FIRST AIRED: September 6, 2018

Nice work! Enjoy the show!


You’re busy. We get it.

Stay on top of the news with our Editor’s Picks newsletter.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Unsubscribe at any time. One click, it’s gone.

Thanks for signing up!



>> And we have an email that was previously marked confidential, but is now public. And shows that you asked about making edits to an op-ed that read the following, and I quote. First of all, it is widely understood, accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land, end quote.
You responded by saying, and I quote, I'm not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level, since court can always overrule its precedent and three current justices on the court would do so. This has been viewed as you saying that you don't think Roe is settled.
Once again, tell us why you believe Roe is settled law, and if you could, do you believe it is correctly settled?>> It was referring to the views of legal scholars, and I think my comment in the email was that might be overstating the position of legal scholars.
And so it wasn't a technically accurate description. I'm always concerned with accuracy. Roe v Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It's been reaffirmed many times. It was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood versus Casey in 1992 when the courts specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or whether to overturn it.
That makes Casey precedent on precedent. It's been relied on. Casey itself has been cited as authority in subsequent cases, such as Galuxbourg and other cases.>> But is it correct law in your view?>> Senator, on that case, or on Dickerson or on cases like Citizens United or Heller or United States versus Lopez or Kilo.
Just the whole body of modern Supreme Court case law, I have to follow what the nominees who've been in the seat before have done.>> Judge, a yes or a no will do.>> And so one of the things I've done is studied very carefully what nominees have done in the past, where I've referred to as nominee precedent.
And Justice Ginsburg, but really, all the justices have not given hints or forecasts or previews. You can't give a thumbs up or a thumbs down and maintain the independence of the judiciary.