Great to see you tonight thanks so much we mention to Senator Susan Collins of Maine. We told you shes in a tight race for reelection. Earlier this month she told the New York Times about seating, a Supreme Court justice in October. She said she would not do it heres. The quote, I think thats too close. I really do she also said she would oppose it. Seating, a justice in the lame duck session thats the period between the election and the inauguration. Should the President lose Brit. Hume is Fox NEWS, senior political analyst and we are happy to have him join us tonight. I want to jump into the politics and it made no disrespect, but I think its important. This suggests that if LISA Murkowski and Susan Collins are both on the record saying they will not vote for a replacement before the election

that suggests that this cant happen. Does it not? I might also add that that Lindsey, Graham back in twenty eighteen before he took over the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, said that even if we were just into the primary season, he would not want to see a nominee advance in the election year. I might add this. I think Mitch Mcconnell has laid out what his principles are for this and, as Bret Baier mentioned earlier, its yes, we would go forward and the only circumstance under which we wouldnt go forward in the election year as if the President and the Senate were of the opposing parties, which at this point they are not. That would set the stage for a nomination to be made in advance, but I think the circumstances may have changed since he outlined that our american institutions right now and our political system were undergoing a stress test as

difficult and intense as ive ever seen. I go back to the 60s when we had the tremendous upheaval and turmoil over the Vietnam WAR and the divisions that provoked what we are seeing now is more intense than that. I think leaders have to consider what the effect would be. If we plunged what would undoubtably be a brutal and divisive confirmation battle into the middle of this, I think that is the threshold question, whether to even make a nomination trumps instinct undoubtably will be go forward, but whether Mitch Mcconnell will feel that way as the majority leader of the Senate. At this stage, I think it is unclear it will be good to hear from him in the first thing. Hes going to want to do is if he decides its an idea worth pursuing whether he would have the votes. If youve got people like LISA Murkowski and Susan Collins, and possibly someone like Mitt

Romney not prepared to go along, you might not be able to pull it off, no matter what you did. Those are things that have to be considered as to whom, if any want to nominate to replace this brave soul who waged such a courageous fight against cancer. I think its fair to say that you cant count on Mitt Romneys vote im going out there on a limb with that. The other thing is, if youre, the leader of the Senate and youre, trying to hold the majority youre going to have to look at a lot of races out there to look around and see how this might play. You have people like Cory, Gardner in Colorado and so forth, who is in a tight race and others? You will want to know what injecting this new broad battle into the whole picture. What the effect would be, it might be rallying come off the top of my head, I dont know

these are all things that are going to be under consideration, but I think the threshold question is whether to put the country through this, as you and Bret Baier were talking about earlier. What we saw with Brett Kavanaugh remember: the Kavanaugh nomination was to succeed a centrist on the court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the leader of the liberal block to try to get her replaced by a conservative jurist. A judicial conservative would provoke an even more intense battle. I think the handling of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination by his opponents was the worst thing ive seen in my years in Washington. It was the absolute bottom I hesitate to imagine where such a battle over this would go. We are being held hostage. I have to ask you lets say the administration puts forward a name, but the Senate doesnt cooperate, but that reminds all of us that one of the effects of your vote in

November is choosing the next Supreme Court justice. Does that help the president or help his opponent? It would rally his base. It would rally the Republicans, because the court is something that is considered to be a crucial matter, its considered crucial by both parties, but for slightly different reasons on the left. The Supreme Court and the lower courts have been the place where they have been able to go to achieve policy objectives that they couldnt achieve through the legislative process, either through the states or in Washington. There have been a lot of results through the years by activist judges in the eyes of conservatives that they found disagreeable their purpose and nominating justices has been to stop that action to bring the courts back to a more traditional role where they closely adhered to the

language of the constitution and well understood constitutional principles. Liberals will give you an argument and say they werent activist and ive heard it many times and im. Sorry I dont buy it. Thats been the struggle, the struggle by the left to advance its agenda to to the courts and struggle by the right to block that the right really hasnt succeeded in advancing all that many novel constitutional or legal interpretations to the courts. There has been some big argument. For example, over gun rights was settled by the Supreme Court, although its still going on so there you have an example. The feelings are very intense on both sides. Make no mistake about it. President trumps articulation of a list of potential jurists did a lot to rally conservatives to his cause in twenty sixteen, when they werent necessarily going to go

for him. They didnt know at the time there was going to be Hillary, but it was important to him and might have unimportant rallying effect as well. They would like to.