area in the ruling. as was noted, the justices pointed out that a university could consider the way that a student expresses their experience of race either as a challenge or as an inspiration, but yet the university can t ask them about it? the language to me, not being a legal expert, was somewhat unclear. well, boris, if you consider me a legal expert, the language is unclear to me, as well. and so what are they talking about? the fact is is that we have standards, and those standards are based on well-settled precedent about how diversity is a compelling interest and how based upon it being diversity a compelling interest narrowly tailored to the objective of providing opportunities to all could be considered. now you include language suggesting that if you write an essay talking about the effect of race on your life, what you could consider that, but you can t consider the race itself.
significant development obviously. i think that development means that admissions offices and colleges and campuses are going to look far different throughout the country. it s interesting how you have justices essentially sit for confirmation hearings, and they respect or at least they say they respect the rule of law. that rule of law is about stare decisis, precedent. it has been decided. they get on the bench and do what they want to do. to your question, there s a need, right, for diversity. there s a made it for these affirmative action programs. there s a need because you cannot pretend that race is not an issue. you can t say that we should have a colorblind society in a color-relevant society. so i think the answer to your question is to the extent that colleges cannot use race as a factor. i think certainly it could lead to a significant dip and drop in enrollment as it relates to african american and latino, people of color in general, and that s problematic. joey, i want
found not guilty, you can imagine that there must have been some type of behavior change across the country putting these people on notice that if you re the person who gets paid to protect this building, to protect these people, and you fail to act, you may at the least face prosecution. yeah. clearly an emotional day for families that have long felt that there was negligence and there is the potential for a precedent being set by that decision. before we get to the legal ramifications of this, let s talk about what happened inside the courtroom. cnn s carlos suarez was there. a lot of emotion on both sides of this decision. reporter: yeah, that s exactly right. several of the parkland families have been in the courtroom on the 17th floor of the broward county judicial complex since the very beginning of this case. we re talking about 2.5, nearly
roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. that is samuel alito of course. that is the law of the land. i accept the law of the land. gorsuch, settled as a precedent of the supreme court said kavanaugh and wade way clearly held that the constitution protected a woman s right to terminate a pregnancy said amy coney barrett. of course there is the astounding notes from susan collins, both she and joe manchin claiming that they believe they were misled by the justices in the private meetings. here is the notes that collins apparently leaked to the new york times from her meeting quoting kavanaugh. i understand precedent and i understand the importance of overturning it. roe has been h been 45 years old. reaffirmed. a lot of people cared about it a great deal and i try to understand real world consequences. i m not a don t rock the boat kind of judge. what do you make of knowing these men personally, what do you make of the allegations that they intentionally led the pub
for a very long time, so yes, people proceed at their own risk in relying on these promises that they won t be prosecuted. there is an old saying, your word is your bond. does that not apply the supreme court justices? i want to play for you a little bit of what we heard from these conservative justices, who were appointed by former president trump. senator, again, i will tell you that roe v. wade, decided in 1973, as the president of the red state supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. so a good judge will consider as president of the united states supreme court. senator, i said that it s settled as a precedent of the supreme court. one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. as richard fallon from harvard said, roe is not a super president because this overruling never ceased, but that doesn t mean that it