court, traffic court and so on. the federal courts have very limited jurisdiction. they can hear only cases that are brought in diversity, in other words all the plaintiffs are in different states. there is no overlap. they are all -- they are based on federal law. i'm going to leave this part of the talk and go on to some of the problems we are facing in a moment. the constitution is ratified by the states and came into effect years ago. the first 10 was the bill of rights. that was all ratified in 1791. it has only been 17 times since the founding period. it has been altered by the supreme court's interpretation of its various clauses. i think the greatest question has to be over the court is this, should the court interpret the words of the constitution as they were used at the time of the framing or is it legitimate for the court to review those words with a different meeting, one that would not be recognized for the -- by the framers. here is what some scholars and judges have said on the object. we don't have

it's held by a district court and the court of appeals. what the supreme court does is mainly, it's a checking process to make sure that the case was properly adjudicated and make sure evidence was admitted that shouldn't have been left out or excluded and should have come in. so the experience i think with these questions of scientific information, i think the experience in the district courts and the court of appeals, they are the front line adjudicators of those questions. it's interesting that we do have in the system one kind of specialized court, the federal circuit that hears all patent appeals. >> i was going to ask you about that. >> but it turns out that we, but it doesn't end with the specialized court. the supreme court reduce decisions of the federal circuit, and we have taken a fair number of cases from the circuit so there is a generalist court making the last judgment in the case. and if there was an expectation that the federal circuit would review not only the regional courts of appeals, handling patent cases, that the su

court. after his clerkships he practiced commercial and appellate litigation for several years at sidly austin in washington, d.c. and served as a special counsel for the supreme court nominations process for senator cornyn. before earning his law degree, professor graduated summa cum laude from the university of notre dame and he will be serving as a visiting professor at harvard law school. next we'll hear from judge dearmud o'scannlain. he was appointed ninth circuit judge by president reagan in 1986 and assumed senior status on december 21st of 2016. his chambererize in the pioneer courthouse in portland and as a judge on the ninth circuit, he has participated in over 6,000 federal cases and has written hundreds of published opinions on a broad range of subjects including constitutional law, international law, and criminal law. before his appointment to the federal bench, judge o'scannlain was primarily involved in private law practice and between 1969 and 1974, he served as the deputy a

including the courts.went after judge curiel and sort of the rest of the judicial part of the legal and law enforcement system as a candidate. i think he sees here an opportunity to kind of bring the band back together. right? who knows what will happen to jeff sessions after the midterms. i think all bets are off there. but in the meantime, this is an easy one for the president. >> josh, he's expecting payback. i presume the white house expects that kavanaugh that you now justice kavanaugh will rule their way and be in lock step or else. >> i think on the court it's going to be very interesting if you see it go from a court that swings back and forth with a lot of 5-4 decisions to more 6-3 decisions and seem to be leaning steadily in a conservative direction, the court will be even more viewed as a way of extending partisan power as opposed to a neutral arbiter. just yesterday, elena kagan expressed concern during remarks she gave at princeton saying without that swing vote on the court, whether it was ke

that is experience in the federal courts of appeals and the supreme court. as i mentioned my practice is focused there. >> i'm talking about life experience, ms. rushing. >> i clerked for a federal judge. you are a star, that much is clear. you went to justice thomas and you went to williams and connolly and they probably gave you credit the partnership and a signing bonus because you are a star. your career has been on steroids where you do an extension of researching and writing and getting witnesses ready. what i am asking is what about life experience, have you ever been in the trances and trial and represented a client who can pay you? >> i have been in the trenches and represented clients who can pay me. first, i believe you have a letter from one of my clients he was in the trenches with me at trial talking about her experience. second, i represented numerous individuals who could not afford to pay me. i have represented probe on her -- pro bono criminal defendants who have been found guilty of murder in the maryland court system. i have represented v

in the early years of powers, we also hear from supreme court the supreme court historical court chamber. i would like to express gratitude to justice clarence thomas. he has been wonderfully generous in giving his time to the society when we've called on him.

in one supreme court. the supreme court is an institution of law. it is not a parson or political institution. the justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. we do not caucus in separate rooms. the supreme court is a team of nine, and i will always be a team player on the team of nine. [applause] pres. trump: as a new justice on the supreme court, i understand the responsibility that i bear. some 30 years ago, standing here in the east room with president reagan, anthony kennedy took the oath to be a new justice of the supreme court. justice kennedy became one of the most consequential justices in american history. i served as justice kennedy's law clerk in 1993. to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and a hero. on the supreme court, he was a model of collegiality. he fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary and jealously guarded the individual liberties secured by the constitution. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i will always be

you take aim at what the court calls chevron deference which means courts will defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute as long as the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is a reasonable one. you criticized that approach in the book or at least you asked the courts to recalibrate the way they go about deferring to agencies' interpretations. why don't you explain? >> seems to me pretty obvious that if you have a judiciary and if the judiciary is supposed to make sure that the constitution is being observed, and the separation of powers is being observed and that's the theory on which this whole thing proceeds, then it should be fairly clear that the judiciary should interpret the statutes. how much power the congress gave to the executive branch. so that's a statutory interpretation question. what chevron did was say direct, really, the lower courts, not to do that in effect, to say well, these administrative agencies are experts, they're more expert than we are, and if they interpret their statutory authorities in a certain way, we ought to accept that if

he served the court for so long and was a senior member of the court at the time he retired. he was an extraordinarily consequential justice in terms of its impact on the law, but he was first and foremost an incredibly kind and decent man to all of his colleagues, in particular helped me in my responsibilities as chief justice, as someone who had been there for a long time. extremely thoughtful, careful, considerate. there's something he did in the treatment that's coming out by me in the "harvard law review" that i set forth. he compiled a list of reading that he thought was essential. as it was for his grandchildren as they were growing up, for people to read to understand the concept of liberty. they goes all the way from ancient greek readings up to the movie legally blonde. [laughing] it works. believe me it works where he has it. i'd really recommend people to get a real sense of his sins, the understanding of the constitution of liberty and the scope of his learning to get a a hold of the list. i don't when the log review will have it out but i'm sure you can get onli

of our courts and respect for our courts.ore john marshall, we did not have a tradition in this country of issuing an opinion for the court. every judge would issue his own opinion. john marshall said, if we are going to elevate the court, make it a coequal branch of the government, we have to get together an issue one opinion and speak with one voice. that is missing on the court today, and what we need. brian: you write that samuel chase is the only justice of the supreme court to be impeached. they tried to convict him and all of that. he was on the court when john marshall was there. why was he impeached, and why wasn't he convicted? joel: samuel chase was this sort of big, a big d.c. guy. he had a very kind of gruff manner to him. brian: you say they call him old bacon face? joel: old bacon face was his nickname. he was a guy who did not suffer fools gladly. he would express his political views somewhat like the late justice scalia, very outspoken. people did not like that much in the republican party, and so they set ou

and the ohio supreme court. the next nominee to fill a vacancy taking senior status currently serving the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the us department of justice and until just recently acting for the civil division and in these two roles to prevent administration in those civil lawsuits brought by and against united states and the entire division. so to be the partner in addition to paperwork to take on the pro bono cases in a particular representing clients in capital cases before the united states supreme court and other appellate courts. he also clerked on the sixth circuit for judge noris and attended the university of michigan for college and law school earning his jd with honors. today as noted we also have two nominees pamela barker us district court for the northern district of ohio filling a vacancy since 2011 she previously served at farmers insurance exchange and has been house counsel that progressive and assistant attorney graduating magna cum laude and not in earned her degree

that tells you a lot about the court and what the court will try to do. it tells you no you that kavanaugh is a justice, he will try to get back to the judge who has written 300 opinions and distance himself away from the other side. >> it sounds like they were sort of bringing out their arms to say you are one of us, and despite the division happening outside, they're saying we are in and out united supreme court. >> it also means maybe there's no better way of a chance to get a vote than to be welcoming. >> they have to work together. >> they know there may be issues where they could make a 4-4, 6-4, you know, 7-2 if they don't -- if he welcome him and in a sense they say can we play ball on some issues? >> i got to hit a quick paw. we're going to continue our conversation. sotomayor also referenced neil gorsuch and something they've been working on to find common ground. we're watching the live pictures, where brett kavanaugh was sworn in as the new associate justice on the highest court in the land. >>> and we're live in topeka, kansas. this crowd wan

court's defer tn silent on an issue. in a 2017 speech at notre dame, honoring justice scalia judge kavanaugh said the shev ron if encourage said aggressiveness on a large scale. agencies can stretch the meaning of stiechts enacted by congress to accommodate their preferred policy outcomes. i saw this firsthand in the white house and i see it now as a judge. judge kavanaugh proposed solution to the shev ron is to determine the best reading of the statutes courts would no longer defear if agencies interpretation of statutes. such an interpretation would put environmental public health and consumer protection interests at grave risk. judge kavanaugh would have struck down the consumer financial protection bureau as unconstitutional. when he wrote the majority opinion in a panel decision. in an blocked panel in the dc circuit they vacated that and upholding the constitution at of the dock frank reforms including the consumer protection financial bureau. but that's whatt at-risk with judge kavanaugh. those types of decision-m

justice of the supreme court.ices justice kennedy became one of the most consequentialjustices in american history. i served as justice kennedy's law clerk in 1993. to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and the hero. on the supreme court, he was a model of stability and collegiality. he fiercely defended the independence of thejudiciary, fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary, and zealously guarded the individual liberties secured by the constitution. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i will always be humbled and proud to sit injustice kennedy's seat on the supreme court. applause i thank the members of the united states senate, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, for his leadership and steady resolve. i thankjudiciary leadership and steady resolve. i thank judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley for his wisdom and fairness and i give special thanks to susan collins, john kyle and lindsey graham. they are a credit to the country and the se

part of the court's strength and part of the court's legitimacy depends on people not seeing the court in the way that people see the rest of the governing structures of this country now. in other words, people thinking of the court as not politically divided in the same way. it's not an extension of politics. but, instead, somehow above the fray. >> supreme court associate justice elena kagan there on the importance of the public perception of the court amid questions about the potential impact of judge kavanaugh's confirmation relative to the court's credibility. let's bring in msnbc's political analyst rick tyler, former cruz campaign spokesperson. joe watkin, former white house aide to president george h.w. bush. selena maxwell, director for sirius xm and msnbc political analyst. and cornell william brook, former president and ceo of the naacp. welcome to you all. cornell, you first here. your view as a democrat, sir, how do you think kavanaugh's anticipated confirmation will impact the perceptions of the court, will reflect the concerns of justice kagan there? >> mm, it's very tro

supreme court. we'll bring you the entire ceremony as you look there at all of those assembled in the east room of the white house. all of this live as it happens. it is an event 91 long days in the making. >> tonight it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. [applause] lou: the radical democrats immediately attacked the president's nominee with the most heinous charges, most fraudulent charges by even the standards of the radical left in their search and destroy politics of personal destruction. their leader, crying chuck schumer vowed to stop kavanaugh to matter what. >> i will oppose him with everything i've got. lou: and he did. but the radical democrats weren't satisfied to simply oppose kavanaugh. instead they along with their allies and the left wing national media engaged in a smear campaign the likes of which the nation has never before seen. kavanaugh, the highly qualified jurist, husband, father of two daughters

a first in the history of the supreme court.applause} >> tonight, i think -- thank all of my friends worried for my high school days, college, law school, the bush white house. including president george w. bush. from the judiciary teachings, coaching, playing sports. the vibrant, loyal, and tightknit community in the d.c. area. and so many others. throughout america. cherish your friends, look out for your friends. love your friends. i love all of my friends. my mom martha and my dad ed are here or it -- are here. one of the earliest women prosecutors. my dad taught me work ethic. they've given me a lifetime of love and i am grateful for that. [applause] my daughters, margaret and liza are smart, strong, awesome girls. they are looking forward to the upcoming basketball season. their teachers for giving them the day off to mars they can come watch two cases being argued at the supreme court. so they can come watch two cases been argued at the supreme court. graduate ofs a abilene cooper public high school. she is a dedicated to

not the supreme court. you send somebody up to the supreme court who fibs, that individual is there forever. thus maybe our standard should be a little bit higher. third, i want to talk about judge kavanaugh's disposition in that hearing. and some of the things that he said about how the allegations came forward. i talked about this on the senate floor i think now to days ago. so i won't repeat it all. but his belief that dr. ford's allegations or miss ramirez's allegations came forward as part of some vast conspiracy led by progressive groups and democratic senators on behalf of hillary and bill clinton is delusional. i understand that -- i understand that politics in this town is rough. we've all been subject to character attacks we think are unfair. but that doesn't mean that there are these vast came boles of people on the left and right wing spinning tales on a daily basis about each other. what we know is dr. ford brought this forward to her member of congress before brett kavanaugh was even the nomin

court of appeals. the lengthy meeting in my office convinced me that he is someone who will interpret the law and constitution as written. he understands the importance of separation of powers and federalism, holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of federal agency in that he is a strong protector of the second amendment. all issues that are very important to my constituents that they care deeply about, which is why i focused on these issues in my discussions with judge kavanaugh in my office several weeks ago. i was convinced then and remain so that he is well qualified to be a justice on the united states supreme court. but, mr. president, as we all know, after a number of these meetings, several weeks in my case after meeting with judge kavanaugh, two issues arose that i took very seriously. the first was a claim that if confirmed judge kavanaugh would not fully recognize or respect the rights of alaska native people and the u.s. government's trust responsibilities to them. very im

states supreme court on the steps, a shot looking down from the steps of the supreme court.hich is on the campus of the u.s. capitol. the protesters have reached the front door as the anger continues following the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. joining me now, lisa graves former justice department deputy assistant attorney general. and also, christine lucious is an executive vice president for policy, thank you all, christine first. what do you think? is this rally coming a little late? to be sarcastic here? >> no. >> it's great to see active people out here. >> there have been rallies almost every day, chris. i was at a rally two days ago, and i kept thinking i could see the front and couldn't see it. so what is impressing me about this rally, it's still going after the vote. what that shows is that people are not forgetting this, people are not done. they're not done being heard and demanding that our courts be protected. >> from your point of viewer and the passionate activist point of view, what went wrong? if you can delineate it for the history books, what could have

he appointed two justices to the supreme court, 26 judges to the federal court of appeals and 41 to thetrict courts and 130 vacanci vacancies waiting to be filled. so a tree falls on your brand new car and totals it. and as if that wasn't bad enough, now your insurance won't replace it outright because of depreciation. if your insurance won't replace your car, what good is it? you'd be better off just taking your money and throwing it right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what

history of the supreme court.plause] justice kavanaugh: tonight, i thank all of my friends. so many amazing and fearless friends, from my high school days, college, law school, clerking, the bush white house, including president george w. bush. [applause] justice kavanaugh: from the judiciary teaching, coaching, playing sports, the vibrant, loyal, tight-knit catholic community here in the d.c. area and so many others. ashley and i are grateful for their prayers and the prayers of the thousands and thousands of people we have heard from throughout america. when i give advice to young people or speak to students, i tell them, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. i love all of my friends. [applause] justice kavanaugh: i thank my family. my mom and dad are here. i am there only -- their only child. my dad taught me his work ethic. they have given me a lifetime of love and i am forever grateful to them. [applause] justice kavanaugh: my daughters, margaret and liza, a

if chevron applies, a court step one, whether congress directly addresses the precise issue for the court. using traditional tools of statutory construction. it must effectuate congressional intent, but if the court is solemn with ambiguous with a specific issue the court proceeds to chevron step 2. refers to the agency reasonable interpretation of the statute. this is just common sense. even the late conservative justice anthony scalia defended the chevron doctrine as an important role of principle. as the leadership conference on civil and human rights stated, regulations addressing a wide array of sifrl and human rights issues, including environmental protection, immigration policy, health care protection, education laws, and workplace safety, and consumer protection. a justice kavanaugh will put all of those protections at risk. judge kavanaugh's performance at his hearing and answers to the questions on the record did not provide me additional comfort on the nomination. indeed, justice kavanaugh's testimony and legal career has a disturbing pattern. i believe he would be a justice wi

immigration court. from the american darr association to the federal bar association, to the national association of women's judges and the american immigration lawyers association, just to name a few, all stand with the national association of immigration judges in calling for a truly independent immigration court established outside the department of justice, and divorced from all political influences. thank you for listening to my remarks. and the president can maybe raise a few questions. >> absolutely. if you would like to stay at the podium to take questions. >> sure. >> our colleague over here, jamie horowitz who is right there is going to be passing the microphone around. again, when i call on you and you get the mike please do identify yourself and your news organization. so you just called for immigration courts and immigration judges to be removed from the purview of the department of justice. >> yes. >> how do you see that working? >> it is actually a pretty easy logistical transition. not t

court. and i want to make a few quick points as we conclude this debate today. and then i want to speak to the people watching who may not believe what the senate could be headed towards today, who are shocked and angry, frustrated, and hurt. madam president, first and foremost, i believe dr. ford. i believe her when she shared her experience being assaulted by judge kavanaugh. i believe her because of what she said and she remembered with 100% certainty. and i believe her despite what some republicans are trying to use to tear her down because i know trauma experts tell us survivors may not remember every single detail of these events. i believe republican leaders and president trump did everything they could to hide the facts and rush this through because they were afraid of what a full investigation would show. and i believe it is simply wrong to rush to a finish on this confirmation based on that alone madam president, i also believe that what we saw of judge kavanaugh's temperament in t

chief justice, may it please the court. it undisputed premaster now sits on death row unable to fully orient the time and place. as a result of several strokes he suffers from acute vascular dementia which has left his cognitive abilities greatly diminished. he now has intellectual functioning and the borderline range but the memory scores 68 and the severe disabilities have rendered him bewildered and confused most of the time. mr. stephenson. >> a question for both sides but i'm having trouble with a firm grasp of exactly what issues are presented. tell me if i've got this right. there are two. the first one i went to a news to someone who doesn't remember the details of their crime, can he satisfy simply on that basis? he knows that capital punishment is getting us it's going to happen. he just doesn't remember what he did. the second one is whether or not vascular dementia can be a basis for a claim. in other words, he meets the standard but it's not caused by insanity. it's caused a dementia. am i right that those are

the courts guard our rights and the senate guards our courts.y is such an important day. that is why the vote we take this afternoon, a vote to confirm a new associate justice of these "of the united states, represents one of the most consequential decisions a senator ever makes. the members of this body are duty bound to confirm justices of this print court who are men and women as the highest character and the most superlative qualifications. —— of the supreme court. that is just the sort of nominee who stands before us today. 12 weeks ago, the president nominated the jurist whose been described by legal peers of all political stripes as a superstar, a serious scholar and who is legendary for his preparation and possesses the qualifications of temperament and thejudicial the qualifications of temperament and the judicial philosophy to be an excellent associate justice. the president nominated a brilliant student of the law, those who taught and new league nominee at yale say it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as judg

court for a moment. it's important not to forget about the lower courts. president reagan dominated a judges to the d.c. circuit. we should all ask gods blessing president trump to get that many nominations. here's the list. robert bork, antonin scalia, ken starr, larry silverman, jim buckley, stephen williams, doug ginsburg, david sentelle. conservative all-stars everyone. the longest time in as it had to wait between nomination and confirmation was four months. majority in fact, were confirmed in less than ten months. what about her confirmation votes? this will surprise you. seven of the eight were confirmed either by voice vote or unanimous consent. only judge buckley had a roll call vote and his vote was 84-11. that means a lot of president reagan's eight d.c. circuit nominees, only one received any no vote. only one. can you imagine that happening today? never. let's turn back now to the supreme court. as i discussed earlier, 1986 justice scalia was confirmed 98 to zero. chief justice rehnquist was confirmed 65 to 33. even rehnquist to have faced a f

supremes court judge the eyes are fifty. the nays are forty eight vice president mike pence reading out the tight results of a divisive senate vote both republicans and democrats believe the controversy surrounding kavanagh's appointment has fired up their base ahead of crucial midterm elections. also on the program a prominent saudi journalist enters his country's consulate in turkey and then disappears authorities believe jamal khashoggi who has strongly criticized his country's leadership may have been killed we'll go live to istanbul for the latest . time brazilians go to the polls today in a presidential election plagued by division and control machine clued in the public stabbing of one of the front runners. hello and welcome my name is christopher spring good to have you with us president trump is celebrating a major domestic victory after the republican controlled senate now only voted to confirm his nominee brett kavanaugh as a supreme court justice the move comes after weeks of parties and. in fighting over accusat

nominees. >> i'm asking about the other federal -- like courts of appeals, federal district courts,udges who see -- >> i don't see the difference. >> i ask the question because the president right now is getting a lot of his judicial appointments confirmed to be federal judges either at the appellate level or district court level, and he simply needs a simple majority. >> listen, you know, we can debate about whether or not it was a good idea for lower courts. the one thing that harry reid and democrats understood was when you come to the supreme court of the united states you need to preserve that bipartisan vote that is necessary, that 60-vote threshold. we didn't eliminate it then. if not, merrick garland would have been on the supreme court of the united states. >> i want to move on, but with hindsight was it a mistake to use the nuclear option for lower court federal judges as harry reid and his fellow democrats pushed through? >> look, i think at the time we had on -- an unprecedented obstruction by the republicans and the courts were begging for justine district court nominee

can you describe how the court changes every time a new member joins the court? justice roberts: the first thing that happens i think is the eight who were there before behave themselves better. [laughter] justice roberts: it's like having a new in-law at thanksgiving dinner. uncle fred will put on a clean shirt. that was certainly evidenced this past monday. a number of people commented to me that the oral argument was very well conducted. usually people are jumping on each other's questions, but nobody was doing that. but also i think it causes the rest of us to take a hard look at some things we might have taken for granted. for 13 years, i've been explaining my view of a particular clause to my colleagues. they know it. they know what i think. now you get somebody new, and you have to explain it a little more thoroughly, because he or she has not heard it yet, and it causes you to take another look at it. i would not go so far as to say it causes re-examination, but a new articulation of a particular view, and that may cause others to look at it a little bit

and so, when the court was presented with that same evidence, he said this court, the supreme court has already said justice kagan: well, is there ever a -- place where the court makes clear that it understands that insanity is not a sine qua non, that dementia could do the trick in satisfying the ford/panetti standard? is there ever a place where the court says, even though, you know, i understand that i'm not necessarily looking for delusions or schizophrenia or insanity and all the -- the ways that we -- that we saw it in ford and panetti, that if i find somebody who's experiencing the kind of dementia that would prevent him from having a rational understanding of the crime and punishment, that that's enough? is there ever a place where the court makes clear that it knows that? mr.govan: well, yes, several parts, your honor. on page 3 and 4 of the court's order, the 2016 order, it set out the panetti standard in full. on page 10 of the court's order -- kagan: but i don't think that that does it. i mean, you can set out the panetti standard. the question is whether you understand that

that court was the one that became greatly discredited, the so-called lochner court. after douglas was appointed, it came into a different era, but every time, and there's only been a few you've had that kind of rock solid five-person majority, it's been bad for the court. you don't want that kind of hegemony. you want them to talk to each other, bargain, reason and come to some kind of results that reflect something of the spirit of the country. there's a real risk when it gets out of step. >> all right. thank you all. i appreciate your time. judge brett kavanaugh all but certain to be confirmed. one of his yale classmates is speaking out tonight, saying he shouldn't get the a seat on the supreme court. charmin ultra soft! it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin >>> the stage is set, the senate is voting in a matter of hours. all but certain to elevate judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. the country is still bitterly divided tonight. joining me on th

i no longer any respect for the supreme court. i think any cases that are taken to the supreme court, none of them -- none of them will be identified to be in the affirmative. everything is going to be negative. now the democrats did a wonderful job in trying to let them know who and what we were going to put on the supreme court, but the people were more to want to believe what the republicans wanted to do. the republicans don't stand for women and they don't stand for democracy. .. .. until to end and she decided to vote no against the judge. they will both appear on 60 minutes, duane in pair a kansas, a republican, hi dwrien, gj. >> what's your reaction here? >> okay, first off, i have three daughters, two of them were raped at a concert: those two girls both prosecuted they're attackingers, they remember everything that happened that day. even though they had a little bit to drink. but, to say that ford had forgotten everything is ridiculous. she may have been raped, but it wasn't kavanaugh. two. the supreme court is not elect

he's nominating people to the circuit court and the supreme court to apply the law. most americans don't know what roe provides and does not provide. we've surveyed this in the past. they think there are limits to having aye bo-- abortions. roe talked about trimesters, but they never really -- we're talking about trimesters now. people are going to look at state law and circuit law and are going to look at late term abortions, sex selection abortion. they'll look at abortion after nonpartisan scientists and doctors say a fetus can feel pain. this whole matter of abortion any time, anywhere on demand with no -- the fact that planned parenthood gets tax payer funding and uses it to support democrats is not what most americans think of. >> kellyanne, we just heard -- >> i know the mainstream media wants to boil the supreme court down to abortion and guns. this week they're going to deal with asbestos claims and the commerce clause. >> let me ask you about -- >> the constitution is a big document. >> senator collins said the president was not respectful of christine blas

how many lives destroyed before the court to come in? the court balances this. this is a terrible idea it has the unprincipled component that we strive to make the decision. >> ultimately they have to be entirely discretionary and which cases to take you want to argue that real politics has no role? . >> no. fine but you are arguing something i agree with with the political consequences of what it does and therefore if the case should not be decided you are denying review because it takes four votes. but they had to decide. >> it is easy enough to dismiss these. . >> but then to get rid of these cases. and to ruin the institution that manipulates doctrine. >> i think they would say legitimately. >> so let's use the argument that tactically they jump too soon and the question was asked of her but she did say that result of roe was correct she did not say they should not decide the issue but they should have decided it as the equality issue the way they decided brown. and to have equality for women inevitably. >> i acknowledge in the book the equal protection argu

in addition to texas versus us for those cases pending in lower courts likely to go to the supreme court in the upcoming terms those cases willtl directly impact health care for millions of healthcare for families in each of these cases there is a question of the affordable care act is that we can enforce in court with critical issues such as the scope of healthcare coverage for nursing mother mothers, false advertising and if employers are required to provide health coverage to employees given judge kavanaugh's statements to the affordable care act i feel a justice kavanaugh would further restrict access to healthcarerd in particular regards to women's healthcare including birth control. and planned parenthood versus kc the supreme court se firmly established the constitutional right to privacy to protect women from undue burden some interference trying to decide to terminate her pregnancy this is known as the undue burden standard that has the purpose or effect of a substantial obstacle seeking in abortion on a nonviable penis long - - fetus. and in 2017 with that ongoing effort with a

they're groomed through the state courts. the state courts have issues coming up.ues of gun rights and immigration. those type of things come up and the court watches those. then the court determines which cases they actually want to hear. they'll be able to decide and pick and choose which cases they actually want to tackle and which issues they want to tackle. so you can, if you are partisan, have a political agenda on the court because you can vote to take certain cases and hear certain cases if you have a political motivation to do so. in the years past, we haven't seen that political motivation come forward. i think that's going to change. we're going to see a much more conservative motivation in taking certain cases. >> to your point, a recent article topped democratic -- are talking about impeachment of brett kavanaugh. multiple federal judges 'em peached by the house. no supreme court justice has been removed. what can you tell us about the -- justice kavanaugh goes through impeachment proceedings? >> it's not likely. what would have been most likely is the

they enact a law, the supreme court strikes it down. they enact, the supreme court strikes. what do you do? roosevelt takes a book from the civil war and says, i'll tell you what we'll do. we will add some justices to the supreme court, so that when they get a case, i will have the majority and everyone can rest peacefully. only this time, it did not go down so well in the country. there's a five month to six months struggle that is hard to imagine. , have to think of like nowadays, the clinton impeachment. people were mesmerized, fighting about it in the pta meetings. do we buy into this idea or no? ultimately, the american people reject the idea of controlling the court, but they only do it after the courts switched and signaled it is not going to interfere with the new deal anymore. that brings us into the world i think we live in today. generally speaking, we respect the supreme court and are willing to follow what they say, but only so long as they don't on issue aftery the courtr issue follows public opinion. when the court decides some of the abortion cases, the headl

supreme court. or fifty. two nays are forty eight by president mike pence confirmed the close result of a divisive vote in the senate it means brett kavanaugh will now sit as a judge in the court for life. brazilians prepare to go to the polls this weekend in a presidential election that's been mired in division and controversy even including the stabbing of one of the front runners. and byron munich have slumped to another defeat in the bundesliga they suffered a heavy loss at the hands of voters should mention blackbox. controversial u.s. judge brett kavanaugh has been sworn in as a justice of the u.s. supreme court the inauguration took place in a small private ceremony around an hour earlier a narrow majority of u.s. senators voted to approve kavanagh's nomination the cases thrown open partisan politics in the country with kavanagh having been accused of sexual misconduct by president mike pence who presided over the vote made the announcement after the ballots were counted. expressions of approval or dev

they had to get their guy kavanaugh on the court. he's going on the court.going to be calm and happy. and they're going to go back to watching football and there's no big deal. there might be a good fight on the mma. >> i completely disagree. >> those guys will say, we've got to vote for trump! and that's the difference here. it's a different dynamic. >> there's one person. i think this is totally being misread and overplayed by the democrats. the fact of the matter is, if the election is only 31 days away or so, and this is going to be portrayed, i think correctly by republicans that this good man was treated unfairly. and let me finish this way. i think women have sons, they have husbands. and they have boyfriends. and i think this is going to be just as senator collins said, and just as senator fisher said, and just as senator ernst said. and these are women, and these are women that voted for mr. kavanaugh. is going to say, this is about due process and fairness. and the idea that -- >> due process. that's not what they did. >> you know what, there is no

states supreme court. >> on this vote, the ayes are 50, the nays are 48. the nomination of brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states is confirme confirmed. >> you think elections don't matter, keep that picture of mike pence there at the senate president's desk there. deep in your mind. it does matter. this all happening by the way just ahead of what will be a big victory lap for president trump tonight as he heads to a rally out in topeka, kansas tonight. let's bring in garrett haake up on the hill on capitol hill. give us a sense, if you will, you've been out there with people. we're here in a studio. what's the smell of the crowd? it seems to me they're not quitting. >> reporter: no, chris, they're not quitting. but there is a sense of at least a temporary defeat here among the folks i've talked to both democratic lawmaker who's thought perhaps in the last week long extension they might have found a way 0 derail the nomination and the protesters

of the supreme court. (applause). tonight i thank all my friends, from my high school taste, college, law school, when i was clerk, the white house, including president george w. bush. from the judiciary teaching, coaching sports, the vibrant loyal, and tight-knit catholic community near the d.c. area and so many others. ashley and i are grateful for their prayers and from the thousands and thousands of people we have heard from throughout america. when i give advice to young people or speak to students, i tell them, cherish your friends look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. i love all my friends. (applause). i thank my family, my mom martha and my dad are here. i'm their only child. mom was one of maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. my dad taught me his work ethic and love of sport and has given me a lifetime of love and i'm forever grateful to them. my daughters margaret and liza are smart, strong, awesome girls. they are in the middle of fall lacrosse an

he will serve with distinction on our highest court. he unquestionably deserves confirmation and the country is concerned. , but this time, this time stakes are higher, a lot higher than they have been in the past. this time the stakes are a lot higher than they have been in the past. i can't summit up better than the distinguished senator from maine said in her historic remarks yesterday. she said, it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. she said, when passions are most inflamed is when fairness is most in jeopardy. we all know the events of recent weeks abstained, strained the country's comity and fanned the flames of partisan discourse. but our very commitment to the basic principles of fairness and justice is also being tested t, basic principles of fairness and justice being tested right here. kavanaghr justice today is also a vote to send a clear message of what the senate is. this is an institution where the evidence and faxed a matter -- evidence and facts matter. this is an institution where the

supreme court. just a little while ago, republican senator susan collins announced she will support kavanaugh in tomorrow's final vote. another key republican, senator jeff flake, of arizona, as well as democratic senator, joe manchin of west virginia, also say they will vote yes. tonight, kavanaugh's opponents are applying enormous political pressure, trying to change senators' minds, even at this very last moment. we're going to get reaction from democratic senator, mazie hirono of the judiciary committee, and our correspondents, analysts and specialists, they're standing by to provide full coverage. let's begin with our senior congressional correspondent, manu raju, up on political. manu, senator collins seems to have been the most important remaining question mark. >> yeah. and for much of the day, wolf, republican and democratic leaders did not know how she would ultimately vote. everybody was waiting for her speech this afternoon. and after she made her remarks, the red state democratic govern

of the court. wondering how this will all shake out. bottom line, wolf, brett kavanaugh would give him a solid fifth vote for his side of the court. then we go to clarence thomas. we have invoked so many times during this ordeal because back in 1991, he face said sexual allegations in his case. it was sexual harassment alleged bee anita hill, a former colleague of his. he has been feeling some sympathy for what brett kavanaugh is going through and if brett kavanaugh joins, he would be with clarence thomas on the right of the court. then we move over to the left and we have the leader of the left wing, ruth bader ginsburg who is notable for two reasons. you know she is a leading feminist and made her name in the 1970s as a women's rights advocate and has spoken publicly about the me too movement. the thing that is most important for her is she is about to be only in dissent. the main guy who she used to be able to count on, anthony kennedy is gone. folks have asked will she try to ostracize this new

t kavanaughe supreme court.ay with us. ...for that, and just a second, we also have the mendez mediation. brian is going to take the lead just follow his- hello. uh, no i need it right now. yeah... success is a numbers game. and you're not going to win if you keep telling yourself to wait. the more often that you choose courage, the more likely you'll succeed. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. download audible. and listen for a change. (woman) we'd been counting down it was our tresiba® reason. download audible. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for lows. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most com

of appeals, state supreme court's. i'm not asking you, but my guess is that you and chuck schumer and a lot of democrats would say not a single person on that list is a member of the additional mainstream. >> the way it should go, the way that former presidents have done, they developed a list, not an outside group. they the ones who developed the list, and yes, they do talk to the members of the senate before they make the nomination and try to narrow the list to one that will be more acceptable among the united states senators. that's how the process. when barack obama was president, he talked about democrats and republicans before he made his announcements. that's the way the process should go. you don't take an outside list by an outside group. >> chris: haven't republicans been less political about supreme court nominations, want to put some statistics up on the screen. democratic nominees have gotten since bill clinton, these are the democrats appointed, now take a look at the republican nominees by bush 43 and n