. >> my name's scott roe, i'm a commercial fishermen, sea scallops, fourth generation.as a. 70 and 80 boats here, five or six feet now, now it's just down to like seven or eight. now i'm proud of my heritage and i would never do anything else. this is my office, man, look at it. i'm going to do this until i can't move anymore. >> we were all on the town like clockwork, 2:30, 3:00 in the morning, it's quiet, the town's been ripped up all night long. we come down here, hit the water. what could be better? >> good time to be here, and nice weather today. >> yeah, pretty nice day. >> a little breezy. >> might be a little nautical. a little bit. >> i'm sure i'll be fine, i've watched "the deadliest catch." >> are you ready? >> i'm ready. >> time to press the fun button. ♪ >> clear. all clear. used to be this was the best thing in the world. we were like the greatest thing about fishing, you were kind of like a cowboy, like a pioneer, you could go out, and as hard as you could push, competition was welcomed. we were fiercely independent. independence is like little by little

is not absolutely necessary to kill a person, why would you. >> we reached out to scott and he can't comment and ipp roe will not comment as it's pending litigation. >> coming up next. the trump fall out. what american muslims are saying. and the cuban americans who hope improved relations will help them get back what they lost in the revolution after this. >>> hi, this is al jazeera america, i'm john seigenthaler. us verses them. donald trump's divisive message. >> for a total shutdown of muslims entering the united states. >> tonight, america's muslims are speaking out. dollars and diplomacy, sorting out the billions of land and property seized from americans in the cuban revolution. plus, pre-emptive strikes, screening kids for adult conditions like high cholesterol and depression - guidelines and the controversy >>> donald trump's plan to bar muslims from entering the u.s. has outraged many in america and around the world. in the city of dearborn michigan, where americans make up a third of the population, the issue is more than political, it's personal. we have more on that. >> john, muslims are se

somebody regard to the dred scott decision that the rights of unborn children are desiring -- deserving of constitutional protection that can be found in the document. host: roe v. wade is the final of 12 cases we have selected. that 1973 decision. as you suggested, congress right now is tied up in knots over the abortion issue and funding for planned parenthood. so it seems as though that 1973 decision settled nothing with regard to this. rep. goodlatte: it did. it certainly overturned the laws of a number of states. those states have been very busy over the years trying to figure out what the law means and passing new legislation, which has come back to the supreme court many times over the last, now, 30 -- over 40 years ago. that, i think, would be better left to the states determining in the first place. but that is the decision we are faced with now. and we legislate in the congress. if we pass a law, it can be challenged and taken to see if it meets the supreme court's standards or not. i frankly think this is an area where the supreme court has found something in the constitution that does not exist in the constitution and usurped the legislative power

scott in the 19th century. there was and continues to be a hullabaloo over the way. -- roe versus wade.finally, there is what i was most concerned about, was the conversation between the dissenter and the future courts. here we come to what some people have called prophetic dissents. chief justice hughes set a dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future date when a later decision may possibly correct the era in which the dissenting judge leaves the court to have been betrayed. two examples may suffice and then i would say a few words about the current court. one example is hugo black in bets v brady, 1942 case. smith abets was poor, charged with armed robbery, asked for a lawyer and was told that a lawyer could be appointed and paid for by the state was only available in capital cases. the supreme court upheld the state court decision and here's what black said. the sixth amendment stands as a constant admonition that of the constitutional safeguards that provide the loss, justice will not still be done. it embodies a realistic recognition of

roe v. wade. why are we still debating 40 years later? >> because big social change are made by the representatives of the people. it's something that started with dread scott decision. the courts were getting involved in social maneuvering. they were wrong. by declaring that african-americans could never be citizens of the united states. that's a lesson for a lot of social change. just look at the successful social change in america that has been done by legislative body in a bipartisan way. social security, medicare, medicaid civil rights laws. these were bipartisan decisions made. as they've all been fully accepted. one that hasn't is roe v. wade. the division now is greater than it was when roe v. wade was passed by the courts. another one would be obamacare as an example. done entirely by democrat votes. it argues it's an example whether it's roe v. wade or obamacare. you ought to do thing as elected represents. >> would brown v. board be an argument? >> that has to be accepted by the american people. it didn't take long. here you got to realize now brown has been modified by supreme court cases lately in the last 20 years. that has not originally, it

that someday, as people saw with dred scott, that the rights of unborn children are deserving of constitutional protection that can be found in the document. host: roe v. wade is the final of 12 cases we have selected. that 1973 decision. congress right now is tied up in knots over abortion and funding for planned parenthood. so it seems as though that 1973 decision settled nothing with regard to this. rep. goodlatte: it did. it certainly established, overturned the laws of a number of states. those states have been very busy over the years trying to figure out what the law means and passing new legislation, which has come back to the supreme court many times over the last, now, 30 -- over 40 years ago. that, i think, would be better left to the states determining in the first place. but that is the decision we are faced with now. and we legislate in the congress. if we pass a law, it can be challenged and taken to see if it meets the supreme court's standards or not. i frankly think this is an area where the supreme court has found something in the constitution that does not exist in the constitution and usurped the legislative powers of the state