law of the land, as we think it exists. but by but the supreme court, in letting this go into effect, has created this completely bizarre situation where a plainly unconstitutional law is now in effect. and now, denying women their rights in texas and there is no court at this moment evaluating whether it s constitutional. i ve never heard of a situation like that. but that s what the situation is right now. and it s going to continue for weeks and potentially even months. yeah. senator senator davis, i really appreciate your time tonight. and jeff, before we let you go. you saw the speech by president biden, obviously, this evening on covid vaccine mandates. more than a dozen republican governors already vowed to fight it. do those states have a good case? does the president have the authority to do what he said he wanted to do today? well, i have to say this is not an area that that is completely clear because osha, the the reg which the part
last week let this law go into effect without having a constitutional challenge. i mean even the state of texas acknowledges that this law conflicts with binding supreme court precedent, roe v. wade in 1973, the casey decision in 1992. no question that this law conflicts with the laws the law of the land as we think it exists. but by the supreme court in letting this go into effect has created this completely bizarre situation where a plainly unconstitutional law is now in effect and now denying women their rights in texas. and there is no court at this moment evaluating whether it s constitutional. i ve never heard of a situation like that, but that s what the situation is right now. and it s going to continue for weeks and potentially even months. yeah, senator davis, i really
that just imagine if we were talking about a right that conservatives, liked like gun rights. suppose massachusetts, the state relives, decided to disregard the supreme court precedents about guns, and made it a crime, for any private citizen to own a pistol. without special government permission, without showing the flagrantly unconstitutional. and if they didn t have public prosecutors in forcing it, and had an army of citizen vigilantes, making sure that nobody could have a gun at home, do you think this court would ve applied its logic to say, oh will let that go into effect? not on your life so they are not act all consistent, all of these procedural mumbo jumbo things that they said. make it very hard for us to figure out how to review this law, that was just really
where i live, decided to disregard the supreme court s precedence about guns and meat it a crime for any private citizen to own a pistol without special government permission, without showing the flagrantly unconstitutional. but if they didn t have public prosecutors enforcing it and had an army of citizen vigilantevig do you think this court would have applied its logic to say, oh, we re going to let that go into effect. not on your life. so they are not at all consistent. all of these procedural mum bow jumbo things they said make it very hard for us to figure out how to review this law. but that was just really concocted for the purpose of evading review. and what was most stunning in justice sotomayor s consent was
vote on this midnight order. chief justice john roberts here has joined the liberals in dissent. remember, this texas law is one of the strictest in the nation. it bars abortion before many people know they are pregnant. now it s going to remain on the books. and what was interesting and unique about this law is that it allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking abortion in violation of the ban. no other six-week ban has been allowed to go into effect. and let me just read to you from the dissent. and this part there were several dissents but this one is written by justice sonia sotomayor, joined by justice stephen breyer and justice kagan. they write, the court s order is stunning presented with an application to enjoin an