profuser nurse withdrew her nomination, after a home state senator put her nomination on hold and it became clear she would not be confirmed. welcome to inside story. >> thank you for having me. >>ly stipulate that most people watching this will never be nominated for a federal anything, so tell people what that is like? when you enter the process, do you give away a lot? your personal life, your personal details is it a sacrifice to say yes when the president calls in. >> absolutely. it was a four year process. of being vetted not only by the white house, the justice departments, i had taught five different law scoots. i was lucky enough to teach and visit at yale, and i had 11 fbi agents scouring the country. i sent up 4,000 pages of documents in my writings both writings that i had worked on when i had been a staffner the senate. it's pass nateing to me because i had worked in government as a young lawyer, and had security clearances since i was 30 years old, but this would all have tock redone. >> you open up your life, was your fitness for office ever a question that was hashed

' nomination. i recognize that the other side hopes that we on this side will forget that they establish these rules and these precedents. i recognize that the other side finds those rules very, very inconvenient today. but these are not reasons to ignore rules and precedents that they establish. there is simply no legitimate reason that the other side should not embrace those very same rules, those very same standards that they established in the year 2006, so under that standard established by the democrats in 2006, then very simply these nominations are not needed. according to the current judges themselves, these judges are not needed. according to the chief judge of the d.c. circuit who happens to be a clinton appointee, the senior judges are contributing the equivalent of an additional three and a quarter judges, so as a result the court already has the equivalent of 11 and a quarter judges, and that's way beyond -- or that is -- that is beyond even the authorized number. so it seems pretty c

reid: are we now on the motion to reconsider the millett nomination? the president pro tempore: we are. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the president pro tempore: could we have order so the clerk can be heard. vote: vote:

just on nominations alone, we've had 168 nominations since 1949. i kind of picked that date because that's when all this filibuster stuff kind of really started. 168. 82 of those have been under this president. 82. that's what i mean. i.t. not worth it to talk -- it's not worth it to talk about who started this. if they want to say that the democrats started it, fine. we'll say that we started it. as i said, since 1995, it's turned into an arms race. it's time to stop t that's what we did this morning with this vote. we took a step in the right direction. in 2008 norm ornstein, a congressional scholar, wrote about the broken senate, our broken senate, how we couldn't function. but you can go back even before that, in 1985, my first year here, senator thomas eagleton said that the senate is now in a state of incipient anarchy. i think we had something like 20 or 30 filibusters in the congress before that. so this has been escalating over a long period of time, and it was time to stop it. and that's what we did this morning. so i say this is a big st

i'm rising today to support moving these nominations. president obama has nominated cornelia pillard and patricia millett, and we want to see these vacancies filled. we don't want the same dysfunction that led to a government shutdown to let us move towards a kind of a stopping of putting people on the court. nominating highly qualified individuals is what the president's job is, and filling seats on the court is not packing the court. it is simply doing the job. on october 31, 2013, many of my colleagues voted against a motion to end debate on patricia millett to be a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia, and she is a very highly qualified attorney who has argued before the supreme court 32 times and is recognized both by democrats and republicans for her legal acumen. but despite her qualifications, her nomination is being blocked. she has been -- had she been confirmed, she would only be the sixth woman to sit on the d.c. district court of appeals, so i'm questioning why -- the place that we are now on this

symington accept the vice presidential nomination. i think they would all make it quite clear that they would not. i am making it clear that i will not, but i will work extremely hard for the party. in 1956, when i was defeated for the vice presidential nomination, i think i probably spoke in more states for the party than any other democrat, and i will do so again. >> mr. steel. >> senator kennedy, you have defined the job of the vice president as that of breaking ties and watching the president's health. does that mean if you are the presidential nominee of the democratic party, you will select a throttle-bottom as your vice president running mate? >> no, i will select the best man i could get. if my life expectancy was not what i hope it will be, but that really is not, i wouldn't think, an enviable prospect for the second man, whose only opportunity to exert influence in the course of events would be if i should die. >> will your refusal to accept the vice presidential nomination pertain, if by chance you are defeated as the presi

excuse me, do you accept that nomination, chip? >> yes. >> is there anyone else that would like to nominate someone or yourself? >> i believe by procedure you would want to hear a second to that nomination. >> i second it. >> seeing there is no one else nominated, excuse me we have a public comment, please. >> members, i'm bob. i spent seven 1/2 years on the sunshine ordinance task force and i also was an officer off the city's ethics commission for 2 years. i'm looking at your agenda. there is nothing in here about approval of the minutes of the past meeting or the previous meeting. why i'm raising that is there is differences as to what was the decision made at the last regular full council meeting, was it tabled or was it tabled for that meeting. you don't have your own draft official record as to what the decision was. you have conflicting oral statements. i'm asking you to keep that in mind that you are proceeding without minutes and the lack of minutes also raises other questions of what else you did on didn't decide. whateve

to reconsider the nomination. that was the moment when harry reid moved to the nuclear option. >> mr. president. >> majority leader. >> i raise a point of order the vote on cloture, for all nominations for supreme court of the united states is by majority vote. >> harry read askid asked for a of the senate to overrule the presiding officer's ruling something senators could ask for at any time but almost never do. take is a simple majority to override the presiding officer. 52 senators voted to overroule the off officer. it is harry reid's intention to use the vote as a precedent on presidential nominations except for nominations to the supreme court. which will still be subject to a 60 vote requirement to break a film buster. the democrats did not take this step lightly. they have been considering for years. after it was first threatened by republicans when they were the snath sena senate majority. harry reid blamed republicans. >> there has been unbleaelievab unprecendented obstruction for the first time in the h

the change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations.ote on confirmation. yes, no. the rule change would make cloture for all nominations other than the the spring court, an up or down vote, yes or no. the sen is the is a living thing and to survive it must change as it has over the history of this great country. to the average american adapting the rules to make the senate work again is just common sense. this is not about democrats versus republicans. this is about making washington work regardless of who is in the white house or who controls the senate. >> to remain relevant and effective as an institution the senate must evolve to meet the challenges of this modern era. i have no doubt my republican colleagues will argue the fault is ours. it's the democrats' fault. i can say from experience that no one's hands are entirely clean on this issue, but today the fortunate distinction is not between democrats and republicans. it's between those who are willing to break the gridlock in washington and those who defend the status quo. is the

let the majority leader bring nominations before the senate. let the senate majority force the filibusterers to come to the floor to force the filibuster. the current rules of the senate allow the presiding officer to put the pending question to a vote when no senator seeks recognition. let us, as the senate majority, dedicate a week or a weekend or even a night to force the filibusterers to filibuster. in 2010, in testimony before the rules committee on this subject, this is what senator byrd said. "does the difficulty reside in the construction of our rules or does it reside in the ease of circumventing them? a true filibuster is a fight, not a threat, not a bluff." and then he said, "now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the world's greatest deliberative body to a grinding halt." and then he said, "forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady. we have not used that antidote to the malady which besets this body, allowing the mere threat of a filibuster to succeed without challen

the rule change will make closuclos cloture for all nominations. >> three temperatures vot democ the go. . mitch mcconnell accused reid of going nuclear. >> millions of americans are hurting because of a law washington democrats forced upon them and what do they do about it? they cook up some fake fight over judges. >> mcconnell mocked reid with another obama care reference. >> he may have just as well have said if you like the rules of the senate, you can keep them. >> later a top democrat fired back. >> mitch mcconnell says we tried to change the subject? i beg to differ. he doesn't want to address the filibusters, he doesn't want to address the rules changes. so three quarters of his speech is dedicated to obama care. we are not changing the subject today. he is. >> in the white house briefing room, president obama expressed support. >> today's pattern of obstruction isn't normal. it's not what our founders envisioned. a deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything no matter what the matter just to refight the results of an election is not normal. >> the prominent democ

nominations, executive branch nominations.ling and vote just did was change the rules of the senate. again, what we're talking about here what that nuclear option is, is to prevent the minority effectively from waging a filibuster that democrats in this case or majority can't overcome. threshold was 60 votes. and it is at least in the makeup of the current senate impossible for democrats to overcome that on partisan votes. now it's down to 51 votes, simple majority. we're going to see what happens from here. and we're going to see how quickly the senate majority leader is going to take up some of the nominations they've been complaining republicans have been blocking, namely some of the judicial nominations to the d.c. circuit court which is, as we've been talking about, a very important critical court in this country. >> okay. so then, it been done. finger's been lifted off the trigger now. it's detonated, as you say. what will that heavy price that senator mccain refers to be? >> reporter: we're going to see. look the senate

just on nominations alone, we have had 168 nominations since 1949. i kind of picked the date because that's when all the filibuster stuff really started. been underthose have this president. 82. it's not worth it to talk about who started this. they want to say the democrats started it, fine. it has gone beyond all bounds, as i said in 1995, it is turned into an arms race. it's time to stop it. that's what we did this morning, with this vote. we took a step in the right direction. in 2008 in 2008, norman ornstein wrote about the broken senate, are broken senate, how we could not function. you can go back even beyond that. here, senator thomas eagleton said that the senate is now in a state of incipient anarchy. i think we had something like 20 or 30 filibusters in the congress before that. so this has been escalating over a long period of time, and it was time to stop it. and that's what we did this morning. so i say this is a big step in the right direction, but now we need to take it another step further, and that is to change filibuster on legisla

the idea for filibustering judicial nominations? >> i don't know. >> i'm sure you know and you don't want to say it. democrats started it in the bush administration. when republicans followed it, all of a sudden it's a threat to democracy that has to be changed. >> but it is hypocrisy from this president as when who voted against it when he was a senator and said it was a power grab when president bush was in office. announcer: right now at sleep train, save hundreds on beautyrest and posturepedic. choose $300 in free gifts with tempur-pedic. even choose 48 months interest-free financing on the new tempur-choice. the triple choice sale ends soon at sleep train. >>> welcome back, everybody. president obama reaching out to liberal journalists today. he wants them to help change the narrative on obama care by focusing on any positive thing. david axelrod said today my advice would be to emphasize the stories of people who have been getting helped including the half million people who have gotten insurance. back with me now, bernard whi

they are sti intent on running some of the president's nominations to the senate.ow they can do so. fo news chief congressional correspondent with our rept. >> republican leaders are accusing democrats of a power grab a threatening that they will live to regret this bold move. complaining of gridlock, senate democrats change the rules iminating filibusters' for most presidential nominations. the vote was 52-48 to mostly along party lines and scraps nearly 225 years of precedent in the body now for liberation. >> the change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations, and upper down vote on confirmation. yes, no. the little change would make all nominations other than the supreme court, the majority threshold of. >> three democrats voted with the gop in opposition. republican leader mitch mcconnell accused rita going nuclear try and change the subject from obamacare. >> millions of americans are hurting because of a law washington democrats forced upon them. what did they do about it? they cooked up some fake fight over judges. >> reporter: mock

four nominations by democrats and four by republicans. if president obama is able to put one more person on the court, suddenly the balance will be five 'em democrdemocratic pln the board. when it comes to things like abortion, getting the full 11 members on the court, if barack obama can do that he will shape not only this court, but potentially he'll be teeing up people for the big one, for the supreme court. >> alahe, i want to pick up on what casey hunt said at the top here. what is the so-called nuclear option and the tone of washington moving forward? >> it will just get more and more intense, more partisan especially in the senate we're seeing the rollout of obama care has been a disaster for democrats and now you're seeing harry reid going to the floor and pushing for the rules change and the indication being that he has the 51 votes at the very least and he has a united democratic caucus on this and it will pit the republicans and democrats more and more against each other and to see if any kind of bipartisan bill can come out in

then there will be another vote to reconsider that nomination.epublicans and will likely fail because republicans have the 60 votes to keep their filibuster of this nomination going. then what we'll likely see is harry reid appeal to the chair and a that he would like to change the rules so that this nominee can -- and others can get passed with only a simple majority, 51 votes. the expectation is that the rule will say that's not in order and not allowed. then harry reid will call for a senate vote to change the rules. what you're going to see then is a senate vote, which only requires a simple majority, 51 votes, to change the rules to prevent republicans from filibustering this and other judges and other nominees. >> all right. it could be high drama and it could unfold within the next few minutes. dana bash, ana navarro, ron brownstein, thank you for being with us. what you wear to bed is your business. so, if you're sleeping in your contact lenses, ask about the air optix® contacts so breathable they're approved for up to 30 nights of contin

, work on judicial nominations. the country has a low opinion of the function of our chamber, and we certainly do not deserve a high opinion when we're captured by this level of partisan paralysis. so i look forward to continuing to work together to help restore this body as a great deliberative body that can fulfill its responsibilities under our constitution. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss the reports i've heard from my fellow nebraskans about the president's health care bill. senators have been quoting facts and they quote figures. they quote reports about the negative effects of this law, and that dates back to when the debate began in 2009. but the reality is that no amount of facts or figures can illustrate the real-life stories from our hometowns and from main street of nebraska. these personal stories are compelling and powerful examples of what the reports have been saying

now the harriet miers nomination didn't work out. she pulled her name. outside conservative groups had weighed in against the bush administration and told them that harriet myers was not right wing enough for the court and the bush administration caved and decided to take back the president's choice. that is how it seemed at the time, how it was reported in the time. but in peter baker's new book "days of fire," he reports that story, the way it actually happened is not at all the way it reported. yes, the conservative groups were unhappy with harriet miers. the bush administration knew those groups weren't going to be happy when they picked harriet miers. it could be a show of strength against people on their own side who might try to bully then on an important issue. now, the real reason that harriet miers nomination fell apart because when george w. bush picked her for the united states supreme court, he forgot to check into whether she actually knew stuff about the law. to prepare for the confirmation hearings, harriet miers invited several lawyers t

but using them to make people wait years after they are nominated for something, before their nomination actually gets voted on, this is a new thing. this is a new thing. and the republicans the in the senate saved this one up for this particular president. on tuesday of this week, supreme court justice antonin scalia wrote this ruling, which allowed texas, basically, to keep shutting down abortion clinics in the state. the new texas anti-abortion law that it's already shut down a third of the clinics in that state, it's sort of on the bubble, legally, and the supreme court had to decide whether to put a hold on the law while it is being challenged or whether they would let the law go ahead. and justice scalia wrote this ruling saying, yeah, let that go ahead and shut all those clinics done in the meantime. those who disagreed were these guys. justice ginsburg, justice breyer, sotomayor, and kagan. the other justices that sided with scalia were clarence thomas and samuel alito. and even though they did not sign the ruling that the other two justices on the court, justice roberts and just

circuit nominations. several of them, in fact, have been pending on the calendar longer than the nomination on which we'll be voting today. another week has gone by without any action by the majority to fill these actual judicial emergencies. rather than work with us to schedule votes on them in an orderly manner, as we have been doing, the majority chose to leapfrog over them in order to concoct crisis on the d.c. circuit so it can distract americans from the failings of obamacare. unfortunately, our friends appear to be more concerned with playing politics than with actually solving problems. so, like last week, i'll vote "no" on this afternoon's political exercise, and as i said last week, i hope the senate will focus on things the american people care about rather than spend its time trying to distract them. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. [inaudible] the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. grassley: i'm going to vote not to bring up the no

, no less, his nomination was blocked not once, but twice.that happened. and at no time since then, in all of those years, has another sitting member of congress had his nomination to administration post blocked. until now. three weeks ago senate republicans unsuccessfully blocked a vote on the confirmation of congressman mel watt of north carolina to lead the federal housing finance agency. because of that, democrats decided that they had had enough and came to the conclusion it wasn't just mel watt and wasn't just going to stop with mel watt. on the same day that republicans blocked a deal on watt, they also blocked a vote on patricia millett, one of three nominees for the d.c. circuit court of appeals. last week they blocked a vote on the second one of those nominees as well, cornelia pillard and robert wilkins. the d.c. circuit court has jurisdiction over washington, which means it hears appeals over every regulation that congress passes, every piece of legislation a president signs. three vacant seats on the court, those three obama nomi

nominal g.d.p. and that puts all those charts for the first one into one chart and you can see the stall speed so we've hit a point where no debt is not creating anything yet this is really the amazing charts here the clearly demonstrate this economic problem is that no matter how much large jess is given to these banks in the form of free money from the central banks they are on able to lend it out into the economy in sufficient quantities to generate any g.d.p. growth and that number's always been a bit skewed sense the world what off a gold standard on to a currency standard just one hundred seventy one but going back to one hundred seventy one so you need a that's on about one to two dollars of debt to create one dollar of g.d.p. growth then right before the crisis of two thousand and eight it required seven dollars of debt to create one dollar of g.d.p. growth then the reaction to the crisis in two thousand and eight was to flood the world with debt and they flooded the world with eighteen doll

>> i think rapped pand paul cane nomination. his biggest problem is social issues and people close to him acknowledge that. history of his father, he's not pro-life enough, that he's too much of a state's rights guy. so he'll have to navigate tougher waters there. but i think he can potentially do this. he has a libertarian streak people forget about. you can see how he pulls this off. the hardest constituency for him will be the evangelical wing of the party. >>. >> do you agree, do you think rapped paul cou rand paul could win? >> if i had to pick two, i'd pick scott walker and rand paul. i think the chances of jeb bush running are under 10%. i think he's intrigued by it, he'd love to be president, but i think there are just family issues that don't relate to his last name that he just sort of -- it would be difficult for him to run. >> so you think paul could win the nomination? >> i think ted cruz has redefined the term extremism in the republican party. and i think rand paul has shown himself the last few months to be a lot

the filibustering of an executive nomination and the nomination was rare until recent years.re was a good reason for that. that's because of the vision of coequal branches of government. you can't have a minority systematically attack the functioning of the judicial branch. there were three times we tried to return this through a gentlemen's agreement, if you will. this did not happen. it happened in 2005. the first big effort and the minority said we will only filibuster under rare exceptions. that was a deal made and as soon as president obama came into office it was broken. in january, another major attempt to reach this agreement and mitch mcconnell said this was word for word. the republicans will return to the norms and traditions of the senate regarding nominations. within two weeks we had the first ever filibuster of a defense secretary nominee. just in july was the 50 major effort and republicans in the minority pledged they would not filibuster nominations with rare exception and immediately turned around and did another filibuster. >> you have taken away your abili

sounds like democrats are frustrated and point to nomination of nomination where the qualifications are there and it's just a political up or down, and they got sick of it and changed the rules. >> they are hammering that something needed to be done to stop gridlock in washington, but senator harry reid acknowledged these rules will apply when republicans are in power, and a leading democrat fired back at republicans who suggested the move is all about trying to change the subject from obamacare. >> mitch m-connell says we have tried to change the subject? i beg to differ. he doesn't want to address the fill bester and the -- fill buster and the rules changes so three-quarters of his speech is dedicated to obamacare. we're not changing the subject today, he is. >> reporter: a lot of complaints about the idea of nominees for the bench being held up. a lot of republicans say that sometimes they're held up to get more information from the obama administration. that is very little power that the minority power has, but bottom line, the nuclear option wag invoked today. >> the nuclear option

nominal g.d.p. and that puts all those charts for the first one into one chart and you can see the stall speed so we've hit a point where no debt is not creating anything yet this is really the amazing charts here clearly demonstrate this economic problem is that number. matter how much larger jess is given to these banks in the form of free money from the central banks they are on able to lend it out into the economy in sufficient quantities to generate any g.d.p. growth and that number has always been a bit skewed sense the world what off a gold standard on to a currency standard says nine hundred seventy one but going back to nine hundred seventy one so you need a that's i'm about one to two dollars of debt to create one dollar of g.d.p. growth then right before the crisis of two thousand and eight it required seven dollars of debt to create one dollar of g.d.p. growth then the reaction to the crisis in two thousand and eight was to flood the world with debt and they flooded the world with eighte

for not nominating enough women. this is the second time nepali is electing a body to write the constitution. the family did not complete the draft. in the last assembly 33% of members were women. of 6,000 plus candidates nominated for application, over 600 are women. >> at this rally, female candidates in kathmandu gathered together to encourage other women to enter the arena. >> as long as women don't join politics the issue of freedom for women will never be taken up by the government. >> all political parties and ideologies, less than 11% nominated by the parties. they felt solidarity amongst women is the only way to bring women's movement forward. coming to pour promising equality for women - they are backing out. >> they back out with political leader shch that is being eroded. it hasn't taken it into account. >> it's not only excluded. ballots, untouchables are also unrepresented. >> parties were afraid if they had enough women and candidates, they'll form caucuses across party line and such representatives wo

we have had 168 nominations since 1949. i picked that date because that is when all this filibuster stuff really started to read -- started. 82 of those have been under this president. president.3 it is not worth the to talk about who started this. fine. if they want to say that, fine, we started it. it has escalated and gone beyon3 all bounds. as i said in 1995, it has turned into an arms race. it is time to stop it. that is what we did this morning with this vote. he took a step in the right direction. in 2008, norman ornstein, a congressional scholar, wrote about the broken senate, our broken senate, how we couldn't function. you can go back even beyond that -- in 1985, my first year here, senator thomas eagleton, my neighbor to the south, said that the senate is now in a state of incipient anarchy. i think we had something like 20-30 filibusters in the congress before that. this has been escalating over a long time.3 it was time to stop it. that is what we did this morning. i say this is a big step in the right directio

it is the third year in a row i'm nominated the winner. last year was divisadero corridor.t help us get one of these awards in the future. what do you think, daniel? [laughter] >> this year we're proud to give the award for best merchant association to lower haight merchant and neighborhood association a.k.a. lo hamna, rolls off the tongue. [laughter] >> it's truly a great organization. we in our capacity, we work a lot with different neighborhood associations, different merchant associations. and far and away the lower haight merchants association is one of the best we had the pleasure to work with. that holds for always, but this past year was a really remarkable year for the organization. they dealt with some challenges, notably the water and fire, some public safety concerns. and they also had some success he. they have art walks really successful art walks four times a year. but then there's always another street fair happening. it's really, you know, we can celebrate their achievements, but it's really the spirit with which they do their work, the passion and the crea

democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the senate rules on nominations. if i were a senator from oregon, for example, which hasn't enrolled a single person, a single person for the obamacare exchange, i'd probably want to talk about something else, too. but here's the problem with this latest distraction. it doesn't distract people from obamacare. it reminds them of obamacare. it reminds them of all the broken promises. it reminds them of the power grab. it reminds them of the way democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else. one set of rules for them and another for everybody else. actually, this is all basically the same debate. and rather than distract people from obamacare, it only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way. willing to do or say just about anything to get its way. because that's just what they're doing all over again. once again, senate democrats are threatening to break the rules of the senate, break the rules of the senate in order to chang

he was nominated by a republican president. now we have women who were equally well-qualified and they get filibustered. they are nominated by the democratic president. i guess if you are a republican and nominate a qualified man it goes through but if you're a democrat nominating an equally qualified for they are going to be filibustered. what does this say? what does this say to people, what does it say to our country and the impartiality of our federal bench? we need women in our federal courts. the votes in this filibuster is a vote and having the appellate courts more act really affect the gender of our courts and our country. nina pillard is a stellar nominee. her work includes briefs in more than 25 supreme court cases. she drafted the federal government united states which after a 7-1 decision by the supreme court made history by opening the military institutes doors to female students but also expanded educational opportunity for women across this country. a father who loves his daughter and loves his three granddaught

they thought they could nominate anyone for any office and it wouldn't matter. it was a blue state, after all, it was going to vote democrat. but with corzine they got greedy and it pushed their luck and they gave christie the governorship. in new jersey, democrats have done little to stop him since then. in june, the democratic-controlled state legislature essentially rubber stamped christie's budget. buono objected the to christie's handling of health care and education, many democrats simply ignored her. and they haven't continued to ignore their gubernatorial nominee. it's true that democrats were probably not ever going to win this race. christie is simply too popular, thanks in part to his definite handling of hurricane sandy last year. democrats could have prevented christie from the sort of massive victory that he could use as a springboard for a 2016 presidential run. christie's campaign has not even tried to disguise that they want to run up the margins in this race so they can tell every republican who will listen that the state who re-elected barack

first to express my appreciation. >> he was young, alive, great looking, and while he lost the nomination, he wowed the country. >> he tried to get it. he came very, very close. as it turned out, he did not get it, but he did become, overnight, a national figure. >> and then there was this stunningly beautiful wife. for us, 1956 was jacqueline kennedy's debut. >> tell me, were you able to adjust to this? >> well, yes, because i've never known anything else since i've been married. >> no one could ever be counted a loser with her at his side. we also met his family. boy, did he have lots of brothers and sisters. and his fabulously wealthy father. joseph kennedy sr. was our ambassador to great britain in the late 1930s. but by 1940, his political career was over. he had nailed himself as a defeatist, or worse, when he predicted that war with nazi germany would end democracy in britain and possibly in the u.s., so his dreams of the white house were now for his sons. >> once his own political future was undone, he could pour all his life energy into those boys. he wanted them to go places tha

to get the nomination confirmed through the united states senate.y 51 votes, bare majority needed. they clearly can pass the nomination, get them confirmed without the 60-vote threshold which has been in business in washington for so many years. jeffrey toobin this is called the nuclear option that harry reid, senate majority leader, used successfully to change the rules of the game. nuclear option because it is dire, it's something that wasn't supposed to happen, republicans and democrats have always resisted this for so many years, but now it's been changed. how significant is this, jeffrey toobin? >> this is close, not as important, but it is close to as important as obama care is for barack obama's legacy because this means he will be able to confirm judges on some of the most important courts in the country who will serve for decades after president obama leaves the oval office. the d.c. circuit, where the fight has had its focus, four former d.c. circuit justices serve on the united states supreme court today. john roberts, ruth bader ginsburg