when justice gorsuch was nominated to the supreme court, he had written more than 200 circuit court opinions that senators could actually study. justice kavanaugh had written more than 300. justice barrett outpaced them both. she wrote almost 100 appellate opinions in just three years, plus years of scholarship as a star professor that senators could actually examine. judge jackson has been on the d.c. circuit for less than a year. she's published only two opinions. beforehand, judge jackson served as a trial judge on the district court. she testified on tuesday that that role did not provide many opportunities to think about constitutional interpretation. yet when senators tried to dig in on judicial philosophy, the judge deflected and pointed back to the same record she acknowledged would not shed much light. one senator simply asked the judge to summarize, summarize well-known dimpses -- differences between the approaches of some current judges. the nominee replied that two-weeks notice had not been enough to prepare an answer. president biden said he would only nominate a judicial activi

>> the hearings themselves weren't controversial when president trump nominated neil gorsuch for thethat gorsuch was on track to assume the set which democrats aimed to fill with merrick garland. republicans never granted garland a hearing. the gop then altered senate procedure to avoid a filibuster to confirm gore such. >> we'll do what's necessary to confirm him. >> reporter: justice amy coney barrett sailed through, but that was controversial because the gop-led senate confirmedded her days before the 2020 election. >> i recognize, mr. chairman, that this is pretty much cooked. >> reporter: but even the raucous hearings for brett kavanaugh were no match for the 1991 clarence thomas hearings. law professor anita hill accused thomas of sexual harassment. >> i think the one that was the most embarrassing was a discussion of pornography involving women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people or animals. >> you said you never did say this, who has put pubic hair on my coke. this particular version of the exorcist. there appeared to be, quote, an alien p

i follow these cases closely, they waited for justice gorsuch, and, boom, 5-4 against unions. in another example, the court's acknowledged four most conservative justices dissented, voting to overturn a precedent banning burdensome and unnecessary restrictions placed on abortion providers. this was only four years old. now the court is poised to overturn roe v. wade. even though women have had the constitutional right for an abortion for nearly 50 years. i'm not suggesting that supreme court decisions or precedents are sacrosanct. i'm thankful the court revisited some decisions like plessy v. ferguson that were wrong. but one result of the court's new approach is that people's view of the court is changing for the worst. a recent poll found that 44% of americans now disapprove of the supreme court. this is up 15 points from august 2020, shortly before the late justice ruth bader ginsburg died and amy coney barrett was appointed. i think there is an ideological split in this current supreme court. we're seeing more cases decided on ideological bases rather than the law. you wer

gorsuch was not investigated properly. neither was cavanaugh.avanaugh, they cut the fbi off from investigating him further. they have thousands of tips they were not even responding to because they were told not to by the justice department and by the president. the fbi cut down the investigation. they pushed him through. the deal they did -- host: do you have a question? caller: the question is, how come every time the democrats have somebody up, we go through this dog and pony show? when republicans come up, these last couple, they have been taking advantage of the situation. host: melanie campbell? guest: those in power push the nominees. one thing about this administration, they have put a lot more judges on. in this administration, in some cases that is historic. but i agree that a lot of times you can see some biases where the democratic party -- no judgment, just what i see. we as democrats go overboard in trying to find balance on the other site of the i/o, very different. at this point, what i have seen has been strong support for her f

justice gorsuch was so qualified. republicans had to change the rules otherwise the democrats were threatening to filibuster him. i think those days, if you look at justice scalia and ginsberg, they did get 95 votes each, but it is more partisan, when you have a hearing like what justice kavanaugh faced it is more partisan. we'll see about the hearings, i think it fair to ask the nominee about the cases she has handled in private practice and as a public defender and her views about the philosophy and how she views the constitution. >> senator, it has been 17 years since a republican nominee for the supreme court received a single vote from the senate judiciary committee democrats. 17 years. i am not known for my hopefulness, i am hopeful that will change, thank you for joining us. >> that you, trey. trey: thank you for spending part of your sunday with us. have a great week ahead, until next week, find outline at gowdy america or the trey gowdy pod cost, "life, liberty and levin" is up next. ♪ ♪ [music] jonathan: thi

justice kavanaugh, just as gorsuch, amy coney barrett, and another one. i do not know if it is broken. these hearings are a reflection of the times and a reflection of the hill as well. host: you did a recent podcast on increasing transparency in the supreme court. why did you tackle that topic and what did you learn? natalie: it is a topic that is a thread coming up more and more when we are talking about the supreme court. part of that is the pandemic, to adapt and make changes, you know , changing the way it operates as an institution. they went remote and and they went on audio. there are more calls now for even more excess and transparency. also, we have seen a huge increase in shadow docket rulings. some would term it midnight orders from the courts that are not being heard in oral arguments. increasingly, they have been using the tool as a method to weigh in on pieces. on the one hand, there is the feeling that you want to hear from the court on cases and they have very small docket, a relatively small docket of cases that they hear oral arguments

justice gorsuch was so qualified.ere threatening to filibuster him. i think those days, if you look at justice scalia and ginsberg, they did get 95 votes each, but it is more partisan, when you have a hearing like what justice kavanaugh faced it is more partisan. we'll see about the hearings, i think it fair to ask the nominee about the cases she has handled in private practice and as a public defender and her views about the philosophy and how she views the constitution. >> senator, it has been 17 years since a republican nominee for the supreme court received a single vote from the senate judiciary committee democrats. 17 years. i am not known for my hopefulness, i am hopeful that will change, thank you for joining us. >> that you, trey. trey: thank you for spending part of your sunday with us. have a great week ahead, until next week, find outline at gowdy america or the trey gowdy pod cost, "life, liberty and levin" is up next. ♪ ♪ [music] ♪ ♪ mark: hello america, i am mark levin, this is "life, liberty and levin.

he suggested democrats exacted a political agenda by opposing the nominations in judge gorsuch to the supreme court. i kind of chuckle at that because along with others, others repeatedly and clearly stated substantive concerns with justice gorsuch's nomination. i explained my votes on the record. there's no political agenda. i contrast that with republicans' treatment of judge merrick garland. we're still waiting for the substantive concerns with merrick garland. they blocked him for over a year and wouldn't even allow a vote on his nomination. apparently because of a politically driven agenda. all i'm saying is let's make history this week. let's not rewrite it. this is a historical time. judge jackson, one of the topics we discussed in our meeting was our respective experiences. you as a former federal public defender myself, as a prosecutor, as a federal public defender here in washington, you were assigned to and then represented clients who couldn't otherwise afford a lawyer. one of the lessons i learned as a prosecutor was this. for the criminal justice system to function prope

the democrats never granted garland a hearing. >> it'll be necessary to confirm judge gorsuch on theon. the g.o.p. led senate the firm element confirmed her days before the 2020 election. >> i admit the goose is pretty much cooked. >> even the hearings for justice kavanaugh were in line for the rude language anita hill accused thomas of sexual harassment. >> the one that was most embarrassing was a discussion of pornography involving women with large breasts and engaged with sex with a variety of people, animals. >> there appeared to be "an alien pubic hair wandering around my gym." >> members of congress treat this as their opportunity to build a national brand. high theatrics. >> doug jones serves abba what is called "the sharp" or he escorts ketanji brown jackson to meetings. kelly ayotte did that for gorsu. >> they are trying to trip the nominee up. >> that's why confirming a justice is one of the most excruciating exercises in american government. on capitol hill, chad pergram. fox news. >> shannon: on the docket tonight, i retired army reserve exposed to burn pits in iraq takin

in 2017, i asked justice gorsuch about this during his confirmation hearing.i ask him to expand on a comment he had made about his belief that precedent is important because it adds stability to the law. in response, justice gorsuch reiterated his belief that precedent is important because and i quote once a case is settled, that adds to the determinant see of the law. he also stated that roe has been reaffirmed many times. i also spoke with judge kavanaugh many times. i asked him whether he believes that roe was settled wrong and if so, was it correctly settled. justice kavanaugh said that roe is settled as a president of the supreme court. he said that roe has been reaffirmed many times and most prominently most importantly reaffirmed in planned parenthood v casey. he described casey as having the value of a precedent on precedent. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett 2020. i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to quote obey all of the rules if faced with the question of w

in 2017 i asked justice gorsuch about this during his confirmation hearing. i asked him to expand on a comment he had made about his belief that precedent is important because it adds stability to the law. in response justice gorsuch reiterated his belief that precedent is important because, and i quote, once a case is settled that adds to the determine nancy of the law, end quote. he also stated that rowe has been reaffirmed many times. i also spoke with judge kavanaugh about this issue in 2018. i asked him whether he believes that rowe was settled law, and if so whether it was correctly settled? >> justice kavanaugh said that rowe, quote, is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, end quote. he said that rowe, quote, has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. casey, end quote, and he described casey as having the value of a precedent on precedent, end quote. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agreed with justi

he suggested that democrats exacted a political agenda by opposing the nomination of judge gorsuch to the supreme court. i kind of chuckled at that, because along with others i and others have repeatedly had substantiative concerns with justice gorsuch's nomination pip explained my results on the record. there's no political agenda. i contrast that with republican's treatment of then judge merrick garland. we're still waiting today for republicans to explain on the record what kind of substantiative concerns they had with merrick garland, that they blocked him for over a year and would not allow, even allow a vote on his nomination. apparently, because of a politically driven agenda. all i'm saying is, let's make history this week. but let's not rewrite it. this is an historical time. judge jackson, one of the topics we discussed in our meeting was our respective experiences, you as a former federal public defender, myself as a prosecutor. as a federal public defender here in washington, you were assigned to and then represented clients who couldn't otherwise afford a lawyer. one of t

in 2017, i asked justice gorsuch about this during his confirmation hearing. i asked him to expand on a comment he had made about his belief that precedent is important because it adds stability to the law. in response, justice gorsuch reiterated his belief that precedent is important because, and i quote, once a case is settled, that adds to the determ nancy of the law, end quote. he also stated that roe has been reaffirmed many times. i also spoke with judge kavanaugh about this issue in 2018. i asked him whether he believes that roe was settled wrong and if so, if weathwhether it was c settled. justice kavanaugh said, quote, roe is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, end quote. he said that roe, quote, has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. casey and described casey of having the value of precedent on precedent, end quote. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agree with justice scalia's view that roe wa

but having gone through amy coney barrett and justice gorsuch, i don't think that's a simple conclusion. there were extraordinary realities in the kavanaugh hearings that i think demanded for that to be as contentious as it was and not just allowing it to go through without these extraordinary sort of realities coming to the fore and being investigated. so what we saw, though, this week was, to me, outrageous and beyond the pale and very different than what i've witnessed in my short time in the senate, seeing three different confirmation hearings. and i think that what some of my colleagues did was just sad, frankly, but again, you had a justice there, a judge there that dealt with it in an extraordinary way and showed america who she is, despite the outrageousness of the question. >> considering that she's gone through confirmation hearings before before that very committee, the only difference was the tv cameras. that's the only thing i can come up with. >> i think you make one of the best points that pointed to the absurdity of it for me, which was, she was already appointed to the

in 2017 i asked justice gorsuch about this during his confirmation hearing. i asked him to expand on a comment he had made about his belief that precedent is important because it adds stability to the law. in response, justice gorsuch reiterated his belief that precedent is important because, and i quote, once a case is settled, that adds to the -- he also stated that roe has been reaffirmed many times. i also spoke with judge kavanaugh about this issue in 2018. i asked him whether he believes that roe was settled law and if so, whether it was correctly settled. justice kavanaugh said that roe, quote, is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, end quote. he said that roe, quote, has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parent hood versus casey, end quote. and he describes casey as having the value of a precedent on precedent, end quote. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongl

jackson has much more experience than now justice barrett did, and also more experience than justices gorsuchavanaugh, if you include all of judge jackson's experience both in the private sector and in government and on the bench. >> reporter: despite her elite legal pedigree, jackson comes from a modest background. she was born in 1970 in washington, d.c., but raised in miami where she attended public schools. her father, a teacher and later county board attorney. her mother was a public high school principal. >> my father in particular bears responsibility for my interest in the law. my very earliest memories are of watching my father study. he had his stack of law books on the kitchen table while i sat across from him with hi stack of coloring books. >> reporter: jackson, like eight current justices, has an ivy league education, graduating in the top of her class at harvard and serving in the harvard law review. >> justice breyer, the members of the senate will decide if i fill your seat, but please know that i could never fill your shoes. >> reporter: she would bring fresh experience to t

that left conservative justices aaliyah, gorsuch, and as well as justice sotomayor are not in attendance. he said it was assigned seating where every other seat was empty as you saw and lawmakers were seated in the gallery, the amazing -- the mezzanine. that was decided by caucus leaders from both parties and the leadership and it was based on seniority. >> back to your calls. already in texas -- marty in texas. what did you think of the speech tonight? caller: i thought he was making good points. he stated strong goals for the united states and the safety of our people. if you come into this country legally, and you are seeking asylum, do it the right way. we continue to move forward. >> is immigration the number one issue for you? caller: it is immigration and safety. the immigration factor the way that grants -- emigrants have been treated trying to make a better life in this country that also dehumanized at the border, being separated from their families. there is a common goal for all of us and if we go through the middle, we will progress. >> thank you. terry from california and a

in 2017 i asked justice gorsuch about this during his confirmation hearing. i asked him to expand on a comment he had made about his belief that precedent is important because it and stability to the law. in response, justice gorsuch reiterated his belief that precedent is important because, and i quote, once a case is settled, that adds to the determine and see of the law -- determinancy of the law. he also stated that roe had been reaffirmed many times. i also spoke to judge kavanaugh about this issue in 2018. i asked him whether he believes that roe was settled wrong, and if so, whether it was correctly settled. justice kavanaugh said that roe, quote, is settled as a precedent of the supreme court. he said roe has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. k.c. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to, quote, obey all the rules if faced with t

on the charm offensive you hear people calling for to contradict how dems treated brett kavanaugh, gorsuchtitution and civil rights laws and screamed louder when joe biden chose a racist process that violated civil rights laws by confirming the potential nominees to one group, black women, that in itself was racist, it ran counter to nondiscrim nagsz purpose of the civil rights act, equal protection cause it will impact every american, i'm happening every -- systemically racist country and constitution put together by racists and they should be standing on principles and not allowing themselves to be charmed. >> todd: we will see. >> thanks for getting up early with us, we appreciate it. to this, collegiate championship ends in controversy, swimmer who missed competition by one spot is slamming the ncaa for letting transgender swimmer lia thomas compete. brooke is speaking out. >> brooke: that is right, one student athlete is speaking out about the handling of transgender lia thomas. she missed the cutoff and it was because thomas was allowed to compete against 2011. it feels like the fina

that left conservative justices alito and gorsuch not attending along with liberal justice sotomayor. also, it looked like there was assigned seating tonight. you might have noticed members were spaced out. a report on capitol hill says every other seat was empty and lawmakers were sought -- were signed in the gallery. who decided where members sat? caucus members from both parties at leadership decided. iowa governor kim reynolds will give the gop response tonight. reporting from the hill newspaper says her focus will be inflation, schools' response to biden as well. she made news in her state today. look at this picture, she signed a tax cut bill. she says these are official pens ready to go, she tweeted out, for the state's most historic tax reform bill. and finally, i want to share this video with you of governor reynolds. she was asked recently in an interview how she prepares for big speeches like tonight. >> did you have any election day, big speech revisions that come to mind? governor reynolds: one of the things that really helped me prepare for an election or for tonight is

garland to get a hearing and be put up for a vote and allowed the seeds to be filled by justice neil gorsuch instead. even though seven out of the eight last presidential elections, the popular was won by democrats, the court is now dominated by conservatives. they tried over and over again to get judge jackson to weigh in on this notion of court packing. she said it would not be appropriate for her to weigh in on that. it was the same thing judge amy barrett said during her confirmation hearing. as another matter, this is not something that the supreme court would decide. this is a question for congress to decide. this is something that justice stephen breyer has addressed and he said the supreme court should not be expanded because people will view the court as political and it will sap the supreme court's authority. host: the supreme court is 20 years old, is that correct? guest: it will turn 20 this fall. host: how cognizant were the justices about this idea of faith in the court? guest: it was something that at that time they were quite cognizant of because bush v gore was not that far

i hope and think and really believe the republicans will not attack her the way gorsuch and cavanaughere attacked, so i think we need to have an open mind here, me being one of those my but i think those issues really need to be addressed. on top of that, democrats have the majority, so i think she will probably get in regardless. anyway, have a blessed day and thank you. host: the new york times fact checker taking up this line first brought up why senator josh hawley of missouri and senator marsha blackburn about her record on sentencing of child sex abusers and judge ketanji brown jackson's views on those kind of sentences. the new york times fact checker said, esther holly last week took judge jackson's legal recommendations and sentencing decisions out of context on this issue and's blackburn -- and blackburn's statements -- eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentencing on child port as a member of the sentencing commission, which advises congress on federal sentencing guidelines. they write, this was an overly broad characterization of sentencing made by the commission a

in one instant, gorsuch even wrote two opinions for the same case.ne, the majority opinion that his colleagues joined. and the other an out-there solo opinion displaying his scheme bona fides. gorsuch also displayed his fervor for what he called religious freedom, which usually translates to dismantling the separation between church and state, which is another scheme favorite. justice amy coney barrett new how to audition -- new knew how to audition. she refused to hear a challenge to women's law on the right to choose, barrett bucked it by joining a dissent aimed directly at supreme court abortion precedent. on guns, judge barrett authored an opinion in a second amendment case, canter v. barr that would have given a felon back his gun because his felony wasn't violent. constitutional scholars' jaws hit the floor at that one. adam winkler, a second amendment expert at ucla law school told the new yorker that the opinion was, and i quote, amy coney barrett's audition tape for the supreme court. it was her audition tape because her, quote, view of the

they waited for justice gorsuch. in another example, the courts acknowledged these justices dissented in overturning a precedent banning burdensome and unnecessary restrictions based on abortion providers. this precedent was only four years old. now the court is poised to overturn roe v. wade even though women have relied on their constitutional right to have an abortion for nearly 50 years. of course i am not suggesting supreme court decisions are sacrosanct. i am thankful the court did revisit precedents like plessy v ferguson. but justices should not be seen to be advancing their individual , political or ideological agenda. one result of the new approach is people's view of the court is changing for the worse. a recent poll found that 42% of americans approve -- disapprove of the supreme court. this is up 15 points from august of 2020. shortly before the late justice ruth bader ginsburg died and amy barrett was appointed to fill her seat. there is an ideological split in this current supreme court. this is not ba

gorsuch offered 212 positions before he was nominated to the supreme court. justice cavanagh had written 306. senators had an unbelievable wealth of writings to examine. as for justice berries in three years on the seventh circuit she had written 91 opinions not to mention her many academic writings on constitutional law. judge jackson has written a total of two circuit court opinions, just two. the only real body of evidence before the senate is our record as a trial judge. like i mentioned thoserulings communicate little about the judges approach to big picture questions of interpretation . to make matters worse judge jackson declined to answer basic questions about those rulings. senators ask about clear patterns in the judge criminalsentencing decisions. the nominee deflected by saying every case is unique . so senators tried to examine one case of time . then the nominee said she couldn't recall the sales. so senators tried to supply the details and then the nominee said no one case can fully capture ajudges record . this made up an endless circle of eva

he suggested democrats exacted a political agenda by opposing the nomination in judge gorsuch to the supreme court. i kind of chuckle at that because along with others, others repeatedly and clearly stated substantive concerns with justice gorsuch nomination and explained my votes on the record. there is no political agenda. i contrast that with republicans' treatment of then judge garland and we need republicans to explain on the record what concerns they had with garland that they blocked him for over a year and wouldn't allow a vote on his nomination. apparently because of a politically-driven agenda. all i'm saying is let's make history this week. let's not rewrite it. this is a hard time. one of the topics we discussed in our meeting was our respective experiences that you as a former federal public defender, myself as a prosecutor. as a federal public defender here in washington you were assigned to and then represented clients who couldn't otherwise afford a lawyer. one of the valuable lessons i learned as a prosecutor was this. for our criminal justice system to function prop

qualified, but they had a political agenda and so every one of them happily filibustered justice gorsuch. likewise, it is not about race. we will see democrats in the media suggest that any senator skeptical of your nomination, the questions you vigorously, or dares to vote against you must somehow harbor racial animus. if that were the standard, i would note we are sitting on a committee were multiple members of this committee, senior democrats on the committee, happily mustard just -- filibustered justice brown, nominated to d.c. circuit judge and they did so precisely because they wanted to prevent judge brown from becoming justice brown, the first african-american woman. joe biden was among the democrats who filibustered the first african-american woman nominated to the deceased. senior democrats on this committee also filibustered miguel estrada. as the staffer senator ted kennedy said in writing at the time, the democrats filibustered miguel estrada "because he is hispanic." they were explicitly racial, if you dare, if you are hispanic or african-american and you dare depart from t

that after three confirmation hearings that we had recently, the three confirmations we have the gorsuch one which was procedurally irregular in that mitch mcconnell invented a new rule that prevented president obama from filling that seat. and with the parent nomination we had one that took place as people were voting so you have two seats of the nine that are currently filled that i think a lot of people can rightly feel like comewith a proceduralá . and the difficulty given lifetime tenure is what's, where's the remedy for, what's the remedy for that? one of the pushes for talking about reforms to the court is trying to figure out what a remedy can look like when you seen the process breakdown in a way that we have a 63 court that has a proceduralábut we're starting to see the real consequences of what 6 to 3 looks like when you don't have a and a 4 to 5 court, you can peel off somebody from the majority and have the case turned out differently and in 60 3 that's much harder to do. you need to peel off 2 votes and it creates an incentive, and apparent incentive on the side of the majo

two things quickly, one i remembered no issues neil gorsuch who was confirmed highly polarized -- wellople say this is what happens but it's not just what happens. i don't know what would happen if republicans had a nominee of and received a letter. i know the process is completely terrible, congresswoman dianne feinstein, that there were nominee had been accused of sexual assault. i don't know what they would do but i would hope they would consider carefully. second point, this is how democrats or republicans were so polite, they wouldn't even see merrick garland, though an interview and hear what he was all about. >> greg: they had reason not to. what a joke, right? >> jessica: okay, but. >> dana: president biden and vladimir putin next. ♪ limu emu and doug.♪ and it's easy to customize your insurance at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? limu? sorry, one sec. doug blows several different whistles. doug blows several different whistles. [a vulture squawks.] there he is. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪ men,

. >> todd: supreme court justice neil gorsuch to come early on in both their careers, and the founderity institute. what do you make of this republican approach? be civil on the personal but go hard after the judicial record. >> this could not be more different than the nomination for justice brett kavanaugh where the democrats went very aggressively after his record and his personal life. in this case republicans seeking to his record in particular, her record as a district judge for the last eight years or so, and her record on the circuit brief, and with the attack in large part, a couple major things. i review as well as her role as a judge in sentencing child sex offenders, particularly those who engaged in child pornography, and he heard of you heard ofthe points there, bn points on her record, the judge's personal life and the like. and as we all will know, she is the first female african american judge to be nominated to the u.s. supreme court. >> todd: what do you want to learn from judge jackson over the course of this week? >> the key issue for any judge being in the suprem

i have no idea if judge gorsuch is a white libertarian, do you?. >> judge jeanine: let me write to jessica with that. i really thought that, you know, she has been to the court and replaced briar. all of a sudden she has asked by senator marsha blackburn to define what it means to be a woman. she basically said she can't. and then she says, i'm not a biologist. what is the problem there? >> marsha blackburn was on earlier today but john roberts and he asked her to answer her own question and she would say i am a woman. i am a female. now, judge jackson certainly could have given that answer. but it was not what she was after. she wanted to talk about leah thomas and trained athletes. judge jackson did not want to get into dirt. >> judge jeanine: how is that dirt? that is what they may decide? how is that dirt? >> jesse: squeaky clean example. marsha blackburn showed up and she didn't have a good answer prepared. i know that they want to more than that. what she wanted judge jackson born biologically female, someone born with a and whether it becam

she stands at 56% followed by justice sotomayor or, justice barrett, justice gorsuch, and justice kavanaughdon't think the public opinion polls matter as much as the results of the last election in 2020. democrats won the presidency and because they won the two seats in georgia after the election, they have with vice president harris a majority of the vote in the senate. they don't need to get any republican votes in order to confirm kb j. all of this fighting, i don't think the republicans really have their hearts in it, i don't think they're really trying to stop her because on the republican side they know she's not going to change the balance of power between the six conservatives and three liberals on the court and republicans say we got a bit of good news, she's not going to sit on this very important harvard affirmative action case next year which makes it even more likely this court will strike down affirmative action. >> shannon: jonathan turley our viewers are familiar with him, distinct professor, not a conservative guy. he writes about what is happening. ketanji brown jackson ge

. >> reporter: if confirmed, ketanji brown jackson will actually follow in the footsteps of neil gorsuch replace her former boss, stephen breyer, to the supreme court bench. but i do want to note this week is going to be incredibly busy, as these supreme court hearings begin tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern and they're expected to go for a few days. boris, kristin. >> daniella diaz live from capitol hill. thank you so much. >>> of course, you won't want to miss this historic moment. cnn is going to have special coverage of ketanji brown jackson's confirmation hearing that begins tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. right here on cnn. >>> meantime, our coverage of russia's war in ukraine continues after a quick break. we're going to take you to an unlikely place in dnipro that's housing refugees. stay with us. we'll be right back. rere is cru! (laughs) anything else you wanna know? is the hype too much?? am i reaeady? i can't tell you everything. but if you want to make history, you gotta call your own shots. we going to the league! let's go on the open road with a safe stay! now get double best western

sullivan, justice thomas and justice gorsuch each dissented from the decision not to grant cert, arguinge court should reconsider its holding in sullivan. how would you approach a case that sought to limit or overturn the central holding in "new york times" v. sullivan? >> thank you, senator. any time the court is asked to revisit a precedent, there are criteria that the court uses to decide whether or not to overrule a precedent. "new york times" vs. sullivan is a precedent, and stare decisis is very important. the principle that courts -- that the supreme court should maintain its precedents for predictability and stability in the law. if the court is asked to revisit a precedent, its criteria, what it looks at, are whether the precedent is wrong and, in fact, egregiously wrong, the court has said, whether there's been reliance on that precedent, whether the -- there are other cases that are similar to the precedent or that relied on the precedent that have now shifted so that the precedent is no longer on firm footing. whether or not the precedent is workable. sometimes the supreme co

. >> gorsuch, kavanaugh, do a hail mary with the real right-wing lunatic. >> make the sense the rightriminal justice reform. that is the only thing they can do this woman is so -- >> unasailable. >> she is unassailable. elizabeth: your reaction? >> it is ridiculous from what i've seen and read. the woman has not answered a lot of the questions. she somehow able to evade them which i find astonishing. we need to really know where she stands. from what i know there is a radical lib and things she supports and promotes are very concerning and she should not be on the supreme court. elizabeth: deneen borelli, always great to have you on. come back soon. you're a great writer too. >> thanks. elizabeth: more big stock trades by nancy pelosi's husband adding fire to the controversy with the congressman making big bucks while trading own the job. we have that next on "the evening edit" i recommend salonpas. agreed... my patients like these patches because they work for up to 12 hours, even on moderate pain. salonpas. it's good medicine ♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. we gotta tell people that liberty

from robert bork 1987 until neil gorsuch an 2017 nobody called themselves an originalist.ree nominees and courses, kavanaugh and barrett did and now she has had to bow in that direction as you put it. justice kagan, ten years ago, 12 years ago now did say we are all originalist but only in a narrow kind of way when the rules so specified explicitly in the constitution. jackson was more sweeping and less specific. i think she recognizes that is the dominant mode. i don't think in the future of the republican picks democrats will be able to say someone calling him or herself an originalist is somehow outside the mainstream. >> that may be the biggest consequence of this. let me ask about the republican questioning of the judge on crime, particularly child pornography sentences for work on the u.s. sentencing commission. do you think the questioning exposed any significant weakness there when it comes to sentencing criminals? >> it seems like the republicans who are most pushing it, holly, ted cruz, were looking for their comment runs for president looking to make themselves

. $21 million related in time to the gorsuch nomination. $17 million to the kavanaugh nomination. $14lion to the barrett nomination. of course, we don't know who the actual donor is. could be the same donor. who knows. and because we don't know who the donor is, we don't know what business they might have had before the court. and i think it matters when people are seeking to influence the make-up of the court that the public understand what business they may have before the court. and anonymity hides all of that. and they didn't stop with the trump nominees. they got up on the air. a dark money group using dark money to accuse biden's supreme court nominee, at that point a player to be named later, judge jackson had not been selected at this point, of being a tool or stooge of liberal activists' dark money. this is a screen shot from their advertisement paid for by the judicial crisis network. so it's worth understanding for a moment what the judicial crisis network is, and where it lies. and it lies in a network of organizations. the prevailing way that political mischief is accompl

justice gorsuch authored 212 opinions. kavanaugh 306. judge barrett in her three years, 300.re are only two appellate court decisions. seemed watching what was going on, when the senators tried to ask her a question, let's get into the specifics of each case, she would turn it around on congress, say it is congress' fault for the sentencing laws. >> yeah. she was very evasive and she went to her methodology instead of her philosophy. vetting of supreme court justice is one of the most important functions of the united states senate. these are judges that sit for life. when someone at age of a justice brown jackson, she could conceivably on the high court for decades. so the longest lasting legacy of any president who they put on the federal courts and the most important of course is our highest one. so look, i think the level of scrutiny was called for. i do not think that she met the test and i think these complaints and concerns that are being stated are shared by millions and millions of the american people. this is of great concern. what my friend colleague ken bach said

qualified, but they had a political agenda and so every one of them happily filibustered justice gorsuch. likewise, it is not about race. we will see democrats in the media suggest that any senator skeptical of your nomination, the questions you vigorously, or dares to vote against you must somehow harbor racial animus. if that were the standard, i would note we are sitting on a committee were multiple members of this committee, senior democrats on the committee, happily mustard just -- filibustered justice brown, nominated to d.c. circuit judge and they did so precisely because they wanted to prevent judge brown from becoming justice brown, the first african-american woman. joe biden was among the democrats who filibustered the first african-american woman nominated to the deceased. senior democrats on this committee also filibustered miguel estrada. as the staffer senator ted kennedy said in writing at the time, the democrats filibustered miguel estrada "because he is hispanic." they were explicitly racial, if you dare, if you are hispanic or african-american and you dare depart from t

. $21 million in time for the neil gorsuch nomination, $17 million to the brett kavanaugh nomination, $14 million to the amy coney barrett nomination. of course we don't know who the actual donor is, could be the same donor, who knows? and because we don't know who the donor is we don't know what business they might've had with the court. i think it matters when people are seeking to influence the makeup of the court. that the public understand what business they may have before the court. anonymity hides all of that. they didn't stop with the trumpet nominee. they got up on the air, a dark money group using dark money to accuse joe biden's supreme court nominee, at that point a player to be named later, judge jackson had not been selected at that point, of being a tool, liberal activist, dark money. this is a screenshot of their advertisement paid for by the judicial crisis network. so it's worth understanding for a moment what the judicial crisis network is and where it lies. it lies in the network of organizations, the prevailing way is with the parrot 5o1c3 and 501(c)(4) organizat

wade, amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch, all of these justices thatrump appointede required in advance to have anti-choice views, they are all fine. they are waiting for the opportunity to essentially gut roe v. wade. nermeen: could you respond to that and the fact that you said senate judiciary cmittee democrats did not connect the hearing to what is going to be a catastrophic series of progressive losses at the supreme court? talk about what other progressive losses in addition to reproductive rights you are referring to. >> i think the single most important thing that i saw in the questioning around abortion was how little there was. to the extent there was questioning around abortion, it presumed, as you just heard, that abortion is already over, that roe v. wade has been nullified and that was assumed. and then the questions really moved on to other things within that bucket of privacy rights and family autonomy rights to sort of all of the substantive due process -- the questions we were getting were really chilling. john cornyn raising the prospect of maybe

. >> yeah, mark murray and i were talking about this this morning, justice gorsuch -- >> yeah, alitod sotomayor doesn't surprise. >> she's an occasional surprise. >> yes, she is. >> small scale compared to hugo -- >> that's it, we don't have the perception the judiciary is a fair arbiter. >> i would agree. >> yeah, and also, too, though, there's no talking more on the right of this person is turning into a suitor where it's you are just left and -- >> we saw that problem with the federal society for better for worse. >> i would go back further to garland, and i would go back to bourque -- >> that was world war i. >> yeah, they each accuse the other of starting it. >> it's not just the supreme court, but when you read a story about a big decision made by a district court judge or court of appeals, and i don't know about you, but i read that in the story and it's appointed by bush, or appointed by barack obama, and it didn't used to be. i was thinking back to the way the stories used to read. they didn't always have that in there. >> is that an editorial decision that was made, do you

judge gorsuch, 45%.got a higher rating than any of the previous three judges. >> yeah, and i think with good reason. she performed very well. i think, to be fair to the other side here, a lot of gop senators got a lot of flak for focusing on gender, that question about what is a woman, race, can babies be racist. but these are core issues animating their voters. these are issues that are very important in poll after poll to the people that these senators are elected to represent. so i think some of the criticism from the left that simply shutting -- shoving these issues inside a box, trying to twine them as a throw cultural issue, are way off base. and i'm surprised to see, actually, the degree to which, you know, cruz, rubio are being criticized for going down those paths. of course they were. that's why she was well prepare frommed to answer those questions. -- prepared to answer those questions. john: when she was appointed to the d.c. circuit, she got three republican votes, graham, her kousky and co

, she will actually follow in the footsteps of previous supreme court nominees, now judges, kneel gorsuchby replacing her former boss on the bench, being, of course, stephen breyer, and we do expect this week to be incredibly busy on capitol hill as these confirmations begin tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern. boris, kristin. >> daniella diaz live from capitol hill. thank you so much. >>> let's get analysis now from the dean of boston university's law school. she penned a letter last month that hundreds of other law deans have signed onto, calling for judge jackson to be confirmed quickly. good morning and thank you so much for being with us. just right off the bat, what concerns you might slow down her confirmation? >> what concerns might slow down her confirmation, kri think the questions about her sentencing on cases involving non-production child pornography. senator josh howley has said that he plans to ask her questions about these sentences, he plans to ask her questions about her work on the commission, and i think those kinds of things might slow it down. i agree with senator mcconne

barton: she and gorsuch would have some diversity to it. at first it was only jewish people and catholics and that is unusual because it used to be the exception, but to have it become the rule is somewhat interesting. but also it was unusual to have so little diversity, so jackson would help in that regard for sure. susan: while we are talking about jewish justices, you're right about louis brandeis. prof. barton: one of my favorites. brandeis is another person who would have a hard time making it on the court today. brandeis' number one qualification for getting on the court is that he was america's best lawyer. he graduated harvard and went into practice and spent all his time building an amazing, spectacular, wide-ranging practice and that is what he brought with him to the court. he had not been a judge. he had not done anything to demonstrate that sort of thing. afterwards. that would be unusual on the court today. he was a super controversial pick at the time because he was jewish, but also because he had written at length against bi