supreme court.n our government, the role of the supreme court is to determine whether a given law violates the u.s. constitution. we as citizens are going to see supreme court decisions we agree with and decisions we disagree with, sometimes strongly. but we all agree to abide by those decisions. a person's perspective on supremacy, the notion they get the final say and cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overruling them, often depends on how they feel about the court's decisions. but our acceptance of the court's authority is not supposed to flip on and off like a light switch based on how we feel about the justices or the president who appointed them. that was the opinion from the national review's jim geraghty. let's go to another. she wrote, who ever cared to leak the opinion cared about the political implications of the impending decision. it is one of the most brazenly political acts to ever come out of the court. it is perhaps the most emphatic confirma

and revered the supreme court, taught me to revere the supreme court.ting here with this draft opinion. i feel like i am sitting here with a draft of legislation, kind of like what's a committee votes on. before it goes to the senate floor. and people get to see that, and they get to see how it changes as it moves along. and they understand that process. and now i'm kind of thinking, yeah let's bring cameras into the supreme court chamber. while we're having arguments. but i would also like to be let in on all of the deliberations. >> well, you know, it's not just an appearance like a catholic schoolboy. it's also like a law school student. i would say that there are important reasons for justices to be able to deliberate in private. and there are reasons and which we would not want to chill the speech of justices. and for both those that would be in the majority and the dissent, to fine-tune their argument. that said, i agree with dahlia, which is that what we have seen is an un-mooring of ethics, within the united states supreme court. and the justice

supreme court. in our government, the role of the supreme court is to determine whether a given law violates the u.s. constitution. we as citizens are going to see supreme court decisions we agree with and decisions we disagree with, sometimes strongly. but we all agree to abide by those decisions. a person's perspective on supremacy, the notion they get the final say and cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overruling them, often depends on how they feel about the court's decisions. but our acceptance of the court's authority is not supposed to flip on and off like a light switch based on how we feel about the justices or the president who appointed them. that was the opinion from the national review's jim geraghty. let's go to another. she wrote, who ever cared to leak the opinion cared about the political implications of the impending decision. it is one of the most brazenly political acts to ever come out of the court. it is perhaps the most emphatic confir

but formerob supreme court robet jackson said years ago the supreme court isn't final because it's right's right because it's final. but there is no such thing as a permanent decision by the supreme court and again i say thank goodness.e if prior decisions were set in stone, we would still be subject to egregious shameful policies of the past like separate but equal but the supreme court shouldo always try to correct previously decided erroneous decisions and they have criteria under the doctrine for the circumstances under which they will revisit that precedent. the court understands they cannot overrule the earlier decisions and there's a very elaborate process in the evaluation of an analysis by which they do so. but i believe it's our responsibility here in the senate. cooler heads must prevail and that means us. it starts with us. we have to stand for the independence of the court even when they render decisions we don't like. that'sth the only way to presere the crown jewels of the former government which is the independent judiciary. the high court cannot be subjected to pressure

and it's all supreme court confirmation hearing. and when samuel alito saw the vote count of robert berke's nomination to the supreme court, the senate will count, samuel alito knew he would not ever make the mistake that robert boric made. robert berke's nomination was defeated on the senate floor 58 to 42. the 58 votes against robert boric included six republicans who voted against republican president ronald reagan's nominee because his views were too extreme. clarence thomas was watching that robert bore confirmation hearing from his job in the reagan administration. and three years later, clarence thomas gave an answer in his confirmation hearing that stunned the senate. i was working in the senate at the time, and i've remembered this answer almost ward forward since the day he said it under oath. it had nothing to do with any to hills sexual assault -- sexual harassment allegations against clarence thomas. which did not become public until after his confirmation hearing was actually considered a complete. the hearing process

in 2014, the democratic leader went to the supreme court steps and threatened two supreme court justices by name if they did not rule in a certain way. he said -- and these are direct quotes -- you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price, and you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. that's our colleague, the senior senator from new york, the majority leader of the senate. he threatened two sitting justices with retribution should they rule in a way he disagreed with. the top senate democrat lobbing threats at a supreme court justice is a dangerous, dangerous model for the american people. this is the branch of government that is supposed to be kept free from those pressures and those sort of threats, that kind of intimidation or at least attempt at intimidation. but here again the senator from new york and the speaker of the house they know that, but they did it anyway. it doesn't matter what case is before the supreme court or what ruling is ultimately handed down o leaders of congress, some of the highest elected officials in the u.s. go

in 2019, the democratic leader went to the supreme court steps and threatened two supreme court justices by name. he said, quote, you have released the whirlwind. this was the day the case was argued in the court. the senior senator from new york, the majority leader, said, you were released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. 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

wade supreme court ruling. majority leader chuck schumer held a news conference on the steps of the u.s. capitol to discuss the potential impact of striking down the landmark case. this is 25 minutes. , a report came out that a conservative majority on the united states supreme court is ready to overturn roe v. wade and uproot decades of president affirming -- decades of precedent, affirming a woman's right to an abortion. sen. schumer: good morning. i am joined by many colleagues from the democratic caucus and you will hear from many of them in a minute. well, this is a dark and disturbing day for america. last night, a report came out that a conservative majority of the united states supreme court is ready to overturn roe v. wade and uproot decades of precedent affirming a woman's right to an abortion. it is hard not to feel angry, troubled and deeply disturbed about what overturning roe would do to women across america. more than 20 states have laws or constitutional amendments that would outlaw abortion sho

it's that for the first time in the history of the united states supreme court the selection of supreme court justices was farmed out, handed off to a private organization. and justices were selected in some back room with zero transparency into how the selections were made, how the lists were assembled and zero transparency into the dark money that flowed into that private organization while the selections were being made. who paid what to have a seat at the federalist society's judicial selection turnstile. we know from new reporting that it was the federalist society's leonard leo who laid out the road map for trump on the federal court system with the goal of, and i quote, transforming the foundational understanding of rights in america. so much for balls and strikes, huh? leo came up with the list of judges that would please the republican base from among what he called what was the decades of conservative lawyers in the pipeline. he became a team with trump's white house counsel and mitch mcconnell to keep the judicial nominations effort moving. it was leo who took to the white ho

supreme court decisions. but most of the time, i understood the legal reasoning, believing the decision process was legitimate. but not until this week, -- constitutional right revoked from all of us. and it is, first of all, a feeling. before we get to the analysis of a decision, we feel the pain of the decision and the agonies that the supreme court decisions. is going to inflict. i just want to have a word with the man of america. this is a constitutional right that belongs to all of us, and it benefits all of us. we have a constitutional right to the services, to help provide the services, for our daughters and granddaughters, for our wives, for girlfriends and we have that we men have that constitutional right. and because we are being robbed of a constitutional right it is impossible for some of us to mute the rage that theft deserves. >> i would like to speak to america's men for one minute. imagine you do not have authority over your own body for ten months. imagine if that decision-making would not b

supreme court has actually taken away a right. and we are talking here about the most american of values -- the values of freedom, autonomy and self-determination. and we all know here today that this just didn't happen. this is the result of a decades-long campaign fueled by dark money in this country to overturn roe v. wade and capture the courts. that is what we are seeing today and it is clear as a bell, justice alito's draft comments said roe must be overturned. this will affect everyone in this country. do you know that today, over half of all abortions are medication abortions? if you're thinking this is not going to affect me because i am still going to be able to go and get that medication in order to make my own decisions about my own health care -- now, that is not the case -- no, that is not the case at all. it is hard not to think that people who are supporting this, these republican legislators are so out of the mainstream, so out of the mainstream. 70% in every state across the country, at least, of americans think

they've let us the supreme court. and they've led us to the decision that they are about to make. >> wendy davis, thank you very much for giving us above the texas perspective, and then national perspective on this. thank you very much. joining us now is minnesota senator tina smith. she previously served as executive vice president in planned parenthood in minnesota. north dakota. and south dakota. senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight, and i just want to open the mic for your reaction to what's your reading in this draft opinion. when i worked at planned parenthood, i saw firsthand the capacity of people making decisions for themselves and what was best for themselves and their family. and will we see in this draft opinion is basically a bunch of supreme court justices led by simulate or saying, no, we know better, we know best of what is best for you and your family. i like to say that it is stunning, it is shocking, but of course, it can be so when we have seen that concerted effort of republican par

listen. >> this is insurrection against the supreme court.ave already seen people on the left celebrating this leaker calling him great filmic brave and to throw a hail mary to stop the ruling from being issued. who will the supreme court trust if they know their drafts will be leak like everything else in washington? the supreme court seems to be the last institutions dealing with internal integrity. the coke legal experts warning of the lasting impact this could have on the court. >> i think the court will never be quite the same here this was a malicious act and the only reason to leak it was to create external pressure to change the position of the court and maybe encourage congress to pass this federal abortion law to try to federalize the abortion area. >> former chief assistant u.s. attorney andy mccarthy tweeting in part, "if we lose the integrity of the quartz process, we lose the court. that should be intolerable to all of us who live in the country." the fbi expected to be in the investigation and thesaurus causing this controversy

supreme court justice clarence thomas, who lied his way out of the supreme court, by among other things, claiming he never discussed or thought about roe v. wade, which was decided when he was in law school, and everyone. , at every law school in america was talking about it, everyone except clare's thomas, if you believe his under oath testimony to the senate. on friday, that same clarence thomas gave a speech to a group of judges, complaining that americans are quote, becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like. clarence thomas is now making it difficult to choose the most sickening things he and his wife have said since donald trump was defeated in his reelection campaign by joe biden. clarence thomas dared to say that two judges on friday, when all of those judges, already knew that clarence thomas's wife was texting white house chief of staff mark meadows repeatedly after donald trump lost the presidential election, urging mark meadows to do anything to overturn the results of the election. turns thomas's wife never said that overtur

>> it is huge for the supreme court.er a decision comes out about deliberations or what went into making a decision, it is almost unheard of to know something in advance. roe itself had a little bit of that. there was a little bit of a release just before that decision came out about what it would say. usually those kinds of speculation, that kind of reporting doesn't happen. >> thanks to robert for that. in a few minutes, we get more details mariupol from those evacuations in mariupol mariupol in the south of ukraine. ♪ it was the met gala in new york. this year's theme was the gilded age. >> the biggest night in fashion, the met gala is back. known ae oscars of the eased, it seems fitting the busiest theme is the golden area -- the golden era, the gilded age. others hearken to hollywood great. kim kardashian sparkled in the very same gown worn by marilyn monroe six decades ago when she serenaded president jf kennedy with happy birthday. the glitzy event is filled with stars of all kind. actors, models,ingers and elon m

wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 1973, so it's been on the books for a long time. it has been challenged on a number of occasions and i discussed those yesterday and it is my -- and the supreme court has reaffirmed the decision. sometimes on the merits, sometimes, in kc, based on stare decisis. i think, that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons. first of all, more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. second, i think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath, and are scholars and are conscientious. and when they examined a question and they reach a conclusion, i think that is entitled to considerable respect. of course, the more times that happens more respect the decision is entitled to and that is my view of that. so, it is a very important precedent -- >> is it the settled law of the land? >>

that is the reality of the supreme court today. the credibility of that institution is at stake as long as we are dealing with this kind of extremism. we must gather together and say there is one great saving grace, the constitution envisions so many things, it even envisioned the constitution. senator murray said there's an answer. the answer is in november and the american people stand up and say this is enough of the culture war at the expense of our freedoms in america. we need people representing us in the house in the senate who will stand up to basic freedoms and not take them away from the american people. i would just say to you this morning, the contours of the november election this year changed. we are going to find across america that this decision by the alito court is going to be a decision that will reverberate around america and states red and blue and the american people will have the last word. >> thank you, senator durbin. this is a very serious moment in our country for women and for our health care. and that's

supreme court decisions?> it could be devastating. justice alito tries very hard to say, abortion is different. there is not going to be a slippery slope here. but what he does is uses history to try to state that the abortion right is relatively new and really unsupported in historical legal precedent. the same can be said about same-sex marriage. the same can be said about the right to contraception. the same can be said about a host of other rights that the supreme court currently has protection for. i find it hard to see as a lawyer how you can make that distinction on the due process right analysis. i think it would be devastating for that right. >> is there a likelihood that the court could change its mind before the final decision is released in this specific case? >> likelihood, yes. probability, no. i think the nine justices knew how they were going to vote before they heard the argument in december. it seems hard for me to believe that after the initial vote, any of those five that were apparently g

roe vs wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 1973 so it has been on the books for a long time. it is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. it has been challenged. it has been reaffirmed. that's alito. in 2017, justice gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing, quote, roe vs wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court, it's been reaffirmed. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court, worthy of precedent like any other. in 2018 justice kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing, quote, said that roe vs wade is settled and the precedent of the supreme court entitles respect on the supreme court -- and in one of the important things to keep in mind about roe vs wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently and affirmed that planned parenthood v casey. that's justice kavanaugh. today it's been increaingly clear, the three justices nominated by trump were hired specifically

i mean, there are protests at the supreme court right nowj at the supreme court right now and i thinkaround the country and no, i don't have, and i haven't had a lot of hope that this wouldn't be the end result but what i do know is that it is a wake—up call for many people who didn't know that, who aren't working day to day to ensure that patients can receive care. and i think that they are going to hear from a lot of folks and i think that there is a lot of very angry and devastated people and i think they are going to take that anger and turn it into action. and you have elections coming up and i think they will hearfrom voters on coming up and i think they will hear from voters on this specific issue.— hear from voters on this specific issue. certainly a very hot _ specific issue. certainly a very hot political- specific issue. certainly a very hot political issue. l specific issue. certainly a - very hot political issue. thank you very much. very hot political issue. thank you very much-— you very much. thank you for havin: you very much. thank you for having me- — to ukraine, mo

the president united states supreme court it has been reaffirmed. the reliance interest considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing precedent. to be considered it is a precedent of the united states supreme court. is reaffirmed in casey in 1992. in several other cases so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other what about griswold which was decided a few years before row the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy? can you tell me your views on griswold? center it's a precedent. it's now. 50 years old griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. and it's 50 years old. the reliance interests are obvious. been repeatedly reaffirmed all very important factors again in analyzing precedent well, i think i'm going to stop questioning but i kind of sum up what you and i just talked about in regard to precedent. so everybody understands the principles

that the supreme court could be thisn heartless. that in legislatures across the country, extreme at republicans are ready for their trigger bands to go into effect. they are excited even. it is craven, and we won't stand for. i am not going to sit quietly and neither should any of you. i know for so many women across the country, this is deeply personal. and it is deeply personal to me too. i remit like before roe. i knew people who did not have someone to turn to who for a safe abortion who are not wealthy so if they could find one they might not be able to afford it. people who got unsafe procedures that left them at a very youngag age unable to give birth. that has stayed with me too this day. as have soi many of the storiesi have heard from women after roe. i know how big of a difference it has made in the lives of so many women across the country, which is why i am furious at the idea that republicans are going to take us backward. that this will be the first generation of the women with fewer rights than their mothers. my hea

make their way to the united states supreme court. so many things are really quite local, so, so long as a clerk refuses and a local judge. hold that or a family doesn't go further than that because they're dishearten, then we already see the dismantling of those rights. you need. yeah, again, i'm just looking at the source from cbs and you. gov, looking at the polls that they did with americans to see where they felt the supreme court should, for with us gotten rove us is waiting, if it should be overruled, 64 percent, keep it as it is 36 percent over town it. if those 36 percent get their way the justice is decide to over 10 rovers is way. what are the of a whipple effects beyond the impact on women and goals and families? what else might be impacted? like i think the shell hit hit it a little bit there the, you know, and as well as liz about the reasoning in this decision, this draft a decision saying that this is a right that's not deeply rooted in the constitution. and you know, if that's the case, then that a same argument progr

supreme court. this is an elite group and while the justices don't always get along about different things when it comes before them in the supreme court, they are a close knit group behind the scenes. now likely a lot of paranoia wondering who leaked this specifically which clerk may have leaked this and who did that clerk work for. just a little while ago president biden weighed in on this draft leak. >> look, the idea that concerns me a great deal that we are going to after 50 years decide a woman does not have a right to choose, number one. but in a more -- the rationale used, mean every other decision with the notion of privacy was thrown into question. >> there's been a steady stream of people outside the court with a range of emotions. we expect this to continue throughout the day inside yelling over one another to make their point heard. >> obviously we are still waiting on the final decision, this is just a draft that was leaked last night. this is what we have been hoping and praying for f

supreme court. >> this is just so outrageous that this draft opinion was leaked. it is clearly an attempt to influence the outcome. >> the supreme court seemed to be the last institution standing that had internal integrity. >> dana: team fox coverage. jonathan turley is here with analysis. we begin at the supreme court where david spunt is standing by. >> good morning. if you think the shock waves are strong across the country and across the world. think about what's going on in this building with the nine supreme court justices. this is a close knit group. they may not agree on every opinion but at the end of the day they're in an elite group. nine supreme court justices and questions about trust and which justice the leaker or the leakers work for. those are all questions. a lot of emotion last night after this story was released around 9:00 as bill said. many came out to the supreme court and protested until the early hours of this morning. some upset, some happy. many just looking for some answ

chief justice of the supreme court called it a betrayal of the court.that leak sparked protests all over the nation and in washington d.c., but not because two centuries of protocol in the supreme court was violated, it was because the court dared to say that when the supreme court ruled in

it's that for the first time in the history of the united states supreme court the selection of supreme court justices was farmed out, handed off to a private organization. and justices were selected in some back room with zero transparency into how the selections were made, how the lists were assembled and zero transparency into the dark money that flowed into that private organization while the selections were being made. who paid what to have a seat at the federalist society's judicial selection turnstile. we know from new reporting that it was the federalist society's leonard leo who laid out the road map for trump on the federal court system with the goal of, and i quote, transforming the foundational understanding of rights in america. so much for balls and strikes, huh? leo came up with the list of judges that would please the republican base from among what he called what was the decades of conservative lawyers in the pipeline. he became a team with trump's white house counsel and mitch mcconnell to keep the judicial nominations effort moving. it was leo who took to the white ho

our colleague went on to say the supreme court should be expanded. that's another way of saying they should ask the court with like-minded -- pack the court with like-minded policymakers. well, what you talk about expanding the t court or packing the court the result is a saint. it's just another effort to try toic politicize this independent branch of government -- is the same -- this are the crown jewels of our system of government, and independent judiciary. well, even joe biden knows that is a bonehead idea. the reason i know that and we know that is because that's what he saidwh in 1983. he called court packing a boneheaded idea. justice ginsburg was asked about she said nine seems to be a good number. that was her gentle way of saying that if you start adding justices to the court or restructuring or packing the court, basically you are in pursuit of a political outcome and to undermine the independence of the judiciary, and they are transformed into something far different than what our founding fathers believed it would be, which is an instit

a final supreme court ruling is expected in late june or earlyjuly. right to life committee which campaigns against abortion rights in the us. what is your reaction to the this draft decision by the supreme court? iam not i am not going to take for granted that this is the final decision because obviously, the judges could change their minds. but i am very hopeful that it is the way the court is going to go. and we can again start to protect unborn children in our country. just start to protect unborn children in our country-— start to protect unborn children in our country. just to say that some recent statistics _ our country. just to say that some recent statistics show, _ from the pew research centre in 2021 for instance that 6 in 10 americans are in favour of legalising abortion 7 doesn t this leaked draft go against what the majority of americans appear to want? would shown in 1973 was that the supreme court took the decision out of the state, out of the peoples hands and just set a national law. if the court does indeed overturn roe v wade, the

s. supreme court justices. all debating right now with a row versus way that la my case, the grantee to constitutional rights and abortion in the us. they are debating whether that should be overturned. so discussion today is not about the rights and the morality of abortions, but it is about the ramifications. if ro versus wait is overtime. one row versus wade is overruled in the united states will not only impact access abortion care, but will likely impact access to control. they'll be an increase need and demand for contraceptives. particularly emergency contraceptives like b, which should be available over the counter in the united states. and we need to ensure all women and girls across all communities, especially communities of color at high risk for unintended pregnancy, have access to affordable birth control and emergency contraceptives. so we have legal experts lined up to talk to you to explain what the ramifications might be if the constitutional rights and legal abortion in the united states. if t

the supreme court set to overturn roe v. wade if a leaked draft court opinion stands politico released that document late last night, and almost immediately a protest broke out, outside that courthouse behind me protesters still out here tonight. the conservative justice, samuel alito, wrote the draft majority opinion. and according to politico, it has support from at least four other justices alito writes roe was egregiously wrong from the start its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. and far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. casey refers to another case that came about nearly two decades after roe v. wade. it's called planned parenthood versus casey it largely reaffirmed abortion rights we're here today because of a case out of mississippi. it centers on a state law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy there that is a direct challenge to roe. the supreme court heard the case

supreme court justices, pro-life advocates or otherwise. this past weekend's events highlighted the need to better protect justices and their families, they deserve the protection that at this moment the supreme court police are not able to provide. last week senator kunz, senator from delaware, and i introduced a bill to increase protection for all tween 9 justices and their families, this basically would be the same sort of authority given to the capital police in protecting members of congress, the events of this week and underscored how important this is. this legislation was at the request of the chief justice who wants to ensure members of the court and their families have the security and protection they need at this tense time when justices aren't facing enhanced threats. we currently have two justices with school age children and in the coming months that number will increase to three. once judge jackson takes her place on the supreme court bench. i'm glad this bill passed the senate and i hope colleagues will take it up and pass i

senate and defiling the supreme court's reputation.s who also support abortion rights agreed. alaska's lisa murkowski: >> if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, i will just tell you that it-- it-- it rocks my confidence in the court right now. >> reporter: 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 murkowski are sponsoring a bill >> reporter: collins and murkowski are sponsoring a bill that would narrowly protect abortion rights but oppose a democratic bill that broadly prevents federal and state governments from limiting access to abortion. chuck schumer says he'll force a vote with republicans who oppose it on record.his andal as it gets. >> reporter: as for this year's midterm elections, democrats believe abortion rights will be a big factor. >> the contours of the november ele

thankfully the supreme court of the united states in brown v. education overturned plusy turning an end to racially segregated schools just as it appears now poised to overturn the erroneous decisions in roe and in casey. the opinion is exceptionally well reasoned, thorough, and grounded in the constitution. it also means that in states across our country, including in my home state of utah, hundreds of thousands of unborn children, children who could not be protected by state law due to restrictions placed on them by an invented nonexistent constitutional doctrine created out of whole cloth in roe and in casey now have some chance at being protected depending, of course, on which decision-makers in which states make which decisions regarding the protection of human life. as americans we must not and we can never forget what's at stake. if this majority decision stands, those who recognize the sanctity of human life like myself and like a majority of utahans will have much to celebrate, but we must also recognize that this is not the end of this

the league of a supreme court decision to overturn roe v.scape ahead of novembers midterms. abortion rights activists plan to protest outside the homes of conservative supreme court justices like chevy chase maryland. congressional correspondent, chad pergram reports on this. >> it was in october surprise but a may surprise. democrats will use the decision as a wedge against republicans this fall. reproductive rights will be on the ballot. women will vote and they will make sure their voices are heard. >> the leak may be one of the most seminal offense of 2022 that could boost democrats as liberals feel alienated. >> everything about joe biden and the difficulty he faced within the democratic party, it was largely with the democratic, the question of whether he was liberal enough, this solves that problem. >> outraged senate republicans for blocking attorney general merrick garland in 2016. then confirming pro-life justices. >> every single republican changed senate rules to confirm not one, not two but three trump justices to the u.s. supre

these supreme court justices or anyone else.se dogs who doxxed the justices should be embarrassed and ashamed. by the way, these are the same thugs that are firebombing pro-life outlets bear the same thugs that are going into churches, disturbing churches. they hate faith, they hate god, they hit the catholic church, and it is disgusting to see joe biden and the entirety of the democratic party turn a blind eye. a replay of 2020, replay -- in this instance once again, they are putting politics above everything else, including people's lives. and these radicals are inviting violence directed at our judiciary and directed at the rule of law. they are bullying trying to intimidate these justices. let's go back to the summer of 2024 we had over 574 riots. we had dozens of dead americans, thousands of injured cops. not only were they silent, there were many people in, has that actually offered moral support for these groups. and that the bail fund, that defund and dismantle effort. then january 6th happened. peacefully patriotically