she said highlighting the bork hearings presented to the public the roll of -- the role of the court. subsequent hearings has presented a hallow charade where personal anti-doets -- anti--- antic doets. can you expand on that? >> i don't think that is accurate. between 1987 and 1993, there was a pretty sophisticated discussion about the philosophy in the hearings. if you look at justice ginsburg who is often touted as creating the ginsburg rule that you shouldn't say anything actually talked about a lot of different cases and points of law and expressed her opinions about them. justice thomas talked about the role of natural in his understanding of the constitution. they may not have said specifically how they would vote on particular matters if they had not talked about those in their writings or speeches, but they talked a lot about how they thought about the constitution and how they thought about law. in the new millennium, 2005 and going forward, we have seen a shift. the nominees have moved away even from herring their judicial -- from sharing their judicial philosophy. if aed h

and thomas -- of the bork and thomas nominations. the attacks had become increasingly heated. increasingly personal. by all appearances, we were on the road to the abyss. then something interesting happened. we took a step back. consider the next two supreme court nominations. ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer. both of them are very interesting justices on the united states supreme court. they're our friends from the carter days. both were well-known liberals. before joining the bench, ginsburg had been the aclu's general counsel. breyer had been ted kennedy's chief counsel. but they were both well respected and had solid reputations on the court of appeals. i knew that and i helped them. so when president clinton called me in 1993 to ask my views on who he should nominate to the supreme court, i suggested ginsburg and breyer because i was sure he was going to pick the most left-wing nutcake that he could find. [ laughter ] they were certainly not the nominees i would have chosen had i been president but as ranking member on the

on the right, judge bork is something of a rallying cry. people believed that what happened to him was unfair and it began a process of degrading the confirmation process, making it politicized. that is not historically accurate. if you look back at what happened to say justice fortis or marshall in their hearings, there was just as much effort to politicize and to go after them as happened with the judge bork. if you go back to the founding, the early nominees were frequently defeated by senate that did not like their judicial philosophy and ideology. so if anything, the judge bork's testimony and his hearing has affected the process in terms of people's perception, much more than in a kind of inaccurate way. host: if you go to our website, we have video judge bork's testimony before the senate judiciary committee. to show you a little bit of it, during the confirmation process he was asked about his views on the 10th amendment. power not given to the federal government should be put to the people or the state. here is part of his answer.

naively, i thought the bork nomination was as bad as it could get. senate democrats had taken a universally admired and respected tourist and managed to paint him as a threat to freedom and prosperity. they have twisted his record and his words until they were completely unrecognizable. then came my friend justice thomas. it turns out they grossly -- that grossly misrepresenting his record is only part of the playbook. there is also character assassination. thomas is a dear friend of mine. we are honored to have him here tonight. i would like to make a few points about his information experience. not many people remember this, but there were actually two sets .f hearings on his nomination the first was the standard set of hearings on his record and qualifications. the sort of hearings all have to under -- go through. second was professor hill. his nomination had already been voted out of committee. she went public only two days before justice thomas' nomination was scheduled for vote, final floor vote. so the senate delayed the vote to hear from prof

she's referring to bork. i think you have to look at the nuclear option.a simple majority. no more 60 votes. that was a nuclear device. it radiated negative energy through everything so that the structure seemed the same, but everything that was alive within it died. now, fair point, mcconnell was just one-upping the democrats, who did the gop dirty on votes on lower court judges. but look at what the toxic tit for tat has gotten us. you may like that kavanaugh got through, but you can't like how. it's all about avarice and revenge. the low point of the process actually came outside of the actual process, from a president who has become like the mr. hyde of this period in history. things still get done, but when they're not done the way he wants, he goes ugly early, like he did even on christine ford. >> how did you get home? i don't remember. how did you get there? i don't remember. where is the place? i don't remember. how many years ago was it? i don't know. i don't know [ cheers and applause ] i don't know! i don't know! what neighborhood was it in? i

robert bork goes back to the d.c.it but within a year he decides i don't even want to be a judge anymore. he steps down so he can talk about liberal activism and the process. then up to 1991 to a comparison that we've been making a lot during this current ordeal, clarence thomas, he goes through one set of senate hearings, and then suddenly we find out about anita hill's allegations of sexual harassment. there's a second set of hearings. he end up being confirmed on a very close vote, 52-48. but just to let you know what's so different from 1991 to now, 11 democrats switch over and vote for this republican appointee. so we weren't as polarized then. then we go to harriet miers, a short-lived incident in 2005. she's nominated for the sandra day o'connor seat. she had been a white house counsel, good friend of george w. bush's and people cried coneyi coneyism -- cronyism. who complains, robert bork. she pulls out in a matter of weeks. that seat goes to samuel alito. he's much more conservative than sandra o'connor. and

i do think it started with the bork confirmation hearings. i think it's become more of a personal characterization. to get back to what you were saying earlier, dana, i think also susan collins did all republicans a huge favor today. there is no one else who would have had as much attention on his or her speech as she did in this dramatic moment and be able to walk through all of her reasons for supporting him and also being able to rebut the testimony of dr. ford is something only she could have done that other male senators could not have done as effectively as she did. so i think her remarks today were a big asset for all of her problems. >> and she knows one thing. that in the wings, had this nominee not been -- this nominee, it could have been andy coney barrett, somebody who at least on roe was someone she wouldn't want. and she was very interesting, though. and this will infewer rate some of the groups. she talked on and on about precedent, how she talked to him about precedent in the religious liberty cases. in the -- in roe. and peop

in washington and robert bork, 1987, is something they go back to.y say, that guy was qualified and the democrats took him down on ideological grounds and took him down with unfair attacks. you look, though, at the style of newt gingrich, and when i talk about the rise of red america in this book, that's the rise of newt gingrich. that's the newt gingrich takeover of the republican party, the creation of a republican party that sort of -- he has that vision of, he calls it definition in contrast, but it really means it's partisan warfare. you're not going to win by compromising, you're going to win by drawing a deep and bright line between your party and the democratic party. you don't compromise with them, you don't take 5% of what they're offering you. you go after them that way. and newt jung rigingrich takes republicans in 1994, the republican revolution, but when republicans get some power under newt gingrich, there's a backlash to that, and that's the birth of blue america. and then what you have is red and blue, polarization and really a gener

. >> that was the very brief lull between there was a storm between robert bork and clarence thomas,'80s, early '90s, but then there was a partisan war. it's called red america, blue america, those concepts were born, and think about what ends the decade, which starts the new century. the near perfect tied presidential election of 2000, the protracted 36-day recount in florida. and what settles that election finally, that highly disputed election? the supreme court in what looked like a very ideological decision. and i think the court wars -- you don't have 96-3 votes anymore. to sail through now is to have 40 or no votes. >> i wonder if going back to this era, to the clinton era, was it borke before or was it gingrich during the 1990s, during the clinton presidency who kind of kick started this hyper-partisan world. >> the name borke, you ask conservatives to this day about the court wars and about the rise of partisanship to washington, robert borke offense 1997 is something they go back to. they say that guy was qualified and they took him down with unfair attacks. and when i talk

that is when the first bob bork and clarence thomaswo and of course he said to the court bob bork was offered a teaching asposition at a different law school and not so with kavanaugh, right? he was not invited back to harvard law school to teach. the yale faculty which when he was announced pasted. >> absolutely. it is so much to do with light public sentiment was not elated with what they were witnessing with this character assassination. people complain just a job interview and he want to make sure you do a thorough job interview but what was happening was the man's entire life and repetition in name and honor were being destroyed in front of his wife and children. that's also what he saw women react negatively to this because we care and love the men in her life and we put effort into relationships and to see how quickly that could be destroyed by people who were thinking through whether what they were doing was ethical. >> molly, you talk about people of virtue and this is a moment that tested>> them and how they acted. the disappointed i saw here was for the moment where virtue

i said bob bork was here, he was the number three guy in the department. bork was the last one eligible to do it. >> the commander in chief finally found someone willing to carry out his orders. bork fired cox. >> i have asked all the personnel in the department to stay and help keep the department going in this exstored ne extraordinarily difficult time. >> the president's motive was to remove the possibility of a constitutional confrontation. >> richard nixon violated the law. he compromised the office, and he violated the compact that we thought we had with him. >> before he did all this, he must have considered the probable reaction in congress, including the possibility of impeachment. >> there were some of us who felt that the imperial presidency was getting out of hand. the saturday night massacre was the signal to the american people that the president was putting himself above the rule of law, and they demanded action. and the public outcry to the saturday night massacre was so significant. >> just the insanity of the saturday night massacre, like

on the right, judge bork is something of a rallying cry.e believed that what happened to him was unfair and it began a process of degrading the confirmation process, making it politicized. that is not historically accurate. if you look back at what happened to say justice fortis or marshall in their hearings, there was just as much effort to politicize and to go after them as happened with the judge bork. if you go back to the founding, the early nominees were frequently defeated by senate that did not like their judicial philosophy and ideology. so if anything, the judge bork's testimony and his hearing has affected the process in terms of people's perception, much more than in a kind of inaccurate way. host: if you go to our website, we have video judge bork's testimony before the senate judiciary committee. to show you a little bit of it, during the confirmation process he was asked about his views on the 10th amendment. power not given to the federal government should be put to the people or the state. here is part of his answer. that t

we seen a nominee to the supreme court treated so badly although we do know starting with robert bork's confirmation hearing that the gloves came off and the confirmation process that are all too h ugly. with a supplemental background investigation on those allegations sprung on judge kavanaugh the eve of his confirmation. never anything came up in the previous six background checks by the judiciary committee or fbi and i think that t is telling with this last-minute ambush including political operatives acting as disinterested voyeurs with their best wishes at heart we've heard from rachel mitchell investigative council from arizona and judge kavanaugh i appreciate the professionalism and it isn't one many wouldhe have sought because they would be thrust with a huge national debate and the circus -like atmosphere the judiciary committee had become. and to have a public service. but she chose to do so. and as a t sex crime and then with victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault and have expertise and wisdom with these type of cases. with that expertise and knowledge the way she had res

tacticsed the same against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. .hey succeeded 31 years ago this time, they failed. i look forward to confirming judge kavanaugh this afternoon and greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. >> i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, if there is a minute that i could take in between there, i just wanted to comment on a colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i wanted to come to the floor and speak on her behalf but too many people were speaking at that time. people remarked on her comments that they reflected the fact that she does her homework and she indeed did. i wanted to relay this anecdote. i think of all the meetings that we had and many of them were with lawyers who were senators, probably the most thorough with senatorl was collins. she had clearly done her homework and the interview with judge kavanaugh consumed more than two hours without a break. it was a grilling that could have been done by any fine she had clearly done her homework and was well p

a nominee to the supreme court treated so badly although we do know that starting with the robert bork confirmation hearing

that time in unprecedented character assassination against president reagan's nominee, judge robert bork. since then, they have only escalated this war, slandering several republican nominees to the supreme court and expanding their tactics to lower court nominees. so then, as history tells us more than three decades later, left-wing groups and their democratic allies in this body went back to the very same playbook. they tried the very same character assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. they succeeded 31 years ago, but this time they failed. so i look forward to voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this afternoon and to greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. i yield. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next. mr. kyl: if there is a minute that i can take in between there, i just wanted to comment on the colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i had wanted to come to

you can go back to bork, but even more recently it was in 2013.there was the whole situation with the scalia seat and republicans holding that open through the elections. then republicans did away with the filibuster on supreme court nominations last year. and it's reaching the point, get beyond this election. if you've got a situation next year or at some point in the future, let's say next year where there happened to be a democratic senate and there's another vacancy, will a senate of one party ever again confirm a nominee from another party? >> not any time soon, i don't think. in some sense it was weird it wasn't like this before. this was a recognition that the supreme court is a policy-making body and its decisions are c consequenti consequential. both parties are using whatever power they have to get them on the court or block them from getting on the court based on the policies they're going to implement. yeah. to your point, we're not where we were before. but why were we where we were before? we had a couple of weird phenomena. one of t

a nominee to the supreme court treated so badly although we do know that starting with the robert bork confirmation hearing and the confirmation process became all too ugly. but as we know now, the supplemental background investigation by the fbi with allegations sprung on judge kavanaugh on the eve of his confirmation. never a whiff of these on the previous six investigations are by the judiciary committee and i think it's telling with the last-minute ambush with those political operatives masquerading to have the best wishes at heart. hearing from rachel mitchell the council from arizona interviewing doctor ford and , i appreciateh the professionalism which how she approached the job not many one would have sought because she knew she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national debate and the circus atmosphere the judiciary had become and to do a public service and was not pressured in any way to prevent -an - present her own analysis but chose to do so. so what she said based on her experience with the sex crimes prosecutor to routinely deal with sexual abuse andvi sexual

comments remain against bob bork who are terribly unfair and ill-founded. the good news again is the supreme court will agree. >> laura: and they were all there tonight. >> president trump speech was remarkable. what he did for justice kavanaugh's children, talking to them about at their father being a kind and courageous man -- >> laura: fantastic panel. we will get more of you next time. but we saw over the past few weeks offers a very clear lesson for the left. resist the resistance, or lose. mike pence has the poles to show us. shut it down! shut it down! shut it down! [chanting] we believe survivor's. we believe survivors. >> laura: that was the so-called resistance reacting to the confirmation vote and that was after it occurred. if the kavanaugh battle made anything clear, it is that you have to stand up to the mob. imagine if brett kavanaugh just walked through that crowd, what they would have done? they would have ripped him from limb to limb. if you don't stand up to the mob they will walk all over you. my next guest says that the left continues w

bork mÁs que invitado.rnecido a todos y tambiÉn impactado muchÍsimo. sil, te imaginaste que la foto se volverÍa viral? sil: no, jamÁs. nos llamaron desde inglaterra, francia, turquÍa, canadÁ. todavÍa no podemos creer que este tipo de fotos hacia viral pero creemos que le tocÓ el corazÓn a muchas personas por todo el tema del bullying. todo el mundo en alguna vez isa se pudo haber sentido como un poco excluido. carolina: la fotografÍa se volviÓ viral y todos pudimos ver las imÁgenes. cÓmo fue para ti darte cuenta que mirabas el reloj y que nadie llegaba. quÉ le decÍas al pequeÑo sil: en realidad nosotros le dimos la oportunidad a Él porque el aÑo pasado de ir a disneylandia. es la primera vez que le hacemos una fiesta porque tenemos family en argentina. entonces Él iba a jugar a los juegos y me decÍa " avisenme cuando vienen mis amigos" y no venÍan. yo le dije al padre que lo llevarÁ jugar a todos los juegos y que se distraiga y asÍ poder ir. no se hizo mucha mala sangre. al otro dÍa fue muy feliz a la escue

seen a nominee to the supreme court or any court treated so badly, do know that starting with robert bork's confirmation hearing that the gloves came off and its processes became unfortunately all too ugly. as we know now, there has been ordered a supplemental background and it nation by

seen a nominee to the supreme court or any court treated so badly, do know that starting with robert bork's confirmation hearing that the gloves came off and its processes became unfortunately all too ugly. as we know now, there has been ordered a supplemental background and it nation by the fbi on allegations that were sprung on judge kavanaugh on the eve of this confirmation. hithere was never a whiff of the allegations during judge kavanaugh six previous background investigations by the fbi and byre the judiciary committee and other committees. iit think it is telling that the readers and abettors of this last-minute ambush include political operatives masquerading as disinterested lawyers with onlyit their cliens best wishes at heart. this past sunday we heard from rachel mitchell and investigative counsel from arizona to interview dr. ford and judge kavanaugh at last week's hearing. i appreciate the professionalism with which he approached his job. it was not one that one would've thought because she knew and we all knew that she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national de

bork, kept him off the supreme court.ted this. that was on the nick sidemocrat. >> he set the table with his comments that he wrote, had time to sleep on, think about the next day, and deliver during the hearing. did he not set himself up for criticism he is facing? >> victor, what he said in the beginning of the speak is no one has seen the comments but me and one person that edited behind me. i think we know that's true. >> that's how he feels, it wasn't anybody's -- >> the white house would have toned down some partisanship or looked at the bigger picture there. i give him a little leeway there, if you are wrongfully accused of something that egregious, that horrible, of course you're going to react with emotion and anger. is it becoming of a justice, no, but i understand in that moment because he's also a human. >> brian said something that was key, victor. it was a toxic process. another thing it did, it sort of compromised the integrity of the justice department, the supreme court justices to be neutral. if you look

and the kinds of comments that were made against bob bork who were terribly unfair and ill-founded. the good news again, theew supreme court -- it's very powerful. >> it was an amazing night. president trump speech was remarkable and what he did for justice kavanaugh's children and talking to them about their father being a kind and courageous man, it meant the world to justice kavanaugh i c imagine. >> laura: m fantastic panel, we will get more of this next time. but we saw over the past few weeks offer a very clear lesson to the left. resist the resistance or lose. mark penn has a pulse to show u us. this isn't just any moving day. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a sto

from him they exploited him they won all sorts of awards they go hollywood movie deals they go to bork they ended up getting a fable pulitzer was basically on the back of water saunders and we keep leaks in its brief tenure with the guy in had had given them but once that affair was over. a song nj. received the full force of the guardian's displeasure and i think in that article i quoted to a number of its leading columnists in the kind of abuse that i don't think i've seen in a serious newspaper i can't remember i've seen actually against an individual the sun refused to be a member of the club he shamed so many journalists because he had more firsts if you like in scoops in and what we keep leaks revealed than they've had in the whole in life and he was so successful and he showed i think that the media is really has probably always has been never more so than now an appendage of a stablished he shone a light on that and that was on forgivable. and yet it was just one small organization wiki leaks because i know you also quote the disgraced cia boss former cia bo's betray us. saying

some will go back to robert bork, others will say clarns thomas, some will s ken starr but you could do -- you could star with the bush/gore election and we've been going in this red and blue mind set. our identities as states become are you red orblue? congress has gotten hit that way.hi ever's been devolving to this. but the supreme court has stayed away. robestimate impact is the are no longer black, they're red and blue and that will have long-term consequences that i don't think we fuelly appreciate it yet. >> when we look at the impact on the supreme court where do you m think we art likely to feel his impact. is this t thing that we'll see wses that the courts avoided taking up orl he be the swing vote? >> i think the new swing vote is justice roberts. he plays an interesting role because he'll decide who writes opinionser he has been concerned about the perception of 5-4 decisions so he may try to be a guy that tries to define the terms of a decision in broader means to get some 6-3s. more often than not just to try to reestablish this idea that it isn't a red/there divide. i

democrats went way overboard in plastering bork. i don't think we've ever seen one which has raised fundamental questions about our democracy and has left us for the first time i can remember with all three major branches of government, the white house, the congress and the judicial branch now essentially defined by the partisanship. that's new. i do -- steve is right about the enthusiasm gap closing in this major poll from about 10 points to 2 points and that obviously helps the republicans. but i would point out that among independents in the new cnn poll, let's go back to the major point of the cnn pole. by 51-41, a 10-point gap, americans disapprove of kavanaugh's confirmation. 51-41, minus 10 for kavanaugh. among independents, it's a minus 18 among independents on kavanaugh. in other words, the negatives outweigh the positives by 18 points. so from my point of view, i think both sides, both extremes will be out there and slugging it out. but the search for independent voters still favors the democrats. i would also point out "t

i saw what they did to robert bo bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left wing dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning. before the ink was even dry on the nomination. the minority leader announced that he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote/unquote, complicit in evil. another member of the committee revealed the end game when she suggested that senate democrats could hold a vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these midterm elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history, based on the fact that more t

bork 15 years later, clinton ten years later, kavanaugh and trump, you know, we are just -- has thist been one long -- it seems to be, that's the argument, we're in one long war here. >> chuck, i was born 30 years earlier, long before the culture war and it was great. the -- let me say that the carings that we've had, especially the first part of the hearings, where we actually talked about substance, rather than sex, what were brought out how deeply divided, once again, how deeply divided we are as a nation not simply about the role of government, but about the constitution itself, the reading of the constitution. and this divide goes way back. it goes back to the progressive era, when there was a fundamental -- >> you're talking my back to teddy roosevelt. >> oh, i'm taking you back to wo woodrow wilson, who saw the constitution as a straight jacket. he resisted it. he didn't like it, because it prevented him from doing the kinds of things he wanted to do. the progressives were social engineers. they wanted to change the world, especially on the political and economic and social ar

i saw what they did to robert bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we've witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left-wing dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning, before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced that he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said that he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote-unquote, complicit in evil. another suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these mid-term elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history based on the fact that more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings,

they're not exactly doing well and definitely not of these like raymond and shall cause striker gto bork's dollar is no longer hitting golf with just one on the season and that didn't change against braman. their defenders were every which way shall get turned. and when braman got hold of the ball. they made it look easy i'd set in motion by cruzan graham and putting star at this time let one loose from the top of the box to cash in his third goal of the season i. i make things work with. great passes i just knew that i couldn't lose the ball otherwise we'd be vulnerable to a counterattack and then i thought i might as well try to shoot it yeah and i hit it well if i hit it any later it might have gone into the crowd like off to be you know sean to try their luck with long balls but they almost seem to be cursed the ball just didn't want to go in. not even aldo could head it in as usual or was brave inskeep or just too good. at times in some situations we were too naive. to call it naive is an understatement at times the match was a total mess both sides made passing blunders but this shel

. >> reporter: maria bork was ready to sell her home but fearing .the age-old price tag attach the agent commission. >> you try to negotiate the 6%, they won't budge. ta it or leave it. >> reporter: she left it takg a gamble on a concept. a flat fee broker called door charging $5,000 to sell stage and photograph the home. they sold 75 homes. now two years later, the fast-growing company says they expect to sell 1,000. the founder says flat rate brokers like door are growing across the country because today's real estate market is shopped online. agents need to dfar ss work. >> and americans are still getting charged crazy amounts of money to do this transaction. >> reporter: if you're selling a home for $300,0, typically 6%, $18,000 gets split between the buying and selling agents. instead, you'd pay $5,000 as a flat rate and 3% to the buyer's agent. a $4,000 savings. but competitors say people get better results from experienced agents, warning a lower fee may mean discounted service. >> they should be most concerned about a successful outcome, and that's driven by a service level, not

brigs at summit whenever go shooters are ready he spoke at a meeting of the european parliament is taz borkfrance he also says the u.k. could be granted an extension for the brigs that transition period if requested by london. several people have been injured after dozens of migrants trying to cross the border from bosnia into coalition clashed with police thousands of myron's from asia and north africa are currently living rough in northwestern bosnia in the hope of being able to enter the european union. hurricane wilma has hit the pacific coast of mexico as a category three storm packing winds of nearly two hundred kilometers an hour towns in the storm's path were mostly evacuated as it closed in but some people were forced to seek shelter in public buildings the storm is expected to bring to wrench will rains as it moves further inland. now more than four years after the simmering conflict in eastern ukraine nearly two thousand people have been killed by landmines alone and no one knows how many mines were laid in the chaotic early stages of the fighting today the country sees more casu

what if they had put him through the same process and borked him?ould be willing to bet all the democrats out there, their hair would be on fire and it would be going crazy. thank you. guest: what this is really about, i think, is the direction of the supreme court. the reason why there is so much intensity about this right now is because kavanaugh would become a based on background, his history, what we know of his , would be a reliable extremely conservative vote on the supreme court, and somebody who would come on issues of marriage equality, reproductive choice, voting, discrimination, and others could very well change the direction of the that iscourt in a way very different from what we've seen over the last decade. , truly on the democratic side, there is such intensity here. i personally, as somebody who believes in process and all the fact being on the table, and letting people determine them in as objective eight fashion as thatble, i regret the fact his nomination is turning now not on issues of the conservative voice he will bring to the

not relevant are judge bork, justice thomas, or judge garland, or arguments about who started the unseemly process we're in now. by the way, let me just as an aside here note that in one of the interviews with a senator, the interview started as follows : judge kavanaugh, glad you came in today, but i can tell you that this is going to be very, very hard because of what happened to judge garland. well, you can have your views as to whether judge garland was treated fairly or not, but that should have no bearing on the qualifications of judge kavanaugh to be confirmed to the united states united states supreme court. other not relevant things are comments from the president of the united states including unfair comments about professor ford. also not relevant is the outcome of this debate on elections or on president trump's future. nor is this about punishing judge kavanaugh because some crime victims have not previously received justice. the most recent claim here now is about process. i think his qualifications have been well established. now the claim is the process is lacking, is not f

forget that a couple years before her death i was -- the bush asked me to do a fundraiser at the kenny bork library. and i walked her to her car, the bushes came in separate cars and she -- as she was getting into the car, she said, you know, george and i are coming tomorrow. i said "i'm honored." she said tell me about it. i said i will speak for an hour, maybe 40 minutes. she said "make it a half hour and no questions." . >> we talk about the first ladies and their roles, but we have 45 presidential descendents that have been with us this week, going back to james monroe. they are here this week. let's talk about presidential families and descendents and what role they play in keeping or evolving or changing that legacy of the president or first lady. >> i will let mark talk about this because he runs the library and depends on the family to be involved, but it is a huge factor to be able to. and i think we heard a lot of the panels at our summit this week, i heard in the philanthropy panel the presidential site and the buy in to feel connected, the human side of the person being honored

that time in unprecedented character assassination against president reagan's nominee, judge robert bork. since then, they have only escalated this war, slandering several republican nominees to the supreme court and expanding their tactics to lower court nominees. so then, as history tells us more than three decades later, left-wing groups and their democratic allies in this body went back to the very same playbook. they tried the very same character assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. they succeeded 31 years ago, but this time they failed. so i look forward to voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this afternoon and to greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. i yield. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next. mr. kyl: if there is a minute that i can take in between there, i just wanted to comment on the colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i had wanted to come to

exchange with senators, he accused democrats of replacing advice and consent with search and destroy, of borking him, of engaging in some sort of revenge plot on behalf of clintons. he looked us in the eye and told us that what comes around goes around. retired justice john paul stevens explained he changed his mind about judge kavanaugh's fitness to serve because his hearing performance demonstrated a potential bias, and i share my colleague, senator murkowski's concern that after last thursday, the appearance of impropriety, and i quote, has become unavoidable. following the intense and emotional testimony of last thursday, i am grateful that we took a week pause so the f.b.i. could conduct an investigation into credible allegation of sexual assault, and i remain thankful. to my colleague senator flake for supporting mile call for an f.b.i. investigation. it showed courage on his part. unfortunately, regretlyiably, the investigation that ensured had a scope so narrow and incomplete it did not remove the cloud hanging over judge kavanaugh's nomination. dozens of witnesses who could have corrobo

bork and thomas and they did it to judge kavanaugh and his wife and family. this is about power. the left will stop at nothing when it comes to blocking a nomination. democrats openly accusing kavanaugh of gang rape and drugging teenage girls on a regular weekend basis. calling him evil. comparing him to bill cosby and so much more. with zero corroborating evidence and zero corroborating witnesses. based on 4-decades old claims with holes all over the place. this kind of guilt by accusation was parroted by the so-called news media including the late-night so-called comedian with the far left holier than now. over the weekend a writer from a show tweeted this: i am glad we ruined brett kavanaugh's life. stand back and think how ugly and despicable that. she later apologized. nothing funny. that tweet sums up what we have witnessed now for far too many elections and confirmations in this country. that's all they offer you the american people in 29 days. the politics of personal destruction. it's obvious. they want to regain power and they try to make conservatives as evil as you ca

i saw what they did to robert bork, i saw what they did to clarence thomas.in the last three months. the conduct of left wing, dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning. before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote, unquote, complicit in evil. another member of the committee revealed the endgame when she suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these mid-term elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history based on the fact that more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings, publicatio

board which has not opposed a supreme court nominee, liberal or conservative dating back to 1987 with bork. and of the justices pick, four were nom flayed by president who first -- and the slim majority of senators who said they would vote to confirm judge kavanaugh represents tens of millions fewer -- than the minority of senators who voted to reject him. will the supreme court, now mirror the country it serves? >> certainly it doesn't when you look at the makeup, but it does -- it does highlight the stakes in you're elections. in the 2016 election, there were democrats that did not feel particularly motor investigated. they did not show up to vote in large enough numbers, and you saw the marging of was so flooro. and what democrats are counting on this time ash is the lesson of the 2016 election and the prospect of republicans maintaining jersey will give the democrats a bigger boost. to alice as point there will be bumps on both sides. i think republicans feel more motivated now, they understand more clearly why they may back president trump even if they don't particularly great with a

robert bork, clarence thomas and now they did it to justice kavanaugh and his two young girls andau hisife and his family. but this is about is about power. the left. but nothing. when it comes to blocking a nomination or winning an election, electric got democrats openly even accusing kavanaugh of gang rape and drugging teenage girls on a regular almost a weekend basis, calling him evil, comparing him to bill cosby and so much more. and with zero corroboratingan evidence, zero corroborating witnesses, and it was based on nearly four decade old's claims and most of them had holes and inconsistencies all over the place. this kind of gelb accusation was parroted by the so-called news media in this country, including the late-night so-called common comedian and comedy shows with the far left holier-than-thou host like stephen colbert. over the weekend we had a writer for his late night we show tweeting this "whatever happens, i'm just glad we ruined brett kavanaugh's life." just for a second, sit back and think about how ugly, despicable and it disgusting that is. later she apologized, she

. >> it is a noble clot cause to disparage a judicial candidate that is conservative whether bork or kavanaugh or alito i am not partisan when it makes sense but i try to have a good disposition because i like my job. don't mistake that i don'ti care about the conservative cause. if i made you upset because i did not legitimize mccarthyism i think i can survive in south carolina. chris: senator graham think you it's always good to talk with youways. i'm glad to see you are in a back in a good mood. >> with all this talk now to go play president with the golf quick. >> this third term is looking better and better i will not give him any extra strokes. [laughter]th . >> now we hear from the other side senator ben cardin joins us as that voted against the confirmation senator i apologiz apologize. >> we work on many issues together we certainly disagree on this one. >> start with the bottom line so what impact do you think justice kavanaugh will have on the supreme court? how dramatic are drastically quick. >> this is justice kennedy'sht seats and he was the balancing factor on the supr

it's what they did to judge bork.ieve when clarence thomas was up they thought there might be a fifth of here they thought kennedy might be an anti-roe vote. >> in 92, three supreme court justices appointed by republicans. sandra day o'connor, with the plurality supporting roe v. wade. kavanaugh is not saying they can overturn it. chief justice roberts is saying it's settled law. justice roberts does not like challenges to law. >> there's a lot of other things. it doesn't mean it's settled like it's permanently fixed in stone. that's what they want to believe. the advocates of the living constitution that's infinitely mountable will tell you, except for road. elizabeth: let me just back up. judge kavanaugh is saying in the hearings he may not -- is likely not going to touch it. >> they might trim it back. elizabeth: the point you're trying to make -- excuse me, let me back up. character assassinations out of fear of that. >> i believe senator maisie carrano said that to jake tapper because of his temperament i don't t

a lot of people remember robert bork in '87 when he didn't get on, and clarence thomas in 1991 when he did get on. this was unprecedented for a couple of reasons. how partisan it was. if we end up with a two vote margin as manu described, that will be very different for any other confirmed nominee in this century and last century, too. also, where the court is at this moment. right now all of the conservatives were appointed by republican presidents, all the liberals by democratic presidents. that's different. no longer is there someone like john paul stevens put on by gerald ford, a lot of republicans talk about david suitor put on by george h.w. bush and turned out very liberal. forget about that, think of anthony kennedy, sandra day o'connor, they strad edled the middle. was no longer have that with the departure of kennedy and it will change the law of the land dramatically. >> can't understate that. david, listen to susan collins talking about this as yet unidentified leaker that revealed christine blasey ford's name to reporters and listen to ford's attorney talking about it and

. >> juan, since the bork hearings, those wars have escalated with the nuclear option by harry reid tocuit court. unfortunately this has gotten worse and worse. i hope we have reached the end of that and we can return to us more dignified process, both to the nominee and that would reflect well on the senate. we have a lot of hardball played. i think we are reaping the whirlwind. >> juan: i think blocking, you know, merrick garland just sticks in so many people's crop. a twice elected president and you won't let him be considered. you might say kavanaugh was unfairly treated but you wouldn't even give merrick garland a chance, a fair hearing. >> this is the biden precedent. he said you don't confirm a supreme court justice during a presidential year. if hillary clinton had won come i don't think we would be hearing anything about merrick garland. because people chose president trump, he chose differently. i think that's why people are so upset. >> dana: thank you, senator senator cornyn. coming up, major never trumper is grateful. -computer, order pizza. -of course, daniel. -fridge, we