welcome back to friday "cuomo prime time." so we're learning details about the suspect that killed five people in maryland. at the "capital gazette" the 38-year-old has a long-running vendetta against the newspaper, you heard about that. they exposed some sick harassment he was doing of a former high school classmate. his obsession reportedly started with a facebook friend request. he initially sent friendly messages about how she was the on person that said hello to him or was nice to him in school. when he was rebuffed he started calling her ugly names, told her to kill herself. she was eventually was forced to change her name, leave the state. she warned the police he would be quote, your next mass shooting. it's not that rare. it just so happens the the next installment of our original series" inside evil" on hln has the twisting story of

another woman when her lover went wrong. here's the preview. >> i'm just looking for love. it became the whirlwind romance. she was saying everything i wanted to hear. we found out some stuff. >> bad stuff? >> yes. you want to believe it because the feel g is so wonderful. >> he's a charming good-looking guy. a lot of stuff to pass on. >> i remember feeling scared to death. >> wait until you see what happens. if you date online, please watch "inside evil" this sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on hln. it's friday night, we're not ready to start the weekend yet. don lemon is, he's off tonight. what do do you say another hour? it's another special of "cuomo prime time."

it has been the talk of the nation this entire week. another seat opening up on the supreme court. anthony kennedy was a swing vote on the court. not always but enough to make it a difference. now, not only can president trump reshape the high court for decades, but he's also working overtime to reshape the lower courts. this is probably the most underreported important part of the administration. obama put in a lot of judges that changed culture in one direction. now the judges being put in that are doing the opposite all over the country. now, you may not realize how much of a profound influence courts have over your lives. they are often the final word on most matters of law, not everything goes to a supreme court, very little does. judges on appellate courts hear around 60,000 cases a year. compare that to roughly 80,000 or so a year by supreme court.

60,000. 80. that's why republicans are trying to fast-track nominations to these judges. that's why democrats are holding them up. leget more on this right now from our chief political correspondent, dana bash. >> mr. president -- >> reporter: the whirlwind of trump news can be overwhelming. from trade wars to immigration crises. twitter rants. russia. >> no collusion, no nothing. >> reporter: a porn star, yet under the radar a yet sexy story likely more lasting. president trump's quiet effort to fill the federal bench. >> we're appointing judges like, i guess, never before has anything happened like what we're doing on great conservative republican judges. >> reporter: it's not just the supreme court. >> there's an understandable focus on a supreme court vacancy.

the real work, maybe the more important work has been done at the level just under. >> absolutely. >> yeah, the supreme court, the very very top tier of the cases do get there. 99% plus of the cases they ended up at the lower court and decided there. >> reporter: the trump white house and senate republican leadership are moving fast to confirm conservative judges. after just a year-and-a-half in office, the senate has already confirmed 20 district court judges and 21 on the appellate court level. of those 12 in 2017 alone, that is the one year more than any other president in american history. now, how has this happened? something mostly missing from washington right now, that's discipline. >> there's a very specific structure in place to try to make these judicial nominees move quickly. >> right, this is a top top thing again for the white house office. they all recognize these are people who are going to sit on the court for a generation. they're going to be the one, every legislative conversation

you have, executive orders, all of those gnd up with interpreted by the court. if you don't have someone whose going to fairly interpret what you're doing, you're wasting your time. >> reporter: no one understands that than mitch mcconnell. criticized for staying silent about trumps controversial behavior. mcconnell is keeping his eye on this ball, taking advantage of a gop president and senate to confirm as many conservative judges as possible. >> president trump's judicial nominations have reflected a keen understanding of the vital role and judges play in our constitutional order. >> reporter: the expedited pace has made for stumbles. nominees who even, gop senators don't find qualified. remember, this confirmation hearing? >> have you ever tried a jury trial? >> i have not. >> civil? >> no. >> criminal? >> no. >> bench. >> no. >> reporter: but didn't except the push to fill the federal

bench to let up anytime soon. there are 150 vacancies, and 88 pending. for a president who likes to tend to his base. few things make trump happier than appointing conservative judges. >> by the time we finish i think we'll have the all-time record. >> reporter: dana bash, cnn washington. >> very helpful reporting by dana there. the courts have become the front lines of the battle between states like california and the trump administration. california's attorney general is javier becerra, he's filed more than two dozen lawsuits against the administration so far and he joins us now on prime time. good to see you, sir. >> good to see you, chris. >> so, you told me when i saw you of there in california, we were working on human trafficking. why are you ignoring the judges and the impact on the federal courts? i don't know why i was. we get distracted by a lot of the things that the president said.

how important are the judicial determinations and what are you seeing in your ninth circuit out there in california? >> they're the court of last resort. supreme court and the federal court's before that. they are crucial for justice, and as we've seen in our history, sometimes our courts have gotten it wrong. when they get it wrong, it does take generations to make it right. world war ii case comes to mind because of the recent decision of the travel ban. history, unfortunately repeats itself. history will be the best judge of what our justices on all the courts, but certainly on the supreme court do. >> i said the janis case which was the union case and what could happening in collect bargaining. that comes to my mind because it's interesting how the supreme court casually said, this

precedent, it's been like 40 year, we're undoing it. decade ago. that was bad law. so, we're seeing that while calls of judicial activism usually lands on the left, that that's what they do, we're seeing that on the right in realtime right now. how big a deal is this for your state and your function as the top law enforcement officer there? >> crucial. because so many of the challenges that we face, we can take on at the courts. and if we don't have fair play in the courts, then california could lose, if california loses, because we are the most dynamic of the states, the economic engine for the country, that means ultimately that ripples through and hurts everyone in the country. it's important to have justice dispensed at all levels of our courts. >> so, you are the yang to the yen that we're saying.

and anticipating on the right. states all over the country. if the president puts in a conservative judge. not like kennedy. that they will start passing laws in the state. and anticipating favorable out comes. certainly in more cultural eras like the roe v. wade situation. but you are also doing things like that in your state. your passing laws and brings suits, upon to protect what you care about. how so? >> well, we're trying to defend everything that has made california the number one job creator in the country. now, we are the fifth largest economy in the world. we just passed great britain, and we want to protect that status. when you become number one in agricultural, in technology, manufacturing and entertainment, hospitality, and graduates from college universities, you're not

interested in taking second place. you want to continue to be number one because that makes you a dynamic state. so we have to defend that. if i have to take on whether it's a business practice or the illegal practices of the federal government, we'll do it to protect what has made california number one. >> what are you anticipating in the years ahead? >> you know, you're talking to the son of immigrants, so i'm still very optimistic. i know sometimes it takes a while for justice to surface, and i'm prepared to fight to make sure that that's the case. i've lost as many fights, if not more than i've won during my years in congress, and now as the ag -- actually as the ag i've won far more fights than identify lost against the trump administration, hopefully we can continue to prevail on the thing that reflect the value of california. and the 40 million person

population that made the state so dynamic. but the country as well. >> elections have consequences, that's the cliche. you have 141 judges in your circuit. it's going to be a significant impact who comes in, and something has come out emerging the nexus of law. and policy. i want your take on it. the idea of abolishing ice. the may your of oakland. the mayor of new york. sitting senator all say, yes, yes, that's the way to go. do you agree? >> i.c.e. stands for immigration and custom enforcement. we need immigration and custom enforcement. what we don't need is violation of human rights, we don't need violations of constitutional rights. we don't need children separated from their parents, that's not

america. i think you can undo the illegality and immorality without doing a nation with the govern government. we need to have i.c.e. enforcement, and we need to make sure it's done right. we have a lot of people within that department and agency who wish to do it the right way, we have to make sure that those who are doing it the wrong way are either punished or removed. >> and also, it's what they're being told to do. in fairness the i.c.e. people they're not the one separating the families. they are doing the round up. that's interesting that your position is much more than what we thought the democrats were about. which is fix it. but get rid of all it. javier becerra thank you very much for your perspective out there in california, appreciate it. we got two of the known legal minds in the country here tonight. we got professor allen dershowitz and toobin.

we're going to talk russia. the impact on trumps legacy. and the question of self-hardening. which is out there tonight. we're going to talk about what these judges mean. these are if guys to do it. great debate. next. stay awake. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

you like to be in control. especially when it comes to important stuff. like, say... your car.

well, good news. the esurance app lets you keep an eye on your repairs when your car is in the shop. it's kinda like being there, without being there. which is probably better for everyone. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. back now, this special hour on the remaking of the judiciary. joining us now for a great debate, jeffrey toobin and allen dershowitz on the case against impeaching trump. professor let me throw you a curve ball. spreading within the democratic party the reason not to hold the vote right now for supreme court justice isn't the mcconnell recking of the biden rule, it's because the president is under investigation. he is compromised and shouldn't be making this decision. >> it's a nonsense argument i think.

when all presidents are potentially under investigation, supreme courts decides many cases involving the president. the implications such a rule will be disastrous for democracy. the president has the power to nominate. now, of course the last nomination, the gorsuch nomination was stolen from president obama by improper tactics, by the majority in the senate. the constitution says the president shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint. it doesn't say that the senate has the right not to act on a nomination, and i think president obama probably should have fought that harder, perhaps even on a constitutional basis, but that's yesterday's news. i think the president does have the power to make a nomination. he is not a subject, we're told, of an investigation. the investigation may never end. if it never ends does that mean the president is denied the power?

it's an absurd political argument that should go nowhere. there are good reasons if r the nomination to be scrutinized and turned down. that's not a good reason. >> do you have an opinion on this jeffrey or should we move on? >> i think we should move on. it's essential to talk about what a republican nominee who you would do on that point. >> on that point we got some insight, jeffrey from stuttering john. he does that prank phone call on air force one with the president pretending to be bobby men menendez. as he asked about row v wade and says i hope you're not too tough. if you're not too tough on that and get someone hike kennedy. i'll vote for you. and the president doesn't say no. it's fwoigoing to be a hard lin. he didn't say that. do you think there's a chance that he nominates someone who is

more in the mold of an anthony kennedy than a gorsuch? >> chris, let me answer you clearly. the chance of him nominating someone like anthony kennedy is zero. the whole point -- or the whole reason donald trump remained so much support in the evangelical community is because he is going to appoint justices like neal gorsuch and whoever this turns out to be who will overturn roe v. wade, who will allow states to ban abortion, who will allow states to criminally prosecute doctors and nurses who perform abortions. that's what donald trump has promised to do and that's what he's going to do -- >> the professor's shaking his head no. you can't disagree with what the jeffrey's saying -- the president said he would do that. >> it's much worse than that. if you believe in the constitutional right to life, the logical implications is you should appoint justices who

should forbid states from permitting abortions. that is if you really take logically the constitutional life to right argument, it doesn't leaf it to the states, it takes it away from the states. it says the constitution forbids the killing of fetuses. i think somebody ought to ask the question that direct question. do you believe in a constitutional right to life that would deny new york and california and 40 some odd other states, the power to permit women to get abortions? because that's the implication to the right to life argument. >> and what if he says yes? >> well then i think he loses the next election. >> senators should vote accordingly. the senate and the senate will not vote for a nominee who denies state rights. because right now we're arguing about states' rights, should the states or the supreme courts be doing it.

if you leave in the right to life as a constitutional matter then you deny that to the state. if the president says that he loses the nomination and the next election. >> do you think the nominee would answer that question? because really it's what nominee says, right jeffrey? >> this is the tragedy -- >> this is the tragedy of supreme court nome neighbors. everything that matters is done in secret. by the time the senate confirmation hearings come bb, the nominees have been trained not to answer questions to say, well that issue may be coming before the court so i'm not going to answer that. so, the groups that have been providing these names to the trump administration, the heritage foundation, the federal society, they know what these nominees stand for, but the public will not be informed. that's what's a disgrace and that's what the senate allows because they want -- the president's party wants to put people on the court without

people knowing what they really stand for. >> professor, the reason i said the nominee's right because that's the person that will be vetted. >> i understand that, but the president has to be asked whether or not that's the kind of nominee he wants. as far as secretly vetting candidates, it is a disgrace, it's a disgrace when liberals do it -- >> yeah i agree. i went back to jeffrey's book and i went back to something you had written. all the big brain guys agree with this, it's a complete pageant. and the politicians on each side i want something to divorce themselves from anything personal. icht it to be about the facts and law. and they get on the court and follow partisan influence. fair point, professor? >> remember justice thomas who was asked would he have ever

made a decision in his mind about right to life. he essentially under oath he hasn't thought about it. of course when he was nominated the president knew exactly what his views were. i do think overruling roe versus wade will hurt the republicans. today moderate republicans who have daughters or sisters who may need an abortion have a freet vote. they can vote the economic policy. this is not a referendum on abortion. >> or who have a strong feeling about their rights to -- or who have a strong feeling about their rights to control their own body. >> i agree with that. >> most of the resistance is on a level who makes the decision about their body, them, or some largely legislative body. mostly male. >> right. and the tragedy of all this is that obviously abortion is going to be a big part of this nomination process.

and by the time the nominee gets to the public hearings, when asked about it, the nominee is going to say, well, i can't discuss it, and i understand roe v. wade is a precedent of the court but i can't discuss my feelings about it. so, donald trump and the federalist society, they know how this nominee is going to vote on abortion rights, but the public will be denied that information. and the information they -- roe to overturn it. don't be misled. >> last word professor. >> i don't think they will. let's remember there are many many more issues that are unprepredictable. one of the previous guests. the most liberal justice of the upheld it. mandatory sterilization of mentally retarded people. all the liberal justices. you never know what cases are going to come up.

that's why it's so important that people with high quality, people that can make decisions not based on partisan, but on constitutional allow, it's so important that they be nominated -- >> it's hard to note that -- go ahead, last word. >> there's a mythology that presidents are surprised by how these justices turn out. that hasn't happened basically since eisenhower, this kind of scrutiny has prevented that. donald trump will get what he wants out of this justice. >> all right. professor thank you -- >> i don't think the president got what they want -- >> all right. professor thank you very much. justin toobin, thank you very much. two good minds on a friday night. can't beat that. who do we know about who the president wants nominated? we know a little bit from that prank phone call. there are bread crumbs in his

search. he talks about his list, he talks about who he wants there, when he said there'll be women, leonard leo has the president's ear when it comes to the short list. we'll go one on one with him next. good to have you, sir. need a change of scenery? the kayak explore tool shows you the places you can fly on your budget. so you can be confident you're getting the most bang for your buck. alo-ha. kayak. search one and done. your plaques are always there at the worst times. constantly interrupting you with itching, burning and stinging. being this uncomfortable is unacceptable. i'm ready. tremfya® works differently

for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks... stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections, and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya®, tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®, because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for tremfya®. it all started when donald trump tore thousands of immigrant children away from their parents. we the people challenged him in court and in the streets. then trump was forced to admit that his policy was wrong. and he caved. the court just ruled

that trump must reunite every family he broke apart. (clock ticking rapidly) time is ticking. these children must see their parents again, and they're counting on us to act quickly.

these children must see their parents again, does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today.

so, president trump says he's planning to announce his pick for supreme court on july 9th and narrowed it down to five people, including two women. what's the current reckoning. these are the front runners before we got the latest news. former kennedy clerk, brett kavanaugh. amy barrett. raymond kethledge. amul thapar. you got utah senator, mike lee. court of appeals, judge thomas hornman. i got him in there last. he was a close runner up to gosh such last time. there's six women on the original list. will he actually chose a woman? i want to bring in leonard leo, the representative of the federalist society.

you'll hear a lot about the federalist society good and bad. so, leonard, defend the process a little bit. you heard jeffrey toobin there saying, you will know what these judges would do on roe v. wade, but we will not in the public because they will be coached up to say nothing just like we see in every confirmation process. fair criticism? >> people have been saying for 36 years, going all the way back to 1982, with the nomination of sandra o'connor that roe v. wade would be overturned. so -- 36 years later one of out of nine justices on the court said he would over turn row v wade. thomas. >> clarence thomas who during his confirmation years basically saying, i never really thought about roe v. wade before, then got on the bench and had definite ideas. continue.

>> people thought sarah other connor would overturn roe v. wade and she didn't. anthony kennedy. david suter. we know as much as about john roberts and gorsuch. as we knew about kennedy. i think there's a little bit of hysteria right now. i hope the confirmation covers a wide range of issues. we ought to have a debate on constitutional interpretation across the board. >> well, you can debate it if you want. it's the men and women in the robes decide what they want to do. you can only remove them for bad behavior. the idea of who gets put on there is shaped if there's any hysteria because of what the president has said. he said during the campaign, roe v. wade got to go, put judges on there to get it done. why would he put people on there and expect anything less now?

>> chris, here's what i know about the process. in all of my dealings with the president and in all of the meetings he had with perspective nominees, the president's never asked a single nominee about roe v. wade or abortion, or frankly any other case and he's never talked to me about it. that's the way the process ought to be. >> didn't make any sense leonard, i'm not saying your lying, doesn't make sense to me, because of what he said during the debates. just to remind the audience. >> do you want to be the court overturn roe v. wade? >> if we put another two or perhaps three justices on that will happen automatically in my opinion, because i am putting prolife justices on the court. i will say this. it will go back to the state s and the states will then make a determination. >> make a play for the evangelical conservative vote by a man that didn't share those thoughts before he got in the

presidential list, that's what he said. >> i can only tell you what the process is and that's important. the fact of the matter is you mentioned the black robe. the reason why judges wear black robes because it symbolizes the idea that they leave their personal prevents at the courthouse door and interpret the constitution as its written. this president said there are three criteria to consider for nominating judges. one is extraordinary qualifications in nominations, two, as he puts it, judges who are, quote not weak. those are people who have independent courage and not going to be swayed. by the political fashions of the day. and third by, judges who are going to, in his words, interpret the constitution the way it was meant to be. now, people can have disagreements about various forms of interpretations that judges will going to take, but those are the ideals that the president holds. that's not an outcome based method of appointing judges. >> understood.

leonard leo thank you for making the case to the people tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you. this is a political process. democrats don't like that anthony kennedy is off the court, but what can they really do to block a new supreme court nominee? that's on the docket in "cuomo's court." next . what about him? let's do it. ♪ come on. this summer, add a new member to the family. at the mercedes-benz summer event. lease the glc300 for $429 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. like concert tickets or a new snowboard. matt: whoo! whoo! jen: but that all changed when we bought a house. matt: voilà!

jen: matt started turning into his dad. matt: mm. that's some good mulch. ♪ i'm awake. but it was pretty nifty when jen showed me how easy it was to protect our home and auto with progressive. [ wrapper crinkling ] get this butterscotch out of here. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. there's quite a bit of work, 'cause this was all -- this was all stapled. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us.

but we can protect your home and auto the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

we're not going to let it happen. that's what you're hearing from democrats vowing to put up a fight to stop trump's court nominee. how? they don't have the votes. what are the options? joining me arian dezero. good to have you both. answer my question, arian? >> the thing is the democrats have in a bind. you've seen chuck schumer come out and said, we're not going to have hearings, saying we'll do everything we can to stop it. there's another set of democrats, they don't think that that's going to work. they think that they've got a push-back in garlin and they

have to think about a strategy going forward to peel off votes. one thing they're going to do is look at roe v. wade. they're going to say, look, even if the court doesn't overturn precedent, it can chip it away to nothing. and they'll look at other cases, for instance the affordable cad. care act and the trump administration earlier on said that they weren't going to defend key provisions. that's what the democrats are fighting over now. it's coming up pretty soon, because we're hearing, as you said that the new nominee could come as soon as july 9th. >> so the president is accelerating it. joan, i hear from democrats, this takes a long time. just google how long it can be a supreme court nominee, well over 100 days. so we can make it maybe make it through the election anyway. wishful thinking? >> yeah, they may have an incentive to fete this one done. this is the first one, chris, in our modern time that starts

without the option of the filibuster. remember last april of 2017, when president trump was pushing through neal gorsuch. senator mcconnell had to change the filibuster rules to make sure there was a senate majority. that's what they face. they only need a majority this time around. >> it is unusual. the nuclear option. >> harry reed did it for the lower court judges in 2013. mcconnell's getting all this hype now for what he said in 2016 in the selection of biden rule. he said if you do this, you're going to regret it and sooner than you think. man was that prophetic. >> it was so true. for lower court judges and supreme court. one thing i would say, you really pressed leonard leo on the abortion question. the president doesn't need to ask any of these candidates about roe v. wade because they wouldn't even be on the list if there wasn't a presumption that they would be against abortion

rights. i'm not saying the new justice is going to vote against abortion right, but nobody wouldn't have gotten on that list, that was so carefully vetted back in may of 2016, and during the campaign. and added to in september 2016. we have now got this final list that he's had in place since like, last november. these people have all been scrutinized in so many different ways. >> that was a nice little way of getting around how leonard got around that question. not so ascribe to him any kind of an mist. we heard what the president said, it was a naked play for the evangelical conservative vote. this was not a position that's been in his soul for a long time. anybody who knows them knows that. ariana, he said in that debate, that's what we're going to do. i'm putting right to life judges, that's his intention. >> yeah, but he did something that no other president has ever done that i can remember, is that he came up with that list.

don mcgan, one of the oldest serving members, he not together with the federalist society and said we're not going to be caught with another suit. maybe a chief justice john roberts. they know who these people are. these people are already vetted. that's why when you look at whether or not he's going to ask the question, that's what makes this one so different. and this president, and don mcgan and the federalist society and mcconnell and grassley, they have come full force and have handled this in a lot of ways, better than the democrats have in the past. that i have caught the democrats a little bit flat-footed. >> it all seems that way. you know better than anybody this is a beauty pageant. and you're not going to learn anything in this confirmation process unless there's a huge gap. everybody has robert on the mind. every time they get in the chair. arian, joan thank you very much. enjoy the rest of your friday night.

one thing you don't often hear about, the legal battles being fought far from the supreme court. i'm beginning to argue to you tonight at the end of the show that the judges are everything in assessing the trump administration. and not just the big ticket supreme court justices. getting conservatives on the district court, the circuit courts, all around the country. that can have an impact that last a generation, okay. so, let's bring in nan and karen to take us through those legal show downs. next. with only a kite, a house key and a wet hemp string, benjamin franklin captured lightening in a bottle. over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it. as the nation's leader in energy storage, we're ensuring americans have the energy they need,

whenever they need it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy.

you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

welcome back to our session of changing supreme court in america. kp had let's bring in two more experts, nan aaron, president of the alliance of the justice. and ken, good to have you both. we just had javier becerra on, he is part of the yang that we're seeing. we anticipate another conservative justice put on the

supreme court. you'll see states all over the country start passing laws that they're going to anticipate a friendly reception if they get to the supreme court, certainly in the area of reproductive rights. trying to preserve >> this has always been the case that states bring litigation. it's nothing new. it's gone on for decades. i think the real question is who are the judges who are going to hear those cases? and it's not just supreme court justices but as you said earlier the worrisome thing is that it's circuit court judges and district court judges. and this president has had an enormous ability to fill over 40 seats, lower court seats with individuals who manifest an

exceptional hostility to workers, women, people of color, consumers, environmentalists. so there's a real problem with those seats being filled by individuals who are just so opposed to all the various constituencies. and i do believe we'll turn the clock back on all of our rights and liberties. >> so elections have consequences. ken cuccinelli, how do you feel about the judges that are being put on? >> well, the quality of the judges is outstanding. it's interesting that -- >> except for that guy kennedy flagged in that hearing who had never tried a case ever before. how about that, ken? >> yeah, well, look you can always find weak spots because in politics especially at the lower level judges come into play as well. and i suspect that led to part of that snafu, and frankly i'm

glad that guy didn't get on. we want quality judges. but what a lot of us appreciated about the presidential race that was so different was he put forward his list. he said, look, this is part of the package. this is what you get. i've been asking candidates to do these sorts of things for years. i'm glad to finally see it actually happen because it provides accountability. and frankly, if he sticks to his list, he can go into the u.s. senate and say, look, this was part of the u.s. presidential election. and the last time we had a mid-term appointment to the supreme court was justice kagan in 2010, and she went through in 72 days. so there is very recent precedent for doing this at this time. but what there isn't precedent for is a president who's already put his list before the american people, and that means everybody who would look closely at them, too, and vet them themselves

from left and right. >> but that's hard to do, ken. >> it an accountability element. >> that's hard to do. >> it is hard to do. >> when you get the list of people, even somebody who's trained in law, it's hard to get a sense of who anybody is by looking at their cases. the federalist society they'll have interviews with these people that they understand very much so but we're not going to learn from the confirmation process, are we? >> no, but actually, we can learn a lot about how they'll rule by reading about them, their experience. if they've been a state court judge what they've done. a law teacher, look at their law review articles. but i think it's important to look at who some of these individuals are. let's take a woman named wendy vitter. wendy vitter has written that contraception causes violent death. two of the candidates came before the senate judiciary committee and wouldn't even say they would agree with the

holding in brown versus board of education. and nominee after nominee after nominee possesses a record. in some respect one nominee supported conversion therapy for gay youth. one nominee called -- >> okay. >> it goes on and on. >> let's leave it there because we're out of time but let's see whoa puts up and then we'll dot vetting. ken, you'll be back. you'll be first word on it. you'll be on 100 times between now and then. >> i'll have to remember that, chris. >> you're always value added, both of you. thank you very much for being with us tonight. a lot to digest. this is a big topic but we don't talk about it enough. when we come back from the break, we're going to make the case to you for why this matters. i know you don't hear about it a lot. but there's something wrong with that too. next. the first survivor of alzheimer's disease is out there. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

well, esurance makes it simple and affordable. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company.

click or call. paying too much for insurance that isn't the right fit? well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

esurance. an allstate company. does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. closing argument.

it is the judges. the president's talk is tantalizing and drives news very often, but only one word he has said defines him to this point, and that word is gorsuch. that's why mcconnell and ryan in large part stay silent in the face of comments and policies they probably don't agree with. that's yechb jellicals and conservatives are so forgiving of a president who doesn't exactly exemplify the character constraints they've applied to others. and as we've learned tonight, while the supreme court can have the final say in some let's say 80 cases a year the federal appeals courts are usually the final stop nearly 1,000 times as often. 1,000. these decisions affect real people. one example, what just happened with the president's travel ban. the supreme court handed the president a big win ruling he does have broad powers under immigration law in the name of national security. but the travel ban the supreme court upheld was not the ban that led to chaos and protests

in the streets in the first days of his presidency. why? because federal judges blocked the original, forced the administration to announce a new version and then another version. that was the version that ultimately was upheld by the supreme court this week. what judges are put on the courts all over this country matters. they change culture. we will cover what happens and what impact it has on states, promise. all right, that's it for us tonight. thank you for watching. we'll get after it again with you on monday, 9:00 eastern. and guess what? we're doing two hours again. have a great weekend. the following is a cnn special report. we're going to work with the people who are so addicted and we're going to try like hell to get them off that addiction.