to be president and they would accord roe v. wade status as president and give it weigh weit accordingly. that is not enough. neil gorsuch said that roe v. wade is president and as recently as last month he cited the majority in overturning 41 -year-old president. here's another example, at a parade for the july yesterday susan count said she wants to hear a nominee declare that roe v. wade is the law of the land. those aboard heard from john roberts in 2005 he went on the 16 to join the decision where if he had his way he would upheld the highly restrictive antiabortion laws that came out of texas. we are here to warn trumps nominee to tell susan collins calling roe v. wade a president or settle law is not even close. past appointees have prevented these words mean nothing when they get on to the bench. we need is a bigger justice will uphold roe v. wade and the speaker justice who believe that all women's health and processing was decided rightly. the specific standards we want to hear from this nominee will be laid out for the spe

>> roe v. wade has been a scare tactic that is gone back 36 years going back to center o'connor's nominationon to the court. thatning is hapappen during period of time. for me it is not about roe v. wade. it is not what it is about. it is about interpretingng the constitution as it is written. basically, interpreting the limits on government power. juan: can you talk about leonard leo, specifically, his role, the reportss that he is a member of the knights of malta, a secret right-wing organization within the catholic church and his role specifically in the vetting of these nominees of the republican president's especially president trump, to the court? >> leonard leo is a very, very conservative guy who sits rate close to the apex of this society network i was just describing. he just knows who everyone is. that is his value to republican presidents is that when you become president, yet to fill literally thousands of jobs. society network i was justthe course of your presiden, additionally hundred

. >> i would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to roe v. wade. >> this president is all about overturning precedence. >> roe v. wade in many different ways has been affirmed over the years. >> mentime, a call for change. but how far is too far? will demanding the abolishment of i.c.e. backfire on democrats? >>> and new reaction from capitol hill amid renewed concerns that whoever gets chose on the replace justice kennedy could move to roe v. wade being overturned. senator collins met with trump and she says she told the president to broaden his list of 25 candidates, and in a new interview today, says she already knows how she would vote on at least one of them. >> some of the people i have not vetted at all at this point. one of them i voted against years ago. i would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to roe v. wade, because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law. and i believe that that is a very important, fundamental tenant of our judicial syste

number one, the left is pushing this narrative that when roe v. wadeturned that suddenly abortion will be illlegal nationwide be banned and that simply not true. what will happen when roe v. wade overturned is that the abortion issue will return to the states, following the principles of federalism and state rights and the states at the local level will be able to talk to their constituents and make their own decision about what is best for their state, regulating abortion, protecting women's health and safety. it is time to stop misleading women about this issue of what happens when roe is overturned. >> dana: want you to look at this ad that the aclu will run in the state of maine targeting senator collins, watch this. >> the trump supreme court nominee must publicly declare a position on roe. tell susan collins that we can't gamble on this. american's nee need to know wher the nominee will protect the right of women to make their own healthcare decisions. >> dana: katherine, when you look to this from a political perspective and counting the votes,

let's start with roe v. wade. what would happen for the supreme court to overturn such a landmark case? >> roe v. wade is not really in as immediate danger as many are saying. procedurally, what would have to happen is an actual case addressiaddress ing roe v. wade would have to work its way through the courts. even if it got to the supreme court, the supreme court would have to vote to hear it. and even if it heard it, recall now, if you want to call somebody a swing vote, that swing vote would be justice roberts. and when you think about roe v. wade, yes, it stands on very flimsy legal justification, but on the other hand, it's also been part of jurisprudence for decades. and the supreme court, prudent to what they call stare decisis, is likely to let something as old as roe v. wade stand, simply because it's been around so long that everybody accepts it as a constitutional right, even though it's built on a flimsy house of cards. >> and danny, you've written about this, that chief justice roberts would want to a

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. >> a warning shot from one of the republicans critical to confirming the next supreme court just. susan collins wants precedented perspective for a woman's right to choose. >>> and lebron goes hollywood. the nba superstar signs a four-year deal with the lakers. i expect lebron to be its own sign there next to the hollywood sign. good morning, everyone. welcome to "early start." a parade for lebron's arrival in l.a. >> it is 4:00 a.m. in the east. let's begin with this. breaking overnight upheaval in mexico. winning the mexican presidency in a landslide, and he will be the country's first leftist president. the the former mexico city mayor triumphed against the two parties that have ruled mexico city for nearly a century. >> after the victory lopez obrador vowed to seek friendship with the united states with the quote always rooted in mutual respect and in defense of our migrant countrymen. >> reporter: what many are calling a revolution for this country. you see people pouring into t

upheld.o see roe v wade upheld.see roe v wade , do believe roe v wade . host: just talk to your tv. can hear you. -- caller: i do believe that will give you a chance to turn down your television. we will go to ohio, the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: there are two points i want to make. i have been listening of -- to -- the last time we did that, we call that the civil war. , i do not roe v wade think it is going to be overturned. is based onn law this. they might whittle around it like they did with maranda. [indiscernible] the bare-bones of the law have not been changed and there was one other thing i wanted to comment about. i do know how things are in maryland. i'm a democrat. parenthood does not take -- d'e government of any kind. from theoss the street hospital, two blocks away from the university of cincinnati, a level one hospital. we don't have those kinds of concerns. our concern is making sure that -- mother and father and dr. make their choice. host: do you think justice roberts, the -- as the head of the suprem

he lavished praise on the dissent of roe v. wade. forcing a young immigrant woman to fulfill her pregnancy. his career as a , pushing forrative gutting the protections of roe v. wade on the bench. guest: first of all, yield law issued his support. saying that not only had he been a terrific mentor for young women going into the ranks of judicial clerks but she couldn't think of a better mentor for her own daughter. hadtruth is that he has more female law clerks than male. and he sent a number of them to supreme court. he is a terrific role model. a true gentleman. and these attacks are desperate. host: he has criticized roe v. wade. guest: there was only one case in which the d.c. circuit court called to has been look at abortion rights. and it is the case of having to do with an illegal immigrant to anten abortion while in office of resettlement re-holding facility. the d.c.ote first for circuit, the judges that will against her, that first of all, she didn't have a right to have the title government spend its resources to assist her

roe w. wade. chris: even if roe v. no one is suggesting that women will be arrested, it would go back to states, i'm not saying it's not a big deal but nobody suggesting that women would be arrested if roe v wade would be overturned. >> the basic issue at hand is whether or not a woman has the power to make decisions, the freedom to make decisions regarding her own body and own life. that's the fundamental issue here and when you start denying that to women across america, those are fighting words because these women believe that they have the right to make this decision, those on the other side disagree, fundamental principle. chris: to have any chance to win, you not only are going to have to pick off at least one of the republican senators and we talked about the two republican pro-choice women senators, collins and murkowski, you will also keep 49 of your democrats on board and the fact is during the gorsuch nomination president trump's nomination of nile gorsuch last year three red state democrats up for reelection

justice o'connor was the vote they were worried would overturn roe v. wade, justice kennedy, justice souter. all those ironically for the same three devoted to uphold roe v. wade, so speculating what anyone would do is very difficult. even i know judge barrett is one people think has more out there than others. i was watching a recent video. she said this is not the way to look at a judge at all. judges are not saying here is a case i want to overturn. here is how i'm going to do this. they are supposed to be looking at the law, look at the facts of the case, and decide based on the text of the law and text of the constitution says. any of these top three we are looking at is going to do that. at the end of the day, senators have said it is the number one thing. yes, they are concerned about roe v. wade as a precedent, but the biggest concern is someone faithful to the law, abide by the constitution and that is what we have seen and all of these candidates. steve: we heard from senator collins that roe v. wade will be a decisive factor for her? carrie: share

we already know the president trump nominee will be prepared to overturn the precedents of roe v. wade. we know that because president trump has said so. when the president has a litmus test for his nominees and only chooses from a preapproved list of nominees designed to satisfy that litmus test it is certainly not enough for a judge to pay his or her moderation by invoking settled case. the respect the president can become an almost meaningless bar to set for supreme court nominee. at this critical juncture with so many rights and liberties at stake us senators and the american people should expect an affirmative statement of support for the personal liberties of all americans from the next supreme court nominee. the american people deserve to know what kind of a justice president trump nominee would be. president trump is the one who made the litmus test for his nominee, not us. the onus is on his nominee to show where he or she might stand. considering the ample evidence that president trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protection for americans with pre-existing co

roe v wade is not important to me. would not be able to have my beautiful children and newborn daughter without ivf. the abolish of roe v wade could prohibit us to seek fertility treatments. >> thank you for your service. >> good to be here. >> this week is supreme court ruled in favor of trump's travel ban and gave him another pick for if high court. could it come back to hurt republicans? we'll discuss. stay with us. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doct

no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe v wade than the federalist "ociety's leonard leo. if anyone believes judge kavanaugh or anyone else on the list would uphold roe v. wade, then i have a bridge to sell them. leonard leo's goal in life is to repeal roe. he comes up with a list. you think you put any slackers in his opinion on that list? no. judge kavanagh got the nomination not because he will be an impartial judge on behalf of all americans, but because he passed president trump's litmus freedomrepeal women's for their reproductive rights, repeal america's health care including protection of pre-existing conditions. if judge kavanaugh was to be can confirmed, women's reproductive rights would be in the hands of five men on the supreme court. women or menat the of america want. judge kavanaugh's own writings make clear that he would rule gets reproductive rights and freedoms and that he would welcome challenges to the constitutionality of the affordable care act of our health care act. judge kavanaugh has argued that the supre

suggesting is they can change abortion rights in the united states even within the construct of roe v wade roe v wade had this underlying viability test the notion that in the third trimester that fetus is capable of of birth and of living and so there's a viability test i think what you'll see conservative jurist do is say working within the roe v wade construct recognizing that as precedent we can still restrict abortion rights that will be the heart of the debate and i think for democrats it's largely a good one in terms of defining the contrast between the parties going into november and let let in voters decide which party they choose to support in this in this case but the public supports role. well that's exactly right and there is a disconnect between the public sentiment about two thirds of american public support of roe v wade but it's also the lack of protections at the state level there are only a handful of states maybe two handfuls of states that actually protect. the rights of choice at the state level right now and so if roe is overturned or sufficiently cut back it is fair

most of the focus couldhas been the justice can overturn the roe v wade decision. ise hogue. take a listen to - -. he put together the supreme court list for president trump but i don't think it's about roe v wade. it's about having judges on the court will interpret the constitution the way it's written. >> part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account major precedents and that will happen. >>dana: he says the concern over roe v wade is more a scare tactic than reality but how do you see it? >> we take the president and his word and he's the first major party nominee to put a litmus test on supreme court justices. that was to actually overturn roe v wade. so we believe him. he's got a vice president whose on the - - of history. we think that's the mindset many americans are going into this with because is of such a vocal talking point for him. we also know the backpedaling happening now from people have long been critics of roe v wade is personally because they know what we know is most american people, regardless of how they feel personally about ab

leo, democrats are making roe v. wademan's right to abortion the central issue in the campaign and the confirmation battle. you call that a scare tactic the democrats have used for more than 30 years, but i want to play an exchange that i had with candidate trump in the third presidential debate, here it is. >> you just said you want to see the court protect the second amendment, do you want to see the court overturn roe v. wade? >> if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's what will happen and that will happen automatically in my opinion because i am putting pro putting pro-life justices on the court. >> chris: given that, isn't roe v. wade on the line with this nomination? >> mr. leo: the fact of the matter is that roe v. wade is a very major precedent in america and for 36 years people have been talking about it being overturned. it was an issue with sandra o'connor, david souter, anthony kennedy, all of whom people would set would overturn roe v wright. nobody is pretty good x speculating about these

while roe v. wade has been the law of the land for years, extremists have been trying to change the court's decision by making it hard for women to exercise their reproductive rights. but women across the country have not been silent about these efforts and neither has the supreme court. two years ago the court reaffirmed the rights enshrined in roe v. wade when it ruled in favor of whole women's health and struck down an antiabortion law in texas that was designed to make it harder for women to access the care they need. the law in texas attempted to undermine women's reproductive freedom by putting access to that care far out of reach for women. if it had been allowed to stand, the law would have closed three-quarters of the clinics in that state that provided abortion services. if it had been allowed to stand hundreds of thousands of women would have no option but to travel hundreds of miles for their reproductive health services. but the texas law didn't stand. women's constitutional rights did. th

roe v. wade. i think what he meant by that was that he will appoint pro life justices who will overturn roe v. wade. i think that's what's going to happen. >> he stated that very clearly. >> very clearly. >> it was a litmus test. >> that's right. and i think, you know, there are subtle differences between judge hardiman who serves on the third circuit court of appeals based in philadelphia and judge kavanaugh who serves in the d.c. circuit, but they were picked. remember, this was a group of 25 judges picked by the federalist society, the conservative legal organization because they are not justice kennedy. because they are not the kind of republicans who will commit the sin of moderation on abortion rights. on gay rights. on affirmative action. on the death penalty. areas where justice kennedy usually conservative voted with the liberals. i think we just need to be realistic and accurate about understanding what the stakes are here. >> in terms of the record of both the two men who right now see

roe v. wade. >> i'm not going to ask that question, but it is a group of mostly conservative judges. >> i would love president trump to pick somebody to hold up precedent. >>> this is "new day" with allison c alisyn camerota and john berman. >> we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the wor this is "new day," it is monday, july 2nd. how'd that happen? 6:00 here in new york. john avlon joins us this morning, great to have you here. i'm back from a week off of vacation. anything i missed? >> nothing at all. nothing at all. nothing to. >>> mexico elected their presidential candidate. she riding a populist to become the country's next leader. so how will he deal with president trump. the trump administration drafted a bill to give president trump sweeping power on trade. he can abandon key rules and raise u.s. tariffs at will. >> so it's intentionally controversial, unintentionally comedic. antho a what we're seeing with the resulted in mexico, these are cracks in the internat

so he couldn't get behind roe v. wade. however if that's what he is so impressed by, you have 45 years sinsz then. where it's been accepted. over 60% of men and women in the country say roe v. wade is good law. if this is what his basis is of rewarding rhenquist. how does he go against roe v. wade? when it would pass his standard. >> fair question. >> he praises it. for stemming the tide against this flow of rights. this is basically the sort of whole rational for the federalist society existing. this whole conservative movement of which it is now sort of having its climax moment. where it could retake the court and swing the far right for a generation. they believe there was sort of all the efforts to desegregate schools and creating women's rights. and loving vs. virginia. interracial marriage. it's a wink wink. the timing of it came a couple months before he was added to the short list. he was not on the original short list in 2016. these guys including kavanaugh were openly auditioning. giving speeches on purpose. sendi

regardless, this boat could well be the one that overturns roe v. wade, or at least scales it back significantly. she talks about the robert court nomination. had he been confirmed to the supreme court, roe v. wade what have been overturned, or at least that -- at least that's what he said. liberals remember that they know how important it is, they may not have the power to stop it that it will be front and center. will the nomination of amy barrett make it more difficult for democrats? because of her life story? sense it will be, in some . the fact that she is a will and probably help. younger, had less experience, can be gone after that way, and some of the things she has said as an academic make it clear that she is morally opposed to the -- to abortion and strongly suggest that she views roe v. wade is wrongly decided erie the other potential --inee is judge kavanagh, decided. the other potential nominee, judge kavanagh, has evidence similar but there is less. host: we talked about the republican senators from maine and alaska. on the democratic hide

want to play something president trump said from the 2016 -- the final presidential debate about roe v. wade. let's listen. >> do you want to see the court overturn roe v. wade? >> well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be -- that's what will happen, and that will happen automatically in my opinion because i am putting pro-life justices on the court. >> the president was of course very explicit there, but this week on fox he seemed to change his tune. let's listen. >> are you going to ask your nominees beforehand how they might vote on roe v. wade? >> that's a big one and probably not. they're all saying don't do that, you don't do that, you shouldn't do that, but i'm putting conservative people on. >> so senator collins, do you trust that he wouldn't want to make sure roe is overturned? >> well, as i said, i don't like to go into the details of my conversation with the president, but he did tell me that he would not be asking that question, and indeed it would be inappropriate to ask a judge nominee on how they are going to vote in a future c

been followed by other people coming before the supreme court and justice kagan said this about roe v. wade following the ginsburg rule quote, i do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of roe v. wade other than to say that it is settled law, entitled to presidential weight and the application of role to future cases and even its continued validity are issues likely to come before the court in the future. just exactly following the ginsburg rule. i expect this nominee announced tonight to likewise follow the ginsburg standard. i will ask the nominee how he or she use the law and a judges role on the bench. i will not presume to know how a nominee will rule on any case that might come before the court today, tomorrow or ten years from now. i certainly will not be basing my vote on whether i think i will agree with the majority of his or her decisions. the president reported that the president focused on six or seven potential nominees for this vacancy. each one is well-qualified and would make an outstanding supreme court justice. the nominee will get a full and

all about overturning precedents. >> i would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to roe v. wade because that would mean, to me, that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions. >> roe v. wade and many different ways has been affirmed over the years. >> i think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this vote could be a -- one of the key votes of their entire career. >> the roe v. wade, you know, is probably the one that people are talking about in terms of having an effect, but we'll see what happens, but it could very well end up with states at some po t point. >> all right. that's where we begin. abortion one of the several major issues that could come before a supreme court that will soon have a new jugs thistice. also affirmative action, voting rights, lgbt rights and thelet dentalpy death penalty to list a few there. justice anthony kennedy was the swing vote on several monumental cases some of them involving same-sex marriage, the rights for guantanamo detainees and upholding both affirmative action as well as roe v. wade

listen to this. >> i believe very much that roe v wade is settled law. a candidate for this important position who would overturn roe v wade would not be accept to me because that would indicate an activist agenda, a failure to respect precedent. jon: but every recent cart nominee has become very adept at not ean answering questions on w they would rule on specific questions. >> absolutely. a number of the appellate court nominees have come under fire because of their under -- unwillingness to say whether or not they agree with supreme court court decisions in major rulings. we're talking about brown v boarboard of education for exam. a lot of people look back to routroutes hadruth bay dee bades nomination. neil gorsuch said he believes some of these were rightly determined by the supreme court. it's just like you were saying, now a number of these nominees, prospective -- primarily because they were nominated by president trump have really been trained and are very ade pt and knowing how to respond to the president's questions. jon: ruth bader ginsburg c

>> it's important, but it's not about overturning roe v. wade, it's about chipping at that right. ey respect the precedent, so i file this under pretty meaningless. >> more likely be death by a thousand cuts, not one sweeping overturning roe v. wade, so this leaves the left with this game show that john oliver made up yesterday on "last week tonight." >> it's time for democrats' favorite game -- "hope susan collins flips and be disappointed when she doesn't." >> he has good fun with the issue, but susan collins' vote, how consequential is it? they have mike pence, the potential of john mccain coming back to vote and key red state democrats, including three that voted for neil gorsuch. do the democrats have any play here at all? >> i don't think they have much play. the filibuster is gone. i think some of the centrist democrats might be up for supporting president trump on this and in the end oliver is right. it's like lucy and charlie brown, i think collins might be voting in favor of the president's pick, so the democrats are in a terrible position to sway the vote at this point.

perhaps the gravest concern is that of roe v. wade. they didn't protect just access to the safe and legal procedures for women in our country. it is affirmed the constitutional right to privacy. it recognizes all americans must be able to make their own personal health decisions based on their own beliefs, needs and circumstances. the record on the circuit inspires no confidence that he will protect this fundamental right. he's supported restricting access to contraception and he recently would enforce an undocumented minor in tax is to delay the receiving state and legal termination of a pregnancy despite taking these steps to access the procedure under the texas state law. if confirmed, judge kavanaugh will almost certainly have more opportunities to inject the government into the women's decisions about their own bodies.ea in recen the recent years, state legislators across the country and their allies have pushed the boundaries of restrictions on legalaw abortion. challenges to the needs are windinthese are windingtheir wal system

are you certain that any one of those four is about to overturn roe v. wade? f you look at what the president said, which is he will nominate someone only if that person is committed to automatically overturn roe v. wade. if you look at what the president said about john roberts, his berating roberts for failing to strike down the affordable care act. he certainly has criteria and the president's outsourced this decision to the federalist society and the heritage foundation. it is extraordinary. i was a law black to justice blackman. i've argued cases before the supreme court for them. i've never seen a president of the united states in effect make himself a puppet of outside grou of right wing fringe ideologues that are prepared on this list. >> you've talked about the stakes but do the democrats have the republicans control the votes in the senate but we have the american people on our side. the vast majority of american people shown by poll after poll want roe v. wade to be preserved. they want protections for millions of americans against pre-existing condi

for instance, roe v. wade.e this because i know it, mississippi would probably be one that would come up with a challenge. whether they pick around the edges or go straight for the law is something we don't know yes. >> yes. precedent, you've been showing that here. i don't think the new justice will swing into a place where they will band in that body of law. but nevertheless, when they kill with paper cuts, they can make it a paper tiger. you have it on the books, roe v. wade but they've eviscerated it that make it possible for a woman to have access to that. that is the value that the supreme court justice brings to the table. miranda will be seen differently. the effectiveness of the case is different. suppression issues under the fourth amendment are seen differently. that's be more favorable to the prosecution than the defense. and for example, we have plessy versus ferguson. brown versus board of education. the roberts court has shaken they will take that draconian action. >> shepard: and it's not as if

whether see would ask the person that the president nominates whether that individual believes roe v. wade is settled law. and that's where she is not committing to voting against the nominee that does not commit to believing that roe v. wade is settle the law. i know it sounds like we're parsing words. she doesn't want anybody to be hostile to roe v. wade. there's a question that it's unlikely an individual in that hearing is going to come out with their personal position saying they are pro-choice. >> right. they're all praying not to do that. they all get from the heritage sighting and the federal society and sherpas who guide them around, training. some of these judges have been confirmed before. they know not to fall into traps. they're judges. they're smart. >> exactly. that's what you heard her say is that that's where she goes if they have a legal history of being hostile. well a lot of these haven't ruled on such abortion case, let alone something as significant and as large as this. i think the news out of this i want to point to, i know it went on for several minutes, was that p

david souter said they would overturn roe v. wade. were the co-authors of planned parenthood v. casey which affirmed roe v. wade. >> dana: that was in 1992. the quinnipiac poll that came out yesterday asked do you agree or disagree with roe v. wade? the public in this poll 63% agree with it and would not want to see it overturned. do you think because it's been in place for 45 years that maybe the justices would not want to overturn it? >> i doubt that there sal juvenile court on this court to lirttlely overturn roe v. wade. talking about the core right to abortion. that doesn't mean the public is in favor of unlimited abortion as some democrats and liberals want. nor would they be opposed to some states refining that right within those states the core right established by roe in 175, i think, is intact and safe. because justice roberts really reveers starry decaiaphas the strength of precedence. this is a strength this precedence has lived with for a long time. that main thing there the court right of roe i don't think is in danger th

that roe v. wade was the biggest part of the litmus test. we can call it that because trump did during the campaign. >> see you in two hours, my friend. i'm don lemon. president trump announces his pick to replace anthony kennedy on the supreme court. >> it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. >> but fasten your seat belts because this is just the beginning. it's only the beginning. those who are familiar with kavanaugh are calling him, quote, an unrelenting, unapologetic defender of presidential power, some of what we just discussed there. so what will his nomination mean for the russia investigation? get ready for a battle. that's going to last all summer. tens of millions of dollars spent. rallies, marches, protesters and counterprotesters outside right now. one gop operative telling cnn, quote, we're prepared for an all-out war. there is a lot to discuss right now. gloria borger and dana bash are in washington. michael

no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe v. wade than the federalist society's leonard leo. no one has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than the very man who chose the list of 25. that's what we're up against here. and that's why america is on te tenter hooks, so worried about any choice from this list. let me repeat again. mr. leonard leo is the man who assembled trump's list of potential supreme court nominees and no one, no one, has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than leonard leo. now, normally in the senate, we have a process of advise and consent on the supreme court. in the old days, the president would consult with republicans and democrats in the senate on a qualified judge. and then after careful deliberation, nominated jurists that could get bipartisan support. what we have here is the exact opposite. the president has gone to two far out of the mainstream, hard-right groups, the heritage foundation and the federalist society, and asked them, not the senate, to advise and consent on a supreme

the court protect the second the court overturn roe v. wade? we put anotherwo or perhaps thre'sjustices on, what will happen and that will happenutomatically in my opinion because am putting pro putting pro-life justices on the court. >> chris: given't that, roe v. wade on the line with this nomination? l >>eo: the fact of the matter is that roe v. wade is a and for 36 years people haveica been talking about it being overturned. it was an issue with sandra o'connor, david souter, annhony key, all of whom people would set would overturn roe v wright. nobody is pretty g speculating about these things. i don't think athe end of the day it's about roe v. wade. it's about having judges on the interpret tng to constitution the way it's written and part of interpreting the constitution is taking into account precedents, and that's going hr happen. >> c: as you well know, sometimes justices adhere to presidents and sometimes they overturnhem. >> mr. leo: aolutely but jor precedents of the court require a lot of attention and respect and scrutiny and we'

could a 5-4 decision overturn roe v. wade? are zeroing in on her answer to the question and to what extent she will hold the nominee to account to answer squarely whether they would uphold roe v. wade. when i asked her, this is what she told me today. >> i think i have made it pretty clear that if a nominee has demonstrated hostility to roe v. wade i would not support them. >> reporter: she said she doesn't know who the nominee is. i went back and said the question is, are you looking for an absolute commitment from this nominee that they would set -- or acknowledge roe v. wade in settled law. she continually was dodging saying let's wait for the nominee to come forward and the confirmation hearings to take place. >> you also asked her about one of the specific names and she said it would be a no? >> reporter: exactly. there is a list of seven names we are looking at now that the president has floated as most likely to be his selection. i asked her about those seven picks, if any of those seven were acceptable. she appeared to

you mentioned how the roe v. wade issue could come up, that will always be an issue with every supreme court pick dating back the 40-plus years since roe v. wade. but that they could look almost too zealous? i mean, right out the gate opposing and protesting any choice the president -- before he made the choice, that they're looking a little bit too deranged about it? >> well, as a question of strategy, i would have preferred that senator schumer say, hey, i'm going to wait is and see, then took a few minutes to wait and see and then had an opinion. i think that would -- neil: you would have waited at least a few minutes -- >> it would have been smarter, but that's not what they did. they said, hey, here are choices, we're opposed to them. we're going very heavily to try to tick away the women's vote that we've been growing with women in the election ares. now look, the catholic vote -- trump was, actually, the first president in about 30 years to win the catholic vote on the republican side. and i did some in-depth a

you saw the importance of roe v. wade in this decision-making and the debate we are about to see on capitol hill. having a woman be one of those justices could be -- if roe v. wade is overturned -- having a woman being one of those justices and that opinion would be very important for a lot of different things. for republicans who confirmed her for -- for republicans who the president for who nominated her. so very important in having a third woman on a nine-member -- and having a third woman on a nine-member bench is probably important as well. reporting ons is congressman jim jordan knowing about allegations of sexual assault and activities that went -- aside the sauna half-dozen other wrestling team members saying jim jordan had to know about this. he denies the allegation. what this is me for the ohio republican? guest: it is tough to know -- what does this mean for the ohio republican? guest: it is tough to know. it seems that he is under siege more and more as these rustlers have come forward. some of their critics

do you think with roe v. wade they should? you yourself. >> the most important thing to think about with roe v. wade or any other precedent of the court is, you know what is the role of precedent in judicial decision making. brett kavanaugh is co author of one of the most important books we have on the issue of precedent and how to grapple with it. he co authored that with neil gorsuch and several other judges. it says when you have a major precedent, you have to look at it and struggle with it. >> neil: what if they find that that precedent is wrong and what was done in the past? i get a sense from chief justice roberts that would take an act of godly influence to change a precedent that's been established by the court and people have gotten used to for 45 years. do you know whether justice kavanaugh feels that way? >> no one can know what a supreme court justice will do. i'll tell you this, this is a court that if you look at trends in history is minimalist in term of when it overturns precedent. it avoids that. that's where

both of whom have said they would have reservations for voting for somebody who might overturn roe v. wade. the reason to focus on her, the literature is clear, she has articulated the idea she's hostile to roe v. wade and affordable care act and things like that. how do you square that circle. how do three republicans and a few -- two democrats and three republicans who have said that they're not in favor of this sort of thing, how are they going to square nis circle? >> i don't think they can. roe v. wade is much broader than abortion rights. it's about empowerment of women to make their own decision, justice in this country. it's a fundamental decision protecting constitutional rights and quite frankly, disappointment when we're filling justice kennedy's spot is not a position on the court of appeals, this is a position on the supreme court that will very much change the balance of the supreme court. so i think each of these senators, all senators, have to be accountable for what is at stake here. that's why we're asking the american people to please focus on this, focus on the issues o

is roe v. wade a bad law? >> 's legal advisor, a harvard law professor. >> i want your opinion. >> he thinks it is not a law that is a good quality presiden president. the question here is very different. this middle justice, the swing vote, john roberts. he is much harder to predict. i have no idea what he will do. >> you didn't answer my questio question. >> pete: people say roe v. wade is terrible, abortion should be illegal. people also say my professor at princeton who said, they pointed out many times that the decision of roe v. wade was judicial activism at its finest. >> pete, respectively. she insults the intelligence of every viewer. since 1973, the current administration they have acknowledged roe v. wade. this judge is bent on overturning it. she should not be nominated. >> pete: you are making at a single issue. >> it's a big issue. the woman's right to choose. >> pete: are you saying it's not a legitimate policy issue? >> jason: >> don't you believe? can you just say yes or no? yes or no? >> to s

restrictions on a woman's meaningful access to reproductive care and, in effect, then, can overturn roe v wade without explicitly overturning roe v wade, in that affirming these state laws, these restrictions on a woman's access to reproductive health care, they will session hi eliminate a woman'slity to have an abortion if she makes the decision that that is necessary. >> woodruff: so when it comes the that, or you mentioned the affordable care act, you mentioned the same-sex marriage decision, when judge kavanaugh said last night, i make decisions on each case based on that case, i have an open mind, you're saying you don't believe that, or explain. >> i believe that he has a track record and a proven track record of not spporting these fundamental rights, such as same-sex marriage. i believe hi background tells us he believes that decisions on marriage and the decision one lekes to have gal relationship with the person they love is not an expression of a fundamental right this is his track record, and these are the concerns i have out his background and his philosophy as he approaches ese k