if they truly believe judicial appointments were about garlandations, judge would be justice garland now. judge garland was among the most qualified candidates ever to be nominated to the supreme court. no republican senator has disputed that. they did not want judge garland on the bench. they do want judge barrett. they subjected judge garland to a blockade. they are erecting a monument to hypocrisy to raj barrett -- to rush judge barrett on the bench. it is not because she is more qualified. it is the difference? buts not qualifications views. we know that. we all know that. rights, gun women's safety, you name it, not because the far-right wants her views on the court, but it is because the far-right once her views on the court but not judge garland's. the truth is this nomination is part of a long effort to tilt the judiciary to the far-right and accomplished to the courts what the radical right and their allies, senate republicans could not accomplish to congress. senate republicans failed to repeal the affordable care act so president trump and republican attorneys general are

mcconnell and the republicans should their election of duty by blocking the nomination of merrick garland. they had the senate, don't know why they were afraid of putting him up for a vote. >> we are going to leave the last few minutes of this event to fulfill are more than 40 your commitment to congressional coverage. you can finish watching

you claim the moderate and qualified judge garland would flip the balance of the court. you say it's not a move -- that's your quote -- it was not a lateral move. so now you're nominated to replace justice ginsburg, perhaps the staunchest champion for civil rights of the court. you claim that justice scalia is your own, of course, he was the opposite side of justice ginsburg and countless civil rights cases. would you say that replacing justice ginsburg by yourself is not a lateral move like you heard when you supported the blocking of president obama's nominee judge garland? >> senator leahey, i want to be very clear. i think that's not quite what i said in the interview. it was an interview that i gave shortly after justice scalia's death. and at that time both sides of the aisle were arguing that precedence supported their decision. and i said while i had not done the research myself, my understanding of the statistics was that neither side could claim precedent. that this was a decision that was the political branchs' to make. i didn't say which way they should go, i

hitting judge barrett for alleged hypocrisy during the garland nomination. what you said, the crux of her remarks, in that interview, was that under our constitutional system the president has the power to nominate and the senate has the power to confirm or not. and both of them can act or not in keeping with their own prerogatives. so the idea that she was hypocritical is a gross misreading of what she said. >> i saw your -- go ahead, al franken, go ahead and respond. >> that's one of the things she said. that's one of the things she said. but she went to great lengths to explain why it was proper to seat justice kennedy in '88, but not to take up merrick garland and she went out of her way to say, oh, they're already casting primary votes. that's what she said. they're already doing votes in new hampshire. she did say that. and why would she say that if it doesn't -- if it didn't matter? and this is completely hypocritical, go back and look at that interview. yes, she did say at the end with raw power the senate can deny this, yes, that's part of the const

the very same thing my friend from south dakota and everyone else said with merrick garland. we know hypocrisy when we see it. we know contradictions when we see them. and on the bill, yeah, let's debate it. but their bill is inadequate on testing, inadequate on small business, inadequate on schools. we went to school administrators. no money for state and local governments. and i dare say to my friend from south dakota, a police officer, a firefighter, someone who picks up the garbage or drives the buses needs help in south dakota. if it's a red state or in new york if it's a blue state. it's despicable to say it's just for blue states. that's the kind of divisiveness that donald trump has created in this country. that's why so many people don't like him and what our republican colleagues, unfortunately, since he's become president have followed through on. our bill is far more comprehensive. it deals with the needs. very little money for testing. very little money for state and local governments. no money to help restaurants or stages or nonprofits or rural hospitals. no mo

republicans, almost every republican said that should be y refusedwhen the to look at garland. and made the decision not to look into obama's pick. thank you. so, i don't think they violated their oath of office. it says the president shall nominate with the advice and consent of the senate. that means if the president gives the advice on the consent, the senate doesn't have to give advice and consent. the senate should be considering it. i think everybody would think there is some moment at which the senate can say, too late. say in the lame-duck session if the president has been voted out , many senators would say, no, i will not consider it. i think it is a matter of, when is too late? so, as i said, it is a matter of power politics. they said, we think we can hold doing doing this without too much damage to the court, so it will have eight members for a while but i can get by for that -- it can getout by for that time and without suffering political loss. it turned out to have been a good calculation on their part. suggest -- i realize it is hypothetical, but there is alway

on some key issues were very much the opposite of that if course referred to the fact that merrick garland was nominated by barack obama 4 years ago in the during an election year but it was the republicans there and then that said no we're not doing this in an election year but have pushed through a. nomination just 16 days since she was formally nominated in that event at on the rose garden of the white house and no it looks as if the vote could well take place

. -- merit garland.et's listen to the leaders talking about the process. [video clip] >> the american people do not need any more revisionist history lectures, anymore threats, or any more performance outrage from the side that launched and escalated this fight time after time after time. there is one course. it does right by the judiciary, the senate, the yet unnamed nominee, and the american people. it is a fair hearing, a fair process, and a fair vote. >> here's how the republican leader describe the senate role in confirming supreme court justices. he actually said, "we have an obligation under the constitution to consider supreme court justice should we choose to take advantage of it." did you catch that? did you catch that, madam president? it is an obligation but only if the republican leader chooses to take advantage of it. i see -- when a democrat is president, it is an obligation you don't have to take advantage of. susan: you study the history of nominations. who has a history right on electio

would be justice garland right now. judge garland was among the most qualified candidates ever, ever to be nominated to the supreme court. no republican senator has disputed that. but they didn't want judge garland on the bench. they do want judge barrett. they subjected judge garland to an unprecedented partisan blockade, but they are erecting a monument to hypocrisy to rush judge barrett onto the bench. why? it's not because she is more qualified than judge garland was. what's the difference between barrett and garland? the difference is not qualifications but views. we know that. we all know that. health care, a woman's rights -- a woman's right to choose, gun safety, you name it. it's not because the far right wants judge barrett's views on the court. it's because the far right wants judge barrett's views on the court but not judge garland's. the truth is this nomination is part of a decades-long effort to tilt the judiciary to the far right, to accomplish through the courts what the radical right and their allies,

to feel the late justice garcia -- merrick garland to fill that lay scalia's seat.prevented. either way, senate republican's move quickly. they found the nomination process historically under 70 days on average. and most nominees do make the final cut, since the supreme court's establishment, more than 77% have been confirmed. pretax profits cayman higher than estimated, but the retailer plans to close about 5% of its stores, so record s it has been struggling to restore. we are joined by adam karlsson, chief financial officer of h&m. adam, thank you for joining us. when you look at your online presence, i think online, you what sales, make up 26% of you are selling at the moment. how much will that increase in the coming years? adam k: thank you for having me. statistically we do, but obviously we see now that the last couple of years, the digital shift is still ongoing and potentially accelerating, so we believe that share, over time, will increase. however, we also see that the majority is still shops in both channels, so we really see the shift is ongoing, but t

they tried to move forward with marit garland.i think after the election, their will be a lot of talk about the court and they are going to hear naca case very soon after the election. they are hearing cases that impact every american and every part of american life. with this justice the court is shifting judicially further to the right which has been mitch m cconnell's goal for decades. >> as we listen to all of that, sarah, what we also know is wha the former and out late justice ruth bader ginsburg said, a president as a president for four years. boom, that's it, not three and half as it was back in the time of marit garland and not three and three quarters as it is right now. >> and i think she's absolutely right not only is the president the president for four years, but voters came out in 2018 and added to the republican majorit in the senate i think they have a constitutional obligation to fulfill their role they have a majority in the senate. the president should be able to nominate and confirm a supreme court justice. le

judge garland wasn't given a hearing. most of our republican colleague wouldn't even meet with him, even though many of them had voted earlier to confirm him, to again serve on the top appellate court of our land. judge garland's nomination languished for 293 shameful da days. a great many americans believed that it's the equivalent of stealing a supreme court seat. a good man, a very good man was treated badly. and so, too, was our constitution. still many of our republican colleague assured us that if the tables were turned later on, they would hold themselves to the statement standard -- the same standard and only allow the next president to fill the supreme court seat should a vacancy occur during an election year. and then on september 18, 2020, justice ruth bader ginsburg passed away, 46 days before a presidential election. and with her death most of our republican colleague changed their tunes almost overnight. today with more than 220,000 american dead and more than eight million americans infected with coronaviru

republicans could have voted merrick garland down. at least recognize the legitimacy of the nomination, vote merrick garland down, perhaps forcing a conversation about another nominee that might be more amenable to the republican majority. that wouldn't be the last -- the first time that that has occurred. one of the statues here in the united states congress is of oliver ellsworth from connecticut who was elevated to the supreme court because george washington believed his first pick couldn't be confirmed by the senate. so instead he chose one of connecticut's two united states senators who was beloved in this body when it operated not far away. and oliver ellsworth went to the court because of a quiet negotiation with the senate. republicans under mitch mcconnell didn't even engage in a process with merrick garland. they just declared that the president's choice was illegitimate. i can't argue that they didn't -- well, i can argue they didn't have the power but certainly there was an argument that republicans in the senate could jus

would be a good person. >> i have the full respect for judge garland. >> what? >> i'm sorry. i missed the first part. are they right to say -- could you repeat the question? >> no, not a question. i was just saying that we had in members of our committee, republicans who prior to the vacancy were saying garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderate and various conservatives and liberals. and then the response well, we can't have a -- by both parties controlled of the senate and nominated by a president of another party. i was here when democrats controlled the senate, and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy, and in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. a three judge panel of the circuit struck down positions of an indiana law. they struck down reproductive rights. indiana review of just one of the provisions. the disposition provision. they reviewed the case, attacked the panel decision struck down the law. you juoined a judge in the dissent. but then it went onto addr

and so i said, dean kagan, should i clerk for judge merrick garland? or should i clerk for judge x? and she said, pretty diplomatically at the beginning at least, they're both wonderful judges. and then her voice sort of lit up, and she said merrick is a friend, and she went on to say i think he would learn a lot from him. by the intonation, it was clear that i had a lot to learn. [laughter] >> like, don't call the dean of harvard law school with your non-problems, right? but dean kagan's intervention was extremely helpful to me because my year with judge garland was life altering. not only because he helped me get to the supreme court as a law clerk -- he was indispensable in that effort -- but more important leap because of the extrinsic experience of that year, the opportunity to work up close with a person of judge garland's towering intellect, integrity, and judgment. so i'm very grateful to you, justice kagan. ok, i should also say it's all for me to be here because i grew up in washington, d.c. a grand total of 3.4 miles away from where i am right now. right now. that's what

mary garland was nominated -- merrick garland was nominated.on theblicans had senate, and they said there should be a rubber match for the people to decide who should make the pick. it was a gamble that ultimately mitch mcconnell won, risky one, i think more people expected trump to lose, and hillary clinton could have nominated someone less moderate than garland. and the unusual nature of donald trump's candidacy, the resistance to his presidency on going to this day, you have the garlands nomination. partisan ever filibuster of a supreme court nominee. knew thismer probably would mean ultimately the filibuster would be gone and he would have much less leverage over the future, presumably kennedy replacing nomination let agon -- let alone ginsburg. blood.e wanted ultimately mitch mcconnell voted to eliminate the filibuster and gorsuch was confirmed. and a was confirmed 52-48 leader was 58-42, and it could have been filibustered. there was an attempt to filibuster alito. joined by about half the democrats, including joe biden, barack obama, hil

t: what i was writing shortly after justice scalia's death, but before justice garland's nomination, i did use the term lateral move. i said we should not talk about republican judges are democrat judges. of course it is true that dem -- that judges have differences in traditional philosophy. breyer that justice sometimes had public debates with justice scalia advocating original ism and liberty. there is room on the court for that, for different approaches. with your colleagues on other sides of the aisle, all of you have different policy platforms. judges do not have policy platforms but they take different approaches to interpreting the text. that is what i meant when i was describing how the balance of the court would shift. it would be away from one balance toward another in terms of how judges think about the text. >> one more time with the numbers if you want to give us your thoughts. support the confirmation to the supreme court, if you oppose it or are undecided. you can text, you can tweet us, and you can also post on our facebook page at you can always watch the hearings o

leader say there is no inconsistency between what republicans are amy coney ith confirmation and garland's. who would believe that? the contradiction is glaring and sustained on the leader's forehead and on the entire republican caucus if it continues. we've heard, we just heard another warped, distorted and history lesson from leader mcconnell. defensive he is bout the blatant 180 degree hypocritical turn he's made on supreme court nominations. distorted warped not remove theon will nothistory lesson remove the stain. plain and simple. a rare meet here on saturday session because there is nothing, nothing remotely the republican drive to confirm judge barrett supreme court only days before presidential election. four years ago, four years ago, republican senate said it was a principle, that word, principle, that supreme court justices should not be confirmed in presidential election years. mcconnell said, "the american people deserve a choice selection of their next supreme court justice." that is the principle they follow the senate must and they declared this principle bound them not to

i was there in '17 when the president nominated merrick garland. all of them said the same thing. the president can't nominate someone this close to an election. coney barrett went on cbs tv after scalia died and made the exact same case, saying that the president can't nominate someone during an election year. she contrasted it to when anthony kennedy was sworn in, in february of '88. she made the point that that had come from powell's resignation. she said well, that's a conservative judge and the new judge, justice will be conservative. that's appropriate. but when she said scalia was an arch conservative or committed conservative, whatever the word she used and said that obama appointee would change the balance of the court and that was inappropriate. you go back and see her words. she's a total hypocrite. not only are the republican members of the senate hypocrites, they wouldn't meet with merrick garland. they lied about what the so-called biden rule was. there was no biden rule. and this is so hypocritical. also she's a terrible choice in so many ways. i questioned her, as

scanlon, from what they did with mary garland -- merrick garland.act that judge barrett, while she is qualified academically, intellectually, we will now have -- and i am an institutionalist, let me just say. i am not one for packing the comes arounde what goes around and will come back to bite the other side at some point your however, this is just so depressing, because "new york i actually have great respect for the judicial branch of the government, and we are going to be going back probably over half a century if not more in terms of women's rights, and i could go on, but please have a good day. thank you so much. host: richard come on twitter, someone agreeing with you in terms of packing the court. this one says expanding the court is allowed under the constitution. case closed. everything should be on the table with a biden administration. mentioned senator harris earlier. an article mentions that. a big saved and frame the nomination. the second justice hearing of justice brett kavanaugh, senator grassley and the chairman was interrupted by

for eight months they refusedded to hold a hearing on merrick garland. but now, even as the american people are in the process of voting, republicans are trying to ignore their voices. well, mr. president, not on my watch. i recently asked people in washington state to share their personal stories about what is at stake for their families. the response has been overwhelming and the stories have been alarming. i've heard from people whose stories show how different life was before and after roe v. wade and how much would be lost if reproductive rights are rolled back. i heard from people who fear their right to marry or adopt a child or start a family could be lost. i've heard from people who are worried they will die if republicans get their way at supreme court and take away the health care and protections they rely on. republicans may want to pretend the stakes are not this high but they don't have to take my word for it, they can listen to their own constituents and look at their own records. for republican senators to stand here and tell families not

to go through what we went through with the garland nomination and to now have justice ginsburg pass away, a revered, beloved justice, have her pass away a few weeks before the election and have an effort made by the president with the support of the republican leadership in the senate to fill that seat on the people of the ofction right in the teeth the argument offered in 2016 as a reason why the garland nomination shouldn't be considered to, people should ask themselves, why would you think half the country would have any faith that this is a neutral institution related to the rule of law when you see this kind of shenanigans surrounding the process of who goes on the court? , think it's a terrible problem and i think we are going to pay a price for it. mr. weiner: do you want to jump in since you have raised this? ms. nelson: i couldn't agree more with everything that was just said. inritical amount of people our country see our judicial system as a potential avenue of relief, especially in a system like ours where the supreme court determines the law of the land. we are in extre

others have merit garland stuck in our craw in terms of what is happening here. we all need to concede we are not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and the senate, the relationship with the supreme court. the chairman started this hearing reminding us about votes 8-0 for antonen 9 scalia. 3 for ruth bader ginsburg. how did we manage to put together five partisan coalitions or people on such opposite ends of the political inctrum who we knew going were very clear in what they believed? now today we struggle vote to vote, day-to-day when it comes to filling a vacancy on the supreme court. i think there are a lot of explanations for it. one of the things we have witnessed here in the time i have served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it is almost useless. we have reached a point now where gifted, experienced jurists, legal scholars take that seat behind the table and then deny everything. refuse to answer anything. consider that. asked then where we nominee, can president unilaterally

would be justice grl garland now. no one. i mean, no one said judge garland wasn't qualified, but republicans subjected his nomination to an unprecedented partisan blockade. if qualifications are the only thing that matters, why did president trump vow to pick only justices who would terminate our health care law? why did he say that his judicial appointments would, quote, do the right thing on health care, unlike justice roberts? why did president trump say if he gets to a point -- to appoint two or three justices to the supreme court, roe v. wade would be overturned automatically. that's not qualifications. president trump doesn't have a problem talking about how judicial appointments might rule when he's trying to win an election, but apparently, democrats are, quote, in the words of the leader, hysterical for even questioning how judge barrett looks to usually consequential issues. i want the american people to know the far right is lining up right now to get the supreme court to review your judgment rights becaus

it did not matter in march 2016, president obama appointed merrick garland respected d.c. circuit judge for bipartisan support, they would not meet, hold a hearing or allow a vote for 293 days. in 2016, the presidential election was nearly nine months away. four years ago, public colleagues nine months wasn't time enough. the up to the voters. we'll do this whether it democrat or a publican in the white house. republican leader mitch mcconnell said, mr. president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country so of course the american people should have a say in the courts direction. the americant people may well elect a president who decides to nominate for senate consideration. we will make somebody very different. give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy. the market people are perfectly capable of having their say on the issue so let's give them a voice, but the american people decide. the american people shouldn have a selection on the next supreme court justice and therefore this v

-- said to the vacancy who merit garland -- garland would be a good person for president obama to nominateause he could appeal to moderates, conservatives, and liberals, and then their response was we cannot have a nominee confirmed by one party that is in control of the senate, and nominated by the president of another party. i was here when democrats controlled the senate, and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy and in an election year. democrats confirmed. let me go to another area. a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law restricting reproductive rights, stating indiana requesting an en banc review of just one of the provisions. the petition provision. of course, whether to review the case, or leaving intact the panel decision to strike down the law, you joined the justice in dissent. but then the dissenter went out of his way to address a second ,rovision not before the court called the eugenics statute. judge barrett, the issue before your court was a narrow one, limit your dissent on one issue the state of indiana was asking yo

republicans reversed themselves in terms of the blocking of merrick garland in election year. judges. thats a fact. you will see calls to expand the court, judicial reform, which is what biden has backed. it highlights the fact that democrats, not acting like the court matters in an argument for voting, whether it's the aca or roe v. wade or a number of other things has been naive and shortsighted. republicans have played a long game and won on this front. >> john avlon, nice to see you. thanks for stopping by in the home stretch. >>> president trump's sunny outlook on coronavirus is at odds with the dark reality. the seven-day average of new cases has now reached its highest level of the pandemic, heading towards 70,000 a day. at least 75% of the country moving in the wrong direction. both in cases and in hospitalizations. 27 states hit new case records this month alone. >> if we took some aggressive targeted steps right now, we could potentially fore stall the worst of it. we're not going to do that, and i understand why. there's a lot of fatigue set in and a lot of policy r

judge barrett: i have full respect for judge garland. sen. leahy: i beg your pardon? judge barrett: i'm sorry -- i missed the first part -- could you repeat the question? sen. leahy: it was not a question. i was just saying that we had many members of our committee, a number of republicans who prior to the vacancy said marek garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderates, conservatives, and liberals, and then their response was we cannot have a by one partyrmed that is in control of the senate, and nominated by the president of another party. i was here when democrats controlled the senate and president reagan nominated anthony kennedy and in an election year, democrats confirmed. another area -- a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit struck down three provisions of an indiana law ,estricting reproductive rights stating with the state of indiana requesting an en banc review of just one of the provisions. of course, whether to review the case, or leaving intact the panel decision to strike down joined the justice

and then you've got to the merrick garland fiasco in 2016 where president obama nominated somebody in the early spring of 2016 i think as qualified at any nominee in the history of our country. moderate, beloved sguj judge on the d.c. circuit and look what happened. there's only one way to interpret what happened there was that the republican majority in the senate wanted somebody on the court who was going to vote differently than they anticipated merrick garland would vote. that's the only explanation so they blocked it and i thought at the time that that was going to just have a devastating effect on at least half of the country feeling that they could trust the supreme court and i do think it's had a very serious adverse effect and now, you know, just in the last few weeks look what's happening. having had a, as a countries, going through what we went through with the garland nomination to now have justice ginsburg pass away, a revered beloved justice, have her pass away just a few weeks before the election. and have an effort made by the president with the support of the republic

merrick garland. republicans refused to meet with him or even hold a hearing for him. melissa lang says back outside the supreme court, they are now contending with pro-barrett conservatives trying to drown them out. a number of conservative women are wearing white wigs and black robes for effect. [chanting] >> back inside the hearing room hearing for judge amy coney barrett expected to continue with more opening statements from the judiciary committee. while we wait we will show you a portion of the opening statements from senator lindsey graham and ranking member senator dianne feinstein. sen. graham: this is an election year. we are occurring the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. what will happen is that my democratic colleagues will say this has never been done, and they are right in this regard. nobody has ever been confirmed in an election year past july. the bottom line is that justice ginsburg when asked about this said that a president serves for four years not three. there is nothing unconstitutional about this process. this is a vacanc

or have a hearing on merrick garland.now with three weeks, 22 days left to go they're having the hearing for judge barrett. there is nothing in the constitution that says well, if they are of different parties. there is nothing in a legal precedent that says there isn't. it was a question that mitch mcconnell and the republicans had the votes and they decided they were going to block the garland nomination and they were going to push through the barrett nomination. when it comes to policy, you hear the republicans continue to say look, they want to make supreme court nominees into super legislators. we're just talking about a judge applying the law. the problem with that, of course, is the fact that president trump has said over and over again what he hopes to get from these judges and talking about doing the right thing on issues like the affordable care act and then finally, to judge turley and shannon bream who were suggesting it's really a reach to talk about the idea that they might strike down the affordable care ac

supreme court, there is no doubt in my mind that if chuck schumer was the majority leader in 2016, mary garland would be on the court right now, so there is no disputing that. number two, i thought you would find this interesting, you know, the conservatives have been playing a clip of joe biden saying that "we believe in truth and not facts," and they are saying it is a gaffe. gaffe, believe it was a i believe it was a freudian slip. you know, take for instance "hands up, don't shoot." we know that was factually incorrect, yet a lot of african americans believe that it actually happened, so i think it is actually true that people, a lot of people, tribalism is a very accurate description, that people believe what they journal" live every day at 11:00. we take you to a news conference with michigan governor gretchen whitmer, after reports of fbi making arrests after a plot to allegedly kidnap the governor. earlier announced today. live coverture of governor whitmer's news conference on c-span. gov. whitmer: 13 members of two militia groups who were preparing to kidnap and possibly kill me. when

-- merrick garland. in 2016, republicans said it was necessary to hold the nomination until after the election in order to give the american people a voice at the ballot box. specifically, majority leader mcconnell said this. "the american people should have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice. therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." there is an old adage. what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. now republicans are proceeding regardless. last week, democrats participated in the nomination hearings because we wanted to show what was at stake for america if amy coney barrett is confirmed. risks tour case about affordable care, this specially the affordable care act. reproductive freedom. the right to vote. the quality for all. we believe -- equality for all. we believe you for the look act and roe v. wade could be lost. the democratic members of the judiciary committee did not have the votes to defeat judge barrett and committee -- in

so, they violated the rule that their leader, mitch mcconnell, imposed in 2016 which kept merrick garland off the supreme court after president obama nominated him in february of that year to fill the vacancy that arose with the death of justice antonin scalia. that rule was clear. that rule was concise. that rule was definitive. the senate would not consider a nomination to fill a vacancy on the supreme court during a presidential election year. many of my republican colleagues echoed leader mcconnell's pledge. in fact, my colleague, senator lindsey graham, who chairs the judiciary committee, admonished us to use his own words against him if he went back on his promise. quote, if there is a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of that term, you can say that lindsey graham said, let's let the next president, whoever that might be, make that nomination. but the majority has ignored the mcconnell rule and broken their promises to follow it as they engage in the outright theft of yet another seat on the united states supreme court. you can't spell shameful witho

garland andhe gorsuch episode, the kavanaugh confirmation, and this one. that is a commonality to that is very disturbing, and it suggests the presence of outside forces and interests that are driving these conspicuous, disturbing anomalies. last weekend, i was at home, preparing for this, and i was sitting at a desk with papers around me, trying to assemble my thoughts, and i was in a room with the windows closed. and i could not feel any breeze. we have pretty good windows in my house, and the wind does not through them -- blow through them. but, i look out the window, and we look out over a pond, and i could see the water on the pond and iing as -- rippling, could see the trees bending as the wind blew through the trees. i could see the russia's along me at -- rushes flipping back and forth as the wind blew through them. i did not need to feel the wind to know that it was blowing outside. because, the clues were obvious. clues are obvious that something is happening behind all of these significant and disturbing procedural anomalies and, i for one, inte

what i understand, mayor garland was two..rrick garland was if you look at the way judges have come down on decisions. i've spoken on this before. it's just a fact that liberal justices are pretty much down the line on partisan votes. they vote in lockstep. they can be counted on. was appointed by reagan if i'm not mistaken. he's fairly liberal. roberts broke the tie on the aca issue. conservatives break ranks a lot more than liberals do. it's ironic that liberals would be concerned. it should be the conservatives, and the conservatives i know who are extremely concerned when we hear this talk as we have heard this morning. just to consider court packing, just as they burn it to the takes, put as many as it to get our agenda through. i see this on social media all the time. some of us conservatives have forums we werem people -- where we were friendly it'speople 10 years ago really sad to see. host: to your point about republicans and democrats saying -- seeing this as political wins. we had this headline from ,entucky, mitch

garland andhe gorsuch episode, the kavanaugh confirmation, and this one. that is a commonality to that is very disturbing, and it suggests the presence of outside forces and interests that are driving these conspicuous, disturbing anomalies. last weekend, i was at home, preparing for this, and i was sitting at a desk with papers around me, trying to assemble my thoughts, and i was in a room with the windows closed. and i could not feel any breeze. we have pretty good windows in my house, and the wind does not through them -- blow through them. but, i look out the window, and we look out over a pond, and i could see the water on the pond and iing as -- rippling, could see the trees bending as the wind blew through the trees. i could see the russia's along me at -- rushes flipping back and forth as the wind blew through them. i did not need to feel the wind to know that it was blowing outside. because, the clues were obvious. clues are obvious that something is happening behind all of these significant and disturbing procedural anomalies and, i for one, inte

constitutionally tested judge garland the opening that occurred with the passing of justice scalia was in the early part of an election year the primary process it just started and we can talk about history but here's the histories i understand it. there's never been a situation where you had a president of one party in the senate of another where the nominee of the replacement was made in election years been over 140 years ago i think there been 19 vacancies filled in election year 17 in the 19 were confirmed to the court when the party of the president in the senate or the saying. in terms of timing. the hearing is starting 16 days after nomination more than half of all supreme court hearings have been hill within 16 days of the announcement of the nominee stevens tan rehnquist 1313 blackman 15 berger 13. all i can say is that i feel that we're doing this constitutionally they're our democratic friends object to the process i respect them all they'll have a chance to have their say but most importantly i hope we will know more about how the law works. checks and balances what the sup

, had judge gaurland become justice garland would have changed the balance of the court. it's something you wrote about. you recognize these balance shifts are why supreme court nominations are so much at issue in presidential elections. do you just acknowledge that your confirmation, even though you won't be identical to justice scalia, will profoundly impact the balance of the court and the way in which it decides future cases? >> i think the statement that i was having an interchange with senator leahy about yesterday was about an interview that i gave shortly after justice scalia's death but after judge garland's nomination. and i did say that -- use that phrase lateral move and what i meant by that, i mean i very much agree with senator sasse that we shouldn't talk about republican judges and democratic judges because i think there are just judges. but of course it's true that judges have differences in judicial philosophy. so i actually think justice breyer and justice scalia are a great example of this because they sometimes have public debates with justice scalia

harrison: wasn't merrick garland qualify? you voted for him before, why not again? you talked about the president having the power to nominate and it is up to the senate to pass them through and you failed to do it. that is the problem. you have a job that the people of south carolina pay you for and you only do it when you feel it is in your power, the right to do it instead of doing it when you are supposed to. a week ago, we talked about qualifications. for nowhe nomination justice barrett, and congratulations to her. senator graham was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, also passed through a young woman, i think she is 32 years old, she was at some law , american bar association, which has always deemed whether someone was qualified to sit on the bench, and under democratic and geordie's, we followed what the aba recommended, and you would not pass them on for a lifetime up women when they are. they deemed that woman on qualify. that is not the first nominee that has gone through his committee that they deemed unqualified. we need to have standards

what is the difference between barrett and garland, it isn't qualifications, but views. we all know that. a woman's right to choose, gun safety, you name it. it's not because the far right, but because the far right wants her views on the court but not tjudge garland. the truth is this nomination is part of a decade-long effort to accomplish through the courts radical right and their allies, senate republicans, could never accomplish through congress. senate republicans failed to repeal the affordable care act, also president trump in attornes general are suing to eliminate the law in court. republicans would never dare to attempt to repeal roe v wade in congress so they pass the onerous laws and state legislatures that they control to drive that right to the point of extinction and then provoke the supreme court to review roe v wade. the far right is never held at the limit but if the judge becomes justice it very well might. and if you are looking for some hard numbers to prove the political right considers ideology and not just qualifications, consider this. under jus

hegar: well, garland's nomination was 8 1/2 months before an election in an election year. right now we are in the middle of an election where people have already cast ballots. where is this urgency to push through this nominee which by the way they would not have this kind of urgency if they thought they were going to hang on to the senate and the white house. in where is that urgency getting covid relief? things like universal background checks, ending corruption, corporate tax money, supporting candidates like john cornyn. i believe we should be getting back to a time, remember when judges used to say how nonpart zan and unbiased they were to be able to get con frmed and now we're seeing something very different in these nominations that has me concerned as someone who took the oath to support and defend the constitution. i think they have a right to vote on this nominee. there is a difference between that and it bb being the right thing to do. >> was it wrong for your party to try to push garland's nomination? ms. hegar: i would not characterize it as pushing it. i thin

the garland, gorsuch episode. the kavanaugh confirmation and now this one. there is a commoninality to that that is very disturbing and that suggests the presence of outside forces and interests that are driving these conspicuous disturbing anomalies. last weekend i was at home preparing for this and had a sitting at a desk with papers around me trying to assembly my thoughts and i was in a room with the windows closed. i couldn't feel any breeze. we have windows in my house and the wind doesn't blow through them. i could look out the window, we look out over a pond. i could see the water on the pond rippling as the wind blew across it. i could see the trees outside bending as the wind blew through the trees. i could see the rushes along the edge of the pond slipping back and forth as the wind blew through them. i didn't need to feel the wind to know that the wind was blowing outside because the clues were obvious. the clues are obvious that something is happening behind all of these significant and disturbing procedural anomalies. and i for one intend to fi

he had to wait until senator blocked merrick garland's nomination so the president could appoint neil gorsuch. pretty much the minute justice gorsuch got on the court, the court finally overturned abood. now we are seeing the same signaling. i mentioned this yesterday. the right of same-sex couples was recognized to marry. justice thomas and justice alito issued a sharply worded case.ent about a issuease refused to marriage licenses to same-sex couples. in 2012,ice alito justice thomas, joined by justice alito, signaled to rollback a supreme court precedent that they believe with their understanding of the constitution. for the right to same-sex marriage even though that right and called it a problem that only the court could fix. judge barrett, you said judges have to wait for cases and cannot have an agenda but here we have an example of sending out signals. take a look at precedent. cite one case where you are also sending out a signal. two court cases. without the right to vote and raising concerns that you view their right to vote to be more limited than the right to own a gun. ,

>> republicans packing the courts, mitch mcconnell, hundreds of federal judges, merrick garland was heldp by the republican senate and mitch mcconnell and even lindsey graham said you can hold my words against me in 2020 if we try to fill a seat. republicans have been packing the courts against the will of the american people. the discussion on this, whether or not we referred to constitutional norms and towards a solution to the crisis in our judiciary. todd: i have to correct you. i get fired up about one thing. sports, filling a vacancy is not poor -- court packing good. >> when mitch mcconnell refuses to allow hundreds of judges to even come up for a vote during barack obama and -- todd: that is playing politics. >> that is court packing, changing the nomenclature around it. when you steal judges from a democratically elected president, you are court packing plain and simple. you can change the words around it but the same result, donald trump having more pics than he would enter any other administration. rob: we are debating each other. >> they are voting. that is the bottom line. l