and i do think that if ruth bader ginsburg had lived just a few more weeks, she was so close. she died on september 18th and had just made it to right after the election, this probably couldn't have happened. but there we have it. >> and yet you see, this is from after the draft opinion leaked, the stanford law professor gambled. she did it with the rights of my daughter and granddaughter, and unfortunately that's her legacy. i think it's tragic. >> there's a lot of anxiety. there's a lot of democrats right now just looking for answers. because they are powerless right now. and you know, another piece of this is that republicans recognize very early on years ago that the key to chipping away with roe was at the state level. they invested tons of money and resource s intofliping state houses. . they did that in 2010. we saw tea party conservatives rise. they started patzing reinstructions. >> that's important. the republicans throughout the obama years at the state house and federal court level, they have been methodical about this for decades. but especially in the last ten ye

the fact that amy coney barrett is there and not ruth bader ginsburg and brett kavanaugh is there and not kennedy. that has changed the court. this is not like dobbs where they explicitly overrule a case, but they're moving the law in a clear direction incrementally, to allow more state involvement with religion. you know, it can be with regard to prayer in schools, it can be in regard to money going to religious organizations, or it can be exempting organizations from government mandates like in the hobby lobby case about contraception. all of that is part of a package, and that's what donald trump promised he would deliver to the supreme court, and that is precisely when hat he did der to the supreme court. >> don't go far. it's only 10:14 a.m., so more opinions could come in just moments. >> as we said this morning, wake up to a country markedly changed. some will welcome it, some will not. it is changed. >>> coming up next, president biden and g-7 leaders hear fresh pleas for help from ukraine as russia makes real advances in the east. we'll be live near the front lines coming up.

i remember before justice ruth bader ginsburg died, roberts was in that key position. he could really decide cases. his vote counted. now amy coney barrett has taken that seat. no question he's a conservative. we see him taking a lead often in the religious liberty cases. he was there with the conservative -- with the second amendment case. here in the abortion case, it really outlines how the conservative, the right branch of this court is moving on without him. roberts, he wanted to maybe allow the mississippi law, but stop there. wait on roe. the conservatives didn't stop. they didn't want that incrementalism. they moved forward without him, leaving him behind on perhaps one of the biggest cases, really, in decades. >> yeah, a defining case for his term and for a generation. thank you very much. we appreciate it. >>> so, what is next for the white house? what can the white house do on this? dana bash is going to sit down with vice president kamala harris. you'll see the first part of this exclusive interview today at 4:00 eastern. >>> this morning the ukrainian pres

bader ginsburg." let's just start broadly here. how different, laura, with women's rights in america this morning? >> dramatically. dramatically right away. dramatically even before. think about the fact that texas effectively banned abortion months ago and we're here right now. life as women know it has been dramatically changed from what we knew for the past 50 years. i think the question now is really all the questions that you outlined with jeffrey toobin is what comes next. i think the real fight that you will see play out is what happens with medicate id abortion, two the pills that induce abortion -- i mean, offer half of women in this country who get abortion are actually doing it through these two pills right now. the fda has said that they're safe, effective, safe than viagra. the attorney general has said states, you cannot ban these two pills. and yet states are going to try to ban them. so then what happens? >> i think the fda said you can't ban them for safety reasons. >> yes. >> which m

. >> ruth bader ginsburg famously said about roe, which she supported, but she said it did have this bad effect, which was that it stopped the democratic process from finding compromises. and you can see that in europe where these decisions have been made by democratic legislatures that they come up with these compromises which are more in the center than the united states is, 14 weeks, or germany is 12 weeks i think. as you say, after that with reasons. is it possible that we will come to some kind of centrist, moderate compromise in the united states? >> i think it is certainly possible. that is not at all what it looks like right now. right now what we see are some states are very comfortable with the kind of abortion rights we've had for the last 50 years under roe and are looking to cement that right and perhaps expand it to help people who want to come in from other states. then there are about half of the states looking to ban abortion almost entirely. these laws that are going into effect several of which have already kicked in in the last few days ban all abortions except in

bader ginsburg. she's the author of "not one of the boys", living life as a feminist. good to see you. first and foremost, you're an outspoken feminist. what is your immediate reaction when you heard about the supreme court ruling? >> absolute rage. and just sadness for women who are going to be deprived of a fundamental health care that many of them need, and i am just, having read these opinions, i'm just stunned at how badly it has turned out. and i'm happy to answer any questions. i just feel like we've got two issues. one is there's effectively no more right to abortion. decide if you will, if 15 weeks is the limit or what's going to happen in other states, but the other major decision is stare decisis which they say does not apply. it doesn't matter that they were decided 50 and 30 years ago. here we are without those rights. >> now in the immediate short term, what options do women, girls have right now if they wanted to consider an abortion in the u.s.? >> well, i mean, the obvious, the obvio

i want to quote ruth bader ginsburg. he said that the roe decision halted a political process that was moving in a -- deferred stable sentiment of the issue. you're going to have a much higher propensity in a state where i'm from, missouri, for example, which has one of these trigger laws. it's great in my home state, whereas in new york or california this is i believe the way forward and roe was a monkey wrench in this process. >> she's not the only person that brought this up. but it is clear ruth bader ginsburg thought roe should be the law of the land, even though that legal argument had been made by others. when this decision was made, it caused this tension. the states were already going this way. what do you make of this idea that a lot of people in our country when they are poll say roe should stand, even though as we talked about, there should be restrictions. it is now not the law of the land. it is up to the states. >> i think it is imperative right now that democrats, in particular, people who care about free

i want to quote ruth bader ginsburg. he said that the roe decision halted a political process that was moving in a -- deferred stable sentiment of the issue. you're going to have a much higher propensity in a state where i'm from, missouri, for example, which has one of these trigger laws. it's great in my home state, whereas in new york or california this is i believe the way forward and roe was a monkey wrench in this process. >> she's not the only person that brought this up. but it is clear ruth bader ginsburg thought roe should be the law of the land, even though that legal argument had been made by others. when this decision was made, it caused this tension. the states were already going this way. what do you make of this idea that a lot of people in our country when they are poll say roe should stand, even though as we talked about, there should be restrictions. it is now not the law of the land. it is up to the states. >> i think it is imperative right now that democrats, in particular, people who care about free

. >> look, it's what ruth bader ginsburg said. she said it would be much better if they grounded in legal protections. >> for the first time in a very long time, this question gets put back to the states. and to voters, and to legislatures. all these politicians whether they're pro-choice or pro-life, can't hind behind the supreme court making these decisions for them. they have to make the arguments themselves. they'll send this back to the places where it belongs. i'm sympathetic to justice roberts' concurrence. the argument of the majority is correct on the merits. but this is also just a huge shock to the system. and it's going to be a while before it works itself out. and it could have political consequences that are bad for republicans or good for democrats or something totally unforeseeable. on the merits, i think it's the right decision. >> well, if i may. three of us at this table today now don't have the same rights as the two of you to control our own bodies. that's what happened today. so i disagree because fundamental

wade, and we also know very well justice thomas, this court is not like that of ruth bader ginsburg, by virtue of the fact that this is pending the way it is. for more on this, joan biskupic, cnn legal analyst joins me now. joan, i'm glad you're here. you've written my abook on the supreme court and know this well. is justice thomas right about the court of yesteryear and the sort of kumbaya moments that were there? >> well, i can say that justice thomas and others from that era had a higher level of trust. he said what has been simmering inside for many years, and i think it's telling that it would come out at this point. two things, and they're both in the clips that you played, laura. first of all, when he said, we actually trusted each other, as in, now we don't. and the more recent clip you just played about ruth bader ginsburg when he said, you knew where she was. she told us how she felt, how she was going to rule. and the implication is -- and i know this is the case behind the scenes -- as they regard the chief as secretive and cagey, but it has been toward an end that has m

because, you know -- wasn't ruth bader ginsburg -- i mean, we haven't had -- there haven't been out-and-out yes and no answers for confirmations in a long time. >> you're never going to get that, because they all say, even when pressed on what will you do in this particular area? they all say, well, i have to keep an open mind. i think can't prejudge anything. it will depend on the facts of the case before me. you're never going to get that kind of certainty. i don't know what they expect from the process. you'll never get a yes and no answer. >> it really goes back to 1997, with robert bork, robert bork did engage with senators about the substance of law. and talked about his opposition to abortion rights in much more explicit terms than any subsequent nominee. and they have all taken the lesson to not answer questions after that. in any sort of direct way. and so, senators now hear what they want to hear. and they answer the political call that they feel they have to. susan collins answered the political call of mitch mcconnell, the republican leader who really needed her vote on kavanaug

second, loving is about more of a protection case which ruth bader ginsburg wanted roe in which was at a cost. if this decision ends up being a real decision, big if, it does philosophically threaten some other rights like day marriage. it does not -- as a practical matter, there is no movement to ban international marriage in this country . there's no movement to overturn gay marriage. >> ben shapiro this week on his podcast, the largest youtube podcast, whatever it may be, talked about the next thing they will do is go after gay marriage. if hilary and i are afraid of what this court will do next, i think that is rooted in the history of this country. this is the first time. i don't think anybody can deny this is the first time the united states supreme court actually inherently took away a constitutional right. >> that is not true. look, lochner versus the united states. the case that said there was a right to contract. it's a case that has been dissed by every judge ever. they overturned it. the court regularly overturned cases. >> i didn't say overturned. i said -- >> it takes awa

. >> how have the dynamics changed since the death of ruth bader ginsburg, since amy coney barrett joined the court? >> this is really -- some replacements on the court are -- all replacements are consequential. when steven breyer stepped down and he's being replaced by judge jackson, that is important. but this was epic. this was epic in its importance because at the end of president trump's term in 2020, justice ginsburg died. amy coney barrett was rushed through by mitch mcconnell. and that changed the court from a 5-4 majority for the conservatives with chief justice roberts in the majority to a 6-3 conservative majority with roberts increasingly siding with the three liberals. but he is increasingly irre irrelevant. if the roe v. wade case stands in the draft opinion that we have seen, that will be the most vivid demonstration because that means that clarence thomas, alito, brett cav nugget, neil gorsuch and amy coney barrett, the three trump appointees plus alito and thomas, that makes a majority where chief justice roberts is irrelevant and doesn't get to assign opinions when that'

wade was incorrect from its very inception, even ruth bader ginsburg said just the same when she addressed the law court years ago. >> go ahead. >> the other thing that i said today is this argument is like peak patriarchy. it's a self-reinforcing loop that you can never get out of because the men who wrote the constitution hundreds of years ago didn't think that the people who they believed were their property, right, that women were their property, that they didn't believe the people who were their property should have a right to abortion or to frankly anything is irrelevant. you know, you don't -- we don't look to the history to mimic, you know, people who believe that women and black people were their property. okay. we look to our past to learn lessons. and to have justice alito or even to listen to you, alice, frankly say that because these people didn't put abortion in the constitution that that means that there is no right to constitution, it's crazy making. you know, because there's no way to ever get out of that loop because this idea of even of the test that he's putting on it,

since then with nominees and republican candidates alike ruth bader ginsburg was the first to say -- this haebs capsified by the sort of opaque language that prevents having frank and full conversations about what peoples positions are. about litmus tests insofar as democrats only appointed pro-candidates and then trump joined into that process. i think at the end of the day the american people are very ambivalent about abortion. they generally don't like it. but at the same time they want some protections for it and some circumstances, and we're going to actually see that in most of the country is that you're going to find these kinds of compromises which is something that ruth bader ginsburg herself said would have been better -- >> just real quick, i agree with jonah. what i meant was on the republican side, republican presidents. i mean, that was maybe going back to the suitor example where republicans were very upset with george h.w. bush, but more recently look at the clip you played from justice alito, then nominee alito as a george w. bush nominee. he was saying all the right

even ruth bader ginsburg thought that roe was a fraught decision because of what it did to the politics of the country. and the idea that, you know, supreme court nominees are going to say we've learned this since suter or bork, you can pick your time line, what they need to say that is factually accurate that gives us as little as possible to political opponents to derail their nomination. you have kavanaugh saying it's a precedent. it is a precedent. still is, right now, a law. while i agree entirely, it's going to create all sorts of hardships in places that ban abortion. it will also, overnight, make in places like new york and california, abortion is going to be just as readily accessible as it ever was, if this goes through. it will send things back to the states where i think the details belong in the first place. >> dig into that because in alito's opinion he says that roe was egregiously wrong from the start. the ruling was exceptionally weak. explain why he's saying that. >> i think he has to justify a position overturning something that a large chunk of america thinks is some

bader ginsburg or scalia, who were confirmed overwhelmingly in their era. now a partisan era, but she managed to get three republican votes and all 50 members of the democratic caucus and make history here today, guys. >> joan, we know that this probably doesn't change the ideology of the court because it is a conservative majority, but it does change the dynamic, and so how will her presence, once she actually is sworn in, what will change? >> well, first of all, alisyn, just think of -- just look at the difference in the ages. stephen breyer, who's retiring at age 83, is 32 years older than her. she's going to bring some fresh thoughts, some fresh blood, if not a different ideology than his. she also has this very distinctive experience as a former trial judge and a former federal public defender. so, a different attitude around the justice's private table. i'm often reminded in these instances of something chief justice john roberts has said, that just a fresh justice brings an array of fresh thoughts about how the operations behind the scenes, about cas

ruth bader ginsburg. it continued. then the last few. the trump appointees and elena kagan and sotomayor before that. in recent years, polarization, then the trump steroid effect on that polarization, and that's where we are. >> you are seeing this discussion already looming over ketanji brown jackson's nomination in part because of what we heard from senator lindsey graham this week who said that if republicans take the majority, then biden wouldn't get another nominee most likely. and when senator mitch mcconnell was asked about it, he dodged it and said he didn't want to give away his strategy. but this clearly also factored into the decision-making of some republicans who saw lisa murkowski in her statement brng up the corrosive politicization we're seeing these days. and i think in part that's why she decided to support jackson's nomination. >> this -- the partisanship, congress is, of course, a partisan body. it's democrats, republicans. this afects the court and how the public sees the court. and over the last several decades, pub

bader ginsburg by bill clinton. their judicial philosophies didn't determine the senate votes. get this, scalia was confirmed 98-0. ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. they weren't outliers, an draw day o'connor and anthony kennedy reconfirmed unanimously. kennedy's nomination was overseen a democratic senator by the name of joe biden. here is another measure of how far we've fallen, the average vote was 80: nixon had two con sickive nomineetion heisman by the senate. reagan couldn't push through two. but in general, until very recently party line votes for supreme court no, ma'am niece were very rare. judge jackson has been confirmed twice by the senate, on the federal bench for longer than most other nominees. conservative legal icon michael lid dicken doorsed her as being highly experienced, also the most popular supreme court nominee in years according to recent surveys. senators tried to score partisan points for fund-raising and future campaigns. this approach was rightly slammed by senator ben sasse of nebraska. >>

navy is naming a ship after liberal icon, late supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, will join a fleet of refueling ships, reflengsment oiler ships. the powerful vessels all named after civil rights leaders including thurgood marshal, kennedy, sojourner truth, a formation of destroyers and cruisers led by an aircraft carrier with thousands of personnel. navy secretary carlos del toro says her daughter jane will be hosting the events for the ships including the christing ceremony such as you see here. make sure you tune into the state of the union this sunday, my colleague will be talking to secretary of state antony blinken, secretary of nato, jens stoltenberg and governor larry hogan, noon eastern on sunday. you can tweet the show @thelead on cnn, you can listen to "the lead" wherever you get your podcasts, two hours waiting for you. plus, do not forget to download our new streaming service, cnn plus, among all the other features and shows on that special streaming service, our book club. interviews with top authors. coverage continues now with wolf blitzer in "the situation roo

you had ideological figures like ruth bader ginsburg and antonin scalia confirmed with over 90 votes, both of them. the days of 90 vote confirmations are over for the foreseeable future. this is a partisan enterprise. and, you know, it is -- this will be -- the president will say this was a bipartisan confirmation, but barely. we'll see whether she gets -- whether judge jackson gets even one other vote. but that's how it's been, basically, since, you know, with obama's two nominations, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, there were a handful of crossover votes by republicans, but by the time the three trump nominees came before the senate, it was almost a straight up partisan vote, and that's what we're looking at here. >> yeah, i mean, it makes it clear that if you had a president who was nominating someone at a time where they did not have the majority in the senate, they could be in deep trouble here. i want to read a little bit more of susan collins statement. she said in recent years, senators on both sides of the aisle have gotten away from what i perceive to be the appropriate pro

ruth bader ginsburg was approved with 90 plus votes in the senate. we are so far from that. if she is confirmed, it is likely she will be confirmed with 50 votes, it is likely a party-line votes. >> it is pretty stun ning. how do you think this works for republicans? is this going to work for them? >> it depends in what context are you saying will it work. i think there are some traffic online this morning, "l.a. times" photographer caught ted cruz searching for his own name on twitter in the wake of his back -- >> buried in his mentioned. >> with dick durbin. he's one of several members of the committee potentially running in a republican primary in 2024. there was a lot of performative actions toward that particular audience and a lot of them are competing in the same space. josh hawley and ted cruz, if they both run for president, they're competing for a lot of the same voters, the same chunk of the republican party and they're voters that are focused on the issues they brought up repeatedly. and you raised marsha blackburn as well. you saw examples of dragging a lot of t

ruth bader ginsburg told me she managed to change their minds about searching a teenage girl and how invasive that would be. it does seem to matter every day the supreme court are dealing with questions on gender and racial justice, what are the proper remedies for these issues, so to have someone in the room that are not theoretical, yes, it could overturn roe v. wade, it won't be the last time the court considers abortion. lots of times these abortion restrictions are made to protect black women and black babies. so to have somebody being rhetorically addressed who can then in the room say, here's the facts, here's some lived experience in addition to their deep legal experiences i think makes a big difference. >> irin carmon, it was great to have you. we'll have you back again. >> thank you. >>> countries that have taken in millions of refugees. the dire situation as more people flee their homes. ...so he scheduled witith safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... ...then we got to work. we replaced his windshield and installed new wipers t to protect his new glass, wh

during the hearings of the late jus justice ruth bader ginsburg i recall you called them the republican's line of questioning personally offensive. i wonder as we're talking about the distinction between today's senate -- we often hear about it -- versus the senate of years gone by including that which now president biden has derived from. what do you make of the comparison how the judiciary committee operated at that time compared to now? are you seeing the stark contrast or as you mentioned the days of willy horton you think are back gev? >> yes, it is a different senate and that is really the tragedy that i think all americans should be concerned about. we -- the loss of civility, the loss of the ability to be bipartisan because the civility matters, people just being nice to each other, that's gone by the way. and the fact is when i was on the senate judiciary committee there were moments that were difficult. i remember there was one of the senators on the committee at the time was comparing abortion to slavery. and quite frankly he looked at me when he asked the question. it's like w

i see some of the same qualities in her that i saw in ruth bader ginsburg. humility, the ability to inn sp inspire others in a quiet way. some inspire by example and the force of their reason. intellectually, she's very smart, very well informed and she is very hard working and focused. she gets the big picture. may i ask unanimous consent that the "globe" article be admitted into the record. >> without admission. >> but he went on to wpri. a local station in rhode island. and said about you, she's worked hard. she deserves it. and i literally don't think that the president could have made a better choice. i think she'll be a terrific addition to the supreme court. she listens to what other people have to say. but makes up her own mind. she has a very scholarly approach toward the law. she has a very winning personality. she's kind to the people she comes in contact with. and she has a certain humility that i find very attractive in people. may i ask unanimous consent that the statement from wpri be put into the record? >> without objection. >> the judge wen

strong thurman voted to confirm ruth bader ginsburg. those senators likely did not agree with the judicial philosophies but both parties, not just republicans, now have included that in if these nominees are qualified. bigger picture, that seems to color every one of these pr processes as we move forward. >> victor, you've put your finger on just how much the senate and the country has changed. it used to be that these supreme court nominations, by in large, were about qualifications and if the person was honorable and experienced and intelligent like antonin scalia. i think fit's a more realistic assessment of what justices do. it's not a self-executing document. it does not say, in the constitution whether the right to have an abortion is protected or not. you have to interpret the constitution. you have to interpret to decide whether parochial schools can receive government money for scholarships. these are difficult questions that involve an approach to the constitution. it doesn't mean that one side is right and one side is wrong a

think about antonin scalia, ruth bader ginsburg. two justices who were so diametrically opposed and known to be highly ideological, even before they got on the supreme court and both were confirmed in the '80s and '90s with over 90 votes in the senate. those days are completely over. these are now partisan enterprises, and democrats vote for democratic nominees and against republican nominees and that is almost across the board true. you have a handful of votes that are ever in play about supreme court nominations. i mean, this nominee is probably going to get at least 50 democratic votes. so she's going to get confirmed, but there are only one or two, maybe three republicans who might vote for her. that's how supreme court nominations work today and that's just a big change from how they were a generation ago. >> and chairman dermott, let me bring in tameka brown, constitutional law professor at harvard law school. you heard straight out of the gate from chairman durbin noting the history of this moment saying today is a proud day

other than that -- you know, in the '90s and '80s, you had very ideological nominees like ruth bader ginsburg, antony scalia, confirmed with nearly 90 votes in the senate. supreme court nominations have become partisan enterprises. and what we have seen in the past 15 years is republicans vote for republican nominees and democrats vote against, and vice ve versa. democrats have a narrow, but a majority. so it's extremely likely that as senator mcconnell himself said, it's highly likely judge jackson will be confirmed, but the days of overwhelming confirmations are behind us and as young as we are i don't think we'll ever see them again. >> i think you're right about that. not sure about the young part. but everything else. go along with that. thanks. appreciate it. >>> residents who escaped the ukrainian city of mariupol says the russian siege left people without access to drink water and no end in sight to the war. since 2004 doc henley's wine to water worked around the world providing clean water to those in need. now he and his team are responding to the war in ukraine with their

district judges prior to being elevated including justice scalia and justice ruth bader ginsburg. so to say that her credentials are impeccable, they fit within the broadest spectrum of the credentials of recent justices. nonetheless, she will likely be attacked. her credentialsing some of her legal opinions she's issued, even opinions she's signed on to will be subject to critique. some of this is part of the normal process, but i do think because of her race and gender there will be more criticism than nominees normally experience. >> vice dean, always good to see you. >> nice to see you too. >>> we'll be right back. >> my name is alvin lee smith. 50 years ago i was going through a newspaper. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ stuff. we love stuff. and there's some really great stuff out there. but i doubt that any of us will look back on our lives and think, "i wish i'd bought an even thinner tv, found a lighter light beer, or had an even smarter smartphone." do you think any of us will look back on our lives and regret the things we didn't buy? or the places we didn't go? ♪ i'd

we know, for example, that ruth bader ginsburg had an effect on chief justice rehnquist as they served together. so i think it's such an important pick, not just for the obvious reasons but for the less obvious reasons. for the ways in which a justice jackson would diversify, not just the color of skin of the justices, not just the first black woman on the court but someone who actually understands what it's like to be in the nitty-gritty of our criminal justice system in a way that frankly none of the current nine justices do. and in a way that could only help the court's jurisprudence. >> we don't have cameras in federal court so often when introducing new federal judges. you saw some pictures there, video. let's listen. this is back in 1987 when ketanji brown jackson was introducing justice breyer for whom she clerked. listen. >> 1999, justice breyer plucked me from obscurity and gave me the opportunity of a lifetime, which was the chance to work for him as a law clerk. it was an incredible experience just to be in the room while the justice grappled with some of the most difficult

bader ginsburg. that has transformed this supreme court. so republicans, conservatives very much have a strong upper hand. and to just succeed a liberal for a liberal is not as dramatic. . >> all right. looks like potentially a big day here. joan, stand by. don't go too far. >> i want to bring in chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, who has written how many books on the supreme court? >> two. . >> cnn reporting there will be a nominee announced today and choosing careful language here, the clear front-runner is judge ketanji brown jackson. this is an historic moment, jeffrey. . >> it's always a historic moment when a supreme court justice is dom nominated. there have been 114 or 115 in the history of the country. and of course this will be the first african american woman on the court. you know, the -- you can look at the changes in american life and american politics by the evolution of appointments to the supreme court. it was only in the 1850s that the first catholic was appointed to the supreme co

bader ginsburg wrote dissents because whoever joe biden picks will sadly be in the moinority. but i certainly hope the republicans will also vote for a person who will be highly, highly qualified who will add to much-needed diversity in the courts who will reflect the diversity of our country. i don't know what they're afraid of. one thing that's happening is i already see all the ads against whoever joe biden picks as being the tool of democratic dark money. nothing could be farther from the truth. and if the republicans really care about dark money, then they should join the democrats in voting for the disclose act which will force dark money contributors to have their names disclosed. but i bet you anything they will not support the disclose act. no, they'll just throw out these hypocritical positions. >> let me ask you because of your role on the judiciary committee about something that happened inside the committee hearings yesterday. your colleague accused republicans of treating nominees of color differently. let's watch.it is not lost on m nominees of color that have b

bader ginsburg, sonja sotomayor. bottom line, the most important thing is the political judgment. with just one vote majority in the senate, it has to be someone who is full proof. no surprises. ultimately. he will want to have the confidence of this person's record that there won't be any slip-up in the end. >> there is no question he probably has an eye out for the book, you want to be looking at the cases, not just to see what kind of judicial temperament they have that attacks can come from. he's gone through this process many,le times before. he understands that it political no matter how people want to take it out of the political sphere. >> so there does seem to be some quarters for michelle childs, she has the backing of jim clyburn. the third ranking democrat in the house. also, the two republican senators from south carolina have said nice things. that doesn't mean they'll vote for her but they've said nice things. does that mean that somebody should think, well, we know biden likes to be bipartisan and obv

when late justice ruth bader ginsburg became a circuit court judge, her husband left his law firm. >> and the call continue for more trans apparently and stricker recusal. jinni thomas declined an interview and declined to comment. >>> thank you. coming up next, the outrageous language by the republican national committee for censure of the republicans investigating the january 6th insurrection and the clean-up attempt they made a few hours afterwards. stay with us. woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may inc

bader ginsburg. i didn't hear the same criticism from the republican side. let's face the reality here. we had 115 supreme court justices in the history of the united states. 108 have been white men. i really think there is room for us to consider not only women, but women of color to fill these vacancies. >> so why is that, then, reagan, woman, republicans, are okay with it. trump, woman, republicans are okay with it. biden, black woman, republicans are not okay with it. something is very different in this. what stands out to you ? >> we had 25 women of color come before the senate judiciary committee during first year of the biden administration, and some of the people who are speaking the loudest about not choosing a black woman have never voted for a black nominee. it is the reality of this year, 2022 and american history. >> senator lindsey graham, very different story coming from him than some of the other republicans that we just showed you, he said and he has voted for democratic nominees, of

the last president they still revere, donald trump saying he was going to pick a woman to fill ruth bader ginsburg's seat, which was amy coney barrett. why is this any different? >> because they're talking about black women, and they want to treat us different. to kirsten's point, one of them said well, black women only make up 6% of the country. well, right. they're saying that they don't think that 6% matters. they don't think latino people matter. they don't think poor people matter. they don't think other than white men matter, and they shouldn't deserve the opportunity to sit on the highest court of the land. the other thing that i think is really comical about this is republicans saying that joe biden politicized this. sure, they were running for office. it's politics. but the republicans are masterminds behind politicizing supreme court nominations. when justice scalia passed away, president obama couldn't even get a breath out before mitch mcconnell politicized that nomination and said he wouldn't even give the person a vote. president obama didn't say what type of person it was,

sandra day o'connor and it was donald trump who announced he would replace ruth bader ginsburg with a woman nominee as well. so this is not the first time a president has signaled what they're looking for in a nominee. >> reporter: the white house is going to meet with potential candidates as soon as this week. president biden will also meet with the top democrat and republican of the senate judiciary committee tomorrow at the white house. chairman dick durbin, chuck grassley, officials say it will be to solicit advice about the process. so president biden really looking to get the buy-in from both parties right from the start here. >> all right. thank you. >>> an apology in grand fashion from british prime minister boris johnson. why his words may be too late to save his political future after a damning report of parties while others were under lockdown. >> i know what the issue is. welcomed bath fitter into their homes? it just fits. call now or visit bathfitter.com to book your free consultation. ♪ ♪ feel stuck with student loan debt? move to sofi and feel what it's like to get

amy coney barrett, 38 days from when ruth bader ginsburg died she was sworn in as a supreme court justice. that's a record. they were criticized at the time for not having a deliberative process, not accurately vetting her. i don't expect president biden and senate democrats to move that quickly, but we need to take some lessons from that. we should move quickly so this nominee doesn't get tarnished by somebody like senator wicker or we know a lot of this conversation in the republican party is going to be about affirmative action and undertones of racism. we need to be careful and not tarnish the nominee. let's move quickly. they're incredibly accomplished women. we should do our jobs, vet, deliberate but get it done. do not drag it out. >> let's talk about covid politics now. i say covid and politics. it's unnecessarily tied together. that's just the world in which we live. i want you to listen to what journalist and author bari weiss had to say about americans and their mood right now with regard to the pandemic. >> i'm done with covid. i'm done. i went so hard on covid. >> i remember.

your film "rbg" about ruth bader ginsburg was nominated for an oscar a couple of years ago. you're working on a project on former congresswoman gabby giffords. tuck to talk to me about your mission to profile these extraordinary women? >> well, there are a wide array of really spectacular, often very essential important american stories to be told. the stories of women, the stories of people of color over the decades in journalism and film tend to be a little bit under told, a little bit trivialized or maybe a little bit not told at all, so once we've started telling women's stories, it's almost like we can't stop. gabby giffords, you know, julia child, rbg, all very, very, very different in different fields of endeavor, but all just making magnificent changes. >> wow, incredible. betsy, you all are on a roll but not only are you profiling these women who are so deserving of being profiled, but here you are in an industry that still is male dominated, and as a female filmmaker, i mean, you have your own personal journey that is fascinating. i mean, what have you learned alon

bader ginsburg's seat on the court. >> it will be a woman. a very talented, very brilliant woman. who i excehaven't chosen yet bu have numerous women on the list. >> so, what is the difference between that and what biden said? >> no difference. but i happen to agree with professor turley in his op-ed you referenced. i think biden is actually doing a disservice to whoever he picks because the list i have seen is full of highly qualified, highly experienced people who could stand on their own without biden having backed into this the way he did but i have to tell you i don't think republicans should focus on this. what they really ought to focus on is having full hearts. my heart is full that an african-american woman is gonna be on the supreme court because there is not been anybody in washington over the last 36 years who has fought harder against putting african-americans and hispanics on the befnch than joe biden. hook what he did to clarence thomas. he used the jim crow filibuster. joe biden has an atrocious record and i think our hearts o

bader ginsburg. roll the tape. >> it will be a woman -- a very talented, very brilliant woman. [ cheers and applause ] who i haven't chosen yet but we have numerous women on the list. >> ah, oh! oh! [ laughter ] a very -- hey, charles, can you replay that for me again? because it's very similar to what joe biden said. highly qualified character, black woman. but go on, let's play it again, please, thank you. >> it will be a woman. a very talented, very brilliant woman. who i haven't chosen yet but we have numerous women on the list. >> don't bother to send me your hate stuff on social media. there is the evidence. you know who that woman turned out to be? amy coney barrett. so, it was okay for the previous president to restrict the candidates to women. what's different now? what is different now? hmm. what could it possibly be? let's go back in history a little bit because i just want to point out back in 1986, ronald reagan chose antonin scalia for the supreme court, in part because he was italian a

. >> then in 2020 justice ruth bader ginsburg died less than two months before the election. according to pbs, mcconnell called trump the night ginsburg died, urging him to quickly select amy coney barrett. >> mcconnell told him two things. he said, first, i'm going to put out a statement that says we're going to fill the vacancy. second, he said, you've got to nominate amy coney barrett. >> less than a year later, get this, justice barrett actually appeared at an event at the mcconnell center at the university of louisville. she told the crowd this. my goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks. now, where would anybody get an idea like that. the polls show a majority of americans oppose overturning roe vs. wade. opponents of roe have become the dogs who have caught the car, or the get away car, depending on your point of view. i suppose democrats can just say life's a mitch, which is why it's a mystery to me that some democrats are clinging to the filibuster, the same kind of filibuster that is preventing passing in the senat

bader ginsburg. >> it will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. i haven't chose her yet, but we have numerous women on the list. >> oh, oh, oh! ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. a very talented -- charles, can you replay that for me again? it's very similar to what joe biden said. highly qualified character, black woman, but go on. let's play it again, please. thank you. >> it will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. who i haven't chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list. >> don't bother to send me hate messages on your social media. there's the evidence. it's okay for the previous candidates to restrict the candidates to women. what's different now? what is different now? hm. what could it possibly be? let's go back in history a little bit because i just want to point out back in 1986, ronald reagan chose antonin scalia for the supreme court, in part because he was italian american. reagan, the gold standard of republican presidents. well, he used to be. not in this -- not in this current republican party. reagan's white house counsel

and justice ruth bader ginsburg used to say it was wonderful when schoolchildren could come into the courtroom and actually see two women sitting on the bench. now there will be many more. it's just because of the times now and that will be important to people looking at the court. the other thing is there will be new youth. justice breyer is 83 years old. presumably the president will choose a woman who is in her 40s or 50s. so that will change. and then ana, i know you've heard this many times over the last two days. there's a common adage that's attributed to the late justice byron white. you change one justice, you change the whole court, and that is so true. that whoever comes on will cause the other justices to sort of reorient around each other and one thing that will change is that justice stephen breyer is, right now, someone who wants to work the middle. he wants to find consensus at the middle. and the only two who will be left who work that way are chief justice john roberts and justice elena kagan. and the question will be, will this new individual add to that sort of mi