reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Kathryn Kolbert predicts that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, eliminating constitutional protection for abortion rights. She argues that opponents of abortion impose their religious views and fail to address issues like infant mortality. Kolbert emphasizes the need for a strong social justice movement to advocate for reproductive rights and elect supportive legislators. She envisions a future with accessible childcare, maternal health programs, and a gender equity amendment to protect reproductive freedoms. Political activism is crucial to ensure these rights are upheld for all individuals.

The podcast discusses the implications of a leaked draft opinion by Justice Alito that suggests overturning Roe v. Wade, shifting the abortion issue from federal to state control. Hosts Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and David Friedberg introduce experts Amy Howe and Tom Goldstein to provide insights on the Supreme Court's history with abortion rights. Roe v. Wade, decided in the early 1970s, established a constitutional right to abortion, regulated by trimesters. The 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reaffirmed this right but allowed states to impose regulations as long as they did not create an "undue burden." Alito's draft argues that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in American history, asserting that it should be decided by states rather than the federal government. The discussion highlights the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and the potential for states to enact their own abortion laws if Roe is overturned. Several states have "trigger laws" ready to restrict abortion immediately. The conversation also touches on the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment and the political dynamics surrounding Supreme Court nominations. The hosts express concern about the potential for this decision to affect other rights, such as same-sex marriage. They note that public sentiment may influence justices, but the court's legitimacy could be compromised if perceived as reacting to external pressures. The podcast concludes with a call for compromise in legislation, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to abortion laws that reflect the diverse views of the American public.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing the left's reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has led to calls for eliminating the filibuster and even impeaching justices. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a pro-life advocate and potential presidential candidate, joins the discussion. She explains that South Dakota's trigger law, passed in 2005, bans abortions except to save the mother's life, and emphasizes that the law does not penalize women but targets doctors who violate it. Noem acknowledges the difficult situations women face in cases of rape and incest but believes that the best option is not to follow tragedy with another tragedy. Kelly questions the actual impact of the law in South Dakota, noting that there was only one abortion clinic in the state, which had already ceased operations prior to the ruling. Noem highlights the importance of providing support and resources for women facing unplanned pregnancies, including financial and medical assistance. She expresses concern about the media's portrayal of pro-life advocates and the lack of balanced discussions on abortion. The conversation shifts to the media's bias against pro-life perspectives and the challenges of having honest discussions about abortion. Noem shares her experiences with national interviews where she faced confrontational questioning and a lack of representation for pro-life views. She argues that the left's fear tactics have been effective in shaping public perception. Noem also discusses the hypocrisy of the left regarding bodily autonomy, contrasting their stance on COVID mandates with their current position on abortion. She believes that the Supreme Court's decision restores power to the states and allows for more localized discussions on the issue. The discussion then turns to the potential for establishing abortion clinics on federal land, which Noem finds impractical and emphasizes the sovereignty of Native American tribes regarding such decisions. She expresses hope for a more informed debate on abortion in Congress. As the conversation progresses, Noem reflects on her time in Washington, D.C., and the challenges of navigating the political landscape. She shares her thoughts on the current political climate, including the reactions from figures like AOC and the potential for civil unrest. The discussion concludes with Noem discussing her new book, "Not My First Rodeo," which details her life experiences and challenges. She emphasizes the importance of faith, family, and values in shaping her leadership style. Jim Geraghty joins the show to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's decision and the left's calls for impeachment of justices. He argues that such actions would not succeed and highlights the importance of respecting the rule of law. Geraghty also critiques the idea of establishing a national abortion policy, advocating for federalism and the right of states to determine their own laws. He warns against the dangers of disregarding Supreme Court decisions and emphasizes the need for civil discourse in a divided nation.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing the Supreme Court's historic ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, emphasizing that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and that the previous rulings were based on flawed judicial activism. She argues that the decisions in Roe and Casey misled the public about constitutional rights and that the matter should return to state legislatures, allowing citizens to decide. Kelly highlights the majority opinion's assertion that abortion rights were not deeply rooted in American history and tradition, noting that three-quarters of states had banned abortion at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. Kelly critiques the dissenting opinion for failing to acknowledge the rights of the unborn and for suggesting that the court's ruling threatens other rights based on privacy. She believes the dissent's fears are unfounded, as the majority opinion explicitly states that other rights, such as contraception and marriage, are not at risk. The discussion shifts to the political implications of the ruling, with Charles Cook arguing that the decision restores power to the people and that the court's previous rulings had corrupted judicial politics. Lila Rose, a pro-life advocate, expresses gratitude for the ruling, stating it gives the pro-life movement a chance to protect children. She emphasizes that the majority of Americans support abortion restrictions and that the ruling allows states to enact laws reflecting public sentiment. Rose argues against the notion that unwanted pregnancies lead to doomed lives, asserting that support systems can help mothers and children thrive. The conversation touches on the media's portrayal of the ruling, with Kelly noting that stories of women who regret their abortions are often overlooked. Rose highlights the need for a cultural shift to support life and provide resources for mothers. The discussion concludes with a call for a more balanced narrative around abortion, recognizing the complexities of individual situations while advocating for the rights of the unborn.

In this episode, hosts Patrick Bet-David and Tom Ellsworth discuss various topics, starting with a recap of a recent Lakers vs. Celtics game, highlighting Draymond Green's poor performance despite his defensive skills. They transition into a conversation about Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech, noting his boldness in addressing Hollywood's hypocrisy. The discussion shifts to the music industry, particularly the appeal of artists like Takashi 6ix9ine, and the hosts reflect on their personal experiences with haircuts, including the rising costs and the economics of barbering. Patrick shares a story about a $72 haircut, prompting a broader conversation about the value of skilled labor and the financial realities of barbers. As the conversation progresses, they touch on the volatility of Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency market, discussing recent price drops and the impact of external factors like China's regulations and Elon Musk's influence. They emphasize the importance of understanding asset allocation and the long-term viability of cryptocurrencies. The hosts then delve into the topic of UFOs, referencing Senator Marco Rubio's statements on credible sightings and the need for investigation. They express skepticism about the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations while acknowledging the intriguing nature of unidentified flying objects. The episode concludes with a discussion on the recent Texas abortion law signed by Governor Abbott, which bans most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The hosts explore the implications of this law, the lack of exceptions for rape or incest, and the broader societal responsibilities toward single mothers and children. They emphasize the need for compassion and support for families, advocating for a more holistic approach to the issue rather than strict legislation.

The episode centers on the future of the pro-life movement in a post-Roe landscape, focusing on Laya Rose’s experiences building Live Action and her views on abortion, policy, and public persuasion. The conversation traces Rose’s early motivation to act, including her discovery of fetal-development imagery and the moment she decided to expose alleged abuses in abortion clinics. Rose recalls undercover work at Planned Parenthood facilities during college, the emergence of Live Action News, and her long-running effort to highlight the connection between underage sexual abuse and abortion clinics’ responses. The host questions the movement’s strategic posture after Dobbs, noting both state-level gains from pro-life laws and the persistence of abortion access concerns in referendums and nationwide. Rose argues that the pro-life cause is a David-versus-Goliath struggle, emphasizing the need for better fundraising, grassroots organizing, and a broader coalition beyond a single party or administration. She stresses that the movement must frame the issue as a matter of protecting human life across gestational stages, using the SLED framework (Size, Level of development, Environment, Degree of dependency) to argue for equal moral worth of unborn life and for policy that supports both mother and child. The discussion also delves into the social and cultural dimensions of abortion politics: feminism’s evolution, the ongoing gender divide within conservatism, and the challenge of persuading moderates and independents. Rose articulates a public policy vision that blends bold pro-life protections with social supports for families, including cash-based and tax-credit incentives, maternity-friendly policies, and concrete resources for pregnancy and parenting. Throughout, the conversation circles back to the personal and communal dimensions of abortion—how families, communities, and religious beliefs shape attitudes, and how a more empathetic, one-on-one approach could advance understanding and practical help for women facing unplanned pregnancies. The episode closes with reflections on women’s unique perspectives and the importance of embracing motherhood as a valued life pathway, alongside ongoing efforts to provide tangible assistance to those choosing life.

Dave Rubin discusses the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, emphasizing that he views abortion as a tragedy rather than a right. He believes the focus should be on reducing the number of abortions and finding common ground. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, led by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that there is no constitutional right to abortion, returning the authority to regulate it to the states. Rubin critiques President Biden's response, arguing that he misrepresents the ruling as a removal of a constitutional right. He highlights the irony of Democrats advocating for personal choice while enforcing vaccine mandates. Rubin also addresses reactions from various political figures, including AOC and Lori Lightfoot, criticizing their calls for court packing and their rhetoric surrounding abortion. He argues that the decision decentralizes power, allowing states to make their own choices regarding abortion laws. Rubin concludes that the current political climate reflects a broader struggle over the role of government and individual rights, advocating for a balance between personal freedom and state regulation.

In this wide-ranging interview, Justice Amy Coney Barrett discusses her judicial philosophy, her personal life, and the role of the Supreme Court in American society. The conversation begins with Barrett's reflections on balancing her career with raising a large family, addressing the perception of her as an ambitious trailblazer. She emphasizes that her priority has always been her children and that she hopes her life demonstrates that women can choose to pursue both family and career. The discussion then shifts to originalism, the constitutional interpretation theory that Barrett espouses. She explains that originalism seeks to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of its words at the time of ratification, rather than the intentions of the framers. She clarifies that originalism does not make judges historians but rather requires them to examine the legal history behind certain words and phrases. The conversation delves into the complexities of applying originalism to specific cases, such as those involving abortion. Barrett explains that the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was based on the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the concept of unenumerated rights. She argues that the right to abortion does not meet the criteria for an unenumerated right because it is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. The discussion touches on the doctrine of stare decisis, which obligates the court to respect precedent. Barrett explains that stare decisis is not absolute and that the court may overturn precedent when a decision is wrong and reliance interests are not significantly affected. She distinguishes between concrete reliance interests, such as those related to property and contract law, and more nebulous social reliance interests. The interview explores the role of the Supreme Court in the American political landscape, particularly in relation to the executive and legislative branches. Barrett acknowledges that the court has gone through periods of occupying a more expansive role in American life, but she emphasizes that the court's jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution and Congress. She also addresses the issue of partisanship on the court, acknowledging that while many cases are not decided along ideological lines, the most closely watched cases often are. She attributes these divisions to fundamental differences in constitutional interpretation. The conversation touches on the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president has strong control over the executive branch. Barrett notes that this theory has been associated with originalism but that there is ongoing debate about its originalist credentials. The discussion concludes with reflections on the challenges facing the Supreme Court in an era of political polarization and declining public trust. Barrett emphasizes the importance of intellectual independence for judges and the need to resist outside pressures of any kind. She acknowledges that the court must take into account the consequences of its decisions on the larger constitutional balance of power but resists the idea that decisions should be dictated by short-term consequences or public reaction. In response to a hypothetical question about a president defying the Supreme Court, Barrett states that the court must make the most with the tools it has, including interpreting the Constitution and drawing on precedent.

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson hosts legal scholars John Yoo, Richard Epstein, and Clarence Thomas to discuss significant legal issues, primarily focusing on abortion and the Supreme Court's recent cases. They begin with the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established abortion rights, and the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, where Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban challenges Roe. John Yoo initially predicted a narrow ruling upholding Roe but changed his view after oral arguments, noting Justice Kavanaugh's surprising stance against precedent, suggesting he might support overturning Roe. The discussion shifts to the concept of stare decisis, with Richard Epstein arguing that Roe is fundamentally flawed and should be overturned. He critiques the reasoning behind Roe and emphasizes the need for the court to correct past judicial errors. The conversation also touches on the legitimacy of the court and the implications of political perceptions surrounding its decisions. The hosts then discuss the Biden administration's vaccine mandates and the Supreme Court's split decision, which blocked the mandate for large businesses but upheld it for healthcare workers. They express concerns about the justices' understanding of the pandemic's realities and the implications of their decisions on public health. Finally, they address the January 6th Capitol riot and the legal ramifications for those involved, including the recent seditious conspiracy charges against members of the Oath Keepers. The episode concludes with reflections on the Supreme Court's role in shaping constitutional law and the importance of maintaining institutional integrity while addressing contemporary legal challenges.