we'll give him lots of advice. join us for that. it will be a fun celebration. thanks for joining us. happy monday. i'm dana perino. here's shep. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast. 3:00 in washington where this very evening the president of the united states will announce a brand new pick for the supreme court. president trump says he's down to four finalists and his choice will affect the lives of americans for decades to come. a look at the top contenders this hour, the big issues that the next justice could decide and the confirmation battle that no doubt lies ahead. also, we'll take you to thailand where rescuers have saved eight of the children trapped in a cave. but four more kids and their soccer coach are still stuck inside under a half mile of rock with time and oxygen running

low. let's get to it. a very busy news day. first from the fox news deck this monday afternoon, about six hours from now, the president says he will announce his pick for the next supreme court justice. it's a decision that could of course americans legal system for decades to come. the president said he's not made a final choice but all the candidates would be excellent. remember, the president didn't make the list of the possibles. the federalist society compiled it. that is an organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocate for an originalist of the constitution. the four finalists came from that list. here they are. judge barrett kavanaugh is on the d.c. circuit court. he worked for president bush 43. analysts call him the establishment choice. and then judge amy coney

barrett. she was from indiana. a favorite among social conservatives. in her appeals confirmation, she says she takes her catholic faith seriously but won't let it affect her decisions as a judge. she's been on the federal bench for eight months now and some analysts consider her more likely for a possible future pick. judge thomas hardiman is from pennsylvania. he was the runner-up to neil gorsuch last year and served with the president's sister. and then judge kethledge from michigan. he says he enjoys working in his northern michigan cabin alone with no internet connection. that's a little slice of each. we'll have more on them in just a moment. president trump is choosing somebody to fill justice anthony kennedy's seat. he was a swing vote on many issues like abortion rights and gay rights. his retirement means the court will be split.

so the president has a chance to give the conservatives a clear majority. as a result, this means that president trump's pick will likely face a very tough confirmation battle on the confirmation florida. the republicans have a razor thin majority. choosing a justice gives presidents a chance to leave a lasting legacy on the united states and affect millions of americans for many years to come. our chief white house correspondent john roberts is on fox's top story and live on the north lawn this afternoon. hi, john. >> good afternoon. breaking news here at the top of the hour. a source with knowledge of the selection process tells fox news that the president has settled on his nominee for the supreme court. we just don't know who that person is. the president has made a decision. now what will happen, the notification process of the nominee and the notification process of the other people that

were the running -- the leading contenders. interesting to note, adding to the intrigue is that judge thomas hardiman is in washington d.c. today. he's on the judicial committee of the judicial conference of the united states. i'm told don't read into that. he was going to be here anyways, but it's convenient if the president were to choose him, he's just down the street and so is judge brett kavanaugh, he's on the d.c. circuit of appeals. he's living in town in i way. if it's amy bryants or raymond kethledge, they would have to be brought in. something else that we've heard about, the so-called sherpa that will take the nominee around to the senators and vote on that person's confirmation. that is former arizona senator

jon kyle. he's a veteran of the confirmation battles. he's been selected to take whomever it is that the president has now settled on to all of the visits and shepherd him or her through the confirmation process. the president tweeting out this morning, i've long heard the most important decision a u.s. president can make is the selection of a supreme court justice. it will be announced tonight at 9:00 p.m. in recent days, a new frontrunner has emerged. this is a person always on the president's short list but suddenly popped up last week, judge thomas hardiman. we talked about him being in town today. just thomas hardiman on the third circuit court of appeals appointed by president push in 2007. he wouldn't to georgetown law what is interesting about hardiman, he drove a taxi to help pay his way through school. so there is a real sort of co

come -- common elements to him. brett kavanaugh, some conservatives concerned about a 2011 opinion that he wrote on obamacare. also mitch mcconnell concern that having written 300 opinions for the d.c. circuit, there's a long paper trail that democrats could slow walk through the confirmation process and there's only 83 days to get the confirmation done before the next term in the beginning of october. ray kethledge would be a safe choice. he's from the university from michigan. a lot of folks like the way he writes his opinions. and then there's amy coney barrett. the president would like to nominate her and may have settled on her but he fears a withering confirmation battle if he put her out there. the president wants to cement the 5-4 conservative majority on the court. if he were to pick barrett and get a lot of opposition from democrats and maybe some people

in his own party like lisa murkowski and susan collins, a chance that he might lose the battle and he doesn't want to do that, shep. >> shepard: what are you hearing from lawmakers on that front? >> because this is going to cement a 5-4 decision for years, some people have said a generation. couldn't be that. judge thomas is in his early 70s. judge alito is 68. they won't be around for another 25 years, which is taken to be a generation. maybe a decade or more. so there's a lot of opposition. listen to what senator patty murray said about the president's potential choices. >> he's hoping to put a justice on the bench that would deny women healthcare rights and patient's access to affordable care. we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening. >> only 50 votes out there because senator mccain is aling in arizona.

the president does believe he could get two or three democratic votes. joe manchin of west virginia, heidi heitkamp of north dakota in tough re-election battles in red states. senator lindsey graham suggesting those three democrats wouldn't dare vote about the president's nominee. listen here. >> there's nobody that. trump could nominate from a conservative vent that will get many democratic votes. but this is a nightmare for red state democrats to oppose a highly qualify no need. i hope every republican will rally behind these picks because they're all outstanding. >> shepard: and as it turns out, we may be getting a preview of the battle. chuck schumer speaking on the senate floor right now speaking about the federalist society who put the list together. listen. >> one of the most prominent legal conservative bloggers and

scholars said no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe v. wade than leonard leo from the federalist society. no one has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than the very man that chose the list of 25. that's what we're up against here. that's why america is on tenter hooks. so worried about any choose from this list. let me repeat again, mr. leonard leo is the man that assembled trump's list of potential supreme court nominees and no one, in one has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than leonard leo. now, normally in the senate, we have a process of advising consent on the supreme court. in the old days, the president would consult with republicans

and democrats in the senate on a qualified judge and after careful deliberation, nominate a jurist that could get support. what we have here is the opposite. the president has gone to two far hard right groups, the heritage foundation and the federalist society. asked them, not the senate, to advise and consent on a supreme court nomination. whomever is president selects tonight, if that nominee is from the preapproved list selected by leo and the heritage foundation, every one ought to understand what it means for the freedom of women to make their own healthcare decisions. and for the protection for americans with pre-existing conditions. those rights will be gravely

threatened. mr. president, we're going to hear a lot this summer about precedence. the traditional question will be will the nominee defer to precedent. nominees will be asked if they respect settled law. this is known as the principle of spary decisis. the nominee always answers that yes. he or she will always respect and defer to precedent. senators nod their heads having received this vague assurance that the nominee will not rock the judicial boat and turn the clock back for decades. for this reasons, standard, settled law, is no longer an adequate process to judge nominees. why? first, we have ample example from the past several years of

judges that have sworn in their confirmation hearings to respect precedent and then reverse their stand once on the court. for example, in his confirmation hearings, then judge gorsuch said precedent is like our shared family history of judges. it deserves our respect. last week, just last week, now justice gorsuch voted to overturn 41 years of precedent in the janis decision relying on flimsy and fabricated legal theory. it was so flimsy in fact that judge kagan wrote in dissent that the majority overruled present for not exceptional or special reason but because it never liked the decision subverting all known principles of sperry decisis.

and judge roberts said he would call balls and strikes as he saw them. that he would interpret law rather than make it. of course, it was justice roberts what was nine responsible for overturning 40 years of precedent in the citizens united decision. that so setback our politics and so deepened the swamp that so many americans despise by allowing huge amounts of dark money unreported to cascade in our lit call system. on two of the most important ruling in the roberts court a cumulative 81 years of precedent were thrown out the window despite the promises of justices

roberts and gorsuch at their hearings. so when they say they'll obey settled law, you can't believe it. you can't believe it. it just hasn't happened in this new conservative court. that is so eager to make law, not interpret it. there's a second reason maybe more important. why the principle of i'll follow settled law no longer works. and that's president trump. we already know that president trump's nominee will be prepared to overturn the precedence of roe v. wade. we know that because president trump has said so. when the president has a litmus test for his nominees and only chooses from a preapproved list of nominees designed to satisfy

that litmus test, it's certainly not enough for a judge to prove his or her moderation by invoking sperry decisus have become a meaningless bar to set for a nominee. at this critical juncture, u.s. senators and the american people should expect an affirmative statement of support from the next supreme court nominee. the american people deserve to know what kind of a justice president trump's nominee would be. president trump is the one that made the litmus test for his nominee, not us. the onus is on his nominee to show where he or she might

stand. considering the ample evidence that the president will select a nominee who will give greater weight to corporate interests than our citizens no matter what precedence says and vote to overturn roe v. wade, the next nominee has an obligation, a serious and solemn obligation to share their personal views on these legal issues no matter whom president trump selects tonight. now briefly on another matter. the ongoing negotiations with north korea over their nuclear program. despite all the reality show pomp and circumstance, the negotiations have thus far been flop. after the summit, president trump declared without any evidence that -- >> shepard: senator schumer moved on to north korea.

just by a programming note, we're expecting that mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, the republican, will be coming forward to speak on this same subject including the supreme court in just a moment. we'll have his comments live as well. for now, richard wolf from the "usa today" live in washington. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> of the four who we're told are left at the top of the list, one of whom has been chosen and not announced, of the four, who seems to be the one according to your reporting the most difficult to get through? >> that's a good question. if you asked mitch mcconnell, he would say it's brett kavanaugh or amy coney barrett. she has a views on abortion and precedent. i'm sure it will come up that he's got eight months on a federal appeals court before that 15 or so years as a law

professor in notre dame. she's seen as controversial during her appeals court hearing last november. her strict version of catholicism came up and backfired on dianne feinstein at the time. brett kavanaugh has the most involved report. that's a positive and a negative. a lot of people from the federalist society favor him for the long record but he's ruled on obamacare, abortion and other issues that are certain to come up and the democrats could claim that it's such a long record it will take longer, which could inch towards election day. >> shepard: that leads to pros and cons for each. >> yeah. ray kethledge was least known. seems like his star was fading or hasn't been the likely

nominee. he's sort of -- he goes to his barn to think without internet or cell phone. doesn't sound like a donald trump kind of guy but he's got his supporters among conservatives that he would be more easily confirmed than brett kavanaugh. the most intriguing thing is thomas hardiman from pittsburgh. he was the runner-up last time. the president has put him back in the mix. he wasn't in the mix a week ago. seems that you would want to do that to a guy twice and hanging twice. he doesn't have the resume of a brett kavanaugh but has a great forry. drove a taxi to put himself through georgetown law school. a strict law and order judge. very conservative record. not sort of the -- he's a member of the federalist society but he tends to go more for the brilliant lengthy resume.

>> shepard: is there a republican in the senate who might turn down the president's approach? according to our reporting from capitol hill, what is the world on that? >> i think it's extremely likely barring something coming up during the hearings, during the whole review process, which will be a couple of months, that it's unlikely the republicans will end up opposing any of these. there's been questions raised certainly about susan collins and lisa murkowski on abortion towards judge barrett. judge barrett and is a woman and would they vote against a woman. as of now, it's likely the republicans can hold all of their votes for probably any of these. judge kavanaugh has the most record. there's a couple of people on the conservative side that are a little concerned about some of his rulings. one particularly on obamacare. they say sometimes he appears to be a little more of a john roberts than a neil gorsuch or a

clarence thomas. i doubt in the end that they would vote against him though. the question is, during this period of time after the nominee is announced, what comes out about the nominee. that will tell if the republicans can hold their votes and whether the democratic side gives a few votes. >> shepard: very interesting. thanks, richard. >> any time. thanks. >> shepard: another programming note. that is the floor of the senate. chuck schumer just wrapped up. he talked first about the supreme court before moving on to other matters. it's our understanding from our producer that mitch mcconnell, the republican leader will be up next and talk on the same subject. for to john roberts live at the white house. john, you touched briefly on whether there might be democrats that could come over to the president's side and give a little relief to some republicans that might find it politically difficult because of their own back yards. >> yeah. there's three in particular from the state of west virginia,

indiana and north dakota. joe manchin, joe donnelly and heidi heitkamp. these are people the president has embraced and targeted. donnelly voted for amy barrett for the court of appeals. if the president picked her, it would be difficult for manchin and donnelly say it would be difficult to confirm her. if he was to pick a brett kavanaugh or if he was to pick a thomas hardiman or somebody like that, those three senators in particular would find it difficult to vote against that nominee. they are up for tough re-election battles in states that the president won handily. west virginia in particular. joe manchin has tried to make peace with the president, but the last time he was there at the green brier, he was certainly pretty tough on joe manchin. if joe manchin wants to survive

politically in any confirmation hearing that happens this fall, if they can get a hearing this fall before the election, manchin will be hard-pressed to vote against the president. >> shepard: john, you broke the news 23 minutes as that the president made the decision. i know the federalist society gave him the list. do you know who he's opinion conferring before he made that decision? >> he's been conferring a lot of people. he's been talking to leonard leo. leo was on an outside orbit. don mcgann is his white house counsel. the president met with everybody except for hardiman last week. an interesting point to make. he's got a lot of people that he touched base with. we heard from mitch mcconnell and the potential difficulties

in getting a confirmation with kavanaugh because of the length of his records and the amount of documents that would have to be gone over by the judicial committee and the senate. the potential for democrats to slow walk that process. maybe hardiman is somebody in the middle there. a staunch conservative. he was known as your guest pointed out the runner-up and doesn't trump feel like he owes him this time around. the same circuit as president trump's sister. and he's in town. again. it would be ironic, shep, because he's on the judicial conference of the united states, which typically meets up at the supreme court. so there's a chance that the supreme court nominee is at the supreme court today. wouldn't that be ironic? >> shepard: it would indeed. these confirmation battles, the first i remember and the biggest one that sort of kicked off this long string of them, i was a senior in college and it was my senior year in 1987.

the bork confirmation hearing came up. it was a battle royale. you wonder if we're about to see something similar. >> it would be difficult to bork as it's become know in the vernacular. somebody like hardiman or kavanaugh. the wore i have is with kavanaugh that they may get some dissension from conservatives that don't like his 2011 ruling on obamacare. borking kethledge would be difficult as well. the only candidate that might be subject to that scrutiny is amy coney barrett because of her writings on if fact that she believes an opinion and a decision from the supreme court was made in error, that she would support overturning the judicial precedent. you're going to have tough hearings. in question about that. will they last to the level of

robert bork? probably not, shep. >> shepard: and you wonder how brutal it might become. what delay tactics the democrats can come up with. they know they can't stop it. their goal is to elongate the process. >> yeah, slow walk the process. the white house and outside groups want to get this done by the start of the next term of the supreme court, the beginning of october. that's the time in a mid-term election year when members of congress go back out to the districts and campaign heavily until the november election. always the chance that they can hang around in washington, talking about the senate, because there's a third of them up for re-election. outside groups and the white house would like to get in done by the time the supreme court sits for the 2018 fall term. to do that, there's literally no margin of error. they have to get the nominee out today. it's been a little more than a week since justice kennedy said he would step down. that was june 27.

here we are today with a nominee and then going through the visits on the senate and the confirmation hearings and then you have to go for a confirmation vote. if that doesn't happen by september, i'm told by people that know more about this than i do, that it would be difficult to get a nominee confirmed. let's say the democrats pick up seats in the senate and they hold the balance of power there, getting a nominee in before the new senate sits would be impossible. and then a wild card as to okay, if democrats control the senate, who do you put forward as a nominee that you can get on the court, a lot riding for the president and conservative groups, including federalist society that wrote the list of 25 to get this done and get it done quickly. >> shepard: john roberts with a plethora of information. shannon bream covers the court for us. she's the anchor of fox news at night on fox news channel. we wait for mitch mcconnell to

come forward, the republican leader. i wanted to talk to you for just a moment. the length of the battle seems to be the mystery that remains and couldn't be more important. >> absolutely. when you think about going through a record, three of these judges have been on the bench for ten years, that's a lot to get through. judge barrett has been on the bench for months but she does have extensive writings as an academic, a professor. really with the other three, you're talking about reading through hundreds of opinions, defense, majority pence to get a bead on what their judicial philosophy is. makes sense that that would take more time to get done. on the flip site, people think judge barrett would be the toughest to confirm because she will be a conservative jurist. >> shepard: this sort of a fight from both the republicans and the democrats is going to be from the reading that's done today enormously expensive.

sounds like millions and millions about to be pumped into this. >> yeah. they're already being spent. we're seeing targeting of democrats in red states. there's ads up and running and more tonight once we get a name saying hey, listen, how can you vote against this person who has an impeccable resume? legal record is qualify in every sense of the word. you're opposing a president to be an obstructionist. nose are the ads. we've seen ads without knowing the nominee, telling people the president will make a terrible choice, going to roll back abortion rights, civil rights. you have to oppose this person no matter whom they are. already the money is pouring in. >> shepard: to be specific, narol have already bought ads that are coming out against senator susan collins of maine and lisa murkowski of alaska. names that we'll hear over and over again. so many have suggested that in

the end, susan collins is one that talks. susan collins isn't one that flips. >> it's interesting. she made it very clear, she doesn't want anybody on the court that is an actual threat to roe v. wade, that he will would be a threat. but senator collins said i'm confident that he's about pre precede precedent. it's something that we heard chuck schumer said minutes ago saying every time we have someone come before us, we ask how you feel about precedent. they say we're not going to overturn anything. but he say a number of them reverse and make changes to precedent. this court is the only one that can do that. if you're doing to say as a

judge i'm going to stick with the principle that i will precedent from the court,s that the one thing. one of the nine here have overturned decisions in the past that they thought they got wrong. it's possible it could happen. that's the number 1 question for the folks on the left. >> shepard: make no mistake. any of these 25 is a threat to roe v. wade or the federalist society wouldn't have put them there in the first place. the question is whether susan collins of maine by way of example would be getting snowed or whether because you don't ask the question and certainly no candidate would answer that question, whether it's giving her cover so she can win her statewide election, but have cover to say i didn't know. >> the fact is, there's press releases coming out in the right and left. chuck grassley's office said there's the ginsberg standard.

before she was a justice came before the senate and talked about things. she demured on a number of things when pushed saying it's not appropriate as a judge and a justice to make any kind of pronouncement on it. i don't want to deal in hypotheticals. you'll hear that from in person that is the nominee because it's dangerous. every case is fact specific. they don't want to be boxed in. good luck getting any answers on anything. that's why you have to pour through the decades worth of opinions and writings to see if you can really get a close about how they will decide a case like roe v. wade. right now there's nothing in the pipelines but that doesn't mean it won't come in the years to come. >> shepard: thanks, shannon. great to be here. state waiting for mitch mcconnell. i mentioned the money coming in from the left. money from the right, to. the judicial crisis network which advocates for conservative justices spent $10 million on

the confirmation process for neil gorsuch. they have vowed to spend that much more in the one coming up. tens of millions to one of the biggest decisions you can imagine. more coming up.

>> i'm lea gabrielle with the fox report. more than 100 people have died and dozens missing after flooding ripped through southwestern japan. that's according to the disaster management agency there. heavy rain started friday and got worse over the weekend. meteorologists say during the storm, they got up to three inches an hour. meantime, some americans stuck in haiti as people protested and looted stores after the government tried to raise fuel prices. officials dropped the increase after days of violence. cops say seven people died in the country's capitol port-au-prince. new drone video showing destruction in mosul a year after iraqi forces declared it

free. you can see buildings completely destroyed everywhere. thousands died during the nine month fight to recapture the city. the new continues with shep after this. company is gonna rai your rate after the other car got a scratch so small you coulda fixed it with a pen. maybe you should take that pen and use it to sign up with a different insurance company. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ my dai need my blood sugar i'to stay in control.en. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. i need to shave my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® works like my body's insulin.

releases slow and steady. providing powerful a1c reduction. my week? hectic. my weekends? my time. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i sleep in, and delay my dose, i take it as soon as i can, as long as there's at least eight hours between doses. (renee) once in use, it lasts eight weeks with or without refrigeration, twice as long as the lantus® pen. (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba®, may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness,

swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ >> shepard: continuing coverage of breaking news at the bottom of the hour. a live look at the senate floor. we're expecting the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, the come forward in just a moment about speak about the confirmation process regarding a supreme court nominee. the president will make the announcement tonight on his pick. when mitch mcconnell comes up, we'll come live. first, bob bianchi is here. he's a former prosecutor and defense attorney. what will this change? we know the court will change. obviously the court is going to become a court that tilts heavily to the conservative side. what can we expect will change? >> i'm glad you asked that.

nobody is asking on the ground as a person in the courtroom, defending people or bringing cases will be substantial. seismic changes will occurred here with regard to police cases, criminal justice reforms. incarcerations, miranda, excuses, death penalty cases of juveniles. that's on the criminal law piece. civil rights, abortion. they have a 5-4 conservatives with kennedy on a number of issues what we'll look at is restrictions on roe. >> shepard: because justice kennedy was on the other side. >> yeah, and lgbtq issues. and laws that may discriminate against those individuals or businesses or private entities will still be the law after he's gone. we have changes in capital punishment as race-base add

affirmative action. that is on the chopping block. it's been wobbly and weak for a numbers of year that will change. >> shepard: sent out to guidance to universities to ignore race or not make race a factor. >> yeah. race factoring is a thing gone by. watch that harvard case with the asian students bringing forward that issue. they believe they as a minority are being discriminated upon. it's a question of the issues i just raised are going to go by paper cuts or decaptation, shep. >> shepard: by that you mean a series of challenges which come up through the appellate system and are referred to the supreme court, which the court stakes on hears and doesn't. for instance, roe v. wade. you have to suspected and all use this because i know it, mississippi would probably be one that would come up with a challenge. whether they pick around the edges or go straight for the law is something we don't know yes. >> yes.

precedent, you've been showing that here. i don't think the new justice will swing into a place where they will band in that body of law. but nevertheless, when they kill with paper cuts, they can make it a paper tiger. you have it on the books, roe v. wade but they've eviscerated it that make it possible for a woman to have access to that. that is the value that the supreme court justice brings to the table. miranda will be seen differently. the effectiveness of the case is different. suppression issues under the fourth amendment are seen differently. that's be more favorable to the prosecution than the defense. and for example, we have plessy versus ferguson. brown versus board of education. the roberts court has shaken

they will take that draconian action. >> shepard: and it's not as if the state of new york or the state of california will have a world where women's reproductive rights are taken away. but other states like mississippi and others, there's a possibility and i've heard a lot of analysts say it will happen that abortion rights will be available to those that can go to other places to get them. not to poor people that can't. >> i agree with that. the conservative viewpoint here is that essentially the legislature is the house of the people. the state legislature should pass laws that they believe are appropriate as long as they don't believe will violate a constitutional principle. if a state like mississippi passes a law that eliminates the access to abortion, you're going to have people moving to other states. >> shepard: if they can. >> if they can, financially.

>> shepard: thanks, bob. i mentioned that we're waiting for mitch mcconnell to appear on the floor. he's not come forward. when he does, we'll go there. we heard chuck schumer and we'll hear mitch mcconnell as well. president trump is getting ready to meet with the nato allies. he had tough talk again today. separation from the nato allies. and with some of our adversaries, things seem to be going well? we'll have the details on this including a crisis in the united kingdom government at this moment. will president trump have a government to visit once he gets there? theresa may's government is hanging by a string. the brand new developments next.

>> shepard: we interrupt this commercial break to bring you mitch mcconnell and his talk on the supreme court live on the senate floor now. listen in. >> the name of the federal judge anthony kennedy. after president reagan nominated then judge kennedy to the court in 1987, these far left special interest groups impinged his character. they cooked up apocalyptic warnings about all the terrible things. terrible things that would happen to americans if he were confirmed to the court. of course, the american people didn't buy it. a majority of senators saw through the hyperbole and hysteria and confirm that qualify nominee.

believe it or not, the sky didn't fall. didn't fall. decades later our democratic colleagues still haven't tired of crying wolf whenever a republican president nominates anyone to the supreme court. we've seen the same movie time after time after time. less than three years of justice kennedy's confirmation, president bush nominated david souter to the court. guess what they said about him? that's right. the very same things you're hearing today. the same things you've heard about every supreme court nominee named by a republican president. one organization proclaimed that

justice souter might undue the advances made by women and dissenters and other advantaged groups. thats about justice souter. back in 1975, they assailed the nomination of john paul stephens. they said he lacked impartiality and opposed women's rights. that's what they said about john paul stephens. so these far left groups have been at the same scare tactics for over 40 years. the consistency is amazing. decades after decades, nominee after nominee, the far left's script hardly changes at all. anyone and everyone a republican president nominates is a threat to the republic. according to the hysterical press releases that follow.

no matter their qualifications, no matter their record, no matter their reputation, it's the same hyperbole, the same accusations, the same old story. tonight president trump will announce his nominee to fill the current supreme court vacancy. we don't know who he will name but we already know exactly what unfair tactics the nominee will face. they won't be new and they won't be warranted. we can expect to hear how they he destroy equal rights or demolish american healthcare. or ruin our country and some other fictional way. justice kennedy's resignation letter had barely arrived in the president's hands before several of our colleagues began declaring their blanket opposition to anyone and all

that the president might name. one democratic senator stated she would resist any attempt to confirm any nominee this year. "it doesn't matter who he is putting forward." doesn't matter who. earlier today, yesterday, another democratic senator issued a press release declaring preemptively that he plans to oppose whoever the president nominates tonight no matter who they are. another of our democratic colleagues offered this assessment. we're looking at the destruction of the constitution of the united states as far as i can tell. it's hard to keep a straight face when you hear stuff like that. there's not even a nominee yet. justice kennedy just announced his retirement.

they're talking about the destruction of the constitution? please. give the american people some credit. this far left rhetoric comes out every single time. the apocalypse never comes. americans see beyond this far left mongering, this fear mongering that they have tried over and over again for 40 years. senators should do the same. we should evaluate this president's nominee fairly based on his or her qualifications. we should treat the process with the respect and dignity that it deserves. the judiciary committee under the able leadership of senator grassley will hold hearings and then the nomination will come to the full senate for our

consideration. one more round of 40-year-old scare tactics will not stop us from doing the right thing. >> shepard: there you go. mitch mcconnell talking about precedent and what has happened in the past. chad pergram joins us live now. he's up there on capitol hill. the arguments can be made interchangeably cycle to cycle on which party is doing the appointing. >> yeah. the different here, if they nominate a conservative justice, that this will change the balance of power. anthony kennedy was viewed as a swing vote on the court, maybe switching this to 5-4 to 6-3. this is interesting. we heard earlier today from bob casey, the democratic senator from pennsylvania who is up for

re-election this year. a trump state. president trump won pennsylvania. he announced earlier today that he would vote against the nominee no matter what. bob casey is a pro life democrat. there aren't many of them. but that is significant. here's another phenomenon. there were three democratic senators that voted to confirm neil gorsuch. all three are in play. heidi heitkamp and joe donnelly and joe manchin. one that is not in place is doug jones. he came to the senate before christmas time. he's not up for election this fall at all. he will be up in a couple years that could be a pivotal vote. present this in a different format than what we saw in the spring last year when neil gorsuch was up before the senate. >> we keep hearing this will be a bruising battle, the democrats

will string this along. you know the ins and outs of senate and the rules there. could they swing this passed the election? >> that would be very hard. part of this is because there's never been a filibuster of a supreme court justice before. abe fortis who was on the court already, he was filibustered. there's never been a filibuster. mitch mcconnell had a problem last spring. he realized because of the narrow divide in the senate, there was almost no way that they could get neil gorsuch on the supreme court. he changed the senate precedent. you talk about rules. the senate operates on two things. a book of rules, that is thin a few pages and a book of precedent about that wide. he was able to establish a new precedent in the senate based on what democrats did a few years ago with if nuclear option. that's how they got neil gorsuch through. >> shepard: thanks very much, chad. >> any time. >> shepard: chad pergram on the

hill. the other news of the day. president trump has slammed our nato allies again just before he meets with them at a summit. the president says other countries need to spend more on defense and that it's not fair how much the united states is paying and they're not. a few days after the nato summit in brussels, the president is set to meet with nato's main adversary, vladimir putin against whom in theory nato is paying for security. a german official telling local media that there's great concerns about what agreements trump and putin could reach. let's bring in lisa, our national politics reporter from the associated press. what about that agreement? i hear them profess that the president might go rogue and start give way leverage. >> that's right. look, this is one of the most consistent messages from the

president long before he started running for president. he was concerned about how much the u.s. was paying for the nato alliance and the u.s. participation in nato. so his skepticism of some of our oldest and strongest allies is nothing new. that's been compounded during his presidency by his eagerness to meet with russia, his negotiations with north korea. that's raised a lot of concerns among the e.u. and now on top of it, you have what's going on in england. two cabinet officials there have resigned over brexit. it feels like this meeting is a tinder box and president trump is the match heading into it. >> shepard: theresa may's government is hanging on by a thread hearing from sky news in the u.k. that no confidence is a possibility. there's a real possibility that when the president gets there, there will be no government to

entertain him. >> correct. that's a problem on both sides. they were looking at a bilateral trait agreement. theresa may says she's going to push for that. but her government is hanging on by a thread. while president trump has backed may, his strongest allies have been the hard line brexiteers and those are the people taking issue with may. so it's not clear how this will play out during this visit. >> shepard: after that, the president is to meet with the russian president with the backdrop of an investigation into whether the president or members of his team cooperated with the russians to try to influence the election which made him president. with that knowledge, he still wants to meet with the russian leader off camera, without any transcription, without any

witnesses. what has the white house said he wants to meet in secret? >> well, look, this is certainly the secrecy of the meeting, that is something that is rating greater concerns. this focus on the meetings and the high profile events is important. part of what is happening here is not just what happens ott these big events, but it's what is happening behind the scenes. mid level bureaucrats are communicating all the time. the lack of trust in those communications, the europeans don't know who to talk to in the trump administration has fractured the alliance even more and made information hard to come by. >> shepard: just as vladimir putin might have wanted it and dreamed of it for a long, long time. thanks, lisa lerer. thanks so much. should news break out, we'll break in. breaking news changes everything on fox news channel.

the president announces his supreme court nominee at 9:00 eastern time in the hannity time slot. i'll have coverage live on your local fox station down the dial. "your world" with neil cavuto is next. top of the hour headlines coming up. carnation breakfast essentials. it has protein plus vitamins and minerals to help kids be their best. carnation breakfast essentials.

your mornings were made for better things than psoriatic arthritis. as you and your rheumatologist consider treatments, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function.

xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma, and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts, and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common, and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

>> no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe v. wade than the federalist society's leonard leo. no one has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than the very man that chose is list of 25. that's what we're up against here. that's why america is on tenter hooks. >> neil: that's why people are asking, wait a minute. we don't know who the president is picked and you have the guns out. welcome. i'm neil cavuto. fox on the top of a situation that is to put it mildly,