paul finkelman details why he believes that the supreme court "sabotaged reconstruction," and professor kennedy discusses the 1875 civil rights act and an 1883 court decision that invalidated public accommodation sections of the law. this program is part of two-day symposium on reconstruction hosted by the u.s. capitol historical society. good morning again. i would like to welcome you to of second and concluding day the u.s. capitol historical "thety symposium entitled ."ng reconstruction: 150 years you can call me check. this is very much an all hands relationship. -- and all hands organization. staffe been helped by members as well as a host of enthusiastic volunteers. they all do this not just once a year, but on a routine basis with all of our public programs, which includes a noontime lecture series. i would like to address -- to direct you to one of these flyers, and also urge you to fill out the questionnaire you found on the desk when you came in. i will leave to jane campbell the honor of introducing the esteemed and in every way estimable historian paul finkelman. those who h

and every important conservative jurist is a member, all the conservative members of the supreme courtest of the courts on down through america. >> narrator: but in 2016, as mcconnell blocked merrick garland, the federalist society and threpublicans had a problem. >> we are led by very, very stupid people. >> narrator: they were worried about the republican presidential nominee, donald trump. >> drain the swamp! draithe swamp! >> but donald trump came out of nowhere to win the primary. he beat me and erybody else. but he was not a republican in the sense that most of us understand the word to be. bottom line, his judicial philosophy, what he saw to be a conservative judge, s unknown. >> narrator: mcconnell had a plan. he knew a lawyer, don mcgahn, who was in the federalistrk society and for the trump campaign. >> he's known don for manyar and they had a mutual trust. they understand where each other are on issues that they are extremely concerned about. >> narrator: they told trump that promising to appoint federalist judges uld help him win over conservatives.mc >> leadennell asked th

bork to be an associate justice of the supreme court. >> i thought, "well, this man is an ideal personbe on the sueme court." >> judge bork, widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restrain.. >> bork was sort of the hallmark of ultra-conservative legal thought. this was going to dramatically change the court. init was going to change i far more conservative directiona >> narrator: rhad already successfully appointed conservatives to a court he considered too leral: sandra day o'connor, william rehnquisth elevated tf justice, antonin scalia. and now, with the retirement of lewipowell, reagan could secure conservative control of the court. >> so this was an opportunity to really change the direction, not just for the next four years, but republicans were hoping for the next 40 years. >> narrator: reagan's attorney general made a phone call to capitohill. he wanted to alert one powerful democratic senator. >> senator kennedy got a notel that attorney geneese was calling for him. d stepped out of the hearing into a phone booth and took the cal

the supremes of court supreme court has ratcheted up since the 1980s. the court stated parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification for that action. the court also stated the burden of justification is demanding and rests entirely on the state. as a just as noted in his concurrence the court had in effect made the governments more burden worse than it was previously. the justice pointed out the standard governing review of the governments actions of the discrimination based on sex the have been previously in place was quote a standard that lies between the extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny. we have denominated this intermediate scrutiny and have inquire whether the statutory classification is substantially related to important governmental of active. yet the justice pointed out the majority in that case had executed a de facto abandonment of the intermediate scrutiny that has been our standard for sex-based classifications for decades. it was replaced with an even h

but i do know that when she arrived at the supreme court she was hurt because he did not help her. t is a form place if you are out there in your state court of appeals judge. she was lost in seriously in need of help. he did not help her. part of that, an important part is that his back was killing him and he had to detox the winner because the drugs were so bad. a part of it i'm guessing was a little help from his clerks. and he did not, he wanted to keep a little bit of distance because of their past relationship. particularly in federalism issues. but over time he differs is a little bit although she becomes more powerful than he is. she becomes a swing vote in the journalist start calling it the o'connell court because she has more books. in 25 years, she cast 330 decisive votes. that's a lot of power. and he did not like the word swing vote, it implies. the principal person and she had more power than rehnquist had and at the very end is a complicated story. and i don't again, is presumptuous to think they can read minds, but it's 2005 in both of them want to leave the court.

as the supreme court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. in marbury, vs. madison, the province of the court is soley to decide on the rights of individuals. not to inquire how the executive or executive officers perform their duties in which they have discretion this limitation grows in part out of the english system of equity which limited relief in a given dice the parties before the court. as explained by a.l.i.'s first restatement of judgments published in 1942, the english equity system was a system of personal justice as the professor wrote, this means that n injunction would stray the frsh from the plaintiff not the world. it is vesting of federal courts with the judicial power to resolve cases or controversies. as justice scalia succinctly put it, the judicial power as americans have understood it and their english an zestors before them is the power to adjudicate with conclusive effect disputed government claims civil or criminal against private persons the puted claims against government or other private persons. just like article

the government could not implement the policy until the supreme court acted. that is not the only example. the ninth circuit recently ordered briefing on weather, a nationwide injunction from pennsylvania district court mooted the appeal of an injunction from the giving a ninth circuit. single district court judge such outsize power is irreconcilable with the structure of our judicial system. it only allows them to wield unprecedented power, it allows the district court to wield that power asymmetrically. when the court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases you but when the court grants a nationwide injunction, it means that it is irrelevant. think of what that means for the government. when congress passes a statute or when the president implement a policy that is challenged in governmentrts, but has to run the table. we must win every case. the challenges, however, just have to find that one district court judge out of the available 600 willing to enter a nationwide injunction. one judge can in effect cancel the policy with

what we got from the supreme court was a mixed decision. the lower courts had struck down both of those provisions. the supreme court said with respect to the ban on abortions based on a person's reason, we're going to let the decision of the lower court stand -- meaning that law is never going to take effect. it was blocked, held unconstitutional, and that is not going to change. the other decision on the other law is think it is important understand it was not brought ofer the roe v. wade line cases, so it really was not a direct challenge, or not to the access of abortion. there was no evidence that law was stopping the fetal tissue disposal -- the disposal law was preventing anyone from getting an abortion or would prevent anybody. is unfortunate because we know the purpose of the law is to shame and stigmatize people who seek abortion care, the supreme court's decision in allowing that law to stand is not going to interfere with access to abortion. thomas'saw from justice occurrence is something that is driving so many of these laws, wh

supreme court decides that roe v wade needs to be overturned you know obviously if the u.s. supreme court decides that women in this country no longer have the right to make reproductive health decisions it's a major change for the worse for women in the united states we are going to fight to ensure that that does not happen we've had 50 years of a recognized right in this country for women to make those decisions for themselves with their doctors and with their family and this supreme court even with this change composition we think we'll recognize that this you know this development is not something that was predicted when donald trump won the presidency it's really it's been almost a sleeper event that has now erupted but he has been spending the past 2 years packing the court with conservative judges as well as 2 supreme court judges i mean that's where the power is at the end of the day you really don't you don't have anything to contest that if you did you see this coming. i think those of us who care deeply about women's rights and reproductive choice have been worrie

in both cases, the supreme court's decisions were unnecessarily based on the perception of the justices. this is what liberty now required, yet it seems likely that if the same issues had come for the first time before the court as it is now constituted, the result would have been different. although nothing would have been changed apart from the outlook of individual justices. one can draw two lessons from the broad range of outcomes which at different times in american history have been justified under the due process clause. one is that on politically controversial issues, the decisions of judges almost always involve a large element of political value judgment. the case for or against labor regulation is a question of economic and social policy. the case for or against abortion is a question of liberal values. the idea in our context and how far it should go are fundamentally liberal questions. the other lesson is that judicial decisions on issues like these are not necessarily wiser or morally superior to the judgments of the legislature. much of the employee protection legislation

the plaintiffs challenged it up to the supreme court and the supreme court saying today that they willthis. that they will not take this case. instead the lower court's ruling will stand. and this pennsylvania school policy allowing these transgender students to go into the bathroom essentially of their choice of the gender that they identify with -- >> okay. >> -- they are allowing that policy to remain in effect by not taking this case. >> jessica, just to be clear here so i understand this, so is it right to read this decision on transgender rights as in effect upholding transgender rights in this small case here relating to the use of bathrooms? is that the right way to read this decision? >> that might be a bit of a stretch. i haven't actually read the entire decision by the supreme court yet, it just came into us, but this is really a decision not to take this case, not to hear from plaintiffs challenging this pennsylvania school policy. >> but leave it standing? >> it does, by not stepping into this debate, it leaves that lower court decision that allows this policy to take effe

one took place at the supreme court.terman was at the supreme court protest and joins me now. josh. >> this is shaming up to be a major issue for the democratic candidates. there are some democrats that are concerned that might not be such a good idea. they may be falling into a trap that republicans are setting wa >> caller:tu -- culture wars, ty are not talking about trump's record. i asked why this is something democrats should be talk about. let's listen. >> it's one more example of the extremism of the modern republican party. it's our job to show how all of these issues are laiinked. the same place where there's an attack on women's reproductive rights, it's the same place where it's hard to get a living wage and voter suppression. all of these things are connected. >> all the democrats largely have similar views on the abortion rights issue. they are all supportive of roe v wade. it's hard to differentiate themselves. we talked to kirsten gillibrand. she proposed plan that involves making supreme court justices sa

has to deal with that and that the supreme court eventually will overturn the law and tomorrow karole v wade decision that made abortion across the united states' legal oh xander. alabama soon to the 4 women the 4 female senators all voted against this all of the senators who voted for it were minute it now goes to the governor of alabama who is a woman will she saw in this bill into law. well she's a woman that's true but she's also known as a very conservative republican she's been known as a. outspoken supporter for the off the pro-life movement she has said that she wants to see the final version of the bill and then she will decide however she is likely to sign this bill into law but we have to say that even then it is unlikely that this legislation will become a play couple because human rights activist activist groups have already announced that they are going to challenge this legislation in the courts and we heard today from the sponsors of this legislation to end it for it to trigger a legal battle that will go all the way to the supreme court to overturn roe v wade c

supreme court ruling. she says it is about challenging the decision, protecting lives of the unborn. a message shared by other republicans in the state senate. >> a life is a life and even if it is in very difficult situations, that life is still precious. life is a gift of our creator, and we must do everything that we can to protect life. >> you might imagine, he is one of the people that voted for the bill, one of the men that voted for the bill. only men voted to support the bill, it is not sitting well with democrats in the alabama state senate taking issue with the 25 men in all. here is one of the opponents of the bill. >> republicans, y'all, you guys used to say we want the government out of our life. we want them out of our business. we want them out of our bedroom. now you in my womb. i want you out. you don't control this. you don't own this. >> does seem to be heading toward a showdown in the supreme court, if they choose to take it up. worth noting where the public is on this. the most recent

which sheds light on whether the supreme court would be willing to overturn law. th an issue of sovereign immunity in state courts but the court decided you can overturn settled law. >> that seems relevant. >> today's decision can only cause one to wonder which case the court will overrule next. he was talking about roe which makes this alabama law all that much more important >> this law was clearly designed with an eye toward the supreme courts as well as access to abortion more generally. even if the alabama law itself doesn't get upheld in its entire entirety, you can imagine a number of the justices who are amenable, who exposed themselves as being amenable to overturning precedent and rolling back abortion protections would use it potentially as a vehicle to roll back some of the protections. >> in this alabama law that's the most restrictive in the country, anyone performing an abortion -- doctors, in other words -- will face 99 years to life in prison. as a law enforcement officer with experience, can you imagine rounding up doctors for a life sentence in a

it to the fetal heartbeat or say that's an outright ban, it would be contrary to what the prour supreme courthe lower courts could say we're not going to try to uproot that and the supreme court may say, nothing to resolve here. if they want to resolve this question and revisit it which roberts may as a chief justice who's becoming more the centrist of everyone, may want to solidify what the court's position is, but i really doubt that, especially if there's a strategic motivation by the states of alabama and others to make this a political question, the supreme court should be averse to actually resolving it. >> sabrina, on monday, the supreme court voted 5-4 to overrule another -- and nothing to do with abortion, 40-year precedent, leading the -- one of the justices, a liberal justice, steven breyer to write, today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next. and in the same paragraph, breyer cited casey v. planned parenthood of 199 2, a ruling that upheld roe v. wade. that was a pretty dire warning from justice breyer. >> yes, and i think the concern fo

i have been often asked if i ever imagined as a child being on the supreme court, the highest court of the united states. no, i say. when i was achild childchild childchild , my family was poor. no lawyers or judges lived in my neighborhood. i had no idea of the supreme court, its work in interpreting the constitution and the laws of the united states affects people's lives. you cannot dream of becoming something you do not know about. you have to learn to dream big. education expose us to what the world has to offer, to the possibilities open to you. it teaches you how to navigate your profession and life in general. for me, education opened my eyes to what i could become. education enriches you as a person. i often ask kids to identify the most interesting person they have met. inevitably they identify a person who speaks about his or her worth with knowledge, who inspires others to consider a new idea or perspective or simply amuses people with a play on words or an insightful poke of fun on a human condition. education expands your knowledge and your ability to relate with and in t

it is in the early 60's where the supreme court using the precedent straight wall of separation between church and state using the establishment clause of the first amendment now apply to the states selective incorporation. thatupreme court said public schools can no longer advocate for a prayer in their hallways, classrooms, or events. however, because you attend a catholic school, the catholic school is not bound under the precedent. i think it is possible that we could see a case like that in the skoda -- scotus comparison effort where they give a school scenario where prayer is allowed, and say how does that scenario compared to ingles versus eitel. you might have hit the jackpot. guest: you are guaranteed on that effort that you will be questioned about a supreme court case that you probably have not studied. as mr. larson just said, ingles versus eitel is one of the core 15 cases. if you know that is in establishing -- and establish cause case and connects to fromer case, that excerpt santa fe might be on the exam, but you have prepared yourself to make that connection, which is a

if the case goes through and petition the supreme court and the supreme court denies review, that's thepreme court's precedence stays in play that says there cannot be bans before viability, which is considered to be 23 to 24 weeks. so these bills are never going to pass that muster at this point. >> katie cherkasky, thank you. two more parents in the college admissions scandal pleading guilty. one of them a prominent lawyer from greenwich, connecticut. he paid $75,000 to have somebody correct his daughter's act exam. another, a napa valley wine maker. he dropped tens of thousands to have sat administrators correct his daughters test. both men charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. prosecutors recommending jail time for both. sentencing is now scheduled in october. well, california is now suing to block the trump administration from cancelling nearly a billion dollars in federal funds for the state's high speed rail project. the feds announced the state had not made enough progress on it, so they were pulling the funding awarded nearly a decade ago. crews have to complet

and he was asked if there's a supreme court death on the supreme court.n. >> uh, we'd fill it. >> #merrick garland. president obama had a supreme court nominee when antonin scalia passed away and was blocked at all stops. listen to mcconnell explain why and how he blocked merrick garland. >> all we're doing is following a long standing tradition off not filling vacancies on the supreme court in the middle off a presidential election year. >> and goes on to say you have one party in the white house and another party in control of the senate, making that distinction. is this a complete flip? >> you can ask mcconnell's team all day long and they'll tell you the clip you just played. that this fall eos what he said when garland's nominations was coming up. a different party controlled the senate and the white house and it was up to voters to decide which party they wanted picking a supreme court nominee. when i hear a clip what i'll never forget is standing in the senate a couple of years ago when reporters were asking mcconnell about trump tweet after trump

supreme court derived a right of the abortion. it was from the newly discovered constitutional right of privacy and autonomy. the same reasoning, in a sense, lay behind the courts decision more recently about same-sex marriage in 2015. in both cases the supreme court's decisions were unnecessarily based on the perception of the justices. this is what liberty now requires, yet it seems likely that if the same issues had come for the first time before the court as it is now constituted, the result would have been different, although nothing would have been changed apart from the outlook of individual justices. one can draw two lessons from the broad range of outcomes, which at different times in american history have been justified under the due process clause. one is that on politically controversial issues the decisions of judges almost always involve a large element of political valued judgment. the case for or against labor regulations is a question of economic and social policy. the case for or against abortion is a question of

and the cases came before the supreme court. he often did not have a chance to read the brief on the other side, and it was said he was always surprised when the government lost the case. having read the government possibly, how could the government have possibly lost? -- that is fundamental to the decision-making process. an argument may seem good until you hear the argument on the other side. we are so strongly dedicated to this idea of the supreme court, that even when the party that won in the lower court refuses to defend the decision of the lower court, we will appoint an amicus to argue that point, and sometimes atract majority vote, so it is vitally important that both sides be heard. our legallesson that system can take to our broader society. this is important at a time when too many people are seeking to silence those who express opinions with which they disagree. this is a lesson that the legal system can take to the society. i don't know anybody who's work has been more dedicated to this proposition of remaining ope

then, former supreme court justice john paul stevens discusses his career, the future of the judicia at he thinks are the court's worst decisions., pl the leading edge of science-- how some activists are using artwork toalonvey the chlenges of climate change and to persuade ordinary people to take action. >> art has this very special ability to tap into peoples' emotions, and people take action and decisions based on their emotions more than anything else. >> nawaz: all that and more on

supreme court, the roberts court argued that the role of the court is more to protect the rights of the state to do with voting as they wish. the roberts court felt that the problem of racial discrimination in the past and the voting rights act must reflect this new historical viewpoint. the preclearance section of the voting rights act in its four decades blocked more than 1000 voting laws and procedures here that's the equivalent of 1000 successful lawsuits that have been brought under section two. imagine what that cost her justice ginsburg, i think, had one of the more apt rejoinders to the majority notion that the voting problems were all wrapped up, and she said throwing up preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. she was right. time that hardly any shelby was announced that a storm of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters upon states deviously subject preclearance. for example, mere hours after in texasion, officials put into motion a voter ident

the supreme court's decision triggered days of nationwide protests. who are who in every corner of the country the sons of islam have voiced opposition to the supreme court verdict by going on to the streets. what kind of a verdict is this from the supreme court of an islamic republic which is troubling muslims but satisfying infidels. demonstrations were only called off when the government agreed to bar bibi from leaving the country pending an appeal to her acquittal but this case is already linked to the killings of at least two people. the governor of punjab province some on to z are seen here on the right was assassinated by his bodyguard in two thousand and eleven after speaking in b.b.c. defense later the same year federal minister for minorities shahbaz bhatti was killed after calling for her release. and this was the reaction in january of this year after the supreme court upheld its verdict that's crowds demanding death. the crowd though didn't get their wish and bibi it appears has been able to move pakistan from all we have correspondent. j

of the supreme court. that's from 1973 that says there's a constitutional right founded in the 14th amendment, right to privacy that the government can't tell women what to do with their bodies. that's been in existence all these years. what happened with brett kavanaugh, 5-4 republican to democratic appointed court now. they have a majority of the courts and brett kavanaugh has consistently said he favors rolling back roe v. wade and having additional restrictions on abortion and as a judge he has sided with additional restrictions. that's the play here. the play is to get this to the supreme court and either get an overturning of roe v. wade or significant restriction in pulling back of the roe v. wade case. >> in the near term, though, you are facing -- what folks in alabama are facing is the most restrictive abortion law in the united states likely to be -- assuming that kay ivy would sign this into law, she has six days to decide. that's the most immediate impact that people need to look at. thanks an

that has been recognized by the supreme court multiple times.t these laws of the state levels do, when they impose sexual curriculums promoting a particular theory about same-sexerism, and promoting them in history, science, mathematics, to children as young as pre-k, it is really allowing the state federalnt and the government to impose a sexual ideology on the entire country. particularly, i think, with the transgender theory, it is actually contradictory to what science says. children are supposed to be learning about science based on facts, not on political theory. host: daniel is an independent from north carolina, good morning. caller: yes. i think sex belongs in a marriage. it is best to be a christian, and a virgin when you get married. a man's body and a woman's body are reciprocals of each other. i don't believe in homosexuality as being born with it, i think the mother wore pants in the family. host: that is daniel from north carolina. jim -- i think we lost daniel. jim in orange, virginia, republican. caller: thank you for taking my

supreme court made this this landmark roe versus wade judgment which allowed abortion the same supremes court canova to my to overturn it you have to remember the u.s. is extremely religious country it doesn't have an official religion but there are a lot of there's a large swath of people who you know very much their religion is revolves around life and this pro-life agenda is very much part of that and they support these conservative politicians they abortion question is it really for republican politicians who are trying to get votes or trying to get support of certain key conservative activists and leaders and whether or not they will work to outlaw abortion is something that a lot of conservative republican politicians run on so it's been a hot item for decades now so just to be clear what alabama's others as we know the she's probably illegal unconstitutional but we'll pass it anyway so that you send it to the supremes court and we'll cross our fingers and see what happens absolutely there we have saw an alabama politician coming right out and saying oh we are trying to push this

they're emboldened by trump and they're emboldened by this supreme court. strategy now is aim high, go for roe. but they know full well that what will likely happen first is that the lower courts will start looking at less restrictive laws. laws that don't go exactly at roe v. wade. for instance, at the supreme court right now, there's about three petitions pending. and those directs aren't directly challenging roe. one has to do with an indiana law that says you have to bury or cremate fetal remains. another is a louisiana law that says that doctors have to have admitting privileges. these are seemingly more innocuous, but critics say that what they're seeing is courts and maybe the supreme court beginning to chip away at abortion rights, before getting to roe v. wade. >> how quickly could all of this be decided by the supreme court? >> el, that's what's interesting. here you have john roberts trying to keep the supreme court out of the fray. he's sitting on these particular petitions and maybe trying to slow walk even these less-restrictive law. but just

the court, with justices suitor, kennedy and o'connor said there could not be -- >> unless the supreme court takes up alabama law, it remains the law of the state of alabama. >> no. it will be stayed by lower courts. >> maybe. maybe not. >> well, i think that is the question of whether what kind of impact does this have on 2020 and peter baker, to promote the chuck todd-cast, up on my podcast now, when casey got ruled on, the only election it impacted was virginia governor. if the supreme court takes up one of these in 2020, which is more to eric ericsson's point. no matter how they rule, it will fire up or not fire up, depending what they do. i john roberts is aware of what year it is next year and would not take up an abortion case until there was a 2021. >> i think he will not. i'll make a bold prediction and agree with you there. in a landscape in which the culture wars have often redowned to the republicans, they'll point to not all those other bills that may be considered more moderate by some standards but they'll point to the alabama bill. sorry to keep going back to the polling but

he's stacked the supreme court now with very conservative members on the supreme court, and i think folksned across the country. they think that they have a way or a means now in order to be able to overturn roe v wade. the sponsor of our bill here in the state of alabama has said that was her goal, was to overturn roe v wade. roe v wade's the landmark ruling that gave the women the right to an abortion in the us. that right, for many millions of women, does suddenly look very vulnerable. uleem maqbool, bbc news, in montgomery, alabama. let's get some of the day's other news. talks on moving sudan towards civilian rule have been suspended for three days by the country's military leaders, who are demanding that protesters clear roadblocks. these pictures of shots being fired were taken by an eyewitness in the capital, khartoum. at least nine people were wounded when soldiers opened fire on protestors outside army headquarters. all non—emergency us government staff at the embassy in baghdad and consulate in erbil have been ordered to leave iraq as soon as possible. the us military has raise

supreme court's ruling and took land into trust for the mashpee tribe. . the city of taunton sued and won to stop the casino from being built in their town. the district court ruled that the department of the interior should not have taken this land into trust for the mashpee tribe and instructed the department to conduct a further review of the tribe's eligibility. after reviewing the mashpee's tribal application last year, the u.s. department of interior rejected the tribe's claim based on the finding that the tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 which meant the department lacked authority under federal law to take land into trust on their behalf. today's bill would reverse this final decision of the federal court and the department of interior and disregard the u.s. supreme court's precedent in allowing the tribe to build the tribe an offreservation casino in taunton, massachusetts. if this bill passes today it would be the first time -- i repeat -- the first time congress ever reversed a final federal court ruling that determined a tribe did

patent trademark system and so now the supreme court case has been won what does that mean. it means that the government can no longer decide on behalf of communities what's offensive it means that our communities now have the ability to decide what's best for ourselves and what's interesting it's been about 2 years since that decision and when you look at the $600000.00 plus applications that come into the trademark office and when it comes to ideas that could so-called be disparaging most of those applications have now been filed by people of color reclaiming the stereotypes and slurs and repurpose sing them for the purposes of self empowerment so it's really exciting to see that we're literally changing language. age and expressions used by the marketplace through the trademark regime so fur white brothers and sisters out there who who don't understand how important this is for marginalized communities can you describe why is this why is this so meaningful to be able to take a racial slur and turn it around and claim it. i think it's just a really powerful process number

>> it's hard to tell which of these laws will capture the supreme court's attention. you have to keep in mind there is a large pool of cases and the supreme court only takes a few of them so they would have to pick the right case, something that would enable them to make a statement if they so desire. we also have to keep in mind that the abundance of laws are part of the conservative strategy for activists were thinking when i was supreme court and this is our opportunity, let's create a variety of laws and see which one appeals to the supreme court.>> let me ask you if we can read into this particular ruling on the indiana law, the portion upheld here is the portion that requires provider superior cremate the remains, does that signal the fact that that portion of the law is upheld? does that signal anything to you about how it might rule on the issue? >> not in particular you have to keep in mind the portions more important about whether the women are going to be limited in seeking abortions for reasons of disability with pro-life activists interpret as eugenics, t