protected. and there s a third first that i think is extremely important. you ended with the quotation from justice sotomayor asking whether the institution of the supreme court can preserve its legitimacy. continue it s important role in our country if the stench of on that court it s so visible and evident as it will be, when nothing but the composition of the court has changed. nothing else has changed in the 30 years since casey. and really in the 50 years since roe. nothing constitutionally relevant, it s just that there are some new faces there. important as the institutional legitimacy of the court s, and i think it s important. even more important, even more fundamental is the question, will we have a legitimate form
it s a first time i remember hearing an argument in the supreme court about taking a right away from people. you re right, lawrence. if the supreme court does what i think it is absolutely, certain, now that it will do. and that is, whether it calls it overruling roe v. wade or not, getting rid of the fundamental right of abortion until liability when it does that, it will be the first time in our nation s history that we have turned things backwards in terms of rights. all along, we have expanded rates. bowed the board expanded rights beyond what plessy had said. lawrence v. texas expanded rights for lgbtq people. we ve expanded. but if we do the court now is
right for 50 years. so my question back to justice roberts would be, what is it that has changed that has allowed this court to stand on its head 50 years of an existing right, as lawrence tribe said, the first time that the supreme court of the united states taking away a right of more than half of the people of this country, what is that justification? frankly, they had none today. the only justification they had is, they didn t want women to have the right to access safe and legal abortion, so it was there right, and their mission to take it away. cecilia richards, thank you so much for joining us. we really appreciate. thanks, lawrence. thank you. former harvard law professor senator elizabeth warren has both analysis of what happened in the court today, and a proposed solution. she will join us next. she will join us next.
is absolutely nothing we can ever do to stop mass murder in our schools because of the liberty granted to us by the constitution to have more guns than people in this country. one of those guns, is a trophy of american liberty was used to kill for students and a michigan school yesterday, and wound several. today the republican side of the arguments in the supreme court did not use the word liberty, the opponents of abortion on the supreme court argued that because the word abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, the supreme court should have no role in establishing abortion laws. that should be left entirely to the states. to be clear, you are not arguing that the court somehow has the authority to itself
and what it does to the authority of the court and the american people s belief that this is a court that expands rights and this is a court that will protect the american people. and they just indicated they re willing to throw that out the window, because they made a promise, somehow in the before they got nominated, they said one thing in public always knowing that they were going to do this to roe v. wade. and that looks like that s where we are today. this is the day happens. we represent one of the states on which this decision will have no effect. u.s. represent the state of massachusetts. the massachusetts legislature will not allow any kind of changes and restrictions on abortion in your state. so, this is a decision that if it goes the way it s partly going to go, well not in fact affect all 50 states. they ll be six like new york, massachusetts, california, many, many others were the majority of the population actually is,