[ laughter ] speaking of bork, did you know reagan tried to give his pro-bork speech, the other day, and the three networks turned him down? they wouldn't let him on? [ applause ] uh, he went on cable. he went on cable, and he was such a hit, on cable, that he's replacing gallagher , on showtime, next week. [ laughter ] speaking of bork-- he seems like a nice man. i'm not taking a stand on thi-- if-- i-- one of the reasons i think he lost-- how many of you think he looked familiar? when you first saw judge bork. [ laughter ] you didn't think-- he used to be the evil dictator that was overthrown, every week, by the "mission impossible" team. [ laughter ] remember the-- they would always say, "this is [ indistinct ] you must capture him, and--" remember? [ laughter ] now, i-- it wasn't about the football strike. this, i don't understand. did not come out, too well. they did not get the free agency they wanted, they don't have a collective bargaining agreement, they won't get full pay this week, and they can't play sunday. >> oy. >> aw. >> no, they can't play, because the owner said if

but we didn't, with bork, we didn't say we're not going to hold a hearing on bork. we didn't say we're not going to take the committee's actions and leave it at that. listen to this, bork was turned down in the judiciary committee by an overwhelming margin, but in spite of that we brought it to the senate floor and there was a debate and he won by two votes. no filibuster. he was defeated in the committee. we didn't look for an excuse. that isn't the way it used to be done. this now -- the republican leadership now, they won't meeth the nominee, they won't hold a hearing and the chairman of the committee won't even go to the white house and visit with the president. as chairman, senator biden did his constitutional duty and processed nominations, even though they were republican nominations. so we don't have to go back to 1980 or 1982 to prove the current chairman's ineptness. look at the spike in judicial emergencies that occurred on chairman grassley's watch just in the past year. what is an emergency? it means there aren't enough judges -- too many cases for a ju

he had two nominees, robert bork and antonin scalia. both were vetted completely, brilliant justice, nobody disagreed, they were brilliant judges and great traditionalists. that's what they ought to do, go to the justice department, find the very finest, most brilliant conservatives like a scalia in the court system and nominate them. eleanor: what was that comment you made about mrs. reagan's justice department nominated -- pat:mrs. reagan was the one who reagan agreed with it. john: issue two, pontiff, prophylactics and trump. pope francis returned to the vatican following visits to cuba and mexico. while traveling he observed that condoms could be justified in regions afflicted by the zika virus. but the pontiff insisted that abortion can never be justified. the pope believes condoms can help stop the suffering caused by microcephaly, abnormally developed heads in babies, which scientists believe zika can cause. the pontiff also said that republican presidential candidate, donald trump is quote/unquote "nonchristian" in his stance on

in 1988, justice kennedy was confirmed but that was a vacancy created before that which bork was nominated and was defeated and the vacancy existed quite some time prior to the presidential election. so the question is who should make the decision. and my view and i can confidently say the view shared by everybody in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president. and the election under way right now.

last of the easy confirmations given indegreesing polarization we have seen if you think of the robert borke fight and the clarence thomas, the explosive battles, not making it to the court, not being confirmed, thomas after a very contentious set of hearings, ultimately cogfirmed. but, you know, i think that what we are going to see beginning tonight, you are absolutely right, we are going to see could beservatives falling all over each other because he is seen as an icon of the federalist movement, strict constructionists who in their view did not read anything into the constitution except what was in a layman's simplistic's terms what was written in the constitution. this is the discover of -- sort of individual that is held up as a hero by the conservative movement. it points out a couple of things. first of all, it's extremely unlikely we are going to see a nominee by president obama. it's very likely he will put forward a nominee but it's extremely unlikely we will see a nominee. mitch mccogin the minor tee said they will not consider many more judicial no, ma'am nations at all. no one

kennedy in 19 8, he was the third after bob bork and ginsberg. >> and we should say bob bork changed everything the >> that's right. a pretty good start for the fight we're about to have. interest groups, politics, money, all wrapped up into this really titanic battle with the consequences as joan has already outlined. you can understand why the republicans are saying what they are saying but there laz been no history of a president saying i'm not going to make my nomination for a year. never happened about. not going to happen this time. gwen: the partisan nature of a fight like this, is that really a modern idea? >> well, as we said, with the seven-day confirmation, it used to be the rule that nominees were confirmed in relatively quick order but there have been big partisan fights. i think of john tiler, president in the 1840's and he had no party, bisque basic -- party, basically ands the whi dwmplet s hated -- whigs hated him. he sent up nominees nine times and only one got confirmed. this is going to be one of those moments. at a different level, a higher level. with the presid

and you wanted bork to go first. >> i wanted bork to go because i thought it would get the second judge -- the third judge would be the tougher battle. i thought the first italian america could settle through and be the choice on bork. brilliant lawyer. unfortunately, he had too much stuff and they took him out pretty easy. lou: and do you know the republicans will hold the line on the line that mitch mcconnell and senator chairman of the committee? >> any republican who walks away from this line will basically pay a very heavy price. i think this is going to be the battle of the next -- i hope whoever they name has a full-time job because they're not going to get -- i think to a certain extent will be a big part of the campaign and senate races. lou: ed rollins. >> thank you. lou: thank you as well always for your insight. and being part of history. it's fascinating to see the inside of it. thanks so much. >> thank you. lou: appreciate. be sure to vote on our poll tonight. is the pope fair game on u.s. presidential politics as he is expected to do here in the coming days? we would like

democrats, of course, blocked the nomination of robert bork. the president's next nominee had to withdraw. then he finally was able to get justice anthony kennedy confirmed, his third try. but that took about seven months to do that. you're going to hear republicans kind of looking back and talking about that there is precedent for this with something so important. and keep in mind, for republicans, this is the crucial fifth vote. the court is now composed of really five conservatives, or was composed of five conservatives and four liberals. and now with justice scalia's passing, that is 4-4, the court is in the balance. and,sh, justice scalia not fifth vote but he was that sharp conservative voice, court. so i think it's going to be very difficult to see republicans agreeing with anyone that this president puts up, and of, of course, he's complained that republicans are obstructionist. as i was saying before his remarks started, i don't yet. this is the battle, republicans are ready to dig in for this battle. they see it as affecting nothing l

ring areal yea esen agnee, thonkey, confirmed in but y' case is an unusl e.am the , w le pregn ated bork, wecdte bitba anhen nominatedheess ntveia kne in vember 1987.sena ced h thr nths97mocrats sath1 mo lea'id there'tyf ti m >> andths fr t whhouse gh n, repter the botm l d, tprt ha ce an nome a l wh woergizeocrats dg d elon yr mi a derateas hadtisan ort. e he will t dire itarder for res t rej person, bec o repcansavsuorted the past. >> makintico jon karl hoe. jon, tha. >>noatrelast t a rein pan t ikpr,xi prevacid ers say theyinsi% se in risk ofementi abs chief medicaitorr.htweyo qand ned,u n uturight, actidy that rtbu caathear r: but tnlt those ovwh reptn ugs c or prevaon. found an increased skmeiasn't e the drugse. >> cffethear in the wa rep amepere t bil a thwoai claes ohetbmeci n puan ke bypt er but t it's oe l.suppuse cfocrs,or , stnd totk thade. a peotakerugs artburn, ions, outallymp h, i the lal yose d do c at home w ut tsedrugs after thisstudy, isanything els w artburn?orteell,f ng wghwi thad d okor ts r yo r many pt'ic coffee and food. your ad ed rr:ll gh r bit ght. thansser.>>>

robert bork, and doug ginsburg. it was the democrats who had dragged it out many months to make it that way. right now, the court is exquisitely balanced. justice scalia, someone i've known for over 20 years. principled jurist. faithful to the constitution. his impact to the court was phenomenal. as ronald reagan was to the presidency, so justice scalia was to the court. this is a 5-4 court. this next election needs to be a referendum on the court. the people need to decide. i'm glad the senate is agreeing with what i called for. we should not allow a lame duck president to capture the supreme court in the waning months of his presidency. >> does that mean you're going to filibuster anyone, anyone president obama nominates? >> absolutely. this should be a decision for the people, george. we have an election. democrats, i cannot wait. to stand on that stage with hillary clinton or with bernie sanders and take the case to the people. what vision of the supreme court do you want? let the election decide. if the democra

the democrats d dtroyed bob bork's chancesesn 1987. when president bush nominated miguel estrada for the d.c. circuit court, there was a filibuster. they knew he might be in line to be supreme court nominee. he would be the first hispanic put on the court by george bush. honestly, turnabout is fair play. maybe mitch mcconnell should have been more coy. the president is entitled to nominate whoever he wants. the republicans need to explain why we do not want the supreme court going in the direction of president obama wants it going in. >> the senate debate will be a bit of kabuki theater right now. hard to imagine how the hard to imagine he'll get court, right at the center of the presidential campaign, it could be one of the first times ever. >> absolutely. it really raises the stakes in the presidential campaign, george. it focuses the mind. people realize, wait, we're voting for someone who could name a justice that will be there for decades. keep in mind, gerry ford was the president of the united states for about 2 1/2 years. john

bork was turned down by an overwhelming margin but in spite of that we brought it to the senate floor and there was a debate and he won by two votes. no filibuster. he was defeated in the committee. we didn't look for an excuse. that is what is used to be done. it's now under republican leadership, they will not be with the nominate even they don't know who will be. they will not hold a hearing and one, the chairman of the committee will not even go to the white house and visit with the president. as chairman, senator biden did his constitutional duty and processed nominations. even though they were republican nominations. so we don't have to go back to 1988 to approve the chairman singh at this. the emergency needs there are not enough judges, too many cases were judged to do the work. a vacant judgeship is automatically declared an emergency, as it should be. the republicans control the senate last year, there were 12 emergencies nationwide. today, a year later, that number has almost tripled to 31. on nearly every metric under chairman grassley is failing dramatically, so all recor

but we didn't, with bork, we didn't say we're not going to hold a hearing on bork. we didn't say we're not going to take the committee's actions and leave it at that. listen to this, bork was turned down in the judiciary committee by an overwhelming margin, but in spite of that we brought it to the senate floor and there to the senate floor and there inspite of that we brought it to the senate floor and it was a debate and he won by two votes. no filibuster. he was defeated in the committee. we didn't look for an excuse. that is what used to be done. republican leadership now will not meet with the nominee even they don't know who it will be. they will not hold a hearing and the chairman of the committee won't even go to the white house and visit with the president. as chairman, senator biden did his constitutional duty, process nominations even though they were republican nominations. so we don't have to go back to 1988 or 92 to prove the current judicial chairman spent met with. the current chairman, just in the past year, what is the emergency? emergency? it mean

i think, you know, it's been going on for 30 years now ever since the bork nicky anosike -- bork nomination. supreme court nominations have become political circus, have become political campaigns. poll testing, focus groups, commercials, fund-raising. i've received a whole bunch of them already. everybody neets -- needs to take a deep breath, spop hyperventilating and let the process proceed. you know, the constitution allows the president to nominate, and president obama is clearly -- has clearly made that decision that he wants to go ahead and nominate but he also needs to consult with the senate, and the senate has the constitutional right to do advice. and whether they hold a hearing or not i think depends in large measure on who obama decides to nominate. but everybody just needs to cool it for a while. we haven't even had the funeral of that great justice, justice scalia and people are already going to their battle stations. i don't think that speaks well for the process or for the immediate future of this confirmation fight. matt: keb -- ken, the president's got to balance what he t

circuit and scalia on the supreme court and bork nominated. i was on the judiciary committee when scalia was nominated. and like a lot of conservatives, this was this was an extraordinary individual and great loss for the country. the question immediately becomes what's the way forward. i have the view and expressed it early on that the next president should make this nomination. that certainly is supported by precedent. you would have to go back to 1888 when grover cleveland was in the white house to find the last time a senate of a different party from the president confirmed a nominee for the supreme court in an election year. in 1988, justice kennedy was confirmed but that was a vacancy created before that which bork was nominated and was defeated and the vacancy existed quite some time prior to the presidential election. so the question is who should make the decision. and my view and i can confidently say the view shared by everybody in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president.

. >> oh your bork doesn't fit in my bjorn. >> chris: now well, now the youth wing of the swedish liberal party has filed a motion to legalize incest and necrophilia! >> how else do you [beep] your hot dead swedish sister. >> i use to be on broadcast television, y'know. i'm not use to this. >> now you're in cable. >> my lord. but don't worry! it's only legal if a person gives written consent to someone making love to their corpse. that will make the reading of grandpa's last will and testament. so comedians, i want you to write your own instructions for what swedish perverts can do to your body after you're dead. we'll have our comedians' answers and name the winner when we come back on @midnight. we come back on @midnight. [cheers and applause] applebee's fan favorites quesadilla burger? it's a burger... inside a quesadilla. genius. hot. melty. cheese. fresh. pico de gallo. woah... mind blown. everyone's a fan with applebee's 2 for $20 fan favorites. ♪ ♪ ♪ let go and enjoy the bold margarita. lime-a-rita. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ can you say i love it? ♪ oh love it? ♪ can you say hey? â

president ronald reagan initially selected robert bork in july of 19-87. he was rejected by the senate in october of that same year. in less than two-weeks iowa will turn over management of its medicaid system to three private companies. the change was supposed to happen on january first. it was delayed when federal regulators determined the state wasn't ready. some lawmakers still aren't convinced the state is ready. 'if i called cms would they say everything is ready to go and marked completed and were going to move forward march first, couldnt speak for cms i dont know how they would respond what i do know is that we have agreed on....so we really dont know, we believe were ready march first government steps in again.. that is the date the transition will happen. the change is expected to save the state more than 100-million dollars per year. university of iowa police are investigating a disturbing case of sexual misconduct... and they say this is the man behind it. he's accused of a hiding in a girl's bathroom stall in burge hall last night and recordi

robert bork, and doug ginsburg. right now, the court is ex exquisitely balanced. as ronald reagan was to the presidency, so justice scalia was to the court. this next eleion needs to be a referendum on the court. the people need to decide. i'm glad the senate is agreeing for what i called for. we should not allow a lame duck president to capture the supreme court in the waning months of his presidency. >> does that mean you're going to filibuster anyone, anyone that the president nominates? >> absolutely. this should be a decision for the people, george. we have an election. democrats, i cannot wait. to stand on that stage with hillary clinton or with bernie sanders and take the case to the people. what vision of the court do you want? let thelection decide. if the democrats wand to replace in nominee, they need to win the election. i don't t ink the american people want a court that will stp our religious liberties. one that will mandate unlimited abortion on demand with taxpayer funding. people want a court that will write the second amendment out of the constit

. >> oh your bork doesn't fit in my bjorn. >> chris: now well, now the youth wing of the swedish liberal party has filed a motion to legalize incest and necrophilia! >> how else do you [beep] your hot dead swedish sister. >> i use to be on broadcast television, y'know. i'm not use to this. >> now you're in cable. >> my lord. but don't worry! it's only legal if a person gives written consent to someone making love to their corpse. that will make the reading of grandpa's last will and testament. so comedians, i want you to write your own instructions for what swedish perverts can do to your body after you're dead. we'll have our comedians' answers and name the winner when we come back on @midnight. [cheers and applause] ♪ schick xtreme3. 3 flexible blades... ...that adapt to any contour... ...for extreme comfort. schick xtreme3. try xtreme3 ultimate. more glide, better comfort. free your skin. someone's hacked all our technology... say, have you seen all the amazing technology in geico's mobile app? mobile app? look. electronic id cards, emergency roadside service, i can even submit a cl

>> reagan nominated robert bork in july of 1987, and then robert bork's election was rejected. he withdrew and then he went to justice kennedy and justice kennedy's confirmation moved forward. dial ideally in the reagan administration -- >> well would you have said president reagan, wait until the general election and let the voters decide. >> absolutely not. >> fair enough, politics by any other name. great to have you on set. >>> late they are week you don't want to miss two republican presidential town hall events in south carolina and hosted by cnn. all six republican candidates will participate, marco rubio, ted cruz and ben carson will appear on wednesday night. donald trump, jeb bush and john kasich will appear on thursday, both events hosted by cnn's anderson cooper. taking place live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. town halls will give south carolina voters an opportunity to question the candidates and of course the passing of supreme court justice scalia. that will be addressed as well. republican presidential town halls wednesday and thursday, 8:00 p.m. eastern right here on c

reagan first nominated robert bork, who the senate rejected after a long, bitter debate. reagan then nominated the less-controversial kennedy in november 1987. the senate confirmed him three months later - 97 to 0. democrats say with 11 months left in obama's presidency, there's plenty of time to confirm a justice. that was jonathan karl reporting. president obama was asked if people should assume he'd nominate a moderate to replace scalia. the president said we would nominate except that it would be someone who was well qualified. pope francis caps off his time in mexico today. he'll travel to the former "murder capital of the world" to visit mexico's northern border. he'll deliver one more of the world" to visit mexico's northern border. he'll deliver one more mass and is expected to pray for undocumented immigrants who have died trying to cross into the united states. and a scary moment for the pope yesterday. he was shaking hands with well-wishers when it appears someone pulled on his garment and pulled him over onto a child in a wheelchair. pope francis wasn't hurt,

obviously that was after the robert bork situation and doug ginsburg, god forbid, smoked marijuana years before and pulled as well. i don't doubt this action will be popular among republican rank and file. do you somebody who wants a republican to win the white house in november, do you not worry about how it might play among moderates, independents in pennsylvania, ohio, et cetera? >> i have zero worries. it's compelling to take the case to the american people and say the next president will decide the direction of the court. this isn't just a regular seat. this will change the balance of the court. it's far too important to be decided in an election year. i don't care about the thurman rule, it is important. a year isn't too long to wait. the courts will continue to function. all decisions will be upheld by the lower court. our democracy will survive. it's better to let people weigh in on it than let it be decided by a 6-8 vote. >> when the president was overwhelmingly elected in 2008 and 2012, that's the presidential election, do you serve for a full four years until january 20th when

president, i think that that person will have suffer the same fate as bork. this person i think would probably get nominated. that person would, and you know, that's part of the advice and consent process. >> should president obama do that with senator grassley? >> yes. >> do you think he will. >> yes, i'm confident he'll reach out to the senate and go through the process of advise and consent. >> i'm going to throw you a little bit of a curveball just this afternoon, a source told msnbc, it's beyond idle chatter. there's been some significant discussion you might be the president's choice especially under these usual political circumstances. talk about one person who could get through and maybe nobody else could. if the president asked you to do it, would you say yes? >> you never say to a president for certain you wouldn't do anything but i have no -- look at me now, i have no desire to sit on the supreme court, none. it would be a great honor for anyone, but i have no desire. ny more than george mitchell did. >> who do you think the president should pick?

and one year later, there was a vacancy, and justice scalia, judge bork, he was nominated in 1987 by reagan, but the democrats controlled the senate and so he was defeat. so the idea that anybody really knows the dynamic of what it's going to be this year if they put off this confirmation hearing is something that could republicans. >> let's talk a little bit about the next term. can you imagine, jp, cases the next time around? going into october, or with the announced intention that fewer cases are going to be heard? >> i suppose that's a possibility that could take fewer or less controversial casings but that could be problematic for every day americans facing problems, especially in the case of civil rights where we need these issues resolved in a timely fashion. just to back up for a second, are we really going to go two complete supreme court terms at full strength? that's a remarkable and unprecedented processing picture, and i don't think that we should accept that at face value. i'm reminded of a leader in a similar situation, where we come together in a bipartisan effort to

circuit and scalia on the supreme court and bork nominated. i was on the judiciary committee when scalia was nominated. conservatives,of this was this was an extraordinary individual and great loss for the country. the question immediately becomes what's the way forward. i have the view and expressed it early on that the next president should make this nomination. that certainly is supported by precedent. you would have to go back to 1888 when grover cleveland was in the white house to find the last time a senate of a different party from the president confirmed a nominee for the supreme court in an election year. in 1988, justice kennedy was confirmed but that was a vacancy created before that which bork was nominated and was defeated and the vacancy existed quite some time prior to the presidential election. so the question is who should make the decision. and my view and i can confidently say the view shared by everybody in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president. and the election under way right now. queffed th

the court has been politicized at least sims the robert bork confirmation hearings in 1987. and the court matters. at such a precipice, the country is polarized. if this is not a constitutional one. advice and consent mean that the senate gets to do whatever they want. and the american people can decide whether that's good judgment or bad judgment. but i think that if indeed the senate is not going to confirm anyone, it's better and more honest to say from the getgo, we're not going to confirm anyone rather than go through some theater fake hearings and vote someone down, knowing that we have no intention in the first place of confirming them. >> what about the professor's point that really, for a sitting senator to say we're just not going to recognize the articles of the president. >> are you talking about chuck schumer? >> no, i'm talking about this week. for mitch mcconnell to say, don't even bother to nominate nick. you dismiss the hearing process as kabuki theater, and it may be, but observing the niceties, let's say, it comes short. >> well, call it what you will. agr

robert bork, harriet miers, clarence thomas. this is nothing new which is why conservatives are so crazy that the issue. they are very nervous about this. patrick -- mary: what you don' t see is patrick running under the table after that statement by mcconnell. this is handing the democrats the sentence. -- senate. everyone who another with mitch mcconnell does ended their reelection. the fact is, when the republican business, this is exactly what is fueling the selection. saying one thing and doing another. not getting things done. play by different set of rules. people don' t want that and that is why they are so angry and this is why the selection is like that. why they think report -- why republicans think voters reward them for this is beyond me. everyone will and saying i' m aching constitutionalist. and in they go against the constitution on this because it says the president shall appoint. ed: so which candidates could benefit most from his record nomination? mary: none of them. crews might raise some money. but if this