wade.f donald trump and mike pence have their way millions will lose the right to safe, legal abortion that has been the law of the land for 45 years. during past senate hearings we heard nominees answer the critical and fundamental questions by saying they will respect president but immediately after being sworn in those now justices turnaround and rule in ways that ignore president and would have eviscerated a fundamental right had those justices been in the majority. clearly, saying president alone can no longer be an acceptable answer or standard by which senators can accurately judge. that is why today planned parenthood in our colleagues at this press conference are calling for a higher standard. we are calling for a real personal liberty standard that the senate must only confirm a justice who affirmatively declares that they believe the constitution protects individual liberties and the right of all people to make personal decisions about their bodies and their personal relationship

wade. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. president trump has nominated federal judge brett kavanaugh to replace retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy. if kavanaugh is confirmed, it would create a bloc of five right-wing justices, making it the most conservative supreme court since the 1930's. critics warn this could lead to major rollbacks of c civil r ri, environmentatal regulations,unun control measures, voting rights, anand reproductive rights, including the overturning of roe v. wade.e. this is supreme e court nomineee judge brett kavanaugh speaking monday night. >> my judicial philosophy is straightforward. a judge must be independent. must interpret the law, not make the law. a judge must interpret statutes as writttten. a judge must interpret the constitution as written. informed by history and .radition and precedent they make a we will host a roundtable discussion on brett kavanaugh aft

wade decision.ical communications director from planned parenthood joining me now, thank you for joining us today. tell me, is there anyone on the president trump short list as we reported earlier in the hour, we know who those four might be, anyone on that list that you could see planned parenthood being willing to support? >> unfortunately no, dana. we know because trump has said over and over again that his personal litmus test is any nominee on his list would overturn roe v. wade making abortion illegal in this country. >> dana: and he on sunday, i had a call earlier today sunday in an interview he said that he would not be asking that question of these particular nominees, we'll take a listen to that. we do not have it. well, they will get it. you know what i'm talking about? >> yes. >> dana: and on the campaign trail he definitely said that, putting out a list of possible nominees. now he is in a situation where he is a sitting president. and just last week the supreme court said on the travel

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

wade. why is that? >> justice roberts is a staunch defender of the sort of the, of the respect of the supreme court. and for that reason, he would be really, really cognizant of the fact that this would create, an overturning of roe v. wade, a huge controversy. and that may be something he would want to avoid. but he can hang his hat on strong legal justification, again, because roe v. wade has been law for so long, even though it original aly may have been decided based on no real legal justification, it still has been around forever and everybody accepts it as a right. >> and president trump is now interviewing finalists for the vacancy in the supreme court. in these interviews, what is it that the president would usually ask? and is there anything off-limits? >> what would the president usually ask? that's a different question from what this president will be asking. to get into the mind of president trump, to me, there are two or three nominees that jump out. i think president trump likes bullet poi

wade unsettled law. president trump said in his own words that he wants to give them a justice to give the court a majority to overturn roe v. wade. so count on it. president trump will in all likelihood nominate a justice willing to send roe, quote, back to the states. again, those are president trump's own words, where several are preparing, if not already prepared, to roll back a woman's right to choose. in fact, according -- there ares where abortions would be wholly or partially illegal almost immediately. that is against what america wants. it is because the president and his hard-right ideological judicial acolytes are way far away from where the american people are that are trying to create a court that will turn the clock backward in so many ways, roe at the top of the list. we also know that president trump will likely nominate a justice willing to reinterpret the court's rulings that our current health care law is constitutional. again, listen to president trump's own words. on january 1, 2016

wade. >> a warning shot from one of the republicans critical to confirming the next supreme court just. susan collins wants precedented perspective for a woman's right to choose. >>> and lebron goes hollywood. the nba superstar signs a four-year deal with the lakers. i expect lebron to be its own sign there next to the hollywood sign. good morning, everyone. welcome to "early start." a parade for lebron's arrival in l.a. >> it is 4:00 a.m. in the east. let's begin with this. breaking overnight upheaval in mexico. winning the mexican presidency in a landslide, and he will be the country's first leftist president. the the former mexico city mayor triumphed against the two parties that have ruled mexico city for nearly a century. >> after the victory lopez obrador vowed to seek friendship with the united states with the quote always rooted in mutual respect and in defense of our migrant countrymen. >> reporter: what many are calling a revolution for this country. you see people pouring into th

wade.rom the wall street journal, abortion and focus as pick.weighs -- here's what the president had to say >> are you going to ask your nominees how they might vote on roe v. wade? >> that is a big one and probably not. you should not do that. i am putting conservative people on. i am proud of neil gorsuch. he has been outstanding. his opinions are so well written, so brilliant. i am going to try and do something like that. in their wrapup of that, usa today notes that president trump will not need to ask nominees about their views. the federalist society legal group whose leaders disagree with the decision vetteed candidates on the list. democrats have been talking about it ever since anthony kennedy announced his retirement on it last week. here is senator schumer on thursday, the day after the announcement. on november 11, 2016, then president-elect trump said, i am pro-life. the judges will be pro-life. in a debate against secretary clinton, then candidate trump and, because i am pro-l

wade. we are active in state legislatures. host: what was the reaction when you found out that a supreme court opening came up, or ticker live when it comes to the issues you advocate? guest: high energy. i think iran screaming down the hall. honestly, a moment where we have been building up to this for a while. and everybody had been talking about it. and when the moment happens, it is surreal. we had prepared for a long time to talk about potential nominees. host: what is high on your list about kavanaugh? guest: he has been experienced federal appeals court judge. court for 12 years. it is often referred to as the nation's second-highest court to the supreme court because so many of the justices have come from that court in d.c. and it involves a lot of federal issues. a lot of interplay with congress. is theond thing commitment to constitutionalism. when we look at a judge, we want theee what the terms of nation's charter made it to mean. host: are you hoping he will be the vote that tu

view believedn my happened when the roe versus wade ruling occurred. host: let me get your reaction publicrrent snapshot of opinion on the issue of abortion. a quinnipiac poll from last week ad they great that there's small gender gap is american voters agreed 63% to 31% with the supreme court roe versus wade decision. man, 61 percent to 32% while women agree 65% to 32%. the quinnipiac poll five republicans disagree with roe v wade 58% 36%. guest: i think you can see that change over the couple of months. a lot of polls including the poll we released today from the terrorist group that says the american people prefer state legislatures to decide abortion law over the supreme court. vast majorities agreement that. aware inpublic becomes these hearings that is exactly what road disallowed roe versus wade and its decision disallowed state legislatures from enacting their own will in the law then we will see a correction of understanding. it's understandable that there would be a sense that the only thing roe did was to make abortion illegal in the nation.

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

wade. as the white house tried to make clear, on the red state democrats, democrats up for re-election in trump states this november, can the president put pressure on them to vote for their pick, given the fact that it's not good for them to be seen necessarily in an election year as part of the democratic caucus doing what chuck schumer wants them to do. so it doesn't really matter which of the four. we really narrowed it down to just two now, which of the two the president picks. the pressure is going to be on those seven or so senators. >> we should just point out two black suvs have just pulled up to the white house. we do not know who is in them. obviously all of this -- the buildup to it, david axelrod, in a minute i want to ask you just sort of the -- without giving any state secrets how you sneak people into the white house like this. more importantly what do we know about the main two whose names are being discussed? and their records? >> well, i think we need to go back to the ca

wade.n't think at the end of the day it's about roe v. wade. it's about interpreting the constitution as the way it is written. that's going to happen. chris: as you well know, justices adhere to presidents and sometimes they overturn. >> absolutely. but major precedence of the court require a lot of attention and respect and scrutiny and we have seen that there's only one justice right now in court out of nine in period of 36 years who is saying that he would overturn roe. >> that's clarence thomas. given the republican majority in the senate and the fact that there is no longer a filibuster, one to have few ways that a trump nominee could fail to be confirmed is if you get one of the two and here they are on the screen, if you lose, one of the two republican senators, susan collins or lisa murkowski who are both pro-choice, is it fair to say that the president won't pick someone who has a record of opposition to roe v. wade? >> i think senator collins made point clearly. she wants someone

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

and that's clarence thomas and he is willing to overturn roe versus wade the other eight are not on the seven plus now this nominee are not on the record we can speculate about it one of the questions is going to be what will the challenge be and this goes back to part of why kavanagh was attractive to conservatives attractive to the trump white house attractive to senate republicans and that is it's not about political preferences it's not about the outcome that you want it's not about a judge acting as a legislator or it is about textualism and originalism these are two terms that mean a lot in conservative legal circles and they have been gaining mostly because of the legacy and the lifetime of service of antonin scalia textualism refers to looking at statues as sandy mentioned earlier looking at the actual language what is the language of the last say and interpret ing it very specifically originalism looks at the intent of the founders at the time the constitution was written and so if you are an originalist and you are a textualist you look at those two things and you look at

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

frankly this is a vice president who yet yesterday said they were intent on overruling roe versus wade so i think it's a fair assumption that is what judge kavanagh's inclination would be david will be as judge to add more what do you think she rolled the way. oh it's absolutely fair and i think you will see him hedge a little bit look the votes are likely there for republicans but democrats have an opportunity here to create a defining moment going into the midterms and we will be on the heels of the midterms when all of these hearings conclude and a vote actually happens i think what we could watch for though larry is this a lot of conservative jurists are even saying that kavanagh has has said he is not looking to overturn roe v wade that may be the case but what a lot of conservatives are suggesting is they can change abortion rights in the united states even within the construct of roe v wade roe v wade had this underlying viability test the notion that in the third trimester that fetus is capable of of birth and of living and so there's a viability test i think what you'll see co

wade ruling, legalizing abortion.he president wang end. >> are you going to ask your nominees beforehand how they might vote on roe vs. wade. >> that's a big one. probably not. they are all saying don't do that. don't do that. you shouldn't do that by importing conservative people on i'm very, very proud of neil gorsuch. he's been outstanding. his opinions are, you know, so well written so brilliant. and i'm going to try and do something like that, but i don't think i'm going to be so specific and the question i'll be asking. i'm actually told i shouldn't be. >> kimberly: the main republican susan collins, swing voter in the senate, he vows to opposing nominee who would overturn the ruling. >> i believe very much that roe v. wade is settled law, as has been described by chief justice roberts. a candidate for this important decision who would overturn roe v. wade would not be acceptable to me. because that would indicate an activist agenda that i don't want to see a judge half. >> kimberly: obviously, dana, this is a k

wade.isten to what he told me about this issue during the first days of his candidacy on this show. take a listen. >> i know you're opposed to abortion. how important is that issue to you now when president trump picks supreme court justices. would that be a litmus test? >> it is -- >> president trump saying then he was a candidate now a president saying abortion is a litmus test for him. you say roe is settled law. given the president's comments, is it fair to expect that any nominee he selects will vote to overturn roe versus wade? >> well, the president told me in our meeting that he would not ask that question. and that is what he has most recently said on the advice of his attorney. so i think what he said as the candidate may not have been informed by the legal advice that he now has that it would be inappropriate for him to ask a nominee how he or she would rule on a specific issue. >> with all due respect the supreme court overturns its own rulings overtime and overruled 200 decisio

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 re

wade then leonard leo. normally in the senate we have a process of advising consent on the supreme court. in the old days the president would consult with their publicans and democrats in the senate on a qualified judge and then after careful deliberation nominate a jurors they could get bipartisan support. what we have here is the exact opposite. the president has gone to too far out of the mainstream right groups, the heritage foundation and the federalist society and is them, not the senate , too advise and consent on the supreme court nomination. whomever the president looks tonight that nominee is from the preapproved list selected by leo and the heritage foundation everyone ought to understand what it means for the freedom of women to make their own health care decisions and for the protection for americans, the pre-existing conditions, those rights will be gravely threatened. mr. president, now we will hear a lot this summer about precedence. the traditional question on these matters has been, will t

that was to actually overturn roe v wade. so we believe him. he's got a vice president whose on the - - of history. we think that's the mindset many americans are going into this with because is of such a vocal talking point for him. we also know the backpedaling happening now from people have long been critics of roe v wade is personally because they know what we know is most american people, regardless of how they feel personally about abortion, believe that legal access is core to our country. >>dana: i have some poles. public opinion has shifted since 1973. it's been 45 years. 67 percent of americans say they do not want to see roe v wade overturned the other is variations. another poll says 50percent sho saying it should be legal under certain circumstances. with 60 percent thing some restrictions. how do you plan to go forward and is it a situation where you let the states decide if there is this public opinion change? >> i'm from texas so i'm very familiar with what happens when the state decides. similar to other freedoms and protection

wade. if that is the litmus test for at least two republican senators and the majority of democrats, are there any names mentioned that are red flags? carrie: i don't think we know how any of them would necessarily vote. this issue comes back. it is a scare tactic going back to the 1980's. justice o'connor was the vote they were worried would overturn roe v. wade, justice kennedy, justice souter. all those ironically for the same three devoted to uphold roe v. wade, so speculating what anyone would do is very difficult. even i know judge barrett is one people think has more out there than others. i was watching a recent video. she said this is not the way to look at a judge at all. judges are not saying here is a case i want to overturn. here is how i'm going to do this. they are supposed to be looking at the law, look at the facts of the case, and decide based on the text of the law and text of the constitution says. any of these top three we are looking at is going to do that. at the end

wade, other decisions i suspect you disagree with? there are different interpretations of where those constitutional boundaries are. that is where the rubber hits butroad in many cases, historically if you look back at the warren court there wasn't the idea of, we are bound by constitutional limits. it was almost like, how can we find an area in the constitution and weekend hang a hook, then we can have a very wide scope, moving things in a direction we think the constitution should go. do you try to look and understand those terms as they were understood by the people who ratified them, and that could be the framers, it could be, it depends on when an amendment was ratified when that relevant question is. but the idea that that is what we are looking at, not today will i read this. when i think due process i think something expensive and bro ad. wen we are reading laws, have to look at words as they were actually passed. we have to be careful not to redefine the terms. i think that would be a question that would ignite debate and i k

there's just no reason at all to think that he would be a fifth vote to keep roe versus wade. and i think anybody who believes otherwise anybody who takes seriously what judge kavanagh will undoubtedly say that he has great respect for president for precedent of for earlier this is in the court i think that's really quite nonsensical because the fact is that both liberal and conservative justices are quite happy to overrule past decisions they think were wrongly decided and i would be astonished if judge kavanagh did not believe that roe was wrongly decided to matthew do you agree with that i mean he has said that he will preserve the constitution and the american rule of law but do not believe in then. i happened to catch a rebroadcast of his confirmation hearing to the d.c. circuit court when it aired on c.-span late last night here in the united states and in that hearing he did confirm that roe versus wade is the law of the land and the precedent matters and he said precedent matters last night when he was unveiled as the nominee i don't have don't share the confidence of

wade." president trump actually went so far as to say that women should be punished for their health care choices. hissident trump also said, " judicial appointments would do the right thing unlike justice roberts on health care." that is president trump's litmus test and it could not be clearer. during the campaign, president trump commissioned a list of 25 people who would meet the litmus test, that were vetted and approved by two organizations that represent the heart right, the federalist society led by a man named leonard leo, whose goal in life has been to overturn roe v wade, and the heritage foundation, whose goal is to strike down health care law because they don't want the government to help people out when they have pre-existing conditions or other health care needs. here is what edward whelan, a prominent conservative activist, said about leonard leo, a man who put together the list that trump promised to choose from. "re's what he said about leo, no one has been more dedicated t

that depends on where they stand on the issue of roe v wade. there is a bright light for the white house. there were three senate democrats who are all up for re-election this fall who did support justice neil gorsuch last year when he was confirmed by the full senate. so even though whoever the president's nominee is may not be confirmed unanimously, we could see some crossover and support from democrats. jon: john roberts was confirmed on a 78-22 vote. some of the other sitting justices closer than that, justice thomas, 52-48. it seems like in recent decades at least the confirmation process has become a lot more polarized and a lot more political than it used to be. >> absolutely. and i think it's just like was mentioned earlier. you're going to see whoever the president's nominee not only face really tough questions from senate democrats on what they believe about roe v wade, that very question has already come up in the confirmation hearings of the president trump nominees to the federal appeals courts. like senator cantwell said, there's

wade? are you ready to tell the supreme court that we think it's absurd that they give constitutional rights to billionaires to buy elections? and then tell women they don't have the constitutional right to control their own bodies? ready to tell the supreme court that we are not going to eliminate pre-existing conditions protections? look, i am not going to kid anybody. this is a tough fight but it is a fight that we can win. 70% of the american people support roe versus wade. support protection for pre-existing conditions and people support environmental protection and workers rights. people one american our side. state-by-statego by state to make sure senators do with their ditch once want. -- do what their constituents want. this is a tough fight but if we stand together, we can win. thank you. >> good evening, every body area i am more a kiesling and i am the director -- good evening, everybody. i am the director of the center for gender he policy. people thought we couldn't save the a

she might try to take it out of politics with roe versus wade. so there is a very, very important distinction between different kind of conservatives and i think the president will do well to appoint a traditional libertarian conservative with an open mind and, by the way, if barrett gets the nomination. she ought to have an enormous picture of senator fine stestei her office. senator feinstein, foolishly, unconstitutionally, challenged her religious views when she was up for election. >> professor -- >> she made her a hero. so if barrett gets the nomination, it's judge feinstein's response -- responsibility. >> i'll come back to that in a moment. at the outset, i was asking a hypothetical, as if president trump called dershowitz, what would be your advice? the answer in which you necessitated me, did he call you? >> look. i don't want to get into whether the president has sought my advice. he has sought my advice on a variety of issues on the middle east. i have advised every president on the middle east during the last several decades. i will c

wade is poorly reasoned. a lot of it goes back to what is your approach and how does one move going forward with the decision with that question? it is something the president has certainly said this is something he is hoping for, but every president has the things they help will be done. at the end of the day, a judge is not a fairy godmother who will give you your wish list. says not santa claus who there are the top 10 cases and you want this or that down. going to bee applying judicial philosophy to cases, and that may be different from what you predict. there are so many other huge issues that we cannot predict. challenge toclause obamacare was a gigantic supreme court issue. clause commerce something being asked of people or thought about when these chiefes, including justice roberts, was being vetted for the court? we can't predict what the next big question will be. that is why it is important to focus on their philosophy. supposed to be for a specific result. this is something americans across the bo

wade.o there is a very, very important distinction between different kind of conservatives and i think the president will do well to appoint a traditional libertarian conservative with an open mind and, by the way, if barrett gets the nomination. she ought to have an enormous picture of senator feinstein in her office, because it would be senator feinstein who would have gotten her the job. senator feinstein, foolishly, unconstitutionally, challenged her religious views when she was up for confirmation, and of course the constitution says that no religious views shall ever be taken into account in appointing somebody. >> professor -- >> she made her a hero. so if barrett gets the nomination, it's judge feinstein's response -- it's senator feinstein's responsibility. o >> i'll come back to that in a moment. at the outset, i was asking a hypothetical, as if president trump called dershowitz, what would be your advice? the way in which you have just answered me necessitates this follow-up. thi

but none of them have ruled on roe vs wade specifically. and i think, she is saying what she is saying. but at the end, we are going to get another neil gorsuch type, someone with that background. and hopefully senator collins will support them. or her. and if not, you know, it is a decision that she will make. i think we are going to get two or three democrats yet again. >> harris: interesting. you mentioned those ten states were senators are up for grabs if you will, and some of the states where the seats are. i should say. here in new york, everybody sees that at the bottom of the screen. when i see that, they think, that is a liberal area of the country. you are republican there. tell me what you think some of the big court issues will be moving forward. >> well, we are going to continue to see some attorney generals and others across this country, whether it is hawaii or the state of washington or california, bring absurd races like the travel ban, where we have appellate courts, or the circuit out in the california area where judges r

wade, because let me be clear. women and men in this country understand how directly tied this write is to a woman's freedom and economic security. and they overwhelmingly do not want to see that right rolled back. now, today is the anniversary of a ruling that further upheld women's constitutionally protected preproductive -- reproductive rights, and i wanted to take a few minutes to discuss what this decision meant for women's lives and why we will not stop fighting to protect the progress we made. almost a half century ago in its historic roe v. wade decision, supreme court ruled that every woman no matter where she lives has the constitutional right to make her own decisions about her body, her family, and her future, including the right to safe legal abortion. but a right means nothing without the ability to exercise it. while roe v. wade has been the law of the land for years, extremists have been trying to change the court's decision by making it hard for women to exercise their reproductive rights. but wome

that would bea wade could be overturned.n—based. nearly half of conservative republicans say abortion was a very important factor in our vote abortion was a very important factor in ourvote in abortion was a very important factor in our vote in 2016. for white evangelicals, that number is even higher. what do we want? abortion rights. but here is the twist. polls also show americans want to keep abortion legal. a survey released after the news thatjustice kennedy was stepping down show that two thirds of americans think the supreme court should simply leave the law alone. abortion is the most contentious issue in this nomination but there are a host of ways that are right—leaning court could change life in america. here in the uk police say it's "shocking and utterly appalling" that a woman has died after being exposed to a nerve agent in wiltshire. dawn sturgess was contaminated not far from where a former russian spy and his daughter were poisoned in march. her partner, charlie rowley, remains critically ill. our home affa

wade. president trump says that he will announce his pick to replace justice kennedy just eight days from now. >> we're going to pick somebody who's outstanding. i'll do it in your honor. we're going to pick somebody who's outstanding. i was very honored he did this during my term which means he had confidence in me to do the right thing. >> so the president says that he has a short list of about five names that includes two women, and as the president begins the interview process, democrats are, as you can imagine, gearing up for a supreme court fight. >> beyond trying to sway public opinion, can you get the nominee to be delayed until after the midterms? how can you really do that? >> well, procedurally, that's going to be up to when the majority leader brings this forward, but we can make this case that this isn't ancient precedent. in 2016, the republicans took the position that you shouldn't vote on a nominee in an election year, and it wasn't just because it was a presidential electio

roe versus wade.owever, as you know, the president is shopping from a list of conservative candidates compile bid the federalist society. does that guarantee roe versus wade will be overturned or altered. >> of course not. you would think every time there is a supreme court vacancy abortion is the only issue that would come up to the supreme court. justices tend to move very, very cautiously. the list of 25 names, high quality men and women with distinguished records. so far as i am aware, the only person on that list who has taken a public position on roe versus wade is bill pryor of the 7th circuit. but these people haven't taken public positions on roe versus wade, nor will they do so during the confirmation hearing. arthel: you just heard susan collins say she is concerned the president is only choosing from that list of 25 candidate and she would like the president to go beyond that. >> i don't know why she is concerned about the people on that list. there are high quality individuals not on that

wade was wrongly decided. would it be a huge disappointment to you and other conservatives if it turns out this nominee did not support overturning roe v. wade? carrie: criticism is not conservative circles only. you have people like laurence tribe say there is no law there in this opinion. even people who agree with -- would like a result weather is -- where there is widespread abortion access or think there is elsewhere in the constitution you can find it, they are in the ballpark of saying, you know what roe v. wade is poorly , reasoned. i think a lot of it goes back to the question is what is your , approach and how does one move going forward with the decision with a decision with that question? i think it is something may be the president has certainly said this is something he is hoping for, but every president has the things they hope a judge does. at the end of the day, a judge is not a fairy godmother who is going to come down and give you your little wish list. it is not santa claus who says here ar

his opinion on miranda i can ask his opinion on our heads again why can't they ask him about roe v wade i don't think they have a problem with that i just as quickly in my class the first year or two that he was up on the supreme court of the united states i asked him about all of this and he gave me he gave the last two hundred people his opinions on a lot of these issues he wouldn't give an opinion of course on how he would decide a pending case a case that where the court but how you would have voted on dred scott that's a pretty easy thing ok but cavanagh has said that roe versus wade set a precedent when he was appearing to be approved for the circuit court. right he said it and he had he he believes in president. do you believe he'll vote to keep rolling way i do i think he may chip away at it he's not going to vote to overrule the rules of precedent are different by the way and the supreme court and the court of appeals the court of appeals are bound absolute bound by the president and if you violate press at the sprinkle overrule you but the supreme court has nobody to overrule

wade. there maybe republicans concerned about this nominees opinions in terms of airnt worker and anticonsumer. and antiand so forth. there's a lot of material. there's about the powerful vs. the people. and after all we were founded as a we the people republic. >> when you look at the specific issues. roe v. wade looms large. i don't know that kavanaugh looking at his cases so far has given much to work with. when he was up to be a circuit court judge he said that he respected it as a established precedent and been tested. he would follow it. >> if confirmed to the sir kout i would follow roe v. wade faithfully and fully. it would be binding precedent of the court. i'm saying if i were confirmed to the sir kout, i would follow it. it has been reaffirmed many times. >> what is your opinion? you're not on the bench yet. you have talked about the issues in the past to other people i'm sure. >> the supreme court held repeatedly. it wouldn't be appropriate to -- >> now the biggest problem with