stay tuned. we'll have senator susan collins announcement as soon as she comes to the floor. from there we'll know more. thanks for joining us. i'll be on "the five" at 5:00. i'm dana. here's shep. >> shepard: the vote is tomorrow, but the big moment is right now. a live look. the floor of the united states senate where we're about to witness what could be the tipping point for judge brett kavanaugh's supreme court nomination. at any moment now, the key republican senator from maine will announce how she plans to vote tomorrow. susan collins holds all the cards. if she's a yes on brett kavanaugh, he is likely the next associate justice of the supreme court. big picture, there's four key senators today. three of them are collins, joe

manchin and jeff flake voted yes today. jeff flake said he will vote to confirm kavanaugh unless something big happens. susan collins hasn't said how she will vote on the actual nomination. we're watching the republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska. she voted against advancing kavanaugh's nomination. normally if you go against your own party in the motion to proceed, you'll stay the course and do it again in the motion to confirm. she also said today kavanaugh is in her view maybe not the right man for the court at this time. the truth is, the republicans don't really need her. if susan collins votes yes, that is likely the whole ball game. down this home stretch, top senators are making a final push on the senate floor. >> what left wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge kavanaugh so nothing short of monstrous. >> judges are expected to be

"even-handed, unbiased, impartial and courteous." last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. >> shepard: after last week's hearing, democrats noted that president trump's pick showed political bias during the testimony. some insisted he may have purgered himself regarding his past behavior and he did not display the right temperament to be a supreme court justice. now judge kavanaugh is making his case one last time. he wrote an op-ed in today's "wall street journal." the journal's parent company and this network's parent company share ownership. the op-ed reads in part, "it was very emotional last thursday. i might have been too emotional at times. i know my tone was sharp and i said a few things i shouldn't have said. i hope everyone can understand that i was there as a son,

husband and dad. i testified with five people foremost in my dad, my mom, my dad, my wife and my daughters. dr. christine blasey ford testified that i sexually assaulted her at a party when they were teenagers. the supreme court nominee denies the accusation. the stakes are high for judge kavanaugh and for our nation. if the senate confirms kavanaugh, he will replace anthony kennedy. the supreme court's crucial swing vote on issues like marriage equality and women's rights. kavanaugh is a conservative and could tip the scales to the right for generations to come. at the moment, the likely decider is the senator from maine. and she's about to speak on the senate floor. live pictures outside senator susan collins' office right now.

let's listen. ♪ the pressure on susan collins could not be greater. this moment is of her own making. senator collins could have announced her decision prior to this moment. she's been seen speaking with lisa murkowski, the republican of alaska for much of the day. she was seen exiting a lunch with others and leaders from the republican leadership. mitch mcconnell said to have been happy and doing well after that and seeming confident. what does it mean? we'll know in a moment. susan collins will leave her office, go to the senate floor and announce her decision she's told us. we have team fox coverage. first, mike emanuel who is live

on capitol hill. they are singing "we shall overcome" outside the office, this is her moment. >> no question, shep. republicans are hopeful but eager to hair from maine's susan collins who as you laid out is a critical vote. jeff flake was a yes earlier. he said he's a yes tomorrow unless something big changes. fox has confirmed that mitch mcconnell had lunch with senator collins. after lunch, collins said we're heading toward the final vote tomorrow afternoon and i am optimistic. earlier a senior republican called today an important step forward. >> our vote today was important not only because it will allow us to move forward an conclude this process but it was important because it showed the united states senate will not be intimidated. we will not be bullied by the screams of paid protesters and name calling by the mob. >> with a vote 51-49 earlier

today, these are still very, very anxious times. shep? >> shepard: mike emanuel, what are we hearing from democrats here in the final hours? >> the one to watch is west virginia's joe manchin who as a senator representing a conservative state has a history in terms of supporting some people that republicans want confirmed. for example, he's the only senate democrat to vote for jeff sessions for attorney general. the only senate democrat to vote for steve mnuchin for treasury secretary and one of three senate democrats to vote for neil gorsuch for the supreme court. >> he said what goes around, comes around. in my 20 years on the judiciary committee, i have never heard anything like that or even close to that from a judicial nominee. it's hard to imagine how a nominee who has displayed such

raw partisanship could be a neutral umpire in the supreme court. >> shepard: breaking news, senator collins is on the senate floor now. let's listen. >> sergeant -- [protesters in background]. as a reminder to our guests in the galleries, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. senator for maine. >> mr. president, the five previous times that i have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice

to the united states supreme court, i have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. but today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a characteriture than a solemn occasion. the president nominated brett kavanaugh on july 9. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him. including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in

the judge's name on his prewritten press release. they wrote that they opposed trump's nomination of xx to the supreme court of the united states a number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known. since that time we have seen special interest groups with their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record.

over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which although debunked hours later continued to live on and be spread through social media. interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. our supreme court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. one can only hope that the kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit, rock bottom. against this backdrop, it's up to each individual senator to decide what the constitution's

advice and consent duty means. informed by alexander hamilton's federalist 76, i have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial. i have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics. but i fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them.

i have never considered the president's identity or party when evaluating supreme court nominations. as a result, i voted in favor of justices roberts and alito who were nominated by president bush. justices sotomayor and kagan who were nominated by president obama. and justice gorsuch who was nominated by president trump. so i began my evaluation of judge kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review

articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service briefed me many times each week and assists me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. i met with judge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearing. i spoke with people who knew him personally such as condoleezza rice and many others. and i talked with judge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. i also have met with thousands of my constituents, both

advocates and many opponents regarding judge kavanaugh. one concern that i frequently heard is that the judge would be likely to eliminate the affordable care act's vital protections for people with pre-existing conditions. i disagree with this contention. in a dissent in seventh sky v. holder, judge kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the a.c.a. on narrow procedural grounds preserving the law in full. many experts have said that his dissent informed justice roberts opinion upholding the a.c.a. at the supreme court. further more, judge kavanaugh's approach towards a doctrine of separatability is narrow. when a part of a statute is

challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for selfing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact. this was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau. in his dissent, judge kavanaugh argued for "severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact." given the current challenges to the a.c.a., proponents including myself of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a justice that would take just this kind of approach. another assertion that i have

heard often is that judge kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. the basis for this argument seems to be two fold. first, judge kavanaugh has written that he believes that congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. mr. president, i believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. the fact that judge kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes the president does not have such protection currently. second, there's some that argued that given the special counsel

investigation, president trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. that argument ignores our recent history. president clinton in 1993 nominated justice ginsberg after the whitewater investigation was already underway. she was confirmed 96-3. the next year, just three months after independent counsel robert fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, president clinton nominated justice brier. he was confirmed 87-9. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the president who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states versus nixon,

three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury versus madison, youngstown steel versus sawyer and the united states versus nixon are three of the four greatest supreme court cases in history. what do they have in common? each of them is a case where congress serves as a check on presidential power. i would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown versus the board of education. one kavanaugh decision

illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in hamdahn versus the united states, a case that challenges the bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of osama bin laden. this conviction was very important to the bush administration. but judge kavanaugh who had been appointed to the d.c. circuit by president bush and had worked in president bush's white house ruled that the conviction was unlawful. as he explained during the hearing, he said we don't make decisions based on who people are, their policy preferences or the moment. we base decisions on the law."

others i've met with have expressed concerns that justice kennedy's retirement threatens the rights of same sex couples to marry. yet judge kavanaugh describes the decision which legalized same gender marriages as an important landmark precedent. he also cited justice kennedy's recent masterpiece cake shop opinion for the court's majority stating that "the days of treating gay and lesbian americans or gay and lesbian couples as second class citizens that are inferior, indignity in worth are over in the supreme court." others have suggested the judge holds extreme views on birth control.

in one case, judge kavanaugh encouraged the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. although his critics overlook this point, jeff kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest and facilitating access to contraception. in fact, he wrote that the supreme court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control. there's also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that judge kavanaugh would seek to

overturn roe v. wade. protecting this right is important to me. to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in article 3 of our constitution itself. he believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. in other words, precedent is not a goal or aspiration, it's a constitutional tenant that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary

circumstances. the judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. there are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the supreme court would rightly overturn a precedent. the most famous example was when the supreme court in browns versus the board of education overruled plessy versus ferguson correcting a grieve usually wrong decision to use the judge's term allowing racial inequality. but someone that believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the constitution would follow long-established precedent except in both rare circumstances where a decision is grieviously wrong or

inconsistent with the law. that's the judge's phrases. as the judge established long precedent, it's not something to be trimmed, narrows, discarded or overlooked. its roots in the constitution give the concept of starey decisis greater weight. in short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed, not to do overtly. noting that roe v. wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether

the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal frame work with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswold versus connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraception. griswold established the legal foundations that lead to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s. meyer and pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone

today. finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that roe had opinion upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate judges that would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time, president -- republican respects have

appointed justices o'connor, souter and kennedy to the supreme court. these are the very three justices, republican presidents appointed justices, who authored the casey decision which reaffirmed roe. further more, pro choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices nomination. incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan "stop souter or women will die." just two years later, justice souter co-authored the casey opinion re-affirming a woman's right to choose. suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been

wrong. these same interest groups have speculated that judge kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologs. i asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitment or pledges to anyone at the white house, to the federalist society, to any outside group on how he would decide cases. he unequivocally assured me that he had not. judge kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge including for his judicial temperament. the american bar association gave him its highest possible rating. standing on the judicialry

committee conducted a thorough assessment soliciting input from 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. the a.b.a. concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards lisa black, who has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other woman in history testified "by any objective measure, judge kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the supreme court. his opinions are thoughtful and fair." mrs. black, who clerked for him as an ardent admirerer of justice ginsberg and in her own words an unapologetic defender

of a woman's right to choose said judge kavanaugh fits in the mainstream of legal side. she also observed that judge kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. that judge kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and chief judge merrick garland voted the same way in 93% of the cases that they heard together. indeed, chief judge garland joined him more than 96% of the majority opinions authored by judge kavanaugh, dissenting only one. despite all this, after weeks of reviewing judge kavanaugh's record and listening to 32 hours

of his testimony,ed the senate's advice and consent role was thrown into a tail spin following the allegations of sexual assault by professor christine blasey ford. the confirmation process now involved evaluating whether or not judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the judiciary committee. some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that this be resolved against the nominee. others see the public interest as embodied in our long established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of

innocence. in cases in which the factor unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. mr. president, i understand both viewpoints. this debate is complicated further by the fact that the senate confirmation process is not a trial. but certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking, and i cannot abandon them. in evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness tempting

though it may be. we must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. the presumption of innocence is relevant to the advising and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee's otherwise exemplary record. i worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward. some of the allegations levied against judge kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. i am thinking in particular not at the allegations raised by

professor ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager, judge kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. this outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simple parroted public statements of others. that is such an allegation can find its way into the supreme court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so engrained in our american consciousness. mr. president, i listened carefully to christine blasey

ford's testimony before the judiciary committee. i found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. i believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. none of the individuals professor ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. judge kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury.

mark judge, denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. p.j.smyth, another personal allegedly at the party denied that he was there under penalty of felony. professor ford's life-long friend, leland keyser indicated under penalty of felony indicated she doesn't remember that party. mrs. keyser said not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know brett kavanaugh. in addition to the last of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. for instance, since these allegations have become public,

professor ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say i was at the party that night. furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride. yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the ones that drove her home or were in the car with her that night. professor ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay.

not even her closest friend, mrs. keyser. mr. president, the constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. it leaves that decision up to each senator. this is not a criminal trial, and i do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. the facts presented do not mean that professor ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do

lead me to conclude that the allegations failed to meet the more likely than not standard. therefore, i do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent judge kavanaugh from serving on the court. let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is note a sear just problem in this country. to the contrary. of any good at all has come of this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem.

i have been alarmed and disturbed that some people have suggested that up less kavanaugh is rejected, the senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. nothing could be further from the truth. every person, man or woman that makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be treated with respect. the me too movement is real. it matters, it's needed and long overdue. we know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. on average, an estimated 211,000

rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. we must listen to survivors and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. we owe this to ourselves, our children and generations to come. since the hearing, i have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. many were total strangers who told me their heart wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. some were friends that i had known for decades. yet with the exception of one woman who confided in me years ago, i had no idea that they had been the victim of sexual

attacks. i am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward. and i hope that in heightening public awareness they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. so them, i pledge to do all that i can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. over the past few weeks, i have been emphatic that the senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. i called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both professor ford and judge

kavanaugh. i also pushed for and supported the fbi supplemental background investigation. this was the right thing to do. christine ford never sought the spotlight. she indicated that she was terrified to appear before the senate judiciary committee and she's shunned attention since then. she seemed completely unaware of chairman grassley's authors to allow her to testify confidentially in california. watching her, mr. president, i could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.

she has testified that a very limited number of people have access to her letter. yet that letter found its way into the public domain. she testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released. and yet here we are. we are in the middle of a fight that she never sought arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially. now one theory i've heard espoused repeatedly, senator feinstein leaked professor ford's at the 11th hour to derail this process. i want to state this clearly. i know senator dianne feinstein extremely well. and i believe that she would

never do that. i knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. she is a person of integrity and i stand by her. i have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated professor ford unfairly. nothing could be further from the truth. chairman grassley along with his excellent staff treated professor ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. and that is the way that senator from iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service. but the fact remains, mr. president, someone leaked this letter against professor ford's expressed wishes.

i suspect regrettably we'll never know for certain who did it. to that leaker who i hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. you have taken a survivor that was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her. you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. my only hope is that your callous act has turned this process to such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the senate and indeed all americans

to reconsider how we evaluate supreme court nominees. if that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded professor ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences. mr. president, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch, even before these allegations were known and it has been challenging even them to separate fact from fiction. we live in a time of such great disunity as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the senate and among the public clearly demonstrates.

it's not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. it is a case of people bearing extreme ill will towards those that disagree with them. in our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as americans. when some of our best minds are speaking to development sophisticated algorithms designed to link to us websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. this would have alarmed the drafters of our constitution who were acutely aware that

different values and interests could prevent americans from becoming and remaining a single people. indeed of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. they vision of a more perfect union does not exist today. and if anything, we appear to be moving further away from that. it is particularly worrisome that the supreme court, the institution that most americans see as the principle guardian of our shared constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political

lens. mr. president, we have heard a lot of charges and counter charges about judge kavanaugh. but as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. despite the turbulent bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that brett kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the supreme court so we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court

is restored. mr. president, i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. thank you, mr. president. [applause] >> shepard: well, the decider has spoken. the issue is likely resolved. the collins court at least for the day. chris wallace host of "fox news sunday" live with us from washington. chris? >> well, shep, senator collins had her moment and she took it. really quite an extraordinary speech as you think back. it went on for more than a half an hour. she took all of the concerns about judge kavanaugh and what kind of supreme court justice he would be on issues like the

healthcare act, the aca, abortion, same-sex marriage and in a very lawyerly way went through them and tried to explain why she thought those concerns were overstated. then she went through the allegations against him of sexual misconduct. again, in a rather lawyerly way i thought went through the reasons why she thought that, as she said, if you come down to basic due process, basic fairness, the basic principle of you're presumed innocent, that christine blasey ford as compelling as she was she didn't have corroboration. she talked about our politics, how divisive it is and how mean it is. she said she hoped on the supreme court that justice brett kavanaugh could help lessen the divide with fewer 5-4 decisions. it was a very interesting speech. i thought a thoughtful and substancive speech.

basic headline, it looks now almost certain that judge kavanaugh will become justice kavanaugh and the latest member of the supreme court. >> shepard: what is left undecided for viewers who have not been following? >> well, we don't know whether joe manchin is going to go along. if my math is right, this provides the 50th vote. this means judge kavanaugh gets confirmed if manchin and flake vote against. it would be 50-49. i think it means in addition that steve danes, the senator from montana that may be on his way to montana to walk his daughter down the aisle tomorrow may not have to fly back in the middle of the night because even if it's only 50-49, if not all the senators vote, a simply majority is enough to put brett kavanaugh on the supreme court. >> shepard: then there's the democrat, joe manchin of west virginia who know one suggested

that he might be the one to be the decider in this matter, but if he wants political cover, he has it. >> that's right. he could become the 51st vote -- >> shepard: and there's breaking news on fox news channel. joe manchin is a yes on brett kavanaugh. the senator from west virginia just in the last few seconds made that announcement. the democrats from west virginia is the first and so far only democrat to say that he will vote for judge kavanaugh. not a surprise in any way that it happened immediately after, just about to be expected. west virginia is ruby red and now things are as we expected might be, chris. >> yeah, i have to say, i don't know that joe manchin has been a profile in courage on this. he didn't vote to end the debate, to invoke cloture in he

was sure that he was 50 votes. he didn't announce how he was going to vote on kavanaugh until he saw that it was already decided by susan collins. so he's on the "right side of the issue" politically for most voters in west virginia but he waited until he was not the swing vote. >> shepard: the next step is a vote in congress, a full vote in the senate and it's our understanding that comes tomorrow. is that right? a lot of debate first. >> a lot of debate. 30 hours. only in the senate would you cut off debate by invoking cloture that starts the clock for more 30 hours of debate. it ended by 11:00. the democrats may not take the entire 30 hours. sometimes in mid to late afternoon, sometime between 3:30 and 5:00 tomorrow afternoon, the senate will vote and unless there is some unforeseen change of mind by somebody here, looks like it will go 50-48.

with one vote missing. that would be steve danes unless he wants to fly back and make it 51-48. >> shepard: it's our understanding he does not. it's his daughter's wedding day. if he doesn't have to fly back, he will not. this is decided for all up tents and purposes. what does this mean for one side and the other? >> i always thought for the democrats, as tough as it is to be to lose in the senate in terms of the confirmation of brett kavanaugh, that it would help them in the mid-terms. you've seen all of these people on capitol hill, hundreds of them, 300 arrested yesterday. i think this will only ignite the feeling among a lot of democrats, particularly women, that the republican party is not sympathetic to their interests. suburban women especially. that will empower them to go out

in the polls. the question which would be more helpful to republicans, to win or lose in the senate? i begin to think winning is the best thing. had they lost that might have disspirited the base. you see in the fight over kavanaugh according to the polls, a real rise in enthusiasm. a big gap in intensity between democrats who seem very interested in the mid-terms and republicans that did not seem so energized. a lot of feeling among the republican conservative base that kavanaugh has not been dealt with fairly. in a lot of polls when you used to see a gap of 10 or 12 points is now plus 2 for the democrats. >> shepard: we have a political generation between now and the election. that is obvious. with that said, the analysts have said this vote, because of suburban educated white women and the energizing of them, that the house is more solid for

democrats now and the senate could possibly be more solid for republicans. could you explain that part of it? >> yeah, i think that might well be true. because house districts are so confined and oftentimes gerrymandered so the cross section, the cut of the pie, in each individual district can be more localized.you might see suburban women in a suburban district or college educated people that they'll turn out more that will have more of an impact in the house. in a senate race, the entire state, it's more intensity. mid-term elections, people don't tend to turn out as much unless they're energized.

the aftermath of obama care, you saw republicans turn out. this year in the opposition to trump, it looked like democrats would turn out. now there's a backlash by republicans, particularly in senate races, you're beginning to see a lot of the races begin to move either towards or in favor of the republican candidates. >> shepard: well, it's a fascinating day and impressive process to come, chris. we'll look forward to seeing "fox news sunday" this sunday for sure. joe manchin speaking now. let's listen. >> i saw that senator collins, out of respect, i want to watch her. she asked to do that. [protesters in background]. >> you can hear the people here -- >> sure, i'm -- [protesters in the background].

[protesters in the background]. [protesters chanting]. >> why did you wait for collins to make her announcement while you made your announcement? >> i waited for her announcement -- [protesters chanting]. [protesters chanting].