he s making a political argument that the impeachment of a president would put a prosecutor in the place of supplanting congress responsibility to impeach. yes. i think it is important because it is not quite as dispositive of this question as we would like to think. on your question, if you think about how much fire kavanaugh drew. ted cruz hated him. we had, the whole federalist was posting anonymous posts saying, we won t be for trump if he puts kavanaugh up. what was the resistance to kavanaugh? it has been really interesting to me. i thought for a long time it was just that he wasn t a sort of religious conservative. this wasn t going to be the firefight that some of the evangelical community wanted. now i think it s just that they re not completely certain, ted cruz has been warning all along, he s going to be a suitor. are there any indications, he
there are social conservatives on the right who are worried about him in part because of one decision, a dissent he handed down related to the issue of an undocumented immigrant teenager who wanted an abortion. kavanaugh opposed her right to get it but didn t say he opposed it because he believed roe v. wade was bad law. some social conservatives read the ruling and say why didn t he go as far as he could and telegraph a more full-throated opposition to roe v. wade? could this mean he would be a disappointment to social conservatives the way suitor and kennedy disappointed them. at the same time he has a huge fan base in the larger conservative legal community. he s based in washington. he s close to just about all of the important washington lawyers. there is a host of people lobbying for him. he does have this issue with social conservatives that could be a little bit of a liability for him. all the politicking playing
where the supreme court pick is assumed to be opposed to roe and in the tank for the president. i think that we skipped a few steps here in this process. john meacham, how did we get here? we got here because of david suitor basically. sorry. i think we did. george herbert walker bush chose david suitor who was a largely unknown figure, almost entirely unknown figure. suitor proved to be far more liberal in the vernacular of the way we talk about these things than president burn ever anticipated. he told me, president bush did, that was a huge mistake to have picked him. and every president since has not wanted to be suitored basically. appoint someone that they believe would it was likely in any way to fall out of line with their basic philosophy, their basic dispositions of politics and jurisprudence.
justices bring different judicial philosophies to the table, and it s no surprise that those who come under democrats take ruth bader ginsburg. she s rewritten laws without real reference to the law itself. and the constitution. and that s common often the left much. do you agree with that? i don t. ruth bader ginsberg is one of the best justices on the court. what a statute is not clear. you try to make sense of what congress intend ed i do agree we don t decide the constitution by popularity polls. i think the most respected supreme court justices are the ones who try to get to the heart of the matter. you have someone like justice suitor, who would have been a great supreme court associate justice, merrick garland. and a very important part of
well, look. different people up for judgeships and to become justices bring different judicial philosophies to the table, and it s no surprise that those who come under democrats take ruth bader ginsburg. she s rewritten laws without wrefrns to the law itself, and the constitution. and that s common often the left much. do you agree with that? i don t. ruth bader ginsberg is one of the best justices on the court. you try to make sense of what congress intended. i do agree we don t decide the constitution by popularity polls. i think the most respected supreme court justices are the ones who try to get to the heart of the matter. you have someone like justice suitor, who would have been a