1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:09,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio A.

2
00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:12,160
Speaker 1: Abortion rights have been guaranteed in the United States for

3
00:00:12,280 --> 00:00:15,680
Speaker 1: nearly fifty years under the landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade,

4
00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:19,319
Speaker 1: but now, in the most consequential reproductive rights case in

5
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:22,759
Speaker 1: a generation, it appears the Supreme Court is ready to

6
00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:27,080
Speaker 1: roll back abortion rights or perhaps eliminate the constitutional right

7
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:31,479
Speaker 1: to abortion altogether. During oral arguments this week, all six

8
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:36,120
Speaker 1: conservative justices indicated they would uphold Mississippi's ban on abortion

9
00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:40,000
Speaker 1: after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, although the justices appeared to

10
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:42,959
Speaker 1: be divided on just how far they would go here

11
00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:46,559
Speaker 1: at Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and

12
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:49,840
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh. If it really is an issue about choice,

13
00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:55,800
Speaker 1: why is fifteen weeks not enough time? The fetus has

14
00:00:55,840 --> 00:00:59,760
Speaker 1: an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change,

15
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 1: is it from the point before viability to the point

16
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:09,000
Speaker 1: after viability? Why should this court be the arbiter rather

17
00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:14,959
Speaker 1: than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people

18
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:19,960
Speaker 1: being able to resolve this. And there'll be different answers

19
00:01:20,280 --> 00:01:23,920
Speaker 1: in Mississippi and New York. Justice Sonia So to Mayor

20
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,240
Speaker 1: and the two other liberal justices said that a decision

21
00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:32,600
Speaker 1: gutting the courts precedent on abortion would undermine the courts legitimacy.

22
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:40,280
Speaker 1: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in

23
00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:48,680
Speaker 1: the public perception that the Constitution and it's reading are

24
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:53,800
Speaker 1: just political acts. I don't see how it is possible.

25
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 1: Joining me is Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State

26
00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:00,640
Speaker 1: University College of Law who specialized is in the legal

27
00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:03,720
Speaker 1: history of reproductive rights. Mary, what was your take on

28
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:06,800
Speaker 1: the arguments? The overall impression I got, obviously is that

29
00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:09,040
Speaker 1: Mississippi is going to win, and I think it's much

30
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:10,880
Speaker 1: more likely that the Court has been over to and

31
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:13,680
Speaker 1: Row outright this summer. You know, with the usual caveats

32
00:02:13,720 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: that things can change between argument and decision. What was

33
00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:21,760
Speaker 1: the main question? Was it the viability standard, the presidential

34
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:25,000
Speaker 1: value of row? Definitely more of the latter than the former,

35
00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:26,600
Speaker 1: for sure. I mean there was a lot of time

36
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,600
Speaker 1: spent on the presidential value of row and whether the

37
00:02:29,639 --> 00:02:32,120
Speaker 1: Constitution is silent or a sprick have enough put it

38
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 1: scrupulously neutral about abortion? Right? There was much less time

39
00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:39,560
Speaker 1: spent on viability. Although Chief Justice John Roberts certainly focused

40
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:43,640
Speaker 1: on viability, and Amy Coby Barrett at some point showed

41
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:46,040
Speaker 1: some interest in that line of questioning as well, but

42
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:49,520
Speaker 1: the majority of the questions focused on whether Row was

43
00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:52,639
Speaker 1: the kind of precedent that deserve respect. The Chief Justice

44
00:02:53,040 --> 00:02:55,800
Speaker 1: is an incrementalist. He likes to change law a little

45
00:02:55,840 --> 00:02:58,359
Speaker 1: by little. Was he looking for a middle ground that

46
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:00,959
Speaker 1: none of the conservatives took him up on. I think

47
00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: that's a stereo reading of it, although I think the

48
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:05,600
Speaker 1: only person who consider taking him up on it is

49
00:03:05,639 --> 00:03:08,360
Speaker 1: Justice Sparret. I think she's probably going to be, at

50
00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:10,800
Speaker 1: least based on the argument, the person whose vote is

51
00:03:10,800 --> 00:03:13,600
Speaker 1: the most upper grabs in the case. But I mean,

52
00:03:13,639 --> 00:03:17,320
Speaker 1: obviously getting rid of viability would be a major change

53
00:03:17,360 --> 00:03:20,040
Speaker 1: to abortion doctrine. So while I think it's right to

54
00:03:20,120 --> 00:03:23,800
Speaker 1: frame Roberts as an incrementalist in frame data searched forminal

55
00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:26,520
Speaker 1: ground solution, I think it's also worth qualifying that, you know,

56
00:03:26,600 --> 00:03:30,200
Speaker 1: this is not usually what passes for a compromise, but

57
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:32,440
Speaker 1: I think that's what he was trying to do, and

58
00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:35,360
Speaker 1: I think that with maybe the exception of Justice Sparret,

59
00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:39,559
Speaker 1: there were no takers. Was the only question for conservatives

60
00:03:39,600 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: whether to overrule Row entirely or whether to stop at

61
00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 1: fifteen weeks in the Mississippi law. Was there any inkling

62
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: of support for maintaining the current rule and precedent. No,

63
00:03:52,440 --> 00:03:54,320
Speaker 1: I mean not really. I don't think that any of

64
00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:57,600
Speaker 1: the conservatives seem interested in that. How did we come

65
00:03:57,680 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: this far this fast? It's just a few years ago.

66
00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:04,880
Speaker 1: It seemed like Rowe was on pretty solid ground. Yes,

67
00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: obviously quite sudden. I mean, I think Justice Soto Mayor,

68
00:04:07,880 --> 00:04:11,040
Speaker 1: although people who are anti abortion or prollected like the

69
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 1: tone of her question, had a point in saying, you know,

70
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:17,040
Speaker 1: legislators have been saying, essentially, we can do whatever we

71
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:19,360
Speaker 1: want when it comes to worship because we have the votes.

72
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:22,760
Speaker 1: And it does seem to have changed quite rapidly that

73
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 1: we've gone from June medical not even two years ago,

74
00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:29,440
Speaker 1: to an oral argument where the court seems ready to

75
00:04:29,880 --> 00:04:32,000
Speaker 1: throw out the whole kitten to rudle. So I think

76
00:04:32,040 --> 00:04:34,000
Speaker 1: there's no other way to explain it other than the

77
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:38,200
Speaker 1: courts membership changing. Nothing else has been that transformative in

78
00:04:38,279 --> 00:04:43,599
Speaker 1: the time between June of and the winter. Did it

79
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:48,240
Speaker 1: seem as if there were three camps Justices Clarence Thomas

80
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:52,160
Speaker 1: Samuel Alto and Neil Gorst you are ready to overturn Row.

81
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:55,080
Speaker 1: And on the other side you have the liberal justices

82
00:04:55,200 --> 00:05:00,280
Speaker 1: Stephen Bryer Elina Kagan who want to preserve row obvious sleep.

83
00:05:00,680 --> 00:05:03,640
Speaker 1: And then this other group of Chief Justice John Roberts,

84
00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:06,880
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, where I'm not sure

85
00:05:06,960 --> 00:05:11,680
Speaker 1: where they were. Does the decision depend on those three? Absolutely? Yeah,

86
00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:14,880
Speaker 1: I mean based on the argument, I'm not sure I

87
00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:17,919
Speaker 1: would lay out the configuration that way that was the

88
00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:20,720
Speaker 1: configuration going in. It's just based on the argument. If

89
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 1: you knew nothing else with the argument, you would say

90
00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:26,440
Speaker 1: that there were four justices ready to overall Row right now,

91
00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:30,640
Speaker 1: and you would include Brett Kavanaugh alongside Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito,

92
00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:34,000
Speaker 1: and ther Corsage and put John Roberts and Amy Coney

93
00:05:34,040 --> 00:05:37,000
Speaker 1: Barrett in the middle, with Barrett I think leaning more

94
00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:41,280
Speaker 1: towards the Kavanaugh at all camps and Robert certainly sort

95
00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:44,400
Speaker 1: of standing on his own in this kind of viability

96
00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:46,839
Speaker 1: strategy that he laid out. But I think the votes

97
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:50,120
Speaker 1: were watching probably most closely, will be just the Sparret's vote.

98
00:05:50,520 --> 00:05:53,839
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh, of course was more and up for grabs vote.

99
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:55,880
Speaker 1: We all thought that, and so we may, of course

100
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:57,560
Speaker 1: don't want to read too much into what he said

101
00:05:57,560 --> 00:05:59,760
Speaker 1: at argument, but what he said at argument certainly made

102
00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:01,640
Speaker 1: it honest if he was leading in the direction of

103
00:06:01,640 --> 00:06:04,520
Speaker 1: the Verson Row. Justice Kavanaugh came up with a list

104
00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 1: of past Supreme Court cases that had overruled earlier decisions

105
00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 1: ruled against precedent, including Brown v. Board of Education, which

106
00:06:13,640 --> 00:06:17,600
Speaker 1: outlawed the separate but Equal doctrine. We hear these justices

107
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:23,680
Speaker 1: during confirmation hearings. Talking about Roe as settled precedent, Kavanaugh

108
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:27,240
Speaker 1: said that Row was settled as precedent of the Supreme

109
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,400
Speaker 1: Court at his confirmation hearings. You could go back to

110
00:06:30,480 --> 00:06:34,000
Speaker 1: Justice Alito, who also said it was settled precedent, and

111
00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:38,160
Speaker 1: the Justice obviously, unless there's some kind of Supreme Court reform,

112
00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:41,240
Speaker 1: there's no accountability for not living up the statements you

113
00:06:41,279 --> 00:06:44,360
Speaker 1: make in your confirmation hearings after you're confirmed. And I think,

114
00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:47,080
Speaker 1: of course all of them try to give themselves possible

115
00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:50,440
Speaker 1: to my ability by being vague, But there's no denying

116
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:53,640
Speaker 1: that there's tension between much Justice Kavanaugh said as his

117
00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:57,760
Speaker 1: hearings and what he seemed to be saying yesterday, Justice

118
00:06:57,800 --> 00:07:01,320
Speaker 1: Sonia Soda Mayor made this statement about, you know, how

119
00:07:01,360 --> 00:07:04,599
Speaker 1: will we get the stench off this court? So are

120
00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:09,359
Speaker 1: the conservative justices not concerned at all about public opinion

121
00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:12,480
Speaker 1: or public reaction and not saying that they should be

122
00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 1: because we want judges to be independent. But it does

123
00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 1: it seem as if that's no concern of theirs anymore. Yeah,

124
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's a combination of um. Some

125
00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:25,440
Speaker 1: of them don't care and don't think they should care,

126
00:07:26,040 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 1: and I think some of them may care but think

127
00:07:28,520 --> 00:07:31,040
Speaker 1: that there's a way to finesse it um. I think

128
00:07:31,320 --> 00:07:34,120
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's questions seemed to be sort of reaching for

129
00:07:34,160 --> 00:07:38,640
Speaker 1: that right to say, this is not the court harming people,

130
00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:42,160
Speaker 1: This is not the court ignoring precedent. This is the

131
00:07:42,200 --> 00:07:45,520
Speaker 1: Court being scrupulously neutral. This is the Court being fair.

132
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:48,960
Speaker 1: This is the Court restoring some kind of true compromise

133
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:51,280
Speaker 1: where everyone gets to stay. And I think Kavin on

134
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:54,520
Speaker 1: me well believed that a decision like that would not

135
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:58,040
Speaker 1: damage the court. I don't think most observers agree with

136
00:07:58,120 --> 00:08:00,960
Speaker 1: him on that, but I think he may think there's

137
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:03,680
Speaker 1: a way to sort of finesse, you know, getting rid

138
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:06,920
Speaker 1: of what he thinks is a wrongly decided decision without

139
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:10,400
Speaker 1: damaging the Court too much. Um. I think many of

140
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:12,880
Speaker 1: the justices, like for example, Justice Thomas, I think, just

141
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:15,880
Speaker 1: don't think that it's important, or that if they do,

142
00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:19,480
Speaker 1: they're primarily concerned with the response of people with whom

143
00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:22,080
Speaker 1: they agree, rather than the sort of broader public response.

144
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:26,000
Speaker 1: At the beginning of the arguments, Thomas asked how the

145
00:08:26,080 --> 00:08:30,320
Speaker 1: Court could uphold the Mississippi law without overturning the Court's

146
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:36,080
Speaker 1: precedence on abortion. Is that even possible to do? Not

147
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:39,719
Speaker 1: if you leave grow entirely intact. Cluster General Elizabeth the

148
00:08:39,880 --> 00:08:42,800
Speaker 1: Lager said, the idea of a right to abortion it's

149
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:45,680
Speaker 1: important independent of viability, and the Court could say that

150
00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:49,720
Speaker 1: essentially that viability is more flawed, just as the Court

151
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:52,080
Speaker 1: said in Casey that are right to choose abortion was

152
00:08:52,200 --> 00:08:55,400
Speaker 1: important independent of rose trimester framework. There's a way to

153
00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:57,840
Speaker 1: do that. Obviously, to do that you have to rewrite

154
00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:00,480
Speaker 1: what real means. So there's no way to do it

155
00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 1: and leave row intact. But I think it's also disingenuous

156
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:06,840
Speaker 1: to say that. You would have to say there's no

157
00:09:06,920 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 1: abortion right if you say there's no viability. I don't

158
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:12,800
Speaker 1: think that follows. But I think many of the justices

159
00:09:12,840 --> 00:09:15,360
Speaker 1: want to say there's no abortion right, many of the

160
00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:18,840
Speaker 1: advocates on both sides. I think it's preferable for the

161
00:09:18,880 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: court to say there's no abortion right if they're going

162
00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:24,160
Speaker 1: to side with Mississippi, and so it seems increasingly likely

163
00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:26,400
Speaker 1: that that's what we're going to get. So even if

164
00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:31,880
Speaker 1: the Court doesn't explicitly overturn Row, what a decision upholding

165
00:09:31,920 --> 00:09:36,520
Speaker 1: Mississippi's law I'll have a far reaching impact totally. I mean,

166
00:09:36,559 --> 00:09:40,080
Speaker 1: we would expect to see states interpreting this as a

167
00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:43,600
Speaker 1: green light to move forward with absolute fans. We would

168
00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:46,960
Speaker 1: expect to see circuit courts agreeing with that assessment and

169
00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:51,360
Speaker 1: allowing more abortion bands to stand. And we would expect,

170
00:09:51,760 --> 00:09:55,160
Speaker 1: I think, to see the Court moved towards reversing Row

171
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:59,720
Speaker 1: entirely not long thereafter. And I think you might even

172
00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:02,719
Speaker 1: see states with trigger laws which go into effect when

173
00:10:02,760 --> 00:10:05,400
Speaker 1: ROW was gone, arguing that rowe had been overturned and

174
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:08,439
Speaker 1: that their trigger laws or bands could go into effect

175
00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:13,200
Speaker 1: if the Court overturns ROW. What would be the next step.

176
00:10:13,559 --> 00:10:19,240
Speaker 1: Could we see a time where abortion is declared unconstitutional? Yeah,

177
00:10:19,320 --> 00:10:21,800
Speaker 1: it's on the table. I mean anti abortion groups are

178
00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:26,120
Speaker 1: already asking for it. So, for example, their anekest briefs

179
00:10:26,120 --> 00:10:29,160
Speaker 1: in this taste arguing that an unborn child is a

180
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:31,959
Speaker 1: rights holding person and asking the court to hold the

181
00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:35,480
Speaker 1: abortion is unconstitutional. That doesn't seem likely in the short term,

182
00:10:35,679 --> 00:10:37,880
Speaker 1: in part, of course, because Kavanaugh seems to try to

183
00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:41,800
Speaker 1: foreclose that possibility right his argument that the Constitution was neutral.

184
00:10:42,120 --> 00:10:44,560
Speaker 1: He's tried to clarify with Mississippi several times, are saying

185
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:46,960
Speaker 1: the Constitution says nothing about this right. You're not saying

186
00:10:47,000 --> 00:10:49,320
Speaker 1: the Constitution is pro life. So at the moment, it

187
00:10:49,360 --> 00:10:52,280
Speaker 1: seems that there would not be five votes for that approach.

188
00:10:52,640 --> 00:10:55,679
Speaker 1: But of course there weren't five votes for overturning Row

189
00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:58,880
Speaker 1: not so long ago. And so the Overton window quite

190
00:10:58,880 --> 00:11:00,520
Speaker 1: clearly is shifting on this, and I don't think he

191
00:11:00,559 --> 00:11:02,600
Speaker 1: could rule that kind of thing out in the future.

192
00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:08,400
Speaker 1: Is it a majority of abortion opponents who are looking

193
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:12,760
Speaker 1: towards that complete ban on abortion or is that just

194
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:16,280
Speaker 1: the fringes. No, that's the majority. Um, there are people

195
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:20,079
Speaker 1: in the anti abortion movement who I believe there should

196
00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:23,199
Speaker 1: be exceptions, but the anti abortion movement, it's worth sort

197
00:11:23,200 --> 00:11:25,920
Speaker 1: of unpacking what the anti abortion movement believes. It's from

198
00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:28,040
Speaker 1: the standpoint of someone who's supposed abortion. It's a human

199
00:11:28,120 --> 00:11:32,840
Speaker 1: rights movement, and that means that allowing the states to

200
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:35,800
Speaker 1: decide on whether a human lives or dies is a

201
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:39,839
Speaker 1: completely unacceptable solution. So the argument that a fetis or

202
00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:41,760
Speaker 1: a borg child is a right solving person is that

203
00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:45,480
Speaker 1: the constitutional argument that brought in any abortion opponents into

204
00:11:45,480 --> 00:11:49,079
Speaker 1: the movement. It was an argument that predated Row. It's

205
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:51,800
Speaker 1: a deeply felt argument and so this is in no

206
00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:53,920
Speaker 1: way for an argument. The reason we haven't heard more

207
00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:57,640
Speaker 1: of it estimely because anti abortion lawyers didn't think it

208
00:11:57,679 --> 00:11:59,640
Speaker 1: would work. I mean, I think correctly they thought it

209
00:11:59,640 --> 00:12:03,040
Speaker 1: wouldn't work, but it's never really changed the fact that

210
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:06,840
Speaker 1: that's what most of the movement wants. And we would expect,

211
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:09,560
Speaker 1: I think, to see an Evolden Nancy abortion movement as

212
00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:11,640
Speaker 1: a court of versus real because the Court will then be,

213
00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:14,640
Speaker 1: I think, in their views, sort of declaring the open season,

214
00:12:14,720 --> 00:12:16,760
Speaker 1: or at least opening the door to that kind of artsment.

215
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:20,320
Speaker 1: So what would be needed to prevent that? Can Congress

216
00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:22,920
Speaker 1: do something? No? I mean, if the court holds that

217
00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:27,040
Speaker 1: if if fetus is a person, Congress. That's a constitutional holding.

218
00:12:27,720 --> 00:12:30,719
Speaker 1: So the only way to change that would be to

219
00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:34,000
Speaker 1: reform the court. Again, I don't think this is happening

220
00:12:34,400 --> 00:12:37,559
Speaker 1: soon because it seems that, for example, I don't know

221
00:12:37,559 --> 00:12:39,440
Speaker 1: if there any there any votes for that on the

222
00:12:39,440 --> 00:12:42,520
Speaker 1: court right now. I would be unsurprised if there were

223
00:12:42,520 --> 00:12:45,719
Speaker 1: a few. I don't, for example, think Kavanaar there it

224
00:12:45,760 --> 00:12:48,880
Speaker 1: would go for that right now. But I think really

225
00:12:48,920 --> 00:12:52,760
Speaker 1: if the Court declares that, you know, declare speed old personhood,

226
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,199
Speaker 1: the solution would have to be either at constitutional amendment

227
00:12:56,240 --> 00:12:59,000
Speaker 1: or changing the court. Finally, I just want you to

228
00:12:59,040 --> 00:13:01,439
Speaker 1: sum up what you think. I know you're referred to

229
00:13:01,480 --> 00:13:04,920
Speaker 1: it before, what you think is likely to happen here,

230
00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:08,079
Speaker 1: knowing that you can't tell from moral arguments. I mean,

231
00:13:08,080 --> 00:13:10,360
Speaker 1: the most likely thing I think, based on oral arguments

232
00:13:10,360 --> 00:13:11,840
Speaker 1: is the Court is going to say that there's no

233
00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:14,400
Speaker 1: constitutional right to abortion and the space are going to

234
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:17,880
Speaker 1: be able to be an abortion by the summer of two.

235
00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:21,200
Speaker 1: So that means an overturning of row. Yes, I think

236
00:13:21,200 --> 00:13:24,280
Speaker 1: that's the most likely breased on yesterday, do you think

237
00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 1: that would be a six three vote? But that's an

238
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:29,000
Speaker 1: interesting question. If they're going to overrule Row. I think

239
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:31,400
Speaker 1: Robert's may go along with it because he would want

240
00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:34,079
Speaker 1: the courts to look united. I think he would think

241
00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:38,120
Speaker 1: it would be worst of a five four decisions overturning Row,

242
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:40,200
Speaker 1: but I don't know. I mean it would either be

243
00:13:40,280 --> 00:13:42,280
Speaker 1: six three or five four. Thanks for being in the

244
00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 1: Boomberg Glass show. Mary. That's Professor Mary Ziegler of Florida

245
00:13:45,840 --> 00:13:50,640
Speaker 1: State University College of Law. This all boils down to

246
00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:55,679
Speaker 1: two decides. Who decides when it's in the best interests

247
00:13:55,720 --> 00:14:00,200
Speaker 1: of the United States to disclose presidential records. He's the

248
00:14:00,280 --> 00:14:04,920
Speaker 1: current occupant of the White House or um or the

249
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:09,440
Speaker 1: former who does have some interest in the confidentiality of

250
00:14:09,520 --> 00:14:13,680
Speaker 1: the document. D C Circuit Court Judge Katangi Brown Jackson

251
00:14:13,840 --> 00:14:17,400
Speaker 1: summed up the main question and former President Donald Trump's

252
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:21,320
Speaker 1: lawsuit to stop the National Archives from releasing White House

253
00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:26,400
Speaker 1: records to the House Committee investigating the January sixth Capital Riots.

254
00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:30,200
Speaker 1: Executive privileges typically reserved for the current ocupant of the

255
00:14:30,200 --> 00:14:33,920
Speaker 1: White House, and at oral arguments on Tuesday, all three

256
00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 1: judges appeared skeptical about Trump's invocation of executive privilege in

257
00:14:38,880 --> 00:14:42,000
Speaker 1: a case where President Joe Biden has waived it. Here's

258
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:45,120
Speaker 1: Circuit Court Judge Patricia Millett. We have one president at

259
00:14:45,160 --> 00:14:47,280
Speaker 1: a time under our constitution. That's what G. S A

260
00:14:47,400 --> 00:14:50,920
Speaker 1: is saying, and that the incumbent president has said, has

261
00:14:50,920 --> 00:14:53,840
Speaker 1: made the judgment and is best positioned, and its frame

262
00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:56,800
Speaker 1: court has told us um to make that call as

263
00:14:56,840 --> 00:14:59,040
Speaker 1: the interest in executive branch. My guest