court steps and threatened to supreme court justices by name. he said, quote, you have released a whirlwind. by the way this was the day the abortion case was argued in then supreme court. the senior senator from new york the majority leader said you've released a whirlwind and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions and named the justices by name. to have the senior democrat and senate majority leader fromr ths chamber lobbing threats at the sitting justices on the supreme court if they didn't rule in the way that he wishedd is dangerou. we've wondered before about the impact of some of the ill responsible rhetoric on occasion that occurs in vulnerable mayan mindsand people that might be tempted to act based on that incitementav and rhetoric but to have this come from the majority leader himself is just irresponsible. this is the range of government that is supposed to be the adults in the room to operate in a way that is respectful even with our differences and the supreme court is the b

supreme court. in our government, the role of the supreme court is to determine whether a given law violates the u.s. constitution. we as citizens are going to see supreme court decisions we agree with and decisions we disagree with, sometimes strongly. but we all agree to abide by those decisions. a person's perspective on supremacy, the notion they get the final say and cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overruling them, often depends on how they feel about the court's decisions. but our acceptance of the court's authority is not supposed to flip on and off like a light switch based on how we feel about the justices or the president who appointed them. that was the opinion from the national review's jim geraghty. let's go to another. she wrote, who ever cared to leak the opinion cared about the political implications of the impending decision. it is one of the most brazenly political acts to ever come out of the court. it is perhaps the most emphatic confir

and revered the supreme court, taught me to revere the supreme court. i reviewed all of its practices, never questioning them. now sitting here with this draft opinion. i feel like i am sitting here with a draft of legislation, kind of like what's a committee votes on. before it goes to the senate floor. and people get to see that, and they get to see how it changes as it moves along. and they understand that process. and now i'm kind of thinking, yeah let's bring cameras into the supreme court chamber. while we're having arguments. but i would also like to be let in on all of the deliberations. >> well, you know, it's not just an appearance like a catholic schoolboy. it's also like a law school student. i would say that there are important reasons for justices to be able to deliberate in private. and there are reasons and which we would not want to chill the speech of justices. and for both those that would be in the majority and the dissent, to fine-tune their argument. that said, i agree with dahlia, which is that what we have seen is an un-mooring o

and it's all supreme court confirmation hearing. and when samuel alito saw the vote count of robert berke's nomination to the supreme court, the senate will count, samuel alito knew he would not ever make the mistake that robert boric made. robert berke's nomination was defeated on the senate floor 58 to 42. the 58 votes against robert boric included six republicans who voted against republican president ronald reagan's nominee because his views were too extreme. clarence thomas was watching that robert bore confirmation hearing from his job in the reagan administration. and three years later, clarence thomas gave an answer in his confirmation hearing that stunned the senate. i was working in the senate at the time, and i've remembered this answer almost ward forward since the day he said it under oath. it had nothing to do with any to hills sexual assault -- sexual harassment allegations against clarence thomas. which did not become public until after his confirmation hearing was actually considered a complete. the hearing process

in 2014, the democratic leader went to the supreme court steps and threatened two supreme court justices by name if they did not rule in a certain way. he said -- and these are direct quotes -- you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price, and you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. that's our colleague, the senior senator from new york, the majority leader of the senate. he threatened two sitting justices with retribution should they rule in a way he disagreed with. the top senate democrat lobbing threats at a supreme court justice is a dangerous, dangerous model for the american people. this is the branch of government that is supposed to be kept free from those pressures and those sort of threats, that kind of intimidation or at least attempt at intimidation. but here again the senator from new york and the speaker of the house they know that, but they did it anyway. it doesn't matter what case is before the supreme court or what ruling is ultimately handed down o leaders of congress, some of the highest elected officials in the u.s. go

they've let us the supreme court. and they've led us to the decision that they are about to make. >> wendy davis, thank you very much for giving us above the texas perspective, and then national perspective on this. thank you very much. joining us now is minnesota senator tina smith. she previously served as executive vice president in planned parenthood in minnesota. north dakota. and south dakota. senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight, and i just want to open the mic for your reaction to what's your reading in this draft opinion. when i worked at planned parenthood, i saw firsthand the capacity of people making decisions for themselves and what was best for themselves and their family. and will we see in this draft opinion is basically a bunch of supreme court justices led by simulate or saying, no, we know better, we know best of what is best for you and your family. i like to say that it is stunning, it is shocking, but of course, it can be so when we have seen that concerted effort of republican par

supreme court has actually taken away a right. and we are talking here about the most american of values -- the values of freedom, autonomy and self-determination. and we all know here today that this just didn't happen. this is the result of a decades-long campaign fueled by dark money in this country to overturn roe v. wade and capture the courts. that is what we are seeing today and it is clear as a bell, justice alito's draft comments said roe must be overturned. this will affect everyone in this country. do you know that today, over half of all abortions are medication abortions? if you're thinking this is not going to affect me because i am still going to be able to go and get that medication in order to make my own decisions about my own health care -- now, that is not the case -- no, that is not the case at all. it is hard not to think that people who are supporting this, these republican legislators are so out of the mainstream, so out of the mainstream. 70% in every state across the country, at least, of americans think

supreme court. this is an elite group and while the justices don't always get along about different things when it comes before them in the supreme court, they are a close knit group behind the scenes. now likely a lot of paranoia wondering who leaked this specifically which clerk may have leaked this and who did that clerk work for. just a little while ago president biden weighed in on this draft leak. >> look, the idea that concerns me a great deal that we are going to after 50 years decide a woman does not have a right to choose, number one. but in a more -- the rationale used, mean every other decision with the notion of privacy was thrown into question. >> there's been a steady stream of people outside the court with a range of emotions. we expect this to continue throughout the day inside yelling over one another to make their point heard. >> obviously we are still waiting on the final decision, this is just a draft that was leaked last night. this is what we have been hoping and praying for f

listen. >> this is insurrection against the supreme court. i have already seen people on the left celebrating this leaker calling him great filmic brave and to throw a hail mary to stop the ruling from being issued. who will the supreme court trust if they know their drafts will be leak like everything else in washington? the supreme court seems to be the last institutions dealing with internal integrity. the coke legal experts warning of the lasting impact this could have on the court. >> i think the court will never be quite the same here this was a malicious act and the only reason to leak it was to create external pressure to change the position of the court and maybe encourage congress to pass this federal abortion law to try to federalize the abortion area. >> former chief assistant u.s. attorney andy mccarthy tweeting in part, "if we lose the integrity of the quartz process, we lose the court. that should be intolerable to all of us who live in the country." the fbi expected to be in the investigation and thesaurus causing this controv

supreme court. in our government, the role of the supreme court is to determine whether a given law violates the u.s. constitution. we as citizens are going to see supreme court decisions we agree with and decisions we disagree with, sometimes strongly. but we all agree to abide by those decisions. a person's perspective on supremacy, the notion they get the final say and cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overruling them, often depends on how they feel about the court's decisions. but our acceptance of the court's authority is not supposed to flip on and off like a light switch based on how we feel about the justices or the president who appointed them. that was the opinion from the national review's jim geraghty. let's go to another. she wrote, who ever cared to leak the opinion cared about the political implications of the impending decision. it is one of the most brazenly political acts to ever come out of the court. it is perhaps the most emphatic confir

court of appeals for the third circuit and again while he was on the supreme court. the draft opinion overturns roe v. wade and planned parenthood v. casey stating that the, quote, must be overruled and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives, close quote. noting correctly that the constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly protects a right to abortion. every human life born and unborn has immeasurable dignity and worth, each unrepeatable and infantly -- infinitely valuable. the lives of an unborn baby and her mother and her father matter. and the court overturning prior precedence such as roe and casey is not unprecedented. not at all. in fact, some of the court's most consequential and lauded decisions overturned prior rulings. justice alito compared the damage rocked by roe and the separate document created in plusy v. ferguson. thankfully the supreme court of the united states in brown v. education overturned plusy turning an end to racially segregated schools just as it appears now poised to overtur

and of the supreme court. and you're watching american history tv on c-span as we look back to see what the current supreme court justices had to say about abortion and the law during their confirmation hearings chief justice. john roberts has served on the court since 2005 the george w bush nominee had this to say when asked about the 1973 roby wade decision. well senator the importance of settled expectations in the application of starry decisis is a very important consideration that was emphasized in the casey opinion, but also in other opinions outside that area of the law the principles of starry decisis. look at a number of factors settled expectations one of them and as you mentioned whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side whether the doctrinal basis of a decision have been eroded by subsequent developments, for example, if you have a case in which they're three precedents that lead and support that result and in the intervening period

onto the supreme court. that has never been said before in the united states senate. and they are not the only ones. the day after roe v. wade was decided by the supreme court in 1973, republican president richard nixon told white house counsel chuck olson when he really thought about abortion. >> that is real republican talk about abortion. a republican president saying of course you should have abortions in cases of race, and of course you should have abortion in a case of a pregnancy involving sex between a black person and white person. that's the kind of abortion that president nixon thought was absolutely necessary. necessary. republicans in washington have spent decades lying about more things than they can keep track of. remember that they lie about tax cuts for the rich, increasing revenue to the treasury. they've always lied about that, no matter how many times it has proven to be a lie. and now they've gone all the way to lying about who won the presidential election. what could ever stop them fro

that is the reality of the supreme court today. the credibility of that institution is at stake as long as we are dealing with this kind of extremism. we must gather together and say there is one great saving grace, the constitution envisions so many things, it even envisioned the constitution. senator murray said there's an answer. the answer is in november and the american people stand up and say this is enough of the culture war at the expense of our freedoms in america. we need people representing us in the house in the senate who will stand up to basic freedoms and not take them away from the american people. i would just say to you this morning, the contours of the november election this year changed. we are going to find across america that this decision by the alito court is going to be a decision that will reverberate around america and states red and blue and the american people will have the last word. >> thank you, senator durbin. this is a very serious moment in our country for women and for our health care. and that's

capitol in opposition to a potential decision by the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade, a leaked initial draft of the abortion opinion was recently published in "politico." democrats vowed to fight the decision if finalized and continue pushing for abortion rights legislation. this is just under 25 minutes. speaker pelosi: good morning. house democrats are here on the steps of the united states capitol across from the supreme court to say to the supreme court and to the senate, hands off women's reproductive health care. [applause] last week, americans saw a draft option showing the g.o.p.-appointed court poised to strike down roe v. wade, a 50-year precedent held up, again, by casey. already republicans across the nation are mobilizing around a dangerous and extreme agenda to criminalize all forms of reproductive health care, including i.v.f., contraception, and postmiscarriage care. think of that. just last week, senate republicans lined up in lockstep behind mitch mcconnell and trump to vote to rip away the constitutional right to have freedom for american women

>> you know, i think -- the courts have made it t really clear, there supreme court has made it really clear, we can't rely on the courts to protect our constitutional rights. so, the clarian call is we have to hold our elected officials accountable. we have to fight back andfi pus back about f the encroaching extremism from the gop, the rise of authoritarianism. it's deeply connected with the fight around d voting rights an democracy reform. eight out of ten americans in this country support a constitutional right to abortion. yet we have a court that is poised to ioverturn that right. we have a majority being ruled by a b minority, a religious extremist minority. so iem think the wake-up call i to fight back. andig that we have to hold elecd officials accountable up and down the ballot. that's congress. that's state houses. that'ste governors. that's attorneys general. and we need in this midterm election for our base to be energized like they've never been before and we're hoping this will be the opportunity to really raisebe that awareness. >> in just a few moments i'm going to spe

senate and defiling the supreme court's reputation. two moderate republicans who also support abortion rights agreed. alaska's lisa murkowski: >> if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, i will just tell you that it-- it-- it rocks my confidence in the court right now. >> reporter: maine's susan collins said reversing roe would be completely inconsistent with what justices neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh told her before their confirmation. the president said lawmakers supporting abortion rights should write them into law. >> i think the codification of roe makes a lot of sense. >> reporter: collins in murkowski are sponsoring a bill that would narrowly protect abortion rights but oppose a democratic bill that broadly prevents federal and state governments from restricting abortion. chuck schumer says he'll force a vote with republicans who oppose it on record. >> this is as urgent and as real as it gets. >> reporter: as for this year's midterm elections, democrats believe abortion rights will be a big factor. >

that is what we have the supreme court for in that is what the supreme court is not making sure we continue to protect. so, here we are. not only do we have to push to codify row nationally, but we have to take this fight to the ballots in november. as the justice independence opinion, draft opinion says, all you women out there go out and vote. yes, he is calling on the women of this country to use our energy and our resources to fight for our rights. a constitutional right that women in this country relied on for nearly 50 years. and, yes, that is exactly what we are going to do. madam president, i yield the floor. >> janet yellen gives an up date on u.s. financial stability. live coverage is tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. online@c-span.org or with our free video app c-span now. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word for word recaps from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this e-mail and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today usi

, just as the supreme court >> just as the supreme court cases, hanover versus wade and beecher does the same. once again, vermont is the leader on an issue of national significance. but the important reality is that 26 other states get ready to ban abortion rights in the absence of roe. what are the women of the state to do? prominent republican voices in the senate even now say they would not rule out the future senate and congress would overrule state laws in vermont and elsewhere and impose a national ban on women's choice. in what laws are these states prepared to pass, what resources are they prepared to provide to support these women and the children they'll bear? the answer, we know, and i fear, is none. to determine what you do, we won't do anything to help you afterward. now, the implications of the supreme court's opinion for a decision for the draft is far beyond reproductive rights. for decades, the supreme court has stood as independent arbiter in this country, striking down a constitutional right that's supported millions of americans, not just women, will cause many t

. >> tonight at 5, president biden weighing in on the supreme court's leaked draft. that shows the court is poised to overturn roe versus wade as pro life and pro choice advocates rally all across the country. and here in the bay area. thanks for joining us here on kron. 4 news at 5. i'm vicki liviakis and i'm grant lotus. the official ruling is not expected until this summer, but as things stand right now. >> the court is set to overturn the landmark 1973 supreme court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. a draft opinion written by justice samuel alito and obtained by politico states. there is no constitutional right to abortion services. and now this would quickly split the country up into states with and without abortion access. our washington correspondent jessi turnure is at the high court with the what happens next. >> good evening. the court has confirmed the authenticity of the leaked draft opinion but stresses it's not the justices. final word. still, though, many here in washington are not waiting for their final ruling at the end of the court's term

wade supreme court ruling. majority leader chuck schumer held a news conference on the steps of the u.s. capitol to discuss the potential impact of striking down the landmark case. this is 25 minutes. , a report came out that a conservative majority on the united states supreme court is ready to overturn roe v. wade and uproot decades of president affirming -- decades of precedent, affirming a woman's right to an abortion. sen. schumer: good morning. i am joined by many colleagues from the democratic caucus and you will hear from many of them in a minute. well, this is a dark and disturbing day for america. last night, a report came out that a conservative majority of the united states supreme court is ready to overturn roe v. wade and uproot decades of precedent affirming a woman's right to an abortion. it is hard not to feel angry, troubled and deeply disturbed about what overturning roe would do to women across america. more than 20 states have laws or constitutional amendments that would outlaw abortion sho

if the supreme court strikes down roe v. wade, abortion bans will immediately go into effect in 22 states throughout america, with four others likely to follow suit. in ten of these states it will be illegal to have an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. for example, in the state of texas, if roe v. wade is struck down it will be considered a felony for any texas doctor to perform an abortion for a woman who was raped or impregnated by a family member. furthermore, that law would actually criminalize abortion, perk both women and doctors -- punishing both women and doctors, who could face years in prison if they are found guilty. other states have passed similar type legislation. mississippi's governor has even refused to rule out the banning of contraception as a next step, the banning of contraception. but madam president, let us be clear. the supreme court no matter how it ends up ruling will not be able to ban abortion. if you are wealthy and if you have the means to get on an airplane or drive hundreds of miles to

supreme court justices, pro-life advocates or otherwise. this past weekend's events highlighted the need to better protect justices and their families, they deserve the protection that at this moment the supreme court police are not able to provide. last week senator kunz, senator from delaware, and i introduced a bill to increase protection for all tween 9 justices and their families, this basically would be the same sort of authority given to the capital police in protecting members of congress, the events of this week and underscored how important this is. this legislation was at the request of the chief justice who wants to ensure members of the court and their families have the security and protection they need at this tense time when justices aren't facing enhanced threats. we currently have two justices with school age children and in the coming months that number will increase to three. once judge jackson takes her place on the supreme court bench. i'm glad this bill passed the senate and i hope colleagues will take it up and pass i

that is what the supreme court prides itself on. it is why we have not been able to get cameras in the supreme court because they want to keep this a sacred space where they can continue to have their own internal deliberation and not issue an order until its final. as far as chief justice robert'' power, it is beginning to change. you saw it was alito who wrote this majority opinion, as he was asked to do by justice thomas. you really see the influence at all of justice roberts in this because the bench has changed with the loss of ruth bader ginsburg and gain of amy connie barrett, he is no longer the swing vote in the middle. he is in the left of a majority right court. yamiche: what does this leak decision, especially with john roberts calling it a breach of trust of the court, signal about the overall health of the supreme court? abby: the supreme court is driven by a lot of political divides. ere is no going away from that at this point i think. the court has been tainted by a political process involving putting the justices o

if the supreme court strikes down roe v. wade, abortion bans will immediately go into effect in 22 states throughout america, with four others likely to follow suit. in ten of these states it will be illegal to have an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. for example, in the state of texas, if roe v. wade is struck down it will be considered a felony for any texas doctor to perform an abortion for a woman who was raped or impregnated by a family member. furthermore, that law would actually criminalize abortion, perk both women and doctors -- punishing both women and doctors, who could face years in prison if they are found guilty. other states have passed similar type legislation. mississippi's governor has even refused to rule out the banning of contraception as a next step, the banning of contraception. but madam president, let us be clear. the supreme court no matter how it ends up ruling will not be able to ban abortion. if you are wealthy and if you have the means to get on an airplane or drive hundreds of miles to

a final supreme court ruling is expected in late june or earlyjuly. i'm joined now by carol tobias, president of the national right to life committee which campaigns against abortion rights in the us. what is your reaction to the this draft decision by the supreme court? iam not i am not going to take for granted that this is the final decision because obviously, the judges could change their minds. but i am very hopeful that it is the way the court is going to go. and we can again start to protect unborn children in our country. just start to protect unborn children in our country-— start to protect unborn children in our country. just to say that some recent statistics _ our country. just to say that some recent statistics show, _ from the pew research centre in 2021 for instance that 6 in 10 americans are in favour of legalising abortion 7 doesn t this leaked draft go against what the majority of americans appear to want? would shown in 1973 was that the supreme court took the decision out of the state, out of the peoples hands and just set a nat

this is the supreme court's job to investigate the leak. the chief justice indicated that's exactly what is going to do. and i hope that the leaker is extremely likely to be found, given the limited number of people who have the ability to access early drafts of opinions , and will be dealt with as severely as the law may allow, and certainly the supreme court is the most prominent law body in the country who would know what is the appropriate penalty. on ukraine, i want to reiterate to the administration -- the way to get relief to ukraine quickly is for the ukraine package to move by itself. there is overwhelming bipartisan support for getting the ukrainians as much help as they need, as quickly as possible. for that to happen here in congress, that package needs to be moved all by itself, without the other extraneous issues that we have been debating related to title 42 and additional help or therapeutics. so, that is the way to make progress on ukraine quickly. with regard to the revelation of today, i'm confident the chief justice and

deliberations of the supreme court are. so that's how we got to where we are today with, you know, a clue into what this justice is might do here. which is it there, signaling that they're planning to overturn this precedent decision from 1973. and it's pretty clear if that happens what the future looks like is that abortion access will. busy depend on what state you live in, michelle, you're not in. go ahead at similar place. well, you know, i see this as the coming of the new jane crow. and what that means is that in the united states following slavery, black people still had 2nd class citizenship. that was in dated by the united states supreme court of holding state laws that denied black people full participation in government and society. and what we see if the supreme court does go ahead and dismiss until grovee wade will be a new jane pro. meaning that for women, it will be a matter of 2nd class citizenship quite literally and even quite deadly. for many women who are black and brown in the united states, because of

our b colleague went on the say the supreme court should be expanded. it's another effort to politicize this independent branch of government. these are the crown jewels of our system of government and intriguer dishry. well, even joe biden knows that's a bone head idea. the reason i know that and he knows thats is what he said in 1983. he called court packing a bone headed idea. justice ginsburg was asked about it. sheas said nine seems to be a gd number. she said if you start adding justices to the court or packing the court basically you per suit of a political outcome and undermined the jewdition that i are transformed to what our founding fathers believed it would be. it would be depended on by the american people to present fair opportunity for all sides to be heard and outcome that tainted by policymakers. justice breyer said the court has depended on quoted trust and the court guided by legal principals. not politics. whatever you want to call it he road thatyo trust and undermined the publics confidence and trust in the supreme court. we have s

don't make their way to the united states supreme court. so many things are really quite local, so, so long as a clerk refuses and a local judge of holes that or a family doesn't go further than that because they're dishearten. then we already see the dismantling of those rights to media. again, i'm just looking at the source from c, b s, and you got looking at the polls that they did with americans to see where they felt that the supreme court should fall with as guiding rover as his weight. and if it should be overwrought, 64 percent keep it as it is 36 percent over town it. if those 36 percent get their way the justices decide to over 10 rovers is way. what are the other ripple effects beyond the impact on women and goals and families? what else might be impacted? why i think the show hit hit it a little bit there, you know, and as well lives about the reasoning in this decision, this draft of the decision saying that this is a right that's not deeply rooted in the constitution. and you know, if that's the case, then that same argument,

court, to collegiality and to the supreme court and how polarised and partisan the supreme court has become. fine supreme court has become. one miaht supreme court has become. one might wonder. — supreme court has become. one might wonder, don't know if you have a view on it, as to the impact of that and who it most might benefit?— might benefit? think you can read it either— might benefit? think you can read it either way. _ might benefit? think you can read it either way. some - might benefit? think you can read it either way. some are | read it either way. some are speculating it was potentially a cloak of one of the liberal justices and this was to have shock value and encourage one of the wavering conservative justices to move back from the brink, an alternative would be it is one of the conservative justices' g—loads and this is to soften the blow in a way to make it less of a shock when the court actually announces this opinion. because it is so unprecedented, it is really hard to know.— hard to know. what is interesting _ hard to know. what is interesting from - ha

that the supreme court could be this heartless. that in legislatures across the country extreme republicans are ready for their trigger bands to go into effect. they're excited even it is craven. and we won't stand for it. i'm not going to sit lightly and neither should any of you. i know for so many women across the country this is deeply personal. and it is deeply personal to me too. i remember why life before roe. i knew people who did not have someone to turn to for a safe abortion. who were not welcome. so even if they could find one they might not be able to afford it. people who got unsafe procedures that left them at a very young age unable to give birth. that has stayed with me to this day. as have so many other stories i have heard from women after roe. i know how big of a difference it has made in the lives of so many women across the country. which is why i am curious at the idea that republicans are going to take us backwards. that this will be the first generation of women with fewer rights than their mothers. my hear

these supreme court justices or anyone else. these dogs who doxxed the justices should be embarrassed and ashamed. by the way, these are the same thugs that are firebombing pro-life outlets bear the same thugs that are going into churches, disturbing churches. they hate faith, they hate god, they hit the catholic church, and it is disgusting to see joe biden and the entirety of the democratic party turn a blind eye. a replay of 2020, replay -- in this instance once again, they are putting politics above everything else, including people's lives. and these radicals are inviting violence directed at our judiciary and directed at the rule of law. they are bullying trying to intimidate these justices. let's go back to the summer of 2024 we had over 574 riots. we had dozens of dead americans, thousands of injured cops. not only were they silent, there were many people in, has that actually offered moral support for these groups. and that the bail fund, that defund and dismantle effort. then january 6th happened. peacefully patriotica

court. -- appears to have been leaked from the united states supreme court. this has not appeared before at least that we know of. the way that these things work notice united states supreme court and i have never been a clerk, i only have a layman's understanding of these things but part of this is described in mr. gerstein's and mr. ward's article tonight and part of it we know from covering so many consequential supreme court decisions over time, is there are orth arguments that happen in -- oral arguments that happen in front of the justices, and we've all heard about them, and maybe on a class trip we have heard them in person, and we know the oral arguments, after they happen, the way the process usually work, the justices get together and they hold effectively, preliminary votes, think i'm going to go yes, i think i'm going to go no, and based on what they cobble together as what they believe is the majority in the case, and a justice is assigned to write a draft majority opinion. now, that draft majority opinion is just a draft. it will likely change.

supreme court decisions. but most of the time, i understood the legal reasoning, believing the decision process was legitimate. but not until this week, -- constitutional right revoked from all of us. and it is, first of all, a feeling. before we get to the analysis of a decision, we feel the pain of the decision and the agonies that the supreme court decisions. is going to inflict. i just want to have a word with the man of america. this is a constitutional right that belongs to all of us, and it benefits all of us. we have a constitutional right to the services, to help provide the services, for our daughters and granddaughters, for our wives, for girlfriends and we have that we men have that constitutional right. and because we are being robbed of a constitutional right it is impossible for some of us to mute the rage that theft deserves. >> i would like to speak to america's men for one minute. imagine you do not have authority over your own body for ten months. imagine if that decision-making would not b

wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 1973, so it's been on the books for a long time. it has been challenged on a number of occasions and i discussed those yesterday and it is -- in the supreme court's reaffirmed the decision. sometimes on the merits, sometimes, in kc, based on stare decisis. i think, that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis. for at least two reasons. first of all, more often a decision is affirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. second, i think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath and our scholars and our conscientious. and when they examined a question and they reach a conclusion, i think that is entitled to considerable respect. of course, the more times that happens more respect the decision is entitled to and that is my view of that. so, it is a very important precedent -- >> is it the settled law of the land? >> it is a

supreme court. this is not something that has ever happened before, at least that we know of. the way that these things work in the united states supreme court, and never been a clerk, i only have a layman's understanding of these things. part of this is described, and mr. garcia and mr. wards article, and part of this we know from just covering so many consequential decisions overtime. there are oral arguments that happen in front of all of the justices, we're familiar with those, we've heard the audio of them. you may be even been lucky enough on it class trip to hear supreme court arguments in person, we know with those oral arguments are like. and shortly after the oral argument happens, the way the process usually works is that the justices get together, and they hold effectively preliminary votes, saying i think i'm gonna go yes, i think i'm gonna go no, based on whichever side is able to cobble together but they believe is going to be the majority in the case. and an individual justice will b