does anyone believe that a nominee on that prevetted list doesn't want to challenge roe? how do you think they got to toe on that list? "the federalist" society led by len in order leo, whose -- leonard leo whose goal is to repeal roe v. wade putting it together and trump rubber-stamping it. given what the president has said, it is virtually certain that members of the list of 25 would vote to overturn roe. so let this be a call to action for americans from all corners of the country to rise up and speak out. don't let this new court, this new nominee, whomever he or she may be, turn back the clock on issue after issue or after issue, because president trump has embraced a hard-right group who has a veto power over nominees. don't let us turn back the clock, america. stand up. speak out. democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, all should want a much fairer process. america, tell your senators that if you do not want a supreme court justice who will overturn roe v. wade, those senators should not vote for a candidate from the list. i yield the mr. mcconnell: mr. p

roe at the top of the list. we also know that president trump will likely nominate a justice willing to reinterpret the court's rulings that our current healthcare law is constitutional. again, listen to president trump's own words. on january 1st, 2016, candidate trump, quote, justice roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us obama care, unquote. later he said, i don't think i will have any catastrophic appointment like justice roberts, unquote. even justice roberts was too far to the middle for the president on healthcare. president trump made it crystal clear that he's going to nominate somebody hostile to the court's rulings on healthcare. there's no other way to interpret president trump's words. so count on it. he will appoint a nominee. he will roll back healthcare protections for tens of millions of americans. america doesn't want that. but again, the hard right who president trump listens to want to use the courts to roll back america's rights and privileges. we can be sure that t

roe v. wade is secondary that he couldn't hold back from asking people about loyalty to the investigation. is he going to in his interviews ask them about the investigation into him and if he does, does that compromise a candidate? >> thank you ali for your question. if he asks the question i believe it compromises the candidate i'll equity during the merrick garland association mitch mcconnell said the american people should have a voice. he they would vacancy open for eight months. we have elections in less than five months. we should wait until after november before looking at the issue. >> matt miller, i want to remind people of james comey's testimony before the senate intel hearing on june 8 of 2017. >> my common sense told me what was going on is either he concluded or someone told him that you've already asked comey to stay and you didn't get anything for it and that the dinner was an effort to build a relationship, in fact, he asked specifically of loyalty in the context of asking m

roe v. wade? >> senator kiersten gillibrand on the sudden silence from republicans on roe v. wade. >> that's a big one and probably not. they're all saying don't do that, you shouldn't do that. >>> plus, a preview of tomorrow's big protests against family separation. >>> and why the white house is scrambling to explain how a prank caller got through to air force one. >> your call is connected. >> hi, bob. >> hey, how are you? >> "all in starts now." >> thank you, bob, i'll talk to you soon. >> all right, baba booey to you. >>> good evening from new york, i'm ali velshi in for chris hayes. tonight, democrats are increasingly concerned the president could try to use his new supreme court pick to shield him from the mueller investigation. days after justice anthony kennedy announced his retirement, the white house and senate republicans are fast tracking kennedy's replacement. the president telling reporters on air force one today he's planning to announce his nominee in just over a week. >> so

his litmus test is roe versus wade.r any nominee for the court who won't overturn roe. >> that's right. >> when the nominee ultimately gets to a hearing in the senate, the nominee will be asked whether or not he or she will pledge to overturn roe. and the nominee will definitely- because they won't be an idiot, will definitely refuse to answer. should we see that pledge from president trump as essentially the answer to that question, regardless of what the nominee says in his or her hearing? >> certainly we have to look at the record of the nominees. but folks who have been put forward already are the most extreme right wing nominees 245 you can imagine. that's been said by several senators already. i hope whoever is nominated by this president, people will look at their ready. they should look certainly with a skeptical eye about women's rights. as you said, this is a right women have had for more than 40 years in america, and it is wildly unpopular to think that you would actually now take away this right for not only

roe v. wade is still here. we're having this discussion. think it is a scare tactic to dissuade us from picking constitution-loving, conservative issues. >> you but it but it is an issu. do you have any concerns? >> absolutely. being a woman is not a proxy for being pro choice, right? we are correct in that a judge must look at precedent and make independent decisions. right? so, we have now, a president who has committed to nominating only individuals who he believes will overturn roe v. wade. that's not to insight fear unnecessarily. >> however -- >> it's a fact. therefore, it should be something we fear. >> to that point, ned, there are a lot of women across this country, that it is a fear-inducing concept, to think roh roe v. wade would be overturned. is this something that shouldn't be put out as a litmus test for the next supreme court pick? >> first of all, i think it is something that is understood. of course it is going to be a big issue, alex. i think people are dancing around it. it is an issue. elections have consequences. this

but the court has upheld roe v.o now, president trump, who wants to perhaps appoint or nominate a supreme court justice who would be an anti choice in his words, pro-life, who would interfere with that roe v. wade decision which has been upheld time and time again by republicans and by democrats who have been appointed to the court. it is now threatened in a way that it's never been threatened before. >> i'm curious how you got involved with norma. >> well, i met her and she was very upset that she felt that she had been an important part of the decision but that she was not being provided with a voice by the pro-choice movement and she was pro-choice. at that time. and i felt that she had a right to have a voice. that that was an important decision by the supreme court and we should be able to hear from her. and so i was helping her to have a voice. of course ultimately, after a number of years, she became anti-choice. but we still maintain contact. she always indicated she had a very positive feeling towards me. a

he upheld roe v wade. now with his retirement make up of the court will be changing at a time when there are crucial issues will be decided. among them, abortion, affirmative action, death penalty, presidential subpoena. the political battles have been already begun. lawmakers saying there shouldn't be a vote until after the midterm which some are called mitch mcconnell rule. we will have more on the reaction from congress in a moment. senator bernie sanders will join us as well. a lot of details about justice kennedy's impact. and what the future may hold. i want to get the president's reaction. he is speaking in a rally in north dakota. was the president aware that this was going to happen today or come as a surprise. >> reporter: it was a complete surprise to president trump. he will be arriving here in north dakota shortly. i am told by his advisers he had no idea this was happening and in fact justice kennedy was inside the white house before president trump knew that he indeed had a meeting with the

and the information they -- roe to overturn it.misled. >> last word professor. >> i don't think they will. let's remember there are many many more issues that are unpredete unprepredictable. bell, mandatory sterilization of penalty retarded people. all the liberal justices voted for. you never know what cases are going to come up. that's why it's so important that people with high quality, people that can make decisions not based on partisan, but on constitutional allow, it's so important that they be nominated -- >> it's hard to note that -- go ahead, last word. >> there's a mythology that presidents are surprised by how these justices turn out. that hasn't happened basically since eisenhower, this kind of scrutiny has prevented that. donald trump will get what he wants out of this justice. >> all right. professor thank you -- >> i don't think the president got what they want -- >> all right. professor thank you very much. justin toobin, thank you very much. two good minds on a friday night. >>> who do we know about who the presid

>> roe would be overturned. it's not clear that the effect would be as dramatic as pro-choice people rightly fear. justice ginsberg told me the real impact would be on poor women who don't have access to abortion in the red state where it's not available. though it would be luhuge and really define the republican party. it's not clear that the overturning of roe would be the most dramatic thing that could follow a kennedy retirement. there will be lots of other important changes as well. >> i would say that it would be quite significant and one reason is demographic. poor women, first of all, are actually a growing part of the population thanks to income and wealth inequality. if you want to talk about southern states. you're talking about 55% of the black population and where the latino population is growing rapidly. you're talking about barring a huge percentage of women from huge swaths of the country from access to something that should be safe, should be within their control to determine whether or not it's

do you believe that roe versus wade is safe? because when a president makes that pledge on national tv and says he's going to stick to it and goes to the measure of saying he would punish women, you have to take what he said during the campaign, he is implementing. and what we don't want is a bench that basically is going to follow that will textualist list being sent to him. it would be one thing if he was calling us and saying i hear you. let's hear who you think or justices that would follow privacy rights. >> this 5-4 court has done stuff none of us could imagine. intervene in a presidential election in 2000 and decided that george w. bush, the five republicans on the court, said should be president and they voted 5-0 to make george w. bush the president of the united states. on citizens xwrints they said money should talk more than a voter. they made that partisan decision. they keep making partisan decisions and say we've above partisanship. >> it's not about partisanship. it's about corporations. the other side right now

and the information they -- roe to overturn it. don't be misled. >> last word professor. >> i don't think they will. let's remember there are many many more issues that are unprepredictable. one of the previous guests. the most liberal justice of the upheld it. mandatory sterilization of mentally retarded people. all the liberal justices. you never know what cases are going to come up. that's why it's so important that people with high quality, people that can make decisions not based on partisan, but on constitutional allow, it's so important that they be nominated -- >> it's hard to note that -- go ahead, last word. >> there's a mythology that presidents are surprised by how these justices turn out. that hasn't happened basically since eisenhower, this kind of scrutiny has prevented that. donald trump will get what he wants out of this justice. >> all right. professor thank you -- >> i don't think the president got what they want -- >> all right. professor thank you very much. justin toobin, thank you very much. two good minds on

you don't need to ask about roe v.because some regard it as a horribly reasoned. >> shannon: we all know these nominees when they get in front of the senate judiciary committee going f. it is something difficult they will say i can't answer that that issue may be coming before me. everybody is going to be combing through every comma in their regard to see if they can find a clue for what they would do. >> just watch the two female senators lisa murkowski from alaska, susan collins. that's why you are going to see at love pressure on them. you will see democrats two republicans if they could peel them away and say no, i mean, their handling of this process is going to be interesting. do they decide to be that vote for a justice that could potentially overturn roe v. wade. there may be a lot of people that think it's poorly worded. but this is politics. and there is going to be a message from democrats saying this court. this new trump court with two new supreme court justices will overturn the right to abortion in at le

certainly roe v. wade is one of them. lgbt. there should be thoughtful deliberation about that question because as i said, this is going to be a national referendum. there's an argument to ensure that the american public have a voice to see where they are on this. >> all right. >> go ahead, share lynn. >> there's one other thing. the president who will nominate this person is under a cloud. you mentioned this at the top of the segment, chris. a president who is under investigation, his campaign is under investigation. high level officials in his campaign are under indictment. we don't know what's going to happen with the mueller investigation. it would be tragic for the president to nominate somebody have, that person go through and have the mueller is investigation reveal itself to implicate the president. this is another reason why. this is not the same as president obama nominating merrick garland. we're in a different situation. we should pause for that reason. >> ron klain, share lynn, thank you all. how donald trump's nex

roe: thank you. at this time i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to general don bacon, air force career officer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. bacon: i am a co-sponsor of this bill and i urge support for h.r. 299. our sailors, when they were off the coast of vietnam, thought they were safe from agent orange. but that water was sucked in the ships. they were used for shower water, used to wash their clothes and our sailors were impacted by it and now we know not only them but their children and grandchildren have alsen impacted at times. it's far time that we pass this bill, provide protections to our veterans who are now suffering the consequences of agent orange. i want to thank the leadership of the chairman and mr. valadao for what you're doing. this is the right thing to do. i talked to so many sailors who have been impacted by this and i know they will be relieved to have this bill passed. thank you to you both and thanks to the minority side as well.

wade. >> areva, is roe v. wade done? >> women hope roe v. wade is not gone. what donald trump continues to say whoever he appoints to the supreme court he will use as a litmus test the ability to overturn roe v. wade. liberals are bracing for an appointment of a judge who has expressed through opinions they written or through conversations that they will, in fact, overturn that vote on roe v. wade. there are other cases that this court may have to consider. including immigration. we see cases have been filed in the federal district court with respect to trump's immigration policy on the southern borders. those cases work their way to the top of the judicial system of the supreme court. we have the presidential power with respect to the mueller investigation and subpoena and if donald trump would have to respond to the subpoena. there is gun control rights. voting rights. there are so many con sequential decisions. >> this is a pick. we assume the president will pick someone who is a staunch conservative? anthony kennedy was known as a swing vote. there are co

this is about the president and how roe v. wade could factor into his conversations with the candidates on that seat for the supreme court. let's take a listen to him. >> are you going to ask your nominees beforehand how they might vote on roe versus wade? >> well, that's a big one. and probably not. they are all saying don't do that. you don't do that. you shouldn't do that. but i'm putting conservative people on. but i don't think i'm going to be so specific. >> what do you make of that? >> he's telling you the answer in the middle, he's nominating conservative people. they have all been vetted by the federalist society. they are all anti-choice. all the people on the list will vote to overturn roe v. wade. the game we are going to play is them dodging, bobbing, weaving and pretending that's not what they're going to do if confirmed by the senate. this is a break the glass moment. if you have never lived in a world where abortion was not legal, where access to contraception was not something that was relatively easy fending

>> overwhelmingly sporting roe v wade. i hope very much that the next nominee to the supreme court does not hold that position. but the bottom line is this is obviously an enormously important issue. everything to do with women's right, having to do with guy rights and having to do with solidifying the pro corporate anti worker wing of the supreme court. >> do you have confidence that president trump would appoint somebody to your liking. he did publish a list during the campaign of potential nominees, gorsuch was on the list and indicated that this next one will come from that list. >> i have no hope that he will appoint anything resembling a moderate justice who will take both sides into consideration. what we are look for is the nomination of a right wing extremist. i would say this, you may recall that when merrick garland's nomination was brought forth, president obama said let the american people decide. you obstructed it and refused to allow a vote to take place. i would say to mitch mcconnell remember what you said

. >> are you looking for somebody who would overturn roe v wade? >> well, you know, it is a great group of intellectual talent. i am not going to ask them that question. but it is a group of highly talented and brilliant mostly conservative judges. >> what about lgbt rights? >> i have known him over the years and he is a terrific man and i thought the way he approached what he did, what he did yesterday was very he will began the and ve -- elegant and beautiful. and honored that he did it during my term. i won't be discussing that. >> our chief white house correspondent jim acosta joining us now. >> reporter: he did say on air force one that he narrowed it down to five people but he might talk to six or seven people and a couple might come to new jersey this weekend. we do know, and these are sources talking to my colleague, there are a couple of people on this list who are being strongly considered at this point. two of them is bret kavanaugh. amy barrette. one thing that we should no about all of these candidates is they are in their late 40s and

roe v. wade. that's the reason they're on that list. >> first of all, i view roe v. wade as being settled law. it's clearly precedent, and i always look for judges who respect precedent. >> this is probably going to be a bare knuckle down in the dirt scratching, biting, you know, ear pulling political fight. >> well, then, the future of the nation as we know it shifted in a massive way. you either woke up excited about the retirement of supreme court justice anthony kennedy or terrified by it. at stake, abortion gay rights, affirmative action, the travel ban, and even possibly the trump/russia investigation. >> now the president has an opportunity to appoint a second justice. and there's also the question of ruth bader ginsburg. that was something top of mind for candidate trump in 2016. >> we'll have many appointments. could be as many as five. probably will be three. could be four. one of the really big factors in this election. supreme court justice is so important. this could be a presid

if he picks somebody that's hard core on roe v. wade or that's hard core on repealing health care, that's a bigger list. that's a harder person, is going to be a harder person on either side. >> besides these conservative democrats, we're looking at republicans like lisa murkowski and susan collins. is that what this fight will boil down to? >> it's one of the things this fight will boil down to. we're seeing a lot of attention being put on the issue of roe v. wade. when gorsuch replaced scalia, we knew that was a conservative. with the risk of a conservative taking kennedy's place, i think a lot of progressives and democrats are concerned about the future of roe versus wade. manchon is in a bits of a predicament. he's in deep red west virginia but at the same time he wants to appeal to a democratic base. the president has said he's not going to ask his potential nominees about the issue of roe v. wade, so that could open the door to speculation on the future of that ruling. so i think conservatives are really about to hunker down

roe v. wade, not that i would accuse the republicans of cynicism but roe v. wade is the a very powerful motivation and so in some ways you don't want to overturn it you just want to keep it motivating voters, there are a host of other issues that a conservative court would bring you. they could rule on affirmative action, on campaign finance laws, issues with corporations, on unions. all the things we've seen this week so it is a wish list that is payday. >> and the white house strategy, it test first time the "new york times" has accused the white house of being competent and if president trump were to take that be nice to other people he'd get more done. >> norm, you've written about congress -- i want to ask you this quickly because it occurs there's a longer term question where you have democrats up in arms. they already think the gorsuch seat was stolen. let's say republicans get the votes, 51, 52, whatever it takes, they get the appointment and democrats get the senate this november, what would they do with that power? >> well, what -- it will be a diff

let's talk about roe v wade. because the focus is of course will they overrule roe v wade? what will they decide? it will be a very salient question. but the ripple effect of having kennedy off the court and replaced with a conservative is so much broader than that. the day his successor is confirmed the states will be emboldened to pass increasingly draconian restrictions on abortion. ultra sounds. waiting periods, flatout cut offers at 15 weeks. restrictions on clinic. that level. the next level, state courts and lower courts who will being stocked with trump judges will be more likely to uphold them. the next level, advocates, who in the past have wanted to try to bring this to the supreme court to reverse will now be terrified if they bring it up there. the small rulings will become the law of the land. they will have to stay their hand. the next level, the supreme court deciding what cases to take. they can be emboldened and pluck what they want to serve an agenda. and only then do we get to the cases that will become the landmarks in the future where the court is like

there will be the votes to overturn roe. it's possible that chief justice roberts decided for the legitimacy of the court, it's better to chip away at roe rather than cleanly overturning it. but roe is inconsistent with the understanding of the context of the constitution which was their grounds for choosing. it's on the chopping block. what would happen afterward is complicated and obviously one of the most explosive things in american politics. justice ginsburg said the main thing would be on access for poor women who right now don't have a lot of option. but i don't think there's new doubt. the moment of truth has arrived. people have been worrying about this for decades. if kennedy retires, roe could be overturned. yes, it could be overturned. >> thank you both. kimberly and aaron, we're going to turn your mikes on in a second. we're keeping an eye on capitol hill where we expect nancy pelosi. it comes hours after joe crowley, the fourth ranking house democrat who'd been in congress nearly two decades lost his primary ra

we have roe v. wade.y should we go backwards when we have already made progress over the last couple of decades. this is the thing. we shouldn't have to take us back. we should uphold what we have currently. that's a very dangerous kind of thought. so lgbtq community people are supposed to feel like, oh, now i have to be concerned? women's right to choose? now i have to be concerned? if this happens in 18 months if he gets to pick someone who does not believe in the woman's right to choose in 18 months abortion will be outlawed. >> steve, these are some of the most fundamental questions of life. they are political, moral, philosophical questions. when does life begin? what constitutes marriage. this shouldn't be decided by five unelected justices. they should be decided by the people, negotiation and persuasion, not by judicial fiat. that's done damage to the constitution and our society. these are important questions. we should handle them the democratic way, small d, through the american process. >> are

i know this is going to be about roe v.nd of conservative judge that gets on that court matters a great deal. >> matters a great deal and actually if you look at what mitt romney wrote, that might be a good guide for never trumpers. support him when he does things you agree with but when he says things that are racist, bigoted, misogynistic, hateful, when he launches a policy that rips babies from their mother's arms, compares neo-nazis to those protesting neo-nazis in charlottesville, when he tweets out neo-nazi videos from the neo-nazi party of the united kingdom, when he undermines america's alliances that they've had since 1945, these are times you can support a supreme court nominee while still calling out abhorrent behavior that violates constitutional norms and basic norms of decency. charlie sykes, thank you so much, nina thank you for being with us. and benjamin wittes, today, tomorrow, this is going to be speci special. see you tomorrow on "morning joe" as well. >> looking forward to it. >>> still ahead on "mornin

the white house are going to get a list of contenders opposed to roe v. wade. you can take that to the bank. keep in mind, they are very mindful they want a justice, the president said during the campaign he wants justice who will overturn row e v. wade. >> i think there's reason to believe it will bring the country closer to a decision. what else did the president talk about? >> he talked about john kelly, the white house chief of staff. there's been renewed conversation this week john kelly may be out soon. he's coming up on one year of joining the white house. here's what the president had to say. he was not very conclusive on this question when he was asked about it earlier today. here's what he said to say. >> are you looking for a new chief of staff, mr. president? >> no, we're getting along very well. at some point, things happen. but i will tell you we have a very good -- you see that, we have a very good relationship. he's a wonderful man. john kelly, four star, wonderful man. and don't forget this is big change for him. we have a very good relationshi

if roe v. wade becomes the issue, this will galvanize democrats. what they've got to do now, they have a tough job is they're going to fight this. they're going to have to corral 49 democrats to zero against whoever the nominees is. that's not easy because there are ten democrats up for re-election in red states that trump won. so, you could lose a bunch of those. you have to hope that whomever trump nominates is so objectionable, that lisa or susan collins, who are pro-choice republican women, that they might oppose this nominee, even though both of them voted for neal gorsuch. this is a huge uphill battle for them. it is going to be bitter and hard fought because the stakes are so high for both parties. both parties will be galvanized by this fight. >> we have a lot more to discuss. stick around. >>> when we come back there's one democrat that president trump likes so much he asked her twice to join the gop. she's an example of the problem democrats are going have to fight this battle. that's next. say goodbye to the one-size-fits-all family unli

he was the obstacle to keeping -- to turning -- overturning roe versus wade. trump joined the campaign on the record said that if he had the chance to appoint enough justices, roe versus wade would be overturned. there's a game in him backing away from that are a tore . the fact they are coming out with the pick so soon shows how ready they were. they have vetted these. on the democratic side, they have had this list. you have a lot of democratic interest groups who have gone through the names, doing opposition research. they will be prepared as well. >> one of the groups that did vet this list, susan b. anthony list, big pro life group, i talked to them. they are comfortable with all the people on this list. it means they don't think of these people are going to stray from the party line on this very kr crucial issue. >> we have audiotape of the president, part of his exchange he had with reporters aboard air force one, speaking about his upcoming summit with vladimir putin. listen to this. >> we're going to talk about ukraine. syria. we will talk about elect

supreme court now completely right-wing, trump's supreme court will take away our rights, roe v wade, gay rights, too many to list, this blow could not be more severe. we don't fight like our lives depend on it some americans could find themselves in internment camps, liberal activist and journalist waiting, al sharpton tweeting we have no choice but to organize, strategize, vote and act. ambivalent attitudes are not an option. all civil and human rights are at stake, what side are you one in turns out the justice editor at think progress is a man of few words, blank you, justice kennedy. finally, bernie sanders waiting. >> nominate somebody who wants to undo the constitutional right women have, you'll see a massive uprising on the part of people all over this country, not just women but men who think that decision should be left to women and not the government. >> we could go on and on but you get the feeling. >> so we do. thank you very much. according to 2016's exit polling some 70% of voters said the supreme court appointments were either an important or the most important factor

. >> roe v. wade is dead today. >> this is an incredibly important moment. >> i have no reason to think he won't. >> a slightly more conservative nominee could produce sweeping changes. >> this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> welcome to your "new day". it is, what, thursday at this point. alisyn is off. erica hill joins me. john avlon is here as well. we forgot what day it is because there is so much news it is clouding our vision. raw political power. the results of raw political power. the last two years, the republicans gained the supreme court nominating process because they could. now the future of the supreme court is in their hands. really nothing the democrats can do to change it. it is nearly impossible to describe the magnitude of justice kennedy's retirement with this one pick, this one nomination, president trump can reshape the lives of americans for generations to come. his choice will have a serious impact on issues including abortion, the death penalty, and a

even if you were to reverse roe v.ng ere supreme court precedent, all that mean is that the question about whether or not abortion should be legal or not would be decided by the states. and then it would be a states right issue, back to democracy, as opposed to decided by, you know, nine unelected people in washington. arthel: so you are okay with that if that happens? >> i'm all for democracy and letting the people rule themselves. that's my general approach on things like this. at the end of the day, i don't think roe v. wade gets reversed. i think it is such an established law at this point. i think this is a great democratic talking point to get people energized to the polls. at the end of the day, i don't see abortion going anywhere in the united states. arthel: you would think it better perhaps if it does go back to the state's decisions individually, in other words, let the people speak, so that said, do you think it serves the country for the betterment to have this selection chosen before the midterm election,

does anyone believe that a nominee on that prevetted list doesn't want to challenge roe? how do you think they got to toe on that list? "the federalist" society led by len in order leo, whose -- leonard leo whose goal is to repeal roe v. wade putting it together and trump rubber-stamping it. given what the president has said, it is virtually certain that members of the list of 25 would vote to overturn roe. so let this be a call to action for americans from all corners of the country to rise up and speak out. don't let this new court, this new nominee, whomever he or she may be, turn back the clock on issue after issue or after issue, because president trump has embraced a hard-right group who has a veto power over nominees. don't let us turn back the clock, america. stand up. speak out. democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, all should want a much fairer process. america, tell your senators that if you do not want a supreme court justice who will overturn roe v. wade, those senators should not vote for a candidate from the list. i yield the floor. and note the

the heartbeat legislation was aimed to take down roe v. wade. the crux of the roe v. wade argument was, if we could ever determine if that baby was a person, that whole case collapses. a heartbeat does that. we knew the courts would be changing. we didn't know kennedy was would be requiring. but if gorsuch was there or ginsberg stepped off, we knew trump would be a constitutional conservative president that would appoint constitutional conservative judges. we have a chance to take down roe v. wade. this is a historic moment in the pro life community today. >> neil: let me go on to gay marriage. there's a sense that that is now settled law. the supreme court has settled it not once but twice, technically three times. do you agree with it? >> no, i don't. i think god's design for marriage and family, we will revert back to that. the reason you're seeing senator schumer and others so upset about what is taking place today, everything that they have run through and got passed has been through the courts. it's not been through the people or the elected office holders and n

the fact that we are facing a question of whether roe will be the law of the land in this time means that it's really going to be up to women to engage in this fight to call your senators tomorrow, all of your senators tomorrow, and to engage susan collins and lisa murkowski and flake, the whole panel of republican senators here have to recognize that roe is on the line and they don't want to talk about it, but we have to. >> neera tanden and jill wine-banks thanks for joining our first round of discussion. >>> donald trump's nominee will have to answer questions about donald trump, like can the president be indicted? that's just for starters. >>> and last night a federal judge issued an emergency order stopping the trump family separations on the southern border, and has given the trump government a tight deadline to reunite all of the families they separated. oh, you brought butch. yeah! (butch growls at man) he's looking at me right now, isn't he? yup. (butch barks at man) butch is like an old soul that just hates my guts. (laughs) (vo) you can never have too many faithful compani

these are people who have been fighting to overturn roe v. wade for decades. and action turning to the states where people are looking to enact state laws to protect abortion rights should roe v. wade be overturned. down the line there's so many things that the supreme court touches, that the president has to be careful as he played in the clip where he can't necessarily ask these judges how they would vote on specific things if they were confirmed, but you can look at their case rods, can you ask around the question to get an idea of whether they're with you or not. >> kaitlyn i'll curious what you make of all this. the president, alex is correct. he said that's key thing. he would definitely appoint a supreme court justice to overturn roe v. wade. in the interview recently, even this last night he says well you know, we're not, that's a big question. not planning to ask it. is that just a wink and a nod. do we know he's signaled he's not going to appoint somebody who isn't on the side of overturning roe v. wade? >> we've been told that the president has been

sf r roe v. wade. and also said that the list that the president put out during the election was a list that was put together by special interests, which is true because it was conservative groups who handed the president a list of people and said, well, these judges would be okay by us. they pass our litmus test. so the democrats are going to fight. but chuck schumer is a real list here. and he knows that all he can do is make hit political arguments right now because he doesn't have the filibuster. >> laura, what do you think? >> all politics is local here. and when the federal congress is essentially hand wringing and perhaps conceding that they don't have the votes, they are still trying to signal to people that these will return to states issues. if there is an overturning after a lengthy process to get it in front of the supreme court to overturn precedent on this level as opposed to narrowing it, he knows that he has to signal to people on these very issues about particularly roe v. wade and oth

the president says he will not ask potential picks about roe.ssentially the president doesn't have to, right? the list from which he's working has already been vetted by conservative activists, the federalist society has weighed in. are there any concerns based on the names and faces you're seeing about the pro-life bona fides? >> i don't know how many of them would rule in this case. and that's true even many of the supreme court justices. we know their approach to the law and their judicial philosophy which is look at the text of the law and take it very seriously. look at the constitution, honor that. abide by that. but i think the president is exactly right. you should not ask them how they'd rule in a specific case whether it's roe v. wade or any other. they need to have a philosophy where they are approaching each case fairly and not with prejudice. >> the president said in that snippet from air force one that he won't ask about lgbt rights. he won't ask about roe. but i want to play a couple exchanges after he was elected. part of his cbs

roe: thank you, madam speaker. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend, congressman mike coffman, both an army and marine veteran, the sponsor of this bill, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. coffman: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2147, the veterans treatment court improvement act. for many veterans the transition from military service has been successful with few challenges. however, that is not the case for all veterans. unfortunately for some veterans the integration into civilian life has been met with difficulties and complications and being caught up in the criminal justice system, often due to undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues attributed to multiple combat tours. the veteran treatment court improvement act of -- h.r. 2147, assists criminal justice, involve veterans in giving the help they need to navigate the justice system and receive much-needed services throughout the department of veterans affairs. through t

>> well, the president is exactly right not to ask a specific question about roe v. wade. and judge, he doesn't need to. here is why. it's the philosophy of this justice that really counts. you know for the last 50 years the only way liberals have been able to enact their agenda is through the judiciary having justices who create imaginary rights for some americans while at the same time erasing the real rights of other americans. there is no right to abortion. that is nowhere in the constitution. be -- but there is a right to life to erase for 50 million children butchered in the wome since 1973 roe v. wade. if the president and i know he will, appoint a conservative justice with a conservative philosophy, roe v. wade and the other atrocities from the jew dish jare will take care -- judiciary will take care of themselves. >> jeanine: austan goolsbee, i assume you will have the opposite opinion. but isn't the president almost required to suggest someone who is an originalists, a constitutionalists? i think we can all agree that justices are not supposed to write the law. t

roe v wade. >> he does not have a litmus test on roe v wade. you can look at the quality of the candidates puforward. 136 judges nominated for district and circuit court and know the type of candidate the president will put forward. what i find disturbing is democrat senators have already come forward and said it doesn't matter who he names, we're opposed. it doesn't seem like a democratic president when they're basally sayg, doesn't matter who, we all need to be opposed, nor matte what, don't allow the person a chance oftime, to review for credentials, already statements from democrats on the record saying we're opposed no matter what. >> woodruff: separately, a story in the "new york times" said the white house has been pressuring justice kenne for the last year and a half to feel comfortable stepping down this year, that it submitted private lationships between trmp and kennedy families appointed friends of justice kennedy to other justice positions, how do you answer that? >> the reality is j

roe versus wade. goldstein said that's a major thin here.ollins and murkowski are republicans for choice. >> exactly. you have to consider who the nominee is. you have to consider the 150 federal court vacancies. the way it animated the republican base. look at the exit polling. all of our reporting confirms this is a top priority for trump voters. you have republicans responding to that energy in their base. we will see if democrats start to respond in kind in midterms. >> what about the point that noah is making, the democratic wanted to fight last year against neil gorsuch. they did the filibuster. the republican said we will nuke the filibuster. it's gone. democrats don't have that tool. they are sitting on 49 votes. is there any second-guess on that. >> it's interesting. democratic voters are getting quite an education right now about the power of not just the presidency but also what these judicial appointments can mean. i think it is an issue that has animated republican voters, especially pro-life voters for years. they have built --

roe v. wade? >> here's what's going to happen. i'm pro life. the judges will be pro live. life. >> why does fox news make fun of me? i'm just repeating what he's saying. >> don't take it too permanent. >> and you realize, jeff, and i heard you talk about it and others have written about it as well, states have been hesitant to do things because they knew kennedy was there. it would be futile to do something. kennedy is gone. states will pass law. they will pass laws with the expectation that they will get through, correct? >> of course. and they will do it this summer. it's not like, you know, people in conservative states watch the news. they know who is on the supreme court. so they will start the process whereby they will go to district court, circuit court, and up to the supreme court, and the law is going to change. >> while there will be efforts, there have been efforts before, owe connor and kennedy were real blocks on that. since that decision was done, whatever you think about the t

roe v. wade is really the dred scott decision of the 20th century. it said children in the womb were not people. they were just biological blobs with no rights. i think you're going to see that overturned. and this is what a conservative court does. in a liberal court, the liberal court creates imaginary rights for some people while erasing real rights of other people. there is no right to abortion in the constitution but there is a right to life. and i think a conservative court eventually will see that. >> shannon: you know you're going to give a lot a people hives tonight saying stuff like that. cecile richards also talked about the fact that she believes the president has a litmus test on whether someone is willing to overturn roe v. wade or whether they have a pro-life record. how tough do you think it's going to be to get someone like that through the senate? where not just talking about democrat roads but republicans too who will be resistant to somebody they thought might do that. >> welcome isaac they could be tough for anyone except for don

from my perspective, roe v. wade is an important precedent and it is settled law. >> senator murkowski of alaska didn't address the issue but said in a statement my standards for supreme court nominees are extremely high. it is my lang standing practice to scrutinize the qualifications can of noom nominees and to cast an independent vote. dahlia and back to everybody else. i've had experience with trump on this. i asked him whether a woman should be punished. he said there needs to be some form of punishment. that's a weird answer. what he was he talking about prison? i don't know what he's talking about. that's what he talks like. he also talked in the wilding incident where those kids were accused of murder in central park and said we've got execute kids in their sub teens basically. so we know his views are harsh. and they're not about individual rights or the rights of defendants or young people. so if he picks somebody like himself, man or woman, it's pretty scary. suppose he picks a trump. in that person's