Court is out this week. Again, i have to say, you have great timing on your book. I had to pay extra for that. Good to see you, paul. Paul let me ask you about any Coney Barrett. Youve followed her career, describe how she thinks about the law. She clerked for scalia and her approach is similar to justice scalia, the firm originalists, original public meaning of the constitution, closely to the text, the plane meaning not good rather than trying to define legislative intent. We have the softer approach to start, the strength of president and whether he should be overturned somewhere between scalia and thomas on that. Shes written a lot of academic writing you can look at for that kind of approach. Shes spent three years on the seventh circuit, i think shes been 72 majority opinions different areas of law. Very thoughtful and thorough, i dont think anyone say shes not qualified. Paul on this about the president s, out to pursue that a little bit because in the critics im reading in the popular press, their hitting that a lot, a lot of liberal professors calling her views radical, suggesting she would somehow join a majority now that could be six three, willynilly overturned, all kinds of president s. Is it accurate . I dont know whether there are five votes to overturn all kinds let alone shes being a sixth. When we talk about roe v. Wade, that used to be at the bottom, what everyone cares about, i dont know if theres more than one or maybe two currently overturned that. The margins of abortion regulation, i think you see certain restrictions, regulations upheld there currently being invalidated including this past term but in general, scalia was devoted to start, its not ever overruling the high bar. Justice thomas is pretty much every case he thinks is wrong we decided is ready to overturn. Shes somewhere between that. This is nothing radical or outside the mainstream, different judges, different academics and different approaches. It depends on each area of law. How much would it up turn social expectations of the institutional reliance thats built up over a certain president s . Those are not hard and dry positions. Paul one of her opinions on the seventh circuit left out, a dissent in a gun case about a law that barred felons from former felons, from having guns. She descended from a and said you can far, the state can bar guns ownership in some cases but they have to be dangerous. What you make of that . Shes taking the text and history seriously of the constitutional protected rights to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has been derelict in not flushing out the scope of the Second Amendment so the lower courts have been all over the place. The seventh circuit generally has it better than most and judge barretts colleague has been a leader in writing about the scope of the Second Amendment but i agree historically, if you look at the common law, the purpose of the balance of the right to arm, they were all violent. Now with the expansion of the federal and state criminal cod codes, you have all sorts of felonies that have nothing to do with dangerous criminals so the restriction on owning guns, especially after decades might not make sense. Paul so last week, you told us a new justice, however it would be, somebody, i think judge barrett, would mean chief Justice Roberts is no longer necessarily the swing vote. I assume you stick with that but how else Justice Barrett change the court . As Justice White is to say, every justice makes a new court. The personal relationships, who can convince you most, who listens to the others. The top line is john robert is no longer the median vote, probably will become Brett Kavanaugh, baby. It might depend on the issue, it could be gorsuch, it could be fair in some cases but given that shes somewhere between scalia and thomas on both the credential approaches and other cases standing or other things, it would be an interesting mix. She would be close to gorsuch on some things, close to thomas on some things. Undoubtedly close to capital and their looks at history and those things. Obviously also a woman on the court, conservative women. How does that change the dynamics, something to watch for but a different dynamic behind the scenes. Paul thank you for coming on. Much more on President Trumps Supreme Court pick as we await the announcement, less than two hours from now. Mitch mcconnell is found to vote on the nominations this year but can he get it done before the november election . Should he . Vote on this nomination this year. The American People elected our majority in 2016, theyve shrunk and further in 2018 because we pledge to work with President Trump on the most Critical Issues facing our country. The federal judiciary was right at the top of the list. In. Paul Mitch Mcconnell vowing to vote on President Trumps Supreme Court pick this year and he appears to have the vote to move forward before election day with only two oaxacan senators think they do not support going ahead with the confirmation hearings until a new president is chosen. Mcconnell get the nominee to the confirmation process before november 3 . How important is it to do it . Lets bring in our calmness. Dan henninger. Kim strassel an Editorial Board member, kyle peterson. Dan, you heard shapiro, what you think about the choice of any Coney Barrett . Dan i think its an excellent choice. I like the idea of a conservative woman eating on the Supreme Court. That is long overdue. I think amy barrett going to be a very productive and beneficial addition to the court as well as our politics. The basic argument is she does not believe judges should read their own values into decisions they make, they ought to discover whether the decisions are justified in terms of the constitution or the laws as they are written. Judging in the last 50 years has strayed a long way away from that. Reading into the decisions, i think the fact judge barrett will push back against that, as indeed Justice Gorsuch himself has revealed his desires as well in these opinions. I think thats rebalancing so all the way we think about the law, which Justice Amy Barrett will do, its long overdue. Paul kim, he said last week you thought he was important for the repugnance to move forward before the election so they look like they are doing that, do you think they can get this done in less than 40 days . Kim absolutely. Here is one of the other great merit to amy coming barrett in addition to everything, she was elevated to the circuit just three years ago, shes been through those fbi checks, shes met with some of the senators ad shell have to do it again, of course. Shes had practice with all of this. Shes been vetted. If they keep to the schedule is put forward, there should be no reason why she shouldnt be out of the hearing, out of the Committee Vote and have a full vote on the senate before the end of october. The question will be, will democrats throw procedures low blocks, probably. They will have that on their hands. Paul kyle, what about the argument about her catholicism . She said about catholic by all about. She said it would not affect her decisions but nonetheless, it seems like critics are rolling that out once again. Will that something that gives her troubling confirmation . Kyle i think it can backslash on democrats, they have to walk that fine line. The questioning of barrett a few years ago, its part of what turned her into a conservative hero. Especially in the middle of an Election Year, i think democrats have to walk a fine line in attacking a working, churchgoing mom. Paul thats interesting. Why do you think, kyle, mcconnell was able to get 51 votes here, 51 senators so quickly behind the idea of voting before the election . Kyle they no broken voters care about judges, they saw the last time around, just kavanaugh battered but unfair tax and in the wake of that, voters came to the polls and they know President Trump is appointing justices, as he promised. Paul dan, what about the argument you hear from democrats now saying well, this is just a case of hypocrisy by the Republican Party because four years ago, they wouldnt move on garland and now they are overturning that view because they are voting on an Election Year even later in that year to confirm the nominee of republican president s, how do you respond . Dan yeah, that is the world hi mind on this argument. The does take place forgoes all. Can we quickly went through what happened in the past four years, paul, starting with the russian collusion narrative which was preposterous, proven preposterous and then the Mueller Investigation into trump that took us nowhere finally the impeachment of the president , now after all of this political mudslinging, we are supposed to suggest the publicans, or trump, should hold off for moral highminded moral reasons on naming a nominees to the Supreme CourtPresident Trump won the election in 2016, its true the republicans have expanded the senate, majority 2018 and here they have the opportunity. Which of the democrats had it, they would take an eyelash so lets move forward with it. Paul kim, you agree with that . Is there any doubt in your mind if democrats were in that position, that they would fail, they would move ahead with the nominee . Kim not any one tiny ittybitty smidgen of doubt. [laughter] theres no question this would happen. Again, i think mcconnell has it right, this was a priority for republicans from the beginning, theyve always made that clear. Moreover, the standard he laid out all the way back when garlic was up, you dont confirm if the opposing party hold the senate. That is not the case right now. Republicans have the senate and the white house. Paul thank you, all. When we come back, democrats fact to repel the if republicans still, what is on the table if they win the Senate Majority november and how is joe biden responding . Next. Its on the table. Democratic colleagues and candidates, no America Needs change. We will figure out the best way to do on Chuck Schumer this week saying everything is on the table, publicans move ahead with the plan to move the seat left open by the Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Hoping to win back the majority in the senate november and some are calling for major changes if they do, including killing the legislative the buster and packing the Supreme Court. Kim, first of all, lets talk about the democrats, theres debate about whether they will go to the hearings, maybe of them boycotting the hearings and moved to show they are somehow illegitimate, what you think they will do . Kim i think they have to go to the hearing, paul. Than that will be a real test of how the nominee plays in the election. People talked about President Trumps decision simply to do it, will it affect the voters . Politics is theater. I think theres a moment coming here when we have these hearings. It could be very risky for democrats because if they go after and unload on this woman, that may not play very well out in the country, it backfired on them and 2018 with Brett Kavanaugh but they will have to go, i think they will have to ask questions, voters will view it as their duty and we will see how they behave. Paul kyle, how seriously you take these threats of number one, getting it of the legislative filibuster and a narrow majority, maybe packing the court or also threatening, some are threatening to add to states, district of columbia and puerto rico which could add four more democrats in the senate. Should they be taken seriously . Kyle i think they have to be taken fiercely given how the democrats are talking about them but the one democrat who is not talking about them is joe biden. His asked recently about this plan and he pretty much refused to answer the question and the thing im wondering is how long he can possibly get away with that as we get those are two november 3. Paul why is he, if the democratic senators, safe there will be great for the senate chances, why would joe biden duckett, why would he say you cant trust donald trump . One reason is last year, he said he didnt want to pack the Supreme Court, they would rue the day they did that, it would be with three justices and they have three and then there goes the legitimacy of the court. It would look like a a flipflop and a radical solution. The last time, it backfired and it may again. Paul so dan, do you take these threats seriously . As an argument out there republicans should be highminded, they should not go ahead with confirming the justice because as you mentioned, the last segment, we will all just disarm and if you go ahead, youre going to force us to be radical and we do the court. Is there any sense to the argument if youre republican, should you say i think if we disarm, they will, too . Dan yeah, sure. If you believe that, ive got a bridge in brooklyn i would like to sell you. The deal thats been broached is if the republicans stand down, dont confirm cody barrett before the election, they will have a promise, quote unquote, not to pack the court for the next five or ten years. Does anybody seriously believe they would conform to any such promise after what weve been through the past four years . It just doesnt strike me as likely at all. I think what we will see is the democrats are going to use the barrett hearings as a platform to raise some issues they want to use and the primary election relates to the court, they were asked her over and over again for her views on abortion. She said in the past she believes roe v. Wade is a subtle precedent. Nonetheless, they will keep asking it. Maybe appealing to the roman women voters, making them concerned perhaps a conservative justice would overturn roe v. Wade, is not going to happen i think its going to be the politics of these hearings, appealing to voters both in the general and president ial election and some of the senate races. The nomination is secondary to those schools. Paul kim, lets assume she is confirmed. What is the impact of that on the election, both senate races and the president ial . Kim again, i think a great deal will come down to how these hearings operates. The decision by donald trump typically nominator and republicans go forward, it tells you a great deal about how important this is too conservative voters. We havent mentioned that but i keep reminding people if the president advocated here and said no, we will just way or the senate said no, revoke and voters would have been livid. That, i think, would have lost them. Now the question becomes the political theater, how do democrats act these hearings . Do they go on a character assassination as they did with Brett Kavanaugh . I think it is risky especially with suburban women out there watching and a big voter group up for grabs but we are not going to know about the impact of this nomination and confirmation until the process is done. Paul my view would be, i dont know the impact on the election but it is too important constitutionally not to go ahead. So go ahead, confirm and see what happens. Still ahead, president ial nominee set to square off first debate with joe biden, a tremendous advantage when they take the stage in cleveland. A panel on the expectations and whats at stake in tuesday night showdown. Next. All eyes are on cleveland were President Trump and democratic nominee joe biden was were off tuesday the first three president ial debates. The first one moderated by foxs own, chris, the two candidates on the Supreme Court, the coronavirus pandemic and the economy, recent violence in major cities among other topics. What should we expect as the president and former Vice President take the debate stage . Going to go through the stakes for each candidate, one at a time. Lets start with joe biden about the challenger but leading in the polls. What are the stakes . Kim in some ways, hell be introducing himself in a certain way to the country. Hes been in the senate a long time, yes, he is a Vice President but the joe biden of today is not that guy anymore. His party has changed a lot, hes changed with it. There a lot of unknown questions other people still dont quite know where joe biden is. The stakes for him to come out, make the message he wants to make that hes uniter, he would heal the country but the question is also going to be, this he get to the tough questions and can he answer them in a way that does not alienate his progressive base or more moderates in the country . Paul lets turn to donald trump, hes the president incumbent much better known that hes trailing, that usually means its a bigger burden in a debate, especially at first debate to make an impression that you want to make. What does trump have to do . Dan i think one of the things he has to do is talk about his handling of the coronavirus. It hurt him, hes gotten way over 50 disapproval on his handling of the coronavirus. I think a lot of it was related to the early press conferences which he kind of warded over. The Trump Administration has a pretty good story to tell about the way he dealt with the virus, the development of the vaccines, operation warp speed is called. I think its going to give the president an opportunity to explain what hes done the last six months because its going to be a constant attack by joe biden that donald trump has put us at risk with his handling of the coronavirus. The rest have gone so far as to suggest most of the deaths from the buyers are attributable to donald trump so you have t