confirmation changed that. >> judge bork should be immediately confirmed -- >> the right thought borkould be i ashoohin. he was a distinguished scholar and an appeals court judge. >> so well thought of in the legal academy there would be no problem getting him confirmed. >> the left saw him as a far right extremist. >> liberals were appropriately worried about what robert bork would do if he got on the supreme court. >> among his views, he was against the 1964 civil rights act. >> blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters. >> ted kennedy led the charge against bork. >> robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions. >> the women's groups frankly are afraid. they're afraid of you. >> one incendiary example of why? bork had upheld a mandatory sterilization order for women who wanted to work at a chemical plant. >> i suppose the five women who chose to stay on the job, on that job, with higher pay and chose sterilization, i suppose that they were glad to have the choice. >> those in favor of the bork nomination will vote aye. those opposed wi

it was a fight against robert bork's america. >> robert bork's america is a land in which women wouldll be sits in segregated lunch counters. rogue police can break down citizens doors and school's children cannot be taught about evolution. writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government. >> robert bork's confirmation hearing, senator candy expose robert bork as someone who didn't believe in a right to privacy, including privacy behind a closed bedroom door. >> let the repeat about this creative, generalized, and undefined right of privacy. if it really is a right of sexual freedom in private, as some people have suggested, then bowers against hardwick, which upheld the statute against sodomy as applied to homosexuals, is wrongly decided. >> his report made it very clear that he did not believe gay people had a right to sexual privacy, but he actually didn't believe anyone had a right to sexual privacy. thanks to ted kennedy, making the opposition argument within an hour of the nomination, his nomination was defeated 50 8:42 on the senate floor. the raegan whitehouse s

belarusian, forwards of the capital alexei protos went on the ice in the fourth line together with borkh three and hatewen final and istan, vitebsk resident 14.5 minutes. during this time, the guy threatened the thief three times. red wings made two power moves, and never made a mistake at the face-off point, we add belarus held all five friendly matches for the capitals, the protos scored two points in total and earned flattering reviews of the commander-in-chief of washington, peter lovet, with his game, the new season in the nhl starts on friday, the opening match, san-ha sharks vs nashville predators will be held in prague and such was the day of sports in the studio kristina kamysh worked. all the best. the questions in these quizzes are completely unpredictable. and the answers are all the more, guess the riddle for five years, guns without wings sit down without legs, dandelions name the largest football stadium in russia 10.000 m². since a hectare is meters. what are the names of the pictures in the book? who is this animal - who is the wolf shepherd shepherd? unfortunately , th

reagan years when bork was dominated to the supreme court.me away from was that we can't have our nominees going up there and doing intellectual combat with the members of the senate because we sound to heartless and we sound like we are going to do a whole bunch of stuff that the american people don't want. so we're going to have them go up and in a succession of rip nominees went up and all said things like i will respect precedent. i honor what's happened before. there's a judicial theory called stare decisis which means we don't go back and wreck 50-year-old judicial decisions. so when he was in this private conversation with ted kennedy, judge alito said things like i respect precedent. i believe i'm going to adhere to that. i have constitutional responsibilities. all things that sort of give the inclination that he would be at least a neutral person on something like roe v. wade and of course he was not. he wrote the decision that overturned it. >> of course he was not. it's fascinating. so many books have been written about the senator

hospital, they're both in intensive care, as doctors are fighting to save their lives and it says renew. bork. all of the students injured and channel residential areas are coming in every day. now will it's in a low tree. if you walk up in the moines, e i, survivor, you from managed to got to work. you're also survivor. this is a terrible life lottery. unfortunately, shelling of the city of the nest continues as we speak, and the number of casualties might still grow. fremont, castro, r t. jonas, people's republic. the ukrainian ambassador in kazakhstan who caused controversy with his remarks about the mass killings of russians will leave us to now one's care finds replacement officials in kazakhstan, grunted his words and incitement of ethnic hatred and out of line for diplomats. he comes after the ambassadors, inflammatory comments on the conflicts in ukraine, in late august her we tried to kill as many as possible. the more russians were killed. now, if he were our children, we'll have to kill. but some western media outlets have also appeared to endorse similar statements about killing r

to send them to ivanika, they fell into the negative, and our prisoners closed the hatches that the borkscar and they went barefoot to the brigade, they were frostbitten all over, well, they were all practically alive, although unfortunately, some of them were tortured by the russians there, and then, accordingly, they were punched, the same story was my berry when they entered the berry, they are all cars we were driving, there were stories like that, well, who was tortured, who was beheaded, who was shot, who was buried, how critical was this moment in terms of defense, because, well, critical, critical, as we say , it had not yet happened, but if they were still, there were kiselovkas from the mountain , kiselovkas from below from lukashov, if they closed that's it, that's it, how many are there, 11 km, the road of life, the road of life, they are already almost under fire , under their control, and that's how it was at that time . a lot of local people were killed, well, there were a lot of civilians later. i understand that the enemy’s idea was simply to surround chernihiv, and below

they have destroyed the con confirmation process starting with bob bork. see what they do with individuals to make it difficult to come forward, they did that and they started filibuster with justices, that is judicial nominees, which now they pose the filibuster, again. that broke with tradition. they don't care. and they want to eliminate senate filibuster, they are one that used that filibuster more than anyone. well because they have a temporary majority. and that i want to ram through and impose their agenda with a 50/50 senate and 3 or 4 vote majority in the house on the rest of the nation for good alter our voting system and all or systems, that is ha ha what happened in california. they altered all aspects of government so the democrats could never lose, now look at that state of california. they want to add 4 more democrat seat to senate by adding d c and puerto rico. to use their phrase, does that sound like supporting democracy or autocracy? let's be specific. where do they stand on specific sections of the constitution, article 1 section 8, cla

they have destroyed thee confirmation process starting with bob bork. see what they do to smear the individuals to make it painful for anyone to come forward to accept a nomination. they didt that. did they also started filibuster with justices. that i s judicial nominees,w th they now pose filibuster, again, that broke withadit tradition. they don'tion. care. they want to eliminate senate filibuster, they havese used that filibuster more than anyone else, in modern history and history. because they have ate temporary majority, and they want to ram through andim imposepo their agenda with 50/50 senate, and 4 vote majority on house on rest of th ie nation for good, alter f our voting system all of our systems, that happened in california, a temporary majority in california they used t to opportunity to alter all aspects of that government so democrats could never lose.o now look at ththe state of california. that i want to, no add 4 more democrat seats to senate by adds dc and puerto rico as states to ensure democracies have a permanent majority in unite

than a month away from midterms and the governor of texas has a sizable lead over his challengers borkbeto o'rourke. what's the topic? lauren: immigration at number 4. inflation is number 1 and they're preserving democracy number 2 and abortion 3. governor abbott is polling 4 points ahead of beto and he's made abortion the key issue. texas has a very restrictive issue and he's admitted democrats have not spent a dime or dollar at the boarder and that's a deficit for his party. people say he needs the younger, independent, urban and suburban voters on election day but 48% of the state plans to vote early on october 24th. stu: okay,ment to weigh in on this one? you want to weigh in on this one? inflation the top issue in texas. >> this is how things are playing out across the country and a push by democrats to focus on abortion, but you're getting a sense that even they see they're overplaying their hand a bit on that and doing to exclusion of immigration and the economic issues, and the news is just -- new news is coming on inflation. we got some today and it's getting worse and that pl

lindsey, i think back to the cavanaugh hearings and i think back to the bork hearings and clarence thomas hearings and late great hermann kaine, a great friend of mine and daily basis and another person came forward and another and he said i don't have the money to fight it. he got out of the race and no more women came out anymore. there's no more allegations against justice cavanaugh anymore. no more allegations against clarence thomas after he was confirmed. it seems like this pattern, it happens over and over again which is why i believe in due process and the presumption of innocence. >> well, i've seen this movie up close and personal. if you're a conservative, they don't give a damn about the truth and trying to destroy his life 13 days before the election and did the same thing to cavanaugh and there's another one and another one and another one and got to be six and three people out lied and nothing happened to them and cavanaugh is on the supreme court, her shall is going to the senate and what is this all about? why herschel? they're beating all the guys and you happen what is

in the period you wrote about the democrats are moving to the right as well, you started with the bork confirmation. i was wondering if you could talk about how the democrat movement impacted what the republicans did because bill clinton, clinton is moderate new democrat, he was no -- the liberals distrusted clinton as much as the far right types distrusted reagan. talk about that. >> of course. this is so interesting and what sort of confounds one argument some people make about the 1990s, that it was an era of polarization. when you look at it, the democrats were moving to the right, they were not moving to the left so house a decade of polarization? polarization is not a political process being described in the 1990s. it's a political tool being used by people like newt gingrich to make it look like the democrats are our enemies ended existential threat while at the same time he' he is having these macro negotiations with bill clinton and if you wanted to apply a causal explanation to the democrats moving to the right you could say the democrats are moving to the rights or republica

preview you write about the democrats are moving to the right as well although weirdly starting with the borktion and excuse me, i was wondering if you could talk about what's how the democrats movement contrasted with the republicans because clinton is kind of a moderate new democrat. the liberals distrusted clinton as much as the far right distrusted reagan. talk about that please. >> this is so interesting and what sort of confounds one argument that some people make about the 1990s that it was an era of polarization . you look at it and like the democrats were moving to the right, they were moving to the left so how is it a decade of polarization? polarization is not a political process has been described in the 90s, it's a political tool. being used by people like newt gingrich to make it look like the democrats are enemies and there an accidental threat while at the same time he's having these backroom negotiations with clinton and if you wanted to apply a causal explanation to the democrats moving to the right, that which is the bigger rdstory i'm telling you could say the democrats ar

although weirdly starting with the bork confirmation in -- excuse me -- as one if you talk a little bit about what come how the democrats movement impactedf what the republicans did? because bill clinton, i mean, litton governed kind of moderate new democrat. he was no, i mean, the liberals district sued clinton as much as the far right distrusted reagan. talk about that some. >> yes, of course. this is like so interesting and what sort of confounds one argument that some people make about the 1990s that it was an error of polarization. look at it and you're like the democrats are moving to the right. they were not moving to the left. how is it a decade of polarization? polarization is not a political process that is being described in the 1990s. it's a political tool being used by people like newt gingrich to make it look like the democrats are enemies and they are an ex-essential threat while at the same time he's having these backroom negotiations with bill clinton. if you wanted to apply a causal explanation to the democrats moving to the right, the bigger story of telling them you

the federal society champion robert bork's nomination to the supreme court back in the 19 80s, in facte to his strong opposition to the civil rights act of 1964. but here's the thing. we the federalist society learned from that failure, and it made the group smarter, it made the group more radical in their tactics. radical to the point where federalists society members started training their fire on federal conservatives. going so far to say george abortions scotus nominee, harriet myers in 2005, purportedly because she was not reactionary enough. as the years went on, the group gained even greater influence on conservative judicial bullies. in the lead up to the 2016 election, leonard leo, the longtime vice president of the federalist society even provided then-candidate trump with a list of approved prospective judicial nominees. gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett, all of them were handpicked by the federalist society. and the groups influence is still growing. and it's growing for one simple reason, money. leonard leo and his ilk of -- conservative profits help receive millions of dollars

it's ability -- the epa came under richard nixon but seems post bork, there have been decades of frustrationm to see in the dobbs decision by alito and thomas was let's go after these issues. >> that's right. they could be taking it methodically. they're like starving diners at last call. they are rushing forward. they took it very far and fast last term and the point linda makes to put an exclamation point on it, they set their agenda. so each of these cases won. they didn't have to. and two, almost certainly all observers think they're going to come out in ways that really represent another lurch to the right and in some instances like the affirmative action cases, undoing decades of precedent. >> linda, to make that point, also, it seems to me, it's a point i think harry was making, some of these cases like the colorado case were not really ripe. the baker was not being prosecuted by state officials. they didn't have to come to court. it was like an eagerness to take that on even though gay rights was pretty well decided. >> it's more than an eagerness. it's a hunger. it's get it while yo

now this is something that came out of the, i think the bork hearings when roberts work was cross-examinedations about what his views were and from that point on we a had a weird little dance where the justices come before the justice and i can't comment on that but i will tell you this, wink, wink, nod, nod, i respect precedent. and that's what alito was doing with ted kennedy in his office, and kennedy was properly skeptical. >> he was skeptical because alito had written a memo when he worked in the reagan administration, saying that abortion was wrong. >> right, and kennedy asked him, well, if you're disavowing this memo now, then how do i know that you're telling me the truth about how you feel now? and what alito told him, i was younger then, i've matured since then, and i will be guided by the constitutional obligations of my office. he used every buzz word that he could to sort of convey the notion that he would not be a radical judge, and that he would respect 50 years of precedent. and of course, he did not. >> i mean it is such a reversal that not only did he say he was going to

moving from antitrust to constitutional law, so that was robert bork, who was not known at the time. he left too, he left he became solicitor general. so i am there with charles reisch, and he begins by going around the room and asking each student why did you go to law school? and he shouldn't be given he would say, no, that is a better answer. he debated each of us about why we went to law school to convince us that we should not be there, and the moral there is that there are no livable lives to be lived in the law. then he moved on and when he was finished with this, egot of volume -- he got a volume and david open up to a particular part and tell us a story. one partner was terribly irascible, he would call he gets into the office and he would berate them and he would yell and get red in the face and great pencils. what happened to him? he had a stroke and died at his desk. there was another sad man who had been passed over for partner , but they kept him on to do our jobs, and one of the duties was to take each young associate to lunch on the associate's birthday, and the club

you get everything you can to survive a special a total bork, civil war, two world wars, as a peacetime finance goes by the board. >> anything focuses on on winning the conflict. and post-conflict you try to reestablish what you had before and get back to normal to move ahead. that's what we did after the civil war. i think they made some mistakes in the transition but it was done. that's what we did after world war i. that's what we did after world war ii. sometimes you get a devaluation arbitrarily roosevelt, franklin roosevelt thought helping get out of the depression 33, 34, the value the dollar which he did. ultimate didn't do much good. we were still mired in terrible economic troubles, but was understood during the 180 years even though you might have a crisis or a war you eventually would go back on it. britain, for example, i mentioned britain earlier during the napoleonic wars through 1815 britain was off the gold standard because they were fighting what was then qualified as a world war. certainly continental war for their existence. after the war was understood would make th

i think back to the bork hearings. d i think back to the clarence and thomas hearings. the late, great herman cain,ne a dear friend of mine, hermant r cainiend of , one woman after an it was like on a daily basis.he heother person came forward and another and all of a suddenn he said, i don't have the money to fight this. he got out of the race and noe l more women came out any more . there's no more allegation against justice cavanough any more . no more allegations. legationagainst clarence thomasr he was confirmed. it seemsthis like this pattern happens over and over again, whic ih is why i believe in due process and the presumption of innocencn ofe. >> well, i mean, i've seen this movie before up closeconser and personal. if you're a conservativevative, they don't give a damn abouttru the truth that you're trying ton destroy his life.roy his life 13 days before the election and did th 13 days before the election, they did the same thing to t kavanaugh. there's another one and another one in another one .one and go it got to be six three peopled out and out lied.noen

what's keeping democrats in it borks, abortion, only 8% cite abortion as that supreme court issue. and this up here, threats to democracy, democrats have been trying to make donald trump, january 6th the front and center issue. folks who cite threats to democracy overwhelmingly democratic as well. >> we mentioned control of congress is at stake here. it could come down to just a handful of key races that make that decision. >> the senate race, a 50/50 in republicans needing a net gain of one seat. this right here on paper is the republicans's best chance, at the senate, this is nevada, a adam laxalt challenging the incu incumbent. this is the only race where the republican challenger is leading. if the republicans get nevada, that could be that net gain of one seat that they need. but there is also a republican-held seat, pennsylvania, pat toomey is a republican, he's not running for re-election, but it's a republican-held seat, and the democrats right now the only republican held seats that democrats lead, john fetterman leading mehmet oz. a chance for democrats to make inroads th

had done and knowing about graham yost, and bruce mckenna, and john orloff and my old friend eric bork we were really in good hands with great storytellers. that feeling that tom and stephen and the writers inspired in all of us to honor these men. i think that's what drove all of us. >> and of course another major component was who's gonna play richard winters, who's gonna play bill garner, who's gonna play ed tipper. so we went to meg liberman, who is a legendary casting director, you obviously know her credits. meg, tell us about that. how did you get it so pitch perfect? i'm sure you hear it even more than we do. yes, of course. of course frank was the perfect bill. you hear that on and on. how did you make the connection between real man and actor? >> originally the only thing that i had to work from was the photographs of the real guys, and a lot of the interviews from, we stand alone together. i had access to that. in order to audition the actors i had one scene, from episode eight. i think i read that with all the actors for eight months? i don't know, it was a very long period