Live on Bloomberg TV

00:00I've been reading through the opinion in the concurring in the dissent of course and the key issue I think really is about what defines a constitutional right. Is it the 14th Amendment. How are you thinking about what or is not explicitly now a constitutional right. That's the great question. The question that the essence of this decision. I think that the biggest problem that the court today showing that it's only willing to look backwards in order to determine what would be a future constitutional right if it's not enshrined in our democratic tradition. The court says then we can recognize it as a right but that's a very backwards way of thinking. Both literally and from the term point of view of the law you should look forward and you should look for future rights in order to determine whether or not the Supreme Court should should recognize them. And it's truly unfortunate that the court is taking a passage from a decision about the right to die and which is Blacksburg versus Washington. This is the decision that the court is citing and putting that at the center and telling us since that since abortion was not recognized one hundred and forty years ago it should not be recognized today. That's a truly unfortunate way of thinking. Well talk us through some of the other rights that were hinted at in the scope of this opinion some with differing opinions here. And that includes right to conscience contraception same sex marriage. How do you see these issues playing out in the court of law. This is truly tragic. I think that Justice Thomas. This is his biggest day. This is his day of vindication for years and years. It was howling at the wind. Writing alone about all those opinions that in his mind should be overruled. And today as the first block falls this is the first stone that he talked about for years and years. That is Roe versus Wade. He's hurrying forward and naming those opinions. The opinion for the right of married persons to obtain contraception the rights of gay and lesbian people to be romantic with each other voluntarily and of course the right to marry whoever you want. All those rights are now on the chopping block as Justice Thomas was writing explicitly in his opinion that we should reexamine those rights in light of Justice Alito's opinion for the court. And in fact he's inviting now. And I suspect that in the coming days we will see the states to start enacting laws against that and for lawsuits to begin such that in two years when this court is still very much with the same makeup over the 6 to 3 supermajority testing all those very established. Right. So what do you make. It's not in the opinion but it's on page seven of the syllabus. And they say this court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and know what the right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. Are they hinting that same sex marriage contraception etc is safe. Not at all. Not at all. I think that Alito here is extremely cautious in saying this opinion. The opinion about abortion does not pertain to other rights. But Thomas is writing in his concurrence. Yes I read what you wrote. But this same framework legal framework will apply equally to the rights for contraception equal marriage and the right for same sex intimacy. All those rights are absolutely on the chopping blocks and in the words of Justice Alito are choice words that are meant to you know to perhaps contain some frustration of the other side of the court. But it's clear now that the court is inviting a wholesale attack on the right to to due process of law and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. They're literally inviting them to day out. So much decision making was handed to the states here. But what about at the federal level here. How do you expect lawmakers to start to fight this out on the federal level. Have you seen Congress lately. Has Congress passed anything of of importance in recent years. You know with with the filibuster rules still prevailing there is no way for Congress to really pass any meaningful law anytime soon or anytime in the foreseeable future. So although you know perhaps theoretically Congress can do something about this the chances of them actually doing something is close to zero. And Professor I caught my eye that the three dissents. It was a joint dissent that was filed. And I should point out that those were three Democratic appointees. How unusual is that and what does it say. First of all I think that it's important to notice that I would be probably justice. Sprayers are either very last opinion or one of his last opinions. And I think the other justices Sotomayor were. Kagan wanted to honor him with joining hands and hands with them and not issuing separate dissenting opinions. What's what's shocking to me or what's impressive to me. With the dissenting opinion is that their words as proper and as correct as they seem are only the words of three of nine justices of the United States Supreme Court. And that is so sad I think that in today's world this opinion saying that respecting a woman is an autonomous being and granting her full equality meant giving her substantial choice over her most personal and most consequential of all life decisions. This is the opinion of only three of nine Supreme Court justices in 2022 a year where the American people have voted for a president that supports abortion rights. A Congress that supports abortion. Right and center. That supports abortion rights. That's that's to me is just purely undemocratic. And what's called the counter majority trailer in difficulty in that the court that is was not elected by any part of the American people other than President Trump was no longer president is now enforcing their opinion on the entire nation. And that's truly unfortunate.

No schedule data available.

Roe v. Wade: What Defines a Constitutional Right?

Doron Kalir, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law professor, talks about the legal ramifications of the Supreme Court overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling that protected a woman's abortion rights. He's on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)

More From Bloomberg Markets
All episodes and clips

Bloomberg Technology
The only daily news program focused exclusively on technology, innovation and the future of business from San Francisco. Hosted by Emily Chang.
More episodes and clips