chief justice rehnquist was confirmed 65 to 33. even rehnquist to have faced a fairly contentious confirmation process for the time was confronted, confirmed by a two to one margin. then came 1987. then came bork, one of the truly greatest judges in the country at the time. maybe ever. in my eyes, ever. for those who came of age of politics after 1987, it's difficult to understand that what the seachange his confirmation process was. character assassination, shameless misrepresentation of the nominee's record. partisan warfare. it all seems so, place now that it wasn't always this way. justice scalia sailed through 98-zero. 98-zero. as the first battalion ever nominated to the court. go back and watch justice scalia's confirmation hearings. he spoke to his pipe. [laughing] i will tell you about that story. [laughing] and had pleasant confirmation, conversations with judiciary committee members. i'm not joking. he literally smoked a pipe. it was expected at the time senators would treat nominees with courtesy, that they would give p

rehnquist and justice o'connor's. rehnquist's opening would be filled first, o'connor second. replacing rehnquist with another conservative will not alter the court's ideological makeup, but replacing o'connor with a more conservative justice would. i believe the democrats held their fire on roberts because they knew a second more consequential nomination was coming. they wanted to be able to say, look, we voted for roberts, we're not partisan. roberts was reasonable, but this new nominee, he or she is different, even though they didn't know who it was. he or she is unacceptable. so roberts was confirmed relatively easily by a vote of 78-22. hard to believe that 22 people voted against him. i would note, however, that his confirmation vote did represent a decline from justice ginsburg 96-3 vote and justice breyer's 87-9 vote. as you'll recall, president bush made two nominations to fill justice o'connor's seat. the first was white house counsel harriet miers who withdrew following opposition from conservative groups, themselves. the second was 3rd circuit judge samuel alito wh

justice rehnquist's process was more contentious. he has served on the court 15 years as an associate justice and had accumulated a string of dissent to liberal opinions, so democrats gave him a difficult time. they accused him of voter intimidation from his time in private practice in arizona. they dug up a restrictive covenant that he didn't know anything about, neither did they buy the way until they found it was in their deeds as well. >> [laughter] sen. hatch: which we pointed out. the piece of property he had .wned they fixated on a memo he wrote for chief justice jackson when he was a clerk. that is how bad it was getting. none of these stuck, and chief justice was confirmed 65-33. closer margin than o'connor and scalia but still comfortable. of 16 democrats . roughly a third of the caucus at the time. notably rehnquist's nomination was the first time in history that opponents of a supreme court nomination attempted a partisan filibuster. 31 senate democrats voted to filibuster his nomination. not enough to block him, but the

in the days when our chief justice was william rehnquist. now, in the '70s when i was arguing before the court that gender lines in the law did not comply with the equal protection principle, i could count on then justice rehnquist to be in dissent. one of the decisions that justice rehnquist disliked was the land or decision. and now you see justice and we are confronted, squarely confronted with should it be overruled. despite his many criticisms of the opinion, chief justice rehnquist said no, miranda stands. it has become part of the culture, and it happens to be working pretty well. so that's -- or a man who said discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not discrimination on the basis of sex. that was justice rehnquist, writes the decision upholding the family and medical leave act, a case that was argued before the supreme court, most ably by a colleague of yours. chief justice rehnquist wrote the opinion upholding the family medical leave act. and when i brought it to him and showed it to my husband, he read it and said, ruth, did

newly discovered letters are revealing that not only did o'connor and rehnquist date but rehnquist proposedr. o'connor rejected his marriage proposal as they had broken up and she was already seeing someone and and that man, john, would later become her husband. joan, i heard that this even stumped you and you wrote the book on o'connor. you didn't even know about the proposal. >> i didn't, brook. you're right. it's such a sweet note that evan thomas found. evan is doing a new biography of her and he had access to the justice's papers herself. someone like me had access to lots of correspondent but not this particular letter. these two people, william rehnquist and sandra day met at stanford law school, they had a deep friendship, they dated, they went to movies. they both graduated in '52. shortly before graduation she meets john o'connor. she talked about how they met proof reading and cite checking law reviews and they wound up having a great love affair. but here's what happened, which is what i love about the rehnquist/o'connor story, they remained friends even after they both met othe

roberts comes out of rehnquist. william rehnquist was his intellectual guide and rehnquist really began his career as a voter suppressor in arizona. >> he would go to the polls and challenge people's rights to vote. >> back kind of pull intimidation that we think about when we think about mississippi, but here we have rehnquist doing it . in arizona. >> you're telling me the guy who got his start intimidating minority voters at the polls and on the us supreme court. >> yes i am's so what does roberts do in the shelby county versus holder case? >> guest: roberts writes a decision that is so fact free that it could be fictional except for the incredible impact that it had. one of the things he said was that the voting rights act was born out of the kind of virulent racism that was prevalent in areas in the united states and he says we've moved beyond that. we have a black president, we have black elected officials, numerous latino elected officials. black voter turnout rate is up. so racism really isn't the issue in a

roberts comes out of rehnquist, william rehnquist was his mentor intellectual guide and he began his career as a voter suppression cuba to go to the polls and after the minority voters. so that kind of intimidation that we think about when we thinthink about mississippi. but here we have justice rehnquist doing it in arizona. >> host: so someone who got his star start intimidating the voters of the poll i at the pola u.s. supreme court? >> guest: yes. >> host: what does roberts do in the shelby county versus holder? >> guest: writes a decision that is so fact that it could be impactful. one of the things it says is the voting rights act was born out of the virulent racism that was prevalent in areas in the united states. so we have moved beyond that. black presidents, black elected officials, numerous latino elected officials, black voter turnout rate is up so that racism isn't the issue in america that it had been. so it isn't clear why it is still necessary. whabut he had too big nor is gig the radar for a vision of the act of 2006. there were over 700 changes to the voting wall in

roberts comes out of grand quest, william rehnquist was his mentor, intellectual guide. rehnquist really began his career as a voter suppress or in arizona. >> host: he would go to the polls and got to minority voters. >> guest: exactly. that kind of intimidation and we think about when we think about mississippi. but here we have rehnquist doing it in arizona. >> host: you're telling me that a guy who got his start intimidating minority voters at the port and seven the u.s. supreme court. >> guest: yes, i am. >> host: what does robert do in shelby county? >> guest: so, roberts writes a decision that is so fact free but it could be fictional except for the incredible impact that it has. one of the things he said is that, you know, the voting rights act was born not of the kind of virulent racism that was prevalent in areas in the united states. we have moved beyond that. we have a black president, and collect it official, numerous latino like it official. black voter turnout rate is up. racism isn't the issue in america it has been. it is not clear why the act is still n

she married john o'connor a few months later at the family rehnquist married another. woman he met at law school, natie cornell.woman he met at law school, natalie cornell. children of both marriages had no idea about the early proposal. >> they gave me permissi to see the box but hadn't read what was in the box. >> reporter: they remained the best of friends united in a on different way he supreme court bench. pete williams, nbc news, washington. >>> coming up next, trick-or-tre, the best kids' costumes that caught our eye this hloween. >> announcer: "nbc nightly news" is brought to you by pacific life, pr otecting generations of families for 150 years.th at's the power of pacific. but you can game plan for them. for 150 years, generations of families have chosen pacific life for retirement and life insurance solutionsrey for li generations of families fe leads.chosen pacific life that's the power of pacific. ask a financial advisor about pacific life. coaching means making tough choices. jim! you're in! but when you have high blood pressure and need cold medicine tha

would occur because already serving on the court was one of my classmates from law school, william rehnquist. he had been a good friend. i knew him from arizona. he and his wife are personal friends of my husband in mind. it was inconceivable to me that we would be asked to serve on the court at the same time. there are many states that to -- have nevere had anyone serve on this court. for the small state of arizona to all of a sudden have two at the same time was unimaginable to me. and when i was interviewed by william french smith and some of the cabinet members in the administration, i did not believe for a minute that i would be asked to serve. back to arizona after those interviews and said to my husband how interesting it was to visit washington, d.c., and to meet the people around the president, and indeed, to meet the president himself. and i said then goodness i don't have to go do that job. thank goodness i don't have to do that job. i didn't want it. i wasn't sure i could do it well enough to justify trying. i have often said it is wonderful to be the first to do something but i

justice rehnquist voted against roe v. wade. justice rehnquist criticized grace griswald versus connecticut. he voted against roe v. wade that does not enumerate the right of a woman to protect her reproductive health is not enumerated. but the court found it was a basic human right of women, and that's the basis of roe v. wade. the problem with justice rehnquist's approach and judge kavanaugh's approach to unenumerated rights is -- they say that unenumerated rights could be recognized by the courts only if the asserted right was rooted in the nation's history and tradition. that's called originalism or a piece of originalism. in other words, you can't assert a right unless you can show that the framers thought about it when they passed the amendments or that it was somehow rooted in the tradition, and if abortion was legal across the country in 1897 or 1867 or 1787, then it wouldn't -- you couldn't do it. the court would be making law. the problem is that approach freezes rights in history, and it allows no room for the evoluti

, by ronald reagan, rehnquist writes of her "she's a ten strike." she was from milwaukee, the bowling capital. they remained really good friends, even though they never married. >> i love that. stanford, dating, says no, ends up on the supreme court. joan, thank you for that. >> thank you. >> we continue you on. you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. we have new details for you from inside the oval office. cnn as learned that president trump blamed his former white house counsel, don mcgahn over the russian investigation. let's go to kaitlan collins. don mcgahn left the job two weeks ago. they had this encounter at the white house. what did president trump say? >> reporter: it was one last time that president trump blamed him for the mueller investigation. they were sitting face to face in the oval office, supposed to be this exit meeting that typically would not be a situation like this, a critical situation or meeting like the one that it was, but we are told by sources that president trump brought up the mueller investigation, blamed mcgahn for

my former boss and predecessor, chief justice rehnquist, once talked to me and my fellow law clerks about that and said there's just too much in front of you that if you start wringing your hands about something in the past, you will just never be able to keep up. sometimes the case is pertinent again. comes up and it's one of the presidents, you do look at it again, and maybe at that point, you see it may not be as compelling as you thought and may not be appropriate to follow it, but in terms of thinking -- i mean, i'm sure i made mistakes. it's a human enterprise, and no andis going to be perfect, ensure and my decisions past, there are some that are not right, the second thoughts and looking back on them, no. in terms of mistakes and errors, people think maybe that i'm being smarmy when i say it, but i'm not. it's a great comfort to me that i have my colleagues, and i cannot do anything unless i get ,or very bright, hard-working accompanist individuals to agree with me, so that is as much protection as i can get against error. are your stein: who writing to when you write your opinion

when you clerked for justice rehnquist about 35 years ago the court decided about twice as many cases every year. >> right. >> why is the court deciding so fewer cases these days? obviously justice decide which cases to take but do you have on your court some colleagues who want to take more cases? >> yes. we certainly have the capacity to do it. we can. i thought at the time when as a law clerk 150 was too much. we were hearing four cases a day and i thought the quality of the work deteriorated when getting close to the end and you have a lot more on your plate. we can do more. i'm one of the want think we should do more. but cases are not there in the sense, we have particular criteria for the cases we want to take. if any court finds an act of congress unconstitutional we will take it. we think it's a matter of comity to the branches across the street we should be the ones to say that if any court is. and other than that there are complex. if the court in california decides under this tax provision federal law this is deductible and the court in new york under the same provisions s

i think it was wrongly decided and i think justice rehnquist was correct. host: again, carolyn shapiro is our guest. steve, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am curious, had the allegations been nonsexual, say about fraud or bankruptcy, with the investigation had taken a different tone as opposed to what i am understanding, is because it was sexual it was pushed under the rug, but had there been another type of allegation, would the investigation gone a different way? guest: i would say that there are two different ways of thinking about that. one is that, of course it is impossible to imagine that this wayhat the allegations, the the allegations are responded to has a lot to do with the historic moment we are in, with the me too movement, anger about things president trump has been with respect to women. so the moment

i think it was wrongly decided and i think justice rehnquist was krebt. >> again, carolyn shapiro. the pennsylvania line. go ahead. >> have the -- had the allegations had been nonsexual, for instance, fraud. would the investigation have taken a different tone as opposed to what i hear is that because it was sexual it was pushed under the rug. but had there been another type of allegation, would the investigation have gone a different way? >> well, i will say there are two different ways of thinking about that. one is that, of course, it is impossible to minimum wage that -- it is impossible to imagine that his allegations have to do with what we're in, with the me too movement, with the anger by a lot of things that president trump has said and done with respect to women. the historical moment and the cultural moment we're in -- we're in nervous people -- informs people's response. if there was concern about that, that could be just as major a scandal. in fact, there were a lot of people who wanted to know more about juf's -- judge kavanaugh's finances, people concerned he didn't f

american citizens to vote but john roberts did not see it that way because he is a protÉge of william rehnquistthe chief justice of the supreme court he got his start doing massive voter suppression intimate - - intimidation at the polls and arizona so that hatred is a long thread that courses through the supreme court. >> may be this is a double question because what you worn about is the threat to democracy you talk about the racial nature and then talk about the 2016 campaign that you talk about this idea that this cannot sustain itself that i gathered you were writing that in a positive way may be little conflict? i would like you to explain that see you can ask questions. >> i talk about the resistance and what happens in alabama and the senate battle special oyelection to go against every method of voter suppression and when the state of alabama refuses to move you have civil society stand up to do the heavy lifting of democracy to figureut out how to get the birth certificates that they needed them their ids to set up a private system because so many polls were closed in alabama to get t

she called him judge rehnquist. he shouted at her i am not a judge, i'm chief justice of the united states. i've seen judge, bully, pick on and we don't hear my friends talk about judicial temperament. when they don't like a justice, they come up with arguments on judicial restraint and i don't think it-- his judicial conduct has been excellent over 12 years. >> and i thought the comments on the republican senator from tennessee bob corker, when he came out three days ago, maybe two days ago. and those who were sympathetic to dr. ford could not recall or provide any evidence to support cher story and therefore, he was a yes, just in your own legal mind, is that what it comes down to? >> no, i don't think so. i believed her. i thought she made a very, very compelling case, but it's years and years and years ago, could be a case of mistaken identification. she could misremember, he could misremember. i'm not in any way accusing her of anything wrong. the sexual mccarthyism came from people like avenatti and his client

bill rehnquist. it's sort of haunted his reputation with scholars. so it won't be good. as historians look back. i don't think they should jam this through and we're only having cloture vote initially. that's kind of a test vote. and who knows what will happen during the debate. that's where a lot of this might be flushed out. >> yeah. thank you all. i appreciate it. >>> well, "the new york times" says president trump inherited $413 million from his father. he inherited a booming economy from president obama, better to be lucky than good. what would it look like... ...if we listened more? could the right voice, the right set of words, bring us all just a little closer, get us to open up, even push us further? it could. if we took the time to listen. the most inspiring minds. the most compelling stories. download audible. and listen for a change. >>> i want everyone to pay attention to this segment. we like to provide you on this program with facts. facts first. okay? so let's start with sarah sanders who is slamming a "new york times" report alleging president trump inhe

they write scathing dissents to each other, but starting with chief rehnquist, he really believed that good fences made good neighbors. he did not encourage a lot of interaction among the justices. they're sometimes described as nine different law firms, which i think is an accurate firm. they're very correct and very polite with each other. there's not a lot of close friendships on the court, even though i think some of the justices may have been appalled by the hearings, he will be welcomed as an equal. >> but ruth bader ginsburg, didn't she have a relationship with justice scalia? >> to me in my pin, this was the most over-hyped relationship. you would think from the discussions therm like arms around the neck buddies. joan, am i wrong about that? >> actually, you're right,ever, they were very close, they did plenty of things together, but it has been hypeds to. brett kavanaugh will not be going to the opera with ruth bader ginsburg. i doubt that as well. you know. they are very aware of the political differences. you know, they know this will be a different court going forward. jus

court of that era and the conservatives on the court of that era -- people like justice william rehnquist -- were in favored of what they would have called federalism, states rights. i thought that when the florida supreme court, based on the awardedconstitution, the state of florida to gore that, based on its own principles, i thought the supreme court would simply allow that to stand, they were not going to interfere. that is not what the court did. they developed their own theory, never made any sense to me. brian: what impact did that have on his presidency? james: less than people would think, in the sense that most people thought that having not won a majority of the popular narrowinning such a victory in the electoral college , that he would start out very carefully. that he wouldn't take any bold initiatives and that most of what he did would be directed at winning over democratic support. started hish presidency very boldly, asked for a tax cut in his first year. succeeded in winning just enough democratic support to get it passed. ,ut it was quite a radical move where people tho

maintain throughout his life a sturdy independence of view whereas i think it describes justice rehnquist himself. this term jackson not only personified but to find in an unforgettable essay. his virtuoso service led to another justice to say he wishes jackson could be general for life and has a whole series- - and a whole series of jackson as war crimes prosecutor accepting a difficult assignment to make sure the world confronted and made a record of the evils perpetrated by [ null ] germany. this work has new importance today with the passing of personal memories of its members. we could certainly spend more than one evening as a member of the cabinet. our lecture is sure to make the most of it. he is a fellow at the robert h jackson center where he also serves on the board of trustees in which i have had the pleasure of doing. he sends to more than 1000 devoted researchers-- devoted readers. a previously unpublished manuscript written by justice jackson himself. they are working on a full biography of justice jackson which many of us are eagerly looking forward to reading. please join

in his remarks kavanaugh praised rehnquist's dissent in roe v. wade where the late chief justice found no constitutional right to abortion because the right was, quote, not rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people. end quote. thank goodness the rest of the supreme court did not follow chief justice. to learn about brett kavanaugh's own legal views on reproductive rights, we need only look at his dissent in last year's d.c. case garza v. hargan. here a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant sought release to obtain an abortion. kavanaugh's first fundamental misstatement was characterizing it as a quote, unquote, parental consent case. it was not. the young woman received a judicial by pass from a texas judge and therefore did not need parental consent. for a judge applying for a proceedings motion to -- promotion to the score to dismiss the case is astounding me. in my view a first-year law scoont would not have deemed the garza case to be a parent dissent case, but that's what he said. then, when applying the case to determine if a woman

it is the unanimous decision, 8-0, justice rehnquist took no part in the decision ordering the presidentunited states to turn over the tapes. >> the court voted unanimously, unanimously to require the tapes to be released. some of those members of the court had been appointed by richard nixon himself. you had the court system acting in a nonpartisan way, in a credible way regardless of politics. >> imagine that in politicized supreme court that we've had in our recent history. >> while nixon tried to put on the pretend act that operations were going on as normal, they weren't. they were disintegrating every day. >> three days after the supreme court ruling, the house of representatives took the step most dreaded by the president, impeachment. nixon's fate now rested in the hands of the committee. >> today i am an inquisitor. an hyperbole would not be fictional and not overstate the solemnness that i feel right now. my faith in the constitution is whole, it is complete. it is total, and i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the demolution, the subversion, the destruction

in a speech in 2017, judge kavanaugh focused on praising justice rehnquist and his descent in roe v.enged the right to women's privacy as protected in the constitution. also last year, judge kavanaugh argued in a dissent in a texas case that a jane doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose. because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. if adopted, this argument could rewrite supreme court precedent and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision. even in cases, as is in this one, where she had gone before a court. his reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh not only is willing to disregard precedent, but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging realities women face when making these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether roe and casey were settled law and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. roe v. wade, as we all know, is one of a series of cases that upheld an individual's rig

chief justice john roberts was a law clerk to william rehnquist. justice kavanaugh clerked for justice kennedy, as did neil gorsuch. stephen breyer clerked for arthur goldberg. and that gives us -- and elena kagan clerked for justice thurgood marshal. we now have a majority on the court that not just comes from elite ivy league background, but came up through the even more elite channels of supreme court law clerks. and then i know at one point, we had talked about the religious makeup of this court. justice kavanaugh, who is a catholic, secedes another catholic, anthony kennedy, and it's intriguing to know that on this supreme court, we have five catholics, three jewish justices, and one protestant. so really, kind of different than the makeup throughout the united states, brooke. >> incredible. the faces, the additions and thinking so many of them having clerked for other justices, speaking of clerks. joan, thank you. brett kavanaugh won confirmation by the slimmest margin ever for a u.s. supreme court justice, but now he will be making history i

a new phenomena, where people have slipped through the process and the examples i used were bill rehnquistught dissembling twice, once to be an associate and once to be the chief and clarence thomas and i was warning the committee don't let that happen again because it tarnishes not only the justice but the court and hurts the american people. >> one of the points that came out of today was that senators collins and murkowski came to opposite conclusions on kavanaugh but they had the same reality about the process which is that it can't be like this anymore. but here's my question about that, john. they made it this way. not collins and murkowski per se, but the senators made it this way. harry reid blowing up the filibuster when it came to some appointments, mcconnell then upping the ante with the nuclear option and making it a simple majority for scotus, i think that was huge in terms of decay within the process. and then you had the bork factor which is where now it is recognized by both sides that you get your side a pass. that there are now these farces about impartiality and independ

bill rehnquist. it's sort of haunted his reputation with scholars. so it won't be good. as historians look back. i don't think they should jam this through and we're only having cloture vote initially. that's kind of a test vote. and who knows what will happen during the debate. that's where a lot of this might be flushed out. >> yeah. thank you all. i appreciate it. >>> well, "the new york times" says president trump inherited $413 million from his father. he inherited a booming economy from president obama, better to be lucky than good. what do you look for when you trade? i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪

in 2017 judge kavanaugh focused on praising justice rehnquist and his dissent in roe v. wade where he challenged the right to women's privacy as protected in the constitution. also last year judge kavanaugh argued a dissent in a case where a jane doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. if adopted, this argument could rewrite supreme court precedent and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision. even in cases as is in this one where she had gone before a court. his reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh is not only willing to disregard precedent but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging realities women face when making these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether roe and casey were settled law, whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. roe v. wade is one of a series of cases that upheld an individual's right to decide

bork and in 1971, it opposed president richard nixon's nomination of justice william rehnquist.elcome a for more, we are joined by louise melling, deputy legal director at the aclu and director of its center for liberty which encompasses the aclu's work on reproductive freedom, women's rights, lesbian and gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, freedom of welcome to democracy now! nyc: religion. welcome to democracy now! nyc: >> i would say in brief extruder times call for external measures, as he talked about before, we did not oppose judge kavanaugh when he was first nominated. we did not oppose as the proceedings went forward. we issued a report talking about his record. we raised concerns, but we adhere to our long-standing policy will stop but now in light of the sexual assault allegations, we have come out to oppose judge kavanaugh, believing those raised serious questions that are fundamentally different. they r raised serious ququestios ababout the integrity of the course should he be on the court. amy: what are those concerns? >> i will point to the code of judicial cond

attorney general to register pre-act offenders to the maximum extent feasible although as justice rehnquist articulated in industrial union, the benzene case, there's still a question what feasibility means. in this context particularly, because this is not a technical scientific area. this is not a question of how much air particle at what cost can be taken from the environment. this is really the fundamental weighing of liberty versus security interests. the sorts of decisions the people's legislative body is supposed to make and not supposed to delegate to the chief prosecutor. >> supposed to, in your opinion, start distinguishing among the 300,000 and say well, you have a weak standard if all that's at interest is the cost of pollution or something, but you have to have a strong standard where, in fact, it's what you said, liberty and a medium standard perhaps for the -- i don't know what we do about the s.e.c. and there are 300,000 approximately, maybe only 200,000, but is that what you're suggesting we ought to do? yes, no? >> yes, and -- >> yes. >> your honor, i'm not conceding the 3

richard nixon who had four appointments and except for justice rehnquist they turned out to be far moret than the right hoped for. george h.w. bush and david souter. the insistence of the conservatives since 1990 has been that we are always going to know exactly what we're getting. and that's -- that's at the core of this, i think. and that's who judge kavanaugh is, and he shouldn't be apologetic about it. that's who he is and that's who the president appointed and who 51 senators are confirming. but i wouldn't be distracted by senator collins' attempt to turn him into some creature out of the brookings institution. >> my last question is personal for you. i mean we don't talk enough about the human beings, and i think i was struck last thursday by the line from donald trump's inauguration speech about human carnage when i watched professor ford, whose life has been destroyed since this incident, obviously, who overcame that trauma and testified before the country and the world, and judge kavanaugh's life will never be what it was before. what do you make of this moment in just human ca

judge kavanaugh has praised justice rehnquist's dissent in the landmark roe v. wade decision that guarantees women the right to make their own reproductive health decisions. i believe that's one of the most basic and fundamental rights that we have, not just as women but that

in a speech in 2017, judge kavanaugh focused on praising justice rehnquist and his dissent in roe v. wade where he challenged the right to women's privacy as protected in the constitution. also last year, judge kavanaugh argued in a dissent in a texas case that a jane doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. if adopted, this argument could rewrite supreme court precedent and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision, even in cases, as is in this one, where she had gone before a court. his reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh not only is willing to disregard precedent but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging realities women face when making these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether roe and casey were settled law and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. roe v. wade, as we all know, is one of a series of cases that upheld a

judge kavanaugh has praised justice rehnquist's dissent in the landmark roe v. wade decision that guarantees women the right to make their own reproductive health decisions. i believe that's one of the most basic and fundamental rights that we have, not just as women but that families have. women should be able to make that decision in consultation with their families, with their physicians, with their religious beliefs, and this should not be something that the government dictates, and, yet, brett kavanaugh suggests that fundamental basic right is up for consideration. now, finally, i have a serious concern about judge kavanaugh's view of executive branch power that could place the president above the law. judge kavanaugh has said that sitting presidents can't be indicted, can't be prosecuted, and should have the authority to fire a special counsel at will. well, with the mueller investigation, with so many concerns that have been raised about this president's manipulation of laws that have allowed him to enrich himself and his company, that suggests that where

in 2017, judge kavanaugh suggested he supported judge rehnquist's dissent in roe v. wade which called the landmark decision a free willing unrooted rights not in the nation's history. for anyone who -- i guarantee you i asked every judicial nominee whether he believed in the number of rights guaranteed in the constitution for the rights of privacy or he didn't and the reason i did that is because those who really don't believe that roe was rightly decided believe that those rights aren't being enumerated and could jufer turn them in the -- overturn them in the future. while judge kavanaugh may now claim that he believes roe is settled law, his past raises doubt so that fact and during his confirmation hearing he refused to say whether it was wrongly decided. well, why is that important? because in the near future if a majority on the supreme court decides that it was previously wrongly decided, they can just overturn it. if judge kavanaugh does not believe the constitution gives women the right to make decisions about their own body, whatever assures he gives us now

he was a protÉge of william rehnquist who would become the chief justice of the supreme court.nd he got his start doing massive voter suppression. the hatred of the voting rights act as a long thread. let me ask you. does this count as a double question. and how others had been able to explore that. at the end, you come through and you talk about the whole idea of the suppression. i gather you are writing in a positive way. they would have to be let in. for those who would have some questions. those would start coming up to the mic. and you can ask questions for the remainder of the time. i talk about the resistance and what happened in alabama. this is a doug jones roy moore senate battle. that special election. and there alabama have deployed every method of voter suppression. when the state of alabama refused to just move on it. good civil society stand up and do that heavy lifting of democracy. figuring out how to get people the birth certificates they needed and then setting up a private car system so that people because so many polls have been closed in alabama so that pe

rehnquist recusing himself of stopping a president who is engaged in what look like criminal wrongdoing and what happened this time? the confirmation process, that to me is the real danger that goes the opposite of the direction of central powers. >> one last thing whoever comes after this president is going to have to course-correct in a formal way. there's going to be a substantial corrections in terms of policy but there's also going to be choices for forbearance or choices to uphold institutional martin's smes of reconstituting what has been broken and that's going to be hard. there's going to be a temptation to break them further in retaliation. >> about 10 more minutes. >> i do have to say it's a pleasure and a thrill to be here to speak with you chris. you are not an enemy of the state. you are a lifeline to our democracy. [applause] is outrageous absolutely outrageous and i hope you feel are welcome and support could we will not tolerate that. i had to get that in a public forum but my question is about norms. this is uneducated experience for me for for example mert garland tha

in a speech in 2017, judge kavanaugh focused on praising justice rehnquist and his wade, where hev.ged the right to women's privacy as protected in the constitution. also last year, judge kavanaugh a texasn a dissent in case that a james doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose, because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. argument woulds we write supreme court precedent, and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision, even in cases, as in this one, where she had gone before a court. this reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh not only is going to disregard precedent, but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging when makingmen face these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether wrongd casey were settled , and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. is one in a series of cases that upheld an individual's right to decide who to marry, where to send your children to school, what ki

adjudicating complaints and also by the recommendations of the prior committee established by chief justice rehnquistry, it became apparent that we should make explicit, that which was implicit and that we should clarify certain perceived ambiguities. so last winter several committees of the judicial conference began deliberating on possible changes recognizing the working group would be conducting an in-depth review of the related and interconnected problems. last year they issued a comprehensive report together with certain recommendations for action, including amendments to the code of conduct and the rules on conduct and disability. both the code of conduct and the judicial conduct and disability committee have responded to the careful recommendations provided by the working. some of the proposed amendments are new, some expand or clarify the rules already in place. today we seek your views on the proposed changes. i am pleased to introduce the members of the conduct and disability committee who are present. judge barker, judge dubin achlae hogan. huge rattle and judge gritsner. thank you very mu

people have wondered whether judge rehnquist, clerk for a supreme court judge, if he lied when he was if he helped contribute to the guy he clerked for opinion against brown versus the board of education. he denied he had anything to do with it and a lot of people doubted that. host: mark in florida. it was one of the white house spokespeople today talking about the latest concerning judge kavanaugh's confirmation. >> are you confident based on findings the white house is seeing this does not corroborate sexual misconduct allegations? >> i want to be regarded, there are restrictions on how the white house can talk about this information. privacy regulations, memorandums that go back to the department of justice and the senate judiciary committee, we want to be precise. we are fully confident after reviewing this information, senators will be comfortable voting yes. host: the daily feed reporting that britney kaiser, former employment of data analytical, speaking with congressional committees today, planned interview as part of the continuing investigation, potential coordination betwe

brian: i know william rehnquist would not hand out solo cups. so there is a difference. he personally had spiked along with mark judge the punch, that was all in sworn testimony that the senate had last week and that's what they were -- that's what was submitted and now that's why the people are saying she is walking it back because she has changed her story. brian: here it is, steve. did not actually see them spike the punch with alcohol. ainsley: standing around and passing out red solo consumption. i'm not saying nothing happened to her. we don't know that but to accuse someone of this and to say in sworn testimony this, this, and, this and then to go on camera and have a different story, this is someone's life we are talking about. he can't just accuse someone of that and then change your story. now, when we all watched him in the hearing and we watched dr. ford. everyone thought dr. ford was believable. he was believable. we all walked away saying it's he said, she said. who is telling the truth? what's the real story here? maybe we will never even know. there is no

i think it was wrongly decided and i think justice rehnquist was correct. again, carolyn shapiro is our guest. steve, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am curious, had the allegations been nonsexual, say about fraud or bankruptcy, with the investigation had taken a different tone as opposed to what i am understanding, is because it was sexual it was pushed under the rug, but had there been another type of allegation, would the investigation gone a different way? guest: i would say that there are two different ways of thinking about that. one is that, of course it is impossible to imagine that this wayhat the allegations, the the allegations are responded to has a lot to do with the historic moment we are in, with the me too movement, anger about things president trump has been with respect to women. so the moment we are in, the cultural moment, informs people's response to the specific allegations. but the other thing i would say is if there was some kind of financial fraud or concern about -- that could be just as major a scandal. there were a lot of peopl