i asked you about merrick garland. i asked you about the nominations talked about, one of the first calls you placed was to chief judge garland, and you said to me, i think the world of merrick garland. i asked you a couple times if you are bothered by the way the senate treated merrick garland who you clearly have a great deal of respect for. you said something to the effect of, senator, i try to stay away from politics. now, you've been on the bench for ten years, so, that sounded fair to me and i decided to leave well enough alone so i moved on to another topic. but your relationship with politics came up again yesterday, my good colleague senator lee, lamented the extent to which the confirmation process has become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmation politics are, in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you, or still quite unfamiliar to you. but it turns out that's not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated, this commi

you talk about merrick garland. why, if the republicans were to go to the nuclear option, would that not be interpreted as what happened in 2013 and you said this is them doing it, extracting revenge, they're saying they're extracting revenge? senator schumer: because we deliberately -- we were free actors in 2013. like it or not, we changed the rules for lower court judges. there were scores and scores of them held up for months and months and years and years. we made a deliberate decision based on the merits that the preme court is too important to go to a 51-vote situation. we made a decision that you should get 60 votes on such an important -- on such an important position. so there would be some bipartisanship and some mainstream. and president trump didn't go to the mainstream. he didn't consult democrats. he didn't consult anyone but the heritage foundation. he didn't even consult mainstream or moderate republicans. reporter: you rue the day here that you hoist yourself with your own guitar? senator schumer:

you said to me, i think the world of merrick garland. i asked you a couple of times if you bothered by the way senate treated merrick garland. you have a great deal of respect for. you said something to the effect, senator i tried to stay away from politics. you've been on the bench for 10 years. i decided to leave well enough alone. i moved on to another topic. your relationship with split -- politics came up again yesterday. good colleague senator lee, to which the confirmation process has become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmation politics are in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you. or still quite unfamiliar to you. it turns out that's not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated this committee made a formal request for dot-coms relating to your previous nomination and to your time at the department of justice. this is standard procedure. those documents includes e-mails back and forth between former bush administration official and yo

. >> trevor: merrick garland was meant to be in that seat. merrick garland was someone who was picked by a president. he's a judge that was picked by a president who had every right to pick him. republicans came out and said, we can't pick him because obama is a lame duck, which was insane. but gorsuch taking this job, what does that mean for the supreme court as an institution going forward? >> well, i want to just start by telling you that senator al franken directly asked him what he thinks about the politicization of garland and whether he thinks garland is mistreated and it wouldn't surprise you at all to hear gorsuch couldn't talk about that. ( laughter ) we don't know what he thinks. we know that this is unperes centd. we've had a vacancy more than a year. justice scalia died february, and obama tapped someone to replace him. the republicans on the senate said no hearing, no vote, not even courtesy hearing with merrick garland because president obama doesn't get to pick someone in his third year by some metric that we still don't know

i asked you about merrick garland. i read somewhere, after you accepted the nomination one of the first calls youd was to chief judge garland, and you said to me, i think the world of merrick garland. i asked you a couple times, if you are bothered by the way the senate treated merrick garland, who you clearly have a great deal of respect for. you said something to the effect of senator, i try to stay away from politics. now you had been on the bench for 10 years, so that sounded fair to me are and i decided to leave well enough alone. i moved on to another topic but your relationship with politics came up again yesterday. my good colleague senator lee, lamented the extent to which the confirmation process has become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmmation politics are in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you. or still quite unfamiliar to you turns out that is not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated this committee made

i should emphasize, i respect merrick garland. i have never said a bad thing about him. i have deep respect for his character. one drawback is, he is a judicial liberal and would transform the court, but i'm not going to say anything bad about merrick garland, the man or the judge. that said, the republicans announced their strategy from the very beginning and i do think that judge garland would not have been nominated but for the announcement of that strategy in the first place. so i think -- frankly, once they did that, it was impossible once you adopt that strategy to walk away from it. that would have been political suicide. i think the strategy was the right one. obviously it paid off or seems to have paid off bigger than most people expected, but i think it was entirely foreseeable and i again dare say that democrats would have done exactly the same thing because this has been baked into the process now for 25 years. mr. liptak: carolyn, i see from your body language there are many things you want to respond to. >> i think we need to put real facts about what has h

merrick garland experienced the second reason why some nominees fail, senate opposition. they didn't give him a hearing or voted him down, just declared his nomination doa. that was unusual as we reported today, but both parties have drawn lines in the sand on these nominations. democrats united against reagan's nomination of robert bork, a fight that changed the process forever. while many nominees are obscure when picked, bork was known. democrats viewed the potential promotion as the last thing bork deserved. liberal ted kennedy led the party to denounce him the day he was announced. >> the man who fired archibald cox does not deserve to sit on the supreme court of the united states. robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens doors and midnight raids, and schoolchildren would not be taught about evolution. writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of mi

last year, the merrick garland nomination. to answer one of your questions, i think the experience of last year which included merrick garland but also other unique things about what happened with regards to the confirmation process in consideration for supreme court nominees in 2016. i dohink that is going to have an impact on how people consider supreme court nominees going forward. it was something i would've never predicted. i worked with senator leahy for 14 years and i think even he, the most senior senator serving in the u.s. senate was surprised at all the different things that happen in 2016, one of which come in the biggest moment in which the majority leader announcing a consideration would be given to the president's nominee to the supreme court. so before that went through, and there were some unpredictable moments. i wouldn't say that i supreme court processes necessarily predict the ball. these are real people who have interesting backgrounds. there's a lot of attention and more and more so a lot of money that g

. >> the chief judge, merrick garland. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> reporter: democratic senators like patrick leahy are still seething that republicans blocked president obama's nomination of judge merrick garland. >> it was totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. >> reporter: they also took aim at president trump and questioned gorsuch's commitment to judicial independence, connecticut's richard blumenthal. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: but republican senators said the hearing was not about judge garland or the president north carolina's thom tillis. >> i hope the nomination hearing focuses on one person before us who will go on, i believe, to full fill the supreme court. >>> oil is expected to keep on moving through the dakota access pipeline this week. two have battled the pipeline for months arguing the pipeline is a threat to their water supply. in a court order filed yesterday said there have been coordinated attacks along the line. >>> new york city polic

garland. >> merrick garland was nominated by president obama during the final year of his administration. he didn't even get a vote. didn't even get a hear. is this simply revenge? >> so the 16 nominees that have occurred, nominations that have occurred in a presidential election year, every one except merrick garland received action by the senate. they were considered. some cases they were rejected. most were confirmed. but the senate acted under its obligation of advice and consent. in this case, however, merrick garland got no conversation, no hearing in front of judiciary, no vote in front of the judiciary, no vote on the floor, no consideration and the whole goal was to follow the instructions of the koch brothers to pack the court with a conservative by putting the nomination in the hands of the president. >> so senator, it is an element of revenge but am i hearing now that over the next four years, while president trump is in office, he nominated, let's say this one goes down, neil gorsuch goes down. you're going to oppose anyone he nominates? you know he's going to nominate a con

i think the answer to your first question about did what happened to judge, chief judge merrick garland violate constitutional norms or other institutional norms, absolutely. you know, i think there are, as kristine said, important reasons to consider the supreme court at least aspirationally above politics. you know, chief justice roberts has repeatedly said that he doesn't consider the court to do their work as democrats and republicans, but rather, as justices who surely have their ideologies, but they don't view themselves as political in the same way, and it's detrimental to the court to view them in the aim way. i certainly agree with that. we certainly don't want them to, and i agree with chief justice roberts on that point. you know, here you had almost a full year left in president obama's term, he put forth this nominee who even republican senators said is the person that they would hope obama would pick but, you know, he won't k and then he did. [laughter] and merrick garland is someone who would have easily gotten bipartisan support if he had been ever put through the proces

it's still merrick garland's turn. how much that will play into the democratic process we'll have to see on that. i think the bigger story this morning is this macro look at the shot to the president's credibility. because of what we've seen over the last couple of weeks. really what he started with this bogus wiretapping charge. what's his ability to close on health care if his credibility is injured? what's his ability to motivate the agenda in general? we'll see. we've got some good voices on it. >> you know, he has used the stock market as a barometer of confidence of him. >> a down day, right? >> yeah, a big down day exactly that point you're talking about, chris cuomo nice to talk to you in about ten minutes. >>> speaking of money, apple dropping the price of one of its most popular devices. you won't find a discount on stock, though. you won't believe how well the stock has done. we'll get to "cnn money" next. so, draw the line. one spray of roundup® max control 365 kills to the root and keeps weeds away for up

. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> judge garland. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> reporter: democratic senators like patrick leahy are still seething that republicans blocked president obama's nomination a year ago this week of judge merrick garland. >> it was totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. >> reporter: they also took aim at president trump and questioned gorsuch's commitment to judicial independence. connecticut's richard blumenthal. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: but republican senators said the hearing was not about judge garland or the president. north carolina's thom tillis. i hope this nomination hearing will focus on the one person here before us who i hope will go on to fill the supreme court. >> reporter: democrats are promising a thorough review of judge gorsuch's record with a focus on workers' right, civil liberties and women's rights. he will be in this hot seat for about ten hours tomorrow, scott, and again on wednesday. >> pelley: jan crawford f

he's going to say he thinks the world of merrick garland and qualified. but the issue is a process that could come before the court. >> how about the tweet that president trump said when he called judges the so-called judge out in washington state? >> well, i think that he's certainly talked about that but he's talked about it in the context of any type comments opposed to specific comments to the president. and he called them disheartening and demoralizing if the comments go to the independence of the judiciary not just the merits of the case. but he's not going to comment on political matters that he can't or specific comments in response to political comments. >> some trivial about senator ayotte. she argued with connor's last decision. >> i did. >> congratulations. >> thanks. >> i thought i'd give you that plug. >> i appreciate that. thanks, greta. >>> developing now, ivanka trump has taken a new white house role. we have the latest on that and live pictures in louisville where the crowd is anticipating president trump's arrival. it's a health care ra

garland. >> judge garland. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> reporter: democratic senators like patrick leahy are still seething that republicans blocked president obama's nomination a year ago this week of judge merrick garland. >> it was totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. >> reporter: they also took aim at president trump and questioned gorsuch's commitment to judicial independence. connecticut's richard blumenthal. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: but republican senators said the hearing was not about judge garland or the president. north carolina's tom tillis. >> i hope that this nomination hearing focuses on the one person here before us who i hope will go on to fill the supreme court. >> reporter: democrats are promising a thorough review of judge gorsuch's record with focus on workers' rights, civil liberties and women's rights. he will be in this hot seat about ten hours tomorrow, scott, and again on wednesday. >> jan crawford, thanks. >>> in breaking news th

. >> juan: merrick garland is a gentleman. you had a year, a year, republicans purposely with the most viable political stopped president obama from having a supreme court nominee hearing on capitol hill. you come to this guy and say well, let's look at the qualifications. >> dana: they are not going to get merrick garland. why not just play the hand you're dealt? >> juan: this is what amy klobuchar, senator from minnesota said, she said you have to look at gorsuch in terms of the world we live in. he put on a show about there are no republican judges, no democratic judges. oh, my god. talk about an alternate reality. the reason we are talking about this as we know he will cement a conservative republican majority on the court, replacing justice scalia. people see him as more conservative than scalia on so many issues, beginning with things like gay rights, guns. >> eric: he didn't sound like he was going to be any sort of activist buried >> juan: he tries to pretend like oh, gee, i don't know why you guys are. >> dana: he sai

one year left to a point merrick garland. that seat was stolen by the republicans. it is an absolute outrage, and i hope the democrats do something about it. republicans, listen to the democrats. host: it was actually a year and two months. president signed into law the health care bill in march of 2010. just under a year and a half between the time he was elected in signing the new law here it actually seven years ago last week. a call on the democrat line. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i do not think that the failure of the president's repeal of obamacare is going to have anything to do with going forward. lot.rt of learned quite a but the issue i am considering , he could redeem himself if he introduced a really good jobs bill. that is the way i feel. host: thanks for the call. national review has its look and the editorial -- reboot, what should republicans do? they say republicans fell into a losing strategy. they began by thinking they could quickly repeal obamacare and then replace it at leisure. we know many republicans feel that they have al

go hard in the hearings, make your case, die in the mountain, have a hangover about merrick garland, all that resentment, which we understand. you can't take it on my choir boy. neil gorsuch, just because they disagree with where he think he will be, that is tough. you get to vote on the person come by to filibuster and ruin their opportunity to filibuster later over neil gorsuch, i think it is laughable. it is so perfunctory. it is so obvious he will end up on the court and they need to save their fight for another day. >> bret: gorsuch by the numbers presided over 2750 cases, went to verdict our judgment, has written 175 majority opinions, 65 concurrences or dissents on his decade on the circuit, has met with 72 senate tours and so far in person. he is making a pitch that he is a mainstream jurist. >> the m.o. for republican nominees in the supreme court has been to sabotage their nominees. that is not going to happen with gorsuch. he is so beloved. the hit that they tried to pull out on him, he had a wealthy quiet he served well. he engaged an ethics question in an ethics course.

garland." here's another plea to democrats about all of this. "as a criminal defense attorney i know in criminal law the defendant who knowingly receives stolen property is as guilty as the defendant who stole it and democrats filibuster this choice and fight with every fiber of their being or guilty of letting the republicans get away with stealing a supreme court seat." so are the dems listening? chuck schumer is not calling to block to confirm gorsuch. some democrat senators are not waiting. jeff merkley said, this is a stolen seat. and he will use every lever in his ability to stop it. republicans publicly divided about obamacare, wiretapping, russia, right now they are clearly political united behind trump's scotus pick and united hind the new president. >> this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for me for president. i am a man of my word. i will do as i say. >> a man of his word. trump is saying his word is bond. for democrats, the question is clear. are they sho

merrick garland is not a justice. we all know why. we all know that my friends across the aisle held the supreme court seat open for over a year in hopes that they would have the opportunity to install someone handpicked by the heritage foundation and the federalist society to advance the goal of big money interests entrenching their power in the courts. they don't even mind that this investigation is moving forward under a cloud of an f.b.i. investigation of the president's campaign. the republicans held the supreme court seat open for a year under a democratic president who was under no investigation but now are rushing to fill the seat for a president whose campaign is under investigation. it is umseemly and -- it is unseemly and wrong to be moving so fast on a lifetime appointment in such circumstances. finally, mr. president, judge gorsuch came into this hearing with a record that raises deep concerns about whether he would consider fairly the plight of the average citizen for the interests of powerful special interests. i've exa

he denied merrick garland even a hearing. he did something in october that tied these issues inextricably together, he denied barack obama the chance to have bipartisan consensus statement that the russians were hacking, interfering with our election probably against hillary clinton. he said that he was going to block that and he was going to make the case that was a partisan move on obama's part we know now. >> giancarlo and then christiana. >> all these arguments held water if we hadn't unearthed the tape of joe biden. it wasn't theoretical. >> it didn't happen. >> an outrage. >> interesting. >> christiana, christina. >> this republican amnesia, we didn't get to a hearing because republicans wouldn't have a conversation with him. they wouldn't invite merrick garland to theirice to sit down and say, y, how is it going? so we didn't even have that conversation as democrats. then you have the president of the united states saying, well, it didn't pass because we didn't have bipartisanship. when have the republicans supported o

merrick garland. there was at least as many americans who said he should get an up or down vote as well. >> so democrats are angry about that, but here's the strategic question. >> it's more than just an about it. it's legitimate to say you didn't give us a vote, why? >> but what -- >> i think merrick garland is completely -- was completely qualified and gorsuch is. especially replacing scalia. i'd probably vote for him. they're entitled to say, my god, we listened to you saying -- not going to meet with him, not going to schedule a hearing, not going to give you a vote even though it was almost a year before the election. >> here's the dilemma going forward for democrats. if you do the filibuster here, and the republicans then respond with this nuclear option, get rid of the filibuster, what happens if a year from now, two years from now, instead of a republican president replacing scalia, it's a democratic sk vacancy and have the potential for a major shift in this court from a liberal justice to a

. >> how do you process merrick garland in all this? certainly a qualified jurist, someone the republican leader mitch mcconnell said just flatly would not be considered. what do you do about that? >> i think that was a very dark moment in how congress approaches these vacancies. i totally disagree with mitch mcconnell, of course. in fact, some of the people who came out and testified for judge gorsuch said that judge garland was a fantastic jurist and he would have made a wonderful supreme court justice. sadly, that didn't happen, but we are giving judge gorsuch the hearing that judge garland never received from the republicans. >> so assuming you are a no vote along with most if not all of your fellow democrats -- >> brian, i'm not there yet. we still have two more days of hearings. i would like to get some straight answers to the question that i have that have to do with where is he on reproductive rights, a woman's right to choose. i'd like to get into some voting rights issues, union issues. i still have a number of questions that

but we have countless republicans saying that merrick garland was a great guy. and i think that president obama was actually trying to make sure that this happened in time in case there was an anyone there. but also a nod to the other side is a that there were a couple of pics going down the middle. and i think that actually in honoring the legacy she would've kept merrick garland. >> i understand that and you know, it was a curious political thing. the republicans ended up winning. at one point, will they give of the argument and the let us move forward in the present? >> i really hope quickly. when i hear things from clair mccaskill or others, we are not going to take back the senate in 2018 and if we are losing. people have an incredibly difficult job right now. >> listen, his approval is living in everything. he has not had a great first two months in office. kennedy: but again, it's only been two months. >> they were designed to have nine. we don't want to go through this. there is precedence for it. we can go for a long time like this. john mccain and ted

. >> reporter: you know, wolf yesterday these hearings were about merrick garland. the democrats were furious he never got a hearing and today we think we will turn to the issues and neil gorsuch, and one issue that will for sure come up is abortion, and trump said he wanted to put pro-life judges on the bench, and that allows them to go hard on gorsuch on that issue, and they will ask him about his independence from trump, and gorsuch never in the public responded to trump's criticism of judges. we will see that, and maybe questions on the executive order, and finally, they will go after whether he favors the big guy over the little guy. it's going to be a long hearing, nine hours, they say. >> nine hours today and then more tomorrow. the chairman, chuck grassly, says the senators will have a half hour to do q & a with gorsuch today and then tomorrow a second round, 20 minutes each, and two days of a very important hearing. jeff tubin, this is incredibly important. one of the most important things a president could do is select nominees to serve on the praerpl cou

if you want to talk about what happened with the merrick garland -- i would like to. i'm not sure that hillary would have put someone even further to the left, i think it was a great move from president obama to jester to the other side, he already had a couple of appointments that were further to the left. he picked someone closer to the middle-of-the-road. >> he was a stealth liberal, that's what was going on. he knew he would be in the middle and move to the left and that's why he put him there, republicans were brilliant and true to not bring them up for a nomination, and now we have a guy that should be on the supreme court, but unfortunately -- >> why should neil gorsuch be there and not merrick garland? >> tom: you are having a great discussion, but i want to move on. would you describe yourself as having follow these hearings closely or very closely? >> i've been sort of closely. i know why he's tired, how do you stay awake through this? i would lose consciousness. i'd be asleep by 7:00. >> tom: is it all grandstanding from the members of congress? >> it's all

he also talked a little bit about merrick garland. he called him an outstanding judge. here's one exchange he had with senator blumenthal. >> when anyone criticizes the honesty and integrity, the motives of a federal judge, i find that disheartening, i find that demoralizing because i know the truth. >> anyone including the president of the united states. >> anyone is anyone. >> because no person is above the law, including the president of the united states? >> that's right, senator. >> reporter: trump also referenced yesterday the criticism on judges in a dinner last night hosted by republicans. here's what he said. >> we're taking decisive action to improve our vetting procedures -- the courts are not helping us, i have to be honest with you. it's ridiculous. somebody said i should not criticize judges, okay, i'll criticize judges. [ laughter ] to keep criminals and terrorists the hell out of our country. >> yesterday we went for 12 hours. it was a marathon. we're just starting now but yesterday, wolf, he never showed he got rattled. he was able to answer those quest

and they bought the ads against merrick garland, now, they buying the ads for judge gorsuch. carefully targeted to have maximum political impact. >> so, the democratic leader chuck schumer is urging the g.o.p. to think about nominating someone else who can get through the senate without a role change but his counterpart, majority leader mitch mcconnell, says gorsuch will be confirmed next friday, not that he will be considered, not that he could be confirmed, that he will be confirmed next friday. only that kind of certainty if the nuclear option is still a possibility. martha. >> martha: thank you. here with more, marc thiessen, and michele jawando. welcome to both of you. michelle, let me start with both of you. do you expect the democrats will filibuster this nomination? >> martha, it is great to be with you. i think the point is this. most americans agreed that whoever a nominee should be, particularly during the divided partisan time, they should be able to cross a 60 vote threshold that says a few things, they are mainstream, they are fair, they are impartial. if a nomi

but we have countless republicans saying that merrick garland was a great guy. and i think that president obama was actually trying to make sure that this happened in time in case there was an anyone there. but also a nod to the other side is a that there were a couple of pics going down the middle. and i think that actually in honoring the legacy she would've kept merrick garland. >> i understand that and you know, it was a curious political thing. the republicans ended up winning. at one point, will they give of the argument and the let us move forward in the present? >> i really hope quickly. when i hear things from clair mccaskill or others, we are not going to take back the senate in 2018 and if we are losing. people have an incredibly difficult job right now. >> listen, his approval is living in everything. he has not had a great first two months in office. kennedy: but again, it's only been two months. >> they were designed to have nine. we don't want to go through this. there is precedence for it. we can go for a long time like this. john mccain and ted

merrick garland was widely regarded as a mainstream moderate nominee. however, president trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of justice scalia, and said that the nomination of judge gorsuch illustrates he's a man of his word. for those of us on this side, our job is not to theoretically evaluate this or that legal doctrine, or to review judge gorsuch's record in a vacuum. our job is to determine whether judge gorsuch is a reasonable, mainstream conservative, or is he not. our job is to assess how this nominees and decisions will impact the american people and whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all americans. not just the wealthy and the powerful. we hold these hearings not because court precedent and stare decisis are something average americans worry about. we hold these hearings because the united states supreme court has the final word on hundreds of issues that impact our daily lives. the supreme court has the final say on whether a woman will continue to have control over her own body, or whether dec

chris says -- the only reason i do not support gorsuch is because his name is not merrick garland. chelsea rights -- even though whenall loved him confirmed for the 10th district,libs love hypocrisy. confirmed june 20, 2006 by voice vote. jerry is in huntington beach, california, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, john. good butnee, he sounds you have to remember that judge garland probably would have sounded good as well and he was not given a hearing. he should not be confirmed. if i was on that committee i would vote against him just because i think that actions have to have consequences. byt the republicans did blocking that nomination is just unbelievable, and i think guys like wretch mcconnell resign and apologize for what they did, and -- mitch mcconnell should resign and apologize for what they did, and get out of town. that is my opinion and that is what many people's opinion is. se, los angeles, california, republican. reason we have the situation is because of the democrats under biden, withhold confirmation during an election, presidential election year. th

during the 321 days merrick garland sat and waited for a hearing and didn't get one. the fact democrats even showed up to neil gorsuch's hearing meant they were showing him more respect than republicans showed merrick garland. there was a really extraordinary pieces by jeff flake who said we treated both of president obama's nominee's fairly, meaning there was faisst nominee who never got a hearing. -- was a first nominee that never got a hearing. democrats have no choice but to try to block neil gorsuch. based on the way things are going you have to assume he's going through but not without a fight. >> i understand the principle an don't disagree with it but on the principle he is the best they will get. this guy could have been someone else and based on the fact this is the best person you will get and seeing this is the first bite of the apple and will probably get more, how nuclear do you think they want to go? >> i think he is very smooth and poli polished. >> you don't think trump could have nominated somebody more conservative? >> i think is conservative and do

in fact it was senator heitkamp who said despite the friction over the merrick garland treatment, i was thought two wrongs don't make a right. u.s. supreme court should be above politics. enter louisiana republican senator bill cassidy on what he makes of that sentiment and whether other democrats, he is a republican i should remind you,ç will follow suit. what do you think, senator? >> you know i think at least a few will. hard to think michael bennet from colorado, where neil force such is from would not vote to support. this is clearly partisan politics. jurists and attorney lawyers across the political spectrum endorse gorsuch. the fact that folks would not, i agree with senator heitkamp, it will be partisan politics. two wrongs don't make a right if you perceive merrick garland being wrong i think we need to go forward. the. neil: in that case you don't have enough democratic votes, a simple majority will do? >> clearly what you're alluding to do we make a rule, change it from the current rule, the current rule 60 votes are required, to make it only 51 votes. clarence thomas was a

especially after president obama 's nominee, judge merrick garland never got a chance to have a vote. >> i think it is 5050 whether the democrats filibuster. they don't have any good argument against a course edge, but they are furious that we are going to have a conservative nominated by confirmed. i tell you judge course which will be confirmed. he will either get 60 votes and be confirmed otherwise whatever procedural steps are necessary. i believe within a month or two, neil gorsuch will be an associate justice of the supreme court. >> uma: joining us with thoughts is investigative reporter, good to have you here. how much of a factor do you think the democratic are upset over the fact that merrick garland did not get a hearing is going to be active in the room? >> i think that is a huge factor the democrats are still furious over the fact that they really believe the man who should have been confirmed was not even given a single hearing. there is a second to go said that once the proceedings. that is donald trump himself, the net man who nominated mr. gorsuch. he out sorts this n

and i'll tell you who hasn't forgotten about merrick garland, the republicans, because in this hearing, instead of exercising their sacred constitutional duty to advise and consent on a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, they were just, as we say back home, dicking about. >> would you tell me where your favorite fishing stream is? and don't say no tell 'em creek. >> what's the largest trout you ever caught? >> oh, my son, dalen, teenager said ask him if he would rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or one horse-sized duck. >> how in the world is gorsuch able to go so many hours at a time without peeing. >> boy, i don't even know what to stay. >> trevor: "oh, boy, i don't even know what to say." me, too. ( laughter ) i mean, it's so funny. here's another question, "would you rather roll back the rights of 100 tiny gays or one giant woman?" ( laughter ) oh, just kidding. you don't have to choose. you don't have to choose. oh! ( applause ) you know what this whole hearing reminded me of? i reminded me of that seen in a heist movie where the criminals can't believe they g

surely my good friend from utah also remembers when he suggested to president obama that merrick garland be nominated to the supreme court, calling him a fine man. president obama listened and made him his pick. president trump, different than all of the past presidents in so many ways, so many of them unfortunate, here's one. before even being elected to office, president trump swore off the entire process and outsourced the advise and consent to a list selected by two ultraconservative organizations. take the heritage foundation, for example. are they down the middle? are they unbiased? let's listen to some of the things they believe, way different than most americans. it's a group that believes freedom mean businesses have the right to discriminate against lgbt people. this is a group that believes limited government means eliminating resources for the violence against women act. this is a group that believes a strong national defense means discriminatory executive orders that bar immigrants and refugees from muslim majority countries. mr. president, this is a group that holds extreme

as i recall, that seat should have been filled by merrick garland, a very moderate, stellar candidate for the supreme court who enjoyed support from both democrats and republicans. in fact, it was orrin hatch, republican senator from utah that called president obama after the seat became available by justice scalia's death and recommended merrick garland. so i don't necessarily see this as the scalia seat. number three, this is the real thing. this is the most important fight and we should not be looking down the road at who might vacate their seat. this is the seat, the fight at the moment. neil gorsuch is not the right judge for this seat. given his background and, you know, we have only talked about his record. well we haven't talked about really is the hearing itself. he is not being considered for just a cabinet appointment lasting a few years. that he is being considered for a lifetime appointment. and therefore, the bar will have to be much higher than it was set for a cabinet official. he will have to answer questions. he will have to tell the committee perhaps how he might ha