Abortion Opinion Leaked

>> Bonnie: THIS WEEK ON "TO THE CONTRARY", A REVOLUTION OR QUIET ACCEPTANCE?

WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT REVIEW AID AFTER A DRAFT SUPREME COURT OPINION ENDS FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR ABORTION RIGHTS?

[MUSIC] >> Bonnie: HELLO.

I AM BONNIE ERBE.

WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY", A DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL TRENDS FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.

UP FIRST, A FINAL DECISION COULD BE MONTHS AWAY.

BUT ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES AREN'T WEEDING.

THEY ARE MOBILIZING AFTER HAVING SEEN THE LEGISLATURE FIRST DRAFT UP THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THE HISTORIC DOBBS CASE FROM MISSISSIPPI.

THE DRAFT SHOWS THE COURT OVERTURNING REVIEW WADE, WHICH HAS PROTECTED WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO AN ABORTION FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS.

THAT SETS THE STAGE FOR 13 STATES TO BAN ABORTION IMMEDIATELY THROUGH SO-CALLED TRIGGER LAWS.

EXPERTS PREDICT ABORTION WILL BE BANNED OR SEVERELY LIMITED BY 25 OR 26 STATES QUICKLY AFTER THE FINAL OPINION IS ISSUED.

PRESIDENT BIDEN IS URGING CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW MAKING ABORTION LEGAL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THERE HAS BEEN A SOCIAL MEDIA EXPLOSION, EXCORIATING REPUBLICAN MEANS SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS WHO VOTED TO CONFIRM BOTH JUSTICES COURSE GORSUCH AN KAVANAUGH TO THE COURT.

THEY ESSENTIALLY.

BARRICADED BEFORE THE SUMMIT DURING THEIR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, SAYING REVIEW WADE WAS ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRECEDENT AND WOULD VOTE TO UPHOLD IT.

SO WHILE ANTIABORTION GROUPS ARE CELEBRATING, PRO-CHOICE ORGANIZATIONS ARE TAKING TO THE STREETS AND DEVELOPING STRATEGIES ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND I'M SPEAKING NOW WITH ALEXIS McGILL, THE PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOODELCOME TO THE SHOW.

WHAT DO PRO-CHOICE FACTIONS HAVE TO DO NOW MOVING FORWARD > Alexis McGill Johnson: SO THE WAY FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN IMMEDIATE NEXT STEP WITH OUR SENATE TAKING UP THE WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT AGAIN TO DEMONSTRATE AND HOLD TO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE SENATE HAS LEGISLATION TO CODIFY ROE.

AND WE WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE, AGAIN, WHO IS SUPPORTING THE LEGISLATION.

THE SECOND THING WE HAVE TO DO IS CAPTURE THE RAGE.

AS YOU HAVE SEEN, PEOPLE ARE OUT IN THE STREETS, THEY ARE OUT OF THE COURTS, THE FEDERAL BUILDINGS UPSET BECAUSE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE THE LAW OF THE LAND, ACCESS TO ABORTION SHOULD BE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS, NOT POLITICIANS.

AND THEY ARE FIRED UP AND THEY ARE LOOKING TO BE ENGAGED.

>> Bonnie: WHEN I WAS COMING-OF-AGE POLITICALLY IN THE '70S AND '80S, ABORTION WAS AN ISSUE THAT WOMEN VOTED ON.

IT WAS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

IN SINCE THE '80S -- SINCE THE '90S OR SO, IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMY, JOBS, WHATEVER ELSE, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY IF THERE IS A WAR, ANYTHING BUT ABORTION.

IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE THAT?

>> Alexis McGill Johnson: I AM 49, AS ALL THIS ROE, IN A THINK ABOUT THAT ALL THE TIME BECAUSE MY GENERATION IS THE FIRST GENERATION REALLY GREW UP WITH THIS RATE IN HAND.

AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE HAD TO DO OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS SINCE THE ORAL ARGUMENTS BECAME CLEAR WHERE THE COURT WAS GOING TO TAKE THIS CASE IS SOUND THE ALARM BELL, YOU KNOW?

THE SKY IS FALLING.

IT'S HAPPENING.

IN WHAT WE LEARNED IN OUR OWN RESEARCH WAS THAT WHILE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SUPPORT ACCESS TO ABORTION SUPPORT, ROE IS BEING LAW OF THE LAND, AND ONLY 30 PERCENT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVED IT COULD FALL, AND THIS IS LIKE NINE MONTHS INTO SP EIGHT IN TEXAS, THE HORRIFIC SIX WEEK UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN THAT HAS A BOUNTY HUNTING PROVISION ATTACHED TO IT.

SO WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT THIS COURT, WITH THIS DRAFT OPINION, HAS IN FACT CLOSED THAT BELIEVABILITY GAP.

PEOPLE NOW UNDERSTAND THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT THAT ACCESSING HEALTHCARE AND THEIR OWN STATE IS GOING TO HAVE.

WE HAVE SEEN OVER 600 RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR AND STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS IN 42 STATES.

>> Bonnie: SAMUEL ALITO SAID IN THE OPINION THAT THIS WOULD NOT APPLY, SO HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO SAY THAT THIS IS ONLY ABOUT ABORTION BECAUSE IT CONCERNS A FETUS.

IT WON'T APPLY TO CONTRACEPTION OR GAY-RIGHTS.

AND SHOULD WOMEN AND, YOU KNOW, DIVERSE PEOPLE BE WORRIED THAT THEIR RATES ARE NEXT?

>> Alexis McGill Johnson: YOU NOW, HERE'S THE PLAYBOOK, RIGHT?

WE HAVE SEEN THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY REMADE OVER THE LAST 12 YEARS.

WE HAVE SEEN STATE LEGISLATURES BE GERRYMANDERED INTO SPACES WHERE THEY ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS ON SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES.

AND WHEN YOU SEE THE NUMBER OF TRANS BILLS THAT ARE IN THE SAME STATES WHERE THERE ARE ABORTION RESTRICTIONS AND VOTING RESTRICTIONS, THE TELLS ME THAT'S A FIGHT THEY WANT TO HAVE.

SO I AM CONCERNED VERY MUCH THAT ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING ABOUT, ONES THAT WE CARE IMMENSELY ABOUT, ARE VERY MUCH UNDER ATTACK.

>> Bonnie: OTHER GROUPS SUCH AS LGBTQ+ WORRY RIGHTS SUCH AS MARRIAGE EQUALITY COULD BE AMONG THE ARCHCONSERVATIVE JUSTICES' NEXT TARGETS, ALONG WITH ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

>> Alexis McGill Johnson: OF COURSE.

EPIDEMIC TIME.

>> Bonnie: JOINING ME TODAY RDC DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSWOMAN ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, FORMER REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE NAN HAWORTH FROM NEW YORK, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST HILARY ROSEN, AND REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST RINA SHAH.

SO, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE, IS THERE REALLY ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS CAN DO AT THIS POINT?

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: VERY LITTLE, BONNIE.

THE HOUSE IS CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS AND WE ARE LIKELY TO PASS A BILL, BUT IT'S HARD TO GET ANYTHING THROUGH THE SENATE BECAUSE OF THE FILIBUSTER.

>> Bonnie: IS THERE NO CHANCE THAT -- I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS ARE RELISHING THIS VICTORY, WHICH HAS BEEN 50 YEARS IN THE MAKING FOR THEM, THERE STILL IS NO FEDERAL RIGHT THAT'S EVER BEEN PASSED BY CONGRESS.

AND ITS -- I ALSO READ SOMEWHERE THAT EVEN IF CONGRESS SAYS, OKAY, WAIT, THERE IS A FEDERAL RIGHT TO ABORTION, THEN THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT, THAT IS SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE SAME QUESTION PREVAILS.

AND SO, CONGRESSIONAL ACTION MAY INDEED BE USELESS.

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: IT LOOKS PRETTY USELESS AT THIS POINT.

THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL WORD ON SUCH MATTERS IN THE SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN THAT WE CAN PASS A BILL THAT WOULD TRY TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL IN THE STATE!

REMEMBER, IT IS STILL LEGAL, AND ABOUT HALF THE STATES.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO OUR WORK.

THIS IS GOING TO BECOME A MAJOR CAMPAIGN ISSUE.

IT'S GOING TO RALLY DEMOCRATS IN MOST EXTRAORDINARY WAY.

SO YOU WILL SEE VOTES ON THIS ISSUE IN THE HOUSE AND IN THE SENATE.

>> Bonnie: YOU THINK THAT THE SENATE DEMOCRATS WILL BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE FILIBUSTER?

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: I THINK THE FILIBUSTER WILL KEEP THEM FROM PASSING ANYTHING, BUT YOU WILL SEE THEM ON THE FLOOR AND YOU WILL SEE THEM TRYING TO GET A VOTE.

THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE THAT EXCITES THE ELECTORATE, AND THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO SIT ON THIS ISSUE EVEN THOUGH IT IS LOST TO US AND THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL WORD.

>> Bonnie: WELL, THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

I HAVE GOTTEN VERY CYNICAL ABOUT ABORTION BEING AN ISSUE ON THE BALLOT.

I KNOW IT WAS IN THE '70S AND '80S, VERY MUCH SO.

WOMEN AND MEN SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN VERY SORT OF SPOILED BY THE FACT THAT ABORTION IS AVAILABLE.

NAN, I WOULD ASK YOU, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A MOTIVATING FORCE IN THE MIDTERMS, THAT PEOPLE WILL COME OUT BECAUSE THEY ARE ANGRY WITH THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT THIS DECISION IF IT TURNS OUT SIMILAR TO WHAT THE DRAFT SAID IT WOULD DO?

>> Nan Hayworth: WELL, THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, BONNIE, A LOT OF CONDITIONALS THERE.

THIS WAS, IT SEEMS, GENUINELY TO HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH A WORKING DOCUMENT, NOT AT ALL CLEAR WHERE EVERY JUSTICE WILL FALL.

WE COULD CERTAINLY MAKE SOME PRETTY STRONG PREDICTIONS, BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF JUSTICES UP IN THE AIR.

SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO LAND.

BUT IF IT LANDS AS THIS MAJORITY DRAFT WOULD INDICATE, SINCE IT'S FOR THE MAJORITY, THEN IT COULD INDEED BE A POLITICAL ISSUE.

I THINK THAT'S WHY IT WAS LEAKED.

I THINK PROBABLY, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS MUST BE DETERMINED SWIFTLY AND ACTED UPON, AND THIS IS A GREAT CONCERN WHICH MAY ALSO BE MOTIVATING FOR A LOT OF FOLKS, ESPECIALLY ON THE RIGHT, BUT, YEAH, THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ENERGIZE I THINK THE BASE OF THE LEFT AND OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

IT COULD SUCCEED.

BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO QUITE OBJECTIVELY SEEK TO CHERISH THE CONSTITUTION AND TO RESPECTED AND TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YES, THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED, SO THE OTHER RECOURSE AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF THIS SORT OF, THE SORT OF RIGHT, IF YOU WILL, WOULD BE TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT LABORIOUS PROCESS, BUT IF THAT'S WHERE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS, THE MAX HOW IT CAN COME ABOUT.

>> Bonnie: ALL RIGHT.

YOUR THOUGHTS, HILARY.

YOU ARE VERY ACTIVE ON THIS ISSUE, WE SHOULD SAY.

WHAT ARE THE PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES SAYING THE NEXT STEP IS?

>> Hilary Rosen: LOOK, I THINK THAT STRATEGY IS FAIRLY CLEAR, BUT IT'S NOT SIMPLE: YOU KNOW, THE FIRST AND FOREMOST WE HAVE TO HOLD THE SENATE, AND WE MEANING THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TOLD THE SENATE.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE THESE VULNERABLE DEMOCRATS THAT ARE UP FOR ELECTION, AND WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO GET A PICKUP IN ONE OF THOSE VULNERABLE STATES WHERE WE HAVE A SHOT, LIKE PENNSYLVANIA OR WISCONSIN.

NUMBER TWO, THE ORGANIZING SHIFTS TO THE STATES.

THE CONGRESSWOMAN IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, PASSING LEGISLATION IS A NONSTARTER AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THE STATES ARE WHERE THIS IS GOING TO BE MOST ACTIVE, BECAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE HAVE TO PROTECT WOMEN WHO NEED, WHO NEED THESE SERVICES, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO SUPPORT THEM IN THE STATES WHERE THIS IS GOING TO STAY LEGAL.

>> Bonnie: RENA, YOUR THOUGHTS.

>> Rina Shah: WELL, YOU KNOW, BONNIE, YOU SAID SOMETHING OTHER THAT STRUCK A CHORD WITH ME IN THAT I WENT TO COLLEGE IN THE EARLY 2000!

I WAS VERY MUCH RAISED UP A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE IN A HOME THAT REALLY BELIEVED THAT ABORTION WAS WRONGND WHEN I WENT TO A BIG LIBERAL STATE SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE I WAS MET WITH SITUATIONS WHERE I COULD SEE BOTH SIDES.

AND SO, AS A SET ON THE SHOW MANY TIMES, AS HE ONCE REMINDED ME THAT MARIO CUOMO ANSWERS ALWAYS THAT ON ANTIABORTION MYSELF, BUT I'M PRO-CHOICE FOR OTHER WOMEN.

AND THAT CAME OUT OF SEEING THINGS IN COLLEGE THAT I JUST REALLY CANNOT TURN A BLIND EYE TO.

AND I WENT TO COLLEGE IN WEST VIRGINIA, A VERY -- ESTATE THAT OF COURSE IS GOING TO BE VERY RESTRICTIVE AND HAVE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS FOR WEST VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT AS THEY TRY TO SEEK ABORTION SERVICES, IF ROE IS OVERTURNED.

NOW, REALLY, WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER ABOUT PEOPLE TAKING FOR GRANTED, REALLY, ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTIONS, MY GENERATION -- AND I'M BORN AFTER 1980'S, SO I MET MILLENNIAL, OLDER MILLENNIALS, BUT I WILL SAY, YES, THERE HAS BEEN A SENSE THAT HOW CAN IT BE TAKEN TO US, THAT ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION, ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE CARE THAT LOWER INCOME WOMEN IN MY HOME STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA TO RECEIVE THROUGH CERTAIN CLINICS THAT YOU PROVIDE ABORTION SERVICES?

SO THIS IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX ON SO MANY LEVELS.

I THINK AMERICAN WOMEN ARE WAKING UP AND REALIZING WHEN FINALLY FEELS LIKE YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE LINE, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO SPEAK UP WITH WHAT YOUR VALUES ARE.

I HAVE BEEN ASKED A LOT IN THE PAST TWO DAYS WHAT YOUNG REPUBLICAN WOMEN ARE GOING TO DO, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO ACT THIS LAW.

I THINK IT'S JUST WAY TOO EARLY TO TELL.

WE NEED TO APPOINT OURSELVES WITH THE BOXES AMERICAN WOMEN.

>> Bonnie: I WANT TO GET ONTO THE NEXT QUESTION ON THIS: ELEANOR, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE DECISION MIGHT CHANGE BEFORE IT COMES OUT?

THIS WAS THE DRAFT THAT ACTUALLY WENT OUT MONTHS AGO.

AND OF COURSE, WE SEE EVERYBODY SAYS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS UNDECIDED AS TO WHICH SIDE.

OF COURSE, HE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE -- THE DECISION WOULD STILL BE 5-4, BUT IT'S PRETTY MONUMENTAL IF YOU HAVE CHIEF JUSTICE VOTING AGAINST THE DECISION THAT HIS PARTY WANTS OR AT LEAST THOSE, THE EXTREMISTS WHO CONTROL HIS PARTY RIGHT NOW WANT.

SO HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT IT WILL CHANGE AND BY HOW MUCH BEFORE WE SAID THE DECISION AT THE END PROBABLY OF NEXT MONTH?

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: THIS WAS A DRAFT DECISION, BONNIE.

SO IT IS TRUE THAT IT COULD CHANGE, BUT GIVEN THE MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT, I BELIEVE THE CHANGES WILL BE A NUANCES ONLY.

I THINK WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET.

>> Bonnie: DO YOU THINK SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE, ESPECIALLY AT THE VERY TOP OF THE DECISION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ROE IS OVER OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT -- WAS NEVER A DECISION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN?

YOU KNOW, VERY SORT OF LIKE WE ARE GOING TO WEAR WITH ROE RIGHT NOW KIND OF DISCUSSION, KIND OF TALK IS GOING TO STAY OR GO, AND WILL IT MATTER?

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: THE LANGUAGE GOES TOO FAR.

YOU ARE OVERTURNING A FIFTY-YEAR DECISION, A DECISION THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT.

THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY CHANGE IN THE NUANCES.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MINORITY HAS ANY SAY, I THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WANT THE COURT TO BE FAR LESS DOGMATIC AND ALMOST JOYFUL THAT THEY ARE OVERTURNING THIS DECISION.

AND TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE DIVISION IN THE COUNTRY.

SO I DO EXPECT THE LANGUAGE TO BE LESS BOLD AND DOGMATIC THAN WHAT WE HAVE READ IN THE DRAFT OPINION.

>> Bonnie: NAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK JUSTICE ROBERT -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS GOING TO END UP DOING?

AND I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR, SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, THE ARM OF THE PARTY THAT RAISES -- THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNDRAISING ARM OF THE PARTY FOR REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATES, SENT A MEMO OUT, RIGHT, AFTER THE DECISION WAS LIKE, SAYING, YOU GUYS BETTER SOFT PEDAL THIS ISSUE.

EVEN THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE THAT RAISES MONEY FOR SENATORS SAYS SOFT PEDALING.

WHAT YOU THINK?

>> Nan Hayworth: WELL, I THINK CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS'S FIRST JOB IS TO SECURE THE FOUNDATION OF THE COURT AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS SEVERE BREACH IN TRUST, INCOMPETENCE, AND IN THE -- THIS IS THE ONE INSTITUTION WE COUNT ON TO BE THE GROWN-UPS IN THE ROOM IN THE -- IN OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

YOU KNOW, THAT THEY DO IDENTIFY WHO DID THIS AND -- >> Bonnie: DOES THIS BRIEF SHOW THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER THE GROWN-UPS IN THE ROOM?

I MEAN, DOES THIS BRIEF SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOT ONLY VOTING ALONG PARTY LINES TO A FAIRLY WELL, ESPECIALLY IF THEY GET CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, BUT THEY ARE ALSO VOTING -- THE DECISION WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY SO AS TO SAY TO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WHO ELECTED DONALD TRUMP, WE WILL SUPPORT YOU TO THE NTH DEGREE, TO THE MOST EXTREME DEGREE THAT WE HAVE.

>> Nan Hayworth: I AGREE WITH CONGRESSWOMAN HOLMES NORTON THAT I THINK THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY MODERATED.

I DO THINK THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE VERY THOUGHTFULLY.

AND IT IS TRULY AN ISSUE THAT, PERHAPS OF ANY WE FACE, NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, AS RINA SAID, WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF COMPASSION AND RESPECT.

I DO -- AS I SAY, I SEE THE COURTS -- FIRST, CHIEF JUSTICE WAS FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS TO SECURE THE COURT, WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO REMAIN WITHIN ITS WALLS REMAINS WITHIN ITS WALLS, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE ONLY DRAMATIC DECISION WITH WHICH THEY ARE FACED.

>> Bonnie: OKAY.

LET ME JUMP OVER BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

HILARY, WHAT RATES ARE THEY GOING TO DO AWAY WITH NEXT?

>> Hilary Rosen: PLUS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO TO THIS LANGUAGE, IF THE IMPACT IS THE SAME, IF THE IMPACT IS THAT THEY'VE TAKEN AWAY THIS RIGHT FOR A WOMAN TO MAKE THIS PRIVATIZATION, IF THEY'VE TAKEN THIS AWAY, THEN ALL OF THE RACE THAT HAVE DEPENDED ON A RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE THREATENED.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE.

IT'S NOT JUST LGBT RIGHTS, BUT IT IS ALSO RIGHT TO SEXUAL PRIVACY AND OTHER THINGS WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER DECISIONS, ETC.

AND SO, I THINK YOU CAN'T PUT LIPSTICK ON THIS PIG.

YOU CAN'T TAKE OUT THE FIRST OF SAMUEL ALITO AND THEN SAY THAT THE REST OF THE DECISION IS MORE MODERATE.

WHAT WE HAVE TO ASSESS IS THE IMPACT.

AND I THINK FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, LOOK, DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN CRYING, LET'S FILL KASICH, WOLF OVER THIS ISSUE FOR 30 YEARS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND SAYING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE THREATENED AT THE SUPREME COURT, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE THREATENED.

IN THE PUBLIC DID NOT BUY IT.

THEY CONTINUE TO ELECT ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS MEMBERS THAT DID NOT AGREE WITH THEM ON THIS ISSUE.ND SO, I THINK NOW THAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY -- THEY'VE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DOING THIS, IT IS A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING.

AND DEMOCRATS THIS YEAR, WHICH HAVE BEEN A KIND OF CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD ON EACH OTHER, I THINK ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS FIREPOWER IS GOING TO BE TURNED ON THE REPUBLICANS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS BOUGHT INTO THE LIVES OF BRETT KAVANAUGH AND THE SHAM AND NEIL GORSUCH IN THE SHAM THAT THEY INSISTED ON IN THE SUPREME COURT HEARINGS IN THE SENATE.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A AN AMERICAN PROBLEM, AN AMERICAN CULTURAL MOVEMENT THAT IS FEELING COMPLETELY THREATENED BY THE SORT OF SETBACK.

AND I THINK THAT THAT WILL BE A HUGE BACKLASH AGAINST GOVERNMENT, AGAINST, YOU KNOW, THE FIVE WHITE MEN WHO THINK THIS IS THEIR DECISION TO MAKE.

>> Bonnie: GORSUCH AND KEVIN OTTO BOTH TOLD THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT THEY WERE -- THEY SUPPORTED THE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND THEY WOULD VOTE TO SUPPORT IT.

AND CLEARLY, WITH THIS DECISION, I MEAN, ASSUMING THE VOTE COMES OUT THE WAY IT WAS IN THE DRAFT, THEY ARE NOT TELLING -- THEY DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH.

SHOULD THERE BE CONSEQUENCES FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO DON'T TELL THE TRUTH IN THEIR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS?

>> Hilary Rosen: YES.

I MEAN, WE PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR LYING TO THE FBI, WE PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR LYING TO POLITICAL BODIES.

THE IDEA THAT WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION, THAT SUSAN COLLINS IS, YOU KNOW, NOW SAYING I CAN'T BELIEVE I WAS LIKE TO, IS HORRIFYING.

I THINK, YES, THE CONSEQUENCES ARE APPROPRIATE.

>> Nan Hayworth: YOU'D HAVE TO HOLD EVERY JUSTICE TO THE SAME STANDARD.

THERE WAS PLENTY OF DISSEMBLING OR DIVERSION AMONG THE JUSTICES TO THE LEFT AS WELL.

THEY AVOIDED CERTAIN QUESTIONS -- >> Bonnie: OF COURSE, OF COURSE.

IF YOU PUT IT -- IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO MAKE A LAW LIKE THAT, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, I SUPPOSE, THAT WOULD NOT MAKE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LIFETIME APPOINT -- APPOINTEES AND SUBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, HAVING THEIR TERMS AND DID IF THEY LIED ON -- LIKE TO CONGRESS, THAT IS A CRIME, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR BOTH PARTIES.

>> Nan Hayworth: YES, AND I JUST THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT STANDARD TO UPHOLD GIVEN THAT EVERY SUPREME COURT DECISION HAS PARTICULAR NUANCES RELATED TO THE CASE.

>> Hilary Rosen: LISTEN, WE SHOULD NOT PRETEND ANY LONGER THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS A NEUTRAL BODY, AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDED THAT A WHILE AGO, MAYBE EVEN AFTER BUSH V GORE.

THEY DECIDED THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS AS POLITICAL A BODY AS CONGRESS OR THE WHITE HOUSE.

AND I JUST THINK LET'S STOP PRETENDING THAT IT IS.

IF JUSTICE ROBERTS REALLY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, THEN HE WOULD FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

>> Nan Hayworth: THE MOST POLITICALLY VOCAL JUSTICE IS REALLY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, WHO'S VERY MUCH ON THE LEFT.

SO CERTAINLY THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, AND, YES, THEY ARE NOMINATED FOR A REASON, OBVIOUSLY BY THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESIDENTS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS SOMEHOW A DISEASE OF THE RIGHT TO SAY THE LEAST.

>> Bonnie: AND, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, AS A YALE LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE, AS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, I THINK IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, MY ALMA MATER, DO YOU THINK THERE'S A WAY, A VIABLE WAY TO HOLD JUSTICES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATEMENTS THEY MAKE DURING THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS?

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: ABSOLUTELY NOT, BONNIE.

THEY CALL IT SUPREME COURT FOR A REASONHEY ARE SUPREME.

THERE'S NOBODY ABOVE THEM.

INDEED, WE'VE NOT EVEN BE BEEN ABLE TO GET THE SUPREME COURT TO ISSUE THEIR OWN SET OF ETHICS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE ETHICS FOR ALL THE OTHER COURTS.

SO THEY HAVE ALL BUT BEEN ABOVE THE LAW AND THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT GOING TO -- WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THIS DECISION.

>> Bonnie: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE COURT HAS BECOME SO POLITICIZED THAT AMERICA IS LOSING FAITH IN IT AS A NEUTRAL CONSTITUTION?

>> Eleanor Holmes Norton: I DO BELIEVE IT'S BECOME -- EXCEPT FOR THE CHIEF JUDGE, HE'S THE ONLY, HE IS THE ONLY JUSTICE THAT KEEPS THE COURT FROM BEING ENTIRELY POLITICIZED.

>> Rina Shah: WELL, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF EVIDENCE IN RECENT YEARS, PARTICULARLY THAT SHOW AMERICANS ARE RAPIDLY LOSING FAITH IN ALL OF OUR INSTITUTIONS ACROSS THE BOARD.

IS NO SURPRISE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS KICKED SO MUCH TO THE STATES AND CONGRESS HAS SAT IDLY BY AND ABDICATED THEIR DUTY TO REALLY BE A CHECK ON ONE OF THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, THAT RELEASE NEEDS IT AS MUCH AS ANY OF THE OTHER TWO.

AS IT IS ABOUT WILL FLOW FROM THIS UP IN COURT THIS WEEK AND PARTICULARLY AROUND THIS DECISION: LET'S LOOK THROUGH EVERYTHING AND LOOK EVERYTHING THROUGH THE DOOR PRO-DEMOCRACY LINES FROM NOW ON.

CLOSE LOOK AT EACH OTHER AS EQUALS IN THE SOCIETY AND I REALLY AM NERVOUS ABOUT THE COURT MOVING FORWARD, BUT I TRUST THAT THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO MEET THE MOMENT.

>> Bonnie: ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

PLEASE KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING.LEASE FOLLOW US ON TWITTER, INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK.

PLEASE GO TO OUR PREVIOUS WEBSITE, WHICH IS PBS.org/TOTHECONTRARY.

AND WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK "TO THE CONTRARY", SEE YOU NEXT TIME.

FOUNDATION.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY," PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT PBS.org/TO THE CONTRARY.