cavanaugh, history and structure, but perhaps more structured in between the robert and gorsuch. slot inke scalia will there, but not like her other colleagues. >> i had forgotten justice blackburn, but harry blackburn added to that list the disappointments of concerted legal -- >> that tells you something. gotnother great question i -- some theorize that justice roberts does not like being in the minority opinion. another conservative judge on the bench tipping the balance, morechief justice roberts reliably conservative. what happens to the chief? >> the chief is a judicial minimalist. that is very clear in his record. it is very consistent in his record. that is the way he approaches most questions. we can debate why that is. my assumption is that until he is somewhat generational, that when he was working, first working as a lawyer, his view of the failings of the supreme court or that it was too aggressive and he favored a more - alexander bickelicker approach, and he carry that through. that is why he doesn't like lower court injunctions, that is why he doesn't like long de

tom's, alito, cavanaugh -- thomas, alito, cavanaugh.hat, and ideserve don't think it makes this hearing any better. believe,can people, i do not deserve a repeat of those episodes in the senate judiciary many history. , imy democratic colleagues respect you all. we have done some things together and had some fights in this committee. i have tried to give you the time you need to make your case, and you have every right in the world to make your case. i think i know how the vote is going to come out, but i think barrett is required to listen to your questions. let's extent possible, make it respectful, challenging, let's remember the world is watching. senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: thanks very much. i want to address your last statement. we feel the same way and i believe we want this to be a very good hearing. i certainly will strive to do my best to achieve that. , andmorning, judge barrett welcome to you and your family. at less than one month ago, the nation lost one of our leading voices for equality, ruth bader ginsburg. she l

tom's, alito, cavanaugh -- thomas, alito, cavanaugh. that, and ideserve don't think it makes this hearing any better. believe,can people, i do not deserve a repeat of those episodes in the senate judiciary many history. , imy democratic colleagues respect you all. we have done some things together and had some fights in this committee. i have tried to give you the time you need to make your case, and you have every right in the world to make your case. i think i know how the vote is going to come out, but i think barrett is required to listen to your questions. let's extent possible, make it respectful, challenging, let's remember the world is watching. senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: thanks very much. i want to address your last statement. we feel the same way and i believe we want this to be a very good hearing. i certainly will strive to do my best to achieve that. , andmorning, judge barrett welcome to you and your family. at less than one month ago, the nation lost one of our leading voices for equality, ruth bader ginsburg. she

tom winter, barbara mcquade and jim cavanaugh are with me.om winter, they filled in some gaps but not a lot. >> not a lot, chuck. yes. it would be great. i don't understand why questions weren't allowed to be asked or answered there, particularly because it would be great to get more of a sense of the ideology here. unfortunately, we don't yet have the court documents. i believe i heard the attorney general say that it was the wolverine watchmen and announcing the arrest of seven more people. that's typical in these type of cases because sometimes the states have the ability to make charges that the federal authorities can't just because of law and the statutes between the state and federal government. i think it's interesting to note, all these men fit a typical profile that we see which is mid to late 30s, early 40s. the possession of weapons charges and the commission of a felony are important charges because those carry mandatory sentences that are stacked on top of whatever they are convicted with in their initial charges, the violations

i saw the vitriol and the anger cavanaugh hearings didn't have that one track to go down it seems. >>ean: this hearing was much different than cavanaugh and she was unflappable and amy barrett is an amazing human being. wide and deep knowledge of the law, judicial temperament that you would hope for in any judge anywhere, impeccable character. they couldn't lay a glove on her in terms. of qualification. there were lots of feeble attempts to try to marginalize her and none of the blows have landed and i'm very proud of judge amy barrett. she's headed to the supreme court. to every conservative young woman out there wondering if there's a place for you at the table inhe the supreme court, yu dare be pro life or embrace your religion, amy barrett has broken a ceiling and you will be the beneficiary of this. she's going to the court and deserves to the court, and >> let's talk about the process. democrats want to slow this down. her testimony is now done and the senate will do its job in committee first, democrats haven pledged to delay just as much as they can. what do you expect and whe

the reason why he got in this race was because how i behaved in cavanaugh.he reason why i'm going to win and south carolina's because i stood up for cavanaugh. there trying to wipe us out financially. if you want to do something to help the republicans, lindsey graham.com, have my back, i've got amy's back. i need your help to finish this race, all by republicans do. they're trying to wipe us out with money, but south carolina is not for sale. if the president did a hell of a job last night. people should listen to your monologue. at this country is worth fighting for, judge barrett is worth fighting for. i'm not leaving till she gets on the bench, lindsey graham.com, help me if you can. >> laura: the fact that you are fighting for your senate seat this year, to some people it's cause for great concern for the republican party. on the other hand, it's a sign that the trump agenda has been wildly successful against the billionaire class that wants to outsource more jobs to china like the old days under biden. they want to go back to that, i don't think they w

it is interesting to talk about her administrative law opinions because after the gorsuch and cavanaugh nominations, we are used to administrative law being a major issue. judge gorsuch had written some very aggressive and prominent administrative law decisions as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the 10th circuit, and judge kavanaugh obviously as a judge on the deceased, he was -- on the d.c. circuit, he was doing administered of law all the time. their interest and expertise in administrative law is part of the reason they were nominated to the supreme court. judge barrett has heard a ton of civil rights cases, section 93 cases, sentencing cases. administrative law cases do not come up that often. there are not that many challenges to federal agency actions that have ended up in front of panel she has been on. most of the administrative law cases she has had have dealt with immigration, and the pattern you see is a very careful effort to scrutinize the actions that the relevant agency took in this case, with the immigration board of appeals and in some case immigration judges a

senator lee made a very compelling case that it changed alito, andthomas, ended with cavanaugh. i want to thank my democratic colleagues who did participate in the hearings so you could ask hard questions and suggest she would not be open-minded. i think you lost that debate what you did show up to ask her questions. you should be here to vote. she deserves a vote yes or no. if you vote no, you will solidify the idea that qualifications no longer matter. i don't know if you could stay the democratic party. i am still here. i voted for sotomayor and kagan and i did find. it is a shame we have allowed it to get to where we have. it is a shame my colleagues -- senator feinstein who opposed the process and domination had a interaction,an which apparently is not enough to agree with the cause. you have to hate the people they want you to hate. america is in for a real tough ride if it is not enough to agree with the underlying cause that you must hate to be a legitimate liberal. it is not enough you embrace the cause. you have to hate. i hope that does not come on our side. then we w

not to avenge bork, thomas, estrada, alito or cavanaugh, but to return integrity to the supreme court and the senate, and all the institutions left is judicial abuse has twisted and desecrated for two generations. we need to confirm amy coney barrett not to give political power to conservatives or republicans but to finally give it back to the american people. from 70 years ago. left -- so many years ago. amy coney barrett will take the constitutional highroad for decades to come. every day earning in more ways than one new title of justice. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. graham: well said. i have a statement i will introduce into the record without objection about the process. i think senator grassley would like to speak. take your time. sen. grassley: obviously our colleagues don't think they should represent their states by -- that is what they are not doing. represent either people and they don't you appear. i'm talking about my colleagues across the aisle. those of us that are here are pleased to have voted judge amy, uh, barrett's nomination to the floor. the reason for doing tha

cavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh was unique because of the controversy around him.was a big deal for susan collins when she decided to vote for justice kavanaugh. that is something that has been used by her opponents campaign. at the same time collins has come out and said she opposes this process, and to be honest i do not think there are a ton of senate races where the supreme court nominee will play as pivotal a role. it has more to do with the general sense the country has at this point of where we are going and how we are dealing with the coronavirus. guy: we will leave it there. thanks forever for the input. emily wilkins of bloomberg government. headlines from a conversation my friend matt miller has been having with the german finance minister, talking about the fact it is on brexit he is talking about, but it is always good to talk until the last moment, slightly anticipating we could get a last-minute deal. in terms of some of the other headlines, confident that germany has stabilized and finalize the recovery fund this moneygermany has enough to support t

due to the pandemic the service was by invitation only, this year john roberts and justice brett cavanaugh arrived quietly and off-camera, this comes as the nations highest court will begin their term with only eight justices, the nation still mourning the death of ruth bader ginsburg. over on capitol hill senators are filling the seed as soon as possible as covid-19 concerns are growing. on the judiciary committee.holly tested negative but mike lee tested positive. lindsey graham says the october 12 confirmation hearing for judge amy tony barrett is moving forward even though democrats want to delay due to the virus.>> there is no reason why these should be delayed other than an effort to rush a witness through inadequate hearing.>> i feel very comfortable she has the votes she will be confirmed last week of october and if some of the democrats that they don't want to participate maybe that will speed up the process and we can do it even earlier.>> reporter: the term begins on monday and like mess today the public will be able to view it by live stream. >>> cases in california are now at

with or what i would do if i were justice eric, that was justice scalia. >> martha: i think the cavanaugh hearings start a lot of people's memories. you were right in the center of thought, it was rocky from the beginning. kamala harris jumped in within atkins of you gobbling down to start opposing the proceedings going forward. how do you feel about this process reflecting on the judiciary committee? >> for everybody on the committee, the fact that it was more peaceful than kavanaugh is going to satisfy people from that standpoint. i think from the standpoint of people not being able to find, particularly democrats on the committee not being able to find any fault wrong with their qualifications because they are impeccable, they tried to make pretty much a political campaign out of this of reflecting things that will help them between now and november the 3rd. overall, i think this is much better public image of this committee and this process than kavanaugh was, without a doubt. it is different between -- the difference is night and day. >> martha: as we remember, the beginning of the k

in a concurring opinion, bret cavanaugh says keeping the election day deadline makes sense.tates want to avoid chaos and suspicion of impropriety if thousands of ballots flow in after election day and flip the results of an election day. just one ruling or a clue for how the post election fights at the high court might be resolved? let's discuss with a veteran election lawyer, ben ginsburg. is this just wisconsin, want to hold this up, a battleground state in the pandemic, democrats thought give us a few extra days to count vote, maybe mail will be late. high court says no. is this just about one important state, could it be a marker, internal precedent if you have three, four, five states fighting it out, reaching the high court after the election. >> it is certainly indication of justice cavanaugh, probably joined by two other justices on the court. the reality is that a case post election is unlikely to come up in this frame. the larger question he is raising is what role a state supreme court can play. and the answer to that is really going to depend on the case that com

thomas, cavanaugh, look what they did to cavanaugh year ago. tried to destroy his reputation. under the constitution, the for aent can nominate vacancy on the supreme court any time he so chooses. and as president has -- and this president has for a vacancy during election year just like a lot of other presidents have over the years. 17 of the times they have been confirmed when you have the party of the president also in control of the senate. bill: not going to leave this general topic but if you judge barrett is confirmed -- if judge barrett is confirmed, there are some who are concerned that roe v. wade could be overturned and a western kentuckian university student wants to know your thoughts on the and where do you stand on women's reproductive health issues? lt. col. mcgrath: i am pro-life -- sen. mcconnell: i am pro-life myself and enjoy the support of right to life and the susan b. anthony list and others who worked on this issue over the years. that is a different issue than what is before the supreme court. every president has been surprised by how supreme court nom

their opening remarks away from judge barrett's faith, after that strategy backfired during justice cavanaugh's hearings. >> that is were the democratic senators are pounding so hard on the question of pre-existing conditions. of trying to bring this home to people by putting up pictures of constituents, where they have unusual diseases or something and they can say the affordable care act save my life. >> reporter: now today was just opening statements, those monologues of politicians like to give and the judges of also gave, tomorrow in the senate judiciary committee also opens questioning, starting with one 30 minute rounds, ranking in order of precedence the people who have the highest rank will start first like sen. feinstein and it will work its way down and we have a 20 minute round of questioning for judge barrett as you said earlier, we expect a vote in the judiciary committee on thursday. >> not wasting any time. thank you. >>> tonight a lot of niner fans are wondering what the heck is going on? after a brutal beat down from the underdog dolphins. qucbec jimmy g looked terrible, and o

georgia, and speak to former us ambassador and special negotiator for eurasian conflicts, carey cavanaughe co—chair of the minsk group, the international body created nearly three decades ago to resolve the nagorno—kara bakh conflict. thank you very much forjoining us. how meaningful is this truth as we speak? i think it's very meaningful but i think the evolution, the developments in the past 2a hours are difficult. the population in azerbaijan is a veritable war between intense fighting and prospects of peace. and we saw —— last night and early this morning they rush in temperate to arrange —— with them. and fighting up until the day the cease—fire was in place was ina day the cease—fire was in place was in a surprise. 0ften day the cease—fire was in place was in a surprise. often we the battlefield within both sides but this i think hopes were high there wasn't. —— one side of cease—fire. we seen pain throughout. i guess with the population is now on this roller coaster ride is uncertainty. i'm so sorry. we are having immense difficulty hearing you. every other word seems to be droppin

democrats steered her opening remarks away from her face, after that strategy backfired during justice cavanaugh's hearings. >> republicans trying to beat the democrats to raise the question of whether judge barrett stays -- faith would or would not affect the decision- making in the democrats this time around stay as far away from that as they possibly can. >> reporter: lindsey graham, sen. from south carolina says he believes that today's hearings in the judiciary committee or on the senate floor are likely to change any minds about judge barrett and expects a partyline vote both in committee and on the senate floor. >> we mentioned the pulmonary vote on thursday but what happens next during these confirmation hearings? >> reporter: today we just had, elizabeth, we only had the opening statements from senators from judge barrett. tomorrow we get the question from her. first a 30 minute round of questioning, starting in order of rank and precedence on the committee. then another 20 minute round of questioning's, of course expect to vote this committee on thursday. >>> camping 2020 is a live look

earlier, i spoke to retired us ambassador carey cavanaugh.he co—chair of the minsk group, the international body created nearly three decades ago to resolve the nagorno—kara bakh conflict. i asked him why the dispute has flared up again. i think what we are seeing is the frustration of almost 30 years of peace talks that haven't moved anywhere and the solidification of the status quo, and azerbaijan has decided to try and take a more aggressive approach towards bringing about change on the ground. you were part of some of those peace talks for years as part of the minsk group. was there ever a time when you were involved where you thought that the conflict might be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides? definitely. twice, early in the 1990s and again, 2000, 2001, the dialogue was approaching what could have been a successful outcome. in a different setting, where both parties were prepared to agree to talks and discuss serious compromise. and this time they are not? no, this time they have dug in over the past two years and have stuck to

the issues that have played a supreme court nominations in particular what happened with justice cavanaugh play into this dynamic and are unfortunate. but doesn't the senator from south carolina to particularly hypocritical when he says record these words. there's no doubt that there are people on both sides of this issue who spoke out last time during the maryland garland and persuasion who are going to have their words thrown back at them certainly lindsey graham is dealing with some of that barack obama chuck schumer a number of people who made comments at that point are going to have to to hear those again the reality is the focus rightly once a nominee is announced and that process starts that process should really focus not on what was said back then but on the merits of this nominee and showing that vacancy. this could lead to other things this could lead to. democratic president a democratic senate and the senate votes to increase the supreme court to 12 they can do that and one of the things that we've heard is talk about court packing it was a really bad idea the last time that i

i thought that gorsuch and cavanaugh were qualified. the senate has looked at the qualifications more than anything else. pathve taken a different at times, bork, thomas, alito, and kavanaugh. i hope that we don't take that path with judges -- with judge barrett. the american people would not deserve a repeat of those episodes and the senate judiciary committee's history. i my democratic colleagues, respect you all. we have done some things together and have had fights in this committee. i've tried to give you the time that you need to make your case. you have every right in the world to make your case. i think i know how the vote will come out, but i think that judge barrett is required for the good of the nation to submit your questions and ours. contentious a long, week. i ask one thing of the committee, to the extent possible, let's make it respectful, let's make it challenging, let's remember that the world is watching. sen. feinstein: we are just 22 days from the election. voting is underway in 40 states. senate republicans are pr

judge barrett, she is in a very close race of her own, and some believe her past support for brett cavanaugh may cost her next month. democrats asked that she recuse her safe herself from 2020 case, she refused to give in to such demands. >>> name 13 new cardinals in a surprise announcement from st. peter's square, he appeared at his studio window to read the names of archbishops who will be promoted, including men from rwanda, chile, malaysia, and other countries. will get what gregory will notably be the first black bishop from the us to receive the appointment. >>> state and local leaders take new precautions amid another potential wave of coronavirus. that story, coming up. >>> we are keeping an eye on dangerous weather conditions and the strong wind, and how long it is expected to last. bill martin has your complete bay area forecast, next. they all endorse yes on prop 25. to end unfair, unjust, discriminatory money bail. governor gavin newsom and van jones. they're voting yes on 25. the western center on law and poverty. the dolores huerta foundation. californians for safety and justic

you remember in 2018, we saw the hearings with justice cavanaugh, there were members of the public, the media is there, the members of the senate judicious committee, and the nominee himself n this case, judge barrett herself. it is a spectacle. a crowded scene. a lot going on. because of coronavirus, we are seeing that scale down a bit more. what you saw in the last couple of day, it is a lot of senators on the democratic side, harris, senator leahy, writing a letter to lindsey graham asking for the hearings to be postponed or delayed because of the risk of covid. we have seen a couple of senators test positive for coronavirus, and other senators who are not willing to get tested. if they are going to be in the same room, there is a cause for concern on how this virus could spread. what you see is kamala harris taking a bit of a step back for her health and precaution. she has to be campaigning on the campaign trail, with just a couple of weeks left until elecday. we spoke with her campaign about how she will balance the hearings with campaigning, they seem to be looking forward to vir

the case have been argued before brett cavanaugh gets unfortunate.that they often look at justices in partisan terms. but we have the four democratic up pointed justices. we don't really use this. it's a relic of the past. then you have a link the sort of discussion of the history of the non- delegation. dating to the constitutional era. and the precedents there including john locke and. and the british law that underlay it. this was an important principle. and here's what we do with the major questions doctrine. they also heard a fall under this. we have to bring this doctrine back into the discussion. one maybe. and then for that said no, let congress delegate. it will be a five for case. i think they would probably sign on board to a certain type of opinion there. it was a big proponent of the major questions. on the court of appeals. >> jim you mentioned executive orders. have seen former president obama use them. and then president trump coming in and trying to do away with that. he faced a challenge in court. does it seem to you or maybe not as

remember what they did to fred cavanaugh just a few years ago? they held off on information that they had, information that turned out to be utterly uncorroborated, they held off on it for months. they showed up to a closed-door hearing where things are and ordinarily discussed, a ranking democrat didn't even show up, they waited to the last possible minute to raise engagement. for them, it's about being the norm of the summit is hypocritical to put it very mil. as far as their failure to show up this thursday, we all have our own tools for dealing with these conflicts. >> shannon: what are you going to do it your all going to subpoena, we believe, they have them, and talk about other things, censoring stories. but there's lot being made about that and the fact that people are more concerned about the custody of this laptop, we are told tonight the fbi -- they do have -- interesting tweets. she said, i went to new york for the latest corruption, and the monetary value of the contribution by a throttling negative. at that something that you think

ted cruz was one of them, john roberts, justice cavanaugh was there. amy coney barrett was there. of all of those lawyers, who was the smartest? benjamin: every time, i will answer that jim baker. david: i think that is a politically correct benjamin: they would all agree. david: let's suppose both of you were wrong, suppose it doesn't get resolved in the courts but in the congress. you go through how this gets resolved in the congress? has thethe congress deciding who is the next president? this will arise if there cannot be a clear winner in the electoral college. then we go into a law called the electoral count act of 1887. i believe that there will be at least two substantive sides the come out of that. it is fairly indecipherable and open to many interpretations. so i think that you will see novel litigation should we go to that stage. an active, it is never been stressed. what i'm about to say, i think we had to caviar with the certainty that would come about. the house and the senate would be called upon to play various roles with the judge. probably competing slates of ele

november 3rd, which is something that president trump has said and unfortunately something that justice cavanaugh said in a recent ruling, that that leads to fraud is historically false. >> and we started, jessica, to see and hear election experts and former government officials. for instance, eric holder saying we're at the point it is too risky to mail in your vote, at this point so close to the election people need to go drop it off in person. is that correct? >> that is correct. unfortunately, there are a couple states if you have a mail in ballot you cannot drop it off, there are no drop boxes in the state of tennessee. so voters that who are concerned should get in touch with local election authority and it may be at this point necessary to pay for fast shipping of your ballot if the only way you can return it is the mail. that sounds a lot like a poll tax. that's just what voters are facing now. >> and so for those people that have mail in ballots or requested mail in ballots, if they're concerned that they can't drop them off or cannot expedite them, is voting in person a safe option for

then a few weeks later when the court denied a slew of certain petitions bycert thomas and cavanaugh, think what the reporting showed her what can be inferred is that justice roberts told his colleagues not to rely on him on any particular second amendment issue. this is certainly an area where if judge barrett becomes justice barrett, i think there would be a fifth reliable vote to start fleshing out the scope of the right and ending the confusion or willful disobedience of some of the lower courts in this area. >> i have gotten some terrific audience questions. i think i'm going to leap right in with some of those, and then let me know who wants to go first. one obvious question is that republicans do not always have a great track record when it comes to appointing conservative justices. go back to earl warren and bill brennan, president eisenhower was asked if he made any mistakes when he left office. he said yes, and both of them are sitting on the supreme court. [laughter] david souter, john paul stevens, some would say anthony kennedy. and the chief justice. what makes us think

when did the cavanaugh stuff come up? after this process. over the next few days during the counter-process. i have no indication they are going to do anything like that but don't sleep on it, it might happen. a lot of their outrageousness was already out there and just became white noise. i want to point out an example, in the hearing, you remember ted kennedy's speech, in this case because, i guess maybe people are so desensitized to the stuff, cory booker, the senator of new jersey argued that justice barrett, women who had miscarriages could be subject to investigation to ensure they hadn't had an abortion. this is a speech that he gives on the floor. it's inflammatory but richard blumenthal also says that in vitro fertilization can be criticized under judge barrett even though she says there's nothing in her record or public statements to suggest that's remotely possible. i agree. i don't agree that it's a sham. when dick durbin says, how do we get this back on track? you've got to have to go to tango here and that kind of language is n

democrats who took an ax to process in 2018 when they dropped last minute unstantiated against judge cavanaughknow is they learned the con f confirmation in a circumstance do and it's hard to take their notes about moving too quickly. >> doesn't remember what happened in the last year of the obama presidency. >> it does seem that it's 2018. i thought was a remarkable moment to have have the spector resuscitate what was an int introduction to the american people for amy coney barrett, it's a surprising move and one that completely disregard anything that came before. >> now, the republicans are desperate hoping that someone will do something that no one has ever done in the senate, which is attack the catholic religion of the nominee. they didn't come close to it. but some of them managed to hear it. let's listen to senator holly. >> now, i just heard my colleague senator kuhns make a reference to the grizwald case, which i think is another hit to judge barrett's -- so no one has challenged the case. it's not a live issue. this is the kind of thing i'm talking about and this is the sort of atta

it used to not be this way, if we had backed out on cavanaugh, who would step forward in the conservativeld? hope we can get this wonderfully qualified conservative woman on the court, we will be making a statement to all young conservative women that there's a place at the table for you. this may be the most important thing i ever do in the united states senate is to make sure this fine nominee who happens to be a conservative woman, mix into the process. i promise everybody who's listening i will do my best. >> sean: let me ask you this. they are trying to scare the american people that they know that amy coney barrett will get rid of obamacare. by the way, none of the promises. of roe v. wade, by the way, if it ever was overturned which i don't think it will end by the way, even amy coney barrett said that. all abortion would be illegal, it would be sent back to the states. my question to you is, is any judicial nominee for the supreme court, has any of them ever telegraphed how they would vote on any topic or is there something called the ruth bader ginsburg answer? >> well, the ginsb

charlie, let me talk to you a little bit this because i -- the cavanaugh hearings were so contentiousand they went on for so long. it's just kind of remarkable to me that this confirmation of amy coney barrett was as a remarkably by comparison. >> it's truly incredible to think about. this is a fight. it's been a nuclear level fight that has gone on for decades as you well know. you are never the judge awards back during the george w. bush administration and this thing has been going on for much further back than that of course. and it has been a fight to the death. here it is on the morning that amy coney barrett is going to be confirmed to replace ruth bader ginsburg. i was watching the live feed off of the senate floor this morning and there was a whole swath of time where there wasn't even anybody on the floor talking. they weren't even debating. there wasn't even anybody they are. the fact that this massive nuclear winter fight has sort of died out in a little whimper on the day that the most important liberal on the court is going to be replaced by somebody in the form of antoni

. >> you justice cavanaugh and chief justice roberts, who worked on behalf of the republican party in matters related to the push be core case, do you think that's a coincidence? >> of all of these questions are you suggesting i have animist. of is very clear yesterday that wasn't what happened. >> the larger challenge here is not what you said about your views on cases, but with the president who has nominated you have said about his goals and his objectives for your service on the court. >> i assure you i have my own mind. >> reporter: and today she used it to explain the concept of severability. which is the key to the affordable care act case the supreme court will hear november 10th. can individual mandate fallen the rest of the law survive? >> if you picture severability being like agenda game it's kind of like if you pull one out can you pull it all while it all stands? >> reporter: barrett said the nomination process has been quote, excruciating knowing that she would be mocked. >> for me to say i'm not willing to undertake it even though i think this is something important wo

the key person in the cavanaugh hearings was chuck grassley. the republican chairman who presided over the hearings. what these three decide as they will use this opportunity to put the warren court on trial. to basically bring abe fortas before their committee and grill him on the variety of the warren court's decisions. instead of a routine hearing, what he gets is questions about specific decisions, he doesn't give consistent answers. sometimes he says he will defend the decisions and sometimes says he cannot talk about them because he cannot talk about how the court may decisions. the committee also starts asking questions about fortas's'advice to johnson. it is highly improper. a supreme court justice should not be providing political advice to a sitting president. everyone knew fortas was doing it. he says he cannot give this advice because it would be an improper intrusion into the court's freedom of action. the conservative democrats say that does not make any sense. you are willing to talk to the senate. fortas -- this is always a prob

bourque, alito, cavanaugh. i am hoping this hearing does not turn into the kavanaugh debacle.'m hoping amy coney barrett gets treated with respect. we are moving forward. we are doing nothing unusual here in terms of how the senate operates. gordon: thank you. carolyn? carolyn: thank you, gordon. we appreciate your time. the white house has been described as a coronavirus hotspot. dozens of people associated with the campaign have tested positive. many of those people were seen at large gatherings and they were not wearing masks. my question is, do you believe in a national mast mandate? sen. graham: i believe everyone should wear a mask, wash her hands, socially distance. this is a deadly disease. carolyn: and do you believe there should be a national mask mandate? sen. graham: i don't know how you enforce it. who enforces it? does the fbi follow us all around? i believe in responsibility. i don't know how a national mandate would work. a vaccine is near. we will defeat this virus. if the democrats take over the senate, the house, and the white house. the most radical politic

single $17 million in the garland gorsuch contest, another single $17 million donation to support cavanaughperhaps the same person spent $35 million to influence the makeup of the united states supreme court. tell me that's good. and over here, you have an array of legal groups also funded by dark money which have a different role. they bring cases to the court. they don't wind their way to the court, they get shoved to the court by legal groups, many of which asked to lose below, to get quickly to the court to get their business done there. and then they turn up in a chorus, orchestrated chorus in nicki. i had a chance to look at this, i was in a case as an a.m. cuss, consumer protection board case, and in that case there were 11:00 a. 11 briefs filed, every one by donors trust. that's a gigantic identity scrubbing device for the right wing so it says donors trust is the donor without who the real donor is. doesn't have a business plan, doesn't do anything, it is an identity scrubber. and this group here, the bradley foundation, funded 8 out of 11 briefs. that seems weird to me when you ha

just to score such and cavanaugh were dissipated in similar ceremonies. but never at night. it was all signaling to the people who have bad current that she will prove to be a reliable vote. >> reporter: now that justice barrett is on the beach the supreme court has a solid 6-3 majority. she will get to decide on an upcoming case about the constitutional of the affordable care act and this friday, the supreme court may take up a case brought by the republican party in pennsylvania here at issue is whether election officials account mail- in ballots that are postmarked by november 3rd but arrived up to three days late because of post office delays. >> the republican party wants to say to you. don't count the ballots if they come in late. if they have not been received by election day. if things are close and if you votes in pennsylvania matter one way or the other, this ruling could be huge. it could absolutely decide who is the president. >>> still to come, struggling to pay rent during the pandemic. up next, a closer look at how much money was lost in the city of san franci

. $17 million donation in the garland-gorsuch contestst ad another single $17 million to support cavanaughsomebody, perhrhaps the same person, spent $35 m million to influence the makeup of the united states supreme court. tell me that is good. over here, you have a whole array of legal groups also funded by dark money comes w whh have a different role. they bring cases to the word. they d don't windheir wayayo the court, y your honor,r, they get shoved to the court by these legal groups, many of which asked to lose below so they can quickly move up to get their business done. and then they turn up in a chorus, and orchestrated course of anarchy. this to me is a pretty big deal. i've never seen this around any court that i have ever been involved with. where there is this much dark money and this much influence being used. here's how the "washingtonon po" ended up. thisis is a conservative activit fantasies campaign to remake the nation scored and it is a $250 million dark money operation. and because that is democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island who will be joining us late