roe v. wade? >> senator kiersten gillibrand on the sudden silence from republicans on roe v. wade. >> that's a big one and probably not. they're all saying don't do that, you shouldn't do that. >>> plus, a preview of tomorrow's big protests against family separation. >>> and why the white house is scrambling to explain how a prank caller got through to air force one. >> your call is connected. >> hi, bob. >> hey, how are you? >> "all in starts now." >> thank you, bob, i'll talk to you soon. >> all right, baba booey to you. >>> good evening from new york, i'm ali velshi in for chris hayes. tonight, democrats are increasingly concerned the president could try to use his new supreme court pick to shield him from the mueller investigation. days after justice anthony kennedy announced his retirement, the white house and senate republicans are fast tracking kennedy's replacement. the president telling reporters on air force one today he's planning to announce his nominee in just over a week. >> so i'll

roe v. wade is secondary that he couldn't hold back from asking people about loyalty to the investigation. is he going to in his interviews ask them about the investigation into him and if he does, does that compromise a candidate? >> thank you ali for your question. if he asks the question i believe it compromises the candidate i'll equity during the merrick garland association mitch mcconnell said the american people should have a voice. he they would vacancy open for eight months. we have elections in less than five months. we should wait until after november before looking at the issue. >> matt miller, i want to remind people of james comey's testimony before the senate intel hearing on june 8 of 2017. >> my common sense told me what was going on is either he concluded or someone told him that you've already asked comey to stay and you didn't get anything for it and that the dinner was an effort to build a relationship, in fact, he asked specifically of loyalty in the context of asking me to

the president picks, it is all too likely they're going to overturn health care protections and roe v. wade. we don't need to guess. president trump has said time and time again he would appoint judges that would do those two things -- overturn roe v. wade, overturn health care protections. on november 11, 2016, then president-elect trump said, quote, i am pro-life. good judges will be pro-life. in a debate against secretary clinton, then-candidate trump said, because i am pro-life and i will be appointing pro-life judges, i think that we will go back to the individual states. unquote. it is impossibly -- i am -- it is impossible to conclude that president trump will appoint a justice whom we can have faith will leave roe v. wade unsettled law. president trump said in his own words that he wants to give them a justice to give the court a majority to overturn roe v. wade. so count on it. president trump will in all likelihood nominate a justice willing to send roe, quote, back to the states. again, those are president trump's own words, where several are preparing, if not already prepared, t

with the federalist society, led by leonard leo whose goal is to repeal roe v. wade, putting it together and trump rubber stamping it. given what the president has said, it is virtually certain that members of the list of 25 would vote to overturn roe. so let this be a call to action, for americans from all corners of the country, to rise up and speak out. don't let this new court, this new nominee, whomever he or she may be turn back the clock on issue after issue or after issue because president trump has embraced a hard right group who has a veto power over nominees. don't let us turn back the clock, america. stand up. speak out. democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, all should want a much fairer process. america tell your senators that if you do not want a supreme court justice who will overturn roe v. wade, that those senators should not voteor

i would point out that democrats have been saying, you know, overturning roe v. wadethey've been using this as a scare tactic, going back to 1982, when sandra day o'connor was appointed to the court. roe v. wade is still here. we're having this discussion. i think it is a scare tactic to dissuade us from picking constitution-loving, conservative issues. >> you but it but it is an issu. do you have any concerns? >> absolutely. being a woman is not a proxy for being pro choice, right? we are correct in that a judge must look at precedent and make independent decisions. right? so, we have now, a president who has committed to nominating only individuals who he believes will overturn roe v. wade. that's not to insight fear unnecessarily. >> however -- >> it's a fact. therefore, it should be something we fear. >> to that point, ned, there are a lot of women across this country, that it is a fear-inducing concept, to think roh roe v. wade would be overturned. is this something that shouldn't be put out as a litmus test for the next supreme court pick? >> first of all, i thi

is this potentially the end of roe v. wade? >> overwhelmingly sporting roe v wade. i hope very much that the next nominee to the supreme court does not hold that position. but the bottom line is this is obviously an enormously important issue. everything to do with women's right, having to with gay rights and have to do with the solidifying the pro corporate anti worker wing of the supreme court. >> do you have confidence that president trump would appoint somebody to your liking. he did publish a list during the campaign of potential nominees, gorsuch was on the list and indicated that this next one will come from that list. >> i have no hope that he will appoint anything resembling a moderate justice who will take both sides into consideration. what we are look for is the nomination of a right wing extremist. i would say this, you may recall that when merrick garland's nomination was brought forth, president obama said let the american people decide. you shouldn't be considering this important nomination just before an election. he obstructed it and refused to all

it is widely regarded that roe v. wade is just really horribly reasoned legal decision. e question isn't really about whether you support roe v. wade or not. even people pro-choice recognize it was a poorly argued judicial decision. but the question really will be about your approach to the law. are you an originalist on questions of the constitution? raw textualist on twes of the law. you don't need to ask about roe v. wade because some regard it as a horribly reasoned. >> shannon: we all know these nominees when they get in front of the senate judiciary committee going f. it is something difficult they will say i can't answer that that issue may be coming before me. everybody is going to be combing through every comma in their regard to see if they can find a clue for what they would do. >> just watch the two female senators lisa murkowski from alaska, susan collins. that's why you are going to see at love pressure on them. you will see democrats two republicans if they could peel them away and say no, i mean, their handling of this process is going to be interesting. d

. >> areva, is roe v. wade done? >> women hope roe v. wade is not gone. what donald trump continues to say whoever he appoints to the supreme court he will use as a litmus test the ability to overturn roe v. wade. liberals are bracing for an appointment of a judge who has expressed through opinions they written or through conversations that they will, in fact, overturn that vote on roe v. wade. there are other cases that this court may have to consider. including immigration. we see cases have been filed in the federal district court with respect to trump's immigration policy on the southern borders. those cases work their way to the top of the judicial system of the supreme court. we have the presidential power with respect to the mueller investigation and subpoena and if donald trump would have to respond to the subpoena. there is gun control rights. voting rights. there are so many con sequential decisions. >> this is a pick. we assume the president will pick someone who is a staunch conservative? anthony kennedy was known as a swing vote. there are con

v wade. thomas. >> clarence thomas who during his confirmation years basically saying, i never really thought about roeefore, then got on the bench and had definite ideas. continue. >> people thought sarah other connor would overturn roe v. wade and she didn't. anthony kennedy. david suter. we know as much as about john roberts and gorsuch. as we knew about kennedy. i think there's a little bit of hysteria right now. i hope the confirmation covers a wide range of issues. we ought to have a debate on constitutional interpretation across the board. >> well, you can debate it if you want. it's the men and women in the robes decide what they want to do. you can only remove them for bad behavior. the idea of who gets put on there is shaped if there's any hysteria because of what the president has said. he said during the campaign, roe v. wade got to go, put judges on there to get it done. why would he put people on there and expect anything less now? >> chris, here's what i know about the process. in all of my dealings with the president and in all of the meetings he had with perspective nominees, the presi

it may be the case that we want see roe v wade overturned entirely. i think justice roberts will be very sensitive to the public view of what the court does. we know, those of us who work in this world of trying to protect women's access to making their own decisions, we know that states are very clever about chipping away at a woman's rights to accessing abortion and that is the point that you make here. i believe they're going to feel absolute permission to do that now that justice kennedy has announced his retirement. >> that's a lot on the policy substance. i turn to the politics and enforcement. what are you and the organizations you work with and the people you represent, what's your message to democrats who do not ultimately do everything in their power to block the consideration of this trump nominee before the midterms? would you be prepared to oppose those democratis in election? >> 7 out of 10 americans want legal access to abortion. they don't always vote that way. even this week, we saw two extremely high profile women leaving the republi

roe v. wade. that's the reason they're on that list. >> first of all, i view roe v. wade as being settled law. it's clearly precedent, and i always look for judges who respect precedent. >> this is probably going to be a bare knuckle down in the dirt scratching, biting, you know, ear pulling political fight. >> well, then, the future of the nation as we know it shifted in a massive way. you either woke up excited about the retirement of supreme court justice anthony kennedy or terrified by it. at stake, abortion gay rights, affirmative action, the travel ban, and even possibly the trump/russia investigation. >> now the president has an opportunity to appoint a second justice. and there's also the question of ruth bader ginsburg. that was something top of mind for candidate trump in 2016. >> we'll have many appointments. could be as many as five. probably will be three. could be four. one of the really big factors in this election. supreme court justice is so important. this could be a presidency

who will not vote to uphold roe v wade and i don't have the slightest doubt that any of the people on the list of 25 will vote ultimately overturn row v wade. >> he don't have to ask. if you chart his evolution on abortion, it is notable. at one point he said he is very pro-choice. but crystal clear that he is fully committed at least in picking a judge who he knows will overturn roe v wade. >> it is hard to know exactly where he lands. he might say one thing to get the nomination through and expect a judge, a justice of the court is going to abolish roe v wade. no reason he has shaken on that? >> taken no actions to suggest otherwise. >> and if you look -- >> quickly. >> if you look at his evangelical support throughout his presidency, it is largely because of judges and the fact that his judges have skewed the conservative line. >> the president was asked if he is revaulting the response. >>> managed to get through to the president of the united states on air force one. we are looking into it ahead. ben rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatme

saying for 36 years, going all the way back to 1982, with the nomination of sandra o'connor that roe v. wadeoverturned. so -- >> clarence thomas who during his confirmation years basically saying, i never really thought about roe vchl wade before, then got on the bench and had definite ideas. continue. >> people thought sarah other connor would overturn roe vchl wade and she didn't. i think there's a little bit of hysteria right now. i hope the confirmation covers a wide range of issues. we ought to have a debate on constitutional interpretation across the board. >> well, you can debate it if you want. it's the men and women in the robes decide what they want to do. the idea of who gets put on there is shaped if there's any mister ya because of what the president has said. he said during the campaign, roe v. wade got to go, put judges on there to get it done. why would he put people on there and expect anything less now? >> chris, here's what i know about the process. in all of my dealings with the president and in all of the meetings he had with perspective nominees, the president's never a

but the court has upheld roe v. wade, president trump, who wants to perhaps appoint or nominate a supreme court justice who would be an anti choice in his words, pro-life, who would interfere with that roe v. wade decision which has been upheld time and time again by republicans and by democrats who have been appointed to the court. it is now threatened in a way that it's never been threatened before. >> i'm curious how you got involved with norma. >> well, i met her and she was very upset that she felt that she had been an important part of the decision but that she was not being provided with a voice by the pro-choice movement and she was pro-choice. at that time. and i felt that she had a right to have a voice. that that was an important decision by the supreme court and we should be able to hear from her. and so i was helping her to have a voice. of course ultimately, after a number of years, she became anti-choice. but we still maintain contact. she always indicated she had a very positive feeling towards me. and i

we have roe v. wade.y should we go backwards when we have already made progress over the last couple of decades. this is the thing. we shouldn't have to take us back. we should uphold what we have currently. that's a very dangerous kind of thought. so lgbtq community people are supposed to feel like, oh, now i have to be concerned? women's right to choose? now i have to be concerned? if this happens in 18 months if he gets to pick someone who does not believe in the woman's right to choose in 18 months abortion will be outlawed. >> steve, these are some of the most fundamental questions of life. they are political, moral, philosophical questions. when does life begin? what constitutes marriage. this shouldn't be decided by five unelected justices. they should be decided by the people, negotiation and persuasion, not by judicial fiat. that's done damage to the constitution and our society. these are important questions. we should handle them the democratic way, small d, through the american process. >> are

the white house are going to get a list of contenders opposed to roe v. wade. you can take that to the bank. keep in mind, they are very mindful they want a justice, the president said during the campaign he wants justice who will overturn row e v. wade. >> i think there's reason to believe it will bring the country closer to a decision. what else did the president talk about? >> he talked about john kelly, the white house chief of staff. there's been renewed conversation this week john kelly may be out soon. he's coming up on one year of joining the white house. here's what the president had to say. he was not very conclusive on this question when he was asked about it earlier today. here's what he said to say. >> are you looking for a new chief of staff, mr. president? >> no, we're getting along very well. at some point, things happen. but i will tell you we have a very good -- you see that, we have a very good relationship. he's a wonderful man. john kelly, four star, wonderful man. and don't forget this is big change for him. we have a very good relationship

if he picks somebody that's hard core on roe v. wade or that's hard core on repealing health care, that's a bigger list. that's a harder person, is going to be a harder person on either side. >> besides these conservative democrats, we're looking at republicans like lisa murkowski and susan collins. is that what this fight will boil down to? >> it's one of the things this fight will boil down to. we're seeing a lot of attention being put on the issue of roe v. wade. when gorsuch replaced scalia, we knew that was a conservative. with the risk of a conservative taking kennedy's place, i think a lot of progressives and democrats are concerned about the future of roe versus wade. manchon is in a bits of a predicament. he's in deep red west virginia but at the same time he wants to appeal to a democratic base. the president has said he's not going to ask his potential nominees about the issue of roe v. wade, so that could open the door to speculation on the future of that ruling. so i think conservatives are really about to hunker down to re

the heartbeat legislation was aimed to take down roe v. wade. the crux of the roe v. wade argument was, if we could ever determine if that baby was a person, that whole case collapses. a heartbeat does that. we knew the courts would be changing. we didn't know kennedy was would be requiring. but if gorsuch was there or ginsberg stepped off, we knew trump would be a constitutional conservative president that would appoint constitutional conservative judges. we have a chance to take down roe v. wade. this is a historic moment in the pro life community today. >> neil: let me go on to gay marriage. there's a sense that that is now settled law. the supreme court has settled it not once but twice, technically three times. do you agree with it? >> no, i don't. i think god's design for marriage and family, we will revert back to that. the reason you're seeing senator schumer and others so upset about what is taking place today, everything that they have run through and got passed has been through the courts. it's not been through the people or the elected office holders and no

. >> roe v. wade is dead today. >> this is an incredibly important moment. >> i have no reason to think he won't. >> a slightly more conservative nominee could produce sweeping changes. >> this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> welcome to your "new day". it is, what, thursday at this point. alisyn is off. erica hill joins me. john avlon is here as well. we forgot what day it is because there is so much news it is clouding our vision. raw political power. the results of raw political power. the last two years, the republicans gained the supreme court nominating process because they could. now the future of the supreme court is in their hands. really nothing the democrats can do to change it. it is nearly impossible to describe the magnitude of justice kennedy's retirement with this one pick, this one nomination, president trump can reshape the lives of americans for generations to come. his choice will have a serious impact on issues including abortion, the death penalty, and affirm

and you can assume that a conservative judge is going to do things that would upend roe v wade if roe v wade from to show up on the supreme court's docket anyway, or some version of abortion rights. but fundamentally, most judges are more predictable than not? >> yes, they are. let's talk about roe v wade. because the focus is of course will they overrule roe v wade? what will they decide? it will be a very salient question. but the ripple effect of having kennedy off the court and replaced with a conservative is so much broader than that. the day his successor is confirmed the states will be emboldened to pass increasingly draconian restrictions on abortion. ultra sounds. waiting periods, flatout cut offers at 15 weeks. restrictions on clinic. that level. the next level, state courts and lower courts who will being stocked with trump judges will be more likely to uphold them. the next level, advocates, who in the past have wanted to try to bring this to the supreme court to reverse will now be terrified if they bring it up there. the small rulings will become the law of the land. the

he is nominating conservative people going to overturn roe v. wade. >> if the conversations don't focus on roe v. wade, what is it the president wants to hear? >> i think there are a significant number of republican women who voted for donald trump, to the surprise of a lot of folks in the media. i think a lot of the voters will look to see if he does indeed select a woman. as it pertains to roe versus wade, the supreme court will most likely look at this on an individual state-by-state basis. if they make moves to outlaw it, the supreme court, if we see a very conservative justice nominateding uphold those particular state's laws. if you see states like california and others that say, no, we're going to allow choice, then i think the supreme court will sort of rule in their favor. so i wouldn't be quick to say we know exactly how the court will rule on the cases. the neil gorsuch did not go in favor of conservatives with obamacare, upholding that. so you don't necessarily know how justices will rule on a case by case basis. >> how will democrats abs

sf r roe v. wade. and also said that the list that the president put out during the election was a list that was put together by special interests, which is true because it was conservative groups who handed the president a list of people and said, well, these judges would be okay by us. they pass our litmus test. so the democrats are going to fight. but chuck schumer is a real list here. and he knows that all he can do is make hit political arguments right now because he doesn't have the filibuster. >> laura, what do you think? >> all politics is local here. and when the federal congress is essentially hand wringing and perhaps conceding that they don't have the votes, they are still trying to signal to people that these will return to states issues. if there is an overturning after a lengthy process to get it in front of the supreme court to overturn precedent on this level as opposed to narrowing it, he knows that he has to signal to people on these very issues about particularly roe v. wade and oth

roe v. wade, not that i would accuse the republicans of cynicism but roe v. wade is the a very powerful motivation and so in some ways you don't want to overturn it you just want to keep it motivating voters, there are a host of other issues that a conservative court would bring you. they could rule on affirmative action, on campaign finance laws, issues with corporations, on unions. all the things we've seen this week so it is a wish list that is payday. >> and the white house strategy, it test first time the "new york times" has accused the white house of being competent and if president trump were to take that be nice to other people he'd get more done. >> norm, you've written about congress -- i want to ask you this quickly because it occurs there's a longer term question where you have democrats up in arms. they already think the gorsuch seat was stolen. let's say republicans get the votes, 51, 52, whatever it takes, they get the appointment and democrats get the senate this november, what would they do with that power? >> well, what -- it will be a diffi

but there is a right to life to erase for 50 million children butchered in the wome since 1973 roe v. wade. if the president and i know he will, appoint a conservative justice with a conservative philosophy, roe v. wade and the other atrocities from the jew dish jare will take care -- judiciary will take care of themselves. >> jeanine: austan goolsbee, i assume you will have the opposite opinion. but isn't the president almost required to suggest someone who is an originalists, a constitutionalists? i think we can all agree that justices are not supposed to write the law. they are supposed to interpret precedent. >> yeah, look. i can see why the democrats that you showed on the clip are as agitated as they are. justice kennedy is really quite a centrist justice. he is kind of the deciding vote on a lot of these cases. >> jeanine: right. right. >> by most indicators, we don't know who -- i see your name rumored, judge jeanine, so i'm not going to ask if you're going to interview. but it depends a great deal on who he replaces justice kennedy with. by most indications it looks like somebody

over 30 years later, nothing's happened to roe v. wade. >> shannon: what do you think, pastor? >> well, i think eventually conservative court will either overturn roe v. wade or at least greatly diminish its importance and its power. here's why, shannon. in 1857, the dred scott decision said african-americans were nothing but property to be bought and sold. thankfully that was overturned. roe v. wade is really the dred scott decision of the 20th century. it said children in the womb were not people. they were just biological blobs with no rights. i think you're going to see that overturned. and this is what a conservative court does. in a liberal court, the liberal court creates imaginary rights for some people while erasing real rights of other people. there is no right to abortion in the constitution but there is a right to life. and i think a conservative court eventually will see that. >> shannon: you know you're going to give a lot a people hives tonight saying stuff like that. cecile richards also talked about the fact that she believes the president has a litmus test on w

these are people who have been fighting to overturn roe v. wade for decades. and action turning to the states where people are looking to enact state laws to protect abortion rights should roe v. wade be overturned. down the line there's so many things that the supreme court touches, that the president has to be careful as he played in the clip where he can't necessarily ask these judges how they would vote on specific things if they were confirmed, but you can look at their case rods, can you ask around the question to get an idea of whether they're with you or not. >> kaitlyn i'll curious what you make of all this. the president, alex is correct. he said that's key thing. he would definitely appoint a supreme court justice to overturn roe v. wade. in the interview recently, even this last night he says well you know, we're not, that's a big question. not planning to ask it. is that just a wink and a nod. do we know he's signaled he's not going to appoint somebody who isn't on the side of overturning roe v. wade? >> we've been told that the president has been

if you're going to get murkowski and collins on board, you don't want to talk about roe v. wade away. >> the president said he would ask this justice nominee whether or not he would overturn roe v. wade, that would dominate the headlines. his critics would talk about nothing else. the underlying fact is he wants to elect a pro life justice, something that is conservative. he said that before he was elected president. it's clear that he wants to move forward in this way. it will be tough as you mentioned because senators collins and murkowski are the only two republican senators that are pro abortion rights even though they voted to confirm gorsuch. he's keenly aware of the political calculus behind it or his nominee might not be confirmed. >> trace: they said if there's any role that the justice would play in getting roe v. wade, they're out. they must have articulated that to the president. >> and he's been having calls with them. don mcgann had a call with senator collins yesterday or wednesday, i believe. so they're trying to court these senators on both sides of the aisle, e

key voice in guiding the president, what he has to say about that. >> the left has been using the roe v wade scare tactics and 1982 when sandra o'connor was nominated and over 30 years later nothing has happened to roe v wade. >> what do you think? >> eventually a conservative court will either overturn roe the way or at least diminish it and here's why, in 1857 the dred scott decision said african-americans were nothing but property to be bought and sold and that was overturned. roe v wade is really the dred scott decision of the 20century that says children in the womb are not people, just biological blobs with no rights. i think you will see that overturned and this is what a conservative court does. in a liberal court the liberal court creates imaginary rights for some people while erasing real rights of other people. there is no right to abortion in the constitution but there is a right to life and i think a conservative court eventually will see that. >> a lot of people will get hives with you saying that. richards talked about the fact she believes the president has a litmus test whet

from my perspective, roe v. wade is an important precedent, and it is settled law. >> is there any scenario under which the president nominates someone who agrees with susan collins that it's settled law and it will not be challenged moving forward? >> i don't think there's a chance of that. i think this is a litmus test question that he or the group that's put together his list of candidates has -- has delved into pretty deeply. i mean, there's about as much chance of that question not being asked as it is of me buying a car and not looking to see an engine. it's a critical part of that test going forward. >> the president said that he won't ask the question. essentially won't have to because the list that's already been created, approved by the federalist society, shows that all of these potential picks will be someone who i guess sides with the party. >> right. that's true. and this idea that precedent is settled law and roe v. wade may be settled law -- the candidates and nominees are trained and instructed on ho

on issues like same-sex marriage and roe v. wadee even if trump picks what some of us fear he might do, it would overturn roe v. wade or more a chipping away of rights women and gays got under those decisions? >> when it comes to gay rights, same-sex marriage is institutionalized in the country. you have outstanding issues like employment and they would head back in the opposite direction of expanding rights for gay americans or same-sex couples. when it comes to abortion, i think conservatives have been savvy saying we don't need to see roe v. wade overruled, but they can still cut it back a lot and send a signal to the states to adopt longer waiting periods, more restrictions on the facilities that offer abortion facilities. it's a practical matter. the abortion right is going to get narrowed a lot. >> let's talk about john roberts who shocked a lot of people when he sided with the white house on the affordable care act, on obamacare. he did so, i think most observers believe because he believed in his institution but also as the

. >> are you looking for somebody who would overturn roe v. wade?> well, you know, it's a great group of intellectual talent, but we really, you know, they are generally conservative. i'm not going to ask them that question, by the way. that's not a question i'll be asking, but it is a group of very highly talented, very brilliant, mostly conservative judges. i won't be discussing that because i think it's inappropriate to discuss. so i won't be discussing that. >> joining me to discuss, carrie sarahvino. she also is a former clerk for justice clarence thomas. welcome to the show. let's start here. the president says he will not ask potential picks about roe. essentially the president doesn't have to, right? the list from which he's working has already been vetted by conservative activists, the federalist society has weighed in. are there any concerns based on the names and faces you're seeing about the pro-life bona fides? >> i don't know how many of them would rule in this case. and that's true even many of the supreme court justices. we know thei

the president picks, it is all too likely they're going to overturn health care protections and roe v. wade. we don't need to guess. president trump has said time and time again he would appoint judges that would do those two things -- overturn roe v. wade, overturn health care protections. on november 11, 2016, then president-elect trump said, quote, i am pro-life. good judges will be pro-life. in a debate against secretary clinton, then-candidate trump said, because i am pro-life and i will be appointing pro-life judges, i think that we will go back to the individual states. unquote. it is impossibly -- i am -- it is impossible to conclude that president trump will appoint a justice whom we can have faith will leave roe v. wade unsettled law. president trump said in his own words that he wants to give them a justice to give the court a majority to overturn roe v. wade. so count on it. president trump will in all likelihood nominate a justice willing to send roe, quote, back to the states. again, those are president trump's own words, where several are preparing, if not already prepared, t

roe v wade. >> he does not have a litmus test on roe v wade. you can look at the quality of the candidates puforward. 136 judges nominated for district and circuit court and know the type of candidate the president will put forward. what i find disturbing is democrat senators have already come forward and said it doesn't matter who he names, we're opposed. it doesn't seem like a democratic president when they're basally sayg, doesn't matter who, we all need to be opposed, nor matte what, don't allow the person a chance oftime, to review for credentials, already statements from democrats on the record saying we're opposed no matter what. >> woodruff: separately, a story in the "new york times" said the white house has been pressuring justice kenne for the last year and a half to feel comfortable stepping down this year, that it submitted private lationships between trmp and kennedy families appointed friends of justice kennedy to other justice positions, how do you answer that? >> the reality is j

roe v. wade.a pitch there was a time they thought he would be the one to throw out the vote in roe v. wade. now that he's leaving, there's an open kwitsz. a gentle approach in many ways that, frankly, is out of step with the lines we're in today. >> the breaking news. justice anthony m. kennedy stepping down from the supreme court at the age of 81 years old after 30 monumental years on the court. this is a huge breaking news story. we'll continue to it all day long. for now i'm dan harris in new york. thank you. >>> 30 years on the supreme court and it is about to be over for justice kennedy. he's retiring effectively on juul 31st, but making that announcement today and making heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief at at&t, we believe in access. the opportunity for everyone to explore a digital world. connecting with the things that matter most. and because nothing keeps us more connected than the internet, we've created access from at&t. california househ

kennedy was generally conservative, one of the notable things that he did was consistently protect roe v. wadea woman's right to choose, which makes it the moment the anti-abortion movement has been waiting for. >> kennedy's departure could put abortion rights in doubt. >> roe v wade is the dred scott decision of century. i think you will see it overturned. >> we have a chance to take down roe v wade, an sis torque moment in the pro-life community today. >> trevor: that's right after justice kennedy is replaced there's a good chance many states will make abortion legal and for many evangelicals that has been the holy grail. it's why many christians have supported to continue donald trump even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons. it's, like, be gone, trump! oh, oh! thank you! i felt so gross! oh! i mean, your own daughter? oh, wow -- ( applause ) and you might be really sad that women will be losing some of their fundamental rights, but the media is licking its lips. >> on capitol hill, the battle lines drawn. >> a huge battle in washington over replacing supreme court jus

but in terms of not asking the about roe v wade, he said previo when he put together this list, he had if his mind he was looking for justices who would i think he said automa overturn roe v wade. they w be pro-life people come from that bench. he's confidence al people this list would all be inclin to do that. so he almost doesn them. it is though, thi the sort of presid often say, i'm not going to f a litmu going ask him about specific preced it's interesting t saying rather than sort of going where he usu goes, which is to make it clear on what he wants to happen and just let people extrapo from there. >> he's doing a little bit of playin the game in a way that he doesn't always play it. what a this issue, he made the point of not one of them, but two are women. obl there's been a lot of buzz about some of the list. they w the origin to 25. he's saying two are on his final list. a lot of people keep skl about this woman, amy barrett, from the secircuit. how seriously do you thin he's consid her or any of the indivi sns. i don't think he'se pick awoman. i know frank disagrees. she's

society noting the democrats have been saying that for decades. >> the left has been using the roe v. wade scare tactics since 1932. -- 1972. for 30 years, nothing has happened to roe v. wade. we know a lot about the justice roberts as we knew about kennedy when he was nominated. so i think the abortion issue is a scare tactic. >> melissa: so i'm very excited to be on the couch with you because as the story goes, you are responsible for justice kennedy. tell us the story. >> bill: no, no, no. that is a bit much. no. after -- when the process started, bob bork was famously "borked." >> melissa: a verb now. >> bill: one of the worst things that happened. we talk about the civility war. in the modern time that is when it started. '87. nothing like that had been seen before in recent times in the senate. >> melissa: interesting. >> bill: the way he was attacked. back alley abortions and all of that. people were shocked but that was one of the great divides. judge ginsberg. there were a couple of problems but marijuana was a problem. not that he as a kid had smoked a joint once or twice but he

we already don't live in a roe v. wade world, we already live in a compromised world that was crafted with justice kennedy with planned parent hood versus justice casey. we are about to see that compromise fall apart, and the question is going to be how much now is the new swing justice who's anticipated to be chief justice john roberts, how much will he attack abortion rights explicitly and how much will he just dramatically increase the chipping away at access to abortion and the one thing we know for sure, because it is already the case across the country and when i worked here and beyond, i have reported across the country, at what the reality of abortion access looks like, that even in justice kennedy's world, access to abortion and in many cases contraception was a reality on paper already. >> here's the president in his own words, again, just to remind people. >> what i'm asking you, sir, is, do you want to see the court overturned? you just said you want to see the court preserve the second amendment. do you want r

also at that dinner two pro-choice republican women. >> roe v. wade is an important precedent. >> reporter: they will be under pressure. >> no question about that. president trump is in new jersey this weekend. he says he might be interviewing potential supreme court nominees. >> that's right david. he said he might even add a couple naminenames. he's been through this process before. he wants to make that personal assessment. he's looking not just for intellect, but toughness. >> terry, a comedian claiming he called the white house posing as a senator and said he convinced them to get the president to call him back from air force one. >> that's right. the white house is not confirming this. we called senator menendez called and asked why he called. it was a comedian who was able e to have a conversation with president trump. the president talking about deals on immigration. had he released information he shouldn't have, this would have been a real security brief. while they aren't confirming it, it's something that could be a problem going forward un

i would just like to make a slight comment on roe v. wade. the ruling of what roe v. de -- of roe v. wade says a person, individual has the right over their body. not the state. so if roe v. wade is overturned, the state could pass a law saying you have to have your tonsils removed or your appendix imaginaryy other things. it is bigger than just the abortion issue. host: in your analysis, it is a in the papers today. in the wall street times, all sides brace for court clash. the white house again has enlisted leonard leo, the executive vice president of the federalist society, a conservative lawyers network, to assisted a selection process that is already focusing on fewer than a half-dozen candidates. on wednesday, mr. leo took a leave of absence from the federalist society to serve as mr. trump trump's outside advisor on the nomination. people close to the white house election process anticipated that a nominee will be announced before mr. trump departs for the coming nato summit, which begins on july 11. the wall street journal this morning. and then you have the fr

but there is a right to life to erase for 50 million children butchered in the wome since 1973 roe v. wadethe president and i know he will, appoint a conservative justice with a conservative philosophy, roe v. wade and the other atrocities from the jew dish jare will take care -- judiciary will take care of themselves. >> jeanine: austan goolsbee, i assume you will have the opposite opinion. but isn't the president almost required to suggest someone who is an originalists, a constitutionalists? i think we can all agree that justices are not supposed to write the law. they are supposed to interpret precedent. >> yeah, look. i can see why the democrats that you showed on the clip are as agitated as they are. justice kennedy is really quite a centrist justice. he is kind of the deciding vote on a lot of these cases. >> jeanine: right. right. >> by most indicators, we don't know who -- i see your name rumored, judge jeanine, so i'm not going to ask if you're going to interview. but it depends a great deal on who he replaces justice kennedy with. by most indications it looks like somebody is go

i do agree with the democrats who talk about it's not going to be overturning roe v. wade. it's not in one moment that roe v. wade is overturned. we have already seen by the way in the past decade more and more restrictive rules as it relates to access to elective abortion come in play from states across the country. the court as constituted approved those and i will expect that you will continue to see not one massive overturning of roe v. wade but a continuing allowance for more restrictions on elective abortions. >> harris: we look across the country and we how people are voting and an outsider in the white house who expresses himself and people greet with a thank you for coming and being real and raw. where is the country? if they are center right, what is the fight for democrats? ma should be the message? if the country is center right, how do you fight that? if that is where it wants to be isn't this the pendulum going back and forth? we have seen it in both directions. >> not everybody thanks the president for being raw and real. >> harris: i'm talking about people wh

from my perspective, roe v. wade is an important precedent and it is settled law. >> senator murkowski of alaska didn't address the issue but said in a statement my standards for supreme court nominees are extremely high. it is my lang standing practice to scrutinize the qualifications can of noom nominees and to cast an independent vote. dahlia and back to everybody else. i've had experience with trump on this. i asked him whether a woman should be punished. he said there needs to be some form of punishment. that's a weird answer. what he was he talking about prison? i don't know what he's talking about. that's what he talks like. he also talked in the wilding incident where those kids were accused of murder in central park and said we've got execute kids in their sub teens basically. so we know his views are harsh. and they're not about individual rights or the rights of defendants or young people. so if he picks somebody like himself, man or woman, it's pretty scary. suppose he picks a trump. in that person's thin

and from my perspective, roe v. wade is an important precedent and it is settled law. >> so as you can see, she says, look, this is settled and what she wants to hear from any nominee is that they are will respect those precedents. i do think that there are still -- we don't have a nominee yet so we can't really fully have this conversation. but i do think there is a world in which it is possible the president could choose somebody who lisa murkowski and susan collins would have a real problem with. now of course they are only two. and there are, as you pointed out, many more democrats in red states. i think those nelson comments you pointed out are very interesting. as you said, he did not join -- or vote against gorsuch filibuster. there were only three democrats who did that -- heitkamp, donnelly and joe manchin. that's potentially somebody else on the map in one of these key races. as you point out, knenelson may in more trouble than a lot of his other colleagues in some these red states -- rick scott, his challenger