The Supreme Court, runaway judges are striking fresh blows against the trump agenda. Plus, is california senator Kamala Harris the female obama in waiting for 2020 . We are going to debate that with someone who ran in her california circle and knows her well. How President Trump plans to use America First to make a big splash at tomorrows nato summit. First, kavanaugh, democrats, and dinosaurs. That is the focus of tonights angle. Watching the reaction of democrats to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the high court is likely to give you ulcers. Their anger and unhinged rants are one part dystopian drama, one part plain old sour grapes. Kavanaugh, a federal judge who has occupied the bench for over a dozen years and written hundreds of decisions, is a man who is really scary because he coaches his daughters Basketball Team and volunteers in soup kitchens. Now hes being derided as a total monster because of how he might rule on abortion, obamacare, and gun rights. Actress Julianne Moore tweeted please. We must send the senate a clear message. This country cannot afford a justice on the Supreme Court who is likely to support the gun lobbies, extreme absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Message your senators now. Alyssa milano, still ticked that trump is the boss, tweeted Brett Kavanaugh has attacked womens rights, health care, and immigration. He is the trifecta of terrible and he must never sit on the Supreme Court. But it was this is us director ken olin who tweeted my favorite and arguably the most ignorant comment of the night, at least he admits his ignorance, writing i dont know what kind of judge Brett Kavanaugh is but he and all of the other white and in many cases old folks at the event look so out of date, so out of sync with what the world is becoming. What the world needs to become. A last gasp of a way of life were past. Sad for us. The this is us director believes old white people are apparently not us. Hollywood is not the only Community Reeling from the kavanaugh nomination. The shock could be seen on the faces and heard in the voices of the leftwing establishment. Dont tell ken olin, but many of the liberals you are about to see are, in fact, white and, in many cases, old. President trump, with the nomination of judge kavanaugh, is fulfilling two of his campaign promises. First to undo womens reproductive freedom. Second to undo aca. I will oppose him with everything ive got. He very well could be the deciding vote in whether or not a criminal prosecution against the president goes forward. This is a president right now who hears the hoofbeats of an investigation that is bearing down on him. To avoid a constitutional crisis, we cannot let this confirmation process go forward. Laura did Elizabeth Warren say hoofbeats . The last time i saw this many dinosaurs on fire, chris pratt was running from them. Voters may soon be doing the same. You have to watch these people. They are totally nuts. Did you hear what cory booker said . We cannot let this confirmation process go forward. Do you remember any conservative, any conservative talking in those terms when barack obama nominated elena kagan or for that matter Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court . The answer is no. Go ahead and critique a nominees legal reasoning. Question his view of the constitution. But to adopt an antifalike resistance that seeks to block the process at all costs or weaponize it is absurd. The truth is for all the histrionics, Brett Kavanaugh would have been a Natural Choice for pretty much any republican president. He served on the second most Important Court in the country for more than a decade and is widely respected in legal circles and widely liked among democrats and republicans. His nomination to the high court, its hardly a radical change. In 81 years, think about this, only three men have held this seat. Justice hugo black, Justice Lewis powell, and Justice Anthony kennedy. Justice thomas replacing thurgood marshall. That was the big swing but this is basically a slightly more conservative nominee replacing a generally conservative justice in anthony kennedy. The big change is that for the First Time Since the 1930s, the court could have a reliable conservative majority. Thats big. And this partially explains why some democrats are just going completely bonkers today. To block kavanaugh, dems are trotting out a new tactic. I loved seeing this unfold today. They now want to force nominees to answer how they would rule on hypothetical cases. Now, this is all meant to pin down a nominee on hot button issues. Here is senator richard blumenthal. You know, we have heard these phony platitudes again and again. We heard them from gorsuch. We heard them from now chief justice roberts. These evasive, canned, rehearsed answers are absolutely meaningless. No more business as usual. No more deferential or courteous acceptance of these phony platitudes. Laura a man who knows something about platitudes. Chuck schumers head seems to be in the same place. Here he is on the senate floor from yesterday. President trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protections for americans with preexisting conditions, give greater weight to corporate interests, and vote to overturn roe v. Wade. The next nominee has an obligation, a serious and solemn obligation, to share their personal views on these legal issues. Laura so now an impartial jurist is expected to prejudice his opinions and forecast his views during the confirmation process . Only a year ago, schumer was singing a much different tune. You cant ask a judge whos nominated or a potential judge whos nominated for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them. Laura okay, so what has changed . Probably this. A new axios poll of registered voters showing democrats losing three senate seats while picking up two currently held by republicans. What is the translation . The democrats will still be in the minority. Thats when chucks glasses fall right off the bridge of his nose. In the meantime, they will do whatever they can to try to turn up their base. They are desperate. The senate seems to be slipping away. Even if it means slashing away at a perfectly confident, very competent Supreme Court pick like Brett Kavanaugh, they are going to do whatever they can, but my sense is when the dust settles, these dinosaurs will be presiding over a fallen kingdom all of their own. And that is the angle. Joining me now for reaction are two esteemed attorneys, Sol Wisenberg with the deputy independent counsel into bill clinton and scott bolton. Great to see you. Lets start with you, scott. I think its completely fair game for the senate to use their constitutional responsibility seriously, question kavanaughs philosophy and approach to the constitution and ask about past cases. Thats what you should do. But what you heard from Chuck Schumer is something quite different. He is now demanding, contrary to what he said one year ago, one year and three months ago, that nominees must say how theyre going to rule on certain hot button cases. Or their philosophies. This is all about obamacare. This is all about abortion or roe v. Wade and its all about whether this justice, this justice nominee, believes the president can be prosecuted or subpoenaed. These are not hot button issues for the democrats. These are real issues, and when you take the gloves off in those senate hearings, if you look at the last five or ten that have been published or that weve seen, youve got nonanswers. You have questions that skirt the issue. The democrats and i think some republicans are going to come out and say tell me what your feelings or thoughts are on roe v. Wade. When he went to the d. C. Circuit, justice kavanaugh, he said he would follow roe v. Wade. But that was a mix because the problem with that is he was going to the d. C. Circuit. Now hes going to be on the Supreme Court. Why shouldnt we be able to ask laura i think you are wrong about that and i dont think conservatives will be happy to hear it. I think you guys are to be really thanking yourselves, thanking this president that he nominated someone like kavanaugh, who is to the right probably little bit of kennedy but the idea that Brett Kavanaugh is going to radically move to take the first Abortion Case and overturn, i dont see that. Prior opinions in all three of those areas. Heres the thing. When you use hysterics, what about the Justice Crisis Network who almost spent Million Dollars supporting laura aclu. The left is doing the same thing. Not 10 million. Why arent the democrats hysterical about the Justice Crisis Network . Laura you guys just want them to be unilateral. Lets go to Sol Wisenberg. The left wants the republicans to go into this fight without offering any defense of this judicial nominee. They have made this about legislating from the bench because thats what they want the court to do. They want the court to legislate new rights into the constitution that the framers never intended. Richard blumenthal, i want to share something with you that he said today. I could not believe what i was hearing. The snarly way he said it. Judge kavanaugh, you dont belong in this building as a justice. My colleagues should be a no on this nominee unless judge kavanaugh specifically commits that he will recuse himself on any issues that involve President Trumps personal financial dealings or the special counsel. Laura okay, sol. Explain that one for us. Theres absolutely no basis for it. There is no basis in ethics or history for the concept that you cant rule on a case involving a president if he happened to have appointed you. Rehnquist, if you recall, recused himself from the watergate tapes case but thats because he was a member of the Nixon Administration and a high official in the justice department. But its just ridiculous and youre going to hear more of this kind of stuff and you are right, laura, really ive got no problem with people opposing a judicial candidate because they oppose his constitutional philosophy or her constitutional philosophy. But the democrats dont want to play that game because then they would have to admit in public hearings that really they believe the court should just enshrine their notion of progressivism into the constitution. They really cant win an argument based on textualism and originalism. So they have to come up with these phony issues, and thats what youre going to see, its going to be very brutal. And its going to involve a lot of falsehoods. And the conservatives have to, republicans have to stay the course. Sol, why shouldnt the democrats and republicans be able to ask about specific issues regarding his view on roe v. Wade . Why shouldnt they be able to ask about his views on immigration and his prior cases that hes decided in the d. C. Circuit . That is not shenanigans. That is doing real good crossexamination, direct examination to get a feel for what this next justice is going to be. That is not shenanigans at all. That is real discussion. Because theres been a rule thats been followed for decades that a judicial candidate should not opine on something on a specific issue that may come before him or her. Its going on with both parties for at least the last 50 years. By the way, theres a lot of hypocrisy in washington, but theres no area full of more hypocrisy than judicial selection. As laura pointed out when she quoted schumer from the Justice Ginsburg nomination fight, the parties totally changed positions depending on whose ox is being gored as to what you can ask. Absolutely fair game to get into questions of judicial philosophy and you can find out a lot about a candidate when you do that, but its not fair game to ask them how theyre going to rule. Laura what did judge kavanaugh say last night . He said i will approach every case with an open mind. An independent view of the judiciary which i think most people believe thats what the court should be. We dont want a Supreme Court that acts like its a super legislator on these issues that congress cant get its act together on, whether its immigration or any of these social issues. Let those percolate up through the states and be handled in due course. You see after 45 years of roe vs. Wade, the issue is not settled. The country is still roiling over 50 million babies being over 50 million babies being11 killed in the womb because of the sacrosanct right that was emanating out of penumbras in the constitution. That didnt work and i think thats what the left wants to keep going. I want to play one more thing. This was feinstein on kavanaughs view of the Second Amendment. Because the issue of gun safety is so important to me, i want to mention how extreme kavanaughs views are in this area. He argued in 2011 against washington, d. C. ,s ban because weapons like ar15s are in common use. Kavanaughs views on the Second Amendment are straight out of the gun lobby playbook. Laura i mean, again, this is the most facile way of looking at case law. You know what brett wrote in the case . I have read the opinion several times. Laura its not our task is to apply the constitution regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principle or policy. That was a 2011 case following from heller. He is applying the heller case. The fact that they dont like ar15s, which are one of the most commonly owned guns in the united states, thats fine. California has rules against it but as a matter of constitutional law, its different than being a legislator. You conflate the issues. Laura i separate the branches of government. You conflate the issues in this regard. If youre going to be ruling on abortion issues, why should i not be able to ask you what are your professional feelings or your thoughts on roe v. Wade. Laura feelings dont matter for a judge. Your feelings dont matter. The constitution matters. Judicial philosophy. His judicial philosophy is well known. That is all i hear from the senators, that they disagree with his lower court rulings. Laura sol, final word, will he get confirmed . Yes or no . He will definitely get confirmed but the real question about roe vs. Wade that he clearly cant be asked, i dont care what you thought about roe vs. Wade when it was decided in 1973. The question is whether or not it should remain valid law if a case comes before the court. Everyone would agree thats just something you cant ask somebody who is a judicial nominee. Have to try to glean it from his writings. Laura we cant prejudice future cases. Fantastic segment about the view. Thank you. While the left goes to extraordinary lengths to paint kavanaugh as monster, we expose the actual threats inside our court system when Andy Mccarthy and judge Michael Mukasey join us next. This wifi is fast. I know i know i know i know when did brian move back in . Brians back . He doesnt get my room. Hes only going to be here for like a week. Like a month, tops. Oh boy. Wifi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. In many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40s. Laura okay, while the media are in an absolute panic, meltdown, case of the vapors mode, there are federal judges right now undermining the president s agenda. The latest example, Los Angelesbased u. S. District court judge dolly gee, an obama appointee, on monday she rejected the Trump Administrations request to allow children who are Illegal Immigrants to be detained together with their parents. The judge called the Trump Administration filing a cynical attempt to undo a Longstanding Court settlement that prohibits children caught at the border from being detained longer than 20 days. But is it . Are federal judges overstepping their bounds by legislating from the bench . One judge can affect National Policy or bring policy to a total standstill. Here now to explain further is former federal prosecutor and fox news contributor, andrew mccarthy. Andy, this flores settlement that we have talked about for quite some time continues to haunt the immigration stance of this president , specifically this problem of family units or people posing as family units crossing the border and thinking they will just be released into the country. Trump and sessions wanted to put an end to that, but now they are against the same Federal District court judge that had shut down this process before for obama. Where are we . Its a real tough problem, laura. Although i would say as far as this judge is concerned, that far from a cynical attempt to undermine the law, i think what the Trump Administration try to do here was to get this reversed the right way which would be to go to the court and go back to the litigation where the settlement was originally entered. The fact that they didnt succeed was predictable, but i do think they did it the right way and the honorable way. But the problem here really is this is a terrible abdication by congress. And its a great example of what happens when you legislate through litigation. So basically what we need is congress to say here are the rules and the conditio