r renquist s approach about unenumerated rights. that s one of the disconnects about the position of collins and murkowski, that it now appears that nothing short of a confession is going to really trigger that pledge made to support roe v wade. they re not going to wheel in a nominee like hanibal lector and say i m going to eat roe v wade with a chianti. the supreme court once it gets a majority can flip the result. in favor of kavanaugh, there are plenty of lawyers and judges who believe that roe was wrongly decided. i think he s likely to take an approach that will be hostile to roe. do you think that it s more in the democrats best interest
do you think are praise worthy of ending? that was the test that was set forth by the supreme court going forward for recognition of additional unenumerated rights. that was cited as authority in that case, planned parenthood versus casey, which reaffirmed roe. let s talk about the right to vote. do you believe that that falls in the category of having been caught up in the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights? what i was describing with the chief justice. his role specifically the reference was to unenumerated rights. in other areas i ve described five different areas of jurisprudence where he a dheefd a mad dern modern area.
to have an abortion. now putting those unenumerated rights in the context of the statement you made, which was to praise the stemming of the general tide of freewheeling creation of unenumerated rights, which means you were the interpretation there is you were praising the request to end those unenumerated rights, my question to you is which of the rights that i just mentioned do you want to put an end to or roll back? three points, i believe, senator. first, constitution, it is in the book that i carry. the constitution protects unenumerated rights, that s what the supreme court says. but that does not explicitly protect the rights that i just listed. we both know that that s the case. that s point one. point be two is gluxberg which
laws. who is protected by discretion? ultimately it protects individual liberty and then even when the congress has pass add law and the executive enforced a law that doesn t mean you go straight to prison. you go if you re charged with a crime you go before an independent judiciary. and just to add further protections for liberty, you have a jury protections that are in the original text of the constitution and reflected in the bill of rights. so in check after check after check the constitution tilts toward individual liberty. the separation of powers also ensures that there are checks on branches so what do we do, for example, members of congress don t serve for life. you have to run for re-election. and that s a check, again, to help protect individual liberty, to help ensure accountablility, as well. the document s chockful with
amendment? robert bork described it as an inkblot. do you share that assessment? so i think the ninth amendment and the privileges and immunities clause and the supreme court s doctrine of substantive due process are three roads that someone might take that all really lead to the same destination under the precedent of the supreme court now which is that the supreme court precedent protects certain unenumerated rights so long as the rights are as the supreme court said in the gluxburg case rooted in history and tradition and justice kagan explained this well in her confirmation hearing that it s quite important for allowing that protection of unenumerated rights rooted in history and tradition which the precedent definitely establishes. but at the same time making