he was talking about an extreme nominee, robert bork, and he said, i want to quote him. robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizen's doors in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the federal government and the door would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens where the judiciary is often the only proctor of the individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy. unquote. mr. president, robert bork was rejected and justice kennedy took his place, and today we face similar stakes right now in this moment. voting rights are at stake, lgbtq right are at stakes, the right to organize collectively is at stake. those are just a few. there's a lot more. families across the country are paying attention and they are going to be watching what president trump and individual members of this united states senate do right now. they are going to -- they are go

on your letter point, you know, the recent history, one of the nominations i worked on was robert bork who was like judge kavanaugh in the d.c. circuit when he was nominated to the supreme court. judge bork, after extensive hearings led by then senate judiciary committee joe biden, he testified for five days, very extensive hearings, it really was essentially a seminar on constitutional law but ultimately he was voted down by the senate 58-42 and when that happens, the president then goes back to the drawing board and nominates someone else. after bork, he nominated doug ginsburg and then justice kennedy was nominated after a more extensive consultation between president reagan and senator biden and others in the senate and as i mentioned earlier, justice kennedy ultimately was confirmed 97-0. >> what do you make of the critique by some that the process already is rushed? >> well, i think it's hard to say that it's necessarily rushed at the moment. i think we have to see when hearings are set in the timing for that. so for example, i think hearings in the first or second week of august

going all the way back to robert bork i have never seen a more process and restrictive in all of that period of time. all of theeat specifics that senator schumer and others have gone into but i want to underline the importance of getting the documents, buying borrowing on the experience i have had working with senator schumer on the senate side of oversight of the bush administration in his last several years. one of the issues we did review on was signing things. in fact, the record on that relates directly to judge kavanagh's service as a judge. by -- of his dissents decision upholding the affordable care act, he said, i think of a president doesn't want to enforce the aca, and deems it unconstitutional, he can do that. strikinglyd to me view that the bush administration pushed very -- it ishen in office directly relevant to his views as a judge, to what his views were on signing statements when he was the one responsible for of thosehe final form statements to the president for him to take a look at, review, &. there is absolutely no question of the critical nature for the senate

about robert talks bork. had robert bork been confirmed to the supreme court, roe v. wade would have been overturned. that and knowber how important this is. they may not have the power to stop it, but it will be front and center. steve: with the nomination of every barrett -- any barrett make it more difficult? it would in some sense. each of these have interesting back stories. the fact she is a woman, has less experience, she could be gone after in that way. some of the things she has said as an academic make it clear that she is morally opposed to abortion and strongly suggest that she views roe v. wade is -- as wrongly decided. the other potential nominee is , theykavanagh, the other feel the same but there is not public evidence. steve: we talked about the two republican senators from maine and alaska. on the democratic side who are , you keeping an eye on? niels: the three would be the ones that voted for judge gorsuch. all of whom have already met with president trump. joe manchin of west virginia, heidi heitkamp of north dakota. joe donnelly, indiana. donnell

had robert bork been confirmed that the supreme court, roe versus wade would have been overturned, or at least that is what he said. liberals remember that. they know how important this is. they may not have the power to stop it, but it will be front and center. the nomination of amy barrett make it more difficult for democrats because of her life story? >> it might come in a sense. her life story helps. the fact that she is a woman probably helps. she is also younger and has less experience and can be gone after in that way. and something's she has said is an academic make very clear that opposed tolly abortion and views roe versus wade is wrongly decided. judge capnagh, they may feel the same way but there is not as much pop record -- not as much public record on the issue. the three i would keep the closest ion are the ones who voted for justice gorsuch. joe manchin, heidi heitkamp and joe donnelly of indiana. donnelly may be the most interesting, particularly if barrett is the nominee because she is from indiana. you have an additional wrinkle there with a home-state selection. th

robert bork 'america is ame land where b american women will be forced into back alley abortions. blacks will sit at segregated lunch counters. rogue police could break down doors and midnight raids. schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. >> what the democrats did to judge robert bork was so egregious that it inspired a new term called bork-anger. and bork was in full play during the confirmation of now supreme court justice clarence thomas. by the way one of the best justices i think we have ever had on the court and in our lifetime. ama back in 1991 democrats rolled out a former colleague, anita hill to make allegations against him and it became so nasty that justice thomas called it a "high-tech lynching." watch this. >> this is a circus, it's a national disgrace. and from my standpoint, as a black american, as far as i am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves or do for themselves, to have different ideas. it is a message that unless you cow town to an old order, this is what will happen to you. you wil

it started with the character assassination of robert bork and and culminated with clarence thomas. tensions seemed to subside for a time but then came the unprecedented filibuster of samuel alito and the public flagellation of neil gorsuch. the nominee had -- but in every case my colleagues sought to drag these men into the partisan gutter, asking questions designed to parse their political positions rather than their legal philosophy. mr. president, in my 42 years of senate service, i have witnessed the gradual deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. as the former chairman of the judiciary committee and now its longer serving member, i have taken an active role of every justice currently sit og and the supreme court -- sitting on the supreme court and those who retired. i participated in half of all article three judges who have ever served. throughout the process i have met some of the brightest legal minds that they have to offer. i watched as the on the other side of the aisle looked to undo their gain. this is merely a symptom of a much larger problem, the politica

you had ads being run against robert bork that predates our work. our organization was one of the first ones that was out there defending them and has maintained that as our focus of supreme court nominations. to that extent, we are playing catch-up by trying to replicate the efforts we have done, so we will see how they do. it will be an exciting nomination process either way. steve: as you look at the list culture should diversity, either a female or minority if you were , to advise the president, should that be a factor in his decision? carrie: the factor he should be looking at is their judicial philosophy and the way they approach the law. that doesn't mean you're not diversity on the list. we have an extremely wide range of different backgrounds. we have people like amy coney barrett, a mother of seven, too -- two adopted from haiti, one with special needs. she lives diversity in her life. we also have a a judge on the six circuit, the first of asian descent. people coming from a wide range of backgrounds, a judge who grew up in a trailer park

sean: robert bork is was despicable mr.happaquiddick was a disgrace to the senate and then what they did to clarence thomas was a disgrace to the senate. >> it will happen. i have said this for weeks. it is predictable. it doesn't matter who president trump would have nominated the same smears would have occurred. he has the courage to make the right choice as a president notwithstanding he could've chosen somebody to be an easier confirmation but he made an important choice in the right choice but with that judicial philosophy with statutes and and originalist with the constitution and with those opinions so this is why i keep saying this 2018 midterm election is the most important and that could change hands to become republican they have a very slim margin that means rand paul or susan collins or murkowski. and you heard him. i don't believe in legislation and that constitution is to be interpreted. and now it is even more important than the 2016 elections.s. >> judgege scalia said to make the considerations that the law

host: this is matt smith this is what's wrong with robert bork's nomination failure. their behavior seems routine and procedural, the republican's decision to steal a scotus seat is wrong. he had been confirmed unanimously by the senate for a lower court appointment and then they really went after him, you can fact check me on that. i could be wrong, it's happened before. i think most conservatives would argue that judge bork, who was a reagan appointee, was highly qualified and that had been the standard. republicans, orrin hatch, for example, supported the ruth bader ginsburg, he actually was helpful with president clinton and the ruth bader ginsburg appointment. was i don't agree with her, but she is highly qualified, she's a good finger, she's a good judge. that had been the standard i think there's a sense among conservatives at what happened to justice bork had nothing to do with whether or not he was qualified or how the right temperament already huge scandal that might make him drivable or something. it was about his philosophy and that's the difference. host:

in 1987 he dredged up robert bork's history working for richard nixon. here's what he said. >> the man who fired archibald cox does not deserve to sit on the supreme court of the united states. robert bork's america was on the land in which women would be forced into black alley promotions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch towers, and school children could not be taught about evolution. writers as an artist would be censured at the whim ofe government. >> i think we will hear that type of language, that dystopiag nightmare will be printed againo those back alley distortions will be trying to paint kavanaugh with that same brush.k they worked in the case of judge bork because he was very defensive and sharp and didn't quite know how to do that. >> i loved him but the charm factor was on display. and he kicked a puppy is, too. i'm surprised kennedy didn't say that. remember elena kagan, she had an interesting way of dealing with tough questions. this is a good exchange. >> i should ask exactly what you mean by that. >> i just was asking where you were

all of this stuff is worse than what i heard when robert bork was that nominee many moons ago.t is not good for the discussion. number two, they are creating a problem for democrats. they create this monster. they say that's terrible, cute evil human being is going to rise up out of the belly of the swamp and comment ruin your lives and this person is going to come out when you know what they're going to say? seems all right. seems nice. that's what happened with roberts, gorsuch, these heinous expectations met with a nice, competent person and people say okay. >> kimberly: pain heinous expectations met with a nice person. sounds like the rhetorical hype, the vitriol. we've seen this happen. then you see in terms of the personal comes forward, like in the case of neil gorsuch, someone who has been well respected and well regarded. >> juan: i could go back to the same argument about merrick garland. he was highly respected and was not given a hearing, much less a vote. i think the thing here is that we live in different times. i was talking with abby huntsman today on "outnumber

host: was robert bork the most challenging? guest: the most interesting. mostnce thomas was the challenging in light of the allegations at the time. bork had a bloom in this record. -- voluminous record. there was nothing better than doing that as a staffer. host: let's get to jim. good morning. caller: good morning. is 51-49. with senator mccain not being able to get to the senate, my understanding, he can't vote. that makes it 50-49. what about a situation where -- morelicans republicans could become the majority, it just seems that there should be something where votes could be cast even if you can't make it to the senate floor. saying, now i am losing it. let's get an answer to your first question. guest: sure. in the senate, for votes on the --ate floor, you can vote can't vote by proxy. senator mccain, if he is not able to vote, then the republicans are down a number. but mike pence gets to break a tie. under the sonora you were talking about where more than one senator in this case is missing my guesses senator mcconnell would postpone the vote until

robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions. sit at segregated lunch counters. rogue police could break down citizens' doors and midnight raids and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government. >> laura, i think we are going to hear that type of language, that dystopian nightmare will be painted again. the black alley abortions, they are going to try to paint kavanaugh with that same brush. it worked in the case of judge bork because he was very defensive. he was very defensive and sharp and didn't quite know how to fight back and clear his name. >> laura: i remember. i was working at the white house when that went down and i loved judge bork of course. the charm factor wasn't on display during those hearings. and he kicked puppies too. i'm surprised ted kennedy didn't say that. elena kagan, associate justice, she had a very interesting way of dealing with tough questions. watch this exchange from 2010. >> christmas day bomber. where are you at? >> i should a

bork, robert bork's america. we will not be able to hear about thomas hardiman's america or brett kavanaugh's america. >> why not? >> because -- >> just answer that question first, harry. why not? >> in short, it won't sell in the same way. >> vanita. >> and chris, i want to say, look, we are at a point in this country where millions of americans who never thought of themselves as activists before are literally enraged by the vision of america that this administration is putting out. and the courts are a huge part of defining what fleemd looks like, what liberty looks like, what our civil and human rights look like, what health care and access to health care and women's rights are going to look like. and women are leading the charge. and i think that now is a moment where progressive's who care so much about the kind of what this current's about, and the kind of america we deserve are going to stand up and say look, yes, the democrats don't have the majority in the senate but there is a majority of senators who d

. >> ever since robert bork in 1987 -- >> who was too honest. >> exactly. nominees, you know, they asked robert bork cuff questitough qu about his vuiews, and he answerd them, a mistake that no subsequent nominee has made. so we can anticipate the pleasant stonewall that every subsequent nominee has given. so basically we're going to have to listen to partisans from both sides extrapolate from kavanaugh's record. >> what these confirmation hearings have ended up being are little speeches about how great the nominee is or the senators' concerns about the nominee, and the nominee not saying anything. the nominee -- i think john roberts' favorite technique was just to say -- to basically cite case law that was relevant and just wear out the clock. >> because he knew the senators up there weren't going to know half the cases. they'd have to consult with everybody behind them. >> brett kavanaugh has appeared before the senate. he has been asked his views on roe v. wade. he has said that he respects precedent and he would not give his personal opinion. we're goin

themselves, people who want to make an impact in the world that way, they see what happened to robert bork. they see what happened to other idealogical judges. so they keep their heads down. it's about methodology, it's about participating in those networks where conservatives know that if they come to be nominated, they're reliable. >> okay, the vote is going to come down to a handful of modern senators on both sides of the aisle, the left and the right, including republican senator susan collins who we're speaking to in a moment. what do you think the president is doing to secure their votes? >> so he's taking a kind of good cop bad cop approach and he's both cops. he is trying on one hand at his rallies and on twitter, he's calling out these crucial votes. the democrats in red states, senator heidi heitkamp when he was in north dakota, her state, he called her out. then he turned around two days later and had a nice cozy meeting in the white house with the democrats and these crucial republican pro-choice women, lisa murkowski and susan collins of maine who you're going to be talking to

it refers to how judge robert bork was sland arerred back in the 1980s when people both inside and outside the congress blatantly and shamelessly distorted his record to claim he'd do terrible things if confirmed to the supreme court. it's actually in the dictionary now literally. judge bork's last name is in the merriam-webster dictionary as a verb. it means -- this is what "bork" means -- to attack or defeat a nominee or candidate for public office unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification. to be borked. it's now in the dictionary. completely unfair vilification. looking back, most people agree now that this episode was grossly, grossly unfair, insulted the intelligence of the american people and stained the history of the united states senate. jeffrey rosen was a democrat who worked in senator biden's office on the democrat side during that episode. here's what he wrote a few years ago. he said, i remember feeling that the nominee was being treated unfairly. senator kennedy set the tone with a demagoguing attack. bork's record was distorted beyond

biden, democrat from delaware, back in those days, in several separate confirmations processes for robert bork, justice kennedy, and clarence thomas. tell us first what you learned from those experiences on the committee as things progressed, and apply it to this current situation with brett kavanaugh. >> sure. i thinkt

> at the same time as you point out, many nominees have been cagey about it, and dating back to robert borkhave trained these nominees not to answer the question. but we found there is a good way to read some of this language that lines up with the same language that activist groups for pro-life organizations use like the susan b anthony foundation. two out of the three, kavanaugh and barrett has used the code word. one of them is referring to roe as abortion on demand. we have a number of restrictions on states on abortion past 20 weeks. essentially what you are referring to is taking away some of the exceptions of the life of the mother. and the second one is when you refer to someone as a strict constitutionalist, that is almost always i am told a reference to roe v. wade, not supportive to it because there is nothing specific anyboin the constitution. kavanaugh said the constitution should be read explicitly. that quote-unquote text matters. that is viewed as a code word as well. >> are the pro-choice folks saying they see no signal either way from kethledge? >> we scrubbed the records

you remember when robert bork was vilified and highly qualified judge set the standing how the demonicthe opposition can be. the democrats, they would have opposed anybody. they want to expand it. i think it's overreaching on their part. i don't think it's relevant to this highly qualified judicial nominee. >> the example you give now is a verb. don't get borked. is the goal to find a perfect candidate a nominee perfection? >> well, there was only one perfect individual in the history of the world, you you're not going to find him or her for the united states supreme court. what this is turned into is political theater. that's what this is all about. the democrats have really tried to raise the stakes. here you got a guy that they voted for that has 300 written judicial opinions they can comb through. he's been on the bench for 12 years. it's no longer about even the perfect candidate. it's only who you can leverage against your political opponent. >> then we could be looking at openings forever if we're looking for perfect individual. you want to strike politically are democrats reall

judge robert bork answered to his detriment.he kennedy seat president trump will announce at 9:00 p.m. east on monday night. ever since bourque, nominees seem to follow the first rule, do not harm, how much will we really learn from the hearing process? where republican senator susan collins said she will not support a nominee with a demonstrated hostility to roe versus wade. will we even learn the thoughts on that precedent? joining miss is ronald wyche, the dean of the university of baltimore school of law, he was counsel to senate democrats roberts and alito. then at the justice department, he work on the nominations of sonia sotomayor and elena kagan and senator to kennedy in the hearings in the 1990s. i think of the job of a nominee as a white house press secretary. meaning, keep your mouth moving, but don't say anything of consequence. >> well, first of all, thank you for inviting me to be with you. this is an important moment as we head into the supreme court confirmation process. i think you are a little cynical. you are

focusing on this issue over the past two decades but that was really because what democrats did to robert borkan: you know kavanaugh. >> dana: i worked with ashley and brett kavanaugh at the white house. >> juan: do you think kavanaugh is likely? >> dana: i don't know who it would be. i think anybody on the list of 25 would be confirmable and would be reliable conservatives for the president. >> juan: sean hannity, do you have any inside scoop? >> sean: it's going to be one of the four. the president told the american people during the campaign he's added a little bit to the list. it will be his judicial philosophy that wins the day. one thing we haven't really talked a lot about is there has to be some political consideration because it is so tight in the senate. the president i think has to consider lisa murkowski, collins, ted cruz and rand paul. i think he finds the balance with any of the four leading contenders. i would say pick them at this point. probably kavanaugh is leading. if i had to look to last week, he seemed to be the front runner. this president is very unpredictable. >> dana

in 1987 robert bork was well qualified but he did not believe that in the constitution there was a righto privacy. it was invented by the court back in the 1960s. he disagreed. he was tarred as anti-privacy. it worked. he was defeated. so these kinds of things can happen. they are throwing a lot of balls up against the wall to see what might work. we will see. terry said last night that kavanaugh nomination threatened lives of millions of americans. that's prepostor us. but you have to watch out for this stuff. sometimes it works. >> that's a very good point. thanks for joining us. we will continue our coverage of the kavanaugh nomination throughout the night. we will talk to a former clerk and law student of his as well. there is also a new york city councilman who was arrested last night protesting the nomination. take a look at this. >> [shouting]. >> but up next. president trump is headed to the u.k. and the u.s. embassy said americans in london should watch out for their safety. what is going on in britain? that's ahead. it's the ford summer sales event and now is the best time to b

. >> he got on the court actually because president reagan nominated robert bork who was a hard coreonservative to the core, and bank of new york was soundly defeated. he then put up another nominee who had to withdraw because it turned out that he had been smoking marijuana. >> you can do that nowadays. >> you can do that nowadays. at the time, though, the reagan administration wouldn't hire anybody in the justice department who had admitted to smoking marijuana and they never asked him that question apparently when he went to work at the reagan justice department. so, he went by the wayside, but stayed a distinguished federal judge. that left -- they really -- they needed to pick somebody and it was, you know, it was time. and justice kennedy got the nod and he was a pretty conservative guy. and they looked at all of his writings and they were concerned about his -- some footnote that he wrote about respect for privacy, but they decided to overlook it and there were people in the administration later who didn't like the fact that they had overlooked it. i mean, they thought that wa

else, ever since the bitter battle of president ronald reagan's failed no, ma'am in this case of robert bork in 1987. it is true. it's an art, but people say, lest just see what he says in the confirmation hearings. not much. >> no, but i've been watching social conservatives and how they've sort of been reacting to this pick. it's interesting. there's a bit of disappointment, of course, as a general feeling that of course it's from this list the federalist society developed. so kavanaugh will be good. but i think there's a lot of hope that amy coney barrett, who's been much more forward leaning on her views of abortion, would have been a better pick for those. i think that tracks with what's likely to happen if and when kavanaugh is on the court and this issue comes before the supreme court. i think you're more likely to see restrictions on abortion, something that narrows it down to, say, late-term abortions, more so than a full overturning of roe v. wade. you can look at this in one way, whether it's kavanaugh sort of having this record that's not as easy to parse on his position, but als

in 1987, robert bork was an exceedingly well-qualified nominee and there was a campaign to portray himecause he did not believe there existed in the constitution i an all-purpose right toth privacy. it was discovered and invented by the court back in the 1960s, he disagreed with that concept. he wasn't successfully tarred as anti-privacy and it worked and he was defeated. these kinds of things can happe happen. they're throwing a lot of balls up in the air against thef wall now to see what might work. we'll see, terry mcauliffe was saying last night that the kavanaugh nomination threatens the lives of millions ofea americans. that's seemingly preposterous but you've got to watch out for this stuff, sometimes it works. >> tammy: excellent advice, thank you. we'll continue our coverage of the kavanaugh nomination throughout the night.th were also going to talk to a former clerk and former law student of his as well. there's also a new york city councilman coming up who was arrested last night protesting the nomination, take a look at this. [chanting] >> tammy: up next president trump is

if it's barrett or kavanaugh, battle royal like we haven't seen since the robert bork and clarence thomastrish: because people really worry roe v. wade would be overturned? >> i don't think it's a realistic worry, but the democrats are going to promote that view. trush president bush my goodness, it'll be an interesting evening, and i can't wait to talk to you tomorrow and get your thoughts on all of it. judge andrew napolitano. and, of course, don't forget, everyone, make sure you tune in here tonight. we have full coverage of this historic moment. feel like i say that a lot these days, historic moment, but we've got a lot of them here over the last couple of months. so as always, thank you so much to everybody for tuning in. overgot a nice rally with liz claman, up 334. liz: yes, charlie brady said, liz, it's a welcome back rally finish can. trish: welcome back, indeed. liz: exactly. thank you very much, trish. this is very interesting to see all this green on the screen even though we've got an all-out economic war. trade war, brexit battle and a new attack on the drugmakers. but the b

i think of robert bork, that famous phrase you've been borked, that you were tweeted unfairly by whoeveruestioned you. clarence thomas sticks out in my memory. my wife and i recently had been married, he went through, we sat in awe at the confirmation hearing, he fought back. he did so successfully, while still on the supreme court. let's play a little of the sound bite for those that may have forgotten. >> this is circus. this is national disgrace. and from my standpoint, as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way dane to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. david: of course the race element is not there with kavanaugh but i'm wondering if it could get as hot as it did with justice thomas? >> i hope not. kavanaugh is excellent person. he is very, very good lawyer. a very, very good judge. he has a 12-year record on the second highest court in the nation, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. i mean there

host: this is from "the washington post," colling this and other robert bork moment. is that a fair analogy? guest 1: that seems to be fair. it will be a question of whether or not an originalist judge like gorsuchill be the 1 -- will be the one nominated this year. it was less contentious last year because gorsuch was seen as replacement, kind of one-for-one. them treat -- whoever the new nominee happens to be, in much the same way as bork was treated. host: joining me at the table is andrew egger and jamie stiehm. this is from "the washington post," barack obama planning a bigger role in the midterms. unlikely to stay quiet for long according to mary jordan of "the washington post." guest 2: i think that is appropriate because the party is undergoing a reckoning and they need all men to come to the aid of the party. barack obama has stayed in the shadows mostly and he can make a margin of difference in a few races like the one in missouri, wisconsin, michigan, there are 10 senate democrats up for reelection and face -- in states that trump won. host: bramble joining

will they last to the level of robert bork? probably not, shep. >> shepard: and you wonder how brutal it might become. what delay tactics the democrats can come up with. they know they can't stop it. their goal is to elongate the process. >> yeah, slow walk the process. the white house and outside groups want to get this done by the start of the next term of the supreme court, the beginning of october. that's the time in a mid-term election year when members of congress go back out to the districts and campaign heavily until the november election. always the chance that they can hang around in washington, talking about the senate, because there's a third of them up for re-election. outside groups and the white house would like to get in done by the time the supreme court sits for the 2018 fall term. to do that, there's literally no margin of error. they have to get the nominee out today. it's been a little more than a week since justice kennedy said he would step down. that was june 27. here we are today with a nominee and then

this whole separate used to be separate from politics until one word: robert bork. brilliant mind who was poisoned by political venom. everything changed with bork. he was crucified. people were befuddled by the attacks on him, and ever since then, the democrats have always been like this and i think the republicans have been pushovers. i think that has to change. we need to look at this as a political turf war and fight as hard as possible as they do because they are going to >> greg: everybody. >> greg: was the first time, the media broke the political seal. they took a brilliant mind and they destroyed him. it's good to be back. >> kimberly: 100%. welcome back. >> dana: your metaphors are on point. >> kimberly: you've been hanging out with brian kilmeade. a little bit of sports analogies there. >> greg: can i exit with one fact. kavanaugh was born in 1965. ted bundy graduated from high school in 1965. i am not saying that kavanaugh is a serial killer but i'm not not saying he's a serial killer. we have no evidence, but we need evidence. >> kimberly: thank you for

>> well, look, chris, i'm in my early 40s, and i remember the robert bork confirmation hearings.body who's my age or older which includes everybody in the united states senate right now is not going to go through that right now. they're just not. i think the precedent was set that you know, a judge's ideology can be enough to torpedo them. so i think that's the lesson that the gop took away for probably two or three generations when it comes to this fight. and you know, it is kind of a sad and unfortunate effect of the way that roe versus wade i think poisons our national politics. i know a lot of people are confused as to how anybody could vote for donald trump. i didn't vote for him but i understand why people did. it's because te feel democratically shut oust having a voice in the abortion issue until it goes way in terms of the scotus. that's where we are. >> what do you think of that? >> well, where do i start? don't ask don't tell is alive and well. there is an enormous amount of gaslighting happening right now where the reason donald trump became president was based in par

host: this is matt smith this is what's wrong with robert bork's nomination failure. behavior seems routine and procedural, the republican's decision to steal a scotus seat is wrong. he had been confirmed unanimously by the senate for a lower court appointment and then they really went after him, you can fact check me on that. i could be wrong, it's happened before. i think most conservatives would argue that judge bork, who was a reagan appointee, was highly qualified and that had been the standard. republicans, orrin hatch, for example, supported the ruth bader ginsburg, he actually was helpful with president clinton and the ruth bader ginsburg appointment. was i don't agree with her, but she is highly qualified, she's a good finger, she's a good judge. that had been the standard i think there's a sense among conservatives at what happened to justice bork had nothing to do with whether or not he was qualified or how the right temperament already huge scandal that might make him drivable or something. it was about his philosophy and that's the difference. host: matt

host: was robert bork the most challenging? guest: the most interesting. mostnce thomas was the challenging in light of the allegations at the time. bork had a bloom in this record. -- voluminous record. there was nothing better than doing that as a staffer. host: let's get to jim. good morning. caller: good morning. is 51-49. with senator mccain not being able to get to the senate, my understanding, he can't vote. that makes it 50-49. what about a situation where -- morelicans republicans could become the majority, it just seems that there should be something where votes could be cast even if you can't make it to the senate floor. saying, now i am losing it. let's get an answer to your first question. guest: sure. in the senate, for votes on the --ate floor, you can vote can't vote by proxy. senator mccain, if he is not able to vote, then the republicans are down a number. but mike pence gets to break a tie. under the sonora you were talking about where more than one senator in this case is missing my guesses senator mcconnell would postpone the vote until

he was inspired to get involved by the rejection of robert bork, a hero of the right.oday, he stands poised to install a conservative in the seat once intended for judge byk, the one relinquished justice kennedy. that profileo read on leonard leo, in today's wall street journal. pennsylvania, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a republican and also pro-choice. i do not think that this should be centered around either roe v wade or immigration from the democratic side or the republican side. i think both are playing to fear mongering from that side of the agenda on both sides of the aisle. i think it should center on the constitution, who is going to go by our constitution. i do not think there is ever going to be a chance of overturning roe v wade. decadesld be going back and decades, taking away women's choice and to erase all of that, it is fear mongering. the same with immigration on the republican side. i would hope we can get to an intelligent conversation on the constitution and how any of the nominees would apply their craft to guiding the consti

host: this is from "the washington post," colling this and other robert bork moment.s that a fair analogy? guest 1: that seems to be fair. it will be a question of whether or not an originalist judge like gorsuchill be the 1 -- will be the one nominated this year. it was less contentious last year because gorsuch was seen as replacement, kind of one-for-one. them treat -- whoever the new nominee happens to be, in much the same way as bork was treated. host: joining me at the table is andrew egger and jamie stiehm. this is from "the washington post," barack obama planning a bigger role in the midterms. unlikely to stay quiet for long according to mary jordan of "the washington post." guest 2: i think that is appropriate because the party is undergoing a reckoning and they need all men to come to the aid of the party. barack obama has stayed in the shadows mostly and he can make a margin of difference in a few races like the one in missouri, wisconsin, michigan, there are 10 senate democrats up for reelection and face -- in states that trump won. host: bramble joining u

of television, i want to let you know that as early as we are this morning, i thought -- opposed robert borkn one of your call in shows from 1987. you can look at it in the current scheme. what we are seeing in this country is this fragmentation because of trump. ideologies had been changing. the pressures on senators murkowski and collins. i remember, in the last decade or two -- it is not just about the senate. it is overblown to call this lady from new york city a socialist. some sort of old-fashioned. i actually do believe that with populistst right-wing -- scary, in my opinion -- trump ideology taking over the republican party in all facets, the democrats do, as ms. tumulty said, have our own issue. tent p, we are the big arty. we will retake the presidency as soon as possible. have a good day. host: eric from massachusetts. john with this tweet. toutdemocrats overtly socialism, centrism is dead for the democrats. thefrom c-span democrat, better question is will we have a dictatorship a la erdogan? but regarding centrism, after decades of republicans exporting democrats on sanchez som -

they are pulling out not only things they used against david souter but robert bork fill in name. >>e preferred judge barrett from comments there we talked to conservatives who feel similar fashion would you be interesting to weigh in on conversation we were having right before you came in whether association with bush family concerning whether there is concern conservative circles about a drift to left some skrvdz talked about over years do you have that concern with kavanaugh? >> well, with -- with president trump, he gave us a list and said here is who i am looking at. these are people i will appoint. and there were people adding others on to list like -- but president was consistent he did what he said, and i always appreciate people that are doing what they say, i love what the president said in fact it was exactly what a judge dying of cancer told me right before i took bench on felony level before i went on the court of appeals he said some people say a judge should have no bys no prejudice, louie, every judge has bias prejudice, the important point is to recognize where yours

>> the reason anthony kennedy is on the supreme court is because robert bork was rejected.llow-up will be. i think it's extremely unlikely that he would be rejected, extremely unlikely. maria: everybody that we've spoken with continues to say they're going to try to get this done before october 1. we'll see. >> that's when the court term starts. that's a -- maria: certainly they want to do it before the mid terms in november. >> if this is hanging out in november it's not good for either side. maria: the democrats may have hit a new low, the party slamming president trump's nominee on twitter but mistakenly used a photo of judge thomas hardiman, the latest example that the party would oppose any of the nominees regardless of who he selected. you thought hardiman was going to be the nominee. they thought so. they put his picture up. >> some of these people are off the wall. maria: it's a new low. >> one of those attacks came out yesterday, said judge and three xxs. they didn't have the decency to put kavanaugh in there. maria: they don't even know but they're nasty about it.

robert fort. we've seen a -- you know some of it reasonable echos of the 80s, which bork was borked. here we go again. republicans this time, have the fire power to push through the president's choice. >> i think that is right, this is a very slim margin with john mccain essentially out of pock net arizona -- pocket in arizona, a 50 to 49 majority. it will be a battle royal, replacing anthony kennedy who has been the swing vote. and democrats throwing as much mud on the wall to see if any of it sticks to kavanaugh, i don't think it will, and scare tactics with roe v. wade. judge cav ne kavanaugh has an outstanding pedigree. you know, you could go on about what an outstanding judge he has been for the last 12 years. he will handle himself well during the confirmation hearing. lou: as i would expect from anyone on the list, you all played a very important role in assembling. i want to ask you about the left's actual takeover of the country's judiciary. its prosecutors, in found of fact as well as defense establishment of the legal profession. i would like your reacted to what you can d

robert bjork and clarence thomas. this divided a country. bork was the tipping point.you think this gets that emotional? >> they knew bork was one of the greatest legal scholars whoever lived. they didn't want him on the court because they thought it could change laws in my opinion the better for decades to come. so they threw everything they possibly could at him. some of which was scandalous and just terrible. i lived through that and thought it was just awful. so i hope they'll think twice in this particular case. this man is a good man, a good family man, a brilliant lawyer, a brilliant judge. he has done a very good job for 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals and proven himself. they need to wake up and say okay, we wouldn't have chosen themselves ourselves had we won the presidency but he is good and we'll let him go through. they just can't seem to do that. >> bill: why do you think the level of resistance is so high? >> number one they hate trump. they can't stand donald trump. he beat them. they were so sure that hillary clinton was going to be the n