the supreme court said that it wanted the lower courts to address these novel issues before the supreme court addressed them. there are also at least 14 suits in state court and the federal government suit against texas. the courts are addressing the legal issues on an expedited timetable. those cases will work through the lower courts. i'm looking forward to hearing more from our witnesses today about how the supreme court's decision fits with this normal practice. but before i listen to that, i also want to talk about why we're having this hearing right now. the texas heartbeat act was signed into law in may. there are hearings in state and federal courts this week and next about whether courts should grant relief. the abortion providers just asked the supreme court to provide the case or to take the case on the merritts without wanting or waiting for a court of appeals. so why are we having this hearing at the last week of september? it's because the supreme court starts hearing cases next week and this term, the supreme court has agreed to hear a case about a mississippi law on abor

have 81 supreme court justices. when the congress chose to have nine supreme court justices in 1869, there were only 74 senators. if we had increased the size of the supreme court in proportion to the united states senate, we would now have 12 supreme court justices. so the reasonable number of supreme justices in 2021, as opposed to 1860, nine is somewhere between 12 and 81, but we still have nine. and the political pressure on those nine, very precious seats has intensified every day since 1869. and they are lifetime appointments, and so the most important laws in the united states are written and re-written depending on when elderly people in the supreme court died. the death of a supreme court justice has become an even more political significant and momentous than the death of a president, when president franklin roosevelt died in office, in 1945, his vice president harry truman carried on and won world war ii, on the same schedule that fdr would've won the war. president john f. kennedy was assassinated 1963,

the state dime the supreme court asking the supreme court to weigh in the supreme court -- told supreme court in its petition for review, you don't have to rule on reo and casey and whether or not they should be overruled. you just need to weigh in on the constitutionality of this law this supreme court agreed to take it up after relisting the case something like 15 times and will now hear argument in all likelihood in december. meanwhile as you are no doubt aware if you've been watching the news at all in the last month or so. the supreme court i guess it was about two weeks ago now. it all goes by so quickly, agreed on the so-called shadow dockett. the supreme court refused to step in and block the texas abortion bill which bans virtually all arborses after six weeks in pregnancy from going into effect. and this was a -- an order that came out about a paragraph 1/2. the justices in the majority in that case made clear that there were -- they said there were serious questions about whether or not the law was constitutional. but they were nonetheless were not going to step in and block

under the supreme court precedent quick. >> the supreme court general terms has recognized that after viability one of the interest within the scope of permissible regulation is the interest of the fetus to be born as a child. >> do you agree with that? >> . >> that is also my understanding of the courts jurisprudence. >> so the question of viability of when life beginspo isn't an important issue, because if the fetus is viable, then the fetus has rights they can be protected by the state. correct? judge? >> senator, in general terms, yes. y>> i want ask you this question but i will just close on this so to continue the conversation seven out of 90 countries allow abortion after 20 weeks i i believe that is when they believe the fetus is a question of viability. the united states finds itself among those seven countries, northth korea, vietnam, china and singapore and canada and the netherlands. >> thank you very much senator kennedy. >> in this be made part of the record? >> without objection. >> thank you mr. chairman. if you can indulge me out like a couple extra minutes. >> certai

also to my left is a client of high-stakes appeal to the us supreme court and appellate courts across the country argue twice in front ofes the supreme court prevailing in both cases presenting many arguments state clerked for clarence thomas and on the dc circuit receiving undergraduate degree from princeton please welcome to the panel. [applause] so giving overview of what she wrote her article. >> thank you for inviting me to write the article with justice souter 82nd birthday , today he is in my mind it was surprising to hear he was 82 but we can raise an apple and a younger in his honor tonight spending about what was unprecedented in the sense it was entirely remote and the first term since justice ginsburg passed away and the court shifted to the right and theas court now has on his docket for thehe upcoming term a handful of perspective the juicy cases involving abortion, guns, religion potentially affirmative-action so the real question is not whether or not the court will continue to shift to the right buthe how far. presumably the answer lies in part with chief justice john

so we have rulings that the supreme court hands down that has no majority opinion outside of a couple of them in my testimony. and the lower courts reads them one way or the other and the supreme court chastises the lower courts that they read the unexplained ruling wrong. i think, again, just to sort of respond a bit to senators lee and cruz. the shadow docket is not new. the emergency docket is not new. what's new is how much the court is doing with it and how much it is expecting lower courts, parties, to understand what these cryptic rulings mean. senator hirono: have you done an analysis the supreme court is doing using the shadow docket process, it's not even a process? prof. vladeck: i realize my written statement is long. on page 5 there is a dhart that shows -- chart that shows how much grants of relief each term. this term it's 20. this the afternoon -- the average during chief justice roberts was about five. senator hirono: sorry. running out of time. basically, i want to know if there is ideological thing going on with the use of the shadow docket? prof. vladeck: yes. so y

it is 9-nothing and that the only reason is there are 11 supreme court justices. n fact the court said the government was engaged in sleight-of-hand. how did your office get this so wrong? you said you went through evaluating the interests and just weeks later the supreme court ruled 9-nothing that you were wrong in the case. how did your office get it so wrong? >> thank you for that question and i appreciate having the chance to talk about that case. i certainly found that to be a veryry difficult decision in making the decision that we should ultimately confess in that case whichal is the long-standing tradition in the work of the office then we determined that that is appropriate in the interest of justice. i did focus w on the legal issus involveded and ultimately the interest of the united states. the question in the case is whether the lowest level could be eligible after the first step act. ibthose responsible for the greater quantities fell within the provision and so the only question is whether those low-level offenders also could get that kind of sentenc

this was an act by the supreme court, which was incredibly cowardly. it was made in the dead of night. no lengthy substantive opinion. no oral argument. it was simply an order handed down by the court, which will affect the lives of millions of women and, make no mistake, women will die because of this, because of this action. i will also say that while texas is certainly the target today, other states, south dakota, florida, arkansas are also considering enacting similar laws. this has huge implications for women in this country, the likes of which we have not seen in decades. host: charles donovan, your take on the effect of the law on roe v. wade down the road and the action taken by the supreme court on wednesday evening. guest: it is almost exactly the opposite. i respect the legal expertise on the other side. the court acted in the middle of the night because the petitioners in this case, the abortion clinics, brought their action to the supreme court two days before the deadline. the supreme court did not act because it had no prominence to act.

supreme court precedent? ments without reservations senator. >> thank you. i want to return to the letter that senator durbin referenced. about the nomination of then justice kavanaugh, you signed that letter in the summer of 2018. you said in your answer to senator durbin you only signed it you didn't write it. you don't draw a distinction between writing a letter and signing onto a letter of someone else. >> i certainly take responsibility for signing the letter, senator. >> that would be the case as a panel of judges in the 9th circuit even though you don't write the person, you sign onto it you're responsible for the reasoning in it. >> yes, senator. >> and you said some of the rhetoric was overheated with which i agree and let's just explore some of that rhetoric. you said then judge kavanaugh was quote, a threat to the most vulnerable and you also thought that he was quote, intellectually and morally bankrupt idealog: ... that it would fail to respect the authority as a supreme court justice or any of t

they came to the supreme court to weigh in. the supreme court petition for review. you don't have to rule on row or -- roe or kc. we just have to rule on the constitutionality of this law. they agreed to taking it up after relisting it 15 times and we will now hear arguments in december. meanwhile, as you are no doubt aware. if you have watched the news at all in the last month or so. the supreme court, two weeks ago, agreed on the shadow docket. they refused to step in and block the texas abortion bill which virtually bans all abortions after six weeks from going into effect. this was an order that came out about a paragraph and a half. justices in the majority in that case made clear that there were serious questions whether it was constitutional but they were nonetheless going to step in and go into effect. chief justice john roberts and the three liberal justices dissented from that order. on the one hand, the court said they would not weigh in on the constitutionality of it. on the other hand, right now in texas, until that law is settled, there is no right for

what is the pleasure of being on the supreme court? e breyer: it is a great privilege to be on the court. no doubt. from a personal point of view, i would say it requires you in middle age when you get there to give your best to this every minute. and you say, is that a big virtue? yes. the older you get, the more you see it. an enormous virtue. david: einstein famously said if you try something over and over again and expect a different result, that is the definition of insanity. if someone asks you the same question over and over expecting a different answer, i guess that is the definition of an insane interviewer. but let me ask a question you have been asked many times. i know you are not going to give me a different answer, but i have to ask you. what are your thinking about all the issues relating to your retirement? justice breyer: yes. einstein was right. david: einstein was right. you have said you don't want to die on the court. presumably nobody would want you to. so what is it you would like to do when you are alive after yo

for the majority of the supreme court to do this without a herring, without the benefit of an opinion from a court below, insults the rule of law and the rights of all americans to seek redress from the courts. the impact of last night's decision will be immediate and it requires an immediate response. the president says i am directing my gender policy council and the white house counsel office to launch a whole of government effort to respond to this decision, looking specifically into government departments to see what steps the federal government can take to ensure that women in texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by roe. and what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of texas is bizarre scheme of out forced in source mint. president biden saying he wants a whole of government response to this catastrophe. in women's rights in texas. i have questions. first of all, what can the federal government actually do? what can those agencies president biden singled out, the justice department for example, what can they do that might make

the role of the supreme court is debated and it will continue to be. we respect the supreme court.... you'll note that ever since 1973, beginning in the �*80s, �*90s, even the 2000s, the supreme court has limited, has scaled back roe vs wade, because technology has taught us so much more about the development of the little baby. and technology tells us that babies can live earlier in the process. and so the supreme court has been chipping away at roe versus wade. we believe roe versus wade was wrongly decided. we follow the law, we respect the law, and we work through the legal process to get the law correct. that's what we're trying to do. all right. now, you've just nodded to the essence of the bill. i think many people call it the heartbeat bill, because at the centre of it is this idea that an abortion in texas becomes unlawful, or at least anybody involved in it becomes prone to civil legal action, after the so—called heartbeat moment, which you define is at around, i think, six weeks when a heartbeat can be detected. now, the implication, it seems to me, of what you're doing

supreme court and federal and state appellate courts across the country. she's argued twice before the supreme court prevailing in both cases and presenting many arguments and federal courts and state courts of appeals and clerked for clarence thomas, the dc circuit, received her undergraduate degree from princeton, magna cum laude from harvard and phd from the s university of cambridge. if i wasn't here speaking with you i would be a philosophy professor right now.ro please welcome the panel. [applause] >> we are going to start off with amy to give an opening view of what she wrote in her article in the cases that she covered which are blockbusters. >> thank you so much for having me and inviting me to write the article. happy constitution day and it is also the 82nd birthday today. i sort of had him in my mind when he retired so it was a shock to realize but we can all raise an apple and yogurt in his honor tonight. last term that we spent most of the day talking about was unprecedented in the sense that it was entirely remote and it was the first term w

the key point here again is the supreme court says it doesn't really matter. to narrowly tailor things in some cases. the court suggested lower courts look skeptically at that. the state of california said law enforcement might need to investigate charities and the court said you have to be carefulth about that but he cant just do that in this kind of broad fashion. the idea was to make it more convenient for you and administrative convenience won't do it. with data put some real teeth into the exact scrutiny standard says now it'sly none of the governments business who you give money to what organization do support of along two. may become the state's business if they have a legitimate investigation going on that requires them to actually get thatui information but they cant just generally say they need it or they wanted or it would be good for them to have it. let me close by getting to the point i mentioned earlier that goes in a sense of that greater relationship between people and the state but the state's position is i wasn't asking you for information.

there is no one method for the supreme court by which the supreme court can change its mind and the law can change. but if you look at the history of the dissent, almost all these methods combined. so let's look at the antitrust cases being declared unconstitutional. there's the case that controls 98% of the sugar production in the country. the supreme court found a way to say they were not a monopoly. he was a soul defender and of course railed against a giant combination pretty much within five years the same justices the that ruled the other way would begin. i don't know that it was harlan persuading, but there are examples of the same people literally changing their mind. all of our wendell holmes changed his mind on the amendment. they greatly relaxed the rules and allowed for more antitrust actions. they got into that position they were allowing antitrust. in the income tax case which was a 5-for decision and they overruled the president. for the senate to accept. he would read the dissent on the floor of the house as a way of showing how wrongheaded the original decision was and

the key point is the supreme court says it doesn't matter. you still have to narrowly tailored things even if you might be used to it in some cases. the court then suggested lower courts accept that state interest so when the stakes said law igenforcement, we might need it to investigate charities the court said you've got to be careful about that. you can't just do that in this broad fashion. the ideais to make it more convenient for you isn't enough . with that it puts some real teeth into the exacting scrutiny standard and says it's really none of the governments business you give ymoney to, what organizations you support or belong to. it may become the state's te business if they have a legitimate investigation going on that requires them to get that information. they can't say they need itor they want it or it would be convenient to have . to the point, this goes to that greater relationship between people and the state. the state's position was where just asking for you for information, give it to us and they didn't argue that they neede

so money just want us through the vote today in the supreme court. and what exactly was decided the right barbara will set the seed for a little bit. were outside mexico, supreme court, mexico city rain coming down, already disperse that small crowd of conservative rights activists that had gathered here unhappy with the decision by the supreme court today. but what exactly was decided this ruling, this vote today by the supreme court is specific to a section of the criminal code of the mexican state of while wheeler, which criminalizes abortion that's now been deemed unconstitutional. and what this does is that it sets in motion a precedent that would be criminalized abortion in the rest of the country as well . now this was a unanimous vote by mexico's supreme court and in broader terms. what that means is that mexico becomes the 4th country in latin america to seek the criminalization of, of abortion, following origin, tita uruguay and cuba. my apologies there. now this announcement also arrived ahead of planned marches and demonstrations by women

mexican supreme court. ok, so no protest says here mexico known as being fairly conservative country can we expect and he pushed back to this decision even though this decision by the supreme court is final, there is an expectation that push back is going to be inevitable. as you mentioned, adrian, mexico's one of the most catholic countries in the world. and we should know that at least that 4 states here in mexico, including mexico city, had already decriminalized abortion. but this new decision by the supreme court may not be a very welcome decision by many of the more conservative regions in the country. specifically, states like web log when i want to hi lease school, just the name of you. we should also mentioned that the archbishop of the catholic church here in mexico, we've been before the vote that took place in the supreme court today had pleaded with the court asking them to reconsider this ruling that was made related to abortion rights. but having that said the wheels are already in motion, me

the united states supreme court struck it down. it took three years, but those restrictions were ultimately blocked by the highest court in the land. amy miller has talked to us many times about the heartbreak of having to turn people away. today at the united states supreme court, she definitively won her case. ms miller, congratulations on this ruling today. >> thank you so much, rachael. i have been looking forward to the day i get to talk to you about this for a few years. >> tell me what this means for your organization, clinics, what does the future look like? >> this is fantastic. i mean, on so many levels it's a win. it shows that when you stand up to bully politicians, you can win. that you can stand up to a government as powerful as the state of texas. and we illustrated the harm and burden this law put forward for women all throughout the state of texas. and we got relief not only for women in texas but for many states across the country. >> that was june 2016. three years after that draconian texas law had gone into effe

i think the supreme court will take this up. they haven't made the final determination on it. legislatures have rights to pass bills. governors have the right to sign them into law or not. and the court gets to make the ultimate decision. >> i understand. if it's by the states, should it reflect the will of the people or the will of the elected officials? >> well, the way our system works is we elect officials, and they make decisions for us. the people get to decide whether they want to keep them in office or not. in our state the voters actually made this determination long before i became governor. my legislature is 70% -- more than 70% democratic. i chose not to try dwroefr turn the will of the legislature or the voters. >> governor andy beshear, democratic from kentucky, larry hogan, republican from maryland, thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>> when we come back, we'll turn to the issue of abortion and whether the supreme court just signaled it's ready to overturn roe v. wade. former democratic senator claire mccaskill and former republican congresswoman barbar

especially the supreme court decision not to strike ♪ ♪ ♪ especially the supreme court decision ♪ ♪ ♪ monitor, check and lock down you money with security from chase. control feels good. chase. make more of what's yours. in 2016, i was working at the amazon warehouse when my brother passed away. and a couple of years later, my mother passed away. after taking care of them, i knew that i really wanted to become a nurse. amazon helped me with training and tuition. today, i'm a medical assistant and i'm studying to become a registered nurse. in filipino: you'll always be in my heart. it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it helps keep you effortlessly comfortable by sensing your movements and automatically responding to both of you. and, it's temperature balancing to help you stay comfortable all night. it even tracks your circadian rhythm, so you know when you're at your best. in other words, it's the most energy-building, wellness-boosting, parent-powering, proven quality night's sleep we've ever made. save 50% on the new sleep number

the supreme court says it doesn't really matter. you still have to narrowly tailor thanks even if you be might have used it in some cases. the court then suggested lower courts need to look skeptically at that asserted state interest. california said away might need it to investigate charities. the court said you have to be careful about that. you can't just do that in this broad fashion. the idea that it is making it more convenient for you isn't enough. strauf veins won't do it. so, with that you put real teeth into the exacting scrutiny standard and says now that it is really none of the government's business who you give money to, what organizations you support or belong to. it memoranda become the state's business if they have a legitimate investigation going on that requires them to actually get that information. but they can't generally say they need it or want it. i will crows by getting to the point mentioned earlier. this goes to that greater relationship between people and the state. the state's position is like we are jus

especially the supreme court decision not to strike ♪ ♪ ♪ especially the supreme court decisionrike ♪ ♪ ♪ monitor, check and lock down you money with security from chase. control feels good. chase. make more of what's yours. it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it helps keep you effortlessly comfortable by sensing your movements and automatically responding to both of you. and, it's temperature balancing to help you stay comfortable all night. it even tracks your circadian rhythm, so you know when you're at your best. in other words, it's the most energy-building, wellness-boosting, parent-powering, proven quality night's sleep we've ever made. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 36 months and free premium delivery. ends labor day. gerry: "fox news" contributors miranda divine and sean duffy. miranda that stuck about the supreme court decision or lack of decision this week. it's the end of roe v. wade and this has been one of the most assigning issues of social policy for the last 50

until the supreme court allowed his become a non-entity. it is not just plea-bargaining that takes jury out of the equation. that was a death nail. the court has undercut the jury in other ways as well. lemons on what the jury was told -- limits on what is told to the jury on the consequences of a case. even without the information jurors still have a pretty good idea what a punishment would be. they can acquit if they think it is too much. while a large proportion of the community has the idea of the going rate for a crime the rate of acquittal is higher. detroit, d.c., bronx have higher rates of acquittal. if you ask for a prosecutor to decide what is happening those cases they will call it jury notification and derided as something unlawful. it is exactly the role juries should be playing. if you cannot take your case to a jury because the threat is too great you are losing that check. there is a third thing that losing the jury does and how it operates and how we lose this operation on the check on government. jury trials take time. that

until the supreme court allowed his become a non-entity. it is not just plea-bargaining that takes jury out of the equation. that was a death nail. the court has undercut the jury in other ways as well. lemons on what the jury was told -- limits on what is told to the jury on the consequences of a case. even without the information jurors still have a pretty good idea what a punishment would be. they can acquit if they think it is too much. while a large proportion of the community has the idea of the going rate for a crime the rate of acquittal is higher. detroit, d.c., bronx have higher rates of acquittal. if you ask for a prosecutor to decide what is happening those cases they will call it jury notification and derided as something unlawful. it is exactly the role juries should be playing. if you cannot take your case to a jury because the threat is too great you are losing that check. there is a third thing that losing the jury does and how it operates and how we lose this operation on the check on government. jury trials take time. that

the supreme court knows how to handle these issues and will be doing it quickly, i believe. g to have -- ken paxton who is the attorney general who will be defending this, he lost in court on obamacare. he lost in three days the supreme court kicked him to the curb on his bogus trump things. remember, there were a lot of democrats saying these judges are going to uphold trump, trump even said it. what did they do? they kicked him to the curb. these are judges who follow the law. that's why they take up the cases, look at what the established law is and have them briefed. i think since the judge in texas has already said planned parenthood can go for washed, this will go through the normal process. >> let me ask you a bigger question. can you have governor hogan's position, essentially pro life, but he al lowered pro choice legislation to pass, can you have that position and be viable in a republican primary? >> i think governor hogan has been very pro life during the covid crisis. he's gotten people together -- >> you get what i'm asking. >> i know. he understood his bill wou

with all due respect to my hosts, the us supreme court was a professional dead-end. in 1800, the court heard an average of six cases a year. mostly cases of little consequence. justices spent most of their time riding around the country hearing circuit cases in taverns and having to share a bed with strangers. the supreme court was so insignificant that the designers at the capital forgot to build a courthouse. though marshall court met in a nondescript senate office, a set of committee rooms on the ground floor of the capital building in which they had to share with the district court and thecircuit court. the supreme court didn't have a home of its own force until 1935 . marshall in the federalist judiciary faced an implacable enemy in president jefferson. jefferson had personal as well as political reasons for hating marshall. jefferson was marshall's cousin and their families had feuded bitterly for two generations over the inheritance that jefferson's father had appropriated from marshall's grandmother. perhaps marshall got even with jefferson by marrying holly a

this comes days after the supreme court refused to block the law. brazilian president jair bolsonaro is set to meet with truckers who blocked highways in he continueso defy the nation's supreme court, raising questions about the future of democracy in the country. ♪ >> hello, everyone. thanks for joining us. we begin with day two of the trial into the 2015 paris attacks. for another day, proceedings were interrupted several times by outbursts from the only surviving defendant. the 31-year-old admitted being soldier for the islamic state group. he is one of 20 defendants accused of carrying out the massacres across the capital that claimed the lives of 130 people. france 24's clare gives us a rundown. clare: salah abdeslam had another outburst throughout the day. he was aggressive and uncomfortable yesterday when he claimed to be a fighter for the islamic state. today, without being invited to speak, he got up to the microphone and said that even though he didn't believe in this justice system, that the men who were his codefendants were innocent unt

the supreme court says it doesn't really matter. you still have to narrowly tailor thanks even if you be might have used it in some cases. the court then suggested lower courts need to look skeptically at that asserted state interest. california said away might need it to investigate charities. the court said you have to be careful about that. you can't just do that in this broad fashion. the idea that it is making it more convenient for you isn't enough. strauf veins won't do it. so, with that you put real teeth into the exacting scrutiny standard and says now that it is really none of the government's business who you give money to, what organizations you support or belong to. it memoranda become the state's business if they have a legitimate investigation going on that requires them to actually get that information. but they can't generally say they need it or want it. i will crows by getting to the point mentioned earlier. this goes to that greater relationship between people and the state. the state's position is like we are jus

so look, i think the courts, the supreme court will take this up. they haven't made the final determination on it. legislatures have rights to pass bills. governors have a right to sign them into law or not. the court gets to make the ultimate decision. >> i understand, but do you think there should be something, if it's by the states, should it reflect the will of the people or the will of the elected officials? >> well, you know, the way our system works is we elect officials and they make decisions for us. the people get to decide whether they want to keep them in office or not. in our state, the voters made this determination long before i became governor. my legislature is 70%, more than 70% democratic, and i chose not to try to over turn the will of the legislature or the voters. >> governor andy beshear, democrat from kentucky. larry hogan, republican from maryland. again, appreciate you both coming on. believe it or not, this used to be a common practice on "meet the press." it's hopefully something we can keep going. thank you both. >> thank

supreme court was professional dead and. in 1800, the court averaged six cases a year. mostly cases of little consequence. just a spent most of their time writing in the country carrying circuit cases and having to share beds with strangers. the supreme court was so insignificant at the design of the capitol they forgot to go to the courthouse. in a nondescript senate office, set of committee rooms, on the ground floor of the capitol building. which they had to share with the district court in the circuit court. supreme court didn't have a home of its own until 1935. marshall in the federalist judiciary faced an enemy and president jefferson. jefferson had personal and political reasons for hating partial. jefferson was marshall's second cousin. in the families had feuded bitterly for two generations of the inheritance the jeffersons father had appropriated marshall's grandmother. perhaps he got even by marrying holly ambler. boris striking a semblance to her mother who just happened to be the woman who broke jeffersons heart when she rejected his marriage proposal. the

the supreme court court decision, roe v. wade, restricts states from banning abortion in most circumstances. that's been controlling precedent in the supreme court since 1973. and at first glance, this new texas abortion ban looks like one of the many bans that republican state legislators have passed, which have then all been disallowed by the federal courts because of the protections that we have thanks to roe v. wade. for what it's worth, the texas ban says it's illegal for a woman to get an abortion in texas if her pregnancy is more than roughly six weeks along. six weeks is well before many women have any idea that they're pregnant at all. it's estimated that 85% to 90% of all abortions in texas -- 85% to 90% of all abortions everywhere in america happen after six weeks. texas' ban would render all of those illegal. now, as i mentioned, republican-controlled state legislatures and republican governors pass abortion bans all the time now even though they know they'll get struck down. some of it a hobby. they just want to

the state is explicitly petition the supreme court to uphold those restrictions and to overturn roe v. wade. the court is sick specter to hear arguments this fall, even granting -- and of course the court has a 60 conservative majority. thanks to three trump appointees, and thanks to the multi decade project of a semi partnership between the anti abortion movement, conservative legal elites in legal america. you have to remember how all of this went down, anti abortion forces, they saw how several previous republican supreme court nominees turned out. they all, essentially, upholding abortion laws in this country, particularly in the cases where they mattered most, when they had the chance to get rid of row. the anti abortion forces in this country undertook an effort after that to make sure that no republican president would ever, ever nominate a squishy on abortion again. no suitors, no kennedys no o'connor's. along with their partners on the right, they put into place a extreme vetting process, they cultivated anti abortion legal minds, mentored them, people who would hue to jurisp