in 2019, the democratic leader went to the supreme court steps and threatened two supreme court justices by name. he said, quote, you have released the whirlwind. this was the day the case was argued in the court. the senior senator from new york, the majority leader, said, you were released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. and he named justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh by name. to have the senior democrat and senate majority leader from this chamber lobbing threats at sitting justices on the supreme court if they did not rule in a way he wished is dangerous. we've wondered before about the impact of some of the irresponsible rhetoric that occasionally occurs around here on vulnerable minds and people who might be tempted to act based on that incitemt, from the majority leader himself is just irresponsible. this is the branch of government which 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 branch that's meant to

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

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 decisions? >> it could be devastating. justice alito tries very hard to say, abortion is different. there is not going to be a slippery slope here. but what he does is uses history to try to state that the abortion right is relatively new and really unsupported in historical legal precedent. the same can be said about same-sex marriage. the same can be said about the right to contraception. the same can be said about a host of other rights that the supreme court currently has protection for. i find it hard to see as a lawyer how you can make that distinction on the due process right analysis. i think it would be devastating for that right. >> is there a likelihood that the court could change its mind before the final decision is released in this specific case? >> likelihood, yes. probability, no. i think the nine justices knew how they were going to vote before they heard the argument in december. it seems hard for me to believe that after the initial vote, any of those five that were apparently

roe vs wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 1973 so it has been on the books for a long time. it is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. it has been challenged. it has been reaffirmed. that's alito. in 2017, justice gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing, quote, roe vs wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court, it's been reaffirmed. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court, worthy of precedent like any other. in 2018 justice kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing, quote, said that roe vs wade is settled and the precedent of the supreme court entitles respect on the supreme court -- and in one of the important things to keep in mind about roe vs wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently and affirmed that planned parenthood v casey. that's justice kavanaugh. today it's been increaingly clear, the three justices nominated by trump were hired specifically

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

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

our colleague went on to say the supreme court should be expanded. that's another way of saying they should ask the court with like-minded -- pack the court with like-minded policymakers. well, what you talk about expanding the t court or packing the court the result is a saint. it's just another effort to try toic politicize this independent branch of government -- is the same -- this are the crown jewels of our system of government, and independent judiciary. well, even joe biden knows that is a bonehead idea. the reason i know that and we know that is because that's what he saidwh in 1983. he called court packing a boneheaded idea. justice ginsburg was asked about she said nine seems to be a good number. that was her gentle way of saying that if you start adding justices to the court or restructuring or packing the court, basically you are in pursuit of a political outcome and to undermine the independence of the judiciary, and they are transformed into something far different than what our founding fathers believed it would be, which is an instit

, 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

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 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

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

that is what we have the supreme court for and that is what the supreme court is not making sure that we continue to protect. so here we are. not only do we have to push to codify roe nationally, but we have to take this fight to the ballots in november. as justice alito in his opinion, draft opinion cavalierly said all you women out there, god invoked, so, yes, he's calling on the women of this country to use our energy and our resources to fight for a right, a constitutional right that women in this country relied on for nearly 50 years. and yes, that's exactly what we are going to do. madam president, i yield the floor. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 1964 civil rights act. the 1964 presidential campaign. the gulf of tonkan and war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conv

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

they're going to delegitimize the supreme court. they're going to try to interrupt its procedures, going to try to threaten, intimidate and harass individual justices and then they're going to move on to proposing that we pack the supreme court. these things will prove disastrous as a matter of policy and also for the democratic party. >> shannon: senator mike lee, thank you for your time tonight. good to see you. >> thank you. >> shannon: a live look where they put up a barricade. it seems rather peaceful. there is shouting back and forth but nothing beyond what we've seen today. crowds showing up as the news gets out. will bring you some scenes from what's happening. the political fallout from this unprecedented leak from the supreme court materializing they will talk about that with guy benson. and joe concha. great to have you with us. joe, this is one of the biggest stories to break. i'm reminded tonight the "time" magazine broke some of roving weight and what was going to happen with that case but i can't remember something of

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

supreme court justice clarence thomas, who lied his way out of the supreme court, by among other things, claiming he never discussed or thought about roe v. wade, which was decided when he was in law school, and everyone. , at every law school in america was talking about it, everyone except clare's thomas, if you believe his under oath testimony to the senate. on friday, that same clarence thomas gave a speech to a group of judges, complaining that americans are quote, becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like. clarence thomas is now making it difficult to choose the most sickening things he and his wife have said since donald trump was defeated in his reelection campaign by joe biden. clarence thomas dared to say that two judges on friday, when all of those judges, already knew that clarence thomas's wife was texting white house chief of staff mark meadows repeatedly after donald trump lost the presidential election, urging mark meadows to do anything to overturn the results of the election. turns thomas's wife never said that overtur

>> it is huge for the supreme court. after a decision comes out about deliberations or what went into making a decision, it is almost unheard of to know something in advance. roe itself had a little bit of that. there was a little bit of a release just before that decision came out about what it would say. usually those kinds of speculation, that kind of reporting doesn't happen. >> thanks to robert for that. in a few minutes, we get more details mariupol from those evacuations in mariupol mariupol in the south of ukraine. ♪ it was the met gala in new york. this year's theme was the gilded age. >> the biggest night in fashion, the met gala is back. known ae oscars of the eased, it seems fitting the busiest theme is the golden area -- the golden era, the gilded age. others hearken to hollywood great. kim kardashian sparkled in the very same gown worn by marilyn monroe six decades ago when she serenaded president jf kennedy with happy birthday. the glitzy event is filled with stars of all kind. actors, models,ingers and

it was affirmed by the supreme court nearly 50 years ago. that should be the benchmark for which we legislate. nearly two out of three americans believe the fundamental right is to have 1973 roe versus wade should be upheld. here we are today, a body of 100, 76%, making decisions about the private lives of nearly 168 million women in this country. that is ludicrous. the right of any woman to receive the healthcare that they choose and seek should be important to each and every one of us. our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, friends, they know what is best for them in their own lives. howni patronizing to suggest otherwise. how patriarchal. how insulting. how dangerous. i am the dean of the senate. a serving member of this body today. i worked for decades to support legislation that affirms a woman's right to access comprehensive healthcare from a trusted provider without interference. the rightht to comprehensive planning familyse resources. whatever those resources may be as not only a fundamental right to privacy for these women, but it

how does this work in the supreme court? >> well, again, this is how it works is that the supreme court hears arguments usually monday, tuesday, wednesday, or some combination thereof. and then on friday, they have their conference, which is the super-secret meeting of the nine justices in the chief justice's conference room. no one is allowed in that room. only the justices are around the table. and they take what's called a draft -- a -- they take a vote, but it's not a permanent vote. it's a tentative vote on the -- on what the result of the case is. based on the result in that case -- of the tentative vote on that friday, the chief justice or the senior associate justice in the majority then assigns the opinion to member of the majority. the chief justice could assign it to himself. if this is split in the court, the senior associate justice would have been clarence thomas. he's now the senior associate justice if chief justice roberts is in dissent. so, chief justice thomas here would have signed the opinion to justice

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 my -- and the supreme court has 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 reaffirmed, 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 are scholars and are 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? >>

the supreme court police have plenty of resources. the political branches should stay out of this internal investigation unless they are asked by the marshal of the supreme court. if they want to deputize u.s. marshals who work closely with the supreme court and the judiciary? between the supreme court police and deputized u.s. marshals coming in. i think they will get to the bottom of this. >> i want to get to something some democrats have been saying. this is kirsten gillibrand accusing some of the the justices having fraudulent testimony. >> if you want to talk about process, i would focus on that process. rich: saying it's settled precedence, indicating perhaps they wouldn't vote to change row v. wade, was there a sense of being disingenuous? >> no. i was the staff lead running these confirmations including kavanaugh's confirmation. i ran the outside support team for justice. gorsuch's confirmation as this former law clerk. the supreme court nominees always testify they are going to follow precedent. and part of precedent is evalu

court and just keep pushing for a more and more and more extremist supreme court. and that is why the danger that the supreme court now poses is out in full view for everyone. they are willing, not to try to couch this in hidden language, not to say a little now and then a little next year and a little bit here after that. they are willing to come in and just the last roe v. wade. two pieces because because they have the power to do it. well i have news for them. they can take away a woman's constitutional right, at least for a while. but the united states congress can come roaring back and pass a law to protect and even do a better job of protecting anyone. who needs or wants access to abortion. >> let's talk about that. so there are 50 united states democrats, 50 democrats in the some -- two of those democrats i think i've said they are opposed to the law that shrine wrote. that's ball case in pennsylvania and joe manchin. so this 48 votes. there are two republicans who are of sensibly supporters of abortion rights, lisa murkowski and susan collins. susan collins

after a leak suggested it could be scrapped by the supreme court. the court has confirmed the draft is genuine but stressed it wasn't a final decision. reporter: outnumbered but vocal, antiabortion activists since victory. after 50 years of fighting the constitutional guarantee of abortion rights known as roe v. wade. >> is going back to the states in the states will come up with these great programs never to support and give women a choice. a lot of women feel like abortion is their only choice. we want them to have real choice. you can stay in school and have a baby or have a job and have a baby. reporter: pro-choice campaigners say more than halfhe states will ban or severely restrict abortion in the next few months according to a leaked document. >> i thought this is devastating. the courts are undermining the american people. and we have a long road ahead, but we are not letting this fight go. we will keep going. reporter: nine justices are on the supreme court and five will vote to overturn abortion rights. justice samuel alito writing that th

the supreme court confirming the leak is real. the draft ruling that would overturn roe versus wade. so, what can this country expect in the final ruling from the court in the coming weeks? tonight, demonstrators on both sides of the issue at the court. the unprecedented leak. the draft majority opinion written by justice samuel alito, saying the 19734 case was wrongly decided and, quote, must be overruled. tonight, chief justice john roberts calling the leak an egregious breach of trust. what does this mean for women if roe versus wade is overturned? the 26 states that would likely quickly ban abortion. and the new abc news poll tonight, where do americans stand on this issue? the telling numbers tonight. terry moran live at the supreme court, rachel scott traveling the country. the states where the changes could be immediate. >>> president biden calling this draft ruling radical. if the supreme court strikes down roe, the president with an urgent warning, saying this will go beyond the right to choose to other basic rights. the

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

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

and that will be removed by the supreme court. and amateur historian i cannot think of another time when a constitutionally guaranteed right by the supreme court opinion of over 50 years has been removed by the court but that is what we face now. all the rights of americans to make decisions about their health and their lives. sadly many republicans are desperately trying to deflect from this ruling and what it means for every single american. if the legal reasoning in the courts draft opinion becomes i final that decision with the guarantee of right to abortion is protected by the constitution. americans know overturning roe vs wade will eliminate access to women's healthcare is extremely unpopular. and only 20 percent of americans say they agree. not only entitled to the services it is possible some will be prosecuted. over the past week the same officials introducing legislation designed to punish women for making basic decisions of reproductive health. state legislators in louisiana introduced a bill to allow prosecutors to br

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

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. >> this is just so outrageous that this draft opinion was leaked. it is clearly an attempt to influence the outcome. >> the supreme court seemed to be the last institution standing that had internal integrity. >> dana: team fox coverage. jonathan turley is here with analysis. we begin at the supreme court where david spunt is standing by. >> good morning. if you think the shock waves are strong across the country and across the world. think about what's going on in this building with the nine supreme court justices. this is a close knit group. they may not agree on every opinion but at the end of the day they're in an elite group. nine supreme court justices and questions about trust and which justice the leaker or the leakers work for. those are all questions. a lot of emotion last night after this story was released around 9:00 as bill said. many came out to the supreme court and protested until the early hours of this morning. some upset, some happy. many just looking for some answ

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

that supreme court. well ladies and gentlemen, there is a federal law, a federal la that compelling the biden administration and his appointees to act. that is what i'm talking about. about the faithfully execute clause. and to fail to faithfuly execute these laws is an impeach. impeachable offense. this is black and white. this is actual law. 18 u.s. 1507. it needs to be repeated. the administration of justice, with intent of influencing a judge, court or officer, in discharge of his duty, tickets or parades in or near a building houses a court of united states, in or near a building of residents occupied or used by such judge, court or court officer, or uses a similar device -- >> that is what is happening. to 6 targeted justices. appointed by republicans. i should mention after roe v. wade was handed down, 49 years ago, and since, the casey decision in pennsylvania. there were not pro lifers picketing and parades and violating federal laws in the homes of the justices, who in my view ruled wrong way.

the supreme court has declined to comment. last hour, we spoke with "politico's" josh gerstein who broke that news at "politico," as well as former u.s. attorney barbara mcquaid. we started by asking josh about the timeline for when the court actually might strike down roe versus wade. >> we're probably about two months away from a decision. typically, the supreme court's most important and most controversial opinions come out by the end of june. occasionally, they drag over a little bit into july. and so those next few weeks are really where the rubber meets the road on this decision. our understanding is, obviously, publicly, this case was argued. it comes out of mississippi on their 15-week abortion ban. but the underlying issue is much, much broader than that. it's the entire federal constitutional right to abortion. it was argued back on december 1st, and this opinion emerged as the first draft majority opinion of the court on february 10th, according to a note that's right on the front of the opinion. there's other indic

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

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

s. supreme court justices. all debating right now with a row versus way that la my case, the grantee to constitutional rights and abortion in the us. they are debating whether that should be overturned. so discussion today is not about the rights and the morality of abortions, but it is about the ramifications. if ro versus wait is overtime. one row versus wade is overruled in the united states will not only impact access abortion care, but will likely impact access to control. they'll be an increase need and demand for contraceptives. particularly emergency contraceptives like b, which should be available over the counter in the united states. and we need to ensure all women and girls across all communities, especially communities of color at high risk for unintended pregnancy, have access to affordable birth control and emergency contraceptives. so we have legal experts lined up to talk to you to explain what the ramifications might be if the constitutional rights and legal abortion in the united states. if t

the league of a supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade already reshaping the political landscape ahead of novembers midterms. abortion rights activists plan to protest outside the homes of conservative supreme court justices like chevy chase maryland. congressional correspondent, chad pergram reports on this. >> it was in october surprise but a may surprise. democrats will use the decision as a wedge against republicans this fall. reproductive rights will be on the ballot. women will vote and they will make sure their voices are heard. >> the leak may be one of the most seminal offense of 2022 that could boost democrats as liberals feel alienated. >> everything about joe biden and the difficulty he faced within the democratic party, it was largely with the democratic, the question of whether he was liberal enough, this solves that problem. >> outraged senate republicans for blocking attorney general merrick garland in 2016. then confirming pro-life justices. >> every single republican changed senate rules to confirm not one, not two

in an effort to prevent a possible supreme court repeal of roe v. wade. watch saturday night starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. house speaker nancy pelosi and a number of pro-choice democrats lined the steps of the u.s. capitol in opposition to a potential decision by the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade. a leaked draft was published in politico, democrats vowed to fight the decision if finalized and continue to 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 50year 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 post-miscarr

i mean, there are protests at the supreme court right nowj at the supreme court right now and i think people are coming from all around the country and no, i don't have, and i haven't had a lot of hope that this wouldn't be the end result but what i do know is that it is a wake—up call for many people who didn't know that, who aren't working day to day to ensure that patients can receive care. and i think that they are going to hear from a lot of folks and i think that there is a lot of very angry and devastated people and i think they are going to take that anger and turn it into action. and you have elections coming up and i think they will hearfrom voters on coming up and i think they will hear from voters on this specific issue.— hear from voters on this specific issue. certainly a very hot _ specific issue. certainly a very hot political- specific issue. certainly a very hot political issue. l specific issue. certainly a - very hot political issue. thank you very much. very hot political issue. thank you very much-— you very much. thank you for havin: you very much. thank y

supreme court. amna: so you don't believe it would undermine privacy decisions for same-sex marriage? >> those are conversations that will be had at a later date. i'm not going to allow those who are wanting to undermine the impact of this decision to say, to use scare tactics in the public eye to say that those who disagree with all these other decisions will simply use it as an avenue to undo the decision or other decisions. what we must focus on is saving the lives of innocent children, millions of which we have lost over the last 50 years from january 22, 1973. the supreme court got it wrong. it has been wrong every day since. which child, which innocent life was lost that perhaps had the cure for cancer? which child was lost that had the cure for alzheimer's? we will never know, because the supreme court got wrong 50 years ago. amna: what about what other states are doing? i understand how your state is prepared if this were to be overturn. other states are working to codify and welcome people

that the supreme court could be thisn heartless. that in legislatures across the country, extreme at republicans are ready for their trigger bands to go into effect. they are excited even. it is craven, and we won't stand for. i am not going to sit quietly 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 remit like before roe. i knew people who did not have someone to turn to who for a safe abortion who are not wealthy so if they could find one they might not be able to afford it. people who got unsafe procedures that left them at a very youngag age unable to give birth. that has stayed with me too this day. as have soi many of the storiesi 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 furious at the idea that republicans are going to take us backward. that this will be the first generation of the women with fewer rights than their mothers. my hea