donald trump. this seems like a slightly safer pick than i thought he might do. >> and we've been told republican leader had cautioned about brett kavanaugh saying, he has a long record that we're going to have to go through. and he's not saying that might be a pain but there might be some issues over the course of his confirmation process. more than a dozen years on the appeals court. he was in the bush white house, there for a lot of the controversial times. there will be a very long paper trail here. >> i think dick durbin once called him the forest gump. every time there was bush v. gore, he was there. elian gonzalez, he was. there he's been at the epicenter of every big white house story for a long time.

there's a lot there. that made mcconnell nervous. he wanted one of the two short listers with much, much less successful records because he wants it done by september. >> the speck haitian that i was referring to, the kavanaugh edition to the list from which president trump was reportedly choosing, that it may have been designed to encourage justice kennedy to retire. >> i think the predictability. the fact that george w. bush would have picked him, ted cruz, mitt romney would have picked him, tells you this would have been done by the heritage society, they've almost entirely control the process. typical traditional pick. this is not an alarming or whacky pick. >> this is the live shot that you're seeing is the east room. we're expecting the president to arrive essentially now to make this nomination.

again, nbc news reporting that the nominee will be judge brett kavanaugh. >> my fellow americans, tonight i speak to you from the east room of the white house regarding one of the most profound responsibilities of the president of the united states. the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. a supreme court is entrusted with the safeguard of the crown jewel of our republic.

the constitution of the united states. 12 days ago justice anthony kennedy informed me of his decision to take senior status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four decades, justice kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. i would like to thank justice kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. in a few moments i will announce my selection for justice kennedy's replacement. this is the second time i have been faced with this task. last year, i nominated judge

neil gorsuch to replace the late great justice antonin scalia. i chose justice gorsuch because i knew that he just like justice scalia would be a faithful servant of our constitution. we are honored to be joined tonight by justice scalia's beloved wife maureen. both justice kennedy is that justice scalia were appointed by a please understood the best defense of our liberty and a judicial branch immune from

political prejudice were judges that fly constitution as written. that president happened to be ronald reagan. for this evening's announcement, we are joined by ronald reagan's attorney general, edwin meese. i speak for everyone, thank you for everything you've done to protect our nation's great legal heritage. and keeping with president reagan's legacy, i do not ask about a nominee's personal opinions. what matters is not a judge's political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what is law and the

constitution require. i am pleased to say that i have found without doubt such a person. tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court.

i know the people in this room very well. they do not stand and give applause like that very often. so they have some respect. brett's wife ashley and their two daughters margaret and eliza have joined them. congratulations to you as a family. thank you. judge kavanaugh has unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law.

a graduate of yale college and yale law school, judge kavanaugh currently teaches at harvard, yale and georgetown. throughout legal circles, he is considered a judge's judge. a true thought leader among his peers. as he brilliant juryist with a clear and effective writing style universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our times. and just like justice gorsuch, he excelled as a clerk for justice kennedy. great. thank you. judge kavanaugh has devoted his life the public service. for the last 12 years, he has served as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals with great distinction. authorizing over 300 opinions which have been widely admired

for their skill and insight and vigorous adherence to the law. among those opinions are more than a dozen the supreme court has adopted as the law of the land. beyond his great renowned as a judge he is active in his community. he coaches cyo basketball, serves meals to needy families, and having learned from his mom who was a school teacher in d.c., tutors children at local elementary schools. there is no one in america more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving. i want to thank the senators on both sides of the aisle. republican and democrat for their consultation and advice during the selection process. he deserves a swift confirmation and robust bipartisan support. the rule of law is our nation's

proud heritage. it is the cornerstone of our freedom. it is what guarantees equal justice. and the senate now has the chance to protect this glorious heritage by sending judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. and now, judge, the podium is yours. >> mr. president, thank you. throughout this process, i have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the american judiciary. no president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more

people from more back grounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination. mr. president, i am grateful to you and i am humbled by your confidence in me. >> thank you. >> 30 years ago, president reagan nominated anthony kennedy to the supreme court. the framers established that the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court.

my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it is like to be an only child, i say it depends on who your parents are. i was lucky. my mom was a teacher. in the 1960s and '70s, she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington, d.c. mckinley tech and hd woodson. her example taught me the importance of a quality for all americans. my mom was a trail blazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at our dinner table. when she practiced her closing arguments. her trademark line was, use your common sense. what rings true, what rings

false. that's good advice for a juror and for a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanaugh, but to me that title will always belong to my mom. my dad went to law school at night while working full time. he has an unparalleled work ethic and has passed down to me his passion for playing and watching sports. i love him dearly. the motto of my jesuit high school was men for others. i've tried to live that creed. i've spent my life in public service in the executive branch of the white house to the u.s. court of appeal for the d.c. circuit. i have served with 17 other judges. each of them a colleague and a

friend. my judicial philosophy is straightforward. a judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. a judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written. informed by history and tradition and precedent. for the past 11 years, i've taught hundreds of students, primarily at harvard law school. i teach that the constitution's separation of powers protects individual liberty and i remain grateful to the dean who hired me, justice elena kagan. as a judge i hire four law clerks each year. i look for the best. my law clerks come from diverse back grounds and points of view. i am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women.

i am part of the vibrant catholic community in the d.c. area. the members of that community disagree about many things, but we are united by a commitment to serve. father john ensler is here. 40 years ago, i was an altar boy for father john. these days i help him serve meals to the homeless at catholic charities. i have two spirited daughters. margaret and liza. margaret loves sports and she loves to read. liza loves sports and she loves to talk. i have tried to create bonds with my daughters like my dad created with me. for the past seven years, i have

coached my daughters' basketball teams. the girls on the team call me coach k. i am proud of our blessed sacrament team that just won the city championship. my daughters and i also go to lots of games. our favorite memory was going to the historic notre dame uconn women's basketball game at this year's final four. unforgettable. my wife ashley is a west texan. a graduate of abilene cooper public high school and the university of texas. she is now the town manager of our community. we met in 2001 when we both worked in the white house. our first date was on september

10th, 2001. the next morning i was a few steps behind her as the secret service shouted at all of us to sprint out the front gates of the white house because there was an inbound plane. in the difficult weeks that followed, ashley was a source of strength for president bush and for everyone in this building. through bad days and so many better days since then, she has been a great wife and an inspiring mom. i thank god every day for my family. tomorrow i begin meeting with

members of the senate which plays an essential role in this process. i will tell each senator that i revere the constitution. that i believe an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. if confirmed by the senate, i will keep an open mind in every case. and i will always strive to preserve the constitution of the united states and the american rule of law. thank you, mr. president.

the president announcing that he has chosen brett kavanaugh to fill the vacancy by the retirement of anthony kennedy. we saw short reports from the president and locker comments from judge kavanaugh. he has been on the d.c. circuit court of appeals for a dozen years. that court has a remarkable record of feeding judges to the supreme court.

from the current court, judge roberts, clarence thomas, ruth bader ginsburg. they all served on the d.c. circuit court before being elevated to the supremes. on the d.c. circuit court where he sits now, judge kavanaugh has served under the chief judge of that court, merritt garland who was nominated in the spring of 2016 to fill the seat left by the death of antonin scalia. nominated by barack obama. because he was nominated by barack obama, republicans in the senate would not allow a hearing on the nomination. they cited the election coming later that year. close observers will note there is also an election coming later this year but nobody knows if democrats will be able to apply the same standard this time to wait on hearings on brett kavanaugh until after the election the way the republicansed my that standard last time. the democrats will apparently try that but they're not in

power and we don't know if they'll be able to pull it off. we shouldn't lose sight of what a remarkable thing this is that just happened tonight. president trump, after less than 18 months in office, not yet halfway through one term as president, is already making his second nomination to the court. only nine people on the court. this comes at a time when the choice is fraught and consequential in ways that have never applied to any other u.s. president ever. consider for a second the snap shot. the president's first national security adviser has pled guilty to a charge. he will appear in court tomorrow. a federal judge is about to hold a hearing on the start of his process. and the start of two federal trials on multiple felony counts. the president's long time personal lawyer has just secured

the legal services of one of president clinton's lawyers from his impeachment fight in the 90s. while prosecutors mull charges against him and while he is widely considering cooperating with those prosecutors in a potential plea deal. if the president ends up in the cross hairs of the investigation, any number of the elements of his defense may end up before the u.s. supreme court. therefore potentially before the nominee he has named tonight. can the president be subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury? can a president be criminally indicted? can the president pardon himself? can he pardon others if the goal of the pardons is to weaken the case against himself or his family? can individual states bring prosecutions against people the president has pardoned if he follows them for that reason? all of those questions are considered to be unsettled as matters of american law. it means if and when push comes

to shove, tonight's north america on fill the seat of retiring justice nlth a kennedy, this nomination will be critical to both law and policy in this country but also to the president's personal fate. in a way we have never seen before. and that is not a normal thing you worry that with most supreme court nominations but that is now a very, very live consideration for the announced nomination moments ago of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. joining us now, corey booker who serves on the judiciary committee. thank you for being with us. i know this is an incredibly important meeting. thank you. >> thank you for having me on. >> what is your reaction to the president's nomination? >> i'm a little, sort of stunned at the way this has all played out. >> if you look at the 20 or so people, the one person who could be most assured to rule in his

favor with the things you're describing is this judge. he picked the one guy who has specifically written that a president should not be the subject of a criminal investigation chflt the president is right now. so this seems to be, of all the people, the most self serving the person he could choose to protect himself from this investigation. >> cnn reported earlier this evening that that factor about judge kavanaugh, his writings on whether a president can be indicted about a president's potential susceptibility of obstruction of justice charges, those writings by judge kavanaugh were overtly considered and reviewed by the white house team that was advising the president on making this pick. if that's true, if it turns out the president chose judge kavanaugh for this nomination in part on what he said about whether president trump could be indicted, would that itself be a factor for confirmation?

would that be disqualifying? >> first, i have no doubt this president who seems to be very concerned about himself, didn't see that as a shining pearl within the picks that he had and the criteria that he looked at. i've been saying emphatically before this and now with even stronger voice that we as the united states senate, forget partisanship or what have you, to avoid a constitutional crisis, we cannot let this confirmation process go forward. especially since we have someone who said they have a strong opinion should any of those issues come before the supreme court. we know now the ideas that you president can pardon himself. whether he can just dispense with a criminal investigation. a lot of these issues could come right before that judge.

>> you are a trained lawyer and you have expert opinions on these things as well as observing them through a political lens. the way i understand judge cavanagh's writing on this subject is not just that that he said a president cannot and should not be indicted, but that he said a president shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution or any civil lawsuits while in office. that a president should be except while if office as a way to ensure that he is able to focus, a president is able to focus entirely on the business of running the country. that's interesting given his history with the ken starr investigation. i believe he was the lead author of the ken starr report. this would seem to have potential liability for not just

the mueller investigation but any liability that may affect the trump foundation or the summer lawsuit or the emolument cases that have been brought. >> we know this president is already nose deep in legal matters best even became president and was settling with millions of dollars beforehand. now he has a lot of legal trouble. the challenge this is president could have cause for himself, now he has that insurance policy. he has this get out of jail free card. and sifting through 20 plus names, as well as all the others he could have considered, he picked this one. it was not just that he said a president couldn't be indicted or held accountable for his actions. he goes as far as to say even an

investigation. even being in the midst of a larger investigation. this could distract a president from other urgent work. it is a choice piece of irony that this was a person very much a political actor before he was a jurist that was a part of the starr investigation himself. so i am deeply troubled. that this is a person who is going to roll back so many of the freedoms and liberties that americans have gained for themselves over 50 years. whether it is a woman's right with medical conditions, voting rights, the right to organize, the right for individuals to have the rights of citizenship like voting rights. people on both sides of the aisle worrying about ascendancy. we already saw it is so muted

the voices of ordinary americans and the billion of dollars now that we see dark money pouring in. this trend now with the shifting of the court, that should be enough to cause outrage. i am really stunned what's happened over the last six months with a nation fwakd the russians, which as up, there has been 70 plus charges. 20 plus sprids have been subject to those charges. five guilty pleas. one sentence. people all swirling around this president. we have a bipartisan group on the senate side saying the russians did indeed attack us. all of this is going on now and it is like i'm watching a bad movie. that now the president of the united states has indem any identified himself by picking the one person he knew would have his back.

the one person who would give him shield from anything that might come at him. even though we see that people are under investigation right now. >> senator corey booker, thank you for being with us tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> that last point senator booker was making, that this nominee was chosen off a list, an unusual thing. this president said that he would choose nominees from a list prepared by conservative interest groups. he is saying that he is the one person on that list who is explicitly on the record talking about a president's liability to criminal investigation and indictment. and saying, as senator booker. that a president should not be subl to criminal investigation and cannot be indicted. if he is the one guy from that list of 2000 choices who has

been explicit on that point, is that the signal element that we should see here in this choice? joining us once again, legal correspondent at slate.com. to this point is senator booker correct that kavanaugh has an and mission it overt record that might appeal to the president because of his own legal woes? >> i think if the president were pouring over the writings of every person on the list, judge kavanaugh would have given him most sucker. i want to clarify one thing. in the article where he talked about this, he didn't say as a constitutional matter the president should be immune from all civil and liability. he said congress should pass a law to protect the president. i don't think he was making the constitutional point that is quite so broad. >> he's making a mill argument

that the impeachment of a president would put a prosecutor in the place of supplanting congress' responsibility to impeach. >> i think it is important because it is not quite as dispositive of this question as we would like to think. on your question, if you think about how much fire kavanaugh drew. ted cruz hated him. we had them saying, we won't be for trump if he puts kavanaugh up. what was the resistance to kavanaugh? it has been really interesting to me. i thought for a long time it was just that he wasn't a sort of religious conservative. this wasn't going to be the firefight that some of the evangelical community wanted. ted cruz has been warning that he's going to be a suitor. >> are there any indications, he

has more than 300 opinions. he's been on the appeals court for a dozen years. very ideologically charged. he was bush-gore recount lawyer. a george w. bush white house employee for more than four years. what would allow conservative critics to see him that way? >> i have no idea but i was stunned with how they came out against him and i think that donald trump was making exactly the calculus you just identified. if i have to figure out who to mollify, i have all these groups angry about someone. i am going to protect myself. i am going to fick guy who wrote most expansively over years what the scope of presidential power is. in that sense you see trump not

looking at the landscape of that. >> let's just quote directly judge kavanaugh from a 1998 georgetown law article. quote, congress should establish, important to point that out, congress should establish that the president can be indicted only after leaves office voluntarily or is impeached by the house and convicted and removed by the senate. that's kavanaugh on the record saying, there should be no indictment of a sitting president. thank you very much. good to have you with us tonight. >> thank you. i want to bring in my good friend, chris matthews, the host of "hardball" on msnbc. chris, it is good to see you, my friend. >> my first resacks how smart you are. i think this guy was promised inferencely, that he would be

his replacement. did you notice the little thing there. he come from my parish. he coached cyo basketball for his daughter. he went to georgetown prep. that's the world i come from. he also pointed out that there is a lot of arguments in that community. that they're not all pro-life in the way political people use. certainfully religious doctrine but different views on politics. there's a difference of opinion within his community. i thought that was very thoughtful. up like perhaps amy barrett would have said something. he tried to pick someone in the model of justice kennedy who might be surprising with live and let live on areas of sexual orrenation or even boris rights. . he wanted to get someone out there that would get votes that he needs to get to 51. he already has the votes for the

appellate nomination from the two people leaning perhaps to a hard pro-life appointment. he also has gorsuch getting the votes from heidi heitkamp and manchin in west virginia. it looks like they've sized it up. okay enough for the people in democratic side who want to lean toward their constituency at home and the zwrem president mentioned, not the constitution. you put your finger on it. he has a history of saying he doesn't think presidents should be indicted and he doesn't think there should be legislation on it. trump likes people telling him how great he is and how he's always right. here's a guy applying for the

job as supreme court and says, you shouldn't have a finger laid on you. >> what strikes me as important about that, senator booker pointed out. there are a couple of names. we're in a weird situation where the president is picking names off a list. we can look at all the other names. it is judge kavanaugh who i believe alone on that list is the only one who is on the record at length on this question of whether a president is subject, should be subject to criminal investigations, civil lawsuits, indictment, impeachment and all the rest of it. he is the only one from that list who said a lot on the record in print on this matter that the white house could have reviewed and he's the one they picked. i can't imagine that under any other president picking i am. with no other president picking,

would your first concern be that maybe he was picking him because he thought he wouldn't indict him. >> he's selecting the decisive vote. these are near term concerns. within this year the court may have to rule on whether he has to be questioned by mueller. these are very near term questions. >> judge cavanagh was initially nominated by george w. bush. that means that he'll be seen as a bush guy and that has become something negative to this president in a lot of circumstances. we have the history of what he went through. he was picked in 2003. his nomination was essentially iced because it was so controversial. for three solid years, he didn't get a solid hearing until 2006.

he was described as unqualified, one of the most partisan nominees. it was a hard thing for him to get confirmed a dozen years ago. how does that carry forward? >> it carries forward from crawford, texas. this just came out. president trump has that, president trump has made an outstanding decision in nominating judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. he will make superb justice of the united states. i don't understand. i'll be honest with you, i don't understand the nuance of this. he's cleared must we are the sxoet the whole legion of the asymmetric warfare that goes on between rights and left. democrats don't have the heritage society, the mechanism

for finding speaks on the right. >> thank you. i always want to talk to you to the fight, figuring out who would be the no, ma'am flu he a list of a dozen names being circulated in this new era of how this president picks supreme court nominees, that was one thing figuring out how brett kavanaugh rose to the top of the list. now that the president made the choice. this nominee has to get through the u.s. senate. it stands at 51 republicans. among them is senator john mccain who is out and home because of health concerns. given that math and the way this supreme court no, ma'minations.

that barack obama was not allowed to advance his nominee, merc garland. what are the republicans' best chances? what should we expect in terms of fight ahead as to whether kavanaugh will be confirmed? i want to bring into the conversation a former staffer. he is not a household name but he is a crucial character. he was part of the fight in 2016. he was deputy chief of staff for harry reid who was seen as a master of the senate rules and who went to the mat in all sorts of pays. >> thanks for having me. >> you've spoken publicly that when you think they ought to do. now that we've got a name and it

is not just hypothetical, do you think that brett kavanaugh will inspired a unified democratic opposition in the senate? >> i think brett kavanaugh will have ample opportunity to get to no. you were talking about the russia aspect. the president appointing someone with pretty cheer intent to be let off. that's one rationale. kavanaugh seems very likely to overturn the affordable care act. his writings on roe v. wade are very troubling. it seems like he would overturn the woman's right to know. >> of course process doesn't seem to motivated people at large the way policy does.

but we do have this strange press dwenlt the last vacancy on the court being created by the death of antonin scalia. they wouldn't let garland proceed in any way, shape or form. they said they wouldn't do it until after the election. democrats have made some noises about trying to hold the president to the same thing. this time it is even more so. what do you think about the chances of delaying, simply that that was the precedent set? >> well, the difference between the position now, the republicans healed majority when garland was nominated. all it took was mitch mcconnell wanting to delay. the minority has a lot of power

in the senate. there are a lot of things they can do to delay this process as much as possible. and one interesting thing about kavanaugh in that front, he has a massive paper trail. y making sure that all the proper paperwork is delivered to the judiciary committee, the review the completed before the committee holds its hearings, there are ample opportunities. this is a man who has a massive, massive paper trail who is being nominated. he wants to hold a vote by september or october. that is a very, very fast track to put someone like kavanaugh on. so democrats, similar to the rationale for voting no, there's scrutiny in democrats choose to

take them. >> and briefly, in addition to his time on the appeals court, brett kavanaugh served for many years in the white house. he was counsel to george w. bush and then staff secretary which is a small sounding job that is actually an incredibly important job. would you expect that democrats and other senators would want to see -- democrats and other senators, considering this nomination, would want to see all of his records? all the paperwork associated with it? all the work product associated with all of his time serving in the executive branch in addition to his judicial record? >> they is absolutely want to see them. especially given that the nature of executive power and kavanaugh's opinions, how it is wielded, it is massively important, especially given the russia investigation. so all of his e-mails are public record. they should be posted online. democrats should demand that. and every piece of paper

associated with this man who is poised to wield a massive influence on the future of this country, should be and ought to be scrutinized. >> and it is likely to be millions of documents, given the length of his career. former deputy chief of staff, now part of the group democracy forward. thank you for your time. appreciate you being here. >> nina will be joining us in just a moment. we have much more to come this big news night. do stay with us. it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.

looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ the president has announce that had brett kavanaugh is his nominee on fill the vacancy of the supreme court that was created by justice anthony kennedy. we are already seeing, do we have that footage? yes. we are already seeing protests. this is outside the u.s. supreme court. i believe we have some skill

images of the wider shot. this is happening right now in washington, d.c. on the steps of the supreme court. we've got people gathered there. you have people with signs that say stop kavanaugh. joining us, nina from npr, thank you so much for being with us on this big night. >> it's my pleasure. >> so let me get your top line reaction to the president choosing brett kavanaugh. from the survey we've done over the evening thus far, he is both an expected choice, somebody who wouldn't be a surprise choice for any republican president looking for a supreme court nominee, but also one that is seemingly raising some

controversial issues that others might not have raised. what is your take? >> from the president's point of view frrgs the point of view of conservatives, is a on the other hand, if he's confirmed, one assumes that he will be an enormously influential member of the court and very quickly. if you have already written 300 opinions in the d.c. circuit which handles the big, regulatory cases, which handles big separation of powers, true, he hasn't specifically ruled on

rowe v. wade, but she hhe has r on other stuff, they conceive he will be able to carry the water. >> the terms of his expected role, what have we learned about him over the course of his 12 years in terms of his -- not just his temperament and ideological place on the number line, but his skill as a jurist and the way he works with other judges? >> he is, as i said, enormously skilled who as far as i can tell gets along with his colleagues very well, can slice the salemi very well and is something of a

team player and not, sort of, a rogue on your own i'll dissent with everything. that is the picture of somebody who is potentially a very influential member of the united states supreme court. having said that and having acknowledged that the democrats at the moment do not have the votes to defeat this nominee, as i have often said, anything can happen in a ball game or a confirmation hearing, and the other part of this that we have not seen quite play out is that there is a recent study that came out that showed the responsiveness of recent nominees to the supreme court from 1968 or '65 onward. and from bottom to top, it turns out the republicans always talk about our nominee the going to follow the ginsburg rule.

i'm not going to give any hint how i'm going to rule. i will not answer any questions about a specific case and that was true for ginsburg, but she actually answered a remarkable number of questions. it turns out in this analysis, anyway, neal gorsich was the least responsive person to seat in that seat. and if you look at the others, they weren't particularly responsive either, but that's because these nominees learned if they answer a question, they might end up in trouble. they will have to answer more and more and they don't want to go down that path. the democrats have enough votes, i think, to demand a certain level of responsiveness to put at least some limit on the stone walling. and if you don't answer questions about brown versus the board of education, whether you

ruled on constitutional segregation, if you won't answer basic, accepted decisions, and that may not include rowe, by the way, but if you aren't more responsive about the elements you will be looking at when examining the question of whether you follow precedent and such, if you are not more responsive, i can see the ads in my brain already. and we know that on the right and the left, they are going to spend millions and millions of dollars defending brett cavanaugh and attacking brett cavanaugh. and always the attackers have the slight edge. it is easier to make a charge than refute it. >> thank you for being with us tonight on this big night. it is nice to have you here. >> always a pleasure to be with you, rachel. >> thank you very much. what she was saying there about the declining responsiveness of nominees at their confirmation

hearings over time, in the case of brett cavanaugh that will run up against this interesting thing, that he does have a paper trail a mile long. not only 300 opinions he's authored in the d.c. circuit, which deals with a lot of the naughtiest issues that comes before the -- never do homonyms on television. there is also his record, an extensive record in the george w. bush white house and his time in politics. that will all be up for discussion. you heard several references to rowe v. wade and whether or not judge cavanaugh, if he's confirmed, would be the justice to cast a deciding vote to overturn rowe v. wade or get rid of the right to legal abortion in this country. the president and ceo of the

center for reproductive rights. when states pass laws that deny women reproductive rights, it is their lawyers that file these cases. thanks for being with us tonight. >> thank you, rachel. >> what is your reaction to the nomination of brett cavanaugh? >> here is how i see the nomination. the president promised to appoint to the supreme court only justices who would overturn rowe w. wade. and we need to assume that president trump has done that. the presumption is that he has nominated a man he feels confidence will overturn rowe v. wade. his record is not one that rebuts that presumption. he has decided one case on abortion in his time on the d.c. circuit, and in that case he ruled against the woman seeking access. and this was of a 17-year-old

undocumented young woman who was in health and human services custody. she found out that she was pregnant. she sought to have an abortion, and she even went through the process in texas where the judicial system said, you can consent and make this decision. and, yet, hhs denied her the ability for four weeks to get the abortion. it goes up to the d.c. circuit and judge cavanaugh would have denied her the abortion for at least another 11 days. time is everything when you are making this decision. eventually that was overturned and judge cavanaugh dissented. and, so, he's got one case on abortion. it was ruling against access of a young woman to an abortion. and, so, we have to be very concerned and vigilant that we cannot play the games that always go on in these senate confirmation hearings. the americans need to have answers about where he stands on our basic personal liberties.

>> there are at least two female republican senators who are on the record as supporting rowe v. wade, saying that it shouldn't be overturned and saying that may be a factor in their votes. do you expect that judge cavanaugh's record on that subject will sway the votes of republican senators who aren't diametrically opposed? >> his record should. but also the fact he has been appointed by a president with this unusual promise that he's only putting on justices who would overturn rowe v. wade. they should insist on getting an answer, a district answrect ans where he stands. will he accept the rational and the basis? does he understand this is about a woman's most personal

decisions? and the entire broader liberty cases, which it is part of. and will he confirm he is not going to overturn it. this is not a time for games or cleverness. we need answers. >> the president and ceo on the center for reproductive rights. thank you for being here. again, the news is that it is brett cavanaugh. he is 53 years old. he went to yale undergrad and yale law school. he is an appeals judge right now. he was nominated to that position in 2003 by george w. bush. the nomination was not well received. it was incredibly controversial and the senate essentially iced his nomination for three solid years. he didn't have a successful nomination hearing until 2006. even so, there were a few dozen votes against him, even 30 votes against him when he was confirmed.

he was seen as somebody who might have been used to persuade justice kennedy to retire. justice kennedy was actually the person who swore judge cavanaugh in when he did get that appeals court seat. judge cavanaugh's name was only added to the list late last year and there has been some speculation he was added to that list as a way to assure justice kennedy that his seat might go to his former clerk and somebody he approved of. we don't know what's going to happen in terms of the nomination fight from here on out. we have heard a number of different grounds that democrats might try to object or delay this hearing, the hearings that are ahead for judge cavanaugh. at least now we have a name. that does it for us tonight. now it's time for the last word. >> i just want to run something by you from judge cavanaugh's 2009 law review article because he seems to be