susan: in addition to scalia, reagan also brought anthony kennedy and sandra day o'connor to the courtnd elevated justice rehnquist to chief. of's focus on the nomination bork. let's listen to an event that happened on the senate floor shortly after president reagan announced the nomination. this is senator ted kennedy of massachusetts talking about the impact of judge bork if he succeeded on the court. >> robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at , rogueted lunch counters police could break down doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution and artist would be censored at the whim of government. the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is and is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy. susan: 12 days of hearings, five days of questionings for the nominee himself, and a 42-58 vote against his nomination. what happened? ilya: there were a number of things. first of all, i thi

attorney and previously served as a law clerk to thurgood marshall and anthony kennedy.n new york is vincent warrant, civil rights attorney and executive director at the center of constitutional rights. i would like to begin in fairfax virginia. it seems anathema to the rest of the world that the highest court in the u.s. has appointees that have a political opinion, a political slant. for most of the rest of the world when they think of u.s. justice, they think of it as being blind. but that's really not the case, is it? >> just in the introduction to this conversation i wrote down five words that were said that i think are misleading about how the courts in the united states operate. those words are policy, what the framers intended, conservative, ideological and to the right. those are all political terms and i think that's the wrong way to evaluate what courts do in the decisions that judges render. even the case involving the affordable care act. the decision will not be announced november 10. it will only be the oral argument. and i think most people believe that t

attorney and previously served as a law clerk to supreme court justices thurgood marshall and anthony kennedy and in new york is vincent warren he's a civil rights attorney and executive director at the center of constitutional rights i welcome to each one of you let's begin in fairfax virginia woods' home gypping 1st it seems an anathema to the rest of the world that the highest court in the u.s. has appointees that have a political opinion a political slant. for most of the rest of the world when they think of u.s. justice they think of u.s. justice as being blunt but that's really not the case as it well i just really introduction to this conversation i wrote down 5 words that were said that i think are misleading yang about how the courts in the united states operate those words are policy. what the framers intended the conservative idiom logical and to the right those are all political terms and i think that's the wrong way to evaluate what courts do and the decisions that judges render even the decision or the case involving the america the affordable care act. the decision will not be

greenhouse and there was something referred to as the greenhouse effect which is justices like anthony kennedy move left because when they did linda greenhouse would praise them in the pages of the new york times and they wanted to be popular at the cocktail party. they wanted the press to say nice things about them and it's destructive of the rule of law. we need justices whose allegiances to the constitution and not to whatever the new york times or the washington post had to say about them. mark: it's a great book. once you weigh how a single supreme court seat can change history. this is one of the main reasons this election is so crucial. we'll be right back. my way to . and i have sofi to thank for that. ♪ welcome back. senator cruz, let's get into specifics now. president of the united states nominates and originalist. someone wants to follow the constitution to try to discern what the framers of the constitution intended. chuck schumer wants to pack the court, stack it with activists. their position is let us impose our personal policy preferences men tried. ten the constitution suppor

souter, some would say anthony kennedy. and the chief justice. amy makes us think that coney barrett is not going to become like one of them? >> i will take that. john. rely onwe cannot overly circuit court opinion. that is, i heard justice that hen say years ago really had never thought about his philosophy until he got on the supreme court, and that rehnquist had signed off on him. so you've got to be careful. certainly you have to look not only at the results, you've got to look at the reasoning. but also it is character. that is what counts. and the question really is -- -- are they willing to be vilified? thomasas been vilified, has been vilified, scully has been vilified. beers when they tend to vilified tend to go squishy. on the supreme court, it brings out whatever character weaknesses you have. if you are ambitious, the character weakness that tends to affect a lot of us is vanity. so when you are up there and you become the most powerful person, the media tells you, because you have the swing vote, it really goes to your head, i suppos

precedent, though it kept a very, very conservative justice off the court and got us justice anthony kennedywho turned out to be pretty liberal in some questions. in that sense it answered the question of liberalism and the republic and people benefitted from his liberal judgement, it didn't serve the system well. it didn't give us a situation who which we get justices confirmed who are going to do the best job. >> emily, talk about the new court. because it does appear -- we know from her writings where she stands and we know from some of gorsuch and alito's writing these are pretty conservative people. for example, who have questioned the very idea that the president has the power to administer something like the epa, the environmental protection agency, arguing, you know, a very originalist argument that says this is -- you're stealing powers from congress. how radical is this new court going to be? >> i mean, we're going to find out. i think you're right about the strikingly conservative strength of the composition of this new majority. you know, in the past in american history, when the

greenhouse and there was something referred to as the greenhouse effect which is justices like anthony kennedyould move left because when they did linda greenhouse would praise them in the pages of the new york times and they wanted to be popular at the cocktail party. they wanted the press to say nice things about them and it's destructive of the rule of law. we need justices whose allegiances to the constitution and not to whatever the new york times or the washington post had to say about them. mark: it's a great book. once you weigh how a single supreme court seat can change did you know that your clothes can actually attract pet hair? with new bounce pet hair & lint guard, your clothes can repel pet hair. look how the shirt on the left attracts pet hair like a magnet! pet hair is no match for bounce. with bounce, you can love your pets, and lint roll less. i can't wiat to share at&t's big 5g news... (shouting through the glass) at&t has nationwide 5g? yup! and that's faster? faster, yea! but is it reliable? ah huh and secure! you should consider making a big deal about it! bigger? i said

who is the anthony kennedy right now?in: i think to some extent, you could argue -- anything i say, i think there are some scholars who would suggest someone like gorsuch is more to the middle right now, and has been an incredibly important vote. but on the affordable care act case that is coming up, in the week following the election, i think we are going to have a new understanding of the makeup of the court. but that image, if you are looking at the front pages of your newspapers this morning or watching via television right withjust see the president an african-american supreme court justice, and of course, amy coney barrett is a female, that is the image that, one week from an election, republicans are hoping will carry the swing vote or push turnout in suburbs and remind republicans who are very apprehensive of the president's rhetoric, of the president's approach to politics, in terms of what he is capable of delivering. it is a calculation, but it is an image that republicans feel is probably more beneficial to th

they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said that david souter the left ultimately praised these justices they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. the democrats and their allies have shown there's no low that they won't stoop to in their crusa crusade -- i saw it all on this committee. someleue m try to misrepresent judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017, they said absolutelied that judge barrett was too faithful or too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her, the dogma lives in you. let me remind everyone that article 1 clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office. mr. chairman, five sentences left. judge, you'll no doubt be asked how you'll rule on questionsnd issueshe correctlycide i respect that you'll follow the example of justice ginsburg, no hints of he or she will vote, because that's the role of a judge. that's the place of a judge in our system of government. unbiased. fiercely ind

in 2018, when justice anthony kennedy retired and president trump dominated judge brett kavanaugh to replace him, was there any sign, any evidence whatsoever of an attempt to lower the temperature? any indication democrats for rethinking -- were rethinking their decades of vicious, unilateral escalation? just as before, of course not. during the kavanaugh nomination these duties to new lows, concocting a patently false accusation of teenage sexual assault against an honest, honorable and innocent man. like inquisitors burning heretics at the stake, breaking norms, breaking rules to slander and strangle the nominations of constitutionalist judges. it is simply what the left does. this is a feature. this is how they operate. this is what they do. liberals, not conservatives, turned the supreme court into a super legislature of sorts. democrats, not republicans, escalated supreme court nominations into ideological knife fights at worst and made political outcomes the defining issue of this process rather than judicial philosophy and qualifications. what has happened to this isn't a bipa

the last 120 years half a dozen justices were confirmed during election years including justice anthony kennedyhe last year of the reagan administration. it is not unusual. it happened in the past. >> no, it absolutely has happened in the past. it happened six times since 1900. you have to understand this whole garland rule and whining about merrick garland, it's a fairytale created by the democrats because harry reid nuked the senate filibuster in 2013. republicans took control of the senate in 2014. they realized they were shut out of power. this is because they lost power at the ballot box. now they want to move the goalpost. elizabeth: you just hit on something because they're hoisted by their own pitard. they keep saying blow up america's institutions, things we've been doing for decades, american tradition and the way, country has been run, it comes back to bite them, that is unfortunate fact and lesson for them, don't get what you wish for. senate republicans threatened to confirm more judges to the federal bench if democrats stonewall the confirmation in the supreme court. that is what

called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david suitouter would "end freedom of women in this country." ultimatelies left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction famed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there it no low they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came out. some of my colleagues may once again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017 they suggested judge barrett was too faithful or too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is of concern. let me remind everyone that article 1 clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office. mr. chairman, i got five sentences left. judge, you'll no doubt be asked how you'll rule on questions and issues, and whether the case was correctly decid

it reminds me people for all the criticism of donald trump come he didn't appoint anthony kennedy, david souter, justice roberts. gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett are pretty conservative and i think they will be consistently conservative. i kind of disagreeing with people who said it wasn't as bad as kavanaugh. i thought it will hurt the democratic brand because her ohno and blumenthal and others, they went way overboard in attacking someone who was brilliant and decent. more importantly we are going to go into this election and see things we haven't seen in our lifetime with ballots that appear out of nowhere. contested elections. something i think that me look, may make 2000 look kind of minor in comparison. i don't trust justice roberts to be a conservative voice in those close decisions. i think it really diminishes the hamlet "to be or not to be" role of justice roberts. he's going to be less relevant than he was in the past with the addition of justice barrett. he tells the republicans that they can make great appointments like clarence thomas and justice barrett and they don't have to

i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. three-judge panel of the seventh circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law restricting reproductive rights, state of indiana requests a review of just one of the provisions, the fetal tissue disposition provision. the court split on whether to review the case, leaving intact the panel decision striking down the law. you joined judge easterburg in his dissent. but then it went on to address a separate provision not before the court, the so called reason band. your dissent called a ewe je jennics statute. the issue before your court was a narrow one. why didn't you limit your dissent to the one issue the state of indiana was asking you to review? >> so we dissenters from that hearing on bonk dissented on the fetal remains position, which the supreme court wound up reversing the panel it's true the state of indiana did not seek on that, but we had other states entering urging us to take the case up. what t

i was here when democrats controlled the senate, and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy, and in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. a three judge panel of the circuit struck down positions of an indiana law. they struck down reproductive rights. indiana review of just one of the provisions. the disposition provision. they reviewed the case, attacked the panel decision struck down the law. you juoined a judge in the dissent. but then it went onto address the so-called reason. your dissent called a eugenic statute. it was a narrow one up until you limit your dissent of the one issue, the state of indiana was asking you to review. >> so we dissenters from that hearing, first dissented as you say on the fetal remains disposition portion. the supreme court reversed the panel. on the eugenics portion of the bill, it is true the state of indiana did not seek the hearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up. and what judge easter brooke's dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question

they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david souter would, quote, end freedom of women in this country. ultimately, the left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown that there is no low that they won't tarnish a nominee. and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came out. some of my colleagues may again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017, they said -- suggested judge barrett was too faithful or too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is of concern. let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits relilegiouft. judge, you'll no doubt be asked how you'll rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you'll follow the example of justice ginsburg, a nominee shou

she contrasted it to when anthony kennedy was sworn in, in february of '88. she made the point that that had come from powell's resignation. she said well, that's a conservative judge and the new judge, justice will be conservative. that's appropriate. but when she said scalia was an arch conservative or committed conservative, whatever the word she used and said that obama appointee would change the balance of the court and that was inappropriate. you go back and see her words. she's a total hypocrite. not only are the republican members of the senate hypocrites, they wouldn't meet with merrick garland. they lied about what the so-called biden rule was. there was no biden rule. and this is so hypocritical. also she's a terrible choice in so many ways. i questioned her, as you may remember, she had taken money from the alliance for defense of freedom, a hate group, a southern law center had labeled them as a hate group. they are for the sterilization of trangender people. she took money from them. she's an extreme choice and believes conception starts at conc

we have had, of course ronald reagan nominated anthony kennedy , to the democratic-controlled senate,onfirmed him nearly unanimously in an election year. and then of course, the chairman of the committee, lindsey graham , said you can take me at my word, we will not have a hearing if we go past the time of the preliminary leading up to the election. and of course he went back on that and immediately said we have had the conventions, we know who the nominees are. we are not going to wait until the election. we are going to break all precedent, break all rules, and we are going to ram this nominee through before the election. election, do you think republicans particularly in the senate will pay a price at the polls over this nomination? guest: i think the whole country pays a price in this way. i think that the senate, which is supposed to be the conscience of the nation, has been badly diminished by breaking its own rules. by breaking their word over and over again to the american people and to their fellow senators. that has diminished the senate. i also think so politicizing this in

when moderate republican and long-time jurist anthony kennedy retired in 2018, trump nominated young, to try to swing the court further to the right, but he was not expecting this. >> federal investigators will now be looking into a matter connected with federal judge brett kavanaugh's u.s. supreme court nomination. >> started off rather predictably, but then a woman by the name of christine blasey ford came forward. >> i told leader mcconnell and others that i wouldn't vote to advance his nomination unless we heard from dr. ford. >> i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help. >> former arizona senator jeff flake. >> brett kavanaugh, he acted as if i think i would have acted had i felt that i had been unjustly accused. >> i'm here to tell the truth. i have never sexually assaulted anyone. >> down the street at the white house, trump fired off a shot of his own. >> this is a big con job and schumer and his buddies are all in there laughing, how they fooled you all. >> following a week-long investigation that critics of kavanaugh thought was too brief -- >> charade. >>

i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy and in an election year, democrats confirmed. another area -- a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law ,estricting reproductive rights stating with the state of indiana requesting an en banc review of just one of the provisions. of course, whether to review the case, or leaving intact the panel decision to strike down joined the justice lookedent, but then it for a second provision -- called the eugenics statute. judge barrett, the issue before your court was a narrow 1 -- whether you limit -- [indiscernible] dissenters,t: we dissented on the fetal remains disposition portion which the supreme court roundup summarily reversing the pen appeared on the eugenics portion of the bill, it is to the state of indiana did not seek en banc rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what just just judge easterbrook's dissent did was explain why he thought with an open question, but one that's left

they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david souter would "and freedom of women in this country." ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. i saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett' religious affiliations. they suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. when senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits -- let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no

his nomination was defeated, and reagan's eventual -- president reagan's eventual replacement, anthony kennedy, was confirmed unanimously. for those keeping score, merrick garland never even got a hearing, but because one democrat gave a speech republicans didn't like, the fight was on, according to the republican leader. according to the republican leader, because of that three-minute speech in 1987, republicans can steamroll the minority to confirm a supreme court justice in the middle of an election. imagine trying to explain to someone sorry, i have to burn down your house because of something one of your friends said about one of my friends 33 years ago. yup, burn down the house because of a comment 33 years ago. that's what they're doing. mr. president, the leader's speech, the republican leader's speech was school yard stuff. here in the united states senate, in order to justify an outrageous power grab that some -- even some members of his party don't agree with, the leader's argument boils down to but you started it. any parent with young children would recognize that argument. it's w

they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david souter would "and freedom of women in this country." ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. i saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett' religious affiliations. they suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. when senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits -- let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no

in 2018, when justice anthony kennedy retired and judge brett kavanaugh was nominated to replace him, was there any sign -- any evidence whatsoever of intent to lower the temperature? any indication that democrats were rethinking their decades of vicious, unilateral escalation? just as before, of course not. during the kavanaugh nomination they stooped to new lows concocting a false accusation of teenage sexual assault against an honorable and innocent ban. breaking norms and rules to slander and strangle the nominations of constitutionalist judges. it's simply what the left does. this is a feature, not a bug. this is how they operate. this is what they do. liberals, not conservatives, turned the supreme court of the united states into a super legislature of sorts. democrats, not republicans, escalated supreme court confirmations into ideological knife fights and worse and made political outcomes the defining issue of this process rather than judicial philosophy and qualifications. what has happened to this problem isn't a bipartisan failure, it is a unipartisan strategy. every norm b

i was here when democrats controlled the senate, and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy and inelection year. democrats confirmed. let me go to another area. a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law restricting reproductive rights, stating indiana requesting an en banc review of just one of the provisions. the petition provision. of course, whether to review the case, or leaving intact the panel decision to strike down the law, you joined the justice in dissent. but then the dissenter went out of his way to address a second ,rovision not before the court called the eugenics statute. judge barrett, the issue before your court was a narrow one, limit your dissent on one issue the state of indiana was asking you to review. judge barrett: we dissenters, first of all dissented on the , fetal remains disposition portion, which the supreme court wound up summarily reversing the panel. on the eugenics portion of the bill, it is to the state of indiana did not seek en banc rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urgi

they did it with anthony kennedy, they did it with david souter and with john roberts and recently with brett kavanaugh and now with judge barrett. most can see through the far-left hoax, but it's important to set the record right. judge barrett is not and has never advocated in favor of taking away anyone's health care, period. liberals have gone after judge barrett for her views on abortion, first of all, judge barrett has every right to enjoy her religious freedom. i think we all understand that. and i am saddened to see the attacks that she's received due to her catholic faith. nevertheless the record shows that she will thoughtfully apply to all cases. she has proven that she impartially and faithfully exercises her duties as an appellate judge. there's no reason to believe that she will not continue to do so as a justice. now, i want to speak about the precedent for acting on today's vacancy. it -- it differs from the vacancy of 2016. democrats and liberal media have called senate republicans hypocrites for opposing confirmation of president trump's supreme court nominee in -- in

they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women. they said david souter would "and freedom of women in this country." ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. i saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett' religious affiliations. they suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. when senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits -- let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no

they called anthony kennedy sexist and a disaster for women.they said david souter would, quote, end freedom of women in this country. ultimately the left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown that there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came up. some of my colleagues may once again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017 they suggested judge barrett was too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her that dogma lives loudly within you and it's a concern. let me remind everyone that article 1 clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office. mr. chairman, i have five sentences left. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decide

i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy. and in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. three-judge panel of the 7th circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law restricting reproductive rights. stated indiana requested the law review of just one of the provisions. the disposition provision. when they reviewed the case leaving intact the panel decisions to strike down the law, you joined a judge in dissent. then the dissent went out of its way to address a separate provision not before the court. the so-called reason ban. your dissent called it a eugenics statute. judge barrett. the issue before you is a narrow one but you limit your dissent to the one issue. the state of indiana was asking you to review. >> so we dissenters from that hearing on bonk first of all defended on the feetal remains disposition portion. they reversed the panel. on the ooun eugenics. we had many other states enter the state urging us to take up the claim. what the dissent did was explain why he thought it

steve scully, once interned for joe biden, was once on the staff of the late ted kennedy and he tweeted this to anthony this on the screen. i don't know if he thought he was direct messaging. he said scaramucci, should i respond to trump? in response scaramucci replies ignore. he has had a hard enough time. more bad stuff about to go down. maybe he was trying to direct message. either way, this is not good. not a good look for the moderator of the next debate. >> look, i know a lot of people here in d.c. who say steve scully is an incredible person. extremely kind and nice and that he will do a fair job. all that being said when you look at his history as an intern for one of the candidates and then working for a very liberal prominent senator, you know, who is sort of the lion is what they called ted kennedy for a while, and now this message to anthony scaramucci, an extreme critic of president trump. we need an explanation was it a d.m. gone wrong? what was the purpose of that communication? i think we could do with and deserve an explanation. >> trace: yeah. that's a fair assessment. guy benson, alw

moderators, steve scully reaching out to anthony scaramucci before the debate, that is not being objective in the middle of the road. that is taking a side. >> harris: kennedy, do we know why the debate moderator tonight killed her twitter page? would it have been in reaction to what happened with steve scully? just to take that out of the realm? is it something that every journalist should do? i'm serious about wanting to know your opinion about this because i consider myself just a journalist. i'm not a hyphenated anything. maybe i'm not interesting enough to be that but killing your account -- by the way, twitter doesn't go away, kennedy. >> kennedy: what are you hiding? if you're shutting your account down. what happened to transparency? what is in those past tweets? or maybe she was hacked by steve scully's guy. it's a real problem here. in terms of the mute button, i understand that the time will be taken away if in fact one of the candidates interrupts the other and that was a weakness for the president in the first debate, so what happens if joe biden doesn't answer a question or he drones on and on and gets very boring? can his time be taken away l