THANK YOU ALL.
>> THAT WAS PRESIDENT BIDEN
ANNOUNCING HIS EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
LET’S BRING A JONATHAN HURLEY OF
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW
PROFESSOR AND FOX NEWS
CONTRIBUTOR.
IT’S HARD TO TELL WHERE TO START
START.
IMAGINE THE CONTRACEPTION CASE,
SOMEHOW BANNING WOMEN FROM
CROSSING STRAIGHT LINES.
THE CABIN OUT CONCURRENCE
EXPLICITLY SO THAT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS IS HISTORY AND TRADITION
NOT BEING ENTERTAINED
APPROPRIATELY BY THE COURT WHEN
IN FACT IT WAS.
AND YOU NOTED SO ON TWITTER.
>> THERE WAS MUCH ABOUT THESE
REMARKS THAT WERE QUITE CURIOUS.
HE SEEMED TO REFER TO GRISWOLD
AS STANDING FOR THE OPPOSITE OF
WHAT GRISWOLD STANDS FOR.
GRISWOLD WAS THE PROTECTION OF
THAT RIGHT.
HE SEEMED TO REFER TO IT AS A
REJECTION OF THE RIGHT TO USE CONTRACEPTION.
THERE WERE SOME UNFAIR MOMENTS
NOT JUST CALLING THEM REPEATEDLY
THAT JUSTICE IS EXTREMIST, BUT
HE SAYS AS YOU HAVE NOTED THAT
HE DIDN’T CONSIDER THE EARLY
ENGLISH AMERICAN -- THAT’S
ENTIRELY AND DEMONSTRABLY
UNTRUE.
NOW YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH HOW
THEY VIEW THAT HISTORY BUT TO
SAY THEY IGNORED IT WAS REALLY
QUITE UNFAIR.
THERE WERE OTHER ASPECTS THAT I
SUGGEST JUSTICES WERE PROBABLY
GRINDING THEIR TEETH WHEN
LISTENING TO THIS.
ONE IS IN FACT BRINGING UP THIS
ISSUE FOR WHETHER
CONTRACEPTION’S WILL SOON BE
MADE UNLAWFUL.
THAT IS EXPRESSLY READJUSTED IN
THE DOBBS DECISION.
I’VE BEEN COVERING IT FOR ENOUGH
TIME, OVER 30 YEARS.
I’VE NEVER SEEN A CASE FOR THE
COURT REPEATEDLY AND EXPRESSLY
DISMISSED A FUTURE ARGUMENT.
HE COMES BACK REPEATEDLY TO SAY
THIS CANNOT BE USED TO DENY THE
RIGHT OF CONTRACEPTION, OR TO
DEAL WITH INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE,
OR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
THEY REPEATEDLY SAY THEY DO NOT
VIEW THIS AS ANALOGOUS.
EVEN THOMAS HIMSELF SAYS THAT.
BY THE WAY THOMAS HAS LONG BEEN
A CRITIC OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS BUT HE FELT THAT THEY
SHOULD RE-EXAMINE THAT.
HE DID NOT FEEL THAT INTERRACIAL
MARRIAGE, LIKE HIS OWN, SHOULD
BE VIEWED SOMEHOW AS UNPROTECTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO PROTECT
THOSE RIGHTS.
NOW ALL OF THAT OBVIOUSLY GETS
MISSED IN THIS POLITICAL
ATMOSPHERE.
BUT IT WAS CURIOUS TO SEE THE
FOCUS ON TRAVEL.
TRAVELING INTERSTATE IS CLEARLY
PROTECTED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
THERE WERE SUPREME COURT HAS
SAID THAT REPEATEDLY.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH WENT OUT OF
HIS WAY TO SAY THAT THIS IS ONE
OF THOSE EASY ISSUES.
HE SAID CLEARLY STATES CANNOT
PREVENT WOMEN FROM LEAVING TO
GET ABORTION SERVICES OR ANY
TYPES OF SERVICES.
WHILE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND
JOHN ROBERTS CLEARLY FALL INTO
THAT CAMP HERE THAT THE MAJORITY
OF THE SUPREME COURT.
I SUSPECT THAT YOU COULD REALLY
PUSH A YEAR UNANIMITY IF NOT
UNANIMOUS COURT ON THAT ISSUE.
SO MUCH OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT
SAID, FRANKLY, I THOUGHT WAS
FAIRLY INACCURATE AND AT TIMES
QUITE UNFAIR.
>> JONATHAN ONE QUICK FOLLOW-UP.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A
RATHER CURIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT
GIVEN THAT THE PRESIDENT
PREVIOUSLY HAS QUESTIONED
ABORTION BEING A WRITER.
HE WAS A LONG TIME SUPPORTER OF
THE HYDE AMENDMENT WHICH BARS
SEVERAL --
>> HIS SENATOR BIDEN DID NOT
FEEL ABORTION IS A RIGHT.
HE WAS ANTIABORTION.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY HE
SUPPORTED THE HYDE AMENDMENT
WHICH IS GOING TO BE MORE
RELEVANT IN THE DAYS TO COME.
THAT’S A LONG STANDING POSITION
THAT FEDERAL FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE
USED TO SUPPORT ABORTION.
AND AS DEGREE TO WHICH AGENCIES
ARE NOW ASSISTING IN PEOPLE
GETTING ABORTION SERVICES THAT
COULD BECOME MORE RELEVANT IN
THE DAYS TO COMPARE THIS A LOT
OF CALLS FOR THE PRESIDENT USES
AUTHORITY TO DO PRECISELY THAT.
AS A SENATOR, JOE BIDEN OF VOTED
AGAINST THE COMPROMISE FOR RAPE
AND INTEREST PAID HE REPEATEDLY
VOTED AGAINST THOSE EXCEPTION IN