this sunday, another political crisis in a year of crises. the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg. >> i've said many times that i will do this job as long as i can do it full steam. >> and the epic supreme court fight ahead. >> i will be putting forth a nominee next week. it will be a woman. >> president trump says he wants to replace ginsburg without delay.

>> he's going to nominate one of those justices. i'm going to vote for their confirmation. >> but democrats insist the senate should wait. >> voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice. >> president trump hopes this will upend a race he's losing, but is there any evidence it will? i'll talk to former democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton. democratic senator amy klobuchar of the judiciary committee. and the third ranking republican in the senate, john barrasso. plus an administration at war with itself. covid deaths hit 200,000, and president trump fighting his own experts on vaccines and on face masks. >> this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against covid than when i take a covid vaccine. >> it's not more effective by any means than a vaccine, and i called him about that. >> i'll talk to health and human services secretary alex azar.

also, how the coronavirus is impacting president trump's re-election chances. our brand-new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll on covid, leadership, and where the presidential race stands with six weeks to go. welcome to sunday and a special edition of "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is a special edition of "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning and a happy rosh hashanah. in a year of crises, impeachment, and economy, the death of rating bader ginsburg set off a ferocious political battle that could only add to a year of turmoil. ginsbu ginsburg, the second woman ever on the court, a powerful advocate for women's rights, and unlikely cultural icon, died friday night. days before her death, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter. my most fervent wish is that i will not be replaced until a new president is installed. she may not get that wish.

faced with a challenging political environment, both president trump and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell seized the moment. the president moved to replace ginsburg immediately, promising to nominate a woman this week. leader mcconnell quickly reversed his 2016 position taken after justice antonin scalia died in february that any nominee named during a presidential campaign could await the results of an election. putting out a statement friday night saying president trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the united states senate. minority leader shum chuck schumer put out his own statement that was word for word what mcconnell said in 2016, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." there is so much at stake. will this up end a presidential election where nothing yet has moved the numbers? what effect could this have on close senate races particularly in republican-leaning states and do senate republicans even have the votes to confirm a nominee immediately? i'll be talking to hillary clinton in just a few minutes but we're going to begin with nbc news justin correspondent pete williams at the supreme court.

pete, justice ginsburg has not -- passed away less than 48 hours ago, but it seems as if this is moving very fast and we could have a nominee very soon. what can you tell us? >> well, i think that's right. of course, remember the supreme court term will start in just two weeks and the week after the election in november, the court will hear one of the most important cases of the term, the big showdown on obama care which the supreme court has twice before rescued, now led by a coalition of red states. there's a new challenge to it. a couple of thoughts about that, chuck. number one, with her death, it leaves the court with just eight justices, which raises the possibility of tie votes. if the supreme court were to tie on the obama care case it would leave the lower court ruling intact which went against obama care. whether there will be a tie, i don't know. the big question in this that disis, does the whole law have to fall if one part of it is infarm? the second question is how soon can the senate act on a nominee? normally, if the time from a president's nomination of a

candidate all of the way to confirmation is 70 days, we're what? 44 days until the election? that could mean a senate vote if they follow the normal schedule after the election, and of course, it's possible. we don't even know who the president is going to be if there are contentious fights in the states over the election which could end up before the supreme court, chuck. >> pete, there seems to be two names we're hearing the most about. one a judge named amy coney barrett, and another, a judge named barbara lagoa. is what can you tell us about these two women? >> amy coney barrett, any person that the president nominates will be more conservative than justice ginsburg was, but in some ways she would be the polar opposite of ruth bader ginsburg because she's a pretty clear opponent of abortion and that may be a key point for the president. he'll want to nominate somebody who is determined to overturn roe v. wade. remember, chuck, we will have six -- five conservatives now if

the president gets another nominee, six conservatives, so the court would be solidly conservative for decades to come. >> pete williams at the supreme court this morning. pete williams, thank you. now joining me now is nbc news capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt. so kasie, what's realistic here? you heard pete williams say the average time is over. we are 44 days away from the election. ironically, the last time somebody got nominated and confirmed in less than 44 days was ruth bader ginsburg which actually happened in 42 days. what's the realistic timeline on capitol hill? >> well, chuck, i think the person you want to watch in this is obviously mitch mcconnell, the republican leader. and while there are practical questions about the timing, there are also political questions, and i think that is going to drive every conversation and every decision about this. there are two things mitch mcconnell cares about, maintaining the republican control of the senate which, of

course, is on the line coming up on election day, and getting a conservative supreme court. so if you think about it in those terms, there are some political arguments for waiting until after the election to have a vote on the floor of the senate. there are also political reasons to try and have a confirmation hearing before election day that would keep this in the news on the front burner. it's something the traditional republicans, perhaps republicans who have problems with president trump, but have supported the party for a long time, it's something that matters to them quite a bit. and many of these republican senate candidates have been running a couple of points in polls behind where president trump is against joe biden and republicans see this issue as something that could help them there. but of course, the outcome of the election could then also drive this because the next question is does mitch mcconnell have the votes? there is a certain element of risk of waiting until after election day, because if joe biden were to win in a landslide

and many of these republicans were to lose their seats, that may take mcconnell's two goals out of contention. he may no longer have to worry about maintaining the senate majority. but it might mean those republicans who lost would have a different calculation about how to handle this. chuck? >> kasie hunt, i think you laid it out there very well. the timeline that we're headed for i think is hearings first and then we'll see what happens on election day. kasie hunt. thank you. >> thanks, chuck. joining us now is democratic senator amy klobuchar of minnesota who sits on the senate judiciary committee. senator klobuchar, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks, chuck. >> first up, my condolences to you and as an attorney, what do you believe is justice ginsburg's most important legacy that she'll be remembered for? >> she was a hero, an icon, a woman way ahead of her time. when people told her, oh, you can't even go to law school, she shows them and graduates number one in her class.

she made landmark decisions, chuck, on equal rights for women when people said oh, no, you should have a man argue that case. and then she ends up on the very court that she argued in front of, and again, became really an international rock star in her 80s. that is not easy to do. with the name notorious rbg. my daughter, like so many young people, just worshipped her and we at one point had photos taken together. and she said to me, mom, i hope you don't mind, i'm going to cut you out of this photo, i just want the picture to be me and the notorious rbg when i put it on my facebook page. she is one who we must continue her fight and that is what this is about for me. >> let's talk about the current politics of this moment. besides campaigning, besides political pressure, is there a mechanical way that senate democrats, something in the senate rules could somehow prevent this nomination from going forward? >> i'm not even getting to the senate rules right now, chuck, for a very important reason.

i'm not going to concede that when you already have several of my colleagues saying that this should -- the way this happened so close to the election, that the next president should be able to make the decision. the people pick the president and the president picks the justice. that is how this works. look at what abraham lincoln did the last time someone died this close to the election, he waited. he waited until after the election. to me, the fact that you've got people voting right now, including in my state, everything is on the line here. health care is on the line. there's literally going to be an argument on the affordable care act, whether or not people will continue to have healthcare and not get kicked out for pre-existing conditions on november 10th. so i think my republican colleagues are the ones, they have to decide based on what they said before. they set this new precedent in the last -- in 2016. and they've got to follow their own words. >> but in your mind, which

precedent is wrong? the one they set in '16 or the one they're trying to create now? >> for me, whatever happened before, ancient rules, whatever it is. what matters right now is that they just made these statements. they're not beholden to mitch mcconnell. they're beholden to the people that voted for them in their own states. and as people genuinely, these hearts broken by justice ginsburg's death showing up at the courthouse. i'm telling you, people are voting in record numbers. they were doing this before she died. we know this. we know how many people have been asking for mail-in ballots. we know the numbers and we know that joe biden is leading in states when people thought they couldn't win because people had it. they've had it with a president who divides people. they've had it we've reached 200,000 deaths with this pandemic. so if my colleagues want to look themselves in the mirror and say

what did i just say the last time this happened? what's the precedent i set? what should i follow? they each have to make an individual decision. and so, for me, that's what this is about. it's about justice. it's about moving forward as the senate and a democracy. >> all right. let me ask you this. senator schumer told you in a conference call last night, nothing is off the table. for next year, if leader mcconnell pushes through this nomination, what does that mean to you? what is nothing off the table? is this packing the court? is this getting rid of the filibuster? is this statehood, puerto rico statehood? what is nothing off the table? define that for us. >> i think he's talking about the fact that there are reforms that we've all looked at that you could consider. you and i have talked about this before on the show, but again, i'm not going to concede this. this is the position of a woman who never gave up, right? when people told her she couldn't do things, she kept going. i'm not going to give up when some of my colleagues, when three of them -- three of them

having said that they believe the next president, whoever wins the election, they're not saying who that's going to be. whoever wins the election should be able to pick the justice. then we can talk about the reforms. because what this matters right now is what mattered three days ago, before she died. and that is that people have to vote. and they vote, and they have to vote, as michelle obama said, like their life depends on it. >> well, i think you think they're going to do that, but as you know, trying to get some folks to stick by their word is something that seems to be very hard these days. so again, assuming you don't get that, there's going to be confirmation hearings before election day, do you think you can stop a confirmation vote before election day? >> again, as senator schumer says, there are a lot of things we can try to do, but in the end i'm not going to concede any of that. because my colleagues -- and i do have some facts on my side here. you have a number of them that haven't said what they're going to do. you have a number of them that have already said that the next

president should make the decision. you have the president of the only time a justice died this close to an election, abraham lincoln was president, and he made a decision to wait until after the election. and you have the fact that the people are voting right now. and i think that creates pressure on my colleagues, honestly. that's what a democracy is about. they don't want to have the affordable care act thrown out, and oh, when you have hundreds of millions of americans with pre-existing conditions, are you kidding me? that's in front of us. they don't want more money thrown into the elections or while the fires are blazing on the west coast, they don't want to have other justices that are so conservative that they literally have said, well, maybe agencies can't make decisions to regulate air and water. no. they want to have an america that reflects them. >> senator klobuchar, democrat from minnesota on the senate judiciary committee. if there's hearings, we'll be seeing a lot of you. thanks for coming on and sharing

your perspective. >> look forward to seeing you again. chuck, thank you. four years ago antonin scalia died, nine months before the presidential election, left a vacancy at the court. republican senators were very clear. confirmation of a new justice had to wait for voters to decide the next president. >> the american people are about to weigh in. >> a campaign is already under way. >> voters will get to weigh in. >> it's about the principle. >> you don't do this in an election year. >> the american people will choose. >> let the american people consider it as part of deciding who to support in november. >> that was when democrat barack obama was in the white house. now many of the same senators you just saw are saying don't wait, president trump should get to choose ginsburg's successor immediately. that does include my next guest, chair of the republican conference in the senate, john barrasso of wyoming. welcome back to "meet the press." before we get started into politics, what do you think justice ginsburg's legacy is in your mind?

>> really a heroic and historic figure. this is a great loss for our country. here in wyoming we think of her as a trailblazer in so many ways because she showed the western spirit of grit and endurance and determination. she showed that every day and a she was a role model for many. you might not believe this, chuck, for young men and women who went into the law, she was an inspiration for many of them. she inspired a generation, and i think she is going to be long remembered for the trail that she blazed. >> senator, i want to get into the politics. four years ago, you were emphatic in various ways and you heard it in the list of clips. you would add on at different times, i want to give the american people a voice in this. why don't you want to give the american people a voice this time? >> first, let's be very clear. if the shoe were on the other foot and the democrats had the white house and the senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the supreme court. >> you don't know that.

>> what we're proposing is completely consistent, completely consistent with the precedent. what happened in 2016, and let's go back, we were following the joe biden rule. joe biden was clearly -- was clear when he was chairman of the judiciary committee. he said when there is a senate of one party and a white house of the other, and he said this to george herbert walker bush, if there is a vacancy in the final year, we will not confirm. and that's what we did with merrick garland. 29 times there have been vacancies in the year of a presidential election and if both the white house and the senate are of the same party, they go forward with the confirmation. >> see, now i scoured -- i have scoured all of these 2016 notes looking for these footnotes that have been added now. you guys have this new explanation. never once on the senate floor when an election is months away in 2016 you said people should

be allowed to consider possible supreme court nominees as one factor in decide hog they'll support for president, this shouldn't even be controversial. you said, it's not about the person, it's about the principle involved, i want to give the american people a voice in this. republicans have said, it should not be a bitter political fight, we have called on the president to spare the country this fight, the best way to avoid the fight is to agree to let the people decide. senator, these are your words. not once did you say oh, it depends on what party the senate holds versus the party of the president. this just sounds like a power grab, pure and simple. >> well, it is the biden rule. and this is the way, this is the precedent of the country -- >> there is no biden rule! >> you haven't had since 1888 when a party of the senate and the white house were at different parties that anyone was confirmed, and that was the situation with merrick garland. chuck schumer said the same thing at the end of george w. bush's term, that if the vacancy occurred with the president, bush, a republican in the white

house, democrats under harry reid and chuck schumer in charge of the senate, that they would not confirm. but now that you have both parties in the white house and the senate, historically, the confirmation goes forward and that's what's going to happen here. i'll tell you -- >> senator, look -- >> the senate will be back in session and the president's going to make a nomination, i believe this week. >> look, i get that, but senator, nobody -- nobody in the senate republican conference was arguing these fine footnote points that you and your colleagues argue now. i want to play a clip from you from 2018 from lindsey graham, take a listen. >> if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election. and i've got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary -- >> you're on the record. >> yeah. >> all right. >> hold the tape. >> senator, i guess the question is, should viewers -- should viewers just not believe

anything you're saying today because whatever you're saying today will change depending on the politics of the moment? >> i can tell you what's going to happen, chuck, for viewers who are watching, the president is going to make a nomination. i believe it's going to be this week. and lindsey graham, chairman of the judiciary committee, we will hold hearings and there will be a vote on the floor of the united states senate this year. the president has a list of 20 potential nominees and he mentioned several of them last night. and i think that if the president really wanted to make a powerful, positive statement by coming forth with a woman nominee, there are qualified women on his list. somebody who could then be a role model for future attorneys, for young women and young men looking into the law. i think that would be the right move for this president soon. >> senator, i just want to quote you back to yourself one more time. "we have called on the president to spare the country this fight. the best way to avoid this fight, to agree to let the people decide. give the people a voice."

why is it that this -- this principle only matters when a democrat is in the white house? >> it's not that at all, chuck. if we did something different now, we would be breaking with the precedent that has long been established, that if the president and the senate are of the same party -- >> what precedent? >> let me say this one thing because you brought this up with amy and chuck schumer. chuck schumer has been very clear, the democrats have been very clear. if they win the white house and the senate, all bets are off. they are going to blow up the filibuster. they are going to use the nuclear option. they are going to stack the supreme court. they've talked about raising the number of the supreme court -- >> do you believe that? >> even though ruth bader ginsburg said it's a bad idea and she said it would politicize the court. she said nine is the right number. you asked me if i believe it. the democrats and schumer have a war room. they have been at this for a long time. these are the promises that they

have made, including stacking the senate by making the district of columbia -- you asked the question. >> you have no regrets that senate republicans are going to look like hypocrites 44 days before the election for a complete flip-flop, to the average american? i know you're trying to come up with these caveats. nothing about it makes any sort of sense to the average person. >> this is the consistent principle and policies that have been followed through the history of the united states when 29 vacancies occurred in years of presidential elections. we're going to be consistent with all of that, but you're right. there's an election coming up. every senate candidate and every senator speaks for himself or herself. as chairman of the conference i have great respect for that and each one is going to be called upon to make a decision, and in their role as advise and consent, the president is going to nominate and we're going to vote this year, chuck. >> senator barrasso, republican

from wyoming, number three in the senate, i appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. thank you, sir. >> thanks, chuck. when we come back, i'll talk to the person who suggested bill clinton name ruth bader ginsburg to the supreme court. it's former first lady, secretary of state, and democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton. (driver) i don't know what happened.

(burke) this? eh, nothing happened. (driver) nothing happened? (burke) nothing happened. (driver) sure looks like something happened. (burke) well, you've been with farmers for three years with zero auto claims. (driver) yeah?

(burke) so you earned your policy perk: accident forgiveness. now instead of this being something, it' s- (driver) it's nothing! (burke) get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. they should really turn this ride off. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

welcome back. as you probably know by now, it was president bill clinton who introduced ruth bader ginsburg to the general public and named her to the supreme court. do you know who introduced bill clinton to ruth bader ginsburg? it was hillary clinton who thought she would make a fine supreme court justice and the former secretary of state, democratic presidential nominee, joins me now. secretary clinton, welcome back to "meet the press." take us back to those conversations you were having with president clinton at that time and just what made you advocate for ruth bader ginsburg? >> well, chuck, i had known ruth

bader ginsburg for a number of years, and i had followed her work. i was a great admirer of her groundbreaking litigation, both as a lawyer and a law professor. and i knew that she had served on the court of appeals appointed by president carter with great distinction, not only because of her razor-sharp intellect and her ability to frame arguments to make them effective, but how well she got along with her colleagues, including at that time judge scalia before he was elevated to the supreme court. she just seemed to me to have all the attributes that bill was looking for, someone who could get to work right away, someone who could work with the other justices, someone who could really break ground as a supreme court justice. so you're right.

i recommended in addition to the long list of names that he was being presented with, he take a very hard look at judge ginsburg. and i want to add that probably her most effective advocate was her husband marty. a lot has been written and said in the last days about justice ginsburg's stellar record as a lawyer, but her love affair, her long marriage with her partner marty was really a sight to behold. and he was -- he was in her corner from the very moment he met her at cornell to the very end. >> yeah. >> and i was delighted when bill said, well, i'd like to meet her and so we arranged for her to

come in very carefully under the radar on a sunday, and they had the best conversation. it was like a master class in constitutional analysis, and at the end he told me, wow. she really is the real deal. >> let me go to the politics of the court, but i don't want to do it through the last four years. i want to go back to one title i didn't use was former senator. you were there for eight years of these judicial wars which now seem so -- they look like little skirmishes to where we are today. how broken is this process? >> oh, absolutely broken, chuck, and i was able to watch your previous interviews with senators klobuchar and barrasso, and senator barrasso is doing an epic job trying to defend the indefensible. the system has been broken for quite a while, but clearly the decision that mitch mcconnell made back in 2016 in the midst

of that presidential election, but at a much earlier time when justice scalia unexpectedly passed away, is what should be the standard now. they talk about we had other standards before. well, they made a new precedent. and that new precedent which they all defended incredibly passionately is to wait for the next president, whoever that is, to make the nomination. but as you clearly heard, that is not what they are intending. and it's another blow to our institutions. you know, what's happening in our country is incredibly dangerous. our institutions are being basically undermined by the lust for power, power for personal gain in the case of the president or power for institutional gain in the case of mitch mcconnell, at the cost

of ensuring that our institutions withstand whatever the political winds might be. but they made this decision if 2016, and they should be held to account for it. >> you know, i'm curious, can we ever get to a point when there will be a detente in this? you heard senator barrasso's rationale. he's predicting future behavior. it reminded me of the movie "minority report" and that's a scary process, if we start anticipating future behavior that leads us into a horrible direction. when you rationalize based on that, how do you ever get a die tau detente in these political wars? >> chuck, i think we are in a very dangerous point in american history, and there's been a concerted effort, as you well know, going back decades now, to turn the clock back on progress that has opened doors to people

otherwise left out and marginalized -- women, minorities, obviously. there has been a very well funded effort, led by groups of the federalist society and others, to use the courts to undo, going back to the board of education, the brown v. board of education decision. if you listened carefully, and of course, was there so much going on people didn't necessarily pay attention to a lot of the hearings of the nominees for district and circuit court judgeships, it was shocking. not only did an unfortunate number of them have absolutely no experience that would qualify them for the federal bench, but a number of them would not even say they agreed with brown v. board of education or with other precedents, and it's not just a question of choice. it's a question of whether we're going to continue the move toward progress by which we mean

a more perfect union that everyone has a place in and the rights to participate or not. and i think people need to understand that this court decision is critical to that future. >> yeah. secretary clinton, i appreciate you coming on and sharing your own personal memories of justice ginsburg and your perspective in all of this. thank you very much. >> thank you. and when we come back, two women who knew justice ginsburg as well as they know washington and who have some thoughts about what might happen next. my colleague andrea mitchell and npr's nina totenberg. looks like they picked the wrong getaway driver. they're going to be paying for this for a long time. they will, but with accident forgiveness allstate won't raise your rates just because of an accident, even if it's your fault. cut! sonny. was that good? line! the desert never lies. isn't that what i said? no you were talking about allstate and insurance.

i just... when i... let's try again. everybody back to one. accident forgiveness from allstate. click or call for a quote today. so when it comes to screening for colon cancer, don't wait. because when caught early, it's more treatable. i'm cologuard. i'm noninvasive and detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers even in early stages. tell me more. it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your prescriber if cologuard is right for you. i'm on it. that's a step in the right direction. i'm on it. i'm a verizon engineer. and i'm part of the team building... ...a powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband, and it's already available in parts of select cities. like los angeles. and in new york city. and it's rolling out in cities around the country. with massive capacity. it's like an eight-lane highway compared to a two-lane dirt road.

25x faster than today's 4g networks. in fact, it's the fastest 5g in the world. from the network more people rely on. this is 5g built right. only on verizon. we do things differently and aother money managers, don't understand why. because our way works great for us! but not for your clients. that's why we're a fiduciary, obligated to put clients first. so, what do you provide? cookie cutter portfolios? nope. we tailor portfolios to our client's needs. but you do sell investments that earn you high commissions, right? we don't have those. so, what's in it for you? our fees are structured so we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments we're clearly different.

welcome back. i'm joined right now by two people who knew ruth bader ginsburg very well and have a pretty good idea of how washington works too.

nina totenberg is legal correspondent for national public radio and leading expert on the supreme court and was a very close friend of ginsburg. and of course, andrea mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent, senior correspondent for nbc news, and also good friends with ginsburg. welcome to both of you. nina, first, i'm sorry. i know this has been hard on you. you were with her last week delivering food. just tell us something about these last few weeks that justice ginsburg was fighting here? >> well, she was very weak in the last few weeks. suddenly she really seemed to deteriorate, and -- but i did have dinner with her not two weeks ago. we brought dinner over to the apartment, and she was still very much herself. you know, in the last days when she knew she was -- the end was near, she dictated this statement to her granddaughter. and there were other non-familial witnesses in the

room, so this isn't just her granddaughter's view. but her granddaughter clara took it down and it said, my most fervent wish is that i not be replaced until after the election and the installation of a new president, meaning whoever that is from the election. and it was -- i think she was really worried about what's happening now, about the maelstrom, the election maelstrom that puts the court in the center of things, and that is what i think scared her. >> andrea mitchell, you said this could be -- i think we were quoting you earlier, basically the most ferocious political fight in the history of washington. explain. >> and picking up on what nina said, this is exactly what she had hoped to avoid. this is what she was trying to outlive, frankly, and she loved the court more than anything. she was an institutionalist.

and she loved collegiality. she said, memorably, in a 2016 op ed for "the new york times" which "the times" reprinted just today, that collegiality was central to the court. and that was her relationship with justice scalia and other justices. note the statements they all issued yesterday were so personal. these were not pro forma. clarence thomas and his wife, all of them on opposite intellectual poles and political poles, but this was a really close relationship. i think she would just hate this, but i think this fight, when you have the hypocrisy, the democrats pointing out, you were saying to senator barrasso, look at lindsey graham, look at all the things they said. there's no precedent going back to abraham lincoln of anything happening this quickly. >> nina, i want to talk about what a 4-4 court for the short term here, particularly post-election in the health care lawsuit. i'm curious, does this make john

roberts even more powerful? a chief justice is already pretty powerful, but considering he seems to be the only one that might swing on anything? >> well, a 4-4 court would include him to uphold the affordable care act, but he's powerful in the sense that he could, i suppose, suggest to the court, and i think they might likely go along with it, that they would wait until the next -- the next person is installed, the next justice is installed. and that -- in that case in all likelihood, although nothing is certain, that individual would be the deciding vote. there have been -- this is essentially the third major challenge to the affordable care act in every other one. roberts wasn't the only one. roberts was in the first case upheld the mandate, not the mandate, but the mandate as a tax. and then in the second case it was 6-3 with justice kennedy

joining roberts, but justice kennedy has retired. now the court, if roberts stuck to it, would be 4-4. as pete said earlier the lower court decision would stick, but that wouldn't necessarily mean anything. it might not stick for long. a lot depends on who gets elected, whether there is a new law. republicans have not proposed a new law -- i mean, where would we -- people would be without those kinds of assurances in the law. >> andrea mitchell, conventional wisdom is big court fights help republicans because it fires up their base. i saw it released overnight that in 28 hours, democratic campaigns of all sorts by act blue, i think they raised some $91 million in 28 hours. is that conventional wisdom going to be flipped on its head? >> it could well be. look at the thousands who have been turning out on the supreme court steps and it became a national movement last night, the prayers, the songs, the flowers. the young people. this could galvanize young women.

look at the celebrity notorious rg bg. and you know, i'm also -- when i think about her, i think so much about marty ginsburg. i think about when he meant to her and what she said early -- earlier in her life is that he was the first boy who ever cared about the fact that she had a brain. that is so central to who she was. the discrimination she faced and the discrimination she shared with sandra day o'connor, what bonded them as the only women on the court. women react to that. this could galvanize the suburban women that trump really needs. >> i appreciate you coming on here. i apologize, nina, i'm tight for time. one thing you convinced me, i wish more elected officials acted like members of the supreme court. they clearly are a bit more collegial than the rest of our politics. thank you both. when we come back we will change gears a little bit.

i'll talk to hhs secretary alex azar about the coronavirus death toll hitting 200,000 in the u.s., and about the war between president trump and some of his scientists. plus our brand-new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll on where the presidential race stands. [ action music throughout ] every box has a mission: to protect everything inside from everything outside. when what's inside matters, count on boxes. [ doorbell rings ] paper and packaging. how life unfolds. did you know liberty mutual customizes your car insurance ta-da! so you only pay for what you need?

given my unique lifestyle, that'd be perfect! let me grab a pen and some paper. know what? i'm gonna switch now. just need my desk... my chair... and my phone. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ sprinting past every leak in our softest, smoothest fabric. she's confident, protected, her strength respected. depend. the only thing stronger than us, is you. d[♪]nd. when you have diabetes, managing your blood sugar is crucial. try boost glucose control. the patented blend is clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels. it provides 60% more protein than the leading diabetes nutrition shake. try boost glucose control.

are your asthma treatments just not enough? then see what could open up for you with fasenra. it is not a steroid or inhaler. it is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. it's an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. nearly 7 out of 10 adults with asthma may have elevated eosinophils. fasenra is designed to target and remove eosinophils, a key cause of asthma. it helps to prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can reduce the need for oral steroids like prednisone. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. could you be living a bigger life? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. could you be living a bigger life? unlike ordinary memory wansupplements...ter? neuriva has clinically proven ingredients that

fuel 5 indicators of brain performance. memory... focus... accuracy... learning and concentration. try it today with our money-back guarantee! welcome back. we have a brand-new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll out this morning just six weeks before election day. joe biden is maintaining an 8-point lead, 51-43 over president trump. while down slightly from july, it's outside the margin of

error. by a huge margin, 57-40, voters disapprove of president trump's handling or mishandling of the coronavirus. our poll shows the highest level of interest ever, though, for a presidential election campaign. ever. 80%. and just 11% say their vote is still up for grabs. and that has left only 29% who say the three upcoming debates will be important in helping them decide their vote. that's the lowest number we've ever recorded on this question. one of the most remarkable things about this campaign is how resistant it is to events. in our polling, joe biden's lead has held steady most of the year, and here's why. going back two years, nothing has moved president trump's approval rating. not his siding with vladamir putin over his own experts in helsinki. not impeachment. not the growing toll of deaths from coronavirus. not the economy, whether booming or collapsing. through it all president trump's approval rating has sat consistently for two or three years between 43% and 46%, which may suggest that no matter how

ferocious the fight over justice ginsburg's seat may get, it may have very little impact on the voting. which, by the way, has already begun. when we come back, 200,000 americans are dead from covid-19, and the trump administration is still arguing with itself. hhs secretary alex azar joins me next. needles. essential for sewing, but maybe not for people with certain inflammatory conditions. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz. the first and only pill of its kind that treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis,

psoriatic arthritis, or moderate to severe ulcerative colitis when other medicines have not helped enough. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections. before and during treatment, your doctor should check for infections, like tb and do blood tests. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b or c, have flu-like symptoms, or are prone to infections. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra may increase risk of death. tears in the stomach or intestines and serious allergic reactions have happened. needles. fine for some. but for you, there's a pill that may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about the pill first prescribed for ra more than seven years ago. xeljanz. an "unjection™".

a lot goes through your mind. with fidelity wealth management, your dedicated adviser can give you straightforward advice and tailored recommendations. that's the clarity you get with fidelity wealth management.

welcome back. lost in all the news about justice ginsburg was the fact that confirmed deaths in the united states from the coronavirus sadly hit 200,000

officially yesterday and with roughly 40,000 new cases a day the administration still seems to be arguing with itself. last week president trump contradicted his own cdc director on the timeline for a vaccine and the value of face masks and also learned the white house scuttled a plane to deliver 650 million face masks to hard-hit areas in the spring because at the time they thought it was going to create panic. there was a report that looser guidelines for testing that were written by health and human service officials over the objection of cdc scientists, those guidelines were reversed on friday after a couple of those officials had been dismissed. joining me is hhs secretary alex azar. i really appreciate you coming on this morning. thank you. >> glad to be you, chuck. >> want to start with something you said to me the last time you were on on june 28th, take a listen. >> the window is closing. we have to act and people as individuals have to act responsibly. we need to social distance. we need to wear our face coverings if we're in settings

where we can't social distance particularly in these hot zones. >> so you said that on june 28th. we were at approximately 121,000 deaths then. we've had 80,000 more since. is the window closed? >> absolutely not, chuck. in fact, we've seen incredible diligence thanks to the american people. the three ws, wash your hands. watch your distance. wear your face coverings. we've seen an almost 50% decline in cases and 50% declines in hospitalizations and an even greater decline in fatalities since the high point. so the american people have stepped up to the plate and responded to president trump's and my call to action for individual responsibility. that's what's bridging us to now the real promise that we have of next generation therapeutics and fda gold standard vaccines in the months ahead. >> it sounds like you consider the death toll which sits at 200,000 and looks like, you know, i'm curious what you believe will be at the end of the year, is that a sign of a

successful strategy by this administration? do you believe that that is a sign of a successful pandemic response? >> chuck, those are your words. i mourn the death of any american from this absolutely unprecedented pandemic. i remember, though, that dr. birx and dr. fauci had said if the president had not taken the aggressive actions that we took, we could have lost as many as 2 million americans. so we don't want anyone to die in this country from this disease, but the aggressive actions, closing our borders, shutting down our economy, controlling most of the global supply of remdesivir, bringing convalescent plasma to people. these are the changes that should bring people hope for the future as we look to monoclonal antibodies, fda approved gold

standard vaccines in the months ahead. >> mr. secretary, i want to know if you can clear something up for us. there was a report due to a freedom of information act, we got a cope of the press release that the united states postal service was going to be sending out in april, in conjunction with hhs, was there going to be up to 650 million reusable masks sent to the hardest-hit areas and then the implication was the white house decided against this. you eventually, the masks were sent to various organizations. and the white house decided to nix the idea of mailing masks essentially to the american people. was that a mistake? >> chuck, i'm actually glad you asked about that, thanks to the incredible foresight of dr. rob kadlec, our assistant secretary in preparedness and response, in the early days of the pandemic we worked with hanes and other clothing manufacturers to retool their equipment and start pumping out these reusable cloth face masks and we distributed 650 million of those to the hardest-hit areas.

at one point we thought about shipping them to every american through the postal service but the decision of the task force was instead was send them where they can be used most, the hottest, most active areas. we got 650 million masks and it was through a different mechanism and getting them where they were needed most and we got 60 million face coverings, cloth face coverings, to a smaller size out to kids especially in schools and underserved areas. >> one of the assets of sending masks to everybody would have been it would have sent the message that masks are important, at a time when the president was disputing whether he should be wearing a mask. >> well, chuck, we got 650 million masks out where they're needed most. i think that's what matters. get them to the hotspots and get them where they can add the most value. you know, we've been calling for the use of face coverings since the middle of april when the president put out his guidelines for re-opening america. we've been emphatic about the three ws, wash your hands, wear your face coverings and watch your distance.

>> secretary azar, you have done that, but i want to play a quick exchange here between dr. redfield and then president trump. take a listen. >> i might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against covid than when i take a covid vaccine. if i don't get an immune response, the vaccine's not going to protect me. this face mask will. >> no, i think he made a mistake when he said that. it's just incorrect information and i called him, and he didn't tell me that and i think he got the message maybe confused. >> who should the american public listen to when it comes to masks? you and dr. redfield or the president? >> dr. redfield i think has made clear that he really believes in the value of a vaccine that's safe and effective, that masks are not the equivalent. masks are important. they're an important part of the strategy especially dealing with asymptomatic disease. the president made that clear. i think the point the president

was making is there's not an equivalence between masks and vaccines. we use masks to bridge to the day of those vaccines but vaccines are still the endgame that we're headed toward. we've made absolutely historic progress toward getting these vaccines. you know, if we had said back in january that by the end of this year, you'd have 100 million doses likely of fda gold standard vaccine in the united states, people would have laughed at that, and yet we have mobilized the entire government and the public and private sector and this is a realistic possibility for this country now and we should be celebrating that we are on the cusp of that level of hope and achievement for this country. >> very quickly, secretary azar, michael caputo who is your spokesperson or agency's spokespersspoke spokespen over there, his background -- he had no background in public health and no scientific background. was that your decision to hire him or did the white house make you hire him? >> i'm not going to get into personnel matters and mr. caputo is on leave for a medical

condition. our thoughts and prayers are with michael. he added value and hep wiope wir covid response. we have a great team in our public affairs group and we will charge forward with providing fair, balanced and accurate information to the american people about the coronavirus response and preparedness activities. >> secretary azar, i really appreciate you coming on. it's been a busy day. a busy weekend. and i appreciate your time spending with us. thank you, sir. >> thank you, chuck. >> and that's all we have for today. as i said, it's been a busy one. thank you for watching. thank you for trusting us. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪

she hugged me and she said she was sorry. and i burst into tears. i burst into tears because that, to me, is a true example of humanity. >> two families torn apart by one devastating crime. >> there's a woman, she's shot. she's laying on the floor in the garage. >> a young mom name crystal taylor murdered on her way to rk