president obama on his supreme court, merritt garland, a hearing. that's pretty rich. i have gloria borger and kaitlan collins. it's like, seriously? >> if i recall, merritt garland was waiting around for 400 days and then never did get either a hearing or a vote. and so it is pretty rich to hear mcconnell say, you know, this is the schedule and we are going to stick to it. the other point he is making that is absolutely accurate is that this is politics. and this is payback former rit g garland, as you point out, and democrats believing that they believe dr. ford and they want her to be heard and now she is willing to be heard. and they want it to be done in a different way with an fbi investigation, et cetera, et cetera. but, you know, both sides here are playing hard ball, brooke.

judge kavanaugh spoke growingly of judge garland stating, chief judge garland is a brilliant jury jurist, thought, collegial, a good man, integrity. he's qualified with experience for the supreme court. all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it's fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible that judge garland is not a justice today. instead i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect to treat litigants that appear before him, on his own merits and with an open mind with someone whose views may differ from our own. our judicial system is not well-served by tit-for-tat politics. at the end of the day i support judge kavanaugh and i'm proud to induce him because he's qualified which extraordinary experience and temperament and does fit within the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few days getting to know the judge kavanaugh that i know and at the end of that process i hope you'll agree he should succeed his former boss on the supreme court. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator feinstein, members of the committee. i thank

guest: let me address the merrick garland situation. merrick garland is a friend of mine and i think the world of him. i wish obama had nominated him right out of the bat. but that was the jill biden rule. joe biden announced at the end administration, if there is any vacancies that come up for the supreme court this year in an election year, we are not going to approve anyone. that is when the democrats were in charge of the senate. so that was a long-standing rule. not long-standing, but it had already been put out by the democrats. so beautiful because were just saying, ok, let's let the electorate decide. whoever they elect president, they can get the judge. and was not six months. february and the election was in november. she is being invited to testify. your other issue is about how many witnesses should be brought. into the, i believe that the senate -- the said it, i believe in the judiciary will you believee one other -- i the judiciary says he could have one other perm. host: we will go to eric in maryland, republican. caller

it was merrick garland's term.holding was kavanaugh, and the fact that he supports "gun rights" is awful enough. my question to your wonderful guests, i have understood that the number of federal court justices is a fluid number. it has not always been nine. thisif the next step in battle, with democrats come in and announced that maybe the balance to be tilted back to liberal if we appoint more justices in the wake of all of this? courtjason, unpacking the . -- on packing the court. >> the biggest thing that has been preventing court packing is history. the last time it was seriously considered during the administration of fdr, who was frustrated with the supreme court who felt that he was not being given a fair shake on the new deal program, he was met with a lot of brush back. there was also give-and-take. the court started ruling in a way that roosevelt thought he could live with and that was the last time there was a serious contemplation of expanding the court. caller is correct, there is nothing in the const

that will be the payback i think from eric garland. >-- from merrick garland. >> what kind of affect do you think is happening already what -- might happen on the coming weeks? >> if we think back to the clarence thomas situation, although clarence thomas was nominated, his nomination caused a a number of incumbents their seat. alan dixon lost his primary in the subsequent primary. even if kavanaugh gets confirmed election,rse of the the democrats might still be the beneficiaries. >> richard, thank you for taking the time to speak with us. iran is bowing revenge after an attack on a military parade on saturday that left close to 25 people dead. it is the country's worst terror attack in a decade. funerals are underway in the southwestern city. speaking at once ceremony, the head of iran's revolutionary guard pointed the finger at what he called the triangle. saudi arabia, israel, and the u.s. iran's president also use -- also accused the u.s. of being involved. >> it is absolutely clear to us who has done this. which group it is and to whom they are affiliated. the americans are insi

i strangly disagree with the senate's treatment of judge garland. judge kavanaugh spoke glowingly of judge garland during his pending nomination stating that "chief judge garland is a brilliant jurorist, thoughtful, he's considerate, collegial, works well with others, he's a good man, great integrity and supremely qualified by the characteristics of experience, temperment, writing ability, scholarly ability to the supreme court." all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not a justice today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him. on his own merits and with an open mind towards someone whose views may different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit for tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh and i am proud to introduce him because he is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperment

they had no hearings, no vote on merrick garland for a year. why does the hearing have to be next week? why not next week? if the allegations are so controversial, let's investigate them and see, what is the big rush? >> the senate has been conducting an investigation, and the democrats have been asking for an investigation while boycotting the real investigation going on. they would have had an opportunity already this week to question everybody from judge kavanaugh to all of the other people alleged to be at that party. that was a bipartisan investigation that is supposed to be going on, but when you have the democrats refusing to show up it rings hollow as they are -- >> there was no hearing. >> the senate staff has been conducting an investigation this entire week, and after yesterday's allegations, the judiciary committee staffers reached out and said if you have information we would like to talk to you and go back and forth. the normal procedure would be central democrats would be in charge of this also, and feinstein, the ranking member,

i didn't like the move on merrick garland. i wouldn't devoted for him. i would've voted for my senators to vote for him. i wrote them as a time to kick the thing to the floor and voted down. because that is the process i believe in and is in the constitution. but in this case, dianne feinstein withheld information from her colleagues and she did this as a delaying tactic. she could have given the anonymous tip to her colleagues so they could have talks to kavanaugh in private. they do that all the time. there always allegations made against people. they share that with fellow senators on the committee. but she did this as a delaying tactic. and i understand that. i like it. but i will urge my senators to vote against this nominee. trump reached into the swamp and nominated someone out of the swamp. it's clear that he came out of prep school privilege. and that is what he was supposed to clear up when he went up there and he didn't do that. gottend've gone out and a graduate from the university of tennessee or from the university of texas or stamford. the

will be coming back to we're going to play a sound bite from xander garland were he addresses the unrest that accompanied the far right protests and he chooses chancellor merkel of using it to quash criticism of her migration policy. you behave as if we only had a choice between multiculturalism and fascism apparently it doesn't occur to you that it's possible to live like the swiss or the danes or the swedes. and i'm sorry i missed it instead. ms merkel when you were forced to take back the accusation that people were hunted down you said there was hatred. first of all hatred is not a crime and second it usually has causes why was there to use your language hatred because the people of chemists are bad people or because they feel themselves to be the victims of bad policy because they hate out of malice for no reason it appears we will wait in vain for any sign of self-criticism is miracle in the film for this and if you believe it would. be screwed least i mean. that's. not of course as of xander gold on the head of the opposition far right party in the german parliament speaking earli

it won't be merck i can garland. this could be -- it won't be merrick garland. has been through the process. she was one of the president's top three picks. greg: you know what scares me? all criminals have three names. but you know -- she is obviously eminently qualified, smart lady, blah, blah, blah. but a lot of people aren't talking about my choice which is judge jeanine. i mentioned it today on "the five." imagine if she said that's it, judge jeanine. could you naj imagine her in the hearings? no one would get away with anybody. she would just grab guys by the collar. she scares me oh she is on "the five." kennedy: that's polite territory. it's not even hostile territory. i thought the next time around would be the dirty, filthy scummy contentious time with the loud protests and pulling out all stops. i am surprised to see it happening here. i understand the balance of the courts rest with this nomination. greg: i get the idea that merrick garland, that was a political move on the part of the republicans. but merrick garland's life isn't being ruined. he ma

everyone said merrick garland, nice guy, very smart. what is the paul merrick garland holds among this gathering? >> among democrats there is no question that shadow continues to extend over this. i think perhaps the brilliance of the republican move, though, here by mitch mcconnell is it does now seem a long time ago that this episode with merrick garland took place. we've had a whole supreme court nomination in between. in the public mind and the way people think about these things, it becomes more difficult as time goes on to convey an urgency about a wrong done to merrick garland two years ago when we're talking about a nominee that is not even the most recent nominee to follow garland. there is no question that is lingering out there. there is a lot of bitterness on democrats on that side, and i also think among democratic senators when many of them cast their votes you'll see that issue of merrick garland raised again and again. perhaps that will even be at the forefront in kavanaugh's qualifications or views on these issues might

i strangly disagree with the senate's treatment of judge garland. judge kavanaugh spoke glowingly of judge garland during his pending nomination stating that "chief judge garland is a brilliant jurorist, thoughtful, he's considerate, collegial, works well with others, he's a good man, great integrity and supremely qualified by the characteristics of experience, temperment, writing ability, scholarly ability to the supreme court." all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not a justice today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him. on his own merits and with an open mind towards someone whose views may different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit for tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh and i am proud to introduce him because he is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperment

some of them are quite close to garland.stice roberts and garland clerked for the same lower court judge. it was in fact garland who helps roberts, a promising lawsuit, get that clerkship. now, they may not agree with garland's philosophy or the coach, i think they agree that the process is broken. they're not going to, of course, speak out. i flipped to some of that isn't the book but i couldn't tell you which justice might have been upset. >> kavanaugh needs 51 to get confirmed republicans hold the majority. >> or 50, the tiebreaker with the vice president. but but there's no reason to believe that the two key women, senator collins or senator murkowski is, they've given every indication, since kavanaugh was nominated in july, that they're with him. unless there is some extraordinary revelation or political pressure put on them, which i think is the -- the possibility is nil. i think he'll be confirmed. and i think you will see most of the democrats in red states that are up for senate re-election, you'll see them go kavan

man in the office when alabama nominated garland? i think his point is my point.le to get things through, every president was. why was it a different standard for barack obama? >> it's a double standard. and the folks who have been controlling this process, chairman grassley and others, speak from both sides of their mouth. during justice kagan's nomination, folks like jeff sessions insisted on disclosure each and every document from kagan's time in the white house. but now we see the senate at every turn changing the rules of the game, abanding the long-standing pro decision and rules that have helped guide the most important task the senate carries out, installing lifetime judges on our nation's courts. this hearing should not be going forward on tuesday. we need to press pause, we need to give the senate time to evaluate each and every document underlying mr. kavanaugh's record so we can understand who he truly is before we think about whether he qualifies for a life-time seat on our nation's highest court. >> let me go back to john because i promised you could

as you know judy garland was born here.garland museum. so we really want to work hard and feel that this pair of slippers should end up at home in judy garland's hometown. >> have you seen an increase in calls, people calling you to say, oh, my gosh, we heard about the slippers, are they back? what do you know? >> right now the mezzanine is completely packed with people, today. it's been that way all week and people have been calling from literally all over the world. i've gotten e-mails and our staff, our board members, literally from work it's been incredible. everyone is asking are the slippers going to end up back at judy's house. >> well, when you get that answer, let us know. ray, pleasure to talk with you. thank you. >> thank you, erica. >>> you are in the cnn "newsroom" on this saturday. i'm erica hill in for ana cabrera. it's game on. trump versus obama in the run-up to the midterm elections. less than two months to go. which obama will we see on the campaign trail? well, it may depend on the day. it may depend a l

in 2016. >> will justice garland, judge garland get a hearing?> no, i don't think so. this nominee is not going to be considered. >> it has been 80 years since a supreme court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. there is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. >> it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice, and it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president. and withhold its consent. >> was ted cruz consistent about that today, or is he a hypocrite in your view? >> the republican leadership has been completely inconsistent. they are obviously considering this nominee in an election year. and the denial and coverup -- it is a coverup of these documents -- is going to be a lasting taint and stain was eventually these documents will come out. and my republican colleagues voting for this nominee now will have to live with the very harsh judgment of history about their supporting someone, we don't know exactly what they're hiding, we can only speculate

and try to get judge garland confirmed. i think he would've been a great pick for the supreme court. he's obviously a very distinguished judge. the chief judge of the court that judge kavanaugh sits on, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. a senior official in the justice department. i think merited full consideration by the senate. >> for democrats, the repudiation of merrick garland still stings. some say that is why democrats should try to hold up judge kavanaugh's nomination. how much of a factor is that for you? >> it is not for me. i don't think this is a question of tit-for-tat or revenge or anything like that. i think obviously what happened to judge garland was unfair and should not have happened. it was a wrong of historic import. but i think judge kavanaugh deserves to be considered on his own merits. as i said before, it is not a question of professional qualifications or character or anything like that. i think it is a question of finding the right balance. we're a very divided country. we're narrowly at the marg

delay that was taken to preclude merritt garland considered for the supreme court. it's a false deadline. how does the senate deal with a credible allegation of sexual misconduct by a nominee when the advice and consent function of the senate is to make it a de determination about the suitability of confident for the office he's been nominated for. the way it's getting set up now without an independent fbi investigation, without the time to explore the setting, explore the facts. bring forth expert testimony on why someone would delay a number of years before reporting an incident of this type. that sort of thing. really demonstrates this is

four pairs worn by garland in the movie are known to exist and here is one of them. >>> all right. age is just a number as they say. nothing proves that true like the story you are about to see. after the break, the face-off >>> abc's new brand local wish is sharing inspiring stories in a digital series called "more in common." we are learning this week about the journey of a navy veteran who lost both legs in combat. >> when i surf i don't want to come back on land. it is quite nice to be on the ocean and kind of weightless and feeling the energy of the ocean. when i come back on land and i change out, i feel a bit more disabled but when i'm out on the water it really makes me feel alive and, you know, intense. ♪ >> we went out with dan. we watched surfing with him, having fun. we were looking at how he was actually surfing. we said, you know what? we're going to be able to help him take his surfing to a whole other level. >> we started collaborating, how could we make a custom surf board that would work to fit my unique center of gravity, my unique body shape. >> we have learned

the fbi has tracked down a stolen pair of slippers worn by judy garland in the "wizard of oz." they are one of four known existing pairs used in the 1993 film. the smithsonian in washington, d.c. has another pair and they helped the fbi analyze the recovered shoes to guarantee their authenticity. >> they are an enduring symbol of the power of belief. >> reporter: the shoes were stolen 13 years from the judy garland museum in grand rapids, minnesota. the investigation is still ongoing so authorities are not yet revealing how they recovered them, where they have been or who stole them. and julia louis-dreyfuss is back at work. she announced last year she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. the seinfeld alum says she feels fantastic. she partnered with saks fifth avenue to design a t-shirt to raise money for women battling breast cancer. that's your "eye on entertainment." danielle nottingham at cbs news, los angeles. >>> it is 4:57. a new wildfire breaks out in northern california forcing dozens to flee from their homes. >> plus, tropical storm gordon makes landfall along the

that is where judy garland at while wearing her sequined ruby red slippers.ounced that those red shoes have come home. >> not only where they slip or stolen, but the memories of a lot of americans were stolen at 2005 and we hope to give those memories back today. just before the said they were recovering the shoes which were stolen from a judy garland museum in minnesota. they are not saying where they found them because it is still an ongoing investigation. i had my suspicions, gregory. >> greg: [laughs] they were my size. i look great in them. [laughter] >> jesse: greg called you a scarecrow under the breath. not nice. >> juan: is a good thing i have you here to defend me. >> jedieiah: whenever he goes to the dentist, they ask you, hu been flossing, you get the question everything a time you go, what you better be flossing because adult baboons and their children can floss, so can you. these are some baboons at a british zoo, grooming each other, and they have been known to take each other's hair and start flossing her teeth. now they do this both for socia

judge garland, of course, was appointed to the d.c. circuit by bill clinton, and he was president obama's nominee to the u.s. supreme court. what i found that was striking is that in the 12 years you've been on the d.c. circuit, of all the matters that you and chief judge garland have voted on together, you voted together 93% of the time. not only that, of the 28 published opinions that you've authored where chief judge garland was on the panel, chief judge garland joined 27 of the 28 opinions you issued when you were on a panel together. in other words, he joined 96% of the panel opinions that you have written when he was on a panel with you. the same is true in the reverse. of the 30 published opinions that chief judge garland has written on a panel, you've joined 28 out of 30 of them. over 93% of those opinions. what is your reaction to those data and the level of agreement? >> well, i think we're trying hard to find common ground and to, as i've said before, he's a great judge, a great chief judge. he's very careful and very hard w

choice he specifically chose someone who he believed would bring more republican support merrick garland was not some progressive extremist activist firebrand that all of us lefties could get excited about not at all there were many leftists who were incredibly frustrated with his choice but even that olive branch that was you know that hand that was extended to the republicans they didn't allow it and then they end up getting the gorsuch and now they've chosen kavanaugh someone who has just about the worst developing reputation out of any political figure in in recent memory he was lucky that bill cosby was in the news this week to take a little bit of the focus off of them. and now that we have these accusers these credible women who are coming forward they say that this is all political it's a big con as trump says and if we bow down to these women now they will do this to every candidate this is just the standard operating procedure now that is a theory that doesn't stand up to even the most recent example did it happen neal gorsuch no it didn't happen to of course it's because he ap

judge garland of course was appointed to the d.c. circuit by bill clinton and he was president obama's nominee to the u.s. supreme court. what i found that was striking is that in the 12 years you've been on the d.c. circuit, of all the matters that you and chief judge garland have voted on together, that you voted together 93% of the time. not only that, of the 28 published opinions that you have authored where chief judge garland was on the panel, chief judge garland joined 27 out of the 28 opinions you issued when you were on a panel together. in other words, he joined 96% of the panel opinions that you've written when he was on a panel with you. and the same is true in the reverse, of the 30 published opinions that chief judge garland has written on a panel, you've joined 28 out of 30 of them. over 93% of those opinions. what is your reaction to those data and the level of agreement? >> well, i think we're trying hard to find common ground and to, as i've said before, he's a great judge, a great chief judge. he's very careful and

judy garland's dolan is it is from the wizard of oz have finally been found —— judy garland's stolenize for her work with the poor and the dying in india's slums. the head of the catholic church said mother teresa was a wonderful example of how to help people in need. we have to identify the bodies then arrange the coffins and take them back home. parents are waiting and wives are waiting, so... hostages appeared, some carried, some running, trying to escape the nightmare behind them. britain lost a princess today, described by all to whom she reached out as irreplaceable. an early—morning car crash in a paris underpass ended a life with more than its share of pain and courage, warmth and compassion. good to have you with us on bbc news. the latest headlines for you: explosive revelations about president trump's white house by veteran journalist, bob woodward. the white house says they are fabricated stories by disgruntled former employees. president trump's nominee for america's highest court, brett kava naugh, has stressed his belief in impartiality. opponents believe he will make

coming on the heel offense a lot of parliamentary to make sure merrit garland gots a vote seems to beite cal. the same republican who is were arguing that merritt garland shouldn't be voted on now want to ramrod this vote through is why people get disgusted by washington. it's why they kmcheck out of the things. they do source criticism. who's bringing it and who's saying it as opposed to who said it later. i can go back on almost every one of these committee members. if you want to say we're going to elevate the dialogue as to make sure that it's whoever the president is, if the person is qualified, then do it when you're in the minority and not just when you're in the majority. that goes for the democrats and the republicans. it's why people are so disgusted with washington. >> we will have two current supreme court justices accused of sexual misconduct. how should women in the country feel about that? >> well, that would be a concern if the allegations prove to be true. let me make one point. mark and michael are the legal experts here but let me clarify that merritt garland that w

judge garland, of course, was appointed to the d.c. circuit by bill clinton and he was president obama's nominee to the u.s. supreme court. what i found was striking. in the 12 years you've been on the d.c. circuit, of all the matters that you and chief judge garland had voted on together, that you voted together 93% of the time. not only that of the 28 published opinions that you've authored where chief judge garland was on the panel, he joined 27 out of the 28 opinions you issued when you were on a panel together. in other words, he joined 96% of the panel opinions that you've written when he was on a panel with you and the same is true in the reverse. of the 30 published opinions that chief garland has written on a panel, you've joined 28 out of 30 of them. over 93% of those opinions. what is your reaction to those data and the level of agreement? >> we're trying hard to find common ground and as i have said before, he's a great judge a great chief judge. he's very careful and very hard working. we work well together. we try to read

i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not a justice today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him. on his own merits and with an open mind towards someone whose views may different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit for tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh and i am proud to introduce him because he is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperment. he does fit in the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few days getting to know the jud proceed with your statement or anything you want to tell the committee right now. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator feinstein, members of the committee. i thank secretary rice, senator portman and lisa blatt for their generous introductions. they are patriots who represent the best of america. i'm humbled by their confidence. i'm proud to call each of them a friend. >> ov over the pa

this is the same man who put off this merritt garland confirmation for a year.did you think when you were watching that? >> i thought he wases doing what the republicans do very well and that is frame the issue in the terms they want and spin away from the real problems. they have denied any investigation into any of these charges. they have blocked the fbi from going forward and looking at these things, both with dr. ford and now with this new charge. and i understand there are further charges looming out there, so this story is a long way from over. >> john dean, thank you as always. a quick break. we'll be right back. the day after chemo might mean a trip back to the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when you can stay home with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving str

for the garland question, the reason that garland is still used in those parti ,lar situations, lisa can better address you, it doesn't affect grasses. statement they are products. and it is used in the grass. that is what we have been using on that. does not affect cool season grasses. it affects the other grass which is a warm season grass. this is why we use it. it does not harm the red fescue. and a similar kind of evaluation when it comes to garland. it does not affect the surrounding vegetation. there are some tier two and tier three products that have persistent -- you don't want to harm. it may be an oak tree. you do not want to apply that on the poison oak and that it may affect the tree you are trying to preserve they are really -- it is a really strategic product unfortunately, we just have not been able to find any alternatives. but we continue to look. >> thank you. i guess the last follow-up is quick. i do want to thank the fellow commissioners on the policy committee for all the work you have been doing. i have listened to the recordings. thank you, anthony. the last q

as was the case for the three hundred some days when judge garland was not getting confirmed and the court was four to four what happens when the court reaches a tie is that the lower court ruling stands correct. that's correct essentially would be an impasse and it's remanded to the prior judgment but i know we're going to a different topic i want to address a couple of points though because i want the record to be very clear. as far as evidence presented by dr ford being used against any of our clients i would not have any fear in any way shape or form about that evidence it is evidence but it is not reliable evidence i'm sure mr katz would agree that if his similarly situated clients were facing these types of allegations which are allegations they are evidence and the trial court would instruct the jury or a fact finder to say you can entertain the evidence and whatever weight you give it is up to you but to argue that for instance as a defense practitioner would be alarmed at that testimony i think overstates this situation i would not be alarmed and anyway the gravity of the co

but for merrick garland.say, i think it's a little disingenuous of mitch mcconnell to go on the senate floor and condemn this process when merrick garland -- there were 238 days between the day merrick garland was nominated in the 2016 election, almost eight months. they never held any hearings. the fact is, they both play politics here. and these -- i think to lump these accusations into just politics, it unnecessarily and i think wrongly lessens them. and that we should hear. >> and he said he wants to tell a story. >> right. >> he's going to tell a story. that's appropriate. >> and very clear that republicans are going on offense, and they want to move forward with this as swiftly as possible. they want to put this behind them. they don't want to prolong this process with the potential that there are other allegations that might come out. but it's also important to remember that we're heading into the midterm elections, and we don't know what the backlash might look like if they do confirm kavanaugh. becau

the judge does give a brief head nod to garland in his opening statement. saying her serves on the appeals court, led by our suburb chief judge merrick garland. you can't get to the supreme court in a straight line from the d.c. court of appeals without going through congress. part of the supreme court farm team. clarence thomas and john roberts. and now kavanaugh hopes to be the next one. a couple of other historical ones. a man whose vacancies, in the same class of clerks for justice kennedy. they both prepped here in the d.c. schools as well when they were much younger. so about two main issues. the two issues that will get the most questions are first of all a -- one that's become familiar, that's his view on roe v. wade. he's told some of the senators in his preconfirmation hearings that he thinks it's settled law. they want to explore that. so they want to go into that. and then i think the unusual thing is his views on whether a president can be indictmented, can be forced to respond to a subpoena. his views on that have changed over the years, brian

i don't know whether it would have happened or not, all i know is that merrick garland was not givenh was politics and you can judge whether that's right or wrong but it was politics, which you're decrying now if the democrats had questions about policy. >> it would have happened had there been a nominee. the biden rule i have doubt would have been following. >> is that politics? >> and i think what's -- well, you can call it what you want. you can call it politics, you can call it policy. you can call any policy politics. politics is human nature. we're all political. if you define politics as our relation with other people. >> you were saying take politics out of the nominating process and we seem to be agreeing that politics has been in the process for some time. >> that's not what i said, john. i wasn't clear, i guess. you can't take politics out of human nature but you can make the political process and the criteria for picking a supreme court justice as unpolitical as you can. can you completely succeed? no. but the problem i think with the use supreme court is that many americ

they are one of four appears that judy garland wore in the 1939 film. the owner loaned them to the judy garland museum back in 2005 but they vanished. it is not clear if anyone will be charged. tissues are valued at $3 million. >> amazing. up next cbs talks to bob woodward about his new book about the white house. more reaction after nike makes colin kaepernick part of its latest campaign. and the stolen ruby slippers recovered after 13 years, that is coming up in just a few seconds on the "cbs evening news." >> we will be back in just 30 minutes. captioning sponsored by cbs o t glor: on the "cbs evening news" this tuesday: bob woodward's explosive new book on the trump white house. llrricane warnings in the gulf coast, as gordon makes landfall tonight. and what the n.f.l. is saying about nike making colin kaepernick part of its ad esmpaign. but first, the headlines in 60 seconds. >> an absolutely devastating peek behind the curtains of the west wing laid bare in bob woodward's new book. g white house chief of staff chn kelly quoted in the book as sayin

. >> the idea i wouldn't meet with the supreme court nominee, have you heard of merrick garland? shannon: i knew that was coming. >> you opened your self to that. that is incredible. look at harry reid and chuck schumer. >> democrats set that precedent. shannon: we could debate those issues all day but let's get to the economy. edward lawrence will report on that. >> still the jobs report means good and bad news. the good news the economy created 201,000 jobs in august, average hourly wages increased to $27.60, the largest increase since 2009. >> people are starting to live. >> reporter: the bad news in an exclusive interview with the president of the dallas reserve, this stellar job report will keep the federal reserve on pace to raise interest rates three to four more times. >> everything is jobs report causes me to reaffirm that view. >> reporter: mortgage rates will go up, credit card rates will rise and if it will better be able to handle the next recession. tax cuts antiregulation are fueling the boom but some companies taking a wait-and-see mood because of tariffs and trad

i think democrats absolutely feel why should we give an inch here when merrick garland didn't even get a hearing, when he was nominated and all he was accused of was being appointed by president obama. you said you do think the matter needs to be looked into. what reason is there not to have the fbi go and ask a few questions at this point? it happened during the clarence thomas nomination. >> well, that's a decision to be made by the chairman of the judiciary committee and as far as i know and as far as -- >> but what do you think? you obviously have a tremendous amount of experience in this field. do you think it would be helpful to have the fbi ask some questions? >> you know, i think for something that happened recently, there may be an opportunity to learn facts, but i don't know whether or not have been the fbi involved here -- and i don't know enough about the situation to make this kind of judgment as to whether or not it would make sense, is it a wise use of time for the fbi to go out and ask questions of the people that were involved. we have statements from the people that h

merrick garland. now judge kavanaugh. washington -- yes, washington is a toxic place.is even more toxic. but it seems the worst toxicity is reserved, the harshest is reserved for these sort of nomination fights. and you just wonder, how much worse can it get? >> well, i suppose it's worth noting that this is not necessarily that new. if you go back to george washington you had controversies with john rutledge and others. washington had a tough time getting people on the supreme court. the problem is that when people go to the court. each back then when they weren't any confirmation hearings, they are put under a bright light. back then it was done informally, the senators would talk among themselves. but people often do not look as good under that light as they do from afar. so we have had that problem throughout history. this issue is going to obviously get much uglier very quickly. you have the white house digging in. you have the democrats i think rightfully believing that they might be able to delay or defeat this nominee. there will be a question of fairness. you

i strongly disagree with the senate's treatment of judge garland. judge kavanaugh himself spoke glowingly of her stating "she is a brilliant journalist. she thoughtful, considerate, works well with others, good man, great integrity, and is supremely qualified by the objective airdrie's leaks of experience, temperament, writing ability to the supreme court. all of this is equally true of judge cavanaugh. i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not adjusted today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him on his own merit and with an open mind towards someone whose abuse different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit-for-tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh nm and proud to introduce him because he is qualified by his extraordinary intellect and experience. he does easily fit within the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few d

and there was no time to consider the nomination of merrick garland. and this has to be rushed to judgment. >> i'm sorry, i've got five seconds. thank you both. i'm brooke baldwin. "the lead" starts right now. >>> president trump getting world leaders to lol, but who was the punchline? "the lead" starts right now. >>> president trump launching his strongest attack yet against the women accusing judge brett kavanaugh of inappropriate sexual behavior and sexual assault, calling it a con game by democrats. contradicting his own white house. which said it's open to another accuser testifying. >>> two crises now colliding in washington with the man overseeing the russia probe possibly living on borrowed time. what the white house is saying today about how president trump is feeling about deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. >>> plus from rocket man to why can't we be friends? president trump changing his tune on north korea, setting his sights on iran with tough talk and even a downright threat from the national security adviser. >>> welcome to "the lead

how much is what is happening because of merrick garland. your perception of the gravity of violation not offering the president even a hearing on his nominee makes whatever norms or procedures seem preposterous to you? >> you know, merrick garland is an insult to injury in and of itself. rushing things through at a time where we don't have hundreds of thousands of pages. thousands and thousands of documents. this is not the way it is done and in this sham process to shield documents from the public. this is in and of itself rotten to the core and we know what happened to merrick garland was rotten. >> can you do anything to delay. and mitch mcconnell flagged this. hundreds of thousands of documents, what is going to happen? >> we have shaken up the process today. we have seen them move to release more documents. we will see some but a drop in the bucket. what i am hoping is people to understand at a time we need more legitimacy in the supreme court. that perhaps republicans will see, the legitimacy of the court is important. and join democr

address the merits garland situation. he is a friend of mine and i think the world of him. and i wish that obama nominated him right off the bat. -- joet was the rule biden said that if there were we won't approve anyone. that is when democrats were in charge of the senate. ruleat was a long-standing -- well, not long-standing but it had been put out by the democrats. so republicans say, ok, let's let the electorate decide. it was six months. allowed she should be to testify? she is being invited to testify. and your other issue is about how many witnesses should be brought? the senate, i believe, the judiciary committee has a pool that you can have one other witness that could come in. i've no problem with that. the chairman sets the rules senator grassley always confers with feinstein gazette that is the way it works. host: we go to eric. a republican. by want to hear you talk about the process and how refreshing it is. it is obvious from the beginning that this has been nothing but a character's fascination from the left. ange kavanaugh has had exhausted amount of invest