justice gorsuch? justice kavanaugh: i have -- sorry -- two quick ones just to follow up on justice barrett's. if the court ruled that you had to have the religious advisor present in the room and state law did not allow that, wouldn't the i'm -- maybe i'm missing this, but state law would have to change, or i guess the state law just would be deemed unenforceable? that might be her question. mr. petrany: yeah, the state law would have to change in order to carry out the execution. right? the state doesn't have to change its law. maybe it could -- the warden could just not carry out the execution. justice kavanaugh: and that would be a habeas situation. mr. petrany: yes. no. yes, we do think that would be a habeas situation, very unlikely to arise, but, yes, and you would have to go to state court first, then a federal habeas petition after. justice kavanaugh: and second question, don't take it the wrong way, but if you were to lose in this case, is it better for the state of georgia to lose on the 198

justice gorsuch: do you think both are relevant? let's say this court in a case saw evidence that the school district was focused solely on the endorsement test and not coercion. suppose the court thought that lemon had been buried what then should we do if we thought coercion where the appropriate test but had not been applied by the school district the court below? mr. katskee: remand for the lower courts to decide the question, and here there would be plenty of basis to show the school district's contemporaneous concerns for coercion. that would not be a basis to decide for mr. kennedy. this was on summary judgment. then there would be fact questions, presumably for trial, about what the coercion was. justice gorsuch: why is that the school district so emphasized lemon? i understand your point it is in the record otherwise, it has justice kavanaugh has pointed out, this court for decades now has resisted attempts to rely on lemon in cases like this. and it does seem like there is an awful lot of records relying on lemon. mr. kats

i had a very long discussion with justice gorsuch in my office.ut to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent. >> manu, what does senator collins have to say today? >> she says those comments were inconsistent with what she was told by gorsuch and kavanaugh at the time of those hearings. remember how significant susan collins' position was when it came to brett kavanaugh in 2018. at that time, it was unclear whether or not he would have the votes to get confirmed. but after collins had spoken with brett kavanaugh, after she heard the testimony about allegations of sexual assault against kavanaugh, which kavanaugh denied, and after he assured her on the issue of abortion, she came out in support of kavanaugh and later joe manchin supported him as well. she said today, if the leaked draft opinion is a final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. and i asked her if he misled her in any way, if ka

lisa murkowski support the effort, after collins once said she was confident justices kavanaugh and gorsuch would not overturn roe versus wade. rachel scott live tonight with the reality check on the votes. >>> the new tornado watches up at this hour. storms from texas to kentucky. at least ten reported tornadoes in just 24 hours. and then the east bracing. the storm system then reaching the northeast by week's end. and rob marciano will time this out. >>> another deadly attack near tel aviv tonight. at least three people killed, several wounded. erielle reshef, who just rode with israeli forces fighting against this new wave of attacks, on this again tonight. >>> the flight to new york's jfk forced to turn around after what they learned about one of the pilots. >>> also news on pope francis tonight. >>> and the new white house press secretary, history made. >>> and america strong. what so many of you did for ukraine. the milestone tonight for an american company. >>> good evening and it's great to have you with us here on a thursday night. the breaking news on the johnson & johnson vaccine

i had a very long discussion with justice gorsuch in my office. and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent. >> that was senator collins on justice gorsuch. here she is on justice kavanaugh. >> he noted that roe had been reaffirmed 19 years later by planned parenthood v. casey. and that it was precedent on precedent. he said it should be extremely rare that it be overturned. and it should be an example -- >> you have obviously full confidence. >> i do. >> today, senator collins reacted to the news with a brief statement, saying in part, it this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in their hearings and their meetings in my office. senator murkowski today also suggested gorsuch and kavanaugh perhaps hadn't been completely honest. the comment was if in fact this draft is where the court ends up being, the words that i used is, it has rocked my confidence in the court. and that is because i th

and amy cone i barrett, even though gorsuch and cavanaugh called it the law of the land. >> that's the law of the land. i accept the law of the land, senator, yes. >> reporter: senator susan collins, who voted in support of gorsuch and kavanaugh, said today in a statement the draft opinion was completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. president biden called the draft decision radical and echoed concerns that this decision could serve as a template for limiting other individual rights previously recognized by the court, like same-sex marriage and access to contraception. >> if the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. >> reporter: but in the wake of this draft opinion, democrats are vowing to fight to protect abortion rights. >> we'll go down as an abomination, one of the worst, most damaging decisions in modern history. >> we could pass a law to protect every woman's right to an abortion, and we should do that. >> if this turns out to be

>> justice gorsuch. justice kavanaugh. >> if we took the statutory text and nothing else on your position of how to interpret the text, why would a state have jurisdiction over non-indian on non-indian crime in indian country? >> what the court held in arachne and draper was the statehood act and revealed that. it's not the protection itself doesn't reach it. it's that draper and bradley held that it had been repealed. with respect to that category so there is a symmetry in the statute as a result. non-indian up on non-indian crimes are excluded by virtue of draper and mcgrath need and in the middle where you have crimes by non-indians against indians or the other way around the very core of the relationship between indians and non-indians that congress was given exclusive responsibility for from the founding that remains exclusive federal jurisdiction at this court's decision in nagansett said it's the courts decisions that hadrendered the major crimes act jurisdiction exclusive and relied on the word e

four other conservative justices, clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy comey barrett majority. it's not clear whether roberts would have aloud the mississippe mississippi law to stand without overturning roe over whether he joined the three liberals. if the draft holds, it would represent a triumph of the antiabortion movement which has marched for life every year since the court's landmark 1973 decision that abortion was a constitutional right that states could not ban. the court in 1992 was one vote away from overturning roe. over the next 30 years, that goal was a republican campaign promise. with justice clarence thomas on record opposing roe, from george w. bush nominated alito. a decade later after the death of justice antonin scalia, then- majority leader mitch mcconnell blocked president obama from filling the seat, giving former president trump the opportunity to nominate gorsuch, and later kavanaugh and barrett. like with every other supreme court confirmation hearing since roe, all were pressed for their view. >> "roe v wade" is an important precedent of th

host: collins says cavanaugh and gorsuch possibly broken promise on roe v. wade. she said if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision on the reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what judge gorsuch and cavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. we won't know what each justices decision and reasoning until the supreme court officially announces its opinion in this case. that's a statement from her office. these are in conversations prior to their nomination hearings. >> she said in conversations that she had with them privately and in the public testimony. the public testimony was they both said that roe's precedent. host: settled law. >> they didn't say settled law. they said it's a president of the court which is potentially a different thing and that it was entitled to respect as a president of the court. people talked about casey being a precedent on how to look at star displaces -- started this isis story decisive stare decisis. host: republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you so much for taking my cal

kavanaugh and gorsuch possibly broke -- on roe v. wade. if this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inaccurate with what gorsuch and kavanaugh said in their hearings. in my office, she said we do not know what each justice's decision reasoning is until the supreme court officially releases its announcement. these are conversations prior to their nomination hearings, correct? mr. stohr: that is correct. she said in conversations she had with them privately and in their public testimonies, it was -- her public testimony was that they both said that roe is a precedent. they didn't say settled law. it is a president of the court, is what they said, which is a different thing. they said it was entitled to respect as a precedent of the court, and people talk about casey as a precedent on a precedent. it may be that they said something more to her privately and perhaps she will reveal that. >> let's hear from cornelia in new jersey on the republican line. >> hi. thank you for taking my call. i sympathize with girls and women that have b

host: collins says cavanaugh and gorsuch possibly broken promise on roe v. wade. she said if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision on the reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what judge gorsuch and cavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. we won't know what each justices decision and reasoning until the supreme court officially announces its opinion in this case. that's a statement from her office. these are in conversations prior to their nomination hearings. >> she said in conversations that she had with them privately and in the public testimony. the public testimony was they both said that roe's precedent. host: settled law. >> they didn't say settled law. they said it's a president of the court which is potentially a different thing and that it was entitled to respect as a president of the court. people talked about casey being a precedent on how to look at star displaces -- started this isis story decisive stare decisis. host: republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you so much for taking my cal

even though kavanaugh and gorsuch called ro ed roe the la the hand during their confirmation hearings. >> that's the law of the land, i accept the law of the land, senator, yes. >> senator susan collins, who voted in support of gorsuch and kavanaugh, said today in a statement the draft opinion was completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. president biden called the draft decision radical, and echoed concerns that this decision could serve as a template for limiting other individual rights previously recognized by the court, like same-sex marriage and access to contraception. >> if the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. >> reporter: but in the wake of this draft opinion, democrats are vowing to fight to protect abortion rights. >> we'll go down as an abomi abomination. one of the worst, most damaging decisions in modern history. >> we could pass a law to protect every woman's right to an abortion and we should do that. >> if this turns

it was true of roberts, alito, gorsuch, cavanaugh, barrett.haps one of the consequences of this decision if it holds is that confirmation hearings will be less about abortion. in theory it could be reversed again and we could make a different court, but i think if nothing else, this decision will make future confirmation hearings less about abortion and more about other things that are more insightful. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to mike, calling from indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i am pro-life, but i think the guy should be punished just as much as any woman. they need to take and sterilize some of these guys, along with the women. in rape, they should just do away with the guy. that is just not right. host: all right. mike is advocating some very harsh laws. what anything mike said to be constitutional? i will start with you, danielle. danielle: why do you have to start with me first? to bring it back to a brilliant young scholar who asked the question of if we begin to go to a system where some states decl

it was true of roberts, alito, gorsuch, cavanaugh, barrett.erhaps one of the consequences of this decision if it holds is that confirmation hearings will be less about abortion. in theory it could be reversed again and we could make a different court, but i think if nothing else, this decision will make future confirmation hearings less about abortion and more about other things that are more insightful. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to mike, calling from indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i am pro-life, but i think the guy should be punished just as much as any woman. they need to take and sterilize some of these guys, along with the women. in rape, they should just do away with the guy. that is just not right. host: all right. mike is advocating some very harsh laws. what anything mike said to be constitutional? i will start with you, danielle. danielle: why do you have to start with me first? to bring it back to a brilliant young scholar who asked the question of if we begin to go to a system where some states de

justice sotomayor, justice gorsuch and then the chief saying that that stuff was not true.n we had the lead to retirement news justice breyer. this has been a wild term for the supreme court. they don't usually make those kinds of headlines and now it had several. >> that's a great point. just in the past couple months alone we saw more leaks than we have seen out of the supreme court probably in its existence. and now you see the results immediately. as you mentioned before, capital city police having to put barricades around the supreme court when "politico" went public like this. there were people already there. it's peaceful but it's loud and i can only imagine what it's going to look like tomorrow. to the guy's point, this really does change the whole complexion of the november midterms which were looking like they were headed towards a road tsunami. for the first time in a long time democrats are energized. so too are republicans. it's going to get very, very interesting, very, very heated, no question. >> shannon: the aclu with the comments. they see the region proto

that's why kavanaugh and neil gorsuch lied to senate, or why the co-chair of trump evangelical advisory said in 2018, "the left is going to try very hard to say this is all about overturning roe. but trump threw all that out the window when, in a craven bid to grovel for the support of the religious right, he just came out and said he would appoint pro-life judges who would overturn roe >> do you want to see the court overturn roe vs wade >> if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be -- that will happen and that will happen automatically, in my opinion because i am putting pro-life justices on the court. >> having to do with abortion, if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. so it would go back to the states and the states. >> some women won't be able to get an abortion. >> no, it will go back to the states >> by state. no, some - >> perhaps they'll have to go to another state. >> and that's okay >> well, we'll see what happens. >> seth: he is so cavalier about a woman needing to cross state lines for access to life-saving hea

it was about brett kavanaugh, but she did also vote for justice gorsuch. she did not vote for amy coney barrett, another trump appointee. >> samuel alito in 2016 during his confirmation expressed his respect for precedent, we should also note, of course, that the vote count on this as we know it could change before the final decision. there is an argument you will hear from some conservatives who would support overturning roe that this is a decision that should be decided by elected representatives, whether that be at the state level or at the national level in congress. what is your view as to whether that applies to this, and how would that precedent in its own right potentially affect other rights that have arisen from supreme court decisions? >> absolutely, jim. i just note that this is a shocking but not unanticipated decision to be sure. i noted with erica, you know, three years ago on this program with the appointment of justice am amy coney barrett perhaps na naively that perhaps we were seeing a sea change, to the dismantling of the fundamental co

if it does stand, we sign on from justices alito, thomas, gorsuch and cavanaugh and barrett. the right to an abortion would fall to each state. so a team of which have automatic twig trigger laws. in some states, there are no exceptions for rape or incest. meaning women will by law be able to carry it to term nor pay parental leave or universal healthcare. according to 2019 data, six in ten women who have abortions are already mothers. of all the abortions performed, 43% occur in the first six weeks. 92% in the first 13 weeks, i e, first trimester. for those that seek it later, they are more likely to be poor, young or have serious health complication. they would be required by the government to carry to term without guaranteed support from that very government. key are monitoring the reaction outside the supreme court along with voters. we are hearing from lawmakers. does this change to codify roe into law? most senate democrats want it. will some republicans now too? here is senator lisa murcowski who says her confidence in the court has been quote rocked. >> if it goes in

maine's susan collins said reversing roe would be completely inconsistent with what justices neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh told her before their confirmation. the president said lawmakers supporting abortion rights should write them into law. >> i think the codification of roe makes a lot of sense. >> reporter: collins and murkowski is sponsoring a bill that would narrowly protect abortion rights but oppose a democratic bill that broadly limits state government from limbing abortion. the bill is stalled in the senate but majority leader chuck schumer says he'll force a boat so republicans have to oppose it on record. >> this is as urgent and real as it gets. >> reporter: as for this year's midtermigll a big ct >> the contours of this election this year changed. >> reporter: the bombshell leak was on the mind of several voters casting ballots in ohio's primary today. >> i felt particularly emboldened to come out today and, i don't know, a sense of responsibility, especially with a lot of the reproductive rights discussions coming out of the supreme court. >> i'm going to trust and hope

even though kavanaugh and gorsuch called roe the law of the land. >> it is an important precedent of the supreme court. >> that is the law of the land. i accept the law of the land, senator, yes. >> reporter: senator sue son c is an collins said today the draft opinion was completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in the hearings and in our meetings. president biden echoed concerns that this decision could serve as a template for limiting other individual rights previously recognized by the court like same-sex marriage and access to contraception. >> if the rationale of the decision were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. >> we'll go down as an abomination, one of the worst most damaging decisions in modern history. >> we could pass a law to protect every woman's right to an abortion and we should do that. >> if this turns out to be the opinion of the court, it could have a major impact on the outcome of this election. >> reporter: republicans are condemning the leak itself. >> whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly w

it appears alito was joined at his majority by clarence thomas, kavanaugh, gorsuch and barrett. even though they called roe the law of the land during their confirmation hearings. >> it is an important precedent of the supreme court. >> that's the law of the land. i accept the law of the land, senator, yes. >> senator collins, who voted in support of gorsuch and kavanaugh, said today in a statement the draft opinion was completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. president biden called the draft decision radical and echoed concerns that this decision could serve as a template for limiting over individual rights previously recognized by the court like same-sex marriage and access to contraception. >> if the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, the whole range of rights are in question. >> but in the wake of this draft opinion, democrats are vowing to protect abortion rights. >> will go down as an abomination. one of the worst, most damaging decisions in modern history. >> we could

she thought that when brett kavanaugh and justice -- now justice gorsuch told her that they respectedas something she could depend upon. >> right. well, i mean, it's going to be up to what she wants to do about this. i mean, is it possible that the congress may move to do something else? it's possible. >> like impeachment? >> i don't know how she's going to vote. no, not like impeachment. no. >> okay, so what is your suggestion? >> what do you mean? what do you mean by that, victor, like impeachment? what do you mean? it's going to be up to her to decide, and again, i want to go back to the fact that if, in fact, the court rules this way -- >> up to her to decide what, senator? governor, what are you saying? up to her to decide what? >> if she wants to do something in federal law or whatever. i suppose there's going to be things that are going to be explored, options that will be explored. we're just going to have to wait and see how she acts on that. i'm not a fortune teller, victor. i can't tell you exactly what's going to happen here. what i can tell you, if there is no further fed

that is being spread by the likes of oh, chuck schumer, who himself threatened two justices, justice gorsuch kavanaugh on the steps of the u.s. supreme court, screaming you won't know what hit you, among other threats. and as we speak, they are threatening to burn our system to the ground, as per usual, democrats returning to their fae political tactics, that is mob violence and intimidation. now one liberal group is now organizing an effort to stalk and harass supreme court justices and their families at their homes. this is not okay in this country. but tonight, prominent democrats, they refused to condemn this threatening behavior, just like they refused to ever speak out against the violence from their base in thef 2020. take a look. >> he doesn't care if they are protesting outside the supreme court or outside someone's private residence? >> i don't have an official u.s. government position on where people protest. the reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years, their rights to make choices

that now justice gorsuch made to her in that office, clearly the brunt of the scrutiny is on these twoen who have often been outliers in the party because they do support abortion rights. their reaction yesterday was that if this decision ends up being the final decision, it has rocked their confidence in the court because the tone of it, but the tonef it was so different than what people like kavanaugh and gorsuch conveyed to them during their -- >> tbd if they do, we'll go state by state, there is no question, zero question about the dramatic change in american law, in policy, change in rights of american women out there right now. this is the map, we showed this yesterday, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion if the court overturns roe v. wade. the second map, there are 13 states that have in place these so-called trigger laws if row. v. wade is eradicated like that, those states ban abortion. what is that? how fundamental, how shocking will the shift, one day have you this right. maybe wednesday you don't? >> think about illinois, the only state in america surrounded on

>> the only thing that could be done is for the two senators who were told by both kneel gorsuch and kavanaugh that they were going to respect the precedent of roe v. wade. their votes were contingent on -- >> murkowski and collins. sorry to interrupt you. >> right. they could be the votes we need to narrowly eliminate the filibuster for purposes of making sure that roe is the law of the land by codifying it, by making it the law. i don't think we should spend a lot of time on that. i know how the senate operates. i know how congress operates. we can't even tie our shoes. the real battle is across this country. women are going to lose autonomy. i don't think it has quite sunk in. this particular draft opinion is diabolical. when you read it and recognize the words justice alito uses, he wants to take us back in time. we have to remember that 59% of the women who actually access abortions already are mothers. i was one of those mothers. this is important for all of us to recognize that it is really taking control of women's bodies by giving the government the control over our bodies.

and he named justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh by name. to have the senior democrat and senate majority leader from this chamber lobbing threats at sitting justices on the supreme court if they did not rule in a way he wished is dangerous. we've wondered before about the impact of some of the irresponsible rhetoric that occasionally occurs around here on vulnerable minds and people who might be tempted to act based on that incitemt, from the majority leader himself is just irresponsible. this is the branch of government which is supposed to be the adults in the room, to operate in a way that is respectful even with our differences. and the supreme court is the branch that's meant to operate free from public or political pressure. as chief justice roberts said at the time, justices know that criticism comes with the territory. it's a free country. people can express themselves within limits. but threatening statements, he said, of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they're dangerous, he said. well, c

who voted to confirm justice gorsuch and justice merit. who are now supporting overturning roe v. >> row is still the law of the land. we don't know the direction that decision ultimately takes. but if, if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated. i would just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now. >> do you think justice kavanaugh lied to you? >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> do you feel misled by some of the candidates? >> my confidence in the court has been ruffled. >> joining us now is senator sheldon whitehouse -- member the senate judiciary committee and shared a subcommittee hearing today on ethics and accountability on the supreme court. senator whitehouse -- >> timing, ha? >> let me see if i understand where we are right now on ethics in the supreme court. chief justice confirmed today that the leaked document is an authentic draft opinion. the chief justice then announced an investigation by the marshal of the supreme court, and investigation of the leak. and the chief justice remains absolutely silent about the possible i

maine, a supporter of abortion rights, was a critical republican vote for kavanaugh and justice neil gorsuch, but today, in a statement, she says they may have deceived her. "if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office." today, a spokesperson for the supreme court confirmed that alito's draft opinion is authentic, but added that it "does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member." but outside, at the steps of the court, it felt like the deed had already been done. she might grow up in a country without the choice. >> yeah. >> reporter: what do you think about that? >> it's horrible. it's so depressing. it's shocking. i can't believe it. and it makes me want to move to a different country. >> reporter: this moment, it must feel like triumph is at hand. >> indeed. it does. when i saw it, i was texting everyone, i mean, it was just -- what? it's incredible and -- >> reporter: with joy? >

susan collins is on the defensive after that draft leak mostly because two conservative justices neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh who joined the majority to draft this opinion told senator collins that they would not do what apparently they just did. >> neil gorsuch for whom you voted is probably going to vote to overturn roe v. wade if given the chance? >> i actually don't. i don't believe that brett kavanaugh is going to overturn that roe had been reaffirmed 19 years later by planned parenthood versus casey and itt is present upon present and he said that it should be extremely rare that it be obvious turned, and it should be an example -- >> you have obviously full confidence. >> i do. >> senator susan collins to night could be wrong on two counts. she did offer this statement, if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said in our meetings in my office. as chief justice roberts said, this is not the final decision and we do not know what that is norplications will be

neil gorsuch one of the newer members of the court suggested that the live a laws. perhaps should be loosened echoing donald trump making it easier to sue now. you might say well that's a really good solution for someone who's concerned about disinformation, which was precisely the point that neil gorsuch is justice gorsuch made in his concurring opinion saying we should take on this issue, but i'm concerned again about government attorney and the concern if you make it too easy to sue for public officials to sue then you're going to really chill news media going after those public officials in an aggressive way like they need to do to serve as a check on those officials in our democracy. so while i think defamation is a good tool i like the compromise that the supreme court crafted back in the 1960s one, which is currently under pressure that would require this. you know, the change that that thomas and gorsters talk to would make it much easier. sue for defamation that may be benefits misinformation, but maybe chills too much speech and our erwin. this is i know s

in 2017, justice gorsuch said at his confirmation hearing, quote, roe v. wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other, end quote. 2018, justice kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing, quote, i said that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, entitled the respect under principles of stair decisis -- stare decisis. one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade it is that it has been ereaffirmed over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. casey in 1992, end quote. that is justice kavanaugh. today it has become increasingly clear that despite these statements to the contrary, the three justices nominated by trump were hired specifically to overturn roe v. wade. and with justice alito at the helm, nominated by president george w. bush, that is precisely what it appears they are set to do. four

neil gorsuch, roe versus wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. breath kavanaugh, it is so as a precedent of the supreme court entitled to respect under principles of-- amy coney barrett. roe was not a super-precedent for calls for its ruling has never ceased, but it doesn't mean it should be overruled it just doesn't fall in the small handful of cases that no one questions anymore and add in alito himself, roe versus wade is an important precedent of the supreme court, yet, here is what justice alito's draft opinion says, i quote, roe was egregiously wrong from the start and the reasoning exceptionally weak and damaging consequences. well, there was no mention of egregiously at the confirmation hearings. there was no mention of wrong from the start when we asked about roe. does anyone seriously think that this was a sudden, new epiphany that came over the federalist society justices in the last few weeks? none, none managed to mention their belief that roe versus wade was egregiously wrong from the start. whether that was

gorsuch's confirmation as this former law clerk.ify they are going to follow precedent. and part of precedent is evaluating if press didn't was wrongly or rightly decided. they talk about how they will follow possible dent with gun rights and they don't. -- follow precedent with gun rights and they don't. they are trying to accuse the justices of misconduct is buffoonery. rich: it's a coequal branch of government and you have all this power and nobody knows who you are. is that changing? >> when you have left-wing groups doxxing the justices home addresses, you are putting the justices in danger. you are putting their families in danger. it's actually a federal felony to show up at a federal judge's home for the purposes of trying to influence their decision on pending cases. that's obstruction of justice. in 2020, a federal judge had her son killed because a lunatic showed up at her house. we cannot have it where federal judges do not feel safe in their homes. merrick garland, a former federal judge, needs -- to step up and enforce

mike davis was a law clerk for justice gorsuch and his friend for nearly 20 years. what it means for the court and and the chances of the landmark case being overturned. >> sandra: inflation topping the list of voter concerns. white house says who us is working on it and republicans who don't have a plan. larry kudlow, what he says are obvious ways to fix this problem. >> never before in modern history has an internal draft been leaked to the public while the justices were still deciding a case. one of the court's most essential and sacred features was smashed. >> sandra: mitch mcconnell one of the many republicans outraged over the supreme court leak. it happened late last night. all of this after politico obtained and published a draft opinion written by justice alito showing the court is poised toover turn roe v. wade, referencing the agregious leak, his choice of words, justice roberts has ordered a full investigation into who is behind the leak. mike davis joins us, a former law clerk for justice gorsuch and his friend two decades, and worked on confirmations,

politico reports alito joined by justices clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney. three of them appointed by president trump. they were pressed about whether they would overrule roe versus wade at their confirmation hearings. >> one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. >> reporter: republican senator susan collins of maine, a supporter of abortion rights, was a critical vote for kavanaugh and gorsuch but in a statement she says, she may have been deceived. if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh said at their hearings and in our meetings in my office. and republican senator lisa murkowski also a supporter of roe -- >> if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, i will tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now. >> reporter: that draft opinion dated february 10th, now drafts can change, sometimes votes can change but

justices gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett testified under oath with the judiciary committee, that supreme courts should stand a bedrock principle known as stare decisis, when you they -- but they clearly arrived with the agenda to overturn roe. former president trump bears responsibility for damaging our confirmation process in the public -- and the public faith of the supreme court as an impartial arbiter of our nation's laws. senate republicans deliberately stole the seat that president obama elected merrick garland to fill. senate republicans then turned around and rushed the confirmation of justice amy barrett after the death of ruth bader ginsburg even though voting began in the 2021 elections. a recent poll of "the washington post" and abs showed that -- abc showed that 70% of americans say that the supreme court should uphold roe. now more than ever it's essential for the senate to pass the women's health protection act. the legislation would protect the right to abortion, free from medically unnecessary restrictions, and create a statutory right for providers to provide and patien

two years ago, senator chuck chuck schumer threatened your former boss gorsuch and justice kavanaugh. remember this? watch. >> they are taking away fundamental rights. i want to tell gorsuch and kavanaugh, you have released a whirlwind and you will pay the price, you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. >> carley: we are watching these tactics again in los angeles, a police officer injured and businesses damaged during protests last night. why the aggression over this issue? >> doug: a hot leaked controversial issue and the american body politics for many decades, but the idea supreme court justices would be threatened by a sitting u.s. senator and who knows what he meant by that, it was certainly not anything good and creates a culture that is problematic. we've seen this from left and right when it comes to highly contro versial issues. it is discord that caused us to be at one another's throats. we need to come together and solve the problems, best way to do that at the ballot box. >> carley: absolutely, the best way to get your voice heard. jamil j

justices gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett all testified under oath before the senate judiciary committee that supreme court precedents should stand, a bedrock principle known as stare decisis. but they clearly arrived with an agenda to overturn roe, and now they are making that a reality. senate republicans and former president donald trump bear responsibility for nominating and confirming justices are outside of the legal mainstream, and damaging our confirmation process and the public faith in the supreme court as an impartial arbiter of our nation's laws. senate republicans deliberately stole the seek the president barack obama nominate merrick garland to fill, and the delayed even having a hearing for one year, effectively shrinking the size of the supreme court. senate republicans then turned around and rushed the confirmation of justice amy coney barrett at the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg or even the early voting has begun and the 2020 presidential elections. overturning roe goes against public opinion. a recent poll of the washington post-abc showed 70% of americans belie

personally, i got suspicious when neil gorsuch stopped wearing his pussy hat. ( laughter ) the opiniond dispense with half a century of precedent, was written by associate justice samuel alito, seen here hoping nobody notices he just dropped an opinion in his robe. ( laughter ) and, boy, is it a load. alito writes, "we hold that 'roe' and 'casey' must be overruled. a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions." on the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law." because nothing says "looking toward the future" like adhering to the earliest days of common law. that's why i believe that life begins at white, land-owning male, and why horses who read should be arrested for witch-mischief. alito strangely argues that overturning "roe" is about bringing people together, writing, "'roe' and 'casey' have enflamed debate and deepened division." so he thinks this decision will make those divisions... better? "and now, to mend a broken nation by pulling the healing pi

justice roberts: justice gorsuch? justice barrett? justice barrett: just to pick up on the very end of your colloquy with justice kagan, was it wrong that you weren't joined under rule 19 as a necessary party in this suit given what you're saying about this is practically impairing or impeding your interest? mr. thompson: that -- that would be our position, your honor, that we have an interest and it's being impaired and that we should have been named. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. thompson: thank you. justice roberts: ms. theodore. ms. theodore: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: from rule 24's inception through today, a single principle has guided interpretation of the adequacy pron. when a proposed intervenor's interest is identical to one that's already represented in the case, we presume that the existing representative is adequate, and that common-sense presumption holds particular force when the existing representative is a state official charged ethically and legally with defending state inte