it sticks out to me, and in opening remarks. justice alito writes, roe was agree justly wrong from the start in this draft opinion. interesting, to me, and i bet even more interesting to you, agree justly wrong from the start? that is how mr. justice, now justice, alito, put himself forward agree just the wrong, when he testified before the senate, and the american people, about what he would do about roe. he has led the u.s. senate, he misled the american people, and now he s a sitting justice, who could rip away the protections, that women enjoy, in this country. the privacy, to make our own private health care decisions. the fact that toledo, in his confirmation hearing, did not say that it was egregiously wrong from the start. when you say agree just the
claims. that is not good for a sitting justice. tomi lahren reacts next. to see my ancestors photos was just breathtaking. wow, look at all those! what d you find? lorraine banks, look, county of macomb, michigan? oh my goodness. this whole journey has been such a huge gift for our family.
as well-revered as the d.c. court and be prepared to do that but somehow the rules change and your ability and your intellect when it goes to the supreme court of the united states. the proximity from which something like a judge brown to an opening in the supreme court would really point out why was it okay in this court but not the other? i remind people there have been more than one supreme court justice to come from that. i think one of the questions people might have is the length and tenure of the names being floated on the appellate benches. someone like a sitting justice, amy coney barrett, a relatively short tenure as an appellate judge before going on to become obviously a supreme court justice. and so tenure is not going to be the issue hopefully that it was in the past. but overwhelmingly think about what this really means. not only the exercise of the prerogative of justice breyer who, john, as you know and we ve talked about this before, has been persuaded, shall we say t
confidence. because ultimately, that s what this is about. this is about the fact that a sitting justice, obviously, should not be macon rulings that could directly affect his spouse, because it s also about what it does for the rest of the public to say, wait a minute? what s going on there? for the rest of the public to see, that is sitting justice, very well maybe trying to protect a spouse, and since we don t know all the pieces to the puzzle yet, we are not quite sure all that he may be protecting espouse from. yeah, i just want to play white, again, where you and others have called for this. there has been, in some ways, i think a little bit of strange lack of outrage over this, because it seems like an incredibly incriminating set of facts on his face. but santa majority leader chuck schumer essentially echo this today. i want to tell you what he had to say. i do think he should recuse himself, the information we know right now, raises serious
that is something that is appropriate to investigate. and, that then raises the question of conflict of interest for a sitting justice, to have anything to do with a case involving that insurrection. but, the second part i want to point out, is that we have all kinds of times when, if you are in a position of public authority, like a supreme court judge, or justice, then you do have to disclose certain information about your spouse, things that other folks out of the public wouldn t have to do. the specific example here, is that federal law requires that the spouses of the supreme court justices disclose payments, that they have received, something that clarence thomas and jenny thomas have failed to do in violation of law multiple times