this is because at the end of the day, a plausible case can be made that even though carhart does not contain the enthusiastic embrace of liberty that casey does, what kennedy's opinion in the 2007 case did was to exhibit the same commitment to liberty that is liberty responsibly exercised, a as was evident in his earlier abortion opinions. in conclusion, i would like to say that there are many things in my book with which people will take issue. this i think is entirely appropriate for a bag about justice kennedy. who himself has been able to please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but certainly not all of the people all of the time. my hope is that this book generates a meaningful dialogue, a dialogue that starts here today, about kennedy's jurisprudence. it's a dialogue that i hope will move us away from the unhelpful and misleading assumption that his opinions demonstrate jurisprudencal inconsistent and doctrinal weakness. because it is such a dialogue on liberty, kennedy would argue, that will help to preserve and protect the constitution and

because in 2007, in carhart ii the court essentially removed this basic constitutional right from women. now, here's my question. when there are multiple precedents and a question ari s arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court re-examine all the cases on point? >> it's somewhat difficult to answer that question. >> i know. >> because before the court in any one case is a particular factual situation. and so how the court's precedent apply to that unique factual situation, because often what comes before the court is something that's different than its prior decision, not always, but often. in the carhart case, the court looked to its precedents, and as i understood that case, it was deciding a different question, which was whether there were other means, safer means, and equally effective means for a woman to exercise her right than the procedure at issue in that case. that was, i don't believe, a rejection of its prior precedents. its prior precedents are still the precedents of the court, the health and welfare of a woman must be -- must be compelling cons

in the carhart case, the court look to its president and as i understood that case, it was deciding adifferent question which was whether as there were other means, safer means an equally effective means for women to exercise her right then and the procedure at issue in that case. that was, i don't believe, a rejection of its prior presidents. it's prior presidents are still the precedents of the court the house and welfare of a woman must be a compelling consideration. >> so you believe that the hell of a woman still exists. >> is a part -- skim iraqi mention that many cases it has been a part of the court's jurisprudence and a part of its president. of those presidents must be given deference in any situation that arises before the court deemed i thank you very much, i appreciate that and also like to ask your thoughts on how president should be overruled. in a rare rebuke of his colleagues, and justice scalia has sharply criticized chief justice roberts end it justice alito for an eye to the overruling the court's precedents with acknowledging that they were doing some. scalia wrot

gonzalez versus carhart. the supme court overturn pastrecedent and ruled for the first time it was peissible to replace rtrictions on aborton th don't inclde an eeption regarding aoman's health. judge sotomayor, youave overcomeany obstacles in your lifehat have given you an understand fr daily realities and struggles faced by eveday people. you grew up in a housing complex in the bronx. you orcome a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes. at age eig and the death of your father at age nine. your motheworked two jobs so e could afford to send y and your brothers to catholic schools. and you earned sclarships to princeton and yal i know how pro you areof you mom a family. your first job out of law school was an assistanted distct attorney whe you prosecutd violent crime i went on toork in a law fi representing corporation that gave u another valuable perspective. in 17 years as a fderal jud, you havedemonstrate and ability to see both sides of the issues. you rned a reputation as being resained and moderate and neutral

if a holding in supreme court means it's settled, do you believe that -- that gonzalez versus carhartdents of the supreme court, i considered settled law subject to the deference that dr. nast stare decisis would counsel. >> i want to point out to the second amendment which is important to all of us, the right to keep and bear ams arms. your conclusion that the right is not fundamental. now, in the 2004 case entitled united states versus sanchez, you handled second amendment issue in a short footnote. you decided the second circuit's decision in the united states for the proposition that the right to possess a gun is not a fundamental right. toner relied on the supreme court's decision in the united states v miller. last year, in the district of columbia versus heller the supreme court examined miller and concluded that, quote, the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the second amendment, unquote. and that miller provided, quote, no explanation of the content of the right, unquote. are you familiar with that? >> i am, sir. >> okay. let me ask you, doesn't the sup

and even though carhart ii has now been ruled, that's a procedure that will eliminate that pregnancy, is still legal and viable everywhere in this country. and so what i was trying to draw out to you is, where do we stand in this country when 80% of the rest of the world allows abortion only before 12 weeks, only before 12 weeks? and yet we allow it for any reason at any time for any inconvenience under the health of the woman aspect. and that's the other reason why i've raised the viability, because technology and the states' interest under the supreme court ruling starts with viability, that's when a state can have interest. it's guaranteed, and there's limited states can have to control that after that. is the casey ruling, the undue burden ruling test, is that a policy choice? i know it's the supreme law of the land today, but in your mind, would that represent a policy choice? >> i understood that that was the court's framework for addressing both the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under the constitution and the states' rights to legislate and regulate in areas within i

[roll call] , and ashcroft, in casey, in thornburg, an carhart wine and and i yoest so super president one of the window and women lost a fundamental constitutional protection that had existed for 36 years. also, it showed me that supreme court justices are much more than umpires calling and strikes, and that the word activist is often used only to describe the opinions of one side. as a matter of fact in just two years, these same nominees have either disregarded or overturn precedence in at least eight other cases. the case involving assignments to attain a racial diversity in school assignments, a case overruling 70 years of precedent on the 2nd amendment and federal gun control law, a case which increase the burden of proof on older workers to prove age discrimination, a case overturning a 1911 decision to allow manufacturers to set minimum prices for their products, a case overruled in two cases from the 1960's on time limits for filing criminal appeals, a case reversing precedence on the sixth amendment right to counsel, a case of returning a prior ruling on regulation of the iss

justice ruled the school officials were immune from liability. 5-4 case in 2007, gonzalez versus carhart the primm cordy gannett overturned the last president and rule for the first time it is permissible to place restrictions on abortion that don't include an exception. judge sotomayor, you have overcome many obstacles in your life that have given you an understanding of the daily realities and struggles faced by every day people. you crippen housing complex in the bronx. yorky misdiagnosis of juvenile diabetes at 88 and the death of your father at age nine. your mother worked two jobs she could afford to send you and your brother to catholic schools and you earn scholarships to princeton and yale. i know how proud you are of your mom and family. your first job out of law school was assistant district attorney. he went on to represent corporations which gave you and other valuable perspective. 17 years as a federal judge two of demonstrated an ability to see both sides of the issue. you have earned their reputation as being restrained come moderate in neutral. of the 110 individuals who

and even though carhart 2 has now been ruled. >> that's a procedure that will eliminate that pregnancyit's still legal and viable everywhere in this country. so what i was trying to draw out to you is where do we stand in this country when 80% of the rest of the world allows abortion only before 12 weeks, only before 12 weeks, and yet, we allow it for any reason at any time for any inconvenience under the health of the woman aspect. and that's the other reason why i raise the viability, because technology and the state's interest under the supreme court ruling starts with viability. that's when a state can have interest. it's guaranteed and there's limited ability states can have to control that after that. is the casey ruling the undue burden ruling test, is that a policy choice? i know it's the supreme law of the land today, but in your mind would that represent a policy choice? >> i understood that that was the court's framework for addressing both the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under the constitution and the state's rights to legislate and regulate in areas within its

this decision, gonzalez versus carhart, was based on a remarkable collection of premises and told him in the 5-4 majority and by the majority opinion of justice kennedy. one premise was while any abortion is the occasion for sorrow and regret, quote it is self-evident unquote that a woman who's a doctor performs the abortion by the method that this statute criminalizes quote was struggle with grief, more anguish, uncle when she realizes what has happened. what's quite amazing your and i will not even try to top the eloquence of justice ginsburg dissenting opinion, was not only the patronizing assumption that reduces the woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to a childlike state of deterrence, but also that justice kennedy offers no citation, no factual backup for his assertion about what goes on in a woman's heart and head, it is simply self-evident. he any others in the majority buy into the myth of the postabortion symptom and it is discredited by the psychological literature as described by medical organizations as long ago as 1989. an editorial in the medical journal of obstetric