tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX September 27, 2020 6:00am-7:01am PDT
>> i'm brit hume in for chris wallace. president trump selects his supreme court nominee just days before his first debate with joe biden right here in cleveland. ♪ >> today it is my honor to nominate judge amy coney barrett. >> brit: the noted judicial conservative nominated to fill ruth bader ginsburg c. the sour we are joined by eugene scalia, who knows her from his her days -- >> justice ginsburg must be turning over in her grave up and have been buried >> brit: michigan senator -- and get reaction from senator john kennedy, a key member of the senate judiciary committee. then buried him >> [indiscernible]. >> brit: what will the likely
shift in the courts make up for issues central to americans lives? we will discuss that with ken starr and laurence tribe. and our panel on how the nomination battle could upend the election. all right now on "fox news sunday." ♪ >> brit: and hello again from fox news in cleveland. we are live on the campus of case western reserve university and the cleveland clinic. the site of the first debate between donald trump and joe biden, moderated by our very own chris wallace, who is preparing today. the supreme court vacancy number president trump's third and to selection of amy coney barrett as his nominee at a new twist. mark meredith at the white house and jacqui heinrich 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. >> president trump hopes to fire up his base with his new supreme court nominee but with election day fast approaching, the white house knows getting judge barrett confirmed by the senate will be contentious. >> is a very proud moment indeed. >> late saturday president trump made it official, he is nominating seventh of her stomach -- amy coney barrett to the supreme court >> she is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the constitution. >> a favorite of the conservative establishment as a catholic, a graduate of dame and former clerk for the late justice antonin scalia. >> his judicial philosophy is mine too. a judge must apply the law as written. >> democrats are outraged republicans are pushing her nomination forward just five weeks before the election after
republicans locked president obama's nominee merrick garland for the same reason in 2016. senate minority leader chuck schumer says democrats are concerned with her record on abortion and dilute religion. >> i will strongly, strongly, strongly oppose this nomination. >> two g.o.p. senator say they will not vote in the nominee before the election but the majority of republicans appear ready to hold a hearing at senate judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham says his committee will hold four days of confirmation hearings beginning the week of october 12th. the president told reporters last night he thinks her confirmation will move fairly fast and as he believes a confirmation vote will happen before election day. brit. >> brit: mark meredith reporting for the white house, thank you, mark. alex turned to jacqui heinrich, covering the biden campaign in wilmington, delaware. >> hi, brit. joe biden hopes pressuring vulnerable republican senators about health care amid the pandemic can stall the
confirmation process. joe biden is hedging his bets on coronavirus fears, warning of judge amy coney barrett is confirmed and the affordable care act is overturned, complications from covid-19 like lung scarring and heart damage could become the next deniable pre-existing condition, writing barrett has a written track record of disagreeing with the u.s. supreme court's decision upholding the affordable to affordable care act. she critiqued john roberts majority opinion upholding the law in 2012. democrats hope the threat of retaliation from angry voters could persuade senate republicans in tight races to push the vote past election day and biden is offering the election-year standard the g.o.p. set four years ago as a way out, urging no action until after november 3rd. biden is resisting talk about nuclear options like court packing if judge barrett is confirmed, instead turning the focus to president trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses. >> what i am concerned about is
whether he generates some kind of response in a way that unsettles the society or causes some kind of violence. the last thing we need is a [indiscernible] of a coup. >> he was slated for a light schedule as he's been heavy into debate prep, mock debates with an advisor playing the role of president trump or early this morning he announced surprising marks on the vacancy coming up later this afternoon. brit. >> brit: jacqui heinrich reporting from wilmington, delaware, thank you. joining me now is our secretary of labor, eugene scalia. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us today. >> thank you, it's a pleasure. >> brit: let me start, i know you know judge barrett going back a number of years and i wanted you to just give us quickly how you would characterize her. what kind of person is she? >> secretary scalia: well, she is a beloved teacher, a very
respected scholar. i think she shown herself to be a thoughtful jurist and she's just a wonderful, warm, admirable human being as well. mother to seven, mother to school-age children. she is 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 buried him 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 is likely to vote not to uphold the act and therefore put an end to it. what do you make of that claim?
>> secretary scalia: it's a red herring, brit. i think it reflects a bit of frustration on the part of the democrats on how they might 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 does not have the views about the importance of health care. as i said, she's a working mother to school-age children. she is the mother to a child with disability. the suggestion that she is -- >> brit: let my drill down a little bit farther on the question about the comments 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 penalties as a tax. what did she say exactly that you think is not likely to lead to a decision one way or the other? >> i believe that she made the observation that it appeared the 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 bar. a number of people said the justice to the right thing -- it was a very common view at the time. i think the most important thing to know about judge barrett's jurisprudence is that she will go with the law takes her. her view of judging is that many personal views she may have on health care or any other matter 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: i understand that the issue that will come before the court is whether the affordable care act, with its tax or penalty now were zeroed out, so there's actually no actual monetary penalty for not having insurance. with that out, then how can it stand as a tax, correct? >> secretary scalia: i believe that's the question, but again -- >> brit: let me just interrupt you -- >> a great record of achievement. there's no single case by which you should judge her qualification for the court. she will be addressing cases for years, probably decades. >> brit: understood, but let
me just push or just a little farther 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 far-fetched, why would we not then believe that when the issue became 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 scalia: because by the very fact that the tax no longer is there, the question whether it's a tax or not is moot, it's gone. it's a totally different case and again, the fact that this is being raised shows that the democrats are casting about 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. we had a nominee of the president to the court a little more than a year ago who was attacked for being a member of the knights of columbus, which is a catholic organization that has existed for more than a century and a senator of hawaii and senator, harris attacked this man for being a member of the knights of columbus, which is just a catholic organization that accepts catholic faith. if i think we will see all manner of criticisms, but it can't change the fact -- a wonderful person and 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 has a number of members in this country, what you know about people of praise and do you have any idea of why people seem so afraid of that?
>> secretary scalia: well, it is, as you said, a christian group that has spread about the world. it's one of any number of groups that catholics associate themselves with to deepen their faith, deepen their spirituality, serve others. it's been suggested that because she's a member of this group she may have a submissive view of women's role in society, which is ridiculous. this is an incredibly accomplished scholar. a teacher who won the best teacher award three times at notre dame law school. she's done amazing things. it's actually quite insulting to suggest that she has a submissive view of women's role in society. quite sexist, and by the way, that's not what her critics are worried about. they're worried not that she's meek and mild, but that she's a very thoughtful, articulate, learned judge who will be i think a wonderful addition to the court. >> brit: mr. secretary,
thank you for joining us today. up next, we will speak with two members of the senate about the upcoming confirmation process of judge amy coney barrett. "fox news sunday" reports from the campus of [indiscernible] and the cleveland clinic head of the first presidential debate. ♪ (stasha vo) i really don't remember not being able to braid. [laughs.] (stasha vo) i used to braid my brother's hair, my sister's hair, neighbor's hair. (stasha vo) when everything shut down, i thought, "you know what? people have been asking for online classes for the longest." it was amazing. business kept growing and growing and growing. (stasha vo) i feel blessed that i can still connect with others. support others. and i am still going.
and geico loves helping riders get to where they're going, so to help even more, geico is giving new and current customers a fifteen percent credit on their motorcycle policies with the geico giveback. and because we're committed for the long haul, the credit lasts your full policy term. the geico giveback. helping riders focus on the road ahead. i'm a delivery operations manager in san diego, california. we've had a ton of obstacles in finding ways to be more sustainable for a big company. we were one of the first stations
to pilot a fleet of zero emissions electric vehicles. the amazon vans have a decal that says, "shipment zero." we're striving to deliver a package with zero emissions in to the air. i feel really proud of the impact that has on the environment. but we're always striving to be better. i love being outdoors, running in nature. we have two daughters. i want to do everything i can to protect the environment to make sure they see the same beauty i've seen in nature. my goal is to lead projects that affect the world. i know that to be great requires hard work.
my goal is to lead projects that affect the world. ♪ spam one senate republicans have laid out a speedy confirmation process the president's supreme court pick senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has not said whether a final vote will become -- come before or after the november 3rd election, so joining us now is democratic senator debbie stabenow of michigan, a chance to vote in this nomination. senator, very nice to see you,
ma'am. is there any chance you might -- any chance you might vote for this nominee? >> senator stabenow: well, first let me say, congratulations to amy coney barrett. this is always in honor of course to be nominated to the highest court in the land so i want to congratulate her for that. for me, this is all about in the middle of a health pandemic, once-in-a-lifetime health pandemic and it's very 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 pre-existing conditions and of course those are going up every day because of the health pandemic so i'm deeply concern concerned. >> brit: let me ask you what specific writings you are citing
that would mean she would definitely be a vote not to uphold the affordable care act? >> senator stabenow: i think your questioning of former guest, secretary scalia makes it clear when she was laying out her criticisms for not essentially repealing it sooner. and you know, what's most important here we know that president trump and republicans have been trying to repeal the affordable care act since they took office. this is the last chance you put someone on the supreme court that will do it and that 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's 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 was one in
which he had commented in passing i'm a 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 widely 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, inevitably voting not to uphold the affordable care act? >> senator stabenow: it's called common sense. the number one priority of the president of the united states, donald trump, has been to take away people's health care and they've been trying actually for ten years, even before president trump -- by the way 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 -- common sense will tell you, he's going to put somebody on the court who has given all kinds of clues and writings about this issue and i tell the people of michigan are really worried. >> brit: i can understand, but you say all kinds of clues. what other clues other than this remark that was cited in my interview with secretary scalia? what other clues? >> senator stabenow: well, we will lay all of this out in judiciary hearings. i don't want to debate all the legalese back and forth with a u today because i think there's a bigger picture and i do have to say from a michigan perspective, we have people right now just holding on over 200,000 people have lost their lives. they are holding on, they are 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 school safely and my own family trying to juggle zooming for a kindergartner and a third grader, and so instead of dealing with what's right in front of people right now that is causing them real pressure, what we have is a rush to judgment to put some buddy on the court that's going to take away people's health care. i just don't get it. >> brit: well, i understand your view. let me just say by virtue of the fact that you just congratulated judge barrett on her appointment, may i take it that you therefore believe it is legitimate for the president to have made the appointment? >> senator stabenow: we know this, it certainly legitimate for him to make 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 the united states supreme court justice. never. either party, never happened. we are right now in the middle of voting in michigan. 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're voting between a president who wants to do that and i nominee, vice president joe biden who said very clearly is going to protect and strengthen their health care and by the way, if we have a democratic senate, we are going to join him in making sure that happens. >> brit: senator, very nice of you to take the time with us today, thank you very much. now let's turn to a member of the senate judiciary committee where the hearings will take place, john kennedy of louisiana. welcome back to "fox news sunday," senator. nice to have you. >> thank you, nice to be here.
>> brit: let me get your reaction -- we can now see i think pretty clearly the outlines of the case, at least a part of the case that's going to be made by democrats against judge barrett, which is that she will be an inevitable vote to strike down the affordable care act is that now exists. what's your reaction to that? >> senator kennedy: senator as my colleague and i consider debbie a friend, so i say this gently. sell crazy somewhere else, we are all stocked up your. 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 the supreme court ought to be a mini congress, that politicians without robes. they don't even need to hear
cases. you already know how they're 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 is how it operates. you're going to see a lot of evidence, accusations -- sure. >> brit: 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. in the case was made by mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader that the american people in an election year, which that was, back when president obama nominated judge garland, should have a say in the supreme court nomination made that close to an election. now it seems that the roles are reversed. the president has made a
nomination. it is an election year, indeed it is very close to the election and the view and the other republicans are prepared to move forward with this, which is distinct obviously from the course you took just four years or so ago. you're being accused of hypocrisy and double standards. how do you answer? >> senator kennedy: let me finish my last first, to debbie and my colleagues in the senate. i hope they let us have a respectful process. we don't need another freak show. i hope they won't get into the foothills of [indiscernible] and bring back michael avenatti all about other stuff. let us focus on the nominee. now to answer your question, i'm rather fond of the constitution. i have read it. it's 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
[indiscernible] and attempted [indiscernible] rhetoric about the president to be followed during an election year to fill a vacancy. here's as best as i can tell, here's the rule. when the democrats are in charge of the 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 what our founders intended. i think our founders intended elections to 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 precedents. >> brit: it appears from a constitutional point of view that you are spot on with that. the constitution certainly doesn't say anything, as you point out about the electoral process in terms of the appointment of confirmation of supreme court justices, but we
do not acknowledge that what we have here is a serious case on both sides of this issue of shoe on the other foot disease? >> senator kennedy: sure, absolutely. and that's why i say if you, and washington, as you know better than i do, you have to watch what people do, not what they say and if you watch what has happened in the history of ever i don't think there's ever been another instance where when the 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. right now we have a republican president, a republican senate. if the shoe were on the other foot, that i can assure you senator schumer would do with the republicans are doing right now. as i said the other day, if you don't believe that, you probably peaked in high school. >> brit: [laughs] so you're hoping, as i'm sure
others are as well that we will have something other than what you call a freak show in this, but there is some history here, the cabin on nomination being only the most recent example. previously we had unexpected allegations made of sexual misconduct against now justice clarence thomas. is it your sense that the senate's appetite for allowing this kind of 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 kennedy: if my democratic friends want to turn it into an intergalactic freak show and bring back the protesters with the [indiscernible] head gear, i can't stop them. i just hope they [indiscernibl [indiscernible]. i'm going to 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, or temperament, her
judicial philosophy. her character. i want to be assured that she doesn't think justices are politicians in robes. i'm going to answer that in the second. i want to be assured that she's not one of these justices that tries to rewrite the constitution every other thursday to advance a political agenda that voters won't accept. i don't think her faith -- i mean, if the democrats [indiscernible] if she believes in god, therefore she is unqualified, i don't think that's illegal in america. i hope not. we have religious freedom and it should be guarded. they tried that when she came up for a court of appeal 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. >> brit: senator kennedy, thank you very much for joining us today, always good to talk to you. up next, we will discuss how amy
coney barrett's and confirmation could reshape the court with two leading experts on constitutional law as we count down here in cleveland to the first presidential debate just a couple of days away. ♪ i felt like... ...i was just fighting an uphill battle in my career. so when i heard about the applied digital skills courses, i'm thinking i can become more marketable. you don't need to be a computer expert to be great at this. these are skills lots of people can learn. i feel hopeful about the future now. ♪ fraudsters, they're out to get your medicare about the future now. number so they can bill fake claims in your good name. don't give them that chance. just calling to confirm your medicare number. do you have your card available? for example, if the caller says they're from medicare, watch out. it's probably a scam. don't give out your card number.
and always check your claims statements for errors. report fraudulent charges to 1-800-medicare. guard your card. learn more at medicare.gov/fraud. >> coming up, bernie sanders tries to portray president trump's comments as threat to democracy. if >> this is an election between donald trump and democracy and democracy must w win. >> brit hume returns with the sunday panel.
we're living in uncertain times, but as californians we'll get through this together. if your income has been reduced or you've lost your job or your health insurance, covered california is here. we can help you find the health insurance you need to protect you and your loved ones. and, you may even get financial help to pay for your health insurance. so, if you or someone you know is without coverage, visit coveredca.com to learn more or enroll today.
>> brit: central to the fight over the next supreme court justice is the issue of abortion, which is proponents like to call reproductive rights in the future of roe vs. wade. that's the decision of course that made abortion legal in america. we wanted -- and not only legal but a constitutional right. we wanted to do a deeper dive on that upcoming court battle so we invited former independent counsel and former appellate judge ken starr and laurence tribe, harvard constitution professor emeritus to discuss. welcome to "fox news sunday," let me start with you, professor tried. give us quickly your view of this nomination. >> my view is that the nomination should certainly have awaited the results of the election. we've never never jumped the gun this quickly. it's basically five weeks away. people are already voting. whatever the role might have been in the case of merrick garland where g.o.p. 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 the nomination is misguided. quite apart from the nominee. i think quite well of amy coney barrett. but that's not the issue. the issue is not the nominee, it's the nomination. they are not willing to wait because they really are nervous about what the american people leave the constitution means and what they believe should be represented on the supreme cou supreme court. go ahead. >> brit: speaking of the constitution. speaking of the constitution, sir, do you find any support for
your argument in the constitution itself? >> i'm not suggesting it's unconstitutional to go ahead, 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're afraid of? that the american people don't want to reelect this president to if they think will be reelected and that they will have a republican senate, then they can confirm amy coney barrett then. if but the idea that it has to happen now. one of the reasons the president has given his 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 won't have to worry about her transition, it will just be a continuation of my presidency. that's not the way democracy works. that's the way dictatorship works. >> brit: judge starr, your reaction please do the points
that have been raised by professor tried? >> first, i have great respect for professor tribe and no small affection for him. but i view it as the president's duty. there is a vacancy and it's tragic that we lost justice ginsburg, but exactly, you ask the right question, what does the constitution say? i don't think that the president, whoever the president is should dillydally and in fact justice sotomayor said in 2016 we really don't do well -- i'm paraphrasing, with eight members of the court and justice ruth ginsburg herself said it that same time. the president is not stopping 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 is articulatin articulating -- are those weighty enough to say we are not going to go forward or we are
going to intellect or the election and so forth but the president has chosen a superb nominee. we saw that yesterday and just no one is questioning her abilities, or integrity, her temperament and the like, so let's have a good confirmation hearing and air out all these issues, including how are you going to vote on some of these questions? >> brit: let me get to that because it's being staged with some certainty -- just a second, let me just follow up here and i will get back to you. professor tribe was pretty specific about the issues on which he believes that he can predict or that it's clear how judge barrett will vote, abortion and a number of others that he mentioned. what's your reactions that you make >> absolutely premature and wrong. with all due respect to professor tribe, the judicial process is not an academic enterprise. what someone has said is an
academic -- it's appropriate to explore that in the confirmation hearing. but to predict in advance how what justice going to behave or to vote i think is folly. i also think it's unfair to the process. that's why we have a judicial process. it's why you take an oath under its why you read the briefs as a judge, and you consult with your colleagues as well. does she have a judicial philosophy? absolutely. she has said she is of the school of antonin scalia, and so that's a great insight and that is what i would call it traditionalist. treats the constitution not as simply an 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 but i will go about my duties with an open mind, i will listen to all the arguments and i will assess them with great, great respect for
both sides as well as the views of my colleagues. >> brit: professor tribe? >> i don't pretend to have a crystal ball. i just read her writings. as read many of her opinions. it's clear how she approaches the law, it's a perfectly respectable view with the views justice scalia held and of course he said he thought roe v. wade was wrongly decided. she's written that roe v. wade is not entitled to determinative weight as a precedent. she has also been 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 -- >> brit: what did you think -- what did you think about what justice roberts -- how justice roberts rolled on that matter, whether it was a tax or penalty, what did you think of that is a constitutional lawyer?
>> i made clear at the time that i thought that's what he would rule and that's what he ought to roll in order to avoid a 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 pre-existing conditions goes away. i think, and most scholars think that went way too far. 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 six conservatives on the court that will determine whether he has remaining president.
>> brit: judge, very quickly, given about 15 seconds, we are almost out of time i just want to give the last word here. >> predictions are fallacious. it lets a confirmation hearing. the history of confirmation shows that the senate can move forward very, very quickly, especially when you have someone with a very good and solid record and a person of such great ability, so let's move the process forward and have a good robust debate, which i think will be good for the country. >> brit: charges, -- judge starr, professor, thank you very much. up next, we will bring in our sunday group to discuss what's at stake on tuesday night's debate and with this nomination one "fox news sunday" returns from cleveland. ♪ my father always reminded me, "a good education takes you many different horizons" and that sticked to my mind. so, when $1 a day came out, i said, "why not"? why not just utilize that resource. and walmart made that path open for me.
without the $1 a day program, i definitely don't think i'd be in school right now. each week for me in school is just an accomplishment. i feel proud every step of the way. (vo) while you may not be irunning an architectural firm, tending hives of honeybees, and mentoring a teenager -your life is just as unique. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your passions, and the way you help others. so you can live your life. that's life well planned.
two parties? >> the sky is falling on a democratic president does not get to confirm every last judge he or she wants. in the sky is falling when a republican president gets to confirm any judge. >> brit: democratic leader chuck schumer and majority leader mitch mcconnell giving us a sort of preview of the senate battle ahead over president trump's supreme court nominee. time now for our sunday panel. g.o.p. strategist karl rove. town hall.net, editor katie pavlich and juan williams. well, the republicans are speaking with great confidence about their prospects and we are hearing that the votes are there to bring up the nomination. but carl, how confident can we be -- give me your best thought -- that the votes will be there when all is said and done given the kind of processes we've had before? >> well, judge barrett went through this in 2017 and passed out of the senate with
republican support, i suspect a very strong likelihood that this time around the result will be the same. i think it's interesting though that the democrats are making sort of i think strange arguments. you heard the senator for example really an essence of why there was a prearranged agreement between the president and justice barrett that she would vote to overturn the affordable care act and then she railed on the senate for taking up this matter rather than passing another covid relief package. this was days after she voted against the senate even taking up -- this is going to be politics, politics, politics but it's going to end with her on the supreme court. >> brit: katie? >> yeah, it's very clear the democrats are taking this with the political health care argument. the insinuation that they know how judge barrett would rule on obamacare is something that they don't know about and charges frequently during confirmation hearings, whether they are for a federal bench or supreme court,
do not reveal how they would vote on pending cases, so i think the democrats will be very frustrated with that but you had harvard law professor laurence tribe on in the previous segment. think the way he summed up how he feels about republicans moving forward with the constitutional process really defines how the left is moving forward with their philosophy on this. he said it's constitutional for the president to appoint a nominee and for the senate to move forward on advise and consent, but there are number of stupid things in the constitution, so while republicans are moving forward with the constitutionality of this and while judge barrett continues to say that her political feelings personally and her policy positions do 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 loves the constitution, she would move
forward in the constitutional process and she will not make law from the bench, but rather interpret it. >> brit: where do you come out on all this? >> well, i think the democrats have a choice here. one choice is they could shun barrett, not grantor a meeting, stay away from the hearings, which is what the republicans did to mayor garland for ten months, not just six weeks, but i think it's most likely now from what i'm hearing it will go to the hearings. i don't know about the meetings but they will go to the hearings and they will focus on the idea that this is a rushed process. they will note that many republican senators even before we knew it was going to be amy coney barrett as the 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 of the continuation likely of the affordable care act, but also in
terms of gay rights, abortion, and maybe most of all, that any dispute in 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, do you think there's any chance that those arguments on the affordable care act and the rushed process will peel away any republican votes? in order to block this nomination, republicans have a majority. a very narrow one, but a majority nonetheless, those arguments would have to sway republicans. could those arguments do that? >> it's a matter of conscience at this point and what we've seen is a unified republican front behind senator mcconnell, the majority leader in the senate, so it would have to be that somebody either as a matter of conscious or i would say potentially somebody who's in a tough reelection fight for their senate seat decides that it's untenable, but at this juncture,
i don't see anything like that. >> brit: karl, what do you think? >> i don't think so. look, most of the republican senators were there in 2017, many of them were there in 2017 and voted to put her on the seventh circuit, this is where diane feinstein attacked her catholic faith by saying the dogma live strongly within you. but look, members of the senate are allowed to exercise their constitutional authority. the president under article two, section two, clause two has the right to nominate and the senate has a right to given holden -- 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 wrong with that by them exercising their authority. >> brit: katie, what you think the chances are that this affects the election one way or the other? >> i think the chances are 100%.
especially for republican voters -- republican senators in the senate 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 four years ago in releasing a list of supreme court nominees to put on the court if he had the chance. he's given everybody including democrats a preview of this and plenty of time to prepare. >> brit: i understand, but what about the effect of this nomination -- let's just assume for the sake of discussion that she's confirmed, what is the effect if any on the election, quickly? >> i think democrats who feel like this has been rushed through too quickly may get some more enthusiasm for joe biden who of course needs that and i think 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? >> i don't think there's any question a majority of americans think that it's wrong to rush the process. they think the next president should decide, even a substantial number of republicans, so this is brute politics but in terms of the election i think it excites the base of both parties. >> brit: okay. gentlemen, lady, thank you very much. see you next sunday or someone will, chris i suppose. a look back on big moments of debates past as donald trump and joe biden prepared to go face-to-face here in cleveland in two days. ♪ jean, did you know geico is now offering
an extra 15% credit on car and motorcycle policies? that's great! that's 15% on top of what geico could already save you. so what are you waiting for? john stamos to knit you a scarf? all finished, jean. enjoy! thank you. i give. the stitch work is impeccable. it's just a double fleck pattern with a reverse garter stitch. no big deal. is your hair this soft? softer. geico. save an extra 15% when you switch by october 7th. (stasha vo)geico. i used to braid my brother's hair, my sister's hair, (stasha vo) i really don't remember not being able to braid. [laughs.] neighbor's hair. (stasha vo) when everything shut down, i thought, "you know what? people have been asking for online classes for the longest." it was amazing. business kept growing and growing and growing. (stasha vo) i feel blessed that i can still connect with others.
support others. and i am still going. >> brit: in just two days president trump and former vice president joe biden will finally face-off on the debate stage with our own chris wallace moderating, his second time at the helm of one of these debates. it is i was later critical event for both candidates hoping to deliver a knockout performance as they always do hope that could generate momentum in the campaign's homestretch. first debates tend to be the most important ones. history has shown that impressions created in these first debates can sometimes be hard to overcome if they go against you and a great help if they go for you. president donald trump will return to the debate stage here in cleveland shortly. two days from now on this very time facing democratic nominee
joe biden. be sure and tune in as chris wallace moderates, 9:00 p.m. eastern on tuesday. special coverage starting tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern anchored by bret baier and martha maccallum. okay, we have a package here looking back on debates past, have a look. >> the presidential candidates meet candidates meet face-to-face and television debates heard and seen by millions of people. >> it is a famous anecdote, john f. kennedy dazzling tv viewers going on to win in november and setting a new precedent. bring your a game to the tv debates, leverage the visuals, nail the witty comebacks. like ronald reagan when journalist asked about his age. >> i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i'm not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. >> brit: or the smack down by
michael dukakis' running mate of dan quayle comparing himself to jfk. >> i knew jack kennedy. jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator, you're no jack kennedy. [cheers and applause] >> brit: in 2000 it was the nod, george w. bush cheekily brushing off al gore. >> but can he get things done? and i believe i can. >> brit: president barack obama was ready when -- >> you mentioned the navy and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed. have these things called aircraft carriers were planes land on them. >> brit: in the 2016 debates between donald trump and hillary clinton was less about style and more about the unpredictable substance. >> where do you want to see the court take the country? >> i believe if my opponent should win this 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: and key moments that shocked at the time and still loom large as we head into november. >> do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely -- that you will absolutely accept the results of this election? >> i will look at it at the time. >> are you say you're not prepared? >> 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." ♪