 I don't have any agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law. As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By it, I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, been reaffirmed many times. Roe v. Wade decided in 1973 as a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision. When a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value. I believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue. What would he have done if he had asked? Senator, I would have walked out the door. It's not what judges do. You just watched all five Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade lie before they were confirmed about what they would do. In an event, it ever came up for a vote and they were on the Supreme Court. They lied. So this decision, it isn't irreversible. There are things that you can do and the loudest thing that you'll hear is either to vote or for Democrats to push to codify Roe v. Wade. Now codification of Roe is indeed an option, sure, but it's really unrealistic considering abortion access isn't the only right that's been rolled back by the Supreme Court. Let me remind you what happened just this week. As Graydon Gordian points out, Roe, Miranda, gun control, church and state all dismantled in a single week, the single worst week for civil rights and liberties in decades. And as a direct result of the court's extremism, confidence in the Supreme Court is now at an all time low with just 25% of Americans having a great deal of confidence in the court. And confidence in the court is low because most Americans recognize that this is just the beginning. This is year one of having a far right Supreme Court with a six to three majority. They didn't even need the full majority here. It's a five to four decision, but it's only the beginning. In Thomas' concurring opinion, he name dropped Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut, Obergefell v. Hodges. He's saying, I want to revisit contraception for married couples, same sex marriages, and gay intimacy. These are all civil rights and civil liberties that are on the chopping block. And within the next two to three years, they may all be gone. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all gone. So that's where we're at in the United States. So to say that codifying Roe is a solution. Sure, it's a solution. But do you honestly expect Congress to be able to codify every single civil right and civil liberty that we lose at the rate that we're losing them? Of course not. So what's the answer? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. In my opinion, the Democratic Party has to grow a spine. Joe Biden in particular needs to grow a spine and unpack the Supreme Court. And now we've heard about court packing because FDR threatened to back the Supreme Court. But really in this context, you're just unpacking the Supreme Court. You're undoing what Republicans did to achieve a majority. And if Biden was serious about protecting our civil rights, he would call on Congress to expand the court at a minimum and start nominating some Supreme Court justices. Now, as David Serota, Andrew Perez and Julia Rock argued in a 2020 article for Jacobin prior to Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation, Supreme Court expansion isn't even a tough call. So they write, under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court justices is not fixed and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the president, wrote Scott Bomboy, the executive director of the National Constitution Center. Article 3, Section 1 starts with the broad direction to Congress to establish the court system. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. Over two centuries, the court size has been adjusted. If the founders wanted the court permanently set at nine justices, they would have put that into the Constitution. They didn't. They gave Congress the flexibility to adjust the court size. That power allows the legislative branch to make sure that the court doesn't become a star chamber totally disconnected from the public will. Now, over the years, the Republican Party has either expanded or constrained the sizes of courts to push their agenda through the judicial system, blocking Obama's federal nominees, blocking Obama from fulfilling his constitutional duty as president. By not even having a single hearing for Merrick Garland and as much as I dislike Merrick Garland, it was Obama's right as president to nominate a Supreme Court justice. But Mitch McConnell blocked that saying, Well, we don't do this during election years, only to then confirm Amy Coney Barrett a week before the election in 2020. So make no mistake about it. The Republican Party has packed the Supreme Court. And as a result, confidence in the court is at an all time low. So packing the Supreme Court isn't just about saving civil rights and civil liberties that these theocratic extremists are going to dismantle. It's about literally preserving the legitimacy of the court, preserving the court as an institution in and of itself. Because if this is going to be the norm for the next 10 to 20 years, then Americans are going to be fed up, right? Confidence is at an all time low already. But imagine decades of rulings like this. Americans won't just be calling for the court to be unpacked or packed however they want to frame it. They'll be calling for the abolition of the court and they'd be right to do that. So understand that Republicans have already packed the Supreme Court and we literally cannot afford to have this be a multi decade long battle. Any climate change legislation, civil rights that generations before us have fought for will be dismantled by this court. Year after year, everything that our predecessors have fought for and one, it's going to be chipped away at. So unpacking the court at this point isn't even an option. And I don't want to hear about solutions other than packing the court because codification, sure, that's technically a solution. Voting, I mean, Democrats aren't fighting now. They're not using the time that they have now to fight. So I mean, I can't see that as a persuasive alternative, although it is important. But packing the court, unpacking the court, that is the only solution. It's either that or for the next two decades, possibly more. This far right Supreme Court is going to dismantle the US Constitution. So if Biden and Democrats are serious, the only solution is to unpack the Supreme Court. Start making some nominations, Biden.