hungry, when in fact he is a dyed in the world, hard right fighter. and that s what he will be on the court. it s it s called the ginsberg rule because ruth bader ginsburg when she was approved at 96-3 didn t answer 70 specific questions from senators. from that point on, answering hypothetical questions about how you may rule is not done. chris wallace joins us again, your thoughts on really questioning? as i often do, i feel like i saw a different hearing than he did particularly on the question of abortion. i actually think there will be some pro-lifers who will be a little bit concerned by the answers of judge kavanaugh. i remember back when arlen specter was the chairman of this committee, i used to talk about precedence, super precedents and super-duper precedents. basically a super-duper
and say in 1992, justice kennedy affirmed roe for three reasons, it is embedded in society and second the test was unworkable. third, there were no social changes that you would called it into question. judge kavanaugh, do you agree with justice kennedy or are any of those three other factors different? if he demurrers, you say, judge kavanaugh, conservative judgments say certain cases like roe become super precedents, they are extended in future cases. you can be off and running. you argue in the journal today. i think very effectively, jeffrey, that these are not theater, there is actually a lot of substance there to be gleaned. it s remarkable how educational these hearings are.