Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Judge Napolitano explains significance of Trump’s SCOTUS nominations

GOING INTO THE ELECTION WITH

GOING INTO THE ELECTION WITH

THAT BIGGEST OF ALL VICTORIES.

THEY SAY BIGGEST THING YOU CAN

DO IS THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES

BUT ESPECIALLY THE APPOINTMENT

OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

THAT’S THE SINGLE BIGGEST THING

A PRESIDENT CAN DO.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

BECAUSE IT SETS THE TONE OF THE

COUNTRY FOR 40 YEARS, 50 YEARS,

I MEAN, A LONG TIME.

PETE: THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT

YESTERDAY IN VIRGINIA HE WAS IN

FLORIDA AND GEORGIA BEFORE THAT

TOUGH TO KEEP TRACK WHERE HE IS

ON ANY GIVEN DAY.

WE ARE GLAD THAT JUDGE ANDREW

NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR

JUDICIAL AM LIST IS WITH US THIS

MORNING.

BIG MOMENT.

THE PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT IT

YESTERDAY.

IS HE GOING TO ANNOUNCE IT TODAY

AT 5:00.

WHAT’S YOUR PREDICTION AND, JUST

LAY OUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

NAMING A THIRD NOMINEE IN JUST

ONE TERM.

>> YOU KNOW, VERY FEW -- GOOD

MORNING, GUYS.

VERY FEW PRESIDENTS HAVE HAD

THIS MANY NOMINEES AND DONALD

TRUMP IS STILL IN HIS FIRST

TERM.

AND THIS NOMINEE THIS MORNING,

AMY CONEY BARRETT, WE HAVE EVERY

REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS SHE, IS

THE CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUAL,

SORT OF IN THE NEIL GORSUCH MOLD

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN

PROMISING HE WOULD NOMINATE.

HE HAS BEEN UTTERLY FAITHFUL TO

HIS PROMISES WITH RESPECT TO THE

INTELLECT AND IDEOLOGICAL

ORIENTATION OF THE PEOPLE THAT

HE HAS NOMINATED.

IN THE CASE OF JUDGE BARRETT,

WHO, BY THE WAY, IS A GRADUATE

OF THE SAME LAW SCHOOL THAT I

AM, NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL

ALTHOUGH I’M A GENERATION AHEAD

OF HER, IN THE CASE OF JUDGE

BARRETT, SHE HAS A VERY LITTLE

TRACK RECORD BUT VERY STRONG

OPINIONS ALREADY ARTICULATED.

SHE HAS ALREADY ARGUED THAT ROE

V. WADE, THE ABORTION DECISION,

WAS WRONGFULLY DECIDED.

SHE HAS ALSO SAID SHE WILL

RESPECT STARE DECISIS, LAWS THAT

ARE WELL-SETTLED AND WOULD NOT

VOTE TO CHANGE THEM OTHER THAN

IN THE MOST PROFOUND AND

SIGNIFICANT SITUATION.

SO SHE IS GOING TO BE GRILLED ON

THAT.

SHE WENT THROUGH THIS GRILLING

ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO WHEN

PRESIDENT TRUMP APPOINTED HER TO

THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS

IN CHICAGO, THE COURT ON WHICH

SHE NOW SITS.

BUT, FOR DONALD TRUMP, THIS IS A

MOMENT OF TRIUMPH.

THREE JUSTICES IN THE THREE AND

A HALF YEARS ALL OF A SIMILAR

INTELLECT AND ALL OF A SIMILAR

ATTITUDE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

JEDEDIAH: JUDGE, I I WANT TO ASK

YOU ABOUT TERM LIMITS.

THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S BEING

TALKED ABOUT RIGHT NOW

PARTICULARLY BY SOME ON THE LEFT

WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE FACT

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THESE THREE

NOMINATIONS.

BUT, CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE

RO KHANNA HAS MADE SOME COMMENTS

ABOUT THAT.

I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION

SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WAS SAID.

WILL: JEDEDIAH, ACTUALLY A TWEET

AND I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.

JEDEDIAH: YEAH.

WILL: RO KHANNA SAID WE NEED

TERM LITTLE FOR THE SUPREME

COURT.

EVERY PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE AN

EQUAL CHANCE TO APPOINT

JUSTICES.

OUR ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM

SHOULDN’T HINGE ON THE SHOULDERS

OF INDIVIDUAL SUPREME COURT

JUSTICES.

JUDGE, THAT’S TWEET FROM

REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA.

>> WELL, REPRESENTATIVE RO

KHANNA’S PROBLEM IS NOT WITH

DONALD TRUMP AND IT’S NOT WITH

THE ELECTORATE.

IT’S WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

SO, LEGISLATION, IT’S PRETTY

BASIC, LEGISLATION CAN’T CHANGE

THE CONSTITUTION.

THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES THAT

FEDERAL JUDGES, WHICH INCLUDES

JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT

SERVE FOR LIFE.

SO WHAT IS HE REALLY TALKING

ABOUT IS AMENDING THE

CONSTITUTION WHICH IS NEARLY

IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A TREMENDOUS

NATIONAL CONSENSUS BEHIND IT.

IT REQUIRES OF TWO THIRDS OF

BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THEN

A RATIFICATION BY THREE QUARTERS

OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

THERE IS JUST NOT THE POLITICAL

SUPPORT THERE FOR WHAT HE’S.

WILL: REALLY QUICKLY, JUDGE, I

JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

OF COURSE YOU ARE A FAMED JUDGE.

I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL I DON’T

KNOW IF THAT QUALIFIES ME FOR

ANY IT’S SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE.

WE BOTH KNOW THE INSULATE JUDGES

FROM POLITICAL PRESSURES.

SETTING ASIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL

DEMANDS, IS 18 YEARS AND TERMING

OUT, DO YOU THINK A GOOD IDEA IN

SAID ASIDE THAT YOU HAVE TO

AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

WOULD IT BE A GOOD IDEA?

>> IN MY OPINION, NO.

I’M JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF

CHANGING THE PROCEDURES THAT

HAVE WORKED SO WELL FOR 230

YEARS BECAUSE OF SOME POLITICAL

ANGST.

I CAN’T IMAGINE REPRESENTATIVE

RO KHANNA WOULD BE DOING THIS IF

JOE BIDEN WERE APPOINTING FILL

IN THE BLANK A LIBERAL JUSTICE.

IF BIDEN GETS ELECTED HE MAY YOU

HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT.

I DON’T KNOW WHERE THE 18 COMES

FROM.

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

THEY TALKED ABOUT TERM LIMITS

AND IT WAS ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY

REJECT’S AND THAT’S WHY FEDERAL

JUDGES.

PETE: JUDGE NAWPGHTS HAS