Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Two GOP Senators Push To Delay Vote On Trump Nominee Until After Election; U.S. Inches Closer To Tragic Milestone Of 200,000 People Dead From Coronavirus; Senate Democrats Warn Of Plan To Retaliate If McConnell Advances Trump's Court Pick; Interview With Former Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Epic Fight Looms As Mitch McConnell Vows Vote On Trump's Pick; Joe Biden Refuses To Release List Of Possible Court Nominees Before Election. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 20, 2020 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. This is a special edition of THE SITUATION ROOM.

And we begin tonight with an escalating battle here in Washington and the United States also at the same time approaching a truly tragic milestone. Up on Capitol Hill, two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, have now said that any vote to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to wait until after the November 3rd presidential election.

Democrats chances of blocking President Trump's nominee may rest on whether two more Republicans agree with is Senators Collins and Murkowski.

But we've also learned tonight that one potential possibility, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, will not push to delay the vote. Next hour, we'll hear from the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer about the Democratic strategy. We're told they'll also be joined by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

At the same time, our nation is inching closer and closer to a truly terrible number, 200,000 lives lost to the coronavirus over the past seven months. That's more than any other country in the world. And it's truly a milestone that suggests just how poorly our country has done in the fight against the virus.

Let's get to the White House first. CNN's John Harwood is standing by. John, President Trump at a campaign rally last night in North Carolina told his supporters he'll likely announce his choice for the Supreme Court this week. And one step further, he promised the choice will be a woman. What more can you tell us about the timeline for the announcement, maybe some of the possible names he's floating?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, some conservatives at the outset when the news on Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke, wanted the president to hold off, thinking that would be to his advantage politically, to keep some of his supporters hungry for the election, to diminish some of the intensity on the other side as long as there was not a nominee floating out there.

But that kind of restraint is not in President Trump's art. He has indicated he is going full speed ahead probably this week and he says he will pick a woman, as you indicated. Some of the top names involve Amy Coney Barrett. She is an appeals court judge, conservative catholic. That's a key constituency for the president, longtime professor at the University Notre Dame. Joan Larsen, former Michigan Justice, and she is also on the appeals court. Michigan is a key state in the election. Barbara Lagoa, she is a Cuban-American in Florida. Cubans are another key constituency for the president.

Not much Democrats can do about it because prospects are thin for adding two more delay votes to Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. So what we saw from Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, today was trying to put political pressure on. He appealed to Republicans to turn down the national temperature in a very divisive year. That's consistent with his unifying campaign message.

And the other thing he did was turn it to bread and butter and say, if you -- if the Senate confirms another Trump nominee, they may wipe out the Affordable Care Act and that would take away direct benefits for some of those blue collar voters that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are fighting over.

BLITZER: Yes. Let's not forget how important it is. These are all potential nominees in their 40s, let's say, they could be on the U.S. Supreme Court for the next 30, maybe even 40 years. These are lifetime appointments. So once they're confirmed by the U.S. Senate, they could have an enormous impact on so much going on here in the United States. John Harwood at the White House, stand by, we'll be getting back to you.

Meanwhile, Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden says he doesn't expect to change President Trump's mind on pushing through a Supreme Court nominee before the November 3rd election, but he is reaching out to some Republicans. Listen to what Biden said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Look, I'm not being naive. I'm not speaking that President Trump who will do whatever he wants. I'm not speaking to Mitch McConnell who do what he wants, and he does. I'm speaking to those Republicans out there, Senate Republicans, who know deep down what is right for the country and consistent with the Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's go to our Senior Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju. And, Manu, we just learned that Republican Senator Lamar Alexander now says he supports a vote on a Trump Supreme Court nominee despite the impending election. He was seen as a possible no on that. So where does this put the Democrats' efforts right now to stall any effort to replace Justice Ginsburg?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, as senators come back to Washington tomorrow, there are two questions confronting the Senate.

[18:05:04]

One, will there be enough votes to punt the nomination into a lame- duck session of Congress. That, of course, after the election, it goes up until January. And two, will there be for those four senators who will ultimately come out and defect and vote no to stall the nomination all together. There are no answers to either of those. We'll see who the nominee is. That could change the calculus here.

But the first question, we're getting a little bit more clarity, whether there will be four senators who will urge the Senate to wait until the elections. This after Lisa Murkowski of Alaska came out today joining Susan Collins of Maine and saying they should wait until after the election, saying at this point, we should decide.

Now, they are not saying if they will automatically vote against a nominee in the lame-duck session if Joe Biden were to win the presidency. That is still an open question. But also an open question whether or not other senators will agree with them. There's a lot of focus on Mitt Romney of Utah, someone who has been at odds with the president for some time. His office is declining to comment about whether or not he believes it should be punted or whether he believes the next president or whoever wins in November should make that choice.

And also, Cory Gardner of Colorado, he is a Republican in a difficult race. He -- four years ago when he was running, he said wait until the next president is chosen to move on a Supreme Court nominee, that after President Obama at the time nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat. Now, Cory Gardner is not saying one way or the other. He has been asked back home over the weekend. He said that this is the time to mourn the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He's not saying what will happen in the process.

But, Wolf, pushing forward a confirmation vote before election will be quicker than typical. It typically takes two to three months. We're 44 days away from the election, we don't have a name of the nominee yet. So if the Republicans were to move that quickly, it would be much different than usual and it could put Republicans in a tough spot, which is why there's expectations into the lame-duck succession. But a lot of questions, what would happen then if Democrats win the Senate majority, would be sworn in January and if Joe Biden were to win as well, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes. This is going to be a huge, huge political battle over the next few weeks. Manu Raju, and you're right, 44 days until the election.

As the White House and the Senate Republicans vow to move forward on filling Justice Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat, is there anything that Democrats can really do to stop them? Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is joining us now. He's a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, thank you so much for joining us on this Sunday.

As you know, Joe Biden is asking Republicans to listen to their conscious. By appealing to Republicans, is your Democratic presidential nominee basically admitting there's nothing much Democrats can do to stop them?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): I think Joe Biden has said the right thing. They should listen to their conscious. And I would also suggest that they listen to what they said when they blocked Barack Obama's nominee once eight, nine months before the election, saying there shouldn't be a nominee confirmed in a presidential election year.

Lindsey Graham was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee several times your network has won, the clips of him saying that he absolutely would not have a nominee go through this close to the election. Keep their word. Mitch McConnell, when he said there wouldn't be one, well, don't go back on your word. When I came to the Senate, senators kept their word. If you have the two leaders blatantly go back on the solemn word they gave to the American people, it makes it a very difficult thing.

But look what's happening. Here, you have 200,000 people dead or about to be dead from COVID. The president in the White House obviously screwed up at the beginning of the COVID crisis. I think the president wants to distract any way he can so nobody looks at that.

The American -- a couple more once to get someone on the Supreme Court is not going to make any difference. A couple more months if we're not concentrating on COVID and what that's doing to the country, could cause tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands more lives. That's what the president should --

BLITZER: It's a huge problem, obviously, approaching 200,000 dead Americans, as I said, in only the past seven months.

But I know that the Democrats are really blasting the Republicans for flip-flopping their positions on what they said four years ago when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to be his Supreme Court nominee. They wouldn't even allow a hearing to take place before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the Republicans are saying you and other Democrats are flip-flopping as well. Let me play a comment that you made four years ago with the nomination of Merrick Garland came up. Listen to this.

[18:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAHY: We're saying that Constitution require the president to nominate somebody who fulfills the Constitution. They talk about advice and consent, which we've done forever since there's been a Judiciary Committee, but Democrats are saying we should do our job. We did when there were Republican presidents as well as Democratic presidents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, so what's the difference between then and now, Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Well, I feel the same way. Then, we were talking about having a the time to do our job the way we're supposed to. Months and months, they will do the background check on the nominee, we had full hearings for both people for and against the nominee could be heard and then a vote.

Here, what they're saying is the president must have a person on the Supreme Court who is beholden to the president, who will do basically what the president says for them to do, not be independent. And the way we'll guarantee that, we'll cut time more than in half and then go forward.

What I'm saying all those senators who know the way it should be done don't hide, don't run. Just say let's do it.

BLITZER: When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, what, nine, ten months before the presidential election, even though there were primary contests going on then, right now, it's 44 days. Do you not think if you worked hard in the Senate, in 44 days, you could do the background checks, the hearings and allow a roll call vote on the floor of the Senate to take place?

LEAHY: Not if we want to do it in a non-partisan or bipartisan way. If you want to do it in a way that says here, we're going to make the Supreme Court an arm of the White House. Don't rely on an independent federal court anymore, as we have for centuries in this country. We're going to have a Supreme Court that's going to be a puppet of the White House. Sure, ram it through, and that's what you're going to see.

Let me tell you, anybody who has to go before a federal court will be wonderful if they're going get a fair hearing after that.

BLITZER: I will point out, we did some checking. There have been some Supreme Court nominees who have been named and then confirmed within 44 days. It's rare, but it has happened.

Bottom line, Senator Leahy, and you're a former ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, bottom line, what can the Democrats do if Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, the majority leader, and the president decide they are going to push full speed ahead and there may be only two or three Republicans who are going to resist? You're going to need more than that.

LEAHY: They can ram something through and it would be the most destructive thing that could ever be done to our federal court. What we ought to do is have a nomination of whoever, whether it's Donald Trump or Joe Biden, who gets inaugurated on January 20th, the next day, nominate somebody and then do record course of having the hearings in both them up or down. BLITZER: Senator Leahy, we'll stay in close touch with you. Obviously, these are going to be very, very tense days coming up. I appreciate very much you joining us. Stay safe out there.

LEAHY: Wolf, be well, thank you.

BLITZER: Thank you.

So, she was truly an extraordinary woman worthy of being called the Notorious RBG. Discover Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's truly inspiring live and career with the CNN film, RBG. That airs later tonight, 10:00 P.M. Eastern right here on CNN.

Now, we have much more on the fight shaping up over the U.S. Supreme Court, but we're also following very significant coronavirus pandemic developments as the death count here in the United States nears a once unthinkable number of 200,000. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

BLITZER: We'll have much more on the looming fight up on Capitol Hill over the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, but we're also covering other stories here in THE SITUATION ROOM. The U.S. right now on the brink of a truly terrible milestone, 200,000 American lives lost to the coronavirus. That's more than any other country in the world.

Take look at this. See the red and orange-colored states on this map. Each of those states has seen a significant increase in new COVID cases over the previous week with the red-colored states seeing a 50 percent jump.

To help us put all this into some sort of perspective, I want to bring in two health experts. Dr. Ashish Jha is the Dean of the Brown University of Public Health, and Dr. Patrice Harris is the former president of the American Medical Association. To both of you, thanks so much for joining us.

Dr. Jha, did you ever think the U.S. would lose nearly 200,000 people to this virus in only seven months?

DR. ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Yes. So, Wolf, thanks for having me on. This will all largely preventable. There was no reason our country needed to go through this much suffering. And, of course, we're not done yet.

But if you had asked me at the beginning of the pandemic, if we were going to lose 200,000 Americans, I would have said, no way. We have all the capacity to do so much better.

BLITZER: What about that, Dr. Harris? Did you expect such a horrendous loss here in the United States, that the United States, with the greatest medical system in the world, the richest country in the world, would have more coronavirus deaths than any other country in the world? DR. PATRICE HARRIS, FORMER PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: I did not expect that, Wolf. And this is truly a tragic milestone here. And as I have said before on your show, those are people and families and loved ones behind those numbers. And so, really, we should be doing all that we can, redoubling our efforts to make sure those numbers don't get much worse.

[18:20:09]

And, by the way, Wolf, that does not include political interference or political intimidation of career scientists and researchers and public health workers and physicians who are working hard every day. We have to make sure that science drives decisions and interventions here.

BLITZER: If the level of testing, Dr. Jha, the level of social distancing, wearing masks, continues in the weeks and, let's say, months ahead at the same level it is basically right now, how much worse do you expect it to get?

JHA: Yes. So, I mean, sort of that baseline, we're between 500 and 1,000 deaths a day, Wolf. And as the fall and winter come around, more people will be spending time indoors certainly in the northern half of the country. And so we're going to likely see virus cases go up and then deaths go up. So it could get much worse.

It really is up to us. If we can make progress, as Dr. Harris said, I think we can do a lot better than 300,000 or 400,000 deaths. But if we don't make progress, sadly, that's where we may end up.

BLITZER: Yes. And this number could double by January 1st, at least according to some models, some projections out there.

Dr. Harris, five states right now are actually seeing a 50 percent in increase in new cases over the previous week. 26 states are seeing anywhere from 10 to 50 percent increases. So what are those numbers right now, Dr. Harris, tell you?

HARRIS: Well, I think I see a couple of things. One, and I get it and I understand that, you know, there is fatigue out there. And at times, folks become a little less vigilant about wearing masks and keeping their distance. But we have to make sure that we continue to do those things, particularly now that the weather is getting cooler, we are less likely to be outdoors.

We certainly want to do all that we can to make sure these numbers don't get worse, to make sure the flu numbers don't get worse and we do have to continue these measures. We can continue to think about slowly reopening schools, which to me, should be one of our top priorities. But as Dr. Jha said, it is in our hands, it is about what we are willing to do and there are things that we can do. We are not helpless in this situation.

BLITZER: You know, we're just getting this in to CNN, Dr. Jha, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they're updating their guidance to say the coronavirus can also commonly spread through small particles in the air. What does that mean for our viewers who are worried about the virus?

And I'll read you specifically what they have just posted. They have updated their guidance. They say, coronavirus can calmly spread, quote, through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, which are produced even when a person breathes.

Previously, the CDC said the COVID-19 was thought to spread mainly between people in close contact, about six feet and through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. But now they're changing that. So explain what that means to all of our viewers here in the U.S. around the world.

JHA: Yes. So, Wolf, this is good news and this is good news from the CDC. And whenever I see things like that, I think, wow, the CDC scientists, who are fabulous, are getting their voices heard. We have known that this is a virus that, of course, spreads through droplets but also through aerosols through talking and breathing. This is why it's really important that people are wearing masks and not having large members gather indoors.

So the advice that many of us have been giving, I think, the CDC's new update guidance really is in alignment with that. People have to be wearing masks, avoiding indoor gatherings. It's good to see the CDC doing this.

BLITZER: Well, the CDC is issuing information, Dr. Jha. But it sounds to me like it's even easier to get to the coronavirus through the spread of these aerosols.

JHA: Yes, absolutely. And so we know that for a long time, many of us have been saying that aerosols clearly are a new important mechanism. It's helpful to have the CDC update its own guidance and I think acknowledge and help the American people understand that this is a very infectious disease. And that's why all of the social distancing and mask-wearing and avoiding indoor gatherings that we've been talking about is so critically important.

BLITZER: It's so critically important and it's so heartbreaking to see so many people out there avoiding what is simply so simple, to socially distance, wash your

hands and wear a mask.

Dr. Jha, thank you so much for everything you're doing. Dr. Harris, thanks to you as well. As I like to say, let's continue these conversations. They are so critically important.

[18:25:01]

I appreciate it very much.

Meanwhile, the other big story we're following right now, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer, he is getting ready to speak about the vacancy on the Supreme Court as the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, says he will move on a nominee to replace the late justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But one former Republican senator is now calling on his party to reconsider. Former Senator Jeff Flake, there you see him, he is standing by live. We've got lots to discuss. We will when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: With just 44 days to go until Election Day here in the United States, many prominent Republican senators who refused to vote on a U.S. Supreme Court nominee in an election year back in 2016 have now completely reversed their views in 2020.

[18:30:06]

But one thing that hasn't changed since that 2016 fight, the Republican majority in the Senate.

Let's bring in someone who is there for the Merrick Garland battle, Jeff Flake, the former Republican senator of Arizona.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us. Joe Biden, who you actually have endorsed in the presidential race this time around, appeal to the conscience of Republicans in his remarks earlier today. Let me play a clip of what Biden said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created. Don't go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience. Let the people speak. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country. We can't keep rewriting history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So what do you think, Senator Flake? You think that appeal will resonate with some of those Republican senators right now?

JEFF FLAKE (R), FORMER ARIZONA SENATOR: I hope he does. I think he's doing the right thing by trying to appeal to the conscience, rather than say hey, if you do this, this is what we'll do to escalate the situation. That's my fear is, you know, we have a difficult enough situation in Washington between the parties without escalating it further by doing this right now. It's just not worth it.

BLITZER: You tweeted this last night, and I'll put it up on the screen, Senator. "In 2016, nine months before an election, we Republicans said that the next president should fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Today six weeks before an election we should hold the same position. Preserving the institution of the Senate should be paramount to any political gain."

You signed the letter to Mitch McConnell with 10 other Republicans back in 2016 arguing that no hearings and no vote should be held for a Supreme Court pick in an election year. What do you say to your former Republican colleagues who have now totally flipped on that and they want this to go through in the coming 44 days?

FLAKE: We didn't make any distinction at that time. We didn't say, because we have, you know, a different party controlling -- the Senate and the White House, then the public didn't follow those niceties either. We said we shouldn't confirm him because the new president ought to make that choice. That's what we said over and over to the voters. And that was, you know, nine months before an election. Now we're just six weeks before an election. So I think we ought to hold the same position. That's the right thing to do.

BLITZER: Looking back at that decision you made nine months before the election, during the Obama administration, not to even allow the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's confirmation.

FLAKE: Right.

BLITZER: Was it the right decision, you think, looking back on it with historic hindsight?

FLAKE: No. I don't think it was. I think that that further escalated the situation, made it worse, and it's even worse than it was now. I mean, it's worse today than it was then so, no, I don't think it was the right decision. And certainly piling on now by saying, well, we really didn't mean it that way.

You know, if it wasn't meant that way, then I suppose that if we get to a lame-duck session, then this nominee hasn't been confirmed and the Democrats have taken control of the Senate, then the same logic by saying, well, it's a different situation, would apply, and Republicans wouldn't push forward in the lame-duck session. ;

But I think that they are planning to do so, and it will not be to the country's benefit and frankly I don't think it will be to the Republican Party's benefit either.

BLITZER: So just to be precise, so looking back with hindsight, knowing what we know now, you at least would have hoped that Merrick Garland would have had a hearing, a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and if it passed, a vote on the full Senate floor?

FLAKE: Yes, I do. I met with Merrick Garland and he exudes a good jurist, and that he was a far-left individual that the president was trying to foist on us at that time. I think we had been better -- we would have been better off as a country, I think as a party as well, as Republicans, had we had hearings and move forward on that nomination.

BLITZER: Your Republican colleagues Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, they both now said that any vote should wait at least until after the November 3rd election. Looking at the current Republican caucus, and you know them all, you work closely with all of them, you think other Republicans will join these two women?

FLAKE: Perhaps. I don't want to say. I know some of them. There are some who are new now. But I hope that they think long and hard about this. This is an important vote, and this is a short timeframe. I think we ought to cool the flames as the vice president said and wait until the next president can nominate someone.

[18:35:05]

BLITZER: Yes. Unfortunately, and I'm sure you agree the flames are getting hotter and hotter with each day right, and let's see what happens over the next 44 days.

Senator Flake, thank you so much for joining us.

FLAKE: You bet. Thanks for having me on.

BLITZER: All right. So once again, we're awaiting a news conference from the Senate minority leader, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, about the Democrats' strategy in dealing with all of this. We're now told he'll be joined by Congresswoman Alexander Ocasio- Cortez. We'll have live coverage of that. That's coming up.

Also, the sudden court vacancy has scrambled the 2020 election. So which party really stands to gain from it only 44 days from now?

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The issue of filling a vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat has injected new momentum into the Republican and Democratic campaigns nationwide. One example, Democratic fundraising group ActBlue now says over $30 million was raised online in the 12 hours after the Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was reported.

[18:40:10]

Joining us now to discuss this and more, CNN senior political analyst and senior editor at the "Atlantic," Ron Brownstein, and CNN politics reporter and editor-at-large Chris Cillizza.

Chris, Supreme Court fights tend to be a big motivator at the polls. So who do you think stands to get the biggest boost out of this huge battle that is only now just beginning?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me just -- before I answer -- say the last part that you just said, Wolf, is the most important. Only now just beginning, because I do think it is important to realize that what we are looking at is the beginning. It's going to move quickly I think. But still, we're in the start of this whole thing.

I think what you had is both bases are what pay most attention to this. The Republican base tends to be most energized by court fights, and I think Donald Trump was having some trouble not with his base but with sort of the broader Republican base. Those are not exactly the same things. I think there's some Republican voters who may have sort of straying away from him, essentially saying, you know, I just can't. But yes, there's conservative justices that he -- that yes, we had a

tax cut, but he is a human and the way in which he's conducted himself and the things that he's said about the military, and the things that he's said about the virus, the way he's handled the virus, it's too much. So I think that it may motivate the Republican base, broadly red, not just the Trump base, but the Republicans.

On the Democratic side, yes, I mean, as the ActBlue number suggests, clearly they are also energized by the stature. The only question I have is it feels to me like the Democratic base was already a 10 out of 10 in terms of motivation because of one guy, Donald Trump. Can you go more than that? Obviously you can wring more money out of small- dollar donors as ActBlue showed. But can you go more? Can you get more people out of that or not? That I think it's true early to know the answer to.

BLITZER: That's a good point. You know, Ron, does it benefit the president right now, this battle over the Supreme Court, merely because it moves the confirmation off of the coronavirus pandemic at least now and we're approaching 200,000 dead Americans in only seven months? More deaths from coronavirus here in the United States than anywhere else in the world. What do you think?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it does but it's not going -- it's very unlikely to shift the focus in an enduring way. The same thing as we saw with his effort to kind of get people to focus more on law and order. The coronavirus is real, it's in everyone's life, you know. 200,000 Americans dead is just an almost unimaginable number. And I think in the long run, that is the biggest weight on him.

You know, Wolf, this race has been very difficult to move by anything. I mean, Joe Biden, is seven or eight points ahead in the national polling, and he was seven or eight points ahead of the national polling last fall before everything in the interim happened, including that pandemic. I mean, the lines here are deeply engraved. And I think that, you know, historically as Chris said, Supreme Court fights have motivated the Republican base more than the Democratic base.

But the two core issues as opposed to kind of the procedural questions of fairness, the two core issues that this most immediately raises are ending the protections for pre-existing conditions and the overall ACA which is now highly likely to be thrown out by a Republican court if they can seat this justice.

And then also the legality of abortion. And on both of those fronts, Democrats are playing to the majority of public opinion, and while this I think will motivate Republicans particularly in states where there are a lot of cultural conservatives like a Georgia or North Carolina perhaps, this is going to be a real problem for Republican senators in some of the more secular and cosmopolitan states like Arizona, Colorado and Maine.

So on balance, if Democrats can keep the focus on those two issues, I think they'd come with a net win on it, but everything, everything is at the margin in this race. BLITZER: You agree, Chris?

CILLIZZA: Yes, I think that's right. One thing I was looking up today is there are 23 Republican Senate seats up, Wolf. 21 of them are in states that Donald Trump won. Now, to Ron's point, some politics has changed here. Arizona is a state that Donald Trump won.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

CILLIZZA: It's obviously a swing state now. So the only two that are in states (INAUDIBLE) are Colorado and Maine. The theory of the case, and I'm not sure I buy this. I may be more with Ron on this.

But the theory of the Republican case as it relates to the Senate majority, which is clearly a tossup at this point, is the two seats in Georgia, the North Carolina seat, the Montana seat, the Iowa seat, that a lot of these are in places where if you can get Republicans to the polls, including some who maybe they don't vote for Donald Trump but maybe they do, they're not Trump diehard, that then all you have to do in those states and get those folks.

Republicans and Republican leaners and you win, maybe. Rather than the conversation being primarily about the coronavirus. Now it's about the coronavirus and the Supreme Court fight. The one thing I'll say there, I'm still skeptical. 200,000 deaths, one influential study is saying 400,000 plus by the beginning of the year.

[18:45:01]

Yes, the Supreme Court is a huge fight. OK. No question. It's a huge news story. But it's not hundreds of thousands Americans dead and more every single day. And that's what I wonder whether when we analyzed Supreme Court politics, we've never had it in the midst of a pandemic.

BLITZER: Yes.

CILLIZZA: And I think we have to put an asterisk there and sort of see where it goes.

BLITZER: It's an important point. All right, Ron, I know you got to -- we've got to take a quick break. We're going to continue this conversation.

Ron Brownstein, Chris Cillizza, guys, thank you very much.

And once again we're awaiting a live news conference with the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, as more Republicans call on the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to move forward with a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. So what options are there realistically for Democrats to try to stop it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:10]

BLITZER: There's breaking news coming into CNN. A suspect has been detained for allegedly sending a ricin-tainted letter to President Trump. This is a story that broke here on CNN last night. A woman was taken into custody carrying a gun and trying to enter the United States from Canada at a border crossing in New York state. U.S. prosecutors are expected to bring charges against her.

We're going to bring you on this development when we get more information. Stand by for that. Significant development indeed.

And just days from now, we could learn President Trump's pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. At least two key Republican senators joining Democrats in opposing a vote before the November 3rd election. Democrats going further vowing a furious fight to keep the seat vacant until next year.

Let's discuss with our CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Laura Coates.

Laura, today Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden outlined his reasons why he won't release a list of potential nominees before the election despite a push from the Republicans, including President Trump, to do so. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: First, putting in judges' names on a list like that could influence that person's decision-making as a judge and that would be wrong. At least create the perception of influence. Second, anyone put on a list like that under these circumstances will be subject to unrelenting political attacks because any nominee I would select will not get a hearing until 2021 at the earliest. She would endure those attacks for months on end without being able to defend herself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And as we know, Laura, President Trump, he's released a list of, what, about 20 potential nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court and so many of them are getting a lot of scrutiny right now, even though they're sitting appellate court judges and have other really significant positions.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Certainly. And the concerns that Biden raised there about that scrutiny, about the idea there could be even a hint of impropriety, I mean, that's what judges actually operate on. Even the slightest hint of impropriety, the slightest hint of influence, could cause them to try to recuse themselves or to be accused of somehow being less than objective.

And notice the common denominator you invoked with the statements from the president and the former vice president. She, her, both of them have their eyes on a replacement who is a woman, it appears to be, but the idea of when to raise the list, when -- Trump is doing it versus when Biden does it. It seems that Biden thinks if he were to do it now, it would seem as though it was presumptive, although he definitely wants to win the election. But also he does not want this to come down to who he chooses to be the reason people vote.

He wants this is to be him or Trump, not his Supreme Court nominee pick versus Trump's Supreme Court nominee pick.

BLITZER: And I'm sure a lot of those federal judges who President Trump has publicly named, and if were Biden were to do the same, they don't want all that attention. They don't want people going through everything they've said and done over the years. They certainly want to be in the background until they get the formal nomination.

As you know, Laura, the Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was about to have a news conference. We'll carry that live. He's warning that nothing is off the table if a Trump nominee is confirmed before -- confirmed this election year. What do you think he's talking about?

COATES: I think he's talking about possibly attempting if they were to secure the Senate majority again, the Democrats, thinking about ways to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, to retaliate in form or in kind the way that McConnell and his team have been trying to pack the federal courts in an eye towards now maybe a third Supreme Court nominee.

I think he's considering all of these things. I think the Democrats really do believe following the vacancy left by the passing of Judge Scalia, that they have been robbed not of one but now possibly of two Supreme Court nomination picks if they were to do it prematurely before the American people have decided who the American president should be.

But I think they're right now trying to, on the one hand, keep things close to the vest by alluding that look, nothing is out of consideration. Nothing is out of contention. Because they don't want the perception they're going to just lay down and take it as if they didn't fight strong enough before for Merrick Garland. And so I think they're trying to find that balance. When you have Biden who doesn't want to name the people he intends to nominate if he were the president, and you have President Trump weeks ago already putting his list before the people being vetted.

They're trying to strike a balance that while on the one hand infuse people and want them to vote, and on the other hand say, look, this is about two candidates, not two nominees. But I think Democrats are right to fight because if they're going to have this come down to the hypocrisy of how Merrick Garland was treated versus now, we're in trouble.

[18:55:05]

BLITZER: Laura Coates, excellent analysis as usual. Thanks so much for joining us.

And to our viewers, any moment now, the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer getting ready to hold a news conference. There you see live pictures coming from New York. He's going to talk about the Supreme Court vacancy. We're going to bring that to you live.

Stand by. This comes as many Republicans including the president now say they will move forward with a nominee before election day, November 3rd. That's only 44 days from now. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)