Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Trump: I Think SCOTUS Nominee Choice Will Be "Next Week"; McConnell Vows Senate Vote On Trump's Nominee To Replace Ginsburg; Remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg; CDC Reverses Controversial Testing Guidelines. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired September 19, 2020 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to a second hour of PRIME TIME.

You know why we're here on a Saturday night, our special coverage continues on the death of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, irreplaceable, as a public servant, a warrior for equality, a three letter force of nature in American history, the notorious RBG. But of course, she wasn't notorious. She was celebrated and famous. Her life was not about notoriety. It was about adding value, and representing the best of us, the best of diversity.

So now what? What does it mean for the laws of the land that we've lost Justice Ginsburg? Her dying wish - one of them, was don't do this until after the election, so it will not be about her wishes. It's going to be about politics and power.

Now, what will it mean to you, the voters and the election? You now know what this means? Supposedly, Democratic coffers are filling up, but it means a lot to the conservatives as well also. Another justice, six to three, in all likelihood, that could be a generation of jurisprudence.

So Trump is preparing to name a nominee for her seat as soon as next week, though one vulnerable Republican senator has the guts to tell him to wait until after the election. That would be Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think we're going to start the process extremely soon, and we'll have a nominee very soon.

REPORTER: Senator Collins said she'd like to see the next President be the one to nominate a Supreme Court justice - what's your reaction?

TRUMP: Who said that?

REPORTER: Senator Collins. TRUMP: Well, I totally disagree with her. We have an obligation. We won. And we have an obligation as the winners to pick who we want. I could see most likely it would be a woman. I think the choice will be next week. Yes, I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Can't put this on Trump to be fair. Obama was arguing the same thing. They elected me. I'm here. I'm supposed to do the job. Doing this - figuring out a nominee, putting it to the Senate its part of the job, I'm going to do it right up until the end. Why wouldn't I? That was Obama's argument. Then it was Mitch McConnell, who came up with this newfound principle of let's let the people decide.

Now, they're trying to dress it up and say, "Well, that's because Obama was a Democrat, and we were Republican, so the people had given a mixed mandate." That's bunch of BS. OK. This was the President's job, and it was the Senate's job to hold the hearings. That's doing the job. So don't dress it up. It's just about power. OK.

Democrats, what do they do? Can they do anything? What does this mean for what they would do if they do get into power? Joining us now Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal. Welcome back to PRIME TIME. And I don't want to be remised to all my brothers and sisters of the Jewish faith, Happy Rosh Hashanah. It is the New Year. It is a time of hoping for better going forward. Shanah Tovah to all of them, to me and to you.

Senator, what do you make of this situation? And thank you for joining me as always, God bless the family.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Well, thank you so much for having me, Chris, on this holiday and a happy, healthy, sweet New Year to you and everyone who's listening. Here's what I make of this situation right now, Chris.

First of all, I'm still dealing with the grief and shock of losing Justice Ginsburg, a real giant, an icon who broke barriers from the classroom to the courtroom. I argued three cases before her on the United States Supreme Court. Three out of the four I argued as State Attorney General for Connecticut.

[19:05:00]

And she was sleight of stature, soft of voice, but she packs a powerful punch. Her questioning was so incisive and insightful. So we're honoring someone's legacy, who really helped to expound and expand fundamental rights, and we should honor that legacy and remember her.

But also part of her legacy was her wish. It was her dying request that no nominee be confirmed until after the election, so the American people could have a voice. And I think that is not only her dying wish, it's a fundamental principle of democracy when we have only 45 days before the election. And that's very different from Barack Obama's eight or nine months before the election, when Justice Scalia died.

CUOMO: I understand the political argument. We'll see how it resonates. I mean, there's certainly no rule, and this is really just about a naked power play. Can the Democrats do anything to slow it down enough to push it until after the election?

Not to mention, you've got a huge case coming up right after the election. You basically have a case that could decide the fate of the ACA. I think November 10th they're supposed to hear arguments. Do you think in the ways and the politics and the maneuvers between now and then you can buy that much time?

BLUMENTHAL: That's really a key question, Chris, and I'm so glad you mentioned the ACA argument, because it shows what is at stake - the future of healthcare in the United States, this administration is seeking to decimate it. That argument involves the administration as the moving party, as the plaintiff, trying to destroy American health care.

And I think part of our strategy here is to take the case to the American people. I - speaking for myself, I'm going to fight like hell, because I believe the American people ought to have a say in the appointment of a justice who will have such a real impact on real people, not only health care, but women's reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights and civil liberties, gun violence prevention, marriage equality, all of them causes championed by Justice Ginsburg, and as part of her legacy.

CUOMO: Listen, I hear you on the argument. It's just - the counter is one you know so well as a litigator, let alone is a genius in the Senate, which is, yes, they did have an election. And they have a president and they have the composition of the Senate and this is how it plays.

I guess, the rejoinder from you will be, yes, we'll see what happens now if they do this, and we win the Senate. There's this calls on the Left, you know what, if we get the Senate back as Democrats, we Democrats should blow up the filibuster for everything. And we should expand the Supreme Court so they can't do this anymore, and write into law that you need 60 votes to undo this law that we're passing right now. What do you think of that?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, first of all, we have an election. My Republican colleagues should be held accountable. The American people should hold them accountable. If they break their word - Mitch McConnell said so well, that the American people should have a voice in the election year when the President is being elected, so did Senator Graham and Senator Grassley.

The American people ought to hold them to their word, but also every one of my Republican colleagues, because every one of them can be a swing vote and they will be held accountable in this election. And so far as the focus right now mine is on stopping this vote before the election and the inaugural, because we're going to have a new president one way or the other. We're going to have a new Senate, because many of my colleagues are

retiring. And I think it's a Democratic principle. They break their word, they risk breaking the Senate. There may be no rule here. But there are norms and principles, and the senate works because people keep their word.

CUOMO: It's interesting, Senator. I'm actually a little embarrassed. I didn't even think to bring up the argument of - will it hurt them in the election if people say, "Well, you did one thing in 2016 and now you're doing another thing in 2020." I don't even know that voters have the wherewithal at this point to expect the principle to be what guides even in the Senate.

I mean, it seems to be all avarice and name calling. We've been taken so low. I wonder whether or not the American people have an expectation of anything better. What's your take on that?

BLUMENTHAL: I really think the American people expect better, they deserve better, they're going to demand better. And part of it is that, folks like you have been calling out the avarice and the word breaking that's happened.

[19:10:00]

But I think this election is going to be about basic principles of decency, and democracy. People are fed up with what they see and Donald Trump, the self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement and the frankly, failure to protect the nation against the pandemic in a way that could have saved 10s of thousands of lives.

And I think that will be the focus of this election, the health crisis, and economic crisis that have caused such hardship and heartbreak around the country. And for right now, the American people really deserve better. They deserve people in politics who'd abide by principle, that's part of Justice Ginsburg's legacy as well.

CUOMO: So the argument will be about principle, because on the question of process, you're little jammed on this one, because McConnell is in control and he sets the calendar. So we'll see how it goes from here. We'll see where people seem to have their feelings live. But this is about as make it a partisan power play as you can have and it seems to be playing out exactly that way for this president and his party. So we'll be watching.

And you're always welcome to come on to argue your position. Not Saturday night, or at least not with me, but 9:00 o'clock every night on CNN you're always welcome on PRIME TIME. Senator Richard Blumenthal the best to you and your family for the New Year.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you so much, Chris. Take care.

CUOMO: All right. God bless. All right, look, you can make the decorum argument you can make the hypocrisy argument - you said one thing, now you're saying another thing.

The President and his wingman in this Senate, I argue to you, we're only worried about one thing like the late Al Davis said when he owned the Raiders, remember? "Just Win Baby!" That kind of heals everything. If you get them another judge, does anybody really going to care how it happened? Or could it backfire for the Senator's point? Let's bring in the political A team here to discuss on Saturday night. Next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:15:00]

CUOMO: The President says he might choose his Supreme Court nominee to fill the space, obviously created by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg next week. And he says it will likely be a woman, just 45 days out from Election Day.

If past is precedent, it doesn't seem likely a confirmation could happen when the average number of days to confirmation by our current court is 79 days. But, again, that is about custom, which means it can be changed. Republicans are not new to throwing precedent out the window when it comes to the Supreme Court.

CNNs Manu Raju and Dana Bash are back with me. Manu, from a mechanic's perspective, how short can McConnell make this? Is the answer as short as he wants?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's as short as the Republican Senators will allow. If he has the votes to move ahead, they can move very quickly and get someone confirmed. And even if they're - and even if it typically takes two to three months to confirm someone and we're 45 days away from the election, it could happen within that timeframe.

But, again, it would require no more than three Republican senators defecting. So at the moment, one Republican senator announced that she doesn't think they should go forward, that's Susan Collins of Maine. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, right before Ginsburg died, she made clear she think it's time to go forward with the nomination process.

But we know the other two Republican senators who could break ranks? It's possible they could get there. I tend to think in talking to Republican sources that the more likely scenario is that they begin the confirmation process before the election. That goes to the confirmation committee process.

That maybe have a confirmation hearing and then they'll try to push for a confirmation after the November elections in the lame duck session of Congress between November and January, when a new Senate would get sworn into power and President Trump, he could be on his way out, he could be on to getting inaugurated for a second term.

But that, of course, creates all sorts of other complications because there could be people out of power who are voting to confirm someone who have this lifetime appointment. It could shape the lives of Americans for many years to come. So the calculus is complicated, but Mitch McConnell wants to confirm someone. He is pushing to confirm someone. If he has the votes, he'll do it as quickly as he can, Chris. CUOMO: All right. So Dana, unless Republican senators say, I think we should slow walk this and create this mess that Manu just detailed, he can do this as quickly as he wants, so then what comes the next argument? Well, you did say something else in 2016. I think that's irrelevant. RBG said she'd really like this - look, everybody's going to say they respect her. This isn't going to be about her wishes. Is there any currency that would change Republicans' minds about filling this vacancy ASAP?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Democrats are hoping the answer to that is yes. I was just texting with a Democratic senator who is engaged in this strategy. And the argument that I heard was that that that is what they're going to say. Well, precedent is such that we should not do this right now. You set the precedent.

But as we talked about last hour, for the most part, Republicans are going to look at this and say, it doesn't really matter what we said before. We're willing to take the hit. We're willing to be accused of being hypocritical, because they have to be respectful of - they believe for the most part, the base in their states.

[19:20:00]

Even those in purple states - I mean, Susan Collins is making a very specific calculation that she has a brand that is separate from the president, and that's why she feels that she can do this. For the most part, Republicans, especially those on the ballot, Chris, are looking at the base and understanding that their base is Trump's base. And the minute that they make them angry, they're almost - they're dead people walking, because it's not as if Democrats are going to vote for them.

Now, that is a separate argument than just a decency, what is right and what is wrong, which is something that can be addressed. But that's not where we are so close to an election.

CUOMO: Yes, to me - and again, look, I don't mean to sound this cynical. But, it's like - that's like style points right now. These people voted for Republicans, because they're hoping for changes especially on the court. Listen to the President. I think he made basically the dispositive argument for the Republican posture on this just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You may agree you may not disagree with her, but she was an inspiration. So Article II of our constitution says the president shall nominate Justices of the Supreme Court.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: I don't think it can be any more clear. It says the president is supposed to fill the seat. Right? And that's what we're going to do. We're going to fill the seat. I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Next week will be a woman. Now, I want to be very clear, we edited that. He did not go from speaking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg to immediately talking about Article II. He was not disrespectful like that, like it comes off in that. That was a quick edit.

So he gave RBG her do as a jurist and then made the turn, Manu, to "I'm President. Now this is my power." Same exact argument Obama made. Problem was the senator in charge back then didn't want Obama to be able to do his job, and now he does want Trump to be able to do his job. End the story.

RAJU: Yes. End story and Mitch McConnell made clear last night that he was going to schedule a vote before the end of the year. He and Trump had a phone call last night to discuss potential replacements to the court.

And Mitch McConnell has been dead set that he, in his words, will leave no vacancy unfilled. And that goes from the Supreme Court on down to federal district courts. That's really been what the Senate has done since President Trump has taken office. There's been very few major legislative accomplishments.

Day, week after week, it's typically confirming nominees, typically judicial nominees. And Mitch McConnell is very clear that he wants to get this done with - that could reshape the court for so many years to come.

Now, what he is also telling his colleagues, Chris, is to make sure that you don't lock yourself into a position that could undercut you in the days ahead. Don't say how you will come out and don't say what you will do. Now, let's talk about it when you can come - when you come to Washington. And a lot of Republican senators are listening to him.

One of them, Chuck Grassley, the former Judiciary Committee Chairman, he told me in July that we should not move forward with the Supreme Court vacancy, if one were to arise. He said that to me in late July. Well, now his office is not saying if he still stands by that sentiment.

And other senators who could flip too, Mitt Romney of Utah - he - their office is not saying where Romney is on this issue. Lamar Alexander, a retiring senator is also not saying as well. So there's going to be a lot of questions about what's with the senators like that. Veteran senators, some others who have been critical the president would they come down? But at the moment, the Republicans believe ultimately they'll come down with the President.

BASH: And real quick, Chris, we cannot forget--

CUOMO: Last word to you Dana.

BASH: Yes, we cannot forget how much this is already shifting the dynamic in all of the races, but especially the presidential race. This time, a little bit earlier yesterday, the whole focus was on COVID, the whole focus was on it being a referendum on the president and his leadership or - from the Democrat's point of view, and maybe some objective observer's point of view, his fumbling of COVID along the way.

And now, the Republicans, even those who don't really love the president, more traditional Republicans, not Trump republicans, are absolutely going to be looking at this in a completely different way, because it doesn't get more traditional and important to each side than the Supreme Court.

[19:25:00]

CUOMO: Interestingly, they both benefit from the same dynamic - Biden and Trump. Trump has to appoint somebody or his party will go crazy. And maybe Biden's best chance of getting the rank and file and those on the fence out for him, is if all of a sudden the Supreme Court is six, three, conservative and the only chance of reversing it before it can have an impact, like a generational one, is to get a different party in power right away. Very interesting.

Manu Raju, thank you. Dana Bash, Shana Tova, my sister. The best to you and the family for the New Year.

BASH: Thank you, Chris. Thank you.

CUOMO: All right. Special guest tonight to help us look at the special bond between Justice Ginsburg and her ideological opposite on the High Court, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. His son Christopher will join me to take us inside of friendship like view we see in Washington. It used to be like that. You could be friends when you disagree. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:30:36]

CUOMO: Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were ideological opposites on just about every issue of law and procedure of the same, and you saw that on the bench, but they shared a remarkable friendship.

It was a connection that she would say, predated their time on the High Court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Among my favorite Scalia stories, when President Clinton was mulling over his first nomination to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia was asked, if you were stranded on a desert island, with your new court colleague, who would you prefer? Larry Tribe or Mario Cuomo?

Scalia answered quickly and distinctly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[LAUGHTER]

GINSBURG: Within days, the President chose me.

[LAUGHTER]

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And what a great choice it was. Even my father said that. He called Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the upgrade. Justice Scalia's son Christopher joins me now. Welcome.

You know, I haven't said it to you directly, but sorry for your father's passing. He meant a lot to the entire Italian-American community. And, you know, he was a giant for what people of the ethnicity were able to achieve. So my best to you and the family.

What do you make of this relationship? What do you want people to know?

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA, SON OF LATE JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Well, you know, they -- as you said, they were friends for a very long time and it wasn't just they who were friends, their spouses were friends with each other. So it was -- I don't people think it's mysterious, but as you said, it lasted a very long time and it was because they had so many things in common, despite their many differences.

They were born in New York around the same time, different boroughs, but I think they were kind of familiar to each other, just from that. They loved opera. They even made cameos in operas together.

They liked to drink wine. They like to find food, very often cooked by her husband, Mr. Ginsburg, Marty Ginsburg. He was basically a gourmet chef. So they were just able to really appreciate the many things they had in common.

And they didn't compromise their beliefs to make sure they were able to stay friends, they still held on to their beliefs. And when they disagreed with each other in their opinions as they often did, they really let each other have it. But that didn't get in the way of the wonderful bond they had.

CUOMO: When he would explain to you as his son, when you'd say, well, you don't agree with her about anything. How are you guys friends? What would he say to you?

SCALIA: Well, you know, I took the relationship for granted because they had already been friends by the time he was on the Supreme Court. So I just took it for granted. But for -- I can share a story that one of his former clerks told recently.

This former clerk is now a Federal Judge, Jeff Sutton, and he was visiting my father shortly before my father passed away. It happened to be Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And my father said, well, I have to go. I have to go down the hall and give Ruth these roses. He had bought her two dozen roses.

So Judge Sutton kind of teased him and said, what are you doing that for? When was the last time she was ever on a four-five or five-four opinion with you that ever mattered? He was teasing, of course. But my father said in reply, some things are more important than votes. And I think, you know, what he meant, again, was that the friendship

transcended the professional and the ideological differences. It wasn't that their opinions -- they didn't think their differences of opinion didn't matter. They argued with each other's ideas very often and forcefully. But it's that friendship that endured beyond that.

And I think that's -- that was just clear to me. He never had to lecture me about that or pulled me aside and explained it to me. It was just evident from, you know, how they lived their lives and the amount of time they spent together.

CUOMO: That's because they were people of profound principle. And you can respect that in somebody even if you don't agree with the positions, and they weren't politicians, so these things weren't done gratuitously. They weren't done as a deal.

You know, they weren't done because this is what I need to do to stay, you know, as Judge. You know, they were there. It was principle. And that's something that over time you learn is, you know, something that you can actually love about somebody that they just arrive at different conclusions.

And this isn't text, don't text. No, people don't understand that, you know, being a textualist, like your father was, you know, organically means something, as jurisprudence. It means something different to lawyers than being fiscally conservative as a politician.

[19:35:40]

SCALIA: Yes.

CUOMO: Again, not politicians, but what a sad legacy for both of them to be caught up in the machinations of how they would be replaced. Now, of course, as God would have it, you know, they're both gone. So we can't worry about how they feel about things that they're not here to see.

But so sad that two people known for integrity and getting along, even though they didn't line up, are both attached to this process. What do you make of that?

SCALIA: Well, I really -- my heart goes out to her family, in particular, her children and grandchildren, and my condolences to them. If their experience is anything like mine was when my father passed away, it's surreal, because you're kind of trying to work through this deep personal loss.

Meanwhile, there's this enormous political debate going on, that you care very much about, like I cared what happened at father's -- I cared about who replaced my father. I'm sure her family cares very much about who replaces her, but they need to kind of deal through or work through the more personal grief first.

And it's just a very surreal situation to see that going on. And unfortunately, a lot of people will be talking about her like she was just a seat and she was much more than that. She was a flesh and blood person with many people who loved her.

CUOMO: I will try to keep that squarely in focus at all times. I promise you that and I did the same when it was your father.

Christopher Scalia. Again, I'm sorry for your family's loss. Thank you so much for talking about who we just lost now in Justice Ginsburg, and what she meant to you and your family. I appreciate it.

SCALIA: Thanks a lot, Chris. Good talking to you.

CUOMO: Al right, be well. God bless. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:41:44]

CUOMO: The CDC once again changing the guidelines on who needs to get tested for coronavirus. Nine months in, almost 200,000 taken by this virus and we're still watching politics interfere with basic questions. No wonder nobody can give you a straight answer about kids getting into school, and one case shuts down a whole school and they don't know what the right test is. They don't know how to contact trace. Nothing seems to be getting better.

I mean, how are we going to deal with really complicated problems related to this virus like long haul or syndrome? I hope you know that phrase now, because it's real.

Dr. Larry Brilliant is here. It is good to see you, Doctor. Does it apply, Shana Tova?

DR. LARRY BRILLIANT, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Shana Tova, it does and it's worth also remembering that for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Judaism, someone who dies on the eve of Rosh Hashanah is considered a saint. She was a saint before she died, but it's worth thinking about that.

CUOMO: Wow, what a beautiful little bit of religious majesty bestowed upon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Rosh Hashanah, Jewish New Year is upon us. Shana Tova means Happy New Year to all my Jewish brothers and sisters and what a great little piece of insight. If somebody passes on the eve, they are considered basically a saint. Beautiful. Thank you, Larry, appreciate it.

C.D.C. changes the guidelines about who has to be tested. Do you see any virtue in the change? What does it imply?

BRILLIANT: Virtue in the change? Yes. This is really awful, isn't it, Chris? Where C.D.C. has for ever been considered the gold standard, the rock on which epidemiology is based, the mecca that we all return to. We've all trained there one time or another in our careers.

But to have politicians say, put in C.D.C.'s mouth, write the text to go on the C.D.C. website, saying that people who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic because we can't tell the difference, obviously, if they haven't had symptoms yet, if they are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, they shouldn't be tested, which means we wouldn't know if they're positive, which means we wouldn't be able to give them medical care.

And today with 200,000 who have died, how many more will have died because of that time when C.D.C. changed its advice to not test people who might have been pre-symptomatic. It is astounding to me, it's a tragedy.

CUOMO: Their argument is, well, asymptomatic people can be contagious, but they're not as contagious as people with bad symptoms and all of that. So we have to be careful about who we test. We don't have an inexhaustible number of tests.

So let's focus on the people with the bad symptoms or if they're required to get the test, and that's our best way of using the resources we have. Response?

BRILLIANT: Response is you can't tell the difference between someone who is asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic at a given point of time. All you know is that they have been in contact with a highly infectious disease. That is you know from your long haul experience is a terrible disease and the only way to know whether they are incubating the disease and they are likely to have it is to afford them the benefit of that test and to not do it implies a carelessness. That is astounding.

[19:45:19]

CUOMO: Dr. Larry Brilliant, heavy days, heavy days. I will stay on the science. I will stay on its application. To me, the big front right now is schools. I think we're not testing right. I think we could do better and I'd love to have you be part of that conversation on my show, PRIME TIME, CNN, obviously nine Eastern every night. I'm going to ask you to come on. I hope you can.

BRILLIANT: I will. Thank you, Chris. Happy New Year.

CUOMO: All right, again. Shana Tova. Happy New Year.

These tough times just got tougher with a loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So let's hear less from us and more from the Ginsburg icon herself. The Notorious RBG next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:50:27]

CUOMO: We can all spend a lot of time trying to capture what Ruth Bader Ginsburg meant to the court and we should, and what she meant to the country as a woman and a pioneer, and we should, but a truly great person always speaks best for themselves. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GINSBURG: If you want to be a true professional, you will do something outside yourself, something to repair cares in your community.

No door should be closed to people willing to spend the hours of effort needed to make dreams come true.

We are a nation made strong by people like you.

In my lifetime, I expect to see three, four, perhaps even more women on the High Court bench, women not shape from the same mold, but of different complexions.

We are at last beginning to relegate to history books, the days of the token, one at a time, woman.

The number of women who have come forward as a result of the #MeToo movement has been astonishing. My hope is not just that it is here to stay, but that it is as effective for the woman who works as a maid in the hotel, as it is for Hollywood stars.

I have had the great good fortune to share life with a partner who believed at age 18 when we met that a woman's work, whether at home or on the job is as important as a man's.

It helps sometimes to be a little deaf. I have followed that advice assiduously and not only at home through 56 years of marital partnership; I have employed it as well in every workplace, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

When a thoughtless or unkind word is spoken, best to note, reacting in anger or annoyance will not advance one's ability to persuade to make life a little better for people less fortunate than you. That's what I think a meaningful life is, one lives not just for oneself but for one's community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: It is sad that we've reached a place where such common statements of decency and the simple ambition of doing something for others makes RBG even more notable and almost unique, something for us to think about because that can never be replaced.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:58:26]

CUOMO: CNN's special coverage continues. Now, we're going to be taking you through the latest on COVID, and of course what the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg means for her family for this country, and of course, for the Supreme Court of the United States.

D Lemon takes the coverage right now in "CNN TONIGHT."

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Yes, and really what it means for the world, Chris, you know, we lost -- she was a giant, and so many people obviously stunned by her death. But everyone knew that she was sick, but just didn't know how badly, you know how close to death she was.

CUOMO: I mean, look, she had had an epic battle with a cancer that people almost never beat, and she had beaten it back in a way people almost never have, and not just to survive, but to thrive. Her battle was truly remarkable.

But now the rest of us are left with a battle about what this will mean for us. As her family mourns, I think this country is going to be in a phase of mourning for the kind of politics that's going to unfold over the next 40 something days, which is going to be as ugly as we've seen.

LEMON: Yes. And many will barely get to mourn because they'll be dealing with the brutal political process. Chris, thank you very much. Nice coverage. I appreciate you. I'll see you soon, buddy.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. You're looking live right now -- here it is -- at the scene outside the Supreme Court. There it is. That's where crowds are paying tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the second night in a row, and this is our breaking news now.

The President telling a packed crowd in North Carolina tonight that he'll have a Supreme Court nominee next week.

[20:00:03]