praise. it just shows we're not as different from 1967 when thurgood marshall who's also articulate was named to the supreme court. >> i thank you. the news continues. let's hand it over to laura coates and "cnn tonight." >> what an articulate, panel. anderson, thank you so much. i couldn't let it go. glad to see you, and yes, i am laura coats, and this is "cnn tonight." president biden's trailblazing supreme court nominee, judge ketanji brown jackson is still answering questions tonight on day two of her confirmation hearings. we're going to check back live shortly on that historic confirmation. there could also be more contentious questioning when senator marsha blackburn is up. and this has been a long day. in fact, 12 hours and counting including a few breaks in between. and it's been dare i say a

dramatic day. we're going to unpack some of those moments ahead, but there's also major developments overseas we want to bring you up to speed on. ukrainian forces have made some major strides today in taking back some of the territory the russians have gained. but the putin bombardment is intensifying in and around the capital of kyiv. a day of smoke filling the sky and on the ground. and the fighting -- make no mistake -- is fierce. schools like this one in kharkiv now bear the scars of war. so does a psychiatric hospital in southern ukraine, destroyed by bombing. the city of mariupol reduced to ashes. but even the kremlin tonight is admitting to cnn putin hasn't been able to achieve his goals yet in ukraine. and quite relevant to that point, u.s. and nato officials tell cnn it's likely the country

of belarus could soon be called in as backup for russian forces. let's begin now with fred pleitgen who's in kyiv. fred, it's nice to see you. i have to ask you what is the status right now of this ukrainian counter attack that's happening there? >> well, i mean i can tell you certainly there was a lot of inintense fighting around the ukrainian capital, and we're under a curfew and have been since last night, actually. and there were some who believe maybe that was because ukrainians might have been moving forces around the capital city for that possible counter offensive. and you can see some of the pictures there on your screen right now. that's really the sight we've been seeing the entire day, the city was really surrounded by black smoke. there were a lot of impacts and out going fires and imcoming fire also as well. in general a very kinetic day and certainly one where that was the picture people were seeing. it's really unclear what exactly was going on, and we do know

what is happening around the north of kyiv. and that's where the russian forces have been essentially stalled for quite a while now and the big question as you noted, laura is whether or not that's some kind of counter offensive or making a push on the ukrainian capital because we've been trying to encircle the capital. it certainly seems from our vantage point because we were close to that area yesterday, and it could be they were trying to launch some kind of counter offensive. and you shared those pictures at the beginning of those fighters on the ground and that fierce fire fight. we could actually hear small arms fire, machine gun burst fire from our position not very far from where we are right now. a lot of those strikes could

clearly be heard. and the ukrainians said they shot down a missile the russians shot at the ukrainian capital kyiv that was apparently taken down, and the remitants landed in the upper river which runs here through the ukrainian capital. too early to tell if this is the counter offensive and whether the ukrainians have made any gains today. they certainly believe right now in this part of ukraine they have the russians in the back foot, laura. >> two important phrases you've used tonight, the idea of a counter and also the idea of re-claiming the area. these are areas in talking about the conversation we know there's a huge propaganda and disinformation campaign happening within russia on the assumption they're trying to suggest ukraine has always been on the offensive, and if they are attacking the russian military. so this is actually really important to follow along and figure out what is happening here and how it will be relayed. but also if you mention how close kyiv is to these areas, given how close it's to belarus,

they might have belarus possibly joining russia. what would that mean in the long run? would this be essentially a way to reinvigorate the russian military forces? are there concerns about the constraints and might of the russian belarus army military as well? >> i think that certainly could be a threat and one of the things the russians might be planning. of course as you say it seems as though the russians are having massive losquisical problems especially around here in kyiv, and the quickest way to get to kyiv for the russians is indeed by the belarusian territory or just call in the belarusian army. there have been some trying to suggest they've been trying to draw in the belarusians for an extended pooefrt. alexander lukashenko he's very much a client of volume. in order to remain in power he relies on vladimir putin. in the past he's made suggestions he would fight on the side of the russians if it's something that would become necessary.

so far what the u.s. is saying they say they don't really see moves right now that are imminent to see that the belarusians might be preparing to go to battle, however, nato is saying, nato officials and the ukrainians themselves they do believe that is something that could happen very quickly. the belarusian army is one quite large but not necessarily one very well equipped, so certainly they could to a great extent invigorate the russian army but whether or not in the long run the ucrayons wouldn't be able to fend them off, that's a whole other matter. at this point in time it's really unclear whether the belarusians are willing to join the battle. it would certainly have major consequences for that country. the u.s. has already said if the belarusians attack ukraine there would be massive sanctions on that country, massive sanctions on the country's leadership. right now there's been a lot of things in this conflict we have thought would be taboo and

thought would never happen but in the end did happen. very unclear what his long-term thinking and a also unclear to what extent lukashenko is trying to draw him into this on the part of the ukrainians and certainly something the ukrainians are looking out for and something they're extremely concerned about and really trying to keep the belarusians away. >> really important to think about the calculus at stake here. and it wasn't more than 27 days ago when we were hearing intelligence about these very issues, about what we thought would not occur now having occurred. those intelligencetuants we're following along very closely. thank you so much for your time tonight. we'll keep hearing from you on these important issues and also just learning, by the way, president biden plans to slap sanctions this week on hundreds of russians serving in the country's lower legislative body, that according to an official familiar with the

announcement. biden is expected to unveil the new sanctions on members of the duma while in europe. nic robertson has spent more than three decades covering russia and is in brussels ahead of the president's visit. what does it mean to now target more members of the duma? we've got the oligarchs having been targeted, obviously sanctions imposed more generally. the sanctions on vladimir putin himself. what does it mean to target in this more comprehensive way in this level of government? >> yeah, it broadens the signal to the russian legislator, to the russian people and particularly to president putin that there are a few people who are in the government of russia who are not going to be targeted. what president biden is announcing here really sort of brings some united states more into line with what the european union here in brussels have already done. they already sanctioned 351 members of that lower house of parliament, the duma back right

at the beginning of the conflict when the duma recognized the independence of the separatist areas luhansk in ukraine. i think that's what we're going to see more of the european union, president biden and the g7 here in brussels will be perhaps plug in the gaps of the differences they have on all sides, plug in the gaps where russia is finding the loopholes in sanctions and work around at the moment. that was something national security advisor jake sullivan indicated in an interview that he thought that additional sanctions could be coming but they'd also be looking at plugging in those holes. and we heard from the eu foreign policy chief here just over the past couple of days saying that do expect sanctions, do expect more work on sanctions, but don't expect those sanctions to come into effect this week per

se he said because whatever is discussed here, they're going to need to take it away. different nations are going to need to take it away and work out, you know, just how these will be enforced, how any decisions made this week could be enforced. >> nic robertson, it'll be really important to see how the president of the united states addresses the fact he was not in lock step with the other nations about the inclusion of sanctions and why it wasn't a similar red line with the united states. i'm sure it'll be part of the conversation along with the refugee humanitarian crisis. thank you so much. we're also obviously watching capitol hill this hour. republican senator marsha blackburn is expected to grill judge jackson at any moment at her day two of the confirmation hearing for her supreme court nomination. we'll take you there. but up next how seriously we need to take the kremlin dangling the nuclear option for all of the world to fear. military perspective from former nato commander and retired

general wesley clark is up next. lavender baths always calmed him. so we tuturned bath time into a business. ♪ and building it with my son has been my dream job. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm.com i need a lawn. quick. the fast way to bring it up to speed...

is scotts turf builder rapid grass. it grows two times faster than seed alone for full, green grass. everything else just seems... slow. it's lawn season. let's get to the yard.

we're a different kind of dentistry. one who believes in doing anything it takes to make dentistry work for your life. so we offer a complete exam and x-rays free to new patients without insurance - everyday. plus, patients get 20% off their treatment plan. we're on your corner and in your corner every step of the way.

because your anything is our everything. aspen dental. anything to make you smile. book today at aspendental.com, walk in, or call 1-800-aspendental. hey businesses! you all deserve something epic! so we're giving every business, our best deals on every iphone - including the iphone 13 pro with 5g. that's the one with the amazing camera? yep! every business deserves it... like one's that re-opened! hi, we have an appointment. and every new business that just opened! like aromatherapy rugs! i'll take one in blue please! it's not complicated. at&t is giving new and existing business customers our best deals on every iphone. ♪ ♪

the pentagon's assessment is that russians are, quote, near desperate to gain any momentum in ukraine. that is why this comment from putin's spokesperson to chri chri christian amanpour pressed about nuclear weapons is so concerning. >> you can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used. so if it is an existing threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our -- >> that certainly provides no comfort they will not be used. retired general wesley clark is the supreme allied commander for nato. thank you for joining us tonight. first, i want to get your initial reaction on the idea

they would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons and again contextualize that for us, general, if you can on the idea that perbeing perceived as desperate actions and measures already enacted by the military to vladimir putin? >> the russian military doctrine doesn't rule out first use of nuclear weapons. they accept first use of nuclear weapons. in their exercises they always assume if they're losing to nato, they will use nuclear weapons. they call this escalate to de-escalate. the usual target is poland, and from the beginning of this mr. putin has brangsed nuclear weapons and threatened them. that battle is far from decided, but the ukrainians have put up a much different resistance, and the russian military is having a very hard time taking over the country. so mr. putin's going to escalate. his emissaries have gone out to a number of countries and said

you must not sell weapons to ukraine including allies like israel who are not supporting ukraine and other countries. and he's giving specific threats to countries like georgia, and he's made specific threats to the united states, obviously, because this is what the president's warning was about last night on cyber. we don't know what the specifics of it were, but it wasn't just a general statement. it was a very poignant statement by the president of the united states. and he's certainly madepute -- putin has certainly made specific warnings to poland as recently as the last 48 hours if they don't support ukraine he'll take action, preventive action against polish cities. >> by the way, also, general -- excuse me, and i agree on the idea of the escalation being taken very seriously, but i wanted to put a fine point on the point you just made. you know, the idea there are interment measures putin is exploring and particularly cyber attacks en route to potentially

escalate to de-escalate. what does it say to you that he is asking for the belarusian military to possibly be involved? and given just a few days ago we had -- we heard from of course president biden in his discussion with the president of china, and they have remained on the side lines. can we expect something similar in terms of what the belarusian military might do, it might be involved in or not? >> i think the belarusian military is resisting being ordered in. i'm hearing the soldiers and lower level commanders do not want to be in there. they don't consider ukraine an enemy. they don't want to go in, on the other hand president lukashenko has got his arm twisted up pretty far up his back from mr. putinch and mr. putin doesn't care about belarus except using it as a platform in trying to get this war with ukraine finished on his terms. so, yes, we would love to have belarusian forces in there, but i think he's going to have a very hard time getting them to engage. and if they do engage they're not going to be terribly

effective based on what we know now. >> speaking of the idea of effectiveness, the use of hypersonic missiles, for example, targeting areas that frankly are not comenseerate with the level of force that are being used, i want to play for a second what john kirby had to say just today on the issue and the use of hypersonic missiles. let's listen to this. >> they took out a storage facility or at least reportedly took out a storage facility with it. that's a pretty significant sledgehammer to take to a target like that. >> so, general, why use the significant sledgehammer to curb the language of john kirby? what does it suggest to you they're using these types of weapons to remove parts of infrastructureal storage facility units in ukraine? >> yeah, mr. putin is increasingly frustrated. he's convinced the military doesn't work that well? the high tech stuff, the

hypersonics, the nuclear probably works well, and he's going to escalate and find ways to succeed if he can't win it directly on the ground. >> so when you hear this, and i'm thinking about obviously the audience face, when you'ring about a hypersonic missile why is this such an imbalance use of this? does it suggest there's a void and not enough military options and weaponry that could be more precise in other areas? does this somehow give hope in some respects the ukrainian military that they have to resort to such tactics? >> well, it does. it says the ukrainian military must be capable of shooting down some incoming missiles less sophisticated. with a hypersonic you know it's going to get through if it functions properly. but it's also a psychological measure. people have tried it with conventional missiles. those conventional missiles usually don't get intercepted,

but the hypersonic won't. it's advertised. he wants to create fear and terror in the west so that we aim back, let the ukrainians slug it out on their own without support so we can rollover them. it's all part of a coordinated psychological drama as well as terrible humanitarian tragedy being orchestrated by mr. putin. >> general, it strikes me as quite interesting for lack of a better word because it's diabolical as you're describing it. juxtaposed to the lack of military preparedness being involved in the invasion, it strikes me at a time when diplomacy is at least being continually contemplated as a way to, you know, stop the invasion. how do you think discussions like the president will have this week with other member countries of nato in talking about these including in war saw as well as poland, is diplomacy

even a viable prospect when you're talking about the extent of the psychological warfare that you've described? >> well, in the first place i think any diplomacy is going to reflect the facts on the ground. and unless the facts are that putin has lost decisively and wants to withdraw, any diplomatic settlement is going to go against ukraine, and president zelenskyy is going to have a very hard time with his population after they're fighting for their lives and all those people have been murdered. they're not going to want to kiss and make up and say it's going to be okay. i think it's going to be a difficult discussion also because the closer you are with this russian threat, the more real it is and the more frightening it is. and so what's happening in ukraine, people in the baltic states like lithuania, lat via, esestonia, they can see it happening there. what's happening there they can see it happening in poland. so they're worried. they don't know what the right

answer is. the sanctions have been great, nato resolve, we've got a strategy, they're working. thus far this russian humanitarian tragedy, this assault has not been stopped successfully and mr. mr. putin has been trying to escalate it. so the allies are going to be looking to the united states. what should be done, will the united states stand with us, will they do more to help ukraine? will the united states want us to do less to try to obviate the threat? and i think the bottom line on this here is no matter what nato does or doesn't do, we don't have control over whether mr. putin's going to use a nuclear weapon or chemical weapons. he's going to do that when it's in his interest, on his decision. he's going to blame us regardless, and so we have to take that into account in working our way ahead. >> general wesley clark, i mean describing the uncertainty of the wild card renders all of this really in many respects so

difficult to predict. the president and nato has their work cut out for them, and of course it's in the interests of relieving this humanitarian crisis. general wesley clark, thank you so much. >> thank you, laura. two breaking stories tonight. ukraine as we've discussed, and of course, domestically the supreme court confirmation hearing still going on at this very hour for judge brown jackson. stick with us because the last republican of the night is about to question the nominee. and she's already voiced her concerns. it could get contentious. we'll see next.

(driver 1) it's all you. (driver 2) no, i insist. (driver 1) it's your turn. (driver 2) nope, i think it's your turn. (driver 1) i appreciate you so much, thank you so much... go. (driver 2) i apprecte your appreciation. it fills me. (burke) safe drivers save money with farmers. (bystander) just for drivi safely? (burke) it's a farmers policy perk. get farmers and you could get a safe driver discount simply for having a clean driving record for three years. (driver 3) come on! (driver 1) after you. (driver 2) after you. (drivers 1 and 2) safety first! (burke) get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪we are farmers.bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum♪

♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card.

our breaking news, any moment senator marsha blackburn will begin her questioning of supreme court nominee ketanji brown jackson.

as democrats praised jackson other republicans ripped into the nominee with many accusations from, frankly, the fringe right. as we standby cnn's jessica schneider takes us through the most contentious moments of the day so far. >> reporter: ketanji brown jackson defending her record during hours of intense questioning from republican senators, push back against their broad characterization that she's, quote, soft on crime. >> in order for us to have a functioning society, we have to have people being held accountable for committing crimes. but we have to do so fairly under our constitution. as someone who has had family members on patrol and in the line of fire, i care deeply about public safety. >> reporter: but judge jackson's background has not insulated her from republican attacks, particularly claims she handed

down lenient sentences to convicted child pornography defendants. an 18-year-old defender sentenced by jackson to three months behind bars when prosecutors requested two years and the probation office recommended 18 months, and hawley wasn't having it when jackson explained her lighter sentence was in part because the defendant was close in age to some of the victims. >> judge, he was 18. these kids are 8. i don't see in what sense they're peers. i've got a 9-year-old, a 7-year-old and a 16-month-old at home. and i live in fear they will be exposed to let alone exploited in this kind of material. >> this particular defendant had just graduated from high school. and some of -- perhaps not all when you're looking at the records, but some of the materials that he was looking at were older teenagers, were older

victims. senator, sentencing is a discretionary act of a judge, but it's not a numbers game. >> reporter: jackson also took heat for representing terrorism suspects detained at guantanamo bay. >> why in the world would you call secretary of defense rumsfeld and george w. bush war criminals in a filing? it seems so out of character for you? >> scepter, i don't remember that particular reference in i was representing my clients in making arguments. >> reporter: democratic chairman dick durbin later provided context noting the filing was a procedural one against u.s. officials making claim on behalf of detainees. jackson noting she had a duty to defend them. >> federal public defenders don't get to pick their clients. they have to represent whoever

comes in. >> reporter: republican senator ted cruz pressed jackson on her views of critical race theory, an idea that american institutions are inherently racist and something conservatives falsely claim is widely taught in elementary schools. >> do agree with this book that is being taught to kids that babies are racist? >> i do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or though they are not valued or though they are less than, that they are victims, that they are oppressors. i don't believe in any of that. >> jackson did have a chance to reflect on the historic nature of her nomination to be the first black woman on the high court. >> this nomination against that backdrop is significant to a lot of people. and i hope that it will bring confidence, it will help inspire

people to understand that our courts are like them, that our judges are like them, doing the work, being a part of our government. i think it's very important. >> and this has been a marathon and intense question and answer question going on 13 hours now. it continues tomorrow, though, with 20-minute rounds, laura, from each of 222 sena senators committee. and then the question will turn to will she get three republican votes? three republicans elevated her last here to the appeals court in d.c., but this time she's facing resistance from least one of those senators, lindsey graham. >> thank you for making it all so comprehensive for us. as we await senator blackburn, i want to get some unique perspective on today's hearing from the first african american woman to serve in the senate and the first woman to serve on the

judiciary committee. i want to bring in carol mosley brawn and also daniel holly walker, dean of the howard university school of law whose name was also floated as a possible supreme court nominee. ladies, i'm privileged to have both of you on the panel tonight. let me begin with you carol mosley brawn because you have a unique perspective that i want people to hear. i mean, given the fact you were the first african american woman to the senate, the first woman on the senate judiciary committee, i do want to understand what this means to you and the significance of seeing now a black woman having a -- as a nominee to the supreme court of the united states. >> well, to begin with, thank you very much for having me tonight to express my views. i am overjoyed that she has been nominated. judge jackson is imminently qualified on every front. this should be, a quote, bulletproof nomination. but the fact is that some of the republicans have decided to make

this political theater. and so when you consider that all the old tropes are coming -- frankly, i thought we were beyond willy horton, but what you've got is the criminal thing being dragged out against her because of her race. i mean, it's just that simple. let's be clear that's what's going on. and so she's getting pummelled in ways that other nominees have not because she is a black woman, because she is -- she breaks the mold. in the history of this country we've never had a black woman on the united states supreme court. and quite frankly it's way pastime. this woman has distinguished herself in every -- in every engagement, every position that she's held. and so i am just -- i'm like senator booker. i'm just overjoyed that she's there, that she comports herself with such dignity and such command of the law.

and she's -- she's really doing a very, very good job not being tripped up by some of these knuckle draggers. i mean, again, to make the point nobody has mentioned january 6th in this hearing. i mean, they -- they've skipped around and nitpicked her record down to and including asking her about individual defendants that she's sentenced. it's like, well, wait a minute, in the context of what's going on in this country not to mention the world right now, how can you do this when the other supreme court nominations just sailed through like they did. >> and interestingly enough and i won't ask you to identify the people who you are calling knuckle draggers in this particular moment in time, because i suspect we could probably identify and guess on our own. but i to want to ask you, danielle, because senator mosley brawn was talking about being

singled out because of her race, we heard a senator that it had nothing to do with how she was being treated or perhaps others were being treated trying to single out perhaps i know a friend of yours, judge childs from south carolina also identifies as a potential nominee of the supreme court. and i do wonder what you made of the idea how she was constantly referenced in discussions about how others have been treated from kavanaugh to amy coney barrett to even aleto. but what did you make of the presentation of the questioning by the likes of senator lindsey graham and others on this issue comparing her with another potential nominee who's ultimately as you know not nominated but will be up for consideration for a different judicial nomination? >> well, first, i think judge jackson did an outstanding job today. she really demonstrated her legal expertise and she's one of the brightest legal minds in the united states. we saw senator graham bring up

judge michelle childs on the district court of south carolina both yesterday in his opening statement today and today during his questioning of judge jackson. and judge childs is also an outstanding jurist who is nominated to the d.c. circuit. and i think it's really unfair to see her used as a political football in all of this. she's an incredibly thoughtful, well-respected person and will have her own confirmation hearing, and i think it was really unfair and also a false flag. these women are not in competition. they are both outstanding, bright legal minds who will hopefully both be confirmed to their various positions. >> i also saw it as a squandered moment when he could have asked questions about this particular nominee, about her record, asking questions to which he wanted to have further illumination and instead of focusing on other areas. during the hearings of the late

jus justice ruth bader ginsburg i recall you called them the republican's line of questioning personally offensive. i wonder as we're talking about the distinction between today's senate -- we often hear about it -- versus the senate of years gone by including that which now president biden has derived from. what do you make of the comparison how the judiciary committee operated at that time compared to now? are you seeing the stark contrast or as you mentioned the days of willy horton you think are back gev? >> yes, it is a different senate and that is really the tragedy that i think all americans should be concerned about. we -- the loss of civility, the loss of the ability to be bipartisan because the civility matters, people just being nice to each other, that's gone by the way. and the fact is when i was on the senate judiciary committee

there were moments that were difficult. i remember there was one of the senators on the committee at the time was comparing abortion to slavery. and quite frankly he looked at me when he asked the question. it's like what is going on here? but the fact of the matter is race runs really close to the surface in our political discourse in this country. and quite frankly i'm just delighted because skbruj jackson has done such a masterful job of not going there. she has really been above reproach in terms of her answering these questions even though some of them are very clearly racial or racist, if you will, in nature. and she's not taking the bait. she's been really good. >> well, we will see if she continues to act in a way that you both have described. senator blackburn is up now. i want to watch, and we'll talk on the other side, ladies. >> and then she has experiences

in education and then coupling with that hopes, desires and a lot of drive that really make you the person that you are. and we have heard from your friends about how you are a friend, and you've been a mentor, and as one of my friends would say and i bet you kind of fill this void. you're the answer lady for a lot of issues that friends would bring to you. you love your family, and they obviously love you. and i wish you could see your dad's face. it is wonderful. he beams when you talk about the things that he has taught you. but all of that has been repeated time and again in letters for you. but it's important that we know

this. and it's why we continue to ask you about your views on issue. because all of that goes into forming who you are and your world view, and it all is applicable to the job that you've done in the past and like wise the job that you are going to do in the future. and it does have bearing on different issues, and it's been so interesting to me to get text messages from friends at home that are watching this. i had one from a friend from church, and she said, you know, she seems really likable, but i'm not sure i agree with her on the issues. and this is someone who is incredibly pro-life.

and she's about my age, so she's a mom and a grand mom. and she is -- this is a question that is important to her, to look at life. and senator feinstein talked about that issue with you a little earlier today. you've also said today that it would be inappropriate for you to share your views on political issues or issues that may become -- might come before the court like abortion. but i want to go to you on something you said when you were in private practice. you made your views on pro-life and the pro-life movement very clear. and, in fact, you attacked pro-life women. and this was in a brief that you wrote. you described them and i'm quoting, hostile noisy crowd of in your face protesters, end

quote. and you advocated against these women's first amendment right to express their sincerely held views regarding the sanctity of each individual life. and i'm a pro-life woman. 79% of the american women support restrictions of some type on abortion. and so i find it incredibly concerning that someone who is nominated to a position with life tenure on the supreme court holds such a hostile view toward a view that is held as a mainstream belief that every life is worth protecting. so how do you justify that

incendiary rhetoric against pro-life women? >> thank you, senator. the brief that you're referring to was a brief that i filed on behalf of clients who were clients of my law firm. this is in, i believe, 1999 or 2000s, maybe 2000 or 2001. i was an associate at a law firm, and i had appellate experience because i had just finished my supreme court law clerk position. and in the context of my law firm i was asked to work on a brief concerning a buffer zone issue in massachusetts. at the time there were laws

protecting women who wanted to enter clinics, and there was a first amendment question about the degree to which there had to be room around them to enter the clinic. >> and i understand all of that. i'm asking about the rhetoric. >> senator, i drafted a brief along with the partners in my law firm who reviewed it, and we filed it on behalf of our client. >> okay. >> in -- to advance our clients arguments that they wanted to make in the case. >> let me ask you this. when you go to church and knowing there are pro-life women there, do you look at them thinking of them in that way, that they're noisy, hostile, in your face? do you think of them? do you think of pro-life women like me that way? >> senator, that was a statement

in a brief made in argument for my client. it's not the way that i think of and characterize people. >> all right. thank you for the clarification on that because i think even zealous advocacy doesn't allow that type of rhetoric on a free speech issue. you know, roe v. wade, let's talk a little bit about that. it's come up a touch today. in my opinion that was an awful act of judicial activism and has cost the lives of over 63 million unborn children. and nearly 50 years later this shameful ruling remains binding precedent, but the battle is being fought in the courts. and as you know and as we've discussed when we visited the supreme court is reconsidering whether the constitution protects the right to an

abortion in daubs. and if you're confirmed you will be in a position to apply the court's decision in daubs. whatever that decision is going to be. and you've talked about following precedent and what the court decides. so do you commit to respecting the court's decision if it rules that roe was wrongly decided and that the issue of abortion should be sent back to the states? >> senator, whatever the supreme court decides in daubs will be the pres dependent of the supreme court. it will be worthy of respect in the sense that it is the precedent, and i commit to treating it as i would any other precedent of -- >> there's one other thing -- one of the central issues in the daubs case is about whether the constitution protects the right

to an abortion. so let's talk about that. can you explain to me on a constitutional basis the court's decision in roe, and where is abortion protected in the constitution? >> senator, abortion is a right that the supreme court has recognized in the -- is one of the kinds of rights that is unenomerated. it is in that same category of rights that the supreme court is recognized -- >> but the text of the constitution does not mention abortion. >> that is true. >> that is true. that is correct. so you agree that the constitution does not mention the right to an abortion, and yet through one of the most

brazen acts of judicial activism our supreme court created the right through roe v. wade. this is why americans -- this is why so many women that i've talked to are really concerned about who we need a justice who will adhere to the text of the constitution, you've talked a little bit about that today, as you talk about historical context, and they don't want justices who are going to invent rights out of whole cloth to serve a political interest. let's move on. i want to go to when you were at harvard, your thesis entitled the hand of oppression, flea bargaining processes. in that piece, you argued that judges have and i'm quoticng, i brought this up, personal hidden

agendas that influence how they decide cases. so what personal hidden agendas do you harbor or you think other judges harbor? >> thank you, senator. that line, to the extent it appears in my thesis was written by someone who had not gone to law school and was senior in college, who had spent a summer at an internship making observations in the context of a criminal justice internship. it is not a view that i hold. >> what led you to that belief? >> i am thanking back. it's been 30 years -- >> okay. >> we just watched the questions from republican senator marsha

blackburn on the day two questioning on hearings for supreme court nominee ketanji brown, asked on her thesis. i want to bring back carol mosely brawn first black woman to serve on the senate judiciary committee, and our cnn reporter in that hearing all day long. starting with you senator, mosely, when asked the question, when you're in church, do you judge, i i'm paraphrasing here, women who are against boabortio pro-life woman, are you considered hostile in that respect, what was your reaction to that statement? >> well, again, this is political theater. and what they're doing is playing to their political base. so senator blackburn is making a point that she is pro-life, she said it four times, at least. so she's speaking to the voters out there who are looking for a

pro-life supreme court. and that's -- that is what it comes down to. it was not -- you can't -- it's hard to take some of these questions seriously because they really are about theater. they have nothing to do really with judge jackson's suitability for the court. my mentor in the senate used to make the point that you look for people with a good head and a good heart, and this woman has clearly shown that she has both a good head, is an esteemed legal scholar and got a good heart as well. so i don't know why, i mean, i do know why they're doing it. it's called getting ready for the election and the election cycle and that's what it has to do with. >> let me bring you in here, you've been in this proverbial theater so to speak, following 0 along the last two days, i wonder, the committee, have they

moved the needle away from the direction of her trajectory as the potential next confirmed supreme court justice? >> it doesn't feel like that right now. one interesting thing you were just talking about that exchange on abortion, it really does go to show what the stakes are though, because the senator was talking about a case that the court is currently considered and that's interesting because this nomination process is playing out while the supreme court across the street is considering whether to overturn row v wade, as far as your other question, perhaps the most emotion today came on this allegation of whether or not she was soft on crime. you saw it this morning, the democrat, durban talked about the fact a republican member had been too lenient with her sentences for child porn offenders and at that time said how does it make you feel to be accuse of that, to come out of the gate as a judge and a mother, couldn't be further from

the truth. then as we went through the members some of them mentioned it and when we got to that republican holly, looked at a handful of her cases and thought she had been too lenient, and pushed back. said look, i'm the only one who saw the evidence in these heinous cases. went on and on about the fact she had seen it and her job as a judge was to figure out the sentence and said as it stands, the guidelines are outdated in this area. she went to great lengths to explain it and said in fact, if you looked at her record, what she did was just like many other judges are doing right now because the guidelines are outdated but you really saw that push and pull there and it was some of the sharpest exchanges we've seen today. >> it definitely underscored the idea of discretionary sentencing, sounds like in many respects some of the people asking the questions have more of an issue with the nature of discretion in the criminal justice system than the actual application of that discretion,

as well it's a part of a larger conversation, frankly. dean, i want to bring you in because as you've seen, there has been a number of sbinstance where the faith, the religion of this nominee has been raised in conversation, either from senator lindsey graham, obviously now with senator marsha blackburn, others touched on the issue, it often harkens back to they believe the way in which now justice amy cohen barrett was during her confirmation process, what strikes you about this line of questioning? >> i think one is that it really can throw a nominee off, because this was the first question of the day that she was offered is what religion are you? with senator graham asked, and i felt she handled it extremely well, by talking about, you know, her faith but also saying she considered her faith in some ways to be not relevant to the hearing at hand because we don't have religious test for judges. i thought the best moment of the day on this came from senator

cory booker where he really talked to her, went back to that line and allowed her to legreal talk about her relationship with her parents and what it's like to be a working mother because we have to remember she would be a working mother on the supreme court which is a really important perspective. and i think we got a lot fuller idea of who she is and her character which again shows that she is headed towards confirmation. it looks like, because she has shown incredible judicial temperament and outstanding k credentials all day and the ability to handle tough personal questions like when asked about her religion. >> of course, we recognize this is now her fourth opportunity for the senate judiciary committee, one in the district court, one, of course, as a circuit court judge, one of the senate commission and if confirmed, would join another working mother, that of course of justice amy cohen barrett, here we are in women's history month in the year of 2022 and i

don't recall the same emphasis being placed on male nominees about their balancing of work and parenthood but i guess that's a question for yet another day. ladies, thank you for your time, and your interesting conversation. carol mosely brawn, danielle holly walker, arianne devogue, thank you so much, and we'll be right back. welcomed bath fitter into t their homes? it just fits. call now or visit bathfitter.com to book your free consultatitio.

plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore 325 liquid-filled aspirin capsule is clinically shown in a 7 day study to cause fewer ulcers than immediate release aspirin. vazalore. the first liquid-filled aspirin capsules...amazing! [sound of helicopter blades] ugh... they found me. ♪ ♪ nice suits, you guys blend right in. the world needs you back. i'm retired greg, you know this. people have their money just sitting around doing nothing... that's bad, they shouldn't do that. they're getting crushed by inflation. well, i feel for them. they're taking financial advice from memes. [baby spits out milk] i'll get my onesies®. ♪ “baby one more time” by britney spears ♪ good to have you back, old friend. yeah, eyes on the road, benny. welcome to a new chapter in investing. [ding] e*trade now from morgan stanley. thank you everyone for watching, don lemon tonight

with, of course, don lemon live from ukraine starts right now. we are watching what's happening in ukraine, also watching what's happening in washington dc and just listening in the last moments, in my ear, here am ukraine and senator marsha blackburn asking the potential jurist asking about the definition of a woman and talking about critical race theory, it has become the new buzz term, right, like acorn did or antifa and on and on and on, it's really amazing to watch someone who is, quite frankly, an intellectual giant, be questioned by people who have really no idea about the law and what judges actually do, laura. >> it reminds me, and i can't remember who said it but a paraphrase of to my equals i debate, to all others i teach. i think she is teaching a number of people today in her conversati