it is an important precedent of the
supreme court by it i mean roe v wade
and planned parenthood versus casey
been reaffirmed many times
casey is precedent on precedent
which itself is an important factor to
remember
well senator casey has set a law
in the sense that it's a decision of the
united states supreme court
right
and you also have a berger fell in
lawrence those are all precedents the
united states supreme court entitled the
weight precedent
which is quite considerable
during their supreme court confirmation
hearings in 2017 and 2018 trump
appointees justice gorsuch and justice
kavanaugh both told the senate judiciary
committee that they understood roe v
wade and planned parenthood v casey were
the established laws of the land and
that they carried the quote weight of
precedent end quote or that they were
quote precedent on precedent end quote
but according to this draft supreme
court opinion published by politico last
night those cases are likely precedent
on precedent
for just about another month
while justice roberts confirmed the
authenticity of the document today of
course it is still a draft the language
and the justice's votes could still
change but for now this is what all of
those justices i just listed voted for
quote we must hold that row and casey
must be overruled the constitution makes
no reference to abortion and no such
right is implicitly protected by any
constitutional provision including the
one on which defenders of roe and casey
now chiefly rely
the due process call clause of the 14th
amendment the provision has been held to
guarantee some rights that are not
mentioned in the constitution end quote
now there are several rights that fall
into this category rights like same-sex
marriage
the right to birth control
justice alito basically wrote a how-to
guide to dismantling those rights too
which is probably
why he also peppered in this tepid
assurance quote we emphasize that our
decision concerns the constitutional
right to abortion and no other right
nothing in this opinion should be
understood to cast doubts on precedent
that do not concern abortion end quote
that's good
should we take him at his word
like some senators took gorsuch and
kavanaugh at their word
tonight the vice president harris warned
that roe might not be the only target
for republicans
you know some republican leaders
they want to take us back
to a time
before roe v wade
back to a time
before obergefell v hodges back to a
time
before griswold
be connecticut
but we're not going back
we are not going back
[Applause]
the president of the naacp legal defense
and education fund also offered this
thought quote the leaked opinion
suggests scotus has abandoned all
respect for precedent and a woman's
right to choose if this is true
we can only imagine what's next and what
this will mean for respect for the court
itself
going forward
joining us now is janae nelson president
and director council of the naacp legal
defense and education fund ms nelson
thank you for being with us tonight i
appreciate your time uh and you're an
expert to whom we often turn as a
non-lawyer i i was
confused by the fact that justice alito
says the supreme court can only protect
rights that are in his words deeply
rooted in the nation's history so how
far does that logic go when it comes to
peeling back previously established
rights like same-sex marriage for
instance that are not enumerated in the
constitution constitution doesn't say
anything about same-sex marriage
yeah it's it's deeply concerning that uh
justice alito would try to
manipulate what is essentially our due
process clause and the 14th amendment in
that way what he's referring to is the
fact that not all rights that we enjoy
and that we are absolutely entitled to
are specified by name in the
constitution instead our constitution
has broad principles it has the
principle of due process the principle
of equal protection under the law and
under those big umbrellas lie important
and critical rights that are essential
to our freedoms as americans our freedom
to choose to decide who we'd like to
marry whether that be someone of the
same sex or someone of a different race
our right to privacy our right to
determine our reproductive future and
our access to opportunity as a result
and what justice alito laid out in that
extremely disturbing draft opinion
is a completely different conception of
how this country has evolved over time
and treated
rights under the constitution he talks
about
rights not being rooted in our history
or being part of our view of ordered
liberty
without recognizing that the court
itself has made those determinations not
more than 50 years ago as part of an
evolving progressive and more inclusive
society so what he did in this draft
opinion is attempt to bring us backwards
in a way that is not consistent with how
we view rights today it's not consistent
with contemporary readings of the
constitution it's rooted in originalism
which locks us into a period of time in
which almost a super majority of this
country had no rights including most
people of color and women and many other
groups so this is really a call for our
country to decide what type of
constitutional democracy we want to be
yeah i mean you make a good point the
right for people of color to vote was
not enshrined in the constitution the
right of women to vote was not enshrined
uh in the constitution there are all
sorts of rights uh that that have come
to be and in this particular case for
almost 50 years so what what is the
basis of the argument that it's not
enshrined in our history let alone the
constitution what what does 50 years of
abortion protections mean if if if it
doesn't carry any weight with with
justice alito and the majority on the
supreme court
what it means frankly and it's very
difficult for me to say this as someone
who leads an organization that put the
first african-american supreme court
justice on the court and that has won
seminal cases like brown versus board of
education using the court to advance
society to help perfect our
constitutional democracy it disturbs me
to say that the court has become deeply
politicized and this opinion
underscores that fact and makes it at
this point beyond doubt beyond pavel
that the court has been co-opted through
political uh whim and political pressure
and power and i think your opening where
we saw justices claim that this was
precedent on precedent that this was uh
part of their duty to recognize starry
decisis to recognize that when there is
settled precedent that justices on the
supreme court are bound to respect it
unless there is good reason to depart
from that precedent and justice alito's
opinion despite the 67 page length plus
an appendix does not provide adequate
justification for departing from
precedent in this way this is really an
outlandish decision
janae nelson we always appreciate your
time thank you for being with us on this
important night janae nelson is the
president and director council of the
naacp legal defense and education fund
[Music]
you