Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Clinton and Warren Join Forces in Ohio; Trump to Deliver Policy Speech Tomorrow; Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law; Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 27, 2016 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:19] CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. We begin with all eyes on the U.S. Supreme Court. As you can clearly see, protesters already gathering outside. A major abortion ruling just minutes away.

Women's clinics are challenging a Texas law limiting abortion. They say if that law goes into effect, it could force most clinics in the state to close, potentially impacting millions of women.

We will bring you the news from the Supreme Court as soon as the decision comes down.

Also this hour, Hillary Clinton joining forces on the campaign trail. In just about 30 minutes, taking this stage in Cincinnati, Ohio, alongside Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

For weeks, Senator Warren has held nothing back when it comes to her disdain for Donald Trump. Today perhaps marking a test drive for the possible VP pick for Hillary Clinton.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny live in Cincinnati. Good morning, Jeff.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. When you talk to voters here at this rally behind me here in Cincinnati, as you said, a lot of them are excited about Elizabeth Warren. They want the fact -- they're certainly pleased that she's at least being considered. One woman I just talked to a few moments ago said what a message it would send the world to have two women on the ticket. That said, they're being more realistic about as well that they know that there's another -- other people on this list of short list.

But there's one reason why Hillary Clinton is doing this today, Carol. She really wants to try to rally the liberal side of this Democratic Party to her side here. And this is why. Listen to why Hillary Clinton likes her because Elizabeth Warren is one of the biggest attack dogs of Donald Trump.

I guess we don't have that sound but we all remember how Elizabeth Warren has been so gotten under Donald Trump's skin here, but the Clinton campaign is doing a bit of a test drive. They're seeing how the chemistry is between these two here. But Hillary Clinton is giving her a new message against Donald Trump after the Brexit referendum. Let's take a look at this new ad that she released today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC: Enormous shockwaves from Britain's historic vote to leave the European Union. Global markets are plummeting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Every president is tested by world events but Donald Trump thinks about how his golf resort can profit from them.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: When the pound goes down, more people are coming to Turnberry.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Stocks tank around the world.

TRUMP: Brand new sprinkler system, the highest level.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: And you can bet that will be one of -- you can bet that will be one of Elizabeth Warren's message here, that populism that's coursing through this electorate. That's what she will be talking about today here.

Carol, they'll be taking the stage in about 30 minutes or even less -- Carol.

COSTELLO: OK. We'll get back to you when that happens. Jeff Zeleny reporting live in Cincinnati.

While Hillary Clinton stumps in blue-collar Ohio, Donald Trump is preparing to give a policy speech in blue-collar Pennsylvania. It's set for Tuesday afternoon. No word on what the speech will contain, what it will be about, but with the Republican Party still hesitant to fully embrace Mr. Trump, what does he need to say to show that he is qualified to be president of the United States?

Phil Mattingly is covering that part of the story for us. Good morning.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. We now have the title of the speech. It will be called "Declaring American Economic Independence." And you want to talk about what Republican officials want to hear from Donald Trump, it's that, it's talk about jobs, it's talk about jobs in swing states. You want to hear some of the concerns Republicans have had, just listen to what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABS NEWS: Do you believe he's qualified? And how do you convince all those voters to think he isn't?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, look, I think there's no question that he's made a number of mistakes over the last few weeks. I think they are beginning to right the ship. It's a long time until November. And the burden obviously will be on him to convince people that he can handle this job. STEPHANOPOULOS: I didn't hear you say whether you thought he was

qualified.

MCCONNELL: Look, I leave it up to the American people to decide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now, Carol, one of the interesting elements here is while Donald Trump was in Scotland, a lot of Republican officials talking to me, talking to other reporters at CNN, were questioning how many electoral votes are actually in Scotland. The answer is zero. However, there are electoral votes in Pennsylvania where Donald Trump will be giving this speech tomorrow. And that matters. You heard Mitch McConnell talk about righting the ship, getting the campaign on the right track.

One of the big issues Republicans have been pushing Trump and his campaign to do, go to swing states, start talking about your economic message. Now Donald Trump will be going to Pennsylvania, a place Republicans haven't won since 1988. However, the state has been trending particularly in the western part of the state red. And those demographics matter.

Donald Trump will be giving a speech in the southwestern part of the state, a former steel town. The very parts of the state -- areas demographics wise that match in Ohio, or places like Wisconsin, where Trump and his campaign have repeatedly stated they will make major gains in November.

[10:05:05] Now for Donald Trump to win, they have to make those major gains. Donald Trump giving a speech in this part of Pennsylvania tomorrow, actually putting some meat to the bones of that plan that they've been talking about for a number of months.

And, Carol, you talk about assuaging the concerns of the Republican Party, doing something like this matters. It makes a statement and it goes at least a little bit further in making people more comfortable on what Donald Trump has planned going forward.

COSTELLO: So Mr. Trump's speech is titled "Declaring Economic Independence," right?

MATTINGLY: That's correct.

COSTELLO: I just want to get it right because I have my panel coming up.

Phil Mattingly, thanks so much.

Let's talk about this with CNN political analyst Josh Rogin and John Avlon. Welcome. So, John Avlon, "Declaring Economic Independence." Mr. Trump is going to be giving that speech in southwestern Pennsylvania. I can probably guess what that speech will contain.

(LAUGHTER) JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's -- look, I mean, all we know right now is the title but it's a very good frame for Donald Trump and that's a smart part of the state to be campaigning in, the more conservative western half, with some residents in Ohio.

Look, Donald Trump has an edge on Hillary Clinton when it comes to the economy. And that makes sense, given that his reputation in reality TV and in American culture, is being a very successful businessman. So if he tries to triangulate that with a message of economic independence, that's a strong message. If he starts talking about jobs, putting Americans back to work, you know, infrastructure, which he talks about a great deal and is an area where he can help maybe broad -- build some broad coalitions that haven't been rallying around his campaign to date.

It's a good message. It's an overdue message in a right place, a swing state, so we'll see if Donald Trump finally is getting serious about pivoting to a general election.

COSTELLO: Yes. And Josh, what I meant by declaring economic independence, that to me means he's going to talk about trade issues, correct, or giving jobs back to Americans and not to immigrants coming into this country.

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, that's right, I mean, he's trying to make some hay out of the Brexit and tie that to his own policies and plans for America. But this is the conundrum for the Republican Party. Right? They're glad when Donald Trump reads off the teleprompter and doesn't say something off the cuff and doesn't say something racist. On the other hand, when he does that, he's laying out a policy which is an anti-free trade policy which contradicts Republican policy and strategy for the last three decades, right, so they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.

They want a Donald Trump that's restrained, that looks presidential, who's trying to be responsible and lay out positions, but then when he does that, he undermines their entire platform. And that's a problem that the Republican Party hasn't really figured out how to deal with.

COSTELLO: So, John, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is with Senator Warren and they're campaigning in Cincinnati, Ohio, and they're going to appeal to blue-collar workers, right, to people who've lost jobs, right? To trade and other things. So is that smart to bring Senator Warren with her? Will Senator Warren resonate in Ohio?

AVLON: Look, it's an odd choice to -- in terms of location to debut her campaign by her side. Elizabeth Warren is very effective at rallying the base. But, you know, it would have made more sense to have her campaign with a Sherrod Brown or somebody else who is less polarizing when it comes to blue-collar workers.

COSTELLO: John --

AVLON: And Hillary Clinton really needs to --

COSTELLO: John, John, I got to interrupt because the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a decision on something major.

Let's go to Jake Tapper in Washington.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Jake Tapper here in Washington, D.C., where the Supreme Court has just handed down a verdict in the case involving Texas abortion clinics. At issue is whether or not the Texas law requiring that doctors who work at abortion clinics in Texas have admitting privileges to local hospitals and requiring that the clinics themselves adhere to the same standards required of hospitals in Texas.

Since this law was passed in 2013, the number of abortion clinics in Texas has gone down from roughly 40 to roughly 20.

Let me go to Pamela Brown now who is at the U.S. Supreme Court and can tell us more about the case.

Pamela, are you there?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I'm right here, Jake, and the high court's ruling today on this Texas law is a huge win for abortion rights activists because the high court struck down these two provisions under the Texas law saying they're unconstitutional. The two provisions require doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and also for these clinics to have hospital-like standards.

But today the justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that those provisions put an undue burden on women. In fact, here's what the opinion said. It was written by Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy joined the liberals in the opinion. It says, "Both the admitting privileges and the surgical center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a free viability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution."

[10:10:07] So a huge win for abortion rights activists. They have argued all along that this law was a thinly veiled attempt to stop abortion in the state. They said that more risky procedures didn't require these same high standards but advocates of the law said that this was all about women's safety and health and that there would be access to the 5.4 million women of reproductive age in the state to these clinics within 150 miles.

But as you hear, Jake, 5-3 decision, the high court striking down these two provisions in the law, saying that they are unconstitutional.

TAPPER: All right. Pamela Brown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let's talk about this all with our panel. Joining us here in studio, we have Jonathan Turley, Jeffrey Toobin and Dana Bash.

And Jeffrey, let me start with you. Are you surprised by this ruling? The Supreme Court could have divided 4-4, kicked it back to the lower court, which would have upheld the law, but they actually staked out a stance on this. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, as we have said

so often, this decision was in the hands of Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote. Every time the abortion issue has come before the court since he joined the court in 1987, and he has gone back and forth. Sometimes supporting abortion rights. He did in the famous Casey decision of 1992. But this time, he has supported abortion rights in a very major way. And you know it's important to point out --

TAPPER: You mean the Casey decision, he supported abortion restrictions?

TOOBIN: No, no, he supported abortion rights.

TAPPER: Supported abortion rights. OK.

TOOBIN: He was one of the group that wrote the opinion saying --

TAPPER: OK.

TOOBIN: -- we are not going to overturn "Roe v. Wade."

TAPPER: Got it.

TOOBIN: Here, what makes this decision so significant is that after 2010, after the Republican landslides in all the state legislatures, many states, not just Texas, passed restrictions that are very similar to these Texas rules, Louisiana, Mississippi, and so if the Supreme Court has now struck down these restrictions, it is very likely that other courts will strike down a variety of restrictions that Republican-dominated legislatures have passed since 2010 so this is going to have a broad, broad impact on the regulation of abortion.

TAPPER: Dana, do you see this ruling having any political ramifications? Obviously, we're in the thick of a political year, Donald Trump opposes abortion, has said that he wants to appoint justices who oppose abortion rights. Hillary Clinton obviously very much on the other side of that issue.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Look, for the people who are sort of single-issue voters, and I don't know how many there are out there, I think these days it's obviously much more about the economy, but for Republicans who are looking at this saying wait a minute, this is not the way I want this to go, it could energize them, particularly, as you say, because this has real-life ramifications in that there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court that the next president will put in there.

But I think that you're exactly right also politically that this is -- these are ruby red states, Texas. Obviously this is one that was ruled on. Effectively trying to get around "Roe v. Wade," trying to get around a federal law that says that abortion is legal. And so the way that they are restricting it, and Pam Brown touched on this, meant that by this year I read that there will be only 10 places in Texas. A very large state with about five million women of child-bearing age able to get abortions. And so, you know, that might be OK in a place where there isn't a

federal law that says abortion is legal. But "Roe v. Wade" stands and it is the land of -- the law of the land.

TAPPER: Jonathan Turley, let's talk about the substance of the decision. When Texas legislators wrote this law, which required that if you worked at an abortion clinic, if you were a doctor, you had to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and any clinic had to adhere to the standards of a hospital. And we should point out to those watching that doesn't just mean that a sterile surgical environment, that meant that the corridors, the hallways, needed to be of a certain width.

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Right.

TAPPER: There need to be a certain number of parking spaces. The doors needed to swing a certain way. All of the, quote-unquote, "burdensome" rules and regulations that conservatives often complain about would have to be adhered and applied to these abortion clinics. Was this a law that could have been seen as constitutional by this court? Could it have been written differently?

TURLEY: I think it could. I mean, I think this is a big change for Kennedy. This is the biggest decision since 1992 in the Casey decision that was discussed earlier by Jeff. This is a different Kennedy. As we saw with the affirmative action decision, I think that he is tacking to the left side of the court on these issues.

[10:15:07] In Casey, even though they upheld Roe, they also rolled back slightly. You know, Kennedy said that you do have an interest in the state in protecting the lives of unborn children. And so what these states are saying, well, this really goes into that category. We're improving conditions to make sure the mother and the child have all of the benefits of a hospital setting. And then others said well, no, it is a transparent effort to just try to cut down the number of clinics.

The reason this opinion is so significant is that during the oral argument, Kennedy kept on saying, we don't have much of a record here. We don't know if these clinics are closing because of the law. We don't know about the capacity of the remaining clinics. And he was suggesting he might send it back. What's so significant is he's saying, the majority is saying, we don't need that record. On its face, we view this as unconstitutional.

And what's also interesting, when Jeff was talking about Casey, and also when Dana was talking about the political aspects, abortions are down 25 percent since the high in 1990. There will be about 1.1 million abortions in the country but the division in the country politically still is at 46-47 in terms of abortion. So after all this time we've been covering these cases, the needle in the country actually hasn't moved that much.

TAPPER: Interesting.

TURLEY: You know, in terms of --

TAPPER: And let's talk about Casey and the role -- I'm sorry, Kennedy and the role that Justice Kennedy played in this. And you point out that he has often been for decades now the swing vote on issues of abortion. Do you agree with Jonathan? Is he evolving to the left even more?

TOOBIN: Well, you know --

TAPPER: Or devolving as the case may be?

TOOBIN: He is a mercurial figure. And you know, he was part of the majority that saved "Roe v. Wade" in 1992 but in the early 2000s under President Bush, he was the swing vote in upholding the ban on late term so-called partial birth abortions and wrote a very anti-abortion opinion there. That was the last thing we had heard from Justice Kennedy about abortion.

TAPPER: And the last major abortion -- and the last major abortion case.

TOOBIN: And the last major abortion case, which was a victory for abortion rights opponents, and he was in the majority.

I do not pretend to understand exactly how Justice Kennedy thinks on all these issues because it is somewhat mysterious. He has gone back and forth.

Another point to make about this opinion is that Justice Scalia obviously was not present for the decision. His vote would not have mattered. Presumably he would have voted with the dissenters but that would have just made it 5-4. Think about this court with another Democratic appointee. Another, you know, whether it's Merrick Garland or if Hillary Clinton wins, if she gets to appoint -- fill that vacancy. That would make a six-justice majority for abortion rights, assuming a Democrat follows, which is a very substantial challenge.

TAPPER: And speaking of Hillary Clinton, let me just read this tweet. This is how politicians communicate these days. Hillary Clinton just tweeted three minutes ago, "SCOTUS' decision," the Supreme Court's decision, "is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortions should be a right, not just on paper but in reality," signed H., signifying that she actually wrote it.

This is different rhetoric, Dana Bash, than the Bill Clinton era, that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Hillary Clinton just saying it should be safe.

BASH: That's right. Look --

TAPPER: Nothing about rare.

BASH: Nothing about rare. Look, I mean, I think what you both brought up in terms of the history of this, that this is the first time effectively in a generation that the Supreme Court has made such an impactful and a significant ruling on abortion, does -- and the fact that we're just a few months from election day, does throw this issue back into the electorate. And it brings it to the fore -- forefront of voter's minds in a way that we haven't seen. I mean, there are people, as I said before, who are going to vote on social issues, who are going to, you know, vote on abortion.

And that's just kind of the way it is. But there are others who might not be thinking about it, but that might see this decision and say, wait a minute, this is going to be part of the decision-making that I'm going to put into whom I'm going to vote for.

TAPPER: And Jonathan Turley, let me also suggest that how Donald Trump tweets could be interesting because Donald Trump has conveyed, I think it's fair to say, that he has the anti-abortion, the pro-life view, but also that it's not an issue that he really talks about all that much. It's not one he really cares about all that much. That seems to be the suggestion that I've heard from many Christian conservatives who support Donald Trump.

This is not a law about whether or not abortion should be legal. It's about whether or not there should be these restrictions. This will be interesting to see how he plays with this decision.

TURLEY: I think it is. What's fascinating about the way the Supreme Court's playing into the election is that as unconventional as this election is, it has some conventional elements including this issue.

[10:20:09] We haven't seen an election in a long time that's going to be driven so significantly by the Supreme Court. I mean, it used to be, I remember the day -- way back in the day when the Supreme Court was always at the forefront of presidential elections. This is going to be a return to that. You've got the immigration decision, the abortion decision, Trump is doing very well --

BASH: Affirmative action.

TURLEY: Affirmative action. So all of those traditional blocs are there where the court is driving these issues. And on top of that, you have this rumor, and it may just be a rumor, that Clarence Thomas is thinking about resigning. And that would be seismic. After the loss of an icon like Scalia, to have this very solid vote on the right in Thomas, you know, pull out of the court, that leaves the entire court in this transformative moment.

TOOBIN: Well, and by early in the next presidency, whoever it is, there will be three justices in their 80s.

TURLEY: That's right.

TOOBIN: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is already in her early 80s. Stephen Breyer will be in his early 80s. Anthony Kennedy will be in his early 80s. And Clarence Thomas is not exactly a spring chicken at 68. So it -- even if there are not immediate resignations, you know, life being what it is, people tend to leave their jobs well before their early 80s.

TAPPER: Let's go back to Pamela Brown who is at the U.S. Supreme Court and has a guest to talk to.

Pamela, who do you have?

BROWN: That's right. I'm joined by Elizabeth Wydra, a CNN legal analyst and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

Elizabeth, you also wrote a brief in favor of the abortion rights activists. So obviously this is a big win for you. What is the significance of this ruling today in this abortion case?

ELIZABETH WYDRA, PRESIDENT, CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER: It's a big win because Justice Kennedy joined the more liberal justices. Reaffirming that you can't make an end-run around the constitutional right to have an abortion by putting up these laws that purport to protect a woman's health but really as the majority opinion says have no relationship to the woman's health. In fact the court said clearly that they are not necessary.

BROWN: Not only not necessary but unconstitutional. What is the significance of Justice Kennedy siding with the liberals on something like this?

WYDRA: So Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in perhaps the biggest abortion case to come to the court which was in the early '90s, the Casey case, that you can't put an undue burden on that constitutional right to an abortion. And these Texas provisions were held to be unconstitutional as an undue burden and an obstacle to women exercising their constitutional right to have an abortion.

And Justice Ginsburg wrote separately to emphasize the plight of four women who might have even more trouble traveling far distances to get to an abortion clinic, and saying that it defies rational belief to think that this is about anything other than shuttering clinics and preventing women from having abortions.

BROWN: And I remember during the oral arguments, I was sitting in there, she brought up New Mexico, saying, well, for some women, they'd have to go to New Mexico to get these procedures and New Mexico doesn't have the same standards.

Let's talk about the dissents here. Some strong dissents from Justices Thomas and Alito, Chief Justice Roberts joined. Tell us about what they had to say.

WYDRA: So it's interesting because Justice Thomas would have upheld the laws, would have said they were constitutional, but Justice Alito, even though he strongly criticizes the majority, he really thinks that this is kind of a technical misread of the court's own rules. And he says that they're bending the rules because they want to get to the constitutional merits because it's an abortion case. But he would have sent the case back for further proceedings. And the chief justice joined that ruling. So only Thomas really here is going the furthest in saying I would absolutely uphold these laws as constitutional.

BROWN: Let me ask you, because before this came out, we know it's going to come out today but we thought there was a good chance it would be sent down to lower courts to get more information. Are you surprised of the outcome here?

WYDRA: Well, you know, because we have an eight-justice court, we're in unusual times, some people thought that the court could punt and say we're going to send it back for more information about why these clinics are closing. Is it because of these laws or not? And the majority here said no, we have enough information in the record, it's clear that this is why the clinics are likely shutting down, and so they just went right to the constitutional issues and said we strike these down as unconstitutional.

BROWN: All right. Last question for you because a big argument for those who supported the law was that it's -- they wanted it because of Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania, an abortion doctor who was convicted of criminal charges. How do the justices who are striking down these two provisions respond to that?

WYDRA: So Justice Breyer directly addressed that saying this was a terrible situation. The Gosnell situation was barbaric and that he was rightly prosecuted under the criminal laws. But there's nothing to say that these particular provisions about surgical requirements and admitting privileges would have prevented that terrible conduct.

BROWN: All right, Elizabeth Wydra, thank you so much.

There you have it, 5-3 decision, striking down these two provisions on what is considered the most significant abortion case in two decades. Back to you.

[10:25:08] TAPPER: All right, Pamela Brown, thank you so much.

You can always tell that it is a celebration going on for abortion rights supporters when the Gloria Gainer has been broken out and is playing in the background.

Let's -- one thing I want to read to our panel here from Justice Thomas' solo dissent. "The court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerating in the Constitution but our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional right are more equal than others."

Justice Thomas is saying that the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution, it was created by judges and that the Supreme Court today ignored the Constitution in favor of this judicially created right.

TOOBIN: That is -- that is a position that Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, have both advanced repeatedly over many, many -- not years, decades. The issue of whether abortion -- whether the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose abortion remains to this day the most controversial issue in constitutional law. "Roe v. Wade" in 1973 said that women have a right under the Constitution, under the Right of Privacy, that is guaranteed by several different amendments according to Justice Harry Blackman's opinion in 1973. That has been widely, widely disputed. But here we are now more than

40 years later. The court once again reaffirming that women do have the constitutional right to choose abortion.

TAPPER: Dana, a big victory for abortion rights supporters today. I think a lot of them were probably girding themselves for a defeat.

BASH: Oh, no question, or for a 4-4 decision so, you know.

TAPPER: Four-four, which would go back -- throw it back to the lower court which had upheld the Texas law.

BASH: Exactly, exactly. And also because it's 4-4 would not set precedent.

TOOBIN: Right. But -- but it would have let Texas maybe take these restrictions. Would it in effect have made an abortion almost impossible to get in Texas?

BASH: Right. So now that the opposite has happened, as you were mentioning earlier, other states that have been working through the GOP legislatures, Louisiana and others, will probably have to stop. But I think sort of going back to what you said earlier about the fact that Bill Clinton used to say safe, legal and rare.

TAPPER: Yes.

BASH: And Hillary Clinton is just saying safe, as I was thinking about it, I think you're right in terms of just how politically speaking where the Democratic electorate is, or at least where the Democratic presumptive nominee thinks that the electorate is. You know, back then, in, you know, 20, 25 years ago, Democrats were still campaigning hard in states with a lot of socially conservative Democrats. Not so much anymore.

It's a much more divided country. And so Hillary Clinton politically speaking doesn't have to say the rare part. She can just say the safe part because those are the kinds of voters she's appealing to.

TOOBIN: And she has embraced feminism.

BASH: Yes.

TOOBIN: In a way that Bill Clinton never did. In a way that she didn't eight years ago. The -- the talking about the importance of having a first woman president when she barely mentioned eight years ago. And this very enthusiastic embrace of abortion rights which is something she downplayed eight years ago.

TURLEY: Well, I think the interesting element I think will be that for Democrats, this takes a little pressure off. They don't feel the threat that "Roe v. Wade" and Casey are going to be sent asunder. But the conservatives do. The case gave conservatives a real, not imagined, crisis in terms of the issues.

BASH: Right. TURLEY: For Democrats, the crisis sort of feels like it's over. You

know, they've got a nice margin here even on a court that was equally divided. And this is a major win. I mean, the fact that the court didn't take the options of sending it back, went ahead and pulled the trigger right now and said this is on its face an undue burden is a huge victory. But for states, I think we have to give states like Texas their due. You know, their view is, look, there has to be some voice here for states like Texas and Mississippi, in determining our own conditions. If we want more safety with procedures, it's a state's rights issue. And that was clearly rejected by the court today.

TAPPER: Yes. But I don't think those states are going to stop, whether it's Oklahoma or others. They're going to continue to pass legislation that they consider to be pro-life.

We're going to take a very quick life. We'll come back with more on this seismic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)