Stay tuned. Well have senator Susan Collins announcement as soon as she comes to the floor. From there well know more. Thanks for joining us. Ill be on the five at 5 00. Im dana. Heres shep. Shepard the vote is tomorrow, but the big moment is right now. A live look. The floor of the United States senate where were about to witness what could be the Tipping Point for judge Brett KavanaughsSupreme Court nomination. At any moment now, the key republican senator from maine will announce how she plans to vote tomorrow. Susan collins holds all the cards. If shes a yes on Brett Kavanaugh, he is likely the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Big picture, theres four key senators today. Three of them are collins, joe manchin and jeff flake voted yes today. Jeff flake said he will vote to confirm kavanaugh unless Something Big happens. Susan collins hasnt said how she will vote on the actual nomination. Were watching the republican senator Lisa Murkowski of alaska. She voted against advancing kavanaughs nomination. Normally if you go against your own party in the motion to proceed, youll stay the course and do it again in the motion to confirm. She also said today kavanaugh is in her view maybe not the right man for the court at this time. The truth is, the republicans dont really need her. If Susan Collins votes yes, that is likely the whole ball game. Down this home stretch, top senators are making a final push on the senate floor. What left wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge kavanaugh so nothing short of monstrous. Judges are expected to be evenhanded, unbiased, impartial and courteous. Last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. Shepard after last weeks hearing, democrats noted that President Trumps pick showed political bias during the testimony. Some insisted he may have purgered himself regarding his past behavior and he did not display the right temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. Now judge kavanaugh is making his case one last time. He wrote an oped in todays wall street journal. The journals Parent Company and this networks Parent Company share ownership. The oped reads in part, it was very emotional last thursday. I might have been too emotional at times. I know my tone was sharp and i said a few things i shouldnt have said. I hope everyone can understand that i was there as a son,
husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my dad, my mom, my dad, my wife and my daughters. Dr. Christine blasey ford testified that i sexually assaulted her at a party when they were teenagers. The Supreme Court nominee denies the accusation. The stakes are high for judge kavanaugh and for our nation. If the Senate Confirms kavanaugh, he will replace anthony kennedy. The Supreme Courts crucial swing vote on issues like Marriage Equality and womens rights. Kavanaugh is a conservative and could tip the scales to the right for generations to come. At the moment, the likely decider is the senator from maine. And shes about to speak on the senate floor. Live pictures outside senator Susan Collins office right now. Lets listen. The pressure on Susan Collins could not be greater. This moment is of her own making. Senator collins could have announced her decision prior to this moment. Shes been seen speaking with Lisa Murkowski, the republican of alaska for much of the day. She was seen exiting a lunch with others and leaders from the republican leadership. Mitch mcconnell said to have been happy and doing well after that and seeming confident. What does it mean . Well know in a moment. Susan collins will leave her office, go to the senate floor and announce her decision shes told us. We have team fox coverage. First, mike emanuel who is live
on capitol hill. They are singing We Shall Overcome outside the office, this is her moment. No question, shep. Republicans are hopeful but eager to hair from maines Susan Collins who as you laid out is a critical vote. Jeff flake was a yes earlier. He said hes a yes tomorrow unless Something Big changes. Fox has confirmed that Mitch Mcconnell had lunch with Senator Collins. After lunch, collins said were heading toward the final vote tomorrow afternoon and i am optimistic. Earlier a senior republican called today an important step forward. Our vote today was important not only because it will allow us to move forward an conclude this process but it was important because it showed the United States senate will not be intimidated. We will not be bullied by the screams of paid protesters and name calling by the mob. With a vote 5149 earlier
today, these are still very, very anxious times. Shep . Shepard mike emanuel, what are we hearing from democrats here in the final hours . The one to watch is west Virginias Joe Manchin who as a senator representing a conservative state has a history in terms of supporting some people that republicans want confirmed. For example, hes the only Senate Democrat to vote for Jeff Sessions for attorney general. The only Senate Democrat to vote for Steve Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary and one of three Senate Democrats to vote for neil gorsuch for the Supreme Court. He said what goes around, comes around. In my 20 years on the judiciary committee, i have never heard anything like that or even close to that from a judicial nominee. Its hard to imagine how a nominee who has displayed such
raw partisanship could be a neutral umpire in the Supreme Court. Shepard Breaking News, Senator Collins is on the senate floor now. Lets listen. Sergeant [protesters in background]. As a reminder to our guests in the galleries, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. Senator for maine. Mr. President , the five previous times that i have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice
to the United StatesSupreme Court, i have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. But today we have come to the conclusion of a Confirmation Process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a characteriture than a solemn occasion. The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on july 9. Within moments of that announcement, special Interest Groups raced to be the first to oppose him. Including one organization that didnt even bother to fill in
the judges name on his prewritten press release. They wrote that they opposed trumps nomination of xx to the Supreme Court of the United States a number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominees identity was even known. Since that time we have seen special Interest Groups with their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaughs judicial record. Overthetop rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced shortlived headlines which although debunked hours later continued to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. Our Supreme CourtConfirmation Process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit, rock bottom. Against this backdrop, its up to each individual senator to decide what the constitutions
advice and consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamiltons federalist 76, i have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominees philosophy whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominees qualifications as long as that nominees philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics. But i fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have never considered the president s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, i voted in favor of justices roberts and alito who were nominated by President Bush. Justices sotomayor and kagan who were nominated by president obama. And Justice Gorsuch who was nominated by President Trump. So i began my evaluation of judge kavanaughs nomination by reviewing his 12year record on the d. C. Circuit court of appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review
articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service briefed me many times each week and assists me in evaluating the judges extensive record. I met with judge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearing. I spoke with people who knew him personally such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And i talked with judge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both
advocates and many opponents regarding judge kavanaugh. One concern that i frequently heard is that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care acts vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in seventh sky v. Holder, judge kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the a. C. A. On narrow procedural grounds preserving the law in full. Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts opinion upholding the a. C. A. At the Supreme Court. Further more, judge kavanaughs approach towards a doctrine of separatability is narrow. When a part of a statute is
challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for selfing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact. This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial protection bureau. In his dissent, judge kavanaugh argued for severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact. Given the current challenges to the a. C. A. , proponents including myself of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice that would take just this kind of approach. Another assertion that i have
heard often is that judge kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. The basis for this argument seems to be two fold. First, judge kavanaugh has written that he believes that congress should enact legislation to protect president s from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President , i believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. The fact that judge kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes the president does not have such protection currently. Second, theres some that argued that given the special counsel
investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President clinton in 1993 nominated Justice Ginsberg after the Whitewater Investigation was already underway. She was confirmed 963. The next year, just three months after independent counsel robert fisk was named to lead the Whitewater Investigation, president clinton nominated justice brier. He was confirmed 879. Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the president who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in the United States versus nixon,
three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. Judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that marbury versus madison, Youngstown Steel Versus Sawyer and the United States versus nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common . Each of them is a case where congress serves as a check on president ial power. I would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown versus the Board Of Education. One kavanaugh decision
illustrates the point about the check on president ial power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdahn Versus the United States, a case that challenges the bush administrations military Commission Prosecution of an associate of osama bin laden. This conviction was very important to the bush administration. But judge kavanaugh who had been appointed to the d. C. Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bushs white house ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, he said we dont make decisions based on who people are, their Policy Preferences or the moment. We base decisions on the law. Others ive met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedys retirement threatens the rights of same sex couples to marry. Yet judge kavanaugh describes the decision which legalized same gender marriages as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedys recent Masterpiece Cake shop opinion for the courts majority stating that the days of treating gay and lesbian americans or gay and lesbian couples as second class citizens that are inferior, indignity in worth are over in the Supreme Court. Others have suggested the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case, judge kavanaugh encouraged the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics overlook this point, jeff kavanaughs dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest and facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control. Theres also been considerable focus on the future of Abortion Rights based on the concern that judge kavanaugh would seek to
overturn roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in article 3 of our constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to Pay Attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent is not a goal or aspiration, its a constitutional tenant that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary
circumstances. The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in browns versus the Board Of Education overru