it stands before the supreme court at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. this case presents an opportunity for the court to reconsider roe v. wade and turn the role of legislating on the issue of life back to the states where it was pre-roe v. wade. roe v. wade, as this body knows extremely well, the supreme court decided the constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion until the viability of a child, with very little understanding of the term viability. years later in planned parenthood vs. casey the court also said that the government couldn't place an undue burden on access to abortion which has been used to block many laws that aim to protect women and children. both decisions were completely arbitrary and not based in constitutional law. viability, quite frankly, is impossible to define because children develop at different speeds. one child, like curtis means who just left the university of alabama regional neonatal regional intensive care unit after being delivered at 21 weeks, one day, the youngest child fob p born ever. -- to be born ever.

sort of converging on the supreme court and the people on the court and robert jackson in particular, someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general , confirmed for the senate to five several separate jobs in a number of years became my project and for our topic it matters that jackson was an assistant attorney general in 1937, a principal witness defending the president's court packing plan and solicitor general over the next two years argued in defense of new deal laws and constitutionality before the supreme court so it's the jackson past that brought me into this roosevelt world and court packing and court reform as the topic. >> jacqueline jackson was a course part of the nuremberg trials which we can talk about separately but first of all give us a bit about your background both as a reporter and author of the book. one of the key members of fdr's administration. >> we appreciate being on with you and paul, i am a distinguished lecturer and in that capacity supervised our archives collection in the library among which we have a collection of papers of lindsay hawley

a converging on the supreme court and the people on the court. and robert jackson in particular, someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general, was confirmed through roosevelt's appointment to five separate jobs in a very short run of years, became my big project. and for our topic t matters that he was an assistant attorney general in 1937 a principal witness, defending the core packing plan and the solicitor general, who over the next few years, argued before the supreme court. so, it's the jackson path that brought me to the roosevelt world and court reform as a topic. >> jackson was part of the nuremberg trials, which we can talk about separately. so, professor blumenthal, gives us a little bit on your background. one of the key members of fdr'sed a minstration. >> thank you. i appreciate being on with you and john. in that capacity, supervise our archives collection in the newman library. among which we have a collection of the papers of a member of the brown well committee that organized the executive branch for fdr. and that c

the supreme court with earl warren's leadership in. ink it is constitutional history. >> you couldn't draw a clear division between the congress and the court. the congress was controlled by southerners. and all segregation's they dealt with the administration, the supreme court is taking a radical approach to quality and the new shape of american society. so, if it had been a congress we would never have the segregated the schools. >> yeah, i find it an interesting book end to the case and the other japanese incarceration case it came out during the administration. if this idea of the citizenship essentially throwing it out the window. i have to wonder what those conversations were like. there is a dissenting voice, and this case really scratch the court in a way that forced to make a decision. in the midst of this war in the middle of the fear group in the country. how did that decision come down? and why did they not acknowledge the constitutional way of american citizens that have been that japanese heritage? >> the court decides a

and sort of a converging on the supreme court and the people on the court. and robert jackson in particular, someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general, was confirmed by the senate through roosevelt appointments to five separate jobs in a very short run of years, became my big project. and for our topic, it matters that jackson was an assistant attorney general in 1937, a principal witness defending the president's court-packing plan and then the solicitor general who argued in defense of new deal laws' constitutionality before the supreme court. so it's the jackson path that brought me into this roosevelt world ask court packing, court reform as a topic. >> jackson was also, of course, part of the nuremberg trials which we can talk about separately. so president roosevelt, give us a little bit about your background both as a reporter and as a -- of the library's collection. one of the key members of fkr's administration -- fdr's administration. >> thank you, paul. i really appreciate being on with you and john. in hi capacity, i supervise ou

nearly 50 years c ago the supreme court recognized that right with roe v wade supreme court upheld to make that decision went to our children and has observed nearly 30 years and reaffirm then right to abortion planned parenthood and the ability of women to participate equally has been facilitated by the ability to control their reproductive lives. access to safe and legal and affordable abortion allows people to make decisions of their lives want to start a new job, go back to school, eventually 20 start or grow a family. and state chip away at orban abortion access they are not just controlling women's bodies of their lives. that is most on low income women for populations and women of color this hearing occurs days after the supreme court heard oral arguments with united states versus texas legal challenges for abortion care providers in the department of justice at the heart of the cases is the question of whether aly state can nullify the constitution within the border. sp eight is to thwart to block the state law that prohibits the exercise of the constitutional right before it

right now there are three pro-life cases before the supreme court. is very weak, the same week the chairman chose to convene this hearing the court held oral arguments on two of those cases. let's be clear at the democrats have convened this hearing as a way to pressure the supreme court to try to intimidate the supreme court. it's when the court was considering the consensus at last congress, sensationalized legal question to delegitimize the role in interpreting the law. today the focus is on the pro life and the state of texas. last year the court heard oral arguments in senator schumer stood in front of the supreme court and said this. i want to tell you, i want to tell you cap and on, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price is, you will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. that is not threatening, that is not trying to intimidate, i do not know what is it. he did that in the supreme court that day other democrat members of this committee made good on senator schumer's that they just legislate not

we still have only nine supreme court justices. let's go to district courts.istrict courts need federal judges, too. we have 679, right? guest: i think it's fascinating, and you have a good understanding of history, when it relates to numbers. i would encourage you, if you want to know more, we didn't -- didn't episode on the judicial branch, and we spoke to a solicitor general who was an advocate in the supreme court about the history of the supreme court. what is most interesting, is how it has massive. -- it has gotten massive. there is nothing in the constitution that says there should be a specific number of justices. there is only a chief justice. it doesn't say about the specific roles. the supreme court in particular is fascinating because it was a branch that our framers considered the weakest. it had neither the power of the sword. it is pathetic and cannot do anything. they used to meet in a basement. they did not have their own building, back in the day. it has grown. these justices throughout the years, and the power of the supreme court since the

the supreme court has long ruled these are constitutional rights. nore precedent or reverse that. you may recall this from the supreme court confirmation hearings that get covered on tv, it has been kind of a weird tradition, for the even republican appointees to say under oath all sorts of words about roe being a type of settled precedent. >> i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v. wade. >> i don't think that abortion or the right to abortion would change. >> do you think some of the restrictions would change? >> i think some of the restrictions would change. >> the supreme court has held in roe v. wade that a fetus is not a person. that's the law of the land. i accept the law of the land. >> that is the law of the land. all of that was recent. much of it was under oath. that's one reason why these conservative lawyers are trying to lob this pretty far-fetched legal argument to the court, and you know i try to keep it real with you, to overturn roe without overturning roe, which just means overturning roe without admitting i

but he realized in order to bring it to fruition, things would end up at the supreme court. again, we get back to it, the man got lucky and he got four nominations, four men on the court who ended up not just going with the administration, but helping to lead their fellow justices to what was right. there are still questions once we get to brown versus board of education, but truman was not in office at the time. during the truman presidency, the court unanimously, consistently, without equivocation in very clearly written opinions that any american could understand, argued to their fellow citizens that the constitution guaranteed rights to all american citizens, regardless of race. and, again, if there's anyone who made his own luck professionally and politically, it was harry truman, but as well with the three justices and chief justice to the supreme court. >> it kind of embodies the adage luck is where preparation meets opportunity. i want to close with something that i hope might give people a little bit of hope for the supreme court going forward. one of the things that

for years, the supreme court has upheld roe v. wade, affirmed that a person has a woman has a right to perform an abortion before viability without undue interference from the state. the court in planned parenthood versus casey made clear that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before viability is a rule of law in a component of liberty we cannot renounce. texas senate bill 8, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, violates the central edibles of ro. it constitutes a near total ban of abortion, manning abortion before may people even know they are pregnant. it is unconstitutional. nevertheless, sb 8 is in effect and harming texans in need of abortion care for over two months. this is solely because it leaves enforcement to private citizens instead of state actors, a feature of the law is architects will permit the law to evade judicial review. the u.s. supreme court cited these complex and novel antecedent questions as a reason for not enjoying the law. it is important to reiterate that the sole reason sb 8 contain

that is to use the judicial branch is often called franklin roosevelt epic struggles with the supreme court culminating in what became known as this court packing plan he the judicial reform. up until that time these the judiciary as a goal they would enact their policies with congress and active laws and hope the laws and policies would pass muster with the judicial branch. harry truman turn that on his head and for the first time he had a president who was using not just the supreme court but the federal judiciary taking full control of the department of justice to aggressively push his policies. that is so we expect them both major parties in the united states. it almost came out of necessity stately court was in at the time. i wonder if you can set the stage for us. go back to the end of the roosevelt administration. what was happening on the court that made this a special circumstance? >> on like truman nominees to the court, they are well known by many americans certain certainly anyone who suffer there with your law school. as a profound jurors in the joints and pillars of the west.

amendment protected an individual right and the supreme court in 2008, in a case called district of lumbia against heller, said that the second amendment protects your right to have a handgun in your home for personal protection. but the court left open a bunch of questions, such as, do you have a right to carry a gun in public? and, which kinds of weapons are protected by the second amendment? soledad: i thought justice alito said this -- "all these people with illegal guns, they're on the subway walking around the streets. but ordinary, hardworking, law abiding people know they can't be armed." what does that tell us about alito? outside of that he obviously is a very strong supporter of the second amendment. prof. winkler: well, i think that justice alito buys into that nra argument that the only thing that's going to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. and there are a lot of guns in america. a lot of bad guys do have guns. we can question whether it's true, that a good guy with a gun will actually do much to prevent the danger that's caused by a bad guy with a gun

supreme court. for many in our audience, this is going to be the first time hearing oral arguments from the u.s. supreme court. give us a sense of how things will play out today. >> yeah, it's so exciting, and it's so great that we're covering this live for the first time, because oral arguments happen at the supreme court. you know, roughly, about 65 a year. they're a half-hour per side, normally. it's rapid-fire. i've done 45 arguments at the u.s. supreme court, jose, and i average about 50.9 questions in a half-hour argument. so they are throwing questions left and right. and they're trying to test and probe the weaknesses and strengths of your case. often with hypotheticals and other things to try to get at, what are the contours of your position. and what are the implications going to be for cases going forward? so, for example, here, i think you'll hear one of the big arguments is, if texas can do this, and have a vigilante provision, which allows private people to enforce, you know, their abo

we recall franklin roosevelt's epic struggles with the supreme court, culminating in what became known as his court packing plan, he preferred to call it judicial reform. presidents up until that time have used the judiciary -- i should say, the judiciary has acted as a kind of goal. and presidents would enact their policies with congress, enact their laws, and hope that their laws and policies would pass muster with the judicial branch. harry truman turned that on its head and for the first time we had a president who was using not just with the supreme court but with the federal judiciary, taking full control of the department of justice to aggressively push the policies. and now that what's we expect in both major parties in the united states. it's what we expect that our presidents and our presidential nominees. >> it seemed like it almost came out of necessity, because of the state that the court was in at the time. i wonder, can you set the stage for us, go back to the end of the roosevelt administration. what was happening on the court that made this kind of a special circumstan

the supreme court will hear arguments regarding the abortion law. at 11:00 a.m. he court will hear the united states versus texas. our tuesday live on c-span.org, campaign coverage from two governors races, the new jersey governor's race and the virginia governor's race between former governor terry mcauliffe and republican glenn duncan. -- glenn youngkin. wednesday on c-span three, countering domestic terrorism with testimony by lead officials from homeland security and the fbi before the house -- the house intelligence committee. live on c-span3, covid-19 and the next steps in the response with testimony from the cdc director and national institute of allergy and infectious diseases director dr. anthony fauci. friday from the c-span network, the memorial service for retired army general and former secretary of state colin powell live from the wash and national cathedral. watch this week on the c-span networks or you can watch our full coverage on c-span now, our new mobile app. also, heads to c-span.org -- head to c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of gove

when is the president biden appointed a commission he's noticed the supreme court is very conservative at this point and is likely to come out with decisions that some people will like and some people won't like but is not the worn court anymore we are about to hear some people are going to have ideas about internal it's simply addressed to the supreme court justices themselves to rethink how they are doing things and have a different approach. proposal to change the structure of the supreme court external limits on the supreme court like judicial review or controlling and jurisdiction. one question i have for you now is about the biden commission. are you optimistic anything could come out of that? and then i went to move to should we be thinking about amending the constitution? what about the biden commission a thought on that? unfortunately none of the three of us were asked to serve on that and i understand why that could have been better. >> you can understand what i was not for this commission. [laughter] we are encountering a lot in the supreme court. your transition plessy vers

and in the case that was brought up to the supreme court, shelby vs. holder, the supreme court held, in an opinion by chief justice jobts, that -- justice roberts, that you could not apply a 1960's formula using vote numbers from 50 years ago in the context of post-2010 reality. so they vacated and set a i side, rejected, the trigger formula in section 4. i'm sorry, my voice hasn't quite come back since yesterday. we don't have the trigger in place now for section 5 and the bill in congress, h.r. 4, would essentially do that. it's trying to do that at this point in history where a number of states have enacted las that are being seen as erecting barriers to the ballot box for millions of americans. i think in this past year there have been over 400 pieces of legislation introduced and 30 laws enacted by states that would have needed for the most part to have been precleared by the justice department or federal court before they could be implemented. some states in fact enacted voter suppression laws right after the shelby case came down. and that's bee

it's the most serious challenge yet to the landmark 1973 supreme court ruling roe v. wade, which guaranteed the right to an abortion. the court's three liberal justices asked if allowing the texas law to stand would invite other state legislatures to pass laws invalidating other constitutional rights. this is justice elena kagan. >> we would live in a very different world from the world we live in today, essentially, we would be inviting states -- all for them with respect to their preferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law of -- this court has laid down as to the content of those rights. amy: we will get the latest on the supreme court and the texas abortion ban later in the broadcast. today is election day in the united states. in virginia, a record number of registered voters cast early ballots ahead of today's highly-watched governor's race between democrat terry mcauliffe and republican glenn youngkin, a former ceo of a private equity firm who's backed by former president donald trump. terry mcauliffe is close to bill and hillary clinton and is one

we are encountering a lot of problems with the supreme court. frankly, some of these problems are not new. this idea that the courts are who have the last say on everything until they decide that they have it wrong -- your transition, this idea that the court gets to decide what cases that it's going to take. we have parties holding seats open for ae year and then rammig nominees through a week before an election. we are seeing all sorts of problems that are a showing the judicial branch of the united states and the supreme court in particular as being a fundamentally political organization. these arer things we have imposed structures in place to try to limit. we made them appointed and confirmed in the way that they are. they aread supposed to be insulated from politics. we gave them life tenure. they arere supposed to be insulated from politics. what we are t seeing is these things are not playingre out in the wayhi they were intended to. do i have faith in the commission? commissions in the past have set a path for reform. i love the idea tha

that law flies in the face of precedent from the supreme court banning abortions after 24 weeks which came out of texas and the anti-abortion legislators was the following. normally as a private citizen you can go to court, the constitutionality of the law is determined. sb 8 is unusual. it says to state officials in texas you are not allowed to enforce this law. instead private laws enforce the law. that means thus far there's two pending lawsuits in the state courts. one from a guy in arkansas and one from a guy in illinois. you don't have to live in texas to sue an abortion provider. so while those state court cases are pending, the supreme court is going to decide who can sue. can you actually sue or is it wrong? and you know, it is interesting because on november 1 even brett kavanaugh said i could see this as a bounty where if you're an anti-gun state you could put in a bounty against anybody that selling an ar-15. they have disbelief of the loophole in texas and getting a ruling tomorrow will be who has what we call standing. what has the ability to sue over the types of laws.

the supreme court justices hearing arguments in texas versus the u.s. and the u.s. r general just calling this an assault on the government. on court. and on congress. we're going to continue to take a listen to what is happening inside the supreme court as things develop and bring it to you as they do. ken dilanian, thank you. joyce vance, thank you as well. and kim, great to see you. >>> we're one day away from the first big election since biden took office. steve kornacki is here to break down the latest approval numbers and what they could mean for critical races in new jersey and virginia. we'll be right back. we'll be ri. , we believe in the power of taking steps forward. whatever the pace. and whatever the size. that's why we set out to help make it easier for everyone to move forward financially. see how we can make a difference for you at pnc bank. i didn't have to shout out for help. because you didn't have another dvt. not today. one blood clot puts you at risk of having another, so we chose xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto® is proven to treat

in a person, a woman getting in a horse meaning learned that was the issue that was before the supreme court today . and this kind of procedure could be transferred to stop court litigation against the exercise of other constitutional rights. so it has some applicability even outside the context of abortion said, i guess my question is why, why has this texas low even go as far as it goes? why should the supreme court, when it's clearly and controversial, a women's, a women's rights constitutional rights to have an abortion? this is guaranteed by that very famous will be weight case. this would appear on the face of it to be completely in contravention to that yes, it is. it's deliberately in violation. what the supreme court has previously decided. what makes this particularly unusual is that many states who very much disagreeing with a woman's right to an abortionist, as spoken about by the supreme court. haven't acted these laws out of frustration with their anti abortion constituencies who disagree. and so they have pass laws previously that the federal courts read on, you know, regularl

s. supreme court patsy, what's happening at the supreme court and how does this feed into the voyager to base a bite abortion rights in the united states? exactly, i just wanna give you a sense of what's happening. the court arguments just wrapped up when almost 3 hours, which is a little bit on an unexpected. now you see the attorneys, the just argued before the court. those are those representing texas and the texas law talking to their supporters. we expect the other lawyers to come out very soon . basically the texas law aims go round roe v wade, which makes abortion most abortions, legal in the united states by not using state officials to enforce it. basically, anyone who thinks somebody's gotten an abortion. can sue anybody who helped facilitate that from driving them to a clinic at the doctors involved, then they can face up to a $10000.00 fine, and they can be sued multiple times. so the question before the supreme court is not, is that constitutional. the supreme court rushed this case up after allowing twice for the law to go into effect, because they want to find out if pe

but the supreme court began misinterpreting the 14th amendment.he 14th amendment was enacted in 1868 by the republicans in order to fight the white supremacy that had arisen in the south after the abolition of slavery, which was abolished by the 13th amendment. beginning in 1873, the supreme court systematically gutted the amendment by misinterpreting it, and we have been paying the price for its initial misinterpretation of the 14th amendment ever since. host: evan bernick, what are some of the prices we have been paying? evan: society has paid the price in the forms of one of the most tragic cases in recent supreme court constitutional positions, in the form of the winnebago county social services, a case involving the state action doctrine which holds that the 14th a moment only applies to state action. it does not oblige estates to provide protective services to anybody in respect to their civil rights. it involved a young boy who was beaten repeatedly by his father and whose abuse came to the attention of social services and never intervened

i think the supreme court is simply not going to buy the structure that texas has tried to come up withourt challenge. >> katie, is this structure of the texas law too cute by half here at the end of the day? so much of the texas law was designed to take the owness off of texas officials and spread out responsibility for enforcement. is that where texas will get into trouble? >> that seemed to be the feeling of justices. everybody from brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett to sotomayor. they were saying listen, this really just doesn't work. what it does is allows any state to come up with a law, to thwart constitutional rights. that state just doesn't like, and especially justices like kavanaugh could see how it could be used to restrict access to services or goods or activities that the state has decided is not appropriate. that is probably the best hope that people who support the idea of abortion who want access to abortion in the state of texas have in thwarting this law. >> there was another moment that stuck out where clarence thomas asked stone about what would be considered an

guest: given the questions the supreme court justices asked during the hearing today, it appears that conservative-leaning court may not rule in favor of this texas law, and that would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in september that allowed this law to go into effect. so brent, this court ruling is watched very closely here in the united states, because if the court rules that the law is unconstitutional, this could be a blueprint for conservative leaning states to implement very strict abortion laws. brent: do you know what consequences this would have for the future of abortion rights in the u.s.? guest: it is interesting, it normally takes weeks, sometimes months for we have the ruling in the supreme court. that this case could be resolved by the end of the week because the court will hear another case about abortion rights from mississippi on december 1, and that directly questions the legality of abortion. so that means that if the texas law is deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court, this time, this highly politicized discussion about women's rights will no

discuss what her charact over would say to the democrats and the texas abortion ban before the supreme court on monday. will the court up hold the september ruling? my panel will discuss that. richard lui has the headlines. >> some stories this hour. a person is dead and three injured at california city council member's home in gilroy saturday. police responded to a large outdoor party. she said in a statement we are giving the full cooperation to the police department in this investigation. >>> a halloween party south after a mass shooting left two dead and 12 injured in east texas. police estimate a couple hundred people were present when the shooting happened. >>> jon bon jovi tested positive for covid-19. he canceled a performance in miami beach. the representatives said jon is fully vaccinated and feeling fine. more after this break. after th. at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will work with you on a comprehensive wealth plan across your full financial picture. a plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. this is the planning effect. ♪ wh

what this case says to the supreme court is you can't review our law, supreme court. it might be flagrantly unconstitutional but it is within bounds for us in texas to do what we want to do and the supreme court had a first crack of dealing with this issue when the cases came up on the shadow docket and the supreme court sort of threw the hands up in the air and said this case, the texas statute, presents novel questions and we can't figure it out and won't block the law. that's why doj is also in this case, reinforcing that point of someone to protect the people in texas and doj cites the supremacy clause saying that it's the power that can directly sue the state of texas and provide a remedy for people whose rights are infringed here. >> anna, we have been talking about the legal implications. i want to talk about the real world ones. what are women in texas dealing with right now? i remember in september we spoke to you and the fear not only to travel state lines but these clinics across state lines are inundated so they have to wait weeks to schedule some appointm

the supreme court has not ruled on that point. it has ruled in a case that 50% of one race is required. whether 50% of multiraces is required is something i think the court will visit sometime in the next few years. >> i think jeff is exactly right. there's something of a circuit split on this issue. but i certainly hope and expect, maybe more hope than expect, i never know, predicting what the supreme court will do has not necessarily being something i would have won a lot of money on at the mgm. but i think given the circuit split, this is an issue we hope the supreme court will address sooner rather than later. >> and this is an issue that -- virginia is an example is debating whether coalition districts are required. the democrats seem to favor that. whereas the republicans are against that. not that they're against it in principle. you could create those districts, but you're not required to create those districts. >> i have a question. how would you prove the different minority groups are cohesive. do you rely on primary ele

remember, we have got a very different supreme court than we had then. in 1992. so this court's got three new justices, all nominated by president trump, all of them that have ruled one way or another against the roe v. wade case. so you put this -- of course, when they were down further on the appellate level, their three votes together along with the other conservatives on the court, you have at the possibility of seeing roe v. wade turned away or at least minimized. >> that is a big deal. how many women are we talking that could be affected by this case if the court sides with mississippi? >> the number is remarkable. the gut of women under 45 years of age, 25%, one-fourth have had an abortion at some point in their lives. that's a huge number to deal with. it goes well beyond the state of mississippi. >> do you have an indication what's likely to happen and maybe more so when we'll know? >> yeah. a couple of things. the when is the easy part. we will know probably the last few days of june. any of the tough cases the court takes on all during the year, they of

, but sometimes they see things that we do not like at which point we start objecting does the supreme courte too much power. and just, again, examples, i think you both point to examples of the perverse equal protections law and the court says we don't do anything about racial discrimination unless it's intentional and the battles of structural inequality and the courts sometimes overinterpreted rights so they interpret the first amendment in this very expansive way that often prevents progress, that would prevent campaign finance reform and other things and sometimes underinterpret things and jamal, you give disability rights and we don't do that, we leave at that to everybody else. >> wilfred, you say in passing, americans accept. and say that the courts get to do that and you were citing that as a difficulty. outsourced to the court, what does the constitution mean. why do you think that americans are so accepting of the idea of jushl judicial review. we have been talking about marbury and asked the question, what if in some other countries, what if we had congress able to overrule the s

a politicized supreme court isn't a new thing. rown up with this idea that generally speaking, the courts are right and fair. but there are actually plenty of examples of the supreme court being on the wrong side of history. take plessey versus ferguson, for example, a landmark decision that essentially upheld the segregation that was based on race. states could legally offer separate facilities like train seats and bathrooms to black and white people provided the facilities were identical, which, by the way, they weren't. of course, we look back at plessey versus ferguson now and can plainly see it was a perversion of justice. but it's fair to say to say that it was not made in a vacuum, it was driven by the racial politics of the time. and although public sentiments often change, supreme court rulings don't always change with them, or as fast as sentiment does. and outdated rulings have long-lasting impact. plessey versus ferguson was decided in 1896. it stood until it was overturned by brown versus board of education in 1954. mo

will, reach that in mississippi and indeed may have the texas case come back to the united states supreme court on the road versus wave question, sometime next year presumably after the senate. >> based on your reading of where the courts headed here, what is the effect for abortion services providers in texas if the court rules in the way you are anticipating? >> well, if they rule soon than what it would mean is that the texas challengers, the folks challenging the texas law, would go into federal trial court in texas. and indeed the court of appeals and say, we want to stay of this law, we wanted to not take effect until it is blessed by federal courts. and it's pretty hard to bless this law because it is a straight violation of roe v. wade, so we're taking the united states supreme court decision to really reinstate the law. and that's probably a year away. so i think the effect of today's decision is likely to be, today's argument, is likely that texas loses will be the say we've got to go to the lower courts, the lower courts will probably keep that lost state. so it can't go in effect --

of us, none of them and none of us will be here forever but history will be written about the supreme court and she is on -- 13 executions that the trump administration carried out which is just astonishing. we haven't had executions in the past 20 years and the court denied stopping any of them. she listed all the names. it was a kind of a black lives matter and the like. she wanted to make that record so it's very fascinating. justice ginsburg was with her on a number of those calling out moments and now she's basically alone on it and you know we have got to listen to her because she really has something to say. >> i'm going to close on another liberal justice with justice breyer but before we get to that i was struck by your scrutiny of justice gorgeous's art. when he first came and he had very sharp elbows. he alienated cheap justice roberts in some ways and i know you've documented yourself with seanez arrogance among some of his other colleagues but then he toned it down a little bit and there's one point where you are right that he was sort of return to his old self by the end of th

and a state can just nullify a right that has been recognized bit supreme court for 50 years.ue anyone who exercises that right or provides care to allow someone to exercise that right. that doesn't just apply for abortion, it could apply for guns, for freedom of religion. every single constitutional right is at stake if texas' argument succeed and the federal courts can't do anything when a state tries to nullify a right like texas is dog here. >> like texas is doing here. >> the real concern for roe v. wade is not a punitive civil of he measure they wrote into the texas law it's violent. that's where the mississippi law will come. are you hearing from barrett, from kavanaugh, or any others, that you take as a signal on that other issue? >> i didn't hear anything today that signals what the court's going to do. as you note one month from today the supreme court is going to hear arguments in dobbs versus jackson women's health organization which is challenge to mississippi 15-week abortion ban, the first time the supreme court is considering a ban before viability. the state o