Skip to main content

tv   The Journal Editorial Report  FOX News  October 7, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT

12:00 pm
have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday".
12:01 pm
>> legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and i cannot abandon them. the allegations failed to me the more likely than not standard. therefore, i do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent judge kavanaugh from serving on the court. >> let's bring in wall street journal columnist dan heading there. kim strassel. kate odell and jason riley. you've written that this whole confirmation fight is a watershed moment for american politics but tell us why. >> i think it was both watershed and defining. i guess the best way to
12:02 pm
describe it would be to put inside the context of susan collins speech on the floor of the senate which was a long speech but she took us through the cavanaugh confirmation process. we all recall how the hearings began. we went to the first phase and then it was about his jurisprudence. they talk to him about roe v wade, abortion, gay rights, the authority of the president. you can agree or disagree on those things. you can see i would not vote for brett kavanaugh on the basis of his responses. then the hearings went into a second phase. surprisingly and suddenly. that was the testimony of christine blasey ford which ultimately came down to her word, no corroboration. and it sustained that level. you saw the country dividing with people that say it i believe christine or as susan collins made clear, are there still standards of due process in this country?
12:03 pm
that was i think the watershed. it was surprising to me really, how many liberals, how many democrats decided to simply say, i don't care what the details are. i believe this one uncorroborated accusation. >> jason, who saved the nomination for brett kavanaugh because it was in jeopardy for a while. >> i'd have to say it was susan collins who saved it. i have a take away from the speech that dan did. they could find nothing that was disqualifying so they moved the goalpost and they made it about his character and his temperament. and susan collins brought it back to the fundamentals. she talked about fairness and due process. unfortunately, many on the left wanted to throw that out the window in order to stop president trump from appointing him to the corporate she said, as a country, that would be a very slippery slope. >> what about the role of brett
12:04 pm
kavanaugh himself? it seems to me he played a decisive role in saving his own nomination with the performance he gave at that hearing. he got a lot of criticism for his forcefulness but i think had he not said what he said it and even challenged the democrats on their strategy, it would not have given the republican senators to stand by him. >> i fundamentally agree. that's what he had to do. some people will say that's what lost him lisa murkowski's vote. she claimed it was his judicial temperament to be the reason she voted against him but i don't buy that. i think she had other reasons where she was intending not to vote for him. overall, this was a team effort. i think a lot of people get credit. it isn't just brett kavanaugh or susan collins. it was mitch mcconnell make sure to save this vote would happen one way or another.
12:05 pm
it was chuck grassley who worked very hard to make sure all of the senators, especially the nervous ones had everything they needed to be able to say they look through this carefully. and the white house for sticking with the nominee as well too. so a lot of people deserve credit. >> do you think joe manchin would have voted yes if susan collins had not? >> that was the apocalyptic scenario is that collins would vote no and then joe manchin would reverse his vote. >> what do you think would have happened? >> i think that's probably what he would have done given it was in a profile encouraged. he announced he would say yes on brett kavanaugh only after susan collins announced she was also a yes. >> what about president trump, did he hurt or help? >> for the most part, i think it was mostly helpful and that he stayed mostly quiet. i think is one for ray into
12:06 pm
this not improve the process. i think doctor forgot respectful treatment. i think president trump for the most part was helpful but mostly by staying silent. >> republicans were nervous about this. how women might react. the hearing ultimately ended up being an emotional event by and large have the credit lindsey graham as well for taking the spirit of the moment and just attacking the democrats in a way that i think pulled the republicans together. they stayed the course. judge kavanaugh stayed the course and there were a lot of moments where it could have gone the other way. >> we will have more still in. democrats attack the supreme court's legitimacy in the wake of the brett kavanaugh confirmation. was the process leading up to yesterday's vote fear and what about the prospects of future nominations in the senate?
12:07 pm
doug, doug! douglas! we're running dangerously low on beans. people love your beans, doug. they love 'em. doooooooooug! you want to go sell some tacos? progressive knows small business makes big demands. doug, where do we get a replacement chili pepper bulb? so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. it's a very niche bulb. it's a specialty bulb.
12:08 pm
12:09 pm
that fits your business. >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. >> this is a typical process
12:10 pm
12:11 pm
and senators should know that. the fbi does a comprehensive investigation but occasionally something calls up later in the process that the senate decides, the fbi maybe missed something. that's what happened here. the idea is they go out and conduct interviews that they didn't conduct before. they get more information, they plug a couple of holes. senators knew that. that's why when feinstein and schumer were demanding a supplemental investigation, they kept saying this will only take a couple days. they knew what they were asking for. another trying to characterize it as something unusual>> but
12:12 pm
should have they have interviewed more witnesses? was it incomplete? >> i think that confuses with the nature of this is. when the fbi looks into a background, they're not trying to come to a conclusion. the senate had already heard from doctor ford for over three hours. on top of that, she testified under oath she had nothing more to add. it would be peculiar to me if they went and interviewed doctor ford.>> do you think this report, which only senators and staff haveseen , should be made public? >> i know some have been asking for that. the former speaker nancy pelosi has called for a request here. it might be helpful frankly, to show the american people what was in there.
12:13 pm
we have to assume the fbi would have talked to at least 100 people, multiple times over six investigations and the senate made a decision about judge kevin are based on that record. which i suspect was quite - -. this whole system works the way it does because it's confidential. that's how you get so many former colleagues and associates willing to go and tell an fbi investigator with their expense with a nominee was paid including things that are perhaps, sensitive. >> some of what you see in those background checks.i saw one dawn on me for example, for many years ago. it's hearsay. somebody just talking off-the-cuff and you see that sort of stuff that you have to ask if that questions fairness. >> that's true. there are confidential sources. sources from the senate who say, i've heard this. when the fbi speaks to 100 of
12:14 pm
your former associates, former romantic partners. disgruntled business associates. they will find a few people who have something has tonasty to s about you which may not be true. >> when people start to say, this throws into doubt the legitimacy of the supreme court. what does that mean? does that mean people will somehow stop following the supreme court rulings? that they will just say, no, i will not enforce that, >> it doesn't. i don't see any reason it throws into question the legitimacy of the court except that democrats find it helpful to talk that way. the same democrats was very concerned that this president
12:15 pm
use the term, so-called judges. this is dangerous talk there engaging in trying to convince the country to disrespect final rulings of the highest court in the land. some democrats also talking about impeachment if they take the house. the house and peaches in the senate goes to a trial. is that something you would see possible here? talking about maybe perjury and his temperament. >> sure. i think it's possible. i think it would be a mistake for them to go down that road. i can't imagine a world where they would get a supermajority needed in the senate to remove justice kavanaugh from office. based on this terribly thin record and frankly, trumped up charges on perjury. it will not result in justice kavanaugh being removed from the court but will they try to hold hearings or have an investigation? they may. i'm not sure that's a good campaign message for them. i think a lot of folks are ready to turn the page on the messiness of this circus we've seen for the last few weeks.
12:16 pm
>> thanks very much for being here. still ahead, democrats are vowing not to give up the fight following brett kavanaugh's confirmation yesterday. e so what do they have planned they take back the house in november? not just "airline purchases." (loud) holy moley that's a lot of miles!!! shhhhh! what's in your wallet? - shhhhh! - ♪ c♪ crawl inside, wait by the light of the moon. ♪ applebee's to go. add a fountain drink to your next order for just 99 cents. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.
12:17 pm
12:18 pm
12:19 pm
12:20 pm
>> i've noticed they've stopped talking about impeaching the president because they know that will turn the public against them. i don't know how serious a take it but i think it's just fictional. >> do you think it's a winner heading for the midterms? >> absolutely not i think that's why they've talkedstop t about impeaching the president. it would be a ridiculous circus trying to remove him and his government.
12:21 pm
>> also in these hearings, we saw three potential democratic candidates for president. kamala harris, cory booker and amy - - looked to be doing somewhat of an audition. how do they look? >> that audition was for one particular group. for the liberal base. the progressive movement and to the degree there is nothing you could do too radical to turn off that base. that's what you do to excite them. they all performed very admirably with their spartacus moments. the question always will be, does that - - it might help them in a primary and on that platform to get better known in those communities. is that a winner overall for the democratic party? is more evidence of the shift left we are seeing on that side. >> talk about the illegitimacy
12:22 pm
of the supreme court point think about that for a second. what does that mean when you hear that?what do you think it means or is it a slogan?>> i think it's a slogan but what struck me about the tweet is that it came from dianne feinstein. this is not some hard left progressive. this is not kamala harris or elizabeth warren or cory booker. this is dianne feinstein questioning the legitimacy of the supreme court. i see a natural progression here. first they went after the executive branch. donald trump isillegitimate. he didn't win the popular book vote. and now they've moved on to the judiciary. >> - - what was known then as massive resistance by southern government saying the supreme court is illegitimate. what you had to do was you had to have federal officials helped to integrate schools.
12:23 pm
is that where we are as a nation? >> it seems that way. go back to the comments made by maxine waters, harassed people on the street. very few people are walking that vapid they agree with her. anotherleadership officials agr with her as well. >> a lot of chatter of how the divided the country is. >> i think the country is divided. polls have started to show polarization started with george w. bush. another quote unquote illegitimate president because of the florida recount. then increase during barack obama's era. the divide is very serious. i think the big question is not so much on the right. the oldright disappeared in thi.
12:24 pm
are democrats going to follow the lead of the progressives and the kind of resistance jason was describing. donald trump has now began to describe them as the radical democrats. the radical left and will that carry to the general electorate? >> if they've taken dianne feinstein over to that, that suggest maybe they will.>> they show a willingness to politicize the court to a degree we haven't seen before. or not a very long time. the republicans are much more willing to vote for democratic nominees to the court than the reverse and become more so with more recent nominees. this is not advice and consent for democrats but it's a grudge match. >> if democrats retake the senate, will they confirm any presidential nominee for the supreme court or even appellate
12:25 pm
courts? >> absolutely not and everyone needs to understand that. lindsey graham was on television holding that list of judges that donald trump put together and he said, is there a single person that chuck schumer would ever agree to? and of course the answer is, no. they will make sure the president cannot do anymore in terms of a judicial remake. >> when we come back, amid accusations of political bias, brett kavanaugh gets set to take his seat on the supreme court this week. we will look at that term ahead and what kind of justice he lowill be. s aren't perfect. but then they make us kraft mac & cheese shapes and everything is good again.
12:26 pm
12:27 pm
moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, you never know how your skin will look. and it can feel like no matter what you do, you're itching all the time. but even though you see and feel your eczema on the surface of your skin,
12:28 pm
an overly sensitive immune system deep within your skin might actually be causing your eczema. so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid, and it continuously treats your eczema even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, more than 1 in 3 patients saw clear or almost clear skin, and patients saw significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you have asthma, and are taking asthma medicines do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent. >> that was an angry brett
12:29 pm
kavanaugh at last month's senate judiciary committee hearing. as he prepares to take his seat on the supreme court, critics are pointing to that performance to argue that he lacks judicial temperament. - - is editor in chief.
12:30 pm
welcome, good to have you again. let's take the judicial temperament point you think this will affect this trial that the judge has been through. it will affect him and his jurisprudence ? >> clarence thomas wrote that his trial by fire steeled himself and made them a different judge than they were before. george brett kavanaugh seems well-adjusted. there's a difference between judicial temperament when you've been accused of gang rape and all the rest of it versus 12 years on the bench and glowing reviews. i've seen him how he's acted in person and no complaints in that regard. i think you'll be just fine being on the bench and settling in the first year on the supreme court it's always an adjustment process being among the nine. but as far as temperament, i don't see that being a problem of him quickly settling in.>>
12:31 pm
the supreme court justices i've talked to says every time a new justice arrives, the dynamics within the court changed somehow. sometimes in unpredictable ways. how do you think brett kavanaugh will change this court? >> i think that's right. even if his vote on a given case would be exactly the same as justice kennedy, the seat he's filling, would have done. in terms of which area of law he's most interested or expert in like administrative law. pushing back on the executive state or constitutional structure. kennedy wasn't necessarily focused on those things. so maybe he will write more in those areas we speak more and those kinds of cases, even if his eventual vote would be like kennedys. behind the scenes, a small group dynamic, a psychologist will tell you really will change. in unpredictable ways. >> so people are saying there's not a solid 5-4 conservative
12:32 pm
majority. depends how you define conservative. give us some examples of other issues where you think an actual ruling can change. >> there's very few of the big high profile ones. i did a piece a couple months ago looking at what the scientific survey of my twitter feed what the top eight areas that progressives were most of sevenupset about. the biggest one i think has the potential of changing is affirmative action and racial preferences. the trial starts in a few weeks, a lawsuit against harvard university. that could be a big change in this 40-year-old experiment with use of racial preferences. other things may be roe v wade or abortion gets talked about.
12:33 pm
but john roberts is in the middle of the court jurisprudential. things like that will only go as far as fast as he wants to take it. >> let me give you another example. that's gun rights. the court has not taken a case challenging state and local regulation of gun rights in quite some time maybe even send heller and mcdonald several years ago. i believe they didn't take it because they didn't think that maybe they had a majority but with brett kavanaugh, that could be the difference.>> if the four more conservative justices than roberts vote that way to take up these cases, i think the court will have that majority. i think it should take up the case however it ends up ruling because there's really been chaos and civil disobedience in the lower courts about the scope of the right that heller introduced. it's about time, it's been a
12:34 pm
decade and they need to flesh it out. >> you mentioned chief justice being the centrist on the court. i would define him more as an incrementalist and institutionalist. he's not somebody that wants to say, oh boy, i have a majority here so let's have a bunch of 5-4 decisions and bow over all kinds of presidents willy-nilly. he might even try to get kagan and stephen breyer on his side to form a majority for these decisions. >> i think that's right we saw that after justice scalia died and there was this centrist coalition. just because roberts is the medium though. he is a conservative but he's a - - it takes several cases to
12:35 pm
move in a particular direction so he is certainly not looking off the bat to overturn cases are set broad precedents. >> because he's the chief, he has an ability to steer opinions to certain judges who might write a more minimalist opinion. >> that's right point he only gets one vote but if he's in the majority, he will assign the writing. we have to be careful if it's five or six of the majority he makes an assignment and it turns out the other three or four things that's too narrow, he will lose his plurality effectively. >> right. appreciate you coming in. still ahead, the brett kavanaugh confirmation coming weeks before the midterm election. does it move the poll numbers and key races? we will ask karl rove, next. that's tough to do. schwab does it.
12:36 pm
next question. do you offer a satisfaction guarantee? a what now? a satisfaction guarantee. like schwab does. man: (scoffing) what are you teaching these kids? ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs, backed by a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. if you don't like their answer, you're smart,eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar.
12:37 pm
at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for
12:38 pm
hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included. but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. and humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call or go online today. find out if your doctor is part of the humana network and get your free decision guide. discover how an all-in-one medicare advantage plan from humana could save you money. there is no obligation and the book is free.
12:39 pm
>>, the bitter fight over his nomination, voter enthusiasm among republicans has soared with a new poll showing a once clear democratic advantage, all but disappearing. it is down to just two points of statistical tie. wall street journal columnist karl rove and - - former advisor to george w. bush. mitch mcconnell says i want to thank the mob for mobilizing republicans. is that what you're seeing in the polling across the country?
12:40 pm
>> i think the general issue is with motivating them. in particular two things. one is the sense this was a last-minute hit with no cooperation and secondly, the democrats seem to assume if you make the allegation you don't have proof, that individual is still guilty. those two things, the process on the standard to be applied is what has energized republicans. the question will be whether they feel that strongly and 30 some odd days when they go to the polls and start to vote. >> do you see any evidence in any particular races that it is making a difference? >> i think it already made a difference in north dakota. kevin kramer had been doing so well that at the end of the day, heidi hide- - basically sa i'm going to pretty up my resume for service and came out
12:41 pm
against him. i do think it's a problem particularly for joe donnelly in indiana. on the 20th team elegance brett kavanaugh saying we need to have an fbi investigation. later that day, the fbi began the follow-up review. so now he's in a place where he says, i came out against them because i wanted an investigation but somehow or another the effort hasn't done a sufficient enough job to sway my concern. so he's got a problem. it's a problem in every state were trumped one by a big margin. montana, west virginia. but i think it's also a problem for democrats and states that are much more narrowly balanced. in nevada, jackie rosen has yet to run a tv ad attacking heller on his vote. in arizona, kristen cinema, the democrat, kept very quiet on this all the way to the" if you
12:42 pm
were the republican candidates, would you use the supreme court as a wedge issue to generate more enthusiasm and pull independence to your side. or do you risk mobilizing the other side more? >> this issue will be used by democrats to mobilize their base. no if's, and or butts. here's the trick and the challenge if you will. take a look at two polls last week. npr and - - asked if there still a doubt about whether the charges are true, should brett kavanaugh be confirmed or not? 40 percent said confirm him. 52 said did not. on the harvard harris poll, the if the fbi finds no corroboration, should you vote to confirm? 68 percent confirm, 48 don't confirm.
12:43 pm
whoever makes the better argument. the democrats will save their doubts. republicans need to say with all due respect, the fbi did a review. they found no corroboration. the four people named with doctor ford, with all due respect to her, none of them could corroborate or verify her claims. fairness dictates in america, we believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. none of the people identified by either doctor ford or miss ramirez were able to corroborate the charges. >> but would you go up with an ad that polarized the race along these lines? or is that too risky for either democrats or republicans in a close election? >> i think it's a case-by-case basis. if the democrats go up with an ad, the republicans have to go up. i think in - - they should go up with an ad because donnelly
12:44 pm
put himself in a bad place. >> have any of the senators other than what the coda really have brokennorth dakota look li pulling away? >> only two. north dakota for the republicans and west virginia for the democrats. arizona 3.4. florida 2.4. montana three and closing dramatically over the last month. nevada 2.3. tennessee is a two-point advantage for the republicans but it's moved dramatically. i think it's moving into the republican category strongly. >> do you think that joe manchin and west virginia with his vote for brett kavanaugh has put his race away? certainly taking away pat moore sees best issue. >> yes. i think it will be tough.
12:45 pm
it certainly helped him in the state that loves donald trump. let's see if the white house makes the case that they got his vote when they didn't need it and the president needs someone who will be with him in tough times. >> still ahead, much more on the political fallout from the brett kavanaugh confirmation fight. will out rate on the left help or hurt democrats in the midterms? our panel weighs in, next. >> to americans, the so many millions were outraged. there's one answer. vote. ou and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections,
12:46 pm
including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests, and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.
12:47 pm
don't let another traffic and roads... a mess, honestlyrents going up,le. friends and family moving out of state, millions of californians live near or below the poverty line. politicians like gavin newsom talk about change, but they've done nothing. sky-high gas and food prices. homelessness. gavin newsom, it happened on your watch. so, yeah. it is time for a change. time for someone new. >> angry protests marking
12:48 pm
yesterday's confirmation of
12:49 pm
justice kavanaugh. will that anger and the left's tactics help or hurt democrats in the midterm election?here is senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell yesterday. >> as unpleasant as it's been, it's been worth it. they made a tactical mistake that helped me unify my conference and turn over the republican base going into the election.maybe i ought to say thank you. >> we are back with - - kim, your chuck schumer in the previous segment make a statement on the senate floor sang vote, vote, vote. this is what you have to do. and pretty clearly said christine blasey ford will be one of their political symbols. if they can't defeat brett kavanaugh, use it in the election. >> it was voter mobilization,
12:50 pm
all along.i think they were hopeful they could stop the judge but this was about firing up their base. when judge kavanaugh was put into office this weekend, sworn in. it basically set off a referendum on his nomination and his seating on the supreme court. what you are seeing is they made a clear plea from the floor, chuck schumer, sang uni to go out and vote. if you don't like what happened here. the republicans are starting to do that too. so far, they been running on a positive message but look at the economy. now they're out there saying, this is what you will get. this circus you saw for the last three weeks if democrats arein charge , and you need to be afraid. >> anger at losing is usually a bigger motivator than relief at getting judge kavanaugh on the court. is that maybe a better advantage for the democrats? >> i don't think so. i think they overplayed their hand. i think they just thought they
12:51 pm
could make up something about his judicial pic and put it past the american people. republicans are divided on any number of issues but there very much united on choosing conservative supreme court justices. i think this was not the fight, it didn't turn out the way democrats thought it would. the goal is to motivate your voters and not the other teams voters. >> there's a lot of commentary that this fight united donald trump with a lot of republicans who were not all that happy with donald trump. i guess that depends for the election and how he behaves. but do you buy that argument that this has been a unifying site for the conservative movement? >> i do. the heroes of the story are susan collins and lindsey graham we have not been conservative favorites for eight years. this has been a very unifying experience on the republican side. i would add to jason!
12:52 pm
that if you think about the voters were very angry that brett kavanaugh was confirmed. a lot of the them live in progressive cities that don't elect republicans anyway. where i think the moderate independent voters who looked at this process of thought was a complete sham and that brett kavanaugh was mistreated. a lot more of them might live in north dakota or missouri where democrats need to perform. >> clearly one of the strategies here was to turn women against the republican party as anti-women. i'm not so sure that worked. my reading is that a lot of women out there watching this, mainly mothers andwives concluded thiscould happen to m husband or to my son. and i and accusation without cooperation. i'm not sure the democrats exceeded as they saw, all women to their side. also, the #metoo movement.
12:53 pm
liberals are saying that is owned by progressives. this is the definition of polarization and it looks to me as though the democrats in some ways are marginalizing themselves with these arguments. >> i want to know what you think about the psychology of going through an ordeal like this for somebody like cavanaugh. some people may think he will spend time trying to win over those critics and as he moved to the middle somehow? what do you think? >> we have examples of both happening. we have the clarence thomas example. he was put through the ringer during his confirmation process. it did not result in him moving to the left. but republicans remember sandra day o'connor justice kennedy . >> they were easily confirmed. >> but the question then became, did they seek validation from the mainstream media? did they care what cnn or the new york times wrote about
12:54 pm
them? what has been the case with republican pics for the court, subsequently over the years, they do start to care and shift left. it remains to be seen. nothing in judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence suggest he will be anything other than a solid conservative. >> susan collins in her speech i thought made appointeda point i don't think you will overturn roe v wade. brett kavanaugh collins provided the key though. will that matter? >> she was trying to define him and where he could go. he's actually a pretty careful judge anyway so i wouldn't expect major changes they are. >> we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. you always pay your insurance on time.
12:55 pm
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> time never hits and misses of the week. start us off, kim peer.
12:58 pm
>> in 2015 barack obama massively overstepped his authorities to end the lobby designating 5000 square miles of presidential monument in the atlantic ocean. it wasn't even connected as territorial waters. page blow to the commercial fishing industry. this is a miss to the federal judge, who this week rubberstamped that novel reinterpretation of the law. if you want to know why the supreme court fight matters, this is judicial activism and why we should be happy that kavanaugh is on the court. >> jason? >> ahead for the u.s. economy. good job for the supreme court news this week but we are unemployment at a 49 year low which is up for blue-collar workers, low-income workers all the people that said the obama slow growth economy was the new norm have been proven wrong. bottom line is that republicans have a lot more supreme court's
12:59 pm
pics to run on. >> kate? >> outlets a hit to mike bloomberg who this week said he would throw in another 20 million to help democrats retake the senate. i think it's great he is spending money and things are important to him. but one thing we did not hear this week was about the corrupting influence of billionaires and money and politics. i think it's a pretty nice reminder that campaign-finance reform is not about taking billionaires out of politics. it is about people that we disagree with not being able to spend money on politics so -- >> dan?>> might hit to the new bill peace prize even this week -- for their efforts against horrifying acts of sexual violence. i read the book, let's go about the islamic state mass rape of women in syria, this is one of the most deserved mobile peace prizes in a long time. >> every so often they get one right. next they did this year. >> remember if your own hit or miss send it to us.
1:00 pm
thank you to my panel and thank you all for watching. i am paul gigot. i hope to see you all here, next week. >>. >> a firestorm after judge brett kavanaugh is finally seated on the supreme court. the chief justice, john roberts swearingen kavanaugh is the newest associate justice after a close confirmation vote. hello everyone welcome to a brand to our inside "america's news headquarters". i am arthel neville. mike: i am mike emanuel in for eric shawn. handing president trump a major political victory. the battle surrounding the nomination raising questions about whether judge kavanaugh this time on the bench will be seen as tarnished, this