Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Tweets Supreme Court Nominee Without Delay, McConnell Vows Senate Vote; Package Containing Ricin Addressed To President Trump Intercepted By Law Enforcement; Trump Adviser: President Wants To Announce SCOTUS Pick Before First Debate; Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) Discusses Democrats Strategizing On Keeping GOP From Filling Ginsburg Seat; Death Of Ginsburg Will Reshape Supreme Court, Potentially The Country. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired September 19, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We begin this hour with the growing battle over who will replace an American icon and how soon that vote could happen, as America mourns the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fierce political debate is already under way over her replacement.

The 87-year-old legal giant, feminist, model and cultural hero passed away on Friday after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.

Today, crowds hold vigil near the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. A lot of pictures right now of people turning out, leaving flowers and children writing messages in chalk and flags are at half-staff at the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Capitol and at the White House.

The 87-year-old Ginsburg leaves behind a rich legacy and a powerful court seat. Her passing sets up a historic battle over her replacement and the future of the nation's highest court. The battle lines are already being drawn.

Today, the president tweeting that Republicans have an obligation to select a justice nominee without delay. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowing the president's pick will get a vote on the Senate floor. All of this despite Ginsburg's final wish that a new justice not be selected until after the election.

With just 45 days until voters cast their ballots, the 2020 race has just been reshaped. We're told the president could begin meeting with potential nominees as early as next week.

For more on the president's thinking, let's go to the White House, CNN's Boris Sanchez. So what are you learning?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, we're getting a clearer picture of the timeline from the White House on when we can expect them to nominate a potential new justice to the Supreme Court. A Trump adviser close to the process telling CNN this afternoon that the president is expected to name a nominee before the first presidential debate. That is roughly 10 or 11 days from now on September 29th.

So this appears to be a very fast-moving process. This clearly has been on the president's mind for some time. One source telling us that President Trump has been salivating over this opportunity.

We know that earlier this summer, several sources told CNN that the president was eager to name a female to the Supreme Court as a potential replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The president believing that naming a female justice would elevate his standing among female voters.

If you look at polling, the president has not been doing well among women, specifically because of his response to the coronavirus pandemic, and his belief is that he will get a boost going into the November election.

And, of course, the president a few weeks ago put out a list of some 20 potential Supreme Court nominees. Among them, a name that we've seen before, Amy Coney Barrett. She is a judge on the seventh district appeals court and her name first came up back in 2017 after Justice Anthony Kennedy decided to retire. The president meeting with her at that time.

She, of course, is an outspoken opponent of abortion and Roe v. Wade. She's been very critical of it in the past. The White House believed at the time that Democrats would latch onto it and attack her for it. It's part of the reason that Brett Kavanaugh was ultimately chosen to be nominated to replace Kennedy. He, of course, was confirmed.

But according to sources, his meeting with Amy Coney Barrett stayed on the president's mind and he had her in mind specifically for this moment if something were to happen to Ruth Bader Ginsburg where he would have to name a replacement, she was the person who the president was focused on.

Of course, there're several other names out there that the president is considering, and no matter who he picks, given the political climate, this will be a very difficult confirmation process moving forward, Fred.

WHITFIELD: To say the least. All right, Boris Sanchez at the White House, thank you so much.

So with the president and GOP determined to vote on a justice nominee as soon as possible, Democrats are vowing to do whatever it takes to stop a vote in 2020. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling his fellow Democratic senators nothing is off the table if the Republicans move ahead.

Lauren Fox is on Capitol Hill for us. So, Lauren, what options are on the table? LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, you know, Democrats don't have many options. They can delay this as long as they possibly can, but they can't stop it, Fred. And I think that that's an important caveat this afternoon as we talk about the future of this nomination.

What's happening behind-the-scenes across Capitol Hill and across the nation right now is McConnell is communicating with his members. He's trying to get a sense of exactly where folks are, what they're comfortable with in terms of timing for this nomination.

[15:05:04]

The big question, of course, do they move forward with something before the election or do they wait to confirm the next justice until after the election.

And there's a little bit of a political calculus happening right now. One of the questions is if you wait until after the election, does that make it harder to confirm someone if a few things happen. If, for example, Trump loses the White House or Democrats take back the Senate while it would be a lame duck period when lawmakers would return in November and December, there would be time to nominate and confirm someone and Republicans would still control the chamber.

The question is whether or not moderate members, people like Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, would they be comfortable moving forward with a Republican Trump-picked nominee if the voters had spoken and made it clear they wanted Biden to be the next president or Democrats to control the Senate chamber.

Another wildcard, if there aren't enough already, is the fact that we still don't know when exactly the Democrat in the special election in Arizona, Mark Kelly, if he were to beat Martha McSally, the current senator, because he's filling a vacancy, he could technically be seated by the end of November. That's according to two campaign law experts to the Arizona republic a few days ago.

So, does that change the calculus? Because then McConnell would have a slimmer chance of getting the votes he needs. So that's what's on the table right now, Fredricka, but a lot still up in the air.

WHITFIELD: Yes, lots in the air. All right, Lauren Fox, thanks so much.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's own words are coming back to haunt him. He's now vowing to support President Trump in any effort to move forward in filling Ginsburg's seat before the election. But here is what he said back in 2016 when President Obama was in office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This is the last year of a lame duck president and if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump get to be president, they've all asked us not to confirm or take up a selection by President Obama. So if a vacancy occurs in their last year of their first term, guess what, you will use their words against them.

I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination and you can use my words against me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. Joining me right now to discuss is Susan Glasser, Staff Writer for The New Yorker, and Ron Brownstein, CNN Senior Political Analyst and Senior Editor for The Atlantic. Good to see both of you.

All right, so, Susan, the hypocrisy, I mean, pretty blatant, but there are also new explanations for why these circumstances are different.

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, there are explanations. There are a lot of words. But I think, as you said, the hypocrisy is what leaps out. What's amazing to me is a couple things. Number one, the speed with which Republicans have just decided to go ahead and go for it, remember, it's not even 24 hours since Justice Ginsburg passed away.

In fact, Mitch McConnell's statement saying that he would move forward with a vote came before 9:00 p.m. last night, almost instantly. And Lindsey Graham has predictably perhaps flip-flopped also within hours.

The argument, I suppose, that these Republicans are making, is somehow that because there's a Republican Senate as well as a Republican president, then the circumstance is different than the ten months that they insisted on keeping a Supreme Court seat open when President Obama was finishing out his term.

But I think what they're obviously making is a political calculation that American voters, that voters in South Carolina, I guess, Lindsey Graham, he is in a dead heat for reelection. I guess South Carolina won't care if he changes his mind.

WHITFIELD: Last night after that statement from McConnell, Donna Shalala was like, that was in poor taste, I mean, to be able to make that statement about moving ahead and filling a seat just moments after everyone had learned of the passing of Justice Ginsburg.

So, Ron, the election is just 45 days away and we're already hearing from the White House the president is hoping to name somebody before the first debate, which would be just, you know, over a week from now. Does that mean that he is already conferencing with McConnell?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, certainly. And I think that the president, you know -- there's no question that the Republicans, leadership, the president and McConnell are going to do everything possible to try to get this through before the end.

I mean, it is just the exclamation point on kind of a shredding of norms that we have seen over the last few years. Every Republican senator, except one, voted not to sanction the president for overtly extorting a foreign government to try to manufacture dirt on his opponent.

[15:10:06]

There has been not a peep from Republicans in Congress as the administration tries to tilt the census toward Republican advantage in a way we have never seen in our history.

I mean, there is a -- I think there is a view that has taken root in the Republican Party that any means necessary are required to maintain power in a country that is demographically moving against them. And it's going to be hard for Democrats to stop this.

You can get to three votes pretty fast with Collins, Murkowski and Romney that might be reluctant to do this. But the fourth one is going to be tough because even some of the Republicans are in tough races this fall, like Thom Tillis or Joni Ernst may decide, or Lindsey Graham, that it's better politics to go ahead than deny their base on this.

WHITFIELD: Susan, there will not be a new justice seated by November 3rd, so do you see a potential repeat scenario of the presidential race 2000, what role might the high court play on the potential outcome of this election? We're already hearing hints from the president that he may not accept the results if he were to lose.

GLASSER: Well, we've heard more than hints. The president of the United States, as extraordinary as it is, has been essentially attacking the legitimacy of the election for months, calling it a rigged election with no evidence in advance. So he certainly raised that scenario himself.

And, in fact, you now hear some Republican senators like Ted Cruz using this as an argument for why Republicans need to ram through a new Supreme Court justice right now.

So there isn't a tide port in case of some sort of an election deadlock and therefore they're preventing a constitutional crisis by moving ahead with a power play like this. So, you'll hear more of that, I'm sure.

But the bottom line is it's a breathtaking, by any means, necessary act of political muscle flexing right now. There's no conversation about is it the right thing to do, no hint even that there's a debate inside the White House over whether they should proceed, given how close we are to an election. They're simply going ahead with that.

And that's the thing we've learned most definitively in the few hours since Justice Ginsburg passed away, that there's not even a debate within the Republican Party. Ron's point, it's really -- it's breathtaking, actually.

WHITFIELD: It really is. All right, Susan Glasser, Ron Brownstein, we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

BROWNSTEIN: Thank you, Fred.

WHITFIELD: CNN's special coverage on the legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a moment.

But, first, more breaking news, a package containing the poison ricin addressed to President Trump. It has been intercepted by authorities. More on that after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:00]

WHITFIELD: All right. We're back with this breaking news.

An investigation is now under way after a package containing ricin addressed to the White House is intercepted by law enforcement.

I'm joined now by CNN's Evan Perez and Jonathan Wackrow, who is also a former Secret Service agent. Good to see both of you.

Evan, first, tell us the circumstances of how this was received and captured.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, this was a letter that was received in recent days and it was addressed to President Trump. All mail that is headed to the White House is screened off site, a few miles away from the White House, and that's where this letter was found.

We're told that because there's a lot of suspicious packages that come in, and there are from, time to time, false positives, that seem to show ricin, and they did multiple tests on this letter and they found that the substance was, indeed, ricin. It was confirmed to be ricin after multiple tests.

We have a statement now from the FBI Washington Field Office which says the following, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service partners are investigating a suspicious letter received at a U.S. government mail facility at this time, there is no known threat to public safety.

This letter, obviously, Fred, because it is screened off site, never got anywhere near the White House, anywhere near the president, but it is obviously something that they treat very, very seriously and so the investigation now is ongoing as to who sent this and why.

WHITFIELD: Jonathan, ricin, you know, it's a component of castor beans. How accessible is this or even to make it?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Fred, listen, this is a dangerous, toxic substance. As you said, it's naturally found in castor beans. Ricin the made off of a byproduct of it. And what makes this dangerous from an attack standpoint is that it can be made into the form of either a powder or a mist.

What makes it an attractive substance for an attacker to utilize is the fact that it actually is a very stable substance. So being able to send it through the mail for an attack, for a potential assassination, is very easy and it can actually go undetected along the entire route.

Because of that, the Secret Service, and Evan's reporting is absolutely correct, has established a White House screening facility a few miles away from the White House so that any type of incident like this doesn't impact and doesn't threaten the president themselves.

So right now, the Secret Service is working with the FBI, the FBI will be taking the lead role on the investigation. But they'll be working in tandem with and throughout the investigative process to try to make attrib attribution as to who launched the attack.

What the Secret Service is doing right now is they're also looking at other protectees to make sure that this wasn't a coordinated attack. So the Secret Service also protects all of the children of President Trump. So we want to make sure that this was not a coordinated attack by a hostile actor.

[15:20:02]

Hopefully, this is a single event that the FBI and Secret Service can very quickly, you know, resolve and bring the perpetrator to justice.

WHITFIELD: All right. Jonathan Wackrow, Evan Perez, we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

WACKROW: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Straight ahead, Democrats scramble as Republicans prepare to push through another U.S. Supreme Court nominee, but is there anything that Democrats can do to block a vote? A Democratic senator from battleground Pennsylvania joins me next.

RBG's legacy will be remembered for lifetimes to come as a champion for women's rights, a feminist icon. Here she is talking about women serving on the nation's highest courts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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.

I surely would not be in this room today without the determined efforts of men and women who kept dreams of equal citizenship alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:25:00]

WHITFIELD: So many of us journalists wish we had an opportunity to interview Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and in 2018, CNN's Poppy Harlow had that chance.

The interview covered a wide change of topics, including what a more equitable Supreme Court might look like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: So, final question, help me finish this sentence, okay? There will be enough female justices on the Supreme Court when there are --

GINSBURG: You know the answer is when there are nine, of course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: With her passing, both the makeup and ideology of the court now hangs in the balance. Poppy Harlow joining me now by phone.

So, Poppy, I remember that interview so well. You and she were beaming. So what will you most cherish about that interview and what she said about the way her gender has impacted her career path?

HARLOW: Hi, Fred. It's so nice to be with you. It's a sad day, of course. But there is so much that this country, and particularly women, mothers, people like me and you, I think, that are left with from the trail she blazed.

I think, honestly, if I could speak from a personal perspective for a moment, it was the fact that sitting down with her for an hour that day, five days after having my son, was really, in many ways, made possible because of the trail that she blazed.

And I say that because, Fred, you know, when you're offered an interview like that as a journalist, you want to jump on it. But I initially said no, I can't do this, my son is due a few days later. And my husband said to me, you have to do this interview, you will tell our kids about it one day. And I did the interview and I will tell our kids when they're old enough to understand.

And my point is because of the equal marriage she had with her husband, Marty, a highly successful past attorney, who was also an equal parent, right, because she also fought for decades for that equality and through representation of women that we are still fighting for, I was able to live in a moment and with a partner that allowed me that opportunity, if that makes sense.

So I will always cherish that.

WHITFIELD: That's incredible. And, you know, it's really remarkable, because, you know, while her husband was a champion, you know, for her, she talks about or she did talk about, you know, the obstacles of being a woman, being a mother and being Jewish and how those things would stand in the way --

HARLOW: Yes.

WHITFIELD: -- of immediate progress, however it wouldn't stand in the way of her progress. She was patient, she was tenacious.

HARLOW: Yes. I'm so glad you brought that up, because she has talked for years about having four strikes against her. Remember when she went to Harvard Law School at first, they asked her and the other eight women in her class to defend why they should have a seat in that class that took the seat of men, right?

And she said, I had four strikes against me, I was a young mother, she had a 14 month old child when she was in law school, she was Jewish, she was a woman, she said, I had all these strikes against me and still I persisted and still I succeeded.

What is also striking, Fred, on that note is her own mother, who was very intelligent, Justice Ginsburg talked about her mother as someone who taught her to be independent. But she said that her mother never had, you know, a big career like Justice Ginsburg did, and the only difference between them was, in her words, quote, a generation, right?

And she says we will only truly be equal when we have partners who are equal caregivers to our children. And her mother didn't have that opportunity.

I think we have some sound of her talking about the need and for and the fight that still persists, by the way, beyond her death for an equal rights amendment. Here is that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GINSBURG: It's important to have an equal rights amendment in the Constitution, even if the 14th Amendment has been interpreted the way an equal rights provision would.

[15:30:07]

My answer is -- why are you still a proponent? My answer to that question, I take out my pocket Constitution.

And I appreciate that every Constitution in the world written since the year 1950 has the equivalent of a statement that men and women are people of equal citizenship stature.

I think I -- a few of my granddaughters are here.

HARLOW: Three granddaughters --

GINSBURG: Yes.

HARLOW: -- in the audience, and her daughter, Jane.

GINSBURG: And I would like to be able to take out that pocket Constitution and say to them, do you see this statement of the equal stature of men and women, is as fundamental as other basic human rights, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press.

The equal stature of men and women, it belongs -- it belongs in the Constitution. And recently, there have been efforts to revive the amendment. I hope they succeed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: And I think those efforts will continue, Fred. But it is something that she was dismayed had never happened.

WHITFIELD: And look how she inspired so many. Live pictures right now. A lot of people by the dozens who have turned out to pay homage to her --

HARLOW: Right.

WHITFIELD: -- with flowers. They're writing messages in chalk right there at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Poppy, I love her story of talking about how her mother was an inspiration to her and how her mother would also tell her, yes, find the love of your life, but most importantly, be independent.

HARLOW: Yes. Yes. One-hundred percent. And she did -- she did both.

I would also just note something, Fred, in this moment that struck me last night as the news came of her passing. And that is the fact that this is a Supreme Court justice who was appointed and confirmed, 96-3, in the Senate.

And was best friends with very conservative Justice Scalia. And I think their friendship and unity showed us that we can disagree, as they put it, without being disagreeable, right? That's one of her more famous quotes.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

HARLOW: And as we go into what will surely be a tumultuous 45 days in terms of deciding what will happen in the Senate on this process, may we all be reminded by those words.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And they embodied that. Their friendship certainly symbolized that.

HARLOW: Yes.

WHITFIELD: I mean, their families would vacation together.

HARLOW: Right.

WHITFIELD: Poppy Harlow, thank you so much for sharing your memories, your moments with the late justice.

We've also learned now that Democrats just got off the phone and they are strategizing now on how they plan to block Republicans from filling the Supreme Court seat left open because of the death of Justice Ginsburg. I'll talk to a Democratic Senator about that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:37:22]

WHITFIELD: Just hours after the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fierce political debate is already under way over who her replacement will be and when a vote will take place.

President Trump telling his fellow Republicans they have an obligation to submit a nominee without delay.

With me now is Senator Bob Casey. He is a Democrat from the state of Pennsylvania.

Senator, so good to see you.

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): Thank you.

WHITFIELD: I understand there was a phone call that has just taken place, including many Democrats and leadership. Were you on that call? What was discussed?

CASEY: Fredricka, good to be with you on this sad day.

The call that we had with our caucus regarded a very solemn note. Chuck Schumer, the leader of our caucus, asked for a moment of silence to remember Justice Ginsburg.

Because of what she offered to the country, but so much of a pioneer for gender equality and someone who was a fierce defender of workers in a court that is increasingly more corporate. So it was a solemn moment.

And we talked mostly on our call about what is at stake for so many families out there.

Just consider this. Here is one big issue. The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act in front of the court right now, the protections for pre-existing conditions for over 100 million Americans --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: And that's going to happen --

(CROSSTALK)

CASEY: Right.

WHITFIELD: That case is going to be before the Supreme Court early November.

CASEY: Right.

WHITFIELD: And that will proceed. And there's no way that there would be someone to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in time for that.

But in the interim, when Schumer says, you know, everything is on the table to try to stop the nomination process of someone that the White House wants to appoint, what does that mean? How can you stop the momentum that the president feels he has with the

Senate majority leader?

CASEY: Well, Fredricka, I think most Americans want to have a say in it.

And I think that why -- because we have a national election for president and also for the United States Senate, this should be a nomination which is considered when you have a new president.

I think that makes the most sense to most Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Well, the Republicans were in agreement of that --

(CROSSTALK)

CASEY: -- consider what's at stake on health care, worker's rights, so many other issues.

WHITFIELD: So sorry to interrupt.

I know Republicans said they were in agreement with that in 2016. The shoe is on the other foot. And now many are being accused of being hypocritical, saying, with 45 days to go the urgency, the time is now.

So what can Democratic Senators do to stop that?

[15:40:03]

CASEY: Well, we're going to continue to make the case about what that means to the country, what it means to working families at a time when their health care and the protections they get at work, on a court that is already far, far to the right in terms of corporate interests.

So we're going to continue to emphasize that.

I hope, I hope my Republican colleagues will be true to their word and put the country first and not be engaged in a crass political maneuver.

But we'll see. We'll see what their character is in this moment.

WHITFIELD: If not for three Republicans, who would potentially hold things up, without that, do you feel powerless in the Senate?

CASEY: No. Look, this is a question for the whole country. This isn't simply about what will happen in Washington.

And I think a lot of voters are going to be making their decision based upon what is in front of this court and what will be in front of the Senate in the years to come.

There's no question, Fredricka, that, at this time in our nation's history, it's very important, when you consider the impact of another Supreme Court justice on the lives of tens of millions of families across the country.

A lot of them are going to be looking to the Senate to make the right decision.

The right decision is to have a thorough process, to vet a nominee, to make a determination once there's a new president sworn into office. That would make the most sense.

Not only would it be consistent with what our Republicans colleagues said just about two years ago but it would be consistent with our values to make sure that we get a court that reflects the will of the American people.

And will reflect the most important issues for those families, whether it's the rights of workers in the workplace or health or a whole other range of critically important issues.

WHITFIELD: But it's clear the president is saying he wants to name someone before the first presidential debate. And that would be in less than, you know, 10 days from now.

He has made it very clear, when he put out his list of 20 a couple of weeks ago, among the candidates that he wants to consider.

And now we're also hearing the White House will begin interviewing candidates next week.

So do you feel that there's any stopping the White House momentum at this juncture?

CASEY: Fredricka, I think the problem for most Americans is, whenever the president talks about a list of candidates that he's considering, those lists are developed by far-right organizations.

The Heritage Foundation is one of them. The Heritage Foundation has called unions "cartels." So far-right extreme groups making up those lists.

I don't think --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: The past selections came from --

CASEY: -- far-right organizations.

WHITFIELD: -- came from those lists as well.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Yes.

The president has already made it clear that he has referenced that institution in the selection of his past justices.

So the president has also made very clear that he's likely to nominate somebody who is pro-life.

You are a Democratic who is pro-life. Is there any chance that you might like who he selects and might throw your support behind that candidate?

CASEY: Fredricka, this president had two nominees, Mr. Gorsuch and Mr. Kavanaugh. I voted against both because they were chosen -- mostly because they were chosen by far-right extreme groups that don't reflect the broad cross-section of the American people.

And if he continues to make his decisions based upon groups that are anti-worker and against the interests of working families on a whole range of issues, starting with the Affordable Care Act, I think that would be a mistake for him.

WHITFIELD: Senator Bob Casey, we will leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

CASEY: Thank you.

[15:44:03]

WHITFIELD: Next, the legal battle over RBG's now vacant seat. How Ginsburg's death could reshape the court and the country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the potential to reshape the election, with just 45 days to go.

Her last wishes for the country and for politicians were to wait until the voters decide who will be the next president before pushing ahead to fill her seat.

President Trump and Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have both indicated that is very unlikely.

But her absence from the bench will reshape the Supreme Court and potentially the country itself.

Sophia Nelson is a former House Republican committee council and author of "E Pluribus ONE: Reclaiming Our Founders' Vision for a United America." Also joining us, CNN Supreme Court analyst and biographer, Joan Biskupic.

Good to see both of you ladies.

So, Joan, you first.

So much hangs in the balance. That was underscored by Senator Casey just moments ago. There are big issues at stake on the high court, from LBGTQ to affordable health care to Roe v Wade.

And that's just at a minimum, right?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: What isn't at stake, I've been thinking. Everything came down last session to a single vote, 5- 4.

So many opinions all with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's vote to continue immigration -- to strike down President Trump's immigration policy, to ensure abortion rights.

[15:50:03]

Over the years, she has protected affirmative act. She has been a crucial vote for the Affordable Care Act, which is coming back to the Supreme Court in November.

There's a Harvard affirmative action case Marching to the Supreme Court right now. She could be a crucial vote on that.

It's hard for me to imagine, Fred, what her vote didn't matter on.

Of course, she was in the minority a lot. But when they did win, the liberals did win, it was because of her vote.

WHITFIELD: Sophia, Democrats say nothing is off the table. But it sounds like Democrats really have very few options.

They are just hoping that perhaps there are some Republicans that don't support the idea of finding a replacement right now.

So with that being said, do you now see momentum in this effort to expand the high court? There were six justices when the court first began in 1789. It's been nine, since 1869.

But consider -- considering this, now, with the Ginsburg's vacancy, the case involving Affordable Care Act, which has an early November date with the Supreme Court, you know, there potentially could be a four-to-four ruling.

And who would make that decision?

SOPHIA NELSON, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: So, Fred, you threw a lot at me there. Let me unpack it.

First and foremost, the Constitution has no requirement for the Supreme Court to have three justices, six justices, or 20 justices. That number can be set. So that's certainly an option for the Democrats.

But this is going to rest squarely with the Republicans, Fred.

And it's been 104 years, exactly, since Justice Hughes died, in 1916, and was replaced within 144 days by Woodrow Wilson, of that election.

So 104 years, which is precedent that Mitch McConnell cited in 2016 when he said Barack Obama would not be able to put his pick on the Supreme Court, even though it was 269 days out, I think it was.

So the Republicans look ridiculous. They look hypocritical.

If they push this through -- let me say this -- I think there's going to be backlash for them at the ballot box. They could end up losing the Senate over this.

So I think they need to make a decision about whether they are going to honor their word and the standards that they set or they are going to do something entirely different 43 days from out from an election.

And by the way, Fred, people have already started voting. Here, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we started voting yesterday.

So this election is already --

(CROSSTALK)

NELSON: -- Under way.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: But do you see real momentum behind any kind of expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court?

NELSON: I do. I do. And I led with that, which is I think that the Democrats, if the Republicans do this.

And I think that Mitch McConnell -- I'm sorry -- I think that Mitt Romney, rather, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have all pretty much let you know where they're going to come on this thing. You need one more Republican to shut this thing down.

But I think, if they do this, I think a President Biden will, in January, shortly thereafter, expand the court and expand the rest of the federal judiciary.

Which I actually think is long overdue because we're backlogged on cases and we need more judges to get through them, frankly.

WHITFIELD: And so, Joan, you know, the case of the Affordable Care Act, which will be before the Supreme Court, you know, early November.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

WHITFIELD: If there were a decision before, you know, the end of the year, it is very likely it would be potentially a four-to-four ruling. And if that were the case, is it not a federal court judge who would help break the tie?

BISKUPIC: Two things, Fred. First of all, they will never rule on that case by the end of the year, just given their usual timetable. They will hear it in November. And I expect a ruling probably closer to May or June.

But to your more important question about what happens if there's a four-to-four deadlock on a case -- which it could eventually still -- we could still be at eight members next year for some reason.

What the court does, then, is evenly divided, the lower court ruling stands and there's no national precedents set.

So in this case, the Affordable Care Act was partially invalidated by a lower-court judge. And if there was a 4:4 deadlock on it, that ruling would stand.

WHITFIELD: All right. Joan Biskupic, Sophia Nelson, always good to see you.

Again, looking at these live pictures at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. So many people coming out to pay homage and respect to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Leaving flowers. Taking pictures. Writing messages, by chalk.

We've got so much more, straight ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GINSBURG: It helps, sometimes, to be a little deaf.

(LAUGHTER)

GINSBURG: I have followed that advice assiduously. And not only at home, through 56 years of a marital partnership. I have employed it as well in every workplace, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

(LAUGHTER)

[15:55:13]

GINSBURG: When a thoughtless or unkind word is spoken, best tune out. Reacting in anger or annoyance will not advance one's ability to persuade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)