if we have a national law. thank you for joining us, i am trey gowdy, it s sunday night in america, president biden trying to salvage the mid terms by attracting the supreme court, he said this in the aftermath of the the dobbs decision. this fall roe on the ballot, the right to privacy, liberty, they are on the ballot. sounds like he wants these issues on the ballot, isn t that what the dobbs decision did? return the issues to state legislators to thehe people andpl ballot. what is most telling when president said this. roe was a decision on a complex matter that drew a careful balance between a woman s right to choose and state s ability to regulate. that most americans found acceptable, if you believe that mr. president, are the people not also capable of drawing a careful balance on a complex matter. if you believe a national consensus exists on these issues, why would that not be reflected by the people at the ballot box? there in lies the question, what are your rig
people not also capable of drawing a careful balance on a complex matter. if you believe a national consensus exists on these issues, why would that not be reflected by the people at the ballot box? there in lies the question, what are your rights, where are your rights to be found. in the constitution in the minds of 9 lawyers with black robes or the ballot? who decides? and who reconciles in a conflict between competing rights. joining us now. josh blackman, much as i do not want to go back to con-law class, i think we have to. there are certain rights mentioned in the constitution but not that many, if it is not mentioned in the constitution, it
surprised that nonsmart lawyers do not agree with me, i am trying to figure out. of all of the words not mentioned, now it is, i think in the fifth and 14th. are we going to have 50 different definitions on when it begins, if we have that, can we have test different definitions on when it ends? here is the big question. in dobbs justices said that constitution is neutral on abortion, scalia said that many years ago. it is agnostic, neutral. there is a group of scholars today who argue that no, the 14 amendment requires states to preserve the life of people, requires equal protect of law between living people and living fetuses alike. the current court i don t think has much appetite for that argument.
asian americans and hispanics and more blacks watching how bad it was with the virtual learning. that that s it. it s great to be back. thank you for watching we will see you next sunday when the next revolution is televised this was not a decision driven by the constitution. it was an exercise in raw political power. beyond choice. we cannot allowance out of control supreme court working in conjunction with extremist elements of republican party to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy. keep protesting, keep making your point, it is important. the only way to change this,
mentioned marriage, the idea of people get married is old, but same sex marriage has only been in existence for two decade in the world, that is not deeply rooted. this is not a right that has deep historical roots. trey: i wish you would have taught me con-law. if i hear you right, we have certain rights mentioned where the technicality, than others that are rooted in our history and tradition, if not one of those two, it is i what? not a constitutional right, up to state legislator and the people to identify it as and right? if right. for a rights not listed in the constitution, and lacks historical roots it is up to the people to decide.