they are still being quoted as guidance for samuel alito. >> yeah, justice alito and the majority, they were not taking pains to make sure that this would be broadly accepted. that was not the goal of this one. works. this was just raw power, doing it because they could. and they're not trying to bring anybody along with him. and i think that's, i think, part of the reason that you've had so much discussion today about what's next, because if they're willing to do this on this, which they knew would be the most divisive possible thing in the country, obviously, they would do it on things for what they think they had even more leeway to operate. that, we don't care element to this is, i think, gonna be a profoundly important part of the way this changes the country. >> and when you think of the presidents who made this happen, beginning with ronald reagan, but more importantly now, george h. w. bush, because he has clarence thomas on the supreme court, and the reagan justice there right now. but from george w. bush, to ronald reagan and donald trump, it is just a statistic statistical li

this is why alito's logic is so concerning to so many. dissenters, that's sotomayor, kagan and breyer say either the majority, either they don't really believe their own reasoning or all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are now insecure, are now in danger. this is what the court is doing with its powers. and everything we just went through has to do with rights, with how the supreme court, which is the final word in our system, not the first or the second but the final, how they deal with rights. then you have the sexism in how these laws are written and who's on the court upholding them. the dissenting justices come at this quite clearly. they note that when we talk about the, quote, people who ratified the 14th amendment, which the justices do, well, they weren't just people thinking about those rights, they were all men. they explain the male ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women's liberty or their capacity to participate as equal members of our nation

justice alito strongly disagrees.ms they're literally neutral on abortion, and that's not why they ruled. yet he also claims, quote, roe was egregiously wrong from the day it was decided. this is a bold statement. legally what he's saying is not that new facts or information changed something, which can happen in precedent. what he's saying is since the ruling came down in '73, it has always been legally wrong. that's sort of legally speaking the highest threshold for things to be overturned. people believed -- and the court says not only were they wrong then, and that's always been the wrong view. this alito view was just dissected by linda greenhouse, "the new york times" reporter for the decades. she notes in a new piece this is the first time the court rescinded an individual right, and left it up to the states, something that used to be, according to the court, protected by the constitution. now, again, i'm keeping it as blunt and clear as possible. these things are linked. the fact that the court is being purr s

they are still being quoted as guidance for samuel alito. >> yeah, justice alito, and the majority, they were not taking pains to make sure that this would be broadly accepted. that was not the goal of this one. this was just raw power, doing it because they could. and they're not trying to bring anybody along with him. and i think that's, i think, part of the reason that you've had so much discussion today about what's next, because if they're willing to do this on this, which they knew would be the most divisive possible thing in the country, obviously, they would do it on things for what they think they had even more leeway to operate. that, we don't care element, to this is, i think, gonna be a profoundly important part of the way this changes the country. >> and when you think of the presidents who made this happen, beginning with ronald reagan, but more importantly now, george h. w. bush, because he has clarence thomas on the supreme court, and the reagan justice there right now. but from george w. bush, to ronald reagan and donald trump, it is just a statistic likelihood without e

in this opinion, justice alito argues that roe v. wade was, quote, remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text by finding that abortion is part of a right to privacy, which alito says is not actually in the constitution. tell me why you think he's legally wrong. >> well, thanks so much for having me. a few really basic reasons. the first, of course, is that for more than 100 years, the supreme court has said that the 14th amendment and its explicit protection for liberty means that people have the right to make decisions about their bodies and about their families and children, child rearing and issues related to marriage. so all of those have been protected for 100 years under many, many different decisions. and the right to end a pregnancy was part of those protections. it's squarely in the middle of those 100 years of decisions. and for that reason, there really was no factual or legal change that justifies overruling roe and casey today. >> justice alito also quoted justice ruth baden ginsburg in his opinion, the

notably, in the text of the opinion, justice alito did not reference eugenics at all. even more meaningfully, and are not, there is considerable discussion of genex in a footnote in that decision. footnote 41. there, justice alito observed that a series of briefs filed before the court had noted that some such supporters of liberal access to abortion had been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the african-american population. he then went on to say that it is beyond dispute that roe v. wade had passed that demographic effect. a highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black. i wanted to stop about that footnote. as we have all discussed, the decision to overrule roe v. wade has nothing to do with eugenics. justice alito links his to the fact that a right to an abortion is on enumerated and is not deeply rooted in the history or tradition of this country. for that reason, it seems entirely gratuitous that this footnote appears in the draft opinion. there is no need for it. they have already decided that roe v. wade is egregiously wrong, they

alito wrote the majority opinion.he liberal justices, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan -- dissented. john roberts did not join roe his conservative colleagues and overturning roe. he said there where's no need to do that to hold up a 15 week mississippi ban at the center of the case. president biden urged congress to act. >> the court has done what it has never done -- expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many americans that had already been recognized. the court's decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose and the balance that existed is for congress to restore the protectis of roe v. wade as federal law. >> i a statement former president trump called the ruling the biggest "win for life ina generation and saying it was only made possible because i delivered everything is possible. house speaker nancy pelosi weighed in. >> american women today have less freedoms than their mothers . for 50 years,

leaked draft opinion written by justice alito that came out in may. we see some of that same language in this opinion. i want to quote from part of today's decision. we hold that roe and casey must be overruled. no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision including the ones that the defenders of the decisions now rely. that includes some rights not mentioned by the constitution but any such right must be deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. the right to abortion does not fall within this category. explain what justice alito was getting at. >> the conservative majority on this court approaches the constitution and constitutional rights by looking at the text of the constitution, tradition, and history. there are many respected american historians who disagree and also challenge the ability of the court and judges in general to do the kind of historical research is required to reach these kinds of conclusions. the court -- the majority to do that analysis and found that as i said, abortion did not fall in that

this is why the alito opinion in my view will not read that way when it is issued. i also believe and this is just my guess based on last term, i have been studying every opinion in the full universe of opinions and an article just came up at harvard. it looks very much to me like a case called fulton which involves religious rights. a very aggressive concurrence. this looks like a concurrence to me. some familiar opinion may look nothing like this, even though they are going to a cold. i expect there are five votes to a -- to uphold and perhaps overrule roe v. wade and then it will become mississippi law. now, could there be an alliance? yeah, historically, people have made a simple textual's argument that in fact, madison would be rolling over in his grave because then ninth amendment was in there precisely for the reason that if you enumerate rights, some people are going to say they are not written down. and if we knew this in 1787, surely we can know it now. the history of the 20th century is the development of that idea, which is why i think however imperfect,

alito's? or thomas?> the point he was the lead voice on this and said other privacy-protected rights do not affect the life of a human being. an abortion does and that is why this is separate. it is not -- not in the same constitutionally-protected area as abortion is. >> he have to remember this is -- >> don, i just got got to say we can't take their word. they lied in their confirmation hearing and will lie in these opinions they write. everyone's rights are at stake. he need to wake up and vote not just in '22, '24, and more elections to come. >> thank you all. look, this is an abortion case right now. we will see what is to come and i do have to say coming up at 11:00 later on, we the person who actually helped to get same sex marriage right by suing the gump or what have you or challenging the government will be on this program. thank you, ashley. thank you alice. >>> new york attorney general says the state will be a safe haven for anyone wanting an abortion. she speaks out from a protest, right af

even alito has that look. host: let's get a response. guest: it is overturning president, and it is a great question. there is nothing unusual about the supreme court revisiting and overturning a previous decision. it is something that has been done over 200 times throughout its history. in recent years, it has overturned past precedents about twice a term on average. it is important that a court has the ability to revisit a prior decision. as you said, it is not something the court should do lightly. there is a series of factors that the court considers when deciding to overturn a prior precedent. but just to give a practical example, if the court did not have the ability to go back and reevaluate its prior decision and overturned them, plessy versus ferguson, which upheld the various important doctrines of separate but equal, would still be good law. fortunately, the support that supreme court revisited that, and realized it was agreed justly wrong and overturned it. in that sense, there is nothing inappropriate or wrong about the just

alito's? or thomas? was the lead voice on this and said other privacy-protected rights do not affect the life of a human being. an abortion does and that is why this is separate. it is not -- not in the same constitutionally-protected area as abortion is. >> he have to remember this is -- >> don, i just got got to say we can't take their word. they lied in their confirmation hearing and will lie in these opinions they write. everyone's rights are at stake. he need to wake up and vote not just in '22, '24, and more elections to come. >> thank you all. look, this is an abortion case right now. we will see what is to come and i do have to say coming up at 11:00 later on, we the person who sue the the government,py challenging, will be on this program. thank you, ashley. thank you alice. >>> new york attorney general says the state will be a safe haven for anyone wanting an abortion. she speaks out from a protest, right after this. it takes a village to support society and businesses have a responsibility to

alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by justices thomas, gorsuch, kavanaugh, and coney barrett.al justices -- stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan -- dissented. the chief justice did n join his colleagues in voting to overturn roe. he said there was no need to do that in order to overturn a mississippi band that was the subject of the case. >> the court has done what it has never done before -- expect -- expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fun -- fundamental to so many americans that had already been recognized. the court's decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. >> the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose and the balance that existed is for congress to restore the protection of roe v. wade as federal law. john: in a statement, former president trump called the ruling the biggest win for life in a generation and went on to take credit for it, saying it was only made possible because "i delivered everything as promised." house speaker nancy pelosi weighed in at her weekly news conference. >> american women today have

justice alito went it and planned parenthood. the fact that the right to an abortion is enumerated is not rooted in the history of this country. for that reason, it seems entirely gratuitous that this footnote appear in the draft opinion. there is no need for it. they already decided that roe is egregiously wrong. that they don't need to stand by starting devices because it is not deeply rooted in our nations history. why then is this footnote included. is it simply a nod to justice thomas, a kind of collegial gesture that one justice? to a colleague. perhaps or more interestingly as i've argued elsewhere this ewagain creates the conditions where reproductive rights are inextricably linked to eugenics and while that may not necessarily have to preference for abortion once roe is overruled, it may lay the groundwork for countering other reproductive freedoms including the right to access contraception and indeed the argument justice thomas has in the box opinion about the link between margaret singer, and eugenics is perhaps the m

complete and utter joy that it was finally overturned >> the majority opinion written by justice samuel alito saying roe was egregiously wrong from the start. the three liberal justices in their dissent warning millions of american women have lost a fundamental constitutional protection the impact, roughly half the states expected to ban abortion 13 states with trigger laws banning abortion immediately or soon. clinics in several states already turning women away president biden calling this a sad day for america, framing the upcoming midterms as an all-out battle for abortion rights. and the far-reaching fallout, could a national ban on abortion be in the future and how justice clarence thomas opened the door to overturning the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage, too. >>> and the first gun legislation passed in years. now on its way to the president biden's desk >>> and our nbc news exclusive, one-on-one with ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy. his message about the americans captured while fighting in ukraine. what he is now vowing to do. >> announcer: this is "nbc nightly n

justice alito: no student could think that? no student could think that, boy, if i don't say things in class, right things in my papers that agree with the coach or i say something that is contrary to what this teacher feels really strongly that is going to hurt me? no student could think that? mr. katskee: the question is not whether no student could think that, it is whether a reasonable observer should think it. it is an objective test. compare that situation with, for example, the teacher putting those signs up in the classroom. that shows that the school district could certainly be concerned about that sure on the students, that they feel like if they don't force the opinion up on the wall they might be penalized for it, and the district can make the decision that it is going to regulate that, which will require on the one hand if that is private recognizing the very serious first amendment interests of the employee, but also recognizing the need to not have material disruptions in class, you to avoid coursing students to

we begin with justice samuel alito the author of the new leaked draft opinion which seeks to overturn the row case his nomination heari we can with justice sapping alito the new draft on that six to overturn the roe case. his nomination hearing was held in january 2006. >> you conceded the fact that we have free speech because it's explicit in our constitution, protect it constitutional right, and yet when senator schumer asked repeatedly, do you find that roe versus established and recognize a constitutional protection to -- private decision, you wouldn't dancer. you wouldn't give a direct answer. on to supreme court cages griswold and brown, you have said, as we started this hearing. that you believe there is a constitutional basis for this protection, and for this right. and yet when we came roses right, you would not. of us are troubled by the 1985 memo. you said yesterday you would have an open mind when you give them to this issue but i'm sorry general point that your memo is taking a job in the reagan administration is not evidence of an open mind. it evidence is a mind that sa

something that it never existed before justice alito's opinion. so, we see lgbtq equality on the line, contraceptive axis on the line, including iuds, which are not aboard informations, but that are popular forms of contraception. there are already state lawmakers that are saying they're seeking to do away with those fundamental rights associated with contraception. next, we'll see also sex education targeted as well by these individuals and these legislatures. >> thank you, incredible plays we find ourselves and now. miss arrambide, one, i apologize for the line of questioning you just experienced by my colleague on the other side of the aisle. i would like to ask you your opinion, justice coney barrett suggested that because adoption exists, there really is no need for abortion. i want to know what you thought of that statement. i also want to know it professor goodwin states think so that state. >> i don't believe adoption is an alternative to an abortion it's an alternative to after giving birth, giving the child up for adoption or keeping the

we begin with justice samuel alito the author of the new leaked draft opinion which seeks to overturn the row case his we begin with justice samuel alito the author of the new late draft opinion which seeks to overturn the roe case. his nomination hearing was held in january, 2006. >> you conceded the fact that we have reach because it is explicit in our constitution, protect a constitutional right and yet when predators schumer asked me repeatedly do you find that roe versus wade established and recognized a constitutional protection for a woman to make this most private decision you, wouldn't answer. you wouldn't give a direct answer. on two supreme court cases, griswold and brown, now, you have said, just right as we started this hearing, that you believe that we have a constitutional basis for this protection and this right. and yet when it came to roe v. wade, you would not. most of us are troubled by this 1985 memo. you said yesterday you would have an open mind when you give them to this issue but i'm sorry to report that your memo is taking a job in the reagan administration i

in stark language justice, alito wrote quote the constitution does not confer right to abortion.oe and casey are overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. justice alito noted that the 1973 supreme court in roe versus wade cited a right of personal privacy. but alito stated row conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make an implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. you see hastings professor ravi corral clerked for justice harry blackmun, who authored row he would be so sad today to see grow fall after almost 50 years, professor rao said the dispute is over the constitution's vague language. there is a dispute here over how you interpret the constitution and the words of the constitution themselves. don't answer it for us. because the framers of the constitution used deliberately pay cious very broad language. they use words like liberty and equality. but those words are not self defining justice. alito also noted the 1992 supreme court in planne

the dissent, of course, says, why should we trust what you say, justice alito? because based on the legal principle that you're establishing here, all those other rights could well be in jeopardy as well. they should not be, the dissent argues, but they're in play now too so that's where it's going to head in the future. we've got a split court but as joan and gloria said, this is a 6-3 conservative court any way you cut it and it's likely to remain in conservative control for the next several years at least. >> but joan, chief justice roberts is a bit of a wild card. maybe i'm overstating that. but the way he decides with this but not thinking that roe vs. wade should be overturned, was that interesting or unexpected to you? >> no, it wasn't -- it's interesting that you point it out, alisyn, but he had tipped his hand during oral arguments back in december in this case where what he wanted was to uphold the mississippi law, the 15-week ban, and he had proposed that, essentially, during oral arguments, and also cautioned, look, we don't need to confront roe v. w

one of the ways you can see justice alito contradict himself is to look at hobby lobby.s no precedent there's nothing in theat constitution that you can find that grants religious identity to corporations. yet we see justice alito in 2014 and if we unpack this we can be far more new ones stand look at the records so they can see it is not selective that outcome determination. that is really a threat more broadly to reproductive health but our democracy andic rule of law. >> i want to hear more but i want to read i a few of the online questions so we can add their voices into the discussion and maybe build on things isn't it true the antiabortion movement is driven by religious beliefs? and also focusing on personhood is a religiously driven conclusion not legal or scientific on the grounds that antiabortion is seek to impose their view on others. just one related question. is there not but then they decide a case based on the facts otherwise will justice alito go beyond? a lotot of our listeners and those i want to open this more up to t my colleagues. >> llc no phobia a

that was from the opinion from samuel alito. john roberts junior did not join the opinion and criticized his conservative colleagues for taking the additional steps for overturning roe v. wade. let's talk to diane next in arkansas on the republican line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that i am glad to see it go back to the states. the supreme is not supposed to make laws as opposed to interpret the constitution. in other states, when you live in states you have the right to choose your legislatures. i vote for people that i hope represent my beliefs. that is why a vote for them. we don't tell the truth in this nation. we try to spread a lot of hysteria, like it is all being ended. it is not being ended, it is going back to the states. in 2019, there were 290,000 abortions in the united states. 290,000, that it is an enormous number. host: let's talk to roman on the independent line in flagstaff, arizona. caller: can you hear me? host: can you imbue your tv? -- mute your tv? call

i would say judge alito that is a painful issue for most of us. it is a difficult issue for most of us. the active abortion itself is many times hard decision a sad decision tragic decision. i believe that for 30 years. we have tried to strike a balance in this country to say it is a legal procedure, but it should be discouraged. it should be legal but rare and try to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. but as i listened to the way that you've answered this question this morning and yesterday and the fact that you have refused to refute that that statement in the 1985 job application. i'm concerned. i'm concerned that many people will leave this hearing with a question as to whether or not you could be that citing vote that would eliminate the legality of abortion. that was associate supreme court justice samuel alito in 2006 appointed by president george w. bush justice alito is the author of the leaked opinion draft, which seeks to overturn the roby wade decision. retiring justice stephen breyer was nominated by president clinton in 1

that same language is in the final opinion that was penned by justice alito.now, here is where it gets really interesting. because that draft leaked out and we all read it, and i wrote a column saying, i don't believe you, justice alito. it's as if justin thomas and his concurring opinion wanted to put an exclamation point on it by saying, i think we need to reassess the due process clause as it pertains to griswold, -- while alito is saying, nothing to worry about here for anything else. justice thomas says, oh no, we are coming for contraception, right to intimate relation between same-sex adults, and marriage equality. and one more point. cannot forget, clarence thomas is the senior most member of the court. and so, he is the one who gets to decide who writes the majority opinions. and with the 6 to 3 conservative majority, that renders chief justice john roberts completely powerless to rein in that conservative super majority. >> it really seems to be that way and there is a lot of conversation going on about what do we do now? the hounds have been unleash

that was from the opinion from samuel alito. john roberts junior did not join the opinion and criticized his conservative colleagues for taking the additional steps for overturning roe v. wade. let's talk to diane next in arkansas on the republican line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that i am glad to see it go back to the states. the supreme is not supposed to make laws as opposed to interpret the constitution. in other states, when you live in states you have the right to choose your legislatures. i vote for people that i hope represent my beliefs. that is why a vote for them. we don't tell the truth in this nation. we try to spread a lot of hysteria, like it is all being ended. it is not being ended, it is going back to the states. in 2019, there were 290,000 abortions in the united states. 290,000, that it is an enormous number. host: let's talk to roman on the independent line in flagstaff, arizona. caller: can you hear me? host: can you imbue your tv? -- mute your tv? call

this is a 5-4 decision written by justice samuel alito. this 5-4 decision does not include the chief justice john roberts. he dissented. he did agree the mississippi law issued here banning abortion at 15 weeks, he did say that could be upheld but did not agree with the majority of this to go so far as overturning roe v. wade. justice alito writing roe was egregiously wrong and talked about how it had deepened divisions in this country rather than officially settling the issue when it was decided back in 1973. but the dissent writing a point here saying that womens rights, their status as free and equal citizens is no longer. so, john, we're seeing the deepening decisions of this changed court, this gnaw consolidated court no over trning roe v. wade. >> white house officials have been resignled to this moment being a reality now for several months. the leaked draft really kind of put that into concrete and also helped escalate behind the scenes efforts to prepare for this moment, whether or not the justice department will get involved, how

amy: professor goodman wrote "no, justice alito, reproductive justice is in the constitution." then, missouri becomes the first state to enact a trigger law. we will speak with yamelsie rodriguez about the organization stealth opening of a clinic across the border in illinois, which has the capacity to serve up to 15,000 abortion-seeking patients a year. and we will go to rhode island to speak with the state senate democratic candidate jennifer rourke who was punched by her republican rival who is a cop during an abortion rights rally on friday. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. protests are continuing across the united states after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to an abortion. the conservative court ruled 6-3 on friday in the case of jackson versus hobbs. that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy while voting 5-4 to overturn roe. conservative chief justice john roberts supported upholding the mississippi law but not

it's written by samuel alito.n't had a chance to track it yet, but you may recall, justice alito was the author of the draft opinion that said the supreme court was going to overturn roe v. wade. lester, i have to say, while it is certainly going to be surprising to some, pleasing to others that have worked for this day for many years, it can't be too much of a surprise for three reasons, first of all, the fact that the court agreed to take this case in the first place. this was a decision from lower courts that said, no, you can't strike down abortion that early because it would go against supreme court precedent. there was no division among the circuit court. why did the supreme court take it. the logical conclusion had to be to overturn roe. secondly, what they did in the texas case when they allowed the texas law to go into effect that we restrict abortion, and third, the comments that the justices made when the roe v. wade case was argued. supreme court overturning roe. this is one of the most significant, hi

"roe was on a collision course with the constitution from the day it was decided, alito wrote. it is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives." chief justice john roberts joined the conservative majority in upholding the mississippi law, but he insisted the court did not need to overturn roe. instead, he searched for some middle ground, pleading, "none of this, however, requires that we also take the dramatic step of altogether eliminating the abortion right first recognized in roe." and from the liberal wing, a scathing, agonized dissent. justice stephen breyer arguing that alito's ruling is based on nothing more than the fact that three new justices appointed by donald trump -- neil gorsuch, brett kavanagh, and amy coney-barrett -- cast decisive votes to overturn roe. "neither law nor facts nor attitudes have provided any new reasons to reach a different result than roe did. all that has changed is this court," breyer wrote. and in the dissent's last line, breyer, along with justices elena kagan and sonia sotomayor

right so my first question and reading alito and we can talk about the details. he kind of set up a two-part test for these rights going forward. that is a little arcane. it's brand new in the law really or it's it draws from other elements, but the bigger question really i said to myself i think almost the abortion debates been framed improperly around the rights of the woman. it's really about how much do we want to confine and constrain the power of the government, right? this goes to anything from the rights to bear arms to the right to not be forcibly sterilized by government. that's not in the constitution and we're talking all about. oh abortion rights isn't aren't in the constitution. well, there's a lot of stuff. is not in the constitution and the problem with this decision is the potential cascade of implications for rights that we take for granted. but again, if you understand why we have rights, why do we call them rights? it's because we most americans want their freedoms. they really don't like an overbearing government encroaching in private spaces

this was authored by justice alito. crucially the chief justice john roberts he did not want to go so far as overturning roe v. wade, though he said he will vote to uphold the mississippi 15-week abortion ban. still the consequence is roe v. wade is overturned because of these five conservative justices. here's something from justice alito's opinion. he called roe v. wade egregiously wrong from the start. he said its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. and far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. the dissent here also responded with a very curt joint response from the three liberal justices. justice steven breyer, of course he's retiring soon, and justices sotomayor and elena kagen writing this. one result of today's decision is certain, the curtailment of a woman's rights and of their status as free and equal citizens. so, fred regia, this opinion not only dividing the nation but also this

wa we have sm alito on the court now. we always seem to be one or two votes short, didn't we, over all these years? but in twenty sixteen pro-life voters saw a chance toaw change the republican party andpa d the court for donald trump wasn't part of the gop establishment. he wasn't one off the politicians who had let us on for decades all lip service only to disappoint us at the end he promised to be different. he wasas a threat to the old guard. he promised to point pro-lifeir justices who would hold firm nom matter how many threats they received from the outside.. >> so gorsuch kavanaugh, amy coni barrett all voted the right way. many republicans doubted thoseou promises by president trump , but most of us decided to take our chance and in the end president trump kept this promise. >> mitch mcconnell and theas republicans in the senate, they kept their promises as well. d and today for the first time since nineteen seventy three , our constitution is free of the taint of abortion.ou nowrt this court, this decision solid