half the country is not going to be able to decide for themselves when and if they want to have children and half the country will be deprived of basic bodily autonomy and forced to be pregnant.

So some people will say, look, it states rights. We're not saying that we are abolishing or prohibiting abortion. All we're saying is that we're going to kick it to the states and if individual states want what they want, why isn't that the whole point of this country and the whole point of federalism.

How do you respond to that sort of an argument?

I'm going to respond to that argument with the whole point of the US Constitution's protection of individual rights is to guarantee them to people even if the majority doesn't want to give it to them.

That's why we have the Constitution. It lists certain lights very explicitly, those of the enumerated rights, but it also protects rights that are not specifically included in the Constitution.

Fundamental rights rights that go to or who are of being an autonomous person. And so that's a guarantee that's made in the Constitution and it's meant to protect them and protect particularly vulnerable populations who might not otherwise get them.

And that's not been committed to the US Constitution.

And that is the express goal as articulated by the founding fathers, etc. However, a point that you and, you know, professor Bowie at Harvard Law made so persuasively on a previous episode was that historically very rarely has to Supreme Court went into weight in on these issues.

And so in a way that protects the rights of minorities unless it's an elite economic minority.

It's not just that I was not the most serious agree on that, but they were not anymore wrongly decided than heller, then Prince, then a whole bunch of cases I could name, in fact there's more furrow than those cases.

I'm just someone who if I had a fantasy world, the Supreme Court would never strike down laws absent an irreconcilable variance between a law in the Constitution.

But that's a fantasy world. And I don't have to unilaterally disarm, I don't think the right to vote in state elections is not in the United States Constitution.

the United States Constitution.

Yet the American people take it for granted

that we have that right to vote in state elections.

But we only have that because states gave us those rights.

The point I'm making about that

is the Kavanaugh position that oral argument

and the elito position in this draft opinion

is that because it's not in the text,

it can't be protected.

That's obscenely stupid.

...