the supreme court changed that. there was a time when gay people could be an arrested for loving one another and when it was illegal for them to get married. the supreme court changed that. there was a time when thousands of women died seeking illegal, unsafe abortions. and the supreme court changed that. the justices on the supreme court matter to each and every one of our lives. that's why there's so much concern over president trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court, judge brett kavanaugh. right wing groups like the heritage foundation and the federalist society have been working for decades setting the stage to pack our federal courts with i had -- ideologically invested opinions and they have engaged in these efforts. these two organizations have played the primary role in vetting tru vetting president trump's nominees to the supreme court. and these two organizations certainly expect to reflect his own ideological perspectives, which include overturning roe vs wade and repealing the affordable

would not be his job on the supreme court. he gave a speech last year in which he said that congress and the president, not the courts, possess the authority and the responsibility to legislate. let me repeat that. congress and the president, not the courts, possess the authority and responsibility to legislate. now, the third thing that i expect to happen in this whole process is that we will vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination before the next supreme court session starts in october. it's what the american people want us to do. nbc news did a recent poll. they found that 62% of americans want us to vote on this nomination before the november election. only 33% said we should wait. but democrats want to delay. they want to delay the process. the american people are saying get on with it. it's early july now. we're going to work through the month of august. it gives us plenty of time to consider this nomination. when you look at the people serving on the supreme court today, you know, we typically spend about 66 days to confirm

that is what a supreme court decision can do. it can undermine american democracy and create a situation where the very wealthiest people in this country can buy politicians and influence legislation. mr. president, several years ago the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but the court also ruled that the medicaid expansion, as part of the affordable care act, had to be optional for states. i'm on the health, education, labor committee that helped write that bill, and i can tell you, there was almost no discussion beneficiary i don't recall any discussion -- there was almost no discussion, i don't recall any discussion -- about whether that legislation would apply -- elements that have legislation would apply to every state in this country. but the supreme court ruled that that was not the case. and they said that the decision of expanding medicaid was up to the states, and today we have 17 states in our country that still have not expanded medicaid. and what that means in english, in real term

don't go to the doctor when they should, that is all because of a decision of the united states supreme court. but it is not only the issue of campaign finance or the issue of medicaid in health care what the court has acted in a disastrous way. i think everybody knows that our country has a very, very shameful history in terms of civil rights. and it has been a very long and hard struggle for us to finally say that in america, regardless of the color of your skin, regardless of your economic position, you have the right to vote. not a radical idea but it is a struggle that very brave people fought for for many, many decades. in 1965, u.s. congress finally passed the voting rights act which had the impact of eliminating racial discrimination i in voting. and that act passed by congress had been reauthorized multiple times since. in other words, what congress said is that everybody in this country has the right to vote regardless of the color of your skin. but in 2013, the supreme court again by a 5-4 vote ruled that part of the voting rights act of 1965 outdated and they struck down a major,

as a matter of fact the supreme court, the supreme court has adopted his reasoning in their opinion on 11 separate occasions and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal judges all across the country. perhaps judge cavanaugh's most well-defined characteristic is something he said monday evening when the president announced his nomination judge cavanaugh committed to be open-minded in the cases that come before him as a supreme court justice. open-minded. i think that's critical. his record backs up that commitment. he has a long and clear record of fairly applying the text of our constitution and our laws. there will be a lot to consider on the judge cavanaugh because he has such a long and very clear record of writing and the president mentioned his concise writing skills. that i look for experience, fairness and respect for the constitution as it is written. that's because the constitution aside, the legislative authority to us and it selected representative. they editorialize today, and i quote, cavanaugh has said that if confirmed to the supreme court hi

senate as soon set become donald trump's choice for supreme court judge the president's nomination a republican loyalist brett kavanaugh is opposed by democrats they say trumps trying to tilt the nine justices in the highest court in the land towards the conservative right of the groups have already begun spending millions of dollars to persuade senators to make the right choice when they vote in the or some confirmation is expected to shape the supreme court for at least a generation we'll get to our guests and a couple of moments but first john hendren has this report from washington. with all the suspense and drama of a reality t.v. show president trump picked the favorite tonight it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states for. the nomination of the president's choice for the u.s. supreme court has already begun a battle between liberals and conservatives that will cost millions of dollars and could dominate the november midterm elections mr trump's presentation and mr kavanagh's almost was a political campaign appealing

we know he would mean to the supreme court. on behalf of the millions of americans who are counting on this court to protect the freedoms, to protect our union and to protect this constitution, the senate judiciary committee is ready to act. >> this nominee, like other recent republican nominees to the supreme court, has had to run a special interest obstacle course, moderated by the federalist society. as a committee we need to understand what assurances were made to the special interests as this nominee ran that obstacle course that put him at the top of the list. that is a vitally important question. you may say it is improbable that we are in a country where that question would need to be asked, but you can look at two dozen 5-4 decisions, partisan decisions of the united states supreme court that inevitably and predictably decide in favor of republican political interests at the polls and with dark money, and predictably decide in favor of big republican corporate interest, both to the candidate of their employees and again

his credentials is well suited for the supreme court. he excelled as an undergraduate and law student at yale and clerked for justice kennedy, the man he would replace, along being a clerk for the federal appeal court judges. he served in a critical position in president george w. bush's administration, and beyond his resume is respect and effectiveness. he is highly regarded by his colleagues on the federal judiciary, and i think that says a lot about his potential and his character in terms of potential to become a supreme court justice. he is also impressed others over his long and very prestigious career. we saw a wonderful family on monday night. you can tell they are very proud of their dad and their mom. i was really honored to have the opportunity to meet all of them along with judge kavanaugh's parents. he's been very effective. as a matter of fact, the supreme court -- this supreme court has adopt his reasoning in their opinions on 11 separate occasions, and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal ju

tonight's breaking news, a new supreme court justice nominee. nominee. nologue straightahead. >> we will talk to the president'slk attorney. besides making the call selecting a nominee for this up in court the president picked judge kavanaugh to replace the outgoing justice kennedy. this is not a surprise in the unprecedented move judge kavanaugh was selected from a previously released list of 25 originalist r justices. this is one more example how this president is the most transparent in history to keep a clear promise to the american people. but in many ways that political aspect he has to think of senators like murkowski and colin and also rand paul from kentucky. toto o pick a judge with a very narrow margin in the senate could also successfully maneuver through a confirmation hearing with the majority of senators. and to be educated at yale. and to serve as s the associate counsel during the investigation during that time. there was a controversial opinion sometimes making false public statements about the investigation. and then in 2009 to. change

supreme court.if justice kennedy was a swing vote to the center, judge kavanaugh would swing to the far right. kavanaugh's record has shown consistently given a choice between corporations and consumers, he is a reliable ally of big business time and time again. given a choice between polluters and public health, he consistently finds a legal escape or the polluters. deciding between the freedom of women to plan their own families and the strong hand of government, women lose an kavanaugh's courts. kavanaugh's views on the second amendment are straight out of the gun lobby playbook. where he grew up would be wild west dcf judge kavanaugh had his way. here is a presidential tweet you will never read. time thend that can of president found a supreme court nominee on record saying the president should not be distracted with criminal investigations of prosecutions while he is in office. brett kavanaugh would be the deciding vote to change the rules in america for the next generation. are a number of my

supreme court.he ap moments ago reporting that it will be brett kavanaugh. we live full complete reaction to the president's nomination and analysis. shannon bream, jay sekulow, jay garrett and later we will have an opening monologue that we will tell you all about your president selections. joining us from the white house as our own john roberts. >> for the past hour or a little more, shannon bream and i have been leaning toward the kavanaugh. we expect to see the president, as well as judge and, soon to be, if the president gets his way, justice brett kavanaugh walking up. he is a veteran of the d.c. court of appeals. so many different justices of current and past from the d.c. circuit court of appeals. there are a lot of people who thought that this was maybe too much of an establishment toys, that maybe he should have gone with tony amy barrett, but nexe around if another justice steps down while the president is still sitting in the oval office, amy coney barrett would likely be his next choice

, the supreme court has. he has authored multiple dissents that ultimately prevailed in the supreme court. that ought to be complimented, not condemned. he has taught courses at harvard, yale, and georgetown. i would have preferred if he had taught some courses at brigham university and the university of utah, but i guess that was too far west, but you can't knock harvard, yale, and georgetown. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: it bears to mention that liberal and conservative justices alike have hired his former clerks which address -- chosen the respect he has across the ideological spectrum. truly, madam president, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the supreme court than brett kavanaugh, and the funny thing is most people know that, including my friends on the other side. that's one reason they are afraid to have him on the court. i speak from experience on this. i'm the former c

later on, the supreme court vacated that decision. the d.c. circuit isn't the date, there are not many cases where the court is called those cases and in one of those future u.s., he took a middle line which hardly makes him a danger to women. continue our conversation with our guest, steven aden. if you want to ask questions you canett kavanaugh, do so. if you support his decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. and you can tweet us thoughts. what is your organization doing, particularly when it comes to the congressional aspect? guest: we have a lot of information on our website. to our contact in the senate, telling them why we think he is well-qualified. and we will be signing a letter from our staff and our president to the senate judiciary committee, urging them to confirm him. host: two people on that committee are senator michalski and senator collins. talk about where you see this playing out? guest: it seems that democrats are not open-minded about this candidate. and because the senate is closely divided, republican s

ago, president reagan nominated anthony kennedy to the supreme court. the framers established that the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. [applause] >> my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it's like to be an only child, i say, "it depends on who your parents are." [laughter] >> i was lucky. theom was a teacher in 1960's and 1970's. she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington, d.c., mckinley tech and hd woodson. her example taught me the example of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at the dinner table, when she practiced her closing arguments. was, "useark line your common sense. what rings true, what rings false?" that's good advice for a juror and for a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame

a law clerk on the supreme court for supreme court justice kennedy. he is one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006, the senate confirmed him to the d.c. circuit. he has compiled an extensive record on the federal bench. he has published more than 300 opinions and earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. long kavanaugh has built a and distinguished record. it paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy, pick favorites, or craft novel legislation from the bench. some of our colleagues and others on the left seem to see the role of judges very differently. president obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for president. he explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbored particular empathy for certain parties and certain cases. well, that's great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes. n

." -- judge brett kavanaugh is president's choice to serve on the supreme court. follow the process on c-span. the senate confirmation hearings, though, and the swearing-and. watch live on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org. or, listen with the free c-span trumpapp. >> president nominated judge brett kavanaugh to replace retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy. judge kavanaugh is a former law clerk to justice kennedy. the judges wife, children, and parents joined him at the white house for the public announcement. [applause] pres. trump: my fellow americans, tonight i speak to you from the east room of the white house regarding one of the most profound responsibilities of the president of the united states, and that is the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that, other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. the supreme court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our republic, the constitution of the united states. twelve days ago, justice anthony kennedy informed me

this judge would weaponize the supreme court against working people and for the wealthy and powerful. the court is divided and if this narrow-minded extremism is confirmed, he will chip away at our rights in the workplace, the doctor's office and the ballot box. working people know all too well how important the supreme court is to upholding key american values. with the janus decision that attacked the rights of working people and bad decisions on voting rights and the muslim ban. [siren] the service employees international union and two million members stands against this judge, we will fight in the streets. cheers and applause] hey, hey. anybody ready to fight? anybody ready to fight? y'all, we ain't going to stand for brett kavanaugh because the people that are here tonight doesn't trust the supreme court. this is the people's supreme court. are you with me? [cheers and applause] we won't stand for any nominee, no brett kavanaugh who wants to take away our constitutional rights to decide what to do with our own bodies. yes! because when people's rights are under attack, what do yo

i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. [applause] >> my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it is like to be an only child, i say it depends on who your parents are. i was lucky. my mom was a teacher. in a 1970's and 60's, she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington dc. mckinley tech and h g woodson. her example taught me the example of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments. her trademark line was, use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. that is good advice for a juror and a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanaugh, but to me, the title will always belong to my mom. my dad went to law school at night while working full-time. he has an unparalleled work ethic

and it should be removed from the docket, which the supreme court did. the travel ban 3 was then challenged. i challenged it for the state of hawaii along with the mosque in hawaii and some other individual plaintiffs. that was again enjoined by the district court, enjoined by the circuit court, but in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court upheld that travel ban, at least at this preliminary stage. in terms of the litigation. and so, you know, there's basically two kinds, two issues in the travel ban. one is statutory and one is constitutional. the statutory issue is basically breaks down to two different things. number one, there is a broad statute. 1182-f. and did congress give the president the power essentially under that to enact something like the travel ban? here's what it says, whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the united states would be detrimental to the interest of the united states, he may by proclamation and for such period as he deems necessary to spend the entry of all aliens or any class o

next, law professors talk about the legacy of supreme court justice thurgood marshall and review noteworthy cases from the court's most recent term. was held at the federal judicial conference of the fourth circuit court.

wade every time there is a supreme court vacancy. it was a big deal when sandra day o'connor was appointed to the court 37 years ago. yet, though he weighed the still the law of the land. it is pretty clear that justices have a way of surprising us. could've predicted the justice scalia would strike down a ban on flagburning? it's a fools errand then to try to predict our justice our rule on some hypothetical future case. this regular uproar about road the wade show the difference between how many democrats and republicans view the courts. liberal outside groups and many democrats have a litmus test. they seem to be results oriented and focusing on policy outcomes of judicial decisions. they expect and even demand their judges to rule in favor of their preferred policies. liberal outside groups and their allies just simply want judges to be politicians hiding under their robes. that is why senate democrats were so blamed in changing senate rules so that they could stack the dc circuit court of appeals. former democrat leader harry rei

they went up to the supreme court, and the supreme court reversed in a 5-4 decision. neither of these first amendment cases were written by justice kennedy, even though his handiwork is seen in all the precedents that led up to them. on the licensed notice, the court threw cold water on the idea that there was such a thing as a lower set of you for the speech. becausen't decide it, it didn't pass even under intermediate scrutiny. we've never said there was a thing subject to a lower standard of review. there are a couple of different categories, but this doesn't fall into either of them. can causeal speech all sorts of problems, the cultural revolution, and nazi germany. tois kind of a barnburner cite those two things. it is also hard to cite what is covered by professional speech, does this include barbers, for example? one of the two examples of it being subject to lower standards someview, which were first laws required professional justices to disclose nine controversial facts. if youlawyer advertises, do it on contingency basis, you may have to say you have to pa

i have participated in the last 14 supreme court confirmation including the confirmation of all current members of the court. i know a good nominee when i see one. brett kavanaugh is not just a good nominee, brett kavanaugh is an exceptional nominee. and any fair person has to admit it. madam president, i spent a little over a year since we last considered a nominee on the supreme court. that nominee was neil gorsuch. i have to say president trump could have held on. i came nearly a dozen times in support of his nomination because i knew what kind of judge he would be. i knew he would interpret the constitution according to its original meaning, not according to the series of liberal law professors are progressive activists. i knew he would give effect to the plaintext of statutes rather than running around to find bits and pieces of legislative history to support his view. i knew he would hold the administration and the administrative state to task and help check the unrestrained growth of the on elected branch of government. justice gorsuch has done that and more. he has shown himself

but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the united states supreme court, the highest court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come. when we are called upon to consider a supreme court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the court. ordinarily presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. and so ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values since they are unknown when we first hear their name. mr. president, we live in times that are the opposite of ordinary. these are not ordinary times. we live in a time when there is ongoing right before our eyes an extraordinary assault on the rule of law in this country coming from the president of the united states on down. we live at a time when the courts are so critically important to our democracy because they are a bulwark for fundamental righ

we are now in the midst of a decision on the swing vote on the united states supreme court. if justice kennedy was a swing vote on that court, judge kavanaugh it to the far right. his record is shown consistently, if given a choice between corporations and consumers, he is a reliable ally of big business. between polluters and public health he finds an escape to the polluters. deciding between the freedom of women to planning their own families and strong hand of government, they lose. his views on the second amendment are straight out of the gun lobby playbook. washington, d.c.,, where he grew up, would be wild west d.c. if the judge had his way. and here is a presidential tweet you will never read. just in the nick of time, the president found a supreme court nominee who is on record saying that the president shouldn't be distracted with criminal investigations and prosecutions while in office. he would be the deciding vote on the court to change the rules in america for the next generation. gathered here are a number of of our colleagues on the judiciary committee. we will

the issue is when you are getting named to the supreme court and there is no supreme court precedent on these matters, this supreme court will essentially be called upon, if these things come to them, to create supreme court precedent on these matters. he won't be bound by anything the supreme court has done before because the supreme court has never grappled with whether a president could be indicted. he's on the record saying that would be a terrible thing that would happen. but, again, this all has to be fought over by people who are now going to start going over the millions of pages of documents that make up his public record. >> rachel, if i could talk to one harvard law school professor tonight about this nominee, it would be professor elizabeth warren, who actually has a vote on the nominee. and, okay, she's a former professor, but she is going to join us later to give her reaction both as a former harvard law school professor and a voting senator on this nomination. >> as someone neither a lawyer and tries not to play one on tv, i'm glad to hear that. >> tonight, as predicte

i've been here the last 17 nominations for the supreme court. including every sitting member of the court. whether you consider roe v wade, marriage equality, voting rights, so much more, i've never seen so much with just one seat. unlike senate republicans who have mounted an unprecedented and shameful blockade to the court, we take our constitutional obligation seriously. i'm going to withhold my consent for this nominee or any other nominee who seeks to who intends to strip away insurance protection for millions of americans with pre-existing conditions who sides with the powerful or hard-working americans or anyone who believes and shares the presence believe, not a check against it. to provide equal justice under law. that's what this nominee has yet proven icr leader here so i'll yield. >> i want to thank our members of the judiciary committee led by ranking member feinstein for the great job they do. it's one of the most talented groups of senators that i have ever seen assembled and i've seen a lot of senators assembled. thank you all. no

loan.e is valerie -- this judge weaponize the supreme court against working people and for the wealthy and powerful. the court is mostly divided in it is narrowminded extremist confirmed, will chip away at our thets in the work lace, doctors's office, and the ballot box. working people know all too well the importance of the supreme court in upholding key american values. bad decisions on working people, bad decisions on working rights. we will resist. anybody ready to fight? anybody ready to fight? >> we aren't going to stand for brett kavanaugh. this is the people's supreme court. are you with me? we won't stand for any nominee. no brent cobb and all that wants to take away our constitutional rights and decide what we want to do with our own bodies. attack,ple are under what do we do? we fight back. when women's rights are under attack? what do we do? we are going to let him know. we are going to fight tonight, come back tomorrow and were going to be out here in november. are you with me? sure thatng to make the senate blocks this nomination and stands with the women across this coun

supreme court. the ap just moments ago reporting that i it will be bret kavanaugh. we will have a full and complete analysis, and later we have an opening monologue that will tell you all about the president's election. joining us now from the white house as our own john roberts. >> from the past hour, shannon bream and i say we have been leaning towards brett kavanaugh. we expect to see the president and as well, judge, and circuit court of appeals, often called the farm team for the supreme court. there are a lot of people that thought maybe this was too much of an establishment choice, maybe he should have gone with a b tony barrett but the intelligence that i've been getting it is that amy coney barrett may have been a difficultou confirmation this year. if another justice's shuts down, they would likely be the next choice. >> we are only ten seconds away, the president of the united states making his big announcement. ap reporting and fact that it is a judge kavanaugh, which have been rumored m

i participated in the last 14 supreme court contributions included the confirmation of all current members of the court. i know a good nominee when i see one. brett have on track kavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh is an exceptional nominee and you have to admit that. . . nominee was neil gorsuch. and i have to say president trump hit a home run with justice gorsuch. i came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of justice gorsuch's nomination because i knew neil gorsuch and i knew what kind of a judge he would be. i knew he would interpret the i knew he would interpret the constitution according to its originalor meeting not according to the theories of liberal law professors or activists. i knew that he would give effect to the plaintext of statutes rather than running around dividing the bits and pieces of legislative history does the porch of his preferred view and he would hold the administration to task to help test the unrestrained growth of the unelected unaccountable fourth branch of government. he's done all thate. and more. when the administration advances and most of all he und

you have this 1992 supreme court case and it basically stood by the 1967 decision of the supreme court. the court said in 1967 that states can require the retailer to collect sales tax only if the retailer has a physical presence in the state. amazon had no physical presence. they have the bookstores and stuff but before that they did not have any. you would buy from amazon and you do not have to pay the sales tax. the very same book cost the same. there was a disparity. when it was decided in 1992 the interstate economy was very different. we had mail order catalogs and that how -- is how you bought stuff. you had to wait to come into your mailbox. south dakota basically manufactured the supreme court case. they said we think that does not make any sense. they had their legislator pass a law which was directly contrary to finding president at the time. the law said if you engage in more than $100,000 in sales to folks in south dakota you have to pay and they have to collect sales tax. the supreme court said you can force individual residence to pay a tax if you bought from amazon. the

and the c-span cameras are up at the supreme court, showing you a supreme court pet care.ore on "washington journal." ♪ day --ay night on human night on q and a. >> she saw me. i decided right there that i was going to get the amendment ratified. >> the man responsible for getting the 27th amendment ratified. >> i was in the library of downtown austin, texas. i came across a book that had an devoted to amendments that had passed congress but not enough state legislatures had approved. and this one jumped right out at me. law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. " i remember standing in the aisle and it was as if lightning had struck. i remember the whole sitting electricity of it all. instead of writing about the equal rights amendment and the deadline,atification why don't i write about this says, remember when congress wanted to adjust their salary? >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. was created by americ

we need a supreme court justice who will uphold roe, a supreme court justice that believes women's health in 2016 was rightly decided and one that believes that woman has a right to safe, legal abortions in the specifics wed the want our late at today. in recent days, republicans have been trying to lay the groundwork percent in a nomination not have to answer tough questions at a hearing. they have invoked this is the so-called ionsberg wrote with to ginsburgrences in 1993. the situation was entirely don't than. it was not happening against a backdrop of then-president clinton having issued litmus tests during the campaign. we have gone back and look at the record and read what justice ginsburg said at her confirmation hearings on the said thisoe and she is something central to a woman's life, her dignity. it's a decision she must make for itself in one government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices. that's a pretty straightforward and eloquent answer. the ginsburg ruled means testifying unequivocally and cl

i speak about the supreme court. yesterday justice anthony kennedy, a great friend of mine and a wonderful justice on the court announced his retirement on july 31. he has served with the highest distinction. over his tenure, he has -- supreme court playing a pivotal role in some of the most consequential court decisions. from mcdonald versus chicago to citizens united versus f.e.c. he rightly gained a reputation as the supreme court's swing vote. sometimes he sided with the court's liberal wing. other times he sided with the conservatives, but he always sided with what he believed to be the correct interpretation of the law. what more could we ask for from a judge in throughout his public service justice kennedy has mentioned a generation of jurists who went on to become -- he mentored a generation of jurists who went on to become aluminum ordinaries in their -- aluminum ordinaries in their own right. not least among them is justice gorsuch, a former kennedy clerk, and now serves as his equal on the supreme court. wi

host: joining us to talk about the pic of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, president of -- what is anthony your organization has interest in that? guest: we care about the courts are we been involved in elections for some time. 2014 was a big year. we are a pro-life organization collecting pro-life senators. 2014de great gains in which led to a great win in the trump presidency. this led to the nomination of gorsuch, now the nomination of kavanaugh. we need the senate to confirm along with perhaps a democrat or two to confirm this nominee. host: what are your initial thoughts? guest: i think he is highly confirmable. iny much like neil gorsuch background and philosophy. the senate has confirmed neil gorsuch. i think we have 49 solid program life vote from that angle in the senate. we have collins and makowski on record voting for gorsuch before. i mean by the content of his intellect and background but i also mean because this senate has a record of confirming someone just like him. host: do you expect the hearings will directly focus on the issue of roe versus wade, the areas of

amy: in a move to dramatically shift the supreme court to the right, president trump has nominated federal judge brbrett kavanaugh to fill anthony kennedy's seat on the high court. will president trump succeed in his campmpaign promise of overturning roe v. wade? >> do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn roe v. wade, which includes, in fact states, a woman's right toto abortion? another two or perhaps threree justices on, tht is really what -- that will happen. that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because i'm putting pro-life justices on the court. amy: we will take an in-depth look at the kavanaugh nomination the round table of guests, including former planned parenthood president cecile richards. >> enormous concern is is a judicial nominee who was chosen not for his temperament, not for his experience, but because he was checked and approved by the federal society, an organization that is supported the overturn of roe v. wade. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy

there ist a reason some dems hae often referred to the supreme court has attended the court that is influenced on so many salient cases and cannot be overstated. it was the swing vote in the decisions decided five to four on a divided bench of the supreme court. these include some of the most historical cases in the nations history on a woman's right to choose, on environmental protections. justice kennedy wrote the controlling opinion in planned parenthood versus casey which reaffirms the court holding to make a fundamental decision about her own health care including a woman's right to choose a. justice kennedy joined a five to four opinion versus the epa which held up the greenhouse gas emissions. justice kennedy wrote the opinion in the united states versus windsor striking down as unconstitutional but the defense of marriage act because it violated basic due process geek with protection principles by extending certain benefits to opposite sexin married couples t denying the same benefits for same-sex married couples. in 2015, justice kennedy wrote the landmark opinion which held that the

so there's a chance that the supreme court nominee is at the supreme court today. wouldn't that be ironic? >> shepard: it would indeed. these confirmation battles, the first i remember and the biggest one that sort of kicked off this long string of them, i was a senior in college and it was my senior year in 1987. the bork confirmation hearing came up. it was a battle royale. you wonder if we're about to see something similar. >> it would be difficult to bork as it's become know in the vernacular. somebody like hardiman or kavanaugh. the wore i have is with kavanaugh that they may get some dissension from conservatives that don't like his 2011 ruling on obamacare. borking kethledge would be difficult as well. the only candidate that might be subject to that scrutiny is amy coney barrett because of her writings on if fact that she believes an opinion and a decision from the supreme court was made in error, that she would support overturning the judicial precedent. you're going to have tough hearings. in question about that. will they last to the level of robert bork

circuit court before being elevated to the supremes. on the d.c. circuit court where he sits now, judge kavanaugh has served under the chief judge of that court, merritt garland who was nominated in the spring of 2016 to fill the seat left by the death of antonin scalia. nominated by barack obama. because he was nominated by barack obama, republicans in the senate would not allow a hearing on the nomination. they cited the election coming later that year. close observers will note there is also an election coming later this year but nobody knows if democrats will be able to apply the same standard this time to wait on hearings on brett kavanaugh until after the election the way the republicansed my that standard last time. the democrats will apparently try that but they're not in power and we don't know if they'll be able to pull it off. we shouldn't lose sight of what a remarkable thing this is that just happened tonight. president trump, after less than 18 months in office, not yet halfway through one term as president, is already making his secon

that case is now moot and it should be removed from the docket which the supreme court did. travel ban three was then challenged. you know, i challenged it for the state of hawaii along with a mosque in hawaii. some other individual plaintiffs. that was enjoined by the district court and in a 5-4 decision the supreme court upheld that travel ban at least at this preliminary stage. in terms of the litigation. so you know there's basically two kinds -- two issues that are on the travel ban. one is statutory and one is constitutional. the statutory issue is basically -- it breaks down into two different things. number one, in is a broad statute, 1182-f. did congress give the president the power essentially under that to enact something like the travel ban? here's what it says. whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the united states would be detrimental to the interests of the united states he made that proclamation and for such period as he deems necessary to suspend the class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants. we argued