Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi 20180627

So i just want to thank Justice Kennedy for the years of tremendous service. Hes a very spectacular man. Really is, spectacular man. And i know that he will be around hopefully for a long time to advise. Our special coverage begins with nbcs Pete Williams outside the United States Supreme Court and Chris Matthews, host of hardball here on msnbc. Pete, lets start with you. Tell us what happened. It was one of these thing we have been discussing for the last few days, that people have been anticipating but they werent sure it was going to happen. He was up against a deadline whether or not he was going to retire or wait until the next session. Actually im not sure there is a deadline. The Supreme Court justices tend to do whatever they want. The tradition has been that most of them announce their retirement before the last day. The last couple have been in march or april. Justice kennedy, i guess, believes in precedent because the man he relaced on the Supreme Court also announced his intention the retrier on the last day of the term. Perhaps thats why he chose today to write this letter and take this letter to the white house and hand deliver it to the president saying he intends to step down on july 31st. That means that the president is going to have to get a nominee up to the senate and they will have to get that nominee confirmed by the first monday in october if we are to have nine justices when the court convenes. This is going to be the biggest change on the u. S. Supreme court in at least half a sentry because we go from a court that had four solid conservatives and four liberals with Justice Kennedy in the middle. And now we are going to have a solid five conservative members. But ali, you said that lawyers sometimes pitch their arguments to Justice Kennedy. Tom goldstein has argued 41 cases before the Supreme Court. Is that true . Thats pretty true. Particularly on an eye deio logical question, the kinds of questions your viewers care about, abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, gay rights, he was the decider. Put it another way, of all the justices who could have retired today, is this the most significant. Is this a big deal . This is at biggest deal of a voluntary plausible retirement. Because if any of the other conservatives were to retire you would get Somebody Just like them. Justice kennedy has been holding back things to the right. Things like gun rights and Voting Rights he is a conservative. But you can get somebody thats a lot more conservative. Now we face this prepared of a Supreme Court without tony kennedy, who has been the deciding vote really for the last 12 years, ever since Sandra Day Oconnor stepped down. She was often described as the swing vote. When kennedy stepped into that position you heard tom say he was the decider. Some legal scholars said this chief justice is john roberts. But its really the Kennedy Court and not the Roberts Court because kennedy was often the fifth vote. Four liberals, four conservatives, often tied like today on the issue of Public Sector unions. The court was divided 44. Gorsuch got on the court. With kennedy you had a conservative majority. Its going to be a conservative court for years and years to come. It is going to be a huge change in the lineup of the court. We have a little more than two more years of President Trump nominating judges on the court of feel and the district court. The trump presidency, not just the Supreme Court but the lower courts as well is going to vastly reshape americas courts. It is the power of the presidency. It helps when you have the senate in your party. No kidding. All right, thank you for your coverage of that. Stay close. We will have a lot of it over the course of the hour. Chris matthews lets pull this back to 20,000 feet and explain why this is as monumental as it is. The subtext here is its the retirement of a Supreme Court justice. The main text here is that this could signal a monumental shift in the behavior the court, as pete said, for years to come. Certainly, if the president , trump, does what he tend to do, pick a conservative. Remember, when i interviewed him in green bay in 2016 and i asked him about a womans right to choose, he said there needs to be some form of punish men, some form of punishment were his words for a woman who chooses to have an abortion. His views are frightening, instinctive views to i a lou him to kick another Supreme Court justice is frightening. I used to think that row v wade was secure. I dont think it will be secure now. I dont think it will be secure at all with five hard nosed conservatives. Justice kennedy is a conservative but he is a Northern California conservative. Pete knows that, he went to stanford. Northern californians are conservative on economic and partisan issues but on social issues they are live and let live. They are tolerant. They have gay friends, they think in terms of a conmow poll tan setting. Thats what kennedy has been like. His decision in the lawrence case and the case involving california and that decision where he basically established Marriage Equality that wouldnt have happened under a regular hard nosed conservative pick by president. Now trump is going for it, going for roses, to get hive hard nose ed conservatives. What choice do the democrats have. They have to use delayer to tactics, all the hardball tactics that mcconnell is good at. What choice do they have. Dont allow a vote, dont have a hearing, dont allow anything to go forward. Dont play ball with this decision. This is almost july. With an election for the senate which is to thorring right now between democrat and republican. And they want to foist a judge who is going to be the deciding judge for the Supreme Court for the next 30 or 40 years in the last weeks before an election which will decide who controls the United States senate. That would be insane for the democrats to allow that. They have to use every tactic. Because if they let this come to a vote and he squeaks in with 50 votes with the Vice President supporting this. Which is probably how it goes. I tell you the mood of this party is not to accept more of mans explaining from the leadership of the Democratic Party. They are going to know why the base isnt heard on this. I tell you its going to be a noisy issue. Mcconnell spoke minutes ago about kennedys successor. Lets go out to capitol hill where Garrett Haake is standing by for us. Garrett, to chriss point moments ago, Mitch Mcconnell said never mind this election in november as far as i can tell there isnt a presentation this year. If his world if there is not a president ial election he is not interested in hoeding up a nomination for a Supreme Court justice. No, mcconnell would love to get this done quickly. Supreme Court Nominations is an issue Republican Voters care a great deal about. Democratic voters havent been as dialed in on that issue. I talked to several democratic elected officials and Staff Members about this this week its just not something that the Democratic Base has cared as much about traditionally but over the last week, having seen three major Supreme Court rulings against them i think you might be starting to see that change. I think you will see two fights in the senate this summer and fall assuming that the president is able to make that appointment judiciously and do so in a quick way. You will see first a fight amongst democrats to decide whether they are willing to use the hardball tactics that chris was just talking about. Whether they are willing to use every procedural tool in the kit the slow down the United States senate and see if they cant drag this thing past november on the hopes of potentially have a few more votes in the u. S. Senate and potentially forcing a more moderate pick to come their way. Again, thats that has electoral risks. It puts at risk other things that they are trying to do. So the question will be how far are democrats willing to go on that fight . Then once we find out who this nominee is, he or she, will they be acceptable to even the republicans . Remember, republicans have a onevote majority in the u. S. Senate right now. It is effectively 5049 with john mccain absent. That means any one republican senator might find something objectionable about this nominee. If they vote no, thats it. Game over. On the question of roe versus wade would murkowski or collins be willing to vote for someone whose views are opposite their own . This will be a battle all summer. We will talk about the important decisions on the court. Garrett, you havent been listening in the last hour or so because the president said clearly his nominate is going to be an outstanding candidate. So this idea whether it is going to be a good candidate hallee jackson was in the briefing room. Isnt that what the president said . Am i quoting him incorrectly. You aret woulding him correctly. The from the west wing perspective here, we were in the pool spray i was there representing the other members of the telephones pool and the president was clear he is going to choose the successor for Justice Kennedy from that list of roughly 25 people that he has put out. This was a huge thing for donald trump on the campaign trachl he was talking about getting a Supreme Court justice in place. It was hugely motivating factor. I will tell you based on my experience on the campaign trail for people who were coming out to those trump rallies, and in fact that is backed up by the exit poll. You look at the numbers here one in four voters for donald trump said the number one factor for them voting for him was the Supreme Court pick. Yep, why ep. This is an issue that mcconnell talks about constantly as you know, as garrett knows from his reporting on the hill, this is something that allies of President Trump will bring up in those moments when we are making calls saying what do you make of x, y, or z, one of the things that comes up is well he did get gorsuch. He talks about it at every rally. Side note. He has a rally tonight. What do you think he is going to be talking about north dakota. He will be talking about this. Pete not overstating this when he says this is one of the most consequential things to happen to the Supreme Court in decades. The president clearly ready to make this pick. As for the question of timing, i asked him should you pick a nominee and should congress approve it before or after the mid terms . And the president was sort of noncommittal on that. You heard that play out in the pool spray. Expect this to be a major, major talking point for donald trump over the next five months until the mid terms because why not . Its backed up by the fact that on the republican side people show up to vote based on this. One more thing. I had a conversation with the chairman of the Democratic National committee this morning, tom perez and we talked about the Supreme Court rulings and what is next as it related to the ruling that came out today. He said democrats have to get out and vote. Thats next. I think there is already a sense inside the Democratic Party that this does need to become a mobilization messaging piece for them. Right. As it is on the gop side as well. Chris matthews, to that point, thats why Mitch Mcconnell is not interested in having this vote any time after the beginning of november, right. Right. He needs this conquickly because if liberals realize that possibly maybe im overstating the case, if liberals realize that possibly abortion rights, gay rights are on the table, thises the last stand for 40 years, maybe. I have not been a person scaring people about abortion rights being taken away from them. But now once you lose kennedy you have lost that sort of moral force at the center and its gone. The guy who did vote for the lawrence decision, voted for Marriage Equality, the guy who swayed the court into libertarian or let live and let live in common parlance terms, and against this gay bashing. I tell you, if he is gone, this guy we are looking at right now, the Northern Californian, republican Northern Californian kind of guy and he is gone and they replace him with a classic mike pence type republicans god help us. Inthe democrats are just it is our party. They have got deal with it. Take this vote to the people. Take this Supreme Court issue of what kind of a country you want to live in to the people. You can do this you have got your issue. Somebody said that the democrats dont care about abortion rights and gay rights. They damn well do. They have to bring this issue to the public. Win or loss i dont think you can have a vote on the Supreme Court with a 5049 vote. It is an absurd it. It is one thing to get rid of the filibuster rule you about to allow it to be decided on a 5049 margin something that will effect this country for the next 40 years is a travesty. You have to look at the decades to come on this court where this nomination will be decisive on the major issues of our time. John, danny are joining us now. John, you were puzzled to what chris was implying that democrats should do about this. This is very, very much an historic moment for donald trump. It is not lost on him ever. He guess out to the rallies and talks about his judicial appointees. This is only a piece of the pie. He is going to break records in the number of people he appointed to courts. This will be his legacy. What are democrats supposed to do about it. I think chris is right on the emotion. I think he is right on the politics. I dont see, chris, you tell me, where the tactics are, given the mcconnell doctrine thats taken over the senate. You cant filibuster this aboimt because of the results they changed after mcconnell body blocked merit for a year. I agree. I think you are right. Its totally unsurprising. The Supreme Court has always been involved in our politics. There is this idea that it somehow floats above Close Encounters of the third kind. Thats never been the case. See bush v gore. If this becomes a campaignish knew a very explicit way it is a fitting chapter in this weaponization of everything in our political life. I would go to the democratic voters, Chuck Schumers job and the rhett of them. But i would go to to democratic voters and say the Supreme Court decided the election in gafr of george w. Bush and gave us the iraq war. You dont think it matters . They decided to take it out of the hands of the state of florida and the states, and rule that they are going to decide 54 for george w. Bush. They took the vote away from voters. With the gun issue, they laughed at the writing of the constitution and said its not about malicious. Everybody should have a big gun and all the ammo they can store. Then they did it with money. Instead of votes count dollars count. We are going to change the results of the election with dollars. And yesterday, if the democrats cant argue that the Supreme Court is political, pro run, pro gun, and pro money and antiimmigrant they shouldnt be in the business. Thats what the Supreme Court has become arc political body. They have got to get out there and fight on this one. I tell you, there are ways to do it. Susan collins is no right winge from maine. Murkowski is no right winger. There are people who can be drawn into the liberal side of this issue early on. Dont vote to the voters vote. You brought out why it should happen. The how is i think you hit on night leadership. Okay. But you have to get a republican to be margaret chasesmith, right. Right. You have to get someone to come over and stand in the breach the way she did against mccarthy in 1950. Thats going to require getting a republican. I dont think this is a democratic issue just because of the tactics. I think john mccain would have something to say. But it is an interesting resonance of history that you stated, she came from maine. I think when you come to the idea of roe v wade, and the to take away the undue burden question, throw it out the door, i dont think roberts would do that on his own but if there were people pushing for that who knows what he would hold on to. Part of issue here is the degree to which republicans and donald trump can galvanize republicans around his nominees. Halle jackson, for all this people think this president is wanton and reckless about stuff, he is not wanton and reckless about Court Nominees, particularly at the Supreme Court level. There have been a couple of federal Court Nominees that have been called back but not at the Supreme Court level. He has a list vetted by the Federalist Society and generally going to be approved by most if not all republicans who get a vote in this matter. The Federalist Society did a lot of leg work in coming up with the list. Obviously it was done with advisors here at the white house. That has been one of the more disciplined processes that we saw, the confirmation process for neil gorsuch, the meetings on capitol hill to meet with the lawmakers to try to persuade them to vote for gorsuch. Thereof in team in place to select him. That was something that the outside advisors to President Trump had a real lockdown. Remember, thats their issue, the thing that they care about. So that was something they were extremely focused on. You saw it sort of work its way through the process when it came to neil gorsuch. If the past holds precedent, that will likely happen again this time around. Here is what has changed, what you and Chris Matthews and jon meacham and danny is a val owes have talked about, the political sphere here. Its not about the president coming in a contention election with no good will from senators who might otherwise oppose his policies. The political piece of it has changed but not the logistical piece of it. Great analysis, halle, thank. The question about who might replace Justice Kennedy if Chris Matthews will allow that it gets to that point, the president had this to say about it. We have a list of 25 people that i actually had during my election. I had to 20, and as you know, i added five a little while ago. We have a very excellent list of great talented, highly educated, highly intelligent, hopefully tremendous people. So it will be somebody from that list. So we have now boiled it down to about 25 people. Okay. Thats the list that halle was just talking about. Right now, he isnt suggesting any candidates. When he nominated neil gorsuch there were two others on his short list, thomas hard minute, a federal Appeals Court judge in pittsburgh who turns 53 next month. Then judge William Prior a federal Appeals Court judge in alabama, he just turned 56 in aim. Mitch mcconnell said on the senate floor they plan to vote on Justice Kennedys replacement sometime in the fall. With me, andy card, former white house chief of staff to president george w. Bush. He happened john roberts as well as Clarence Thomas get through the nomination process and sammy alito. Thank you for joining us. To this process that halle was talking about, the president gets to put forward a name. This is one of those things that can be fumbled, can be messed up it has been messed up in the past to vetting problems and problems with who these judges are. But on this donald trump has outsourced his work to a group of people, the federal society, who are prepared to present names that actually will get approved by republicans. Well, the process every president should always have an every green process of what happens if you have to pick a Supreme Court justice. So they have had lists for a long time. And yes, the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation and others help to provide and vet lists. And im sure that there are several organizations that do that. But the president was prepared to do this even before he took office. And it is an ever green responsibility, as i said. And he will come up with a name. Look, i was opportunity to be able to work with lots of people who some of who got nominated and didnt get the job like carity myers. I looked with suitor, qularns thomas, john roberts, and i work with sam alito. This is an exciting time for the president. Obviously it is an exciting time for the political arena because the political process will pick the person. But they will serve before politics. And there is not a doubt in my mind that anyone on the list who is credible will recognize that he serve above politics when they are making decisions on that court. I dont think they are making political decisions. All right. I want to bring in jeff rosen now, the ceo of the constitution center. Stand by for a second andy. Okay. Jeff, you and i were discussing Supreme Court rulings this morning before we knew this was going to happen. I think the question that has to be answered for a lot of people out there in america is that while people have been concentrating on a lot of political issues the one that seems to matter most to a lot of people in the president s base and to the president is this, the composition of important courts in this country, the most important of which may be the Supreme Court. Talk to me about what major things we understand to be part of our american lore and culture could change with a change in the composition of the court with five conservative judges. Absolutely. There are a series of crucial fundamental issues where Justice Kennedy had ruled with the liberals and which could now switch to the conservative side. So you have discussed the possibilities of the overturning of roe v wade. While its true that overturning that might not have dramatic practical impact, justice binsburg said its impact would be mostly on poor women who dont have access. Marriage equality seems unlikely to be overturned because it has been accepted by the culture as chief Justice Rehnquist said. Then there was affirmative action. That was absolutely on the razors edge. Justice kennedy was the swing society. It could be struck down. The Death Penalty could be another issue. Kennedy struck down the juvenile Death Penalty and the execute the mentally ill. That could change as well. Then there are a series of other cases involving president ial power. There are some cases in which Justice Kennedy ruled against the president in theg guantanam case. Those are just some of the crucially central cases that could change. Thats why it is smart to vote for president s based on their Supreme Court nominees because the nominations are incredibly important. Go ahead chris. I think a question a lot of voters might ask, progressive or Senate Middle of the road people, suppose the president s nominee thinks like he does. In the 2016 election i asked him what should happen to a woman who chooses to have an abortion. Said there needs to be some form of punishment. In central park he wanted those kids executed. If he is like that. His nominee is like that f. His sherpa has to defend the nom know like President Trump. After meeting trump and thinks like trump, you how could they possibly pass they would have to be pro Capital Punishment all the way even for juvenile cases and then be for some form of punishent in. President trump poses as a very strong conservative on his social issues. But if he picks a nominee like that, who is so adverse to the likes of Anthony Kennedy, thats why democrats should not let this get anywhere near a vote before november. Jeff, do you see a possibility where the democrats can prevent this from getting anywhere near a vote before november . I think a lot of democrats would love for the vote to be held sometimes after november or january when the new congress has been seated. My sense is that if a majority of the senate really wants to do something they can change the rules to make that happen. I would expect to see someone concerned. Lets focus on the list. Those 25 names are not people who may agree with trump politically but they are strict constructionist conservatives from the models of scalia, thomas, and gorsuch. And good for trump for picking a list of conservatives who are both extremely able and are likely to rule in a conservative jurisprudencetial condition. There are good justices on that list. Main thing, we have to stress, i have been covering the court for 30ers yao. This is the most consequential nominee in decades. And its going to transform the constitution and possibly the country in ways we couldnt have imagined. I cannot underscore this. Chris has been yelling from the top of the hill on this one. There perhaps isnt anything that is happening in our politic today that is as consequential as the retirement of this particular Supreme Court justice. Yeah. And his replacement. Would you agree, chris. I want to get back to Chuck Schumer the leader on this, he is going to be fighting the parliamentary procedure fights that we mentioned here in terms of getting this to a vote before a november election. I dont see how he as a police, very smart, and knows his history could say to voters in the country we had to let it go because we are trying to try to play it safe in this election. We didnt want to take this issue of who gets onto the Supreme Court to the voter. He has to say to the voters this is sequential, we will do everything we can to protected you, voter, including progressive voters, from a Supreme Court thats locked in with a death grip by conservatives for 30 years. We are not going to let that happen. Nothing is more important. Ali, you asked that question, nothing is more important between now and the election, nothing, than stopping a hard right conservative from locking up that court for the next 30 years. Im trying to figure out how it happens but i think your analysis is spot on. Mitch mcconnell found a way to do it in 2016 and he gave the seat that should have gone to merit garland to gorsuch. Do you think, john. The senate is like dealing with the roman senate sometimes. But it seems to me its clear prima facie that without a republican juning a unified Democratic Caucus to oppose action without a majority, you would have to get a republican or two to do it. I agree with jeffrey, i think there will be a nomination and probably a confirmation. We have got viewers joining us right now. To those of you joining us right now, we are in the midst of covering remarkably monumental breaking news. Anthony kennedy, Supreme Court associate justice, has retired. We have been anticipating and wondering whether this was going to happen of the it happened this afternoon. Now, Justice Anthony kennedy has been known in recent years as the swing vote on the Supreme Court. He has been an important player in some of the height courts most important decisions over the past 30 years. Lets have a review of a few of them. The case he is probably most identified with is the 2015 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that all samesex couples have the right to marry. Kennedy wrote the majority opinions in all of the courts recent lgbt rights cases including overturning sodomy laws in texas and declaring part of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. Another case was the citizened united case that he played a role in in 2010. He wrote the majority opinion in that case effectively gutting Campaign Finance laws by allowing corporations labor unions and others to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advocacy n. 1992, kennedy coauthored a majority opinion in a case in custom the High Court Ruled restrictions on access to abortion cannot place a, quote, undue burdenen on a womans right to an abortion. This is important. In 2006 he rote wrote the opinion in which the Supreme Court ruled that detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay in cuba have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in u. S. Courts. You can see, its hard to peg this guy on one side or the other. But his role as a swing justice did not appear to be evident during his final term. In all 14 of the 54 decisions this term that divided alone eye deio logical lines kennedy sided with the courts conservative wing. I want to continue this discussion with Chris Matthews, jon meacham, danny is a val owes. Chris, you were in the middle of a thought. I just wanted to bring our new viewers in. You are advocating that americans realize that this is the most consequential thing possibly facing them right now and that all hands come on deck to prevent the appointment of a replace men before the elections in november . Let me put it this way. Take this matter to the people. Let the people decide who they want the senate to be run by. Its very close now. In effect its 5049. Imagine if it did come to a tie vote and we let mike pence decide who the next Supreme Court justice is. That would be absurdity. The cultural view of the Republican Party is very different than the cull kurl view of the Democratic Party and very different from Anthony Kennedys cultural views. Live and let live in terms of Marriage Equality, abortion rights, in terms of everything that has to do with living in this country. Ken dee was basically a libertarian. A Northern California republican. They make a lot of money and live free. I think the philosophy of Ronald Reagan and nancy reagan personally. He was their lawyer. I think thats at stake here. I think the democrats have got to protect this. He was ron reagans nominee in 1987 after two others didnt work. You are right, in his rulings on sodomy in texas it was about personal liberties and the governments infringement thereon. Danny, we have talked about times in which donald trump or his lawyers do not seem to understand the law or how it works. On this issue, he does understand, as andy card was saying, how to nominate someone who should get support of all republicans in the Senate Although chriss argument is if one of them or two of them break it could block the nomination. But the bottom line is the president does understand this process. You mentioned andy card. Ill reeling from him saying about eight minutes ago that he supported the nomination of Harriet Myers. Harriet myers is a lesson in exactly what we dont want President Trump the do, that is appoint his personal lawyer or try to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court. Guess who trumps personal lawyer is. Michael cohen. This is i honestly i will cede my moment to Jeffrey Rosen who is historian in this area. If he disagrees me that Harriet Myers is one of the worst nominations in recent history to the Supreme Court because she simply is not of the sal better that should be on the Supreme Court. And thats why the list of 25 that we have seen so far, to back up what jeffrey just said, is not necessarily a terrible list because they are qualified. They are knowledgeable. They are not a personal attorney or a pal of the president. So in that sense we should take some solace. Andy card is still with us on the phone. Andy, to this point, donald trump has decided to outsource this, as you have said, president s have lists. But some of them have personal or political connections to the people they have nominated. That doesnt seem to be the case in Donald Trumps world. He seems to put forward candidates who will be supported. I thought the commentary about Harriet Myers was over the top. It wasnt accurate. Anyway she is highly regarded, highly respected. Her name was actually introduced why wasnt she confirmed. Why did she withdraw. Justices of both parties. Her name came into the mix not because she was the president s personal lawyer. But thats another story. The president should not o outsource his responsibility. He has the constitutional responsibility. That doesnt mean he should ignore the advice of people who have worked very hard to suggest names. When i was working on the process, predator bush had me reach out and speak to people like ted kennedy, and what names would you recommend, ted kennedy . And he actually gave me some names. And i brought them to the president. And one of those names was actually considered in the process. So i suspect that the process can be open. It should reflect the priorities that the president has and the expectations of his partisanship and his philosophy. But the process will produce someone who i think will recognize they will serve not in a political capacity. They will serve to meet the letter of the law as they understand it. Thats the way it should be. I respect the process. I want this process to work. I hope the president nominates someone soon. I dont think that he should succumb to the trap of not having been ready. He is ready. Anthony kennedy is a remarkable leader and someone i have the greatest respect for. But we are also not surprised that he is leaving the court. So i suspect the white house has been working for a long time to be ready for this day. And the truth is they would be working to be ready for this day even if Anthony Kennedy wasnt ready to leave the court because you never know when somebody gets hit by the bus. To that point, Chris Matthews the president has been waiting for this day. Everybody knows it. He is going to be of a short list probably like he did last time. He may suggest three names, float them and see how it goes. In the end, it does seem to be in the president s interest and Mitch Mcconnells interest and the interest of the republicans to get this done sooner than later. I think the question that has been hanging over us the last hour or so since we heard about this decision by Justice Kennedy to retire in the summer is how do you find a Justice Kennedy. Not how do you find a qualified or super qualified nominee of the conservative background. But how do you fine someone who is conservative who does support gays to marry, supports a womans right. Why would donald trump want to do that . He knows where his base is. You are answering my question. How do you find guy if you are not looking for him. Lets ask ari melber, he is joining us on the phone. Msnbc chief Legal Correspondent and host of the beat with ari melber. This is not a deep philosophical exercise for donald trump. Its about putting someone forward who will get every vote in the republican conference in the senate. I think you are right. I got off a plane and saw the news alert and thought well this is the biggest decision donald trump will likely make in his first term. This is the keys to a generation of law. As your panel has mentioned, Justice Kennedy is someone through a series of decisions who struck kinds of a middle ground in a court that was lining right. You mentioned that on National Security and terrorism, in the guantanamo case, you mentioned Marriage Equality, you mentioned it on womens rights to have an abortion. There is no indication that donald trump is looking at Justice Kennedys legacy at this early moment to try to match it. Every indication is that he will outsource to others for things that the hard right wants thats bound to change this court for a generation or more. Again, if the only point that our viewers take away from this is that this is possibly the most important conversation we are going to have of all those that have come before us in the year and a half and awful those that are going to come ahead of us, the appointment of a young conservative justice to make it 54 court is going to be with us for a long time. Jeff rosen is standing by. I want to bring in an International Law expert and professor at yale college. Good to see you. Whats your read on this that isnt offense. The obvious read is the president has a list. He is going to nominate someone. That person is going to get the attention of the senate. If its up to Mitch Mcconnell it will happen before the elections in november. Thanks for having me at such a distinguished panel. Jeff is good friend and student. Before we just focus on the next person, maybe just a nanosecond, just a moment of tribute to Justice Kennedy, who is not just a vote, not just a swing voter but a person, a human being of extraordinary decency, a great leader, not just in what he how he has voted, but how he has carried himself throughout a long career of Public Service. A voice of moderation, of decency, of politeness, championing in everything he has done a sense that every human being has dignity. He is one part jimmy stewart, one part Ronald Reagan, one part earl warren, all californians by the way. There is a kind of sunniness that he has and generosity. The point Chris Matthews has been making. He is the one in washington, d. C. , real powers i would say maybe the last of the lincoln republicans, but the one person in washington, d. C. Who regularly crosses party lines, sometimes voting with democratic appointees, sometimes voting with ran appointees. Now just and he is a personal friend, and his family im close to the family. And i just want to give them, you know, just a big hug. Yes. Because its not just a vote. You know, when you think about voting for a president its not just the platform. Its who the person is. And persons married. And thats going to be hard to find someone with Justice Kennedys heart, as well as head. Now that said, the list i just wanted to do that before we focus we will have lots of time to focus on possible nominees. I know the list. I know several people on the list, like jeff, several people on the list are my former students. The once whom i know on the list are actually very impressive people. I am a democrat. I voted for hillary clinton. But the list is a distinguished list. And even if the person picked is to the right of Justice Kennedy on some issues, some of them are actually his former law clerks, that would only mean, frankly from a Political Science perspective that the middle of the court slifts to john roberts. It doesnt shift all the way to the furthest right person on the court. Then thats the new swing justice. There will always be a swing justice. Et cetera he a just where that swing happens. Just to remind everyone, john roberts is a very good man. And he actually he is more conservative than Justice Kennedy. Yes. But in the most important decision of his life the obamacare case he voted. Not the way everyone expected. It is an important position. Its swing position. Jeff is right, this is maybe the most significant vacancy that we have had in a generation at least. But lets first take, you know, a deep breath. No matter what, there are nine people on the court. And the eight that are left are all very good, even as they disagree with each other. And at most we just shift from kennedy to roberts as the swing. We are having conferring . Lets give him a shout out. I appreciate that. Lets go to capitol hill. Garrett haake is having a conversation with senator john kennedy. A different kennedy. Lets listen in. He was very unpredictable. Thats the way you ought to be. There are some democrats saying this should not be done in an Election Year. Mcconnell held a seat occupy during an Election Year. Why not hold a seat open . What mcconnell did was follow the bad rule. Which former Vice President biden then senator biden established when he was chairman of judiciary was that you dont consider a Supreme Court nominee during a president ial Election Year because obviously the president , whom ever it is appoint the nominee. But the we just confirm. We advise and offer consent. If it were an Election Year we could have that debate for a president. But its not a president ial Election Year and the biden rule doesnt apply. All senator mcconnell did was follow senator bidens advice when he held up the appointment to wait on the past president ial election. Just looking at my twitter feed i can tell you liberals, democrats are fired up about this right now. Sure. They want to see a fight over this, they want to see this get delayed until january. Of course they do. You know as well as anybody how slow the senate can move. Some are political. I think there are Many Democrats who see it my way. They just want somebody straight up who will call the balls and strike. But those who are political and republicans who are political, there are plenty of political folks up here in washington, are going to look at this through a political lens and say i heard some peeks say we ought to delay it intentionally after the midterm because it could impact the midterm. My response to that is rubbish. You know . Im ready to get somebody confirmed. As soon as the president nominates and i dont have control over this, im in labor. Im not in management around here. But im ready to meet on judiciary, ready to meet days, nights, weekend. Ill meet fourth of july. Lets get somebody ready to go on october 1 when the court starts. Given how narrowly divided the senate is and given the emotional issues decided by the court, should the president reach out to democrats, reach across the aisle and have this conversation about selecting someone that might be more of a consensus pick . Or should he take a pick from his list and say take it or leave it. If i were king for a day im not. I dont aspire to be. What i would do, and i wouldnt be surprised if the president does this, say look to the members of the u. S. Senate, and house, and anybody else, season me your ideas. Send the resume. If you feel strongly about them, then we can talk about it. I dont know what process the president used when he picked gorsuch. I hope he uses the same process again. It was a good result. He was working off a list. One of those on list is mike lee. Who you sit on a committee with. I think mike lee is whip smart. He slerked for the u. S. Supreme court. He is a student of the law. He is straight up. Hes fair. I think he would be a great justice. Im not saying that the president will pick him. I dont have any idea. But your question was, and i agree with it, that the president needs to, within reason take his time, consider all different opinions. But there is some man or women out there, probably several men or woman who would be a good justice. We can only go with one. But lets saddle up and ride. Lets do this. I dont want to have it just wait around until people can figure out the politics. Some of the experts are already telling us politically what we ought to do. These happen to be experts who have never run for an office in their entire natural lives and they are always wrong. You have seen how brutal these fights can be. This one is going to be brutal. That was my question. Do you think this is the thing we are talking about, the thing going on in the United States senate between now and and i would prefer to have a rational discussion. I know we dont live in l. A. L. A. Land. I know washington is close to l. A. L. A. Land. We will keep an eye on that. Garrett haake interviewing senator john kennedy, republican of louisiana. Justice Anthony Kennedys last decision was today. All eyes were on the high court after they issued a decision and a blow to labor unions. In a 54 vote the Supreme Court ruled that government workers who opt out of joining unions are not required to pay a share of agency fees because that violates their First Amendment rights. The decision overturns a 1977 case that prohibited the use of Public Sector fees for political causes like lobbying but said unions could use fees to cover the cost of whats called collective bargaining. Joining me now is mark janice, he is the plaintiff in the case and a Child Support specialist in the Illinois Deputy of health care and family. Mark, thank you for being with us. Tell us about your first of all you will go down in history not just because you had a Supreme Court case come down in your favor but it was the last case decided with kennedy on the bench. You felt it would infringe upon your First Amendment rights to have to have money taken out of your paycheck every monday to go toward a Public Service union . Thats correct. Because i did not get the chance or the opportunity to make a decision on my own. And i didnt have the choice as worker for State Government in the Public Sector to say why am i paying this fee . And why am i doing this . It was mandated by illinois law, like there is in 22 other states, and 5 million other Public Sector workers across the country. Was it a personal affront to you . Or is this a political or philosophical view that you have that unions shouldnt get to decide for you or spend your money or take your money . I think you have to look at the First Amendment and the fact that the First Amendment is wit United States that says, i have the right to choose my freedom of association. And because i was mandated and coerced to pay this fee out of my paycheck without any knowledge or thought of whether i wanted to or not, that to me is the personal part of it and thats the part that i totally disagree with. Do you think that there is some benefit that Public Service unions bring to their employees through collective bargaining . That was the argument of course that the people on the other side of this case were making. Well, i want to make the point right now that im not antiunion. I just believe that if you want to join a collective bargaining unit such as a union, you ought to have that right. And you decide whether, for yourself, whether you believe that union is doing the best for you or whether its not. And the point i make is that i didnt have that choice, you know. Whether i agreed or disagreed, if the union was good or bad, you know, i was still having to pay the fee and no one asked me and i didnt have that choice to do that. There are a number of states that have socalled right to work laws. And i know this is not exactly the same thing were talking about, but the idea that you dont have to succumb to the requirements of a union in order to do your job. There are some these are states that have right to work laws. There are some who believe that this Supreme Court ruling, if congress so wishes to pursue this, might lead to a federal right to work law. Is that something that you think is a good end goal . Well, you know, thats not thats not me to decide. Thats why we have congress, you know, thats why we have our legislation. The main thing i want to put forth is the fact that, you know, like every american citizen, we have a choice. You know, we can go left at this Street Corner or we can go right at the Street Corner or we can go straight ahead. And the fact that i had somebody telling me where i had to go on what i had to do was what was offensive to me. Are you satisfied with the ruling today . Oh, very much so. Very much so. You know, there have been cases previously, you know, like the fredericks case in california that was decided on a 44 tie because Justice Scalia passed away shortly after the arguments. I have to admit, after hearing some of the discussion this afternoon, that im very glad that Justice Kennedy decided to retire after my decision. I sure did not want this to go on again and have to wait another, you know, have to redo the case again. Ref rosen, i see you popped up on the screen again. I didnt have mark january s whe had the biggest news out of the Supreme Court the janus decision. With mark here, do you have a question for him . The question i asked you earlier, jeff, what ultimate impact this ruling has. A few hours ago this was the biggest thing i thought in the news. Well, listening to mark janus, i think Justice Kennedy would be proud to have his one of his last decisions be the idea that the government cant force you to embrace speech that you disagree with. And so many of his decisions had that theme from the one striking down mandatory graduation prayers. Of course, to the masterpiece keg an Citizens United case. I guess i would just ask mark a question. I know that Justice Kennedy would ask, which is why is it wrong for the government to force you to embrace a message that you disagree with . Well, i think its wrong from the standpoint that, you know, youve got the First Amendment. You have that freedom of association thats given to us by the First Amendment. You know, but yet i was not given that. I didnt have the choice as to whether i should pay or not pay. Its a matter of, youre going to pay regardless whether you believe in it or not believe in it. Mark janus sorry, jeff. Well said. Just to note the strong arguments on the other side by the liberals is youre not forced to endorse political views, but just the process of collective bargaining but i do think it is fit and appropriate that this was one of Justice Kennedys last opinions. My point on this is the fact that in the situation that i was under and the fact that we have the mandated collective bargaining, which is what in the state of illinois, the unions asked for. They asked for this allinclusive bargaining. And thats what they wanted and thats what they got. And the fact that people like myself dont have that opportunity, you know, to say yes or no is what i think is the main crux of the whole point here. Mark, congratulations on your victory at the Supreme Court and thank you for joining us right now. Mark janus is the plaintiff in janus versus afscme Child Support specialist in the Illinois Department of health care and family. Ali . Yes. I think this will be seen as yet another partisan decision. If you look at people that say the Supreme Court is not political, why was it 54, the five republican judges who vote today make george w. Bush the president of the United States, why was it the 5 before republican majority that gave us Citizens United which clearly helps the party with more money. They gave us the pronra position the howard case. They took us the basic what many people on the left and center left see as antiimmigrant legislation supporting what the president did in terms of his e. O. , his executive order, effectively was an antimuslim ban. All these decisions strike most people as partisan. Theyre not considered ideological, now coming against Public Service employee unions. By the way, the heart of the Labor Movement if you look at who is voting and paying dues is Public Service people, teachers like that. The larger percentage of the Labor Movement construction. Theyre going to see this. I think everybody on the left and center left is going to say, yeah, the Supreme Court is partisan against us. This is the big one for us. We better stop this. Chris, to your own argument earlier, though, if youre not looking for an Anthony Kennedy, youre not going to get an Anthony Kennedy. Youd take an Anthony Kennedy today. I dont think anybody is going to believe nobody is going to believe that this president who said women should be punished former president having an abortion. By the way, we never know. We had justice frankfurt and suitor have always surprised us. People going from right to left, left to right. Republicans thought they had suitor in the pocket. He goes to the left. The fact is you cant predict. So you look at the partys track record. They havent picked many Justice Kennedys. They have largely picked nonJustice Kennedys. People hard right on all social issues. I would say this is going to be the fight of the century. The democrats have to say no way, nonpresa rio. This is going to be like spanish civil war stuff. Somebody who has a strong view, elise hogue, National Abortion rights pro choice america. Elise, this chris is making the point that this is the last stand for progressives in america quite possibly given the way President Trump picks appointees. Yeah, absolutely. Im actually thrilled to hear chris make such a strong case for saying absolutely no way. I certainly think thats where our members are. Our phones have not stopped ringing off the hook. My email inbox is full. People are saying that. Public work, this is last stand. Tell me what to do. No one should proceed given trumps promise to put someone on the court that would be the 5th to overturn roe versus wade. Women are feeling in the crosshairs today and willing to go all out on this one. To that point, because ive been asking chris about this. Weve been talking about this. When somebody says, put me to work, what do i do, what does that look like . What does work look like in this battle . Work today looks like getting on the phone with the senators, thanking the ones who have already stepped up like senator gillibrand and said no way no how on any of these folks that were on trumps short list, and telling others to join durbin and others call to make sure that nothing happens before the november elections. And then work is a hard work of organizing and every community and every state. This is not an issue of democrat or republican. This is an issue of extraordinary human rights on the line for generations to come. And we are willing to make this, as chris said, the last stand. All right. Elise, does this you said its not a democrat republican choice. Youre going to have to get republican women to do this as well. Absolutely. I mean, one of the things that i have learned, being in the position that im in right now, is that, first of all, the history of abortion rights is certainly not a partisan one. The first state to legalize abortion was under a republican governor. What has happened, and i think we all know this, is a wholesale capture of a party by an extreme minority who has been working every single day for this fight. And we have to show that there are more of us, again, that a majority of rank and file republicans support legal access to abortion. Certainly independents do. Even 2 of democrats do. This will affect limiting access to abortion as well as contra exception, by the way, are already being and people know this is not just a question of womens welfare. Its a question of families. Its a question of human rights. Elise, thanks very much. Elise hogue of the National Reproduction alliance and jeff rosen, thanks very much. Danny, andy, thank you and of course chris, thank you for anchoring with me for the hour. Time now to hand over to our friend Nicolle Wallace. Deadline white house with Nicolle Wallace starts now. Hello, everyone. Justice kennedy considered to be the swing vote a uns nothing his retirement leaving donald trump to make his second appointment to the highest court in the land. Justice kennedy writing in the letter to the president today, quote, this letter is a respectful and formal notification of my decision effective july 31st of this year to end my regular active status as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. If you are republican who reluctantly voted for donald trump because you thought hed make the kinds of selections to the Supreme Court that youd find acceptable, today is your pay day. The day that the kinds of things that the president said on the access Hollywood Tape and trumps reluctance to stand with our allies while he cozies up to