Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much for inviting me. Its long overdue. Sorry its under these circumstances but see what youre doing since retiring. What are you busy with . Theres a little place in the bay area. Our Main Residence near palm springs right now and with covid, kind of doing that. And have been giving a lot of speeches but with covid, we have been realizing we had to do it virtually and im a Teaching Fellow at usc, teaching a course in demystifying politics and governments. A lot of work to do in that area. Yes, certainly. And i hope you can teach us a thing or two in the ten minutes we have here. I do want to give you my condolences because youre part of a sister hood with Justice Ginsburg, elected in 1993. Year of the woman following the confirmation with claerns thomas, and then Justice Ginsburg nominated and confirmed in 1993 the year after, talk about that era, the year of the woman, i thought that was a bit exaggerated. It was 26 in the senate but that was tripling the numbers. It was a big deal. When i got there clinton nominated the wonderful Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she came into my sphere and my life. Not that far behind her. I experienced the same sort of prejudice she did and we had a wonderful arrangement, the women and it was pretty wonderful thing. We got more and more women in the senate. We did all believe in equality. Minute one, before she got to the court. She was leading the way. Some of her early cases actually, represented men who were not being treated which was genius on her part, if a man is a plaintiff in a sex discrimination suit, if you win it, it works both ways. Brilliant about the way they fought cases, before she got on to the court. And then once she got on the court, she sent strong signals, equal pay for equal work and she lost that, saying they ruled, saying she missed the statute of limitations. Congress, its up to you and because of that we all Work Together and barack obama signed the Lily Ledbetter i love that picture. Those who have equal pay, paychecks equal to a man who does the same job over a gratitude of thanks. I want to ask you, so President Trump said he will announce the nominee late this week after r two e ginsbu ls in repose when do you think the confirmation process should be taken up . Merritt garland, Barack Obamas nominee after scalia passed away. And Mitch Mcconnell said, it is unseemly to consider a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. That was 10 months before the election. This is days, weeks before an election, and there are at least six or seven republicans who are on the record, Lindsey Graham, for example, pulled me to the side. Would never appoint anyone, take up an appointment in an election year. And dont say youre for a principle and a couple of years later say, that was then, this is now, we need to hold their feet to the fire. Its absurd and i hope that the leaders of the democrats and the house and senate will use every tool at their disposal to slow this down, to show the people what these republicans said. We only need four of them to not vote to move forward. Well, i do want to point out that despite what happened in 2006 with merritt garland, i know you were there for that but constitutionally, the president , of course, has absolutely the power to nominate thats not the point. The point is, the president. And the republicans declared this. Not just off the top of their head, they went on record. They looked out there like im looking at you and they say, we will never do. This is wrong. Regardless of what the president has the right to do. They could declare war today, that doesnt make it right. In 2013, before democrats, the minority in this case, has more of an ability to stop this, but back in 2013, under senator harry reed who was the majority leader at the time, they eliminated the filibuster on traditional nominees by allowing the process to advance to a vote through the simple majority rather than the 30 60 vo60 vote and the republicans said this would only rupture the system further. Were republicans right . Do you regret that happened . Couldnt get one judge confirmed for obama. For the lower courts, take away the filibuster, but thats all, thats all over now. What we have to do is win this election and we have to also, in this particular period show everyone what the republicans said, clear as clear can be. Never, never have a vote upon confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year. Period. Senator Lindsey Graham reminded a lot of that all weekend weekend. What do you think about that, pros and cons for her and for democrats coming up on the election. I say no cons at all. Shes brilliant attorney. She will know the questions she needs to ask. I hope it doesnt get that far, frankly. I hope that theres many more republica republicans. Theres Chuck Grassley, all of these, they said the same thing. And a lot of them are running, so maybe theres a way this can slip, but if Kamala Harris is there, she should just do what shes always done in these hearings. Get the questions straight and get out there and get to the truth because shes very good at that. Very good at it. Senator boxer, our last question. You said politics was still a noble profession. Do you still believe that . Ive got so many things im proud of, across the aisle. People cross the aisle to me, whether it was environmental protection, afterschool care. Things i did for vets. It was all bipartisan. Thats gone. And weve got to get back to the point, thats why i think joe biden is a good candidate because you dont have to compromise your ideals. But you find the sweet spot with people on the other side of the aisle and he knows how to do that. Barbara boxer, good to see you you. It is quickly becoming one of the biggest debates in the u. S. When should the seat of ruth bader and we are back. An unfortunate result to the passing of started almost immediately following her death. When should her replacement be selected . Joining us now to get more on this, law professor at u. S. Hastings school of law i know youve seen her speak in person. She visited hastings in 2011. I think Justice Ginsburg legacy is important to anyone who cares about equality. Shes written very fundamental decisions in areas of gender equality, areas of Voting Rights. Fie fiery dissents, with the ills of racial profiling profiling. This is the second shortest time between vacancy and the election. The shortest time was in the 1800s who passed away 27 days before the election after president lincoln. Generally speaking, the average of time that passes from the nomination to the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Passes somebody forward to the senate is 46 days and then before the senate, an extra 26 days. So the timeline would be very, very short if theyre pushing to confirm someone before the election. Mitch mcconnell has every reason to get a justice on the bench before election day. Theres so many uncertainties. But i want to ask you, what do you think the decision will be based on for him . In terms of deciding whether to push for before the election or perhaps wait until the lame duck session afterwards . Confirming an additional conservative justice is going to be a huge boon to the conservative side of the map. No arguing about that but theres also the concern that this particular stunt is going to alienate centrist voters who might be uncomfortable ramming a justice through so shortly before the election and could put in jeopardy vulnerable republican seats including the seat of mcconnell himselfen and think this is part of the costbenefit analysis trying to go forward. Two generally said theyll not vote on a justice before the election. Were talking about Susan Collins and lisa murkowski. Theres a number of other vulnerable republican seats and those are facing pressure not to do that but remains to be seen whats going to happen. Theres a big difference between doing this before the election and doing this during the lame duck two months between the election and the confirmation of the new president should biden receive the presidency and after the results are known and before the actual transition of power, there wont be the same consequences as before but by that point, we might be dealing with a very different scent. Democrats have gotten a nominee through lame duck before, right . So there have been nominations Chuck Grassley making the argument theres a tradition not to nominate anybody during the election year. Two successful nominees during election year, one of them in 19 1988, this is not exactly fair but theres this bitter memory from something that happened in 1968. The year was 1968 and chief justice warren, seen president nixon, president ial nominee rising in the polls and didnt want to risk the situation to not outlive the presidency and personal beeves and decided once he saw the election was going to go nixons way, especially after the assassination of robert kennedy, he went to president johnson and said im going to retire as soon as you nominate someone and who was then an associate justice to the chief justice seat and then harry thor thornbury and not just among republicans but johnsons own party and it was made very clear this was not going to go through. It then came to light they had dealings with enjoying a privately appointed to American University and a consequence, when nixon took office, he could immediately nominate two justices and that was basically the incident that started the entire reversal. This can backfire and does sometimes. Were going to take a short break on the air. When we come back though, i want to explore with you the concept of possibly expanding the court, a lot of people throwing out there, should the democrats and we are back with law professor at uc Hastings School of law. Hadar. Can the democrats, right, should they win the white house and the senate majority, expand the court and if the answer is yes, what is the downside to that . I know i know i know i know o opposed this in 2019 and learn to rue the day if we do this and sometimes when you do partisan moves like this, you undermine in a way the opposite side can explo exploit. We saw the same thing happening in 2014 when they eliminated filibuster and if the democrats go ahead and appoint six more justices, the following year, the republicans appoint 15 more justices and that completely undermines public confidence. I could see arguments on both sides. When the Supreme Court blocking his new deal, his own party resisted and he was not successful pushing through legislation to do it. That could shake the confidence in that institution. Isnt the Supreme Court one of the institutions left thats held in the highest esteem by the American People . I think generally speaking, trust in the government has gone down considerably in the last couple of decades. The Supreme Court ranks a little bit better than most but i think that these kinds of strategies could lead to an undermining of the Supreme Court and thats, i think, a concern that democrats will have to discuss, if theyre put in the position of having before the election. Dear friend, the late justice antonin scalia, other justice on this court. In what ways . Justice ginsburgs primary impact in the area of gender equality, as a lawyer arguing before the court and later as a justice. Gender equality, shes written important decisions in cases of Voting Rights and shes been a staunch defender of reproductive justice. This is partly why one of the interesting things that might happen now is that Justice Ginsburg could energize christian evangelical voters that might not be enamored with trump but care a great deal about abortion and a chance to get somebody in the Supreme Court to overturn roe v. Wade. Certainly energizing. No matter how people feel about this issue. What should be appointed and where they should individually to influence this process. People comfortable, put put t pressure on republican senators seats are vulnerable and might be thinking twice costbenefit analysis in trying to control the timing of this nomination. Before we go, i just have a Historical Perspective of how weve got here. Supreme Court Nominations is coming down to a 5149 vote and we think thats normal. Thats not really normal with the history of the u. S. , right . Thats exactly right. It used to be the case, i mean, typically they appointed justices from the same Political Party and shared basically the same opinions, but the person was legally qualified and professional excellence really important characteristic, if that was the case, people very seldom provoke contentious arguments and in fact, the hours that the hearings before the Judiciary Committee and before the senate took greatly expanded in the last couple of decades. It used to be the person was qualified even if the senators didnt agree with them, the nomination would generally go through and weve come to partisan times and considerations. These are unprecedented times in so many ways. Professor hadar from uc Hastings School of law. Thank you for coming on the show and sharing your insights. Thank you, and good luck to all of us. Yes, please dont g thank you for joining us on getting answers. We talked