and suggested the 9th amendment was a source for such rights, and the 9th amendment of course states that the shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people. judge jackson, what specific rights has the supreme court identified as flowing from the 9th amendment, and by that i mean specifically from the 9th amendment rather than in sort of an also ran list of other features of the constitution that might back up a particular ruling? what rights has the constitution identified as flowing specifically from the 9th amendment? thank you, senator. the supreme court, as i understand it, has not identified any particular rights flowing directly from the 9th amendment, although as you said the text of the amendment
today, about the fact she thinks it s one of the strengths of our constitutional system, people who cannot afford to have a defense will have one provided to them, including detainees at guantanamo bay, and how it speaks to our judicial system, seeing it and arguing as a strength. now, senator graham agreed with her. said yes, i agree with you people deserve representation, that is one of the bedrock foundations of our constitution system, but he is not only an attorney, he was an attorney in the military so he is very familiar with the proceedings on many different levels. he got into the heated back and forth with senator durbin about exactly how many people are at gitmo, whether they should be there, what their rights are now and got heated and i m not sure if it was on the clip but he did get up and walk out. he was done with that conversation at that point. sandra: yep, yep, walked out of the room.
her for being one of president obama s greatest achievements. i want it circle back to what you were talking about, the rights in question. in a recent piece for the washington post, you noted republicans continued to pelt her with questions about unenumerated and judge made rights which you say underscores that abortion was never the conservatives end game. it s nearly a weight station on the path to rolling back a wide range of rights that scaffold the most intimate aspects of our lives. talk me through what s at stake? we have always had abortion be the elephant in the room in these confirmation hearings and this has always been the root of the questions about fidelity to precedent and unenumerated rights, but abortion is on the chopping block. we all know this. the court has signaled they have this incredible appetite to overrule roe v. wade. what explains the obsessive focus on enumerated rights in
the country to go unmitigated and unremedied. so yeah, the court is not having a great couple of months, and the public support for judge jackson and what she will bring to the judiciary perhaps will buoy the court for the time being, but we have to wrestle with the fact that this african-american woman, this historic nomination is going to bolster an institution that right now is governed by a conservative 6-3 super majority intent on rolling back 50 years worth of abortion precedent. and if we can read the tea leaves here, and i think we can based on this confirmation hearing that is correct will not be where it stops. the court s already signaled that they have an appetite for dismantling even more the way we operate government and the rights that we all recognize and perhaps take for granted. and i want to move back in a minute to that conversation about rights that we take for granted. i want to ask you, there was so
respect to persons and do it faithfully and impartially. you do it without consideration of external circumstances, external considerations. policy considerations or otherwise. now, this relates to some interaction that you and i had when you came before this committee for your confirmation to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit where you now sit. i submitted some questions to the record in which i asked you whether to what extent the constitution protects rights that are not enumerated in the constitution itself and if so to specify what those rights were. you responded by citing a number of cases, loving versus virginia, handful of others.