CASE WHICH IS GARZA V. HARGAN. THEY ARE BOTH CASES ABOUT WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND WHILE YOU BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS WHAT'S SIMILAR IS IN BOTH CASES YOU RULED AGAINST THE WOMEN. IN GARZA V. HARGAN YOU ARGUE THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARADE OF TRYING TO KEEP A YOUNG WOMAN IN CUSTODY UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE TO GET AN ABORTION WAS NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON HER RIGHTS. SO FORCING HER TO REMAIN IN HHH'S CUSTODY AND CONSIDERING THIS TO BE A PARENTAL CONSENT CASE WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, IT'S IRRELEVANT AND IN PREACH FOR LIFE YOU INSISTED THAT A GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT THAT RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS FILLED OUT A SHORT FORM DECLARING THEIR OBJECTION TO PROVIDING HEALTH CARE WAS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN. AND IN EACH CASE YOU REACHED YOUR DESIRED OUTCOME WHICH IS AGAINST WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND IGNORED THE COMMON SENSE MEETING OF BURDEN. BY THE WAY, FILLING OUT THE TWO-PAGE FORM, THE MAJORITY OPINION DID NOT CONSIDER IT BURDENSOME. AND I THINK YOUR CONCLUSION IS OVERLY BURDENSOME, DEFY LOGIC, BUT IT'S LODGE KUALA LUMPUR THAT YOU WERE AGAINST WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. SO HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSION? BASICALLY YOU WANT TO LIMIT A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS SO YOU CAN ENGAGE IN A BALANCING TEST. IN THE CASE OF PRIEST FOR LIFE IT WAS TOO MUCH BUT IN THE CASE OF GARZA IT WAS NOT TOO MUCH FOR HER TO WAIT AROUND FOR FOSTER PARENTS TO BE FOUND. >> IN EACH CASE I WAS TRYING TO APPLY THE PRECEDENT ON POINT OF THE HOBBY LOBBY AND WHEATON COLLEGE CASE. THE WHEATON COLLEGE CASE DEALT WITH A FORM AND SO I FOLLOWED AS BEST I COULD THE WHEATON COLLEGE CASE CASE. IT HAD A 6-3 VOTE GRANTED EMERGENCY INJUNCTION IN THIS THAT CASE. I TRIED MY BEST TO FOLLOW THAT PRECEDENT. >> THAT'S THE THING ABOUT FOLLOWING PRECEDENT BECAUSE YOU KNOW OFTEN TIMES YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE, A JUDGE'S IDEOLOGICAL VIEW POINTS, ET CETERA, COME INTO PLAY AS TO WHICH PRECEDENT TO APPLY, HOW TO APPLY THE PRECEDENT AND WHAT PARTS OF THE PRECEDENT YOU WANT TO APPLY. LET ME GET TO SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE REALLY SIMPLE. I THINK YOU SAID YESTERDAY THAT KOREMATSU HAD BEEN OVERRULED. AND IN TRUMP V. HAWAII THE CHIEF JUSTICE WROTE KOREMATSU WAS GRAVELY WRONG THE DAY IT WAS DECIDED, HAD BEEN OVERRULED IN THE COURT OF HISTORY AND TO BE CLEAR HAS NO PLACE IN THE LAW UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. I'M CURIOUS, IS THAT A VALID CASE? >> I THINK WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS RECOGNIZING IN THAT CASE WAS THE SAME THING THAT THE SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE BRENNAN, RECOGNIZED IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" VERSUS SULLIVAN WHERE HE SAID THE SEDITION ACT OF 1798 HAVE BEEN OVERRULED IN THE COURT OF HISTORY. THERE WASN'T A SPECIFIC CASE THAT APROSE. IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO NONETHELESS INGING RECOGNIZE THIS LAW IN THE CASE OF THE SEDITION ACT AND KOREMATSU WAS NO LONGER GOOD LAW AND NOTED THAT. >> THIS WAS LONG AFTER THE CASE WAS BROUGHT MANY, MANY YEARS LATER THAT IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT KOREMATSU WAS DECIDED. IT WOULD BE NICE THAT THE COURT OF HISTORY CAN OVERRULE CASES BUT LET ME GO ON TO TRUMP V. HAWAII. THE CHIEF JUSTICE DECLARED THAT KOREMATSU HAS NOTHING TO...

DO AND HE CALLED IT ALL THE MORE TROUBLING GIVEN THE STARK PARALLELS BETWEEN THE REASONING OF THAT CASE AND THAT OF KOREMATSU V. UNITED

STATES. IN BOTH CASES IN KOREMATSU IT WAS FOUND THE PRESIDENT DISCRIMINATED

AGAINST THAT BASED ON THE MOST RECENT CASE TRUMP. HAVE HAWAII SHOULD THE PRESIDENT LOOK ON STATED NATIONAL SECURITY? >> THE SUPREME COURT MADE CLEAR, SENATOR, IN A VARIETY OF CASES THAT IT WILL HOLD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO ACCOUNT IN NATIONAL SECURITY CASES. IT WILL BOOMIDIEN CASE IN 2008, THE HAMDAN CASE. JUSTICE O'CONNOR SAID THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION IS THAT EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF WARTIME THE COURTS ARE NOT SILENT, CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE NOT SILENT. IN THE PARTICULAR CASE YOU'RE RAISING, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION IN THAT CASE BUT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO REITERATE IS THAT WE'RE A NATION OF LAWS INCLUDING IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONTEXT AND THAT PRECEDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OVER THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY IS IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE LAW APPLIES IN WARTIME AND NATIONAL SECURITY. >> THE THING IS, THOUGH, THE MOST RECENT ITERATION OF AN ARTICULATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO JUSTIFY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS TRUMP V. HAWAII. THE RECORD WAS REPLETE WITH REFERENCES AND STATEMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD MADE AS TO WHAT HIS TRUE INTENTIONS WERE. THAT THIS IS A MUSLIM BAN, HE TALKED ABOUT IT DURING THE CAMPAIGN, HE TALKED ABOUT IT AFTER THE CAMPAIGN. HE TOLD THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT -- [ SHOUTING ] --...

AS PRESIDENT, GET ME AN ITERATION OF THIS BAN THAT WOULD WITHSTAND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND SO THE MOST RECENT ITERATION IS VERY CONCERN THIS IS BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE SUPREME COURT MADE PLAIN IT WON'T LOOK BEHIND THAT ARTICULATION ARTICULATION. LET ME MOVE ON, RUNNING OUT OF TIME. SO THE WARREN COURT. ...