this congress has already spoken. if anybody thinks that this massive technicolor flow chart new health care plan crowd your private plan into competing against the public plan and eventually the public plan swallowing all the private plans f. anybody thinks this isn't designed today by the people in power in this congress to fund abortion, they would be wrong. and we had the opportunity, the white house budget director, when asked the question, he would not rule it out that they would be funding abortions under this program. we all have to take them at their word. their spoken or unspoken word. but if the legislati

roe v. wade changed american society? >> rove vs.ked at the constitution and decided that the constitution as applied to a claim's right applied. >> is there anything in the constitution that says a state legislature for, the congress, cannot regulate abortion or life in the first trimester? >> the holding of the court -- >> i am asking you the constitution. does the constitution as a written permit a legislative body at the state or federal level for defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution and the 14th amendment has -- >> is there anything in the document written about abortion? >> the word "abortion" is not used in the constitution, but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process. >> and that gets us to the speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you cannot voluntarily do that, and on