During and after the cloture vote Friday morning to move forward with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, NBC’s Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell held out hope that unnamed Republican Senators could change their minds to oppose Kavanaugh and that, amidst the onslaught of pressure (read: verbal harassment from the left), voting against the Judge is thinking “beyond reelection.”



On Thursday night, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews was in a more jubilant mood than he might have been earlier in the week on the issue of stopping Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh thanks to the “profile in courage” from Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp (ND) in opposing Kavanaugh. With Heitkamp opposing the Judge, Matthews expressed optimism that there was a “road to hope” paved by other Senators from both sides of aisle who might “protect its constitutional role” in not “bowing to the executive.”



Ever since President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh on July 9 to fill the seat on the Supreme Court left open by retiring “swing justice” Anthony Kennedy, those on the left and in the media have hammered the pick as everything from “controversial” to “cruelly regressive.” While some swore they’d do anything to prevent the Supreme Count from turning more conservative, Time magazine writer Abigail Simon asserted that Kavanaugh is almost certain to be approved, so liberals and Democrats must adapt to the situation until they regain control of the Senate, whenever that happens.



If Alexander Hamilton had been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court today, Democrats would likely oppose him. About the court, Hamilton said: “[A] limited Constitution ...can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. ..To deny this would be to affirm...that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid...”



Over the weekend, CNN Newsroom host Ana Cabrera seemed to fret over the possibility that the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion is "under threat" as she gave pro-abortion activist Gloria Allred a sympathetic forum to complain about the possibility of an abortion ban. Early on, the CNN host seemed taken aback that many Americans still wish to ban the killing of unborn babies as she asked Allred if she "can believe that this is still a question -- still under threat from a potential new Supreme Court."



On Sunday's AM Joy, MSNBC contributor and Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserves a "life sentence" of being harassed publicly as she asserted that the White House press secretary "has no right to live a life of no fuss, no muss" because of her negative interactions with the press. The phony conservative columnist also freaked out over the possibility of abortion being banned, and suggested Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are "phony pro-choice women" if they vote for President Donald Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.



With Senate Democrats in the minority and helpless to stop President Trump and Senate Republicans from confirming the next nominee to the Supreme Court, ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News spent a portion of Thursday’s broadcasts looking to the few marquee, moderate GOP Senators to block whatever nominee was put forward. They were also worried of red state Democrats who would cross the aisle.



On CNN Friday morning, the network repeatedly played an interview between Dana Bash and Senators Collins and Murkowski. The two female Republican senators were the sole Republicans besides John McCain, to vote against their party’s plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare last week. While the media spent endless time praising the “heroic” actions of McCain, CNN felt like it was the other two senators time to shine in the media spotlight.



New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse, who now writes the paper’s “On Washington” column, made the front page Thursday with a tribute to his favorite kind of Republican -- a moderate currently making life difficult for conservatives: “A Swing Vote From Alaska Isn’t Swayed.” Profile of moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Hulse’s favorite kind of story of all is cheering on Democrats who batter Republicans, but he clearly enjoyed this take as well.



Whether it’s in their phrasing or omissions, the networks aren’t backing down in their defense of America’s largest abortion provider. On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a bill empowering states to halt hundreds of millions in Title X federal funding from Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform abortions. In their reporting, the anchors saw the development from the abortion giant’s perspective: a “major setback.”



Just days after Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, Alaska, introduced a bill to permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), President Barack Obama announced his plan to designate millions of acres of ANWR in a way that bans drilling.

Obama announced on January 25 that his administration would seek wilderness status for parts of the ANWR including coastal plains, according to Reuters. Congress would have to approve the designation, which would prohibit oil and gas drilling. Several Alaska legislators, including Murkowski, were upset by the announcement.



If you look at the description of yesterday afternoon's U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote Number 278 ("A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes."), you'd never know it had anything to do with illegal immigration.

But it did. It was a cloture vote (60 needed to get the measure to the Senate floor) about about the so-called "DREAM Act," granting de facto amnesty to a vast number of illegal immigrants for entering college or joining the military. It has been a Democratic Party-"inspired" initiative with heavy Republican opposition from the get-go. It could easily have passed if the Democrats had been able to hold their membership together while picking off a couple of squishy Republicans.

They got their squishes: Republicans Murkowski (AK), Lugar (IN), and Bennett (UT) voted yes. That should have given the measure 61 votes. But Democrats Baucus (MT), Hagan (NC), Nelson (NE), Pryor AR), and Tester (MT) voted no, while Manchin (WV) did not vote. The measure's 55-41 support was not enough to move it to the next step.

So whose fault was it that the DREAM Act failed? A bitter, unbylined Associated Press report give us the wire service's "objective" take: