michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.

[music]

Today: President Trump has now secured the support he needs from Senate Republicans to swiftly confirm a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, all but assuring that he will cement its conservative majority. A conversation with the anti-abortion activist whose unlikely partnership with the president helped bring the court to this moment. It’s Wednesday, September 23.

michael barbaro

Hey. How are you? It’s Michael Barbaro.

marjorie dannenfelser

Hello, Michael. It’s great to meet you.

michael barbaro

Very nice to meet you. And thank you for making time for us.

marjorie dannenfelser

Well, I’m very grateful. I’ve been looking forward to it.

michael barbaro

Really?

marjorie dannenfelser

I have. You think I haven’t?

michael barbaro

Not everybody looks forward to conversations with journalists.

marjorie dannenfelser

I do it’s actually one of the things I like the best. I’m — I’m not kidding. I really do.

michael barbaro

Well, we’re grateful for your time. And I want to start with the difficult but necessary question of asking you how to pronounce your last name.

marjorie dannenfelser

It’s Dannenfelser.

michael barbaro

Dannenfelser. Is it OK if I call you Marjorie?

marjorie dannenfelser

Of course. Yes.

michael barbaro

OK. So Marjorie, the reason we wanted to talk to you, and talk to you right now, is because you lead an organization — the Susan B. Anthony list — that seeks to end abortion in the United States, in part by electing lawmakers who oppose abortion, and in part by confirming conservative justices to the federal bench and ultimately to the Supreme Court in order to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. Does that summarize the group’s mission accurately?

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah. I think you got it. Yeah.

michael barbaro

So I have to imagine this is quite a day to be talking to you. Because it is now about 1:03 in the afternoon on Tuesday. And we have just watched as several Republican senators who seem to be on the fence about filling Justice Ginsburg’s vacant seat said that they would seek to confirm a replacement for her in the coming weeks, the latest of those being Senator Mitt Romney.

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah.

michael barbaro

And so it very much seems like you are on the cusp of a historic victory for social and religious conservatives and for the mission of your group.

marjorie dannenfelser

I think that’s right. And I think, you know, no matter who you are, you feel the ground shaking underneath, wondering where the nation is going. For me. It is a surreal moment. It is actually very hard to put into words. I’m feeling very optimistic for the mission that our organization launched on 25 years ago.

michael barbaro

I wonder if in 2015, when you were first facing the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency, if you could have ever imagined that just over four years later it would get you here to this point.

marjorie dannenfelser

Michael, I was deeply opposed to the candidacy of this president. He was the last on a very long list, and a distant last, of people that I thought should be among — I mean, I think there were 17 at the high point — candidates. And I put out letters in South Carolina and in Iowa saying not this guy. So I did get dragged kicking and screaming to the candidacy. And so the answer to your question is yeah, I would have been shocked to hear that this president would operate as the most pro-life president in history, and that he would be the one to be naming a self-described pro-life Supreme Court justice — three — that could turn the tide of events on abortion law after four decades since Roe v. Wade.

michael barbaro

Well, let’s talk a little bit more about that journey that you and your organization went on — the kicking and screaming. I realize this is asking a lot of someone who now has a close relationship with the president. But if you could go back to your worst views and fears of him at the time, and describe for me what you were thinking about him and what he represented to you in that early period of 2015-2016.

marjorie dannenfelser

I don’t mind talking about it. Because I actually, as a convert on this cause, I can say that it’s very much reflective of what people probably used to think of me, when I was very strongly pro-choice. You know my view changed pretty diametrically to the position I had. But whatever people felt about me at that point is exactly how I felt about this president. We can’t possibly have somebody who just converted overnight be the candidate. And I didn’t like the caustic comments to Carly Fiorina, who I adored at the time. So what I saw, I wasn’t pleased with. And it’s the point, I would say, that in my entire life I’ve never been so happy to be so incredibly wrong about the commitments that he would make and how he would actually govern.

michael barbaro

And when you say conversion, you mean his conversion from someone who supported abortion rights, supported candidates who supported abortion rights, to someone who was opposed to abortion, who was pro-life.

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s right.

michael barbaro

But before we get to those commitments, I want to slow down just a little bit and talk about the journey that you went on. And not linger too much on it. But I do think it’s important to understand. During the period when you had objections to him, you did not mince words. And I just want to put a pin in how strongly you doubted him during that period. Because you mentioned letters that you had issued against his candidacy. And there is a very pointed letter that I recall you addressed to Republican voters as the Iowa caucuses were about to get underway. And I was in Iowa during that time. So I remember this.

marjorie dannenfelser

Mhm. Mhm.

michael barbaro

And this is what you said, quote: “As pro-life women leaders from Iowa and across the nation, we urge Republican caucus goers and voters to support anyone but Donald Trump. On the issue of defending unborn children and protecting women from the violence of abortion, Mr. Trump cannot be trusted. And there is thankfully an abundance of alternative candidates with proven records of pro-life leadership whom pro-life voters can support.” And you went on to say, “As women, we are disgusted by Mr. Trump’s treatment of individuals, women in particular.” So how were you able to get from there to the decision that you needed to build a relationship with the president and start talking about commitments and partnerships?

marjorie dannenfelser

Well, that’s a double-edged question. One is: How could you form a relationship after saying that? From his perspective, right, that’s one thing. And the other: How, from my end, right? So to me, there was no choice. It was a choice between someone who wanted to preserve abortion and expand it and have people pay for it — that was Hillary Clinton — and he, who made commitments to only pro-life judges and other things. So what do you do when you’re given that choice? As imperfect as the choices looked, there was a better choice.

michael barbaro

So just to be clear, you’re saying the journey was essentially Donald Trump’s victory in the primaries. That once he started to win, you didn’t feel you had a choice between his views on abortion and Hillary Clinton’s views on abortion. You had to make a compromise.

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s right. That’s what the world of politics is. But I would not have done it if he had not made those commitments. I mean, we had to have something to take door to door to over a million homes in battleground states to say, this is who this is. So yes, it was the primary. And it was those commitments. And then as we were moving into the general, he got stronger on the issue, not weaker. And the general direction of candidates is the opposite. That first they are all about you. They love you and you’re the best person on the planet. And then they get into the general and they start to moderate. Well, that is not how he treated the issue. And he instead embraced it and communicated it and made sure that there was a contrast between his policies and his opponents — and Hillary Clinton’s. And that’s what you hope and dream for, that there is that perfect clarity and the voters know the choice that they’re making. And he’s the first person that did it like that.

michael barbaro

Well, let’s talk about the commitments that you’re referring to. What exactly were the commitments and how did they come to be?

marjorie dannenfelser

Well, we knew what our priorities were. So we wrote them down and said, these are the commitments we would like for you to make. And they were pro-life Supreme Court justices. Now I’m very aware about how that term — “pro-life Supreme Court justices” — goes across to quite a number of people. One, they don’t even know what that means, it’s not accurate. Does that mean Roe v. Wade? We wanted to be very clear that it means they take a position on abortion that is in alignment with our own. So that was the first commitment. And it was that it be very clear what type of Supreme Court justices you’re going to have.

michael barbaro

And what else did he commit to. Because my sense is it wasn’t just justices on the court?

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s right. The Supreme Court piece is the most important piece. But there was also a commitment to protect the Hyde Amendment, meaning no taxpayer funding of abortion, to sign a 20-week week Pain-Capable bill into law. That means no abortions on the national level after five months and also defunding and reallocating Planned Parenthood’s funding to other qualified health centers.

michael barbaro

So pretty sweeping commitments — so were you surprised when he agreed to do all of this, when you got everything you wanted from him?

marjorie dannenfelser

I was a little bit surprised. Because we didn’t have any leverage. He was already the candidate. Generally, candidates in that position aren’t going to put their name to anything because they don’t have to anymore. But he’s a different kind of candidate. And he had taken this position. And he wants the benefit of it. And all we needed was that letter. And we gave it to him. And then the rest is history. Our battleground state activity was incredibly helpful, and he knows it, in the win. Then it made everything worthwhile. Because every single thing he promised and beyond, he did.

michael barbaro

Well, let’s talk a little bit about what you mean when you said, “It made everything worthwhile.” Because I have to say that the journey that you went on was a very long journey in a relatively short period of time. So —

marjorie dannenfelser

[LAUGHS] Yeah.

michael barbaro

— do you think that Donald Trump actually believed in what he was signing up for? Or in your mind, did it not really matter whether he, like, fundamentally in his heart believed it, because he was effectively signing up to be the vehicle through which you could try to achieve what you had always been working towards? In other words, did it not really matter if he maybe didn’t believe what he was signing onto? It just mattered that he would do the things he signed up to do. And did it really matter if some of his actions were at odds with your faith in his personal life, especially.

marjorie dannenfelser

I think what really mattered is that he’d take these positions. And yes, the constant question was: Does he really think this? Voters care if he really believes it. And I think it’s the unanswerable question what’s deep in the chambers of your heart. You know, what are your intentions? You know, it’s very difficult to know. I know what —

michael barbaro

Do you care? Do you care?

marjorie dannenfelser

If you’ll notice, on this issue, people will say, well, he’s always scripted on it. Well, he’s scripted because he doesn’t want to get it wrong. It’s too important. This is one thing that I know. He knows how important it is. And it is important to him because he’s done everything and beyond that he ever promised to do.

michael barbaro

I mean, what you’re describing is — and tell me if you think this is uncharitable or too practical — but you’re describing a very transactional understanding with a presidential candidate in this stage.

marjorie dannenfelser

Well, if it were only that, that would be fine. But I don’t think it is only that. So that’s how I look at it. You know, it does matter what’s in the human heart. It also matters what the human does. So his actions, and our gambling with the idea that he was going to follow through on them, were far better than the gamble that we had with Hillary Clinton. There was no transaction possible with her. There was only one possible with him. And he grew into the commitment.

michael barbaro

But to the listener of faith who is hearing this conversation and is thinking, but how can you watch something like the “Access Hollywood” video, which came out at the end of the campaign — so after he had made this commitment to you — how could you watch that and support him, regardless of what you end up getting out of it? I’m sure you’ve been asked this question before. But how do you answer it? Because here you’re talking about someone boasting about sexually assaulting women. And soon after, women came forward and said, that’s what he did to me. So I’m just — how did you think about that?

marjorie dannenfelser

Well, I thought about it a couple of ways. One, it was painful. And we’re still left with the same choice: pain and two choices. There is a prudential choice that you have to make. And we knew what Hillary Clinton was going to do. And we knew the commitment that the president had. And so we had to make that choice and we did. And once we’re in, we’re all in. You know, I will never apologize for those actions or those comments. But I will, till the day I die, advance the policies that he committed to. And just around the corner, we’re seeing the fruits of having done that.

michael barbaro

You used the word “prudential.” And that caught me a little bit. Because you’re not using a word that conveys morality or faith. You’re saying “prudent,” if I’m hearing that word correctly.

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah. I think actually religious people use that term quite a lot. Because it acknowledges a hierarchy of goods and evils involved in any decision. That decisions of great consequence often involved a blend of goods and bads.

michael barbaro

Mhm.

marjorie dannenfelser

And your job is to figure out where the highest good is found. Which choice leads to the highest good. And that’s the choice we had to make in that moment.

michael barbaro

And in your mind, the highest good was a candidate who would fulfill your mission on the future of abortion in the United States.

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s right.

michael barbaro

When the president does go on to win the office, I wonder how much it felt like support from groups like yours mattered. I mean, my sense is that it was pretty meaningful. I’ve spoken to a couple of my colleagues here at The Times who we really trust on this subject, and they said that the president likely would not have won several key states — like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania — without support from Christian conservatives and groups like yours.

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah. I think that he knows that. In fact, he called me right after the election to say that. And I, you know, take a little bit of exception sometimes. The pro-life people that are part of his election are sometimes Catholic, sometimes evangelical, and sometimes neither. Sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans, sometimes independents. It’s one of those issues, especially in the Rust Belt states that you just mentioned, that transcends a lot of boundaries. And so I think he gets that. I know he gets that.

michael barbaro

And once in office, in part with your support, right away President Trump gets a chance to put a justice on the court, to kind of do what it is you care so much about. And he puts forward and gets confirmed a conservative jurist, Neil Gorsuch, who your group supported. He gets a second vacancy, he fills that with another conservative jurist, Brett Kavanaugh, who you again supported. So were you surprised by how quickly this promise was kept by President Trump? And did it start to feel that, in very short order, your work was more or less done?

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s a really good question. I think we’ve had so many disappointments over time, where you seem like we’re so close. You know, it looks just within reach. And then all of a sudden, something happens and it’s not. So the only way I know how to handle this is within the grace of daily obligation — doing the thing that has to be done today that is the best possible strategic and smart choice that you can make. And so therefore, even right now, I don’t take anything for granted. So yes, I’m very hopeful, very optimistic, but not wild-eyed.

michael barbaro

Well. I want to talk about where we are right now and what you have been fighting for over these past few days since Justice Ginsburg’s passing. Another seat — the third seat — opening on the court during this presidency. And the question for most people was: Would a nomination to replace her happen before the election? Would it happen after the election, given the tactics and actions of the Republican leadership in the Senate in 2016? Or not until there was a new president or the re-election of President Trump? But I sense that for you, there was only one option, right?

marjorie dannenfelser

All right, you don’t play roulette with that when the stakes are this high, in my opinion. And that’s how we’re acting. So I think to be honest, to get wrapped up in what other presidents and Senates have done in other times historically, it’s not nearly as important as the result. They were elected to do a job. And they should be doing it now.

michael barbaro

So you’re saying that’s all beside the point to you, like, when people talk about the precedent of Merrick Garland or the promises that Lindsey Graham made very explicitly to the public. I’m not trying to be cavalier about this. But it sounds like your approach is sort of, like, who cares? That’s process.

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah. I mean, I think that nobody cares about process. But I also think that if you have a shot, you do it now. You don’t wait.

michael barbaro

And so just to be clear, what did you made clear that you wanted to have happen when Justice Ginsburg died? That the president put forward a nominee, and that the Senate hold a hearing before November 3? I just want to understand what was conveyed to you.

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah. That is what we are asking and hoping, what I talked to the president about, what I talked to the vice president about, what we’re talking to different senators that, yes — that it be from the list, which is not in question. And that it be quickly done. And that’s what all of our conversations have been.

michael barbaro

And why exactly do you want it to be done so quickly and even before the election? Why not wait until post-November, even if Donald Trump loses, why can’t he nominate the candidate or why can’t the Senate hold hearings on the candidate between November and January? Why does it have to happen so quickly?

marjorie dannenfelser

Well, a couple of things. One is that you wait and you lose all the discipline, all the cats move in different directions. They behave differently in a lame duck. They just do. People aren’t under the gun of an election. You lose the pressure. You lose the leverage. Also, I think it will benefit the president to go in as a winner, and that being a compelling case at the ballot boxes. And also, if the Arizona election goes against Martha McSally, they’ll seat immediately a Democrat there. And that changes the numbers. So it’s a very concrete and practical reason to go ahead and do it now.

michael barbaro

Right. You referred to roulette earlier. You just don’t want to take any risk that might involve a changing dynamic or a changing electoral math in the Senate, which you believe right now favors getting this done before the election.

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s right. You don’t play roulette when the consequences are that high.

michael barbaro

What do you think was the most important thing that happened over the last few days in convincing some of these senators to get on board with your desired path? Because there were, on paper, significant obstacles — including these public statements that had been made, these commitments that had been made by several of these senators, whether it was Chuck Grassley, whether it was Lindsey Graham.

marjorie dannenfelser

I think the weight of that decision and the consequence of delay is an argument in itself. It has to be made by several people. It’s made by the president and the vice president. It’s made from me and people like me directly. And also, look, I think about it this way too. Lamar Alexander, I think, said it better than anybody. And Lamar Alexander was somebody that was very much on the, oh, no, what is he going to do list. And he just made the most compelling statement that I think he really believes, and I think Romney believes the same, which is this is the constitutional duty that should be done now. And the consequences of not doing that will be felt for decades.

michael barbaro

I know I keep asking you if you were surprised. But were you surprised when Mitt Romney signed on? I think many people expected him to, as a frequent dissenter from the president, perhaps join with Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski in being skeptical of this timeline?

marjorie dannenfelser

Yes. I’m completely surprised when especially senators all line up and make the same decision. I’m totally shocked when there is unity. Because Romney is a very independent person. Grassley is a very independent person. So yes, I am blown away with unity at a moment where it needs to happen. I’m also very cognizant that it can be scattered. So that’s why we remain very vigilant.

[music]

michael barbaro

Do you believe, Marjorie, that you are responsible in any way for what happened, whether that’s a matter of having gotten President Trump where he is with your support in the first place, putting him in a position for this to happen, or the work you’ve done in the past few days? I mean, am I right in thinking that somewhere over the past 72, 96 hours, you and folks in your organization are on the phone with these senators, with their staff?

marjorie dannenfelser

I think — I think I and my team and our grassroots have a lot of influence. I think we can look at it and say we’re very much a part of it. I would never presume to say that we’re the reason. Because that just wouldn’t be true and wouldn’t acknowledge the efforts of other people. But yes, I think very much we are helping drive the center of this movement to a reclamation and a restoration of the court when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

michael barbaro

We’ll be right back. So Marjorie, the remaining questions now seem to only be some logistics, it feels like, around the vote and who the nominee for this vacancy will be from a pretty short list. Is there only one path forward in your mind on this issue? I mean, does it have to be — like when to hold the vote — when it comes to who should get this nod, does it have to be Amy Coney Barrett in your mind?

marjorie dannenfelser

No. It doesn’t. She’s my favorite. She’s our favorite. She’s the movement’s favorite because the movement knows her. And she’s been completely vetted. We know who she is, what she’s about. And that is a real leg up when you’re trying to move this fast. But the list I was very much a part of. So I feel like I own it in some ways. So I’m very confident that no matter who he chooses, we’ll continue in exactly the direction we are.

michael barbaro

So you’re open to several possible judges on that list?

marjorie dannenfelser

Yes. Yeah.

michael barbaro

So I want to turn to public opinion on the question of abortion and the path that you seem to be setting for the president and for the Senate in this moment, which is a decision that may ultimately be at odds with where the majority of Americans are. And I’m mindful of something that Justice Ginsburg said about Roe v. Wade. She had a critique of it, which is that she felt that in being so decisive and striking down so many state laws on abortion, that Roe had kind of raced ahead of where the country was. And she believes that the country was moving in the direction of Roe on its own, and that the ruling risked a backlash from Americans by doing this work from the bench. And it was a controversial critique. But I’m curious if you worry about the same thing happening, but now in the other direction. Because your goal is to get Roe overturned. And I ask that because the statistics on how Americans view abortion are very consistent at this moment in the country’s history. And they show that a majority of Americans support legalized abortion and do not support overturning Roe v. Wade. And I could recite a bunch of polls. I don’t think you need me to do that. So is this something you worry about doing and creating a backlash towards?

marjorie dannenfelser

I will acknowledge that the country is worried. But the country is worried largely because the contradictions in opinion. In other words, yes, I know that poll to be true, that the majority supports Roe v. Wade. But then, also, they support bans after the first trimester, which is completely inconsistent. And what will happen when Roe is overturned or eroded, to the extent that it’s not as applicable, will be that states will start to pass laws that reflect the laws of those states. That’s the immediate effect of Roe. And the only laws that will pass will be the laws that can be sustained by the majorities in those states. And I think that people will then see, OK, it wasn’t this tsunami that we thought. It’s actually just the bearing out of democracy on an issue of deep moral conviction, where people’s opinions get to make their way into the law rather than the Supreme Court telling them.

michael barbaro

I just want to summarize what you have been saying. You’re not worried, it sounds like, about a backlash or going against the will of the people. Because in your mind, if this issue returns to the state level, which is what would happen if Roe is overturned, and the people support abortion, then abortion will still be legal.

marjorie dannenfelser

Right.

michael barbaro

And that will be the will of the people. Is that what you’re saying?

marjorie dannenfelser

That is. The only laws that will go into effect are laws that can be sustained by majorities of the people in the states in which they live.

michael barbaro

Some people will say that that may be a hard thing to measure. There are many states where legislatures may be solidly Republican and out of sync with the views of the majority of their residents. And so restrictions might emerge that would then be reducing the availability of abortion, that might be out of sync. I suppose you would argue that maybe an election would determine that then a few years later. But is there not a real risk that very suddenly state legislatures that have been gerrymandered, that have been made Republican in ways that don’t reflect the views of the majority of voters in that state, would suddenly restrict abortion in ways that would not be in sync with the democratic principles you’re talking about?

marjorie dannenfelser

Well. Look, I think democracy is the only institution that we have. There isn’t a better one to gauge the will of the people and have that reflected in the law. I don’t know a better one. So to get to some consensus in our nation, that stranglehold on our ability to pass laws that reflect our deeply held convictions about the life and death of human beings, has to let up. And if it doesn’t let up, it will be exactly the way it is now, the never-ending battle that people are sick of. But it’s only occurring because it’s a matter of life and death. And we’re on the verge of getting to a place where we can say we’re victorious.

michael barbaro

To go back to the polling for just a minute, I think you agreed that those surveys show that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, support access to legalized abortion. So I want to understand from your viewpoint how this process may play out and what the political repercussions may be, in some cases even for allies of yours, people who you have supported and who have supported you. And I assume that’s something that you’ve been thinking a lot about.

marjorie dannenfelser

Yeah. I think what matters is what people really think. We’re looking at the polls and we’re seeing contradictions. So what do we make of that. There’s only backlash if it really is going further than the consensus will allow. And if it goes further than consensus will allow, the democratic process picks up again and adjusts. So I think for people who are naturally afraid and risk averse, yeah, they won’t like it that states are starting to enact laws that reflect the will of their states. Because they’ll be afraid, perhaps. But that doesn’t hold me up.

michael barbaro

So I wonder if you would just indulge me for a moment. And I want to ask you to imagine a future. It’s November 4. A handful of Republican senators, perhaps, have lost their seats in part because of this process. And perhaps Republicans lose control of the Senate. Would it have been worth it?

marjorie dannenfelser

I’m not going there. Because I’m in those places. I mean, we are literally in those Senate battles right now. We have people going door to door in all of those Senate battles. I’ve talked to Senator Daines, for instance, today, who says this confirmation, if it’s done before the election, he does not believe it’ll hurt his chances. I believe that they all think that. They don’t think that that’s going to be the case. And I think they’re absolutely right. So yes, there is a hierarchy of goals. But because of the way this is rolling out, that’s a false choice that I’m not willing to make. We’re not just leaving things to fall where they will. I do not think that this hurts the president’s chances of winning. And I don’t think it hurts senators’ chances of winning, the ones on the pro-life side.

michael barbaro

So it sounds like you’re having these conversations. And I know you don’t want to imagine that future. But if that were to happen, if you were to wake up and find that the Senate had been lost — and maybe a bunch of senators even candidly say, we got that third Trump conservative justice on the Supreme Court, but it cost us the Senate — I want to ask you to grapple with that for just a minute. Will it have been worth it?

marjorie dannenfelser

I don’t think I’m making that decision. And so I’m not willing to make that call. I think that, look, changing the court for decades and saving millions and millions of lives is the most important thing that I do. And politics is the route to that. So in this particular case, I do not feel that it’s a choice that has to be made. I think we’re doing both at the same time. But you see the hierarchy of goods. The first most important thing is who sits on the Supreme Court.

michael barbaro

When you didn’t want to engage the question of whether this confirmation battle might cost Republicans control of the Senate, it occurred to me that you would not want to imagine that future for the president either. But I have to ask what if, in the end, the president loses reelection, the autopsies and the retrospectives look back and say that it was, in part, because of an energized opposition? Because he rushed to get a third justice appointed to the Supreme Court, one who openly opposed abortion, and that was at odds with where the electorate was. If you end up losing this historic ally of yours in this battle, will that be OK? And will it have been worth it?

marjorie dannenfelser

It’s not going to be OK to lose the presidency, and it’s not going to be OK to lose the Senate. The first priority is the Supreme Court, without question. And I’m going to work for all three. I’m not willing to cede any of it. I’m not. But I am saying the most important thing is the Supreme Court. And I think all those people I just mentioned agree.

michael barbaro

You’re saying you think President Trump would agree that it would have been worth losing re-election —

marjorie dannenfelser

No. — to change the composition of the Supreme Court.? No. I’m just saying the order of goods. In the order of goods, the lasting value of the Supreme Court is a legacy for the Senate and for the president. And I can’t presume to speak for him or the senators. But I’m just saying I’m fighting for them all. I’m not going to cede any of it.

michael barbaro

Right. This phrase that you used, when thinking about your partnership with President Trump, there was a practicality to it.

marjorie dannenfelser

That’s right. It will all have been worth it. Yeah. So I think this entire battle, all in sum, every single thing we’ve done for the last decade, everything we’ve done since 2016, everything we will do for this election, if we have one more Supreme Court justice that looks like Amy Barrett or one of the others, it will all have been worth it.

[music]

We’re at a point of a major shift in this nation. And I’m very happy to be in the place that I am.

michael barbaro

Well, I really appreciate your time.

marjorie dannenfelser

I appreciate yours too, Michael.

michael barbaro

Thank you, Marjorie.

marjorie dannenfelser

Thank you so much.

michael barbaro