Supreme court justices. Ive never seen one like this. She seems to have no opinion on certain things, even though she has written a great deal about them. She has passed actually a litmus test. Shes told us that she has, shes criticized the Affordable Care act, and she does admit to that, because of course we have the written statement shes made. She has never defended it. She has never defended womens rights to choose. She wont say whether ivf, which is often used today, is a crime as some of her supporters say it is. It was really a strange hearing. Host how does aan reluctance stand specific cases and cases that become before the court, how do those responses compared to recent Supreme Court hearings, both republican appointees of President Trump and the democratic appointees of barack obama . Guest i think the fact that she does want to talk about any possible pending case, i have no problem with that. Thats appropriate. But we were talking about cases that she has decided, statements she has made, writings she has made and she doesnt want to go into those. And, of course, what you have is, and this is probably not her fault, but you have the president say over and over again i want to put this person court so that she will vote to do away with the Affordable Care act, do away with the coverage of a preexisting conditions, and then went further to say i want her on the court because if i haveve to contest this electionn the course, i want somebody who is going to rule with me. Im summarizing what he has said in numerous tweets, and thats not an easy job to summarize Donald Trumps tweets, but he has made it very clear he expects her to role with him on the Affordable Care act and he expects her to defend him before the court if theres a contest in the election. And i asked her, i said can you state, and with cases that go back into the 1700s, that the president is not above the law . The president , for example, cannot harden himself. And she did not want to respond to that, even though were talking about over 200 years of settled law. That concern me. Host your republican colleagues spent a good part of the week talking about the qualifications of judge barrett to write to the Supreme Court. What concerns, if any, do you have about her qualifications . Guest she is on the circuit court. Shes been a professor at notre dame, and is certainly more qualified than a lot of the judges at the other courts that the white housee has set up. She does not match the qualifications of a ginsburg, and i think she would be one that would admit that. But thats not so much the point. What hasas happened here is, first, we had the Republican Leadership say you will not have a nominee heard in an Election Year. They block merrick garland, a a judge that numerous republicans as well as democrats have said they would support. Wouldve been a consensus nominee. But because president obama nominated him, Mitch Mcconnell and the Republican Leadership said we cant do this, weve never had a judge in an Election Year when the president is of one party and the senate of the other party. Well, of course we have had. For example, Ronald Reagan nominated anthony kennedy, a democraticcontrolled senate, and found him nearly unanimously in an Election Year. And then of course the chairman of the committee, lindsey graham, said you can take me at my word, we will not have a hearing if we run past the time of the preliminary leading up to the election. And, of course, he went back on that and immediately said, we have had the conventions. We know who the nominees the nominees are. We will not wait until the election. We will break all president , break all the rules and were going to ramdisk nominee through for the election. Host let me ask youh on the election, do you think republicans particularly and the senate will pay a price at the polls over this nomination . Guest well, i think the whole country pays a price in this way. I think that the senate, which is supposed to be the conscience of the nation, has been badly diminished by breaking its own rules, by having its leaders break their work over and over again to the American People and to their fellow senators. That has diminished the senate. The courts. We have to assume that the Supreme Court is credible and the federal courts are credible. The respect that people normally have for the court is going to be greatly diminished. I have tried cases in trial courts and appellate courts. I even had one that went up to the Supreme Court. I never thought, as i went into those courtrooms