tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News September 27, 2020 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
the president will be talking about covid-19. brit: i'm brit hume in for chris wallace. ♪ >> today is my honor to nominate judge amy coney barrett. brit: nominated to fill ruth bader ginsburg's seat, we are joined by gene scalia, plus -- >> justice ginsburg must be turning over in her grave in heaven. brit: get reaction from senator
john kennedy, key member of the senate judiciary committee. then what will the likely shift in the court's makeup mean for issues in americans lives. we will discuss with ken starr and laurence tribe. all right now on fox news sunday. ♪ ♪ brit: hello again from fox news in cleveland. live on the campus of western reserve unit and the cleveland clinic, the supreme court vacancy, president trump's third and his election of amy coney barrett of nominee adds new twist to debate. we will begin with fox team coverage, mark meredith and
jacqui heinrich in wilmington, delaware. let's start with the latest on the president's supreme court pick and what we know about the timeline for a confirmation process, mark. mark: president trump hopes to fire up base with supreme court nominee but with election day fast approaching, the white house knows getting judge barrett confirmed by the senate will be contentious. >> it's a very proud moment, indeed. [applause] mark: president trump made it official, he's nominating seventh circuit appeals court judge amy coney barrett to supreme court. >> she's a woman of unparallel achievement, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the constitution. mark: barrett a favorite of conservative establishment, catholic and former clerk to late justice scalia. >> his judicial philosophy is mine too. a judge must apply the law as written.
mark: democrats outraged republicans are pushing barrett's nomination forward just 5 weeks before the election after republicans blocked president obama's nominee merrick garland for the same reason in 2016. senate minority leader chuck schumer says democrats are concerned with barrett's position on abortion and religion. >> i would strongly, strongly oppose this nomination. mark: two gop senators say they will not vote on the nominee before the election, but the majority of republicans appear ready to hold hearings and senate judiciary committee chair lindsey graham says his committee will show 4 days of confirmation hearings beginning week of october 12th. mark: the president told reporters he thinks barrett's confirmation will move fast and he believes that confirmation vote will happen before election, day. brit: thank you, mark. let's turn to jacqui heinrich who is covering the biden campaign in wilmington, delaware, hi, jacqui.
reporter: president trump pressureing about health care can stall the confirmation process. warning amy coney barrett and lung heart damage can become the next deniable preconditions writing barrett as a written track record of disagreeing and upholding the affordable care act. she critiques john roberts upholding the law in 2012. democrats hope threat of retaliation from angry voters could persuade senate republicans in tight races to push the vote past election day. biden is offering the standard, the gop set four years ago as a way out urging no action until after november 3rd. biden is resisting talk about "nuclear options instead of focusing
attention to president trump's peaceful transition of power if he loses. >> what i am concerned about is whether he generates some kind of response in a way that -- that unsettles the society or causes some -- some kind of violence. the last thing we need is, you know, equivalent of a coup. reporter: biden was slated for a light schedule as he's been heavy into debate prep including mocked debate with adviser playing the role of president trump, but early this morning he announced price remarks on supreme court vacancy coming up later this afternoon, brit. brit: jacqui heinrich. joining us secretary of labor gene scalia. thank you for joining us today. secretary: it's a pleasure. brit: i know you know judge barrett a number of years, i
wonder how you would characterize her, what kind of person is she? secretary: well, he's a beloved teacher, very respected scholar. i think she's shown herself to be a thoughtful jurist and she's just a wonderful warm admirable human being as well, mother to 7, mother to school-aged children. she's a very impressive delightful person. i think the american people as they come to know her are going to find her very admirable in so many ways. brit: let's get to the question of her record then. we are now -- it's now becoming clear at least at the outset that the issue on which she will be challenged by democrats is health care and particularly the affordable care act which is coming up for action by the supreme court at some point in the near future. the assertion is being made that she's likely to vote not to
uphold the act and therefore put an end to it. what do you make of that claim? secretary: it's a red herring, brit. it reflects frustration on the part of democrats on how they would attack her nomination. she made a comment about the affordable care act decision a number of years ago before she was a judge. it was a comment that a number of people made at the time. it's not a question that will be before the court in the case that's coming up. and there's absolutely zero reason to believe that judge barrett is somebody who has -- does not have the views about the importance of health care. as i said, she's a working mother to a school-aged children, she's the mother to a child with disability, the suggestion that she's opposed -- brit: let me drill down a little bit further on the question about the comment she made.
what did she say about the affordable care act and i guess it was about john roberts' decision in the case to treat the affordable care act penalty's as a tax. what did she say exactly that you think is not likely to lead to a decision one way or the other? secretary: i believe that she made the observation that it appeared that chief justice had bent over backwards to twist the language of that statute to save its constitutionality. that was a criticism that a number of people made at the time. by the way, it was something that other people praised the chief justice for. a number of people said the justice did the right thing by, in their view, going out of his way to save the statute. it was a common view at the time. i think the most important thing to know about judge barrett's juries prudence is that she will go where the law takes her. her view of judging is that any
personal view she may have on health care, any other matter that you can name, is not relevant to determining what congress wrote and what's in our constitution. her authority derives from those documents. she understands that and she will follow the lead of the constitution and its original meaning and the text of what congress wrote. brit: yeah, i understand that the issue that will come before the court is whether the affordable care act was tax or penalty is zeroed out. now there's no actual monetary penalty for not having insurance. with that out, how can it stand its attacks, correct? secretary: i believe that's the question, brit, but, again, we are talking about -- >> brit: let me interrupt you. >> there's no single case by which you should judge her
qualification for the court. she would be addressing cases for years, probably decades. brit: understood, but let me just -- let me just push you further on this, if you don't mind, sir. if she believes that the idea that it was a tax as articulated by the chief justice was kind of farfetched, why would we not then believe that when the issue came before the court with the tax zeroed out that she wouldn't then say that the constitutional basis for demanding or ordering people to have health care, mandating health care, health insurance, i should say, is unconstitutional? secretary: because the very fact that the tax is no longer there, the question is whether tax or not is moot, is gone, the fact that this is being raised shows that the democrats are casting a ballot for anything by which they might seek to oppose an
exceptional nominee. the other thing i expect we may hear about is her faith which as you know was something she was attacked for last time. the democrats embarrassed themselves when they did it but they have done it with nominees. we had a nominee of the president to accord a little more than a year ago who was attacked for being a member of knights of columbus and senator of hawaii and senator kamala harris both attacked this man for being a member of the knights of columbus which is a catholic organization that accepts catholic faith. i think we will see all manner of criticisms but it can change the fact -- >> brit: speaking of catholic -- >> exceptional nominee. brit: very quickly then, speaking of organizations, she has said to be a member of a group called people of praise which is a kind of christian group, exists in many countries and a number in this country.
what do you know about people praise and do you have any idea why people seem afraid of that? secretary: well, as you said, a christian group that has spread around the world. it's any number of groups that catholics associate themselves to deepen their faith and deepen spiritualty and serve others. it's been suggested that because she's a member of this group she may have a submissive role and she won 3 times in notre dame law school. she's done amazing things. it's quite insulting to suggest that she has a submissive view of women's role in society, quite sexist. by the way, that's not what her critics are worried about. they are worried that she's a
very thoughtful, articulate judge that would be wonderful addition to the court. brit: mr. secretary, thank you very much, thank you for joining us today. up next we will speak with two members to have senate about the upcoming confirmation process of judge amy coney barrett as fox news reports from the university and cleveland clinic ahead
come before or after the november 3rd election, joining us now democratic senator debbie stabenow. senator stabenow, very nice to see you, ma'am. any chance that you might vote -- thank you. any chance that you might vote for the nominee? senator: first let me say congratulations to amy coney barrett, this is always honor to be nominated to the highest court of the land. i want to congratulate her for that. for me it's all about being in the middle of a health pandemic, once in a lifetime health pandemic. and it's clear from her writings, multiple writings that she will be the vote that takes away health care for millions of americans including people, 130 million people and counting with preexisting conditions. and, of course, those are going
up every day because of the health pandemic. brit: let me stop you if i can. let me ask you what specifically writing you are citing that would mean that she would definitely be a vote not to uphold the affordable care act? senator: i think your question of former guest, secretary scalia, makes it clear, when she was laying out her criticisms to have court for not essentially repealing it sooner. and, you know, brit, what's most important here is that we know that president trump and republicans have been trying to repeal the affordable care act since they took office. congress said no, and so this is the last chance that you put someone on the supreme court that will do it, and then even though people in michigan didn't want the law to be repealed, they want their health care and i would say that the response has got to be to put a president in who is going to protect and
strengthen their health care. brit: i hear you, senator. let me just follow up on that a little bit further if i can. the remark that i mentioned to secretary scalia is one which she had commented in pass of john roberts' determination that the penalties afforded under the affordable care act for not carrying insurance amounted to a tax and not just a penalty. that viewpoint, by the way, has been wildly criticized. and now that the tax penalty has been eliminated, there's no tax at all, what makes you think that that remark would lead to her naturally and automatically, inevitable voting not to uphold the affordable care act? senator: brit, it's called common sense. the number 1 priority of the president to have united states has been to takeaway people's health care and they have been trying for ten years, even before president trump, with no replacement, they want to take
it away and he certainly has given every indication that he wants the supreme court to act in the favor of the case that he has supported. he has helped to bring this case to the united states supreme court. does anybody really think, you know, common sense will tell you, he's going put somebody on the court who has given all kinds of clues and writings about this issue and i tell you people in michigan are really worried. brit: i can understand, but you are saying all kinds of clues. what other clues other than this remark that was cited in my interview with secretary scalia? what other clues, senator? senator: well, we will lay all of this out in judiciary hearings and i don't want to get debate all the legalese back and forth with you today because i think there's a bigger picture here which is people's healthcare. i do have to say from a michigan perspective, we have people right now just holding on, you
know, over 200,000 people have lost their lives, they are holding on and saying, why aren't you focused on another covid package that's going to help my family keep a roof over our head and food on the table and help our small businesses be able to open safely and, please, help us with our schools, we can't get the testing support, the other things we need to open the schools safely, my own family trying to juggling zoom for a kindergartner and third grader. instead of dealing with what's right in front of people right now, that's causing them real -- what we have is a rush to judgment to put somebody on the court that's going to takeaway people's healthcare. brit, i just don't get it. brit: well, i understand your view. let me just ask you, you congratulated judge barrett of her appointment, i take it that you, therefore, believe it's legitimate for the president to have made the appointment? senator: we know it's legitimate for him to make a nomination.
we also know it's clear in the record in the senate that between july and november of a presidential election year there has never been a confirmation of a united states supreme court justice. never. either party, never happened. we are right now in the middle of voting, in michigan we are already voting. we are being asked to vote four days before election day and whether or not a nominee will go on the court with a very high likelihood of overturning their health care, taking away their health care protections right when they are voting for a president who wants to do that and a nominee, vice president joe biden, who said clearly he's going to protect and strengthen their health care. by the way, if we have a democratic senate we will join him in making sure that happens. brit: senator stabenow, very nice for you to take the time. thank you very much. let's turn to member of the
senate judiciary committee hearing, john kennedy of louisiana, welcome back to fox news sunday, nice to have you. john: thanks, brit, nice to be here. brit: we can now see pretty clearly the outlines to have case made by democrats against judge barrett as she would be vote to strike down the affordable care act. what is your reaction to that? john: senator stabenow is my colleague. i consider her my friend, i say this gently, sell crazy somewhere else. we are all stocked up here unless -- unless debbie is clairvoyant, i don't think she knows how the nominee is going to vote or any other member of the united states supreme court. but debbie makes the point, the difference between democrats and
republicans in terms of the role of the supreme court, my democratic friends think that the supreme court ought to be mini congress, politicians without ropes, they don't even need to hear cases. they already know how they are going to vote, and that's part of the problem, that's not how i view the appropriate role of the supreme court. and i don't think that's how it operates. you're going to see a lot of evidence, accusations -- sure. brit: senator, let me just ask you this about the very process and the fact of the nomination. you, of course, were around when the nomination was made of merrick garland and the senate simply refused to take it up in any way, and the case was made by mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, that the american people, close in an election year which that was back when president obama nominated judge garland should have a say in the -- in the
supreme court nomination made that close to an election. now it seems that the roles have reversed. the president has made a nomination, it's an election clear and close to the election and you and other republicans are prepare today -- prepared to move forward with this which is distinct from the views you took 4 years ago. you are being accused of hypocrisy and double standards, how do you answer? senator: well, let me finish my last point first to debbie and my colleagues in the senate. i hope they let us have a respectful process. we don't need another freak shows and bring back michael avenatti. let's focus on the nominee. now, to answer your question, i'm rather fond of the constitution. i have read it. its provisions about filling a supreme court vacancy are unaffected by the electoral
calendar. i realize that on both sides, brit, there's been a lot of confusion and attempted rhetoric about the precedent to be followed during an election year to fill a vacancy. here is as best as i can tell, here is the rule. when the democrats are in charge to have process, they do what they think is right consistent with the constitution. when the republicans are in charge of the process, they do what they think is right. and i think that's where -- what our founders intended. i think our founders intended elections have consequences and when they send people to washington of a particular party, they expect them to represent their voters, and i think that's been the tradition and the precedent. brit: it appears on the
constitution point of view that you're spot-on with that. the constitution doesn't say anything about the electoral process in terms of the appointment and confirmation of supreme court justices. would you not acknowledge that what we have here is a serious case on both sides on this issue of shoe on the other foot disease? senator: sure. absolutely. and that's why i say if you -- in washington as you know better than i do, brit, you have to watch what people do and not what they say. and if you watched what has happened, in the history of ever, i don't think there's ever been another instance where when democrats were in charge they didn't do what they wanted and when the republicans were in charge they didn't do what they wanted consistent with the constitution. now right now we have a republican president and a republican senate. if that were a shoe on the other foot, then i can assure you, senator schumer would do what the republicans are doing right
now. as i said the other day, if you don't believe that, you probably peeped in high school. brit: you're hoping as i'm sure others as well that we will have something other than a freak show in this. in history in this, kavanaugh being recent example and previously we had late, unexpected allegations made of sexual misconduct against now justice clarence thomas. is it your sense that the senate's appetite for allowing this thing to go on is diminished because otherwise if something like this comes along, i'm not sure what you can do about it? what can you do? senator: if my democratic friends want to, you know, want to turn it into an intergalactic freak shows and bring the protestors, i can't stop them. i just hope they won't.
i will do my job. i think she's a good nominee, but my job is to advise and consent. i'm going to probe her intellect, her temperament, her judicial philosophy, her character. i want to be assured that she doesn't think justices are politicians in robes. i want -- i will answer that in a second. i want to make sure she's not one of these justices that tries to rewrite the constitution every thursday to advance political agenda that the voters won't accept. i don't think her faith -- i mean, if the democrats, she believes in god and therefore unqualified, i don't think that's illegal in america. i hope not. we have religious freedom and it should be jealously guarded. they tried that when she came up to court of appeals nomination. it didn't work out too well. they may try it again. as i say, they may bring back michael avenatti, but i hope so
because it cheapens the process. i hope not rather. brit: senator kennedy, thank you for joining us. up next we will discuss how amy coney barrett's confirmation could reshape the court with two leading experts on constitutional law as we count down here in cleveland for first presidential debate just a presidential debate just a couple of days
real social security employees will never threaten you. callers threatening you with arrest or other legal action and demanding money, are not from us! if you receive a call like this: hang up! do not provide them with any form of payment or information. report the call at: oig.ssa.gov brit: central to the fight over the next supreme court justice is issue of abortion which is opponents like to call women's reproductive rights and the future of roe versus wade. we want to do a deeper dive on the upcoming court battle so we invited former independent counsel and former federal appellate court judge ken starr
and laurence tribe to discuss. gentlemen, welcome to fox news sunday. let me start with you, professor tribe. give us quickly your view of the nomination. laurence: my view is that they should have awaited the results of the election. we have never jumped the gun this quickly. it's 5 weeks away. people are already voting. whatever the rule might have been in the case of merrick garland where the gop kept the seat vacant for over 400 days, the idea that we need to rush ahead with a lifetime appointment that is judge barrett herself would readily acknowledge will make a huge difference in the tilt of the court on health care, on women's reproductive rights, on voting rights. the idea that we can't wait a few days is ludicrous. there's no reason for it and i
really think that the nomination is -- is misguided, quite apart from the nominee. ithink quite well of amy coney barrett. the issue is not the nominee but the nomination. they're not willing to wait because they really are nervous about what the american people believe the constitution means and what they believe should be represented in supreme court. yeah, go ahead. brit: speaking of the constitution, speaking of the constitution, sir, do you find any argument of your position yourself? >> i'm not saying it's unconstitutional. it's perfectly constitutional but a lot of things that are constitutional are stupid. this is not a good idea. what is it that they are afraid of? that the american don't want to reelect this president. if they they he will be reelected and they won't have a republican senate, then they can
confirm, amy coney barrett then, but the idea that it has to happen now, one to have reasons the president has given is he wants to have a majority on the court to uphold his decision not to count all the ballots. he said if we don't count the ballots, if we toss some of them aside, we don't have to worry about a transition, it'll be a continuation of my presidency. that's not the way democracy works. that's the way dictatorship works. brit: judge starr, your reaction to the points that have been raised by professor tribe. ken: first i have great respect for professor tribe and no small affection for him. i view as the president's duty. there is a vacancy and it's tragic that we lost justice ginsburg but exactly you asked the right question, what does the constitution say?
i don't think whoever the president is should dilly dally, i think justice sotomayor said, justice ginsburg herself said it at the same time. the president does not stop being the president during an election year, so the president has done his duty and now, of course, it is up to the senate to determine are these considerations that professor tribe are articulating, are those weighty enough to say we are not going to go forward or are we going to wait until after the election and so forth. but the president has chosen a superb nominee. we saw that yesterday, and no one is questioning her abilities, her integrity, her temperament and the like. so let's have a good confirmation hearing and air out all of the issues including how are you going to vote on some of these thorny questions. brit: let me get to that because
it's being stated with some certainty -- just a second professor tribe. i will get back to you. professor tribe was pretty specific about the issues on which he believes that he can predict or it's clear how judge barrett will vote, abortion and a number of others that he mentioned. what's your reaction to that, judge starr? ken: absolutely premature and wrong. with all due respect to professor tribe, the judicial process is not academic enterprise. what someone said as academic may and it's appropriate to explore that in the confirmation hearing, but to predict in advance how a justice is going to behave or to vote, i think is foley. i don't think it's fair to the process. that's why you take an oath and you read the briefs as a judge and listen to the oral arguments and consult with your colleagues as well. does she have a judicial
philosophy, absolutely. she has said she's of the school of antonin scalia. so that's a great insight and that is what i would call a traditionalist, treats the constitution not as simply aspirational document but as law, and so i would say hold off, let's hear the confirmation hearings and see if she says as i think she will, i solemnly promise that i will go on my duties with open mind and i will listen to all the arguments and i will assess them with great respect as well as the views of my colleagues. brit: professor tribe. >> laurence: i don't pretend to have a crystal ball. i read many of her opinions. it's clear how she approaches the law. it's perfectly respectable view, the view justice scalia held and, of course, he thought that row v wade was wrongly decided.
she has written that roe v wade is not precedent and explicit in saying she thought that chief justice roberts was wrong in stretching what he understood the affordable care act meant in order to uphold it. she's been admirably candid about her views. brit: what did you think about what justice roberts -- how justice roberts ruled on the matter, whether it was a tax or penalty, what did you think of that as a constitutional lawyer? laurence: i made clear that that's what he would rule and he ought to rule in order to avoid constitutional conflict, that is interpret the law as a tax in order to use the broad taxing power in order to uphold it and i think the lower court which said that when the tax goes away, it's no longer possible to uphold the law and even the
protection for people with preexisting conditions goes away. i think and most scholars think that went way too far. now, i'm not going to predict exactly what judge barrett will do on that, but what is clear is she is being rushed through in a confirmation process that will be faster than any in recent memory because they want to have 6 conservatives on the court that will determine whether he is remaining president. brit: judge starr, very quickly, give me 15 seconds. i want to give you the last word here. ken: predictions are felatiious. you have someone good with solid record and person with such great ability. let's move the process forward and have a good robust debate which would be good for the country.
brit: judge starr, professor tribe, thank you very much for your perspective as the confirmation process gets underway. up next we will bring sunday group to discuss what's at stake on tuesday's night debate and nomination when fox news returns from cleveland still your best friend. and now your co-pilot. still a father. but now a friend. still an electric car. just more electrifying. still a night out. but everything fits in. still hard work. just a little easier. still a legend. just more legendary. chevrolet. making life's journey, just better.
when a republican president gets to confirm any, any judges. brit: democratic leader chuck schumer and majority leader mcdonnell giving a preview of the senate battle ahead over president trump's supreme court nominee. time for sunday final, gop strategist karl rove, katie pavlich and fox news juan williams. republicans are speaking with great confidence about their prospects and they are hearing that the votes are there to bring up the nomination, but karl, how confident can we be, give me your best thought that the votes will be there all said and done given the kind of processes that we have had before? karl: well, judge barrett went through this in 2017 and physical abused out of the senate with republican support. i suspect very strong likelihood that the result will be the same. i think it's interesting, though, that the democrats are making strange arguments.
you heard senator stabenow imply there was agreement between the president and justice barrett that she would vote to overturn the affordable care act and railed the senate for taking on the matter rather than passing covid relief package. this is a matter of dais -- days for another covid relief. this is politics, politics but will end with her in the supreme court. brit: katie. katie: it's clear that the democrats are taking it political. it's something that they don't know about and judges frequently during confirmation hearing or supreme court do not reveal how they would view on pending cases. you've had harvard professor
laurence tribe really define how the left is moving forward with philosophy on this. well, it's constitutional for the president to appoint a nominee and for the senate to move forward on advise and consent but there are a number of stupid things in the constitution, so while republicans are moving forward with the constitutionality of this, amy coney barrett continues to say that her political feelings and policy positions does not reflect how she rules on a number of cases. democrats continue to argue that because they have some feelings about the timing of this that the constitution should be pushed aside which is in direct conflict with what barrett said yesterday at the white house in saying that she will -- she loves the constitution and she would move forward in the constitutional process and she would not make law from the bench but rather interpret it. brit: juan, where do you come out on all of this? juan: well, brit, i think the
democrats have a choice here. i mean, one choice is they could shun barrett, not grant her meetings, stay away from the hearing which is the republicans did for merrick garland for ten months not just six weeks. i think it's most likely now from what i'm hearing, they will go to the hearing, i don't know about the meetings, they will go to the hearings and say it's rushed process and note that many republican senators even before we knew it was going to be amy coney barrett as nominee said they would vote for whoever president trump nominated. so they will focus on that and they will focus on the idea as we've heard earlier in the show that she is an opponent, you know, continuation of affordable care act and gay rights, abortion, maybe most of all any dispute on the election would be decided by her in the president's favor and that would, of course, decide who the next president of the united
states is. brit: well, juan, do you think there's any chance that those arguments on the affordable care act and -- and the rushed process will peel away any republican voters? republicans have a majority, very narrow one, but a majority, nonetheless, those arguments would have to sway republicans, could those arguments do that, juan? juan: you know, it's a matter of conscious at this point and what we have seen is a unified republican front behind senator mcconnell, the majority leader in the senate, brit, it would have to be that somebody, either matter of conscious or i would say potentially somebody who is in a tough reelection fight for their senate seat decide that it's unattainable. i don't see anything like that. brit: karl, what do you think? karl: i don't think so. most of the republicans senators were there in 2017, many of them
were there in 2017 when we went through the similar circus. dianne feinstein attacked her catholic faith saying the dogma lives strongly in you. members of the senate are allowed to exercise constitutional authority. the president has right no nominate and the senate has rise to consent. what's interesting to me is senator schumer was a leader of the effort to withhold -- they never gave a vote to miguel estrada nominated by president bush and nothing was right by them exercising their authority. brit: katie, what do you think this affects the election one way or the other? katie: i think the chances are 100% especially for republican voters who put more republican senators in the senate in 2018 based on the supreme court issue after the bruising fight over brett kavanaugh's nomination. president trump has been very transparent since the beginning
of his presidency 4 years ago in releasing a list of supreme court nominees he would put on the court if he had the chance. so he's given everybody including democrats a preview of this and plenty of time to prepare for it. brit: i understand, but what about the effect of this nomination and let's just assume for the sake of discussion that she's confirmed, what is the effect if any on the election quickly? katie: well, i think democrats who feel like this has been rushed through quickly get more enthusiasm for joe biden who, of course, needs that, and republicans risk serious consequences in future elections if they were not to move forward with this nomination. brit: okay, juan, your thoughts on the election and how it might be affected by this nomination? juan: well, i don't think there's any question the majority of americans think it's wrong to rush the process. they think the next president should decide even a substantial number of republicans.
this is group politics. in terms of the election it excites the base of both parties. brit: okay. gentlemen, lady, thank you very much. see you next sunday. someone will, chris, i suppose. a look back -- up next, a look back of big moments of debates past as donald trump and joe biden prepare to go face to face here in cleveland in 2 days. it's been 75 years since your ancestors served in world war two. many of their stories remain untold. find and honor the veterans in your family. their stories live on at ancestry. - [announcer] your story doesn't have to end. as an organ donor, the good in you can live on. in fact, you could save up to eight lives
brit: in just 2 days president trump and former vice president joe biden will finally faceoff on the debate stage with our own chris wallace moderating his second time at the helm of one of these debates. it is obviously a critical event for both candidates hoping to deliver knockout performance as they always do hope that could generate momentum in the campaign's home stretch. first debates tend to be the
most important ones, history shows impressions created in the first debates can sometimes be hard to overcome if they go against you and great help if they go for you. president donald trump will return to debate stage here in cleveland shortly. two days from now on this very time facing the democratic nominee joe biden, be sure to tune in as chris wallace moderates first debate, 9:00 p.m. eastern on tuesday. we will have special coverage starting tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern anchored by bret baier and martha macallum. we have a package looking at debates past, have a look. >> the presidential candidates meet face to face, television debates seen and heard by people. >> jf kennedy dazzling going onto win in november and setting a new precedent. bring your a game to tv events.
like ronald reagan was asked about age. >> i would not make age issue of the campaign. i am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth or inexperience. [laughter] brit: the smackdown of dan quayle. >> i knew jack kennedy. jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator, you're no jack kennedy. [cheers and applause] >> in 2000 it was the nod, george w. bush rubbing off al gore. >> can you get things done? and i believe i can. in 2012 president barack obama was ready when mitt romney talked military preparedness. >> you mentioned the navy, for example, governor we also have fewer horses because the nature of our military has changed.
we have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. brit: in 2016 between donald trump and hillary clinton it was suddenly less about style and more about the unpredictable substance. chris: where do you want to see the court take the country? >> i believe if my opponent should win the race which i truly don't think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. brit: key moments that shocked at the time and still loom large as we head into november. chris: do you make the same commitment that you will -- sir, that you will absolutely accept the results of this election? >> ly look at it at the time. chris: are you saying you're not prepared to get -- >> ly -- i will tell you at the time. i will keep you in suspense. brit: it's going to be interesting on tuesday. that's it for today from cleveland. have a great week and we will see you next fox news sunday.
♪ bret: get ready for a clash in cleveland. >> i can hardly wait to debate. we'll see who's sleepy. martha: president trump and vice president joe biden set to square off in prime time, live in battleground ohio. >> the virus was too quick for him. he froze. bret: this first 2020 debate of the general election marking round one, a potential opportunity from each candidate to