Supreme Court Overturns ROE V. WADE

Live from the Fox News Radio Studios in New York City, fresh off the set of Fox and Friends, it's America's receptive voice. Brian Killmeat. Thanks so much for being here, everybody. It's the Brian Killmeat Show. Jonathan Turley standing by.

Then, Senator Ron Johnson, he's been in the eye of this storm lately, running for six more years in the Senate. He'll be with us.

So let's get to, before we go any further, the big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, whereas abortion was an invented right that was invented in 1973 and has no basis in the Constitution. It's not really mattering what our personal views are. What matters is what the Constitution says and what is legal and constitutional.

That is Molly Hemingway, of course. Could today be the day Roe v. Wade is overturned and we are delaying the groundbreaking ruling for what? Where will the compromise be if there is one with the Chief Justices rumored to be in the works? We will have all sides covered.

Number two. He's meeting today with people installing offshore wind. Equipment, but not oil and gas CEOs.

So, how did that help lower gas prices?

Well, the president has done a So let me step back for a second. You said he's done everything in his power. They were a mile away. President Biden chooses to go to a meeting on wind and help his base instead of the White House and meet oil and gas execs a mile away. I'll tell you about the latest inept moves to help alleviate the pain of the pump and financial strain of inflation.

Number one. The gun safety bill we are passing tonight can be described with three adjectives: bipartisan, common sense. It contains zero, zero new restrictions. zero mandates. and zero bans of any kind for law-abiding gun owners.

Guns. First time since 1993, a major piece of firearms legislation has passed the Senate and soon the House. 15 Republicans join all 50 Democrats to pass it. At the same time, the Supreme Court strikes down New York's ability to stop law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns to a degree for self-defense. And six other states are affected as well.

We will break down the Titanic decisions. And I know a lot of you are tempted to say, I want Brian Kilmead to break down my decisions, but I have a good friend who went to law school and then teaches the law. He went to George Washington University, a wonderful broadcaster, Jonathan Turley. Nobody better to talk to on this really impactful day, especially as it relates to guns. You ready?

I am indeed. First off, let's talk about the bipartisan bill. People who are want to want like this are worried about the implementation on the red flag laws and the boyfriend clause. What should they sh be concerned about?

Well, the big question is due process. There's no qu there's no issue as to whether guns can be removed from someone who is a danger to himself or to others. That's always been the case. Red flag laws amplify that authority and create a system by which. guns can be removed.

The question is, upon what basis can they be removed? And how can you challenge that removal? In some states, this can be done with an anonymous tip. It can be done ex parte without having the accused present or able to respond. And then there's also serious questions as to once this happens, How do you defend yourself?

There are accounts in some states of people who have had guns removed and then found it just an incredibly burdensome process to try to get that cat to walk backwards, to try to say, look, the grounds were not valid, and I should have my property returned to me. Those are all the details that will likely trigger challenges in the future. $750 million over five years for crisis intervention. Who could be against that? Support for mental health programs, investment in children and family health services, funding for school safety.

I don't think anybody could be against that. I'm surprised Democrats signed off on it when the President said that's not really his focus through his press secretary. Protections for victims of domestic violence, and that's where this comes in. Tell me about the, how would you best described in layman's terms, the boyfriend loophole?

Well, the issue has always been whether you could have guns removed. by someone who is not a spouse, whether people are married or not, and how that is classified. And the effort has been to try to remove those types of barriers to allow weapons to be taken away and then for the situation effectively to be examined. And once again, this goes to how fast that can happen and who does the examination. Does this go to a judge and who's allowed to see if this was someone who had malice or didn't have the basis to make this allegation?

So the effort is to close those loopholes, but then that raises the question of where is the backup on due process. One thing I want to note that I think you were right to bring up is I was surprised at how the White House sort of belittled a bit the emphasis on mental health as opposed to gun bans and that type of thing. The President came out with talking about AR fifteens again, and is saying things that are historically wrong, by the way. Many of us have said for many years that this is these terrible cases reflect a mental health crisis. The vast majority of these individuals were not just unstable individuals, but people who were known to be unstable.

And we simply have an underfunded mental health system in the country. And it's not just an issue for shootings. It's not just an issue for these school massacres. It's an issue that really cuts across society. I mean, we have got to get a handle on mental illness in this country.

We do. And there's money put here for it. And I know that's really more than I could do. You know, the shooter in Uvalde, the shooter in Buffalo had incidents in their past.

So now they're not saying you can't own a gun at 18. You can. But now they're going to go into your past to see if there's any issues or legal run-ins or. or any issues of Mental health that needs to be addressed before Mr. and Mrs.

Johnson sell in their gun shop sell a gun to this 18-year-old. That to me, they call it an under 21 enhanced review process. Do you think we should be concerned about that at all, or do you think we should embrace this? I think we should embrace that. What's interesting about the person in front of Kavanaugh's house in the alleged attempted murder is that he goes he picks up the phone and he calls and says, look, basically stop me.

I want to kill him. I want to kill myself. many of these individuals really do want to get stopped.

Some of them are engaged in suicide by cop. They want they just want it over with. Others are just consumed by this this madness. But these are all cases that are generally not hidden. We have some that just pop up, right?

We have plenty that are people who just stay isolated until, unfortunately, we find out who they are. But many of them do not. I mean, many of them have had past run-ins.

So I think we should embrace it. The problem is that the way we treat juvenile records is that once you become an adult, it becomes hard to essentially cross-pollinate the records. It becomes very hard to review an adult and to be able to see what this person did as a juvenile. And that's going to help take down that wall, and I think it's a good thing. I hope so.

I hope they get access to it. We would have stopped the last two shooters. Penalties for straw purchasing, clarifications, definition of federally licensed firearms dealer.

So they make sure about that.

So we'll see where this goes. But what it doesn't have is a ban of AR-15. It doesn't say 21 and over.

So I think that's one thing Republicans were worried about. It seems as though they got a lot of what they want.

So here is what. What uh Mitch McConnell said yesterday, cut to. It contains zero, zero new restrictions. Zero new waiting periods. Zero mandate.

and zero bans of any kind for law-abiding gun owners. Police and law enforcement support the bill. strongly. But Senator John Kennedy represents a lot of people like Tim Scott, who I was talking to last night, Cut Three, who the don't know. The bill that we're being asked to vote on, make no mistake about it, is a Senator Schumer, Senator McConnell bill.

In terms of the United States Senate today, Normal is a setting on the dryer. There's nothing normal about this. And this thing has been rammed down our throats. And that's not a criticism of Senator Cornyn or Senator Murphy, the vessels.

Okay? I I I just think our leadership on both sides of the aisle. Has made a mistake.

So he does not, you know, he thinks 80 pages in 48 hours is too much. Is he right? Because you got to worry, you know, you worry about the details. Yes, I've long been a critic of this approach. We saw it with lots of these bills, Obamacare, the Patriot Act.

These are were massively longer than this. And there is no way that any member could have read through those bills. It was physically impossible. And yet we tolerate that. I think that he's right that we should have time to look at this and contemplate it.

I think that much that is in these bills is actually good. The thing that matters the most to me is the mental health funding. That's the one that will make the difference. The fact is that politicians constantly push for stuff in response to massacres that wouldn't have stopped the massacre. I mean, they push to ban things and take these other steps, and there's a lot of shiny objects there.

but none that would have prevented the subject of the legislation. The mental health funding could. I mean, that's actually something that could Stop a massacre. But I think that what politicians can't say is that there's no solution to all shootings in society. These are going to continue.

What we can do is to take practical measures by hardening schools, dealing with mental illness. They're not as glitzy as I'm going to ban AR-15. but they probably will have a much greater impact.

So, and by the way, look at the Florida laws, see what's happened. I don't know what kind of red flag problems they've had. Do you know of some? Because Florida in 2018, after the Parkland shooting, did take action with the Republican governor, Rick Scott. He said we had much more time, was much more collaborative.

But that was a lot stricter. They did raise the age to 21. Yeah, and the key on this on the age issue is that there's a fair amount of support for that. But let's keep in mind, we've got about 400 million weapons in this country. And people who are below 21 are allowed to hunt and take other actions.

That involve weapons. And so this is the raising the age is not going to be, in my view, just clear turning of the corner on these shootings. In all practicality, if someone is intent on engaging in violence, they will still be able to do so. New York gun law got changed yesterday. It was a petition that was brought forward by two guys and the New York State.

Uh oh. And two New York State Rifle Association and two upstate men challenged this law, written in 1911, passed in 1911, called the Sullivan Law. They claimed that the Second Amendment was being violated because they could not get a gun and the criteria to get a gun was too extreme. It violated his Second Amendment. And this amendment was violated really in 1911, according to this Supreme Court, because after there was a Gramacy Park murder, there was a big push in this state to rein in guns.

So now, if you wanted a gun from them on in, thanks to the Sullivan Law, you'd have to apply. And it was extreme. It had to be extreme measure for you to carry a gun. What's changed now?

Well, this was a momentous decision. I actually think this will likely be one of the two. Decisions that are highlighted from the legacy of Justice Thomas. And that's quite a legacy after over 30 years. I expect this is going to be one of the two top opinions.

in terms of his impactful time on the court. And the reason is that we had the Heller decision that declared the Second Amendment an individual right. Obviously, that's one of the biggest cases in history. But this case is its rival in a critical way. It basically deals states the sort of foundation for future challenges to Second Amendment rights.

And in that sense, it's similar to a case we called CATS. that reframed how we dealt with privacy challenges in this country. And the the it's a it's really a a a vintage Thomas' opinion. It deals with originalist analysis about the purpose of the Second Amendment. And he brings two points of clarity.

One is he says, look, you cannot condition an individual right on this type of added showing. That the presumption rests with the citizen, not with the state. The citizen has a right to enjoy the individual rights under the Bill of Rights. If the states want to take one of those away, then the burden is on them.

So you can't just tell citizens, yeah, you can enjoy the Second Amendment like the other amendment. Just show me you really need to. And the second point of clarity is he said there is no distinction in the Second Amendment between having a gun in the House or walking out of the House. It is the right to possess a gun. And for that right to be taken away, it's the state that will carry the burden.

Understood.

Now there's a two-page missive in there put in by Kavanaugh that says basically name the places that you want to limit whether you can carry a gun or not. And Governor Hochold this morning says, I'm going to name every place possible: government buildings, subways, hospitals, schools, parks, statecares, cemeteries, worship houses. Can they do that? Can they get around this ruling by naming a whole bunch of safe places, the gun-free zones?

Now, Hochl's response was really amazing. She said she was shocked, shocked. In this Claude Rains moment that she lost this case, I've been writing for over a year that this law was just facially unconstitutional. And she then said, We don't give up in New York. We're going to pass more laws.

Well, you know who would be delighted by that? It's the gun rights advocates. New York has been a font. Of cases supporting gun rights. They keep on losing major cases in the federal courts and promising that you're going to do more legislation is going to be welcomed by some people in the gun rights movement.

And this is a good example of it. She says, you know what, we're just going to declare everything a sensitive place. But why would you say that out loud? Why would you respond to an opinion by saying, well, we're going to game the system again and we're going to play with this term?

Well, that's not a part of the public record.

So anything that you come out with is going to be played against your statement that you just want to now game the system again. The key to remember is that this case followed an earlier New York case. In which the New York politicians told voters that they were going to defend another unconstitutional law all the way to the Supreme Court. They pulled that ball just Just before. Jonathan Turley, thanks.

Precise, personal, powerful. Is America's weather team in the palm of your hands? Get Fox Weather updates throughout your busy day, every day. Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. From the Fox News Podcasts Network.

I'm Ben Dominich, Fox News contributor and editor of the Transom.com daily newsletter, and I'm inviting you to join a conversation every week. It's the Ben Dominich Podcast. Subscribe and listen now by going to FoxNewsPodcasts.com. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

Hey, welcome back, everybody.

So, we have a lot to discuss, especially. If people are against, and listen, I got to read the 80 pages. I haven't read the 80 pages. I don't think anybody has.

So that's the problem. Speed matters. They want to get this done before everyone goes on the fourth year vacation. I don't know. If you just can you get it done on Wednesday or can you stay in town and vote on Sunday after you and your staff have a chance to look at it.

Now keep in mind, in the Republican run state, when Senator Rick Scott was Governor Rick Scott, they passed a legislation in Florida Now, they have some pre-struct after Parkland, the horrific shooting there. They raised the minimum age for all gun purchases from 18 to 21, created a waiting period of three days for gun purchases. They banned bump stocks. They allowed police to temporarily confiscate guns from anyone subject to involuntary psychiatric evaluation. Prohibited gun sales to Floridian committed mental institutions.

Created a program for trained school staff to carry guns. Expanded mental health funding, which is great. Created the school safety program. Allocated millions of dollars to make school buildings more secure.

Some of this stuff overlaps. Rick's guys, it's not the same thing. What Florida did was stricter.

So and I'm curious, what have you found out? Uh are the red flag laws laws working in Florida? 1-866-408-7669. Senator Ron Johnson joins me next. We'll talk about this and also his issues with January 6th in Wisconsin.

He wants six more years. He's got to answer some of those questions. Always happy to have him on. He's next. Hey, it's Will Kane, co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend.

Join me as I share my thoughts on a wide range of topics from sports and pop culture to politics and business. The Will Kane Podcast. Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. In these ever-changing times, you can rely on Fox News for hourly updates for the very latest news and information on your time.

Listen and download now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead. The gun safety bill we are passing tonight can be described with three adjectives. Bipartisan.

Common sense. Life-saving. I hope it paves the way for future action on guns in Congress. and at all levels of government. Yeah, and that was passed last night.

I think they got 15 votes on the Republican side. It was 65-33.

So the gun law, the gun bill will go to the House. They're supposed to rubber stamp it and give it right back, and it's supposed to pass the most significant legislation since 1993. And there was an assault ban that was overturned since then. Those are the Clinton years. Let's go over to Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin.

Senator, you did not vote for this. Always great to have you on. Why not? Oh, Brian.

Well, you know, this is just a classic example of the dysfunction in Washington, D.C. It's a bill. Crafted by a gang of senators. Um Doesn't go through the committee process, no ability to amend it. The text the text of the of the bill is presented to us hours before the first vote on motion proceed.

Again, no ability to mend whatsoever. It spans Yeah. Billions of dollars, supposed to have a pay for, which isn't a real pay-for. And I think there's some very legitimate concerns about infringing on constitutional rights in the Second Amendment.

So again, these are just rushes. I hate it. When you know you hear this uh chorus of we have to do something. Not necessarily. And listen, when you spend billions of dollars, I'm sure some good will come out of it, okay?

But you know, some bad can come out of this as well. And We really need to step back and really analyze the role of the federal government, whether we make things worse. I think that's more often the case than not.

So again, I just I couldn't afford I couldn't support this bill. Support for mental health program. I think people for Republicans wanted that. Report for safety funding for school safety resources. And now they talk about an enhanced review process, but not upping the age to 21.

But for those under 21, so maybe we stop the next Uvalde psycho and the next buffalo killer from actually acting because it was clear they had problems in their past, never should have been sold a gun. Penalties for straw purchases, we can all support that. They're going to do different clarifications of definition of federally licensed firearms dealers, but there's not universal. Background checks, there's no listing of guns, there's no banning of AR-15s. It seems like the Democrats and the President got very little of what they wanted in this.

That's true. I think Republicans negotiating this prevented a lot of bad stuff from happening. There's no doubt about it. I was glad. That a bill that I championed, the Luke and Alex School Safety Act, was included.

That just codifies the be clearing house of information on best practices in school safety.

So I've really Appreciate the Parthenon parents that pushed that and they got to win out of that.

So, yeah, I mean, there wasn't as much damage done by this. a bill that there could have been had Democrats been in total control of it. But yeah, it's this. Ends up being the slippery slope. It just does.

And again, I would argue, I don't think this is going to do much other than spend more money. I hope. provisions of this thing work, but This would not have prevented Uvalde. There were so many points of failure that occurred in Uvalde. And again, we're really not.

really underanalyzing and admitting to the real cause of these things, which is Just societal The lack of values, just what's happened to our society in general. Young men that don't grow up with a proper discipline for a variety of reasons. they're just all kinds of things that we just our society refused to take a look at. And I'm actually reluctant to mention on the phone or on the radio here, Brian, because I'd get slaughtered even bringing some of these things up that really need to be discussed in public, but you just can't. It's not allowed.

Unbelievable. In New York, it affects seven other states. They struck down, they essentially struck down a 1911 rule that said, what you guys are experiencing in Wisconsin, you can have a gun unless there's a reason to take that gun away. They kind of give New York that rule and they put something in there and say, well, you could have certain places you can't carry a gun through, like schools, churches, government buildings. Here's the.

Good the current governor of New York. Cut eight. Our new laws we're going to be looking at. Restrictions on sensitive locations. changing the permitting process.

Creating a threshold for those. We're going to have training requirements. We're going to make sure that people have concealed weapons as specified training. We have a whole lot of ideas. And also look at.

a system where impl businesses and private property owners would have the right to protect themselves.

So she was extremely upset about this. They said it's going to be like the Wild West. Is Wisconsin like the Wild West? No, absolutely not. And I think if you really look at the The reality situation where people have concealed carry, where the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, actually bear them outside of just their home, crime rates are lower.

Um where you have high crime rates, it seems like you've got larger more gun control. And that's really where I would have started to begin with is let's before we pass more gun control, make people feel better because we have to do something is why don't we enforce The laws we already have on the books and see if those would actually work. What we're going to do now is put in a whole new set of laws. Try not to enforce them. You'll spend a lot of money.

But you know, whatever restrictions that we just we simply don't enforce these gun laws.

So, we don't even know how well the gun laws on the books would actually work. You know, things like background checks, all kinds of violations. How about Hunter Biden? Why aren't we seeing prosecutions of Hunter Biden? I mean, that'd be, you know, make an example of high-profile figures.

I mean, that's what they're doing on January 6th.

So that kind of enforcement works. But we don't do that kind of enforcement.

So, again, why in the world? Would we pass more laws when we don't even enforce the ones we have in the books?

Well, he's head of CPAC. Matchlap looked at this and said this. It's the reason why Republican voters hate their own party. In the end, they always know there's going to be enough Republican senators to sell them out. Think about this, Maria.

You can't do a Republican stump speech at a convention or in front of a large crowd without that candidate promising to uphold the Second Amendment. And then look what happens when the rubber hits the road. I think looking at the details in this bill is very important, but how do you pass a major piece of gun legislation, Maria, without one hearing? Without bringing in experts from both sides, it's the problem with the 16th Committee. Congress has become just a political operation.

When the heat hits Congress, they simply just come up with some scheme to make it look like they're doing. He's not even talking about the content yet. He's even talking about the process. And that's basically more your contention than anything else. You had no chance to look at this, debate this, amend this.

Well, and I would also argue, you know, as a conservative in the Republican Conference, I would like a piece of gun legislation the Republicans are presenting that fifty of us support. And I think we if we work together, we could probably do that, have that piece of legislation, then go to the Democrats and say, okay, well, what's your proposal? And again, do this through the committee process, do this through public discussion and debate, and then sit down and maybe start working together and compromising this stuff. That's not the way this works. We get a few of us, a minority in our conference.

They do a deal with 50 Democrats. And that's what becomes law. And it does, it does upset our base. There's absolutely no doubt about it. They hate that process.

So, you know, one thing is pretty clear. The former president is pretty upset now that Kevin McCarthy did not put any Republicans on this 1-6 committee. Before we get into the situation and the accusations against you, was that a mistake, tactically? We don't hear anything from the other side? I don't want to second guess.

I mean, this was such a. This was such a partisan process to begin with. The fact that Leader McCarthy couldn't Nancy Pulsi wouldn't allow the the people he did select to sit. That I mean, that's that's just a a grotesque abuse of power there.

So it's kind of hard to cooperate with something that is that partisan to begin with. But maybe in hindsight it'd be nice to have I mean, maybe less strong Republicans, but you want your A-team up there in a situation like that. And so you want people like Jim Jordan on there. And the fact that Nancy Pulsi wouldn't let him on there. I don't really blame Kevin McCarthy for just kind of walking away and saying Yep, go go to town.

So what they say to you, Senator, is your Chief of Staff handed Mike Pence some alternate electors in Wisconsin to try to name, to try to stop Mike Pence from certifying the election. What can you say about this? No, it didn't happen. Yeah, my my my my role in this thing was maybe A few seconds, a couple of minutes. I got a call.

So now I got a text. I got a text. From uh A former Trump attorney saying we have a document related to electors that the vice president needs to get. I mean, I'm paraphrasing now. Um And so, I do you have a staff member that can handle this?

So, I turned this over to my brand new chief staff, first day of the job, said, Can you, or you know, there apparently there's something the vice president needs to have. I didn't know what it was. And within seventy minutes, The whole process concluded when my staff member, who knew people in the Vice President's staff, said, no, the Vice President's not taking anything, don't deliver it. We said, fine, we're not going to deliver it. I texted this guy back.

So we're not going to deliver.

So the whole process took 70 minutes in my office. We weren't coordinating anything. But you know, we we were basically asked to deliver something. We really didn't know what it was. We we found out once it came to our office.

But you know my involvement literally was seconds, no more than a couple minutes. And now, this has been spun into like I was involved in some conspiracy. I mean, it's complete. BS But again, this is part of the process of a partisan committee releasing partial text Then then pro what was released was my Chief of Staff's text exchange with his the first thing you knew in the Vice President's office, they only released a part of that. We have now, through John Solomon and Justin News, we've released all the texts.

related to this and show us how incredibly minimal My involvement was, but this has been spun into, you know, they made a mountain out of nothing. It's it's it's remarkable to experience how the drive-by media Seeks to destroy people.

So I'm watching Manu Raju chase you down while you're on the phone last night. What was going through your mind? Again, these guys are just abusive. I immediately issue a statement, which is was absolutely true at the time. I didn't have all the information.

Brian, when you literally spend a few seconds on some issue eighteen months ago, you got odds, bruh. I don't know what happened.

So they kept hounding me, even though we issued statements that I had no involvement in this. you know what my participation is minimal But they keep counting you, so we we track you down from okay, this is how this all began, this text. With this former Trump attorney, I turned over to my chief of staff, you know, so we explained it all. But even now they ask oh, now he's admitted. that he's been been involved in the snow.

What I've shown is how minimally I was involved in this process to begin with. But again, the media and you know this, the media is out to destroy me. They want this U.S. Senate seat. I don't have an opponent yet, but I've got the media as the worst opponent.

Democrats have already spent $38 million. Falsely attacking me, engaged in the politics of political destruction. That's how bad they want power. That's how bad they want the Senate seat. And the January 6th Committee and the complicit press.

are participating in it. Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes is running for the nomination to run against you. She's calling on you to resign.

Well, to hear that. Um yeah, I mean the the Miloxy Journal Sendal. called on my expulsion or resignation because I did half what Barbara Boxer did. I joined in Ted Cruz's objection to the Arizona electors because there are some real problems there. I thought we needed the discussion, the debate.

I didn't vote to disallow them. all the way, you know, weeks before, Running up to the january sixth, uh Um Event. I kept saying that I can't envision any scenario in which any of Biden's electors would be disallowed.

Now, I was very upfront here. We were never going to overturn the results of this election. I never participated in any effort to do so, but I did participate in the debate. I held a hearing to examine the irregularities of the 2020 election, of which there were many. That's undeniable.

As much as the mainstream media and Democrats want to deny it, there were all kinds of problems in the 2020 election. particularly in Wisconsin. Yeah, we understand that. That's why, if you had somebody out there, Kevin McCarthy, if you put somebody else, because he said Jim Jordan was somehow in the middle of this with Trump, that's why they didn't want him there. I don't know why banks couldn't get sat.

But just to hear an alternative point of view, this is an infomercial for Democratic causes and for CNN anchors, it seems. But lastly, here's President Biden. He had a chance to go meet with oil executives. Instead, he went and met with wind executives. Here he is yesterday, Cut 19.

I think we're at a place where We've reached an exciting point where we're it seems like there's been a coalescence of the notion that you know alternative energy makes sense and wind It's a gigantic piece of it. The technology is changing so incredibly. But look, So what do you think about that decision? And he's sitting there looking at windmill pictures with a card that says sit down, literally says sit down, find your seat, you make some comments. You address one person in the room.

His things to do list is something you would give a six-year-old. That he stupidly turned around to the American public instead of looking at it himself.

So on those two things, do you want to weigh in?

Well, first of all, it's sad to see his decline. It is. I mean, that's what happens with age. I tried. Chuck Grass and I tried to warn the American public he's unfit for office.

because of his compromise. uh with his business dealings through Hunter, but also through his mental decline. But you know, Biden, together with the Democrats in power, are delusional. We are a fossil fuel based economy. We will be one for decades.

Wind and solar, they're just not up to snuff yet. They don't provide reliable power. We need 100% backup to them. And anybody who denies that is going to take us down a path of very unreliable energy, threaten even more our economy, drive up energy prices higher. Again, record gasoline prices, 40-year high inflation didn't just happen.

That is the direct result. of Democrat policies that deny reality. They're just completely unrealistic. They may sound good. But they just simply don't work.

And hopefully, America is awakening that, the reality that. Democrat governance has been a disaster for this country. They are fundamentally transformed this nation. We see what it looks like. It's called fundamentally destroying America.

Senator Ron Johnson, appreciate it. Six more years he's going for it, and they're not going to make it easy for you, but you never expected them to. Thanks so much, Senator. Ron JohnstersSenate.com if you want to help. Have a great day.

You got it. 1-866-408-7669. Your calls. Holding our politicians' feet to the fire no matter who they are. That's Brian Kilmead.

The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Kilmead. Heading overseas, President Biden will kick off his busy summer travel schedule on Saturday by heading to Germany to attend a group of seven summits. All in all, Biden will spend the summer visiting Germany, Madrid, Israel, and Saudi Arabia for meetings, and then he's just going to hit... whatever music festival he can find by train.

Biden's calling it the summer of can't get much worse tour. In mid-July he'll visit Israel and Saudi Arabia for the first time as President, or as Biden calls it, the trip where I cannot mix them up. Don't mix them up. Don't mix them up. That is James Corden is absolutely right.

How much worse can it get, Tor? That is fantastic. And that is true. He's going over to Saudi Arabia and meeting with them about oil and gas, but wouldn't meet with our executives. Sickening.

Here's Jerome Powell. I want you to hear this real quick. On what kind of path our economy is on, Cut twenty five. The U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path, meaning that debt is growing faster than the economy, but it's not in an unsustainable position.

We can service our debt, and the markets understand that, and we can conduct our policy without thinking about questions of fiscal sustainability, and we do. It's getting scary. And to think that President Biden's in charge of this. and your own pal. Is has to volley away accusations that Vladimir Putin caused inflation and makes our gas prices come up.

When he just got another tenure from Joe Biden, so he's not out every day to trip him up. Joe Biden trips himself up enough. What he said this week, the meetings he chose not to have, says it all. And that is why Reuters says he's got 36% approval, Quinnipiak, 33% approval. Ryan Kill Meetio.

Live from the Fox News Radio Studios in New York City, fresh off the set of Fox and Friends, it's America's receptive voice. Brian Kill Mead. Thanks so much for being here, everybody. It's the Brian Kilmeat Show coming to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, heard around the world. And I appreciate every one of you who make time and put time in your day for us because we put together a great show.

Herado's standing by. And then Barney and Company will do a simulcast with them. We're waiting on what could be the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade. A few others have to get done.

I guess the speculation earlier in the week was today was the day.

Now people are saying these decisions already made up, already concluded, already drawn up, could be released early next week.

So we'll have to see. But we're a little surprised what happened yesterday with the Supreme Court coming out 6-3 in favor of overturning a law that's been on the books when it comes to guns since 1911 in New York. It essentially says it's too hard for New York. To carry a gun will change that. Geraldo Rivera went to law school.

I've seen the certificate. I haven't seen him practice. He'll be with us shortly to analyze this result.

So let's get to the big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Sponsored by Life Fact, save a life in a choking emergency. Visit lifefact.net to learn more and use code BK10 to save 10%. Number three. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, whereas abortion was an invented right that was invented in 1973 and has no basis in the Constitution.

It's not really mattering what our personal views are. What matters is what the Constitution says and what is legal and constitutional. Molly Hemingway weighing in for the Federalists. Could today be the day for Roe v. Wade to be overturned as we are delaying the groundbreaking ruling?

What is causing this? Will there be a compromise in the works? Could Chief Justice Roberts be engineering it? We'll discuss, we'll speculate. Number two.

He's meeting today with people installing offshore wind equipment, but not oil and gas CEOs.

So how did that help lower gas prices?

Well, the president has done a So let me step back for a second. Peter, he's done everything in his power. They were a mile away. That is a little of the exchange yesterday with a press secretary totally overwhelmed the minute she steps to the podium. President Biden chooses to go to a meeting on wind to help his base instead of leaving the White House and going down the road and meeting with oil and gas execs and helping the country.

I'll tell you what should be the latest in-ept moves to help alleviate the pain at the pump we're all feeling and the financial strain of inflation. Number one. The gun safety bill we are passing tonight can be described with three adjectives, bipartisan, common sense, life-saving. It contains zero, zero new restrictions. There's a zero mandate.

and zero bans of any kind for law-abiding gun owners. There you go. That was Mitch McCono and Chuck Schumer. Guns. First time since 93, a major piece of firearms legislation has passed the Senate and soon the House.

15 Republicans join all 50 Democrats to pass it. At the same time, the Supreme Court strikes down New York State's ability to stop law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns for self-defense. And six other states are affected as well. We'll break down the Titanic decisions with a lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised if they, if you were you ever offered a series on TV like Paper Chase?

Or law and order. Have you ever offered something like that? She would judge her all though. How crazy did you really would they really offered you that?

Well, I don't know if they got to an offer phase, I remember doing a little pilot. I liked the idea, but I was quite busy at the time. I had my daytime talk show. uh w named after me and it was my exclamation point period. At the same time as I had the daytime show, I had the CNBC program, Rivera Live on at nine o'clock at night, which uh did the Simpson case, as you know, very famously, and uh you know the the Clinton impeachment.

So I was kind of full-time employed.

So the answer to your question is: I've never been a TV lawyer, although I am a lawyer who goes on TV. Understood.

So, Geraldo, first off, on this New York state law, you know, obviously the WABC listeners, WRCN listeners have really tuned into that. Essentially, what they decided, if I can put it into layman's terms and stop me if you don't feel it's effectively explained, is that instead of saying you are very effective as an explainer. But not as a lawyer.

So let me know. This Sullivan law put in place in 1911. The history of it, the Tammany, which is this powerful group in New York at the time, led by this state senator. They all had nicknames back then. This guy is called Big Tim Sullivan.

He was introduced and passed after a big shooting in Gramercy, a bloodbath. They decided to outlaw the carrying of concealed weapons without a police permit. There was also a shooting at the mayor when he was getting his picture taken. And that was the sentiment at the time. That's stood since then.

It got harder and harder to carry a gun. Gun in New York State, especially in New York City. They looked at this opinion at the Supreme Court when it was brought to their attention by two New Yorkers. On an amicus brief, and they said they got it all wrong. The Supreme Court says law-abiding Americans have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, issuing this ruling against firearm restrictions as the nation obviously is dealing with this issue.

Final decision: 6-3, it was written by Clarence Thomas. Did he make the right call? Is he right? I think he did a grave disservice to New York. You know, I was born and raised In the city, in and around the city.

My whole career has been in New York. I have never, although my life has been threatened numerous times, I've had plenty of brawls and all the rest of it. I've been right on the streets there. Never, never have I carried a concealed handgun. Bo Didle, my old pal, our old friend, private I, ex-cop who's in the business of security, he carried a gun, and that was fine with me.

That was the distinction between Geraldo and Bo. And I think the New York was fine with that.

Now, this decision made by justices who've never been on the D-train during rush hour, who've never been maybe in a crowded rocket. But has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I got it. Raldo, I hate to interrupt you, but you want me to interrupt you for this. Roe v.

Wade has been reversed. It just came across right now. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. I'm looking at the split screen now.

We got the Supreme Court. Erica! America.

So, of course, Gerardo's on with me right now, and he's just calling for his wife. Tell Professor Dershowitz, Roe v. Wade has just been reversed. Alan Dirchwith is my house guest. I'll bring him on.

Yeah, you want to bring him on? That would be great. Yeah. Could you bring it? I tell Dirch, come upstairs.

Right here. Yeah, it only happens on this show. This uh happen uh only happens with Geraldo, I should add. It is it is a monumental uh move that I think will in in entirely disrupt the the nation, aside from the the violence that is threatened, it also is is cata catast catastrophic for uh people who believe in the a constitutional right established in nineteen seventy three. Uh President Dershowitz uh where's this a hard is this a hard line?

Okay, I think it's Yeah, just uh get tell Brian Kilney what you think. This is a self-inflicted wound on democracy. It needn't have been decided. They could have easily just decided that 15 weeks In Mississippi is okay, but to reach out and judicially activist way. Strike it down is going to precipitate a summer of violence and a greater division in the democracy.

I wouldn't necessarily think we have to predict violence on that, but in terms of this decision, Shannon Bream is about to join us right now in a matter of moments, we understand, right?

Okay, first off, let's hear Shannon Bream describe the decision that just came down less than a minute ago. The summary of the decision: it says that Roe and Casey are overruled. And the voting that we thought was together, it looks like it has stayed together. Justice Alito has authored the opinion. He is joined by Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Barrett.

There are a couple of concurrences. The one that we're most interested in is going to be the one by the Chief Justice. And we'll see what he had to write because we've thought all along he would not be a vote to overturn Roe, but that he would be somebody who might want to try to find some middle ground. That Mississippi law, which bans most abortions after 15 weeks, that he would essentially probably uphold that but not want to go that extra step for Roe. And the court essentially says today that Roe and Casey are gone.

So So there you go. Does that f do you want to comment now, Geraldo, Professor Dershowitz?

Well, I think that it was unnecessary. As Professor Dershowitz said, all the court had to do was affirm the Mississippi statute and make a fifteen week limit. That would substantially reduce the period of time in which a woman could get a legal abortion. But by overturning Roe, now there's going to be turmoil.

Now, what will the law be? What will happen with contraception? What will happen with in veto fertilization?

Well, let's not even happen. There's so many questions. I'm not sure that'll be linked to, but it's a great point. We've got two legal minds here, Alan Dershowitz. Professor, I will say this: so Roe v.

Wade has permitted abortion since 1973. Almost half the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion as a result.

So this is not outlawing abortion. It's outlawing a federally mandated that it gives you the all fifty states. It mandates them to do it.

So states will make their own decision. Don't you think that's an important clarification, Professor Dershowitz? I do. New York will be unaffected as of now. But no no one knows where the court, having made this decision, is going to take us.

This imagine, Brian, we say with some confidence and almost the smugness, oh, don't worry, it's not going to affect us here in New York or maybe in Illinois or in California. But there's a big hunk of this country where now women suddenly have been denied and deprived a constitutional right they thought was theirs for the last half century. The half the country. You know, I care about both halves of the country, and I care about a woman's right to choose. I don't think, although I it is a very important clarification, and New York will not be affected.

The New York politicians have made that very Arado Rivera, our guest. He's calling from his house. Yeah. We're just kind of breaking up a little bit. Arado is.

Yeah. Professor Dershowitz is he's still there? There. Take breath. Let's go outside a bit more.

Hello. Professor, what was it about Dobbs that made this abortion challenge so effective and ultimately went through? What was it about the Dobbs challenge?

Well, the jobs challenges gave the justices the power to overreach. They didn't have to decide anything other than that a limitation to 15 weeks was constitutional. And that would not have constituted an overruling, but just a limitation in row. But symbolically, This has become a very important decision. It will unite all supporters of Roe against the Supreme Court, and I think will stimulate a protest.

I hope the protests are peaceful, but I think some of them won't be. An organization called Jane's Revenge has already promised protests that might cross the line to illegality.

So I think it was a terrible mistake for the Supreme Court to go further than it had to go. If you're going to overrule a decision like Roe, You do it properly in a case that presents no choice but to overrule it. Here they had a choice to come down with a more limited decision, and they chose judicial activism. It's a provocative act. By five Supreme Court judges.

But there's another of course, no like no one challenges your legal mind and your recall. Here's Molly Hemingway with a different view. Cut 33. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, whereas abortion was an invented right that was invented in 1973 and has no basis in the Constitution. And so, what this ruling said today is that the Second Amendment cannot government.

I wanted to do that portion. There's a school of thought, too. Go ahead. If you take Hemingway to her serious conclusion, then the right of contraception is not protected by the Constitution, the right of a black man to marry a white woman is not protected by the Constitution, and virtually all rights of privacy are out the window. She's just dead wrong.

The Fourth Amendment talks about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, in their bodies. The word security. In the 17th, 18th century meant privacy. There was no word privacy, the word was security.

So the right of security is in the Constitution, and the right to bear arms is not in the Constitution. The Constitution only gives the states the right to have militias that are well regulated. The Supreme Court invented after 200 years. Of saying that the Second Amendment was a militia power, not a right of individuals, the Supreme Court invented the right to bear arms. And so you can make the exact opposite argument.

The truth is So you're saying we don't have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, we only have a right to have a state militia? Is that what you're saying? Look at what the Second Amendment says. It says: the need of the states to have a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged. If you wanted to just have the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged, the framers could easily have just said that.

Remember, too, that it was the states that had militias. There was no federal militia. And the states had militias and they regulated them. The state could decide whether an 18-year-old or a 17-year-old could be in the militia. The states got to decide what kind of guns could be used by the militia.

The state's got to decide who qualified for the militia. That is. Professor Dershowitz. I'll never be able to challenge your legal background, especially without a law degree.

So I'm not even going to pretend to. But it's just from a layman perspective, they look at the Second Amendment as something that is federally, it's something the federal government is there to preserve. And I guess how you interpret that line.

So give people the right to have a Second Amendment. But I do want to outline what just happened. Roe v. Wade essentially have been reversed. Which means essentially the states will decide if abortion will take place there, and states will decide what their rules are, whether it's going to be zero weeks, whether it's going to be six weeks.

What else do States will I know you're not a doctor, but what other limitations will States put in?

Well, some states will say the morning after pill is unconstitutional or not constitutionally protected. Others might say, I don't think anybody will say contraception. But remember, I went to Yale Law School in New Haven at the time when contraceptive clinics Were illegal because the Catholic Church didn't want people to practice contraception. The Supreme Court overruled that in the 1960s. Are they going to overrule that again now after this decision?

That's the question. Geraldo Rivera and his house guest, Professor Alan Dershowitz. Thanks so much for doing some minutes analysis. Geraldo, thanks so much. We're up against a break.

You know the rule. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Roe v. Wade, overturned.

Brian, kill me, Cho. Don't move. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. This decision has not changed in its critical respects.

So, all of these protests did not succeed. In fact, what we thought was happening did happen. It's clear that the Chief Justice was trying to peel off a colleague. He admits that, or states in his concurrence, that he would have liked to simply get rid of part of the Roe-Casey line of cases dealing with viability, but not overturn the cases entirely. Kavanaugh's concurrence, however, amplifies what the majority is saying.

He just wants to sort of put a pin on it and says, Look, the Constitution does not speak to abortion. And so you'll have to deal with that issue on a state-by-state basis.

So this is not a fractured decision. It's basically the decision that we anticipated. It is a huge victory for the pro-life movement. It's a victory for former President Donald Trump.

So you have basically this is a 6-3 decision, correct? This is a 6-3 decision. You have all the conservative Supreme Court justice, including Roberts, voting for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. It does not ban abortion.

It returns the decision to the states for the first time in 50 years.

So this is obviously as big as it gets for the Supreme Court. It is now released. It's now an official, along with the gun decision yesterday when the right to bear arms is brought into play. We're seeing now a few protesters and other people celebrating on Capitol Hill. Radio that makes you think.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. There have been people all along who have warmed on both sides of this that Roe was not decided. They thought on solid legal underpinnings, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She worried that this exact kind of thing would happen, that there would be a challenge that got to the underpinnings and the legal reasoning of the way that Roe was put together.

So there have always been people on the left and people who are part of the pro-choice movement who have worried that Roe was susceptible.

So it's always been viewed as vulnerable on potentially a number of legal points.

So today is the fruition of what they were worried about and also the realization of what pro-lifers hoped those places that they could find that Roe was weak and its progeny, including Casey, was weak. And that's where they've gotten today. They had always argued that they could ship away and that they would get to this day because everybody on both sides was concerned that Roe was susceptible to this. Shannon Bream giving us instant updates on what happened less than 30 minutes ago, and that was the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court Justice, first time in 50 years.

Abortion at the federal level is declared unconstitutional and illegal. It does not mean it's banned in this country. What it means is it's going to be a state decision.

So here it is. It was a 6-3 decision. It was Thomas Gorset-Kavanaugh.

So if you look at Gorset-Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett, that is directly responsible. All the credit or the discredit, if you're a Democrat, goes to Donald Trump. Clarence Thomas in place. Amy Coney Barrett put there weeks before the president left at the passing of Ruth Beta Ginsberg, Brad Kavanagh and Neil Gorsick was put in place early on. You know about all the controversy there.

Chief Justice Roberts was put there by George W. Bush. Remember that? He became Chief Justice when Rehnquist retired. But now you have the three in descent, Breyer.

Sonia Sotomayor, Alina Kagan, all in dissent.

So the Dobbs decision was one that did it. After 50 years, Roe v. Wade is now gone. They do point out that Dobbs' decision was challenging 15 weeks.

So they wanted to ban up to two trimesters. After that, all the abortions would be banned.

Some are going down to zero. Others will go down to the first six weeks. It's going to go state-by-state, a state-by-state decision. What's also been brought up, too, is: is this one of these things you just ignore? A lot of states are going to choose maybe to ignore it and to kind of do their own thing.

Let's go out to Alex, listen on WABC. Hey, Alex. Hey, good morning, Brian. Thanks for taking the call. You know, I thought that Professor Dershowitz was a constitutionalist, but he wasn't telling you on this program a couple of moments ago that it was unconstitutional for the court to overturn Roe versus Wade.

He said that they shouldn't have decided to overturn Roe versus Wade because of the violent protests that were going to break out in this country and because we're going to have a summer of violence.

So he's saying that the court should have given into the mob, but that's just not how we run this country. Absolutely. We're not supposed to give them to violence. Great point. And that was what was so damaging about the leak.

The leak that was evidently written in February, that came out in May, that said that Alito was going to, and he ended up doing it, writing the decision.

So he writes the decision. It leaks out in order to pressure the Supreme Court justices, I guess, to change their mind. We still don't know who did it and what the approach was. And guess what we got? We really have had a month of protest in front of these justices' homes, three of which are in Virginia.

Yeah, you know, Brian, the Democrats they don't like the law-abiding citizens. That's why they keep on making laws, and that's what they did two nights ago and gun control. But they don't want to enforce these laws. And the thing that that does is the law-abiding citizens they ask, is this legal or illegal? And that's how they go by, and that's how they run their lives.

But the criminals, they ask, is this a law that is being enforced? Because if not, then it's not on their book of law.

So the only things That these laws that the Democrats are making are doing is it's restricting the law-abiding citizens and putting them in a position where they can't protect themselves, and the criminals didn't give a damn.

So The Democrats are helping out the criminals. Yeah, you're talking about guns, too. Thanks, Alex. Absolutely impactful, especially here in New York City, where I'm broadcasting from.

So the decision goes like this: it was a challenge to the Mississippi law passed in 2018 that bans virtually all abortions on the 15th week. The law carves out exceptions for medical emergencies and cases involving a severe fetal abnormality, does not make exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, and has never gone into the effect.

However, have not gone into the effect, however, because the lower courts, including the conservative U. S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth District, blocked the state from enforcing the law. Friday's decision reversed those rulings and upholds the law. Tom, listening in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Tom. Hello. Tom Roe v. Wade has been reversed. We also know about the 6-3 decision when it comes to concealed carry.

Yesterday, they came with the Supreme Court. We're seeing all the action unfold. Your reaction.

Well, I I was I was calling regarding the the the the conceal and carry. And and it it it I listened to I I can't remember if it was the um The governor of New York or the mayor of New York said something like this. He said that we've been pushed back to the days of the old West. You know, like they are making the wrong decisions and shooting in the streets. Better rock a mind.

nineteen eighty two, Kennersove, Georgia. Passed an ordinance that if you're going to let reside within. Their city. You must have a firearm. You must keep a firearm.

Yep. Of course, everybody thought that was going to go nuts that the country's saying they're saying, oh, it's going to be. fighting in the streets. But exactly the opposite happened. Crime dropped 90%.

It's ridiculous. Crime dropped 90% in that city. I know. And I just read an article that said.

Now, back there was only a few thousand people i i in the city, but now there's thirty thousand people, and at the time of that this article was written. In the past six years, they had one murder, and the crime rate is at 2%. Couple of things worth studying, absolutely. Number two, we have these strict laws in New York City, especially, and you see how out of control: 189 homicides already this year, last year, 225 by the same period. We see that guns are out of control in the most restrictive places possible: Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and New York City.

So don't say that all of a sudden things are going to go crazy. They already have laws of the books that are having trouble because they stop with stop and frisk. They're having trouble enforcing. They have not been the same since that law went out the window because they thought that Bloomberg went too far when Giuliani put it in place.

So that is absolutely worth looking at. Number two, when you look at how this goes, there's going to be certain places that are going to be restricted within the law that passed 6-3 yesterday. They've got to look at schools, say 1,000 feet. You can't have a gun, state buildings, maybe subways.

So it's not going to be the Wild West. It would help in times like this to have level heads speak out. That would help. I want you to hear, again, we're reviewing what just came down about 35 minutes ago, and that is the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

We're seeing all the action, able to watch some of the action here on Fox News headquarters of the protest.

Some people celebrating, some people are upset. Obviously, both sides, the emotion is high. Here's Jonathan Turley further spelling out what this means. When people are calling for a day of rage, you know reason will be a stranger. And that's what we're already seeing.

People feel very passionately, but there's some that can take that to violent end.

So I expect they're going to be ramping up security. In terms of federal law, now that the opinion's out, it's actually more difficult to use the law because the law was designed to allow the arrest of people who are trying to influence a pending proceeding or matter with the court. This is no longer pending.

So if anything, it's going to be less likely to arrest just for the act of protest. But I think that now law enforcement is going to really be acutely aware. That there are people who are likely to lose reason, lose restraint, and could well become violent. And so I expect that they will ramp up that security.

So there you go. And also, as he mentioned later in the interview, when people say, well, there goes abortion rights, there goes contraception rights, he says, no. Within this decision, that was taking on the dissent. The dissent said this is going to be like falling downstairs. He says, no, this is nothing to do with that.

This is not same-sex marriage. Contraception rights are not part of this decision. You know what, Allison? Even though it's only two minutes, let's put Senator Lindsey Graham on. Let's give him a call.

'Cause we had we had two two and a half minutes. Let's just put it let's just put them on. And just get his opinion on this opinion. And uh as a what All right, here's Andy McCarthy. When Chief Justice Roberts, not only in his first among equals role as the Chief Justice, but also when he was kind of the swing justice or one of the swing justices on a five to four court, he was in a better position not only to deflect cases that he would prefer the court not to take because they were too hot potato type.

But also, even within the framework of the cases that the court took, he was able to narrow the issues that the court would resolve. In a 6-3 split rather than a 5-4 split, He's got much less control. It takes only four votes for the court to accept a case, but obviously you don't take a case if you're if you're a court if you're a justice who wants to take it unless you think you can get the five Yeah.

So Now, when there are five other conservative justices besides Justice Roberts, he's not in a position. To sort of bargain his vote and use that as leverage to deflect cases that he'd rather not see the court take. They have much more freedom to take cases whether he wants to take them or not.

So, what are you saying, Amy Courtney-Barrett, for Ruth Beta-Ginsburg? It kind of neutralizes John Roberts' ability to moderate messages. He's a conservative justice. A lot of people don't think it should even be his job. You're out there to run the court, but don't subject your beliefs.

That's for legal scholars to examine. But right now, he's got to convince others to go his way as opposed to use the power of his vote to go away. I think that's the point Andy McCarthy was making, and it was an effective one. I'll do a sample case. Listen, stay online.

I'm going to talk to Stuart Varney. And then, before I hang up, we'll be able to squeeze in a couple of calls.

Now, the Brian Kilmead Show joins Fox Business's Varney and Company with Stuart Varney, live on your radio and on Fox Business. Here's Brian Kilmead. Welcome back, everyone. We're about to go on with Stuart Garney. I might as well take my name tag off, don't you think, Allison?

That would be a good move. Pretty much could make sure of that. I'm pretty sure they won't check my nameplate for the Stuart Verney Show and FBN. We're talking about the historic move in 1973. Roe v.

Way was put into place. Abortion was legal in all 50 states. That was overturned today by a 6-3 margin. And Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, basically wrote his own dissent, not his dissent, but. His own conclusions on this, which essentially makes this even more intriguing.

Let's listen in to Stuart Voyne. Brian Killmead Tommy joins us right now. Brian, I'm looking at the response of the left to this ruling. Nancy Pelosi calls it cruel. Senator Schumer says it's the result of an extremist MAGA court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings in July, and Attorney General Garland is going to issue a statement. The left is mad as hell, Brian. Not surprising anything. Is it very interesting that Speaker Pelosi is a Catholic and always says she's a devout Catholic, it's about the children, not in this case.

So not surprising any of those statements. I'm watching all monitors like you to see, because we were promised violence if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Indeed, it was. And you see, a 6-3 decision, as was outlined by Jonathan Turley, a moment ago, he just says, listen, John Roberts lost a lot of his poll when Amy Coney Barrett was substituted for Ruth Bidder Ginsburg.

So they were going to do this anyway, 5-4-6-3. And he probably would have just looked to uphold the 15 weeks and not look to overturn it. But now it's done, it's a done deal, it's returned to the States. And this is one of those moments, Stuart, we're going to remember. It's one of these decisions that come down to the Supreme Court that's been in place since 1973.

And from the moment it was put in place, there has been controversy with it. And it continues today. What do you make of these corporations, JPMorgan, Amazon, Citigroup, Yelp, Apple, paying significant travel expenses for employees who wish to have an abortion and need one in a state to leave the state to get it? What do you think of the morality of that, Brian? Fascinating to see the role of corporate America when it comes to taking a position on controversial issues, taking a position.

We've seen that with the little things like moving the All-Star game.

Now you say, okay, my employee, my vice president, is pregnant. We're in Oklahoma. Oklahoma, in theory, Mississippi, does not allow abortions.

So we're going to provide additional time off and pay the expensive on jet blue in order to get the abortion and come back in eight weeks. It provides more analysis, more scrutiny, more judgment from coast to coast. I mean, I happen to be on the air with Geralda Rivera, who you know is a lawyer, who has her. Has Professor Dershowitz staying at his house, and he was able to pop up on the air. He's a liberal attorney, not surprising, not happy with the gun law, overturned 6.3 yesterday.

And liberal attorney says that they should have left this in place. He predicts now we're going to have a summer of violence. But has been brought up by one of my callers. That's not how you make a decision. You should not make a decision because you think the results are going to be embraced or rejected.

You should do it on legal authority. And that's what was so dangerous about the leak of this decision written up in January, leaked to us in May. And then we saw. Weeks of protest, dangerous protest. A would-be assassin showing up Judge Justice Kavanaugh's house.

So this is one of those times. Hold on tight, America. Once again, we've got a controversial decision.

Well, look, we've got a gun decision from the Supreme Court, probably expanding the right of people to carry weapons. And we've got the overturning of Roe v. Wade. You put those two things together. Does that not amount to a significant new development for the Democrats this November?

Clearly, yes, but it is June. Number one. Number two. Elections have consequences. Supreme Court justices, three put by Trump.

John Roberts, put by George W. Bush. We know that that's where the court is at this moment. We knew pretty much exactly where they stood on all issues. Put it this way: how ironic is it Merrick Garland, Attorney General, weighing in on this decision when he was told to everybody he was labeled as a moderate judge that Republicans would like.

Mitch McConnell said, I'm not hearing Merrick Garland. We're not even interviewing him. He's not even going to get hearings, but he's still in the mix right here. But you know exactly what would have happened. You could play this out.

Think about this, Stuart. One of the main reasons people voted for for Donald Trump was they wanted to be able to fill that vacant seat in the Supreme Court. That vacancy would have gone to Merrick Garland if Barack Obama had his way. Mitch McConnell says, nope, too close to the election. Donald Trump shocks the world wins the election, and not only does he fill Garland's seat, he fills two more seats.

That brings us to this moment on both those decisions. Yeah, that's why Senator Schumer called this a decision from an extremist MAGA court, rightly or wrongly. Hey, Brian, thanks for being on the show today. Always appreciate it. See you again real soon.

Go get him. We're going to stay on this story. Let's go out to Tim in San Diego. Tim, how's this playing out on the West Coast? It's fine out here so far, but it's early, as you know, Brian.

Just real quick, the caller before me a couple of callers back sort of stole my thunder. About a Dershowitz, but I would just say that this is a dignified, supposedly jurist, a responsible man. who's actually paving the way or giving, at least giving tacit approval, it sounded like, to some sort of violence this summer. Very prediction and maybe unprecedented for a man of his stature. Would you agree?

Tim, I think he was just, I know what you're saying. You're not without merit, but I think what he's saying is: look, he's been down this road before. We watched the protests in 70. He was probably practicing in 73.

So he knew the protests, the pro-life, the pro-choice protests have been taking place for the last 50 years. And this has been predicted for a while. And he just is playing it out as a guy who's in his 80s who thinks he's seen it all. But you might want to take that. I did kind of surprise him with the interview.

He's staying at Geraldo's house. He did not know he'd be on. I don't think people are going to say Alan Dershowitz said we should wreck this building, we should raid this place, we should break this window. But maybe on further review, might have been to say that some fear that violence will ensue, as opposed to. Saying it'll be a summer of violence?

You know, I see what you're saying. It definitely is a worry. Tim over in San Diego, like you said, it's pretty early there. It's not even 9 o'clock. Brian Kilmeecho.

Make sure you watch One Nation, especially now, 8 o'clock and 11 o'clock on Fox News. Also be hosting Tucker tonight at 8 o'clock. It's going to be, well, everyone's blowing up their rundowns because this and gun rights we're going to be discussing, as well as gas inflation, baby formula. Besides that, not much going on. Keep it here.

From the Fox News Radio Studios in New York City, giving you opinions and facts with a positive approach. It's Brian Kilmead. Ryan Kilmicho, thanks so much for being here. It's just one of these days you're not going to forget. The Supreme Court Justice gave us huge headlines yesterday in a 6'3 decision, basically nullified a law that's been on the books for over 100 years that says you can carry a gun thanks to the Second Amendment in New York State.

They right now are severely restricted. You want to carry a gun, go go through the permit process. Not the case in New York. Then there's the news about the gun legislation that is about to pass. Before they leave town, the Senate and then the House.

Uh today, the biggest since 1993. And then Today, Roe v. Wade overturned. upending fifty years of federal abortions. It'll now be a state decision.

Senator Rick Scott used to run Florida for eight years, at which time you oversaw gun legislation. And of course, you're in the Senate about to examine this gun legislation and vote on it. And now we have Roe v. Wade. First off, center, thanks so much for joining us.

Fortuitous time for us to get your perspective. How do you feel about this Supreme Court decision? 6-3, it's overturned.

Well I I am pro-life. I believe we ought to cherish life. I think we ought to do everything we can to make every, you know, every. give respect to every unborn baby and do everything we can for if a parent doesn't want to have a child, then we put a lot of effort into making sure they're up for adoption and we raise them in loving families.

So, this moment you feel they made the right decision in this case, too?

Well, on Roman versus White, they absolutely made the right decision. Um You know, and Brian, here's what's frustrating: the Democrats have gone, you know, they're clearly not even close to where the country is. I mean, they've all voted to say that they're going to have abortion on demand up until birth. You do not, doctors not have an obligation to keep a baby alive. If you're a Catholic worker and you don't believe in doing abortions, you're going to be mandated by the state to do it, and they want you as a taxpayer to pay for it.

That's not where this country is.

So I think it should be left to the legislators. And I think across the country, people are going to now look at this closely and see what works for their states. Elections have consequences. These three Supreme Court justices were put there by Donald Trump. They were given the opportunity to fill that seat because of Mitch McConnell.

So consequential moves, but created quite a division, even more tension with Democrats. How do you feel about the way the Democrats have handled it to this point? They've already come out condemning the decision, including devout Catholic Nancy Pelosi.

Well then I mean they They're clearly going to use this to try to raise as much money as they can. And they've been doing that since the leak decision came out. And so, as you know, I'm the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and I tell everybody, I mean, this is they're going to use they're going to use this to raise money. This but the Democrat position is not where the country is. Their position is radical.

And I tell people, if you want to make sure that across this country we have, you know. reasonable restrictions and reasonable exceptions. For abortion, then you ought to make sure Democrats don't win and senators and Republican senators do win. Here's what Nancy Pelosi has just said. There's no point in saying good morning.

Because it certainly is not one. This morning, the radical Supreme Court is eviscerating Americans' rights and endangering their health and safety. But the Congress will continue to act. To overcome this extremism and protect the American people. Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved their dark extreme goal of rhythm away women's Right to make their own dissi reproductive health decisions.

She wanted to say reproductive.

So she says the extreme Supreme Court, so she's diminishing the credibility of that court. And she went on to say the Republicans in Congress will ban abortion nationwide. as much as you're pro-wife, you know that's not the case. No, I mean, first off, the decisions on this are going to be made. You know, I think.

At the state level. But I'll tell you what the Democrats want to do. I mean, they've tried. They've tried at the federal level. They've all voted to say you can have an abortion up until the moment of birth and have no obligation to keep a baby born alive alive.

That's what's radical. And that makes you, it actually makes you mad because they want to act like Republicans are restrictive here. No, if you look at Republicans, they are rational. I feel like go to America as Republicans are rational. That tells you you better get involved in the political process because I don't know people that actually really believe that you ought to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.

A baby that would in in two seconds later would be born alive, that you you can do an abortion. I mean, I don't know who thinks that way. And that's where the Democrats are.

So in and it it just bothers me to the core that the Democrats vote this way. With Senator Rick Scott, who was once Governor Rick Scott. Governor, a lot of people are looking at this legislation, which I don't believe you're voting for, and saying, why wouldn't you? When you were governor of Florida, you presided over a debate after the Parkland shooting that raised the age of gun purchases to 21, created a waiting period of three days for gun purchases, banned bump stocks, allowed police to temporarily confiscate guns from anyone subjected to involuntary psychiatric evaluation. This doesn't go as far as the 2018 law.

Why are you against this one?

Well There's a big difference. And this law was rushed. Think when you well, here's what happened after Parker. I put together groups of mental health counselors Educators, law enforcement, and we spent days talking about what we should do to deal with school. safety.

The issue what we are focused on is how do we make our school safe. I this was there's a few people that negotiated this. I saw it Monday night, or no, Tuesday night, an hour before we had to take our first vote on it. We had very clear, very clear due process. Before anybody, before there would ever be a risk protection order, you had to go through law enforcement.

You had to go to the courts. It had to be temporary. There is no requirement for any of this, any of the due process with regard to this. I'm going to fight for Second Amendment rights.

Now, if you're threatening harm to somebody else, Or through or to yourself? Through a court process for a temporary basis, I believe our law enforcement ought to be able to do that. But that's not required here. And then, on top of that, here's the real kicker. You could have somebody that's a convicted domestic abuser.

Right. And they will automatically have a restoration of their gun rights at the end of five years. Automatic. I mean, I don't believe that. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

So, John Cornyn signed off on a five-year A five-year threshold for if you're a domestic abuser, after five years you get your guns back. That's what the bill says. I just don't believe in that. I don't know who that benefits. Democrats don't want that.

Well, that's what that's what's in the law, and that's what the law that that got passed last night.

So the thing that I think is so legitimate, I just don't know of a great way to make sure the red flag law works effectively because people can't be honest about it.

Some people are going to look to have Vendettas. I don't like my neighbor next door. He's got guns. I'm going to accuse it.

So but everybody wants to stop the next. eighteen year old. Everybody wants to stop the next eighteen year old who gets a gun, who everybody knows is a problem, but he's got a clean record.

So I think they address that.

So we want to stop the would be killer from getting a gun before he actually shoots people. But at the same time, you don't want to hurt people who just have a gun and are in a bad relationship. In a bill, I'm not going to support a bill that doesn't have ironclad due process protections. I'm not going to do it. And this doesn't do it.

Senator, how did you do it in Florida? What is your red flag in Florida? What's your red flag in Florida? Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to support something that doesn't have ironclad due process. This doesn't do it.

I mean, California doesn't have ironclad due process. And guess what? I mean, that's gonna be fine according to this bill. I don't believe in that. I think, I mean, look, we have to fight for the Second Amendment.

I believe we gotta make our schools safer. I'm glad there's one provision in there that I worked hard to get in there. I've been trying to get it into law. It has a national database now of best practice in our schools. That's in there.

I'm glad for that. But I'm I we have to make sure that law-abiding Americans are not losing their gun rights. That's not right. But you do like the idea of more money for school security. You do like the idea of more money for psychological and social services within schools, right?

Absolutely. So, what I didn't, when I did go in photo, we put in more mental health counselors. We made sure they do it. You know, they were required by law to have law enforcement officers when the schools were open. We put the resources in, we put the money up.

We ought to be doing those things. Let's remember: we've got to focus on how do we make our schools safer. I mean, I have grandkids. As soon as this happened, it's like what I try to do every so often: talk to my daughter. What are you doing to make sure your school is safe?

Every parent in this country has got to go to their schools and they've got to constantly go there and say, Okay, are you doing drills? You have law enforcement. I mean, have you reduced the entrance number of places where people can come in? You know, what are you doing? Are you doing assessments where people have mental issues?

What are you doing all these things? We did those things in Florida to make our school safer. This bill, I mean, look, there's always something good in the bill, right? But this bill does not have to do process protections, I believe, in. And I do not believe somebody that's a convicted domestic abuser should automatically get their gun back.

Senator Rick Scott, former governor, thanks so much. Mm-hmm. Appreciate it. All right. See you, Brian.

You got it. When we come back, Senator Lindsey Graham, and then we go to Shannon Bream, who's on the Supreme Court steps. Brian Kilmead show. It's Brian Kilmead. Breaking news, unique opinions.

Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show.

Well, President Biden's going to address the nation in about an hour. That, according to the White House, let's bring in Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Roe v. Wade's been overturned. First time in 50 years, the federal government will not legalize abortion.

It's up to the states. Your reaction?

Well, I think this is a constitutional reset. For conservatives, it's a day to celebrate. The issues surrounding life when it begins and how to deal with the unborn will be decided by elected officials. It should have been that way before. It was that way until nineteen seventy three.

But let's take a minute To sort of Yeah. I put it here.

So many people have been laboring and toiling in the fields for decades to fix Roe. Um Fighting for conservative justice has paid off. Two of the five were Bush forty one, Bush forty three. The other three came from President Trump. Remember Clarence Thomas, how we had to fight for him.

Remember Kavanaugh, how we had to fight for him. Remember Alito, where they tried to call him a racist? It goes on and on and on and on and on and on. Amy Comey Berra is just Just a stellar pick.

So how did we get here today? over the last fifty years, conservatives, pro life activists, have been fighting to get conservative judges on the court, and the Liberals had have tried to destroy these judges, but we won the day. What does it mean substantively? It means that the constitutional theory that led to Roe v. Wade has been rejected.

Substitute due process would allow five judges any time in our history to declare a constitutional right, whether it's written or not, if they thought the Constitution if it was a meaningful right. It doesn't have to be written. There's nothing in the Constitution about abortion.

So, this is a reset. This is a constitutional reset, and it's a day to celebrate. And I only wish Henry Howe could live to see this day. Senator Lindsey Graham, our guest, of course, he's a lawyer. Senator, it looks like the Democrats are going to move to do some type of blowing up of the filibuster and maybe legislate something where abortion is legal.

And I'm looking at this quote from Joe Manchin. I'm deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court decision. I trusted Gorsick and Justice Cavanaugh when they testified under oath that they believed that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and I'm alarmed they chose to reject it. Could he be poised to blow up the filibuster?

For the sake of the Senate, I hope not. We can't live in a world where if you don't get the outcome you want, you destroy every institution. But Liberal Democrats want to pack the court because we worked hard for fifty years to make it conservative. They want to expand it. They want to do away with Electoral College so California and New York and basically pick the next president.

The bottom line here is I hope Joe will stick to his word that he's not going to change The makeup of the Senate, the way the Senate works, no matter what the issue. I hope Senema will too. At the end of the day, both of these justices, I know them well, said that Roe was president of the court, but they would hear arguments in terms of whether it should be overturned, whether or not it should be changed. They did, and they made the right decision, I believe. What you're worried now, because I had Alan Derzy within an hour ago.

He said there's going to be a summer of violence.

Well, I'll do it. Just trying to get to a better signal here with Senator Graham. We were coming in clear. Senator, if you could just start again. Go ahead.

Okay.

Well, okay, in nineteen seventy three, a lot of even liberal jurists and scholars said, listen, this substantive due process, right, they used to create A constitutional right to abortion, but if Ginsberg has criticized it, saying it was not really a sound legal concept. I don't know. Here's what I would advise them to do. Work hard for the next election. If you don't like the outcome of what the court did, work to build a Democratic majority and do it the way we did.

How did we do it? We didn't go to the streets and burn down buildings and we didn't attack people. What we did is we worked to get presidents elected who would appoint conservative judges. And when they were nominated, we fought like hell to get them on the court.

So that's the way to fix a decision if you don't like it, not violence. Senator Nancy Pelosi, obviously upset. She's calling the court extreme. And she it's a sad day. It's not a good morning.

How do you expect will you talk to Senator Schumer about calming down the rhetoric, saying you've unleashed the whirlwind? Will you talk to your Democratic colleagues about calming down?

Well, here's what I have to tell my Democratic colleagues. The protesters in front of just Justices' homes are breaking the law. There's a law in the books that prevents people from intimidating jurors who are sitting on a case or a judge trying to decide a case. I hope Garland will actually enforce the law, but now's the time. For Pelosi and Schumer and all the Democratic leadership to say they're disappointed, but let's go to the electoral process.

Let's go to the way the Constitution envisions changing the court, not take matters into your own hands. Rhetoric is really important right now. Here's what I would say: if you don't like The abortion laws in your state, you can have them change. All we've done today is go back before 1973. From the beginning of the Republic to 1973, the issue of life was decided by elected officials at the state level.

That's what is going to happen going forward. Senator, you're going to vote for this gun legislation. Fellow South Carolina Senator Tim Scott against it. Why are you voting for it?

Well, I wanted to be able to find some common ground regarding the issue of. Unstable people having guns. I think this is a very modest proposal. It gives grant money for states who are dealing with mental health issues. I think everybody on this call wants the cops to be able to intervene before some crazy person actually goes in and shoots themselves or somebody else.

The Uvalde shooter started bringing dead cats to school. The teacher at the school said he'll be the next, this guy will be the next school shooter. In Florida, they have protected border red flag statutes, 9,800 interventions. Suicide rates have gone down, that's one. We gave money to hardened schools.

So when people say, is there something you can do, the answer is yes. We didn't take anybody's guns. We didn't change the structure of the Second Amendment. We did put money into a system to hopefully one day prevent one of these mass shootings. Because they have a common theme, very disturbed people acting out.

Killing innocent people, and we can do better, and that's why I voted for this package. And I own an AR-15. I'm not going to take anybody's guns away because somebody else commits a crime, but I will try to prevent these things in the future, and I will try to harden our schools. Absolutely. And this does that.

I wish everybody had more time to read it, but that's the way it is. Senator Lindsey Graham, thanks so much. It looks like it'll pass today, and of course, we're looking at the overturn of Roe v. Wade. When we come back, one of the best in the business, Shannon Bream, who brought the original report to us from the courthouse steps, will bring it into perspective, tell us where we go from here, and what it means for states' rights when it comes to abortion.

Brian Kilmicho, do not move. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. Shannon Bream, great coverage. As the news broke, he was sitting there outside, ready to go and do some incident analysis.

Fox News is chief legal analyst, also anchor of Fox News at Night. And you see her all over the channel, best-selling author. Shannon, thanks for joining us. Thank you. It is great to be with you.

Busy day.

Well, first off, put in perspective what this day means for the country. I just had Alan Dershowitz on projecting a summer of rage. You know, the DHS Department of Homeland Security has warned about that. They put out a bulletin a few weeks ago, and you do have these pro abortion groups like Jane's Revenge. They self-describe themselves as enjoying attacking places.

They called for, quote, open season. I mean, they're not hiding this. It's not in some secret chat room somewhere. It's on their website. It's openly out there.

And they say they actually enjoy carrying out these attacks. And they're calling for things that are not as easily cleaned up as some vandalism and graffiti.

So they're calling for a night of rage. That's what they're calling it. And I think that there's a lot of unrest, there's a lot of frustration. And it's kind of like a tinderbox, much as it was during COVID, where people were feeling isolated and frustrated.

Now it's the economy. People are really on edge. And I think the left is very upset about a lot of what they're getting from the Supreme Court.

So I think that urging caution. As our authorities have done, in light of the threats that are openly there, is a good move. We see that Nancy Pelosi is beside herself with anger, not a good day. The 6-3 decision, one of the things you have pointed us to, and so is Jonathan Turley, is John Roberts, as Chief Justice, he wrote up his own opinion. And essentially, it's not, he voted with the majority, but he's not so much with the majority.

And maybe you can put it in perspective. One of the lines is: the court opinion and the dissent display is a relentless. is a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share. I am not sure, for example, that a ban on terminating pregnancy from the moment of concession must be treated the same under the Constitution as a ban after 15 weeks.

So he is openly. Thinking about this, speculating this, and letting us know his mindset. Number one, how rare is that? And how powerless was he in this?

Well, I mean, listen, once those five votes came together, it really left him no other option to he didn't feel like he said, you know, at both ends to me seem a little bit too sure of their legal position and I couldn't go to either of those places.

So for him, this is where we sort of thought. When we saw that leaked opinion, kind of thought this is where he was going to go. It seems like after the case, that there were plenty of votes to uphold that Mississippi law, but then the question was always whether or not they'd go after Roe. And listen, the chief wants to have narrow opinions, narrow decisions, narrowly tailored solutions. He's always been about that.

So I didn't think he'd go all the way there. And listen, when the court decides to hear a case, they identified the so-called question presented. That's supposed to be the only thing the case is about. And he fights to that because what they decided was the question, were pre-viability bans on abortion unconstitutional? He stuck to the Mississippi question, and he chides the court for going all the way after Roe and Casey.

He just didn't feel like this case necessitated what he thinks was an overreach on the original question. He goes on to say, A thoughtful member of this court once counseled this difficulty of a question, admonishes us to observe the wise limitations on our function and to confine ourselves to deciding only what is necessary to the disposition of the immediate case. I would decide the question we granted review to answer: whether previously recognized abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, such that a ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancies is necessary and lawful. The answer to that question is no, and there's no need to go further than to decide the case.

So he would have, what is he saying there? Is that you? didn't want to get to Rome. He doesn't even want to issue an opinion on that. He doesn't feel like that's where they should go.

I mean, he felt like we had this question, it was about the Mississippi law, and that's the only place that we should be going. Like I said, he's a minimalist about this kind of stuff. He doesn't want to do big, sweeping, broad decisions, but he He's the chief. There's only so much he can do because he was outnumbered here. There were five who were ready to go there and to stick together under immense, enormous internal and external pressure.

And that left him with no place to go, but kind of on this island by himself.

So Shannon Premorga Shannon. What about people that are saying and tweeting that now next is going to be contraception, next is going to be goodbye same-sex marriage? Didn't Judge Justice Alito address this? Yeah, he did. He talks about all of those things and distinguishes them and says they are not, that's not what we're talking about.

We're not going after the underpinnings of any of those things. And so he made it very clear, and we saw that in the league, and it was like the people who didn't want to see it ignored it. It's still in there today, and they're ignoring it. He made it very clear this decision is not about that. But of course, politically, it makes sense for the left to say that's exactly what this is about and to say you got to show up at the ballot box.

I mean, it's going to be a fundraising and a rallying cry for them because, you know, the poll show it should be a good term for the GOP this election, this fall.

So, of course, The political side of this is they're going to make hay about this, they're going to exaggerate and miss. represents some of what is in and what's not in his opinion. Right, she just said that again, Nancy Pelosi, I guess, a short time ago.

So, on the greater story of guns, 6-3 to prevent people from carrying a gun in New York City is unconstitutional. What's the impact of that? I know it's going to affect directly seven states, but in there is a two-pager from Kavanaugh saying, tell me the places you don't want to be able to bring a gun, tell me the limitation, tell me the restrictions, like, for example, a state capitol, a courtroom, let's say, a school, a subway.

So, where does this go from here?

Well, yeah, in many, many states, this is even in question. As you said, there are just a handful of jurisdictions where this matters. The interesting thing is, though, even though it's a small amount of states, it's a really concentrated, you know, like a quarter of the U.S. population. Probably going to have some change to the law.

But what it is, is, you know, if you're going in to get a permit or a carry permit, a concealed carry permit, for example, in New York, of course, is where the case came from, they can have subjective criteria like, we're going to decide who gets one and who doesn't based on whatever we decide. If it's something like, okay, everybody's subject to a background check, everybody has to have this age limit, everybody has to have this residency requirement, whatever it is, it's got to be objective, not subjective.

So it doesn't mean that states cannot license and permit and require those things for guns. And the only people who are going to be impacted by this are people who are trying to do this in a lawful way. They want to be law-abiding gun owners. And of course there are worries and folks who want to see more gun control and less guns on the streets, they worry that if more concealed carry permits are out there, that it means more guns on the street. you know, that's probably logistically true, but it should also mean people who've been fully vetted.

There may be some training requirements. It depends on the state. This is not a free for all. This does not just mean everybody can carry a gun anywhere, anytime. It's still going to be very tightly controlled.

Fox's legal expert, Shannon Bream, is with us fortuitous to have you on the calendar before this decision came down, but it came down about 90 minutes ago. Roe v. Wade has been overturned. 24 hours ago, we learned about this gun law, 6-3 with Clarence Thomas Ryan, the opinion.

Now, we're going to see the President of the United States in 45 minutes address the country. Besides expressing outrage and going against what he said in the 1970s when he was looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, besides saying that he's going to be outraged by it, what do you think he can do executively? What will he urge his party to do? I'm not really sure what they can do.

I'm sure that they're going to think about things like. you know, you you can think about Funding. We know that some of the states have set up funds to say, hey, if your state won't allow you an abortion, we're going to have the social justice or reproductive justice funds that you could come here. We're going to beef up what's available in aid to our abortion clinics in states so that we can make sure people have options once they get here. States are going to go into their corners.

You have places like Colorado, where there's really no limit on abortion up until your due date now. They passed that law in response to what they thought they'd get from the court today. And you have other states that literally today abortion becomes illegal in almost all cases because they have these trigger laws.

So what they can do at the federal level, I'm not really sure other than offering funding is probably something they're going to do. But when the Speaker of the House stood up after this opinion and said this is now a nationwide abortion ban, she knows better. She's smarter than that. And I mean, if anything, her home state, California, is probably going to have an increase if people travel there because they're going to have more abortion freedom in her state. Shannon, why don't you hear what Nancy Pelosi just said?

In their attempt to destroy it, radical Republicans are charging ahead with their crusade. to criminalize. health freedom. In the Congress. Be aware of this.

The Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have a majority in the Congress. to do that. But that's our goal.

So already plotting to try to keep the speakership. The barriers are. And well, of course, that is again one of the political things that's going to go on. There will be fundraising. There will be mischaracterization, potentially on both sides.

I mean, people need to be honestly informed about what this means. It's going to depend a lot on where you live. And there's no ban on going into a different state or residents of different states going to abortion clinics where it's legal. There's no ban on that. If you can travel, then you'll be able to seek what is your choice.

And people will say, well, you know, people without a lot of resources will find themselves in a difficult place. And that's why I think not only so many states are saying we're going to set up these funds to help you travel, the feds may try to do something like that, but a number of employers are saying, too, we're going to add that as a benefit to your package of benefits that if you live in a state and work for us in a place where you can't easily get an abortion, we're now going to cover the cost of you traveling out of state.

So people will have options to say a nationwide abortion ban at this point wouldn't be accurate if she says that they're going to try to do something even more in Congress. I don't see the legislative framework for doing that based on what we just got from the court. All right. Thank you. Hey, Shannon, Ken.

Thank you enough. Where are you going to go? What's the rest of your day look like? Stay on the Supreme Court steps? Yes, and listen, if you are bored, you'll see me every hour.

I'm awesome. Fox Business.

So I'm here if you need me. Yeah, we didn't even talk that much about guns, but man, there's so much going on. Of course, we'll watch your show tonight. Shannon Bream, thank you. Thank you.

All right, we come back. He's a doctor, and he's a senator. Senator and Dr. Roger Marshall from Kansas joins us next. Don't move.

You're with Brian Kilmead. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. It's the first time in my lifetime that I can think of where a Supreme Court took away a right. Supreme Courts, I can't think of another court in the last hundred years that has done this.

A right that was there taken away. You know, we're used to the Supreme Court granting rights, same-sex marriage, you know, sort of reinterpreting things. This is a specific right being taken away. from slightly more than half the population.

Well, that is Chuck Todd doing his incident analysis on another network. I'd rather hear what Senator and Dr. Roger Marshall has to say. Senator O. v.

Wade has been overturned. We also know about the 6-3 decision yesterday on the Sullivan law in New York that affects seven other states. When it comes to concealed carry, allows it essentially. They'll work out the details now. From your perspective, what does this day mean for you?

Well, Brian, as a person who's fought every day for the last thirty years to protect the health of moms and babies, it's a historic day. Today's historic decision signals a new beginning for millions of unborn American children. I think it also elevates the Constitution in general back to the way the founding fathers meant it to be, to be taken literally, to read the Constitution. And if the Constitution's silent on something, then the courts should be silent on it as well.

So both of these issues, the Supreme Court is going back to the original text of the Constitution. I think it's a great day for American freedoms.

So right now it returns to the States. Where does Kansas stand on abortion? Oh, gosh. That's a complicated answer, Brian, because our Supreme Court a couple of years ago in Kansas said that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion.

So they've read into what the Constit our own state constitution says.

So there's going to be a value them both amendment in August. That would basically allow the state legislature to make the rules. And to go back to the rules that the state legislature has made already, so it's called the Value Them Both Amendment. But boy, it's a complicated issue on a day when what the Supreme Court has done is put that decision back into the state for state legislators to make.

So here we go.

So, Senator, obviously, I want you to hear Nancy Pelosi. Let's go to the first cut of Nancy Pelosi, what she said, Eric, a moment ago. This is what she said at our presser. There's no point in saying good morning. Because it certainly is not one.

This morning, the radical Supreme Court is eviscerating Americans' rights and endangering their health and safety. But the Congress will continue to act. to overcome this extremism and protect the American people. Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved their dark extreme gold of Rhythm Waywoman's Like to make their own reproductive health decisions.

So she obviously says they're going to work legislatively. What could they do legislatively?

Well, Bryce, she still control uh controls the house. But what they've had legislation before for very extreme access to abortions. All of that would end up going through the court system. But remember, over here on the Senate side, it would take sixty votes to pass any type of federal legislation surrounding this issue unless they get rid of the filibuster. And that's why we have to keep thinking, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, that they've said on this issue that they will not break the filibuster.

So, the center, I have news for you, tweeted out earlier Manchin's comments saying that he feels though Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied to him when they said that they looked at Roe v. Wade versus settled law. Could this be the trigger that has him get rid of the filibuster? And by the way, if he loses the Senate, what that would mean for his party, but in a few months. But go ahead.

Your thoughts? Yeah, yeah, Brian, I respect Joe Manchin. I think he's going to carefully give this thought. I think that he's actually very much a person of faith. I think that he, like me, thinks life begins at conception.

So I don't see how this decision moves him over to breaking the filibuster over the issue. But I'm sure he'll have some sleepless nights as he wrestles with this. But he's a man of faith, a person, a trueborn leader, and I believe that he'll make the right decision here. All right, let's talk about this gun law, this gun bill that got through a bipartisan committee over the last three weeks. It's about 80%.

Pages. The Senate passed it. It's going to go to the House 65-33 last night. You're a no vote. Why?

I'm concerned about the due process. I think at the end of the day, this legislation helps promote red flag laws, which take away guns from citizens without due process. That's my biggest concern about it. I still have some concerns that the legislation may actually use federal dollars that end up in the hands of abortion clinics. It's being debated, but the problem is, if I'm debating it, if we're debating what this law actually means within our own conference, that means the lawyers and attorneys are going to get in the middle of this and everybody loses as well.

But it's really over-the-due process issue. And I didn't think it did enough. To make the schools more secure, to address the mental health, both my amendment and as well as Ted Cruz and John Barrasso's amendment would have both spent more money and made our schools safer. I just don't think that this legislation was the right way to go. They did not ban our AR-15s.

They did not make it 21 to purchase a gun. They do look into minors and what their mental health background and criminal background is before they were 18. Don't just say you have a clean record. Are you for those things? Penalties for straw purchases so the criminal can't pay me to go buy something for him or else I'm going to go to jail.

Do you like that, right? I do. I think those are good steps in the right direction. It's the red flag funding that bothers me the most. Red flag in particular, you think there should be some type of red flag or zero?

I think zero flag. I've never seen a red flag law that I could support. I know there's some yellow flags out there, but there's 19 states, and every one of them is a little bit different.

So, you know, again, what we did is we have a bill that would harden the schools $150 billion of leftover monies from COVID relief. And I want, there's so many great ways to harden the schools. Senator we can involve DHS more. Yes, sir. Senator Marjo, thanks so much for scrambling and coming on the air with us.

Appreciate it. We'll talk about more on this on One Nation, 8 o'clock on Fox News channel. Brian Kilmey. Put the power of over 100 meteorologists and the worldwide resources of Fox in your hands with the Fox Weather Podcast. Precise, personal, powerful.

Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.