>> sean: all right. judge, thank you. we'll watch you tomorrow night. that's all the time we have left this evening. our thoughts andw prayers with justice ginsberg's family. let your heart not be troubled. onre's laura. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham. this is "the ingraham angle." after a long battle with cancer associate justice ruth bader ginsberg, the leader of the liberal wing of the supreme court died at home tonight at the age of 87. she was surrounded by her family. justice ginsberg was a legal pioneer and the second woman to have been nominated to the court. a graduate of cornell, columbia law school, and a proud brooklyn native, she had a sharp wit and a pension for speaking her mindo for her votes and hard-hitting

opinions on cases ranges from immigration to abortion, she was a hero to millions of americans and not only was she an enormously popular figure in the legal world, but she ended up becoming a popular figure in the popular culture as well. there were children's books, a feature film, and documentaries about her storied career. she was indeed a larger than life figure.. given how poll laterized things are these days in washington it's probably hard for a lot of you to fathom that one of her best friends was justice scalia. ginsberg believed in the constitution more of as a living document. but their friendship endured. >> i was listening to him and disagreeing with a good part of what he said. but as he said it, in an

absolutely captivating way. >> we should leave it at that. a great point. >> we agree on a whole lot of stuff. we do. ruth is bad only on the knee jerk stuff. >> in fact, it was way back in 1987 that i first met ruth bader ginsberg and her late husband marty, a wonderful person, at their watergate apartment. it was with the scalia, with whom that they spent many new year's eve a long time ago. we'll have more on the senate battle for her replacement and the political implications in an election year that none of us thought it would not get any more dramatic. tonight the left and the media they're furious that the stakes are so high with the passing of justice ginsberg.

they're seething that president trump could have put three justices on the court. i have to say, we warned them and warned them not to give so much power to unelected t judges on any court. robert bork warned them about this over thirty years ago. this is a crisis of the left's own creation. now the court has outside influence and power that many many cases should be left to the people through their duly elected representatives. tonight, examining the political stakes with the senate, the court, and the presidency hanging in the balance, will be joined by charlie hurt, scott rasmussen and raymond arroyo. also with us, chris scalia, son of the late justin antonin scalia. but first, here to walk through jennifer griffin's legacy isrsy helge walker, former supreme court clerk and also sol wisenberg, harmeet dhillon, kerri sererino and also another

former clerk. helge, what do you see as the most defining part of justice ginsberg's legacy? >> it has to be her role as a leader for women and law in america. there's really no way, a reallyo way around that. she was a trail blazer for women. second woman ever to sit on theo united states supreme court. she changed the world for all of us. men and women alike. >> obviously we're going to get into the pitch battles. before that is done, the court has become an extremely contentious place to serve on, to work at.

as you defect opinions, you written books about the last confirmation battle with justice kavanaugh. a lote really transcended of the normal life in washington in many ways. like her buddy, justice scalia, she was a hero as jeffery said tonight, a hero to liberal democrats. >> yeah, she set a standard that we need nowadays. the ability to reach across the aisle to justices like justin scalia with whom she didn't agree with very much in terms of their approach to law. but with whom she put forward a deep and meaningful friendship. you talk about some of these pitch battles. even with newer colleagues like justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh, i was impressed that she came to their defense during kavanaugh's confirmation process.s. she was out there saying this is not right. i prefer the process the way it was when i was confirmed.

she was unanimously confirmed, despite her idealogical leanings. that ability to reach across the aisle, to be collegial is something that we can take a lesson from. >> laura: we've had tributes pouring in from all over the legal world. bill barr put out an incredible statement that i'll tweet out in a moment. it addressed her incredible academic accomplishments, her legal accomplishments, her fierce spirit. i suffered one bout of cancer. she suffered four and kept working through all of it.t. all of that combined makes the legacy of this woman regardless of what you think about her decisions, which we get into in this conversation as well. thoughts tonight? >> she was a lawyer's lawyerla

laura. a lawyer's judge. she cared about process, about following the rules. even this last term, you saw that in the case where she basically scolded -- wrote a unanimous opinion scolding the ninth circuit for deciding an issue that known of the parties wanted decided or asked to be decided. yes, she was constitutionallynd left of center but very consistent and very principled. one of the great liberal justices. very important, very similar to the role of thurgood marshall with african american rights under the constitution, she was a trail blazer and had a great impact as a litigator, as you know, as well as a supreme court justice. that is very rare in supreme court history. >> laura: john eastman, from bill barr tonight, she was brilliant and successful

litigator and admired court ofof appeals just and pro foundly influential supreme court justice. for all of her achievements, she will be most remembered for inspiring women in the legal profession and beyond. t she and i didn't agree on every issue, but her legal ability personal integrity and determination were beyond doubt. she leaves a towering legacy and all that seek justice mourn her loss. wow. >> yeah, terrific statement. one can only imagine her reunited with her husband, marty and justice scalia and maybe going to an opera in heaven tonight. the world of employment law and the role of woman in the workplace was changed because of ruth bader ginsberg's legacy. we don't need today to get into her more idealogicalga decisions. that is an extremely important legacy and we all ought to acknowledge and thank her forth that. >> laura: when we talk about

what is next for the court, it's something that confronts everyone in this election year. seems like yesterday when we talked to you and john and sol about the brett kavanaugh nomination and all the ups and downs with that one, gaming this out for us, how big is this next nomination to the court? setting aside when it would happen and when the hearings would happen, but just how big is it in the makeup of the court? >> you know, it's pretty important, laura. but i think it's important not for politics, not for republican or democrat reasons. it's important that we continue in the tradition of justice ginsberg highly qualified people that are principled people perhaps of a different jurisprudence. i would expect of a different juris prudence from president trump.

but the president has had a stellar record of nominating to this court highly qualified people of integrity. we can count on the president continuing on that trend. >> laura: mitch mcconnell tonight said that he would expect a vote on the next nominee before the end of the year. i believe he said. how does this play out? let's assume first that donald trump wins on november 3. a lot of people watching think -- well, let's assume he wins. obviously the process would be umeasier. let's say he doesn't win november 3. they haven't rushed through a confirmation before the election, which seems unlikely.r >> yeah, leader mcconnell has been clear in his statement. he points to the history when you have a senate in the white house being held by the same party, typically in an election year, you do have a confirmation. that was different in 2016.

you have to go back to the 19th century to find that. so leader mcconnell has been clear. the president obviously had thought through. he has a great list that he can drawug from here. and you know, i think what the president will know the specific timing, i'll let him decide on that. it's very clear we're going to have a vote on this vacancy before the end of the year. >> president trump just added another 20 names. we just talked about this last week on the angle of potential supreme court nominees. joe biden has not released a list. the list includes a number of women. amy barrett a judge on the seventh circuit court. clerked for justice scalia. kate todd, deputy counsel to the president and clerk for justice thomas. she worked on the impeachment battle too. barbara lagoa, a judge on the

11th circuit court of appeals. she served in florida. and former clerk to then judge brett kavanaugh. wow. sol? any of them would a strong candidate, in my mind.tr is it a done deal, sol, that the replacement for this judicial icon would have to be a woman? >> i think it's highly likely. i don't have any inside information but i think for all practical purposes it would be a done deal, laura. >> amy was on the list early ona donald trump the candidate released that list. she's got a lot of decisions on her belt under the seventh circuit.

that comes with pluses and minuses? >> yeah. the more of a record you have the more of a target you are. that's why some people unfortunately play it safe which is a mistake. there's no question that president trump is going to nominate someone that is highly qualified in the technical legal sense. the issue is, of course, the idealogical battle. you know, anything can happen. assuming that the nomination is put forward after the election, you know, you not only -- you're talking about -- i'm hearing this from the liberal side tonight. you're talking about -- i hate to be talking about this on the justice ginsberg passed away, but you only need a few defections on the republican side for it not to go through.t who knows what a lame duck senator might do thinking about his or her legacy.

the other people that people are not thinking about with the court shifting right ward ifh president trump gets the next nominee, people leaving the court, deaths have a way of changing slightly the philosophy of people on the court. they tend to shift a little bit. we've seen one or two opinions from justice gorsuch this pastst term that surprised people. so who knows what might happen in the next configuration. >> laura: well, sol, i'll say it. usually shifts to the left when that happens. i don't think you can name many democrat nominees to the court who evolved to be more originalists in their traditional philosophy. it usually goes the other way around. you point out gorsuch's opinion. this is joe biden's criteria for a supreme court pick. >> we're putting together a list

of a group of african american women who are qualified and have the experience to be in the court. i'm not going to release that until we go further down theotse line of vetting them as well. >> laura: back in august bloomberg said to name a black woman to the supreme court, his options narrowed down to justice leandra krueger and judge kantagi brown jackson in washington d.c. harmeet, was it smart for biden to box himself in like that? >> laura, it was no smarter to box himself in there than it was to box himself into appointing an african american woman as his running mate, which limited his choices to i think the fairly unappealing kamala harris. justice krueger is well known. she has a good track record in california as a jurist.

talk about there. i'm not familiar with the other judge. by limiting himself that way he's doing a disservice to juris prudence, to the court, to his legacy if he were to become thee president. i don't think that's how heel should be selecting judges in today's day and age. because it makes a lot of assumptions about people and based on their characteristics which is somewhat of an outdated concept today. >> laura: it was the first time in my memory and, john eastman, you can correct me, that a presidential candidate released a lengthy list or any list of potential nominees to the court. that's because the trump campaign understood that for conservatives. the court had become a very important lifeline to righting what they believed were past judicial wrongs. a r lot of people believe that

helped donald trump in the final teeks. >> it is probably the thing thag carried the election for him, a lot of people that were distrustful of trump of making a true conversion to conservatism. the list was rock solid. what happened is, our supreme court has taken on the role of super legislator. we're not looking for judges that will legislate in the other direction. we're looking for judges that j understand the role of the court, which is to interpret the lawth as given rather than make the law as they'd like it to be. you know, my one disagreement with justice ginsberg over time is she unfortunately did that on occasion. >> laura: panel, stay there. we have a lot of skype people. we are like the brady bunch boxes tonight. if president trump does nominate someone to the court, mitch mcconnell has promised he will get a vote to the floor.

how likely is that to happen before the election and would mcconnell have the votes to get it done? let's go live to fox news congressional correspondent chad pergram with answers tonight. chad? >> hey, laura. here's the average time that you have when someone is nominated for the supreme court before they get a hearing. it's about 40 to 45 days. in terms of nomination to confirmation, the average is 67 to 71 days. so even to get a confirmation hearing in just before the election, if they do the vetting process, a lifetime appointment they're really on the cusp there. it's hard to see how they could ram this through before an election. brett kavanaugh, the most recent justice put on the supreme court, 57 days before he had a hearing. 89 days before he was confirmed. now let's look ats the parliamentary math. in terms of trying to confirm this justice. break down in the senate right now is 53 republicans, 47

democrats. they can only lose two. lisa murkowski, she indicated she does not think that they should fill this seat until after inauguration day. so you're down to's 52. and then let's say this vote were to happen before the election. what happens with susan collins from maine? republican senator who has a very competitive race. what happens with cory gardnerer republican from colorado. martha mcsally, republican frome arizona in a competitive race. she said that they should go ahead and try to fill this seat right away. t if you drop down to say 50/50, you could have haven't mike pence break a tie. we've never had a confirmation broken on a tie with the vice president casting the deciding vote. there was never a deciding vote for any executive branch nomination and the tie broken by the vice president until betsy devos in early 2017. so this is going to be interesting in terms of how thei

votes stack up and the -- how fast they can get a nominee, how fast can they do a confirmation hearing and vet the person.fi sometimes they run into issues with these. let's look at what happened with clarence thomas. he was confirmed.t harriet meyers, one was president bush's nominees. her nomination was withdrawn.. you had this with robert bork in the 80s. so just because you have a nominee doesn't mean there's something that means they're guaranteed a slot on the supreme court, especially to do it in a tight turning radius. so the chances of this happening before the election, you know, that is up in the air, laura. >> laura: chad, thanks so much. joining me now is charlie hurt, washington opinion editor, fox news contributor. scott rasmussen, pollster, and raymond arroyo. scott, your history in polling is among the top in the field.

given what we know that voters think about this court, the importance of the court in the last election and most recent polling, morning consult did the last one, could this change the course of this election? >> well, look, the last election the decision about the supreme court, president trump's comments and putting out a list is the reason he's in the white house. 87% of evangelical voters cast their ballot for the president even though they had doubts about his own character. an important issue. this time around it changes the equation fundamentally. the question is about the future of the supreme court. this is a debate the american people will have about somethint that will last a lot longer than the next presidential term.

>> laura: charlie, one of your close pals, david gurgan on cnn, he had a prediction about what the passing of justicee ginsberg would mean for the election. i think we have it.rg let's watch. >> more likely that -- more likely that joe biden will win the election. it makes it more likely that the democrats will take over the senate. i think this plays into biden's hands, simply because -- the unfairness. it wreaks of hypocrisy. >> laura: charlie, given his recent track record in political prognostication, does that bother you? >> yeah. i don't know what history he's looking at. it's ridiculous. i don't know think that you can find a single election in modern times that has gone the way that

a democrat has won on the fight -- on a fight over the federal judiciary. whereas, you can find plenty of examples where republicans win based on fights over the federal judiciary. as scott just pointed out, the best example is president trump in 2016. it's something that very much activates conservative voters because they feel like the courts have gone awry and the simple argument that true conservatives like president trump make and how they -- judges are to interpret the constitution as it is written nott as they wish it to be written. it's a simple argument. i would also argue that in 2004 president bush won re-election based on the fight -- he understood what an important issue that wasas at that point. he had not had a single nomination to the supreme court. but he made that argument that

he could get one, possibly two. he wound up getting two.he he put john roberts on there and then of course put his second choice on there. you know, samuel alito. that made the difference in that election. >> laura: raymond, this yearfe we've had the pandemic. first of all, we had impeachment. we had the impeachment trial that donald trump ultimately won, acquitted. then we had the coronavirus pandemic. all that that entailed with the shutdowns, the economic horrible fall-out. the loss of human life. joe biden, the nominee for the democrat. we had weird conventions.

pitch battles in the streets. riots. now we have a supreme court nomination fight potentially before the end of the year at the very least. how does this rate for political, legal, cultural drama? >> ain't 2020 grand? first of all, our condolences to the ginsberg family. you can see joe biden coming out and saying, wait a minute. the american people should vote on the next president who will offer a nominee for the senate to vote on. shouldn't be done before the election. meanwhile, you see mitch mcconnell and his caucus sayingi we're going to move forward. we will have a vote as soon as possible, if you read between the lines. laura, you asked the question should a woman replace ruth bader ginsberg. ruth bader ginsberg is not just a supreme court justice. she's a cultural icon. in my little girl's school, there's a picture on the wall of

her. she's taken on a larger than life place in the culture. you have to replace her with another woman, a woman that can make her own mark on the supreme court. the other thing, and i think both charlie and mr. rasmussen touched on this, conservatives right now, catholics and evangelicals, you can see award to peel off some of donald trump's support. this will focus them in a new way on the importance of to supreme court, how much sway it has over our life every day and the importance of electing a president that will nominate someone that reflects the value of the people that put donald trump in office.e. this changes the map. >> laura: a well-known name not be used messaged me and said if you call yourself pro life

and you don't vote for a republican senator and donald trump in november, then you're a fraud. that's what he said to me. but his point is it's all on the line now, scott. again, you've been doing polling and been in the polling business for decades. the polls in 2016 were badly off in most cases. what does this do to the next round of polls that we see given the importance of the court to conservatives, to christian conservatives, and the liberals that are worried that they'll lose roe versus wade? >> laura, when you talk about the next round of polls, there's not an instant reaction. the type of thing we'll see here affects turnout. it affects who will show up and vote. that is the thing that we're already having a very difficult time to measure. none of us have ever polled during a pandemic before.

the last time there was anything like this was 102 years ago. i was getting started in the polling industry back then. none of us know how the voter models will turn out.k when you talk about this, it's not about the short term, the next wave of polls, it's about the conversation.he look, i hear all of this talk that republicans are ready to go and vote right away. i think that's a big mistake. i think the president should come out and say, i want the american people to decide this. i'm going to nominate someone after i'm re-elected. here's who i'm thinking of. by the way, i want to hear from joe biden who he will nominate. that puts the focus on the choice for the court, not on the side argument of whether or not the confirmation battle should go ahead right now. >> laura: and the timing of it.

isn't it the case, charlie, that right now the last thing the president wants is for there to be some gop internal fight where you have romney versus mcconnell or mcconnell arguing behind the scenes with murkowski or the president tweeting about cory booker -- i mean, corey from colorado, gardner. you don't want that kind of fight. they have to be unified, if only to say we'll put this off after the vote. >> and president trump is a rare politician that we've seen that is always willing to spin the political capitol that heti builds. he's not afraid to put something out there and make it a fight. the effect of that is what you just laid out there.

it raises the spector of all sorts of infighting. let's remember a couple of things. one is president trump has been through this twice. he's got a short list. he knows -- he has people that has been vetted. he has a real good hunch who it is he would like to nominate. second thing is, i think that this opening -- obviously this has a huge -- will have a huge impact on the presidential election.. i think that ultimately it does help president trump. it's conservatives that care about the constitution and care about fidelity to the constitution. that'sta what's at stake here. that's what the liberal justices on the supreme court have been shredding for decades. the other thing is on the senate races, it nationalizes all of these senate races. takes senate races where maybees republicans fielded a weak candidate or maybe they don't -e might be some d local issues tht don't cut in the favor of republicans.

suddenly if you're in arizonaan and maybe you don't love mcsally but this is what is at stake does that mean that you're going to come out and make sure that you vote for mcsally? i think there's a real possibility that this cuts in all of those races like that. >> and raymond, we have lindsey graham up for re-election. that race is tighter than he wants it to be. i assume he will win. it's tighter than he wants it to be.. john cornyn from texas, ben sasse. tom tillis is in a very tight race in north carolina. joni ernst in iowa and susan collins in maine. this is the judiciary committee, the republican judicialry committee members. it's on the line for them on november 3.m so when donald trump puts out his nominee next week, which i imagine it will be, when he

names his pick, it better be a phenomenal pick. better be unimpeachable. >> it will.be >> laura: the senators better be on board with that pick. raymond? >> i think charlie has it right. this is going to nationalize all of those senate races but it does something else for donald trump. over these many months, we've been watching joe biden and his running mate, covid-19, snatch the headlines. that running mate will be severely blunted when this drama hoff a supreme court pick moves center stage. this is really important for tht re-election bid of the president. my guess is he will make the appointment quickly and encourage the senators to come on board. that will be part of their group re-election. we'll see how that plays moving forward, this is where those on the right, particularly religious conservatives, this is the center of their universe the supreme court and the social and cultural issues that move them. this is why they voted for

donald trump and my suspicion is why they'll support those in his party the in the next cycle. >> laura: remember that image or that footage of that crazed leftist banging on the supreme court after the kavanaugh -- in the kavanaugh hearing?ng it was madness in washington for those couple weeks. the left felt galvanized. they were protesting. we've been through the summer of love. riots and protests and looting. i don't know what the fall of love is going to look like. that's another thing that we haven't figured into this equation, scott. whether there could be more unrest if this gets pushed faster than maybe the republican committee would like it to be. mcconnell is a master of this. he's a master of procedure to

say something that's been said tonight. he knows where the votes are and how to get them. >> look, senator mcconnell does his job very well. i have no concerns about his capabilities there. but i think it is a strategic mistake to try and push this through and the use the capitol in that way. everything that the others havee said about this being a defining moment for the election and about this being a reason that can nationalize the election all very good.pp but what republicans should want is for their nominees for their candidates to be saying, yes, we support the president, we support the person he's going to nominate but we don't want to get dragged into that discussion about why are you pushing this right now, why are you having this argument with mitt romney or somebody else. the focus should be there's a clear choice. if donald trump is re-elected here's who will be on the supreme court. if joe biden is elected, maybe we know, maybe we don't. the president should

to name name. the procedural battles, the republicans will come out on the short side. >> laura: that's actually -- i haven't thought of it that way scott, a really interesting point. just the matter of the way it will be taken in by the public. trump has the constitutional right to pick someone, nominate someone. if my, can muster up the boats magically, i don't see the votes are there to do it before the election. then he's more masterful than i thought.rf otherwise, put forth a nominee and let the country think about it a bit and have the vote.om there also could be a recess appointment option, that we'll get into in a moment. that's also an option if the president should lose on november 3 3, which again, i dot

think it will happen. panel, stay there. as i mentioned earlier, what surprises a lot of people toto hear was that one of justice ginsberg's best friends was the late antonin scalia. after scalia died, she wrote this moving tribute to her best buddy. she said toward the end of the opera, scalia and ginsberg sing a duet saying we're one. we are different in our interpretation of texts.e one in the reverence to the constitution and the institution we serve. joining me now someone that saw this relationship close, chris scalia, son of antonin scalia. what do you remember about the friendship between your dad and justice ginsberg?me >> hi, laura. i just remember as you suggested how surprising it was to so many people. almost common place it was to us.

as a family, we took it for granted because they were just obviously very good friends. they celebrated new year's eve together every year. they were friends before they were on the supreme court. they were on the d.c. circuit court of appeals together for several years. before that they were friends. so i think wey kind of took for granted as a family how unusual that friendship was or just how surprising it was to maybe the outside world. they got along because they had a lot of things in common apart from their judicial interpretations. they were born in new york around the same time, different boroughs a few years apart. i think that they were familiar types to each other. they shared a love of opera as that quotation suggested. they made cameos in operas together.

they shared a love of wine. it wasn't just they who were friends. also their spouses were friends. my mom and justice ginsberg were friends and marty ginsberg justice ginsberg's late husband, they gathered together often. marty was a great cook. my dad liked to eat. so that helped the friendship along too. >> laura: one thing that is refreshing but it shouldn't be chris, and you touched on it this idea that politics or what you do for a living has to define all of your relationships. if there's one that i've hated the last couple of years, the last ten years in washington is how that has infected everything, from entertainment industry to sports to -- we can't get away from politics in these pitched idealogical

battles. . that really shouldn't be anything about a relationship. friendship, family. it's a bygone era now. maybe that's washington d.c. >> yeah.ma a lot of us have friends that disagree with us. we're friends for other reasons. maybe things -- maybe that is becoming more and more difficult. one of the reasons that people really kindha of look up to the friendship that they had was because they -- not just because it seems rare but because deep down they know it's possible and they have approximate friendships. i want to share a story that i only heard recently. judge jeff sutton of the sixth circuit clerked for my father and was visiting him before my father passed away. it was justice ginsberg's birthday. my dad had two dozen roses to give to justice ginsberg. so he said, sorry, i have to go. i have to bring there to ruth's

office. jeff said two dozen roses? why are you -- he was teasing my dad. what is the point of that? what do you get out of this? when is the last time she sided with you on a 5-4 decision? judge sutton kidded around. my dad took it seriously. he said jeff, some things are more important than votes. that captures the significance of their friendship and why it should be so significant to us too. >> laura: chris, it was important to hear from you tonight. thanks so much for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> laura: looking live outside the supreme court. mourners are gathering in washington.rs people laying flowers on the steps of the supreme court. let's bring back our legal panel. harmeet, let's go back to you on this. i mentioned this earlier

there's another possibility, we're pushing forward to december november december now for a recess appointment option for the president, which again, this is not what he would want. he would want an appointment to be a lifetime appointment to the court. tell us about that possibility given what may or may not happen on november 3. >> it's a possibility. the supreme court narrowed the definition of when you can do a recessed appointment. that ruling was about six years ago. it has to be when the senate is in recess for three days. the senate controls whether that can happen or not. you can see some gamesmanship happening around that. you have to think about who is the type of justice candidate that would want to be appointed in a recess appointment under those circumstances? if it's sort of a lame duck gesture, maybe some older person that knows that they won't be confirmed as a supreme court

justice might take that sacrificial opportunity. but i think that would be sort of a less desirable option than trying to go for the full appointment. i want to remind the viewers some justices have been confirmed been a very short time period. justin stephens was 19 days after his nomination or referral to the senate. so it is possible, so i certainly hope that's not what the focus of the effort is towards a recessed appointment. there's all kinds of consequences after that. >> laura: john, we've talked about mitch mcconnell. he's had the most successful record, with pat cipollone and the previous white house counsel of really getting an incredible number of confirmed judges on the courts of appeals, military courts of apeels, tax courts federal district courts and two supreme court justices.ofil

so i have a feeling, a strong feeling that they have been thinking about this for a while right, john? they're not growing to come up with a wild guess of a strategy right now. >> that's right. the earlier comment that this is going to nationalize the senate elections, it's going to nationalize the 2022 senate elections. you have lisa murkowski up in 2022, chuck grassley up in 2022. if there's a nomination and mcconnell sets hearings and they throw upin road blocks, they can call their careers over. in 2022 they won't get past their primaries. this is significant. mitch mcconnell is the master of understanding the political dynamics in the senate. lisa murkowski and mitt romney and others have to know their careers on the line as well. >> laura: i want to also remind viewers, this is something that

i believe jeffery tubin said on cnn that, look, ruth bader ginsberg, her final state through her granddaughter is that she wanted her replacement to be chosen by the new president. that means that if donald trump pwould win the presidency, which was an obvious implication of her statement. but jeffery made a comment about who she was philosophically. let's listen in. >> let's not kid around here. ruth bader ginsberg was a liberal democrat. she was indiscrete before the election in 2016 displaying her contempt for donald trump. so she wants to be replaced by a democrat. that is an unusually blunt

statement from an unusually blunt justice. >> laura: an unusually blunt u statement as she's lauded tonight rightfully for all of her legal accomplishments and her cultural and iconic status. she was a liberal democrat.ur she slammed donald trump in 2016 in statements that were quite shocking for people that are not accustomed to justices speaking about politics at all. and that is a -- that is something that cannot be ignored even on a night like tonight. carrie?ev >> yes, it gets clear she did not harbor a great deal of love for the current president. but remember, with respect to the appointment, she served on both side of the issue. that shifts with the political winds in 2016, when asked if garland should be given a vote that's the senate's job and nothing in the constitution that says the president stops being the president because it's an election year.

so she certainly has been in favor of that before. as i mentioned earlier, she talked about the hostility of the confirmation processen and spoken repeatedly about how wish it had gone back to a system when she was confirmed when there was a little more understanding, even if you had a political valence if you're were well-qualified, you would be nominated and certainly not smeared like kavanaugh was. you know, i think those may be colored by her views of the current president but would want to see this confirmation happen quickly. >> laura: whether there's more important things than votes on the court, when so many issues have been taken by the supreme court from abortion to defining gender and so forth. i mean, roses are great, but votes to a lot of americans outs there watching tonight, they matter significantly in the balance of power. panel, thank you so much.

in moments, we'll have our political panel for more on the fallout from justice ginsberg's passing. don't go away. don't go away. i'm making sandwiches! on king's hawaiian bread! yum! king's hawaiian.

>> laura: justice ginsberg, liberal supreme court icon passing away earlier tonight. the consequences will be far-reaching in a dramatic showdown coming. let's bring back our political panel. raymond, you're hearing tonight that there is something brewing perhaps on a push to try to get a vote before the election or at least what the liberals are worried about with that possibility. >> well, we're seeing on social media, laura, a columnist for the new york times that if they try to fill that seat, people going to take to the streets on mass. he then writes, we won't even concede that if they try. so you already mobilization of people going to the states to replace rbg before the election. we'll see. the president at least names

someone. that will galvanize the electorate like never before. >> laura: charlie, the court is politicized. this is what robert bork warned about in 1987 and before that. we'll remind every one what justice ginsberg said in 2016. watch. >> when do you think we'll see a woman as president? >> when? >> yes. >> i'd think we're close. >> you think sexism played a role in that campaign? >> do i think so? >> yes. >> i have no doubt that it did. >> laura: she had no doubt that se >> laura: justice ginsberg liberal supreme court icon passing away earlier tonight. the consequences will be far-reaching in a dramatic showdown coming. let's bring back our political panel. raymond, you're hearing tonight that there is something brewing perhaps on a push to try to get a vote before the election or at least what the liberals are worried about with that possibility. she was not afraid to differ to into politics but her current wish, her purported wish about who gets to pick her replacement

, it's more than just unusually blunt. it's constitutionally wrong. we don't have a system where a conclave of justices, unelected justices pick their replacements . the president president of the united states chooses who they want to nominate for the suprem court and of the senate either confirms or doesn't confirmed that nomination and met up what happens in this election, president trump's president for the next four months and republicans control the senate. president trump can nominate somebody to somebody in the senate and they cante act on th nomination and they can do it both between now and the end th year or they can do it between now and that election. >> that is his constitutional prerogative. raymond guerrero, what we've heard long is eric garland's name. that the nomination was not brought up for a vote.

harry reid pleaded with mitch m cconnell to allow a vote even if the vote wasn't successful, allow a vote and that nominatio was held up. we had a democrat in the white house. you can make the hypocrisy clai there as well. >> mitch mcconnell explained at that time we had divided government and we were elected in 2018 to support the president . that is what we will continue t do. so that is the argument he is making now. laura, as has been referenced ruth bader ginsberg was a liberal icon. she was against the little sisters of the poor and hobby lobby. all of that will be in the background of this race and remind people of the stakes and how who you elect as president, as senator has a direct impact on your life viaen these justices. this changes the map on this race. we'll see if the president and mitch mcconnell decide to go full bore here or if they simply name a nominee and hold off

begin the process but hold off on a vote until after the election. >> laura: charlie what raymond said earlier and i'm picking this up as well on social, what raymond said about this -- it's not and implicit protest of violence. it's an explicit threat. that is a disturbing development, charlie, from this entire summer of love ending in this new fall of dismay whatever. but to threaten the tranquillity or the peace and safety of a city or anywhere in the country because you don't get your political way or constitutional interpretation, we're in a heap of trouble if that's where this is going. >> this is what happens when you shred the constitution and the constitution no longer means what it means. you get this kind of reaction from people that get their feelings hurt and lose

politically and take to the streets and do this stuff. it should be no surprise after what we've seen the last couple months. if that's the way they want to play this, they will overplay their hand and democrats will lose the white house, the senate and the house. one last things about merrick garland. the important thing we must never forget, the differencemp there is that american people through voting for their senators had put republicans in charge of the senate. because of that, the republican controlled senate had thee prerogative to vote on merrick garland, to do whatever they wanted to do. they had that prerogative. they were put in charge by the american people. just like right now the american people put president trump in the white house and put republicans in control of the senate. now, obviously some of the senators in the republican conference might bail. that's nothing that anybody can control. but it's a completely different

situation than when president obama nominated merrick garland. >> laura: democrat senator macy hirono, who is abominable during the impeachment proceeding theres the kavanaugh proceedings is out there, raymond, encouraging her gop friends to defect. watch. okay. we don't have the sound bite. she said earlier today as well that she was annoyed that mitchh mcconnell was so efficient in getting nominations through. i'm hopeful there will be a courageous lisa murkowski among republicans. >> she sees the handwriting on the wall. the americans responded to the smear job levelled against kavanaugh. after that president trump and the gop, theirle approval ratins went up. this is what we talked about.

we talked about it early on. and the tweet now, if they even try to replace rbg, we will burn the entire effing thing down. this is the discourse on social media and we'll see it in the streets. this may be just the beginning. i think it backfires politically. >> laura: i'm going to second and third the motions on the views from charlie and raymond. both of you are indispensable in this analysis. thank you both very much. we'll be talking to you about this for at least a couple months it looks like. now, the president has every right to put forward his nominee to replace justice ginsberg. senator mcconnell has every right to push for a nomination. does he have the votes? that's the question. these are the wages of politicizing our judicial branch. should never have been politicized in the first place.

should stay in its lane. interpret the constitution. don't try to be a super legislator. we have a big vote coming up. it's all on the line. that's all the time we. m,have. shannon bream, take it from here. shannon? >> we begin with breaking news is the nation mourns the passin of justice ruth bader ginsburg losing her >> the nation more and the passing of ruth bader ginsburg losing her battle against cancer at the age of 87, the remarkable woman's life, her passing is a vacancy on the us supreme court in a presidential election year. we will size up the political storm. it started tonight. welcome to special coverage of fox news at night. we want to honor justice ruth bader ginsburg, woman trailblazer as reaction is pouring ac