of the democratic ticket between a war pro-war democrat and an anti-war democrat. so here you have mcclellan as two-faced and you know one side of his face. he's talking about pro war the other side. he's sounding peace and he's standing on a very rickety platform. and if you look at the platform we've talked about this before when we talked about benedict arnold a very long time ago. the devil is a very strong image in when you look at cartoons about trees and so the devil and jefferson davis and clement the landingham and another new york democrat are holding up the democratic platform here. the republicans are going to depict the democrats as weak a weak. peace horse pulling the chicago platform. here you have a lot of devils again treason and devils are very prominent in this election campaign. so you've got mcclellan who's bowing down before jefferson davis. he's being ridden on his back by a devil. there are devils throughout the the sky here. you can see an angel being driven away at the top, right? and on the top left here the different devils and symbols t

pedro: on the democrat's line, hi. caller: he talked about politicizing the supreme court, but trump already politicized to the supreme court. they denied barack obama's nominee. pedro: what you think about this idea of expanding the supreme court? he hung up. mr. davis? mr. davis: i think he was talking about judge garland's nomination to the supreme court by president obama during an election year and i would say that in the senate, they follow the 90% rule. when the senate is the same party as the president, 90% of the time they will confirm a supreme court justice during a presidential election year. when the senate is the opposite party is the president, 90% of the time, they won't. that is historically how it has happened. with judge garland, you had president obama a democrat and you had a republican-controlled senate that senate republicans said, we are going to let the american people weigh in with the election and decide how they want to feel that supreme court see. and -- supreme court seat. during that elec

why won't democrats today deal in truth and facts? why do they keep using the same smears to distract from their policies? why are they hell bent on a bill that passed the house with purely partisan support but bipartisan opposition? talk about tipping your hand. senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr.

the democratic ticket before the pro-war democrat and anti-democrat. you have mcclellan is two-faced and one side of his face he's talking about war and the other side's standing face. -- peace in the on the other cited is a rickety platform. we talked about a performer we talked about benedict arnold. it is a very strong image when you look at cartoons about treason. the devil in jefferson davis and another new york democrat are holding up the democratic platform. the republicans are going to depict the democrats as weak. a week peace source pulling the chicago platform. here you have a lot of devils. treason and devils are very prominent in this election campaign. you've got mcclellan, whose bowing down before jefferson davis, is being written on his back by a devil. there are devils throughout the sky. you can see the devils being driven away at the top right. at the top left, the different devils and symbols representing democratic newspapers who are seen as traitorous. mcclellan's crafty policy with the traitorous chicago platform. i will go throu

i leaned democrat.f they are endorsed by the working families party then i know they are a liberal democrat. i would never vote for a conservative or corporate democrat. certainly not a republican. host: how did you treat this election, the jew vote for president biden? caller: i did not. i voted green, chloe hawkins. i would've voted for bernie if you would've gotten the nomination. host: you said you would vote for a liberal democrat, what defines that in your mind? caller: not taking corporate funds, donations. not voting for the corporations. not letting the corporation lobbyists write the law for you and then vote for it. that is the democrat i don't vote for. i'm looking for a bernie sanders kind of democrat that will except small donations from a lot of people. host: bill there giving us the perspective of who he would vote for. you heard our guest talk about people identifying as a democrat versus republicans and asking about that trend. what you think about it regardless of communications. demo

for democrats, you would add two democratic senators. politically desirable for them to move something like this. it is not completely approved by all the moderates in the party. i predict that is going to stall for a while in the senate along with a lot of other things they are having a hard time moving because of their own party and their own factions in their own party. host: which leads to this headline -- house democrats hitting the brakes on a liberal wish list. the speaker of the house threw cold water on the idea last week. guest: she did that pretty definitively. the judiciary committee is going to move legislation to expand the supreme court to 13 members. right there, -- right now, there are nine. this was a campaign issue. people on the left push that, saying we want to balance the court out. on the opposite side, you have republicans campaigning saying, look at how the democrats want to radicalize the country. they want to expand the supreme court. last time they tried to this during fdr, the democrats shut down their own pr

guest: 49% of americans lean democratic. 19% are independents who lean democratic. that is compared to 40% republicans and 15% leaning. we have a nine point gap now, the largest we have measured since the fourth quarter of 2012. host: historically how has this gap shifted over the years? guest: this is pretty consistent throughout the trump administration, democrats have a slight lead. it has been between 4-6 points over the last four or five years. when he gets to double digits are close to double digits, that is pretty rare. we saw double digit democratic advantages from 2006-2000 nine. that is when george w. bush was president. his approval ratings were very low. also the beginning of the obama administration and he was very popular at that point. we also saw similar gaps -- certainly we reference the fourth quarter of 2012. also late 1992, early 1993 after clinton was elected. host: if we are seeing more people say they are identifying as a democrat this year, the numbers tell us one thing, what are the driving forces behind that? guest: it is probably less of a

on the democratic side, i think states like illinois -- you can certainly squeeze out more democratic districts in illinois, and i think they will do that if there's no constraint on their behavior. new york, most critically. new york has not been gerrymandered by democrats in decades because there has been divided government in new york. i have seen sample maps that look reasonable to the naked eye but net for democrats 20 seats out of new york. pretty aggressive republican gerrymander's in some of these republican states can be significantly offset by states like new york. overall, we could be a little more tilted than we are right now, but nowhere near the conditions we saw in 2011. >> if those who have been criticizing partisan gerrymandering from the left will put their money where their mouth is in states like new york, where there was a super majority of democrats in the legislature, that could be interesting to see. there could be quite extreme gerrymandering. there has been a lot of rhetoric , on the media, by eric, by barack obama. i would be quite curious to see if those gr

democrat senator joe manchin blows up the democrat battle plan for biden's entire agenda. manchin looks like he stopped it in its tracks. democrats cruelly mocked on twitter pushing on america cruel mine bending rhetoric, trying to stretch the definition of infrastructure includes paid president biden claims you're irrational if you don't agree with his new definition. also tonight, a accuser, current staffer work for new york governor andrew cuomo details a serious sexual harrassment charge against governor cuomo. legal excerpts says apprs cuomo could have broken new york state law. we have got it. more scandalous details emerging about cuomo's nursing home scandal coverup. texas democrat henry cuellar with us. folks living at the border, telling us their homes, businesses, ranches are getting hit with crime from illegal immigrants. they're scared. they're getting robbed. personning things like carjacks. fires set on the property but they're saying they're pro-immigration. what they're experiencing is terrifying them. texas investigating biden borden facilities for child

warning that the terrorists threat had not abated, where are the democratic voices today. i hope that we will hear from some of them, unfortunately this mistake is one of several instances of this new administration surrendering leverage without making of america, our interests more secure. in january, president biden extended the new start agreement i executive order for five years. no strings attached, no concessions secured, and not even a short-term extension to put pressure on russia to cooperate on a better agreement, just a gift. a gift. then there is iran. officials have gone from demo -- denigrating the maximum pressure strategy to simply begging for direct talks with iran, to offering to remove sanctions that are "inconsistent with the jcpoa." so, which sanctions, exactly or inconsistent with the jcpoa? our sanctions on terrorist organizations? or its ballistic missile program? most republicans would be thrilled if president biden could actually secure a better deal that holds iran accountable, giving up the leverage of sanctions before we even get to the table,

the democratic party is working for you. the democratic party represents your interests. the democratic party actually gives a dam about you and your family and your community. years ago, some of you have heard me tell the story, years ago i was knocking on doors in south carolina. i came upon a shotgun house on an old dirt road. an older african-american man answered the door and said "son who are you and what you want? assets are sir i'm jamie harrison -- i said i'm campaigning. this is the most consequential election. he said something to tell you some the. do you see that that road? what kind of road is that? i said it's a dirt road. he said son, that was a dirt road when ronald reagan was president. when both bushes were president. it was a dirt road when bill clinton and barack obama was president. son, it's still a got dam dirt road. and he shut his door. i was in my feelings a little bit, but as i walked away i thought to myself one of the most important thing to this man was his dirt road. for someone else in town, it might be internet access. someone else across

but when they do things the democrats don't like the democrats are no longer prepared to accept it, theyuccessful democracy because whatever different americans may have the legal institutions have been respected by all sides, that under threat with us to discuss is christopher scalia in a number of books by the late just as his father, thinking for joining us. >> it is my pleasure thank you for having me. >> it doesn't look like this plan will go anywhere because nancy pelosi seems to be refusing to give it time. what did it say in the way in which democrats view these institutions other been so essential to the functioning of american democracy. >> i think you described it pretty much perfectly a minute ago, it is broken, the institutions are broken when they don't serve progressive in and when voters go against the democratic agenda, the system must be broken. some progressives support the court packing plan because they argue basically trump shouldn't of been president and the senate relation to being controlled by republicans because technically democrats got more votes overall, thi

democratic partisanship, democrat power, democrat policy. democrat progressive issues. no state has been admitted by the constitution, but no state was created from a territory which was crafted in the constitution. that's what you want to obviate. even federalist 43 quote the indispense able necessity of the seat of government carries -- it is a power exercise for every legislature of the union, i might say the world, without it not only the public authority by the mite be insulted and proceedings interrupted with impunity. but the dependence of the general government for protection and exercise of their duty might bring on the national -- that is what was -- is at stake here. h.r. 51 is bad for -- according to the founders, also violates the 23rd amendment. that is clear as well. and it's time that the democrats realize it, and vote this thing down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman fro

is not democrats inviting republicans to support democrats ideal bill. bipartisanship is sitting down at the table, identifying what we agreeng on and working out a solution to our differences involving both sides and accepting compromises. i hope tonight the president will go beyond empty thoughts about bipartisanship and make an actual concrete commitment to achieving bipartisan results starting with infrastructure legislation. i hope, although i don't expect he will move away from the policies and partisan priorities of the far left and toward a moderate decision, keeping with bringing america together more than he spoke of in his inaugural address but ultimately, mr. president, what matters the most is not what the president will say tonight but what he will do in the days and weeks to come. will he finallyis deliver on the promise of unity he spoke of in his inaugural address or will he continue to pursue partisan path progressives have laid out for him? for the psaki of our country, i hope he chooses partisanship. >> c-span2 live in the u.s. house

what democrats have been doing. entire region we have been seeing the coordinated effort to slander georgia's election law and blatantly lying about it. calling it a voter suppression bill when it's expanding access to voting to get us to hr1. ifg can't be responsible, we have to federalize them. we have to naturalize them. we have to put democrats in power for perpetuity. >> then you have the silencing of criticism. senator rick scott was invited on to the moaning show with george stephanopoulos. and they said something he said about january 6 means he shouldn't be allowed to have a platform. >> truth and reconciliation committees. mandating what people can see and what they can't see. trying to get certain networks off air. none of this is america. the problem is they don't like the language and they are trying to change the. we saw merriam webster change the definition of social justice. and change what court packing means in america. with everyone in unison basically lying to the american people, that what they

she is both a partisan ideological democrat, a liberal democrat, but also a baltimore pol who wants to get things done. barack obama, president obama, who was a crucial ally in the biggest achievement of her career, the affordable care act, told me that's what he liked about nancy pelosi. at the end of the day she wants to get stuff done. host: the next important step in her career was 1987 and also involved a female member of congress. tell me the story and why it was important in her trajectory. guest: many women in politics particularly in that generation were pushed into politics by other women. that is something you see mentioned. lindy boggs. she had been elected, at first she had been elected to the seat that her husband phil burton had held after his death. she was dying of cancer. she was friends of nancy pelosi. she called nancy pelosi when she was very close to death and set -- said that she hoped she would run for seat and that sally burton would endorse her. which was a huge gift, given she was the incumbent and all the democrats would want to run for this seat in san fran

a democratic caller.ler: if every state had set up an insurance exchange and extended medicaid, would insurance be cheaper? thank you. guest: well, you know, that's a great question. and i think that that is a question maybe more for a health care economist than for a reporter for the new york times. it's hard to know whether or not insurance would be cheaper, although one would think if people who had serious health conditions, perhaps enrolled in medicaid, and the government was absorbing those costs, thus leaving the pool of those insured -- that would be minimized for the insurance companies, it is possible premiums would be lower. but i feel like i am talking out of my league here, so i will not address what might happen if medicaid had been expanded to all states. it is hard to know. host: gabby in washington, an independent. caller: hi, i have a question. it kind of relates to -- back to the voting suppression that ties into health care. if the -- if voting suppression is able to continue because o

it marks a new vibe for democrats. they want people to know who is getting stuff done, and also who isn't helping. trying to increase the cost for republicans who are voting no on everything. but here's the thing. the only reason this can happen, the only reason the democrats are in a position to brag and brag in this way, to brag that it's only them that is getting stuff done for the country, the only reason this is possible is because the democrats were able to pass the covid relief bill all by themselves. in the house of representatives, you can pass things with a simple majority. half of the house plus one. nancy pelosi bears all the slings and arrows of her critics, they love to deride her. but she's really good at getting stuff done. she's really good at getting stuff passed in the house. she does not miscount or miscalculate. if democrats have legislation they want to pass in the house, you give nancy pelosi a democratic majority in the house, however slim, she will get that passed. she does it every time, like

the democrats power grab, hr 1.ith senate, supreme court and control of media. add this up, it is serious. >> they are marching us toward a country that looks like ventura, cuba or -- venezuela or cuba or china with one-party rule, you outline, things like hr1, court packs, and state hood for dc. they want two extra senators, you see what has been going on,. with the lockdowns, dictating if you can open, or not or if you have go to church or open your business or see your family on independent's day. this is not america. we have seen this effort this slander georgia's election law, and lying about it saying it is jim crow on steroids, calling it a voter suppression bill, this is expanding access to voting, to get to us hr-1, saying if georgia cannot be responsible weaker to federalize them, and nationalize them, put democrat in power. >> right. you have the corporate america lining up behind it, another frightening extension of the power grab. the sciences of -- silences of criticism. a tiny example that i noticed t

the democratic party is working for you. the democratic party represents your interest. the democratic party actually gives a damn about you and your family and your community. years ago, some of the of her retell the story. but years ago i was knocking on doors inn a rural county and of carolina. he came upon a shotgun house in an old dirt road. an older african-american men answer the door he said to me son, who are you and what do you want? i said sir i am jamie harrison and i'm canvases on behalfe of the democrats. and he said okay, but what you want? i said sir this is the most consequential election he cut me off or he said son, limitation of the. he said you see that road you drove up on? i said yes, sir. he said what kindin of road is that? i said it is a dirt road sir. he said son, that was a dirt road when ronald reagan was president pregnant both bushes wereenro president. it was a dirt road and bill clinton and barack obama were president. son it is still a god damn dirt road. until either a democrat or republican paves my route i do no one have to deal to an

at emerge we focus on democratic women. i am a proud democrat.n i think about my values, they align with the democratic party. those are the women i am supporting to run for office. host: let's go to teddy who is calling from alexandria, virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. i speak as a former democrat myself who identified very much with the party i voted for since 1996 when i first became a citizen. i was an ethiopian. obviously i have had a change of mind as you can tell since i am calling in from the independent line. what i see the democrats doing is no different than what the republicans are doing. there weaponizing identity politics to distract from the issues. it is the same thing that happened in africa where people are splitting apart based on tribe and did distracts us -- and it distracts us from the core issues. as a colored person, why don't you get upset when someone calls you a person of color? this is the eyes -- insanity of identity politics. you accept the label of democrat or republican despite the fact we ar

and yet, democrats expect us to believe that it's democrats -- that if it's democrats who do this, if it's democrats who pack the supreme court, somehow this move is not a partisan and self-serving one? as justice ruth bader ginsburg said, if anything --, and i quote, if anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that. one side saying when we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to, end quote, from the late justice ruth bader ginsburg. or in the words of justice breyer, and i quote, i hope and expect that the court will retain its authority, an authority that was hard won, but that authority, like the rule of law, depends on trust, a trust that the court is guided by legal principle and not politics, end quote. that from justice breyer. and justice breyer noted, and i also quote, structural alteration note evacuated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust, end quote. mr. president, as these two reliably liberal justices ma

the public tends to trust democrats. it has been a strong issue for theis democrats. in healthcare is the way theth democrats when the house back in 2018 for they ran i healthcare message and they won. they ran again on a healthcare message in 2020 and they won. although more narrowlyly so. i think the voter is talking about or the caller rather is talking about the idea of a backlash arising up among progressives who take umbrage of the efforts republicans are making around the country to restrict voting rights or make it harder for people to vote. and i think progressives are motivated we really saw that and that 2020 election in georgia for instance. who would've thought to democrats would take the georgia senate seats? that was in large part because georgia. it's a lot of backlash is well taken >> i just wanted to say that insurance companies can go into conniption fits whenever they have to pay more than half ofei their premiums for benefits. so government run program would definitely cut prices in half. but let's take the point. >> guest: certainly a government

>> the whole point is the democratic power grab. they're angry they don't have a liberal majority on the supreme court and they want to add four justices, shocking the exact number they need to get democratic appointed justices into a majority on the court. they may not be able to pass this in congress right now in part because the senate is evenly divided. part of this the democrats trying to push the boundaries of what is possible. if they win larger majorities at some point in the future they'll put more pressure on their colleagues to vote for this and ultimately to pack the court. you've seen that some from the obama era to the biden era. the campaign last year it was the conventional position for all democratic candidates to include joe biden. that's why it's essential we denounce it today as an illegitimate attack on the foundational principles of this country, the rule of law and constitutional government. and that we win back the house and senate next year to make sure it has no chance of happening. >> harris: as you read t

and then the large member of democratic voters. there was a division in the legislature in illinois. and democrats republicans came together on a draw. that neutral draw was a republican gerrymander because so many democrats lived in illinois. in the most egregious pro- democratic it to make gerrymander anybody new. and then to do all these horrible things to the public. what that egregious call that it is neutral prorepublican. with a gerrymandered a republicans that according to the metrics to say it's okay. and those democrats who enacted that now surprised to hear that. so this entire push which is actually what is going on with the partisan gerrymandering rhetoric is a trojan horse. they can gerrymander is much as they want and then they say just makes it for the fact the democrats are in illinois but if it was republican that is egregious. one supports the democratic party it is understandable. so much media attention. sometimes the republican party challenges sometimes the other supports the challenges. so the reason that do

those democrats used by their definition that racist filibuster, 270 times i know democrats they havetrol of the filibuster and magically it has become a tool of oppression and bigotry and racism. senator elizabeth warren, you know the same senator that faked her ethnicity for years said it has deep roots in racism. congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez,'s dome at congresswoman ilhan omar says it's tied to white supremacy. dick durbin, will we had this to say about the filibuster's evil history, take a look. >> there was a statement made by senator mcconnell, republican leader yesterday nothing short of amazing and at a press conference can be said of the filibuster and i quote, "it has no racial history at all, none x-pac. amazing that he would say that. certainly senator mcconnell who is working at the senate at that time as an intern, if i'm not mistaken must remember the filibuster being used against the civil rights bill and to say that the filibuster has no racial history at all, none, is to ignore the obvious. >> sean: same civil rights act and voting rights act 64-65 that joe

democrats have challenges. a set of procedural reforms they can agree on and there's only 50 of them. and do they agree on doing it through the nuclear option. and they are not there yet. an interview today with the senator from arizona said, we need to change behavior. we don't need to change the rules. senator manchin has been a little more open to the concept of changing the rules. my guess is several other democrats don't seem on board the nuclear threat. whenever democrats talk about pursuing the nuclear option, it reads as threats of retaliation from republicans. what do we make of the threats that mitch mcconnell as a republican leader has replied to the democrats? what are those threats about? what would that look like? and we can talk about what other options are there for the democrats in particular? this question of stretching reconciliation. >> minority leader mcconnell has recently said if democrats eliminate the legislative filibuster, he's going to go scorched-earth on the senate. there are certa

corporate democrats. democrats who say, we don't hate black people or gay people, but those sweet tax cuts for the rich. they push for that, they push for deregulation, the same thing corporate republicans push for. we are not in that camp. we are in the camp of fighting for the people and only the people. host: is it easier to do what you do nowadays with a democrat in the white house and democrats controlling the house and senate? guest: yes and no. yes, in that they are at least willing to listen and they are rational human beings. getting trump to do anything that wasn't 100% in favor of trump -- even his own voters know that. do you really think he was looking out for you guys? come on. he took all of your money, said he was going to spend it on the lawsuits he went 0-60 and the , lawsuits, pocketed the rest. he is a crook. he is a con man. everyone knows it. republicans like him because he hates the same people they do. when it comes to joe biden, it's not like, oh my god we made it! [laughter] joe

yesterday it was reported 100 democrats signed a letter urging senate democrats to abolish the filibuster. in essence the democratic party is pushing to silence the voice of millions of americans. today the house democrats are moving on d.c. statehood. another ploy to consolidate power so they can jam through socialist policies like the green new deal, court packing and defunding the police. they are not even denying that that is their objective. if you watched congressman raskin, he is on record saying this. there is a national political logic for d.c. statehood too because the senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress across a whole range of issues. that doesn't exactly support the representation argument that some try to falsely state. make no mistake, h.r. 51 is just democrats' latest attempt for a power grab. while democrats try to control the lives of the american people by force, republicans are working on showing that we have the right policies to effectively govern. since march 15, nearly a third of our conference has traveled to the boarder to observe the crisi

is this just a slush fund for the democrats to payback democrats? when anthony stay on the line will get an answer convective for follow-up. >> i don't know that characterize it that way. we don't really have any evidence that would be going on right now. i mean if you look at where the money would go, certainly they have some broad categories and then it would be up to congress to actually write the bill and put in more of the specifics. we are talking about again roads, and bridges, and water systems and ports, and infrastructure. and facilities to care for children, elderly's, seniors, veterans. i just do not know we would have evidence there that that sort of payoff to any group. when anthony we have about a minute left and went to quickly follow up? >> just quickly thank you for that answer. totally disagree. just what to say two things. the wall around the capitol, we have got people flooding into the border. i wish you guys were just cream it loudly to get the border wall finished at least get some border patrol. you want to put a wall around

but there are a lot of progressive democrats and top democrats who feel like the president can just step out right now and cancel student debt. but the white house has been a little bit more cautious on that front. >> rory in california is with us. good morning. >> calr

for democratic politicians. 1948-92, the state of calvary avoided for exactly one democratic presidentialdidate, one. alone, america's big population centers in chicago and new york, california was reliably proudly republican. for eight years, ronald reagan ran the state. california is the country got schools, best infrastructure, best economy, the best natural environment on the planet. california is a model for the world. 1980, ronald reagan former governor became president of the united states. in retrospect, it never got better. midway through the second term break and sign something called the immigration reform control act of 1986. we didn't likely realize at the time that law made future ronald reagan impossible, the immigration reform control act brought about a amnesty and the path to citizenship for nearly 3 million foreign nationals in the u.s. illegally. next year by executive order, reagan added to those numbers. he halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal miners, the dreamers of the day. the rest of the world watched carefully as it happen. it would be migrants ever

i am god smacked by the democrat -- i am gobsmacked by the democrats' position.his whole thing was put into motion by harry reid, and his reduction in passing nominations for appellate court. that is really where we are now. the whole thing is so clearly in the democrats' favor, i really do not know who they are trying to pull this over on. at the same time, they are talking about reducing the -- getting rid of the filibuster, which is another measurement to moderate congress. they are clearly talking out of both sides of their mouth, and this is really something meant to favor them, so i really do not know who they are fooling with all of this. i think biden's fairly shrewd, talking to his "bipartisan committee," but he will really move forward with this measure regardless, because it is clearly in his majority party's interest. i consider myself a fairly moderate person. i am actually a republican who voted for biden for some hope of bipartisanship, but that is clearly not happening. host: the washington times reporting on that difference between democratic lea

would he think about modern democrats and this idea of a modern democratic? >> guest: thank you for asking that last part. there are no moderate democrats. a democrat who is moderate and it'll be the first chapter of my look but you can look at on line at any issue and the progressive position has two-thirds of the country behind it and 80% of democratic votes. if you are a moderate democrat you would be right around where aoc is. people are like oh no i heard it on "fox news" she's too radical. look at her positions for their coupleok of outliers like to demolish i.c.e. and defund the police that are not a two-person popular. but everything else raising taxes on the rich green new deal and yes green new deal. there are millions of jobs in of jobs and if the structure andnd universal health care coverage. and yes on criminal justice reform and legalizing drugs. whenf you hear a moderate democrat coming out of washington they mean the center of d.c.. they don't mean a a center that country. the center of washington is incredibly right-wing. joe manchin another

and honestly for democrats it would likely add two democratic senators, so let's it's not completely approved by the moderates in the party, so i predicted that would be installed, along with a lot of other things that they are having a a hard time because of their own party and their own situation. >> and they liberal wish list, adding justices to the supreme court as you pointed out, literally and threw cold water on him last week. >> yes, she did that definitively, saying that the judiciary committee is going to move legislation, they expanded it to 13 members. and there is a lot of opposition, there were people on the left to push that and they feel that republicans confirmed judges in a way that seemed unfair to the democrats, but on the opposite side we have the intelligence campaign saying look at how the democrat want to radicalize the country, expand the supreme court, which had been nine justices, and the last time we tried this the democrats had their own efforts to expand the quarter. and that includes an unfair movement to try to politicize the judicial branch. and inste

that democrats don't like. over the senate and state legislatures and independent judges. the threats are the point. the hostage taking is the point. and responsible people across the political spectrum have an absolute duty to denounce this. now on an entirely different matter colleagues in congress and fellow people in kentucky were heartbroken when our dear friend carol lever bar passed away. she left behind two beautiful young daughters and adoring husband and congressman andy barr. she was only 39 years old. since then we've learned her fatal heart attack was likely the result of an underlying condition called mitral valve pro lapse. she was diagnosed at a young age. like millions of americans with heart valve defects she lived for many years with no apparent symptoms. tragically -- >> dana: senator mitch mcconnell has made comments on this proposal by democrats to pack the supreme court taking it from nine members of the supreme court to 13. let's bring in fox news contributor katie pavlich and get though