Is an agreement that Mitch McConnell

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

The iconic member of the United States Supreme Court, a liberal icon who died over the weekend and again that death is pushed. Control of the Supreme Court into this battle over the control of the White House and the control of the U. S. Senate and everything else that's taking place on Election Day. I want to begin with. We have Michael Liber, who is a Democrat attorney, and we have Jennifer Nevins, who was a nationalist, and also she's an educational consultant. They will join us in our number one and we'll be joined by an hour number two by Chris Roebling and Coco Soo Dick. But Michael Oliver. I want to. I want to talk to you. First about the decision by the president to move forward with a nominee. Ah, in his term this year. Your reaction to that. Well, I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised. Donald Trump is All about power. He is all about making sure his bass turns out. This is going to gin up his base. I think my bigger problem isn't so much with Donald Trump, who's breaking the rules from 2016 because he didn't set those rules. It's with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate, who changed the rules in 2016 and to serve their interests, not the interest of the country. Not the interests of justice. But the interest of the Republican Party and their donors and their power and now has decided to change those rules. On saying, Hey, you know, rather than wait until a new president gets elected. We're going to go ahead and fill this hole right now. Jennifer Nevins is here. She's a pro trump, not a Republican. She's a pro trump nationalist till your reaction. What rules are we talking about? There are no rules. We have 29 times 29 times We have had a nominee put forth by an outgoing or a president who's serving his first term toward the end of his first term. 29 Times. One has been nominated and confirmed. The rule that you're talking about is an agreement that Mitch McConnell under a Democrat, outgoing president who truly was a lame duck at that time because he he did not have an upcoming election, he said. We're not going to put it through its something that 12 other senators at that time agreed that they weren't going to do, but it wasn't because of a rule. They didn't have the votes. It was a Democrat president, and it was a Republican Senate. They weren't going to confirm Merrick Garland. And so they said, We're not going to do it and you know, so the idea that there's a rule there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional extraconstitutional in what the president's doing, and there's nothing unconstitutional about what any of these senators Dio that may vote on Trump's nominee. We know the Democrats would take this opportunity if they had this opportunity, no matter what they said prior just like what the Republicans said prior They would take this opportunity to use this hardball. Would you agree with that, Michael that the Democrats would do the same thing? I don't I don't know. And first of all, just to address Jennifer's point, there was a rule. There was a rule that Mitch McConnell put in place in 2016, he said, during if we're within a year of presidential election We're not going to have a confirmation. That's what he said. That's happening well, that that's the rule that he sat down. You're right. There's no constitutional rule. There's no rule in the bill of rights or the articles or anything like that. It was Mitch McConnell's and the Republican senators rules in 2016, they said. We're within a year. This happened in February of 2016. When Scalia died, and so we're not gonna We're not even going to have a vote. Now. That was the rule that they sat down. I personally thought it was a wrong rule. My feeling is if you are the president, you've been elected for four years, and if a Supreme Court justice steps down, you get to fill it. Unfortunately, the Republicans in the Senate decided to change that rule. Well, they should stick by it. And everybody can see their hip hop. But let me let me let me let me ask you this question. I would like to deal with the perception that some people have that its hypocrisy. That's what the Democrats have said. That's what the mainstream media certainly they're selling that narrative, right. Do you agree that there is some political downside? If they're able to fan the flames of hypocrisy and unfairness to undecided and independent voters. Well, it's not going to affect any of Trump's votes

Coming up next