SCOTUS Rules Against Life

Breaking news the Supreme Court rules against life live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow waiting on regarding abortion law in Louisiana why doctors admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The entire argument essentially mother or to prompt about the main argument during this case was whether or not that was an undue burden whether it would shut down clinics leaving women in Louisiana with very few maybe only one abortion clinic. They can actually visit and date to get this procedure done on your questions right now: 1-800-684-3110 opinion a lot to get through but the bottom line is this decision Streisand Louisiana abortion law that frictions into place on the authors of the legislation said it was about protecting the women who visited these clinics to make sure that if they had procedures there. There were medical procedures in place that would allow them to get to the hospital if they needed to know your home Jay Sekulow laboratory are called 684 31 to 100-3110. In yet another Supreme Court decision 54 the Supreme Court struck down a law similar to the Texas law that was there in 2016. Though there was a major flip in one of the justices that was the Chief Justice who when the a similar law was actually broader was up before the court in 2016. Though it was clear he would be in the dissent he had no problem siding with Texas as a dissenter 53 case in in this case. Again you see something very different from Chief Justice Roberts is a reminder this is not so shocking with him because of what happened with the affordable care act and remember how he did the same similar thing actually led to this opinion. Just as a unfortunate reminder. The people who are was the broadcast. That is, he did that same thing where that the case itself.

He didn't really agree with the reasoning right.

But he agrees with the outcome. So he made up his own way to get there what you know Friday is a difference between usually are judges and there's the date they have in their mind where they were there gonna be, they just come up with a reason to be there so I got our guys actually follow the reasoning yet he didn't get actually showed he he filed the conclusion I think. Here's the issue. I think this issue that we have to be very cognizant John Roberts three years ago.

So the law was constitutional law that was much broader than this particular law. This was more narrowly tailored law for justices dissented last time that a person had the switch of justice. What happens here. John Roberts says I don't agree necessary with the reasoning of the majority, but because of stare decisis. I am going to stick with that opinion.

Now if that was the case Plessy versus Ferguson which was separate but equal would still be the law of the land. There are times when stare decisis the court realize things were wrong.

Paramount to where the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. That case today would obviously not be followed, so this this application of stare decisis and the Latin of course important here, but John Roberts had an easy way to say what I thought was wrong but I think it was wrong now, but he didn't go that way, knowing that it is very supportive and simply made it cases that have been decided one way Supreme Court or any court continue to follow that precedent because it's binding on a subsequent court but as you pointed out, sometimes older surgeons like Q versus Ferguson and Korematsu are wrong and you have to say that they're wrong and you can rely on stare decisis which is judicial precedent to say that they are right, and John Roberts born yet again by having the opportunity to follow what he did in the Texas case and the Louisiana case it didn't do that he John with the majority and again disappoints once again the those of us who are pro-life believe in the sanctity of human life-three take your calls 100 684 31 to get questions about this case, the Supreme Court in 1-800-684-3110 your calls, your comments will point out versus Cavanaugh part of that strong dissent. There is this question of what is different now facing the Democratic appointed to this report become Friday, Byron White will examine a lot of pressure on John Roberts and he saw what happened in 2012 when you when you go against your principles and interviews. Even when you've been on the record with those views and you uphold their laws even if the reasoning doesn't make any sense challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you.

Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us.

ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice defend the rights of life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for copy mission in life today online/Jay Sekulow line starts at 100-684-3110 at 2000 684-3110 decide I want to answer stating that she see how stories because John Roberts falls on the issue of stare decisis. He said the decision was in 2016. I thought it was. I thought the court is wrong here on the substance, but I'm bound by stare decisis Westar decisive community on a similar side of the same way I want to court is spoken on something and decided something a certain way than it should be found in cannot change its opinion and its decision making process anymore. That's the way they decided and when you have separate but equal in Plessy versus Ferguson when you have the Japanese internment camps in the Claremont search as you pointed out stare decisis would mean that we can't deviate from that they will of course we can and we should be able to deviate from decisions that are wrongly decided this was a copout by the Chief Justice and very disappointing. J CC housing accounts for the ACLJ cc Jordan your sense of what's going on here I mean is this think these are political decisions you think these are legal decisions that ideas political decisions by John Roberts. He likes the praise that he likes. He thinks it and somewhat yeah this is good for his legacy when he doesn't seem like the affordable care act and then after the photo care team and since then he was in the descendents on a law that was much broader than Louisiana's legally speaking I didn't doesn't read that was about it was different. The impact was different. He was in the dissent, but when he had to be that that the vote he put himself in this position. I don't know why he's made himself out to be another candidate you have to you have to have them at work. You don't have to have the tiebreaker vote, but I do think that he likes the praise I think he likes the media coverage of this today in the sense that the liberal media, which is that the mainstream media is praising them. I think he loves. I think he loved it with the affordable care act, even though he knew the people that got him to the Supreme Court. Couldn't figure out even what the reason he just comes out and says I don't agree with their philosophy when we talked on Friday about.

Typically, the difference between these two sets of judge why everyone knew where this case went with Justice Breyer is the author is because it doesn't matter.

You will come up with whatever he'll go to international law and he'll tell you he will find law that agrees with his position somewhere that sometimes been written and our guys not supposed to be doing that right.

The guys on the right. The people who are coming with the judicial flashings must be more conservative judicial philosophy. Look at the Constitution look at that look at the history as well. But look at the Constitution itself does state have.

This raises a federal government's role to step in here, in this case was actually the difference between this and Texas.

Also with this case was was Rapp who had the standing yeah it was useful to be about underwear and snow in the standing issue. I think would've been that this the easy way out.

I will bring it CC housing accounts with the ACLJ because with this also does not bode well for nobody wants to say this but I'm going to it does not bode well for an overturn of Roe versus Wade cc will abortion laws and rules and a requirement that there would be a burden encouraged by the law. Signed: how quickly the previous case to case.

They couldn't print that Eric and Andy Barton send the court changing as well carry that burden and felt some shame that abortion is and therefore privileges are very that's what this whole decision was based on, and we submitted a brief and case that a crack at around the underlying ascension just goes to show that the court are the Supreme Court is willing to keep changing on live and even constitutional laws to protect the judicially fabricated right to abortion and back. I think about while for an overturn effort of the light is another interesting aspect of this and we did from holding my hands want to be the brief that we filed in the case and this was about admitting privileges to hospitals like the group decided on standing. What's interesting here in our brief, we actually attached as an exhibit. It's probably 65 pages every time hospitals ambulances were called to abortion clinics for medical services be rendered in a hospital, but these doctors don't have to have admitting privileges for me think about that for a moment and that was in the brief that was in the record and it was basically they ignored ignored it to get to a desired result here and this was in a sense of the shock to me is that Chief Justice Roberts known for many years decided that a case that had three years of precedent was closely divided could not be overturned well be overturned look law will constitute Millie was only three years ago.

What is change what is Jane he comes up with this fabricated idea that all I'm bound by precedent, even though I didn't agree with that Pres. I'm bound by that precedent and I've got the rule that way, no you don't. You got to rule about what the law is and what the law in Louisiana was was a constitutional exercise of that sovereign states privileged or protected citizens by saying that her doctor had to have admitting privileges in the hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion clinic, may I say the death chamber take plaintiff who exists. That was occur perfectly proper exercise of the sovereign states the right to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens property.

Chief Justice Roberts did not have to do what he did in this case, and I'm very very disappointed in him-2000 684 31 to answer questions I get your comments as well. 1-800-684-3110 Tampa in Washington DC. San obviously listen were an organization work on these nomination battles John Roberts is a different time. Obviously now, but we do. I think that there is a question that about, and I'm sure love you and we talked about on Friday.

It's not that I'm not expecting to agree with Brett Cavanaugh or Neil Gore search for Justice Thomas everybody anybody 99% of time like they are on the other side.

I'm just not expecting that because I think if you exit take a philosophy and apply it. There are, you can sometimes come out different ways and and but at least we know it's grounding you John Roberts do that out the window today so I think there's a new questionnaire for the more conservative members of the U.S. Senate. Next time this happens, which is you know we Artie we went through a I guess a suitor that we have Roberts during if you find a judge that you agree with everything that's not a judge that's an advocate, but what you can request from a judge directly demand from the judges that they take the philosophy of judging a look at the statute. They look at the Constitution a look at the law and they apply it as it was written you. You have to expect from a judge that you don't have outcome based judging. We seen it on the left time and time again and Jordan is why you said last week that we have got to do that we basically have to have a super majority on the court because you're not gonna get a judge. Every single time while the left does not let me tell you what this looks like to me that during this looks to me like an abandonment of apolitical judging. This looks like looking at the political tea leaves. The pressure in Washington DC. The social circles.

I know that's insulting to say but it's just reality. It exists here, Jordan, and this to me, especially with such a recent opinion from the Chief Justice that said the exact opposite thing and a narrower law here Jordan.

It looks like to me that you have a judge that wants to be liked in the circles. I know that's an insult.

I don't like to say it but that's what it looks like to me Tim's call Colorado online to Timbuktu Jay Sekulow Lodge on the air call. There was a an editorial USA Today this weekend. I called the Supreme Court was to protect the separation of powers. Instead it killed them. So I like your on that but my comment is with the recent Supreme Court ruling in the title VII case, the other one. And the one you're talking about today that ideal ruling of a ruling on law is based on interpreting them in light of their original meaning seems lost in the members of the court, so it's great to hear that you been talked about last week.

The Senate is filling the vacant federal court seats, but the conservative judges do the same thing as the majority of the Supreme Court wanted in these cases and introduce meetings of the law for contrary to the original intended purpose. What good going on. So my key question is what do you know that's being done to promote the implementation of proper interpretation of laws and the courts which you learn quickly and doing Supreme Court work for going to my fourth decade here that there is another case came out today was USAID. It was the foreign affiliates of various groups that were being denied funds because of positions advocated in these foreign groups claiming First Amendment privileges. If you would listen to the oral argument you would've said the foreign groups are to be protected in their speech which I don't think they should of been necessarily by the way, the spring court concluded that they were not protected. It's very difficult to protect elites. Here's the problem. Once you start spraying from judicial philosophy.

You enter a no man's land, a new person's land and that is a situation that I yeah I mean it's Justice Kennedy, but Justice Kennedy had there were certain he was, because I predictable uncertain is generally very good on religious freedom. My concern here with this opinion. And we still have a lot that opinions are not opinions left to come by mail come this week, not by this week. Next week is the court politicize its decisions like that that can be very very damning how when you have a court to start saying the Chief Justice of the court. He thinks he things better for his legacy to say things like, I don't agree with how they got here, but I just like the conclusion that I go through this process and and again I think it shows some of this you look at part of this is lifetime appointments.

Part of this is also taken lifetime appointments to me they'll never leave. So we kind of made this. It's a different different entity that was in a fire found only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called will show you how publication includes all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications what Obama care means many ways your membership is powering the right mission life today online/challenges facing Americans constitutional rights are under attack for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms and rights.

Courts in Congress and exceptional track record of success. The bottom line we could not do more work. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today.

See Jay Sekulow everything phone calls, one 800 684 31 two that's what hundred 684-3110. I think this chief justice Thomas said in response directly to the Chief Justice and his dissent. Despite the fact that we granted Louisiana's petition specifically to address whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing that with that was the initial reason why even made their swing this case in the Texas case to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients. Chief Justice cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana's laws unconstitutional under our precedents so I think it's been clear again everyone is on the John Roberts everyone is not a a a Kennedy everyone is not a suitor I think is a bit tougher first conservative didn't really get involved in this and much later than I think the left. So the letter was mission. Well, it was even it wasn't even that partisan if you look at rovers when most Republican nominees to the court. Planned Parenthood support claim.

This was kind of when social conservatives. Catholics got more involved the pro-life effort then then it was Protestant churches are actually even talking about things like abortion which of it was related to anything about sex talk right choice for long times into the 70s and I think it was until the 80s that the first of the Southern Baptist limit, but I want people to lose hope.

Because we've also seen significant wins on the life issue out of the Supreme Court cc, especially in our defense of crisis pregnancy centers down pro-life banners tried in New York and California as well as others where we only represented pro-life centers on laws that were basically working on to promote abortion or to refer for abortion on one on laws cannot compel speech from pro-life that don't agree with what the pro-life again and those were significant wins and those were at the Supreme Court.

We had a couple of those cases where that were up there on that that we want. So it's not like were not seeing victories but the concern is here. I mean I think people are looking at the last couple of decisions.

Mission judge any justice by two decisions, but you look at the decisions that are coming out and there is reason for concern.

I will I Amber seems to be entrance with the media spotlight that he gets whatever he rules with the left and whenever he goes with a level when you go to Washington cocktail party to be courted by the liberal left and say great and you did and I think you have fallen prey to this day because you know he had done things like the Obama care decision, like the day just do not support the philosophy that he maintained throughout his judicial career. So what's this all about, you know what you thought. A decision was wrong. Three years ago and now today you say. Well, I've got to change my vote because even though I thought that was wrong.

The five who says I'm compelled to do the opposite. Not true decisions that it is been turned into the Supreme Court changed their mind and have reversed the previous decisions. It happens all the time was going to take a call and that will this be waived by, back to Kristin in Maine online wine? You Jay Sekulow live your on their game going for all the Michael Walker law. I'm really that Justice Robert. I'm just wondering week to contact him to let him. Now I know we cannot charge start because it's a lifetime appointment as I believe it should be. Even when you disagree with the justices conclusion so I don't want to take that away from the constitutions clear on that. There's no way to express your grievance it as far as directly to the justice that would frankly be appropriate. Look at some other decisions coming that you know we may be pleased about Justice Roberts decisions.

I don't know. I thought he did a very admirable job. For instance, a very good job in the impeachment proceeding he handled it with dignity and with the quorum he handled it with sticking to the law John Roberts that when he said there is confirmation proceeding. I call them balls and strikes an umpire Empire doesn't say though, in my view, the last time we called it a ball. So this next one has to be able to and I think cc that's kind of where he got it wrong here word on agree with the whole woman's health on modeling present through the top I met with the bank statement.

What's also what's the point of this report, why, why related issue. We know that there just to go back to what why don't we have three sets. Why do we have Dred Scott, why we have these cases is why we go back and fight for these issues and also wide. Why, given that authority. They have want to go back to pre-Mark Marbury versus Madison when the court is basically a court for Debbie issues to see where they would they would make the decision, but they didn't have any. No one really cared what they decided it wasn't something stayed on for your whole life because it if they're so impacted by the media. If there so impacted by who was at their party in whose at their event and more so than you'd think.

By the way a lot of them gets very touching. Okay, who could execute through the US in the process now because that's now basically represent control gone down to 51. There is no filibuster filibuster. Could you get a vacancy this summer.

You can always get a vacancy so you don't know how, how's it going to play out.

I mean it's it's all dependent on the election unless there's a vacancy before if there was a vacancy before fan you think the Senate could get a nominee through yes I do. I think that fillet leader. McConnell is said the same thing and mean J you need a President willing to nominate in the Senate willing to confirm look at the Senate and want to confirm they wouldn't have to think that would be nice on my concern would be whether the Senate get it done and you're saying they can't. But when the last time around J you didn't have the two components the Constitution requires in order to get confirmation the Senate as is perfectly welcome to sit on it if they want, but I suspect that this Senate would want to move the President nominated new justice and I will go back to something the Jordan said a minute ago for much of the last decade.

J there was a double standard when a Republican nominated injustice. It required 60 votes to overcome culture. But when a Democrat President appointed adjusters.

It only required 50 because Republicans were not willing to filibuster. We have only been on 11 level ground as far as confirming justices to the Supreme Court for a very short period of time now. So yes, this is a very disappointing ruling J and Jordan a look at you a little bit more time with a level field is plain.

Maybe some of that dynamic in Washington where there's justice is set on the court.

They want to be comfortable for the rest of their life term. Maybe that starts the chain we have to wonder to is it better to have someone battle tested like Rick Cavanaugh and Justice Thomas, not same I would ever want to go through what they've gone through with Justice Thomas went through and what Rick Cavanaugh went through battle tested, battle tested numbness in the course even the coarsest boat look at the boat barely gets on the court. So I think changes how they think about things and with John Roberts to have forgotten processing Jay Sekulow take your phone calls. The second half hour, one 800 684 31 to talk to us on their that's one 800-6881 10 ACLJ.org as well check out a new school choice initiative ACLJ.org ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms and rights in court in Congress and the public of the American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow why we are taking from 100-6312.

That's 100 683110 talk about dad. The case US Supreme Court was that you medical surgical are brief, your seahorse of his periscope with this the case at the USB course similar case back to case at a Texas and people had high hopes for this because the court there is a very different court we John Roberts kind of blew through that to the court is shifted significantly. That's why it was even got to tell you why the case was even heard likely let let's set up for everybody things important to set up for everybody that there was a case in 2016 that was basically to say a broader privileges itself covered emitting privileges had other issues to so you had to have a regulatory care at your facility.

That's pretty low level.

I me that this is not these high standards but you had to have this these different different new issues categories of restrictions because you are so you could do something these the standard you have to have you wanted to get right every every was right now were all saying how people get sick. While the county or the city has covered said you all need to be doing something or if you're going to conduct business. You must do this and some cities and states have the authorities to do that. Some don't. Where you live in the country right now to pick out what kind of power.

Your governor has what kind of power you may or has it changes what state you live you what county you live it and and so that that's up there. They were all seeing right now what the Texas law was basically if you have this decision after that you need to take so they decided they wanted 2016 and they held by a 5 to 4 majority that the law was unconstitutional.

Then, just as Robert was in the dissent now eight even narrower law. Justice Roberts sides with the majority to strike it down and Andy again.

I want to reiterate this.

He rested on starry decisiveness explained to everybody what that means and how it applies here. The legal concept one sided in a certain way based on certain facts if identical facts are closely identical appear in subsequent cases than the law has to be applied in the same way that gives stability to ruling so that we can predict what courts are going to do but stare. This sciences should not be a basis to rule wrongly in a case when a case is wrong in the Supreme Court of United States has to say is wrong, then stare decisis should go out the window and we should decide the case on the law as it is, and the facts as they are now Chief Justice Roberts says that the Texas case that was a 53 decision by the way, J he was that he said that was wrongly decided wrongly decided that he rule that way now on the identical facts and a dinner and in the same law is essentially as well. I'm down by wrongly decided.

Case nonsense is that disappointing.

I thought we had a man up there was a leader who was the Chief Justice who had a philosophy that was a good pro-life conservative philosophy and yet he fall prey to the liberals. Very disappointing to me to be the judge sees as judge.

The column balls and strikes. As I said in the first half hour will say again what that does not mean, though, if the last pitch was a ball that means this could pitch visible and that's what you hear.

They know it. Still it was a bald man and even though I think it you know we could strike at a ball that even though I wanted to be a strike well now the same pitch comes in a minute call it a ball again. Even I thought it was a strike. It's the whole thing makes this and he said that in his opinion, it's not like were putting these words in his mouth. He literally said he did not agree with their reasoning, conclusions, that's what they do. The other side. Judicial philosophy is to find somewhere some statute and some interpretation even if it's from an international court a foreign court somewhere else outside the United States that somehow came to conclusion, I want I'll take that.

That's good for me and it is I don't care about that philosophy. I know what I agree with signed over to Stryker ball before I even made up my mind on how to get the challenges facing Americans is now stored constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms and rights in courts in Congress.

And we have an exceptional track record of success.

Here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.you can learn more about our life-changing, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice right, we've created a free publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn person publication includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, when Obama care means many ways your membership is powering the right mission in life today online/Jay Sekulow this Jordan security your calls him Timothy's call right off the bat in Missouri should hold on to six rolled on your on their water and you will will will will will will you law. I think this is to assist is up to tell us we decide no education and what philosophies people are pushed on people whether they're in law school regardless of the Republican or Democrat to cut through. That's the way it is these get to go past that.

So what philosophy being taught how to talk to Dante in most law schools the floss to be exactly what John Robert said today which is I don't care about how I got to get there. Don't look at how the sausage is made but this is where I would be on this because and then he's falling back on pricing from 33 years three years as I start so that's not that that's not the case that came before us. A few years ago I was on the side of the still of the side, the court changed the court changed the makeup. The composition significantly.

You would think he would've taken the same reasoning admin same place but but he didn't do that before the character the river he came up with what is attached even though they told us is not a tax in court. While they're here and I push them on that given that opening they still said no, really. There can tell me yes out all over that with them at itself is that I was concerned about that issue.

But again now I want to play some different P waves because it talks about a double victory in the race, take a listen and this is sort of a double victory if you will for advocates of abortion rights because on the one hand, the Supreme Court strikes down the Louisiana law, which was really never went into to force incompletely and secondly they the end with the Chief Justice joined the majority today. They say that these groups these clinics.

These doctors, these abortion rights advocates can challenge abortion law so it's a double victory saying there is because it was the dissent talks about how there was no standing was a woman seeking abortion that was filing the suit here was the owners of the medical clinic and Andy a decision that focuses not on the standing principle which would've been an easy way to decide this case also is concerning me. You have a right you have a direct and in the outcome of the litigation to challenge a particular statute or statute is constitutional, what possible person other than the woman has been standing the abortion clinic on the doctors in my view.

Do not just Chief Justice Roberts had the easy way out.

He could've said that the standing did not exist on the part of the clinic that it was the one who had the right, not the doctors and not the clinic that's first year of the Constitution law. I don't know what possessed him not to look at that simple standard of standing and say that this law could not be challenged by those who were challenging.

This raises the question I want you to comment on and that is people's frustration level because you know John Roberts conservative you go through the history. This happens now is that we may be surprised with my bike decisions. We agree with someone else. The pressure campaign by the left is on a different level. Had I think the people we don't, you may not realize it talks. I don't know where you live in the country I'm talking to people who live in the bluest blue states right now, in the register read but I know a lot of you probably don't necessarily if you agree with what were saying here in the broadcast of groupware were coming from philosophically you might not be surrounded by this world in DC that I'm not even talking about light, Republican, Democrat because I think it's more to the media which the legal community in the world that they travel in who they've gotten use to that's recent like John Roberts does know Brett Cavanaugh for his entire life.

I mean like basically entire adult careers. I it's not like I have zebra cattle serving the DC court where it where, by the way John Roberts came from and so you got in the get.

So it's all based in Washington DC and these are these are big positions but I think the idea that somehow over these these couple decades in the media pressure you might mostly listen to broadcast like ours, run your station to I would welcome WLFE in Miami. 1:59 PM Eastern time each day. It's WLC so recite you on the fly. The broadcast of Jay Sekulow lot, but depending on where you are kind of like what media affects you and it's all on these on these issues like abortion. We have the two interest groups on the site have pro-life program for abortion but then you have all of this in between these all restrictions that John Roberts had a clear philosophy on this, but I will tell you I think the frustration comes from our people never seem to happen the other way that our folks at the exit by right and I remember, but I do think most of that is the pressure campaign, something I was asked you the same thing I could see the frustration building with conservatives as they talk about about sweet wheat we put all our energy into these confirmation battles, and we spent a lot of resources and people spent a lot of time and then you don't know that's part of the American system is tele-justice other than the rule of the particular case just got to redouble the efforts today.

I need the recourses not to walk away when the stakes are so high. A completely agree with Jordan that did the recourse here is to change the narrative here so we got a new we just got to tell the truth. Jaden, this law was written to protect women.

That's why the standing question even talking about is so important here. Here's the tragic reality and you alluded to this, but I want to say this again in our brief gate we open. There's an appendix in the back with the last decade of ambulance business, but we open this brief with they list partial list of ambulance visits to abortion clinics in 2019 alone. This is the tragic truth that the American people need to know so that someone like Chief Justice Roberts doesn't feel like it's socially acceptable only to rule a certain way ambulances leave abortion clinics with women in the back of the NJ and they need lifesaving care. This law did not speak to the legality of abortion. This law said that when that ambulance leaves that clinic. That woman can get lifesaving care subject we've got to change the narrative. This was not a pro-choice ruling. This was an anti-women ruling and that something the Chief Justice need to hear down the road. Further, justices need to.

Here's well that's just the truth.

See, I think what will happen if conservatives continue and I to this is case conservatives continue to be the ones elected within the Republican Party's office. He will have elections will be obsolete as if conservatives I'm not sure they're going to buy anymore those excuses of an answer. So if it's good to be confirmation vote of 52. Just tell me forget over to Roe versus Wade are not or also not you know I'm not moving forward.your career is over when I can do justice because that's not a hypothetical. That is something I want to know are you willing about this question. Will you over over overturned press would you do care except the Astarte said is that magic but get past that. I think the left.

Does that the lab electrical wires.

You say all well they they confirm to me that they would not of the river's weight but our guys are afraid that I think we may be entering a new world and we have Sid or Holly's.

Now we have people saying way we've done things we need to take our scrutiny to the next level. I understand what he saying he's not saying this is that our process it's it's not the process itself. That's the Constitution is not the you to get 99.9. I don't think we ever think that's conservatives because were not like that were not so uniform but we, the scrutiny could be turned up two notches and no question about it. And that goes back to the double standard of the last decade, Jordan, and you're not asking for outcome based judging you're just asking for a judge to look through the same philosophical rubric. Every single time and look how can you come up with the ruling in 2016. Look at essentially the same set of facts, except even narrower and come up with a different ruling, Jordan, that is, outcome based judging so as not putting a litmus test board but it is saying you've got a look at similar cases to the same rubrics that there's predictability and how you're going to judge because after all, you don't get to write the laws we elect the legislature to do that, we come back from the break and the other player statement from Sen. Schumer kinda finished the last segment off but I'm reading the Alito dissent right now and he pretty much eviscerates the Chief Justice's reasoning on stare decisis and conservative person with principal. He is a person who understands one started, the sizes should be applied when it should not be applied to that as well as that of Justice Thomas, Gorsuch and Cavanaugh state what the law really should be. In this case and it is saying that Justice Robert not take a page out of justice Alito's book, Justice Alito dissent, which unfortunately is not a law because it is the defendant stated the case perfectly and succinctly.

Justice Roberts should have taken the page out of that and followed his colleague's opinion from similarity is 100 684 31 two that's 100-6431 10 got to say become nuptial gifts at your calls, we come back to us with your final segment. So if you got questions or comments about this 164, 31 to June agree is maybe I think it just it pushes you there you to do more than one day a thought just not just react but you have to wonder should we be. I don't want to take the less approach to this.

I think they take it to a level that is out of control, but but why do we accept answer that question so that we can get 51 votes. What if our folks at him. I can give you my vote get over that line, you can get this lifetime job, Supreme Court, United States, fancy row question question only when a society can agree most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how publication includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, when Obama care me anyways. Your membership is powering the right mission life today online/challenges facing Americans constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever with the American center for Law and Justice on the front lines protecting your freedoms and rights.

Courts in Congress and exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you for your thoughts. Well this perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing, member today. See with Chuck Schumer said that the pressure is admits, I do think where they lose is that if and I think they miscalculate is it when you put someone through the ringer like a Cavanaugh like a topless or even like a course is whether Bailey barely get confer. I think that there little bit more battle tested out in John Roberts case, it was still not like giant was like you but I will go back to this with Chuck Schumer. This was his threat that he made a Cavanaugh corset if they decided cases certainly take a listen I wanted to know okay you won't know what hit you pay the price.

If we use language like that if you had like 15 minutes. People would say oh are they supporting people who are exercising executive rights is rather quiet, you know, are they now they supporting violence or they get a calling on violence or for violent overthrow of the court, but if Chuck Schumer says it was as though I can imagine.

I guess handling a firearm. Maybe no one thinks that this was by the way, those were statements that Chuck Schumer made around this opinion. He came_came out argument during after the oral argument said that to the protesters who were there in Washington DC and on the steps of the Supreme Court. So I went through this weekend. Andy and I went back to fan on approval of any from a legal standpoint, this pressure campaign. I think Jordan aptly names is really counter to what our constitutional lifetime appointments are supposed to prevent. We know that pressure campaign is where your for life well healed.

Job according to the Constitution what's called during good behavior. That's what the Constitution says but instead of yielding to your own sense of philosophy you do yoga pressure and I remember Schumer screaming his head off about Gorsuch and Cavanaugh after the oral argument, and you know what's ironic today is the fact that you recall that the Chief Justice criticized Schumer for making the statement he came out and condemn them and said what a terrible thing and yet, in this vision today.

He capitulated to that thing and seems to have spent all but I'm going to be a right to rule myself and Cavanaugh and now Robert and that no one would apply to the liberal left when I could've easily followed what I decided in the Texas case, the idea that there is no standing and done the right thing. Okay Robert this is the same court, the city's 36 same court human beings and not in its technology, have to get to watch the kids had get ripped off outside.

I mean, I don't know I just have to be 3D 40 5DI don't know that the maybe the point where they finally are so embarrassed by what they've done that.

They ignore that even happened in recent history.

Go back in the 1960s requesting the court to reverse what you probably don't agree with a lot of what they decided but but they love row versus Wade. That's fine. I was going to Deborah called and I listen to Karen first.

You can hold onto George online.

One can welcome Jay Sekulow life you put it resident is story decisive anyhow talk about this year so the court is gotten things wrong is history. They got wrong that the separate but equal doctrine they got wrong was Plessy versus Ferguson they got wrong.

Dred Scott that black Americans only 3/5 of the of the citizen for accounting purposes, and they got other cases wrong and they have reversed the course Korematsu when they were entering Japanese Americans during World War II. These are horrific decisions of the court walks away from them and stare decisis. Also, Andy implies time but it's been so embedded into our constitutional analysis that it would just be an earthquake to undo it private mean that wrongly decided. Cases have to keep being wrongly decided because previous one will wrongly decide that means that when you see a case that has a good precedent to it that is abides by the law and the facts before you, you follow that precedent in ruling. That's okay. Let's start this sciences should not be a vehicle for the perpetuation of wrongs that have existed before such as the Plessy decision Dred Scott and the ones that Jay has decided so what Justice Roberts does as he fails to understand stare decisis is not an immutable concept that must be applied in every case where the prior case that you're applying has been wrongly decided and didn't say in the Texas case, it was wrongly decided yes want to stick to your guns.

Mr. Keith Joseph: the second there's an interesting quote from Cecile Richards used to be the head of the Planned Parenthood to take listeners. I think it's very worrisome administration that is now access federal judiciary including these two separate judges who are against women's rights against the right to safe and legal abortion finger personally. One one number to the dogmatic is in the context of the election fan. This is a double-edged sword for conservatives to list some judges are so concerned, I would say she's correct on this day. Anyone quite enough in this case, but 200 judges. I'm sure Planned Parenthood is not happy about. And by the way they were the ones that organize that rally that Chuck Schumer spoke about and they get $600 million of taxpayer funding, so she might be worried about that as well Jay if I could just very quickly. Here's the other thing she scared of life is winning because when mother see these 40 and 40 images there choosing life more and more medical advances are showing the baby survive an earlier earlier age. I'm personally involved in the case where baby will born at 25 weeks gestation is now thriving day.

I'll tell you this, Cecile Richards, she might've had a temporary win this week. She's got an awful lot to be worried about life is when you are culturally you have to wait for court to say something is illegal that's honestly saying a lot about you about like our culture where we are in.

Listen, I know a lot of people question about this right now because it it's kind of a wild time. Let's be honest, to be whether it also depends highly on where you are the country right now. If you watch on Facebook you periscope it were back in the studio yet. It's different. Where other offices are and how your office may be, and how work may be here or what TV you're watching how it looks different. There's a reason behind that's because things have not gotten back to normal. And then there's been some subjective so I do believe that some of this we can change culturally set people to make decisions that we might put Planned Parenthood might be out of business, not because they not only because I get federal tax money, but because it was good to be willing to support maybe like what's happened to social media companies who have been caught.

You know they fill out Isis and all those other groups to to say whatever they want to say and finally people realize pay maybe everything that Facebook and Twitter was allowing was great to say. That's how Isis organize itself as a terror group using social media platforms that pick and choose winners and losers as they go. But lose it up to is up to the people. Going to Planned Parenthood safe to risky or dangerous for me and I think I'm killing a lot a human being will be Planned Parenthood doesn't matter what you talk tomorrow on Jay Sekulow.

Life is always weaker to go to ACLJ.org ACLJ.org with God. Again, our Braden school choice initiative. That's how you change significantly when these courts go, but also where our culture ACLJ.org ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom and rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing member today ACLJ