with thanks and appreciation, i ask you to welcome justice stephen breyer. [applause] justice breyer: thank you. very nice. it is a tradition to introduce the introducer. [laughter] joan has done a fabulous job and i am glad you are all here. what you do -- i was just talking -- my wife has written a book. she is a clinical psychologist and worked at dana-farber and wrote a book on what to do if your child is very sick, and it is helpful to a small group of people. she was talking about it at st. jude's in memphis. i could not resist talking about one of my books. everybody in the room, and there were a lot of people, they agreed the single most valuable thing is exactly what probably everybody in public office and most who aren't, in washington and agree -- and elsewhere agree is the most important to do, to get the word out to the next generation we have a history, we are a democracy, we have in fact a long history of up and down , but basically it is a society today that is democratic, has basic human rights protected -- not perfectly -- and is more and mo

next on american history tv, university of arkansas law killenbeck is introduced by justice stephen breyerissenting opinions delivered in cases between 1810 and 1927. >> good evening. i am from atlanta. i currently serve as president of the supreme court historical society. i am pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this year's silverman series. this year we are examining dissents, not majority opinions, different aspects thereof. you have been warned about your

writing for the liberals, justice stephen breyer says the louisiana law poses a substantial obstaclewomen seeking an abortion. roberts wrote his own more narrow opinion pointing to a decision four years ago that invalidated a nearly identical texas abortion law. in that case, roberts joined conservatives in dissent. he wrote today "i continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. the question is not whether it was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case." that is not the outcome many expected. with the addition of two new justices appointed by president trump, it was widely believed the court was poised to allow greater restrictions on abortion. conservatives blanched at roberts decision. >> he wants the court to be perceived as apolitical. but unfortunately by making some of these decisions n a political basis, rather than on a legal basis, he is doing the exact opposite. >> reporter: but siding with liberals is becoming a familiar pattern with roberts in some of these big cases going back to 2012 when he provided that key fifth vote to save

justice stephen breyer writing for the four liberal justices agreed, declaring the law would leave thousands of louisiana women with not practical meanof abortion. but the crucial vote in this case came from chief justice john roberts, who wrote, he joined the liberals only out of respect for precedent, citing a 2016 ruling striking down a nearly identical law in texas. a ruling which roberts originally disagreed with. for abortion rights advocates, a close call. >> you know, i think it's just a sigh of relief. >> reporter: both justices appointed by president trump voted to uphold the louisiana law and limit aboion access, but once again, it was chief justice john roberts who declined to go with the conservatives, choosing stability and precedent and caution in the law, rather than rapid change made by this court. tom? >> terry moran from the supreme court tonight. terry, thank you. >>> now to the chilling confessions of a siakiller in california. the golden state killer today pleading guilty to more than a dozen murders and admitting to dozens of sex assaults. families and surviving victim

justice stephen breyer wrote the majority opinion joined by ruth bader ginsburg, sonja sotomayor and alana kagan. the author of the fifth vote, justice clarence thomas dissented along with justices samuel alito, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. here is the oral argument at the court. >> your argument this morning, case 181323, june medical services versus russo, 1814-16, russo versus medical services. >> may it please the court, this is about respect for the court's precedent. four years ago the court held the texas admitting privilege impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions. the louisiana law, 620 is identical to the texas law and was expressly modeled on it. after trial the district court ruled 620 is unconstitutional finding no material differences between this case and women's health. unburdened it found act 620 would leave louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. at the same time it found act 620 would do nothing for women's health. in reversing the district court decision the fifth circuit committed two fundamental errors. first, it usurped

joe biden can argue this issue is still unsettled, and with the age of ruth bader ginsberg and stephen breyercontinued tenure on the court and possible replacements should be something voters are thinking about when they go to the polls. >> thanks to you both. really appreciate it. >>> alleged russian bounties on u.s. troops in afghanistan. the white house says the president was not briefed about the intelligence. does speaker nancy pelosi believe that? i'll ask her next. $9.95 at my age? $9.95? no way. $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will nev

. >> the next two vacancies are likely to be ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer so hopefully those would make john roberts' vote irrelevant. but senator cruz is right. george bush made a critical mistake in putting roberts on as chief justice as rather than -- ted and i were coclerks and he would've been a fabulous chief justice, everybody knew it and he would've held the line and faithfully apply the constitution, not played political games on the bench. >> laura: we've got to go but i hope we re-examine who is giving advice about which judges are going to be the best judges. we've got to redo that whole process. john, thank you so much. coming out, americans just want their lives back but if dr. dr. fauci had his way, we never caught a block down at least not until biden is elected. we take on the emperor of "no" next. something no one else has ever heard about john bolton and his new book. stay tuned. >> laura: the medical and political establishment missed him at the public on the covid-19 for months. florida beaches had the experts calling them the next italy and opening up ba

the majority was led by justice stephen breyer. it held as a law was unconstitutional, agreeing with the lower court ruling saying "that louisiana's law poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking an abortion, that the law offers no significant health-related benefits, that the law consequently imposes an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion." john roberts served as the swing vote, nothing he agreed with the underlying reasoning but that the justices found a very similar texas law unconstitutional back in 2016 and that precedent matters. "the legal doctrine requires us in special circumstances to treat like cases alike." justice thomas argued that the court shouldn't be relying on abortion precedent at all. "those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth shred of support for the constitution text. our abortion presidents are previously -- grievously wrong d should be overruled." the law in question was authored by a democrat louisiana and passed with bipartisan support. th

justice stephen breyer wrote the decision, relying on the 2016 5- 3 ruling invalidating a nearly identical texas law at the time the court's biggest enrsement of abortion rights in quarter century. th, roberts was on the oth side, among the dissenters. today, incurring opinion, he wrote of the importance of supreme court precedent:" the louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the texas law, for the same reasons. therefore louisiana's law caot stand under our precedents." roberts said he still believes the texas case was "wrongly decided. the question today however is not whether [it] was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case." marcia coyle, chief washington correspondent for the national law journal says it underscores voberts' emergence as the court's swin. for the credibilithehis concern institution. and he tends then to write fairly narrow opesions when he ove to the left, as he did here. immediate gigantics leftny or right, although he's capable of doing that and has done some in the past. >> yang: in a s

justice stephen breyer writing for the court's four liberal justices agreed, declaring the law would thousands of louisiana women with no practical means of obtaining a safe, legal abortion. but the crucial vote in this case came from chief justice john roberts, who wrote he joined the liberals only out of respect for precedent, citing the 2016 ruling striking down a nearly identical law in texas, a ruling which roberts originally disagreed with. for abortion rights advocates, a close call. >> i think it's just a sigh of relief. >> reporter: both the justices appointed by president trump, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, voted to uphold the louisiana law and limit access to abortion, but once again chief john roberts declined to go along with the conservatives, choosing stability and precedent and caution in the law, rather than rapid change made by this court. terry moran, abc news, the supreme court. >> terry, thank you. >>> new overnight, officers in aurora, colorado, have been placed on administrative leave in connection with elijah mcclain's death. the police chief says they we

unexpected coalition was formed that included the four more liberal justices, ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyernia society miles an ho sotomayor and elena kagan. having formed that unusual 6-3 majority, it was justice gorsuch who wrote today's ruling that makes it illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay or transgender. until today, in most states in this country, it was perfectly legal for your employer to fire you on the basis of your actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. if your boss thought that you were gas or trans and didn't like that, you could be fired. that was legal in most states, as of today. well, today's surprise supreme court ruling means that from here on out, henceforth, if that happens to you in your state and you get fired for that reason, you can now file suit in federal court and the federal law should protect you, because as neil gorsuch wrote in today's ruling, quote, an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law. today's ruling is the most important ruling on lgbt civil rights issues since the