>> chris: i'm chris wallace. president trump will announce his supreme court nominee a week from tomorrow and sets a date for a summit with vladimir puti vladimir putin. ♪ >> i think we will be talking about syria. i think we will be be talking about ukraine. i think we will be talking about many other subjects we will see what happens. >> chris: we will discuss relations between the u.s. and russia and what to expect from the helsinki summit with john bolton, president trump's national security advisor in his first interview since returning from moscow. then. >> we have to pick a great one. we have to pick one that's going to be there for 40 years, 45 years. >> chris: who will president trump pick to replace justice anthony kennedy?

>> if the president nominates somebody extraordinary like neil gorsuch again, i think it's hard to stop that kind of a nomination. >> chris: we will handicap possible nominees with leonard leo, who will play a key role in the president's choice. and how will democrats try to block the confirmation? we will ask dick durbin, the senate number two democrat who wants to delay a vote until after the midterms. plus. >> journalist, like all americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job. >> chris: critics of president trump link his attacks on the press to the shooting deaths of five people at a newspaper in maryland. we will ask our sunday panel about both sides playing a disturbing blame game. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. as america settles in for the fourth of july holiday, president trump has set an ambitious agenda for this week.

he's finalizing his supreme court pick to be announced in just eight days and preparing for a trip to europe, including a summit with russian president vladimir putin. in a moment we will talk with national security advisor john bolton, who is just back from moscow. but first let's bring in corresponding kevin corke at the white house with the latest on the president's plan. >> the president has been has been, let's just say, strikingly unconventional. a distortedly structured playbook to nominate a second supreme court justice is frankly not trumpian. prudence in this case is presidential. president trump is said to be narrowing his focus on five potential nominees. the retirement of justice anthony kennedy. >> he has displayed tremendous vision and tremendous heart and he will be missed and hopefully we are going to pick somebody

who will be as outstanding. >> white house counsel don mcgann and leonard leo are said to be spearheading the search, drawing from a list of more than two dozen reliably conservative jurists. the confirmation battle on capitol hill is expected to be fierce. democrats contend that when the mexicans majority leader mitch mcconnell stole the nomination of mira garland, turnabout is fair play. >> he said we will not allow a supreme court justice during an election year, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. we should not allow justice in an election year. >> it was a low standard, if you will, but it was a standard. i think others haven't forgotten that. as you sow, so you reap. >> while the high court battle looms in washington, a number of major stories are developing. were no questions about u.s. troop levels in germany, the fast approaching nato summit and

talks of a highly anticipated one-on-one between president trump and russian president vladimir putin. with ukraine, crimea and syria among the many topics to be discussed when they meet in helsinki july 16th. >> chris: kevin corke reporting for the white house. thanks for that. joining me now, the president's national security advisor john bolton in his first interview since meeting with russian president vladimir putin this week in moscow. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> john: glad to be with you. >> chris: what does president trump want from his summit, is it beyond just improving the dialogue, does he realistically hope for a break this on ukraine or syria or arms control? >> john: i think the first point is that it's very important to have this bilateral meeting not on the margins of a larger meeting, but to have a conversation with vladimir putin that covers the full range of

issues, i expect it will be somewhat unstructured, certainly in the one-on-one meeting but it will give them a chance to go over some of these issues free of the pressure. i think in establishing that line of communication the president has very much in mind he wants to understand the russian position and perhaps more importantly he wants vladimir putin to understand our position. if breakthroughs come from that that will be great, but frankly having this meeting roughly a year and a half into the administration is a key fact. >> chris: after the singapore summit, here's what president trump told our colleague bret baier about what he thought might be able to happen if he could sit down with vladimir putin. >> i would say would you do me a favor, would you get out of syria? would you do me a favor? would you get out of ukraine? >> chris: does president trump think it's really going to be that easy to sway vladimir putin, would you do me a favor? >> john: i think what he's saying is low, if we can have a

direct conversation between the two leaders, especially given the russian system where putin essentially calls the shots, we can find out where russia's main points -- what its main objectives are and what we need to achieve. without this kind of discussion which has been precluded sometime by the political noise over the allegations of collusion with the campaign, we haven't been able to do that. that's why having the meeting and getting started is in and of itself so important. >> chris: some european leaders have come out this week and said that they are worried that we are going to see a repeat of what happened with the g7 summit in canada and in the president's trip to singapore, that he will meet with our nato allies in europe and be very critical of them and then he will go to helsinki and meet with president putin and put lavish praise on him. in canada the president reportedly said that nato is as bad as nafta.

>> john: i was there in canada. i didn't hear that remark. i'm not aware that he set it. i think there are a lot of stories -- let's be clear, the nato summit is an important meeting. i think the president has made clear to all european leaders he's met with that nato is an important alliance for the united states, our most important. he just has a very precise idea that the nato allies should live up to the commitment that they themselves made to send 2% of their budget -- 2% of their gross national product on defense spending. >> chris: i think the point is that he seemed to be tougher on our allies at the g7 and he was on an adversary like camp and the concern among european leaders is that if he does that same thing and is clicked on my critical of nato and then goes and praises putin that it weakens nato vis-a-vis russia. >> john: i don't read the way he conducted these meetings the same way. the discussions we haven't nato

or the g7 versus discussions with putin and kim jong un. they are very, very different, the president treats them differently. he understands what the strategic interests are and that's what is trying to pursue. >> chris: must look at some of the statements president trump is made with regard to russia recently and i want to put them up on the screen. he said that russia should be invited back into the g7. in canada he reportedly told the other leaders crimea, which putin of course seized, is russian because everybody who lives there speaks russian. this week he tweeted russia continues to say they have nothing to do with meddling in our election and the pentagon is reportedly studying pulling troops out of germany, so the question is, it is the president making concessions to putin before they even sit down? >> john: i don't think that's the case. that long list of things that you just read, it's really interesting catalog. some things are true, some things are not true, some things are partially true. i don't think we have enough time for me to go through and parse each and every one of

them. i think it goes back to the main rationale to have a bilateral meeting between president trump and president putin, let them discuss these issues and see exactly where there might be room for progress or where we find there is no room at all. in my meeting with president putin he was trying to go to the whole list of items on his agenda. i think there were some where it was clear our position was very, very far apart. there were others where perhaps there is room for some kind of progress. we will just have to see. given the nature of the russian system in particular, i don't think we will find out until the two leaders get together. >> chris: you say some of the things we listed, some of them are clearly true. >> john: lots of things that were reported that don't even come close. >> chris: he himself said he would like to see russia back at the g7. >> john: that's the one that almost unambiguously true. >> chris: in the tweet is unambiguously true. did he say at the g7 that crimea is russian because everybody

there speaks russian? the reason i ask that because between that and inviting russia back to the g7, there's an argument made that he doesn't want to punish russia for its bad behavior invading and seizing crimea. >> john: i didn't hear him say that either and i didn't see it in the notes. a lot of these things come out of these meetings. it did end with some disagreements with the other members. a lot of this i think is potentially exaggerated. i think the key point is that where there are areas of disagreement, certainly with our closest allies, but also with our adversaries, the president's view is he wants to sit down and talk about them. >> chris: i want to ask about one other specific thing on that list, which is that you have been very clear about russian meddling in 2016. at last year you called it an act of war, putin denied meddling, you said this. >> everybody who had looked at the classified information has said there's no doubt the

russians tried to affect the reluctant my collection. vladimir putin looked donald trump directly in the eye and lie to him and i think that's the single most important take away coming out of this meeting. >> chris: is president trump -- you'll love it when i play these old clips. >> john: i love watching myself, absolutely. >> chris: is president trump as clear as you are that -- forget the issue of collusion, that russia meddled in the 2016 election, and if so, why would he retweet their denial this week at the same time attacking the fbi? >> john: i think the president has already said that he's going to raise the question of russian meddling again with vladimir putin. he said it this past week. >> chris: does he believe it happen? >> john: i will tell you what president putin said to me through the translator of course, but he said there was no meddling in the 2016 election by the russian state. so i think it still raises the question -- i think the president will want to have a conversation about this and say we don't want to see meddling in the 2018 election. >> chris: 's do have doubts

that the kremlin was involved? >> john: i think the intelligence is what i said it was before, i haven't changed my mind on that and i think it's something that we are concerned about. that's why the president is going to speak with him about it again. >> chris: we haven't had a chance to talk since singapore and i would like to ask you briefly about the north korean summit. after the summit president trump said that north korea is no longer a nuclear threat to the u.s., but as you well know, there are new reports this weekend that u.s. intelligence has concluded that kim is trying to conceal the full range of his arsenal and in fact has no intention of giving it all up. have you seen those intelligence reports? do you believe them, and is kim playing us? >> john: are not going to comment on any reports true, untrue, partially true about intelligence. there's a good reasons why leaking intelligence is a criminal offense in this country. it harms the united states when it happens. it gives away a lot of information to our adversaries. i will just say this, not answering the specific reports we've seen over the weekend, but

i will say this, we are using the full range of our capabilities to understand what north korea is doing. it doesn't profit the possibility of eliminating north korea's nuclear weapons to talk on a day-to-day basis, they are doing this, they are not doing this, they are doing the other thing. there's nobody involved in this discussion with north korea in the administration who is overburdened by naivety. the president has been very clear he's not going to make mistakes at prior administrations made. we are going to pursue this and we will see what happens. that i think is what the next step in the discussions will be. >> chris: two final questions and in the time we have left. back when you worked for bush 43, you called cam's father a tyrannical dictator and north korea a . they called you humans, and a bloodsucker.

you called it a badge of honor. here we can see you sitting at the same table with kim in singapore. i know you met with them, you shook hands with him. he was there recognition of the fact that you and pyongyang have history? >> john: they also called me a very ugly fellow. >> chris: i can deny that, that's fake news. >> john: at 1.1 kim jong un said to meet the two of us have to get a picture together, i want to take it home and show my hardliners you are not such a bad guy. >> chris: how did you feel about him saying that? >> john: wonderful. >> chris: it was good for the meeting. finally, mexico is voting for president today and it appears very likely, almost certain that this man, the leftist candidate will win. he said recently mexico will not do the united states' dirty work stopping central american migrants heading north and we will defend the rights of all migrants who need to leave their turns to go and make their life in the u.s.

is he going to be trouble for the trump administration? >> john: i think people may be surprised on this and i think president trump will follow through with the same pattern. they look forward to meeting and sitting down talking about these things. a relatively long turned just in period between the election and the inauguration of the new mexican president. >> chris: are you concerned by some of the statements? >> john: i think we will get some things done during the transition state and i think in this kind of contacts having two leaders get together they produced some surprising results. >> chris: ambassador bolton, thank you. always good to talk with you, please come back. >> john: will do, thank you. >> chris: up next president trump's supreme court nominee faces a tough confirmation battle in the senate it where republicans can't afford to give up a single vote. we will discuss the contenders and the stakes next with from traditional advisor leonard leo and democratic senator dick durbin. ♪ you need to buy a car

and you want to get an excellent price you'd think with all these options it would be easy. but with terms like msrp, invoice, list price, things get confusing pretty fast. you just want to get a real price and that's where true car comes in. only with true car can you see what other people paid for the car you want and you can connect with certified dealers who offer prices based on this same information. none of those other sites do that. from end to end, true car is your only one stop solution. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price...

is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com

♪ >> chris: president trump has the opportunity to reshape the supreme court for a generation by nominating a solid conservative to replace the court's key swing vote justice

anthony kennedy, who announced his retirement this week. joining me here in washington, leonard leo, a key advisor to president trump who's helped drop that list of 25 from which the president says he will choose his nominee. mr. leo, democrats are making roe v. wade, a woman's right to abortion the central issue in the campaign and the confirmation battle. you call that a scare tactic the democrats have used for more than 30 years, but i want to play an exchange that i had with candidate trump in the third presidential debate, here it is. >> you just said you want to see the court protect the second amendment, do you want to see the court overturn roe v. wade? >> if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's what will happen and that will happen automatically in my opinion because i am putting pro putting pro-life justices on the court. >> chris: given that, isn't roe v. wade on the line with this nomination? >> mr. leo: the fact of the matter is that roe v. wade is a

very major precedent in america and for 36 years people have been talking about it being overturned. it was an issue with sandra o'connor, david souter, anthony kennedy, all of whom people would set would overturn roe v wright. nobody is pretty good x speculating about these things. i don't think at the end of the day it's about roe v. wade. it's about having judges on the court or going to interpret the constitution the way it's written and part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account precedents, and that's going to happen. >> chris: as you well know, sometimes justices adhere to presidents and sometimes they overturn them. >> mr. leo: absolutely but major precedents of the court require a lot of attention and respect and scrutiny and we've seen there's only one justice out of 9 over a period of 36 years who is saying that he would explicitly overturn it. >> chris: that's clarence thomas. this does figure into the confirmation battle because given the much gnomic republican majority in the senate and the

fact that there is no longer a filibuster, one of the few ways that a trump nominee could fail to be confirmed is if you get one of the two -- here they are on the screen, if you lose one of the two republican senators, susan collins or lisa murkowski, were both pro-choice. is it fair to say that the president won't pick someone who has a record of opposition to roe v. wade? >> mr. leo: i think senator collins made the point very clearly. she wants someone who's going to adhere to the constitution and the law more than anything else. so what you really want -- >> chris: she also said that it's a firm precedent. if you have somebody who has a record, for instance william pryor, that it was an abomination, roe v. wade, that's clearly going to set off alarm bells. it would be fair to say the president is not going to pick somebody who has a clear record of opposition to roe v. wade? >> mr. leo: none of the people who are being talked about now in the public space in the media

are people who have a clear position on roe v. wade. the most important thing here is a record showing fairness, someone who listens very carefully to arguments on both sides. someone who tries to keep an open mind and perspective nominees like brett cavanaugh, barrett and raymond and tom hardeman are people who have not specifically said they oppose roe vs. wade and their writings and their work show that they are very fair. they look at arguments from both sides all the time and they analyze them very carefully and when they take a position they then say these are what the other people have said about this and here's why i don't agree with them. that's really at the end of the day what we want. we want that kind of fairness in a judge and i think senator collins and senator murkowski and others who went through the process saw that with neil gorsuch and i think that's what they will be looking for again. be when you just mentioned four names. is it fair to say that those are the four front runners at this point? >> mr. leo: no, i don't think it's fair to say that, and here's why.

the president is really in the driver's seat along with the assistance of white house counsel. those are people who are under very serious consideration, two of them as you know are people who throw the process to some extent. and then brett cavanaugh is one of the most distinguished jurists in america. it's not a natural that he is being mentioned. he has over 300 opinions. he is respected by both sides on the political and ideological spectrum and 80 barrett, similarly is one of the most talented and distinguished women in the legal academy anywhere in the country. former law clerk to justice scalia. as someone who, again, people across the spectrum greatly admire. >> chris: i want to ask you specifically about circuit court judge brett cavanaugh, who as you point out is one of the front runners. he has written that the president, not this president, any president should be exempt from "time-consuming and distracting lawsuits and investigations which would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial

or national security crisis. given the fact that president trump is now facing lawsuits, given that he is no dealing with a special counsel, wouldn't be any kind of a conflict if you were to pick somebody like brett kavanaugh, who is on record was saying he's opposed to that? that's an issue the court might have to deal with. >> mr. leo: first of all you have to remember that when brett kavanaugh said that it was when we hadn't independent counsel statute if i remember correctly and there were a lot of problems with the independent counsel statute in terms of having zero accountability, zero transparency. there were constitutional issues there and even liberal law professors have said that it's a very reasonable position that he took when he wrote about that some years back. it's not clear to me what he said then necessarily applies to now. secondly, what you are really seeing and what he said is the core of what he believes in, which is this idea that if you really want to protect freedom and have accountability, you have to respect the limits on government power in the

constitution, which includes the separation of powers. >> chris: less than -- how will replacing anthony kennedy, a more conservative -- consistent conservative, how will that reshape the court potentially for the next generation? >> mr. leo: any supreme court confirmation will transform it. at the end of the day i think what's really important to remember is that there has been a movement on the court towards being more rigid and textual list. the idea that law means something, it has determinate meaning and that's the trend that i think this president wants to continue. >> chris: mr. leo, thank you. thanks for coming on and we will be watching the president's announcement in just eight days. are you a little worried about eight days? are you ready to go in eight days? >> mr. leo: i think the president and his team at the white house will be ready. >> chris: that's fortunate because if we go on the are and not there, it would be embarrassing. >> mr. leo: it would be rather embarrassing. >> chris: joining me now from springfield, illinois, the number two democrat in the

senate, dick durbin. it welcome. let's start with the democrats' basic positions since justice kennedy announced his retirement this week. here is your leader in the senate, senator chuck schumer. >> americans should make it clear that they will not tolerate a nominee chosen from president trump's preordained list. >> chris: senator, donald trump told the voters that he was going to pick his nominees from that list. there was a big issue in the campaign. donald trump won. isn't he entitled, just like barack obama was entitled to have a legitimately qualified nominee approved by the senate? >> senator durbin: of course he is. every president would be. but you just had a man on your show, mr. leo, who has an extraordinary position. he is involves not only in the selection process, he is key to it. when the white house chose neil gorsuch, they didn't call mr. or

such to tell them, they called mr. leo and they said would you like to call the judge and tell him the good news, he's going to be the president's nominee? that's what's going on here. the federalist society is going through a clearance process, make no mistake. they make sure before any neighborly reaches the final they know exactly what issues. >> chris: let me just ask you, so what? the fact is the federalist society has vetted these people, they are all distinguished jurists. they are obviously conservative, what you don't like, but how can you say anybody who is on that list is out? >> senator durbin: i didn't say that. what i will say is this. i can tell you this, i think the chris wallace second debate, if that's what it was question two then candidate donald trump nailed it. at the president is looking for someone who will overturn roe vs. wade but even equally important, he's looking for someone on the court who will make sure that they ruled that the affordable care act's protection with those with

pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional. that will mean thousands, not millions of americans because of this decision on who will fill the kennedy vacancy on the court. that hits home for most americans. we may be divided and we certainly are on the issue of abortion but when it comes to basic health care for american families, protecting those who have pre-existing conditions, this administration is attacking that on constitutional grounds and at this moment, donald trump is looking for a justice was going to rule in his favor. >> chris: leonard leo says the democratic party is using roe v. wade as a scare tactic. i just asked him about it, to trying to feed the president's nominee. i want to play a clip from one of your senate colleagues, kirsten gillibrand this week. here she has. >> this is a line that's been drawn about whether we are going to criminalize women, whether we are going to be arresting women for making decisions about their bodies. this is not a fire drill.

>> chris: senator, no one is talking about arresting women. isn't that the definition of a scare tactic, what kirsten gillibrand was saying there? >> senator durbin: what kiersten is saying goes back to your question, chris, two candidate donald trump. if you talked about second amendment, you came back to them and set about thomas what about roe vs. wade? he was quick to add that's what i want to do it he said just yesterday -- he was a justice on the court for 40 years. >> chris: even if roe vs. wade would overturn, nobody suggesting that women would be arrested. in addition to which as president trump or candidate from pointed out, it would go back to the states. i'm not saying it's not a big deal, but nobody is suggesting that women would be arrested if roe vs. wade were overturned. >> senator durbin: the basic issue at hand here is whether or not a woman has the power to make decisions, the freedom to make decisions regarding her own body and her own life.

that is the fundamental issue here and when you start denying that to women across america those are fighting words because these women believe that they have to make this decision, they have the right to make this decision. those on the other side disagree. it gets down to that fundamental principle. >> chris: to have any chance to win, you not only are going to have to pick off at least one of the republican senators when we talked about the two republican pro-choice women senators, you are also going to have to keep all 49 of your democrats on board and the fact is during the neil gorsuch nomination, president trump's nomination of neil gorsuch last year, three red state democrats up for reelection all voted for him. how is the senate web, how certain are you that all three of those democrats will stay on board this time and vote against whoever the president nominates? >> senator durbin: will of

course we don't have a nominee's name to start with, and that's a critical point. and the second thing i would say is this. each and every one of my colleagues on the democratic side understand the historic significance of this decision. as the president said, this is a justice who is likely to serve for 40 years, is going to have dramatic impact on health care in america on the rights of privacy in america and i will say for each of my colleagues, they have to make an individual important principle decision and the question as we found with affordable care, will the president pick someone who is so far out of the mainstream in the case of affordable care, three republicans broke with the president. if only one or two -- the dynamics in the mouth of the senate at this moment with senator mccain, but if one or two republican senators believe this choice is out of the mainstream, then we could have a very serious issue before us on confirmation. >> chris: less than a minute left and i have one final question. democrats would be able to block

this nomination if you still have the filibuster. back in 2013 when democrats were in the majority, the leader, harry reid decided to change the rules of the house and democrats supported him to end the filibuster, make it a simple majority for all cabinet appointments and for all the work lower court appointments. last year with the neil gorsuch nomination senator mcconnell extended that to the supreme court. looking back, because you guys opened the door to it, was that a mistake? >> senator durbin: i can tell you harry reid faced a dilemma changing the senate precedent and rules and he did not change it for the supreme court. i'm glad you put that into your preface, but at that point mitch mcconnell, senator mcconnell had been using the filibuster in ways never imagined this in the senate to stop any judicial nominees for moving forward on important courts.

>> chris: both sides used it. what i'm just asking is this. looking back at it and looking at the fruit of it now, the fact that you cannot stop this nominee on your own, the democrats can't, do you have second thoughts about having changed the rules back in 2013? >> senator durbin: you are assuming again that harry reid did not recognize this possibility. he did it and he said it would take 60 votes for the supreme court. it was mitch mcconnell who changed that will, that rule on the supreme court. >> chris: senator, thank you. thanks for joining us, always good to talk with you and please come back. up next we will bring in our sunday group to discuss whether the senate should wait until after the midterm election to vote on president trump's nominee. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about how the president's pick could sway the balance of the supreme court you might just go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air.

>> chris: coming up, a primary upset shakes democrats as the possible heir to nancy pelosi loses to a democratic socialist. >> the energy in the democratic party is socialist. >> they made a choice in one district but let's not get yourself carried

>> we have a pack, we have to pick a great one. we have to pick one that is going to be there for 40 years, 45 years. >> chris: president trump signaling he wants a replacement for justice kennedy who can serve on the supreme court for decades, cementing a conservative majority. it's time now for our sunday group. jason riley from "the wall street journal." mo elleithee of georgetown university's institute of politics and public service. anne gearan of "the washington post" and josh holmes, mitch mcconnell's former chief of staff and now a

g.o.p. strategist. when bush 43 was president you led the team at the rnc to help get john roberts and sam alito confirmed on the court. given as we have explored, the fact that the filibuster is no longer in existence, is there any way that trumps nominees will fail to get confirmed by the senate? >> i think the question itself gives us a pretty good indication of how far we have come in this battle. how do we kill a nominees when we don't even know who the nominee is yet? i think president trump could probably nominate lady justice herself and i think democrats would say that she's in there to try to overturn roe v. wade. the bottom line is the filibuster is gone, but there's a very razor-thin majority here. if we are dealing with a one seat difference. they obviously have a tactic here to attack senator susan collins and lisa murkowski but what they are ignoring his red state democrats with joe

manchin. donnelly and indiana, heidi heitkamp. >> chris: all three of them voted for neil gorsuch. >> you have jon tester in montana and you've got claire mccaskill and missouri. all of these red states that president trump carried and probably have a population that identifies much more with his view of what the court should look like so i think democrats are in a rough spot here. >> chris: democrats, one of the other arguments they make is they say the confirmation should be put off until after the midterm election in november, noting what mitch mcconnell did holding up president obama's appointment of merrick garland in 2016 to the supreme court, but mcconnell always talked about presidential election years, not midterm election years. take a look at what mcconnell said on the show back in 2016. >> we think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election which is raging is that the american people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this

decision. not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president next year. >> chris: and in fact, three members of the current court were all confirmed in midterm election years. does that democratic talking point, the idea it's an election, wait until the senate is changed by the voters in november, does that talking point go anywhere? >> i think the democrats are already backing away from it, which is an indication that it isn't perhaps the strongest argument. the chief difference between an election year -- a presidential election year and a midterm election year is the main problem there. the stronger suit the democrats appear to be having to play is the abortion question. in other words, fight this nomination on issues rather than on tactics and timing. >> chris: interesting to say

there are also really health care and saying it wasn't kennedy who voted to save health care, it was roberts, but the idea that health care could be a pre-existing condition protection could be in jeopardy. >> kitchen table issues, things that affect americans lives. those of the talking points expect to her democrats he was. >> chris: we asked you for questions for the panel and on this issue about the replacement for kennedy could sway the balance of the court, rena tweeted this, do you think roe v. wade would be overturned? jason, how do you answer? you think if you get a solid conservative justice on the court that roe v. wade will be gone? >> it's possible that it could be gone with a fifth vote for that side but at the same time with that would mean is that the issue would go back to states. the consensus thinking there is that there aren't very many of any states that would penalize abortion. we go back to what was going on

before one states were already legalizing the procedure, states like new york had already legalized abortion, so go back to the states. i don't think in that sense that the pro-choice crowd has much to worry about. pragmatically. >> chris: as a member of the pro-choice crowd, do you agree with that? >> i think it's a concern. i think you've got a president out there who says that he would nominate justice who would overturn roe v. wade. i get the people trying to dismiss this saying it just goes back to the states in the states are likely to do it, what roe v. wade did was guarantee that no woman would be treated differently across america on this issue. and so i think for a lot of people, it's a legitimate concern. i think it is the smarter tactic for democrats to take. >> chris: issue is not? >> this isn't about process at the end of the day. it is about the direction of the court, it is about the

individuals. democrats have an opportunity to push these issues incredibly hard during the confirmation hearings. i'm glad whoever the nominee will actually get a hearing, which was not dominant afforded to merrick garland, there will be a hearing held here and they will be able to push these issues and that could help democrats electorally. but as most of the country, even in red states, supports maintaining roe v. wade. >> chris: i want to talk about the man who said all of this in motion, justice anthony kennedy, who spent 30 years on the court. if he has an ounce now he's going to retire, which is why we are talking about a replacement and he was known as the famous swing vote on the court, a term he didn't like, take a look. >> you are very gracious not to use the term swing vote. i hate that. it has this visual image of this

spatial gyration. the cases swing, i don't. >> chris: if kennedy is replaced by a consistent, more consistent conservative, isn't there a danger that some of those 5-4 rulings he had where he sided with the liberals on the court, whether it was on protecting abortion, rights for same-sex couples, that a lot of that could be undone? >> absolutely. he dislikes the term, but what it refers to as that has been the case for ten years, he and o'connor, where they decided to place their conservative leaning, but not consistent votes would usually determine the outcome of the case. we are going to go from a 5-4 court to a 6-3 court and i will have huge consequences. >> i think the real replacement for kennedy is the swing vote is going to be chief justice roberts. it's going to be interesting because they don't normally have a situation where the chief justice is the swing vote. you will have in chief justice roberts, someone with an outside

role in deciding what they take, choosing who writes opinions and deciding the outcome. he is really the person was going to be the real swing vote going forward. >> chris: this was often called the kennedy court. now finally the roberts court will be the roberts court. when we come back, some journalists are linking the deadly shooting at an american newspaper to president trump's attacks on the media. plus he has been discussed as the next democratic house leader, now he's out of a job after losing to a long shot primary challenger. we will ask our panel about the democratic party's move to the left.

>> would you please talk to us about the dead reporters in annapolis. any words of condolence for the families mr. president? >> why are you walking away? >> where when you talk to us about that? >> chris: reporter shouting questions at president trump and drawing an apparent connection as he returned to the white house after the murder of five journalists at a newspaper office in annapolis, maryland, and we are back now with the panel. i have been very outspoken about president trump calling the media the enemy of the american people, i think it's wrong, but i have to say that that's practical that we saw on the south lawn and some reporters in any way trying to draw a link between his comments about the media to the shooting in annapolis of five reporters in a newspaper office, a sugar apparently with a long grudge against that paper, i think is outrageous. am i wrong?

>> we are in a new environment. on the left particularly, blame term, ask questions later. that's the new mode the press operates in and as you say, we start to learn the facts, we learn this goes back to 2011, 2012, the scratch that the government had and i guess we jumped the gun there. but that's the environment that we live in now and it's unfortunate. on a personal level, you look at something like this happening in the newsroom, many of us have worked for many years. an opinion journalist, you are not upsetting some, you're probably not very good at your job and you get used to the angry comments, you get some nasty phone calls, you see something like this and it is quite chilling. >> chris: even you say after the fax came in, people when we jumped the gun. the fact is some reporters even after they knew the facts, jumped on this. rob cox, an editor at reuters tweeted this. "blood is on your hands, mr. president. save your thoughts and prayers for your empty soul."

he later apologized. margaret sullivan, media columnist for "the washington post" wrote this a couple of days after the shooting. everybody know about the shooter enters grudge against the paper. "while there is no causality, there is a connection in the attitudes of this unhinged government and the president of the united states, a dangerous failure to understand the role of the media and society." do you think that's fair? >> margaret is correct that there's not any link here. this guy's beef with the paper coming to your point, went back to 2012. donald trump has nothing to do with why he was angry at this particular paper, why the gunmen -- alleged gunman was. but there's a different environment that surrounds anything having to do with reporting and reporting on trump now and i think i agree partially with jason here that

when trump says -- not only says that the press of the enemy of the people, but points to specific reporters and points to reporters on the back of his rallies with the clear implication that he hopes his followers will jeer at those reporters, will call them by name, what he's encouraging people to hate on the press directly. >> chris: i agree with all of that, you can be troubled by all of that but it has nothing to do with the shooting. >> it has everything to do with the environment in which the shooting is being processed now in the press and in the public mind. >> the shooting was yet another pretext for going after donald trump. that's what this was about. that's the environment we live in now and it's unfortunate. the voting public sees right through this. they are not fooling everyone. >> chris: i want to turn to another big story this week, that was the democrats' dramatic turn to the left. first you had that woman,

alexandria oak osseo cortez shocking joe crowley in a primary this week. then you have more democrats calling for -- more mainstream democrats calling for the abolishment of immigration and customs enforcement, which president trump jumped on. take a look at this exchange. >> we should protect families that need our help and that is not what ice is doing today and that's why i believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works. >> you know what would happen to parts of our country? it would be overrun with the worst criminal elements you have ever seen. >> chris: are democrats in danger of moving too far to the left on immigration and other issues? >> on immigration, it's only a very small group of people that have come out so far and called for the abolition of ice. i do not think that is necessarily the strongest case

for democrats to be making. the democrats have a very powerful issue by keeping the focus on the separation of families talking about reforming ice to help reunify these kids and make sure we don't see this kind of debacle at the border again. it reform i think makes sense. abolition, i think, takes the off of an issue that is incredibly important. >> chris: you say a few, but the few include kirsten gillibrand, potentially running in 2020, and elizabeth warren, who may be the leader. >> i think this will be an important point to see what other democrats do moving forward. do they try to keep the focus where it has been, or chase this other perspective? on the primary result in new york, i remember a few months ago when connor lamb won in pennsylvania and everyone said is this the new model for the democratic party, this more centrist approach? now and what happened in

new york, the more progressive approach. i think what you saw in both cases were democrats nominating candidates that fit those districts. she won in an incredibly progressive district. >> connor lamb actually didn't have to win a primary. he didn't have to face democratic primary voters. he wouldn't have any prayer for making a thorough democratic primary. what you're seeing right now is all of the energy on the left focused on a very radical set of ideas. it's going to make them extremely difficult to field a 2020 candidate that is anywhere near the mainstream. >> chris: what about 2018? >> i think we have that problem first. what we've seen with a lot of house candidates in particular is the establishment candidate has been defeated by somebody who is significantly to the left. they didn't have their top tier until this week. i think this is a much more significant development than the democrats will want to the

leaker. >> i would agree with that. on a whole range of issues that used to be considered fringe and for progressive, not just eliminating ice, but free college tuition, medicare for all, legalizing pot and so forth. those are all the kind of mainstream -- >> chris: 15 seconds, final word. >> the primary results just doesn't bear that out. over the course of the entire year, the tail end of the primary process, over the course of the entire year only one democratic incumbent has been knocked out. the establishment candidates and progressive candidates are battling. >> chris: we don't have the election until november so we have lots of time. thank you, panel, see you next sunday. up next, a final word. ♪

>> chris: for the latest on president trump's supreme court nomination and his upcoming summit with russian president vladimir boudin in helsinki, stay tuned to the station and fox news channel. and that's it for today, have a great week and a happy independence day, and we will see you next

♪