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

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

justice alito, what he said to justice alito, you've got too much time on his hands.nth, focus on the good things right now in this world. talk about our great police officers and are members of the military who are fighting for us to remain a free country so jerks like this can exercise first amendment rights in our country. if they want to stay negative, let them stay negative. talk about rising gas prices, talk about the crisis at the border. but instead they have to take shots at justice alito knowing what just happened to justice kavanaugh? it's disgusting and it wouldn't happen on fox news and it's sad it's happening on these other outlets and cnn is letting people talk about these supporters, g.o.p. candidates, calling them soulless and despicable. >> sean: and comparing them to bin laden supporters beauty stand back and look at the big picture. we discovered an assassination plot against justice kavanaugh, and then the incident where a guy says you are done and comes at him with a weapon to take him out, it looked like at least on video to me and he kept sayin

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

we begin tonight with samuel alito. supreme court justice who played partisan god or at least thought he could when he authored the majority opinion that overruled roe. now we imagine today was a hard day for justice alito, but, no, we don't feel especially badly for him. remember, he's the one who cited in his opinion a 17th century jurist who supported marital rape and witch burning so it shouldn't surprise us at all that alito in the first public appearance gloetd over making women suffer and mocked his foreign critics during a speech he delivered in rome. >> i had the honor this term of writing i think the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. one of these was former prime minister boris johnson, but he paid the price. what really wounded me was when the duke of sussex addressed the united nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the russian attack on ukraine. >> who knew. the supreme court just

you might have to think about the moral and religious implications for yourself, justice alito in the late decision opened that position talking about the morality of the'issue which really isn't the job of law. it's the job of the individual and the family and the faith but if you take that big issue and break it down into smaller ones, immediately you realize and easy answers. if youwant to empathize one aspect of it , maybe if people believe, many people believe the life of the unborn child is something the law should respect but if that is your priority you have to give something up and you're going to have to give up omthe needs or interests of the woman particularly low income women who are disproportionately affectedby these kinds of loss . that's released at one and we will talk about the other steps but getting informed on the facts, the legal implications that bear on each of these issues and turning it over , saying what's the other side of the coin here? i tried to say imagine you're a person that you really respect, what is the best argument they will make for a position

justice alito and the elite decision opened that decision talking about the morality of the issue which isn't the job of law. it's the job of theel individual family and faith. if that is your priority you have to give something up. you have to give up their needs or interests of the one particularly low-income women who are disproportionately affected by these kinds of laws. will talk about the other stuff that getting informed on the facts, the legal implications of those issues and turning it over saying okay what is the other side of the coin here? imagine the person that you really respect respect the arguments they will make her positions i don't agree with. we are used to thinking that way and that's what the book tries to get to. andre we have been doing a lot f tv andto radio and trying to brk it down into what is this really about. its most critical element of the. >> what you are talking about in this book is so important to how all ofan this can apply and howo we even make sense of this and this wide-ranging of titian -- opinion that came down and will have implications poli

guest: we will hold alito to his word. forgive me if my trust is not that high. virtually all the justices who voted for overturning dobbs said that roe v. wade was a precedent that would stand. and yet when they got the first opportunity to throw it out the window, they did. there is a little bit of a disconnect between the words and the actions of some of these justices. we certainly are going to take the words you just read and we are going to argue them forcefully across america. we have to go back to what i said earlier, where we have a court where some justices are not intent on interpreting and following the law. there is fact about forcing a political agenda. it is hostile to voting rights and reproductive rights. it is fundamentally hospital -- hostile to lgbtq+ rights. i'm afraid legal doctrine may not be enough reduction. host: we are talking to kevin jennings about the future of lgbtq+ rights and recent supreme court decisions. and we are talking about what is being done in congress. here are the phone lines for republicans. it is (202) 748-8001. demo

. >> justice samuel alito who died on, no date, justice samuel alito was one of the leading advocatesd a role while he was a sitting justice. joe concha, fox news contributor, joins us now. some people say this post was dangerous, others say it is plain weird. where do you stand on this? >> joe: if i owned vox i would have this senior correspondent suspended and would consider firing him. earlier this summer when a man was charged with the attempted murder of brett kavanaugh and this guy puts this rhetoric in the public domain, it has no place whatsoever. quit pretending to be a journalist and go work for aoc, if you look at his twitter feed, that is that toxic and partisan. vox will not do anything, they agree with this rhetoric. we've gotten to the point where we're putting up obituariess of supreme court justices that are alive and it is okay? >> todd: it is sick and not funny and ron desantis declining invite from "the view" to appear on the show. "the view" emailed the office on friday asking to arrange appearance for governor ron desantis, we would be honored. here are lovely th

so i doubt very much that justice alito would ever bring any sort of privacy claim against politico. but if he did, he would surely lose because there is news value. it tells us very likely that roe v. wade in a few weeks, no court would decide there was an invasion of privacy on these facts. susan: elon musk's acquisition of twitter. we learn a lot about publishing in this digital age and elon musk is declaring he will make twitter an open forum. when you see all of this commentary that has thought about what he might do to twitter, what are you thinking about that? prof. gajda: one worry is that any open forum where anyone can say anything they like is that courts will come down even harder on media. when i say media i mean all forms, journalism to social media, including twitter and facebook. what has happened in the past is that when media published something private or when there are a social media posts that disdain individuals, courts will deal more slowly about changing the law to make it more responsive to plaintiffs in those cases. so my worry is that if musk opens twitter

one vox writer publishing a draft obituary for justice alito still alive. and you won't believe i one cnna columnist said about trump supporters that a much s more straight ahead. hey, gloria, did you know if we purchased ark encounter annual passes? we get free admission to the world's largest gospel music festival. 40 days of free concerts. yes, 30% fantastic. over hundreds would come and play. the time is done when in fact the most talented home cooks return for a second chance every season. and you can watch a little bit. we'll go out with a shot at redemption. no mistakes. we just got to step up to finally be made master chef finale worthy to wish only wednesdays on fox and watch any time on fox now or hulu plus for over twenty years, super beta has been the name many trust for reducing their urges to and it's become a number one supplement recommended by urologists only . this advanced formula has effect. three keinon readings to help reduce bathroom trips. it's like taking three supplements and one. that's why it's a best selling formula at wal-mart.

what you think of justice alito's defense?t did you think about the emergency order process was getting impossible to defend? >> what to think about that case? i thought it was wrong. that is why i not only wrote the dissent but i signed under the dissent. what i think justice alito read is primarily an effort to explain with the emergency docket is and why you have to have quick decisions, normally and you do basically the emergency docket is a docket were someone believes the court will hear their case. it's the court while we are writing the briefs and while wes harm the oral arguments and where we decide will you please issue an injunction stopping this or taking an injunction away and letting this go forward. and they give reasons. they mostly comment in my experience, have involved death cases i hate to say but someone has a point and says i want you to accept this. in the meantime would you please stop the execution. more recently it has involve cases that involve coveted. and then it hit also the case you just talked a

justice alito does a masterful job of this, any of you who haven't read justice alito's opinion regardless how you feel about abortion or gay marriage or anything else you should read it because it is instructive and informative and persuasive and he ably and thoroughly differentiates cases like a burger phil from row. i've seen people make the argument that if dobbs overrules row that another case will certainly overturn, i don't think that is accurate. >> host: last question to the center of microphones. >> my question is is the executive branch targeting the structure of the supreme court in order to remove one of the last checks and balances for the clause on legislative bureaucracy or is there another motivation? >> the first half of your question -- the answer to the first half is yes on the basis the that's the point of the case that they are talking about expanding the court not based on an assessment the the court is understaffed and overworks or human resources issue, simply insufficient to do the work but rather to achieve a different substantive outcome in cases which makes thi

justice samuel alito saying in a now-deleted post.alito was one of the republican party's leading advocates but embraced the role while he was a sitting justice. conservatives on twitter fired back. one wrote men will pre-write obituaries instead of going to therapy. another, i'm so sorry your life is so sad. richard, what do you say in response to that? >> one, i think everybody should go to therapy if they can. number two, on molly's point i wonder, you know, i think it is hard to say the president's executive orders are radical when we know they are limited in nature. number one limited and number two codify what is already in federal law passed by congress. after yesterday's decision by the voters in kansas, which affirms the right for a woman to have reproductive health. i do believe that the country is moving in one direction and the supreme court and others are moving in other direction. who is left in the crossfire are women who -- women and families who want to make reproductive decisions for themselves. >> harris: quickly an

the idea of where alito tried to say, look, i'm just trying to talk about abortion here.nted to go farther to same sex marriage possibly and other, birth control and contraceptives. what do you make of that decision and that statement to go even further than what was written in the majority? >> well, i think justice thomas has always had a different view of where these rights come from. if i look on my constitutional law professor hat, the majority is talking about something called substantive due process. he's looking at the privileges or immunities clause in the 14th amendment, which the court got away from way back in the 1870s. so, he's willing to revisit everything going all the way back. nobody else seems inclined to join them in that enterprise. so, i'm hoping they stick to that view and that he's the only one that's interested in revisiting that territory. so, i may have a little more confidence than some that he's alone in that potential endeavor and that the rest of them have no desire to revisit those other precedents. >> i hope we're banking on more than finge

clarence thomas, john roberts, samuel alito, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett and neil gorsuch.90 leo began his career as a clerk for a judge in u.s. court of appeals in washington, d. c. where he met and became close friends with clarence thomas. the following year leo was hired as one of the first paid employees of the federal society, although he delayed his start there to help thomas through his supreme court nomination. the washington post puts it in a 2018 piece. quote at the federalist society, leo took a leading role in the conservative legal movement, part of bridging effort to counter the influence of the 1960s and liberals and education, law and politics. that effort ramped up when george w. bush was elected. leo became an outside adviser to the bush white house on judicial nominations. he organized the campaigns around john roberts and samuel alito's nominations to the court both of which of course were successful. during the bush years leonard leo also developed a reputation, a well earned one as a conservative money man as the post reports. he expanded that role ev

at the beginning of the calendar year in 2006 and of course 2005 term , he was replaced by justice alito by president george w. bush. the court went immediately and noticeably to the right. a variety of questions including racial equality, abortion-rights and ruth ginsburg started becoming quite alarmed and upset and she started writing increasingly pointed dissents stand so a few years later, when the court overturned or cut out of section 5 of the voting rights act in the shelby county case she gave this riproaring dissent that saying we don't need the voting rights act anymore. it's like throwing away your relatives your raincoat if it stops raining and so when two young women wrote the life of the notorious rvg and christened her with that hip-hop name that she actually got a big kick tout of it. that was the last eight or so years of her tenure. and this happened at a time when we needed her voice. i mean, the culture because something was happening in the court and something was happening in american politics. and somebody was going to have to call it out. and she started to be the

i wonder, your perspective, given his opinion where he spoke about going even further than alito. idea of, or, a leader tried to say, look, i was talking about abortion here. i don't know how you are gonna carve it out of reality. he wanted to go further. same sex marriage, possibly birth control, compulsions. what do you make of that decision? that statement to go even further than the majority? >> well i think justice thomas has always got a different view of where these rights come from. so if i put on my constitutional law professor hat, the majority is talking about something else. especially due process. he is looking into privileges or immunities clause, the 14th amendment. which of course got away from way back in the 1870s. so he is willing to revisit everything, going all the way back. nobody else seems inclined to join him in that enterprise. so i am hoping they stick to that view, that he is the only one that is interested in revisiting that territory. so i may have a little more confidence than some, that he is alone, that potential endeavor, that the rest of them hav

alito went on an international road show to sort of pat himself on the back and be patted on back.me, and then when people actually vote and say hell no, then they freak out. joan. >> if you're asking me -- i was asking joan. >> go ahead, joan. >> can i talk? >> yeah. >> they have kansas as an example and people are kind of running scared after kansas but then you've got indiana which is such a laboratory of insanity, joy, and i wrote about it last week. i mean, they actually don't even seem to know how our bodies work. one of them was complaining oh, this is so granular. we weren't prepared for this. they don't understand women. they don't care about women, and the notion >> i mean, this one guy in the show earlier thought the stomach was connected to the uterus. they thought the stomach was connected -- they don't even know basic anatomy. a lot of 13 year olds do a phenomenal job as a 13 year old mothers -- decibel reported. the rioters turned against the fdr new deal. now you have ron johnson saying, let's make -- this is ron johnson. wow >> social security and medicare, if you

we begin with justice samuel alito the author of the new leaked draft opinion which seeks to overturn the row >> we begin with justice samuel alito, author of the new leaked draft opinion, which seeks to overturn the roe case. his nomination hearing was held in jay,

but justice alito does a masterful job of this and for 'any of you that haven't read te opinion regardlessow you feel about abortion or anything else, you really should read it because it is informative and persuasive. he thoroughly differentiates. another case would certainly overturn i just don't think that's accurate. >> last question will come down here. >> my question for you today, senator lee, is the executive branch targeting the structure of the supreme court to remove one of the last checks and balances for the legislative bureaucracy. the first half of your question, the answer is yes talking aboutt expanding the court not based on an assessment the court is understaffed and overworked isn't a y human resources issue. it's to achieve a different outcome that makes it wildly inappropriate. i think it is always inappropriate. that's why i support my friend that introduced the constitutional amendment. the needed to defend him. >> exactly. one of the things that could be on the chopping block is the legal framework that is given to this unfettered rain to the administrative system

alito and family. it is incredible honor to be nominated and associate justice of the supreme court. and you are to be congratulated. this may be one of the most significant or consequential nominations that the senate will vote on since i have been here in the last three decades. i think that history has delivered you, fortunately or unfortunately, to a moment where supreme court historians far into the future will look back on this nomination and make a judgment whether, with your nomination and if you are confirmed, whether the prudence of the supreme court began to change from the consensus that has existed in the last 70 years, or whether you continue on the same path of this next six or seven decades. there are moments right now. lest we think that it is going through this process. i like the phrase, manu, it that the chairman used. we all act like there is not an elephant in the room. the truth of the matter is there has been significant debate among judicial scholars today, as to whether or not

we now have a court system with major intellectuals, gorsuch, kavanaugh, alito, they are going to beriving force. they will talk about independent state legislators. including, this is where elections will be decided. no longer with governors who have assemblies when they want to change the ballot. we will have courts on our side. that's why this rate patriot, -- this great patriot, who is a genius of national security, cash understands the administrative state. it has its own courts. it has its own capability. it is an absolute government and it needs to be taken apart brick by brick. cash showed us how. remember, we have 4000 political appointees in any administration. 1000 need to be senate confirmed. 3000 can hit the beat day one. 16 was a come-from-behind victory. we had it been organized -- we were not organized. now we have no excuses and we have -- we are going to hit the beach day one and take apart federal democracy brick by brick -- federal iraq proceed rick bright brick -- federal bureaucracy brick by brick. we have an opportunity that will never come again, we have the a

guest: we will hold alito to his word. forgive me if my trust is not that high.ally all the justices who voted for overturning dobbs said that roe v. wade was a precedent that would stand. and yet when they got the first opportunity to throw it out the window, they did. there is a little bit of a disconnect between the words and the actions of some of these justices. we certainly are going to take the words you just read and we are going to argue them forcefully across america. we have to go back to what i said earlier, where we have a court where some justices are not intent on interpreting and following the law. there is fact about forcing a political agenda. it is hostile to voting rights and reproductive rights. it is fundamentally hospital -- hostile to lgbtq+ rights. i'm afraid legal doctrine may not be enough reduction. host: we are talking to kevin jennings about the future of lgbtq+ rights and recent supreme court decisions. and we are talking about what is being done in congress. here are the phone lines for republicans. it is (202) 748-8001. democrats,

inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter, as we have stressed -- writes alito -- uniquely involves a potential right, therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by afford analogies to the rights recognized in other cases by appeals to a broader right to autonomy. it's hard to see how we could be clearer. did that allay your peers any? >> guest: well, we certainly are going to hold the justices to hair word, but you'll forgive me if my level of trust is not that high. the fact is virtually all all the justices who voted for cover turning dobbs said in their confirmation hearings that roe v. wade was settled law and it was a precedent that would stand, and yet when they got the first opportunity to throw it out the window, they did. so there's a little bit of a disconnect between words and the actions of some of these justices. we certainly are going to take the words you just read, and we are going to to argue them in courts across america. but i think we have to go back to what i said earlier which is that we have a court where some justices are not int

we replaced justice alito and the court matched noticeably to the right on a variety of questions including racial equality, abortion rights and. that's why alarming and upset and started writing. a few years later when the court overturned or cut out the act, she gave this dissent saying we don't need the voting rights act anymore. it's like throwing away the umbrella because it stopped raining. so you know, two young women wrote the name she got kicked out of four. that was the last eight or so years. to leave the culture because something was happening at the court and something was happening in american politics. sometimes we have to call it out and just speaking as a citizen, i would have felt cheated had i known that. with the changes of not too many votes and hillary clinton we wouldn't be on the supreme court to state that we are in today. >> i will give you another date. 2010. that's the years she became the senior justice among b the liberals. and after justice david's retired, she took that role really seriously. and i think that also emboldened her for the 2013. that is right ar

and then in 2005 when i was the washington bureau chief for the globe, we were covering the bureau, alito and roberts and one night in the office i was reading the french encyclopedia of the supreme court and saw a reference to who was widely believed to be his half-brother, african-american man, the son of an enslaved woman and became a very well-known civil rights leader in his own right and interacted with him and had a relationship with him so it's the key to how he managed to see things differently and and that was the term of the book. >> even the title of the book the great dissenter in the paradox i think the idea that he was dissenting in his arguments didn't carry the day which meant he was a lonely voice that was against the majority, so i wondered if you could say a little bit about the purposes of the fact and how it has informed later generations. it seems like he was largely ignored or forgotten back then but what do we take from the dissent now. >> before, there were several famous the dissents. it was a strong and powerful statement in opposition. when the great john mars

his research has been cited by two supreme court justices, justice samuel alito and justice clarenceand two supreme court cases. alexandra is a visiting fellow the ethics public policy center where she covers the pro-life movement, other key topics at the intersection of politics, culture and religion. a staff writer at the national review institute does regularly reporting for the national review print magazine as well as national review online. the podcast for life, a 2016 graduate of the university of notre dame and co-author this terrific new book. please welcome our panel. [applause] >> thank you all for joining us. i can't quite believe this is the first monday after row and we couldn't have a timelier discussion obviously. we're going to talk about that obviously but i have to share the title of the book is tearing us apart, abortion harms everything and solves nothing. a couple of months ago i was on the streets of manhattan aside and parenthood and witnessed what's been going on for 15 years outside planned parenthood. people praying across the street from planned parenthood

he was cited by two supreme court justice samuel alito and justice clarence thomas in two supreme court cases. alexandra desanctus is a visiting fellow at the ethics center where she's covers abortion policy in the pro-life movement and topics at the intersection of politics culture andcu religion. she's also a staff writer atat e national review institute does regular reporting for the national review. magazine as well as the national review on line. she also hosts a national review podcast and 2016 graduate of the university of notre dame and co-author with ryan anderson for this terrific new book. please welcome our panelists. [applause] >> thank you all for joining us. i can't quite believe this is the first monday after row -- [roll call] we are going to talk about it that i have to share the title of this book is tearing us apart" how abortion harms everything and solves nothing. i was outside plant pear and had had -- the new york city for abortion-rights people protested our prayer. so one morning they come up to me and they say oh kathryn lopez is so good if you join us what he

in a way he and justice alito the two of them control thenk chief justice and tricked him and tease him and not showing much respect. that is because they are impatient, they don't want to miss an opportunity to go as far as possible is what i think. >> depict justice thomas is now in the right place at the right time or do you see him as having more driven the agenda especially the conservatives? >> i think his influence, i have never viewed him as political inside of the court but this is very influential outside of the court he has more than 100 law clerks, it was astonishing how many of them during the trump years have ended up on the courts or other very significant opinions including now the recently appointed solicitor general and the state of miccosukee as taken over the litigation in the former thomas clerk, justice thomas has a way of identifying issues signaling to the base and it does speak to a base outside of the court all kinds of issues to be litigated to be brought up to the court,e he is inserted a lot that way. it's not the thomas core as i have read, i totally don't

just as alito actually does a masterful job of this in his dobb's opinion and for any of you who haven't read justice league's opinion regardless of how you feel about abortion regardless of how you feel about gay marriage or anything else. you really should read it because it's very instructive. it's informative and it's persuasive and he very ably and thoroughly differentiates. cases like obergerfil of from row. so yeah, i i don't think that's i've seen a lot of people make that argument that if dobbs overrules rho than another case will certainly overturn obergerfell. i just don't think that's accurate. thank you. last question. we'll come down here to the center of microphones coming your way, sir. hi, i'm james romano. i'm an intern on the hill from indiana my question for you today. senator lee is is the executive branch targeting the structure of the supreme court in order to remove one of the last checks and balances for their quasi legislative bureaucracy, or is there a possibly another motivation for targeting the supreme court? all right. so the first half of your question the

that was part of the concern about justice alito's opinion, the idea of returning it to the states andes ultimately wanted there to be some access and exceptions. what do you hear as the next hurdle or what you see now? >> look, each of these legislators in the state ran on their pro life positions and they were elected based on their pro life positions and they are executing laws based on that and what we had with the supreme court ruling i think was the correct decision, was taking this very important decision about choosing life over abortion out of the hands of nine unelect the justices and putting it in the hands of elected officials in the states and these legislators are enacting a law that they think represents the will of the people that elected them. i happen to be someone who does advocate for exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, which is the case here. i think it should be throughout the term of the pregnancy and i think that is an important first step, but they also make a very strong case for making sure that the penalty is on the abortion provider and the

now what you're starting to see in the last couple of years, in part from a decision by justice alito [indiscernible] where in that case the court basically takes the standpoint of, even if you enter the united states, because we've always known that if you are outside the united states, your judicial review rights were basically non-existent. but if your entry is recent enough -- you don't have any due process rights, so the question is, where does that point manifest itself going forward? we know in one specific case it says you don't have a due process right to go to the court to challenge and determination if you don't have a credible fear of persecution. but is that going to be applied in many other contexts? in terms of your right to be free of abuse while you are in and -- immigration detention. is it going to be taken away so you can't challenge if someone needs an abortion, or things of this nature. there are a lot of contexts for -- that people who recently arrived at the border don't have any constitutional rights. there are a lot of questions that opens up and we don't kno

they also changed their state bird from the western meadowlark to flippin' off sam alito. ( applausenice. that's not nice. going into the election, this decision was polling basically even. no one knew where this would go. but last night, abortion rights were upheld by 59% to 41%. ( applause ) that is kind of shocking. the scale of that victory. that's just not a win. that's a kans-ass kicking. and may i remind you, kansas is a state so bright red, it looks like me after 30 seconds on the beach. keep in mind, this blowout happened despite a series of dirty tricks from republicans. first, they made the wording of the ballot measure extra confusing. then, they sent voters text messages that read, "women in kansas are losing their choice on reproductive rights. voting 'yes' on the amendment will give women a choice. vote 'yes' to protect women's health." they tried to trick them into voting the wrong way! this is the most misleading political message since 1952's "i like ike too much to burden him with the presidency! vote stevenson!" ( laughter ) ( applause ) in other surprising news,

will show sam alito how people feel about abortion.ch he clearly wrote many that dobbs can decision was that needs to be left to the people. and, by the way, the people are more than capable of coming to some sort of agreement and compromise on this. you saw that happen in kansas. it really puts into context the outright hysteria that we saw because, look, i think this is what you're going to owned up seeing in a lot of states in the year going forward. and these compromises are not necessarily going to be that difficult can because a lot of americans, as kyle said, are in the middle on this and generally can come to some agreement. gerry: dan, learn a lot of other important primary elections this week especially for the gop. states like arizona and michigan. and, generally speaking, it wasn't the same across the board, but trump-backed candidates did very well particularly in arizona and, of course, in michigan congressman pete meyer who had to voted to impeach president trump after january 6th, he lost his primary election to a trump

want to bring out brooks -- alito democrat who's a member of the house intelligence committee. thank you representative for joining, us appreciate, it thank you. so first of all, the doj wanted to keep the updated safe care. they were saying their investigation is ongoing, and they say the investigation implicates highly classified materials. does that contradict trump's claim that he had a standing order to declassify anything that he took home with him? >> no, and look, first of all, one of the reasons i am most concerned about this information getting out, we have got people shooting at fbi buildings. if witnesses have some sense that they be in this kind of peril, either existing witnesses or fewer witnesses. this investigation is in big trouble. again, the president throwing out everything he possibly can. you and i have talked, i have been part of, as the intelligence committee, two investigations that led to the impeachment of the president. i don't want to anything that can impair with it this time. the president has never been held accountable for his actions. this has

that's when politico first reported the leaked draft of the alito decision to overturn roe v. wade. moment when everything in this election change. it's the moment in which democrats began to get enthused. the supreme court was taking away a guaranteed right. they believed it was guaranteed. we've seen an increase in the direction of and the intensity of particularly female voters registering for the first time. and this is a point in which the election, to our previous discussion, became not just about joe biden but -- about a lot of issues. we have a lot of republicans that have extraordinarily draconian views on this. what i mean by that is really narrow exceptions or no exceptions at all for things like rape or incest or the health of the mother. those are not just out of step with the democratic views, there are those are out of step with a huge majority of views. you're looking at 70, sometimes 90% of people that favor those exceptions. >> absolutely. former white house press secretary, robert gibbs, thank you for joining us on the saturday. appreciate it, sir. coming up ukrai

because the court's response to that might be, alito says we turn to the elected representatives of theed to the people. what action would you like to see the congress take? >> well, i think history really informs a lot. and it gives us lessons here. because this is not the first time that this has happened. in the 1800s, the supreme court was taken over by the confederate south and was starting to rule in ways that limited abraham lincoln, for example. in the "dredd scott" ruling they ruled black americans are not and never can be full citizens of the united states. and what did abraham lincoln do? he signed the emancipation proclamation. he ignored the gross overreach and abuse of power. during franklin delano roosevelt's attempt to restore the country, during the great depression, the green new deal-- not the green new deal, the new deal, the new deal. ( laughter ) anyway, with the new deal, what we saw was an overreach from the supreme court attempting to prevent us from passing these laws. and franklin delano roosevelt threatened to expand the court. and in his adoption of that pos