all right uh ruth bader ginsburg being
remembered now by a country that uh
marveled at her legal mind um
i'm no expert on these matters but i i
did like to read her dissenting opinions
sometimes because
they were barnburners but she was a
brilliant writer um
and anthony scalia as well no wonder
they were very close friends uh judge
anna napolitano himself a brilliant
writer and legal mind
on the significance of all of this but
you know judge i i certainly don't have
your legal bones here but i
one of the things i did notice in
reading from many of our opinions
how passionate and brilliant they were
laid out whether you agreed or disagreed
you could say man that's a
that's a convincing argument and i i'm
i'm wondering i mean that that's
something
that's in short supply pretty much
anywhere today what do you think
uh good morning neil it's always a
pleasure to be with you sometimes uh
judges
write using arcane language
as if they are only writing for other
judges and legal scholars
and sometimes judges write in plain
english
so that almost anyone can understand
what they're talking about
both justice ginsburg and justice scalia
were in the latter category now they
viewed the constitution in
in exact opposite ways to justice scalia
the constitution was an instrument of
restraint
to restrain the court and to restrain
the government
to justice ginsburg the constitution was
an instrument of change
to change the government and to change
the culture
so as to make it more fair to more
people
interestingly even though they looked at
this document in exactly the opposite
ways
justice scalia said it means today what
it meant in 1789
justice ginsburg says it means today
whatever we say it means
they sometimes ended up on the same page
and they sometimes
agreed with each other judge what
have you uh we're getting word of a
short list down on that
apparently from that very long list the
president had when he added these 20
names including a few u.s
senators but getting particular
attention you hear or mention quite a
bit is
judge amy coney barrett who the
president placed on the circuit court of
appeals i believe
and another uh judge appeals court
judge barbara lagova i guess a cuban
american um your quick thoughts on both
both are the type of human being that
president donald trump promised from
before he was president
pro-life pro-second amendment
very justice scalia-like in believing
that the constitution is an instrument
of restraint
clearly in the scalia camp i don't know
if they'll be confirmed
the last conversation you had with chad
pergram and nobody knows more about the
congress
nobody on the planet than chad indicates
that's going to be difficult even if it
were
mother teresa but in terms which it
can't be
but in terms of complying with his
promises
and delivering to his base either of
those nominees would do that for the
president
you know we talk about these vulnerable
republicans running for reelection who
are leery of this this has already
become a big issue her kavanaugh vote
for example for susan collins in maine
and why she might be leery of beginning
this process right now
so it's not a given that you have every
republican on board
um she could ultimately vote against
you know a presidential pick regardless
uh and and the number of other
republicans likes burkowski of alaska
possibly no less than chuck grassley um
who used to chair the judiciary
committee
then you got to look at the possibility
if they can't keep it to three can they
pick up
i don't know it's three who peel off to
protect the vice president being the
tying vote
can they pick up any democrats
regardless
it's going to be a tortured process
isn't it
you know uh tip o'neill once said all
politics is local i i think this year
might be an exception
i think the the senate races are going
to be national and this
is going to be the issue and justice
scalia once said there's only
one reason that politicians vote the way
they vote and that's to get reelected
so without impugning the integrity of
anyone the so-called
six vulnerable republicans we all know
who they are
will do what the polls tell them to do
if they think
getting this nominee on the court before
election day will help them get
reelected they'll do it
if they think of forcing a vote on this
person before election day
will cause the democrats to take the
senate they won't do it
and we won't know what the polls say
probably for
a couple of days you know judge
let's say um the president chooses
someone i'm choosing someone very soon
he's already indicated that he's going
to move on this
um mitch o'connell said he's going to
act on this and that
all the others who were raising concerns
in the republican party that maybe they
talk less to the media and keep their
powder dry
but what if we get to election day we
still haven't decided on this then
you're into a lame duck session i know
there have been
nominees approved and one or two not
approved during such sessions but it
gets weird right so how do you think
this plays out
well if donald trump is re-elected i
don't think it matters if he nominates
someone in the lame duck session
if joe biden is elected and president
trump nominates somebody in the lame
duck session
you'll see extraordinary pressure
to prevent this vote from uh from coming
to pass now
trump's a tough guy he's going to do
whatever he wants to do whether it's for
his
re-election bid or because he really
believes this person whoever
she or he may be ought to be uh on the
court
but as chad said the confirmation
hearings
for then judge now justice kavanaugh
will probably pale
compared to uh what we can expect this
time around because this is a game
changer
ruth bader ginsburg is a was a liberal
progressive democrat from the liberal
wing
of the democratic party if you know what
i mean president trump is going to
appoint someone who will be
her polar opposite that will
significantly
and substantially change the outcome
of five to four votes on hot button
issues
like obamacare second amendment
and abortion
you were right and then some judge thank
you very much
napolitano