US Politics

Trump lawyers urge judge to block DoJ’s bid to access Mar-a-Lago documentsEx-president’s team reiterates request for special master to review seized materials and asks judge to uphold earlier order Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a federal judge on Monday to deny the justice department’s request to regain access to some documents the FBI seized from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort and restart the criminal investigation into his unauthorized retention of government documents.The response from the Trump legal team reiterated that it wanted a so-called special master to review all of the seized materials, asking the judge to uphold her earlier order barring prosecutors from using the documents in a criminal investigation until the process was complete.But in the 21-page filing, Trump’s lawyers interpreted the Presidential Records Act in sometimes unusual ways, and accused the justice department of criminalizing what they considered a dispute between Trump and the National Archives about how documents should be handled.“In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control,” the response from the Trump legal team said, “the government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th president of his own presidential and personal records.”The fight over the documents Trump took to his Florida resort has become a protracted and increasingly tangled fight. But at its heart is the treatment of secret government files, some of which have been reported to be highly sensitive, even involving nuclear secrets.Democrats and others have argued that Trump has behaved outrageously in relation to the documents and that the case should end with a prosecution. Trump and his defenders have played down the affair, characterizing it as either politically motivated or blown out of proportion.Trump’s lawyers appeared to principally advance the argument that the justice department’s request last week to US district judge Aileen Cannon to regain access to about 100 documents marked classified should not be granted, because Trump may have secretly declassified those documents.The justice department had asked in its request that prosecutors be allowed to resume working with the 100 documents as documents marked classified could never be personal or presidential records, and Trump therefore had no “possessory interest” – the key legal standard – in the materials.It also complained that the documents marked classified needed to be reviewed by the FBI, a division of the justice department, in the risk assessment being conducted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which has been halted because officials were unsure about the scope of Cannon’s order.The FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago about 11,000 documents and 48 empty folders marked classified. The risk assessment into the empty folders, for instance, was to be completed by the FBI – but Cannon’s order threw that review into limbo, the justice department said.But in the new filing, Trump’s lawyers – without explicitly stating so – suggested that the special master needed to examine those 100 documents for potential privilege protections before prosecutors or the FBI could look at them, because Trump may have declassified them.The question about whether the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago marked classified – even after Trump’s lawyers represented to the government it had complied with a subpoena demanding any documents marked classified – were actually declassified has become a central issue in the case.For weeks, Trump and his allies have claimed the documents marked classified stored at Mar-a-Lago were declassified subject to a “standing declassification order” – though his lawyers have never actually said this in court filings, which require statements to be wholly truthful.The latest filing from the Trump legal team, as with previous court submissions, once more danced around whether Trump actually declassified the materials without cutting either way, and left unclear whether he had actually designated some of the seized materials personal records.Trump’s lawyers in essence appeared to be making the sort of arguments criminal defense attorneys might make in a motion to suppress after a client has been indicted, rather than in a typical fourth amendment claim pre-indictment, former US attorney suggested.The Trump legal team in the filing offered a particularly unusual reading of the Presidential Records Act, on which the entire legal argument is based, claiming the provision that says the National Archives “shall” become the custodian of presidential records, did not mean that it “must”.TopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS politicsFBInewsReuse this content More

‘Women are the reason we can win,’ John Fetterman says at Pennsylvania rallyDemocrat Senate candidate puts abortion rights at top of his agenda as he targets Republican opponent Mehmet Oz John Fetterman has placed abortion rights at the top of his agenda to capture Pennsylvania’s Senate seat in November, telling supporters at a raucous rally on Sunday: “Women are the reason we can win. Don’t piss off women.”The Democrat was targeting comments made by his Republican opponent Mehmet Oz in May that abortion at any stage of pregnancy was “murder”.Oz, in keeping with a recent trend among Republican candidates, has attempted to soften his extremist position as the fall’s midterm elections draw closer, insisting that he now believes in exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the woman.But Oz’s rival was uncompromising in his criticism during Sunday’s rally at a community college in rural Pennsylvania attended by several thousand supporters, including a large number of women in pink “Fetterwoman” T-shirts.“This decision is between a woman and a real doctor,” Fetterman said of abortion, alluding to Oz’s status as a celebrity television doctor who has been branded by medical ethicists as a “huge danger to public health”.“Oz believes abortion is murder,” Fetterman continued. “If every abortion is murder, that means Oz thinks every woman who had to choose an abortion is a killer. Think about that.“Women are the reason we can win. Let me say that again. Women are the reason we win. Don’t piss women off.”According to research by TargetSmart, a polling analysis company, Pennsylvania ranks fifth in states showing large gaps in registration numbers between men and women since the US supreme court in June overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that established federal abortion rights.Pennsylvania joins Arkansas with 12% more women than men registering, while Kansas – a staunchly Republican state where pro-choice advocates won a massive victory last month retaining constitutional protection for the procedure – leads the country with a 40% gap.Democrats are attempting to channel nationwide anger at the reversal of Roe, and the escalation in anti-abortion legislation by Republicans in several states, into success in November’s elections.The Democratic party faces an uphill battle to retain control of both congressional chambers, but it is encouraged by research showing that voters are outraged at the ending of nearly half a century of federal abortion protections.A Pew Research poll last month showed abortion was an important factor for 56% of registered voters, up from 43% in March. Among Democratic voters the figure rises to 71%.In Pennsylvania, the candidates are locked in a tight race.Fetterman has painted Oz as a “visitor” from New Jersey who knows little about the state he wishes to represent. Oz’s campaign, meanwhile, has mocked the health of Fetterman, who is recovering from a stroke.According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fetterman – who has said he is struggling with auditory processing issues since his stroke – spoke for about 10 minutes Sunday, and he did not appear to stumble over as many words as in other recent appearances.TopicsPennsylvaniaUS politicsUS SenateAbortionnewsReuse this content More

Trump threatened not to leave White House after election loss, book saysDefeated president told aide ‘we’re never leaving’ despite Biden’s win, according to new book Confidence Man In the days after Joe Biden defeated him in the 2020 election, Donald Trump told an aide he was “just not going to leave” the White House, according to a new book on his presidency and its chaotic aftermath.“We’re never leaving,” he vowed to another aide, says the book from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman titled Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. “How can you leave when you won an election?”CNN, where Haberman also serves as a political analyst, said Monday it reviewed reporting for the book – set for a 4 October release – and published new details on Trump’s insistence that he intended to stay at the White House despite his electoral loss to Biden.The book reports Trump being overheard whining and asking Republican National Committee chairperson Ronna McDaniel: “Why should I leave if they stole it from me?”None of Trump’s predecessors had ever threatened to remain at the White House after the end of their presidencies. The only remotely close parallel was the former first lady Mary Todd Lincoln, who remained at the White House for a few weeks after the assassination of her husband, Abraham Lincoln, in April 1865, Haberman’s book adds.Trump’s private bluster about refusing to move out of the White House contradicted public statements he made to reporters less than a month after the election that he would “certainly” leave if Biden’s victory over him was certified.“I will, and you know that,” Trump said, though he insisted electoral fraudsters had robbed him of beating Biden.Additionally, Haberman’s book portrays Trump as picking the brains of virtually everyone in his orbit for their thoughts on his camp’s ideas on how to keep him in the Oval Office despite Biden’s win. Among those consulted was the valet who would ferry Diet Cokes to Trump whenever he pressed a red button on the presidential desk in the Oval Office, according to the book.Trump, of course, eventually relented and moved out on the same day as Biden’s inauguration, sparing authorities from having to forcibly escort him out of the White House at the behest of the new president.Trump supporters who bought his lies that he’d been defrauded of victory in the 2020 race staged the deadly US Capitol attack on January 6 the following year. A bipartisan Senate committee report linked seven deaths to the violence that day, which was aimed at preventing the congressional certification of Biden’s victory.Federal prosecutors later filed criminal charges against more than 800 participants, many of whom have already been convicted and sentenced to prison.A bipartisan House committee earlier this year held a series of public hearings making the case that – among other things – Trump apparently violated federal law when he ignored pleas to take action that would halt his supporters’ assault on the Capitol.Later on Monday, the New York Times reported that the justice department has issued about 40 subpoenas over the past week seeking information about the actions of Trump and his associates related to the January 6 attack. Two of Trump’s advisers have had their phones seized, the Times reported, citing sources.The FBI in August also searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after agents say they found evidence that the ousted president was retaining government secrets there without authorization. From Mar-a-Lago, the FBI seized about 11,000 documents and 48 empty folders emblazoned with classified markings.Trump had not been charged with any crimes as Confidence Man’s release date neared.TopicsUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

I have the most unlikely heroes these days – and even found myself fanboy rushing Dominic Grieve at a partyPeter YorkI may disagree with them on a whole host of issues, but I do admire people who are prepared to make brave, career-destroying choices At a Westminster party recently – in an immensely smart, oversized, Georgian house close to St James’s Park with the kind of crowd that features in Newsnight interviews – I saw one of my heroes. I fanboy rushed him and told him I agreed with everything he had been saying. He looked anxious, as careful lawyers do when people who haven’t been introduced to them start banging on. The subject of my new worship was Dominic Grieve.Dominic Grieve! If you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have said I thought him a dry-stick bore (the sarky political sketch writer Quentin Letts once called him a fusspot). But now I see him as heroic for standing against his tribe – he’s one of the “outs” in the Tory party – in particular, for pushing against the former prime minister, Boris Johnson, to get the intelligence and security committee’s Russia report published. I am seeing unlikely heroes like him all over the place now. People I would have probably disagreed with across a whole range of policies and hot-button culture war issues. But they have made brave – and career-destroying – choices when the time came. I had always thought of the political journalist Peter Oborne, for example, as a natural captain-of-cricket rightwinger. But – although he really is very keen on cricket – over the past decade he has left two extremely well-paid jobs at national newspapers on issues of principle. Leaving these platforms also saw him disappear from hosting BBC current affairs radio programmes. Then there’s Liz Cheney, the vice-chair of the January 6 House select committee in Washington, and daughter of the dreadful Dick Cheney, who has already been voted out from her Wyoming seat in Congress by Trump supporters for calling out their hero.Is it me? Is the “Overton window” – what is seen as politically acceptable at any given time – opening wider? Or is it simply that when times are really tough, you see who’s got it.TopicsPoliticsOpinionDominic GrieveUS politicscommentReuse this content More

‘A wakeup call’: more Republicans are softening staunch anti-abortion stanceMoves comes amid a ferocious backlash to the fall of Roe that has seen Democrat hopes in the midterm elections revived A growing number of Republicans are changing their positions on abortions since the fall of Roe v Wade as midterm elections approach in the US, signaling a softened shift from their previously staunch anti-abortion stances.Since the supreme court overturned the federal right to abortion in June, many Republicans are adopting more compromised positions in attempts to win votes in key states through a slew of changes in messaging on websites, advertisements and public statements.The moves comes amid a ferocious backlash to the decision that has seen Democrat hopes in the midterm elections revived and even see a solidly red state like Kansas vote in a referendum to keep some abortion rights.With midterm elections approaching, abortion has also served as a prime motivator for women voters across the country, especially among Democrats and fueling striking special-election successes for the party seeking to hold both houses of Congress.According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, 56% of voters say that the issue of abortion will be “very important” to them at the polls this fall, marking a significant increase from 43% in March.Additionally, an increasing number of states including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are seeing growing female and male gaps among new registrants since the supreme court overturned federal abortion rights, according to the Democratic data services firm TargetSmart.As a result, Republicans are increasingly recognizing that the issue of abortion could cost them dearly at the polls as they attempt to gain control of the House and Senate.The difficulty of shifting from gung-ho anti-abortion rhetoric to a more complicated reality for a lot of Republicans was starkly illustrated by Kansas’s referendum. The usually reliably Republican state voted to keep abortion protections in its state constitution, thus providing an unprecedented boost in red state America to the abortion rights movement.“The vote earlier this summer in Kansas is a wakeup call to Republicans that not only are the most extreme abortion restrictions non-starters with voters but the whole issue has flipped as a Democratic motivation to head to the polls,” Republican strategist Barrett Marson told the Guardian.“Over the years, it’s been OK to advocate for the strictest abortion regulations in a Republican primary because abortion generally was protected by Roe v Wade. Now it’s no longer theoretical. So now the most restrictive policies have real life consequences. And suburban women are giving a candidate’s position on abortion greater weight as they consider who to vote for,” he added.Earlier this week, a Republican Senate nominee in Washington state said that she was against abortion – but supported a state law that guarantees the right to abortion until fetal viability.“I respect the voters of Washington state,” said Tiffany Smiley, who previously said she was “100% pro-life”. “They long decided where they stand on the issue,” she added, referring to the state law that was passed in 1991.In an ad released last week, Smiley told viewers she was “pro-life but I opposed a federal abortion ban”. The ad came in response to an ad from Patty Murray, Smiley’s Democratic incumbent opponent, which called Smiley “Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked candidate”, referring to the Senate Republican leader known for his anti-abortion views and push to stack the supreme court with conservative justices opposed to abortion.Murray’s ad claimed that if elected, Smiley would support federal abortion bans.“Murray is trying to scare you, I am trying to serve you.” Smiley said, “I made it clear in my ad that … I am not for a federal abortion ban. You know, the extreme in this race is Patty Murray. She is for federalizing abortion.”Nevertheless, earlier this year, Smiley’s campaign accepted the endorsement of of Tennessee Republican senator Marsha Blackburn, a staunch anti-abortion activist who previously introduced a bill to the Senate that sought to strip all abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, of federal funding.Another Republican whose position shift was more apparent than Smiley’s is Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters.In an interview in March with Catholic news outlet EWTN, Masters said, “Every society has had child sacrifice or has had human sacrifice in some form, and this is our form. And it needs to stop,” referring to abortions.Since then, Masters has appeared to soften his abortion views. In August, the Donald Trump-endorsed candidate released an ad that said, “Look, I support a ban on very late-term and partial birth abortion. And most Americans agree with that. That would just put us on par with other civilized nations.”Moreover, Masters has made changes to his campaign website which once stated that he supported ‘federal personhood law” and that he was “100% pro-life”. His current website says, “Protect babies, don’t let them be killed,” followed with, “Democrats lie about my views on abortion.”According to his current campaign website, Masters would support a third trimester federal abortion ban. Previously, his website said that he supported a constitutional amendment that “recognizes unborn babies are human being[s] that may not be killed”.The pro-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America has come to the defense of Masters’ shifting position. “Blake Masters has rightfully centered his position on what is achievable now at the federal level: a limit on abortions at a point by which the unborn child can feel excruciating pain,” said the organization’s president Marjorie Dannenfelser.Minnesota Republican gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen has signaled a similar softening in his abortion position. In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio in March, Jensen said, “I would try to ban abortion. I think that we’re basically in a situation where we should be governed by … there is no reason for us to be having abortions going out.”However, Jensen backtracked on his words a few months later. In a video released in July, Jensen said that he supports abortions in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the woman is in danger.Jensen described his previous comments as clumsy, saying, “I never thought it necessary to try and identify what those exceptions might be in regards to legal abortion or not, because I always thought when I uphold the pregnant woman’s life, and if her mental and physical health is in danger or jeopardized, that’s all that needs to be said.”Despite Jensen’s amended comments, not everyone is convinced that he is genuine about his position. Minnesota Democratic party chairman Ken Martin said that if Jensen is elected, he will still try to pass an all-out abortion law that would not make exceptions for rape or incest.“There is no reason to assume that Governor Scott Jensen would not attempt to pass the abortion ban – without exceptions for rape and incest – that he has repeatedly supported,” he said in a statement.In May, Iowa Republican candidate Zach Nunn raised his hand during a primary debate when asked whether if “all abortions, no exceptions” should be illegal.Nunn also previously voted for a measure that required women seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours. The measure included an exception to protect the mother’s life but did not mention cases of rape and incest.Nunn’s Democratic opponent, Representative Cindy Axne, released a political ad against him that used footage of him raising his hand at the primary. “Even in the case of rape, even in the case of incest, even if a woman’s life is in danger – who will take away a woman’s right to make her own decisions, regardless of the circumstances? Zach Nunn,” the video said.In response to the video, Nunn changed his tune in an op-ed he published last month, saying, “I’m pro-life, and I support protecting the life of the mother and the baby.” He accused Axne of taking his comments out of context and went on to say, “This issue is too important: Iowans deserve to have their voices heard.”In the op-ed, Nunn said that he supports abortion in “exceptions for horrific circumstances like rape, incest and fetal abnormalities, and to save the life of the mother”.With many Republicans looking to secure votes from moderate and independent voters, some political strategists worry that all this effort spent on reconfiguring their abortion positions could negatively impact their political momentum, especially as Democrats are making the issue a cornerstone in their own campaigns.“While the economy and inflation should be the most important issue this cycle, Republican candidates are now having to defend their stances on eliminating all or most abortion options,” said Marson.“Anytime they aren’t talking [about the] economy and inflation, they are losing opportunities.”TopicsRepublicansUS midterm elections 2022US politicsAbortionnewsReuse this content More

Kamala Harris says ‘everything on the line’ in midterm elections Vice-president warns that the elections will determine whether ‘age-old sanctity’ of right to vote would be protected Kamala Harris warned on Sunday that the midterm elections in November would determine whether the “age-old sanctity” of the right to vote would be protected in the US or whether “so-called extremist leaders around the country” would continue to restrict access to the ballot box.With just 56 days to go until the elections, and with the paper-thin Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress, the vice-president said that “everything is on the line in these elections”.In an interview with NBC News’ Meet the Press, she said that the country was facing a rising domestic extremism threat.“I think it is very dangerous and I think it is very harmful, and it makes us weaker,” she said.Harris pointed to the plethora of extreme election deniers, many endorsed by Donald Trump, who have embraced Trump’s lie that the 2020 election, won by Joe Biden, was “stolen” from him.Many of them, whom Biden has lately slammed as “Maga Republicans”, after the Trump campaign slogan Make America Great Again, have won Republican nomination for statewide positions that control election administration.Were they to win in November they could command considerable power over both state elections and the 2024 presidential contest.“There are 11 people right now running for secretary of state, the keepers of the integrity of the voting system of their state, who are election deniers,” Harris said. “Couple that with people who hold some of the highest elected office in our country who refuse to condemn an insurrection on January 6.”She said that an “age-old sanctity” – the right to vote – had been violated as a response to Biden’s victory which saw Americans turn out to vote in unprecedented numbers, often via mail or drop-boxes, which helped increase access. “I think that scared some people, that the American people were voting in such large numbers,” she said.Congressional attempts to shore up voting rights have so far been stymied by the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation. Harris said that should Democrats increase their Senate majority in the midterms, Biden would abolish the filibuster specifically for voting rights legislation. He could then pass stalled voting rights legislation that increases democratic safeguards.“We need to have protections to make sure that every American, whoever they vote for, has the unobstructed ability to do that when it is otherwise their right,” she said.On Sunday morning, Harris and the second gentleman, her husband, Doug Emhoff, joined the remembrance event at the National September 11 Memorial in New York to mark the anniversary of the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the US, which killed 2,977 people.The vice-president did not speak, as per tradition, but in the NBC interview that aired she also spoke of America’s reputation as a world role model for democracy being under threat.She cited the right-wing challenges to election integrity, including the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, in a bid to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat , and extremist Republicans’ unwillingness to condemn it, while also fielding many candidates in current elections who still refuse to accept the true result.And she added that when meeting foreign leaders, the US “had the honor and privilege historically of holding our head up as a defender and an example of a great democracy. And that then gives us the legitimacy and the standing to talk about the importance of democratic principles, rule of law, human rights….through the process of what we’ve been through, we’re starting to allow people to call into question our commitment to those principles. And that’s a shame.”TopicsUS voting rightsFight to voteKamala HarrisUS midterm elections 2022US politicsnewsReuse this content More

Senate intelligence chair urges judge to allow briefing on Trump Mar-a-Lago searchDemocrat says clarification from judge urgently needed and the mishandling of state secrets could have disastrous consequences The Democratic chair of the US Senate intelligence committee has demanded that a federal judge allows the committee to be briefed on the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago and the potential damage caused by Donald Trump hoarding top secret documents at his private club.Mark Warner, the US senator from Virginia, said that there was confusion over whether the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the FBI were allowed to brief the Senate committee on their review of classified documents held at the former president’s club-resort and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.The FBI searched the property on 8 August, retrieving more than 100 classified documents.Last week a Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon of the federal district court for thesouthern district of Florida, sided with Trump and ordered a “special master” to oversee the documents. The DoJ is appealing the decision, but its criminal investigation of Trump’s removal of state secrets from the White House has been halted by the court’s action.Warner told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that clarification from the judge was urgently needed, and the mishandling of state secrets could have disastrous consequences.“Some of the documents involved human intelligence, and if that information got out people will die. If there were penetration of our signals intelligence, literally years of work could be destroyed.”Warner added that if information in the documents had been obtained from foreign intelligence services, then “the willingness of our allies to share intelligence could be undermined”.Hillary Clinton, the former presidential candidate who lost to Trump in 2016, argued that he should be liable to criminal prosecution. She told CNN on Sunday: “No one is above the law, no one should escape accountability … He is not the president and so I do think, just like any American, if there is any evidence that should be pursued.”The White House has stayed aloof from the DoJ’s actions..US vice-president Kamala Harris declined to answer in an NBC interview whether Trump’s status as a possible presidential candidate in 2024 should be taken into account in the DoJ’s criminal investigation.“I wouldn’t dare tell the Department of Justice what to do,” she said. “The president and our administration, unlike the previous administration, have been very, very careful to make sure there is no question about any kind of interference.”Pressed on whether it would be too divisive to prosecute a former president, Harris signaled that Trump should be held accountable, saying: “Our country has gone through different periods of time where the unthinkable has happened, and where there has been a call for justice, and justice has been served…people are going to demand justice, and they rightly do.”TopicsDonald TrumpMar-a-LagoFBIUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

John Roberts defends supreme court as Kamala Harris lashes out at Roe rulingChief justice warns against linking contentious decisions with court legitimacy as vice-president attacks ‘activist court’ US supreme court chief justice John Roberts has defended his conservative-leaning bench from attacks over its decision in June to overturn federal abortion rights, as US vice-president Kamala Harris launched a fierce attack on what she called today’s “activist court”.Roberts, in his first public appearance since the bombshell ruling to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision, warned against linking contentious decisions with court legitimacy, saying at an event on Friday night: “The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions have always been subject to intense criticism, and that is entirely appropriate.”But in her first sit-down interview with a TV network since becoming vice-president, Harris told NBC News that she now believes the supreme court is an “activist court” after the institution took away nationwide abortion rights.“We had an established right for almost half a century, which is the right of women to make decisions about their own body as an extension of…the privacy rights to which all people are entitled,” Harris said during the interview with Chuck Todd for Meet the Press, aired in full on Sunday after being trailed on Friday.“And this court took that constitutional right away, and we are suffering as a nation because of it,” she added.Harrissaid: “I believe government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies. I believe government should not be telling women how to plan their families…should not be criminalizing healthcare providers…should not be saying ‘no exception for rape or incest’.”Before becoming a US Senator and then the first female US vice-president, Harris was attorney general of California and, before that, district attorney of San Francisco.“As a prosecutor, former prosecutor, who specialized in child sexual assault cases, understanding the violence that occurs against women and children, and then to further subject them to those kind of inhumane conditions – that’s what I believe,” she said.The vice-president also remarked that she has “great concern about the integrity of the court overall”.Since the Trump administration achieved three appointments to the nine-member bench, the court has swung sharply to the right with a six-three conservative supermajority. It voted in June to dismantle Roe, returning the power over abortion rights to the states and leaving 58% of US women of reproductive age, or 40 million women, in states hostile to abortion rights.The post-Trump supreme court: where hard-won rights die in darknessRead moreAnd Roberts defended the court. “He added, at the Friday event: “I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the supreme court,” he said, while being interviewed by two judges from the Denver-based 10th US circuit court of appeals at its conference in Colorado Springs, the Gazette newspaper reported.“If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle. You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is,” Roberts said.Roberts said that fencing around the court building in Washington DC, installed amid fierce protests over abortion rights, has come down. And that when the next supreme court term begins in October, arguments will be open to the public in person again, after the building was shut in the pandemic.TopicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More