robert bork goes back to the d.c.it but within a year he decides i don't even want to be a judge anymore. he steps down so he can talk about liberal activism and the process. then up to 1991 to a comparison that we've been making a lot during this current ordeal, clarence thomas, he goes through one set of senate hearings, and then suddenly we find out about anita hill's allegations of sexual harassment. there's a second set of hearings. he end up being confirmed on a very close vote, 52-48. but just to let you know what's so different from 1991 to now, 11 democrats switch over and vote for this republican appointee. so we weren't as polarized then. then we go to harriet miers, a short-lived incident in 2005. she's nominated for the sandra day o'connor seat. she had been a white house counsel, good friend of george w. bush's and people cried coneyi coneyism -- cronyism. who complains, robert bork. she pulls out in a matter of weeks. that seat goes to samuel alito. he's much more conservative than sandra o'connor. and

have we seen a nominee to the supreme court treated so badly although we do know starting with robert bork's confirmation hearing that the gloves came off and the confirmation process that are all too h ugly. with a supplemental background investigation on those allegations sprung on judge kavanaugh the eve of his confirmation. never anything came up in the previous six background checks by the judiciary committee or fbi and i think that t is telling with this last-minute ambush including political operatives acting as disinterested voyeurs with their best wishes at heart we've heard from rachel mitchell investigative council from arizona and judge kavanaugh i appreciate the professionalism and it isn't one many wouldhe have sought because they would be thrust with a huge national debate and the circus -like atmosphere the judiciary committee had become. and to have a public service. but she chose to do so. and as a t sex crime and then with victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault and have expertise and wisdom with these type of cases. with that expertise and knowledge the way she had res

seen a nominee to the supreme court treated so badly although we do know that starting with the robert bork confirmation hearing

at that time in unprecedented character assassination against president reagan's nominee, judge robert bork. since then, they have only escalated this war, slandering several republican nominees to the supreme court and expanding their tactics to lower court nominees. so then, as history tells us more than three decades later, left-wing groups and their democratic allies in this body went back to the very same playbook. they tried the very same character assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. they succeeded 31 years ago, but this time they failed. so i look forward to voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this afternoon and to greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. i yield. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next. mr. kyl: if there is a minute that i can take in between there, i just wanted to comment on the colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i had wanted to come to

seen a nominee to the supreme court treated so badly although we do know that starting with the robert bork confirmation hearing and the confirmation process became all too ugly. but as we know now, the supplemental background investigation by the fbi with allegations sprung on judge kavanaugh on the eve of his confirmation. never a whiff of these on the previous six investigations are by the judiciary committee and i think it's telling with the last-minute ambush with those political operatives masquerading to have the best wishes at heart. hearing from rachel mitchell the council from arizona interviewing doctor ford and , i appreciateh the professionalism which how she approached the job not many one would have sought because she knew she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national debate and the circus atmosphere the judiciary had become and to do a public service and was not pressured in any way to prevent -an - present her own analysis but chose to do so. so what she said based on her experience with the sex crimes prosecutor to routinely deal with sexual abuse andvi sexual

seen a nominee to the supreme court or any court treated so badly, do know that starting with robert bork's confirmation hearing that the gloves came off and its processes became unfortunately all too ugly. as we know now, there has been ordered a supplemental background and it nation by

seen a nominee to the supreme court or any court treated so badly, do know that starting with robert bork's confirmation hearing that the gloves came off and its processes became unfortunately all too ugly. as we know now, there has been ordered a supplemental background and it nation by the fbi on allegations that were sprung on judge kavanaugh on the eve of this confirmation. hithere was never a whiff of the allegations during judge kavanaugh six previous background investigations by the fbi and byre the judiciary committee and other committees. iit think it is telling that the readers and abettors of this last-minute ambush include political operatives masquerading as disinterested lawyers with onlyit their cliens best wishes at heart. this past sunday we heard from rachel mitchell and investigative counsel from arizona to interview dr. ford and judge kavanaugh at last week's hearing. i appreciate the professionalism with which he approached his job. it was not one that one would've thought because she knew and we all knew that she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national de

some will go back to robert bork, others will say clarns thomas, some will s ken starr but you could do -- you could star with the bush/gore election and we've been going in this red and blue mind set. our identities as states become are you red orblue? congress has gotten hit that way.hi ever's been devolving to this. but the supreme court has stayed away. robestimate impact is the are no longer black, they're red and blue and that will have long-term consequences that i don't think we fuelly appreciate it yet. >> when we look at the impact on the supreme court where do you m think we art likely to feel his impact. is this t thing that we'll see wses that the courts avoided taking up orl he be the swing vote? >> i think the new swing vote is justice roberts. he plays an interesting role because he'll decide who writes opinionser he has been concerned about the perception of 5-4 decisions so he may try to be a guy that tries to define the terms of a decision in broader means to get some 6-3s. more often than not just to try to reestablish this idea that it isn't a red/there divide. i

robert bork, antonin scalia, ken starr, larry silverman, jim buckley, stephen williams, doug ginsburg, david sentelle. conservative all-stars everyone. the longest time in as it had to wait between nomination and confirmation was four months. majority in fact, were confirmed in less than ten months. what about her confirmation votes? this will surprise you. seven of the eight were confirmed either by voice vote or unanimous consent. only judge buckley had a roll call vote and his vote was 84-11. that means a lot of president reagan's eight d.c. circuit nominees, only one received any no vote. only one. can you imagine that happening today? never. let's turn back now to the supreme court. as i discussed earlier, 1986 justice scalia was confirmed 98 to zero. 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

, the next year, stephen breyer, that was the very brief lull between, there was the storm with robert borkarence thomas, late ' 80s, early '90s. you had those sail through, but then there was a partisan war. it's where the title of this war comes from, red america, blue america, those concepts were born. and think about what ends the decade. what starts the new century. the near perfect tie presidential election of 2000, the protracted 36-day recount in florida and what settles that election finally, that highly disputed election, the supreme court in what looked like a very ideological very partisan in a lot of ways decision. and i think the court wars that we have seen since, you put that chart up a minute ago, some of the most -- you don't have 96-3 votes anymore. to sail through now is to have 40 no votes. and that's the new reality. >> and the supreme court is now part of it. the supreme court is the same kind of divided body that the senate and the house are. but i wonder if going back to this era, to the clinton era, was it bork before or was it gingrich during the 1990s, during the

. >> that was the very brief lull between there was a storm between robert bork and clarence thomas,'80s, early '90s, but then there was a partisan war. it's called red america, blue america, those concepts were born, and think about what ends the decade, which starts the new century. the near perfect tied presidential election of 2000, the protracted 36-day recount in florida. and what settles that election finally, that highly disputed election? the supreme court in what looked like a very ideological decision. and i think the court wars -- you don't have 96-3 votes anymore. to sail through now is to have 40 or no votes. >> i wonder if going back to this era, to the clinton era, was it borke before or was it gingrich during the 1990s, during the clinton presidency who kind of kick started this hyper-partisan world. >> the name borke, you ask conservatives to this day about the court wars and about the rise of partisanship to washington, robert borke offense 1997 is something they go back to. they say that guy was qualified and they took him down with unfair attacks. and when i talk

i saw what they did to robert bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we've witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left-wing dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning, before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced that he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said that he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote-unquote, complicit in evil. another suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these mid-term elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history based on the fact that more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings,

. >> you talked about the process of testifying how did robert bork affect the process? >> well, everybody thinks -- the conventional wisdom that what happened with judge bork, he talked openly about his judicial philosophy, answered questions candidly. some people would say he was unfairly defeated, some people would say he was fairly defeated since his philosophy was different. i think that what -- the impact is actually much more subtle than that because in the years following judge bork's nomination through 1995, nominees did speak pretty candidly about their judicial philosophy and what they thought. what changed after bork was the attitude about what the other side, for lack of a better word is wlky to do about a -- about nominees that they don't like. on the right, judge bork is a rallying cry and people -- many people right, believed that what happened to him was unfair and that began a process of degrading the confirmation process and making it politicized. that's not historically accurate. only if you look back to say to justice marshall in their hearings, there

i saw what they did to robert bo bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left wing dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning. before the ink was even dry on the nomination. the minority leader announced that he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote/unquote, complicit in evil. another member of the committee revealed the end game when she suggested that senate democrats could hold a vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these midterm elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history, based on the fact that more t

tacticsed the same against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. .hey succeeded 31 years ago this time, they failed. i look forward to confirming judge kavanaugh this afternoon and greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. >> i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, if there is a minute that i could take in between there, i just wanted to comment on a colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i wanted to come to the floor and speak on her behalf but too many people were speaking at that time. people remarked on her comments that they reflected the fact that she does her homework and she indeed did. i wanted to relay this anecdote. i think of all the meetings that we had and many of them were with lawyers who were senators, probably the most thorough with senatorl was collins. she had clearly done her homework and the interview with judge kavanaugh consumed more than two hours without a break. it was a grilling that could have been done by any fine she had clearly done her homework and was well p

at that time in unprecedented character assassination against president reagan's nominee, judge robert bork. since then, they have only escalated this war, slandering several republican nominees to the supreme court and expanding their tactics to lower court nominees. so then, as history tells us more than three decades later, left-wing groups and their democratic allies in this body went back to the very same playbook. they tried the very same character assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. they succeeded 31 years ago, but this time they failed. so i look forward to voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this afternoon and to greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. i yield. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next. mr. kyl: if there is a minute that i can take in between there, i just wanted to comment on the colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i had wanted to come to

i saw what they did to robert bork, i saw what they did to clarence thomas.in the last three months. the conduct of left wing, dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning. before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote, unquote, complicit in evil. another member of the committee revealed the endgame when she suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these mid-term elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history based on the fact that more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings, publicatio

robert bork, clarence thomas and now they did it to justice kavanaugh and his two young girls andau hisife and his family. but this is about is about power. the left. but nothing. when it comes to blocking a nomination or winning an election, electric got democrats openly even accusing kavanaugh of gang rape and drugging teenage girls on a regular almost a weekend basis, calling him evil, comparing him to bill cosby and so much more. and with zero corroboratingan evidence, zero corroborating witnesses, and it was based on nearly four decade old's claims and most of them had holes and inconsistencies all over the place. this kind of gelb accusation was parroted by the so-called news media in this country, including the late-night so-called common comedian and comedy shows with the far left holier-than-thou host like stephen colbert. over the weekend we had a writer for his late night we show tweeting this "whatever happens, i'm just glad we ruined brett kavanaugh's life." just for a second, sit back and think about how ugly, despicable and it disgusting that is. later she apologized, she

post says it's the first time it, as an organization, has made this type of recommendation since robert bork's failed nomination back in 1987. with all of that established, let's bring in our lead-off panel on a thursday night. starting with our correspondent on the hill, garrett haake, robert costa, national political reporter for the washington post, moderator of washington week on pbs. and sabrina sadiki is back with us, political reporter for the guardian. all three of these individuals were on the hill covering the chaos surrounding this confirmation. garrett, i'd like to begin with you. round mid evening we heard a new name might be in play that a republican senator from colorado had been visited as so many offices have been by some victims from back home, doing what constituents do, talking to their member of the senate. this is a huge vote for everybody. but since the evening has gone on, garrett, i also want to hear about your moment outside murkowski's office since the evening has gone on. it looks to have stabilized. >> yeah, that's right, brian. early whier in the evening there wer

a lot of people remember robert bork in '87 when he didn't get on, and clarence thomas in 1991 when he did get on. this was unprecedented for a couple of reasons. how partisan it was. if we end up with a two vote margin as manu described, that will be very different for any other confirmed nominee in this century and last century, too. also, where the court is at this moment. right now all of the conservatives were appointed by republican presidents, all the liberals by democratic presidents. that's different. no longer is there someone like john paul stevens put on by gerald ford, a lot of republicans talk about david suitor put on by george h.w. bush and turned out very liberal. forget about that, think of anthony kennedy, sandra day o'connor, they strad edled the middle. was no longer have that with the departure of kennedy and it will change the law of the land dramatically. >> can't understate that. david, listen to susan collins talking about this as yet unidentified leaker that revealed christine blasey ford's name to reporters and listen to ford's attorney talking about it and

that would make it by polling the most unpopular nomination to the supreme court since robert bork in 1987. his nomination was defeated. we expect a different outcome about 15 minutes from right now the with just about all the republicans holding together, plus joe manchin. real story from those numbers, of course, polarization. we've been waiting on the president here. there is the president now. let's hear what he has to say. [ inaudible question ] >> we're really looking forward to the vote. he will be a great justice of the supreme court. people have thought that for ten years. they thought he's just an extraordinary person, a great, great talent and i think he's going to make us all very proud. i also feel very strongly that in the end, maybe the process, it was really unrackettive but the extra week was something that i think was really good. i thought it was really good. i think a lot of very positive things happened in the last week. it didn't look that way but in the end that's what happened. it was uncorroborated. it was so many different things. he's going in looking very g

brett kavanaugh is part of the legal generation that succeeded robert bork.y were all aware of what happened to robert bork and his nomination process and whether it was brett kavanaugh, they were all part of that generation which most republicans and most conservatives support and agree on. those are the kinds of people they wanted on the supreme court. when it became a death struggle over brett kavanaugh i think you're right, a lot of the conservatives and republicans came together and saw this is, we are all in the same boat on this. by and large i think that's going to hold going forward. not in every case, but on domestic politics, there's an understanding it is the democratic party, the democratic left that is trying to push the republicans and conservatives off the table. neil: we were reporting yesterday, george bush was the last president calling all these senators on the fence, and i don't think he's a big fan personally of the president. that's sort of uniting of forces. >> it is uniting of forces and i think before kavanaugh was confirmed, i think

>> the other irony is, you know, this was kennedy's seat but if you look back at it, this was robert bork'she's now a verb, he got borked? >> well, they took care of that problem. they took care of that problem, michael, because nobody has to answer a real question anymore. and on another day we'll talk about how what we all saw here was -- >> that's not the irony i was talking about, chris. >> that they got borked? >> if they had gotten bork, he passed away god rest his soul in 2012 and this would have been an obama appointment but it's not. they messed up when they borked bourque and they messed up again when they tried to do it -- >> they didn't mess up and i'll tell you why. you should have to talk about how you feel about jurisprudence as a nominee. you should have to go there. you should have to talk about how decisions are argued and what it means to you. that will not compromise you on the next case. that's not going to make you not independent or not impartial. it's a farce and it's allowed on both sides because of the fear you getting borked, as you put it. so they showed thus pro

the job of a supreme court justice have we now reached a point at the hearings so destroyed since robert bork1987 where it's a matter of the left saying here's our agenda, if you don't support our agenda, you're not going on the supreme court? >> it was like watching two different hearings back weeks ago when they were discussing the nomination in good faith. you had a bunch of people asking about brett kavanaugh's constitutional understanding, his jurisprudence. there were really interesting discussions about his view of different amendments and different approaches to the law, and then you also had people say all he wanted to talk about was abortion. it's not just this is a fight over direction of the court but really this is a fight about abortion. good you brought up that. and yet, nobody is being honest about it. the reason that's important is there are certain things that people who love abortion are willing to do, including destroy a man without any evidence because they think it's worth it, that's so important to them that they're willing to throw out any standard that they might have

. >> i saw what they did to robert bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we have witnessed here in the last three months. >> never before have we had a nominee display such flagrant partisanship and open hostility at a hearing. >> i do not see how it's possible for my colleagues to say with perfect confidence that judge kaf fall has the temperament, independence and credibility to serve on the united states supreme court. >> give notice that totally uncorroborated allegations of officially, officially enough to destroy an american's life. or will declare our society cannot and must not, will not set the bar so low. >> the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice of the supreme court shall be brought to a close? the yays and mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the clerk. >> mr. alexander? senators collins, flake -- >> mr. manchin? >> negative? >> murkowski. >> on this vote, the yays 51. the noes are 49. the motion is agree

the most controversial nominees, if not since clarence thomas, then probably all the way back to robert borke as a nation hear from the people the fbi didn't talk to? on the beat tonight, the answer is yes. one of them is here when we're back in 30 seconds. ds (burke) fender-biter. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ you want relief fast. only new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients, to fight pain 4 different ways. get relief fast with new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream. >>> very frustrating they didn't do a thorough investigation. >> democrats debating whether this was thorough at all with republicans say they've done enough. next guest agrees with the democrats. went to yale with brett kavanaugh. writes about living with brett kavanaugh and the fbi never returning his call. i'm also joined by judge robert s smith. a conservative federal appeals court judge who had supported kavanaugh and now withdrawn that support writing i blame him for letting his anger impair his

kavanaugh and they say, we haven't done this, except once, in the history of the paper and that was for robert borkou think about that? >> "the washington post" i think was predisposed to not wanting brett kavanaugh in the first place. so what's interesting here is almost nobody has moved. they wanted to have this public hearing, and that's exactly where they wanted to start with. i'm not sure another presidency, say president bush would have stuck by kavanaugh through this. it's been really ugly. having said that, i don't think the president has been helpful all the time. i don't think he was helpful when he attacked christine ford. and i think the real hero for me here is, mitch mcconnell, because he's really been hurting these cats and determined to hold the vote and make everybody put up or shut up. the one i think if brett kavanaugh does get confirmed, republicans and conservatives can point to those two heroes in this story. president trump for giving them spines, as dan puts it, and mitch mcconnell who has been so stall boards and focused, and continuing to keep them. and it nobody bailed on

>> i would say number one, he's one of the most unpopular nominees since robert bork. >> the most. >> right, but his numbers are still better than donald trump's numbers are. the more focus on him and the more it makes it a partisan fight if you look at the kavanaugh numbers, democrats one way, republicans another. if you put voters into their partisan circles, that may be good news for republicans considering the senate map in front of us. >> as a key, the issue, the big gap that was consistent was an enthusiasm gap, right? with democrats with a big advantage over republicans, and the question is, is this an enthusiasm driver for republican voters. >> democrats seem a little more enthused than republicans are, but the key bloc for me is independents, and they don't seem to be leaning necessarily one way or another. >> that's interesting. >> they don't seem enthused by this, so this may be an instance of a real partisan fight and not something for independents. >> as we launch this why i'm voting series, the one consistent thing -- >> your idea, by the way. >> i'll take that credit. i

. >> kavanaugh is easily the least popular nominee since robert bork. new polling shows that just 41% of americans wanted him confirmed while 51% believed that he should not be on the high court. and the 50 senators who voted yes on kavanaugh represent states covering just 44% of the u.s. population. the president has been making a point of bringing up the fight to confirm kavanaugh at all of his recent appearances and he'll no doubt continue this week as he campaigns for midterm candidates as you see there in iowa, pennsylvania, ohio, kentucky. ashley parker, john wagner of the "washington post" point out that "since kavanaugh was confirmed saturday trump has seemed more interested in inflaming rather than reducing the tensions over his supreme court pick." trump's remarks earlier today give some clues as to what he's likely to tell voters. >> i've been hearing that now they're thinking about impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax that was set up by the democrats using the democrats' lawyers. it

solicitor general robert bork was made acting attorney general and he fired cox. >> the president's motively remove the confrontation of the koconstitution as quickl as possible. >> reporter: but he did not turn over the most incriminating tapes and he went after the tapes. >> i have never heard such outra ray jous, and vicious and distorted reporting of 27 years of public life. >> reporter: in the end, of course, richard nixon had only himself to blame. >> and joining me now joyce vance former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor, and joyce, thank you so much for being here. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> when you are looking back at that piece by tom brokaw and you are thinking of where we are today with the special counsel investigation into the russian meddling and are there parallels that you can draw? >> the parallels are so strong and it is so painful that as a country we are in the same point of time again perhaps this time in a far more serious situation involving foreign intrusions into our election, and echos of the tacky sttackistocracsy and t justice ever since t

the last was robert bork in 1987. meanwhile, judge kavanaugh himself has published an unprecedented op-ed piece in "the wall street journal" defending himself. in the column, he vowed to be an independent and impartial judge but admitted he said a few things last week you should not have said. we are joined now by eve ensler, award-winning playwright and author of "the vagina monologues." she also is the founder of v-day, a movement to end violence against women and girls. she just published "a letter to white women who support brett kavanaugh in time magazine." just after we talk about this, we're going to talk about today's announcement of the nobel peace prize. but ,eve, you have dedicated your life to fighting sexual violence. thousands of mainly women what to protest on capitol hill, not just yesterday. there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of arrests over the last few weeks since the beginning hearings at the beginning of september of judge kavanaugh. your thoughts? >> i think we are in

and i think this has been the most acrimonious supreme court fight we've had since robert bork way backthe early '80s. but i must tell you, that didn't shake the pillars of the republic as all. it was very personal. it frankly contaminated the process. democrats went way overboard in plastering bork. but i don't think we've ever seen one which has raised fundamental questions about our democracy and has left us for the first time i can remember with all three major branches of government, the white house, the congress and the judicial branch now essentially defined by the partisanship. that's new. i do -- steve is right about the enthusiasm gap closing in this major poll from about 10 points to 2 points and that obviously helps the republicans. but i would point out that among independents in the new cnn poll, let's go back to the major point of the cnn pole. by 51-41, a 10-point gap, americans disapprove of kavanaugh's confirmation. 51-41, minus 10 for kavanaugh. among independents, it's a minus 18 among independents on kavanaugh. in other words, the negatives outweigh the positives by

. >> i saw what they did to robert bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas.compared to what we have witnessed here in

"robert bork's america is a land in if which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated link counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in the midnight raids. schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government. the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens." very colorful language. kennedy is known for that. you might be thinking to yourself, sounds like what every democrat said about justice kavanaugh. well, it was unprecedented at the time. it hat be it had been less than a year since the senate confirmed justice scalia unanimously. what rehnquist went through was nothing what democrats did to bork. they smeared him as an extremist, an activist, an a bigot. five years earlier, he had been confirmed to the second highest court in the land by unanimous consent. now, he was the greatest threat to individual liberties. yjudiciary committee democrats prepared a 70-page report that grossly misrepresented judge bork's distinguished recor

host: let me ask you about the passion of the supreme court, because republicans point back to the robert borkination that led to ronald reagan pointing to another, who went down because he smoked marijuana. and then merrick garland, saying barack obama was denied a legitimate appointment to the u.s. supreme court. guest: i believe barack obama was denied a legitimate appointment to the united states supreme court. i do not believe when republicans make reference to the biden rule, there was never any biden rule. this thing got off the tracks, and maybe harry reid is to blame that you no longer need 60 votes, but the fact that obama had a year on the clock, and they said "oh, it is too close to an election." he cannot pick a supreme court nominee. i thought that was abhorrent. it is so sad to see how partisan these supreme court fights have now become. you look at the margins of some of those who were on the court. they got there because they had overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. i do not know what is to come, and it is entirely possible that this president gets another pick.

we have not opposed a supreme court nominee liberal or conservative since robert bork in 1987. we believe presidents are entitled to significant deference this f they nominate people within the broad mainstream of judicial thought. when the president nominated brett kavanaugh, he seemed to be such a person. but given republicans' refusal to properly vet mr. kavanaugh, and given what we have learned about him during the process we now believe it would be a serious blow to the court and the nation if he were confirmed. and then the post says this about the accusation raised against kavanaugh by dr. christine blasey ford. the post basically stays agnostic on the credibility of her accusation, but they say this. quote, we continue to believe that ms. ford is a credible witness with no motivation to lie. it's conceivable that she and mr. kavanaugh are both being truth informal the sense that he has no memory of the event. it's also conceivable that ms. ford's memory is at fault. well wish the fbi had been allowed to probe mr. kavanaugh's credibility more fully, but our conclusion ab

and that led to ronald reagan and eventually things came to a head with the nomination of robert borkd that's the start of the modern era of battle for the court. >> john harris, you have chronicled the scar tissue of american politics for a long time. how's the kavanaugh -- what is this kavanaugh scar going to look like in a decade? >> you know, i think the cult e cultural war lasted, as you say, has been going a good four, five decades now and i think it's going to continue a good long while. chuck, when you were born in 1972, people were literally setting off bombs in campuses, people were rioting in the streets. really -- and in the '30s, they were cracking heads over union battles and in the 1850s, people getting caned on the senate floor. this is part of -- i think american story, right in there's violent past. >> you're trying to sell john meachum's book quite well. >> sure, but the only thing that i think is different in this climate is that we've commercialized that kind of dissent. you can sell books off it, you can get ratings off it. you can raise money off it. the commerc

because robert bork was voted down because his views were anti let california to most americans.ved that segregation was constitutional. he believed that the civil rights act was unconstitutional. he believed that senator turner could be turned away from a lunch counter, because of the color of her skin. his views were outrageous. and i thank god every day that the senate voted him down. somehow that becomes an unfair treatment? no. so i think we have terrible politicization of our courts now. and really, the person responsible is mitch mcconnell. >> adolpho, do you agree with that? >> i can't disagree more. first of all, i want to go down memory lane or history here. but, of course, my opinion, judge bork's positions were completely distorted. >> let's put that aside for a second and talk about today. >> this is the third democratic smear, in my opinion. the first was bork, the second was clarence thomas, and now we have this one. >> are you saying that the allegations against thomas and -- were -- >> i think -- >> manufactured? >> i think -- i believe that i think justice thoma

first time they've done this since one thousand nine hundred eighty seven when they voted against robert bork his nomination was for the supreme court and this is the new cover of time magazine which has gone viral as well it features a portrait of christine blassie forward and it's not a photograph it's an illustration of the words and phrases from her testimony arranged into an image of her taking an oath. look at and touched us once know what you think of the story so connect us use the hash tag aging is correct and viewers are indeed letting us know what they think about this story a tweet here from a tree says i don't think anyone can reasonably expect that cavanagh would be an impartial voice on the supreme court thank you very much for your comments keep them coming on this and other stories we're covering on the news great today is hash tag eight years greats let's move on to other world news now and the twenty eighteen nobel peace prize winner as he has treated thousands of victims of sexual violence in the democratic republic of congo she is a survivor of sexual abuse and traffickin

for republicans, they have a flip side which was rejecting robert bork.gious liberties. the two sides believe the court is a threat, how could it be legitimate? >> the two sides believe the court is essential a threat but only one side acts like it. story time, right? on my way to work, there is a planned parenthood and everyday when i pass that planned parenthood, there is a lone woman out there protesting with a big pro-life sign on. i don't agree with her. sometimes i roll down the window and yell at her. the republicans have done this not because they are smarter or better or more of them, they are more committed on this issue. i have heard people on this network since susan collins did her speech, saying oh, we can't impeach kavanaugh. i don't care. i want him impeached. if democrats take back the house, i mpeachment. i want the democrats to blitz everyone down. that's what the republicans do. they do not do, they fight when they're going to lose or when the odds are in their favor and it is time for the democrats to show that same fight about these

does make this the least popur supre c nominatio since back to robert bork in 19. he is the last nominee to go down when the vote came up in iay polarized, the ques is, is the opposition enough that you could lo at a senator,ike a susan coll lisa murkowski, someone o might normally be inclined to vote for a republican press nominee, is this op so strong to tere th say, no, i need to be on the other side? when you are looking at like a you know what its like? dona trump's approval rating. th actually the kavanaugh ef isn sho up? we have a fascinati test. we show you t numbers. this is one of the mostlosely wad c races. barba comstock, the republican incue b news for republica, e is losing this race right 50-44. fascinati thing when yo lo insid the numbers is when th asked folks about the kava affect, less than 10% sa it wa affecting their vote and it wa equal. some for some again her. will it motivate people to go the polls? thats t " factor. it's like voter enthusiasr de >> it can't hurt democrats. the quen for democrats, have th maxed out the energy they e going t

that does make this the least popular supre robert bork in 1997.he last nominee to go down in the re. is the opposition strong enough to look at the senator and susan collins or lisa murkowski or someone who would vote for a republican president's nominee. is this opposition so strong to take that person and say no. i need to be on the other side. when you look at 42-48 split. it looks like donald trump's approval rating. >> you have a new poll out that the kavanaugh effect is not showing up. >> we got a natufascinating tes. this is the most closely watched race in america. suburbs of washington, d.c. and barbara comstock. she is losing this race rights n -- right now. 50% to 44%. when people were asked about the kavanaugh effect. less than 10% said it was affecting their vote. it was equal. some for. some against her. what was driving it is opinion of donald trump. >> the question is will it motivate people to go to the polls? that is the x factor. it isenthusiasm. will it help democrats or republicans? >> it can't hurt democrats. the question for

the solicitor, robert bork, was made acting attorney general, and he fired cox. >> one white house sourceconfrontation as quickly as possible. >> reporter: stanley pottinger, was with elliot richardson that night. the fbi had been ordered to secure the office of the attorney general. so, two fbi agents appeared in the hall. one took his coat off and threw it over his shoulder, so you saw his chest hollister. a holster. they marched into the attorney general's office. and he said, welcome, gentlemen. the office is yours. >> reporter: the saturday night massacre triggered a firestorm of protests. >> more than 50,000 telegrams poured in on capitol hill today. most of them demanding impeaching nixon. >> this president does not defy the law. >> reporter: nixon did not turn over the most incriminating tapes and he went after the press. >> i have never heard or seen such outrageous, vicious, distorted reporting in 27 years of public life. >> reporter: in tehe end, richad nixon had only himself to blame. >> history shows the american people will put up with a great deal, even when the demands are