not that alito gives a damn what you think. to be affected by any extraneous influences, such as concern about the public's reaction to our work." now surprisingly, alito was joined in the decision by no one who would surprise you: clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy comey barrett. so congratulations, ladies, your decisions about what you can do with your body are being made by four old dudes and a woman who thinks "the handmaid's tale" is a rom-com. ( laughter and applause ) this draft decision is scathing. at one point, alito writes, "'roe' was egregiously wrong from the start." now, i'm not a lawyer. i can't tell you if "roe" was rightly decided. but i can tell you it's an important precedent that has been repeatedly reaffirmed. and that's not my opinion. it's the opinion of these clowns: >> "roe v. wade" is an important precedent of the supreme court. >> "roe v. wade" clearly held that the constitution protected a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. >> the supreme court of the united states has held

justice alito? justice alito: the parole decisions are supposed to be made on a case-by-case basis, right? general prelogar: that's correct. justice alito: and the statistics that you cite and the statistics that the respondents provided in their brief about the number of individuals who are being paroled every month are very high. so what does it mean for there to be a case-by-case determination? let's think of -- think of the example of people who want to go to a baseball game at national'' park. so they all line up, they try to get through the turnstile, and somebody says -- goes through a little checklist. do they have a ticket? yes. do they have a gun? no gun. do they have alcohol? no alcohol. something to throw on the field? nothing to throw on the field. fireworks? nothing. no fireworks, fine. is that a case-by-case determination in your -- in your view? general prelogar: i think that that would satisfy the -- justice alito: and that's what you're doing. general prelogar: -- legal requirement

i don't see it. >> you served as a clerk for justice alito. justice alito's opinion, in your book, you write how tightly guarded and you spoke to this in interviews, about how tightly guarded draft opinions are. you recall having kept track of where every copy went of old drafts, shredded and then incinerated and then liquified. i wonder what insight you can share with me about how the justices lives have changed. since that leak. >> well, they've endured death threats. they used to be rare. one of them, justice kavanaugh has more than just received a death threat. he had someone show up at his house with all the equipment necessary to break into his house and kill him and his family. their lives changed significantly. >> how has the court changed since the leak? >> the court itself, i hope, doesn't ange. won't change. i know they're doing everything they can to not change it. >> among the leaked texts between you and mark meadows is one from january 3rd where you said you disagreed with some of your colleagues plans to object to the election.

justice alito? justice alito: yeah. may i ask you to respond to -- i think it was the last question that justice kavanaugh asked the solicitor general, and that has to do with the scope of the major questions doctrine, and he pointed out language referring to questions of vast political and economic significance and reading a new interpretation into a long-dormant statute. her answer was that those would be important factors in considering whether the -- the major questions doctrine applies. at least that's how i understood her answer. if that is correct, would you agree with it? ms. brinkmann: it needs to be considered at less of a level of abstraction with all due respect, your honor. for example, the court has always looked to an exercise of agency authority, something the agency actually did that reflected the authority they were claiming. and i point to the osha vaccine case, that recent decision there, because, of course, the court's rationale was, you know, osha is now regulating every employer, everybody, vaccin

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

this is classic samuel alito. when he is winning he can't help but take some shots at his critics. he has this tone of agrievement in so many instances, again, even though he is prevailing. he was able to hold on to five votes in the dobbs case, the name of the case he said he could not name to roll back a half century of abortion rights in america. but then he also has prevailed in other ways on religious liberties where he, the overall subject of the speech in rome sponsored by the university of notre dame had to do with the increasing secularism in america but he has been winning with religious conservativism in so many different ways. obviously on abortion rights, but also this session as you know, fredricka, where the justices have required more public funding for religious schools and more religion in public places. so even though he at times has had the sense of persecution, he is definitely driving this court in a religiously conservative way. >> and this has been a pretty volatile year for the u.s. suprem

ariane, justice alito was pretty sarc sarcastic, wasn't he?unusual, but then perhaps this is kind of customary to classic alito, i've heard. >> reporter: well, you know, he was in rome, fred, to give this major religious liberty speech and somehow he got diverted and for the first time talking about that landmark opinion and he chose on foreign soil to go after the foreign leaders who had actually criticized it. you heard him, he went after france's emmanuel macron, justin trudeau of canada. the comments about boris johnson because he seems to mock him, almost make fun of him, he also went after prince harry. so very unusual for a justice on foreign soil, i'm sure it's not unprecedented, to go after the foreign leaders. what makes it so really unusual, i guess, is the iffact that thi is such a landmark decision. >> right, it's not a laughing matter. >> reporter: yeah. and it's also so raw here, fred. so he's giving that talk on religious liberty, he brings this up, seems to mock the foreign leaders. i will say the talk on religious liberty, he

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

>> in part this was classic samuel alito. first a little about what else he said.cularism in america and across the globe. he said that religion is under siege and mostly speak from his point of view as a christian, as somebody who practices roman catholicism. but as i said, this was sort of a signature sam alito moment, a sense of agreement even while he is winning. he is somebody who prevailed on reproductive rights rolling back a half century of abortion with, you know, ending roe v. wade, but throughout this term and other recent terms religious conservatives have been winning. now there was a point in which justice alito was -- would often dissent or write saying the court isn't going as fast or far as he wants to go. now the brakes are off. think of what he was able to do to reverse, you know, nearly 50 years of abortion rights. and then, jim, the other thing that's happened here is that the court has increasingly gone in a single direction and very fast in a single direction to lower the wall of separation between church and state, to allow more government f

and his temperament. >> in so many ways this speech in rome was classic samuel alito.ment even when he's winning on major cases. he somehow couldn't help but take shots at foreign leaders and engage in moments of sarcasm. consider that he prevailed with the dobbs decision that overturned roe v. wade and a half century of women's abortion rights, and that he is also part of the court's supermajority that rules consistently for religious conservatives. the main subject of his speech in rome involved religious liberty, and he complained about increasing secularism in america. he repeated themes from prior speeches about religion being under siege in our country. justice alito can adopt a tone of aggrievement, even persecution in his opinions particularly when the court moves incrementally, when the court doesn't go as far or as federal government as he wants. the court isn't moving incrementally these days. the brakes are off. justice alito was able to hold on to five votes, just what was necessary for a majority, to fully reverse roe v. wade. the landmark decision from 1

and we have to raise hell in our cities, in washington, in every restaurant just as justice alito it the rest of his life. >> it wasn't justice alito but justice kavanaugh who was first experienced the kind of dinner table demonstrations samantha bee talked about on our show, full frontal. the fear loving associate justice who voted to take reproductive rights away from millions of americans had, at least, for one night, his right to a peaceful meal, there say, a right to privacy taken away. politico was first to report the incident at morton steakhouse in downtown d.c., quote -- while the court had no official comment on kavanaugh's behalf, a person familiar with the situation said he did not hear or see the protesters and ate a full meal but left before dessert, morton's was outraged about the incident. desert courses aside, we know that a conservative super majority on the court isn't ready to stop an abortion. but the decision on roe came down, justice clarence thomas made it clear in a concurring opinion that the justices, quote, should reconsider all of this courts substantive

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

a lot of sarcasm there, joan. >> it was so classic samuel alito, brianna.aggrievement all the time, even as he is winning. he had the majority in the decision that he said, whose name cannot be said. and that's the dobbs ruling, where the justices rolled back a half century of reproductive rights, women's privacy rights in america. and he also has been in the majority, plowing ahead on all sorts of religious conservative, but yet he cannot help but engage in sarcasm. that's his way. there have been times when the court didn't go as fast or as far as just alito wanted it to go. and he exuded this sense of persecution in various dissented or concurrences. but annow the breaks runoff ande is winning. he held on to his majority, a narrow five-justice majority to reverse roe v. wade from 1973. and then also this session, the conservative majority allowed more prayer in public places, such as prayer on a football field. and also, more government funding of religion. so samuel alito is winning, despite how he hands. >> so curious to know how the chief justice woul

justice alito's opinion is meticulous. it explores every right that has been suggested, including the equal protection right suggested by justice ginsburg. there are literally law review articles, law review books devoted to saying what roe should have said. and no one has been able to come up with an answer that satisfactory because there simply is no right to an abortion in the united states constitution. and when the constitution says nothing about abortion, as justice alito said, then that is an issue for the democratic process. it's an issue for the states, and for the people. in addition, this is something that protects us as american people. we don't want a system of government in which five justices who are an elected, however well meaning they may be, are able to make up things out of whole cloth, out of the constitution. and in the last thing i would like to say is that there is no state law in the country, none, zero, that criminalizes women for having an abortion. we realize that this is a tough spot that a lot

justice alito had quoted dr. john hart ely's characterization that roe was "not constitutional law." if you look at this, how do you explain the flawed reasoning of roe and how dobbs corrected the flock? >> that's correct. legal scholars on the right and left have criticized roe v. wade's reasoning. justice ginsburg, a proponent of abortion as a policy matter, recognized that its reasoning was fundamentally flawed and predicted it would like to be overturned. if i can connect this to the discussion about the year 1868, the reason that is a touch point is because abortion advocates have insisted that the right to abortion somehow emanates out of the penumbras of nonexistent words in the due process clause of the 14th amendment. they sometimes say it may be in the fourth, fifth, ninth, or other amendments. it is not there. 1860 is a touch point because the due process argument is what the abortion advocates -- sen. blackburn: let's turn to the states in the best position to handle this. 44% wanted the state legisla

justice alito wrote the majority opinion, of course, and he clarified.'m a constitutional law attorney. i used to litigate cases about the constitution and what it means and how it should be applied. i did that for 20 years before i got to congress. scarcely, is this ever language written in a supreme court opinion. let me give you the quote in case you missed it. justice alito said in the majority opinion, quote, and to ensure our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. he continues, nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion, unquote. did everybody hear that? i'll say that again. nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. you know why? because abortion is a unique area of the law. it's about taking the life of another unborn person, a person. so the court recognized that's different and distinct and everybody knows that. everybod

amy: in june, boris johnson called alito's majority opinion striking down roe v. wade a "backward step" for women's rights. alito's other critics include prince harry, french president emmanuel macron, and canadian prime minister justin trudeau who called the ruling overturning abortion rights "horrific." the united states coast guard says at least five people drowned and 66 others were rescued off the coast of puerto rico, thursday, after they were forced off their boat by human smugglers. most of the survivors are haitian. they were handcuffed by border and protection officials as they were taken into custody. their rescue came just days after 17 haitian migrants died off the coast of the bahamas when their boat capsized. this week, rival gangs in haiti's capital port-au-prince continued to wage intense gun battles this week, as the u.n. warned the number of reported killings this year is fast approaching 1,000. in veracruz, mexico, scores of migrants who were left by human smugglers in an abandoned freight trailer on the side of a highway had to break their way

eats at for the frontal rest of his life. >> it wasn't justice alito but justice kavanaugh who firstalleling experienced the kind of dinner table demonstrations samantha associate justice voted to take reproductive rights away from millions bee talked about on our show, of full frontal. americans had at least for one guy's right to a peaceful military say all right privacy taking away political the beer loving associate was justice who voted to take first reproductive rights away from reported the millions of americans had, at incident least, for one night, his former steakhouse right to a peaceful meal, there say, a right to privacy taken away. just downtown politico was first to report d.c. the incident at morton quite steakhouse in downtown d. c., while the court quote -- had no official comment while the court had no on kavanaugh's behalf of the person familiar with the situation said official comment on kavanaugh he did's behalf, a person familiar not hear with the situation said he did or see the not hear or see the protesters protesters in beautiful meal but and ate a full mea

in and saying why this damage is not just alito who looks like an idiot, but it is damaging the courts it look less dignified and less cerebral in this country that is in extraordinary power. >> right. i don't think that founders intended for a supreme court justices to take the vegas act on the road which is what the justice sounded like there. fareed zakaria, i appreciate it. >>> more rain is expected in kentucky, where they certainly don't need it. we will go therere next for a le look next in the n newsroom. erg abouout his childhood address for 70 years... and i found d it in five minutes. ...that little leaf helped me learn all the names from the old neighborhood... it felt like a treasure hunt. the 1950 census adds vivid new detail to your family story. and it's available now on ancestry. sorry i'm late! dude, dude, dude... oh boy. your cousin.from boston. [whiff] [wer splashes] is it on the green? [goose squawks] i was just looking fomy ball. 19th hole, sam adams summer a. [goose squawks] (here you go.) (cheers guys!) hold on... you're a night manager and mom. and the bill pay

because on friday morning, led by samuel alito, the supreme court overturned roe v.sing almost "50 years of" precedent. ( audience erupts in boos ) ica for ltime than "the young and the restless." jack abbott's evil twin is gonna be so shocked when he comes out of his fifth coma. ( laughter ) now, a draft opinion of this ruling was leased back in may. i read the actual ruling over the weekend. and basically all that has changed since early may is the font. ( laughter ) the supreme court went from times new roman to very old times roman. so, the thing is-- ( applause ) so, the thing is, we already did an entire monologue on this exact ruling a month and a half ago. it was a pretty good monologue. you should go check it out. ( laughter ) i'm really mad at those guys who did that monologue for all the jokes they thought of back then. those jokes would really have been helpful for me to have tonight. ( laughter ) damn you, slightly younger me! now, everybody's talking about overturning "roe v. wade," but this decision also overturns something called "planned parenthood v

that was the historic basis that justice alito wanted to use for the dobbs decision. would you comment again on that particular aspect of this? when we talk about historic precedent? >> absolutely. thank you for the question. it's a complete choice to elevate the year 1868 as the moment of constitutional significance, in terms of constitutional interpretation. again, it was a period of time where women were not part of the body politic. it wasn't until movements that occurred later in this country's history, in the 1970s, that we started to see movements for women's equality, and women could actually become something that we could call legal citizens. i also want to, i guess, give me time to note the selectivity of justice alito's historical inquiry. he chooses to elevate 1868, and in the context of abortion rights, because it will leave it to the result that he likes. other cases and other contacts, he doesn't engage in a historical inquiry at all. in his action and jurisprudence, 1868 is also the relevant time that we should look for interpreting equal protection cl

justice alito, my former boss, in his will written majority opinion explained this point well. he said, quote, our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies. and it allows women on both sides on the abortion issue to stick to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting and running for office, close quote. that's it, page 65 of the dobbs majority opinion. it seems to me that the abortion industry, and the left, and those incumbent politicians, whose campaigns are funded by the abortion industry, have gone to great lengths to scare the american people, convincing them that dobbs does something that doesn't do. it sounds to me that they're doing all of this for the cause of saying that it's okay, and it's protected by the constitution, to exterminate, to extinguish and unborn human life. it makes me wonder whether those making these scurrilous arguments are simply afraid of american public and democracy simply afraid of the american people, simply afraid that one able to make this decision on their own, freed

in the opinion by justice alito joined by thomas, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. the chief justice writing to concur only in the judgment. the court began its analysis by asking, was roe rightly decided? is there a right to abortion in the constitution? which is a question the casey court had overlooked in its analysis, but dobbs decides to confront that question directly. the court first notes that the text of the constitution says nothing about abortion. that means if there is going to be a right to abortion, it would have to be an un-enumerated right, an unlisted rights not critically protected by some other provision. in casey, the court had pointed to the due process clause of the 14 at -- 14th amendment and said the substantive due process doctrine protected a right to abortion. the court had said in a case called bux berg that the way to identify unenumerated rights under substantive due process is to ask whether the question is deeply rooted in our nations history and tradition and essential to the concept of ordered liberty. the dobbs majority asks, is th

eats and since we can assume that alito likes italian food, good luck enjoying your food.oing to unleash the behive on you. here is how they celebrated independence in chicago. [sirens] >> jesse: that's not how you behave, chicago, it's america's birthday and you are acting like the drunk uncle. we are not mad. we are just disappointed. >> it only got worse in the windy city as the weekend went on. people can't attend a holiday parade without fearing for their lives as yesterday a deranged freak opened fire on innocent civilians. 22-year-old robert crime mow took position on a roof top overlooking the route and carried out his sadistic attack. killing at least seven people and wounding two dozen others. the guy was suicidal, homicidal, had problems at school h a social media footprint that screamed mass shooter. police had seized weapons from his house, including swords and guns. and officials in illinois still didn't stuff this kid into a straight jacket. anyone with facial tattoos and a track record like that is screaming please, put me in insane asylum. the left saw all

alito made these very sarcastic remarks while speaking at the notre dame law school religious liberty rome. this almost soubd like his vegas act or something, he was telling jokes and so on. how surprising was this? what did you make of this? >> it was unusual, there he is on foreign soil, and he was there to make this major speech on religious liberty, and in fact, he diverted and for the first time brought up this landmark decision that he wrote a month ago, and he chose to go after the foreign leaders who had krit scriticized it so he mentioned emmanuel macron from france and justin trudeau from canada, and then you heard those comments of boris johnson where he's sort of making fun of the resignation and then even to go after prince harry. now, listen, i talked to somebody who was there with him, who say the media is making too much, that this was just wisecracks, but the fact remains, it's the very first comments he has made about this landmark decision, the most important decision in decades. it's really changed the landscape of women's reproductive health, and the issue still a

however, alito says abortion is different because it involves life. justice thomas does not think it is different enough from same-sex marriage. is there a political push? will states try now to ban that? that is how it would get to the supreme court, if states try to ban same-sex marriage or access to contraceptives. yamiche: i saw senator cornyn tweet, now do plessy versus ferguson, brown b board of education. those are seminal decisions that dealt with integration of schools. i thought it was a fake tweet. pete: i have no idea what he's talking about. yamiche: i want to bring up the latest poll. more than half o americans oppose the decision to overturn roe v. wade. 88% of democrats, 20% of republicans, 15% of independents . what might those numbers mean for democrats and midterms as they are trying to focus voters attention on abortion when there are so many other issues like inflation and other things, but polls are showing that in some ways, public opinion might be on our side? tia: that is what i found interesting about what pete just said, tha

justice alito says nothing about this. it is a selective and itinerary commitment to originalism the his opinion has. >> thank, you thank you, professor mary. as has been noted, this is the first time the court has taken away a fundamental right. it is important to note that our most fundamental rights have never been safe and they never will be guaranteed, so long as they depend on the ideological win of nine unaccountable, unelected justices with lifetime appointments. it is why we need to limit the power of justices by expanding the court, instituting time limits, and acting a code of ethics and it reinforces by congress should strip the court of the rights to a fundamental rights. thank, you and i yield back. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. this concludes today's hearing. we thank all the witnesses for participating. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or for the record. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. the house judicia