chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: i presume that any other lawsuit based on common law torts, emotional infliction of harm, breach of contract, medical malpractice, whatever else was available would still be available to that woman? mr. hearron: if there is a common law tort lawsuit, that is not an s.b. 8 lawsuit, yes. justice sotomayor: contract or otherwise, common law tort or contract? mr. hearron: yes. justice sotomayor: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: mr. hearron, if i could turn technical for a minute. should one of your arguments prevail or another argument in support of your position prevail, it doesn't matter exactly which argument it is to me, what exact relief are you requesting? mr. hearron: we are requesting an injunction. so we have a pending class certification motion for a defendant class against the clerks, so we would be requesting an injunction against the commencement or the docketing of lawsuits against the clerks of the state of texas, as well as

justice sotomayor also emphasized, listen, there's a lot in the constitution that's vague.ns goes back to marlboro versus madison. the last piece she said is what is the state's interest except for religion. this idea of when life begins is something philosophers and religious leaders have thought about for centuries. this is not something that the state can say it knows better than women. it's really a compelling exchange with sotomayor. >> i have to say following along on twitter, it is fascinating the tidbits being put out there. we're not able to listen to it at the moment. paul, based on what we're learning, in terms of the questioning and the responses, how are those responses landing? >> it's interesting, judge sotomayor is -- she sounds very, very aggressive and angry about what's happening in this argument. of course, she's part of the three liberal sort of minority that still exists on the court. she's being very decisive in her questioning about this. one of the other issues that has been raised as a result of sotomayor's questioning, even judge roberts came in a

justice sonya sotomayor basically said the same thing. she added that "will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception?" the constitution is not just being interpreted as political acts by the court. justice sotomayor or is right to worry about a noxious stench but it's the one the court created in 1973 when it robbed the states of their right to determine this issue for themselves. in the words of the late, great antonin scalia. >> regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, the constitution does not say anything about it. it leaves it up to democratic choice. some states prohibit it, some states didn't. what roe vs. wade said was that no state can prohibit it. that is simply not in the constitution, it was one of those many things, most things in the world left to democratic choice. >> laura: i wish he was there today. the late judge bork was even more blunt, calling roe an active judicial imperialism, and venting out of whole cloth co

. >> justice sotomayor? >> what happens to your lawsuit if we were to find the whole woman's health is just civil? >> i think that wouldn't retroactively operate to distinguish the sovereign injury but the united states experienced when texas passed this law and clearly attempted to thwart judicial review out of time with the law was unsettled but i do think if this court clarified in whole woman's health that the providers can move forward with their suit and if it forcefully rejected texas efforts here to stymie that review then we wouldn't have the same sovereign interest in a future case because at that point the law would be settled and this attempt to circumvention would clearly network. >> so you can't sue the state the way you can because of sovereign immunity? one of the big issues for then and i'm asking you to litigate their case but i'm asking for your views of how it affects yours, is who do they sue? they haven't sued like you have, s.b.-8 plaintiffs who filed suit. they have sued a clerk of th

. >> justice sotomayor? >> what happens to your lawsuit if we were to find that whole woman's health is -- >> i think that wouldn't retroactively operate to extinguish the sovereign injury that the united states experienced when texas passed this law and clearly attempted to thwart judicial review at a time when the law was unsettled. i think if this court clarified in whole woman's health that the providers can move forward with their suit and it forcefully rejected texas' effort to sometime many that kind of federal court review, we wouldn't have the same sovereign interest in a future case because the attempt at circumvention would not work. >> they can't sue the state the way you can because of sovereign immunity. so one of the big issues for them -- i'm not asking for you to litigate their case but asking how it affects yours. who do they sue? they haven't sued like you have, all sb8 plaintiffs who file suit. they've suit, a clerk, a court, a judge, attorney general and other state officials. so how do

. >> justice sotomayor? >> what happens to your lawsuit if we were to find that whole womens health is just -- >> i don't think that'd retrooperate to distinguish the injury that the united states experienced when texas passed this law and attempted to thwart judicial review at a time when the law was unsettled. but if this court clarified in whole women's health the providers can move forward with its suit, and forcibly rejected texas' effort to stymie that court review, we wouldn't have the same sovereign interest in a future case. at that point, the law would be settled, and this attempt would clearly not work. so -- >> they can't sue the state the way you can because of sovereign immu immunity. one of the big issues for them, and i'm not asking you to litigate their case, but i'm asking for your views of how it affects yours, is who do they sue? they haven't sued like you have, all sb-8 plaintiffs who file suit. they've sued a clerk of the court, a judge, and attorney general and other state officials. s

sotomayor also pounding lawyers arguing in favor of mississippi's ban and overturning roe.oning roe v. wade. and quote, when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? while a decision has yet to be announced the court's conservative majority seems certain to uphold mississippi's prohibition on abortion, helping cement that fear the fact the supreme court decided this week to uphold the abortion ban in texas. the justices, however, ruling the law can be challenged in court. dissenting in the texas case justices sotomayor, kagen and breyer writing it's, quote, an unconstitutional scheme, in madness of the supreme court should have put to an end months ago. but by allowing the law to continue, the court, quote, betrays not only the citizens of texas but also our constitutional government. it's that language, the courage to address the stench within our own ranks has many like harvard league scholar laurence tribe describing sotomayor a conscience of the court. congresswoman nydia velazquez agreed with but with a reminder, highlighting a letter the sc

i would like you to respond to what you heard from sotomayor, she gave us a lot of gems today. what is your reaction to today's argument as a whole? >> the left when it comes to abortion has gotten more and more radical. you see that from the questioning of justice sotomayor where she suggesting that to protect a life is somehow taking a religious view, for most of human history life is been protected and if you look at where the court really started to go wrong, the 1973 decision started the supreme court down this dangerous road of being deeply deeply politicized. what the justices said in roe as it is you silly voters you don't have a right to make any decisions regulating abortion, doesn't matter what you may vote to do your citizens vote to do, we nine unelected judges will decree the rules for you and that decision more than any decision in modern times has produced enormous division in our country. i am hopeful, there's reason to be optimistic that the result of today's argument will be the court admitting that was a mistake overruling roe which is the right thing to do,

justice sotomayor? justice kagan? >> i just wanted to get your quick sense of how your intermediate positions would work if basically the viability line was discarded and undue burden became the standard overall, a standard that according to you, is an unclear one, what that would leave the court with going forward. i'm just sort of thinking about the great virt of regulations that states could pass so whether one is 15 weeks and one is 12 weeks and one is 9 weeks or a variation across a wide variety of other dimensions, what would that look like coming to the court? how do you think we should -- we would be able to deal with that or how would you council that to deal with that if the court were to go down that road? >> this is not to push back against the end, and i will answer your question, but part of why we've counseled is that's the only way to get rid of a number of the problems that i think your honor is alluded to. and that's when you have the undue burden standard, it's a very hard standard to apply. it's no

justice sotomayor also talked about the fact that there are other rights that the court has recognized that haven't been specifically mentioned in the constitution itself, equating that with the fact that abortion rights have not also been mentioned in the constitution, but the solicitor general saying that's a reason that they shouldn't be recognized. so the liberal justices speaking at length at the same time that conservatives here seem to be trying to gappal with the fact that, of course, casey and roe are precedent and should the supreme court be bound by that precedent? what factors could weigh in? how could the justices overrule that precedent? in fact, amy coney barrett talks about the fact -- she talked about precedent. she said should public perception or should changing public voous way into whether or not the court may overturn precedent. a lot of talk here. what was most poignant was justice stephen brier. he implored this court not to overturn precedent saying it could look purely political to the public. here is what he said. >> the overrule under fire in the absence of

>> sotomayor's statement today, was very powerful. it really went right to the chase. conservative justices that have been appointed here dealing with issues. all of these people, by the way, all three at the time of nomination said that as far as they were concerned roe v. wade was settled law. that means you don't unsettle that law. that's what they said then. that's now not now, of course, and that makes a big difference. i think the real thing to worry about here, wonder about, is what happens here with supreme court chief justice john roberts? look, we know that it looks to be a 6-3 standing right now. six votes going ahead and upholding the mississippi law. we don't know exactly how far they will tear down roe v. wade. roberts seems to be one of those six who is willing to become four instead of the three. the question is, as chief justice, what kind of power does he have? what kind of ability does he have to persuade another one the justices to move over and perhaps uphold roe v. wade at the same time allowing the mississippi state, therefore their law to take p

you ended with the quotation from justice sotomayor asking whether the institution of the supreme court can preserve its legitimacy, continue its important role in our country. if the stench on that court is so vicible and evident as it will be when nothing but the composition of the court is changed. nothing else has changed in the 30 years since casey and really in the 50 years since roe. nothing constitutionally relevant. it's just that there are new faces there. now, important as the institutional legitimacy of the court is, and i think it is important, even more important, even more fundamental is the question, will we have a legitimate form of law if we have a nation in which half the citizens, half the citizens have less than full rights? we men have the right to control our bodies. we have a court that says bodily integrity is important even when you've got a terrible pandemic. people have a right under the religion clauses to say, no. keep your hands off my body. but there will be one group of people who are subject to a very different regime, who can be told that their bodies

what did you make of justice sotomayor's speech? what did you take away how she approached this case and how she wants society to react to it? >> i think justice sotomayor really pointedly focused on two important points. one is the real effects on real peoples lives. so in mississippi specifically it is 75 times more dangerous for women to have -- to undergo childbirth than it is for them to have a previability abortion. so justice sotomayor kept pressing the mississippi solicitor-general where does the health of the women p enter into your analysis. she questioned whether the institution of the supreme court could survive the stench that would result if the people came to think that the court's interpretation of the constitution was nothing more than a political act. >> yeah. and it seems -- it's incredible when i look back at the president at the time president trump saying he was going to appoint pro-life justices and using that as a litmus test and where we are now, that you cannot already say that we are seeing a political cou

>> well, pam, this is a key part of justice sotomayor's dissent.as made clear she's going to fight all the way here. just the existence of these laws has a chilling effect. just the possibility of getting sued here is enough to close down these clinics and cause women who live in texas to have to travel to other states to get abortions. that could be even broader effect. the real case to watch here is the mississippi case. that was referred to, the dobbs case. that case has been argued to the supreme court. argued last week. we'll get a ruling on that likely late spring, early summer, may, june. that's the case that's going to decide whether roe vs. wade stands and what you can see in today's opinion is that you can see the battle lines forming. you can see where the fight is going to play out. justice sotomayor leading the liberal branch and justice gorsuch leading the conservative branch. it's a 6-3 majority. so the numbers are on the gorsuch conservative side. >> did today's opinion show which side the court may go on that pending mississippi ab

this has become a political conversation as justice sonya sotomayor. this could leave a stench on the governing body we tend to turn to when all of these political arguments are questioning our fundamental rights but the highest law of the land will settle it, not in a political way but fundamental human rights way. i'm concerned this is what sop some justices said to be appointed but if you look in the oral arguments, that goes out the window and personal beliefs and biases that disregard the reality of low income women and black and brown women and people who are historically marginalized for living in these states that want to outlaw abortion. they're not considering the reality that is facing all of them. >> you have written a book about this, you said after roe, the lost history of the abortion debates. if you look at numbers in america right now, asked people if they like abortion or don't like abortion, it's a much closer split. if you ask people, the only important question and that's, do you believe abortion should be criminalized, not even cl

she clerked for justice sonia sotomayor when she was a judge on the u.s. court of appeals on it is 2nd circuit. i want to start there, melissa. i want to start with the comments from justice sotomayor who has suggested something that many of us think, but we don't have the legal language or learning to express it that way and that is does -- what is the danger of the court appearing to do something political because there is this conservative majority and something conservatives have wanted done for a long time. what's the danger of the court being out of step on public opinion on the criminalization of abortion? >> ali, i think it's more just that the court is out of step with where the majority of americans are. if we were to overrule roe versus wade this time when the question has come before the court before, years before, in fact, and we haven't, it would give the strong impression that the only reason this decision is different is because the court itself is different, and that would raise questions about what has made the court different? the court

no justice sotomayor. what have you here is a journal of medical ethics, to two different scientists one who supports abortion morally and one who is not. they are able to conclude that current neuroscientific evidence supports the feels pain before the consensus cut off 24 weeks. perhaps at 12 weeks. we need have a discussion about this and comparing the baby to a dead person not the way you do it. >> pete: you are exactly right. when you boil down the debate, the biden administration ultimately had to say it is based on a right founded in the constitution and anyone looks at the ruling and looks at the constitution knows it's not there. kellyanne, thank you so much for your time. we appreciate it. >> thank you, pete. >> pete: all right, coming up. rule number one in the democrat handbook, never let a good crisis go to waste. even if it's a fake one. you know that mark levin, the great one, will break down the nefarious motive behind the left omicron hysteria. that's next. ♪ small businesses like yours ma

but justice sotomayor talked about the fact that there were those who have poked publicly said we haveonservative majorities were going to pass this law and put it up there and we think now because of the courts make up we can get rid of roe and casey. what you make of their worries? very strong language from justice sotomayor and justice kagan also just as barr who said they feel like it could kill the court's credibility if they did go after roe or casey? >> to describe this as ironic is a vast understatement. the fact that the supreme court of the united states has for 48 years politicized something, politicized the court itself by injecting itself into public policy determinations, doesn't justify following that in perpetuity. quite to the contrary, he goes on the other direction. i found it interesting that one of those justices, justice sotomayor openly and offensively questioned whether or not unborn human life can respond to painful stimulus. and feel pain. comparing it to the fact that people on the vegetative state can also do the same. there are so many kinds of offensive. n

. >>> plus, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor warned this week that the u.s.s. wade in its devolution into a political body. could it also push democratic senators to seek out court reform? >>> and the women's tennis association taking a hard line against china after the mysterious disappearance of tennis star peng shuai. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. now, nurtec odt can not only stop a migraine it can prevent a migraine as well. nurtec is the first and only option proven to treat and prevent migraines with one medication. onederful. one quick dissolve tablet can start fast and last. don't take if allergic to nurtec. the most common side effects were nausea, stomach pain, and indigestion. with nurtec, i treat migraine my way. what's your way? ask your doctor about nurtec to find out! ♪♪ ♪♪ let's go walter! after you. walter, twelve o' clock. get em boy! [cows mooing] that is incredible. it's the multi-flex tailgate. it can be a step, it can even become a workspace. i m

during oral arguments justice sonia sotomayor warned the high court could not survive the, quote, stench overturning roe, arguing that it would further erode public trust in the institution. she also warned of the weak edge of other rights protected by the constitution. >> in casey and in roe the court said there is inherent in our structure that there are certain personal decisions that belong to individuals and the states can't intrude on them. we have recognized that sense of privacy in people's choices about whether to use contraception or not. we recognized it in their right to choose who they're going to marry. i fear none of those things are written in the constitution. they have all, like marbury versus madison been discerned from the construct of the constitution. >> joining us to discuss well beyond abortion care, dr. law, and michelle goodwin and nbc civil rights attorney, i was able to watch both you and michelle nodding very much in agreement with the justice. talk to me about both what this is going to mean for those seeking abortion care, but also if they got roe, which ot

after another break, with justice sonya sotomayor did this week has many calling her the conscience ofrturn the 2020 election but next time democracy might not be so lucky. into plus, former white house chief of staff mark meadows's powerpoint plan. sometimes the jokes write themselves. tune in tonight at 8:00 p.m. on msnbc "ayman." m. on msnbc for "ayman." cake and eat it too. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? the best things america makes are the things america makes out here. the history she writes in her clear blue skies. the legends she births on hometown fields. and the future she promises. when we made grand wagoneer, proudly assembled in america, we knew no object would ever rank with the best things in this country. but we believed we could make something worthy of their spirit. i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fi

i mean, that was the words of justice sotomayor. if there is the stench, the public's idea this is just politics. they all talked about the court being seen as a political institution. if they overturn a 50-year precedent with no good reason but that they disagree with it, it will go to the fundamentals of what the court does. whatever questions the justices were asking today, whatever they might think about the precedent, they will take very seriously this question about the legitimacy of the court. >> in terms of your work and the work of other organizations like yours, nancy, i know there's nothing exactly like the center for constitutional rights, but you have colleague organizations that work in the same space. if we end up in a new world of abortion rights litigation at the end of this in which there isn't -- the existing standards for what counted as a constitutional abortion ban are lifted, there's no clarity on what is still allowed, roe isn't completely overturned, but there's no clear new standard to replace it, how do yo

we cannot ignore joseph sotomayor -- justice sotomayor [indiscernible] there is an hypocrisy here. on one hand, the court defends exemptions or religious exemptions for any factors for people who do not practice social distancing, and will the same conservative judges provide exemptions for those who need abortions passed with the court considers their own deadline? host: why do you think religious exemptions are coming into the court's thinking on this? caller: the court did not talk about religious exemptions to allow people to get abortions. trust me, most people do not consider a blast this is a human being. most religions defend the mother's life over the fetus's life. yet, the court is allowing for religious exemptions before vaccination but not for those whose religion require certain practice that necessitates abortion. host: ok, that is marking maryland. let's hear from miguel from gambrell, maryland, republican line. caller: how's it going? things for having me. if you do not mind, i would like to talk about two things. one is roe v. wade. i'm not that worried about it. t

justice sotomayor writes, the court should have put an end to this madness months ago.do so then and it fails again today. joining me now is nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights, nancy northrop and msnbc legal analyst maya wiley. chief justice john roberts, those are super strong words from him. >> right, and he joined with the court's three liberals in saying the lawsuit should have been able to go ahead against court clerks and the texas attorney general. step back a little bit. what was this case not about? it was not about the right to abortion. it really wasn't also about whether the texas law should be struck down. the only question here is whether lawsuits can proceed against the law in federal court in texas. and yes, the supreme court said -- it left the door narrowly open to go ahead with those lawsuits. but by narrowing, grieving some of the -- depriving ammunition these groups can have, in some sense tying their hands behind their back, it will make it more difficult to prevail in federal c

justice sotomayor? >> i just wanted to get your quick sense of how your intermediate positions would work, if basically the viability line was discarded and undue burden became the standard overall, a standard that according to you is an unclear one, what that would leave the court with going forward? you know, i'm just sort of thinking about the great variety of regulations that states could pass, so whether one is 15 weeks, one is 12 weeks, one is 9 weeks, variation across a wide variety of other dimensions, what would that look like coming to the court? how would we -- how do you think we would be able to deal with that or how would you counsel us to deal with that if the court were to go down that road? >> well, i think -- this is not to push back against it and i will answer your question, part of why we counselled to overrule full scale that's the only way to get rid of a number of problems your honor is alluding to, when you have the undue burden standard, it's a very hard standard to apply, it's

it is what justice sonia sotomayor warned about. >> this newest ban that mississippi has put in placee senate sponsor said, we're doing it because we have new justices on the supreme court. will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts? i don't see how it is possible. >> i don't see how it is possible. dana millbank in the "washington post" puts it like this. quote, public opinion has not changed. the science has not fundamentally changed. no new legal theory has been promulgated. the only difference is the court now has a majority hell bent on settling scores in the culture wars, a looming post-roe political backlash is where we start this hour. congresswoman madeleine dean of pennsylvania is here. she's a member of the judiciary committee. also joining us, brian fallon, executive director of the progressive court group demand justice, and erin carmen is here, senior correspondent for "new york" magazine and coauthor of "notorious rbg." i want to start with you. this is not an original

i'll comy best -- cothe my best, justice the sotomayor. we are talking about a human organism, and i think philosophical questions your honor mentioned, all those reasons they've been debated, they're important, those are all reasons to return this to the people because people should get to the debate these hard issues, and this court does not in that kind -- >> so when because the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? meaning, right now forcing women who are poor -- and that's 75% of the population and much higher percentage of those women in mississippi -- who elect abortions before viability, they are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications entering their life, 14 times greater to give birth to the a child full term than it is to have an abortion before viability. and now the state is saying to these women we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice because we believe what? >> sure, your honor. i think to answer the quest

. >> justice sotomayor i think the concer -- justice sotomayor, i think the concern requires that thes through the various factors. ros: in order to what -- to understand what's happening today, we need to go back to 1973. >> in a landmark ruling, the supreme court today legalized abortions. ros: that landmark ruling was called roe v. wade and it gave women the right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy and limited rights in the second three months. 20 years later, 1992 another key supreme court case reaffirmed that. it ruled states could not place an undue burden on women seeking abortions before the fetus is viable, the point at which the fetus could survive outside the womb. in the u.s., that is considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks. this mississippi case threatens both of these rulings. >> ultimately, the mississippi attorney general has asked the supreme court to determine whether any pre-viability restriction on abortion is, on its face, unconstitutional. the line of viability, when a fetus can survive outside the womb, that was at the crux of the roe v. wade de

it was something that justice sotomayor or wanted to shut down. it's -- the issue of viability compared something that's only embraced by french doctors or a few people out there but there's actually a lot of briefing in that there are a number of medical experts who they do do birds on this but there are those that believe earlier on you can see that a fetus will recoil from stimulus in the womb so there was an argument about whether science has brought up more information than the last 50 years or 30 years and should impact how the justices make those decisions. but again most of the argument today focused on whether or not there's enough grounds to overturn a president and how rare that should be and also whether the court will risk looking political if it does something like overrule roe or casey. >> harris: that came up more than once. whether or not they have become noticeably cool political. i believe the word american was used and they said that was not part of the american value for the court. i'm paraphrasing but i believe in pretty clos

supreme court arguments are driven by the justices questions and today justice sonia sotomayor focusede supreme court can survive the appearance of political bias in this abortion case. >> justice sonia sotomayor says mississippi pass. it's 15 week abortion ban precisely because the supreme court now has a 63 conservative majority. will this institution survive the stench. that this creates in the public perception attorney julie rikelman and the u.s. solicitor general argued against mississippi's ban this case is about 50 years of precedent. >> that women's quality and ability to make decisions that are fundamental to their lives are at stake. rikelman says women are truly equal under the law. if they can be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term roe v wade and planned parenthood v casey established that states can't ban abortion before a fetus is viable or around 24 weeks roe versus wade and planned parenthood versus casey on our country. mississippi solicitor general scott stewart tried to convince the justices that roe and casey were wrongly decided and should be overturned

time but i want to ask you about two sets of people on the court and first you mentioned justice sotomayor and her very passionate dissent both times and the first time around on september 1 on the supreme court initially allowing texas law to take effect and others on the liberal wing dissented but none as strongly as she did and she was the only one more recently just a couple of weeks ago when the court for the second time let the texas lost in effect and she was the only one who dissented. linda how do you understand this build bridges attitude that justices kagan and breyer have versus, go ahead and burn it down and how do you see that playing out because two of them will probably be around longer and be in the remaining leadership positions on the liberal side justice kagan and sotomayor. >> i think it's a difference in approach so i think both justice breyer and justice kagan think the role they can serve best is is to be able to somehow reach some of the justices and as far as we know that it happened. there's certainly been cases that have turned out to be more narrowly focused in

like, again, i mean, justice sotomayor, i had good fortune of meeting most of the justices. she's delightful. i had the good -- the honor of having lunch with her and my co-clerks. nothing personal, you know, even if she seemed skeptical of our position, you know? she's doing her best to get the case right, as every one of the justices is doing. but i will say on maybest the not a surprise exactly, so as kristin mentioned earlier, i had honor of clerking for justice thomas, and you hear about, you hear from friends who have argued at the court before, former bosses, and i've previouslied had the honor before the other judge i clerked there's a special honor to the arguing in front of your former boss, particularly when you respect your former boss, and there was just something about justice thomas now that he is, seems to be getting the lead line of questioning. there's just something unbelievable of him saying general stewart. like, that's not how we talked to each other in chambers. [laughter] it was just quite an honor to hear, i mean, one, it's always an honor to talk wi

>> i thought those were very powerful words from justice sotomayor. the tradition of the supreme court and what gives the court its legitimacy but causes people to obey its orders is the notion that it is deciding cases based on fact and law and respecting precedent under the concept of stare decisis. sometimes cases get overruled but there's a process for that, based on the reliance of the law, looking at the consistency with other laws, deciding whether the standard has been workable in practice. what's not supposed to happen is that precedents get overturned because the makeup of the court has changed and that appears to be what may be happening here, why justice sotomayor suggested it could be so disturbing for the court to ignore the 50 years of precedent and overrule row versus wade. >> it was mentioned. >> it's sort of the moment that republicans have been waiting for in the extreme conservative side, stacking the deck for decades. they've been building a bench with the federalist society. president trump was elected so many people in the south

amy: that is justice sonia sotomayor. if roe v.is overturned, almost half of states have so-called trigger laws already in place that will rapidly make abortion illegal. for more, we are joined by katie watson, bio-ethics professor at northwestern university feinberg school of medicine. she's a lawyer and the author of the book "scarlet a: the ethics, law and politics of ordinary abortion." professor watson, welcome to democracy now! there is so much to unpack here. if you can talk about what you found most significant and alarming about what took place in the u.s. supreme court on wednesday. >> most alarming and most saddening is that the court is on the brink of making a grave error that will put it on the wrong side of history. i say that for two reasons. if the court is to gut or return roe v. wade, that will hurt all american women, not just those seeking abortion. i think that is a point we have not quite captured. second, it will bankrupt the moral authority of the institution itself, the institutional legimacy concerning he

and sotomayor in her opinion says this looks like nullification. have a constitutionally protected right to abortion in this country. this state says we've come up with this clever way to nullify it. and this court is going to okay it. >> that's right. and the justice is right. and she was joined by justices kagan and justice breyer. and of course the chief justice's opinion essentially says the same thing, that the state of texas is being allowed to nullify, to disregard the decisions by the supreme court decisions about roe versus wade and the constitutional right to an abortion that the chief justice doesn't necessarily agree with. but he agrees that when the supreme court has ruled about what the constitution protects, and it has ruled the constitution protects the right to abortion, states like texas cannot say we don't agree. and they've done this through this bounty-hunting scheme. it has all kinds of, you know, reverberations about our really bad history in the united states. and so for justice sotomayor to evoke john calhoun, she's absolut

that's a little bit different than justice sotomayor doing it as well. but i think from a practical standpoint what the court did today is -- first of all, they haven't stayed this law pending resolution. so it's in effect. and the way that this law was sfrured, it's kinds of a head fake. it's to say they can have vigilantes going after them but they are never going to do that because they don't need to because all the doctors are so worried. >> scared, right. >> when the court -- when gorsuch says one traditional way of litigating the legitimacy of the law is to be sued and then to make a constitutional claim, that's -- everybody understands that's bogus because no one is going to be sued and it is just going to remain there as an overhanging threat. >> it had its affect. >>> to be continued. after the break for us a pair of stark warnings on the state of the free world. one from another country, and the other from a dear friend, somebody you will recognize. next. dear friend, somebody you will recognize. next ♪ ♪ this looks great. awesome. alright. tha

now, interestingly, it was actually both the chief justice john roberts and justice sotomayor who wroteuld have put an end to this madness months ago before sb-8 went into effect t.failed to do so then and it fails again today. notably, this decision, this court, ana, not ruling on the underlining right to abortion. that issue is instead present in a case last week in a challenge in mississippi law that bans most abortions at 15 weeks. this case just dealing whether or not abortion providers can proceed with their lawsuit. they can, but it will be so limited, aprila, that they will likely not be able to block this texas law any time soon. it will remain on the books. ana. >> jessica schneider, thanks so much for laying it out. let's bring in cnn's chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin our supreme court analyst. jeff, what do you make of the fact that the majority of the court has essentially for now given texas the green light to continue to ban most abortions after about six weeks which is in direct opposite to "roe v. wade"? >> well, this is why evangelicals backed donald trump because h