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

our legal panel is standing by to discuss this and other major cases before the supreme court. team coverage as well, alexis mcadams live on the protests nationwide, first, david spunt live outside the supreme court. >> just after 6:00 eastern time, several thousand people outside the u.s. supreme court they can't go to the steps yet because of high fences but people have been out here since late morning. you hear loud. [background noises] behind me and angry people, i will say it has been peaceful, no teargas or violence, it's been a peaceful protest, that's what authorities were hoping for today but the issue is after the supreme court's narrative meets washington d.c., it goes back to the state and that is where we are looking at a map i want to show you the different states, a colorful map shows where each state stands specifically when it comes to abortion. when the supreme court came down with the decision yesterday at 10:10 a.m. eastern time, 13 states called trigger state, they went into effect or will go into effect soon. texas, oklahoma, louisiana, mississippi, north d

the president calling it a sad day for the supreme court and the country. today's supreme court united states. >> expressly took away constance right from the american people. and already recognized. and in limited, he simply took it away. that's never been done to write. so important to so many americans. house speaker nancy pelosi contrast in the high court's decision with another this week affecting gun rights. such a contradiction. >> yesterday, the say the state's n. cannot make laws governing. the constitutional right to bear arms. and today. they're saying the exact numbers. republican lawmakers voicing support. >> oh, my gosh. the most important. >> prolife ruling in american history. today's supreme court decision was a step protect the most precious and basic right, the right to the court's decision, our road, putting it at odds with the majority of americans favor preserving it. according to opinion polls. >> we protect the freedoms are under governor gavin newsom joining other west coast state leaders saying it's time to that's why california. >>

the u.s. supreme court. one of them is arkansas. from an abortion clinic in the state capital of little rock, a warnin her report contains distressing details. >> it was exactly the ruling they had been dreading. when the decision was delivered it extinguished the final flickers of hope. outside they had to turn women away. >> abortion is murder. it has just been upheld. >> inside they had to do with the realization that the care they provided here is now a criminal offense. >> i do not think there is a waiting period there. it is a five and a half hour drive. >> and tell people they can deliver help. >> having to turn women away, it sucks. >> jennifer thompson first came here as a patient, she says her abortion saved her life in the care she received here inspired her to train so she could do the same for others. >> at the tell tm i am sorry, there is nothing i can do or you. i'm sorry your boyfriend beats you every day he rapes you all the time. you will have to find somewhere else to go. i can give them information,. but it is he

that is what was before the supreme court. ybody on this show seems to think that 15 weeks is reasonable. 50 weeks, the europeans think 15 weeks. why did the supreme court have to jump into this and say we are not going to decide the case before us, we are going to band roe vs. wade, overrule it and allow states to be sure, allow states to abolish abortion completely. that was judicial activism overreaching. and you oppose judicial activism. you should join me and agree with justice roberts that judicial activism was at play here and it was unnecessary. >> sean: professor, i probably will not debate as effectively as one of your greater student, ted cruz as you have said on many occasions, but rights not enumerated in the constitution like the right to keep and bear arms which we discussed last night with then go back, tenth amendment, ninth amendment would be applicable. would it not, professor? >> you could be right about all of that but you wait until the right case comes up. wait until the case comes before the supreme cour

i wonder what this term of the supreme court has shown you on that thesis? guest: thank you for having me on the program. it seemso me the supreme court is continuing is process of essentially promoting an agenda organized a bunch of very big dollar donors may be 15, 20 years ago with the creation of the feralist society and other organizations to basically rollback a series of rights americans have foughtor for more than a century, rolling back the rights of people to be members of labor unions, for example. it is difficult noto be a labor of -- of a labor union thanks to the supreme court rolling backhe rights of women to get an abortion, rolling back -- they just did away with the miranda rights, for example. radically increasing police power if you have been unjustly accused of a crime. you do not even kw the rights that you have. i am concerned about it. i do nothink the court is representative of america from our values, and i think it is doing genuine damage to democracy in this country. host: rollback, you say. rollback to what or when? what do you th

we go once again to our washington correspondent of the supreme court, joe mathieu. st of "sound on." tell us what is going on right now and the supreme court. joe: it is getting pretty loud again, i have to admit. we saw a bit of a know in the crowd after they had been demonstrating for the better part of a couple of hours. alexandria ocasio-cortez showed up, she was here to rally pro-choice supporters a short time ago and people really keyed off of that. as that was happening, a couple more busloads of capitol police showed up. to the side, there is a group of them, all wearing reflector vests. looks like there are almost as many police as protesters. they are staying after the side, presumably in case any aggressive activity breaks out. there are police as well scattered throughout the crowd. we have a very large number of officers off to the side, on the lawn between the supreme court and the u.s. capitol. this could be a long day, we have no idea how long protesters will be there, reminding that hundreds were there even before the ruling was announced this mornin

now, the supreme court has taken that guarantee away. lester, this is the first time the supreme court has ever granted a constitutional right, which it did so when roe was decided in 1973, and then took it away. a popular right that was widely recognized. so the immediate effect of this will be to uphold a mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. but this also now means that in a roughly half the country, abortion is as of now or soon will be illegal. 13 states have what are called trigger laws that were intended to make roe -- abortion illegal in those states once the supreme court reached this decision. a few of those states, the law takes effect immediately, in some, they have to wait for the state attorney general to certificate that this is what the supreme court has done. that's 13 states in which abortion will shortly be illegal. and in the rest of up to about half of the states, they are expected soon to make it illegal. so we're about to become a divided country, lester, where abortion is legal in about half the s

and i think it's counterproductive and even dangerous to speak at the supreme court in these terms. throughout my entire life, i've tried to remember that we have a duty of respect to the independence of the judiciary even when we disagree with it. the supreme court in the united states is the greatest institution of its kind u anywhe in the world. and i say that as one who strongly disagrees with its rulings, but it's not a bad entity that sometimes makes these decisions. it's a remarkable institution that is being run by mortals who rare fallible, sometimes makes mistakes and it's important to differentiate the two. >> host: the book came out on tuesday by senator mike lee of utah with us to talk about it. lines are open. republicans 202-748-8001, democrats, 202-748-8000. independent, 202-748-8002 as the calls are filling up the lines, a question on your expectations of what happens when these negotiations on new gun laws in the country. >> not sure. it's difficult to know what will be produced but i will say this. every time there is a mass shooting in this country, many laws have

the supreme court granted that and then took it away. but this is the first time the court has ever granted a broadly recognized, widely accepted constitutional right and then taken it away. so in that sense, it is historic >> pete williams at the supreme court. demonstrators are still gathering outside the court tonight. hundreds of people there protesting against the landmark decision to overturn roe v. wade most of the pro-life demonstrators who were certainly there in the beginning have now left president biden has called for protests to remain peaceful. still, the capitol police are taking no chances. they erected this eight-foot fence ahead of the landmark ruling to keep people out of the supreme court plaza. the capitol police also boosting security at the capitol ahead of any possibility of unrest. cnbc's shomari stone continues our coverage outside the court emotions certainly running high. >> indeed, shep. emotions are very high a lot of people cried this morning when that ruling came down right now, d.c. police, u.s. capitol po

, called on pro abortion protestors to "fight, the hell with the supreme court" she says, and i've watched the video myself, we'll turn it for the viewers and goes on to say "the hell with the supreme court, we will defy them." what is your response to that? >> this is fundamentally wrong for a nation who believes in the rule of law, in justice, and the important role of the united states supreme court and speaker pelosi and other leaders like the president of the united states needs to be calling on those protesting, those threatening to stop. this -- this is a decision by the united states supreme court, it needs to be respected and the next steps will be played out now at the state level through the elected officials. but this is not a time to be calling for violence, for terrorist-type activity. we need to be protecting. we need to be protecting these institutions now more than ever. these are fundamental to our country and the rule of law in the united states of america. >> sandra: kathy mcmorris rodgers, thank you very much. approaching a band new hour, th

she is live at the supreme court for us this hour. quite a way to round out the term. >> reporter: absolutely. two big decisions from the supreme court. first in that 6-3 decision the supreme court really restricting the epa's power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. and at the same time the supreme court here is sending a signal that for big issues, big decisions from the epa and even other agencies, those big issues and decisions could eventually be struck down by this court if they weren't explicitly written out by congress as agencies having the power to do. so this is what the chief justice john roberts wrote in his opinion saying it is not plausible that congress gave epa the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme as in this law. a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with congress itself or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. so the court really tcontinuing to cut back. this was something that was met with a punch from the three liberal justices

the supreme court has indeed struck down roe v. wade. e 9073 ruling that found that women had a constitutional right to an abortion. in one of the most important decisions by the court in modern times the justices in a 6 - 3 ruling with samuel alito writing the opinion, amy coney barrett and john chief justice john roberts, gorsuch, upheld a mississippi law that the abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. the law had been ruled unconstitutional by lower courts but justice alito in an opinion for court which now has a very solid conservative majority wrote we in this opinion where we began, abortion presents a found world question. the constitution does not prevent each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. roe and casey, the other important case the upheld roe v. wade arrogated that authority. we now overrule those and it turned authority to the people and their elected representatives. the decision was greeted with jubilation by pro-life groups who argued for almost 50 years that roe was bad law and badly decided. >> this is a dr

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

today the supreme court overturned roe versus wade and held the right to abortion is no longer protected by the constitution . the supreme court has eliminated and established right that has been an essential component of women's liberty for half a century, a right that have safeguarded women's ability to participate fully and equally in society and in renouncing this fundamental right which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed the court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, the key pillar of the rule of law. here's another portion of the supreme court oral argument in dobbs v. jackson where chief justice roberts engages with julie rickelman, the attorney for jackson'swomen health on super starry decisiveness and erroneous decisions . >> i just want to focus on stare decisis for a bit. i found justice breyer's comments compelling. i'm not sure how they play out in casey. it is certainly true that we cannot base our decisions on whether they are popular or not with the people. casey seemed to say we shouldn't base our decisions not only on that but whether they're going to see

but we also care about the families and employees of the supreme court. and that is what we're talking about today. because, again, i just want to remind you, the republicans are misleading you. supreme court justices right now have law enforcement protection details. they are protected by law enforcement. this bill has to deal with the families of supreme court justices. i support protecting them. i also support protecting employees and their families of the supreme court. and that is a dispute. the democrats want to also protect employees and families who are getting threats from right-wing activists, intimidation. you want to talk about intimidation? i tell you what intimidation is. it's trump supporters assaulted the capitol on january 6, brutalizing 140 police officers. that is intimidation. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: and madam speaker, we condemn what took place on january 6. it would be nice if democrats have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or pass this legislati

decision where the supreme court allowed the us government to intern japanese americans supreme court decision which was basically overturned, just like dred scott was. there is plessy versus ferguson, the separate but equal doctrine, but had to be struck down. and now today, the very flawed rationale of roe v wade was struck down, and by the way, the casey decision that came later upheld the substance of roe based on the principle of stare decisis, and i think that is the main take away from the decision that came out this morning, is that blind adherence to a wrong, incorrect decision is a terrible idea, and the court fixed that today.— terrible idea, and the court fixed that today. you call it a wron: , fixed that today. you call it a wrong, incorrect _ fixed that today. you call it a wrong, incorrect decision. it| wrong, incorrect decision. it is highly partisan and incredibly decisive —— are divisive. we have seen lots of protesting today, on both sides. this will be challenged, of course. what do you see being the next steps? 50. of course. what do you see being the

everybody thinks the supreme court -- warren, roe v. wade, miranda. but that was a really small time period. 1954to 1982. that is about when any other time. from1787 to 1954, and for the past 40 years, the supreme court has been a conservative block on the rights of everybody else. one of the ways i like to explain this. tell me the first lawsuit brought under the 13th amendment. that is the amendment that prohibits, makes unconstitutional slavery. the first lawsuit was brought by white people who argued in louisiana that granting a monopoly to slaughter was akin to economic slavery for poor whites in the louisiana. the supreme court, not congress, not the president, rejected the lawsuit and said the 13th amendment was only for " the slave race" and not for anybody else. even when you pass a constitutional amendment, certainly a congressional act, the supreme court has the ability to cut those acts out at the knees. as long as you respect that institutional ability to do that, they will always do that. we need to reform the institution, not rely upon i

no president had a more significant impact on the supreme court than the, the dr -- fdr. he appointed eight9 justices during his administration. he helped change american democracy. he got to appoint no justices during his first term. the role of the supreme court has changed over the years and certainly plays a central role in our political process. but headache no mistakes -- make no mistakes, the court has always been political. joining he today is john -- at st. johns university and fellow at the robert h. jackson center. he's the biographer of justice -- [inaudible] and editor of jackson's acclaimed 2003 posthumous book, quote, that man: an insider's portrait of franklin d. roosevelt, the last new deal insider's memoir. also with us, paul blumenthal, former new york times reporter and continues to be a periodic contributor of the times. the author of five books including "the believer" about the harvard psychiatrist john mack who investigated u if fos -- ufos and alien encounters. we'll talk about this in a minute. we'll starlet with professor if barrett. -- start wit

she's on the ground, at the supreme court, all day long. , you have been among the protesters for hours. what are they telling you? and what's their goal? >> stephanie, for nearly 12 hours, we saw this area ahead of the supreme court, completely filled, the start of the day with a tension between two groups of protesters, representing both sides of the arguments around abortion rights. and then, it grew to fill this entire street that i'm standing in front of, nearly more than 1000 people, i would say, here at one point. you see everyone kind of

this is the right decision from the supreme court. a humane decision, and i think it's a decision in keeping with not only our constitution but also the better ideals of our country. >> secretary castro, as always, good to see you. >>> all right. ahead, biden is set to make a major speech on the january 6th committee's findings after the panel completes its investigation. the message our sources say the president intends to deliver. >>> plus, more on how the supreme court just made the fight against climate change even more difficult. scientist michael mann is joining me with that. >>> and former secretary of state hillary clinton's warning about the supreme court's reversal of roe. court's reversal of roe. >> if the republicans gain a majority, particularly if they get a republican president, they will try to pass a federal law banning abortion. a federal law a federal law banning abortion never too early to learn you could save with america's number one motorcycle insurer. that's right, jamie. but it's not just about savings. it's a

the supreme court was not bully by the far-left mob. threats of violence against the justices did not win. and the truth is pro-life americans are not planning a night of rage. if. [laughter] the reaction to this principled decision by the court, it must be peaceful. and the doj must step up to protect our justices, their families, churches and pro-life pregnancy centershu from unprovoked violence. to the doj, do not be silent. do not stand back and uphold the rule of law. we live in a country that is based on the dignity of all human life. with that, we'll take some questions with. yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] justice thomas is part of this ruling has said he wants to revisit things likeai the supree court's decision on gay marriage and contraception. what do you say to that? >> the supreme court is a durant branch of government -- different branch of government. i just know what we are doing, andng what we have today is that life matters. that for so many years life has stood up concern. >> [inaudible] support those decisions being revi

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

the united states supreme court. >> roe vs. de clearly held that the constitution protected a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. >> reporter: in 1973, the supreme court legalized abortion with a 7-2 ruling. a majority of the justices were appointed by republicans. friday's 5-4 decision to overturn roe v. wade was decided by the most conservative court in nearly a century. now, new battle lines are being drawn as the fight over abortion enters a new era >> kristen, abortion is going to be a key issue in the midterm elections. what's the strategy emerging for both parties? >> reporter: well, jose, democrats who were bracing for big losses in the midterms are already raising money and organizing around the issue of abortion rights. their challenge, balancing that while also addressing other pressing issues like inflation and the economy. the hurdle for republicans, convincing their voters the fight is not over jose >> kristen welker in austria, thank you so much >>> now to the historic new gun legislation. on any other day, he

what do the supreme court is a -- >> the supreme court is a different branch of government. i just know what we are doing, and what we have today is that life matters. that for so many years life has stood up. >> the supreme court is a separate branch of government, they make their decisions. reporter: [inaudible] what are some of the abortion bills that you would put on floor? >> first and foremost, i believe in saving every life possible. look at what we have done. hyde amendment but more importantly, look at what the democrats have done. for decades that was a , bipartisan position. why did this new radical agenda when the democrats took the house the senate and the white , house, even president biden who had supported that, remove that. look at ann wagner's bill. and when you look at what we can do, we will continue to look wherever we can go to save as many lives as possible. reporter: leader, you touched on this a little bit, but current laws are still in place right now where the attorney general is just not doing anything about it, playing politics. what would you wan

appreciate it. >> all right. >>> the supreme court leaving the health of millions in doubt after the supreme court decision leaving it in the hands of individual states. a look at the so called trigger laws going into effect around the country. (mom allen) verizon just gave us all a brand new iphone 13. (dad allen) we've been customers for years. (dad brown) i thought new phones were for new customers? we got iphone 13s, too. switched to verizon two minutesgo. (mom brown) ours were busted a we still got a shiny new one. (boy brown) check it out! (dad allen) so, wait. everybody gets the same great deal? (mom allen) i think that's the point. (vo) now everyone can get a new iphone 13 on us on america's most reliable 5g network. (allen kid) can i have a phone? (vo) for every customer. current, new, everyone. to show the love. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire we need to reduce plastic waste in the env

the court in the country. david: talk about this as a matter of supreme court history. overturning an important precedent of 50 years is a big deal. it is not the first time the supreme court has done that, they did it in brodd versus board of education, but is it the first time they did in a way that took away a right? donald: i believe it is. if you think about our bill of rights and other ways that people's rights to engage in certain kinds of behavior or conduct, this is the first instance i believe where the cortes of the said, hereafter 49 or so years, there was a constitutional right that existed and we are taking it away. david: one of the things i have been asked is how could they do this when a majority of americans according to polls do not favor taking away this right? it is something like 65% say there should be some right of abortion. on the other hand, the supreme court is not there to reflect the will of the majority of the people. donald: that is right and i don't think anybody thinks that they should be there to purely reflect the will of the majority.

listen to pete williams. >> abortion according to the supreme court, this is the first time in history that the supreme court has ever granted a right that is widely recognized and then taken away. it is technically speaking not the first time the court granted a right and taken it away, first time it has done that for a right with widespread public support and was widely recognized so it is now up to states to decide whether to make abortion illegal and by our count roughly half the states will do so 13 of those states already have laws on the book, trigger laws that make abortion illegal if the court were to overturn roe and casey. mostl missouri is the one. abortion is now illegal in that state. majority opinion written by samuel alito, closely tracks with a leaked opinion that came out that said roe is wrong, there's no kaconstitutional rigt to abortion. and the only way it can be derived, if it is deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions, part of the concept of ordered liberty roe roeflunks that it doesn't say they have to give exception for rape or incest they point o

the supreme court came up who decide. d states one of only seven countries in the entire world that allowed abortion on request after 20 weeks gestation which is while the extreme. now, at least, we can follow europe, we can follow australia, we can follow developed countries and decide this according to the people's will. but countries and decide this according to the people's will.— to the people's will. but charles, this is now _ to the people's will. but charles, this is now very _ to the people's will. but charles, this is now very confused - to the people's will. but charles, j this is now very confused picture, though, because you will have half of the country restricting or even outlawing a women's right to an and then the other half of the country moving to shore it up. you might perhaps put up i mean, we need to let things settle a bit. we've never v had a meaningful abortion debate in this country. it is kind been on the extremes and it has never really mattered except on the extremes when it comes to the actual

what better way to celebrate constitution day than talking about the supreme court. with two outstanding experts on the subject, no president had a more significant impact on the supreme court than fdr. he appointed eight justices during his administration, some of whom help change american democracy for the better. he got to the point that no supreme court justices during his first term, which was a point of extreme frustration for him. we will talk about that a little bit later. the role of the supreme court has changed over the years. today it certainly plays a central war in our political process. but make no mistake, the court has always been important. joining me today is professor john barrett professor of law at the st. john's university, and fellow of the robert eight jackson fellow. he is the writer of the jackson list, a popular email newsletter and website. and editor of jackson's acclaimed 2003 posthumous book, quote that man. an insider portrait of franklin d. roosevelt. the last new deal insider memoir. also with us today ralph blumenthal distinguished

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

i wonder what this term of the supreme court has shown you on that thesis? est: thank you for having me on the program. it seems to me the supreme court is continuing this process of essentially promoting an agenda organized by a bunch of very big dollar donors may be 15, 20 years ago with the creation of the federalist society and other organizations to basically rollback a series of rights americans have fought for for more than a century, rolling back the rights of people to be members of labor unions, for example. it is difficult now to be a labor of -- of a labor union thanks to the supreme court rolling back the rights of women to get an abortion, rolling back -- they just did away with the miranda rights, for example. radically increasing police power if you have been unjustly accused of a crime. you do not even know the rights that you have. i am concerned about it. i do not think the court is representative of america from our values, and i think it is doing genuine damage to democracy in this country. host: rollback, you say. rollback to what or whe

remember, the supreme court decision, no one voted for anyone who sits on the supreme court. e, public pressure on the court should play no role because they can't be unelected. wright was wrong they are not standing for election in the next cycle. so you protest against the supreme court, what he really protesting against? you are attempting to intimidate them. thousands of people emerging in your city. 4500 of them are heading to chuck schumer's office. from rebel news, he is there tonight and we thought we would check in with him. jeremy, are you there? >> i am here, thank you for having me, tucker. >> tucker: of course, what do you see? what is happening there? >> there are thousands of people here. i have seen chads and assigns calling for the abolition of the supreme court. calling for the end of white supremacy and i have been seeing signs that are also calling for the forest vasectomy of men as opposed to abortion for women. so it is really wild here. >> tucker: i mean, these people seem pretty organized. it seems like these signs, some of these signs, stickers and the

the court's ruling. our north america editor sarah smith is at the supreme court for us now. r america. as they hear the news from the court, there isjubilation from anti—abortionists. life won today! "life won today," they chant, celebrating a victory after almost 50 years. i have seen the devastation that abortion has wrought on our country, on the communal level and then a personal level, and this is so vindicating to know that we can now take tangible steps to lessen the violence of abortion in our country. ten years ago, did you ever| imagine this would happen? i imagined it a lot, but i still... people told me it was impossible, that we would never see this kind of victory, and now i know that victory is not only possible, it happened. so we are going to work out of this momentum, we are going to keep going, we're going to keep fighting, and we're going to build a better world. fury from those campaigning to keep the guaranteed right to abortion, promising to fight back. it's not the will of the people, and this country's supposed to run off of the will of the people. i'

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

now the supreme court has taken that guarantee away. this is the first time the supreme court has ever granted a constitutional right, which did so when roe was decided in 1973, and then took it away, a popular right that was widely recognized. so the immediate effect of this will be to uphold a mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks, but this also now means that in roughly half the country, abortion is as of now, or soon will be illegal. 13 states have what are called trigger laws that were intended to make roe abortion illegal in those states. once the supreme court reached this decision, in a few of those states, the law takes effect immediately and some they have to wait for the state attorney general to certify that this is what the supreme court has done. that's 13 states in which abortion will shortly be illegal, and in the rest, about half the states, they are expected soon to make it illegal. so we're about to become a divided country, lester, where abortion is legal in about half the state, illegal in half the s

supreme court decision right. so the supreme court in this decision quite clearly says this may damage the courts legitimacy. this may upset the american people but you know, that's not our problem, essentially. and that's a markable thing to see as well for a court that historically had been constrained by fears of public reaction. clearly, this court is unconstrained. so this is a historic moment when it comes to the protections that are enjoyed by women and pregnant people. and sit historical moment in terms of the role of the supreme court and in our democracy >> mary ziegler of the university of california davis law school. thk you very much. >> thanks, john. >> we are going to hear from leaders on both sides of this issue about what comes next. firs i'm joined by marjorie dannenfelser. she is the president of the susan b. anthony pro-life america. what is your reaction of the antiabortion movement? how much of a victory is this? >> for pro-life, this is the culmination of the greatest human rights movement of our t

the u.s. supreme court. she may not like that it happened that way and she may not like republicans held the majority in 2016 when republicans chose not to confirm merrick garland to the supreme court and she might not like the fact republicans confirmed amy coney barrett and 2020 and get those were all legitimate exercises of power. there's nothing about them that was stolen. it's significant that she'd denigrates and delegitimize his and tries to cast aspersions at the supreme court itself. i think that iss particularly dangerous. she is talking about the supreme court as if it were a political institution. this runs like a political attack ad which of course it is in its import to remember the supreme court is not a political body. i the entirety of chapter 1 of "saving nine" makes winning with the supreme court is and warm partly what is not. it's's not dared to decide cases according to popular will. it has one job. its job is to interpret the law to resolve disputes over the meaning of the law. everythi

>>> from the supreme court, all the way to san francisco, protesters take to the streets, from 200 people arching onto highway 101 dear octavia, while others sit in at marcus and dave street. abortion rights advocates are angry over the supreme court's reversal of roe versus wade. >> people like me are going to be able to get abortions, for a high enough price in a state. >> reporter: the gathering took over the progress near the federal courthouse. many others made their way to city hall. >> abortions are medical care, medical care is a human right. i am a full human, i am not a second-class citizen. my body is mine, and no one else's to make decisions on. >> we are a gay couple, we believe that our rights are on the line as well. >> with conservative judges, we knew that this was a possibility. but the politicians and people like glenda gonzales say that it is time to fight back. >> especially for the millions of women, and other people who live in the states that will put a portion hands in place a, they have to leave their home state to get abortion care. it is egregious and horrifyin

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

clearly, the supreme court and the justices on the supreme court are in need of more ethics and accountability. >> and, senator, i want to ask you about this tragedy in san antonio. 53 people dead. they were essentially burned to death inside this tractor/trailer. no air, no water. they're still not able to identify all of them. what's your reaction to all of this? >> my heart's broken. 53, not just migrants, it's 53, a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a son, a daughter. and why were they coming to the united states? so desperate for a better life and better opportunity that they're willing to risk their lives. in this case, gave their lives in pursuit of a dream. it's a tragic example of how broken our immigration systems are. two things i have to mention, jose. number one, anybody who has a problem with irregular migrations, we call it, then needs to commit to investing and fixing the immigration laws in the united states so that we have better robust and more orderly legal migration. people are coming here to work, plain and simple. talk to any business and economist, they'll tell you