matches this draft, it would be by far the most consequential abortion decision in decades and would transform women s reproductive health in the u.s. want to get straight to jessica schneider, she is live at the supreme court for us bright and early this morning. what does this apparent draft opinion say? reporter: 34r5iplain and sim it eliminates the constitutional right to have an abortion that existed since 1973 when i the court at that time issued its opinion in roe v. wade. politico is reporting that this is a 98 page draft opinion written by justice alito and says in part that we hold roe and casey must be overruled, the constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. this is just a draft, it has not been authenticated by cnn and the court has s fu refused to t
whelmingly passed by congress in the early 1990 and signed by president clinton and was important addition to the protection of religious freedom in the united states to supplement the constitutional protection that exists in the free exercise clause. senator: well, and i would note much like yesterday, when we discussed your pro bono representation of the synagogue that priest for life using some on the democratic aisle suggested little guy and big guy, little guy against almost all powerful federal government and in that opinion, presumably because you felt the law dictated it, you sided with the priest for life in that decision. judge kavanaugh: that s correct, senator, i think a lot of religious freedom cases, the supreme courts had, that has been the case. there was a prisoner, opinion written by justice alito, i
and we have to be secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. we know who s coming in. we know where they re coming from. we just have to know who s coming here. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong, and they turned out to be very wrong. so barbara mcquade, we ve been talking this morning about what this 5-4 decision means and what it does not mean. your reading of it this morning. last hour, jonathan turley said, this really was more about the president s authority to make this policy and not a commentary by the court on the policy itself. well, it s really interesting to note. first, there was a 5-4 decision. and i think one can t help but wonder what the decision might have been if we had justice merrick garland on the court as opposed to justice neil gorsuch. but if you look at the opinion written by justice roberts, he goes through great pains to talk
texas affirmative action case that they remanded back to the circuit courts. this what is you write. the supreme court decision on affirmative action could have been a lot worse. it was probably the best we could have hoped for. why is that, gene? you know, it s being characterized as a punt by the court, but actually if you read the opinion written by justice kennedy, it wasn t. it was essentially in the a continuation of the court s view in the last several decisions about affirmative action which essentially is that you can in certain circumstances as kind of a last measure take race into account after you ve looked at all other sort of race neutral ways of increasing diversity which is a thing which is a desirable thing. which, by the way, gene, for