tv Andrea Mitchell Reports MSNBC June 27, 2022 9:00am-10:00am PDT
throughout the weekend both supporters and opponents of abortion rights taking to the streets, in some cases after the supreme court tossed aside a half century of precedent that abortion with some restrictions was legal. right now at least ten states restrict abortion access if not ban the procedure all together. with arizona, west virginia and wisconsin shutting down abortion services, but the laws there still unclear. 16 states and washington, d.c. have laws protecting the right to an abortion, leaving 21 states where the legislative battles over the issue will rage throughout the year heading towards the midterms. turning to germany where president biden is meeting with the g7 partners including president zelenskyy from kyiv which featured new bombings over the weekend and an attack on a shopping center earlier today. u.s. officials are planning to supply a new surface to air
missile defense system and artillery in the coming days. another supreme court decision, this one rejecting states' rights on gun safety . i'll speak to a noted expert on the second amendment as president biden signed into law some gun safety measures. we begin with abortion. nbc's pete william and linda greenhouse. pete, first to you. states are acting quickly today and over the weekend. what challenges are you following that we should expect more of? >> i think there are going to be many more of them. they all follow a similar pattern saying, we understand the u.s. supreme court has said the u.s. constitution allows states to ban abortion, but what about state constitutions that oftentimes differ and provide more protection in certain categories than the federal
constitution does? we have a lawsuit in utah that says the state constitution provides more protection for personal autonomy and family planning issues. one in florida says state privacy protections allow abortion. there's a brand new lawsuit in louisiana asking for a temporary restraining order. it says louisiana has three separate trigger ban provisions and which one are we supposed to follow because they're all different. they're asking a court to put them all on hold because the law right now is vague and this all needs to be straightened out. those are the immediate challenges we're seeing. i think down the road we're going to see challenges on, for example, what about the texas law that says you can be sued if you in any way aid in abortion? what about a corporation in texas that provides travel benefits to employees who want to go to another state where abortion is legal? does that run afoul of the texas
law? can states ban people from traveling to another state to get an abortion? justice kavanaugh said in his view they can't, but that's just his view. there are questions about allowing medication abortion services or surgical abortion services on military facilities in states that ban abortion and receiving the medication abortion by mail from outside a banned state. so there's lots of litigation to be carried out here. the supreme court said in its majority opinion that roe created a lot of confusion. the dissenters said that the ruling on friday now creates huge amounts of confusion. i think it's going to be months and months while this all plays out. >> linda greenhouse you wrote in the times that friday's decision was, quote, a requiem for the right to an abortion. how do you see the difference between what justice thomas
wrote about other privacy based rulings, including same sex consensual sex between adults, same-sex marriage and contraception? >> on the face of it, it's ridiculous to think that the court is going to back away from the 1965 ruling that said people have a right to use contraception. it's preposterous. you know, a frightening amount of the ideas that justice thomas has kind of put in the water, he's the one who came up with, you know, let's revisit the second amendment 20 or 25 years ago before anyone thought that was going to happen. i think we disregard what he has to say at our peril. his list of supreme court precedents based on the notion that the due process clause has some substantive content of liberty and equality, he left
out one. he named contraception. he named lgbtq rights. he named same-sex marriage. what he didn't mention was interracial marriage, because the court's decision in loving against virginia was based on that exact same line of cases. i thought that was a very interesting omission. >> yeah. especially obviously considering his own marriage and millions of other marriages and blended families all over america since the loving decision in the '70s. if you can overturn a 1973 abortion decision, you know, how far back or how recent are these other precedents? >> reading this line of cases that have poured out from the court the last few days, including today where the court grants the right to a football coach to do what he wants in the name of religion in the middle of a football field is an
astonishing decision. the guy is a public employee. the state has taken a roto rooter to constitutional law. it's just head snapping. >> pete, you now have a super majority. they clearly are disregarding public opinion, which the court supposedly never did but actually did do in the past because clear majorities for quite some time have stood in favor of abortion with some restrictions. how do you see this new super majority? these are very young justices with the exception of clarence thomas, of course. the newer judges are younger. also in at least two instances you have susan collins, joe manchin, two very important votes, for one of those justices saying in two instances that they feel misled in their
confirmation hearings and the private meetings. >> well, on the misleading question, i think the more interesting part of that is what susan collins has said she was told by justice kavanaugh privately. in terms of the hearings, everybody has to take with a grain of salt whatever the nominees say in their confirmation hearings about how they're going to rule in the future. you could even ask whether it's fair to ask potential judicial nominees how they would rule in specific cases in the future. it is a conservative super majority. it is flexing its muscles. it seems to be going at a very fast pace. the chief justice john roberts, for example, tried to tap on the brakes and try to get his colleagues to go along with a ruling that while it certainly would have eviscerated the roe protection wouldn't have opened the door to trigger laws but let's not go all the way.
i think we'll see this conservative super majority flex its muscles even more next term on issues like affirmative action. >> on the second amendment they are upholding or invalidating states' rights. but here they're saying we'll send it back to the states and let the states do its will on the abortion issue. linda, i want to ask you what you think about the significance of the three dissenters signing that dissent written by judge breyer in sorrow rather than in respect. do you think that salutation was signifying anything? >> well, it was underscoring what has to be the case. stephen breyer is concluding a 28-year distinguished year on the court. just look how different the court is now from the court that he joined and the court that he
in a way has almost mocked for the loyalty and respect that he's continued to assert for the court. i'm sure it's a sorrowful moment and of course the three signed that jointly. his name came first because he's first in seniority. >> thank you very much for all of your expertise, your years of experience, both of you, covering the court. joining me is president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights, which was at the center of the dobbs case. so your group is now listing 26 states where abortion is illegal or viewed as hostile. what does that mean for millions of women in those states in terms of finding safe abortion services or reproductive health services?
>> well, states wasted no time in seeking to enforce their trigger bans and even pre-roe bans. so right now it's chaos across the country. in more than ten states right now abortion is not available. we just filed the lawsuit in louisiana this morning to try to clarify the fact that they have three different trigger laws. nobody knows what the law is. litigation is going on. it's been filed in utah, moved forward with legal action in an ongoing lawsuit in arizona. we expect to file more lawsuits today. every moment that we can continue to protect access makes a difference in people's lives. as we talk about the law, we have to remember what's happening on the ground in these states, which is friday clinic staff are having to call people and cancel their appointments. they're having to be on the
phones now telling people that it's not open. that just changes people's ability to make this important decision for themselves. so, yes, we are in court working hard to make sure that we can keep access open as long as possible and that this chaos about the laws and what they mean gets straightened out. i was speaking in the last hour with a council member in austin, texas, a more liberal abortion rights part of the state and the d.a. in new orleans. each in different ways are trying to carve out their cities o parishes. in austin they're going to do a similar thing by controlling the budget for police enforcement. they expect to run up in the texas case right up against the texas attorney general, right?
how possible is it there to make a safe abortion sanctuary? >> first off, hats off to the public officials seeking to protect abortion access. these statutes of limitations may extend past the time of a particular district attorney in a local so it is not comfort to someone wanting to provide abortion services and someone to access services that that particular district attorney at a particular moment says they're not going to enforce it. it's important they're taking that stance, but that doesn't mean it gives legal clearance for people to go forward. that is what's so shocking about this, is that we have returned to a day when the criminal law is going to be used against reproductive health decisions. it is absolutely critical that
states that can and states that are helping people by becoming sanctuary states and saying that you can come here for abortion care and they are now strengthening their laws to both protect providers in their states, like in new york and california, just to mention a couple, but also to provide funding for people coming from other states. it doesn't solve the problem. people should be able to get abortion care in their home communities. it is very, very difficult for people who are balancing the children they already have and jobs and access to resources to go out of state. but at least those public officials are doing all they can where they can. >> thank you so much, nancy northrup, representing the jackson, mississippi provider at the heart of the dobbs case. one of the key grounds is michigan where the republican led state house and the governor gretchen whitmer are both up for
reelection this fall and are at opposite ends of the issue. there's confusion after the state's largest health care provider initially said they would follow guidance from a 1931 state law only allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother. that law is now unenforceable under a temporary state court injunction. it's a case of a number of states where there is a democratic governor or in pennsylvania an open democratic seat in the state house and republican legislatures who can then move barring a democratic veto to outlaw abortion. let's begin with where things stand in your state. >> we have a 1931 law on the books that criminalizes abortion, no exceptions really, no exception for rape, no
exception for incest, seemingly no exception for medical emergencies. the only exception is to save the life of the mother. it's really not certain what the criteria is for that. does there have to be 100% chance that the woman will die? what if they have high blood pressure and there's a 40% chance they'll die during pregnancy or childbirth? unknown. so in the meantime there are a couple cases pending, one filed by the governor against the county prosecutors, calling for the 1931 law to be found unconstitutional. there's another place where planned parenthood sued me to stop me from enforcing the law. no problem there, because i committed even when i was running for office in 2018 that if this happened, i would not be enforcing that draconian law that would hurt the 2.2 million
women of reproductive age in my state. but the court found there was a likelihood that the lawsuit would prevail, so the court of claims issued a preliminary injunction. that wasn't just binding on me, that's also binding on all 83 county prosecutors in this state. right now abortion remains legal in michigan, but it's a very precarious set of circumstances because the case is being appealed to the court of appeals. if they find that the stay, the preliminary injunction should be lifted, then everything will change in the coming weeks or months. so our only real hope beyond that is a ballot proposal that is garnering some steam. if it makes the ballot in november and if it passes, then roe will be codified into our michigan constitution, making not just abortion legal but
birth control in the event griswold is over turned and ivf, which would be outlawed by our 1931 law. >> so what are the chances of that referendum? where does the polling stand in michigan in terms of this issue? or should i ask, you know, are democratic voters along with other voters more inclined to vote on the economy, inflation and other kitchen table concerns? >> hard to know. one would hope with the polling that we've seen on the issue of abortion, i mean, at least two out of every three voters in our state, if not more, want to see those protections for abortion rights on the books or in our constitution. it's really a matter of just ensuring they get out to vote. if they come out to vote, they will vote in favor of this ballot proposal. there's no question in my mind. it's really a matter of voter
turnout. i think people have to start to appreciate just how high the stakes are right now and that failing to come out and vote for pro-choice candidates in the legislature, failing to reelect our governor and failing to put this ballot proposal on the books is literally a matter of life or death for women all around the state of michigan. the guy i'm running against has said publicly that he doesn't even believe there should be an exception to save the life of the mother because he doesn't believe there are any circumstances in which a woman would die either during child birth or during her pregnancy. that's how extreme and radical the republicans are on this issue. it should be terrifying to women in this state. >> michigan attorney general dana nessel, thank you very much. of course, abortion rights opponents have been celebrating this decision. some american women celebrating the abortion ruling around the
country, one advocate sharing her personal story next. y, one t >> i was overwhelmed with joy. we all have value that we are born with an inherent dignity, all of us, that can never be removed no matter what we've done from the first moments of conception until natural death. >> i have a daughter who's 7. i just think about the fact this is going to start rolling out so many different legal implications for human rights. many different legal we exercise. i noticed i wasn't as sharp as i used to be. my wife introduced me to prevagen implications for human rights. d, i felt like i was able to respond to things quicker. and i thought, yeah, it works for me.
prevagen. healthier brain. better life. while wayfair is installing your new refrigerator and hauling away your old one. you're binging the latest true crime drama. while the new double oven you financed is taking care of dinner and desert. you're remembering how to tie a windsor. and while your washer is getting out those grass stains. you're practicing for the big leagues! for all of life's moments get the brands you trust to get the job done at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪
ah teach a new kung fu for a smoochie smoochie? hmm? you want to learn kung fu? the supreme court's abortion ruling was praised by opponents of the procedure. joining me now is jennifer mascot, assistant professor of law at george mason university and coexecutive director of the center for the study of the
administrative state. thanks very much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> it's an important time. you write in the "wall street journal" that the dobbs ruling says there is now a majority committed to the court's proper role. expand on what you see as the proper role, certainly a super majority on the court. >> sure. obviously friday, as everyone's noted, was quite a significant day. there are deep seated views on both sides of the policy and social and deeply important questions involved in roe v wade and the dobbs decision. i think one thing that's important to keep in context is for the first 185 years after the constitution was put in place and the supreme court was created, the court did not weigh in on the question of abortion.
believing it's more appropriate for elected officials in congress and the states. >> let me ask you this. the constitution didn't mention a lot of things, certainly not contraception and same-sex marriage, aviation, all kinds of things that the court has dealt with. do you agree with justice alito that this ruling only impacts the abortion issue, or do you agree with justice thomas that this should open the door to future challenges to other cases involving same-sex marriage, contraception and the like? >> for sure justice thomas has been extremely influential during his 30 years on the court. in this particular instance, as he often does, he is writing himself, explaining his understanding of the correct view of the constitutions' text
and structure. what justice alito was doing in the majority opinion for the court was something different. he was writing for a reason for the majority of the justices, many of whom take a very different view. there are some unique phenomenon going on that are not the case in a lot of other issues. one is the important point there's a second life interest here. even roe talked about the potential life. justice alito is saying when we weigh that with other circumstances here, it leads us perhaps to a different framework. for decades even some liberal scholars who agree with the outcome in roe have been saying its reasoning could not hold up. the court has never been able to reach a majority in support of
the constitutional reasoning of roe. it really sat far out of the mainstream of constitutional reasoning of the court over the past few decades. therefore, i don't think one can say on the ground of this decision alone thatfully of the other issues currently being talked about are really as a practical matter genuinely on the table at this point in time. loving versus virginia, contraception, those are so far away from the court's decision in dobbs that they almost should not even be discussed in a realistic sense at this point in time. >> except for loving which was a 1970s ruling as well, as i recall, roe is the only one that could reach the standard of reliance on a public policy. it goes back half a century. doesn't that make roe stand out from these much more recent decisions also based on the 14th
amendment privacy issues? >> sure. the bottom line of roe has been relied on. again, the court has been changing its reasoning for the past few decades, as early as 1992. if one looks at the question about whether the procedural due process clause holds a particular right to privacy, the court has been signaling for years it has questions and concerns about that issue and about the important second issue here of pre-born life and potential life that is not at issue in the same way as some of these other decisions. of course, i'm not a justice. i think justice alito's opinion certainly seems to put a lot of effort behind explaining the reasoning here. and i also think one of the things that caused the court to reach out and look at roe and casey is the case that was
brought to the court. the court is not reaching out to take cases. it's not like a legislature. it was brought this challenge to the 15-week ban in mississippi. the court was saying in this particular case there cannot be a reconciliation between this law and roe and casey so they've got to go back to the text and structure and we don't see anything in there that's going to bar this provision. not saying that people should regulate abortion, but just that the constitution doesn't speak to it at this point in time. >> i just point out that chief justice roberts said you could overrule dobbs without saying that roe was morally decided in making that more broader decision. >> that is true. yes. getting more money and weapons to ukraine. dominating the g7 as russian forces strike kyiv and now a
packed shopping area in central ukraine. packed shopping area in central ukraine. she starts a miro to brainstorm. “shoot it?” suggests the scientists. so they shoot it. hmm... back to the miro board. dave says “feed it?” and dave feeds it. just then our hero has a breakthrough. "shoot it, camera, shoot a movie!" and so our humble team saves the day by working together. on miro.
you ever wonder why people are always on their phones? they're banking, with bank of america. look at this guy. he bought those tickets on his credit card and he's rackin' up the rewards. she's using zelle to pay him back for the hot dogs he's about to buy. and the announcer? he's not checkin' his stats, he's finding some investing ideas with merrill. and third as you know in baseball means three. digital tools so impressive, you just can't stop banking. what would you like the power to do? as we've been reporting,
world leaders meeting at the g7 summit in germany vowing to support ukraine for as long as it fakes. this as nbc news learns the u.s. does plan to provide missile to air defense system to ukraine. president putin sending a message to the g7 as ukrainian officials say at least two people were dead, 20 injured after a russian rocket hit a crowded shopping mall. joining me is kristin welker who is traveling with the president in germany and richard hawes, the president of the council on foreign relations. there's a lot of news coming out of the g7. besides the medium to long range surface to air missile system that the u.s. plans to send, g7 leaders are close to settling on a global price gap for russian oil. talk about that and the import
ban on russian gold. >> reporter: this is really significant. i was speaking to a senior administration official here who said the goals here at the g7 summit and at nato and well are two-pronged, first, to squeeze vladimir putin and, second, to try to stabilize the global economy. it is significant that they are close to reaching an agreement on a cap on russian oil imports. i am told that the discussions are very much ongoing, so i don't anticipate there will necessarily be an announcement today. again, this could have a significant impact on the russian economy. we learned over the weekend that the president and over g7 leaders announced they were banning russian gold. why is that significant? because it is the second largest export item. all of those things, again, aimed at not only turning up the heat on vladimir putin but also trying to deal with inflation, which is impacting countries around the world. i'm also told there could be a
significant announcement coming when the president heads to nato in madrid tomorrow. i'm told it has to do with the force posture in the region. the administration not necessarily giving specifics yet, but again, that would be a significant signal to russia, particularly as the leaders here are tracking those new attacks that you just mentioned. >> in fact, richard hawes, those new attacks could have been prevented by this new system when it eventually does get deployed. >> there's things we should be providing ukraine that we're not. i would aircraft would be helpful with the russian ships in the black sea. surface to air missiles.
essentially we need to do more for ukraine. i'm a little bit more skeptical. i don't think these new sanctions are at all game changers. as long as the europeans are importing significant amounts of russian gas, russia will be just fine economically. gas is a problem for vladimir putin. if he can't sell it to the europeans, he can't sell significant amounts to others because of pipelines. things like gold and oil and coal, he can find other people to buy them. gas is unique. i would put most of the attention on that. >> do you have any concerns as we go into the nato meetings in madrid tomorrow, that russia is going to still have an ability to weaken the alliance, that germany and france are not as stalwart as some of the other allies in getting weapons they've promised to ukraine?
>> there's lots of weaknesses in the alliance. germany is reticent to provide some of the arms. italy and germany are vulnerable on their need to import gas. ot o the leaders came to this summit really weakened at home. joe biden came to this summit also weak given what's going on at home. wasn't helped by the supreme court decisions or the polls or inflation. there's no game changer here. what they can do is continue to help ukraine economically and militarily, continue to pressure russia and signal resolve. that's the best thing they can do. >> thank you both so much. abortion on the ballot. will the supreme court ruling fuel voters? will the supreme court ruling
aleve x. its revolutionary rollerball design delivers fast, powerful, long-lasting pain relief. fuel voters? age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com
it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing everything, like the baja steak and jack. piled high with tender shaved steak, topped with delicious pepper jack cheese, and kicking it up a notch with smoky- baja chipotle sauce? yep, they're constantly refreshing. y'all get our own commercial! subway keeps refreshing and- ♪♪ three times the electorlytes and half the sugar. ♪♪ pedialyte powder packs. feel better fast.
♪ ♪ i really attribute th aleve x.t. its revolutionary rollerball design delivers fast, powerful, long-lasting pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible. are your hr processes weighing down your employees? on to quarterly projections! expense report! if you're using multiple systems, re-entering data over and over time sheet! using email and spreadsheets to manage information and approvals, then your hr systems are a drag on productive time. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in a single, easy-to-use software. visit paycom dot com and schedule your demo today. do they know this door is locked age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein.
new political urgency to the midterm elections on both sides, particularly democrats pushing forward the message that roe is on the ballot. many in the democratic party see the abortion issue as their best opportunity to energize their base voters and potentially hold onto more seats than they otherwise would. the anger of many over the court's decision turning to a call to action for some voters. >> we have to get organized and vote people out. >> opponents of abortion rights also energized and the challenge is to keep this issue front of mind as americans face big economic concerns with inflation soaring. anti-abortion voters from the
past have been more determined to vote single issue on abortion than other voters. joining me is kimberly atkins from real clear politics and brandon buck. kimberly, you're the attorney here. i don't know if the others are attorneys. i'm certainly not. how does this legally play out and shift the midterm calculation? >> it will definitely have an impact, because up until the midterms and even beyond into 2024 what we're going to see are laws being passed and argued and debated, whether laws to further restrict abortion access in more conservative states, or laws seeking to protect that access in more liberal states. the issue is going to remain front and center in a way that i think when we see big news happen in june and july because
so much is happening in every news cycle, it can fizzle and fade over time. this isn't going to be that because this issue is going to be before localities and states for months and years to come. how it will end, we don't know. i saw the a.p. analysis over the weekend that showed across the country a million more gop voters registered. it was in places like the suburbs where races are often fought for the presidency in 2024, but also in places as sort of a backlash to things like covid restrictions. i think people are energized on either side of this issue. >> democrats are already seeing fund-raising numbers go up according to the "washington post." senate democrats saw a significant spike in grassroots fund-raising immediately after the ruling. in a new poll 78% of democrats
say they are more motivated to vote in the midterms as a result of this decision. there's only 134 days left. can they keep this momentum going? >> i think that kimberly is right that because of the legal mayhem that's going to break out in these states as people try to wrap their arms around what enforcement and prosecution looks like, which even the lawyers cannot even begin to imagine, this will stay in the news. it will stay top of mind in people's communities and states. national democrats will want to keep it in the news. i do think on the ground it will continue to be a source of debate and people will be hearing about it on their social media feeds and everything else. the polls about mote investigation are very heartening for democrats. enthusiasm numbers and polling for democrats have been terrible. much more of an advantage for
republicans in the last year to put them back in the majority. as the michigan attorney general told you, this is all about turnout. polls are not votes. passionate posts on facebook do not add up to ballots. so it's really important that the democrats do what they can to mobilize voters to actually turn out, not just give to women's crisis centers and to share their woes on social media. it's important they find a way to vote at the state level because there will be battles in state legislatures and at the federal level as well. >> will republicans be able to keep the focus on the economy and on the president who's not that popular, according to the polls? >> yeah. that's the game plan. i imagine they'll be successful at that. i think this election is going to be about inflation, gas prices, food prices. i don't think there's much you can do about it.
this is definitely a net benefit politically for democrats, no doubt about it. they had absolutely nothing going for them. midterms come down to voter enthusiasm. everybody votes in presidential elections. midterms it's about when you can get your party to turn out. i think democrats have enough to gavanize them. i think republicans are going to be talking about economic issues. the political consequences that republicans may face here, i think it will be much more of a slow burn. this is going to be something that's going to last quite a while. i think as states like where i'm from, georgia, where you've got this realignment happening in the suburbs, if this continues to be debated, the long-term consequences could be significant. i just don't think it's going to be enough to knock inflation out of the headlines or people's minds when they're going to vote. >> i was talking to local
officials trying to do carveouts in seattle and new orleans and austin, texas, to protect women in their cities from state laws as well as the federal decision. how possible is this, especially with state republican attorneys general willing to fight? >> so prosecutors have discretion over what laws they choose to bring and in these cities at least in the short-term there may be an ability of these officials to try to give that additional protection. if the statute of limitations on these laws extend beyond the terms of these prosecutors, it doesn't mean people who seek care won't be prosecuted later. >> i think inflation will drive the
you see, son, with a little elbow grease, you can do just about anything. thanks, dad. that's right, robert. and it's never too early to learn you could save with america's number one motorcycle insurer. that's right, jamie. but it's not just about savings. it's about the friends we make along the way. yosaid it, flo. and don't forget to s before you brush. your gums will thank you. -that's right, dr. gary. -jamie? sorry, i had another thought so i got back in line. what was it? [ sighs ] i can't remember. (woman vo) sailing a great river past extraordinary landscapes into the heart of iconic cities
is a journey for the curious traveler, one that many have yet to discover. exploring with viking brings you closer to the world, to the history, the culture, the flavors, a serene river voyage on an elegant viking longship. learn more at viking.com insights illuminate better choices. a serene river voyage on an elegant viking longship. allowing us to see differently and do more.
with kpmg you have the people and technologies, to uncover insights and turn them into action. when we act on insight, with the right people by our side, opportunity is everywhere. let insights reveal new opportunities. about two years ago i realized that jade was overweight. i wish i would have introduced the fresh food a lot sooner. after farmer's dog she's a much healthier weight. she's a lot more active. and she's able to join us on our adventures. get started at longlivedogs.com
a win and a loss for gun safety advocate last week. president biden signing into law the most sweeping gun violence america. >> their message to us was do something. how many times have we heard that? just do something. for god sake, just do something. today, we did. while this bill doesn't do everything i want, it does include actions i've long called for that are going to save lives. >> this was only at the supreme court and much more far reaching decisions struck down a new york state law that placed strict
limits on carrying a gun outsds outside the home. joining us now, president of the center for justice at nyu center for law. author of second amendment, the biography. you wrote the book on the second amendment. talk to me about what the supreme court did and why many are forging state's rights on abortions, throwing roe back to the states is inconsistent with saying the states can't limit the second amendment, limit gun safety even though i think the constitution says that regulated militias are in the constitution. >> you're absolutely right, andrea, that the two cases together say that some states can ban abortion but other states and they usually are other states, can't regulate guns and gun violence within their states. it's a very different approach.
the ruling struck down new york's law. a law that goes back to 1911. saying that you can't carry concealed handgun in new york city. in a crowded place like that. and it is the first time in a dozen years that the supreme court has made a major ruling on the second amendment since it first said, and it was only back then in 2008, in 2010, that you had an individual right at all to have a weapon. but what's really significant about this case is not just what it will do in new york where there will be more guns and more violence and more crime as is expected in new york. but what it does nationwide, what the supreme court said is effectively you can't actually take public safety into account when you're making these gun laws. you can only look at quote, history and tradition.
and clarence thomas wrote the opinion, used the history very selectively, but what it means is that hundreds of gun laws that have been uphold by the courts, republican and democratic judges, federal and state judges over the last 12 years, hundreds of those laws now will get challenged by the nra and others saying you can't read the history right. >> i'm also struck by the fact they say they can, which, strict guns in quote sensitive places, but then in one of the decisions, one of the opinions said that a subway is not a sensitive place because someone might need a gun because they work late and needed a gun to carry home. so if a subway in new york city is not a sensitive place, i don't know what is. >> you know, one thing the decision didn't do was give a lot of clarity about what would be those sensitive places.
we know that they think that courthouses are sensitive places but back 33,000 people living in new york city, they haven't invented subways yet. at the oral argument where they were arguing the case, justice alito said to the lawyer in new york, well everyone in the subway's armed so why shouldn't quote law biding citizens defend themselves. first of all, new york does not have a lot of gun violence compared to the rest of the country and the subway is extraordinary safe when it comes to gun violence. it's got other problems. but the answer for people who are vigilantes and shooting it up in a subway car the just nutty. i do hope and think new york city and state will say subways are a sensitive place and courts
will uphold that. >> what is your view on how this new law signed by the president saturday, those restrictions, how does that comply with the way the supreme court ruled on thursday? >> it was constitutional a week ago. i think it's still constitutional now. obviously they're going to have to take a look. much of that law involved spending money on things like mental health and other things that would not really i think by any sense fall afoul of the second amendment right, but there are some aspects to it such as red flag laws saying you can take people's guns away if they're a threat or have a violent mental health issue, and also the things related to background checks that will be challenged. again, i think it is quite clear that these laws respect the individual right and benefit public safety but it's a lot
harder to know how courts and judges are supposed to scratch their heads and figure out this vague new standard. how do you find out what the history and tradition was way back in some imagined past time for these modern laws? it's not a way to run a railroad. it's not a way any other country that i know of makes decisions about protecting public safety. >> it strikes me it's not just sake-sex marriage and contraception and ar-15s that were not invented in 1776 or 1789. there are so many things that are not quote, constitutional rooted, but if you were to start reading that literally, how is this new super majority, a young super majority, going to rule in the next decades? >> this notion that the only way to look at the constitution is to pretend that you can say
well, this is what it was in 1868 or in 1791. those were times when we had slavery, of course. when women could not vote or certify juries. in so many different ways, it was a different country. sooner or later, we have to be able to take the great principles of the constitution and apply them to our current and modern time. pretending we can just get the answers by looking at history and that's not going to be a pretext, that's just -- as far as i'm concerned. >> it's great to talk to you. the political ramifications. you worked in the clinton white house as a speech writer. of course we're going to be faced with that in the coming months, but the legal ramifications which you write about so importantly in your book. >> when the supreme court goes off the rails, there is often a
backlash. >> we're going to wait and see. and cover it every bit of the way. great to see you. thanks so much. that does it for a busy edition of "andrea mitchell reports." follow us online and twitter. chris jansing reports starts right now. good day. i'm chris jansing at msnbc headquarters in new york city and today, the political, cultural, and religious divisions in the country are playing out in a very public way. in demonstrations, in the courts an on the campaign trial. in the streets across the country, thousands of protesters promising to take up the right to restore a woman's right to chose toward mobilizing the vote for the midterms. >> it is about taking this anger. you always say don't get