the size of the supreme court for political reasons it interferes with the ability of the supreme court to be a neutral arbiter of what the law says. the minute we lose that, the structure of our constitution gives way. the last time this was attempted was a 1937. as i described in chapters four and five, franklin d roosevelt, also a democrat and a hero and idol of our current president, got tired of the supreme court disagreeing with him, he tried to threaten them by pushing a bill in congress that would've given him power to expand the court to 15 justices. that proposal failed legislative but i got the court sufficiently scared and convinced one supreme court justice owen roberts, to flip his vote in an important case. you can read about it and chapter five, that case for reasons i explained in the book, ended up influencing the way we do business in the federal government ever since then and not in a good way. it has a lot to do with why we are $31 trillion in debt. it is why the american economy struggles under $2 trillion of compliance costs. that is what happened the last time so

eyes is turn to the supreme court we are joined by senator mike lee a veteran now of four supreme courtominations in the author of the book saving nine. before we get to saving nine, i wanted to get your reaction to the man arrested outside of brett kavanaugh's house yesterday. he had a knife on him, he had a gun on him. your reaction to that incident. guest: there are real problems with showing up at the home of the supreme court justice to protest what you anticipate might be the outcome of a case to try to influence the outcome of the case. this particular instance he appears he showed up to influence the outcome of a case in a way that is unthinkably bad. i am grateful that they caught him, but we have to get serious about the fact that this is prohibited. this is a federal criminal offense. host: showing up to protest or having a weapon? guest: showing up to protest at the home of the supreme court justice is in itself a criminal offense. doing so to carry out an execution is unthinkably bad. i hope and expect to hear condemnation from republicans and democrats alike and from the w

we clearly care about supreme court justices. but we also care about the families and employees of the supreme court. and that is what we're talking about today. because, again, i just want to remind you, the republicans are misleading you. supreme court justices right now have law enforcement protection details. they are protected by law enforcement. this bill has to deal with the families of supreme court justices. i support protecting them. i also support protecting employees and their families of the supreme court. and that is a dispute. the democrats want to also protect employees and families who are getting threats from right-wing activists, intimidation. you want to talk about intimidation? i tell you what intimidation is. it's trump supporters assaulted the capitol on january 6, brutalizing 140 police officers. that is intimidation. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: and madam speaker, we condemn what took place on january 6. it would be nice if democr

the current supreme court harbors the most corrupted supreme court justice in history, who infamously ruled on a case involving his wife's attempt to encourage people to commit election fraud. the court contains three justices who was names were handed to donald trump by mitch mcconnell. donald trump, a candidate who came in second in the presidential election of 2016, but then came in first in the electoral college. he's not the only second place candidate who got to be president and got to appoint a supreme court justice, including the justice was the author of this opinion. the author of today's opinion, samuel alito, was appointed by george w. bush, who was the first president in history to get fewer votes than his opponent, but still when the electoral college. the current supreme court is not a product of democracy, and is a product of minority rule. it is the product of the corruption, of constitutional processes by senate republicans, who refused to even allow a vote on president obama's final choice of a supreme court justice. the republican judges on the supreme court share

thewn only real solution now iso expand the supreme court. the constitution gives congress the authority to change the size of the supreme courty and congress has used that authority seven times before. expansion is actually the only way to rebalance the court after republicans stole two seats and undermined the legitimacy of the court. >> host: part of a video she put out at the end of last year. your response? >> guest: there's a lot of errors in that statement as she refers to the republicans having stolen power. and she said the words stole were steel twice. not sure what she's referring to. there's nothing about the manner in which the republican nominees to the court stole anything or the republican senate stole anything by confirming donald trump's nominees to the supreme court.em she may not like that it happened that way. she might not like the republicans held the majority in 2016 when republicans chose not to confirm garland to the supreme court and she might not like the fact that republicans confirmed amy coney barrett in 2020. a

i imagine the current supreme court, which just dumped its nose at 50 years of supreme court precedent, making pretty much every state in open carry state, turning every state into texas, i imagine the supreme court will strike down the bipartisan gun law as soon as they can get around to it in 2023 or 2024. if you don't expand the court, reform the court, if you allow six conservative theocrat to control the court for a generation, you get nothing. host: a black guy's guide is the name. what is the black guy's guide to the second amendment? guest: the idea that the right to bear arms includes a right to personal arms is not the original intent of the second amendment, it is not the original meaning, it is not how the second amendment was understood by the people who wrote and ratified it. that is an invention by the nra in the 1970's that the second amendment confers a personal right to own guns and defense. that invention by the 1970's was not given voice in the supreme court until 2008 with scalia's d.c. versus heller decision. all of this is modern. when you want to go to the actua

this idea of expanding the supreme court?ly more of a traditionalist than many. i find myself today thinking what do you do -- i quite frankly do believe that we were led by supreme court justices. we had two united state senators who voted for them and would not have been confirmed if they had not voted for them or didn't feel that the truth was told to them. i think we really need to study what are the options. we need to look at do we continue to have lifetime terms? i also think -- i've been someone that's been reluctant on the filibuster to come out. you shouldn't need 50 votes for the majority of the american people feeling the way they do. i think we have to look at everything. i think we need to do it in a calm, intentional way but we need to take the action we have right now, turn it into action, not violent action. i think this country is raw. i'm worried about it as i'm out and about, was at a vigil last night with several thousand people. we need to start voting in november. these elections really have consequence

supreme court overturned roe v. wade yesterday.ons and gear for next week's 25th anniversary of britain over hong kong. back to china. that is a look at stories from around the globe. it is officially summer now, that means time to spend time around the pool. meteorologist adam tells us whether we should hold out for those of us looking to take a dip. next. you might be feeling scorching summer heat making its way across the u.s., folks from the northwest all the way down to the southeast bracing for dangerously high temperatures. meanwhile, monitoring the atlantic for potential tropical storm. meteorologist adam has the latest. >> beginning with that extreme heat, we are feeling across the country, current temperatures, highs, you talk about the heat across the north east -- west, excuse me. highs pushing 90 and across the southeast, leucine is lingering for a couple of days, that's where heat alerts are abortions of texas especially over the florida panhandle running you down across the mississippi river and these are areas where

tells about the immediate impact of this seismic rolling the supreme court -- ruleing by the supreme. >> in the blink of an not, most 20 states trigger laws that ban abortion pre-existing roe v. wade will go into effect. in certain states it is already going into effect like arkansas. in missouri, as of supreme court's ruling are moments afterward became effective. texas trigger law takes 30 days. there have been other bands on abortion have been struck down by the court the no go into effect. instantly, millions of americans, millions of women will no longer be able to get legal abortions in their state. if they want abortion will have to look at traveling across state lines to get them. >> president biden says the fight is not over. what can he actually do? 9 >> if you listen to his speech that he gave this afternoon he talked about how it is necessary for americans who support abortion rates -- rights to go to the polls in november and was for -- vote for democrats will go to the state legislator and go to congress and passed laws to protect abortion log -- rights. he said his adm

the current supreme court harbors the most corrupted supreme court justice in history, who infamously ruled on a case involving his wife's attempt to encourage people to commit election fraud. the court contains three justices who was names were handed to donald trump by mitch mcconnell. donald trump, a candidate who came in second in the presidential election of 2016, but then came in first in the electoral college. he's not the only second place candidate who got to be president and got to appoint a supreme court justice, including the justice was the author of this opinion. the author of today's opinion, samuel alito, was appointed by george w. bush, who was the first president in history to get fewer votes than his opponent, but still when the electoral college. the current supreme court is not a product of democracy, and is a product of minority rule. it is the product of the corruption, of constitutional processes by senate republicans, who refused to even allow a vote on president obama's final choice of a supreme court justice. the republican judges on the supreme court share

supreme court. the constitution gives congress the authority to change the size of the spring court and congress has used that authority seven times before. expansion is the only way to rebalance the court after republicans stole two seats and undermined the legitimacy of the courts. >> host: senator elizabeth warren part of the youtube video she put out last year. yourou response? >> i live to unpack there and a lot of errors in a statement. she refers to republicans have restored power and the words dole or steal twice. i'm not sure what she's referring to there. there's nothing about the manner in which republicans nominees to the supreme court stole anything or the republican senate stole anything by confirming donald trump's nominees to the u.s. supreme court. she may not like that it happened that way and she may not like republicans held the majority in 2016 when republicans chose not to confirm merrick garland to the supreme court and she might not like the fact republicans confirmed amy con

~' ,, , supreme court? i think the supreme court, ou supreme court?— supreme court? i think the supreme court, you know, they— supreme court? i think the supreme court, you know, they are _ supreme court? i think the supreme court, you know, they are trying - supreme court? i think the supreme court, you know, they are trying to l court, you know, they are trying to take an original approach to the constitution and they are looking at what is written in the constitution in the plaintext and that is the land to which they interpret it and they made a decision that, you know, some would say legally is correct evenif some would say legally is correct even if it is not my personal policy preference. i am even if it is not my personal policy preference. iam pro—choice even if it is not my personal policy preference. i am pro—choice but the court's is not to write law but to interpret laws that our legislators write and say if they meet constitutional scrutiny. if they are constitutional scrutiny. if they are constitutional under a system. so when you are t

but the supreme court can and does reassess precedent as a supreme court opinion in dobbs points out, some of the greatest decisions of all time have been decisions in which the supreme court overruled prior precedent, overruled separate by equal doctrine of mesy versus ferguson. the justices did not lie. >> trace: you were a former law clerk for justice roberts, and earlier reporting the decision was 5-4, no it was 6-3, and justice roberts concurred with the dobbs ruling. what did you think about justice roberts' opinion pulling back for going after roe? >> chief justice robert nowhere says roe was rightly decided. what he says is that the court did not need to overrule roe because they could uphold mississippi law on other grounds, so it's 6-3 opinion, so you have a super majority of the supreme court upholding mississippi's law, applies at 15 weeks, and five justices clearly laying out the case and explaining why roe was wrong on the day it was decided and only worse over time. so the roe was agregious decision and should not have taken 50 years for the court to overrule that case.

supreme court overturning roe. one of the most significant, historic decisions in modern times, and now it means that abortion is no longer the law of the land. it's up to the state and it's about to become illegal in about half of them, lester. >> pete, as we watch the emotion, the reaction outside the supreme court, let me continue to talk to you about this. you have noted as recently as yesterday, the super majority at the supreme court now really flexing its muscles. >> did he dissent from that part? >> pete obviously getting some lately information. the ruling coming down a few minutes ago. a lot to go through, but you can see some of the emotional reaction outside the supreme court, the fences have been in place there for a number of days in anticipation of reaction to this or any other decisions handed down this week. let me go to mora barrett right now, with the crowds gathered outside the court. mora. >> reporter: lester, tension has been building here between protesters who are both for and against aborti

kron 4 dot com on today's supreme court ruling. you can scan the qr code on the screen right now and we'll take you right to our website. we have much more coverage here at 3 o'clock today, including an interview with state sen. alex padilla for us, senator alex padilla. we do have big news out of washington, d.c., another story we're watching is that the u.s. has passed the first new gun safety legislation in decades. the bill enhances background checks for people under 21 wanting to buy a gun. it also prevents convicted domestic abusers from buying guns, regardless of whether they were married to the victim. the bill provides money to states to help enhance red flag laws and provides money for mental health services and securing schools. the senate passed the measure last night with 15 republicans crossing the aisle to move this bill forward. president biden says he will sign it when it arrives at his desk. coming up here at 3 o'clock today, protecting pride. how san francisco police plan to keep everyone safe this weekend. durin

the supreme court was a tremendous obstacle. reelected overwhelmingly in 1936, he decided to use his political capital on his supreme court problem. >> what did he do? what was his strategy? what was he trying to accomplish here. >> well, he took it very personally. actually, he had this dream that the supreme would cooperate with him in getting his programs going. now, maybe john can help me understand, and our listeners, whether roosevelt was being disingenuous or if he really believes the separation of powers did not apply to him. the idea that and he came up with the idea to appoint six new justices and then cooperate with them and he would cooperate. to get his program through it is insane to our way of thinking today. >> it is a mystery to me how much he believes that he could really merge these two branches of government. what happened is, he was really smarting under these rejections. although the court overturning of the nra actually probably helped him in retrospect, because it was so unpopular. he was resolved! it was

what legal reason did the supreme court. reason did the supreme court have reductions today?t have reductions today? so, roe v wade and _ have reductions today? so, roe v wade and the _ have reductions today? so, roe v wade and the planned - v wade and the planned parenthood casey decision, the idea of stare decisis precedents, it is an idea that courts use to guide them and to give way to prior decisions, to streamline decision—making for courts going forward, and it makes sense. it is a good principle. but blind adherence to it, asjustice gorsuch recently wrote, is a bad idea. and it would lead to continued reliance on decisions like dread scott, komatsu decision, dread scott, komatsu decision, dread scott, komatsu decision, dread scott, the decision where the supreme court held, relying on history, concluding that blacks were lesser than whites. —— dred scott. 0utrageous, but was a supreme court case, should we rely on that? komatsu, the decision where the supreme court allowed the us government to intern japanese americans during world war ii. that was another supreme cou

political supreme court. adding — court. political supreme court.what president biden things of i support to do that? i don't know ofj what president biden things of that idea. you'll make do think the democratic party is women's rights for granted? the republicans have been very— for granted? the republicans have been very focused. this for granted? the republicans have been very focused.— been very focused. this move to overturn roe — been very focused. this move to overturn roe v _ been very focused. this move to overturn roe v wade, _ been very focused. this move to overturn roe v wade, this i been very focused. this move to overturn roe v wade, this is i been very focused. this move to i overturn roe v wade, this is what conservatives have been waiting for for so long. conservatives have been waiting for for so long-— for so long. no, i don't think so. but i will — for so long. no, i don't think so. but i will say. — for so long. no, i don't think so. but i will say, this _ for so long. no, i don't think so. but i will say, this is _ for so lon

so supreme court overturning roe. this is one of the most significant historic decisions in modern times, lester, and now it means that abortion is no longer the law of the land. it's up to the states, and it's about to become illegal in about half of them, lester. >> pete williams with breaking news out of the supreme court. i want to go right to nbc's ken dilanian, he's outside the supreme court. also neal katyal, former acting solicitor general, joyce vance, nbc legal analyst, and dahlia, seenial editor and host of the amicus podcast for sale. neal, give us a bigger picture of what pete williams is announcing. >> this is as devastating a ruling as can be imagined. it looks very much like the draft opinion that was leaked last month. i haven't done obviously a word comparison, but it does say roe v. wade is overruled. it's a 6-3 vote on the bottom line. the chief justice, chief justice roberts, concurs in the judgment, saying he disagreed with the majority's decision to go so far as to overrule roe v. wade and that

in 1973, the supreme _ legalised abortions. in 1973, the supreme court - legalised abortions.sed abortions. in 1973, the supreme court ruled in l legalised abortions. in 1973, i the supreme court ruled in the test case of roe v wade that women must have access to abortion across america. a decision totally reversed today. tt decision totally reversed toda . , , decision totally reversed toda. ,_. decision totally reversed toda. , i“. ., ., today. it is my profound honour today. it is my profound honour to be the first _ today. it is my profound honour to be the first president - today. it is my profound honour to be the first president in i to be the first president in history to attend the march for life. fits history to attend the march for life. �* , , , history to attend the march for life. a , , ., life. as president, donald trum - life. as president, donald trump deliberately - life. as president, donald i trump deliberately appointed three pro—life justices to the court, making today's ruling possible. he says god made the decision. in fact, possible. he says god made th

the supreme court overturns ro v.almost half a century after a guaranteed the rights of women to an abortion. the ramifications it will have now and years to come. >> i can't even remember when the supreme court last revoked a right that an american citizen held. >> and weighing in on the supreme court's ruling and the by passage of bipartisanun

supreme court overturning roe v. wade.

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 have now left president biden has called for protests to remain peaceful. still, the capitol police are taking no chances. they erected this eight-foot fence ahead of the landmark ruling to keep people out of the supreme court plaza. the capitol police also boosting security at the capitol ahead of any possibility of unrest. cnbc's shomari stone continues our coverage outside the court emotions certainly running high. >> indeed, shep. emotions are very high a lot of people cried this morning when that ruling came down right now, d.c. police, u.s. capitol p

to hell with the supreme court.ill be in control of their bodies, and if they think black women are intimidated or afraid, they've got another thought coming. >> tucker: to hell with the supreme court. at roberta mcgaw bay there. we will defy them. really? you will defy our court institution after sending people to prison for questioning the last election, is that what you are saying? don't lecture us ever again about the sanctity of our institutions, about our norms, because you clearly don't care about them at all. what you care about his power. candace owens has been watching all of this, including the press against the supreme court. very closely, we are happy to have her join us tonight. candace, it is kind of revealing. i do think the babylon be put it best, january 6th commission suspends its duties for the day to call for insurrection, that was the fastest pivot may be in history. >> absolutely the fastest pivot and let me say this on behalf of so many women watching this who would like me used to be pro-cho

wait until the case comes before the supreme court in which a state says no abortions, then the supremert could have overruled roe. why do it now, that is what the statute was. that is what the mississippi statute was that was before the court. >> four 49 long years justices of the supreme court have struggled mightily to justify the decision to justify 9073 in roe vs. wade. it is next to impossible to defend the indefensible. even the late ruth bader ginsburg expressed reservations about it. why? because there is nothing in the text or the structure or the meaning of the constitution that gives rise to this right to privacy for an abortion. it is neither explicit nor is it implicit. but back in 1973, a different supreme court conjured up out of thin air this right to privacy. it was fundamentally wrong then, it was wrong back then and it's always incumbent upon the supreme court to re-examine cases, to right or wrong. as i pointed out in my column on fox news, more than 230 times the supreme court has reversed its own precedent. presidents are great, until they are not. yet nancy pelos

if you are a supreme courtjustice, bending down _ a supreme courtjustice, bending down at — a supremeth bader ginsburg, _ overstaying your welcome. ruth bader ginsburg, who was a big champion of women's _ ginsburg, who was a big champion of women's right, stay there for years and years— women's right, stay there for years and years and only went when she died in _ and years and only went when she died in 2020. she could have stood down _ died in 2020. she could have stood down in _ died in 2020. she could have stood down in the — died in 2020. she could have stood down in the 0bama term in given way toa down in the 0bama term in given way toe liberal_ down in the 0bama term in given way to a liberaljustice that 0bama could've appointed. trump appointed three justices very unusual for president— three justices very unusual for president in one term. that gave trump _ president in one term. that gave trump reat— president in one term. that gave trump real influence in appointing conservative judges to the court, and you — conservative judges to the court, and you can see this playing ou

and the new deal ran into a supreme court roadblock. in the course of that four-year term, not only did roosevelt have no chance to appoint justices, but the nine who were there struck down major reform relief laws. this is a quick laundry list, the national industrial recovery act, the railroad retirement act, section three of the national recovery act, the frazier-lemke act, the tax component of the agricultural adjustment act, the coal conservation act, the amendments to the bankruptcy law and a state new york minimum wage law that was kind of state-level counterpart progressive effort. so roosevelt was the popular, powerful and democratically-responsive president, and the supreme court was a tremendous obstacle. and so reelected overwhelmingly in 1936, he decided to use his political capital on his supreme court problem. >> what did he do? what was his strategy? what was he trying to accomplish here? >> well, he took it very personally, actually. he had this dream of, that the supreme court would cooperate with him in getting his pr

that is what we have now as a result of the supreme court.ost: for viewers who have not caught or show current work and they find it? guest: i am on commercial radio stations around the country. there is a life youtube stream of it. it is live on twitter and facebook. you can get it off the internet. we are on free speech tv. there are lots of ways to get the show. host: thom hartmann with us taking your calls and questions. kevin is up first. caller: good morning, mr. hartmann. i can understand your concern that the supreme court is going back to the original reading of the constitution. guest: they are not doing that. caller: let me finish. it has been about 100 years and coming. it is when the progressives took control of the supreme court during fdr and after fdr that they changed it where the federal government did have power. that they did not have before. guest: what? caller: i have been a union member. i have paid union dues for 23 years. i wonder how money times you have paid union dues, but -- guest: every year. caller: good. i woul

we cannot rely on a supreme court.now looking at a lot of decisions that are going to be 63, conservatives six, liberals three. there is going to be no insight there. i think there will be a lot of pressure by lawmakers to expand the courts. we are going to have more progressives on there and we can have a supreme court that acts in favor of the majority of the american people. acts in favor of twhat about th? >> i think, andrea, the only way that you're going to be to get more supreme court justices to eliminate the filibuster. there will certainly be more calls for that. there's already a lot of intensive pressure on congress to do that with joe manchin and kristen sinema. they made it very clear. it's a supreme court continues to act in a radical manner on some of these mainstream american issues that will significantly -- there could be a greater pressure on congress and certain senators to ed lemonade the filibuster. let's be clear, if mitch mcconnell gets a hold of the power in the senate, he will let me limit th

powering possibilities.™ gerry: is been a momentous week for the supreme court and indeed with the supremeion is not just on roe v. wade but the right to bear arms, the second amendment, religious freedom, state separation we may have a few more to go early next week read how do we put this into historic context. it's been a remarkable term it does seem to be the solid conservative majority that is there is now really having an impact on the nation's law. let's talk about that now with her piano. laura karen. it does look there are still some conservatives that are critical that the court makes but this is a really really impactful and important court term about the solid conservative majority that seems to upset it stands. you think this'll be remembered as one of the most important in the courts history? >> i do this is an activist court that we haven't seen since the warren court. you were talking about packing the court. i think this is a terrible idea no matter what side you are on at some other point issue will be on the other foot. tinkering with these institutions should be very ca

that is what we have now as a result of the supreme court. host: for viewers who have not caught or show current work and they find it? guest: i am on commercial radio stations around the country. there is a life youtube stream of it. it is live on twitter and facebook. you can get it off the internet. we are on free speech tv. there are lots of ways to get the show. host: thom hartmann with us taking your calls and questions. kevin is up first. caller: good morning, mr. hartmann. i can understand your concern that the supreme court is going back to the original reading of the constitution. guest: they are not doing that. caller: let me finish. it has been about 100 years and coming. it is when the progressives took control of the supreme court during fdr and after fdr that they changed it where the federal government did have power. that they did not have before. guest: what? caller: i have been a union member. i have paid union dues for 23 years. i wonder how money times you have paid union dues, but -- guest: every year. caller: good. i wo

i remember the supreme this ise a supreme court decision. no s one voted for anybody who sits on the supreme court. therefore, public pressure on the court should play no role because they can't be onct the left right. they're not standing forxt election in the next cycle. so when you protest against the supreme court, what are you really protesting againstt,? we are attempting to attend a thousand people she said are marching in new york city. forty five hundred people arey. heading to chuck schumer's office. german loffredo works rebeleb news. he is there tonight . weelhere thought we check in wim me there. i'm here.vi thanks for having me, tucker . what of course what do you see what's happening there? there are thousands of people here . i've seen chants and signs calling for the abolition of the supreme court, calling for the end of white supremacy. and i've been seeing signs c that are also calling for the forced vasectomy of men as opposed to abortion for womense. so it's really wild here . i mean, who these people seem pretty organiz

the supreme court has ended a constitutional right. reporter: and we've already heard from the campaign committees at the dnc and others they issue this statement, make no mistake the republican party will not stop at overturning roe the 2022 election will now determine whether new cruel and punishing restrictions will be put in place on women and families. the stakes of novembers elections could not be higher and voters will make their voices heard by standing with democrats up and down the ballot so, neil, it's very clear among democrats that they are going to be laser focused on this issue from today all the way until the november election in the mid-terms. neil? neil: hillary, do we know when the president does speak, he's going to add a line or a statement about not acting out violently against justices or protests, that can sometimes turn pretty scary, of course in light of that one 26-year-old man who wanted to kill justice kavanaugh. do we know whether he will be adding that to his remarks? reporter: no, neil. that is a valid q

supreme court.ening shannon. >> in contrast to what happens after big opinion the crowd is not dissipated they've only grown as has their chance about what they say is the loss of a constitutional right. but with the majority of this court held today is at the right for an abortion never actually existed. >> nearly half a century after roe v. wade the supreme court overturned a president critic. including the late justice ruth bader ginsburg had long on shaky legal ground. called the reasoning exceptionally weak. justice thomas cavanaugh joined him and ultimately holding the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. they irrigated that as authorities we overrule its decision. justices jointly signed their morning of the practical implication. today the court says that from the very moment of fertilization the woman has no right to speak up. if they can force her to bring a pregnancy to term. even to the steepest personal and familiar cost. acr

the supreme court and -- are bill of rights.humer and biden want, they know what they're doing and even now they are not stopping, even now, they are not condemning, they are not telling their supporters to go home. by the way, all the people who self-righteously said that donald trump should have told people to go home on january 6th, well, chuck schumer and joe biden need to stand up and tell the protesters outside the justices home, go home, and merrick garland, the attorney general, needs to show up and arrest them because they are violating federal law. >> sean: all right, senator ted cruz, thank you for being with us. now, last night's primaries in california proved to be an unmitigated disaster for the radical left. is this a preview of coming attractions in november? we will check in with the great one, mark levin, as we continue. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ home >> sean: interesting, last night, san francisco voters, they ousted a far left d.a., named chesa boudin, for his failure to take the issue of violent crimes seriously and failure t

the case finally reached the supreme court. the court said that the law violated a married couples constitutional right to privacy. you criticize this opinion in numerous articles and speeches beginning in 1971 and as recently as july 26th of this year. in your 1971 article, newton principles and first amendment problems, you said that the right of married couples to have sexual relations without fear of unwanted children, is no more worthy of constitution to protection of the courts then the right of a public utilities to be free of pollution control laws. you argued that the utility companies right or gratification, as you referred to it, to make money and the married couples right to make gratification of sexual relations with that unwanted children, were quote, cases that are identical. it appears to me that you are saying that the government has as much right to control a married couples decision about choosing to have a child or not, as the government has the right to control the public utilities right to pollute the air.

supreme court where the big breaking news this morning is the fact the supreme court. has now overturned roe v wade sending the decision of what health rights a woman has back to the states to decide at that local level. we have congressman mike thompson now with us with some reaction because, of course, like james just said, >> the states are going to be more important than ever and our representatives. so what is your reaction this morning? >> i think it's terrible of the court took away 50 years of precedent. so first time in my life that anyone in the united states of america has actually lost or right, court took a right away from women, united states of america. and this is only the beginning. others already efforts underway to expand on this to go after contraception and verbal that this is this is going to create serious and compelling problems for women across united states of america. >> what what message do you have for your in the north bay? is there watching this unfold this morning thinking about themselves thinking about their daughters and what this mig

visit ncicap.org] >> where live outside the supreme court this evening with more reaction to the supreme court's abortion rights ruling. from senator joe manchin of west virginia. he was the only senate democratic 2018 to vote to confirm justice brett kavanaugh in one of three democrats to vote for justice gorsuch in 2017. his statement reads in part, i trust the justices when they testified under oath that they also believed roe v. wade was settled legal precedent. i'm alarmed they chose to reject the ruling that has provided for two generations of elect -- of americans. >> [inaudible cheering] >> [indistinct shouting] when donald trump took power, there was an agenda. he was able to put on the supreme court three [beep] that said they were determined to overturn roe. this is a christian sanctioned movement that has been growing for decades. it is no surprise we are living in a country that was built on slavery and genocide -- [indiscernible] unable to end the patriarchy. the only way we are going to be able to do that is by overthrowing this -- [indiscernible] [indistinct chanting] ♪ >

look, you know, what the supreme court has done here, what this reactionary activist supreme court hase is to remove yet another fundamental right that we have as citizens. they've removed the fundamental right to privacy, they've removed the fundamental right to safety from gun violence, and they've removed a fundamental right to a livable planet. and you know, it's ironic in that some of the regulations that they are basically now preventing the executive branch from implementing against carbon pollution were actually put in place by republican presidents. george w. bush, his epa administrator, christine todd whitman, recognized that carbon pollution was a pollutant to be regulated under the clean air act and began to initiate efforts to do that. then what we saw thereafter was an effort by fossil fuel companies to take over the party and ever since then what we've seen is republicans and this republican-dominated court now basically preventing the executive branch from being able to protect its citizens against threats, including the fundamental threat of the climate crisis. >> let

to hell with the supreme court. we will divide them. >> that is democratic congresswoman maxine waters who joins us right now. welcome congresswoman. we just heard your comments from yesterday. calling to divide the -- defy the supreme court. what does that look like in practice? what can we do? >> first of all, you see the outpouring of so many people, men and women who are outraged by this decision. so we have to stay out there. we are going to organize. we're going to defy the supreme court and that decision. we're going to fight within the states against the laws that are being created, to criminalize those who give abortions. those who have abortions. so, when i say defy them, we're not gonna sit back and just take them and say we can't do anything. we're going to fight, fight, fight. that's what i was talking about yesterday. that's what i will be talking about every day. i will be joining with planned parenthood and all of the women's organizations, all the civil rights organizations. we're going to make sure

supreme court decision on abortion. joining us, cnn legal analyst and civil rights attorney areva martin, areva, good to see you. this supreme court ruling is very emotional for a lot of people. immediately 13 state trigger laws banning abortion went into effect. what does the supreme court ruling in your view mean from a legal standpoint as families continue to try to understand what they can and cannot do? >> fred, good morning. devastating decision by the supreme court. can't say that any of us were surprised because we had that leaked opinion earlier of this year. but this decision does change the game as it relates to women's rights to get an abortion. we heard the correspondent say that 26 states have already enacted some kind of ban on abortions and others are looking at how they can also restrict women's rights. and this decision basically throws the decisionmaking about women's reproductive health into the hands of each state. and we know each state has now the legal authority, the constitutional authority to d

the action of the supreme court is actually the reverse that the supreme court, which is the one entity that could be with unelected people putting on an abortion ban across the country because that's what they want. apparently the court to do is to make nacion a law which the supreme court doesn't do. but by saying this does not belong with us, this belongs with the people and the state legislatures eliminates that specific threat of an unelected body imposing its views on the women of this country. that's why this should be embraced and women should take control of their states. whatever your beliefs are on and and embrace it and become more powerful, the democrats treat you like infants. they treat you like this is not the 21st century and that you're going to believe whatever they say to you in it's insulting and insane. and you get the last word tonight , sean. it is insulting and people like maxine waters and people like corey bush who are out there inciting violence and lying about what this opinion is about. they know it. they know they're lying. corey bush is lying. she needs t