i mean, roe v. wade, for example, was line drawing -- >> yeah, but you think that that was wrong. >> correct. but i'm saying take the court on its own terms -- >> oh, no, no, no -- >> it's happy to i draw lines. >> but you can't say i want to do two things. i want to say whatever the court does will support my position even if they're wrong, but i won't tell my why my position on a particular case is right and another -- >> i was only making the point that sometimes you have to draw lines. partisan gerrymandering as a principled question is easy because democracy itself, which i support notwithstanding the current effects of democracy -- [laughter] but democracy itself can't solve partisan gerrymandering. you can't expect structurally the political branches which want to protect incumbency to come up with a system that's going to hurt incumbents. now, some legislatures have a acted correctly, and some have appointed independent commissions to do so but most have not. and i much prefer court getting

discussion about roe v. wade has eclipsed, outsized almost every other area of jurisprudence and constitutional law in the confirmation process, and, frankly, to the detriment of having a really thoroughgoing confirmation process where you talk about lots of other areas of the law that are extremely important in american life. that has been a distortion of a discussion about constitution law now since, as you say, 1973 or '74. so, that's a big part of what one deals with now in the confirmation process. >> you know, conservatives used to discuss roe v. wade in the context of a confirmation process, and what conservatives always used to say is, "there is no litmus test, right? we're not gonna have a litmus test for judges through the confirmation process." and the thing that's different now, it seems to me, is that we have a republican president who is determined and declared that there is a litmus test for judges. he has said that he will appoint judges who will vote to overturn roe v. wade. >> look, at a pr

. >> do you want to see the court overturn roe v. wade? >> if we put another two or three justices on, that will happen. that will happen automatically in my opinion because i am putting pro-life justices on the court. >> did the president keep his promise? he now has two justices on the court. will roe v. wade be overturned? is that the expectation? >> there are many people who are thrilled that it's president trump -- not the person who lost the election putting these justices on the supreme court so we can get back to the constitution and its four corners. having said that, justice kavanaugh -- justice kavanaugh. i love that. he said during his testimony that he believes roe v. wade is law. i would refer you to 2016 when candidate trump turned to hillary clinton and did something that pro-life candidates didn't do and should have. he said you're the extremist on abortion. you would rip the baby out of its mother's womb moments before the last hour before its birth. that was donald trump. a lot of people in the country say oh. a lot of p

>> that was an issue left open in roe v. wade. and if i recall, it was closed court's mostthe recent decision. there where a series of regulations -- were a series of regulations that the court dealt with. upheldi remember, it most of them, but it struck down one of them. the notice to the husband. and has something to do with a matter that the chairman raised earlier, i think there was an thatation in that opinion marriage and family life is not always all that we might wish it to be. whoseat there are women physical safety, even their lives, would be endangered if the law required them to notify their partners. host: as you said, a lengthy explanation. what was the response, do you recall? guest: i do not recall what came next after she said that, but it was not a surprise to anybody that she thought roe v. wade was correctly decided, or she thought that women's equality depended on them being able to control their own bodies. she had written about that. one of the things that was disappointed to me about brett kavanaugh's testi

n roe v. wade. should she be? >>> noting that roe v. wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said, decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time, and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. >>> that is republican senator susan collins, part of the 45-minute explanation she gave behind her decision to vote yes to confirm judge kavanaugh. let's bring in our panel, also joining us this time around is amy hal. i feel compelled to ask this question of michelle. are you surprised that the senator sounds so confident that roe v. wade is safe? >> i'm absolutely stunned she believes that roe v. wade is safe. there's a reason why conservatives and president trump fought so hard for brett kavanaugh. president trump when he was then candidate trump told the american public he was only going to po you people on the supreme court who were going to do a

he voted to up hold roe v. wade. so the ability to predict how someone will do -- >> it's amazing to me -- >> i don't feel like i know anymore than you do. you seem much more confident. >> it's a total mystery to you. all these people like carrie who have devoted their lives to overturning roe v. wade are suddenly shocked and mystified about whether their candidate will do what they've devoted their lives in trying to accomplish. be realistic. this is why you and many other conservatives have been in the conservative movement because you want to end legal abortion in america among other priorities. and now you've got the five justices you want. why can't you just acknowledge that? >> i have no idea what will happen. you know, look, a lot of people went into the obamacare case thinking they knew how that was going to come out. i don't think you can predict these things. >> so why devoted millions of dollars to get this person on if you don't know how -- >> look, we're not donating millions of dollars with the goal of

you're executive producing a new documentary called "reversing roe." "roe v.use one of the things people say is kavanaugh is buying dishonest on his position on roe, and this is a long project to put someone from the federalist society to overturn roe. what does the documentary deal with? >> the documentary is a comprehensive history of "roe v. wade." a lot of people think they know what it is, but not really. so it's a really unbiased look. it talks to both sides-- prochoice, prolife. and it really-- it tells you how we got here, the history-- the history of roe, and how we got here, and kind of where we're going, and kind of how now this abortion issue has become-- gone from a personal issue to a political issue. and it's just a linchpin topic for elections, specifically. so you'll see in the documentary -- >> stephen: it was pretty political and pretty divisive in the 70s. i'm old enough to remember the marches right after roe was legalized. so it's been divisive for a long time. >> that's something they say in the documentary. lawyers say the fight wasn't

from roe v wade on the left the citizens united.the conservatives adored and like to think i'm an equal opportunity offender. i have to give that elevator speech to the justices that i met with. and summarize what the point of the book was. i have them each say to me i have to agree with your book. and that sort of the point. they disagreed on which decisions they denied. that is argument. i think, the problem with that court interventionism. it ruins the court's press siege. there is all sorts of reasons why congress was a very good these days. they are all together happy to look across the street at the court. it distorts presidential elections. 2025 percent of trump voters. voted for him anyway because they thought correctly so that he would put the right kind of nominees on the court. and fourth, i think you can argue that the court involvement in america life help lead to that effect in the kind of confirmation circus that we were having. you can blame the brett cavanagh situation on him, you can blame better vetting by a presi

wade or overturn roe v. wade.re is no way to decide that case without deciding the face of -- fate of roe v. wade. it is going to be overturned. it will be gone. there will be states in this country -- probably a dozen or so, maybe more -- where abortion is illegal. it will not change california. it will not change new york. many states will still have abortion as available as it is today, but abortion will be illegal in a significant part of this country because of what happened today. >> and when he told susan collins, among others, he believes in precedent, roe v. wade is a precedent, you say? >> that, you know, precedents get overturned all the time at the supreme court. they overturned a supreme court precedent which almost identically, within two years of roe v. wade just this past turn in a case about labor unions. and liberals overturn precedents, too. the lawrence v. texas was the case that said gay people couldn't be criminally prosecuted for having consensual sex. that was a decision in 2003. that overt

he was going to appoint justices who would overturn roe v. wade.hat i think he meant when he said that, i think he's going to overturn justice that's are going to overturn roe v. wade. that's what he's done with gorsuch, that's what he's done with kavanaugh, and i don't understand why conservatives can't take yes as an answer. >> is he right? do you expect it will be undone under whether it is under states rights and not by a landmark case overturning precedent? >> i think he is right about one thing. all supreme court justices overturn justices. no justice thinks every precedent is there for eternity. however, i think it is impossible to know what judge kavanaugh would do. he was in the lower court before. you don't have his practice of precedent. and the key vote to look at, for this coming team and going forward, is chief justice roberts and his news on precedent, it does show that he is not someone who wants to go around willy nilly. so i think he is the person to look at. >> wasn't he part of the majority that overturned labor law? >> sure. wo

noting that roe v. wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in grizwald versus connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraceptio contraceptions. grizwald established the legal found ace that led to roe eight years later. in describing grizwald as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed it was the correct am ka -- application of two cases from the 1920s, myers and pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally in his testimony he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus cases describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be suf

but if roe v.overturned, there are about 20 states that would immediately move to ban abortion, leaving more than 25 million women in this country without access. >> what happens then? >> well, i mean, unfortunately we've seen what this looked like before. listen, before roe v. wade was decided it wasn't that women weren't getting abortions. they were just going to unsafe measures to get them and in some cases dying. and even now in places where access is restricted so much to the point where women can't access it, you have women trying to cross the country borders to mexico, taking measures into their own hands. in texas when you saw incredible restrictions passed that really made it almost inaccessible for women, this google searches of how to self-induce an abortion spiked through the roof. >> wow. thank you for joining me. she's the director of political communications for planned parenthood. still ahead a special look at what's next for the me too movement. a generation after the anita hill he

riswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describing griswold, judge kavanaugh observed it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920's -- myer and pierce -- that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood v. casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a ifg-established precedent five current justices believed it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. cite thenfrequently candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to dominate only judges that would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time, republican presidents have appointed souter, andonnor, kennedy to the supreme court. these other very three justices, republican president appointed justices, who offered the casey decision which reaffirmed roe. furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these

one of the issues, roe v. wade. >> noting that roe v.s decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge cavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions are part of our framework with the passage of time and honoring it is essential to maintaining public confidence. >> this idea that he's going the respect stare decisis, that he's going to respect the president -- precedent of the court is ridiculous. he was inspired by others to make sure he would be that deciding vote to overturn roe v. wade. that's just what's going to happen. >>> joining us now, elise jordan and nbcsn political analyst. we're waiting for 5:00, if that's when the debate ends. anything that you're hear, anything that you think might change what is the foregone conclusion that brett kavanaugh will now join the highest court? >> at this point republican sources that i'm talking to are confident that this is the count, this is the vote, that judge brett kavanaugh will become jus

is roe safe or not? >> i'm glad that you brought up susan collins in this as sort of the measure for women who are worried about this, because there's no doubt in her entire career in the senate that has been very important to her. and she is a pro-choice senator. she does not want roe v. wade to come under attack and be at risk. she probably spent more time understanding his record. when i heard her say how she not only spent two hours with him directly but researched his 300 cases, had the congressional research service come in and sit with her and go through his opinions, his law articles -- >> but you know him personally. >> i do. >> is roe safe or not? what do you think? >> he's a catholic like i am and i think roe is safe. i absolutely do. >> this is one of the challenges here, because republicans, one of the reasons why republicans are so active about the courts is because -- or conservatives are so active about the courts is because -- and the federalist society says this, is because they wanted

senator baldwin: i support roe v. wade. i am pro-choice. i believe a woman should have the right to control her own body and make her own medical choices. i don't believe this is an area where government or leah vukmir should intervene. my opponent's positions on this have not only been supporting the overturning of roe v. wade, but well beyond that, measures that would ban in vitro fertilization. it would include vanishing stem cell research -- banishing stem cell research that has created promising cures for people that need it. it would ban access to abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest. the fact remains in wisconsin that there was no repeal of the laws that existed before roe v. wade was decided. so immediately in the state of wisconsin we would have a situation where doctors could be arrested and where women would sadly probably begin to lose their lives again if the right to a safe and legal abortion were taken away. we need toly believe fight to protect himself choices. was what would you do if roe v. wade were ov

griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later.orrect application of two famous cases from the 1920s that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as president on precedent. when i asked him, would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent is five currentjustices believed established precedent is five current justices believed that established precedent is five currentjustices believed that it was wrongly decided? he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate onlyjudges who would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns have included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time, presidents, republican presidents, have appointed justices o'connor, and kennedy, to the supreme court. these are the very free justices, republican president appointed justices, who offered the decision which reaffirmed roe. further rol

of course it matters whether roe v. wade is overturned. even if roe v. wade is not overturned, with judge kavanaugh's record, all of these limiting laws by states that i just talked about will probably be supported by him. and at some point the right to an abortion that we have under roe v. wade will be pretty much a nullity. the supreme court will also be faced with cases that will address the right of workers to bargain collectively with their employers, as litigation comes up to the high court in the wake of a janus decision and many or important topics including voting rights, gerrymandering, the census, race-conscious college admissions and environmental laws. the supreme court's decisions touch every aspect of american life. with so much at stake, the senate has an obligation to closely scrutinize every nominee to the supreme court. we need to know that they have the qualifications for the job. do they have the proper education? do they have the necessary breadth of experience? will they treat everyone in the court including employees, law clerks a

do you believe it is his objective to overturn roe v. wade. >> i'm not sure what will happen, but he kept to his promises. he was able to get the huge tax cut through and the deregulation and the two supreme court justices. it's not just what will happen to the settled law of roe v. wade, a lot is happening on voting rights and environmental law and women's rights. while we have been focused on everyday breaking news, medicaid and medicare are being chipped away. that's the narrative that if the democrats want to provide a story for the country, it didn't simply be anti-trump. it can't be anti-what happened in the kavanaugh hearings. it has to be a fight with passion for restoring what the last 50 years created in terms of social foundation and economic justice and opportunity for people. if they can do that, they can get people to the polls out of passion and not just out of anger. to have more anger on one side than the other. >> leadership in turbulent times. thank you so much. >> the president is attacking democrats as too dangerous

noting that roe v.ade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal frame work with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswold versus connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraception. griswold established the legal foundations that lead to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s. meyer and pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that roe had opinion upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be suffici

. >> abigail, jeffrey toobin here on cnn emphatically says that roe v. wade will be overturns, perhaps as soon as in the next couple years. do you agree with him, with that assessment? >> i think you saw today both collins and murkowski come out and say they don't believe kavanaugh will do that. i think one of the interesting things when you look at the departure of kennedy and if kavanaugh is officially confirms, sort of how that changes the dynamic. i've spoken with a number of sort of experts on the court who say that somebody like john roberts, he might not want to see sweeping social change or really frontal attack on something like roe v. wade, but there's a lot of ways you can sort of tear down the law and the ruling, sort of killing it with a million paper cuts type of a thing. >> i would disagree with jeff. i think roberts and probably kavanaugh will not vote to explicitly overturn roe, but they will still uphold any number of more restrictive regulations. >> it will be challenged on the state level? >> it will be. but there will be a state regu

appoint justices who are more likely to overturn roe versus wade. that's why they made their choice over hillary clinton. this is an issue that will always continue to be an issue for conservatives. >> president trump will soon be taking a public victory lap out in kansas. we're going to take you there live. in fact -- i can't believe it. that everything sticks to stefon diggs's hands? no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. cool, huh? yeah. he plays football, huh? yeah. believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique. hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique. >>> president trump aboard air force one moments ago praising brett kavanaugh for with standing this horrible attack by democrats. air force one is scheduled to land in topeka, kansas later this hour. nbc's jeff

griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, meyer and pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite then-candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time, republican presidents have appointed justices o'connor, suter and kennedy to the supreme court. these are the very three justices, republican presidents appointed justices, who authored the casey decision which reaffirmed roe. furthermor

griswald established the legal foundation that led to roe 8 years later. in describing griswald as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s. meyer and pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite then candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time presidents, republican presidents have appointed justices o'connor, suitor, and kennedy to the supreme court. these are the very three justices, republican president appointed justices, who authored the casey decision which reaffirmed roe.

specifically, he would overturn roe v. wade and erode women's health care. he would gut health care reform and end protections for patients with preexisting conditions, and he would protect president trump with his disturbingly expansive view on presidential power which is particularly dangerous when we have a president under investigation with members of his campaign and administration going to jail and facing indictment. madam president, that's not all we know about him, but we know those things and to me that was enough to make my decision. so i do oppose judge kavanaugh. and i hope we can do the right thing here in the united states senate today. but madam president, i want to spend the rest of my few minutes this morning making a different point and not just to my colleagues but to the people who are watching, from home and across the country because i am very concerned about the message republican leaders are sending today to women and girls and survivors right now. the message they are delivering here on the senate floor and at rallies, through the pr

griz filed a stablish the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later in describing griswold as settled law judge kavanaugh of serve said it was the correct application of two payments cases from the one nine hundred twenty. my year and peers that are not seriously challenged by anyone today finally in his testimony he noted repeated row had been up to help by planned parenthood versus casey describing it as president and president when i asked him what a piece of fish. to overturn of long established precedent it by current chester's says believed that it was wrongly decided he empathically said no. opponents frequently say then candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn roe the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least nineteen eighty during this time presidents republican presidents have appointed justices o'connor souter and kennedy and to the supreme court these are the very three justices republican president appointed justices who are third take a seat just said jim which really a pe

she talk a lot about roe v.waede, and -- wade. she didn't say anything new that people on the committee won't have known about her. but she was wlky to explore -- she was willing to explore that and she talked about whether they were rightly or wrongly decided. in recent years nominees have not been wlky to be that cap-and-trade -- not that willing to be that candid. >> here is ruth bader ginsburg. >> you ask me about my thinking about this individual and my answer to you is it is -- it is both. this is something central to a woman 's woman's life, to her dignity. it is a decision she must make for herself. and when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully -- less than a full human responsible for her own choices. >> i also appreciate that you present this as not only the approach but as an option that was looked at. equal protection -- the equal protection argument, though. would -- since this may infer a right to choose on the woman or could, would it also follow that the father would

i have to invoke the option, the question was what would you done after roe v. wade, especially half of women? >> abortion is wrong. choices. other are no people look at it from this perspective. i admit people whose parents decided to give them upright option and they are so grateful that both parents give them life that is aborting them. why are we talking about these soer options are available you will want to adopt children. we will move on. we are here in we are -- heavy on instagram workers. -- immigrant workers. immigrant workers will negatively impact the state's signature industries. wall mustaid that a be built before anything is built above immigration. the wall could be years away. what is -- in the meantime? >> i am the daughter of greek immigrants. and help them study further citizenship tests. they assimilated into this country. they want to become americans. it is so important to them. i feel very strongly. that that border security, that wall must be built. i stand with president trump recalls that in as ago run this great state, people strongly

they could do it to roe v. wade when they get the right case. >> jeff toobin, thanks very much. >>> coming up next a question, will a red state democrat may a political price for voting no on brett kavanaugh? a look at the one who's perhaps in the most tight race, heidi heitkamp. >>> a how investigators are hoping to get closer to the truth of exactly what happened ahead. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying le

pennsylvania, the case of casey which refined roe versus wade which said no undue burden.oman or girl who wants to end the pregnancy can do so without any undue burden being put on. she can doing it. what would they do? say you have to do it at a hospital? you have to have this done -- what would they do to make it cut into the right to choose? >>. >> what they would do is they would say we're going to allow the states to determine what an undue burden is. we'll allow 50 different states meaning of course, massachusetts, new york, california they'll keep it strong. if you're in mississippi, tennessee, you're in south carolina, it will be a much lower standard. with deference given by a gorsuch kavanaugh court to the states able to determine what that burden is. and that is where we're going to wind up with real problems for tens of millions of women all across the country. >> okay. senator ed markey, thank you for coming on. great to have you on. a great person to explain the whole thing. protesters reached the front doors of the supreme court. making their anger known ove

can think of some of the building blocks for roe. there was a case, there was against painter, texas when it realized it couldn't have no accommodations for legal education for african-americans, it was set up a separate law school, vastly inferior law school. so that was one. and -- the first, only when all those buildings blocks were in place each one was won so i guess you call that incremental. after those building blocks were in place, marshall decided, yes, it was now time to say separate-- separation of the races forced by the state would be equal-- >> how much, how much of your views about incrementalism have been shaped by your 25 years on the court as opposed to your own experience as a supreme court advocate in a series of women rights cases, which were also in a way produced incremental results. or is it a bit of both? >> well in that i tried to copy thurgood marshall's technique to bring to the court very likely winners, cases that, i mean, never -- i never just the statute is unconstitutional, it was always how it affec

republican senator susan collins declared he told her roe versus wade was, quote, settled law. antiabortion forces is skeptical about his views on abortion and some conservatives are too. >> brett kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to the rules of precedent. >> collins cast brett cavanagh as a centrist, so much so she noted he sided with merrick garland on 95% of decisions. brett kavanaugh sits with garland on the dc circuit court of appeals. collins reasoning is most democrats liked garland so why not brett cavanagh? he personified the rage over the brett kavanaugh nomination. and president obama nominated him for the high court, eventually filling that seat with neil gorsuch. the confirmation of neil gorsuch and particularly cavanagh, republican solo seat from their side and that could tip the balance of the court with conservatives. >> thank you very much. in announcing her support for brett cavanagh republican senator susan collins

they think they've got someone who will overturn roe v. wade or dramatically limit a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice, someone who will gut environmental regulations, undermine workers' rights and consumer protections, and someone who will give corporations the ability to continue to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections and who might even argue that the contribution limits to candidates are unconstitutional and can be limited. and finally who the president believes will get him off the hook if the mueller investigation gets too close to him. so, mr. president, here we have republicans in this senate and a president on the verge of getting someone who they thought could do all those things. and then something unexpected happened. the country learned about what happened to dr. ford. a republican colleague seemed to have forgotten that dr. ford did not want to come forward publicly to report her sexual assault. it was only when she found out that judge kavanaugh was on the second short list that was released that she

they could do it to roe v. wade when they get the right case. >> jeff toobin, joan biskupic, thank you very much. >>> senator heidi heitkamp. and later, everything we bernd will the limousine crash. we'll have more of that, ahead. shaquem get in here. take your razor, yup. alright, up and down, never side to side, shaquem. you got it? come on, get back. quem, you a second behind your brother, stay focused. can't nobody beat you, can't nobody beat you. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. you got this. with the one hundred and forty-first pick, the seattle seahawks select. alright, you got it, shaquem. alright, let me see. endless shrimp is back at with all the shrimp you want, any way you want them. there's new sesame-ginger grilled shrimp with savory soy-ginger sauce and sprinkled with asian seasoning. and favorites like garlic shrimp scampi! but endless shrimp won't last endlessly, so hurry in. smile dad. i take medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart.

. >> we know the controversy when it comes to roe versus wade.enator collins who insist he doesn't impose a threat to that. we'll talk about it. >> there is also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that judge kavanaugh would seek to overturn roe v wade. protecting this right is important to me. to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in article 3 of our constitution itself. >> how tough would it be to overturn cases like that? >> then there were nine. what people are labeling and branding a conservative in brett kavanaugh. whn you a when you ask about roe v wade, making a pledge that it's established precedent is it's precedent set by the supreme court of the united states. there's precedent that controls the lower courts of the land but if a decision comes that specifically factor and before justice brett kavanaugh and the remaining members of the supreme court that challenges legal precedent

noting that roe v. wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood vs. casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswold vs. connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920's, meyer and pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood vs. casey, describing it as precedent unprecedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overtur

announcer: the following will surprist you about barbara ck: barbara comstock: "i think roe vs wade should bend overturned a the state should decide it." announcer: that's right. comstock supports taking away a woman's right to choose.dhe voted to defund planparenthd 6 times, limitingomen's. access to contraception. away and comstock eotes with trump nineht percent of the time. jennifer wexton: endorsed by the washington post. she'll protect a woman's right to choose. jennifer wexton for congress.nd

roe v.ghts, redirecting. if you are collins, you are weighing what it would mean if she were to walk away from her party at this moment. >> you say republicans have been laying the ground work for this for years. susan page, there is a skeptical camp out there that says that all of this last minute hammering is a little overdone. that at the end of the day things are going to turn brett kavanaugh's way. do you buy that? >> republicans always want to vote the republican way. the easier thing to do is vote with your party. you need a powerful incentive to vote against your party. if you have that as your landscape, i think that probably it does look like judge brett kavanaugh has those. not quite a guarantee yet, but i think once we heard senate collins and senate flake talk yesterday about being reassured by this delay of a week, by the fbi report that that was a signal that he was going to be confirmed. and the only question now is will it be on a totally party line vote, something we have n

alex capstick, bbc news, the fa roe islands.n major league baseball, milwaukee brewers are at the los angeles dodgers in game three of the national league championship series. the brewers are leading 1—0 at the top of the fourth. until next time, goodbye. hello there. it was a lovely day on monday across scotland and northern ireland, with plenty of sunshine, but a different story for england and wales, rather cloudy skies for most with some mist and murk and a few spots of drizzle.

she doesn't think he would vote to overturn roe versus wade. then she ended up voting present. a month ago if a swing vote had felt he wasn't going to vote to overturn roe she would have been a yes before all of the sexual misconduct allegations. he reminded me that we haven't talked about some of these big issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. it's all been about sexual misconduct. what kind of justice do you think he will be? >> when president trunk nominated brett kavanaugh it was after a campaign in which he talked about how he wanted to mold the supreme court that would overturn roe versus wade and got the affordable care act frankly, listening to senator collins speech when she described him as this centrist who would not do all those things. i cannot imagine that trump and the other republicans would be celebrating if he was going to be that kind of justice. i think the protesters we are seen engage with such passion will continue that momentum when we start to see rulings that do limit the right to abortion that you strike at the core of the protections of the aff

roe v. wade. in my judgment, judge kavanaugh clearly meets the test. 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 cor

take roe v. wade and all the kavanaugh stuff. the whole issue, nobody talks about anything about the roe v. wade except he is going to do away with abortion. not so. if immediately probably 95% of the states would pass abortion laws for their individual states, the whole thing has been about whether the federal government can pass a law or the supreme court could pass an edict that said it was going to be applied nationally. not whether or not it could be done. the same thing with gay marriage. it wasn't whether or not it could be allowed. it was whether or not the judicial system could say by fiat this is what the constitution allows for. the voter i.d., like i said, you look at voter participation, minorities in the southern states that were among the most affected by that and you'll find they're way up. in 1976 you had school busing going into place. i was much younger then and i wasn't too happy with it until i did the term paper and changed my mind. i actually became in favor of school busing as a means of creating an enviro

as kavanaugh said, roe v. wade is established law. i disagree with it, but i don't think he'll get in there as one justice and overturn roe v. wade. >> i won't even ask you a question. you have been shaking your head. just go. >> we come on every week and we have differences, but i have to push back strongly. the way that it will work when justice kavanaugh is confirmed, if they vote later today to do that there are bills in state houses right now ready to be passed. for example, in iowa, a heartbeat bill that essentially says as soon as you can hear the fetal heartbeat, that means you cannot have an abortion after the fact. many women don't know they are pregnant at that point. it outlaws access to abortion and many forms of contraception and iuds. so the idea that you have to completely overturn roe v. wade is actually a red herring. in practice that's not how it will work for american women who already in states like alabama, texas, louisiana because of trap laws, another hindrance for access to reproductive healthcare, they won't

i a guest what called the roe v. wade a red herring. >> in my meeting with judge kavanaugh, what he expressed to susan collins as well, she's fairly confident the supreme court will not overturn roe v. wade, but i think it's entirely the exact way of doing this is going to the states. some of those laws may come before the court, but that's really the way the entire abortion issue should have been handled with in the first place. it wouldn't be such a divisive issue 40, 50 years after the initial court judgment. >>> senator johnson, thank you very much for joining me. i look forward to seeing you again. >> have a good day. >> in the meantime i'll get reaction from adam schiff in california. you were sitting here the whole time. >> well, my reaction is this, for senator johnson or any of the gop senators to say they treated dr. ford with respect, that's not what i saw from the president mocking her at a political rally. that's not what i saw with the republican senators, except for a small few, said nothing in the fac

but reversing roe v. wade, overturning roe v. wade, that seems very unlikely. >> and jeffrey rosen, one other issue before i let both of you go. executive power has been at the front and center of this, including the mueller investigation and the potential surrounding issues, what is your view about how this court might rule if faced with questions along those lines? >> there's a really interesting under the radar case involving whether the attorney general can apply a sex crimes law retroactively and challengers say congress can't delegate that power to the president. what's at stake is essentially the future of the administrative state, can the environmental protection agency pass regulations without strong congressional oversight. interestingly justice kavanagh, like justice gorsuch likely hold that the government cannot pass regulations. but it's a broad victory for conservatives who want to roll back on the scope of the regulatory state with huge implications for executive power in the future. there are also cases involving