but bork had a voluminous record. it was really like going back to law school and revisiting constitutional law, and you know, for a staffer, there was nothing better than doing that. >> let's get to jim. jim is in new york, independent caller for jeff peck. good morning, jim. >> yeah, good morning. yeah, i just -- couple of quick things. now, the senate was -- is 51-49, but with the senator mccain not being able to actually get to the senate, my understanding is he can't vote. now, that makes it 50-49 and i was just wondering, what about a situation where supposing more republicans, for some reason, a heart attack, a car accident or something like that, where the minority could actually become the majority. it just seems that there should be something where votes could be cast even if you can't make it to the senate floor. my second thing, just quickly -- now i'm losing it. dog gone it. >> well, jim, let's get an answer to your first question. we'll see if you can recall the second one. go ahead, mr. peck. >> sure. i

we call it an attempt to bork the nominee. it refers to how judge robert bork was sland arerred back in the 1980s when people both inside and outside the congress blatantly and shamelessly distorted his record to claim he'd do terrible things if confirmed to the supreme court. it's actually in the dictionary now literally. judge bork's last name is in the merriam-webster dictionary as a verb. it means -- this is what "bork" means -- to attack or defeat a nominee or candidate for public office unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification. to be borked. it's now in the dictionary. completely unfair vilification. looking back, most people agree now that this episode was grossly, grossly unfair, insulted the intelligence of the american people and stained the history of the united states senate. jeffrey rosen was a democrat who worked in senator biden's office on the democrat side during that episode. here's what he wrote a few years ago. he said, i remember feeling that the nominee was being tr

he was talking about an extreme nominee, robert bork, and he said, i want to quote him. robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizen's doors in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the federal government and the door would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens where the judiciary is often the only proctor of the individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy. unquote. mr. president, robert bork was rejected and justice kennedy took his place, and today we face similar stakes right now in this moment. voting rights are at stake, lgbtq right are at stakes, the right to organize collectively is at stake. those are just a few. there's a lot more. families across the country are paying attention and they are going to be watching what president trump and individual members of this united states senate do right now. they are going to -- they are go

so egregious that it inspired a new term called bork-anger. and bork was in full play during the confirmation of now supreme court justice clarence thomas. by the way one of the best justices i think we have ever had on the court and in our lifetime. ama back in 1991 democrats rolled out a former colleague, anita hill to make allegations against him and it became so nasty that justice thomas called it a "high-tech lynching." watch this. >> this is a circus, it's a national disgrace. and from my standpoint, as a black american, as far as i am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves or do for themselves, to have different ideas. it is a message that unless you cow town to an old order, this is what will happen to you. you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the u.s. senate rather than hung from a tree. >> sean: it has already begun right now, by democrats, to judge kavanaugh and to his family. as we speak, it didn't matter who the president would have picked. and

i think conservatives have been beingned by the idea of borked. they are loath to be too transparent in terms of how they may role. more likely what they do is talk about their judicial philosophy and most of them are originalists or textual lists. that is something that is broader and i would say harder for someone to criticize then speculating on how you might vote on a certain case that might come before you. host: this is matt smith this is what's wrong with robert bork's nomination failure. their behavior seems routine and procedural, the republican's decision to steal a scotus seat is wrong. he had been confirmed unanimously by the senate for a lower court appointment and then they really went after him, you can fact check me on that. i could be wrong, it's happened before. i think most conservatives would argue that judge bork, who was a reagan appointee, was highly qualified and that had been the standard. republicans, orrin hatch, for example, supported the ruth bader ginsburg, he actually was helpful with president clinton and the ruth b

bork had a bloom in this record. -- voluminous record. there was nothing better than doing that as a staffer. host: let's get to jim. good morning. caller: good morning. is 51-49. with senator mccain not being able to get to the senate, my understanding, he can't vote. that makes it 50-49. what about a situation where -- morelicans republicans could become the majority, it just seems that there should be something where votes could be cast even if you can't make it to the senate floor. saying, now i am losing it. let's get an answer to your first question. guest: sure. in the senate, for votes on the --ate floor, you can vote can't vote by proxy. senator mccain, if he is not able to vote, then the republicans are down a number. but mike pence gets to break a tie. under the sonora you were talking about where more than one senator in this case is missing my guesses senator mcconnell would postpone the vote until that senator was replaced in a special election were appointed by their state governor and wait for the republicans have a majori

about robert talks bork. had robert bork been confirmed to the supreme court, roe v. wade would have been overturned. that and knowber how important this is. they may not have the power to stop it, but it will be front and center. steve: with the nomination of every barrett -- any barrett make it more difficult? it would in some sense. each of these have interesting back stories. the fact she is a woman, has less experience, she could be gone after in that way. some of the things she has said as an academic make it clear that she is morally opposed to abortion and strongly suggest that she views roe v. wade is -- as wrongly decided. the other potential nominee is , theykavanagh, the other feel the same but there is not public evidence. steve: we talked about the two republican senators from maine and alaska. on the democratic side who are , you keeping an eye on? niels: the three would be the ones that voted for judge gorsuch. all of whom have already met with president trump. joe manchin of west virginia, heidi heitkamp of north dakota. joe donnelly, indiana. donnell

as we speak, you have this all out effort to bork judge kavanaugh. believes in infidelity to the constitution, separation of powers and interprets u.s. law based on a clear and renting intent of our founders and the clear and written law, as written by a separate branch of government. in other words, the legislative branch. and values and daily build rights in our constitution. above all else, someone who believes in these very important constitutional principles. separation of powers and coequal branches of government. instead the left, they prefer hillary's choices. activists, people who will legislate at the bench. people who will not go as far as to not rely on the constitution but even use international law to justify their activist decisions, superseding our own constitution. activist justices often creating law instead of interpreting the law and interpreting the constitution. given the democratic friends, perfect cover for having to vote on many controversial left-wing issues that they would never get at the ballot box or legislatively. now b

hysteria over reaction dating back to bork and before. each time, they got it wrong and it is the boy who called wolf. >> laura: match, we have 15 seconds. if there's one thing brett kavanaugh could do to sway collins or murkowski, do you think they're going to be a problem ultimately? >> i think he's going to emphasize the importance, the idea that courts should be hesitant to overturn precedent. an independent judiciary. >> laura: we are out of time. will be right back. stay there. in the comfort of home. home instead senior care. >> my mom was a trailblazer. when i was ten, she went to law school and become became a pro. my introduction to law came at the dinner table when she practice her closing arguments. her trademark line was "use your common sense." what rings true, what rings false. that's good advice for a juror and for a son. >> laura: judge kavanaugh seems like, i don't know, an obvious win for republicans. people are grousing on the other networks. we will talk about it. his proven record of protecting the constitution and h

had robert bork been confirmed that the supreme court, roe versus wade would have been overturned, or at least that is what he said. liberals remember that. they know how important this is. they may not have the power to stop it, but it will be front and center. the nomination of amy barrett make it more difficult for democrats because of her life story? >> it might come in a sense. her life story helps. the fact that she is a woman probably helps. she is also younger and has less experience and can be gone after in that way. and something's she has said is an academic make very clear that opposed tolly abortion and views roe versus wade is wrongly decided. judge capnagh, they may feel the same way but there is not as much pop record -- not as much public record on the issue. the three i would keep the closest ion are the ones who voted for justice gorsuch. joe manchin, heidi heitkamp and joe donnelly of indiana. donnelly may be the most interesting, particularly if barrett is the nominee because she is from indiana. you have an additional wrinkle there with a home-state selection. th

in 1987 he dredged up robert bork's history working for richard nixon. here's what he said. >> the man who fired archibald cox does not deserve to sit on the supreme court of the united states. robert bork's america was on the land in which women would be forced into black alley promotions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch towers, and school children could not be taught about evolution. writers as an artist would be censured at the whim ofe government. >> i think we will hear that type of language, that dystopiag nightmare will be printed againo those back alley distortions will be trying to paint kavanaugh with that same brush.k they worked in the case of judge bork because he was very defensive and sharp and didn't quite know how to do that. >> i loved him but the charm factor was on display. and he kicked a puppy is, too. i'm surprised kennedy didn't say that. remember elena kagan, she had an interesting way of dealing with tough questions. this is a good exchange. >> i should ask exactly what you mean by that. >> i just was asking where you were

first of all, it didn't begin with bork. louis brandeis was seriously attacked way back when. bork was almost recent memory of that. but there have been political battles for a long time. maybe one way to look at it, i was confirmed by the senate as well. one way to look at it is there's a range of reasonable positions that a judge can take and there's no question that when a president is elected he will pick his range. and then there are as we argued about bork people outside the range, people whose positions are not within the main vaem, people who are sort of willy nilly going to overturn precedent. and i think within the range you're right, it's hide the ball. it's a kabuki ritual. you don't want to talk about it. but the people outside the range, those are the ones we have to be talking about. what makes this -- what makes trump different is that i have never heard of a president who had a slate. it's like treating the bench, treating the judiciary like you would who's going to be my vice president. i have a slate of candidates. that's never been done before. >> yeah, bot

who's against bork? women and blacks. >> let me wax philosophical for just a second. >> oh, no. >> oh wow. >> you can jump in later. >> if we eliminate the expectation that we can't have nominees anymore that can bridge the divide, then we've basically decided the country is to divided that we may not bother anymore. and today is the anniversary of gettysburg, right? in a time with incredible divisions, the greatest battle loss of any battle in the history of the country. lincoln's words at the gettysburg address where he said we are now engaged in a great civil war, testing the idea, the proposition that a country so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. i think if we say there's no way, the country is too divided, this is the way it's going to be, i think there should be an expectation of the president that he nominate somebody that is able to get democratic votes. i think we should keep that expectation. >> you can wax philosophical all you want. i want to say on this 1500-mile drive, that divid

bork, robert bork's america. we will not be able to hear about thomas hardiman's america or brett kavanaugh's america. >> why not? >> because -- >> just answer that question first, harry. why not? >> in short, it won't sell in the same way. >> vanita. >> and chris, i want to say, look, we are at a point in this country where millions of americans who never thought of themselves as activists before are literally enraged by the vision of america that this administration is putting out. and the courts are a huge part of defining what fleemd looks like, what liberty looks like, what our civil and human rights look like, what health care and access to health care and women's rights are going to look like. and women are leading the charge. and i think that now is a moment where progressive's who care so much about the kind of what this current's about, and the kind of america we deserve are going to stand up and say look, yes, the democrats don't have the majority in the senate but there is a majority of senators who d

i know what rick thinks, i have been -- i was at the bork dinner, i was at reagan a this and that, i there was. i know what these people think. a lot of it, i can't stand, but a lot of them i can stand. i found a good -- this is a metaphor for how i worked it out for myself. rick is an unusual man, i don't know if he was combative with me or whether i could do it there was at i think at dinner after bork was turned down for supreme court, and everyone stood, gave him a standing ovation, my problem, what do i do? do i stand up? that i could not. should i sit down and make -- make a statement? i didn't top d' to do, that i sp and didn't clap. that is a metaphor for how you work this out. and you have to understand what is underneath, no political fight that goes on and on like these do that i read about. none are just about politics, they are about unfinished finish in the relationship. they are unfinished business from childhood, and siblings, you should think what comes out, you think that mom liked you best, what if you agree with mom and our mom doesn't. it is really remarkable. bu

will they last to the level of robert bork? probably not, shep. >> shepard: and you wonder how brutal it might become. what delay tactics the democrats can come up with. they know they can't stop it. their goal is to elongate the process. >> yeah, slow walk the process. the white house and outside groups want to get this done by the start of the next term of the supreme court, the beginning of october. that's the time in a mid-term election year when members of congress go back out to the districts and campaign heavily until the november election. always the chance that they can hang around in washington, talking about the senate, because there's a third of them up for re-election. outside groups and the white house would like to get in done by the time the supreme court sits for the 2018 fall term. to do that, there's literally no margin of error. they have to get the nominee out today. it's been a little more than a week since justice kennedy said he would step down. that was june 27. here we are today with a nominee and then

bork was a guy who was a lifelong critic. if he got on the supreme court, he was going to change a lot and overturn a whole series of precedents. scalia was the same thing, a hard edge, heart conservative, let's overturn. kennedy was a different person. he's a conservative guy. he came up in the reagan administration when reagan was governor. he's a catholic, conservative, pro-court, but he had none of that passion that says i'm going to come in and sweep aside the 1960's and 1970's and overturn. he was much more of a temperamental moderate, status quo conservative. it was a great thing. there are not a lot of moderate republicans left in washington. that's what we're losing, the last of the sort of moderate republicans. i think the really great likelihood is the trump administration is not going to seek out a moderate republican of the anthony kennedy mold. they're going to seek out somebody who is a much more committed conservative, and much more willing to go back and say these earlier decisions were wrong. roe is certainl

going all the way back to robert bork i have never seen a more process and restrictive in all of that period of time. all of theeat specifics that senator schumer and others have gone into but i want to underline the importance of getting the documents, buying borrowing on the experience i have had working with senator schumer on the senate side of oversight of the bush administration in his last several years. one of the issues we did review on was signing things. in fact, the record on that relates directly to judge kavanagh's service as a judge. by -- of his dissents decision upholding the affordable care act, he said, i think of a president doesn't want to enforce the aca, and deems it unconstitutional, he can do that. strikinglyd to me view that the bush administration pushed very -- it ishen in office directly relevant to his views as a judge, to what his views were on signing statements when he was the one responsible for of thosehe final form statements to the president for him to take a look at, review, &. there is absolutely no question of the critical nature for the senate

all of this stuff is worse than what i heard when robert bork was that nominee many moons ago. it is not good for the discussion. number two, they are creating a problem for democrats. they create this monster. they say that's terrible, cute evil human being is going to rise up out of the belly of the swamp and comment ruin your lives and this person is going to come out when you know what they're going to say? seems all right. seems nice. that's what happened with roberts, gorsuch, these heinous expectations met with a nice, competent person and people say okay. >> kimberly: pain heinous expectations met with a nice person. sounds like the rhetorical hype, the vitriol. we've seen this happen. then you see in terms of the personal comes forward, like in the case of neil gorsuch, someone who has been well respected and well regarded. >> juan: i could go back to the same argument about merrick garland. he was highly respected and was not given a hearing, much less a vote. i think the thing here is that we live in different times. i was talking with abby huntsman today on "outnumb

in the summer of '87, which kennedy held ' for 30 years was the bork seat. when help wasn't given a fair hearing and not confirmed he wrote the book called "the tempting of america" the politization of everything. we're not supposed to have judges who think of themselves as superlethues. protestingeg on the steps of the prime court tells us our system is breaking down in basic civics protest at the white house andas congress. those are places where people are supposed to be responsive to politic. judges are not supposed to be responsive to politics. we will see an attempt at bork. >> i wouldn't be surprised there were protesters and opposition to justice gorush. tonight we saw something different we plan to have it out there live. it go so volatile we didn't feel it would be safe to do an hour live television. where are we? >> i think it would be great to see people on the left, even if they want progressive goals, that i don't want from the policy standpoint. admit the judiciary is not the way to do it. if you want to move policy to the left, as many democr

it started with the character assassination of robert bork and and culminated with clarence thomas. tensions seemed to subside for a time but then came the unprecedented filibuster of samuel alito and the public flagellation of neil gorsuch. the nominee had -- but in every case my colleagues sought to drag these men into the partisan gutter, asking questions designed to parse their political positions rather than their legal philosophy. mr. president, in my 42 years of senate service, i have witnessed the gradual deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. as the former chairman of the judiciary committee and now its longer serving member, i have taken an active role of every justice currently sit og and the supreme court -- sitting on the supreme court and those who retired. i participated in half of all article three judges who have ever served. throughout the process i have met some of the brightest legal minds that they have to offer. i watched as the on the other side of the aisle looked to undo their gain. this is merely a symptom of a much larger problem, the politica

you had ads being run against robert bork. theorganization was one of first ones that was out there defending them and has ofntained that as our focus supreme court nominations. to that extent, we are playing catch-up by trying to replicate the efforts we have done, so we will see how they do. it will be an exciting nomination process either way. should diversity, female or minority come if you were to advise the president, should that be a factor in his decision? carrie: the factor he should be looking at is their judicial philosophy and the way they approach the law. we have an extremely wide range of different backgrounds. we have people like amy coney of seven, tooher adopted from haiti, one with special needs. she lives diversity in her life. we also have a a judge on the sixth circuit, people coming from a wide range of backgrounds, a judge who grew up in a trailer park. there is a huge range ofthere'se who this resident is looking at. at the end of the day, they won't be chosen to fill a specific quote a spot. they coul

i think of robert bork, that famous phrase you've been borked, that you were tweeted unfairly by whoever questioned you. clarence thomas sticks out in my memory. my wife and i recently had been married, he went through, we sat in awe at the confirmation hearing, he fought back. he did so successfully, while still on the supreme court. let's play a little of the sound bite for those that may have forgotten. >> this is circus. this is national disgrace. and from my standpoint, as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way dane to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. david: of course the race element is not there with kavanaugh but i'm wondering if it could get as hot as it did with justice thomas? >> i hope not. kavanaugh is excellent person. he is very, very good lawyer. a very, very good judge. he has a 12-year record on the second highest court in the nation, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. i mean ther

they mentioned judge bork who never became dresses bork, they talked about how lawmakers are talking about things that may hurt a trump nominee and they quote amy klobuchar, "there are people of had to withdraw over the years because you get information out there and you question them in the public is focused on it and galvanized by it." that's a member of the senate judiciary committee. sounds like she has a plan. >> it sounds like they are going with the a personal attack route almost. and that is worrisome. right now we don't even know who the nominee is. i feel like with at planned parenthood ad they are already prepping. they know what their lines of attack are. they will shoehorn whoever is nominated on monday into that role. they will find something in his or her record, "they will vote in favor of corporations every single time, they will eliminate the right to vote," i been, some of these claims are so outrageous. i don't know where they are going with these. that is just what we have to expect. it's not a -- it's a nasty place. it will be a hard-fought fight. i am just exci

we're already seeing an attempt at borking judge kavanaugh. i was in the senate when liberal groups and some of my colleagues smeared the highly respected judge bork after he was nominated for the supreme court. judge bork was very candid with the senate judiciary committee. he was unfairly attacked for being so candid. we're seeing liberal groups and their senate allies try to replace -- replicate this shameful episode. but since the nomination of justice ginsburg to the supreme court, the tradition has been for nominees to, in her words, give, quote, no hints, no forecasts, no previews, end of quote, of how she would vote and it applies to how he would address certain cases. the minority leader in a press conference last year affirmed that, quote, there is a grand tradition that i support that you can't ask a judicial nominee about a special case that might come before them. that's exactly the ginsburg rule. and i expect if he wants to be on the supreme court, not only for the sake of being on the supreme court, getting there, but to serve t

sean: robert bork is was despicable mr. chappaquiddick was a disgrace to the senate and then what they did to clarence thomas was a disgrace to the senate. >> it will happen. i have said this for weeks. it is predictable. it doesn't matter who president trump would have nominated the same smears would have occurred. he has the courage to make the right choice as a president notwithstanding he could've chosen somebody to be an easier confirmation but he made an important choice in the right choice but with that judicial philosophy with statutes and and originalist with the constitution and with those opinions so this is why i keep saying this 2018 midterm election is the most important and that could change hands to become republican they have a very slim margin that means rand paul or susan collins or murkowski. and you heard him. i don't believe in legislation and that constitution is to be interpreted. and now it is even more important than the 2016 elections.s. >> judgege scalia said to make the considerations that the l

you had ads being run against robert bork that predates our work. our organization was one of the first ones that was out there defending them and has maintained that as our focus of supreme court nominations. to that extent, we are playing catch-up by trying to replicate the efforts we have done, so we will see how they do. it will be an exciting nomination process either way. steve: as you look at the list culture should diversity, either a female or minority if you were , to advise the president, should that be a factor in his decision? carrie: the factor he should be looking at is their judicial philosophy and the way they approach the law. that doesn't mean you're not diversity on the list. we have an extremely wide range of different backgrounds. we have people like amy coney barrett, a mother of seven, too -- two adopted from haiti, one with special needs. she lives diversity in her life. we also have a a judge on the six circuit, the first of asian descent. people coming from a wide range of backgrounds, a judge who grew up in a trailer park

we've seen a -- you know some of it reasonable echos of the 80s, which bork was borked. here we go again. republicans this time, have the fire power to push through the president's choice. >> i think that is right, this is a very slim margin with john mccain essentially out of pock net arizona -- pocket in arizona, a 50 to 49 majority. it will be a battle royal, replacing anthony kennedy who has been the swing vote. and democrats throwing as much mud on the wall to see if any of it sticks to kavanaugh, i don't think it will, and scare tactics with roe v. wade. judge cav ne kavanaugh has an outstanding pedigree. you know, you could go on about what an outstanding judge he has been for the last 12 years. he will handle himself well during the confirmation hearing. lou: as i would expect from anyone on the list, you all played a very important role in assembling. i want to ask you about the left's actual takeover of the country's judiciary. its prosecutors, in found of fact as well as defense establishment of the legal profession. i would like your reacted to what you can d

this political situation is new since bob judge bork was borked and his replacement was justice kennedy. >> we have a setup where the democrats can't do maybe afterwards.e so what are their chances of getting a majority enough to stop anything after the election, and put this on hold until the election? >> as a matter of fact, the nominee replacing kennedy may very well be decisive as a tool for the purpose of becoming a control of the u.s. senate by democrats because it's highlighted that individual selected not because of qualifications, not because of experience, not because of representation, but because of a commitment -- finally the democrats will have a message and it will work. >> realistic, is the prou going to wipe out row verses wade. >> it's going to be on the chopping block. there's people who don't want it.o trump e. wants people that will solidify his power and he wants somebody -- his people want somebody that will get him votes for the mid-terms. >> this isn't just rhetoric for the democrats? >> no, i don't think it's just rhetoric. >> i think roby wade is not terribly

someone like the initiative been judge bork, people were blindsided that someone so well respected was attacked. we know that is the democratic playbook, there will be character assassinations, misconstrued records, outline lies and deception so something needs to be there to do the defense, the nominees in a position to do, we see it is our role to make sure someone is out there talking about the nominee and their real record. >> the new york times touched a couple points, they mentioned judge bork and how lawmakers are looking for things that may potentially hurt a trump nominee and they quote sen. amy cooper chore saying there are people who have had to withdraw over the years because you get information out, question them in the public is galvanized by it, that is a member of the senate judiciary committee. >> sounds like they are going the personal attack route and that is worrisome. right now we don't know who the nominee is but there -- they know what the line of attack are, they will -- whoever is nominated on monday into that role, look, they are going to vote in favor of corp

don't get borked. is the goal to find a perfect candidate a nominee perfection? >> well, there was only one perfect individual in the history of the world, you you're not going to find him or her for the united states supreme court. what this is turned into is political theater. that's what this is all about. the democrats have really tried to raise the stakes. here you got a guy that they voted for that has 300 written judicial opinions they can comb through. he's been on the bench for 12 years. it's no longer about even the perfect candidate. it's only who you can leverage against your political opponent. >> then we could be looking at openings forever if we're looking for perfect individual. you want to strike politically are democrats really in danger here. they have messe messed with thee majority leader who said he'll push this vote to close to the election. >> he's try to use that. i'm not sure that works. i would rather actually do it sooner rather than later. >> why? >> we got an october 1st supreme court new term starting. if you get him on immediately,

we use the term borking almost as a verb. clarence thomas, if you haven't read his book "my grandfather's son," one of the great american hero success stories. juan is shaking his head. it's one of the best books i've ever read and he is a great justice. whoever the president picks, the great thing is he told us all ahead of time and it will be another promise made, promise kept. the other thing, newt gingrich and i were talking and he said to me, he goes, before the president makes his decision tonight, close your eyes and for 30 seconds just think, imagine it was hillary making that choice. it would be nobody close to who the president will pick. this is about judicial philosophy. constitutionalism, regionalism versus judicial activism. that's pretty much it. >> jesse: dana, do you think the democrats would overreach to a certain point where it really hurts them in the midterm elections by going so crazy against a pretty reasonable nominee? >> dana: possibly. it's been said it's more important to stand on principle that it

i think conservatives have been beingned by the idea of borked. they are loath to be too transparent in terms of how they may role. more likely what they do is talk about their judicial philosophy and most of them are originalists or textual lists. that is something that is broader and i would say harder for someone to criticize then speculating on how you might vote on a certain case that might come before you. host: this is matt smith this is what's wrong with robert bork's nomination failure. their behavior seems routine and procedural, the republican's decision to steal a scotus seat is wrong. he had been confirmed unanimously by the senate for a lower court appointment and then they really went after him, you can fact check me on that. i could be wrong, it's happened before. i think most conservatives would argue that judge bork, who was a reagan appointee, was highly qualified and that had been the standard. republicans, orrin hatch, for example, supported the ruth bader ginsburg, he actually was helpful with president clinton and the ruth b

. >> he got on the court actually because president reagan nominated robert bork who was a hard core conservative to the core, and bank of new york was soundly defeated. he then put up another nominee who had to withdraw because it turned out that he had been smoking marijuana. >> you can do that nowadays. >> you can do that nowadays. at the time, though, the reagan administration wouldn't hire anybody in the justice department who had admitted to smoking marijuana and they never asked him that question apparently when he went to work at the reagan justice department. so, he went by the wayside, but stayed a distinguished federal judge. that left -- they really -- they needed to pick somebody and it was, you know, it was time. and justice kennedy got the nod and he was a pretty conservative guy. and they looked at all of his writings and they were concerned about his -- some footnote that he wrote about respect for privacy, but they decided to overlook it and there were people in the administration later who didn't like the fact that they had overlooked it. i mean, they thought that

what happens next is sadly going to be an attempt to bork a guy. in the summer of '87, the seat which kennedy held for 30 years, was the nunes and one bork wasn't given a fair hearing, he wrote a book the next year called "the tempting of america which the about the politicization of everything. we are not supposed to have judges who think of themselves as super legislators. protesting on the steps of this up this "tells you that our system is breaking down in terms of basic civics. protests of the white house, the congress. those are places where people are supposed to be responsive to politics. judges are not supposed to be responsive to politics. >> shannon: i wouldn't be surprised. last year there were protesters and there was opposition to justice gorsuch. tonight we saw something different. we had a plan to have our show their life. it got so volatile a point that we ultimately didn't feel like it would be safe to do an hour of live television. where are we? >> i think it would be great to see people on the left, even if they want progressive

. >> i borked a lot of women in my day. >> you borked? >> "40-year-old virgin." it's a guy bragging about sex, but clearly he's never had it. he was just terrified and we tried to think about it as honestly as we could. how would you feel if sex just got by you? >> wow, this is graphic. >> and then suddenly you're just scared to do it. >> any man you meet of a certain age, they all grew up with this foundation of sex comedies upon which to build. but women didn't really have that same foundation for female characters and sex. >> the real shift is the sex quest of young women, who started looking at it from this new way which the sex scene in "trainwreck" was totally original. >> can we mix it up a little bit? please, talk dirty to me. >> it was told from a woman's point of view. that was important. it wasn't really the horny boy and what he needs. it was this woman and her attitude was really telling. we've not seen it. >> talk to me. >> there's no "i" in team, but there's an "i" in win, you can't spell victory without "t", "r", "y." >> these are just sports phra

it reminds me of the bork nomination 30 years ago. the balance of the supreme court turned. the southern democrats have to go along. everyone has to listen to ronald reagan. in the end, the politics completely reversed and the good political vote was to vote against bork. because the case had been made against him. the country rose up. he was beaten by democrats and republicans voting against him. i think the same thing can happen. it's the balance of the supreme court. it's roe, it's obamacare. >> it's about alaska and maine. people in those two states and people who know people in those two states have to figure out what are the pressure points. >> in the statement tonight, she's going to consider what the people of alaska want. and so it's a question of what does she hear? what does susan collins here in maine. when you were on the staff of the judiciary committee, did you see senators responding to what is happening back in their states in these matters? >> there is no question about it. and one time i was chief counsel judiciary committee during the clarence thomas hear

everything changed with bork. he was crucified. people were befuddled by the attacks on him, and ever since then, the democrats have always been like this and i think the republicans have been pushovers. i think that has to change. we need to look at this as a political turf war and fight as hard as possible as they do because they are going to >> greg: everybody. >> greg: was the first time, the media broke the political seal. they took a brilliant mind and they destroyed him. it's good to be back. >> kimberly: 100%. welcome back. >> dana: your metaphors are on point. >> kimberly: you've been hanging out with brian kilmeade. a little bit of sports analogies there. >> greg: can i exit with one fact. kavanaugh was born in 1965. ted bundy graduated from high school in 1965. i am not saying that kavanaugh is a serial killer but i'm not not saying he's a serial killer. we have no evidence, but we need evidence. >> kimberly: thank you for presenting both sides. >> greg: fair and unbalanced. >> kimberly: unstable as well. juan, what do y

. >> ever since robert bork in 1987 -- >> who was too honest. >> exactly. nominees, you know, they asked robert bork cuff questitough qu about his vuiews, and he answerd them, a mistake that no subsequent nominee has made. so we can anticipate the pleasant stonewall that every subsequent nominee has given. so basically we're going to have to listen to partisans from both sides extrapolate from kavanaugh's record. >> what these confirmation hearings have ended up being are little speeches about how great the nominee is or the senators' concerns about the nominee, and the nominee not saying anything. the nominee -- i think john roberts' favorite technique was just to say -- to basically cite case law that was relevant and just wear out the clock. >> because he knew the senators up there weren't going to know half the cases. they'd have to consult with everybody behind them. >> brett kavanaugh has appeared before the senate. he has been asked his views on roe v. wade. he has said that he respects precedent and he would not give his personal opinion. we're goin

host: this is from "the washington post," colling this and other robert bork moment. is that a fair analogy? guest 1: that seems to be fair. it will be a question of whether or not an originalist judge like gorsuchill be the 1 -- will be the one nominated this year. it was less contentious last year because gorsuch was seen as replacement, kind of one-for-one. them treat -- whoever the new nominee happens to be, in much the same way as bork was treated. host: joining me at the table is andrew egger and jamie stiehm. this is from "the washington post," barack obama planning a bigger role in the midterms. unlikely to stay quiet for long according to mary jordan of "the washington post." guest 2: i think that is appropriate because the party is undergoing a reckoning and they need all men to come to the aid of the party. barack obama has stayed in the shadows mostly and he can make a margin of difference in a few races like the one in missouri, wisconsin, michigan, there are 10 senate democrats up for reelection and face -- in states that trump won. host: bramble joining

democrat from delaware, back in those days, in several separate confirmations processes for robert bork, justice kennedy, and clarence thomas. tell us first what you learned from those experiences on the committee as things progressed, and apply it to this current situation with brett kavanaugh. >> sure. i thinkt

norse to be published the bork debates and discussion when you see tough questions like this what comes to why how do you respond before how global of all. al-jazeera is that winning programs take you on a journey down the line. only. thanks . so. you. had a. chance. to make up with him on supposedly not because there's a month. on the job. and it was ok for. me to. sing but. couldn't be. there tonight seems to be true. i could. be from los angeles and still would go to west where i would know that it could. be a member i. just want to talk to my family trust me. i'll just. have to be something you do not something. when so it's more so soon to shift. on an assignment can remove everything and that could mean everything. and i can do things. on this. kind of person but if this were up to no. i don't believe i'm going to keep us and i suppressed it you know sitting on a cold. to do something so hot. and humid out. cold. but. yes it's from show. me you know if. you haven't kissed. enough to just. push on to look at him as you might want to show up to i thought it was just give us one is i

everyone had to listen to reagan and in the end they voted against bork. the case was made against him. he was beaten by democrats and republicans voting against him. i think the same thing will happen here. >> sean: some of this rhetoric was worst on twitter and social media. look at this: terry tweeted the nomination of judge kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of americans for decades to come. it sounds like ted kennedy and those that attacked justice thomas. i told you this was coming. top democrats senators urging their colleagues in red state to risk their political futures by voting against kavanaugh. elections do have consequences. the 2018 mid-terms this november will be the most important mid-terms in history. these 6 senators from red states. they for a bind right now. what will they do? . manchin in west virginia. north carolina. indiana. missouri. montana. are you going to stick with the farr left of your party like always do? will you vote as a block or try to save your career and do what is only an election year conversion? it's im

everyone had to listen to reagan and in the end they voted against bork. the case was made against him. he was beaten by democrats and >> sean: some of this rhetoric was worst on twitter and social media. look at this: terry tweeted the nomination of judge kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of americans for decades to come. it sounds like ted kennedy and those that attacked justice thomas. i told you this was coming. top democrats senators urging their colleagues in red state to risk their political futures by voting against kavanaugh. elections do have consequences. the 2018 mid-terms this november will be the most important mid-terms in history. these 6 senators from red states. they for a bind right now. what will they do? what will they do?. manchin in west virginia. north carolina. indiana. missouri. montana. are you going to stick with the farr left of your party like always do? will you vote as a block or try to save your career and do what is only an election year conversion? it's important to remember. the 6 of you are supposed to serve