quote, roe was egregiously wrong from the start. it s an opinion that summarizes the opinion. john roberts said that roe versus wade is the settled law of the land. do you believe it is the settled law of the land? roe versus wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. reporter: samuel alito seemed to dodge the question of whether roe v wade could be overturned in his confirmation hering in 2006. this is the settled law of the land. it is precedented if settled means it can t be re-examined, then that s one thing. if settled means that it is a it is a precedent that is excitaled to star decisis. that means to stand by things decided in latin. alito wrote, we have long recognized that starry decisis is not a command and it is at
the constitution does not protect a right to abortion. months earlier while working at another position at the justice department, alito outlined in a legal memo, we should make clear that we disagree with roe v. wade and would welcome the opportunity. alito said during his confirmation hearing he would keep an open mind as a justice and put aside what he did as a government lawyer. but flash forward to this past december. justice alito seemed to make his personal views clear during arguments on mississippi s 15-week abortion ban. the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn t change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability? and justice alito does not shy away from taking a stance on hot button issues. at the height of the pandemic, he said covid had ushered in unimaginable restrictions on
arbiter of your own destiny, that gets to the heart of who we are as americans. i don t believe anybody will go along with that. and if it comes down to that in an election. if a republican wins the governorship in pennsylvania given all the candidates either against abortion or for restricting it in some level, you don t think that they would actually go ahead and do that? i m not sure. my predecessor was a republican. he had a republican legislature. they did not pass anti-choice legislation while he was there. i m not sure this is something that hasn t taken everybody, republicans and democrats, by surprise. now they have to deal with this. this is they own this now. and i think it s going to be a bad thing for republicans everywhere, including in pennsylvania. governor, i appreciate your time. thank you so much. thanks, anderson. justice samuel alito wrote in his draft opinion that,
court s work force, which he praised. and he said he thought it was really foolish for whoever did this to think it would change the way the court does its business. he can down play this as much as he wants. this was a stunning leak. it came with mississippi s 15-week abortion ban. back in oral arguments in december, it was chief justice john r roberts who seemed to be looking for a middle ground, maybe leave roe in place. that s not at all what we got earlier this week when we saw the leak of the draft opinion. justice samuel alito, he really went for the rafters here. he said that roe v. wade was egregiously wrong. he said that the issue should go back to the states and should be decided there, which is a very bad sign for supporters of abortion rights. and he basically was willing to throw out 50 years of precedent. it was only a draft opinion. it s not final.
its weakest when we interpret the constitution, writing what the final word if this opinion is held by the court. roe and casey must be overruled and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives. i m pleased to announce my nomination of judge samuel a. alito jr. upon his nomination to the supreme court in late 2005, critics questioned alito s commitment to upholding roe. during his confirmation, a 1985 letter he wrote surfaced. it was part of his application to become deputy assistant attorney general during the reagan administration. writing, i am and always have been a conservative. i aam i life long registered republican. and i am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued on the supreme court that racial and earth thick quotas should not be allowed and that