. >> caller: i want to make a comment about justice barrett going back to merrick garland. justice there on your clip mentioned their election of duty numerous times. mitch 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

views 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

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

we have to go right to the hypocrisy of not hearing merrick garland and, you know what, her hypocrisy. she did an interview right after scalia died, with cbs, and in that interview she said, well, you know, this is very different from kennedy being seated because she was taking place of powell, who left in june, this is very different. she's a hypocrite too. and that needs to be raised in her questioning. >> we have -- we got to hear from both for the panel, we got to hear from the entire democratic ticket on what we're seeing at the supreme court. let me play for you what joe biden, he's on the ground in toledo, ohio, what he said about the proceedings so far and then i'll play a piece from kamala harris' opening statement. here is joe biden. >> the middle of this pandemic, why do republicans have time to hold a hearing on the supreme court providing instead of the significant economic need for localities? i'll tell you why. it is about finally getting his wish to wipe out the affordable healthcare act. because their nominee said in the past that the law should be struck down. >> sen

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

members of the republican committee who stated publicly before the vacancy that they thought merrick garland would be a good person to have on the court and somebody who could appeal to both conservatives and liberals and moderates. >> i have full respect for judge garland. >> beg your pardon? >> i'm sorry. i missed the first part. are they right to say -- could you repeat the question? >> it was not a question. i was saying we had many members of our committee, a number of republicans, who prior to the vacancy had been saying merrick garland would be a good person for president obama to nominate because he could appeal to moderates, conservatives and liberals. and then, of course, their response was well, we can't have a -- we can't have a nominee confirmed by one party that's in control 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 in an election year democrats confirmed him. but let me go to another area. three-judge panel of the seventh circuit struck down three provisions of an

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

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

it seems to me that they are required to advise and consent and they didn't do either one with merrick garland. secondly, i would like to ask what you think about the fact that every senator said that during an election, the people, the electorate should ex-president, that should be the people that decide to the next supreme court pick is. 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 w

doing 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

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

kavanaugh, as well. 2016, president obama tapped mary garland to feel the late justice garcia -- merrick garland that lay scalia's seat. it was 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

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

here's what mitch mcconnell said about merrick garland. the american people should have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice. therefore, this vacancy should not be filled. the senator from south carolina said, i want you to use my words against me. if there is a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, lindsey graham said, let's let the next president, who ever it might be, make that nomination, and you can use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right. the senator from texas said, the american people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice. and it's not just my republican colleagues who have reversed their position. it's judge barrett herself who actually warned against making changes on the court in an election year. she said, we're talking about justice scalia, the staunchest conservative in the court. we're talking about someone roberts-stabenow placed by someone who would dramatic flip the power. it is not a late

they blocked all consideration of president obama's nominee -- judge merrick garland, claiming that the american people should have the opportunity to weigh in on a supreme court vacancy. leader mcconnell at the time clearly stated the republicans' position. quote, my view, and i can now confidently say, the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president that the people elect in the election that is now under way. end quote. well, that's clearly not going to happen. chairman graham, in 2018, reiterated this standard, promising that if, quote, an opening comes up in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election. end quote. but when justice ginsburg passed away just 46 days before election day, senate republicans did not hesitate to go back on their word. on the night of justice ginsburg's death, leader mcconnell announced that president obama's nominee for the vacancy -- president trump's nominee for the vacancy would receive a vote on the senate floor and chairman

some of us have robert bork stuck in our craw, others have merrick garland stuck in their craw in terms of what has happened here. we all need to concede we're not in a place where we should be when it comes to the operations of this committee and of the senate and our relationship with the supreme court. chairman started this hearing by reminding us about votes that were taken 98-0 for antonin scalia, 96-3 for ruth bader ginsburg. her vote was six years after the robert bork experience. how did we manage to put together bipartisan coalitions for people on such opposite ends of the political spectrum who we knew going in were very clear in what they believed? and now today we struggle both to vote day-to-day when it comes to the filling of vacancies on the supreme court. i think there are a lot of explanations for it. one of the things that we have witnessed here and i have witnessed in the time i've served on this committee is a denigration of the process to the point where it's almost useless. we've reached the point now where gifted, experienced, jurists and legal scholars take the s

we saw what happened to merrick garland.g for the name merrick garland to come up, so he could present his counterargument. >> that's what they prepped. it's a fair point. it's interesting, both of your takes on that. i have to fit in a break. che, do you know why professor greer wears maga red glasses? >> first of all, i think she's trying to reclaim that color away from the maga crowd. you know, towards a more progressive tint. if you think about the labor party in the uk, their color is red. many left-wing parties around the world, their color is red. for most of the world's progressive parties, the color is red. >> i love the global erudition of the answer. but it's wrong. the reason she wears maga red glasses is to make her vision again. >> it's my nod to shirley chisholm, who always wore red. >> and 2020 visi/20 vision, it'. the control room is saying we're out of time, but i think it's just they're done with what i'm doing. i want to thank both of you. up next, to the lighter moments, including what the viewers are sa

look what they did four years ago to merrick garland that was nominated by obama and this is all going to come back to bite them. i'm certainly hoping that the democrats take over the senate next tuesday. >> host: to jacksonville next. susan on the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to congratulate amy coney barrett and i know she will do a great job and as a supreme court justice. i'm 65 years old and i'm happy that the legacy of the court is going to be conservative in that my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will benefit from her ruling and her guiding and leaving the country and i'm just so happy that we are turning that to be a more conservative country and god bless america. >> host: the ceremony at the white house excited to get underway in about five minutes but 48 -year-old amy coney barrett who has been serving on the u.s. seventh circuit court of appeals out of chicago for three years confirmed by the senate almost three years ago and this evening as a matter fact and also a professor and attendant notre

. >>> what they're doing now and what they did in '16 with merrick garland was absolutely cynical andcal so if they manage to get this -- to get coney barrett through, then they'll have a 6-3 court. it'll completely change the balance of the court and the question becomes, what do you do? they stole essentially two justice, merrick garland and this one is so close to the election that it's -- and under any normal terms this would be ridiculous. >> that was former senator al franken when i spoke to him about amy coney barrett. he echos concerns that it's premature to continue with the hearings especially that committee members mike lee and thom tillis tested positive for covid-19. joining me now constitutional law professor jim mall-green. you have mitch mcconnell and the judiciary committee chair lindsey graham that said they plan to move ahead with barrett's nomination as planned. what do you make of the time line given everything that surrounds it whether it's political or health related? >> well, i think if you look at the overall time line, as senator franken said it's cynical to

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

he denied even a hearing for merrick garland. now his duplicitousness is here for everyone to see.gh a justice weeks before an election, but is refusing to put on the floor a covid relief package that is bipartisan in the house, and that could make a difference and help save people's lives. >> democratic senator kirsten gillibrand, good to see you again. >>> why is there debate about which presidential candidate iran was trying to hurt? stay with us. -na, na-na, na-na, eh♪ ♪dy-na-na-na, na-na, na-na, eh♪ ♪light it up, dynamite ♪shining through the city with a little funk and soul♪ ♪so i'ma light it up like dynamite♪ ♪'cause, ah-ah,♪ ♪shining through the city with a little funk and soul♪ ♪i'ma light it up like dynamite, whoa♪ voila, rewarded withg guacamole and a side of quiet. grubhub gives you rewards for rewarding yourself, with food. (doorbell rings) - grubhub! girls are gonna grow up and be about buproud of me for. that my reporter: facebook ceo mark zuckerberg admits a "operational mistake" after the company failed to take down a page promoting vigilante events in kenosha. the

by comparison, they sat on president obama's nomination of merrick garland for 293 days and never heldote. senate leader mitch mcconnell plans to keep the senate in session all weekend so he can hold a final confirmation vote for barrett on monday. he wants to move quickly because he's got about 10 republican senators who are locked in tough reelection battles who want to get home to campaign. norah. >> o'donnell: nancy cordes, thank you. tonight, we want to focus on food insecurity as 787,000 that is the lowest weekly tote unemployment claims last week. that is the lowest weekly total since march, but 23 million americans are still out of work. tonight, mark strassmann reports on the growing struggle to feed families. >> i'm sad, but i'm trying to cope with it. >> reporter: erielkina pizarro is struggling in the bronx. she's a single latina mother with three young sons, all with special needs. >> i tell them, if i don't have a job, if mommy's not working, mommy cannot bring food to the table. on reporter: 1.4 million people people live in the live in the bronx, almost all of them blac

you argued that merrick garland should have had a vote. my question for you, mr. messner, if judge barrett gets on the high court, what does that say for the future of the nomination process, and how americans view the impartiality, or the fairness, of their high court? you have 60 seconds. mr. messner: i think amy coney barrett has demonstrated this week in her hearings that she is a woman of high character, she is a woman of integrity, she is a woman of amazing intellect and legal mind. and i think she will do her job as an associate justice on the supreme court with an open mind, going through the judicial decision-making process, and americans need to have confidence that she is a wonderful choice who will be objective and open minded about any decision. that is the kind of person we want on the supreme court. she is a wonderful role model for young girls and women, just as ruth bader ginsburg was. just because their philosophies are different, they can both be great role models for women. we should have confidence in the supreme court and this nomination proc

we saw what happened to merrick garland. i totally agree with chai. think pence was waiting for the name merrick garland to come up so he could then present his counterargument, and he didn't. >> that's what they prepped, yeah. it's a fair point. >> exactly. and he tried to set a few honey traps that just didn't work. >> yeah. it's interesting getting both of your candidate takes on that. i have to fit in a break. now, chai, do you know why professor greer wears maga red glasses? >> first of all, i think she's trying to reclaim that color away from the maga crowd, you know, towards a more progressive. if you think about the labor party in the uk, their color is red. the color of many left-wing parties around the world, their color is red. now, america's a little different. the democratic party and the republican party have different color schemes. but for most of the world's progressive parties, the color is red. and so, i think that's why -- >> i love the global addition of the answer, but it's wrong. the reason that the professor wears maga red glas

they can do that in the form of not having the hearings which we saw in merrick garland. that was a painful process for a lot of people but it is within their rights. today we have the other version of advise and consent to move forward to have the hearings and the questions and the answers in the coming days. i agree with you 100%. what we have heard so far from the republicans is that this is a constitutional role for the body. the president is the president for four years as ginsberg was quoted many times being said. what we heard on the other side a lot about coronavirus. a lot of discussion of the danger of this hearing. kamala harris brought that up as well, as you heard when we were listening to this. then you had a moment interesting i thought with senator graham. senator kennedy chimed in and said can you explain to us why the c.d.c. has sanctioned the erring? hearing? they went through the protocol to hold it safely. graham saying people all across america going to work today. his argument is why shouldn't we? >> dana: indeed. martha, i was thinking back to the

scalia died and the republicans refused to allow a vote to be held in the senate for justice merrick garland who was nominated by democratic president barack obama this time around they say it's different because the president is republican but the senate is largely controlled by the public and they give me i'm going to introduce i'm going to interrupt you there because senator lindsey graham who's the chair of the judicial committee has just started speaking we want to hear what he has to say. i doubt if there's any room in the country's been given more attention in detail to make sure is c.d.c. compliant the architect of the capitol working with the attending physician has said that we can safely. do our business similarly is that been cleared by your physician welcome back the cobra problem in america is real is serious is dangerous and we have to mitigate the risk and we just let every american know that many of you are going to work today. and your employer will take care of your health care needs but we do have a country that needs to move forward safely and there are millions of ameri

in 2016, republicans refused to hear hearings president obama's nominee merrick garland nearly eight months before the election. this is senate minority leader chuck schumer. 26,oday, monday, october 2020, will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231 year history of the united states senate. the record show that tonight the republican senate majority decided to thwart the will of the people and confirm a lifetime appointment to the supreme court in the middle of a presidential election after more than 60 million americans have voted. amy: amy coney barrett's impact on the court to be felt immediately. later this become the supreme court will consider whether to hear a key mississippi abortion case that could challenge roe v. wade. and the supreme court is set to hear arguments in a case that could scrap the affordable care act on november 10, one week after election day. coney barrett will also join justices in a high-profile case about whether trump must turn over his tax records, as well as deciding key voting rights cases in the coming days, including democratic efforts to e

because we democrats have exposed the hypocrisy of holding up merrick garland. >> here's the timetablehe senate must wait until friday before putting the nomination on the floor. the senate meets all weekend debating the nomination. there will be a procedural vote on sunday afternoon to cut off a filibuster. that needs 51 yeas. then barrett opponents are allowed to burn 30 more hours on the clock. that sets up a confirmation vote some time on monday night. now, also today in the judiciary committee. the committee authorized subpoenas for big tech executives jack dorsey of twitter, also mark zuckerberg of facebook. questions about how their firms curb sharing the "new york post" regarding hunter biden. back to you, neil. >> neil: thank you my friend very much. chad pergram on all of this. go to rob portman of ohio foreign relations committee. busy guy. senator, we do know right now that the president has as a crucial guest at that debate this tony bobulinski former hunter biden business partner. that means he is obviously going to bring up the biden emails, the business dealings. do you

in 2016, barack obama nominated merrick garland and that committee refused to give him the hearing.hat we saw today, the respect that was given to amy coney barrett today by listening to her talk is the respect that the republicans never gave to merrick garland. if they had given him a hearing and voted him down, that would be one thing, but they didn't even give hip a hearing and the reason why they didn't, they said, is because you shouldn't have a nominee put forward to be even considered after the primaries have started. now, as you just said in your last couple of segments, ari, we are in the middle of an election that people are actually voting on. so the hypocrisy is off the -- is off the charts, but this goes -- graham's statement and this goes to the general feeling of people watching the hearings of what was going on. the republicans spent all day as victims in search of an assailant, right? they kept worrying about attacks that were never coming from the democrats. the fact that the democrats weren't making the attacks the republicans worried about apparently didn't matte

it was said around the time that merrick garland was up for nomination by president barack obama, 269 days before an election, and people said that we were in an election season, that we should wait. but this is not a typical election season. this is an election that is going on where the people are coming out to speak on an array of issues. there is a profound urgency in the air, not a partisan urgency. america has seen record turnout because they know what's at stake in this election. there are issues that are driving people to the polls, and in this context, our president is doing what has never been done before. the only time that this had a chance to be done before was when lincoln had ava can son on the supreme court in it the midst of an election, this close it an election, and abraham lincoln, one of our greatest presidents of all time, made a powerful choice. he had the power to move, he had the power to nominate, but he showed a restraint on power. he showed in a sense what we would call an act of grace. he knew in the midst of an election when people were coming out to spea

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

similar circumstance, they said the exact opposite thing to block president obama's appointment of merrick garland. and i don't think my colleagues in the senate enjoy these kind of tire-burning 180s that they've had to pull to make this happen. so that makes you start to look at, what outside forces might there be that are driving this peculiar political behavi? and that, i think, is the unasked question of this ole sorry saga. >> 65 pages of her estionnaire were submitted to your committee. barrett doesn't explicitly say that she would recuse herself om any election-related cases if they go to the high court. should she recuse herself? and would that help your support of her nomination? >> yeah, ihink she should recuse herself. there's an awful lot of talk and speculation that the whole reason this is bng rushed is to get her on the court so that they can pack the court with pro-trump votes so that in any dispute, you get a replay of bush v. gore. >> yeah, that's exactly why i asked that question, of course, becse many people, including president trump, believe the election will end up at the su

it did not matter that in march 2016 president obama appointed merrick garland, a respected d.c. circuit judge with bipartisan support. they would not meet with judge garland, hold a hearing, or allow a vote on him for 293 days. in 2016 the presidential election was nearly nine months away. four years ago our republican colleagues said nine months was not time enough. leave it up to the voters. we will do this whether it's a democrat or a republican in the white house. the republican leader mitch mcconnell said, and i quote, 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, of course the american people should have a say in the court's direction. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate someone very different. either way our view is this. give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy. the american people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue so let's

graham and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell when republicans blocked the nomination of merrick garland in 2016, he said the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice republican utah senator mike lee defended both the process and judge barrett certainly there is nothing about this nominee. can be left. as suggesting that she's anything other than an extraordinarily gifted jurist but illinois senator dick durbin says he didn't learn much about their positions i would be afraid to ask you about the presence of gravity on earth she may decline to answer because it may come up in the case. >>the senate judiciary committee will vote to advance judge vance nomination next thursday and then the following week we expect a vote from the full senate and we do expect that vote to be successful to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court live in washington alexandra le mon. >>thank you alexandra kron 4 is your local election headquarters this season, we're now 19 days away from november, 3rd. the deadline to register by the way to vote in california

go back and look at what you said about merrick garland and apply it consistently. our fidelity is the constitution, not to a caucus, not to the federalist society, not to special interest. everybody deserves equal justice under the law. the supreme court was not designed to become an extension of the republican national committee. the chairman of the judiciary committee pledged in his own words, if an opening coming in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election. the obvious truth, the republicans broke their word. this process itself is broken. they are pattern of obstruction and abusive partisanship over the years threat engs the credibility -- threatens the credit icty to the -- credibility to the supreme court. my decision, however, to oppose this nomination rests not only on this unprecedented use and abuse of power, but also on understanding that i have applied to nominees of the supreme court on numerous occasions. it is a simple address one drawn from the principles of the constitution. as

then you got to the merrick garland fiasco of 2016 where president obama nominated somebody in the early spring of 2016 who was as qualified as any nominee in the history of our country, a moderate, a beloved judge on the d.c. circuit, and look what happened. there's only one way to interpret what happened there, which is the republican majority in the senate wanted somebody on the court who is going to vote differently on issues they cared about than they anticipated merrick garland would vote. that is the only explanation, so they blocked it. i thought at the time that that was just going to have a devastating effect on half the country feeling that they could trust the supreme court, and i do think it has had a very serious adverse effect, and just in the last few weeks, look at what has happened. 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 fi

and they point out further that four years ago, there is a seat that should have gone to merrick garland, president obama's nominee for a vacancy, that was held open for the next election for over a year in president trump to fill it, so it is the contention that there are two seats that were effectively stolen that are not legitimately there's and that the best way to move forward in the long-term is by with a wood call rebalancing the court, adding additional seats rather than justices of that is the background and explanation for why they favorite that approach. >>> coming up, a fight to save more than 100 trees in northern california, going to new heights. >>> i am don ford in sonoma county where number -- where one neighborhood has not had wonderful weeks and may not get it for weeks. i'll have that story, coming up. >>> coming up new at six, safety concerns over outdoor dining now going beyond covid. how cities and restaurants plan to keep diners from being bowling pins for cars after an accident over the weekend. >>> unofficial ballot boxes are popping up in some parts of the stat

graham and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell when republicans blocked the nomination of merrick garland in 2016, he said the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice republican utah senator mike lee defended both the process and judge barrett certainly there is nothing about this nominee. can be left. as suggesting that she's anything other than an extraordinarily gifted jurist but illinois senator dick durbin says he didn't learn much about their positions i would be afraid to ask you about the presence of gravity on earth she may decline to answer because it may come up in the case. >>the senate judiciary committee will vote to advance judge parents nomination next thursday and then the following week we expect the full senate to vote to confirm judge barrett to the supreme court live in washington alexandra le mon. >>thank you alexandra kron 4 by the way is your local election headquarters this season, and every election season just a friendly reminder we're now 19 days from the november, 3rd election. tonight president trump and democr

a great profile in "the washington post" about merrick garland. as you recall barack obama's choice to fill the supreme court seat early in the year. of course that was shelved and merrick garland would not live to fight another day. one of the interesting aspects of that is how his career has grown, his notoriety has grown but the near the end of the article say it i unlikely he would ever be appointed to the supreme court today in this environment where they're seeking out younger justices no matter who the president is. in his 60s, he is deemed too old now even though we had, have, many older justice. i'm just wondering is that your thinking too? that in the future whether it's a president biden or president trump that the push will be to install younger judges on that court, that could be there and affecting legal issues for decades to come? >> neil, i know this will be a big disappointment to but you and i are too old to be on the supreme court now, we got to give up our hopes. neil: tell me about it. >> this is where trump has really changed

to you know it's certainly a stark contrast to the and then president obama tried to nominate merrick garland they're like oh no wait it's 9 months that was one election year we can't have him in there. with the next president to you know no such qualms this time around that's for sure of these republicans but that republicans you know used to move on and then because the election was and i think that's going to draw some are what you're seeing now some democrats are they would be reading shows that you get it done when they want to get a budget brought up a great point there it's amazing that congress has the ability especially the sun up to do things because normally they just kind of don't especially under mcconnell are just it just doesn't really do much trump has options here are arguably the most options so you can choose to call the senate vote within the next few days which it probably is what he'll do is going to make the announcement by friday or saturday or you could do this during the lame duck session what are your thoughts on not only the timing of all of this you know kind of a