this, it would go to the supreme court. are there courses in the -- are there cases in the lower courts that could determine this? that i think it is a myth there needs to be a legislation to determine roe v. wade. that isn't so. every case involving abortion asked the justices to apply the standard for abortion -- that the supreme court is already cleared out in the 1992 case. an invitationis to the justices to decide whether roe v. wade continues to or not.e, in 1992, the last time the supreme court took a good look at roe v. wade, that case contains three provisions of a pennsylvania abortion statute with informed consent regulations and general motors regulations. so there are several kinds of cases working their way up to the case -- to the courts right now. one is out of arkansas which involves the regulation of a chemical abortion, calling for them to have transfer agreements to transfer a woman to the hospital when an emergency happens. another is the prenatal nondiscrimination act which outlaws giving an abortion o

the supreme court changed that. there was a time when gay people could be an arrested for loving one another and when it was illegal for them to get married. the supreme court changed that. there was a time when thousands of women died seeking illegal, unsafe abortions. and the supreme court changed that. the justices on the supreme court matter to each and every one of our lives. that's why there's so much concern over president trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court, judge brett kavanaugh. right wing groups like the heritage foundation and the federalist society have been working for decades setting the stage to pack our federal courts with i had -- ideologically invested opinions and they have engaged in these efforts. these two organizations have played the primary role in vetting tru vetting president trump's nominees to the supreme court. and these two organizations certainly expect to reflect his own ideological perspectives, which include overturning roe vs wade and repealing the affordable

the supreme court will be in a position to make that history. justice kennedy's retirement handed president trump the opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise to shift the balance of power on the supreme court onto the far right on theseso issues. so the president dusted off a preapproved list of candidates for the high court of which lists prepared and presented to him by the ultraconservative federalist society. this is the same the federalist society assured president trump would satisfy his litmus test of overturning roe v. wade and a striking down critical health care protections. this is the same set of candidates for which the president selected meal fo and o seek the senate republicans stole when they violated all of the norms of the senate procedure by refusing even to hold a hearing on president obama's nominee. the federalist society promised that he would be. the dc circuit judge kavanaugh was on that list as well and with the president's nomination to the nation's highest court, the president has found another federalist society

that is what a supreme court decision can do. it can undermine american democracy and create a situation where the very wealthiest people in this country can buy politicians and influence legislation. mr. president, several years ago the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but the court also ruled that the medicaid expansion, as part of the affordable care act, had to be optional for states. i'm on the health, education, labor committee that helped write that bill, and i can tell you, there was almost no discussion beneficiary i don't recall any discussion -- there was almost no discussion, i don't recall any discussion -- about whether that legislation would apply -- elements that have legislation would apply to every state in this country. but the supreme court ruled that that was not the case. and they said that the decision of expanding medicaid was up to the states, and today we have 17 states in our country that still have not expanded medicaid. and what that means in english, in real term

the supreme court's case law in this area is going to remain until it comes before the supreme court again and now that we have a new supreme court, that could be a completely different outcome if affirmative action comes before it again. ultimately, it is the high court and not necessarily the justice department or the department of education guidelines that will be more significant in the coming years. >> rehema, to be clear, though, this is a policy that would undo an obama era policy that undid a george w. bush era policy, correct? >> i think so. the point being, according to the obama administration folks, they're saying what they wanted to do was to give colleges and universities tools and resources that they could impose what they think is a vital interest to the university and that is establishing diversity. that diversity which is reflective of the society that we live in. that according to the obama administration. so they can be in compliance with the law. this is not about trying to get them to circumvent the law but to be in compliance with it. and now those guidelines a

he criticized the supreme court when he upheld the law. is not a mutual arbiter, he's already made up his mind. he would not have been approved by the heritage foundation if he wasn't certain he would repeal the aca. judge kavanaugh has argued the trump administration could keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining healthcare and employer should be able to deny their employees access to contraceptive coverage. if judge kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rates, imagine what he feels about women's right to choose. i would make one other point about judge kavanaugh, his a deeply, deeply conservative justice way out of the mainstream. his written troubling decisions rejecting 90% of what americans want, common sense gun laws. he has challenge environmental protections in our clean-air clean water act would be at risk. it would make it far more difficult for regulations to exist to enforce those laws. here is the most amazing thing. he has gone so far to say that a president does not need to follow the law if

supreme court. earlier today senate democrats on the judiciary committee held a news conference on the supreme court steps reacting to president trump's nomination of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court. >> [inaudible conversations] >> we will begin is that agreeable. president trump has been crystal clear that he would put pro-gun and pro-life justices on the court. and roe v. wade would be overturned automatically. brett kavanaugh appears to meet all president trump's promises of how his candidate will rule once specific issues. his record on the bench in the bush white house and as the republican political operative in the case that if confirmed he would be among the most conservative justices in supreme court history. his views are outside the mainstream and there's every reason to believe he would overturn roe v. wade. while overturning roe would set back women's freedom to limit access to comprehensive health care, the reality is it will impact all americans, because we all have a stake in wh

and that is the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that, other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. the supreme court is interested with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our republic, the constitution of the united states. 12 days ago, justice anthony kennedy informed me of his decision to take senior status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four decades, justice kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. i would like to thank justice kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. [applause] in a few moments i will announce my selection for justice kennedy's replacement. this is the second time i have been faced with this task. last year i nominated judge neil gorsuch to replace the late, great, justice antonin scalia. [applause] i chose justice gorsuch because i believed that he would be a faithful service of our constitution. we are honored to be joined tonight by justice antonin scalia's lovely wife, maureen

dissents that prevailed in the supreme court. he should be complemented, not condemn, he has taught courses at harvard, yale, georgetown, i would prefer it if he taught some courses at bring them university but that was too far off the list i guess. but you cannot knock harvard, yell. let's imagine that liberal and conservative justices alike have looked at the former clerks that address the theological perspective late julie madam president, there's no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the supreme court than brett kavanaugh. i think most people know that, including my friends on the other side. that is one reason they are afraid to have him on the court. i speak from experience. i am the former chairman of the judiciary committee. i've been participating in the confirmation of more federal judges than any senator in our nation's history. more than half of all federal judges ever conference. i participated in the last 14 supreme court contributions included the confirmation of all current members of the court. i kn

as a matter of fact, the supreme court -- this supreme court has adopt his reasoning in their opinions on 11 separate occasions, and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal judges all across the country. but perhaps judge kavanaugh's most qualifying characteristic is something i heard him say at the white house on monday evening. when the president announced his nomination, judge kavanaugh committed to being open-minded in the cases that come before him as a supreme court justice. open-minded. i think that's critical. and his record backs up that commitment. he has a long an clear record of fairly applying the text of our constitution and our laws. he is, i think -- there will be a lot to consider under judge kavanaugh because he has such a long and very clear record of writing and the president mentioned his very concise writing skills. when i consider nominees for the supreme court, i don't look for a person who promises particular policy outcomes or someone who is out to actually create laws. what i look for is a person who reflects experience, fairless,

even if it got to the supreme court, the supreme court would have to vote to hear it. and even if it heard it, recall now, if you want to call somebody a swing vote, that swing vote would be justice roberts. and when you think about roe v. wade, yes, it stands on very flimsy legal justification, but on the other hand, it's also been part of jurisprudence for decades. and the supreme court, prudent to what they call stare decisis, is likely to let something as old as roe v. wade stand, simply because it's been around so long that everybody accepts it as a constitutional right, even though it's built on a flimsy house of cards. >> and danny, you've written about this, that chief justice roberts would want to avoid the controversy of overturning roe v. wade. why is that? >> justice roberts is a staunch defender of the sort of the, of the respect of the supreme court. and for that reason, he would be really, really cognizant of the fact that this would create, an overturning of roe v. wade, a huge controversy. and that may be something he would want to avoid. but he can ha

nominee for the supreme court. follow as he meets with senators and the senate confirmation hearings and the vote. watch life on c-span, on c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> the house is in recess. members return in about 15 minutes for votes and speeches. earlier today members worked and voted on several bills including one to expand services and benefits for peace corps volunteers. follow the house live on crmbs span when members gavel back in. til then a look at the brett kavanaugh nomination to the supreme court, from today's "washington journal." kavanaugho the supreme court, president of -- what is anthony your organization has interest in that? guest: we care about the courts are we been involved in elections for some time. 2014 was a big

a law clerk on the supreme court for supreme court justice kennedy. he is one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006, the senate confirmed him to the d.c. circuit. he has compiled an extensive record on the federal bench. he has published more than 300 opinions and earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. long kavanaugh has built a and distinguished record. it paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy, pick favorites, or craft novel legislation from the bench. some of our colleagues and others on the left seem to see the role of judges very differently. president obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for president. he explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbored particular empathy for certain parties and certain cases. well, that's great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes. n

supreme court. if justice kennedy was a swing vote to the center, judge kavanaugh would swing to the far right. kavanaugh's record has shown consistently given a choice between corporations and consumers, he is a reliable ally of big business time and time again. given a choice between polluters and public health, he consistently finds a legal escape or the polluters. deciding between the freedom of women to plan their own families and the strong hand of government, women lose an kavanaugh's courts. kavanaugh's views on the second amendment are straight out of the gun lobby playbook. where he grew up would be wild west dcf judge kavanaugh had his way. here is a presidential tweet you will never read. time thend that can of president found a supreme court nominee on record saying the president should not be distracted with criminal investigations of prosecutions while he is in office. brett kavanaugh would be the deciding vote to change the rules in america for the next generation. are a number of my

ago, president reagan nominated anthony kennedy to the supreme court. the framers established that the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. [applause] >> my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it's like to be an only child, i say, "it depends on who your parents are." [laughter] >> i was lucky. theom was a teacher in 1960's and 1970's. she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington, d.c., mckinley tech and hd woodson. her example taught me the example of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at the dinner table, when she practiced her closing arguments. was, "useark line your common sense. what rings true, what rings false?" that's good advice for a juror and for a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame

, the supreme court has. he has authored multiple dissents that ultimately prevailed in the supreme court. that ought to be complimented, not condemned. he has taught courses at harvard, yale, and georgetown. i would have preferred if he had taught some courses at brigham university and the university of utah, but i guess that was too far west, but you can't knock harvard, yale, and georgetown. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: it bears to mention that liberal and conservative justices alike have hired his former clerks which address -- chosen the respect he has across the ideological spectrum. truly, madam president, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the supreme court than brett kavanaugh, and the funny thing is most people know that, including my friends on the other side. that's one reason they are afraid to have him on the court. i speak from experience on this. i'm the former c

i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. [applause] >> my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it is like to be an only child, i say it depends on who your parents are. i was lucky. my mom was a teacher. in a 1970's and 60's, she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington dc. mckinley tech and h g woodson. her example taught me the example of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments. her trademark line was, use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. that is good advice for a juror and a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanaugh, but to me, the title will always belong to my mom. my dad went to law school at night while working full-time. he has an unparalleled work ethic

supreme court. the ap just moments ago reporting that i it will be bret kavanaugh. we will have a full and complete analysis, and later we have an opening monologue that will tell you all about the president's election. joining us now from the white house as our own john roberts. >> from the past hour, shannon bream and i say we have been leaning towards brett kavanaugh. we expect to see the president and as well, judge, and circuit court of appeals, often called the farm team for the supreme court. there are a lot of people that thought maybe this was too much of an establishment choice, maybe he should have gone with a b tony barrett but the intelligence that i've been getting it is that amy coney barrett may have been a difficultou confirmation this year. if another justice's shuts down, they would likely be the next choice. >> we are only ten seconds away, the president of the united states making his big announcement. ap reporting and fact that it is a judge kavanaugh, which have been rumored m

my last two pieces have been about the supreme court. carolyn from washington, d.c., democrats line. a little know this is water into the bridge, but could you explain a little more about judge kennedy's son and relationship to president trump and some of that murkiness there? guest: this is interesting. i have heard that there is some business relationship or business dealings, and not to up on that. i think people tried to question why is justice kennedy stepping down now? there may be is a conspiracy theory were some insinuation that he is somehow being pressured or bride and then there is any evidence that suggests that. he has been on the court for a no, 30 some years and you certainly at an age well past the retirement age, so i guess there is some sort of business relationship with his son and the trumps. but it was were to see something much more concrete than anything i have seen, i would say that this is just a case of a guy who is, remember, justice kennedy was appointed by a republican, he probably wants to retire and be repl

as a matter of fact the supreme court, the supreme court has adopted his reasoning in their opinion on 11 separate occasions and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal judges all across the country. perhaps judge cavanaugh's most well-defined characteristic is something he said monday evening when the president announced his nomination judge cavanaugh committed to be open-minded in the cases that come before him as a supreme court justice. open-minded. i think that's critical. his record backs up that commitment. he has a long and clear record of fairly applying the text of our constitution and our laws. there will be a lot to consider on the judge cavanaugh because he has such a long and very clear record of writing and the president mentioned his concise writing skills. that i look for experience, fairness and respect for the constitution as it is written. that's because the constitution aside, the legislative authority to us and it selected representative. they editorialize today, and i quote, cavanaugh has said that if confirmed to the supreme court hi

supreme court. the ap moments ago reporting that it will be brett kavanaugh. we live full complete reaction to the president's nomination and analysis. shannon bream, jay sekulow, jay garrett and later we will have an opening monologue that we will tell you all about your president selections. joining us from the white house as our own john roberts. >> for the past hour or a little more, shannon bream and i have been leaning toward the kavanaugh. we expect to see the president, as well as judge and, soon to be, if the president gets his way, justice brett kavanaugh walking up. he is a veteran of the d.c. court of appeals. so many different justices of current and past from the d.c. circuit court of appeals. there are a lot of people who thought that this was maybe too much of an establishment toys, that maybe he should have gone with tony amy barrett, but nexe around if another justice steps down while the president is still sitting in the oval office, amy coney barrett would likely be his next choi

they went up to the supreme court, and the supreme court reversed in a 5-4 decision. neither of these first amendment cases were written by justice kennedy, even though his handiwork is seen in all the precedents that led up to them. on the licensed notice, the court threw cold water on the idea that there was such a thing as a lower set of you for the speech. becausen't decide it, it didn't pass even under intermediate scrutiny. we've never said there was a thing subject to a lower standard of review. there are a couple of different categories, but this doesn't fall into either of them. can causeal speech all sorts of problems, the cultural revolution, and nazi germany. tois kind of a barnburner cite those two things. it is also hard to cite what is covered by professional speech, does this include barbers, for example? one of the two examples of it being subject to lower standards someview, which were first laws required professional justices to disclose nine controversial facts. if youlawyer advertises, do it on contingency basis, you may have to say you have to pa

this is the people's supreme court. are you with me? [cheers and applause] we won't stand for any nominee, no brett kavanaugh who wants to take away our constitutional rights to decide what to do with our own bodies. yes! because when people's rights are under attack, what do you do? fight back. when women's rights are under attack? what do we do? >> stand up and attack. >> what do we do? >> stand up! >> we are going to let him know that we are out here tonight and we are going to come back tomorrow. we are going to be in the states after that. we are going to be damn sure be out here in november. are you with me? [cheers and applause] >> yes. we're going to make sure that the senate blocks this nomination and stand with the women across this country. two million people we serve every year, planned parenthood, and we ain't going to go back now. come on, y'all. let's fight back. let's fight back. et's fight back! [siren] >> stand up. fight back. stand up. fight back! i want to talk to you tonight about what we know about brett kavanaugh

supreme court. [applause] pres. trump: my fellow americans, tonight i speak to you from the east room of the white house regarding one of the most profound responsibilities of the president of the united states, and that is the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that, other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. the supreme court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our republic, the constitution of the united twelve days ago, justice anthony kennedy informed me of his decision to take senior status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four decades, justice kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. i would like to thank justice kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. [applause] pres. trump: in a few moments i will announce my selection for justice kennedy's replacement. this is the second time i have been faced with this task. last year, i nominated judge neil gorsuch to r

the supreme court nomination part of a busy week. can his foreign trip deliver the way he has with the supreme court with the nomination. he is facing really big challenges overseas. nato, members not stepping up to the 2% threshold in my view some what artificial anyway. and will probably be very so s solicitous of vladamir putin. berating of nato plays to putin's interest. what i am going to be watching and concerned about. >> how much does the president have ability to weaken nato? >> well i think a lot. just the fact that he -- constantly berates nato. moving them around makes nato nations very nervous. i think that is basically the unease that he created by -- you know, his, his criticism and frankly his, his demeaning of the alliance which in my view is served -- the interest of this country. as well as those in europe for, for 70 years. he seems to be taking that down. >> his schedule, while in the uk has been carefully planned. it might be hard for him to miss some of them though. what kind of recementiption do think he is go

they went to the supreme court and the supreme court reversed in a 5-4 decision written by justice thomas and five justices. i think it's interesting that neither of these were written by justice kennedy, although i think you can see his handiwork on them and all the precedents that led up to them. on the licensed facilities, the court began by throwing cold water on the idea that there is such a thing of lower center review for professional speech. they didn't decide it because they said they didn't have to because it didn't pass muster even under intermediate scrutiny. but it said, look, we've never really said there is a thing such as a lower standard review. there are a couple categories, but this doesn't fall under either of them. by the way, professional speech or the state monkeying with professional speech can cause all sorts of problems. ceg, the cultural revolution, and nazi germany. it's kind of a barn burner to cite those two things. also, by the way, it's very hard to decide what exactly is covered by professional speeches. this includes barbers, for example. then it went thr

and the c-span cameras are up at the supreme court, showing you a supreme court pet care. more on "washington journal." ♪ day --ay night on human night on q and a. >> she saw me. i decided right there that i was going to get the amendment ratified. >> the man responsible for getting the 27th amendment ratified. >> i was in the library of downtown austin, texas. i came across a book that had an devoted to amendments that had passed congress but not enough state legislatures had approved. and this one jumped right out at me. law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. " i remember standing in the aisle and it was as if lightning had struck. i remember the whole sitting electricity of it all. instead of writing about the equal rights amendment and the deadline,atification why don't i write about this says, remember when congress wanted to adjust their salary? >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. was created by am

the case went to the supreme court. i should note that the trump administration defended the constitutionality of the appointment of alj's before the d.c. circuit, having a lawyer for the department of justice go and defend the decision of the sec. when the case went to the supreme court, they changed positions. they filed a brief through the solicitor general saying that the court ought to take the case, ought to take the case from the d.c. circuit because if it took it from the 10th circuit, just as gorgeous -- justice gorsuch would be recused. when they took it, they ought to appoint an amicus curiae to defend the decision of the d.c. circuit, because the government would be arguing that the appointment of the alj's is unconstitutional unless vested in the heads of departments. they also asked the court to take on another question that was not in the petition, which is how do you fire an alj? if they are officers of the united states, do they fall within the president's power to remove? or are they constitutionally p

i speak about the supreme court. yesterday justice anthony kennedy, a great friend of mine and a wonderful justice on the court announced his retirement on july 31. he has served with the highest distinction. over his tenure, he has -- supreme court playing a pivotal role in some of the most consequential court decisions. from mcdonald versus chicago to citizens united versus f.e.c. he rightly gained a reputation as the supreme court's swing vote. sometimes he sided with the court's liberal wing. other times he sided with the conservatives, but he always sided with what he believed to be the correct interpretation of the law. what more could we ask for from a judge in throughout his public service justice kennedy has mentioned a generation of jurists who went on to become -- he mentored a generation of jurists who went on to become aluminum ordinaries in their -- aluminum ordinaries in their own right. not least among them is justice gorsuch, a former kennedy clerk, and now serves as his equal on the supreme court. w

court people chanting "kavanaugh has got to go" and save the supreme court. crews say it got very hostile. then some lawmakers stepped up senator elizabeth warren called him a political animal for his time in the bush white house and call justice kill brand and bernie sanders vowed to fight his nomination. >> he did exactly what he said he would do. he has h appointed someone, who will not protect a woman's right to make decisions about her life, her healthcare, her reproductive freedom. this judge must not become the next justice on the supreme court. >> i am not going to kid anybody. this iss a tough fight, but it s a fight that we can win. the liberals clearly dislike his conservative bent and dislike what he did in 2015. arguing in dissent that obama care for contraception coverage infringed on the rights of religious organizations and dislikee his dissent from the decisionli last fall that permitted the undocumented immigrant teen to u have an abortion. kavanaugh is highly regarded among most conservatives, but he has raised some concerns, and far right

wade every time there is a supreme court vacancy. it was a big deal when sandra day o'connor was appointed to the court 37 years ago. yet, though he weighed the still the law of the land. it is pretty clear that justices have a way of surprising us. could've predicted the justice scalia would strike down a ban on flagburning? it's a fools errand then to try to predict our justice our rule on some hypothetical future case. this regular uproar about road the wade show the difference between how many democrats and republicans view the courts. liberal outside groups and many democrats have a litmus test. they seem to be results oriented and focusing on policy outcomes of judicial decisions. they expect and even demand their judges to rule in favor of their preferred policies. liberal outside groups and their allies just simply want judges to be politicians hiding under their robes. that is why senate democrats were so blamed in changing senate rules so that they could stack the dc circuit court of appeals. former democrat leader harry re

circuit when he was nominated to the supreme court. judge bork, after extensive hearings led by then senate judiciary committee joe biden, he testified for five days, very extensive hearings, it really was essentially a seminar on constitutional law but ultimately he was voted down by the senate 58-42 and when that happens, the president then goes back to the drawing board and nominates someone else. after bork, he nominated doug ginsburg and then justice kennedy was nominated after a more extensive consultation between president reagan and senator biden and others in the senate and as i mentioned earlier, justice kennedy ultimately was confirmed 97-0. >> what do you make of the critique by some that the process already is rushed? >> well, i think it's hard to say that it's necessarily rushed at the moment. i think we have to see when hearings are set in the timing for that. so for example, i think hearings in the first or second week of august would be clearly rushed when you have a nominee whose record has more than a million pages t

the supreme court might have said that kennedy supreme court no, the brett kavanaugh supreme court might say no. so they will permit more state interferences. if >> marie: i don't want roe vs. wade to be repealed in its entirety either but i think the more concerning judicial question might be whether there's just so many restrictions and state levels that are now upheld by the supreme court unlike the casey decision where abortion effectively and 25 or 30 sites across the country becomes so restricted that it is illegal. >> harris: is is a smart issue for democrats to make it only about that? you've got obamacare coming, other things. >> marie: they should broaden that out to be about women's health at large. pro-choice is not pro-abortion and i think the democratic party gets too close to making it seem like that. it should be about women's health and women's ability to control their own bodies and about not having a bunch of men at the supreme court telling you what you can and can't do. >> katie: seven men decided roe vs. wade so are they allowed to decided then? >> marie: the govern

court. >> judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. judge kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law. a graduate of yale college and yale law school, judge kavanaugh currently teaches at harvard, yale, and georgetown. throughout legal circles, he is considered a judge's judge. a true leader among his peers. he's a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time. >> some background now on judge kavanaugh in addition to what you just heard the president said. in addition to being a graduate of yale, yale law school. he's a former clerk to anthony kennedy and that is critical. he served as an associate counsel to ken starr during white water. he was staff secretary to president george w. bush and served on the d.c. circuit of the federal bench since '06. he married the personal secretary to president bush 43. together they have two daughters. he's a catholic who would maintai

wade hangs by one vote on the supreme court. there are more than a dozen cases that are ready to come to the supreme court that would restrict reproductive rights. not only -- obviously, this is a nomination that was rubberstamped by the federalist society, committed to overturning roe, but i think what is important to understand, far beyond abortion rights, judge kavanaugh has taken the position that bosses should be up to determine whether or not their employees get birth control based on our own personal point of view. he obviously disagree with the finding in the d.c. circuit court the affordable care act could go forward. i think the threats to women's health and women's rights are profound from everything from not only abortion access, birth control access, but even a protection that we have now for folks with pre-existing conditions. this is a very extreme appointment. i think you're going to see folks coming out across the country. amy: let's go back to president trump them of the famous debatae october 2016 that was mod

court justice it is the case that an inferior court judge is banned by what the supreme court says it would be astonishing if any appellate judge of an inferior court tried to in effect overrule the supreme court once you get out of supreme court all bets are off and the the belief that what judge kavanaugh says about precedent is. something you could take to the bank to get a loan on is just silly he's a very smart guy he will say the right things in order to make it possible for collins. to vote for him but quite frankly the this is not a court that exhibits great respect for precedent and it's not a certainty i agree that was said before if it's not a sure thing he could surprise us i also agree that chief justice roberts is key on this but if you were a betting person it would be for wish to put a lot of money on the survival of roe ok. matthew you mentioned before that there's no filibuster that even if. even if cavanagh does get the votes he needed we saw in two thousand and sixteen obama's nomination judge merrick garland was blocked by the republicans can there not be some sor

the issue is when you are getting named to the supreme court and there is no supreme court precedent on these matters, this supreme court will essentially be called upon, if these things come to them, to create supreme court precedent on these matters. he won't be bound by anything the supreme court has done before because the supreme court has never grappled with whether a president could be indicted. he's on the record saying that would be a terrible thing that would happen. but, again, this all has to be fought over by people who are now going to start going over the millions of pages of documents that make up his public record. >> rachel, if i could talk to one harvard law school professor tonight about this nominee, it would be professor elizabeth warren, who actually has a vote on the nominee. and, okay, she's a former professor, but she is going to join us later to give her reaction both as a former harvard law school professor and a voting senator on this nomination. >> as someone neither a lawyer and tries not to play one on tv, i'm glad to hear that. >> tonight, as predicte

judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. several senators spoke including bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, and cory booker. >> thank you so much for being here. justiceere to fight for , for equality, for health care, for choice. i want to turn it over to the president and ceo of the center for american progress. what have we learned tonight? trump has nominated an extremist who would damage our country for decades. his nominee will undermine marriage equality, voting and give many benefits to wealthy and big corporations. we know that the supreme court of the united states is not a game. tonight, trump and his allies will try to eliminate the last checks on the president by ramming through a judge who will strike down roe versus raid -- roe versus wade and cater to corruption. we cannot let this stand. brett kavanaugh will bring -- will destroy all this country's work in the supreme court. brett kavanaugh has a terrible record that should disqualify him. he will be a rubber stamp for donald trump. he will detain immigrants

he was considered to be the swing on the supreme court. neil gorsuch when he was being considered for the supreme court was up for a hard right conservatives seat, antonin scalia of. so anthony kennedy was more in the middle, so this has taken on much, much greater significance. it has also taken on greater meaning, i think, because the president has laid out very specifically -- in fact, when he was running for office, that if elected, he would appoint an individual who met two very specific criteria: one, he was looking for someone who was against the affordable care and two, he was looking specifically for an individual who would oppose roe versus wade. himself,president has set out a very volatile process by setting out criteria, outsourcing the choice to two "heritageoups, action" and "federal society, ,", showing is that he would turn the clock back. siobhan: do democrats have a realistic chance of stopping this nominee? i would say that democrats and republicans have a moment,c chance, at the the only thing we know which is signific

by overturning supreme court decisions unsettled law. it's changing election cycles hurting the credibility of the court. let's pick it up with former bush 43 deputy chief of staff karl rove heard it's great to see you. your take on the supreme court fight? >> it's predictable. the democrats don't even know who it is yet but they have decided they are right-wing lunatic unworthy of service on the high court and that's a sad moment for the democratic party and the sad moment for this country but we expected it. can i give you a little bit of history here? take a look at this chart. these are george h.w. bush republican president makes to supreme court appointments. that's an 84% of democrats supported it but the break began with a response to justice thomas. only 20% of democrats supported his election confirmation to the supreme court. on the other hand 93% of republicans voted to confirm justice ginsburg, 75% justice breyer and then we get to bush 43. only half of the democrats 51% of the democrats can support roberts for the supreme co

circuit court judge and current supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. during her senate confirmation to the supreme court in 1993. so look, i think we all should remember that standard. we'll do well to remember we're evaluating a judge, not debating ad candidate for political office. even more regrettably, a number of our democratic colleagues could not even wait until the president's announcement last night before launching attacks on his nominee. this was in some cases quite literally a fill-in-the-blank opposition. they wrote statements of opposition only to fill in the name later. sadly, this is not a new approach for the far-left special interest groups. just like last year, justice gorsuch met with partisan opposition before the ink was even dry on his nomination. look, i'm sorry to say that judge kavanaugh seems to have already broken that record because senate democrats were on record opposing him before he had even been named. just fill in the name. whoever it is we're against. before the ink was even dry on justice kennedy's resignation. now,