so long as there s not an undue burden on the exercise of the right pre viability. i think some of what we re wrestling with here and i think what senator cornyn was driving at, is how particular the concept of deeply rooted goes and how that really is abound on what the judiciary can do. i want to thank you. we re nearly at time. i want to thank you for engaging in the back and forth. i want to think more about what you ve said and look forward to further discussion tomorrow. it still appears there s a very basic difference between a judicial philosophy and judicial methodology and how you apply that and making a determination about constitutional or non. i know that you haven t claimed a judicial philosophy at all, be u a judicial philosophy of originalism here, but i think the fact that you ve at least nodded to it in the committee
so long as there s not an undue burden on the exercise of the right pre viability. i think some of what we re wrestling with here is the question, i think what senator cornyn is driving at, how particular the concept of deeply rooted goes and how that is about what the judiciary can do. i want to thank you. we re nearly at time. i want to thank you for engaging in the back and forth. i want to think more about what you said and look forward to discussion tomorrow. it still appears that there is a very basic difference between a judicial philosophy and a judicial methodology in how you go about applying that when you re interpreting the law and making a determination about constitutionality or not. and i know that you haven t claimed a judicial philosophy at all, but a judicial philosophy of originalism here, but i do think the fact that you ve at least nodded to it in the
0 first of two long and intense days of questioning from members of the senate judiciary committee began this morning with democrats using their questions to allow jackson to issue a rebuttal to republican accusations that she has been soft on crime and republicans pressing her on her record as a judge and public defender and bringing up a whole host of conservative hobby horses. things like critical race theory. jackson has tried to stay above the fray in her responses. early on in the hearing, she told democratic senator, dick durbin, quote, i tried to stay in my lane. along with me are claire mccaskill and msnbc political analyst with danielle holly walker, dean and professor at howard school of law and joyce vance, law professor at university of alabama as well as an msnbc legal analyst. we have a few minutes before we go back to the hearing. claire, i want to start with you. just some of the fireworks that happened earlier today. just in the last hour or so. senator ted cruz arriv
cocaine during pregnancy. and her case was post-viability, so it doesn t fit in the facts of this case. if she had ingested cocaine pre-viability, and had the same negative consequences to her child, do you think the state had an interest in enforcing that law against her? the state may have, your honor. the state can certainly regular utility to serve its interests and fetal life and in women s health. those particular laws tend to undermine both of those interests, because they deter women from seeking prenatal care, which is counterproductive to both of their health but pre-viability as well as post-viability. no, your honor. the court has been clear that after viability, states can prohibit abortion, except to save no, i mean in my example