when in fact uh even if the rule were to be struck down what you would have is a regime where the individual states would have the ability uh you know under current jurisprudence until that changes to pass uh to pass laws that affect this issue in different ways in different states and so um i i think i'm not looking for some major ruling out of the court that sets a very clear rule in favor of the unborn so harmy you know this does raise some philosophical questions for the right so the entire sort of conservative legal movement in this country has been largely directed at overturning row it's it's been you know in the ascendancy in in the conservative movement since really the NUMBER_TOKENs the idea of originalism and the offshoots including textualism that idea was predicated on the idea that if you actually got a majority of the court that was appointed by republicans at some point you'd actually be able to overturn unconstitutional and textually unbased decisions like royal versus wade then you've seen another school of thought from the right that essentially says that the conservatives on courts should be judicial activists in the same way the liberals on courts have been judicial activists liberals are results-oriented they don't seem to care very much about the text of the constitution if they want to reach a result they will just go for it and the idea from some of these conservative thinkers is the originalism and textualism that pledged to hem the judiciary into its traditional role but also pledged to strike down laws in violation of the constitution uh and and not to make up new rights in the constitution that don't exist that that movement has failed because the textualists and the and the constitutionalists are so all consumed with the quote unquote legitimacy of the judiciary john roberts style that they're unwilling to strike out in new and bold directions and the solution to that would be to appoint just plainly openly conservative and republican justices who don't actually bother with the constitution they just sort of rule how we think they ought to politically rule it seems to me that if john roberts and the roberts court don't strike down roe that that that case is gonna get a serious boost in the arm yeah i think you're absolutely right um i'm in the old school uh school of thought that says that judges should not be activists even activists for my cause they should call balls and strikes that's an old-fashioned view now as you say the entire edifice of almost lobbying if you will that has grown up around the conservative movement around judicial appointments has really been focused on uh results oriented in our in our own way which i think is dangerous because these judges are unelected uh you have seen the political process just now you mentioned in the space of a very really just a little bit over a year uh republicans in the senate based on some old marcus of queensberry rules that don't exist on the other side effectively rubber stamping some extremely radical judges with lifetime appointments and they're young some of them and so we're allowing the other side to enshrine judicial activists on the bench who are going to wreak havoc on the constitution and on our side the
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN