wade." a new documentary explores how the issue of abortion became highly politicized in the decades since the ruling. here's abc's gloria riviera. >> reporter: for dr. colleen mcnicholas getting to work is a feat. she is an abortion provider in the midwest where access to abortion is increasingly restricted. she lives and works in missouri, a state with only two abortion clinics. each month she also commutes to oklahoma and kansas, seeing patients in a total of four clinics across three states. >> in america one in four women will have an abortion in their life, so to me abortion is just basic healthcare. >> we're going to remove the pregnancy, okay, and when i think about how politicized this has become i wonder, you know, how did this happen? >> reporter: does the fact that this is such a political debate, does it ever come into the kline snik. >> i take care of republican women and democratic women. i take care of women who have have children, who identify as christian or muslim or athei

wade overturned. that's what's going on here. >> let's jump back to capitol hill and the questioning of brett kavanaugh. >> a judge can sentence a defendant to a long prison term for a crime a jury acquitted the defendant of flies in the face to the right of a jury trial. you believe it likely will take some combination of congress and the sentencing commission to systematically change federal sentencing to preclude use of an acquitted or uncharged conduct, unquote. why do you take issue with the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing? why do you believe this is an issue that will likely require intervention by congress to resolve? >> the opinions i have written on this -- i have written several -- say in essence the following, senator. when a criminal defendant, for example, is charged with ten counts, let's suppose, and is acquitted on neighbine and conv on once and he is sentenced as if he or she had been convicted of all ten, because the judge says, i think you did x or y and under my discretion,

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

wade. it doesn't work that way. >> i see what you are asking, senator, right. the way cases come up to us in that context or another context would be -- >> can i give you an example to do it quicker? >> yes. >> some state somewhere or some town somewhere passes a law that runs into the face of roe. somebody will object, they'll go to lower courts and eventually it might come up to the supreme court challenging the foundations roe versus wade. it would take some legislative enactment for that to happen, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> if there was such an action by a state or local government challenging roe and it came before the supreme court, would you listen to both sides? >> i listen to both sides in every case, senator, i have for 12 years, yes. >> when it comes to overruling a longstanding precedent of the court is there a formula that you use? >> first of all, you start with the notion of precedent and as i've said to senator feinstein in this context, this is a precedent that

wade. >> the right to abortion since the 1973 roe v. wade case is reaffirmed it many times. >> shannon: and the mueller investigation. >> my question to you is will you admit to recusing in any case involving the civil or criminal liability of the president will point you? or nominee? >> the judiciary requires that i would not commit how i would decide a particular case and to issue a commitment on a discretionary recusal issue in either direction. >> shannon: asked for that email discussing the possible use of racial profiling with relation to national security, kavanaugh's emails show he was advocating for a race neutral policy, leading reporters to say they believe booker's efforts forced out the documents and benefited the nominee. senator booker continues to release more documents on twitter. senate judiciary committee has not verified all of them yet, but tells me at least some of the documents are still classified as committee confidential. republican senator from nebraska joins me n

wade. we have seen this before. in 2005 then judge roberts came before this committee and stated that roe is the settled law of the land during his own confirmation process. despite this artist declaration as a justice he voted to uphold a statutory scheme that would have shattered 75% of the clinics in texas. if this is what it looks like to respect precedent and treat roe a settled law, then these are empty promises. since 2011 2011 politicians hae passed over 400 new laws in 33 states that shane pressure and punish women who decide to have an abortion. some of these laws to ban abortion as early as six weeks before a woman may even know that she is pregnant. others would require doctors to convey a false -- kind of abortion leads to breast cancer. the point of these restrictions is to make it difficult, costly and some cases impossible for women to obtain an abortion. as such these restrictions impede women's ability to participate equally in the social and economic rights of the nation and these restrictions are

wade? could this issue, where he stands on it, his record on decisions, you know, be a make or break moment? even though republicans, you know, are in the majority, we've heard from some like susan collins who say, you know, there is legal precedence, in her view, as it pertains to roe v. wade. >> that's right. and here's what he's done before. first of all, fred, he sits on a court that doesn't handle much abortion at all. he had one case about a year ago in october of 2017 where he dissented when the full d.c. circuit said the trump administration couldn't block a pregnant migrant teenager from getting an abortion. and what he said, he said that the administration was right to want this young woman to first have a sponsor, and in his dissenting opinion, he talked about the government being within its right to favor fetal lu life. that's the one opinion he has, he was on the losing side there. i'm sure senators will ask him about that. susan collins, as you know, had said that he told her

wade. also later tonight i have a special report we've been working on on how to hold alex jones accountable in the age of trump. we think it's important we have that later tonight. >>> we begin with breaking news on paul manafort and the russia probe. plea deal negotiations with bob mueller for paul manafort have stalled and that is because we are told paul manafort won't agree to a deal that would include cooperation. this is breaking tonight and days ahead of when manafort's next trial is supposed to begin. a key part of this reporting, you may remember bloomberg had pieces of this but the new parts come tonight from abc news which is reporting mueller wants to lock manafort into cooperation for information pertaining to yrks e, donald trump and the 2016 election but manafort is resisting. this is key when you think about the logic because bob mueller probably isn't just guessing there's some information that he wants from this high profile and now convicted defendant. there is a signal

wade. until all the sudden the vacancy, now all of states, sudden everyone is silent. >> when kavanaugh was asked directly about precedent, he turned to casey, planned parenthood versus casey. this is the 1992 opinion in which the supreme court essentially upheld roe v. wade but then said states can restrict access to abortion in all kinds of ways as long as it's not an undue burden to the right. what that really did was vastly opened up the number of states passing laws that made it harder and harder and harder for women to get abortions. so in the context of the answer that he gave yesterday, i thought he was actually giving a very clear nod to the fact there were lots of additional types of restrictions that might be constitutional under roe v. wade but essentially make it difficult for women to get access to abortion. the thing that he really needs to be questioned on quite rug ru rigorously by the senate committee is this notion that is his opinion from last year in which he initially

wade on the ash heap of history.his is something think kavanaugh will do. >> you bring up mike pence, subject of your new book. call him shadow president. vice president of the united states. how deeply important is his presence on the ticket for trump's continued presidency or his presidency from the beginning? >> it was everything. funny story, i was on cnn the morning that pence was selected. there was a great deal of mystery about who will he choose. for some reason i had the instinct that it was pence because pence balances out trump almost perfectly. as pious as donald trump is profane, serious and measured as trump is chaotic. balanced trump temperamentally and also in the culture war in the united states. until he ran for president, i would guess most evangelicals thought trump was on the left side, liberal side of the culture war because he was a creature of television, had been a democrat and independent and really out there. not their kind of man. >> i wonder why you decided to focus on the vice president.

wade.t 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 is true that roe v. wade has been reaffirmed for many years, but donald trump promised during the campaign that if the he has the chance to appoint two justices to the suprem

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

wade?> as elaborated upon in planned parenthood, a woman has a constitutional right as interpreted by the constitution to obtain an abortion up to the point of viability, subject to reasonable regulations by the state so long as those reasonable regulations do not constitute an undue burden on the woman's right. >> okay. as to how the system works, can you sit down with five -- you and four other judges and overrule roe v. wade just because you want to? >> senator, roe v. wade is an important precedent in the supreme court. >> don't you have to have a case? you can't just, hey, what are you doing for lunch? let's overrule roe v. wade. it doesn't work that way? >> i see what you're asking, senator. right. there's -- the way cases come up to us in that context or in other context would be -- >> can i give you an example because i can do this quicker? >> yes. >> so some states somewhere or some town somewhere passes a law that runs into the face of roe. somebody will object. they'll go to lowe

is robie wade settled law of the land? emails say about that when we return. that's why capital one is building something completely different. capital one cafés. welcoming places with people here to help you, not sell you. with savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. that are easy to open from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. no smoke. no mirrors. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? ♪ >> shannon: democratic senator makes some corrections on key figures on abortion. that and >> democratic senator makes corrections on key figures on abortion in the brett kavanaugh by the numbers. >> protests were a big story on capitol hill, 70 arrests according to capital police, two categories of protests, those who are in the back and shop and those who dress up, handmaidens from the handmaid's tale and this man who made a bold statement. are the arrested protesters coming back? between the committee and us counsel, if you get arrested you should becoming a back but many slip in it is not a perfect syst

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 about who these people are, not pretending that there are open questions when they're n

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

wade?nd 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 the judg

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 report. i'm amy goodman. supreme court

wade?h a lot of senators including susan collins who is expected to be on the fence, and the swing vote as far as the gop, and he told her that he considers roe v. wade settled law of the land. but listen to what lindsey graham said about that. >> i would not vote for anybody who said that no, every decision that the supreme court cannot be revisited. they are revisited through a processa and process of overturning long precedent and he would be disqualified in my opinion if he would not listen to both sides of the story and decide accordingly, and this idea that row v way is going to be challenged at the state level, and there are all laws out there, and some of them may work up to supreme court, and he is going to give great deference to roe v. wade like any other decision, but it is up to the facts in the record. >> and so lindsey graham threw that idea of subtle law under the bus there. and so kavanaugh is going to be obviously grilled on this issue, and how dz he thread the needle, and

wade -- >> you just can't -- what are you doing for lunch? let's otherrule roe v.me up to us would be -- >> can i ask -- >> this has been reaffirmed many times including planned parenthood versus casey. so it became on precedent in this context. you look at there are factors you look at when you're considering any precedent. >> so that's process in place that is court has followed far very long time. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> joining us is jeffrey jeff, you said abortion would be legal in many states if he is confirmed. i wonder what you make of that response. >> i think i'm right. that statement is true that roe versus wade has been reaffirmed for many years but donald trump promised if he has the chance to appoint two justices there are already four votes to overturn it. i think this is a done deal. sit outlawing. they will be upheld. elections have consequences. donald trump promised this. he will deliver. >> lindsay gram is saying you have to have the case. >> jeff is right. this is probably already in the works. even if they don't overru

wade? >> as elaborated upon in planned parenthood versus casey a woman have a constitutional right as interpreted to obtain an abortion up to the point of viability, subject to reasonable regulations by the state so long as those reasonable regulations do not constitute an undue burden on the woman's right. >> okay. as to how the system works, can you sit down with five, you and four other judges, and overrule roe v. wade just because you want to? >> senator, roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. >> don't you have to have a case? you just can't -- >> yes. not just, what are you doing for lunch, let's override roe v. wade. >> i see what you're asking, senator. the way cases come up to us in that context or another context would be a laws -- >> can i give an example to do this quicker? >> yes. >> so some state somewhere or some town somewhere pass as law that runs into the face of roe. somebody will object. they'll go to lower courts and eventually it might come up to th

wade. when given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, donald trump did what he promised, he did not select someone who has independence to the rule of law. instead, donald trump selected a pre-approved name to get a vote for his dangerous anti-worker, anti-consumer, pro-corporate and anti-environmental agenda. and donald trump selected brett kavanaugh from this list for an even more specific reason sm the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, impartial and dogged investigation of his abuse of power before the walls close in on him. because of if there is one thing we know about donald trump he is committed to self-preservation every minute, every day. this nomination should be considered. the president has been packing with our courts who come to the bench with clear agendas and rule consistent with those aagenda as. trump nominee james cole, now a judge in the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions

wade.t means we go back to the law before, that the state could use the criminal law, to criminalize, prosecute, and jail women for making their own reproductive health care decisions. that's what it means, to overturn roe versus wade, and i don't think that's what we should do in this country. it is an important moral issue, obviously, but i think women can make their own moral decisions about their health care, including reproductive health care. mark: the mueller probe. the president declassified materials used to obtain a secret warrant to monitor the condition's his former campaign foreign-policy advisor, carter page. he said it was for transparency. you want to protect robert you want to protect robert mueller with legislation. why is that needed? it is already costing american taxpayers $26 million. >> it is important to protect the integrity of our elections. there have already been over 30 indictments and guilty pleas of individuals as part of this investigation. my opponent says i

wade and not complicate his after the e court. at t the end of the day -- amy: explain the significance of what the document show from 2003, kavanaugh own you know as a white house counsel talking about roe v. wade not being settled law and also in the contraceptiveg abortion-inducing drugs. folks these documents are game changers. but we have to remember that more than 90% of mr. kavanaugh's record has been kept in the dark. had we had these documents from tuesday -- and i have been in that hearing room every single day -- i think the tenor of these hearings would have been very different. i think senators on both sides of the iowa would have been in a position to really probe and figure out whether mr. kavanaugh is prepared to it hereto and uphold the supreme court's precedent when it comes to roe v. wade. compounds somely of the other evidence that has come forth. the garza case, for example, in which mr. kavanaugh seems to go to great lengths to deny an undocumented teen access to an abortion. another case where he allowed emp

wade was settled law. what would overturning roe v. wade mean?t is what my opponent wants to do. he says he wants to overturn roe v. wade. that would mean that we go back to what the law was before. the state could use the criminal law to criminalize, prosecute and jail women for making their own health care decisions. that is what it would mean to overturn that. that is not what we should do. it is an important moral issue. i think women can make their own decisions about this. probe, --er mueller probe -- he said it was for transparency. you want to protect robert mueller. why is that level of protection needed after this investigation has already cost the american taxpayers $26 million? >> it is important to protect the integrity of our election. there have already been 30 indictments and guilty pleas. my opponent says it is a witch hunt. my opponent says it should be terminated but this is an investigation into extremely serious allegations. the guilty pleas and indictments has demonstrated it. i think we need to protect the investigation and

wade.n a statement he made, quote, i'm not sure all legal scholars refer to roe as the settled law at the supreme court since the court can overrule its precedent. that's basically at odds with his emphasis yesterday when he said roe is a double precedent, which senator feinstein seized on. >> this has been viewed as you saying that you don't think roe is settled. do you believe it is correct lysette ld? -- correctly settled. >> to your broader point, roe v. wade is an important precedent in the supreme court, it's been reaffirmed many times. >> that is a big difference, of course, it's a super precedent. that's what he's saying this week. the other questioning was all about mueller, kavanaugh denying he spoke to anyone at a key law firm of trump's former attorney. senator harris said this. >> do you know of a conversation that brett kavanaugh had with the kasowitz law firm. >> i have good reason to believe there was a conversation. >> what are you basing that on? >> information i've receiv

wade. who would ever play politics on the campaign trail where roe v. wade? bast ard donald trump is, until you hear about hillary clinton. february the 3rd, 2016, this is what hillary clinton said when asked does she have a litmus test for scotus nominations. i do have a litmus tests, i have a bunch because the next president could get as many as three appointments and i hope she's right. we've got to make sure to preserve roe v. wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed. she sounds very open minded. october 2016, we need a supreme court that will stand up on behalf of woman's rights. it is important that we not rebirth roe v. wade. i want to supreme court that stick with roe v. wade 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'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 po

wade. >> do you hope kavanaugh does overturn roe v. wade? >> if there's a case before him that challenges roe v. wade to listen to both sides of the story, apply a test to overturn precedent. precedent is important because it's not invalid. i'm dying to see if he sees if citizens versus united can be overturned. there's a process to overturn a precedent. >> and senator graham is correct. precedent can be changed. if you look at the decision of same-sex marriage they revoked a previous case law. so it could happen. that's a concern for democrats then it's a valid concern. but i think the point is that kavanaugh would not prohibit abortion and remand it back to the states. that's different from a liberal justice imposing abortion. i think that's what could happen. another thing that could happen is there are cases where states have limited abortion to prohibit it after 20 weeks. the court could validate those state laws. so there is a valid concern, the democratic side. but obviously he's not going to be specific. that's a case to come before

wade. they've used it numerous times in those dissents, and it is a word used in the anti-choice community, and in addition, in that dissent, you refer to roe v. wade as existing supreme court precedent. you don't refer to it as roe v. wade protecting jane doe's right to privacy or her right to an abortion. you refer to it as existing supreme court precedent, not supreme court precedent, "existing supreme court precedent." now, i don't refer, i don't recall seeing a judge refer to existing supreme court precedent in other decisions, certainly not commonly, unless they're opening the possibility of overturning that precedent. it's a little bit like somebody introducing his wife to you as my current wife. you might not expect that wife to be around for all that long. my current wife, existing supreme courts precedent, and throughout your opinion you're careful never to say that the constitution protects the right to choose. you can see that the parties have "assumed for purposes of this case"

should roe versus wade be overturned? right now highest proportion of americans ever recorded said it should not be overturned. that we should keep abortion legal in this country. 71% of americans. 71% say roe versus wade should not be overturned. that even includes a majority of republicans. the highest ever result on that question. with a penaltying nomination of a judge who would be the decisive vote to overturn roe. if trump succeeds in getting him on the court. and that kind of thing has consequences. a week after brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court was announced, the nonpartisan pugh research center released a national poll that found more americans oppose the confirmation of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court than any other nominee in recent history. opposition to kavanaugh was even greater, the polls showed, than the opposition against harriet meyers. do you remember harriet meyers? the nomination was considered to be one of the worst botched supreme court nomination attempts, one of the worst nomi

wade and whether or not he would repeal.lian: dan sullivan has response that refusal to respond makes him more qualified. >> i think he would make a great justice on the supreme court. he's been outstanding federal court of appeals. a person with humility which is rare in this town. with regard to roe v. wade but i didn't get into the details about asking about that, this isn't just judge kavanaugh, justice begins bigger famously said i'm not going to predict what may or may not come before the court because that would be prejudging and that's not the role of a judge. jillian: without vote of late john mccain, the republicans can't afford toless a vote. rob: lawmakers will question coo cheryl sandburg and jack dorsey about election meddling. utah senator orrin hatch is asking for investigation of google's dominance. jillian: voters in massachusetts will decide incumbent charlie baker and scott, republican primary for governor, in the left, gonzÁlez and trio for nominations to unseat liberal ally beth warren this fall. trump

wade and settled law.n it comes to those e-mails from 2003 about that, could that be what a confirmation hinges on? >> it could be, but i don't necessarily think that's going to happen because the explanation that judge kavanaugh gave yesterday about what that particular e-mail was referring to sounded to me like something is going to be believed by senators like lisa murkowski of alaska and susan collins of maine, the republican hospital have disparate positions from their colleagues in the republican caucus on abortion rights. so i don't necessarily think that's the case, but what the real question here is why exactly was it teamed to be committee confidential in the first place. there was a bunch of the stuff that was coming out on thursday where we didn't really understand -- i didn't understand certainly why exactly this had not been in the public record previously. >> yeah, and the other e-mail cory booker that was referencing about race relations and police brutality as well. >> a lot at this moment

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

wade.given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, they did exactly as a part is not someone who demonstrates independence and fidelity to the rule of law. instead, donald trump selected a preapproved name in order to guarantee a fifth vote for his dangerous anti-worker, anticonsumer, anti-wanted an anti-environmental agenda. donald trump select good brett kavanaugh from this list for an even more specific reason. the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from then independent, impartial and a dogged investigation of his abuse of power before the walls close in on him entirely. because if there's one thing we know about donald trump, it is he is committed to self-preservation every minute, every hour, every day. judge kavanaugh's appointment should be considered in a broader context. the president has ideological driven judges who come to the bench with strong positions and clear agenda is then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. for exam

wade overturned. i don't secretly want to see roe v. wade overturned. i openly want to city overturned! [ laughter ] [ cheering and applause ] >> this is not a matter of my partisan opinion. this is a matter of the constitution. and that is why the confirmation of brett kavanaugh is not just a conservative issue. it's not just a win for conservative, it's a win for freedom? it's a win for human rights. it's a win for hope? it's a win for the perpetuation of liberty, for us, our kids and grandkids. and that is why no later than confirm we need to confirm kavanaugh. [ cheering and applause ] >>> anwuka who is senior independent analyst for a women's forum which i think has the best social media in town. so thank you for coming up. glad you're here today. you're beautiful. >> good morning, everyone. i'm a senior policy analyst with the independent women's forum. we believe that all issues are women's issues. >> that's right. >> and let me tell you why i am here today. i am many things. i'm a millennial. [ laughter ] >> i'm a working woman. i'm a naturalize

wade? >> so the supreme court has said that a woman has a constitutional right -- >> so all of us could vote, as we have said, liberty means that the state has no interest year. the compelling interest for medical viability. that we could pass all the laws that we want, it doesn't matter. the only way that we could change that is if it's requires two-thirds of the senate, three fourths of the state. is that pretty correct legal analysis? >> when they have issued a constitutional ruling -- >> not by changing it. here is the point. would you agree -- the reason some legal scholars object to this concept is a breathtakingly unlimited. whatever five people believe that any given time in history, in terms of the word "liberty," they can rewrite history and come up with a new history. i think that the best way for democracy to make history is to be a check and balance on us, not to take one word and create a concept that is breathtaking in terms of its application to restrict the legislative proc

they're going to be respectful of the roe versus wade precedent. keep an eye on them. they haven't said where they're going yet. the aba gave a unanimous well qualified rating to judge kavanaugh. not one discenter. schumer and leahy have said that's the gold standard. hopefully they will cast their vote for judge kavanaugh. >> shannon. >> let's bring in john cornyn a member of the judiciary committee. thank you for your time. if every republican votes for him brett kavanaugh is a supreme court justice. do you have any reason to believe this will not happen? >> well, i look at what happened with judge gorsuch. he got 54 votes in a bipartisan basis. i expect judge kavanaugh to get a similar vote. somewhere in that same range. >> if that's the case murcowski and collins vote in favor? >> i respect their right to make that announcement themselves. they've been considering the nominee. visiting with him in person. in the end i predict they will be satisfied but i'll leave them up to them to make that announcement. >> cory booker said something far more suggestionive. he sai

wade is settled law. once he's on the supreme court, he actually can decide what is settled law once he has majority of justices. the other thing is if you notice he also gave a speech criticizing -- or championing justice rehnquist's dissent in roe v. wade. justice rehnquist was in a very small minority. a 7-2 decision. if he's out there complimenting the -- a dissent to that decision, there's no doubt that he would either vote to overturn it or at least vote to restrict the right as he and so many other conservative judges have done. so let's be careful once again about this settled law mantra because it's just not -- we can't accept it anymore. >> all right. of course, susan collins has been the main question. the person in question on roe vs. wade. there have been other democrats, of course, that are going to have a more difficult decision. some red state democrats. one of them on the committee, senator amy klobuchar, although she's not necessarily in a red state but certainly very close race there. s

wade and kavanaugh. listen to this. >> so thank you, senator feinstein. was referring to the views of legal scholars. i think my comment in the e-mail is that might be overstating the position of legal scholars. so it wasn't a technically accurate description in the letter of what legal scholars thought at that time. >> i've actually read these memos that were confidential but now are out. they've been released by some of these democratic senators. the question is on the sensitive issue of abortion rights for women in the united states, you think any of this is going to have an impact on two moderate republican senators, lisa murkowski, susan collins, who are very important on this issue of roe v. wade and may convince them because of this disclosure of what he said that they may vote against this confirmation? >> i don't think this will be enough, but you're exactly right. the ultimate goal in publicizing these e-mails is to suggest that republicans and kavanaugh have been hiding about what his true views on roe v. wade are. if he is confirmed to the cou

wade. i want a supreme court that will stick with roe v. wade and a woman's right to choose.nderstand 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 power. this idea that trump picked you

i want to overturn roe versus wade. what would that mean?e would go back to what the law was before. that the state could use the criminal law to criminalize, prosecute, and jail women for making their own reproductive health care decisions. that's what it means to overturn roe versus wade, and i don't think that's what we should do in this country. it's an important moral issue, obviously, but i think women can make your own moral decisions about their health care, including reproductive health care. mark: the molar probe -- the president declassified materials over the warrant monitoring his campaign. he said it was for transparency. you want to protect robert mueller and his investigation with legislation. why is that level of protection needed after this investigation has already cost the american taxpayers roughly $26 million? sen. kaine: it's important to protect the integrity of our elections. that's why we need to protect the investigation. there have already been over 30 indictments and guilty pleas of individuals as part of this in

wade to be settled law. that's the same term chief justice john roberts used during his confirmation hearing. doesn't seem likely if he's confirmed that the supreme court would quickly, or maybe within years, vote to flat out overturn roe. also seems likely with justice kennedy gone, the court will move to the right and be more willing to uphold restrictions on abortion. those, i think, are the main points as we head into tuesday and then really get down to the questioning on wednesday. >> as pete pointed out, geoff, this is a confirmation that seems all but certain. it is a critical moment for conservatives but also for president trump. of course, he's getting ready to head out on the campaign trail. to stump for some of those embattled seats in the house. what does this mean for the president? >> reporter: kristen, look, one of the most underappreciat appu reasons why donald trump won the election, according to exit polling, is conservative voters were motivated by the vacancy on the court. they knew by se

wade. they failed. but it was a brilliant attempt at a coup. >> martha: you know, it raises the question if we ever go back from this kind of operating as was pointed out by senator tillus today, during the course of the last few days a group that raises money to end judge aspirations. it was already pushing a stop, the next judge that was going to be named if kavanaugh was able to make through the process. it's hard to believe in the divisive politics era we live in. that we will have an era that this dirty politics is not evident. >> it was awful, demeaning. embarrassment. the man who hit the right note today was lindsey graham of south carolina. his outrage was absolutely me cull pa -- mea culpa. but something else happened today and i don't want to give it short shift. you know my wife. all the friends feel the same way. dr. chrstine blasey ford was entirely credible. she was totally believable. her testimony was vivid and gut-wrenching. i have no doubt in my own mind unlike my theory about the cons

wade. roe v. wade held, of course, 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 the regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion. 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. that's one of the rationals under roe v. wade. it undergirds planned parenthood versus casey. >> let me give another rationale. in the 1950s and '60s, two decades before roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. that's according to the go goodmacher institute. a lot of women died in that period. the question comes, and you have said today, not today but it's been reported that you have said, roe is now settled law. the

wade. 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

wade. they've used it numerous times in those dissents, and it is a word used in the anti-choice community, and in addition, in that dissent, you refer to roe v. wade as existing supreme court precedent. you don't refer to it as roe v. wade protecting jane doe's right to privacy or her right to an abortion. you refer to it as existing supreme court precedent, not supreme court precedent, "existing supreme court precedent." now, i don't refer, i don't recall seeing a judge refer to existing supreme court precedent in other decisions, certainly not commonly, unless they're opening the possibility of overturning that precedent. it's a little bit like somebody introducing his wife to you as my current wife. you might not expect that wife to be around for all that long. my current wife, existing supreme courts precedent, and throughout your opinion you're careful never to say that the constitution protects the right to choose. you can see that the parties have "assumed for purposes of this case"