p e dinero y llos gana ellos ganan. >>> los bancos grnadeandes finan emrpespresas asi, entonces cua vs flamilias sufriendo en lo cdeentro de detencion son lsos n bancos los que paricticipan. >>> y l arabrazo no es simla ra. >>> como negocios ganan mas si e encarcelan mmucho mas pssersona. >>> activivistas entregaron su r frimas de la peticion al grupo d del banco . >>> dicen que represnaentan e seriedad del disistema de mig o migracion pero netas polticias n no afectan neustuestra psosibi d de servir a neustruestros clien. >>> unap persona murio atropel d atropellada por trnen en sout f sfcol avicrtimsan francisco, l persona caminaba por las lineas. >>> en san jose un conductor de bernabee uber fue asesiannado en un actoe furia al volante, el atacante c ocntino continua profugo y la policia e necesita de su ayuda para captar al hombre . >>> en calle (en ingles( se r u reubicaran a psersonas a partid ir de las 9 de la maÑana este ter e terreno e ise pide alquilar por dolar al mes por 6 emes para p s personas que viven en camapaÑas. >>> un hombre que golpoeo a t e tres personas con un b

brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court leaving the future of "roe v. wade" uncertain. >> abortion is illegal! >> activists on both sides of the abortion battle bracing for a fight. >> we are certainly dangerously close to the cliff in which access becomes completely unavailable. >> how the confirmation of kavanaugh could impact a woman's right to choose for decades to come. >> i think the pro-life movement is advancing quickly. we see this battle as victory on its way. >> plus, cosby behind bars. >> the i dreamt for this day for 32 years. >> once beloved tv dad bill cosby spends hits first night in prison. iconic comedian in happened cuffs, now labeled a sexually violent predator. they reaction from the women who spoke out cosby's wife says he was denied a fair trial. "nightline" will be right back. >>> good evening. thank you for joining us. supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh in the public now just two days away from hearing from the woman who accuses him of sexual assault. and while washington and the country weigh those accusations and denials, t

in morrison v. olson, even though the statute passed into history, morrison v. olson as a decision of the supreme court is still good law. in fact, your own circuit said so forcefully tonight. >> i think the humphries executor -- >> i think that is a yes or no question. the d.c. circuit held this year that morrison v. olson is still good law. correct? >> i think they were applying humphries executor, they may have cited more. >> they literally said, morrison remains valid and binding precedent and -- >> and how it applied humphries. >> criticized minority as flying in the face of morrison. >> and again, we're -- we're talking about independent agencies. so the traditional independent agencies on the one hand and the old indpuependent counsel regim that is long gone on the other. it was a serious mistake. senator durbin's words unrestrained and unaccountable, unconstitutional. >> so what i think -- what i'm concerned about, judge, is not so much whether there are members of this committee or other ju

whether you agree with roe v. wade or not, just think what could happen down the road if five people determined the word liberty means "x." the only real check and balance is a constitutional amendment to change the ruling. do you agree with that? >> senator, i'm not going to comment on potential constitutional amendments or what -- >> okay. how -- if we pass add statute tomorrow in congress saying that the congress can regulate abortions before medical liability, wouldn't that fly in the face of roe v. wade? >> so the supreme court has said a woman has -- >> doesn't that trump a statute? >> the supreme court precedent -- >> all of us could vote, these five people have said liberty means right -- the state has no interest here, compelling interest before medical viability, that we could pass all the laws we want. doesn't matter because they fall. only way to change that is a constitutional amendment process that requires two

v. nixon and judge kavanaugh, i have my colleague and friend, senator whitehouse attempted to imply you'd resolved the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. isn't it true that in a contemporaneous law review article you authored, you explicitly stated, these are your words, whether the constitution allows indictment of the citying -- of a sitting president is debatable. >> that is what i said in the contemporaneous georgetown law journal. >> i'd like to have that article submitted for the record. and before i transition, if senator cruz will indulge me, i reserve 13 minutes of my time last night and i was wondering -- there were two instances where you weren't answers the question and i didn't know if you wanted to make any clarifying comments on disclosing sources relative to the discussion around judge starr and at one point you were saying that senator whitehouse said, that's about something different. i don't know if you remember what that was but if

v. nixon and judge kavanaugh, i have my colleague and friend, senator whitehouse attempted to imply you'd resolved the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. isn't it true that in a contemporaneous law review article you authored, you explicitly stated, these are your words, whether the constitution allows indictment of the citying -- of a sitting president is debatable. >> that is what i said in the contemporaneous georgetown law journal. >> i'd like to have that article submitted for the record. and before i transition, if senator cruz will indulge me, i reserve 13 minutes of my time last night and i was wondering -- there were two instances where you weren't answers the question and i didn't know if you wanted to make any clarifying comments on disclosing sources relative to the discussion around judge starr and at one point you were saying that senator whitehouse said, that's about something different. i don't know if you remember what that was but if

v. nixon. in heckler v. cheney, that applies to civil enforcement as well. that's the precedent of the supreme court that i was explaining in aiken. why did i have that in there at all? in the affordable care act case, i wrote a decision saying that the court should not consider it at that time because it was not ripe under the anti-injunction act and we should wait to consider it -- >> but here's my question to you. the enforcement of the affordable care act as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and my question is even if the united states supreme court in that texas case should hold it to be constitutional, could president trump decline to enforce it and put at risk the health of literally tens of millions of americans, including 500,000 people in connecticut who suffer from those diseases, including those homeless people who come to the shelter where you distribute meals? >> so a couple of things on that, senator. the concept of prosecutorial discretion, as you know, of course, former u.s. attorney, is well rooted in american law. so if a u.s. attorney

v. board of education. >> correct. in that, single greatest moment in supreme court history. >> it is that roe is now 45 years old. that's the issue. why isn't that a thumbs up -- >> well, none of the currently sitting justices of the supreme court have opined on that. >> okay. i want to go back to presidential power and this isn't a hypothetical. i'm just going back to 2009, which isn't that long ago. in the university of minnesota law review. and that's where you said we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. and when you and i talked about this yesterday, you said that congress could still pursue an impeachment proceeding. right? >> yes, impeachment mechanism -- >> your view back then because you wouldn't comment on it -- your view when you wrote this was that -- well, your view now is that congress should still be able to pursue an impeachment. >> the constitution -- >> yes. >> -- specifies impeachment always as a to

v. nixon. in heckler v. cheney, that applies to civil enforcement as well. that's the precedent of the supreme court that i was explaining in aiken. why did i have that in there at all? in the affordable care act case, i wrote a decision saying that the court should not consider it at that time because it was not ripe under the anti-injunction act and we should wait to consider it -- >> but here's my question to you. the enforcement of the affordable care act as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and my question is even if the united states supreme court in that texas case should hold it to be constitutional, could president trump decline to enforce it and put at risk the health of literally tens of millions of americans, including 500,000 people in connecticut who suffer from those diseases, including those homeless people who come to the shelter where you distribute meals? >> so a couple of things on that, senator. the concept of prosecutorial discretion, as you know, of course, former u.s. attorney, is well rooted in american law. so if a u.s. attorney

in morrison v. olson even though the independent statute has passed into history, morrison v. olson is still good law? your own circuit said so this year? >> i think the humphries executor -- >> that's yes or no. the d.c. circuit held this year where you wrote a dis-september that morrison v. olson is still good law, correct? >> i think they were a playing humphreys or -- >> they said and i quote "morrison is binding and valid -- >> how it applied humphries -- >> criticized your minority in the face of morrison. >> again, we're talking about independent agencies, so the traditional independent agencies on the one hand and the old independent council that is long gone on the other. the independent counsel regime, this committee and the congress as a whole decided was a serious mistake. senator durbins words, unrestrained, unaccountable, unconstitutional -- >> what i'm concerned about, judge, is not so much whether there's members of this committee or other justices that viewed the independent counsel

roe v. wade, if i might. my office wrote the assault weapons legislation in 1993. it was law from '94 to 2004. it essentially prohibited the transfer, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons. it did not, at the time, affect possession. i happen to believe that it did work and that it was important. i have watched case after case, and i think i mentioned earlier, school shootings, which i never thought this would happen in our country, that someone would bring a semi-automatic assault weapon into a school and just mow down children and staff. so i've been very interested in your thinking on assault weapons. you specifically argued that the d.c. assault weapons p s ban wa unconstitutional. i think because you said these weapons were in common use. what did you base your conclusion, that assault weapons are in common use? what evidence or study did you use to do that? >> thank you, senator feinstein, for the question. i understand, of course, your role on that issue, and your long leadership o

wade or the senator who killed roe v. wade. now she can be the senator who put someone who has a credible allegation of attempted rape on the supreme court, or she can be the person who said stop. on thisjust lost ian issue. dahlia lithwick, you're covering this very same beat about what susan collllins can do. justo i important thingsan said that are worth reiterating. these folks do not have to vote no on kavanaugh. all they have to do is vote no on kavanaugh until we find out what happened. that is an awfully low risk proposition given, as ian said, pretty credible allegations that something very violet happened to this woman. that is the first thing. the second thing, and this is important, this really does give cover to people like collins and murkowski who have been playing this game of saying, ok, i get it, he was put on the court to overturn roe but i don't think he's going to do it. and the claims that they believe is good he says roe precedent. this gives them cover. they don't have to guess what he's going to do the

dfafam p para desalojar una propiedad >> hoy llegaron a la corte de a san francisco a pedir que ven vtervengan >> total desconcierto sintio l silvia a pesar de pagar su renta tiempo con su familia reibcibien on una notificacion para desalojar su departamento >> debiamos prepararnos para c encontrar un lugar en seis dias >> un reto para su hermana con d dos niÑos mernores de edad >> esta con nuestra renta y nosa saquen de la nada de la casa >> el plazo se cumplio el miercoles y logro o hoy ante un juez >> los dueÑos de las viviendas b buscan maneras ilegales de aj t ajustar de empujar y sacar las familias >> en corte la abogadoa dea d u dueÑos dicen que pagaban el al alquiler a un representante de los prppieopietarios >> no tenian un contrato con el dueÑo sino con otro hombre >> silvia logro que el juez le diera mas tiempo para traer e d evidencia al demostrar que los d dueÑos sabian de su existencia >> tenia pruebas la seÑoraon n p primera vez que los propietrar o propietrarios tienen proasacemi dolares por situaciones insegu gus de viviendas para ve veteranos >> el cinco de octubre d

v.ade? and what is your view of later decisions asserting the government may not place an undue board and -- burden on a woman's right to abortion. there are plenty of other editorials about today's hearings, who is brett kavanaugh? that is the question asked in a piece for the new york times today and the editorial board of the wall street journal, their headline on their lead editorial, calling it the kavanaugh hazing. democrats fear the high court will no longer be a liberal legislature. if you want to read those pieces in those various papers, we want to hear from you this morning. democrats, 202-748-8000. republican, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002 beverly here in. d.c., a democrat. go ahead. caller: i would like to know why is it that 12 judges have been unable and incapable of granting a person judgment for possession of property when the property owner really should have had the -- duey, but 12 judges to the fact of the false information from the lawyers and -- caused th

so roe v. wade held and reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus casey that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion. and one of the reasons for that holding as explained by the court in roe and also in planned parenthood versus casey more fully is along the lines of what you said, senator feinstein, about the quote from justice o'connor. so that is one of tfof the ratis that undergirds roe v. wade. >> let immediate give you another rationale. in the 1950s and '60s before roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. that is according to the gutmacher institute. a lot of women died in that period. so the question comes, and you have said today -- not today, b but it's been reported that you have said that roe is now settled law. the first question i have, what do you me

se repor a reportaron jeridoheridos >> fue identificadal la mujer qe fue arttrooppellada en san jos v vhei vehiculo oscuro atropello a la m mujer de la etercera edad y huyo un hombre diceq que trabajo daiy noche esperando que el dinero le abra las puertas a una mj vida i vida >> nos tiene mas desde oakland >> hola ¿que tal? muy buenas tardes para este hombre un co compaÑero de trabajo se sinent n indignado por el abuso cinivi e vinieronen vinieron en oakland para presentar un r c reclamo>> vino a hacder er cad h derechos salariales trabajo desol sol a sol lavan t au vehiculos en una compaÑia pero a la hora de cbraronrbrar los ma m mil dolares solo rcibio ecibi l billete de a cien >> dice que todo trabajador t n tiene cderecho a presentar un e reclamo >> cuando no se le >>paga pah a trabajador las horas que ha t b trabajado >> esperaticia y con sulo que trabajo logre mejor su vida >> si usted es victima de robvo de salaeirio llamen al numero t telefono en pantalla >> la piolicia detuvo a un sujeo despues e enconrtara cantidad de municiones en la vivienda a un s sujeto que testaba en li

this comes as the d-m-v has been under intense scrutiny for long wait times.he d-m-v told lawmakers this week ... wait times are down on average 30 minutes statewide. now, next week, the d-m-v will notify customers with incorrect voter registration information.. the office encourages voters to go to the secretary of state's website ... to make sure information is accurate. (grant) now to our four zone forecast... as we take this live look outside at the embarcadero... now is chief meteorologist lawrence karnow... lawrence karnow: low clouds hugged the coast today with plenty of sunshine in the bay and valleys. highs today were in the 80s inland with 70s and 80s around the bay and cool 60s at the beaches with fog. both hurricances olivia and florence are threatening hawaii and the east coast by next week. low low clouds will move into the bay again tonight. high pressure will strengthen tomorrow with more northerly winds. that should bring warmer temperatures with highs in the 90s inland, 70s and 80s around the bay and 60s and some sunshine at the coast. it wil

wade -- who are not saying roe v. wade will be overturned those who dedicated their lives to overturning roe v. wade. they suddenly discovered, wow, this is a great big mystery. donald trump outsourced the selection -- remember he has this big list of people, 20 people, 15 people, it's very -- to the federalist society. the federalist society is built on the idea of overturning roe v. wade, of declaring affirmative action unconstitutional, of saying that religious people can keep gay people out of their bakeries, out of their hotels, out of their restaurants. this is a platform of issues that that is what matters to them. that's why brett kavanaugh was picked. of course he's going to say i'm keeping an open mind. susan collins is free to delude herself into thinking that brett kavanaugh has no opinion about the future of roe v. wade and thinks it's set of law. come on. let's at least be honest. you know what, a lot of people think roe v. wade should be overturned. they want a supreme court justice. let's be honest abo

v.ixon's precise holding and i think going with the justice ginsburg principle, it's everyone's principle on the current supreme court, and it's a matter of the canons of judicial independence. i can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question. >> moments ago came this exchange about presidential pardons. >> president trump claims he has an absolute right to pardon himself. does he? >> the question of self-pardons is something i have never analyzed. it's a question that i have not written about. it's a question, therefore, that's hypothetical question that i can't begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the supreme court. >> and the other half of that is, you, obviously -- does the president have the ability to pardon somebody in exchange for a promise for that person that wouldn't testify against them? >> senator, i'm not going to answer hypothetical questions of that sort. there's a good reason for it. when judges don't -- when we decide, we get br

to be clear roe v. wade is not a decision invented by advocate judges. as part of a centuries worth of jurisprudence that protects an entire constellation of rights, rights relating to family, marriage, their haircut, contrn and personal autonomy and intimate life. i vote against roe is whether to overrule it as a formal matter or get it to incremental cuts put all of those rights in jeopardy. and make no mistake about it, about for judge kavanaugh is a vote against roe. thank you for having me. >> thank you. now professor amar. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, distinguished senators. my name is iq them are, i'm a sterling professor of law and political science at yale university why specialized in constitutional law. i testified before this committee on seven occasions and always a solemn responsibility to appear here. here are my top ten points. one, but capital is the best candidate on the horizon. supreme court's biggest job is to interpret and apply the constitution. he has studied the constitution with more care, consisten

v. wade and on racial profiling. what we're learning from those documents after the break. you're watching msnbc. docuntmes after the break. you're watching msnbc. this isn't just any moving day. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. this is a live look at the kavanaugh hearing. senator ben sasse is doing the questioning at the moment, republican of nebraska. we're going to monitor for anything you need to know. this is the third day of supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, and it began with a new battle over documents and the release of some

v. wade is settled law and whether the supreme court could overrule it. you said, in fact, that the supreme court could, and you declined to say whether you would commit to saying that you would not vote to overturn roe v. wade. i believe, thanks to that exchange, that an e-mail has now been made public in which you took exactly that position. you argued roe can be overturned. my question to you is whether during that break did anyone suggest to you i would ask about this e-mail? i think we took a break before i asked you my questions. did anyone ask you -- did anyone suggest to you i might ask about this e-mail during the break before the questioning? >> just now? >> no, yesterday. >> boy, i'm not remembering. i'm not remembering one way or another. what did i -- i'm not remembering. >> did anyone show you this e-mail during the session yesterday at any point? >> i'd have to check, actually. i don't remember. during each break yesterday? i've had these e-mails, i think. >> and you viewe

in morrison v. olson, even though the statute passed into history, morrison v. olson as a decision of the supreme court is still good law. in fact, your own circuit said so forcefully tonight. >> i think the humphries executor -- >> i think that is a yes or no question. the d.c. circuit held this year that morrison v. olson is still good law. correct? >> i think they were applying humphries executor, they may have cited more. >> they literally said, morrison remains valid and binding precedent and -- >> and how it applied humphries. >> criticized minority as flying in the face of morrison. >> and again, we're -- we're talking about independent agencies. so the traditional independent agencies on the one hand and the old indpuependent counsel regim that is long gone on the other. it was a serious mistake. senator durbin's words unrestrained and unaccountable, unconstitutional. >> so what i think -- what i'm concerned about, judge, is not so much whether there are members of this committee or other ju

roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it's been reaffirmed many times. >> you buying his answer there, neil? >> i think this is a very big deal. i worked at 37 cases before the supreme court and a bunch in the lower courts including judge kavanaugh. the big difference at the supreme court is the supreme court can overrule its precedent, its prior precedent. this becomes very important because one of the key votes in the senate is senator collins of maine and what brett kavanaugh said to senator collins is roe is settled law, implied he wasn't going to overrule it. now this e-mail says actually he didn't think roe was settled law and if you can say that about roe, you can actually say this about any case yesterday on affirmative action, on same-sex marriage, on environmental regulations, he kept saying precedent, here's the precedent. as jill was saying, he kept saying precedent, precedent. now this e-mail says actually he doesn't necessarily have that same view of precedent and if you can say that about roe, you can say t

because both he's anti-roe v.o-executive power meaning the president being above the law. i don't think there's any doubt about that yes, it's precedent. yes, it is settled law but five justice cans overturn any settled law and he would be a fifth vote. >> near a, speak to bill's analysis that this is a type of fancy dissembling that is designed to create space to do and claims what he won't do, undercut roe. >> i think the way to judge that is from brett kavanaugh's own words. what was fascinating about last week is that the judiciary committee majority, the republican majority, is working overtime to hide documents, including documents that brett kavanaugh had when he was in the bush white house in which he clearly said that roe is not settled press dent and i think we should take that as his -- i think the we he speaks freely in the bush white house is his view which is roe is not precedent and it was an interesting track -- or an interesting moment because his actual words in private which everyone was trying

tilted the balance on the vote for roe v wade and many other very very important.votes which include the power of the president the power of the executive to to make decisions and to receive impunity in certain criminal. situations and investigations also cavanagh has a history of having the very very pro corporate and anti regulation ideology and perspective so all of this is coming to play this is not just objective neutral situation here where everybody. is taking the allegations by doctor for seriously are just the only ones being political this is a this is a field of deceit are you mentioned that the legal status in america or all of them in america is actually contingent on political ideologies but in fact actually at the code of judicial conduct itself which all judges and all legal process people are supposed to adhere to a code of judicial conduct makes it illegal to vote based on political guidelines it makes it illegal for i'm judges to be politically active and so it's actually there are laws set in place that say that it can't be said of course you ca

v. wade is settled law and whether the supreme court could overrule it. you said, in fact, that the supreme court could, and you declined to say whether you would commit to saying that you would not vote to overturn roe v. wade. i believe, thanks to that exchange, that an e-mail has now been made public in which you took exactly that position. you argued roe can be overturned. my question to you is whether during that break did anyone suggest to you i would ask about this e-mail? i think we took a break before i asked you my questions. did anyone ask you -- did anyone suggest to you i might ask about this e-mail during the break before the questioning? >> just now? >> no, yesterday. >> boy, i'm not remembering. i'm not remembering one way or another. what did i -- i'm not remembering. >> did anyone show you this e-mail during the session yesterday at any point? >> i'd have to check, actually. i don't remember. during each break yesterday? i've had these e-mails, i think. >> and you viewe

if there's a case before him that challenges roe v. wade that he would listen to both sides of the story, apply a test to overturn precedent. precedent is important, but it's not invalid. i'm dying to see if he believes that citizens versus united can be overturned. the bottom line here is there's a process to overturn a precedent. i think he understands that process. he will apply it. if it were up to me, states would make these decisions, not the supreme court, but it is a long-held precedent of the court. it will be challenged over time, and i hope he'll give it a fair hearing. >> reporter: now, fred, the reason roe versus wade continues to be a main issue for brett kavanaugh's confirmation process is because the trump administration time and time again has promised to overturn it and allow that decision to go back to the states. the confirmation hearings actually begin on tuesday. so far president trump has not weighed in via twitter this weekend. though, he has been active, i should say, on a number of other issues. >> during the

it is like ly that roe v.tright decision basically throwing it out. quite frankly, for advocates of choice, it might be better to have a frontal attack, and instead, they might have roe v. wade lingering on in the sort of the half dead type of the state. where the states wouldn't have entirely the authority, but the federal government is offering little protection. >> robert mueller's probe is also going to come up, and you mentioned executive privilege, and presidential subpoenas and indictments and kavanaugh has offered thoughts on the past n. a 1995 memo, he argued that the president would have to testify before a grand jury if subpoenaed quoting that the president is not above the law, but yet on the issue of indictment in 1998 he said that the indictment should not be pursued when the president is in office, and then in 1999 he wrote for the minnesota law review that the indictment of a sitting president moreover would cripple the federal government. does he need to clarify where he stands? >> well, he sh

it's important that we not reverse roe v. wade. i want a supreme court that will stick with roe v.e and a woman's right to choose. i understand where she's coming from. anybody running for president over there, i dare you to disagree with her. you will wind up like i did, getting 1%. [ laughter ] if you even suggest that you will pick a nominee that's not going to uphold roe v. wade, that's the end of you. but you've figured that out. so this is the way we do politics. this is a big decision called roe v. wade. there are two sides and a bunch of nuances. here's what i know about you. you're going to take it as precedent, you wrote a big book which i'll never read, and you're going to tell us what it takes to overturn long standing precedence. nobody on this side will care if you overturn citizens united. they will cheer you on. somebody will challenge citizens united and you'll say let me hear both sides and i'll tell you whether or not i should uphold it. so hillary clinton, we know where she's at on roe v. wade, and that's just the way it is. now, what other things? executive pow

it is important that we not rebirth roe v. wade. i want to supreme court that stick with roe v.nd a woman's right to choose. i understand where she's coming from. anybody running for president over there, i dare you to disagree with her? you'll wind up like i did getting 1%. if you even suggest that you will pick a nominee that's not going to uphold roe v. wade that's the ends of you, but you figured that out. you don't need me to tell you. so this is the way we do politics. this is a big decision called roe v. wade. there are two sides and a bunch of nuances. here's what i know about you, you're going to take it as press dent, you wrote a big book that i will never read and you're going to tell us what it took to overturn a long-standing president. nobody on this side will care if you overturn citizens united. matter fact they will cheer you on. somebody will challenge citizens united and you will say let me hear both sides of the story and i will tell you whether or not to uphold it. so hillary clinton, we know where she's at on roe v. wade and that's just the way it is. now,

v. nixon was wrongly decided and the georgetown law journal episode in which he was asked as a matter of law can a president be indicted and put up his hand no with those who agreed that a president was beyond indictment, so it was a very live issue through these hearings about whether the president could properly be the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. and, of course, we know that this president is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, and we further know of a separate criminal investigation in which the president has been identified as a named director of the criminal activity. so in that circumstance, what i heard over and over was professor -- sorry, judge caf -- kavanaugh citing his assertion that u.s. v. nixon was one of his top four cases. all other facts being equal, you would say, okay, these other things don't matter very much. but since he said u.s. v. nixon is one of his top four cases, then obviously that'll overwhelm all these other things, and we c

when you're talking about roe v. wade, it's ok to promise the nation it will never be overturned, it's ok to pick a democratic staff member of this committee, but it's not ok to pick somebody who has been a life-long republican. people see through this. you had a chance and you lost. if you want to pick judges, from your way of thinking, then you better win an election. i voted for two of your choices. societier mayor and kagan -- sotomayor and kagan. i got a lot of crap. i suggest you think long and hard if you have a political ambition of voting for this guy, because it will not play well on your side. why did i do that? i thought they were qualified by any reasonable measure given the history of the senate. but we have turned the history of the senate upside down. i found that they were different than i would have picked, sotomayor and kagan, but by any reasonable measure, they were qualified. you've been on the court for 12 years. you've had 307 decisions. you've been approved before. i hope people in the country

v. board, the court came together in unanimous decisions and the unanimity of the decisions added force. that took internal interaction, that took collegiality. so i think, you know, i've tried to be a very collegial judge, i've tried to be civil. i want, mr. chairman, the losing party, the losing party in every case to come out and say, kavanaugh gave me a fair shake, he was well prepared, he wrote a clear opinion, he explained everything. i disagree, but at least i get it. so i want the losing party and i want both parties to walk out at oral argument to say he had an open mind, he gave me a fair shake and i think i've done that for 12 years, i've tried to do that consistently. everything you do as a judge matters in terms of being a good judge. oral argument, writing opinions, how you decide. so those are the qualities, i guess, the last thing i always remember about it is the thing i said my mom told me in the first instance, judging is not just about theory, it's not theory, it's no

>> senator, roe v.ade's an important precedent in the supreme court that we affirmed. >> don't you have to have a case? >> yeah. >> what are you doing for lunch? let's overrule roe v. wade. it doesn't work that way, right? >> i see what you're asking, senator. right. there's -- there's -- the way cases come up to us in that context or another context. this is a precedent that has been reaffirmed many times over 45 years, including in planned parenthood versus casey where they specifically considered whether to overrule and reaffirm and apply to all the stare decisis factors that became important many this context. but you look at -- there are factors that you look at when you're considering any process. >> so there is a process in place that the court has followed for a very long time? >> that is correct, senator. >> joining us jeffrey toobin, anne milgram. >> carrie cordero and former congressman charlie dent. jeff, you said abortion would be legal in main states. >> i think i'm right. that statement i

ashley - how is the d-m-v responding? the same week the d-m-v reported to lawmakers that wait times at offices have decreased... the d-m-v now admits it botched tens of thousands of voter registrations. ((pkg)) the dmv says 23,000 voter registrations have been mishandled by employees. the errors were caused by technicians when they had more than one customer record open on their computer screens. that resulted in mistakes on voter preferences... including language, political party and vote by mail options.((on the phone: assemblyman jim patterson)) "these mistakes are tampering with the fundamental right of californians to register for the party or non party of their preference and to have their voter registration untouched by the government." assemblymember jim patterson - a vocal critic of dmv management - is pushing for answers. dmv officials say they're working to correct the problem - but would not take questions on camera about the issue. they did however speak about a reduction in office wait times. ((jaime garza-

book anotr deatic ss gan leing confenti doments omanghwo thmo came shter th f 20 ema o vangdiem roe v. whe "settd durieakavaugh socred birthontrols ortindg ug we wgethlaten the avegrch ininin fm thei deros a tefe stin mn, a aroup gupup myaseeinw.d d ildren. eigharked .. amn toyr. imal. as the leaeaf russ ility t aeeinran, the ld city ofdl wilk ia abzeididauor oo tuing back fess, and hopen waim alnde,oming . i'm amy goodman. supreme court justice nominee brett kavanaugh faces a final day of senate confirmation hearingsgs on capitol hill toda, one day after the proceedings took a dramatic turn when democratic senators began releasing confidential documents from kavanaugh's work at the george w. bush white house. the release was begun by new jersey senator cory booker, who said he was willing to risk his senate career by deliberately violating rules against releasing protected information. booker was responding to the trump administration's decision to withhold more than 100,000 pages of kavanaugh's records on the basis of presidential privilege.e. >> i come from a long line, as all of us

. >> >>> noticias telemundo con julio v. >> hubo caras de dolor, pero tambiÉn las hubo de alegrÍa porl ser humano que aceptÓ su imperfecciones, el senador john maccain uniÓ esfuerzas y derribÓ el muro en washington, un mensaje claro contra las divisiones polÍticas que hoy intoxican al paÍs. >> esta maÑana 2 sitios de la capitÁn del paÍs fueron los escenarios en donde se despidiÓ al senador john maccain, funcionarios de gobierno y los que no lo conocÍan, le dijeron a idiotas nuestro corresponsales desde washington, dc fueron testigos de todo lo que ocurriÓ en la catedral nacional y en el monumento a los veteranos de vietnam >>> imagen constante, la unidad ante el ambiente polÍtico y social en la emociÓn de este Último adiÓs de hoy no falto la oportunidad de hacer contrastes entre su servicio pÚblicos y el gobierno de donald trump comenzamos con lori. >> gracias, julio desde el inicio hubieron muchas lÁgrimas pero tampoco faltÓ el humor que lo caracterizÓ pero su hija meghan dijo que su padre era aÍi y no impidiÓ que enviarÁ un mensaje al actual presidente. >> las emociones estaban a fl

so roe v. wade held, of course, and reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus kc, that woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion for viability subject to reasonable regulation by the state, up to the point where that regulation institutes an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion. and one of the reasons for that holding as explained by the court in roe, also in planned parenthood versus kc more fully is along the lines of what you said, senator feinstein, about the quote justice o'connor. so that's what the rationales that undergird roe v. wade. one of the rationales that undergirds planned parenthood versus kc. >> let me give you another one, rationale. in the the 1950s and '60s, theo decades before roe, death from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000-1.2 million. that's according to the good locker institute. so lot of women died in that time. so the question comes and you said today, not today, but it's been reported that you have said that roe is

los v jose vientos de florence y lo repet a e alcanza velocidades de maxima intensidad. >> dehas sidode como e nnoivel de agua. >> asi es, felicidad, nuevamente es un gusto saludarte,. hace e cuestion de dos minutos se vino nuevamente esta intermitencia que ha tneido que pensamos se v aa calmar y luego continua gol e golpeando tcon toda su fuerza. la comunidad te puedo presentar este uepanorama. son ra caidos, de todo tipo de tamaÑo q que bloquean las vias, bvloquea las calles sin contar evident evidentemente las calles inun inundadas como las queons enco encontramos aquis . la avenida r principal que ademas en telemundo en vivo mpras tempra e estuvimos s practicamente narrao com oen vivo se venia el mar en la avenida principal detra sdes de nosotros esta e l muelle y vemos como la lluvia n invade la zona. vientos fuertes, lluvia y como s se esperaba. >> javier ¿habias estado ante d dentro de un huracan? >> es una pregunta interesante. en la peninsula de yucatan, pero en ama bos huracanes se degrado tormenta tropical y realmente no me habia tocado sentir con la fuerza scomo tal de un

i think kavanaugh indicated in his answer that roe v. wade, planned parenthood v. casey, are precedent, and they're probably going to be here for a while. >> we're talking about presidential pardon, executive power here. couldn't help but notice the reluctance, hesitation when it comes to kavanaugh and talking about that. at the same time as we heard in pete williams' report, praising u.s. versus nixon when it came to president nixon handing over the recorded tapes. >> the lesson from the defeated nomination of judge bork in the '80s is do not go out on a limb answering questions. play it safe. in sports analogies, this is prevent defense. you're not here to put on a show, you're not here to fight with senators. you're here to answer as little as you possibly can and do as little controversy or don't shoot yourself in the foot at these hearings, especially when mathematically it's almost a sure thing that you're going to be confirmed. in talking about presidential subpoenas, it's interesting because to some degree the presidential subpoena question has been address

in morrison v. olson, even though the statute passed into history, morrison v. olson as a decision of the supreme court is still good law. in fact, your own circuit said so forcefully tonight. >> i think the humphries executor -- >> i think that is a yes or no question. the d.c. circuit held this year that morrison v. olson is still good law. correct? >> i think they were applying humphries executor, they may have cited more. >> they literally said, morrison remains valid and binding precedent and -- >> and how it applied humphries. >> criticized minority as flying in the face of morrison. >> and again, we're -- we're talking about independent agencies. so the traditional independent agencies on the one hand and the old indpuependent counsel regim that is long gone on the other. it was a serious mistake. senator durbin's words unrestrained and unaccountable, unconstitutional. >> so what i think -- what i'm concerned about, judge, is not so much whether there are members of this committee or other ju

barry: as it happens, bush v the court's hurt ratings at all.the court remains one of the most popular wrenches the government. supportthe court shifted from the democrat column to the republican column, but within six months or a year, a lot of democrats are back on board. the overwhelming majority of the country believe it was the supreme court that should resolve the issue. actually the court was supported and its approval state high. now, there was a critical player in that story who was deeply affected. i am saying this as an outsider. justice o'connor was shocked at the negative reaction to bush v gore. what might have been a turn to the left after bush v gore is decided on a lot of critical issues like affirmative action and gay rights. the middle of the court was affected, even if the rest of the court was in. joan: i think that is exactly right. in the o'connor book, i tracker opinions on affirmative action and redistricting. after that decision, she found the majority-minority district from north carolina to be legal. she really though

roe v wade and every other president.chris: to make it clear, your thank you don't view his statement to senator collins, that it is settled law means that therefore it can't be re-examined and conceivably overturned? >> he would be disqualified if you would not listen to both sides of the story and decide accordingly. this idea that roe v wade will be challenged at the state level. there are all kinds of laws. some may work their way to the supreme court. he will give great deference to roe v wade.but it can be overturned like every other decision but that will be up to the facts in the record. >>chris: senator lindsay graham, thank you. thank you for your time during a tough week in our deepest sympathies on the loss of a dear friend. joining me now from illinois, another member of the committee that will be questioning brett kavanaugh, dick durbin. the number two democrat. democrats have tried a variety of efforts to upended the confirmation of brett kavanaugh but the argument that there's a midterm and that president

abortion, roe v.their major issues that this court is about to change with judge kavanaugh, and it reminds me of the luckier era, and i do not want to go back to that time time. it sure feels like that is where we are heading. if the federalist society wants another supreme court judge to be on and change the lay of the land. >> i would like two or three more of this after this justice, but in her conversation with the senator sasse, shannon, were talking with the accusation that judge kavanaugh perjured himself on that website above the law. the former editor of that website went on twitter today and systematically, meticulously debunked that ridiculous claim with context and fair-minded analysis. the democrats on the left have nothing on brett kavanaugh, which is why we saw the showboating and the shrieking from the protesters, because there is no substance to get him on peers >> shannon: speaking of the shrieking protesters, we have watch as dozens are carted off every single day. i want to know, d

v. board, the court came together in unanimous decisions and the unanimity of the decisions added force. that took internal interaction, that took collegiality. so i think, you know, i've tried to be a very collegial judge, i've tried to be civil. i want, mr. chairman, the losing party, the losing party in every case to come out and say, kavanaugh gave me a fair shake, he was well prepared, he wrote a clear opinion, he explained everything. i disagree, but at least i get it. so i want the losing party and i want both parties to walk out at oral argument to say he had an open mind, he gave me a fair shake and i think i've done that for 12 years, i've tried to do that consistently. everything you do as a judge matters in terms of being a good judge. oral argument, writing opinions, how you decide. so those are the qualities, i guess, the last thing i always remember about it is the thing i said my mom told me in the first instance, judging is not just about theory, it's not theory, it's no

the move came shortly after the leak of 2003 email of kavanaugh saying he did not deem roe v. wade to the "settled law of the land." during the hearing, kavanaugh also described birth control as abortion-inducing drugs. we will get the latest on the kavanaugh hearing. then as over immigrant children 400 remain separated from their parents, t the trump administration proposes a plan to allow for the indefinite detention. we will speak to the head of justice in motion, a groroup grp spearheading an effort to fi parentof d detaid chililen. we are really suffering right now. my son h alreadydy beeeein detention for threree months. hehe i is a little k kid. he is eight years old, locked up in there likike a crimininal. amy: then to syria.. as t the leaders o of russia, in and turkey meet in tehehran, the syrian military is threatening a mamassive invasion of the rebel held city of idlib. we will speak with rania abouzeid, author of "no turning back. life, loss, and hope in wartime syria." all thatat and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace

harris v quinn, 5-4 and janice v affect me with a 40-year precedent. lots of big influencers are polluters who like to pollute for free. the roberts five delivers decisions who let polluters pollute. 5-4. national association of home landlorders weakening for endangered species. 5-4. michigan versus air polluters, if 5-4. there is the procedural abhorrent decision to stop the epa clean power plan. pattern. then come roberts five bonus decisions advancing a far right social agenda. upholding and hobby lobby granting religious rights over the health care rights of employees. letting states deny truthful information about reproductive choices. all 5-4, all republican. reanimating for the gun industry, a former chief justice called a fraud. both decisions 5-4. trump v hawaii 5-4. hubber stamping the muslim tramp ban. in case wall street was being left out, janice capital, 5-4. pattern. no wonder the american people feel the game is rigged. here's how the game works. big business fund the federalist society which picked gorsuch and now you. as the white hou

you mentioned roe v. wade. senators will be asking for his sentiment on any chance that he would vote to reverse that 1973 precedent. he voted last year in the one abortion case that's come before him, and in that case, he dissented as the full d.c. circuit voted to allow a pregnant teenager held in an immigration detention center to have an abortion. in his dissent, judge kavanaugh talked about the government's interest in fetal life. so i'm sure senators will be asking about that decision. they'll probably ask about gay marriage and affirmative action also because just like with abortion, new justice kavanaugh would be the swing vote because his predecessor, anthony kennedy, controlled those issues. the other area will be executive power. again, because of the investigations now ongoing. as you probably remember, brett kavanaugh worked for ken starr, but then he served george w. bush. he said that he believes in more protections for the president against investigations, and i'm sure senators will ask about th